|
This
document describes Amnesty international's concerns at reports
of human rights violations occurring in southern Bhutan since
late 1990. These violations to the government policy of national
integration on the basis of the northern Bhutanese traditions
and culture, and the application of the 1985 Citizenship Act.
Amnesty
International has collected testimony of arbitrary arrests,
Ill-treatment and torture, particularly in the period after
demonstrations in September 1990. It has also received reports
of attacks on civilians; some attributed by the government
to ngolops or "anti-nationals", many of whom allegedly
belong to the Bhutan People's Party (BPP), an opposition organization
founded in India in June 1990.
There
are currently an estimated 70,000 Nepali-speaking southern
Bhutanese refugees in camps in eastern Nepal, many of who
allege that they were forced to leave the country.
In
January 1992, an Amnesty International delegation visited
Bhutan to discuss its concerns with government officials.
Amnesty International has since been informed by the government
of a number of steps taken to improve the human rights situation,
including the abolition of shackles and an invitation to the
international Committee of the Red Cross o visit the country.
Amnesty International welcomes these steps but believes that
further safeguards are needed to ensure that there can be
no continuation of human rights violations. The organization
is urging the government of immediately release all prisoners
of conscience, bring to trial those held on recognizable criminal
offences and take measures to prevent torture and ill treatment.
It has also recommended that the international committee of
the Red Cross be allowed to develop a full program of regular
visits to all places of detention, to set up a program of
dissemination of information to members of the security forces
and provide medical assistance to Prisoners.
KEYWORKS:
ETHNIC GROUPS1/ PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE/
ARBITRARY ARREST/DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL/INCOMMUNICADO
DETENTION/TRIALS/TORTURE/ILLTREA TMENT1/SEXUAL ASSA ULT1/
RESTRAINTS/DEATH IN CUSTODY/ PRISON CONDITIONS/ DEPORTATION/
CENSORSHIP/ FARMERS/WOMEN1TEACHERS/PRISONERS'TESTIMONIES/
REFUGEES/NEPAL/POLITICAL VIOLENCE/ NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES/
MILITARY/POLICE/AMNESTIES/MISSIONS/AI AND GOVERNMENTS/
ICRC/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhutan:
Human Rights Violations against the
Nepali-speaking Population in the
South
1.
INTRODUCTION
An
Amnesty international delegation visited Bhutan for the first
time in January 1992, at the invitation of king Jigme Singye
Wangchuck. The delegation discussed amnesty international's
concerns at reports of human rights violations occurring in
the context of opposition by Nepali-speaking southern Bhutanese
to the government policy of national integration on the basis
of Driglam namha, the northern Bhutanese traditions, and
culture, and the application of the 1985 Citizenship Act.
Amnesty international had collected testimony of arbitrary
arrests, ill-treatment, and torture including rape, particularly
in the period after demonstrations in September 1990. It had
also received reports of attacks on civilians, some attributed
by the government to ngolops or "antinational",
many of whom allegedly belong to the Bhutan People's Party
(BPP), an opposition organization founded in India in June
1990. As the Royal Bhutan Police, assisted by members of the
Royal Bhutan Army, stepped up its campaign to arrest "antinationals"
after the demonstrations in September 1990. As the Royal Bhutan
Police, assisted by members of the Royal Bhutan Army, stepped
up its campaign to arrest : internationals" after the
demonstrations in September 1990, many Nepali-speaking southern
Bhutanese fled the country and sought refuge in Nepal, many
of them alleged the they had been forced to leave Bhutan.
As of the end of October 1992, the total number of refugees
in five camps in eastern Nepal's Jhapa and Morang districts
reportedly exceeded 70,000.
1.1
Amnesty international's visit to Bhutan
During
the one-week visit, amnesty international's three-member delegation
had a private audience with the king and met ministers and
officials to discuss human rights. The delegates also visited
Samchi or Chirang district but were informed that it was not
possible to visit the latter for security reasons. The delegates
interviewed three ex-prisoners of conscience, two political
prisoners. several victims and relatives of victims of human
rights violations as well as people affected by violence by
the opposition groups operating is the south.
Earlier,
in November 1991, two Amnesty international delegates had
visited Nepal to interview Nepali-speaking southern Bhutanese
people living in refugee camps at Maidhar and Timai in Jhapa
district, eastern Nepal. At that time there were an estimated
5,000 refugees in the camps. During interviews many refugees
said they had fled Bhutan to escape from torture and other
human rights violations committed by the Royal Bhutanese Army
and Police. Dozens of Women alleged that they had been raped
in the course of army operations or while in detention. Ex-prisoners
among the refugees gave testimony of beatings. Ill-treatment.
Degrading punishment and in some cases. Torture Many alleged
that they were released on condition that they would heave
Bhutan.
Before
the January 1992 visit to Bhutan. Amnesty international submitted
a Memorandum to the government based on the testimonies obtained
from refugees in Nepal. Parts of that Memorandum as well as
comments received from Bhutanese officials during and after
the Amnesty International visit to Bhutan are included in
this document. The proceedings of the recent session of Bhutanls
National Assembly, held from 16 October to 3 November 1992.
are also referred to.
2
BACKGROUND
Bhutan
is landlocked country situated between the high Himalayan
mountains and the Ganges plain, bordered to the south by the
Indian states of Sikkim. West Bengal. Assam and Arunachal
Pradesh and to the north by the Tibet Autonomous region of
the People's Republic of China. The population is made pu
of several ethnic groups. The western valleys are populated
by Ngalops who are said to be of Tibetan origin. In the eastern
region, the Carhops are reportedly the most populous. The
largest element in the population of southern Bhutan are the
descendants, mostly Hindu of Nepali settlers who came to work
in the southern Duar valleys in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries until such movement was banned by Bhutan in 1959.
Today referred to as "southern Bhutanese", they
live in the main in the following districts: Samchi, Dagana,
Chirang, Sarbhang and Samdrup Jonkhar. Chirang and Dagana
districts in particular have high percentages of Nepali-speaking
southern Bhutanese.
The
official language of Bhutan is Dzongkha the language spoken
by the Ngalops and the state religion is Mahayana Buddhism.
The Drukpa Kargyupa sect of Mahayana Buddhism is predominant
among the people living in the north of Bhutan including the
Ngalops and Sarchops.
Bhutan
is a monarchy. There is no written constitution. King Jigme
Singye Wangchuck succeeded his father in 1972. The system
of government is unusual in that power is shared by the monarchy
(assisted by a Royal Advisory Council). The Councilof Ministers,
the national Assembly and the Head Abbot. The Nation Assembly,
which serves a three-yearly term, currently has 151 members.
including 100 elected by indirect vote, based on traditional
village boundaries. There are said to be 15 Nepali-speaking
southern Bhutanese among the members of the National Assembly.
