SUMMARY
In
recent months, Amnesty International has received reports
of serious human rights violations in eastern Bhutan in the
context of campaigning activities by the Druk National Congress
(DNC). The DNC, a political party set up in exile in Nepal
in 1994, has been organizing grassroots campaigning activities
in Bhutan demanding a democratic system of government and
greater protection of and respect for human rights. The Government
of Bhutan views these demands as fomenting civil and political
unrest and promoting "anti-national" activities.
As a result, the authorities appear to have initiated a concerted
effort to crack down on people suspected of being members
or sympathisers of the DNC.
Amnesty International believes, based on the information available,
that more than 150 people have been arrested and that there
may be several prisoners of conscience among them. The large
majority of those arrested are members of the Sarchop
community. Among them are dozens of Buddhist monks and religious
teachers. Relatives of genuine or simply suspected political
activists have become themselves victims of human rights violations
as the authorities' repression takes its toll.
The human rights violations reported to Amnesty International
include: arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention without
charge or trial, including of possible prisoners of conscience;
incommunicado detention; and torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment in pre-trial detention.
In addition, the organization is concerned about unfair trial
procedures and conditions of detention amounting to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. Based on these reports, Amnesty
International believes that the Government of Bhutan has violated
some of the most basic human rights of its citizens and several
fundamental principles of international law.
The organization is urging the Government of Bhutan to implement
as a matter of priority a series of recommendations to make
the protection of and respect for human rights a reality throughout
Bhutan. For example, Amnesty International is calling on the
Government of Bhutan to immediately accede to -- without limiting
reservations -- and uphold the provisions of five fundamental
international human rights treaties: the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol; the
UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women and UN Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
This report summarizes a (8,167 words) document , BHUTAN:
Crack-down on "anti-nationals" in the east (AI Index:
ASA 14/01/98) issued by Amnesty International in January 1998.
Anyone wishing further details or to take actionon this issue
should consult the full document. AI-index: ASA 14/001/1998 01/01/1998
printer
friendly PDF format
(use the back button to return) If you do not have a PDF reader,
they are free from
adobe
AI Index: ASA 14/01/98
BHUTAN:
CRACK-DOWN
ON "ANTI-NATIONALS" IN THE EAST
Introduction
In recent months,
Amnesty International has received reports of serious human
rights violations in eastern Bhutan in the context of campaigning
activities by the Druk National Congress (DNC). The DNC, a
political party set up in exile in Nepal in 1994, has been
organizing grassroots campaigning activities in Bhutan demanding
a democratic system of government and greater protection of
and respect for human rights. The Government of Bhutan views
these demands as fomenting civil and political unrest and
promoting "anti-national" activities [1]. As a result,
the authorities appear to have initiated a concerted effort
to crack down on people suspected of being members or sympathisers
of the DNC.
The human rights violations reported to Amnesty International
include arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention without charge
or trial, including of possible prisoners of conscience [2].
The large majority of those arrested are members of the Sarchop
community. Among them are dozens of Buddhist monks and religious
teachers. Reports also indicate that relatives of genuine
or simply suspected political activists have themselves become
victims of human rights violations as the authorities' repression
takes its toll.
In addition, there have been reports of incommunicado detention
and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment in pre-trial detention. The organization is
also concerned about unfair trial procedures and conditions
of detention amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Based on these reports, Amnesty International believes that
the Government of Bhutan has violated some of the most basic
human rights of its citizens and several fundamental principles
of international law. Specifically, these include: a) the
prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention contained in
Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
and in a number of provisions of the United Nations (UN) Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Body of Principles); b)
the non-derogable prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment, a norm of customary
international law; and c) the entitlement to due process and
the presumption of innocence established in the UDHR and in
a number of provisions of the Body of Principles and in the
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
The Bhutanese authorities have in the past taken some steps
-- such as the ratification in 1990 of the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, the extension since 1992 of an invitation
to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to
visit the country periodically, as well as the cooperation
granted to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD)
during its visits in 1994 and 1996 [3] -- indicating some
willingness on their part to address human rights issues.
While welcoming these measures, Amnesty International considers
them to be only an initial step. The organization is urging
the Government of Bhutan to implement as a matter of priority
a series of recommendations to make the protection of and
respect for human rights a reality throughout Bhutan [4].
A draft of this report was submitted to the ambassador of
Bhutan in Geneva, Switzerland for comment prior to publication.
Despite repeated requests, no comments had been received by
the time the report went to print.
Background
Landlocked
Bhutan lies high in the mountains between the Himalayas and
the Ganges plain. It is ruled by an absolute monarch, King
Jigme Singye Wangchuck, and has no written constitution. The
population is made up of several ethnic groups [5]. The western
valleys are populated by the Ngalongs, one of the three
main ethnic groups, who are said to be of Tibetan origin and
are politically dominant. The Sarchops live primarily
in the east and are thought to be the most numerous. Both
are followers of the Mahayana school of Buddhism, but
generally the Ngalongs follow the Kargyupa tradition,
and the Sarchops follow the Nyingmpa tradition.
The ethnic Nepalese, the third main population group in the
country, are concentrated in the south. The large majority
of them are descendants of Nepali settlers who came to work
in the southern valleys in the late 19th and early 20th century.
They speak Nepali and most are Hindus. Today referred to as
Lhotshampas (literally translated as "people from
the south"), they mainly live in the Samchi, Chhukha,
Dagana, Chirang, Sarbhang and Samdrup Jonkhar districts. Overall,
the ethnic Nepalese made up an estimated third of the approximately
600,000 people living in Bhutan in the 1980s. Since 1958,
the government has introduced a series of measures to curbe
the influx of Nepali settlers and regularize citizenship and
naturalization procedures for immigrants and their descendants.
These measures have resulted in widespread protests among
the Nepali-speaking people in the south (see box).
Human
Rights violations affecting members of the Nepali-speaking
community
Amnesty International has longstanding concerns in Bhutan,
predominantly in relation to the authorities' treatment of
the Nepali-speaking population in the south of the country.
In 1988, the Bhutanese authorities launched a census in southern
Bhutan, which appeared to be designed to exclude a large number
of ethnic Nepalese from Bhutanese citizenship. The census
was combined with a series of highly unpopular measures requiring
ethnic Nepalese to adopt northern Bhutanese traditions and
culture. In September 1990, demonstrations quashed by the
authorities resulted in reports of widespread arrests, torture
and ill-treatment of ethnic Nepalese, branded by the government
as "anti-nationals". Thousands of people felt they
had no option but to flee to Nepal. Others were forced to
go into exile by the Bhutanese authorities. As
a result, there are currently more than 90,000 Bhutanese people,
almost exclusively of Nepalese ethnicity, living in camps
in eastern Nepal. Against this background of fear, repression
and exclusion, the government has attributed recent incidents
of armed robbery in southern Bhutan to those it also describes
as "anti-nationals" returning to Bhutan from the
refugee camps in Nepal.
For further details on human rights violations in southern
Bhutan in the early 1990s, please see:
"Bhutan: Human Rights Violations against the Nepali-speaking
Population in the South" (AI Index: ASA 14/04/92),
issued by Amnesty International in December 1992.
