a judicial review, whenever such decisions are upheld on appeal. This legal arrangement violates the constitutional right of due process (section 381). 5.3 Other laws and instruments A person’s legal status conferred under provisions of the Constitution and the 1982 Law effectively determine many of the rights and obligations, or lack thereof, under a range of other laws. These include provisions of laws such as those regulating marriage, land, property, housing, elections, employment and business activities.112 Among these, the 1993 Child Law is of particular significance given its relationship with the right to nationality and the State’s international human rights law obligations under the CRC – as is the draft Child Rights Bill that has been under consideration by Myanmar’s parliament and the President of the Union at the time of writing (see annex 1, below). The 1993 Child Law, and the draft Bill that would replace it if passed, share the primary stated objective of implementing Myanmar’s State obligations under the CRC. However, section 10 of the Child Law, which states that “Every child shall have the right to citizenship in accordance with the provisions of the existing law [emphasis added],” 113 has been widely interpreted by authorities as meaning that, with respect to the right to nationality, provisions of the 1982 Citizenship Law take precedent over provisions of the 1993 Child Law. Given that the 1982 Law does not enable realization of the right to nationality for many children, the formulation of section 10 of the 1993 Child Law, by deferring to the 1982 Law with respect to citizenship, manifestly undermines the aims of the Child Law, particularly the objective of implementing the CRC (section 3(a) of the Law), and the principle of considering the best interests of the child. This is particularly the case in relation to article 7 of the Convention which, inter alia, enshrine the child’s rights to registration at birth and to acquire a nationality, and affirms the State’s obligations to ensure this right is fulfilled particularly when a child would otherwise be stateless. Making a child’s right to acquire a nationality subservient to other pre-existing domestic legal provisions, chiefly those featured in the 1982 Citizenship Law, render child laws discretionary and open to interpretation, likely in violation of human rights. The content and effect of section 10 of the Child Law also violates the section 347 constitutional guarantees of equal rights and equal legal protection, and is therefore unconstitutional. Drafts of the Child Rights Bill contain similar qualifiers on a child’s right to nationality, based on different drafts seen by the ICJ. Regardless of the possible insertion of the term “in accordance with existing laws” (as reflected in the 1993 Child Law), the right of a child to registration at birth and to nationality should nonetheless be interpreted in accordance with the objective of the law itself, which is to implement Myanmar’s obligations under the CRC. Given that both the 1982 Citizenship Law and the 1993 Child Law (and the Bill, should it become law) carry equal legal status as pieces of legislation, and in light of the fact that the 1982 Law does not specifically address the topic of a child’s right to registration at birth and to acquire nationality, the Child Law should prevail in any interpretation of the legal framework in this respect, inline with legal principles. 114 However, to avoid confusion, and to conform to the principle of legality, child laws should not include the adage “according to existing law,” at least with respect to the guarantees toward children under the CRC. The current and proposed arrangement does not enable realization of the right to nationality for many children, and therefore violates the State’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. With regards to non-legislative legal instruments, such as memoranda, directives and manuals, which guide implementation and application of citizenship arrangements, as noted above in part four, their content is generally opaque and their legal basis unclear. Yet, in practice, these instruments carry significant weight in guiding official determinations related to citizenship, particularly the 2014 Immigration Department Manual and the so-called “list of 135” ethnic groups, a list of “ethnic groups” purportedly officially recognized by the State. 115 At their worst, these instruments enable and even encourage human rights violations and abuses, including by limiting people’s access to government offices and services as a result of attributing a “mixed13