Decisions are reached by consensus.
The
current situation in southern Bhutan should be placed in the
context of a series of measures introduced by the government
since 1958 to curb the influx of Nepali settlers and regularize
citizenship and naturalization procedures for immigrants and
their descendants and to encourage integration of the southern
Bhutanese with what is often described as the national cultural
identity and referred to by the term driglam namzha. That
is the traditions characteristic of and practiced by the northern
drukpa population.
In
its September 1991 publication. Anti-National Activities in
southern Bhutan. A Terrorist Movement, the government's Department
of Information explained official policy on the regularization
of citizenship and the promotion of national cultural identity
as follows:
"….the
Royal Government will never compromise when it comes to ensuring
Bhutan's long-term security and integrity. The terrorist movement
threatens the very sovereignty and integrity of Bhutan and
its survival as a nation. Therefore, the policy on immigration
and census and the Citizenship Act of 1985 will have to be
implemented in full. Nor can the royal Government afford to
discontinue the policy of national integration and the concept
of the nation and one people. These policies are vital for
ensuring Bhutan's long-term security and well-being as a united
and cohesive nation. That is why the Royal Government considers
it is so crucial for all citizens to look upon themselves
as Bhutanese regardless of their race of religion and why
it is so important for all citizens to take pride in being
fraternal members of one united Bhutanese family"
2.1
Government measures to regularize citizenship
Bhutan's
first census, held in 1969, reportedly enumerated 931, 541
inhabitants. The 1980 census reportedly contend a total population
of 1,165,000 but the government later called it inaccurate.
A new census apparently ordered in 1998 currently continues.
There has been a lot of criticism of the way in which it was
carried out in southern Bhutan, where many Nepali-speaking
people were classified as non-nationals and subsequently forced
to leave the country.
To
date, no official figures are available about the percentage
of population different ethnic groups constitute. Independent
observers estimate that at least a third of the population
consists of people of Nepali origin and that their percentage
has been increasing over the last few decades. This trend
apparently ported the government of introduce a number of
measures aimed at controlling this influx.
In
a first attempt at regularizing citizenship the national Law
of Bhutan in 1958 had put the following conditions on recognition
as Bhutanese citizens:
3:
any person can become a Bhutanese national
a)
if his/her father is a Bhutanese National and is a resident
of the Kingdom of Bhutan; or
b) if any person is born within or outside Bhutan after the
commencement of this saw provided the previous father is a
Bhutanese National at he time of his/her birth.
4.
(1) if any foreigner who has reached the age of majority and
is otherwise eligible, presents a petition to an official
appointed by His Majesty and takes an oath of oyalty according
to the rules laid down by official, he may be enrolled as
a Bhutanese National, provided that:
a)
The person is a resident of the kingdom of Bhutan for more
than ten years, and
b) Owns agricultural land within the kingdom.
(2) If a woman, married to a Bhutanese National, submits a
petition and takes the oath of loyalty as stated above to
the satisfaction of the concerned official and that she has
reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, her
name may be enrolled as a Bhutanese National.
5.
(1) If any foreigner submits petition to His Majesty according
to rules described in the above sections and provided the
person has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible
and has served satisfactorily in Government service for at
least five years and has been residing in the Kingdom of Bhutan
for at least 10 years, he may receive a Bhutanese Nationality
Certificate. Once the certificate is received, such a person
has to take the oath of loyalty according to rules laid down
by the Government and from that day onwards his name will
be enrolled as a Bhutanese National.
In
1977 the National Assembly at its 8th Session amended these
conditions follows:
1.
In the case of government servants an applicant should have
completed 15 years of service without any adverse record.
2. In the case fo those not employed in the Royal Government
an applicant should have resided in Bhutan from a minimum
period of 20 yeas.
3. In addition an applicant should have some knowledge of
the Bhutanese language both spoken and written and the history.
The
1977 Citizenship Act also stipulated that all those granted
citizenship were to pledge an oath of allegiance to His Majesty
the king of Bhutan, swear to observe all the customs and traditions
of the people of Bhutan and not to commit any act against
the Tsa-wa-sum (the country, the people and the king)
A
further amendment in 1995, confirmed what has become the fundamental
basis for citizenship: residence in Bhutan since before 31
December 1958. As such, census authorities have adopted 1958
as the cut0off year for determining citizenship. During the
debate on the issue in the national Assembly, members from
southern Bhutan sought to have the cut-off date for eligibility
broth forward to 1977, without success.
The
1985 Citizenship Act reaffirmed the provisions of the 1958
and 1977 legislation, except that for those born in Bhutan
after 1958 who had only one parent who was a recognized Bhutanese
national, citizenship is not automatic but must be applied
for and is subject to specified conditions, including fluency
in speaking, reading and writing Dzongkha and 15 or 20 years'
residence.
Since
1986 the government has also been conduction a program of
seeking to identify people without valid work permits. During
1988 several thousand non-nationals were reportedly ordered
to leave the country as leadless or unemployed illegal immigrants
or for overstaying initial permits, as part of a longer-term
policy to limit the role of the non-nations wage labor force.
Initially, this policy was to have been implemented in stages
over a period of 10 to 15 years. But, in the context of unrest
in several areas across Bhutan's border with India (notably
related to the activities of the Gorkha national Liberation
Front in west Bengal and the United Liberation Front in Assam),
in was apparently implemented more vigorously.
Amnesty
International was informed by the government that the purpose
of the census currently underway is to identify Bhutanese
nationals in southern Bhutan. A committee of 12 persons, including
three village elders, assesses proof of citizenship, categorizing
people as follows:
F1
Genuine Bhutanese citizens
F2 Returned migrants (People who had left Bhutan and then
returned)
F3 "Drop-out" cases-i.e. People who were not around
at the time of the census1
F4 A non-national woman married to Bhutanese man
F5 A non-national man married to a Bhutanese woman
F6 Adopting cases (Children who have been legally adopted)
F7 Non-nationals, i.e. migrants and illegal settlers
According
to the Minister of Home Affairs, people in categories F4 and
F5 are eligible for acquisition of full residency in Bhutan,
if their marriage took place before 1985. He also informed
the Amnesty International delegation that the government is
in the process of phasing out its current citizenship cards
and introducing two new cards: a Multipurpose Citizenship
Identity Card and a Special Resident Card.
The
Amnesty International delegation concluded that the current
situation in the south of Bhutan had been exacerbated due
to the government's failure to specify and make known in advice
what would happen to people in southern human once they had
been categorized under F7, i.e. had been declared non-nationals.
From late 1990, many of these people, some of whom were born
in Bhutan and had been resident there throughout their life,
were apparently forced to leave the country.