In addition, for further information about forcible exile,
please see "Bhutan: Forcible exile" (AI Index:
ASA 14/04/94), issued by Amnesty International in August 1994.
In 1994, Rongthong
Kunley Dorji, a member of the Sarchop community, founded
the DNC while in exile in Nepal. In the following years, the
DNC organized poster campaigns and other grassroots activities
inside Bhutan demanding political reform and greater respect
for human rights. In that context, a few people were reportedly
arrested. Among them was Tashi Norbu, a businessman from Phuntsholing.
He was detained for ten days in June 1995 after police raided
his home looking for posters that had been put up by sympathizers
of the DNC in May of that year.
In January 1997, the DNC and other political parties in exile,
mainly consisting of members of the Nepali-speaking community,
formed the United Front for Democracy (UFD) in Bhutan. Rongthong
Kunley Dorji was elected as its chairperson. In a joint declaration,
they reportedly stated their intention to "jointly undertake
the movement to remind the Royal Government of Bhutan on the
urgency to establish democracy in Bhutan" ( The Kathmandu
Post, 12 January 1997).
Arbitrary
arrest and detention
According
to reports received by Amnesty International, the Bhutanese
authorities appear to have recently engaged in a concerted
effort to repress and eradicate emerging demands for political
reform and greater respect for human rights in Bhutan. The
DNC has been spearheading such demands by organizing demonstrations,
sit-ins and other forms of campaigning, particularly in the
east of the country. This, in turn, has given rise, particularly
since late July 1997, to scores of arrests in the districts
of Mongar, Pema Gatshel, Samdrup Jonkhar, Tashi Yangtse and
Tashigang in eastern Bhutan. Amnesty International believes,
based on the information available, that more than 150 people
have been arrested and that there may be several prisoners
of conscience among them.
The large majority of those arrested appear to be members
of the Sarchop community. Among them are dozens of
Buddhist monks and religious teachers as well as women and
children. In addition, information received indicates that
the authorities have closed a few monasteries on suspicion
of being places where campaigning activities were organized.
As a result of the authorities' crack-down, Amnesty International
believes that a clear pattern is emerging whereby members
and sympathizers of the DNC as well as their relatives are
being arbitrarily arrested. In addition, having been denied
access to a jabmi [6], their families or a doctor,
many appear to be detained incommunicado without charge or
trial.
Information received indicates that, in a number of cases,
the families of those arrested were not able to establish
for several days -- in some instances even for weeks --the
place where their relatives where being held. For example,
it took at least ten days before the relatives of Rinzin Samdrup,
a 43-year-old religious coordinator arrested on 1 August 1997
by Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) officers in Chimung, Pema Gatshel
district, were able to establish that he had been taken into
custody.
It also appears that people attempting to inform others about
the recent spate of arrests were themselves taken into custody.
For instance, Sangay Phuntsho, a 29-year-old religious teacher
attached to Kheri Gompa Monastery in Pema Gatshel district,
was detained on 1 August 1997, reportedly for informing others
about the arrest from the same monastery on 27 July of his
colleague Kinzang Dorji. This appears to be consistent with
other reports that RBP officers have threatened people to
keep quiet about recent arrests or to face detention themselves.
In one instance, on 23 October 1997, twenty-six people were
arrested by the RBP in the Samdrup Jonkhar district, reportedly
solely for their participation in a peaceful demonstration
demanding democratic reforms and respect for human rights
in the country [7]. On 25 October, an article about their
arrest appeared in
Kuensel, Bhutan's
national newspaper. According to this source, the men "had
been apprehended for collaborating with ngolops in
Nepal". The
article continues by saying that a spokesman for the Samdrup
Jonkhar administration stated that "the persons who were
apprehended all admitted to having accepted money from the
ngolops in Nepal to instigate
the villagers of Gomdar .... the ngolop collaborators
had misled the people and attempted to create communal problems
and misunderstanding between the government and the people....".
Dozens of others were reportedly taken into custody in the
aftermath of a nation-wide poster campaign on 21 and 22 October.
Demonstrations and sit-ins held in various other parts of
the country around the same time have, in turn, resulted in
arrests. There have been reports that relatives of suspected
"anti-nationals" have been arrested in an apparent
attempt to force their next of kin to give themselves up.
For example, according to reports, Kinzang Chozom, a 25-year-old
woman, was arrested on 17 October 1997 by RBP and held in
incommunicado detention at Samdrup Jonkhar jail because the
Bhutanese authorities suspect her husband, Karma Dorji, of
being a DNC supporter [8]. In this connection, Amnesty International
has been informed that Karma Dorji was in hiding at the time
of his wife's arrest in order to avoid arrest himself. As
a result, it is conceivable that Kinzang Chozom was arrested
for her husband's suspected political activities. Karma Dorji
recently travelled to Nepal to publicize his wife's detention.
In another instance, in the aftermath of the campaigning activities
referred to above, Karje, Sangay Dorji, Pema Tenzin, Pema
Chhoje and Dungkar, were reportedly taken into custody and
detained at a temporary detention camp in Gomdar, in the Samdrup
Jonkhar district. Following their escape from the camp, the
RBP and the Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) have reportedly arrested
Daza, Karje's wife and their two-year-old daughter, Nima Oezer.
They also reportedly arrested Tshering Chhoezom, Sangay Dorji's
wife, together with Sangay Lhadon, their three-year-old daughter.
In addition, Pema Tenzin's wife, Sangay Lhamu, who is said
to be ill, has been ordered to report daily to the local police
station until her husband is found. It would appear that the
detention of Daza, Tshering Chhoezom and their daughters,
as well as the reported intimidation and harassment of Sangay
Lhamu, have been adopted by the authorities as reprisal measures
to force the escapees to give themselves up. In similar
circumstances in early November, it was reported that Karma
Geleg's hiding to avoid arrest had resulted in the taking
into custody of his wife, Ngagi and their one-year-old daughter,
Chhimi Wangmo.
"[T]he
working group found that in many instances persons had been
detained for years without having been charged and persons
who had been charged had not been brought before a judge for
trial. In most instances, those charged did not know when
they might be tried." [9].
The above quote is an excerpt from the report of the UN WGAD
submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The report
was compiled in the light of the findings of the WGAD during
its initial visit to Bhutan in October 1994. Following an
invitation from the Government of Bhutan, a second visit took
place in April-May 1996. The main objective of this second
"follow-up" visit was "to ensure implementation
of the recommendations made by the Group during the previous
visit". Nearly two years after its initial visit, the
WGAD found that:
"[t]he institution of
Jabmi [10] appears to be insufficiently known
by the people. The function should therefore be popularized
....Based on the registers of the status of detainees in the
Thimphu District Prison (52) and the Chamgang Central Jail
(153), none of them has been assisted by a Jabmi...."[11].
Against this background, Amnesty International continues to
receive reports that in the past few months dozens of people
have been taken into custody by law enforcement officials
and detained in incommunicado detention without charge or
trial. In many instances, those arrested have reported being
told that they were being arrested because of their support
and/or membership of "anti-national" organizations.
