# A court convicts two Reuters journalists who reported on Rakhine killings Date: 2018 ## The fact On 3 September 2018 a Yangon court convicted Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo under the Official Secrets Act after they reported on Inn Din killings. ## Context Judiciary sat. She did not sit as the judge. A secrets conviction of reporters is still a dated press-freedom cost. Rakhine 2017 is the neighbouring massacre-reporting row. 66d cases are a neighbouring speech-law row. Myanmar’s State Counsellor (2016–2021) was de facto civilian head under the 2008 Constitution; she did not command the Tatmadaw’s autonomous ministries, write a Bangladeshi gazette, an ICJ merits judgment, or a 2026 [Min Aung Hlaing](/people/min-aung-hlaing) amnesty. She has been detained since 1 February 2021; as of August 2026 she is under house arrest after sentence commutations, not in office. A Nobel lecture is not a clearance-operation order. An ICJ appearance is not a personal genocide conviction. A junta court sentence is not a finding that every charge was true. Allegation of a stolen 2020 count is not stored as a completed steal. A Panglong speech is not a nationwide ceasefire. A Reuters conviction is not a completed finding that the journalists planted evidence. A 2026 ICRC visit is not a release. ## Evidence and sources Union Attorney General's Office Myanmar carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently. ## Significance The path is digital-and-press rights: a completed secrets conviction of reporters covering Rakhine is a [civic-space](/drivers/civic-space) cost. ## What is established and what is not Established: a 3 September 2018 seven-year conviction of two Reuters reporters, independently reported, later pardoned. Not established: that they planted evidence, or that she personally wrote the judgment. What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions. The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit. A court convicted. Her government did not stop the prosecution. A 2019 pardon is a later neighbouring instrument.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies A court convicts two Reuters journalists who reported on Rakhine killings, not a later speech about A court convicts two Reuters journalists who reported on Rakhine killings. Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. A court convicts two Reuters journalists who reported on Rakhine killings on 2018-09-03 is not a licence to treat every later Union Attorney General's Office Myanmar communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average A court convicts two Reuters journalists who reported on Rakhine killings into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to Police charged. A court convicted. Her government did not stop the prosecution. A 2019 pardon is a later neighbouring instrument. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series. ## People - Aung San Suu Kyi: https://factrail.ai/people/aung-san-suu-kyi ## Drivers - Digital-Rights and Platform-Power Regulation: https://factrail.ai/drivers/tech-digital-rights-regulation - Democratic Resilience: https://factrail.ai/drivers/democratic-resilience ## Sources - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-journalists-idUSKCN1LJ0K4 - https://www.mlis.gov.mm/ ## Methodology https://factrail.ai/methodology Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/mm-suu-reuters-2018