In
did-March 1992, it was reported that local officials in Chirang
district were ordering all people who had signed statements
saying they would leave the country ti do so. Dozens of heads
of families, among them men aged 70 and older, who had been
arrested by the security forces between October and December
1991, have testified that they were forced to write and/or
sign statements affirming their voluntary application to leave
Bhutan with their families and that they had unsuccessfully
tried to appeal to the authorities about this.
Thousands
of Nepali-speaking southern Bhutanese continued to leave Bhutan
throughout 1992, although from October 1992 onwards. There
was a decline in the voluntarily, but non-governmental agencies
present in the refugee camps in Nepal have continuously contended
that people were put under pressure to leave.
2.2.
Government measures to promote a national cultural identity
Along
with regularizing citizenship the government has tried to
encourage the integration of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese into
the mainstream of national life through various other measures.
It announced of instance, financial incentives for inter-ethnic
marriages and offered land to Nepali-speaking Bhutanese prepared
to settle in parts of Bhutan other than the south. In April
1989 the National Assembly determined that the cultural traditions
characteristic of the northern Bhutanese, driglam namzha,
should be further emphasized. Among the measures imposed was
the wearing of Bhutanese national dress (gho for men and kira
for women) during official public activities, such as visits
to local administrative offices, monasteries government offices,
and schools. The policy on driglam namzha also stipulates
how people should conduct themselves at different types of
occasions (ceremonial official, informal, how to send and
receive gifts, how to speak to superiors, how to serve and
eat food and refreshments during public occasions, how to
greet, etc.) Failure to observe the policy was punishable
by one-week imprisonment or a fine. In the September 1991
publication of the Department of Information, the following
explanation is given for the introduction of the policy:
"The
Royal Government's policy on the national dress and language
and driglam namzha is being implemented solely to enhance
and strengthen the process of national integration. Contrary
to the malicious allegations of the anti-nationals, the policy
is not a move to discriminate against the people of southern
Bhutan, but is aimed at bringing all sections of the Bhutanese
people into the national mainstream in order to promote and
realize the concept of the people and one nation. The objective
of promoting national integration is to ensure that the Bhutanese
people, regardless of race or religion, are all united through
a fraternal feeling of national Pride generated by an awareness
of their distinctive identity as citizens of Bhutan."
It
was the introduction of the dress code in particular which
was perceived by Nepali-speaking Bhutanese as an attack on
their cultural identity. Several officials admitted during
meetings with the Amnesty international delegation that the
government's policy of fining persons not wearing the traditional
dress was initially overzealously applied.
During
an interview with an Indian journalist shortly after the demonstrations
by Nepali-speaking southern Bhutanese against these measures,
king Jigme Singye Wangchuck reportedly stated:
"For
many years we have tried to bring the Southern Bhutanese into
the mainstream-economically, socially, culturally, politically,
because Bhutan is too small a country to be divvied. The one
nation and one people concept is essential for the survival
for Bhutan. But, I am sorry to say that some of the things
we did to implement this have been unfortunate. We meant well,
but these did not have a very good impact.
Apart
from six prisoners considered by the government to be the
ringleaders of the opposition campaign in the south. all others
arrested on suspicion ot involvement with the publication
of literature concerning the situation in southern Bhutan
were granted amnesty on 19 January 1990. Tek Nath Rizal. Jogen
Gazmere and Sushil Pokhrel-arrested in Nepal and Ratan Gazmere,
Biswanath Chhetri and Bhakti Prasad Sharma were all six adopted
by Amnesty international as prisoners of conscience. The government
maintained that they had committed treason by writing, Publishing,
and distributing literature critical of the government's policy
of cultural integration. In addition, they were accused of
"inciting the people against the government through a
misinformation campaign. Extorting money for guerilla training
in neighboring areas and to purchase arms for terrorist activities
and trying to damage relations with … India by spreading
false propaganda." (From a 4 June 1990 letter from the
Foreign Secretary to Amnesty International).
Amnesty
international Investigated all the information provided by
the government and concluded that the individual violent crimes
for which these six prisoners were held responsible were all
committed in April - June 1990, six or more months after they
were detained. It also examined the booklet Bhutan: we want
justice and concluded that it did not contain threats of armed
uprising against the state or the advocacy of violence Amnesty
international therefore continued to consider these six people
as prisoners of conscience and urged that they be immediately
and unconditionally released.2 Amnesty International was further
concerned about their continuing incommunicado detention without
charge or trial and the authorities refusal at the time to
disclose the precise place where they were being detained.
Unrest
at government policies regarding national integration and
the application of the Citizenship Act became widespread in
southern Bhutan from early 1990 onwards. It culminated in
a series of demonstrations throughout southern Bhutan in September
1990. Some of the demonstrators are said to have resorted
to burning of ghost and vandalizing public property, including
census and immigration records. During their visit to Samchi
district, the Amnesty international delegates investigated
earlier reports that up to 300 people had been shot dead during
the demonstrations in Samchi town on 19 September 1990. It
found no evidence to support these reports. According to its
investigations, one of the estimated 4,000 demonstrators in
Samchi was killed by a bullet which allegedly ricocheted off
an excavator which had been place on Chamurchi bridge by the
police in order to prevent the demonstrators from heading
towards the local administrative building. The bullet was
one of seven fired by a police officer who had been injured
by an explosive device thrown from the crowd.
The
first allegation of violent activities by government opponents
by government opponents, whom the government termed ngolops
or "anti-nationals" had been reported in February
1990. These were said to consist mainly of extortion and the
stripping of people wearing gho. From mid-1990 onwards, however,
the "anti-nationals" - said by the government to
include members of the Bhutan people's Party- were alleged
to have stepped up their violent activities to include more
serious crimes such as the murder and kidnapping of civilians.
According
to the BPP manifesto of June 1990, the aims of the organization
are:
" - to evolve the parliamentary system of government
where all Bhutanese irrespective of religious, linguistic,
ethnic, and regional, diversities may attain communal harmony,
economic, social and political justice:
-to
stop violations of human rights … preserve unity in diversity
and safeguard liberty, fraternity and sovereignty of the nation;
-to
amend the constitution ensuring the universal adult franchise,
fundamental pursuits;
-to
establish an independent subdividing freedom of conscience
and cultural pursuits;
- to establish an independent judiciary and an independent
election commission, and to amid the citizenship act with
a view to making it uniform to the internationally accepted
norms."
In
some cases attacks were directed towards census officers and
other government officials. For example, on 2 June 1990. the
severed heads of Kailash Dahal, and ex-government official
from Ghumauney, Samchi district, and Balarm Giri, a census
committee member from the same locality, were found in a bag
left along the food at Gomtu. Two letters in English and Nepali
were found in a bag reportedly signed by a group calling itself
the people's United Liberation Front and warning the anybody
supporting the government would meet the same fate.