In some instances, government opponents are reportedly being
charged with vaguely defined offences such as sedition and
subversion under the National Security Act 1992. For example,
information received indicates that Taw Tshering, Tshampa
Wangchuck, Tshampa Ngawang Tenzin and Chhipon Samten Lhendup,
four DNC members -- reportedly tortured by police shortly
after their arrest in eastern Bhutan in early February 1997
-- have been serving sentences at Tashi Yangtshi prison since
being convicted on sedition charges [12]. Allegedly, they
were tried and convicted without having had access to a
jabmi. In addition, they were not always allowed to attend
the criminal proceedings. As a result, their ability to defend
themselves may have been seriously hampered. Attendance at
such proceedings is part and parcel of the internationally
recognized right to a fair trial.
"Anti-national" activities are offences under the
National Security Act 1992, and carry long mandatory prison
sentences. The provisions of this act, however, do not provide
a clear definition of what constitutes an "anti-national"
activity. Conversely, the National Security Act 1992, establishes
a very loose definition of what constitutes an offence under
its provisions. For instance, clause 4 states that "whoever
engages in treasonable acts .... shall be punished with death
or imprisonment for life". Another example of the vaguely
defined grounds on which the act provides for the imposition
of very harsh sentencing is clause 7, which reads as follows:
"[w]hoever by words either spoken or written, or by any
other means whatsoever, undermines or attempts to undermine
the security and sovereignty of Bhutan by creating or attempting
to create hatred and disaffection among the people shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to ten years".
Given that the nature and scope of the charges under the National
Security Act 1992 are usually extremely general and vague,
the ability of the defence to prepare its case is significantly
hampered.
Reports
of torture and ill-treatment
In
addition to arbitrary arrest and detention in eastern Bhutan,
several instances of torture and ill-treatment in police custody
-- because of people's direct or suspected involvement in
so-called "anti-national" activities -- have been
reported recently. According to information received, people
are being tortured and/or ill-treated in the immediate aftermath
of their arrest. The victims and/or their relatives have informed
Amnesty International that the apparent intention behind the
infliction of torture and ill-treatment on detainees is threefold:
1) to punish; 2) to deter those on whom it is inflicted and/or
others; and 3) to extract either self-incriminating information
or to obtain details about other people suspected by authorities
of "anti-national" activities.
In
one instance, four members of the DNC were reportedly tortured
and ill-treated by police shortly after their arrest in eastern
Bhutan in early February 1997. The four, Taw Tshering, Tshampa
Wangchuck, Tshampa Ngawang Tenzin and Chhipon Samten Lhendup,
have since been convicted in proceedings that fell short of
internationally recognized fair trial guarantees and are currently
serving sentences at Tashi Yangtshi prison in eastern Bhutan
[13]. According to a relative of one of them, they were held
completely naked for one week in very low temperatures.
Dorji Norbu, Kunga, Dorji Tshewang and Namkha Dorji
were reportedly arrested on 10 September 1997 in Pema
Gatshel district and subsequently taken to Pema Gatshel police
station. Reportedly, in the aftermath of their arrest, they
were held in shackles and subjected to daily public floggings
with willow and other branches in the court yard of the police
station in front of members of the public and a number of
relatives. At the time, eye-witnesses were reportedly told
by those inflicting such punishment that flogging was the
standard punishment against government opponents.
Thinley, Sangay Tenzin, Druki and Ugen Wangdi, who were among
26 people arrested by the RBP in Samdrup Jonkhar district
on 23 October 1997 (see above), were reportedly subjected
to chepuwa, a form of torture in which the thighs are
pressed between two rods. They have reported that while being
tortured they were told that should their "anti-national"
activities not cease forthwith upon their release they would
be subjected to further torture. Additional information received,
indicates that -- at the time of arrest -- 14 of the 26 arrested
on 23 October had their hands tied with bow strings in such
a way as to cause excruciating pain. Reportedly -- while being
tied in such a manner -- they were also made to look for other
activists who had gone into hiding to escape arrest. In this
connection, reports indicate that they were threatened that
failure to find the escapees would result in further punishment.
On 26 October, Layda, a man from the village Pangthang in
the Samdrup Jonkhar district, was also reportedly arrested
by a group of RBA and RBP personnel. According to reports,
he was subjected to chepuwa which -- at the time --
resulted in his losing control over his bowel movements and
involuntary urination.
In another instance, according to reports, Kinzang
Chozom, was held in incommunicado detention at Samdrup Jonkhar
jail and denied access to adequate medical care despite being
in the final stages of pregnancy [14]. Reportedly, while in
detention, she was also not allowed to see her four-year-old
daughter. Recently received information indicates that Kinzang
Chozom was released from detention at the beginning of November
1997. She has now given birth though it is unknown whether
the birth took place during her detention or subsequent to
her release. With respect to Kinzang Chozom's detention conditions,
Amnesty International has expressed concern that they could
amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In late October
1997, another man, by the name of Dhendup, who had admitted
to being a DNC supporter, was reportedly beaten about the
head with the butt of a rifle by a RBA officer resulting in
bleeding. He was not arrested, but was told to keep quiet
about the incident. He has since left the country.
DNC
and UFD leader, Rongthong Kunley Dorji: another Tek Nath Rizal?
Rongthong
Kunley Dorji, the founder of the DNC and the chairperson of
the UFD, is currently in detention at Tihar jail, New Delhi,
India, awaiting the outcome of extradition proceedings to
Bhutan. He was arrested in New Delhi on 18 April 1997 following
receipt by the Indian authorities of an extradition request
from the Government of Bhutan. Rongthong Kunley Dorji left
Bhutan in 1991 and went to live in Kathmandu, Nepal, where
he was registered as a person seeking political asylum by
the Ministry of Home Affairs. In addition, the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees has stated that it considers him as a person
of concern.
Rongthong
Kunley Dorji was first arrested in Bhutan in May 1991 on charges
of treason in connection with his support for the Nepali-speaking
southern Bhutanese during demonstrations in 1990. While in
detention, Rongthong Kunley Dorji was reportedly tortured
by members of the Royal Bhutan Bodyguards. He claims that
he was subjected to chepuwa; submerged in a drum full
of water until he nearly drowned; and beaten with sticks and
fists all over his body. The King of Bhutan "pardoned"
him on 5 July 1991. It was soon after this that Rongthong
Kunley Dorji left the country.
The charges featured in the arrest warrants issued
by the Bhutanese authorities --which form the basis of the
extradition request -- appear to be politically motivated.
They were apparently only framed after Rongthong Kunley Dorji
had set up the DNC, nearly three years after he had left the
country. In addition, several statements by the Bhutanese
Minister of Home Affairs suggest that Rongthong Kunley Dorji's
political activities are the main reason for issuing the warrants.
For instance, in August 1995, the Minister was reported in
Kuensel, as having informed the National Assembly (the
Parliament of Bhutan) that "Rongthong Kunley Dorji had
embarked on an all out effort to incite unrest among different
sections of the Bhutanese society and to discredit Bhutan's
image". In this connection, during recent sessions of
the National Assembly, the Minister stated that Rongthong
Kunley Dorji "had violated the laws of the land and should
appear before a court of law to prove his innocence".
