Updated on
April 12, 2003
Bhutan
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Bhutan,
-
2002 Released by the United States of America
Department of
State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 31,
2003
Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices -
2002
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March
31, 2003
Bhutan is
ruled by a hereditary monarch, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, who
governs with the support of a National Assembly, a Cabinet, a
Council of Ministers (the Royal Advisory Council), and the
Monastic Body, a 5,000-member body that is headed by four
representatives with the consent of the King. There is no
written constitution to protect fundamental political and
human rights; however, during the year a constitution was
being drafted and debated by the National Assembly. In recent
years, the Government has adopted some measures to increase
the power of the National Assembly. Since ascending to the
throne in 1972, the King has continued the efforts toward
social and political modernization begun by his father. In the
last few years, the Government has improved rapidly services
in education, health care, sanitation, and communications,
with parallel but slower development of representative
governance and decisionmaking. The judiciary is not
independent of the King.
The Royal
Bhutan Police (RBP), assisted by the Royal Bhutan Army
(including those assigned to the Royal Body Guard), and a
national militia maintain internal security. Some members of
these forces committed human rights abuses.
The economy
is predominately a government-controlled economy. It is based
on agriculture and forestry, which provide the main livelihood
for 90 percent of the population and account for approximately
half of the gross domestic product (GDP); the population is
698,950. Agriculture largely consists of subsistence farming
and animal husbandry. Citrus fruit, cardamom, and other spices
are the leading agricultural exports. Cement and electricity
are the other important exports. Strong trade and monetary
ties link the economy closely to that of India. Income
distribution remained very unequal, with the approximately 10
percent of the population receiving about 70 percent of the
national income. Hydroelectric power production potential and
tourism are key resources, although the Government limits
tourism because of inadequate infrastructure and environmental
and cultural concerns. Tourist arrivals also are limited by a
requirement that tourists purchase a high priced minimum daily
rate holiday package before visiting the country. Visas are
required of all persons other than Indian nationals.
Unemployment for the population under the age of 20 increased
during the year.
The
Government's human rights record remained poor, and problems
remained in several areas. Citizens do not have the right to
change their government, although citizens voted for 105 out
of the 150 representatives in the National Assembly during the
year. The King exercised strong, active, and direct power over
the Government. The Government prohibits political parties,
and none operate legally. Arbitrary arrest and detention
remained problems, and reports continued of torture and abuse
of detainees. Impunity for those who commit abuses also was a
problem. Judges serve at the King's pleasure, and the
Government limited significantly the right to a fair trial. In
April 2000, the Government established the Department of Legal
Affairs. Programs to build a body of written law and to train
lawyers were progressing. The Government limited significantly
citizens' right to privacy. The Government restricted freedom
of speech, press, assembly, and association. Citizens faced
limitations on freedom of religion. Approximately
three-fourths of population is composed of Buddhists with
cultural traditions akin to those of Tibet. The Buddhist
majority consisted of two principal ethnic and linguistic
groups: The Ngalongs of the western part of the country and
the Sharchops of the eastern part of the country. The
remaining one fourth of the population, ethnic Nepalese, most
of whom are Hindus, primarily live in the country's southern
districts. Government efforts to institute policies designed
to preserve the cultural dominance of the Ngalong ethnic
group, to change citizenship requirements, and to control
illegal immigration resulted in political protests, ethnic
conflict, and repression of ethnic Nepalese in southern
districts during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since 1998
the Government began resettling Buddhist Bhutanese from other
regions of the country on land in southern districts vacated
by the ethnic Nepalese living in refugee camps in Nepal, which
is likely to complicate any future return of the ethnic
Nepalese.
Tens of
thousands of ethnic Nepalese left the country in 1991-92, many
of whom were expelled forcibly. According to the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as of March, 101,160 ethnic
Nepalese remained in 7 refugee camps in eastern Nepal; upwards
of 15,000 reside outside of the camps in the Indian states of
Assam and West Bengal. The Government maintained that some of
those in the camps never were citizens, and therefore have no
right to return. The Government continued its negotiation with
the Government of Nepal on repatriation of ethnic Nepalese in
the refugee camps. A bilateral meeting of Foreign Secretaries
in November 2001 failed to resolve disputes concerning the
categorization of refugees in terms of eligibility for their
eventual repatriation. The Government restricted worker
rights.
The
Government claimed that it has prosecuted government personnel
for unspecified abuses committed in the early 1990s; however,
there is little indication that the Government has
investigated adequately or punished any security force
officials involved in torture, rape, and other abuses
committed against ethnic Nepalese residents.
RESPECT FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including
Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary
and Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were
no reports of arbitrary or unlawful deprivations of life
committed by the Government or its agents. Domestic human
rights groups alleged that the Government has taken no action
to punish a government official for the 1998 killing of
Buddhist monk Gomchen Karma. The Government stated that the
shooting was accidental and that the official responsible has
been suspended from duty and charged in connection with the
incident. The opposition Druk National Congress claimed that
the official responsible reportedly was forced to resign from
his government job; however, he was never tried.
b.
Disappearance
There were
no reports of politically motivated disappearances.
c. Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The laws
proscribe torture and abuse in general; however, human rights
advocates stated that in practice the security forces ignored
these provisions. No one was prosecuted in connection with
violating prohibitions against torture during the year. In
2000 there were reports that security forces stopped ethnic
Nepalese refugees attempting to return to the country, beat
them or tortured them, and sent them back across the border.