Articles
in Kuensel continued to report similar abuses being committed
against civilians in the south, allegedly by opposition groups,
throughout 1991 and 1992. For instance, on 26 October 1991.
Kuensel reported an attack on a census committee member who
was critically wounded in Bomjung Dangra on 18 October 1991
and the beheading of a village official from Rangaytung village,
Balujhora in Phuntsholing on 22 October. In this case a warning
note. Written in Nepali, attached to the latter's severed
head, threatened that all government supporters would receive
such treatment. In other instance, however, what seemed ordinary
criminal acts were reported as being the responsibility of
"anti-nationals" despite the apparent lack of evidence
to confirm that political opponents of the government. Rather
than common criminals, were responsible.
In
addition to the arbitrary and deliberate killing of civilians,
attacks on public facilities in southern Bhutan including
schools, hospitals, post offices, police outposts and bridges
were increasingly reported following the demonstrations of
September 1990. Such attacks were similarly attributed to
"anti-nations" whom the government accused of attempting
to incapacitate public services in the south, Kuensel also
published reports of "anti-nationals " raiding villages
and looting people's homes for valuables and money. In addition,
police patrols and security forces were alleged to have been
attacked and official vehicles hijacked. Such incidents are
said to have resulted in frequent clashes between: anti-nationals"
and the security forces.
An
article in Kuensel of 3 November 1990 described several attacks
allegedly made by "anti-nationals" as follows:
"on
October 27 … the Powgang Primary School and the Nimtala
dispensary in Dagapela were bombed and burned down. The office
of the Dorona mandal (village headman) was bombed and an attempt
also made to burn down the Basic Health Unit in Goshi. the
Namchela Primary School was raided … and the World Food
Program rations for students a photocopy machine and all the
stationery were stolen and the cupboards and furniture smashed
… in Samchi the militants set fire to the Gathia bridge
and three house near the bridge were burned down."
"Anti-nationals"
are also said to have been responsible for harassing teachers
and students. In one incident at a school they were alleged
to have forcibly entered the girls' dormitories, stripped
the students and teachers and forced them to march in anti-government
processions. Such activities are cited by the government as
the reason why most of the schools in the south were closed.
According
to reports following the demonstrations and other public disturbances
of September 1990, the majority of schools in southern Bhutan
were closed by the authorities and turned into army barracks;
health services in government hospitals were reported severely
restricted. Amnesty International also received allegations
that medical assistance was denied to civilians in need of
treatment. Government response has been that schools and health
centers in the south were close as a result of destruction
or due to intimidation of teachers, students and medial staff
by the opposition groups and the where it was available, treatment
was not denied to anybody.
During
its visit to Bhutan, Amnesty International was told of criminal
activities apparently carried out by "anti-nationals"
similar to those published in Kuensel. Amnesty international
interviewed victims and relatives of victims who reported
incidents of kidnapping, beheading, extortion, torture, and
other abuses by opposition groups, which had occurred in the
south mainly during 1990. Villagers recounted how they had
been coerced into giving donations to the BPP and that they
were forced to sell their crops of ginger, cardamom and oranges
in order to raise money for this purpose. Villagers also described
how they were threatened with kidnapping; assault or murder
if they refused to comply with such demands and that in some
cases such threats had been carried out. During the visit
to Bhutan, the Amnesty international delegation was provided
by the government with lists of 39 people allegedly killed,
75 kidnapped, 10 raped and accounts of incidents such as robbery,
arson and sabotage, allegedly carried out by members of opposition
groups in the south. An article in Kuensel on 7 march 1992
quoted the Home Minister as saying that current figures for
murder and kidnapping by "anti-nationals" stood
at 39 and 180 respectively. Amnesty International is not in
position to confirm this information.
Amnesty
International appreciates the difficulties faced by the Bhutanese
authorities in seeking to maintain law and order southern
Bhutan and recognizes the government's responsibility to bring
those involved in criminal activity to justice. However, while
attacks on civilians in southern Bhutan are consistently attributed
to "anti-nationals", it is not always clear that
evidence exists to indicate the political motivation behind
the acts. Amnesty International condemns as a matter of principle
the torture or execution of prisoners by anyone, including
opposition groups.
4.
ARRESTS OF PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE
Amnesty
International appealed to the Government of Bhutan for the
unconditional release of the six people whom it considered
to be prisoners of conscience: Ratan Gazmere, jogen Gazmere,
Tek Nath Rizal, Sushil Pokhrel, iswanath Chhetrii and Bakti
Prasad Shrma (see above).
Five
of them have new been released: Ratan Gazmere, Bhakti Prasad
Sharma and Biswanath Chhetri on 17 December 1991 and Jogen
Gazmere and Sushil Pokhrel on 4 February 1992.
After
more than three years, Tek Nath Rizal remains in detention
without charge or trial and with no access to legal counsel.
In July 1992 the wife of Tek Nath Rizal, who is currently
living in Nepal, was for the first time given permission to
visit her husband in detention in Thimphu. Until then, he
had not had any access to his family despite repeated assurances
from the government that this would be granted. Amnesty International
is continuing to call for his unconditional release.
5.
ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE OR TRIAL OF
POLITICAL PRISONERS
According
to information received during the 1991 interviews conducted
by Amnesty international with refugees in eastern Nepal raids
on the homes of Nepali-speaking southern Bhutanese by groups
of Royal Bhutanese Army personnel and arrests of the occupants,
became commonplace after the September 1990 demonstrations
and whether they were members or supporters of the Bhutan
people's party or had made donations to it. The majority of
those interviewed by Amnesty international said that on arrest
their hands had been tied behind their backs and they had
been beaten with canes, sticks or rifle butts. Those detained
were taken to the district jail or local school (often serving
as temporary army barracks) and kept for periods ranging from
one weed to 12 months without charge or trial. Some refugees
claimed to have been repeatedly arrested. Large numbers of
prisoners were reportedly kept in small, badly ventilated
rooms, often on the bare floor without bedding. Some former
prisoners reported having been under questioning, prisoners
had allegedly been beaten by police or army personnel using
canes, batons, sticks, chains or rifle butts. They claimed
that on release they received verbal threats not to involve
themselves with the BPP in any way and that if they did not
cooperate with the security forces they would be arrested
and imprisoned for life.
The
following account is typical of those provided by ex-prisoners
to Amnesty International. It concerns a 44-year-old father
of seven children who had been arrested on suspicion of participation
in the September 1990 demonstrations and attacking the sub-divisional
office and Gaylegphug"
"on
29 September 1990 a group of 20 army personnel with SLR {self
loading rifles}3 rifles and walkie talkies came to my house
at lam. They took 26,550 rupees and two tholas (22 grams)
of silver, five and a tholas (50 grams) of gold. They took
me to the National Institute for Health building in Gaylegphug
which had been converted in a jail. I was stripped naked and
beaten with canes, wooden batons, and rifle butts for one
hour by eleven people who took turns. Afterwards I was handcuffed
and kept for five days in isolation. Then they called me for
questioning. Four solders beat me while two army officers
questioned me. I fainted and they poured water on my face
to make me come round. I was questioned about whether I had
supported the movement and when I denied it they beat me again.