The crimes of which he has been accused include failure to
repay loans and "anti-national" activities under
the National Security Act 1992. According to a letter of 12
February 1997 by the Minister of Home Affairs forwarding the
warrant of arrest for Rongthong Kunley Dorji to the Ambassador
of India in Bhutan, his extradition is sought in relation
to charges of "fraud and non-payment of numerous loans
and dues owed by him to financial institutions, government
organisations and private parties." The letter, however,
continues by stating: "Since absconding from Bhutan he
has been engaged in conspiracy and unlawful activities against
the State for which he is required for prosecution",
thereby confirming the political nature, at least in part,
of the extradition request.
In addition, in May 1997, a new extradition agreement
with India, effectively providing for, among other things,
extradition of anyone requested by either of the parties to
the agreement, entered into force [15]. Given a) the very
broad definition of what constitutes an extraditable offence
established in the extradition agreement; b) its timing; and
c) the fact that the two governments have agreed that this
instrument would have retroactive application, questions have
been raised as to whether securing Rongthong Kunley Dorji's
extradition was, in fact, one of the main purposes for such
an agreement in the first place.
In this context, serious concern arises with respect to the
fairness of any legal proceeding initiated against Rongthong
Kunley Dorji, should he be extradited to Bhutan. In addition,
recent reports of torture and ill-treatment of sympathizers
of the DNC and/or UFD (see above) have heightened the fear
that -- if returned to Bhutan -- Rongthong Kunley Dorji may
again be tortured. The
plight of Rongthong Kunley Dorji is reminiscent of the treatment
by the Government of Bhutan of Tek Nath Rizal. Tek Nath Rizal,
a southern Bhutanese national, was an elected member of Bhutan's
National Assembly from 1975 to 1985. In 1985, he was appointed
to serve on the nine-member Royal Advisory Council and in
1988 as a member of the Royal Audit Commission. As a result
of petitioning the King to seek a review of the manner in
which the census was carried out [16] , he was first arrested
in mid-1988. He was released after three days, after signing
an agreement barring him from attending public functions and
on condition that he left the capital, Thimphu. He was expelled
from the Royal Advisory Council on the grounds of spreading
false allegations and inciting southern Bhutanese against
the government. After being released, Tek Nath Rizal went
into exile in Nepal in 1989 where he continued to campaign
for the rights of the ethnic Nepali minority in Bhutan and
for an end to discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. There,
he helped set up the People's Forum for Human Rights,
which distributed leaflets and booklets on the situation in
southern Bhutan.
Tek Nath Rizal was taken into custody in eastern Nepal in
November 1989 and handed over to the Bhutanese authorities
at Kathmandu airport without any judicial process. Back in
Bhutan, he and five other men were accused of organizing a
campaign of violent civil disobedience and held in solitary
confinement. Tek Nath Rizal was held in shackles for 20 months.
The five others were later released, but Tek Nath Rizal remained
in detention. He was tried in 1993 on charges including treason
and "sowing communal discord" between different
communities. After a 10-month trial he was sentenced to life
imprisonment. The King announced that Tek Nath Rizal would
be pardoned once the problem of the people in the camps in
Nepal was resolved, but years later, Tek Nath Rizal is still
in jail.
Amnesty
International's conclusions
According
to reports received by Amnesty International, the Bhutanese
authorities appear to have recently engaged in a concerted
effort to repress and eradicate emerging demands for political
reform and greater respect for human rights in Bhutan. The
DNC has been spearheading such demands by organizing demonstrations,
sit-ins and other forms of campaigning, particularly in the
east of the country. This, in turn, has given rise, particularly
since late July 1997, to scores of arrests in the districts
of Mongar, Pema Gatshel, Samdrup Jonkhar, Tashi Yangtse and
Tashigang in eastern Bhutan. Amnesty International believes,
based on the information available, that more than 150 people
have been arrested and that there may be several prisoners
of conscience among them.
The
large majority of those arrested appear to be members of the
Sarchop community. Among them are dozens of Buddhist monks
and religious teachers as well as women and children. In addition,
information received indicates that the authorities have closed
a few monasteries on suspicion of being places where campaigning
activities were organized.
As
a result of the authorities' crack-down, Amnesty International
believes that a clear pattern is emerging whereby members
and sympathizers of the DNC as well as their relatives are
being arbitrarily arrested. In addition, having been denied
access to a jabmi [6], their families or a doctor, many appear
to be detained incommunicado without charge or trial.
Information
received indicates that, in a number of cases, the families
of those arrested were not able to establish for several days
-- in some instances even for weeks --the place where their
relatives where being held. For example, it took at least
ten days before the relatives of Rinzin Samdrup, a 43-year-old
religious coordinator arrested on 1 August 1997 by Royal Bhutan
Police (RBP) officers in Chimung, Pema Gatshel district, were
able to establish that he had been taken into custody.
It
also appears that people attempting to inform others about
the recent spate of arrests were themselves taken into custody.
For instance, Sangay Phuntsho, a 29-year-old religious teacher
attached to Kheri Gompa Monastery in Pema Gatshel district,
was detained on 1 August 1997, reportedly for informing others
about the arrest from the same monastery on 27 July of his
colleague Kinzang Dorji. This appears to be consistent with
other reports that RBP officers have threatened people to
keep quiet about recent arrests or to face detention themselves.
In
one instance, on 23 October 1997, twenty-six people were arrested
by the RBP in the Samdrup Jonkhar district, reportedly solely
for their participation in a peaceful demonstration demanding
democratic reforms and respect for human rights in the country
[7]. On 25 October, an article about their arrest appeared
in Kuensel, Bhutan's national newspaper. According to this
source, the men "had been apprehended for collaborating
with ngolops in Nepal". The article continues by saying
that a spokesman for the Samdrup Jonkhar administration stated
that "the persons who were apprehended all admitted to
having accepted money from the ngolops in Nepal to instigate
the villagers of Gomdar .... the ngolop collaborators had
misled the people and attempted to create communal problems
and misunderstanding between the government and the people....".
Dozens
of others were reportedly taken into custody in the aftermath
of a nation-wide poster campaign on 21 and 22 October. Demonstrations
and sit-ins held in various other parts of the country around
the same time have, in turn, resulted in arrests. There
have been reports that relatives of suspected "anti-nationals"
have been arrested in an apparent attempt to force their next
of kin to give themselves up. For example, according to reports,
Kinzang Chozom, a 25-year-old woman, was arrested on 17 October
1997 by RBP and held in incommunicado detention at Samdrup
Jonkhar jail because the Bhutanese authorities suspect her
husband, Karma Dorji, of being a DNC supporter [8]. In this
connection, Amnesty International has been informed that Karma
Dorji was in hiding at the time of his wife's arrest in order
to avoid arrest himself. As a result, it is conceivable that
Kinzang Chozom was arrested for her husband's suspected political
activities. Karma Dorji recently travelled to Nepal to publicize
his wife's detention.
In
another instance, in the aftermath of the campaigning activities
referred to above, Karje, Sangay Dorji, Pema Tenzin, Pema
Chhoje and Dungkar, were reportedly taken into custody and
detained at a temporary detention camp in Gomdar, in the Samdrup
Jonkhar district. Following their escape from the camp, the
RBP and the Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) have reportedly arrested
Daza, Karje's wife and their two-year-old daughter, Nima Oezer.
