ADVISORY COMMISSION ON RAKHINE STATE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT Both Muslims and Rakhines face restrictions on movement. While Muslim IDPs are almost entirely deprived of freedom of movement, other Muslims – and to a certain extent some Rakhines – face limitations due to a patchwork of government restrictions, ad hoc decisions by local officials, and exorbitant travel costs due to corrupt practices by government officials. Moreover, both communities face self-imposed restrictions emanating from the fear of neighbouring communities, limiting access to farmland, fishing areas and markets. While formal restrictions – such as legal orders – are more prevalent in northern Rakhine, informal and social restrictions constitute the main barrier to movement in the central and southern part of the state. Freedom of movement is one of the most important issues hindering progress towards inter-communal harmony, economic growth and human development in Rakhine State. Movement restrictions have a wide range of detrimental effects, including reduced access to education, health and services, strengthened communal segregation, and reduced economic interaction. The Government’s rationale for maintaining the status quo is largely related to fears of destabilization, especially as the Rakhine community is expected to protest greater movement of Muslims within the state. Yet, if carefully done, easing restrictions on freedom of movement could have far-reaching positive social and economic benefits. The Commission welcomes recent government efforts to increase freedom of movement in northern Rakhine State. However, as the changes only affect those who already hold identification documentation, the impact was very limited. To have greater impact, freedom of movement should be delinked from the citizenship verification process, meaning that all individuals in Rakhine State should be able to move freely irrespective of whether they hold an NVC card, NRC card or citizenship documentation, consistent with the basic right of all people to free movement. When removing restrictions on freedom of movement, the security concerns of both communities need to be proactively addressed. There is already precedent for police officers facilitating movement for Muslims, but currently only in a limited set of circumstances (for instance when Muslims need to appear before the court as a witness, or need medical care in a Rakhinedominated area). This approach needs to be widened significantly and current corrupt practices – such as the payment of informal fees to the police – must be combatted vigorously. FINAL REPORT 33