I admitted that I had been at the 23 September demonstration
and that I had seen others break into the sub-divisional office
in Gaylegphug. I denied involvement in the break-in and was
beaten for it. I continued to be beaten every day, usually
with a cane or rifle butts. The soldiers refused to give me
water and verbally abused me. I was given a small amount of
food - rice and vegetables - three times a day. I was kept
in a room with 10 other people. It was very hot and stuffy
because the windows were kept closed. I was called for questioning
on two occasions and asked the same questions each time. I
admitted to belonging to the movement. Nine other men were
arrested from my village and some were whether they had vandalized
the school. I was released on 18 October 1991. I was told
I was free to stay or leave Bhutan but that if I stayed. The
government would not provide me with education for my children.
Medical assistance or other facilities. I stayed at home for
10 days to recover and then left Bhutan on 29 October."
The
total number of people arrested since early 1990 for suspected
involvement in opposition activities runs into thousands.
Many prisoners have not been brought to trial but have been
released in amnesties periodically granted by the king. In
early 1990. 39 out of 42 people reportedly arrested between
October and December 1989 were released under and amnesty.
Further amnesties were granted in September 1990 to several
hundred prisoners (exact number not known): in March 1991
to 177 prisoners in August 1991 to 727 prisoners in October
1991 to 74 prisoners; in December 1991 to 153 prisoners' in
February 1992 to 313 prisoners and in March 1992 to 172. Many
ex-prisoners among the refugees in Nepal say they were released
only on condition that they agreed to leave Bhutan.
Amnesty
International has to date asked the government to clarity
the legal status of more than 700 people reported to have
been detained. The government has responded and supplied information
about the reasons for continued detention in approximately
150 cases. Local police officials in the south are apparently
investigating the remaining cases and Amnesty international
has been assured that it will be informed of the outcome of
their investigations. As of August 1992 the number of political
prisoners in detention was estimated to be between 200 and
300, 134 of who were known by Amnesty International to have
been held without any charges having been brought against
them since before January 1001. In early October 1992 the
government informed amnesty international that following the
amnesty granted to 45 prisoners on 11 September 1992 the total
number of political prisoners had gone down to 182.
Since
late 1989, Amnesty International has repeatedly raised reports
of arbitrary arrest and detention without charge or trial
with the Bhutan Government. It has welcomed the granting of
amnesty to groups of political prisoners. Amnesty international
also repeatedly urged the government to ensure that all prisoners
are given immediate and regular access to their relatives.
Most
people arrested in the south are initially held at local places
of detention, where their relatives are allowed to visit them.
When questioned by the Amnesty international delegation, officials
in Samchi district denied that political prisoners were held
at local places of detention. The delegates were repeatedly
told during their visit to the district that all political
prisoners were either released after interrogation or, if
there was evidence against them, sent to
Thimphu. This conflicted however with testimony from several
people interviewed in Nepal. Through an interview with prisoner
on the last day of the Amnesty international visit to Bhutan,
it transpired that more than 80 political prisoners had been
held for extended periods at Samchi Jail up until 28 December
1991 when they were transferred to Thimphu. This was shortly
after Amnesty international was given permission to visit
Samchi district. The government maintains that officials in
Samchi did not want Amnesty international to visit place of
detention because of their poor conditions but that the official
position was that the organization should have been granted
"full access". In a letter to the king after the
visit, Amnesty international expressed its regret that its
delegation had not been permitted to visit places of detention
in Samchi district or elsewhere in the country.]
It
has been a confirmed practice that once prisoners have been
transferred to prisons in the north of the country, their
relatives are not longer permitted visits and in many cases
even fail to establish where the prisoner is held. The five
prisoners of conscience released in late 1991 and early 1992,
for instance, never had access to their relatives despite
assurances provided to Amnesty international by several government
authorities. In addition, despite repeated requests, the authorities
consistently refused to inform Amnesty international of the
precise place of detention of these prisoners of conscience.
Recently, Amnesty International has received information that
some prisoners have been granted access to their relatives.
6.
UNFAIR TRIALS
On
18 May 1992, 41 people arrested on suspicion of involvement
in "anti-national" activities who were brought before
the High Court in Thimphu and charged with treason, an offence
which carries a mandatory death sentence. These were the first
reports of Nepali-speaking southern Bhutanese being brought
to trial in connection with opposition to the government policy
of national cultural integration and the application of the
1985 Citizenship Act. In early June 1992, Amnesty international
requested permission from the government to send an observer
to the trials. On 8 June 1992, the government informed Amnesty
international that "it would not be acceptable to our
officials and people to have a person from outside the country
to observe these trials:. In a meeting with Amnesty International
representatives at the end of July 1992, which took place
in Geneva, Switzerland, the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested
that a representative from on of the international agencies
with presence in Bhutan could observe the trials on behalf
of Amnesty international. This option, however. would contravene
Amnesty international's own working rules and so could not
be considered.
In
its letter of 8 June 1992, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
outlined the procedures that are being followed during the
trials and stressed that the hearings are open to the public
"although normally we do not permit spectators in criminal
trials". Amnesty international was given a list of the
41 accused. Four of whom are apparently being tried in absentia.
According to the Foreign Minister trials of people charged
under the law of treason take place before a full bench of
the High Court (eight judges. including the Chief Justice
three of whom are southern Bhutanese). In the first hearing,
the accused are informed of the charges against them in a
language "which the accused can clearly understand:.
The accused are then invited to make an uninterrupted statement
in response and to submit a written statement to the court.
The latter apparently may be written by the accused personally
or a clerk of the High Court. In the second stage of the trial,
the evidence is presented and witnesses can be called by both
the prosecution and the accused. Both sides have te right
to cross-examine witness. For this purpose, the accused can
call upon the assistance of a jabmi (a person conversant with
the law). In the third and final stage, both parties make
final submissions to the courts, after which the preliminary
findings of the court are read out and both parties have a
last opportunity to put forward points which the court has
not taken into account. The judgment is normally announced
"within a short period of time". The accused can
appeal to the king, who effectively constitutes the highest
Court of Appeal.
Amnesty
international had repeatedly urged the government to ensure
that all political prisoners are either promptly charged or
brought to trial for the specific criminal offences they are
alleged to have committed or else released. The organization
expressed concern that all 41 accused were being charged for
"committing variorum offences under the Law of Treason".