They also reportedly arrested Tshering Chhoezom, Sangay Dorji's
wife, together with Sangay Lhadon, their three-year-old daughter.
In addition, Pema Tenzin's wife, Sangay Lhamu, who is said
to be ill, has been ordered to report daily to the local police
station until her husband is found. It would appear that the
detention of Daza, Tshering Chhoezom and their daughters,
as well as the reported intimidation and harassment of Sangay
Lhamu, have been adopted by the authorities as reprisal measures
to force the escapees to give themselves up. In similar
circumstances in early November, it was reported that Karma
Geleg's hiding to avoid arrest had resulted in the taking
into custody of his wife, Ngagi and their one-year-old daughter,
Chhimi Wangmo.
Unfair
trial procedures
"[T]he working group found that in many instances persons
had been detained for years without having been charged and
persons who had been charged had not been brought before a
judge for trial. In most instances, those charged did not
know when they might be tried." [9].
The above quote is an excerpt from the report of the UN WGAD
submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The report
was compiled in the light of the findings of the WGAD during
its initial visit to Bhutan in October 1994. Following an
invitation from the Government of Bhutan, a second visit took
place in April-May 1996. The main objective of this second
"follow-up" visit was "to ensure implementation
of the recommendations made by the Group during the previous
visit". Nearly two years after its initial visit, the
WGAD found that:
"The institution of Jabmi [10]
appears to be insufficiently known by the people. The function
should therefore be popularized ....Based on the registers
of the status of detainees in the Thimphu District Prison
(52) and the Chamgang Central Jail (153), none of them has
been assisted by a Jabmi...."[11]. Against this background,
Amnesty International continues to receive reports that in
the past few months dozens of people have been taken into
custody by law enforcement officials and detained in incommunicado
detention without charge or trial. In many instances, those
arrested have reported being told that they were being arrested
because of their support and/or membership of "anti-national"
organizations. In some instances, government opponents are
reportedly being charged with vaguely defined offences such
as sedition and subversion under the National Security Act
1992. For example, information received indicates that Taw
Tshering, Tshampa Wangchuck, Tshampa Ngawang Tenzin and Chhipon
Samten Lhendup, four DNC members -- reportedly tortured by
police shortly after their arrest in eastern Bhutan in early
February 1997 -- have been serving sentences at Tashi Yangtshi
prison since being convicted on sedition charges [12]. Allegedly,
they were tried and convicted without having had access to
a jabmi. In addition, they were not always allowed to attend
the criminal proceedings. As a result, their ability to defend
themselves may have been seriously hampered. Attendance at
such proceedings is part and parcel of the internationally
recognized right to a fair trial.
"Anti-national"
activities are offences under the National Security Act 1992,
and carry long mandatory prison sentences. The provisions
of this act, however, do not provide a clear definition of
what constitutes an "anti-national" activity. Conversely,
the National Security Act 1992, establishes a very loose definition
of what constitutes an offence under its provisions. For instance,
clause 4 states that "whoever engages in treasonable
acts .... shall be punished with death or imprisonment for
life". Another example of the vaguely defined grounds
on which the act provides for the imposition of very harsh
sentencing is clause 7, which reads as follows: "[w]hoever
by words either spoken or written, or by any other means whatsoever,
undermines or attempts to undermine the security and sovereignty
of Bhutan by creating or attempting to create hatred and disaffection
among the people shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to ten years". Given that the nature
and scope of the charges under the National Security Act 1992
are usually extremely general and vague, the ability of the
defence to prepare its case is significantly hampered.
Reports
of torture and ill-treatment
In addition to arbitrary arrest and detention in eastern Bhutan,
several instances of torture and ill-treatment in police custody
-- because of people's direct or suspected involvement in
so-called "anti-national" activities -- have been
reported recently. According to information received, people
are being tortured and/or ill-treated in the immediate aftermath
of their arrest. The victims and/or their relatives have informed
Amnesty International that the apparent intention behind the
infliction of torture and ill-treatment on detainees is threefold:
1) to punish; 2) to deter those on whom it is inflicted and/or
others; and 3) to extract either self-incriminating information
or to obtain details about other people suspected by authorities
of "anti-national" activities.
In one instance, four members of the DNC were reportedly tortured
and ill-treated by police shortly after their arrest in eastern
Bhutan in early February 1997. The four, Taw Tshering, Tshampa
Wangchuck, Tshampa Ngawang Tenzin and Chhipon Samten Lhendup,
have since been convicted in proceedings that fell short of
internationally recognized fair trial guarantees and are currently
serving sentences at Tashi Yangtshi prison in eastern Bhutan
[13]. According to a relative of one of them, they were held
completely naked for one week in very low temperatures.
Dorji Norbu, Kunga, Dorji Tshewang and Namkha Dorji were reportedly
arrested on 10 September 1997 in Pema Gatshel district and
subsequently taken to Pema Gatshel police station. Reportedly,
in the aftermath of their arrest, they were held in shackles
and subjected to daily public floggings with willow and other
branches in the court yard of the police station in front
of members of the public and a number of relatives. At the
time, eye-witnesses were reportedly told by those inflicting
such punishment that flogging was the standard punishment
against government opponents.
Thinley, Sangay Tenzin, Druki and Ugen Wangdi, who were among
26 people arrested by the RBP in Samdrup Jonkhar district
on 23 October 1997 (see above), were reportedly subjected
to chepuwa, a form of torture in which the thighs are pressed
between two rods. They have reported that while being tortured
they were told that should their "anti-national"
activities not cease forthwith upon their release they would
be subjected to further torture. Additional information received,
indicates that -- at the time of arrest -- 14 of the 26 arrested
on 23 October had their hands tied with bow strings in such
a way as to cause excruciating pain. Reportedly -- while being
tied in such a manner -- they were also made to look for other
activists who had gone into hiding to escape arrest. In this
connection, reports indicate that they were threatened that
failure to find the escapees would result in further punishment.
On 26 October, Layda, a man from the village Pangthang in
the Samdrup Jonkhar district, was also reportedly arrested
by a group of RBA and RBP personnel. According to reports,
he was subjected to chepuwa which -- at the time -- resulted
in his losing control over his bowel movements and involuntary
urination. In another instance, according to reports,
Kinzang Chozom, was held in incommunicado detention at Samdrup
Jonkhar jail and denied access to adequate medical care despite
being in the final stages of pregnancy [14]. Reportedly, while
in detention, she was also not allowed to see her four-year-old
daughter. Recently received information indicates that Kinzang
Chozom was released from detention at the beginning of November
1997. She has now given birth though it is unknown whether
the birth took place during her detention or subsequent to
her release. With respect to Kinzang Chozom's detention conditions,
Amnesty International has expressed concern that they could
amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In late October
1997, another man, by the name of Dhendup, who had admitted
to being a DNC supporter, was reportedly beaten about the
head with the butt of a rifle by a RBA officer resulting in
bleeding. He was not arrested, but was told to keep quiet
about the incident. He has since left the country.
DNC and UFD leader, Rongthong Kunley Dorji: another Tek Nath
Rizal?
