A/HRC/10/19 page 8 provisions of the Penal Code; the Emergency Provision Act (1950); the State Protection Act (1975); the Video Act and the State Law and Order Restoration Council Law No. 8/96 (29 July 1996); the Law Protecting the Peaceful and Systematic Transfer of State Responsibility and the Successful Performance of the Functions of the National Convention against Disturbances and Oppositions; the State Law and Order Restoration Council Law No. 5/96 (7 June 1996); the Unlawful Association Act (1908); the Electronic Transactions Law; the Public Property Protection Act (1947); the Law Amending the Myanmar Immigration (Emergency Provisions); and the Official Secrets Act (1948). 25. The process leading to the above-mentioned sentences illustrates the serious flaws in the current administration of justice system and calls for serious reform efforts. The Special Rapporteur notes that the Constitution, in chapter 1, paragraph 19, establishes important judicial principles: (a) to administer justice independently according to the law; (b) to dispense justice in open court unless otherwise prohibited by the law; and (c) to guarantee in all cases the right to a defence and the right of appeal under the law. However, in reality, many prisoners of conscience have been sentenced in closed-door hearings within prison compounds, without legal representations, without the presence or knowledge of their family members, and without proof of evidence or with flawed evidence. In fact, defence lawyers face great difficulties ranging from not being informed of the dates and venues of trials to not having the possibility of meeting detainees in private before trial. 26. The Special Rapporteur has also received disturbing information from various reliable sources on the conviction of defence lawyers for contempt of court during the wave of sentencing of prisoners of conscience in November 2008. He discussed this matter with the Bar Council and was informed about the Contempt of Court Act (1926), which provides for a duration of imprisonment of up to six months, but does not specify what actually constitutes contempt of court, leaving it open to any interpretation or decision by higher instances. The senior lawyers Aung Thein and Khin Maung Shein representing U Gambira were sentenced to four months of imprisonment for contempt of court on 7 November 2008, charged under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act. 27. The Special Rapporteur would like to point out that, according to the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Governments should ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and (c) should not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics (art. 16). Furthermore, lawyers should enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority (art. 20). 28. In Myanmar, the right to legal counsel is not fully respected and, if a suspect cannot afford a lawyer, the Government is not obliged to provide one. 29. Over 600 sentenced prisoners have been transferred to prisons far from their hometowns, in isolated areas around the country, making it difficult for their families to visit regularly. Visits