Apart from its concern about the mandatory death sentence,
it also expressed concern about the broad definition of treason
in the Law of Treason. Indeed, the law did not make any distinction
between those offences against the Tsa-wa-sum (king, country
and people) which involve violence and those which do not.
During meeting with several officials in January 1992. Amnesty
international had bee informed that this particular aspect
would be one of the main points of a review of the Law of
Treason by the High Court which had been initiated. During
the recent session of the National Assembly, a National Security
Act was introduced which was due to replace the Law of Treason.
The new Act specifies 14 crimes punishable by prison sentences
between two years and life. Although the death penalty is
not longer provided for as a mandatory punishment, it can
still be imposed for those found guilty of treason and aiding
and abetting: the enemy in order to deliberately and voluntarily
betray the Tsa-wa-sum and harm the national interest"4
(For more information, see Chapter 9)
In
late November - early December 1992, the High Courrt announced
the sentences imposed on 37 of the 41 people tried. Whereas
they had been tried under the Law of Treason, their sentences
were imposed according to the provisions of the new National
Security Act, 1992. D K Rai, the first accused, was found
guilty of murder, treason, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Thirty-one others were found guilty of treason and were sentenced
to prison terms ranging from nine months to ten years and
one month. Five people were acquitted due to lack of evidence.
The judgment on the four people who were tried in absentia
remains to be announced. The government also informed Amnesty
international that another group of people will be tried soon.
7.
ILL-TREATMENT AND TORTURE, INCLUDING RAPE
The
testimonies obtained from refugees in Nepal include accounts
of various forms of ill treatment, degrading punishment and,
in some cases, torture at the hands of the security forces.
Beatings with canes, sticks, batons, chains, leather belts
and rifle butts, on the back, head, arms and feet of detainees,
were reportedly carried out. One woman said the saw her husband
tied to a post outside in the jail compound and left overnight.
Several people described being "kicked around like a
football" and being made to "fight each other like
animals", apparently for the entertainment of army officers;
these practices reportedly resulted in injuries to the prisoners'
heads and shoulders. Prisoners reportedly had their hands
bound and were denied food and water, particularly during
the initial stages of their detention. Some people recounted
how on requesting water they were told to drink their detention.
Some people recounted how on requesting water they were told
to drink their own urine. On some accessions food, which was
inedible, such as rice, which had been contaminated with glass
or sand, was reportedly given to prisoners.
Methods
to torture reported include suspending a prisoner upside down;
beating prisoners on the sides and soles of the feet and on
the Achilles tendon; and inserting a cane in the anus. The
following extract from an interview with a 61-year-old farmer
from Daipham illustrates the kinds of ill treatment and degrading
punishment that some prisoners allegedly received:
"At
3.30pm on 25 March 1991, I returned home form the market to
find six policemen Thad arrived, armed with LMGs and 303s.
They informed me that the chief of police in Diaphragm sub-divisional
police station. The Officer-in-Charge (OIC), accused me of
taking part in the demonstration is September 1990. I told
him that I was not involved, but that y son and slaughter
had gone. The OIC called us all ngolops and that we should
be locked pu. I was put into a cell ad was not given any food
that night or for the next three days. I was allowed to go
to the latrine, and could drink water from there. On the forth
day ! was taken to the next room, where the OIC and two policemen
were. They told me to bend down on fingers and toes and stay
in that position. When toppled over, they beat me with canes.
Each time I was told to come back to the original poisons.
One placemen used his boots to kick me whem I toppled over,
They taunted me, saying: you can's even perform this exercise,
yet you participated in the demonstration ? I was subjected
to this treatment for one and a half hours. for the next three
days I was not interrogated. On the fourth day I was questioned
again by the OIC and four policemen, who beat me continuously.
They told me to tell the truth about whether I really went
to the demonstrating or not and how much money I donated to
the BPP. When I denied both allegations, they hung me upside
down form the window bars (with my feet hooked through the
bars). My legs were tied. I was kept like this for half an
hour. I was kicked in the middle of my back. After this I
was bleeding room the nose and mouth. Then I was untied, put
on the ground and made to sit cross-legged with hands and
deet tied together. Then they started kicking me around, like
a human football. One kick hit me about three feet aye and
so on. My body went into convulsions. The OIC said I must
be having an epileptic fit and should be thrown out. Fellow
prisoners thaw water on me to revive me. I was left for three
days. All my food was brought once a day by my family and
left outside the compound. A policeman would collect it and
give it to me. On the ninth day of my imprisonment, at 10.30am
another officer said something to me in Dzongkha, which a
fellow prisoner translated as "the old people are likely
to be released this evening". So all day I waited to
be released. At 6pm the Lt. Colonel came back. My fellow prisoners
were taken one by one (there were 14 in the cell) to make
a statement. When they returned to the cell they took their
belongings and left. My turn came. The OIC and four police
officers were in the room. The OIC pointed a huge cane at
my chest and told me to stand properly, to tell the truth.
He said that they had a pit ready to bury fem. in. I made
the same statement that I had given earlier. They asked if
my statement was true or not, and if I would go to the demonstration
again. I said no. Then another officer said I could go home
but if crossed into India, I would be killed. I asked the
police if I could take my belongings and 320 rupees the police
had kept. They said I should come to get them later. I was
forcibly thrown out, not allowed to stay and wait for friends.
I returned home, 5 kms form the police station to my house.
Since I had been beaten on the head with a stick during interrogation,
I needed medical treatment, but all medical centers were closed,
so 1 had to go to hospital in Undlguri, Assam, two days later.
I was in hospital for two days and when I returned home I
heard that the police had come to look for me. I left Bhutan
immediately, the same night, with my family.
Amnesty
international is also concerned that since military operations
in southern Bhutan began, form September 1990 onwards, there
have numerous allegations of rape of women by Royal Bhutanese
Army personnel. Many of the women from southern Bhutan interviewed
by Amnesty international representatives at the Maidhar and
Timai camps during November 1991 reported that either they
or their druthers had been victims of rape by soldiers. Some
women were said to have died as a result of rape.
Amnesty
international considers rape by the securely forces to be
a form of torture and one which is particularly oppressive
as many women are to afraid and ashamed to speak out about
their experience and believe it futile to pursue rape complaints
against the police or military, since the authorities who
condone such abuses are unlikely to take energetic action
to punish the perpetrators.
A
23-year-old woman from Phipsoo, Sarbhang district, gave the
following account of her and her husband's arrest and treatment
in detention at an army camp in Sarbhang in November 1990:
"My
husband and I had heard that the army were coming to confiscate
our goods so we both went to take our valuables to my parent's
hours. On the way back we were arrested on the banks of the
Thulopinkhwa River, by about 10 army personnel. The soldiers
started beating us, asking us if we had gone to see the party
people and where the leaders were. They asked us about the
campsites of the party people. We said we didn't know. The
soldiers tied our hands behind our backs and dragged us along.