Rongthong
Kunley Dorji, the founder of the DNC and the chairperson of
the UFD, is currently in detention at Tihar jail, New Delhi,
India, awaiting the outcome of extradition proceedings to
Bhutan. He was arrested in New Delhi on 18 April 1997 following
receipt by the Indian authorities of an extradition request
from the Government of Bhutan. Rongthong Kunley Dorji left
Bhutan in 1991 and went to live in Kathmandu, Nepal, where
he was registered as a person seeking political asylum by
the Ministry of Home Affairs. In addition, the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees has stated that it considers him as a person
of concern.
Rongthong Kunley Dorji was first arrested in Bhutan in May
1991 on charges of treason in connection with his support
for the Nepali-speaking southern Bhutanese during demonstrations
in 1990. While in detention, Rongthong Kunley Dorji was reportedly
tortured by members of the Royal Bhutan Bodyguards. He claims
that he was subjected to chepuwa; submerged in a drum full
of water until he nearly drowned; and beaten with sticks and
fists all over his body. The King of Bhutan "pardoned"
him on 5 July 1991. It was soon after this that Rongthong
Kunley Dorji left the country. The charges featured
in the arrest warrants issued by the Bhutanese authorities
--which form the basis of the extradition request -- appear
to be politically motivated. They were apparently only framed
after Rongthong Kunley Dorji had set up the DNC, nearly three
years after he had left the country. In addition, several
statements by the Bhutanese Minister of Home Affairs suggest
that Rongthong Kunley Dorji's political activities are the
main reason for issuing the warrants. For instance, in August
1995, the Minister was reported in Kuensel, as having informed
the National Assembly (the Parliament of Bhutan) that "Rongthong
Kunley Dorji had embarked on an all out effort to incite unrest
among different sections of the Bhutanese society and to discredit
Bhutan's image". In this connection, during recent sessions
of the National Assembly, the Minister stated that Rongthong
Kunley Dorji "had violated the laws of the land and should
appear before a court of law to prove his innocence".
The crimes of which he has been accused include failure to
repay loans and "anti-national" activities under
the National Security Act 1992. According to a letter of 12
February 1997 by the Minister of Home Affairs forwarding the
warrant of arrest for Rongthong Kunley Dorji to the Ambassador
of India in Bhutan, his extradition is sought in relation
to charges of "fraud and non-payment of numerous loans
and dues owed by him to financial institutions, government
organisations and private parties." The letter, however,
continues by stating: "Since absconding from Bhutan he
has been engaged in conspiracy and unlawful activities against
the State for which he is required for prosecution",
thereby confirming the political nature, at least in part,
of the extradition request. In addition, in May 1997,
a new extradition agreement with India, effectively providing
for, among other things, extradition of anyone requested by
either of the parties to the agreement, entered into force
[15]. Given a) the very broad definition of what constitutes
an extraditable offence established in the extradition agreement;
b) its timing; and c) the fact that the two governments have
agreed that this instrument would have retroactive application,
questions have been raised as to whether securing Rongthong
Kunley Dorji's extradition was, in fact, one of the main purposes
for such an agreement in the first place.
In this context, serious concern arises with respect to the
fairness of any legal proceeding initiated against Rongthong
Kunley Dorji, should he be extradited to Bhutan. In addition,
recent reports of torture and ill-treatment of sympathizers
of the DNC and/or UFD (see above) have heightened the fear
that -- if returned to Bhutan -- Rongthong Kunley Dorji may
again be tortured. The plight of Rongthong Kunley Dorji
is reminiscent of the treatment by the Government of Bhutan
of Tek Nath Rizal. Tek Nath Rizal, a southern Bhutanese national,
was an elected member of Bhutan's National Assembly from 1975
to 1985. In 1985, he was appointed to serve on the nine-member
Royal Advisory Council and in 1988 as a member of the Royal
Audit Commission. As a result of petitioning the King to seek
a review of the manner in which the census was carried out
[16] , he was first arrested in mid-1988. He was released
after three days, after signing an agreement barring him from
attending public functions and on condition that he left the
capital, Thimphu. He was expelled from the Royal Advisory
Council on the grounds of spreading false allegations and
inciting southern Bhutanese against the government. After
being released, Tek Nath Rizal went into exile in Nepal in
1989 where he continued to campaign for the rights of the
ethnic Nepali minority in Bhutan and for an end to discrimination
on the basis of ethnicity. There, he helped set up the People's
Forum for Human Rights, which distributed leaflets and booklets
on the situation in southern Bhutan.
Tek Nath Rizal was taken into custody in eastern Nepal in
November 1989 and handed over to the Bhutanese authorities
at Kathmandu airport without any judicial process. Back in
Bhutan, he and five other men were accused of organizing a
campaign of violent civil disobedience and held in solitary
confinement. Tek Nath Rizal was held in shackles for 20 months.
The five others were later released, but Tek Nath Rizal remained
in detention. He was tried in 1993 on charges including treason
and "sowing communal discord" between different
communities. After a 10-month trial he was sentenced to life
imprisonment. The King announced that Tek Nath Rizal would
be pardoned once the problem of the people in the camps in
Nepal was resolved, but years later, Tek Nath Rizal is still
in jail.
Amnesty International's conclusions
Amnesty International welcomes several measures taken by the
authorities to implement the recommendations of the UN WGAD
after its visits to the country in 1994 and 1996. These include
a program of training for 30 jabmis under the auspices of
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) [17]. The
organization is further encouraged by the statement made at
the opening of a training program by Dasho Sonam Tobgye, the
Bhutanese Chief Justice, that "[t]he values of human
rights are an integral part of Bhutanese tradition and they
are fully incorporated into our laws". Amnesty
International also welcomes the news reported in Kuensel of
18 October 1997 that 20 police officers from different parts
of the country have completed a five-day course on "human
rights and law enforcement" held in Thimphu under the
auspices of the UN HCHR. The organization also notes the statement
made at the inauguration of the course by the Home Minister,
Lyonpo Dago Tshering, who was reported as having said that
"the relevant provisions in Bhutanese law were similar
to those provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights to which Bhutan fully subscribed." [18]. However,
Amnesty International remains concerned about the recently
reported serious deterioration in the human rights situation
in the country, particularly in the east. On the basis of
the information received, the organization believes that the
Bhutanese authorities have not fulfilled their obligation
under international human rights law and the specific undertaking
made to the UN WGAD that prisoners' rights would be fully
observed [19].
Based on recent reports that dozens of people have been taken
into custody and are currently held without charge or trial
and that many of them appear to have been denied access to
a jabmi, Amnesty International believes that their detention
violates a number of provisions contained in international
standards such as Article 9 of the UDHR which prohibits arbitrary
arrest and detention [20].
In addition, in the light of the numerous reports of incommunicado
detention received, Amnesty International believes that by
ordering, tolerating or condoning this practice, the Bhutanese
authorities have violated a number of provisions relating
to a detainee's access to her or his family contained in international
standards such as the UN Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
(the Body of Principles) [21].
