blood” colloquial term to “associate” and “naturalized” citizens and to other persons of mixed ancestry, and also by effectively rendering entire sectors of the population of the country statelessness status. 116 These memoranda, directives and manuals are generally not publicly available or are otherwise unclear; as such they often fail to meet transparency and legal certainty requirements. In addition, their unavailability and/or their lack of clarity make it difficult to assess their content in light of relevant national and international law obligations. A lack of clarity in procedures and lines of responsibility also undermines accountability and redress, because persons potentially adversely affected by determinations on their citizenship may not know to which authorities they need to appeal or challenge a decision, therefore severely undermining the constitutional right to due process. 5.4 Conclusion Myanmar’s legal framework for citizenship is inconsistent with the country’s own Constitution, as well as being manifestly in violation of the State’s obligations under international human rights law. As this briefing describes, the country’s citizenship law framework effectively undermines human rights and the rule of law throughout the country. Most of the “fundamental rights” that the 2008 Constitution purportedly guarantees are, in fact, only applicable to an already limited category of “full citizens”, as described above, contrary to the non-discrimination principle under international human rights law according to which human rights are to be guaranteed to all persons, regardless of their citizenship status, bar a few narrow exceptions limited to political rights. Furthermore, constitutional provisions restrict the political rights of citizens to participate in public life, including as a Member of Parliament or as President of the Union, on the basis that an immediate family member/s is not a citizen of Myanmar. In both instances, the formulation of these provisions is discriminatory and arbitrary. The 1982 Citizenship Law and its procedures are highly discriminatory and arbitrary in both design and application. This violates the Union’s constitutional guarantee to “any persons” of equal rights and legal protection before the law (section 347), as the 2008 Constitution clearly states that existing laws and bylaws are only operative “in so far as they are not contrary to this Constitution” (sections 446 and 447). As a result, for instance, the 1982 Law is largely unconstitutional. 117 The discriminatory provisions and effects of the 1982 Law also violate Myanmar’s obligations under international human rights law, including but not limited to its obligations under the CRC, CEDAW and the ICESCR. Other domestic laws and instruments, including directives or policies with an unclear legal status, or without an apparent legal status altogether, compound the already detrimental human rights impact of the 1982 Citizenship Law by requiring – in law or in interpretation – that its implementation should take precedence over that of other legal provisions. This violates rule of law principles, reinforces a discriminatory system instituted by an unelected military government, and undermines efforts to develop an inclusive, democratic society in Myanmar. Critically, in addition to the above, the ICJ is also concerned that the legal right to citizenship alone is not a panacea. Notwithstanding official recognition of their status as citizens, some groups, in particular, continue to experience heightened levels of discrimination, 118 and are still treated as non-citizens, in violation of their constitutional rights and the State’s international law obligations to respect and to protect their human rights. Discrimination and arbitrariness in the application of laws, particularly against people with South Asian ancestry, but also against members of other groups, as recognized throughout this report, is guided by bias conceptualizations of rights in Myanmar law from an era of military rule characterized by xenophobia. Reform to Myanmar’s citizenship laws is, therefore, a critical starting point to addressing associated discrimination against people throughout the country, alongside immediate changes to the discriminatory application of these laws. 14