Were beaten all the time. We were taken to Sarbhang, about
30 km away, and kept in the school which had been turned into
an army barracks, for about a month. I was locked inside a
room, and my husband was tied to a pillar in the compound.
I could see him trough the window. He was beaten until he
vomited blood. He was also made to sit on the ground and was
kicked. He was refused food for on week. Every night two or
three soldiers come and raped me. This happened every night
for a whole month. I was given some food every nigh at about
midnight. If I asked for water, I was beaten with chains that
the soldiers used to tie on their guns. I saw the men being
made to fight each other like bulls. The old people and children
were made to clean the compound and latrines. When I was released,
I was threatened with rear rest if I helped the party. My
husband is still detained in Sarbhang jail. On release I went
home were I stayed for one month until I realized I was pregnant.
I was so ashamed that I couldn't face the other villagers
so I left Bhutan in early January 1991. oi left my children
with my mother-in-law in Bhutan. I went into the jungle hoping
I would die there. Then I went to Kachugaon. Kokragha, Assam
where I stayed with some relatives. My sister and a male relative
come to Kachugaon by chance and I bumped into them there.
They paid for me to come to Maidhar.. As a result of the rape.
I had twins, one which died ad one survived. I do not know
if I will see my husband again."
The
following account is by a 22-year-old woman from Singi. Sarbhang
district. allegedly raped in army custody in late 1990 - early
1991:
"At
about 2pm. about seven or eighth soldiers came to our house.
My mother and brother were at home with me. They arrested
my brother and me and tied our hands behind our backs. They
took us to Thoemba school which had been turned into an army
barracks. An army contingent of 200 to 300 soldiers had come
to the village and arrested two of three people from each
house. About 200 people were arrested that day. We were all
herded together outside in the school compound and made to
sit with hands tied behind backs and heads down. Army personnel
then selected eight young women including me and dragged us
inside. Those who resisted were kicked and when some of the
women fell down, the soldiers hit them with their rifle butts.
I was dragged into a room, my hands still tied behind my back:
there were five army personnel inside. They din's asd me any
questions. I was slapped, forced onto the floor, and raped
by the five soldiers. Afterwards I was brought back to the
compound where they kept me for two hours. At about 8pm they
untied my hands and I was released. I was told to leave the
country ad that if I stayed in Bhutan I would be killed. Both
my brother and I were released. One week later, we left Bhutan
with other households from our village and came to Nepal."
8.
DEATHS IN CUSTODY AND INADEQUATE PRISON CONDITIONS
Amnesty
international has received information about several prisoners
who are reported to have died in detention during 1991, as
a result of ill treatment of torture or due to receiving either
inadequate medical treatment or no treatment at al for illnesses
contracted during imprisonment.
From
interviews with ex-prisoners, Amnesty international was informed
that more tan 300 detainees were held in a detention camp
at Changing, above Simthoka Dzong, near Thimphu t the time
of its visit. All of them were allegedly continuously kept,
for 24 hours a day, in shackles. Several detainees are reported
to have died while held in harsh conditions in this camp,
which is situated at a high altitude. One ex-prisoner who
is currently seeking refuge outside the country has alleged
that five people died due to lack of medical assistance in
the period between August 1991 and March 1992. They apparently
suffered from illnesses such as malaria, dysentery and diarrheas.
He also reported that prisoners were forced to do hard lab
our, even those who were ill, and that the guards resorted
to routine beatings.
One
of the people who reportedly died at Chemgang as a result
of torture of ill-treatment was Punya Prasad Dhakal, a 28-year-old
assistant teacher from Suntaay village, Dagapela, Dagana district.
He was arrested in early 1991 at Kalikhola. Sarbhang district,
from where he was reportedly briefly taken back to Goshi Junior
High School, which had been converted into a detention camp.
He was subsequently transferred to Damphu Junior High School,
which had also been turned, into a detention camp. According
to the testimony of an ex-prisoner, P P Dhaka was tortured
during his detention there and died of his jnjuries approximately
one week after he had been transferred to Chemgange. The government
has confirmed that P P Dhakal died at Chemgang on 26 July
1991 but says the cause of his death was acute myocardial
infarction, that is heart failure. To Amnesty International's
knowledge, his relatives have not officially been informed
of his death nor has his body been returned to them.
Amnesty
international has no detailed information about conditions
in other place of detention, except for Wangdi Phodrang prison,
where the six prisoners of conscience had been held from early
1990 till five of them were released in late 1001 and early
1992.
The
use of shackles has been routine in Bhutan55 . At wangdi Phodrang
prison, Ratan Gazmere, Jogen Gazmere, Biswanath Chhetri, Bhakti
Prasad Sharma, Sushil Pokhrel and Deo Datta Sharma were apparently
kept handcuffed and shackled for three months. While Tek Nath
Rizal was reportedly held in shackles for 20 months. Prisoners'
handcuffs are said to have been removed only for a brief period
each day to allow them to wash.
Concerns
that prisoners are not always treated in accordance with international
standards is heightened by the Bhutanese Government's consistent
refusal to reveal the places of detention where prisoners
are held and to grant them regular access to their relatives.
In
June 1992, Amnesty international appealed to the government
for information about H P Sapkota, who was reportedly arrested
in Assam and handed over to the Bhutan police in September
1990. He was reportedly held at Thimphu Central Jail, from
where one report claimed he had been moved to a detention
place at Gasa. His relatives were never allowed to visit him
or to correspond with him. In the beginning of January 1992
he was seen being taken, shackled and in a weak state, to
Thimphu Hospital. Since that time despite various inquiries
his family have been unable to obtain information about him.
Amnesty international feared that he may have died in custody.
especially as it had received a statement from a former prisoner
who claimed he was told by hospital staff that H P Sapkota
had died in the night of 1 January 1992. In late July 1992
the government confirmed that he had died in detention and
provide copies of his medical records to Amnesty international.
According to these, he had been suffering from stomach and
chest pains and fever and had been diagnosed as having hypertension.
When finally admitted to Thimphu Hospital on 28 December 1991
he was diagnosed as having typhoid. The medical records given
to Amnesty international show ton evidence of H B Sapkota
having been ill-treated or neglected, although an independent
doctor pointed out that inadequate diet or poor prison conditions
may have contributed to his ill-health. The doctor also stated
that H B Sapkota appeared to have often been given "inappropriate
and ineffectual medical care". It is not clear to Amnesty
international whether a post-mortem was carried out and, if
so, what the outcome of it was.
A
government official has confirmed to Amnesty international
that the normal procedures for informing the next of kin go
a person who has died in custody were not followed in the
case of H B Sapkota. He stressed that local officials with
whom responsibility for this task apparently lay, have been
reprimanded.