There is growing concern that the authorities have framed
vague charges -- such as sedition and subversion -- against
suspected government opponents charging them under the National
Security Act 1992. Amnesty International believes that the
National Security Act 1992 facilitates arbitrary arrest and
detention and politically motivated prosecutions of possible
prisoners of conscience. The Act clearly contravenes basic
rights established in international human rights standards,
especially the right to liberty and security of the person,
to fair trial, and to freedom of expression. By lending itself
to abuse such as arbitrary arrest and detention, the Act,
in turn, facilitates the violation of other fundamental human
rights, such the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
With respect to this, it is noteworthy to recall resolution
1997/38 adopted in April 1997 by the UN Commission on Human
Rights. The resolution in point reminded "all States
that prolonged incommunicado detention may facilitate the
perpetration of torture and can in itself constitute a form
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" [22]. In addition,
Nigel Rodley, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, in his
report to the 50th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights
stated that "[t]orture is most frequently practised during
incommunicado detention....." [23].
Amnesty International is very concerned about the reports
of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment in pre-trial detention. Torture and cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment are clearly prohibited
by Article 5 of the UDHR, which reads as follows: "[n]o
one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment." [24].
Principle 1 of the Body of Principles states that "[a]ll
persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall
be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person." In addition, Principle
6 states that: "[n]o person under any form of detention
or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance
whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Principle 21(2) also states that " [n]o detained person
while being interrogated shall be subject to violence, threats
or methods of interrogation which impair his capacity of decision
or judgement."
With respect to the case of Rongthong Kunley Dorji, Amnesty
International is concerned that, if returned to Bhutan, Rongthong
Kunley Dorji may again be tortured. Concern also arises about
the fairness of any legal proceedings against Rongthong Kunley
Dorji, should he be extradited to Bhutan. As far as
Tek Nath Rizal is concerned, the organization believes him
to be a prisoner of conscience imprisoned after speaking out
for the rights of the ethnic Nepalese community in Bhutan,
and therefore, solely for the peaceful exercise of the right
to freedom of expression.
Amnesty International is also concerned that, despite the
government's undertaking that the use of shackles would be
abolished, [25] it continues to receive reports that people
have been held in shackles and that others have had their
hands tied for long periods of time. The organization believes
these practices are not in keeping with a) the right to be
treated with humanity and respect for human dignity; b) the
non-derogable prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment; and c) the requirement
that force be used only when and to the extent strictly necessary,
which are all contained in international human rights standards.
In addition, according to such standards, restraints shall
not be used as punishment or be applied for any time longer
than is strictly necessary.
In the light of reports that people have been denied access
to a doctor and/or to adequate medical care, Amnesty International
wishes to emphasize that the right of any person held under
any form of detention or imprisonment to adequate medical
care is enshrined in international standards such as the UDHR,
the UN Body of Principles and the UN Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners. In addition, international
standards such as the UN Code of Conduct impose on law enforcement
officials the responsibility of the full protection of the
health of people in their custody. Amnesty International believes
that denial of adequate medical care may constitute cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.
Amnesty International's recommendations
Amnesty
International urges the Government of Bhutan to immediately
accede to -- without limiting reservations -- and implement
the following international human rights treaties:
the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its
(First) Optional Protocol;
the
UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or
Punishment;
the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination;
the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women;
UN
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967
Protocol.
In
addition, as a matter of priority, the Bhutanese authorities
should:
release
Tek Nath Rizal immediately and unconditionally;
release
any detainee unless promptly charged with a recognizably criminal
offence;
ensure
fair trials for political prisoners;
immediately
end torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officers;
promptly
institute thorough and impartial investigations into reports
of torture and ill-treatment;
bring
to justice those members of the security forces suspected
of being responsible for unlawful
actions
or misconduct;
ensure
that adequate medical care is granted to any person under
any form of detention or imprisonment who so requires;
amend
the National Security Act 1992 to ensure its compliance with
internationally recognized fair trial guarantees;
ensure
that all detainees are brought before a judicial authority
without delay after being taken into
custody;
ensure
that detainees have prompt and regular access to a jabmi,
as well as their family;
ensure
that effective judicial remedies are available which enable
relatives and jabmis to find out immediately where a detainee
is held and under what authority, to guarantee her or his
safety, and to obtain the release of anyone arbitrarily detained;
grant
permission to the ICRC to continue its program of regular
visits in Thimphu and to be allowed to develop a similar program
in other parts of the country, including the east. Furthermore,
the ICRC should be allowed to develop a program of dissemination
of information on humanitarian rules and principles to members
of the RBA and RBP;
repeal
the new extradition agreement with India which came into force
in May 1997.
With
respect to the issue of conditions of detention, Amnesty International
is urging the Government of Bhutan to comply with the requirements
of international standards relating to detention conditions
so as to ensure that incarceration regimes do not amount to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Such
standards include the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners and the UN Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
In
addition, the authorities must take special steps to address
the specific needs of women and children in detention which
must comply in letter and spirit with the provisions of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- which Bhutan has
ratified. With respect to this, the organization is urging
the government to adopt the following specific recommendation.
Provide
all women under any form of detention or imprisonment with
adequate medical treatment, denial of which can constitute
ill-treatment, including all necessary pre-natal and post-natal
care and treatment for women in custody and their infants.
Appendix 1
UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Excerpts)
Principle 2
Arrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and
by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose.
Principle 4
Any form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting
the human rights of a person under any form of detention or
imprisonment shall be ordered by, or be subject to the effective
control of, a judicial or other authority.
Principle 9
The authorities which arrest a person, keep him under detention
or investigate the case shall exercise only the powers granted
to them under the law and the exercise of these powers shall
be subject to recourse to a judicial or other authority.
Principle 10
Anyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time of his
arrest of the reason for his arrest and shall be promptly
informed of any charges against him.
Principle 11
A
person shall not be kept in detention without being given
an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial
or other authority. A detained person shall have the right
to defend himself or to be assisted by counsel as prescribed
by law.
A
detained person and his counsel, if any, shall receive prompt
and full communication of any order of detention, together
with the reasons therefor.
A
judicial or other authority shall be empowered to review as
appropriate the continuance of detention.
Principle 12
1. There shall be duly recorded
The reasons for the arrest;
The
time of the arrest and the taking of the arrested person to
a place of custody as well as that if his
first
appearance before a judicial or other authority;
The
identity of the law enforcement officials concerned;
Precise information concerning the place of custody;
2. Such records shall be communicated to the detained person,
or his counsel, if any, in the form prescribed by law.
Principle 13
Any person shall, at the moment of arrest and at the commencement
of detention or imprisonment, or promptly thereafter, be provided
by the authority responsible for his arrest, detention or
imprisonment, respectively, with information on and an explanation
of his rights and how to avail himself of such rights.
Principle 15
Notwithstanding the exceptions contained in principle 16,
paragraph 4, and principle 18, paragraph 3, communication
of the detained or imprisoned person with the outside world,
and in particular his family or counsel, shall not be denied
for more than a matter of days.
Principle 16
Promptly after arrest and after each transfer from one place
of detention or imprisonment to another, a detained or imprisoned
person shall be entitled to notify or to require the competent
authority to notify members of his family or other appropriate
persons of his choice of his arrest, detention or imprisonment
or of the transfer and of the place where he is kept in custody.