In
discussions with Amnesty international, Bhutanese officials
recognized that prison conditions in the country are harsh
but argued that they should be measured against the general
level of poverty and welfare in the country. They also maintained
that the use of shackles was necessary as detention facilities
are not sufficiently secure to prevent escapes. However, Amnesty
international is concerned that the harsh conditions to which
prisoners were exposed were by no means simply due to a lack
of resources but also appeared to be in some respects the
result of deliberate government policy: the denial of access
to relatives, the ban on correspondence and the routine use
of shackles as a form of punishment, all of which are in contravention
of international human rights standards. For instance, Article
33 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
states "instruments of restraint, such as handcuffs,
chains or irons shall not be used as restraints." The
only exceptions to this rule are when instruments of restraint
are used as a precaution against escape during transfer, on
medical grounds by direction of a medical officer, or to prevent
a prisoner from infuring himself or others from damaging property.
Even then, Article 34 requires that "such instruments
must not be applied for any longer time than is strictly necessary".
Amnesty international has particularly the routine and punitive
use of shackles, may constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment. In mid-1992, it was informed that the government
had decided that the use of shackles should be abolished.
9.
GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
In
a continuing dialogue before, during and after Amnesty international's
visit to Bhutan in January 1992, the government has informed
the organization of a number of steps it has taken to remedy
certain human rights violations. Some of these steps, which
required changes in legislation, were recently discussed at
the 71st session of the National Assembly, which took place
between 16 October and 3 November 1992.
The
King had granted Amnesty to more than 1,500 political prisoners,
including five of the six people considered to be prisoners
of conscience by Amnesty international. In mid- 1992, Amnesty
international also learned that political prisoners held in
prisons throughout the country were to be given gigolo access
to their relatives and that their prison conditionals had
been improved, including by the provision of bedding. Unfortunately,
as the relatives of many prisoners, including Tek Nath Rizal,
are currently seeking asylum in Nepal, not many prisoners
have benefited of the granting of the right to have regular
visits from their relatives.
Amnesty
international in particular welcomes the government's initiative
to abolish the use of shackles. This decision was taken by
the cabined in mid-1992 and is currently being implemented
by the High Curt which has to amend the Prison Act accordingly.
Amnesty international to date has not been able to determine
whether local officials have yet received instructions to
cease using shckles, nor to obtain independent confirmation
of the abolition of shackles in practice.
During
talks with officials at the time of the Amnesty international
visit, the organization had stressed the need for the government
to demonstrate its commitment not to condone any violations
of human rights. In January 1992, the king sent a high-level
team led by the Home Minister to Chirang ad Dagana districts
of southern Bhutan to investigate allegations of forcible
evictions, beatings and rape. In its preliminary report to
the government, the team is reported to have included evidence
of forcible eviction and one case of rape in Goseling, Lapsibotey,
Chirang district. One local police officer was demoted immediately
after the visit. the report was forwarded to the Highs Court
which carried out its own investigation, and ordered the termination
forum government service of the local judge of Chirang and
the demotion of two local administrators. The report of the
investigations has to date not been made public; Amnesty international
understands it is being translated into English. It is not
clear whether any individual member of the security foresee
was brought to justice for the rape of the woman from Goseling.
At
the recent session of the National Assembly a draft for a
National Security Act was introduced. The Act is due to replace
the Law of Treason about which Amnesty international had repeatedly
expressed concern (see Chapter 6). the new Act as it stands
to date does no longer provide for mandatory death sentence
for acts of treason. Those found guilty can now be sentenced
to imprisonment for life or to death. The Act also defines
other specific offences such as undermining the security and
sovereignty of Bhutan by creating or attempting to create
hatred and disaffection among the people, creating misunderstanding
or hostility between the government and the people of Bhutan.
Promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity or hatred
between different religious, racial or language groups or
castes and communities, possession of a deadly Assembly members
found the penalties provided for certain offences listed in
the Act to be "inadequate". The Act was therefore
referred to the High Court, which was given to the cabinet
for final approval.
In
late November 1992. the government informed Amnesty international
that preparatory visit of a delegate from the ICRC had taken
place and that it had been decided that the first visit to
Bhutan by the ICRC would take place in January 1993. The government
also specified its intention to extend its full cooperation
to the ICRC on a long-term basis and that the international
agency would be free to visit Bhutan periodically.
10.
Summary of concerns and recommendations
Amnesty
international welcomes the measures taken by the government
so far to improve the human rights situation, as outlined
in Chapter 9, and believes that these initial steps must be
reinforced by the institutionalization of further safeguards
to ensure that there can be n continuation of human rights
violations.
It
draws to the government's attention a set of practical and
detailed safeguards of universal application which can provide
useful guidelines for the shaping of national legislation.
These include the United nations' Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment;
The standards Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners:
the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials. Amnesty
international recommends that these are made available to
all law enforcement personnel and are included in regular
training programs.
With
reference to these covenants and principles, Amnesty international
makes the following specific recommendations:
-that
Tek Nath Riza and all other prisoners of conscience be immediately
and unconditionally released;
-that
the government consider adopting measures contained in internationally
recognized human rights standards, which refer particularly
to prisoners who have been arbitrarily detained;
For
example, safeguards contained in the International Covenant
Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 (1), 92) and (3) state:
"1.
Everyone had the right to security and liberty of person.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds
and in accordance with such procedure as are established by
law.
2.
Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest,
of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed
of the charge against him.
3.
Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be
brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized
by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to
trial within a reasonable time or to release."
International
law obliges governments to protect all min. women and children
from torture and ill treatment and requires that allegations
of torture be promptly and impartially investigated. Thorough
investigation of all allegations and the prosecution of those
responsible sends a clear message that human rights violations
will not be tolerated and that those who commit such acts
will be held fully accountable.
Amnesty
international has elaborated a body of safeguards and remedies
against torture which it calls upon all governments to implement.
These include many of the recommendations made by the Human
Rights Committed in General Comment 7 (16) and others included
in the United nations convention Against Tourture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other
international human rights standards.
Amnesty
international recommends:
-
that torture be officially condemned at the highest levels,
including by the government and the heads of the security
forces;
- that effectives systems would be created where by members
of the security forces will be held accountable for acts of
torture, including rape;
-that Bhutan would consider prompt ratification of or accession
to the Convention Against Torture as another specific means
by which a government may demonstrate its commitment in this
regard both nationally and internationally;
Finally
while welcoming the government's decision to allow the ICRC
access to the country, Amnesty international recommends:
-that
the government allow the IRCR to develop a full program of
regular visits to all places of detention, to set up a program
of dissemination of information to members of the security
forces and provide medical assistance at the earliest opportunity.
AI
Index : ASA 14/04/92 Amnesty International December 1999
|