If
a detained or imprisoned person is a foreigner, he shall also
be promptly informed of his right to communicate by appropriate
means with a consular post or the diplomatic mission of the
State of which he is a national or which is otherwise entitled
to receive such communication in accordance with international
law or with the representative of the competent international
organization, if he is a refugee or is otherwise under the
protection of an intergovernmental organization.
If
a detained or imprisoned person is a juvenile or is incapable
of understanding his entitlement, the competent authority
shall on its own initiative undertake the notification referred
to in this principle. Special attention shall be given to
notifying parents and guardians.
Any
notification referred to in this principle shall be made or
permitted to be made without delay. The competent authority
may however delay a notification for a reasonable period where
exceptional needs of the investigation so require.
Principle 17
1. A detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance
of a legal counsel. He shall be informed of his right by the
competent authority promptly after arrest and shall be provided
with reasonable facilities for exercising it.
2. If a detained person does not have a legal counsel of his
own choice, he shall be entitled to have a legal counsel assigned
to him by a judicial or other authority in all cases where
the interests of justice so require and without payment by
him if he does not have sufficient means to pay.
Principle 18
1. A detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to communicate
and consult with his legal counsel.
2. A detained or imprisoned person shall be allowed adequate
time and facilities for consultations with his legal counsel.
3. The right of a detained or imprisoned person to be visited
by and to consult and communicate, without delay or censorship
and in full confidentiality, with his legal counsel may not
be suspended or restricted save in exceptional circumstances,
to be specified by law or lawful regulations, when it is considered
indispensable by a judicial or other authority in order to
maintain security and good order.
4. Interviews between a detained or imprisoned person and
his legal counsel may be within sight, but not within the
hearing, of a law enforcement official.
5. Communications between a detained or imprisoned person
and his legal counsel mentioned in this principle shall be
inadmissible as evidence against the detained or imprisoned
person unless they are connected with a continuing or contemplated
crime.
Principle 19: A detained or imprisoned person shall
have the right to be visited by and to correspond with, in
particular, members of his family and shall be given adequate
opportunity to communicate with the outside world, subject
to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by
law or lawful regulations.
Principle 32
1. A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any
time to take proceedings according to domestic law before
a judicial or other authority to challenge the lawfulness
of his detention in order to obtain his release without delay,
if it is unlawful.
2. The proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of the present
principle shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for
detained persons without adequate means. The detaining authority
shall produce without unreasonable delay the detained person
before the reviewing authority.
Principle 36
1. A detained person suspected of or charged with a criminal
offence shall be presumed innocent and shall be treated as
such until proved guilty according to law in a public trial
at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. The arrest or detention of such a person pending investigation
and trial shall be carried out only for the purposes of the
administration of justice on grounds and under conditions
and procedures specified by law. The imposition of restrictions
upon such a person which are not strictly required for the
purpose of the detention or to prevent hindrance to the process
of investigation or the administration of justice, or for
the maintenance of security and good order in the place of
detention shall be forbidden.
Principle 37: A person detained on a criminal charge
shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided
b law promptly after his arrest. Such authority shall decide
without delay upon the lawfulness and necessity of detention.
No person may be kept under detention pending investigation
or trial except upon the written order of such an authority.
A detained person shall, when brought before such an authority,
have the right to make a statement on the treatment received
by him while in custody.
(The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment was adopted without
a vote by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1988)
(1) The authorities refer to suspected government opponents
as "ngolops", or "anti-nationals".
(2) Prisoners of conscience are people detained or otherwise
physically restricted anywhere for their beliefs or because
of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or
social origin, economic status, birth or other status - who
have not used or advocated violence. Amnesty International
seeks their immediate and unconditional release.
(3) The WGAD is one of the thematic mechanisms appointed by
the UN Commission on Human Rights. The WGAD was established
in 1991.
(4) See section below on Amnesty International's recommendations.
(5) No official figures are available about the percentage
of the population different ethnic groups constitute, and
the exact number of inhabitants in Bhutan has been disputed
for several years. The figure of 600,000 is the official population
figure provided on 24 June 1997 to the National Assembly by
the Minister for Planning and Chairman of the Planning Commission.
The Government since 1990 has maintained that the population
is 600,000 while at the same time giving population growth
estimates around 3%.
(6) A person well versed in law, acting as a legal adviser.
(7) For more details on some of those arrested, please see
section below on torture and ill-treatment.
(8) For more details about her detention conditions, please
see section below on torture and ill-treatment.
(9) For more details, see E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3.
(10) A person well versed in law, acting as a legal adviser.
(11) From the report of the WGAD compiled in the light of
its second visit to Bhutan, E/CN.4/1997/4/Add.3.
(12) See section on reports of torture and ill-treatment for
more details.
(13) For more details about their prosecution, please see
above section on unfair trial procedures.
(14) For more details about the reason behind her arrest,
please see above section on arbitrary arrest detention.
(15) For instance, the agreement provides extradition of people
"belonging to an organization engaging in activities
declared to be unlawful..." and "aiding, abetting
or promoting such unlawful activities or objectives of the
organization or association".
(16) For more details on this issue, please see "Bhutan:
Forcible exile" (AI Index: ASA 14/04/94), issued by Amnesty
International in August 1994.
(17) "The course for the jabmis addressed several issues:
rule of law in the administration of justice, with emphasis
on the independence of the judiciary with respect to human
rights; human rights during criminal investigations, arrests
and detention; elements of a fair trial with standards for
the protection of prisoners and administration of juvenile
justice; and the rights of minorities, non-nationals, and
refugees, role of jabmis in judiciary, rights of women and
protection and redress for victims of crime and abuses of
power." (From Kuensel of 11 October 1997)
(18) From Kuensel of 18 October 1997.
(19) In particular, the government undertook to ensure that
all those facing trial would be made aware of the institution
of the jabmi and would be represented by a jabmi of their
choice.
(20) It contravenes several requirements of the UN Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment. See in particular Principles
2, 4, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 17, 18, 32, 36 and 37 which are reproduced
in Appendix 1.
(21) See in particular, Principles 15, 16 and 19 of the UN
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
(22) This resolution was adopted without a vote at the 53rd
session of the UN Commission on Human Rights on 11 April 1997.
Bhutan was a member of the 53rd session of the Commission.
(23) The Special Rapporteur has also called for this practice
to be abolished. For further details, see E/CN.4/1995/34.
(24) This guarantee is also contained in Principle 6 of the
Body of Principles, Article 3 of the UN Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
and Article 5 of the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement
Officials (Code of Conduct). Article 3 of the UN Declaration
on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
prescribes that "[n]o state may permit or tolerate torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat
of war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
In addition, all law enforcement officials are prohibited
from inflicting, instigating or tolerating torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of any
person; the fact that they were ordered to do so by their
superiors may not be used as a justification. Law enforcement
officials are bound by international standards to disobey
such orders and to report them (see, inter alia, Article 5
and 8 of the Code of Conduct). The prohibition against torture
and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment includes
acts which cause mental as well as physical suffering to the
victim.
(25) This undertaking was made by government officials to
Amnesty International's delegates during the organization's
visit to Bhutan in 1991.
URL:
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/ASA140011998?
OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\BHUTAN
Amnesty
International report on Bhutan can be found at:
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/bhutan?Open
View&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall&ft=S
|