Refugee groups state that this has discouraged others from
trying to return to the country.
Refugee
groups credibly claimed that persons detained as suspected
dissidents in the early 1990s were tortured and/or raped by
security forces. During those years, the Government's ethnic
policies and the crackdown on ethnic Nepalese political
agitation created a climate of impunity in which the
Government tacitly condoned the physical abuse of ethnic
Nepalese. The Government indicated that members of the RBP
engaged in "overzealous" behavior in dealing with the ethnic
Nepalese political agitation, and the Government prosecuted
three government officials for unspecified abuses of authority
during that period; however, the Government failed to provide
further details of these cases to the public.
Prison
conditions reportedly were adequate, if austere. Visits by the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the
opening of a prison in Thimphu contributed to improving
conditions of detention. However, human rights groups active
outside the country maintained that prison conditions outside
of the capitol city of Thimphu remained oppressive.
The
Government and the ICRC signed a new Memorandum of
Understanding in 1998, extending the ICRC prison visits
program for another 5 years. The ICRC conducted one prison
visit during the year, as it has done for each of the past 8
years, and was allowed unhindered access.
d. Arbitrary
Arrest, Detention, or Exile
Arbitrary
arrest and detention remained problems. Under the law, police
may not arrest a person without a warrant and must bring an
arrested person before a court within 24 hours, exclusive of
travel time from place of arrest. However, legal protections
were incomplete, due to the lack of a fully developed criminal
procedure code and to deficiencies in police training and
practice. Incommunicado detention, particularly of Nepalese
refugees returning without authorization, was still known to
occur. Incommunicado detention of suspected militants was a
serious problem in the early 1990s, but the initiation of ICRC
prison visits and the establishment of an ICRC mail service
between detainees and family members has helped to allay this
problem. Of those detained in connection with political
dissidence and violence in southern areas in 1991-92, 70
continued to serve sentences after conviction by the High
Court, according to the ICRC.
In May 2001,
Damber Singh Pulami, a refugee who had lived in a camp in
Nepal, was arrested in the country. Pulami reportedly was a
member of the Youth Organization of Bhutan (the youth wing of
the banned Bhutan People's Party) and had gone to the country
to check on the internal resettlement of non-Nepalese to the
south. Amnesty International (AI) still has not received a
response to queries about the charges against him, his
whereabouts, and his physical condition, although according to
one human rights group Pulami is in Chemgang Jail in Thimphu.
The Government admitted that it had arrested Pulami in May
2001; however, it alleged that Pulami was a criminal and was
arrested in connected with extortion, kidnaping, killing, and
subversive activities. According to AI, Tul Man Tamang, a
30-year-old construction worker was arrested in June 2001 on
suspicion of organizing political activities. He reportedly
was taken to a police station at Chimakothi in Chhukha
district where he allegedly was tortured, held incommunicado
in a dark cell, and forced to sign a statement saying he was
leaving the country voluntarily before being forcibly exiled
to India. During the year, the Government continued to deny
that it had arrested Tul Man Tamang.
There were
no developments in the June 2001 arrest of Ugyen Tenzing, a
member of the Druk-Yul Peoples' Democratic Party, in Samtse
district. N.L. Katwal, a central committee member of the
Bhutan Gorkha National Liberation Front, was 1 of more than 55
persons arrested during a demonstration in Phuntsholing in
2000. In December 2000, he was sentenced to 13 years and 6
months in prison. He was serving his sentence in Chamgang Jail
at year's end.
Rongthong
Kunley Dorji, leader of the Druk National Congress (DNC) and
United Front for Democracy in Bhutan (UFD), was arrested in
India in 1997, following the issuance of an extradition
request by Bhutanese authorities. Human rights groups contend
that the charges brought against Dorji by the Government are
motivated politically and constitute an attempt to suppress
his prodemocracy activities. In 1998 an Indian court released
Dorji on bail but placed restrictions on his movements.
Dorji's extradition case still was pending in the Indian
courts and is proceeding slowly. According to a refugee-based
human rights group, only one prosecution witness, a Joint
Secretary in India's Ministry of External Affairs, has been
cross-examined in the last 40 months. The next witness,
another Indian government official, was scheduled to testify
in January 2003.
In the past,
according to AI, many persons have been detained on suspicion
of being members or supporters of the DNC. Human rights groups
alleged that arrest and abuse of refugees returning to the
country without authorization continued to occur but went
unreported by the Government. The Government acknowledged that
58 persons whom it described as terrorists were serving
sentences at the end of 1998 for crimes including rape,
murder, and robbery. There were no peaceful protest marches
from India to Bhutan during the year, perhaps due to fear of
arrests and deportation, as occurred in previous years after
such marches. Persons holding peaceful marches from India to
Bhutan charged that in 1999 the Bhutanese police assaulted
them, injuring several demonstrators, and then arrested and
deported all of the marchers to Nepal (see Section 5).
Although the
Government does not use exile formally as punishment, many
accused political dissidents freed under government amnesties
state that they were released on the condition that they
depart the country. Many of them subsequently registered at
refugee camps in Nepal. The Government denied this.
e. Denial of
Fair Public Trial
There is no
written constitution and the judiciary is not independent of
the King; however, during 2001 the King commanded a 39-member
committee to draft a constitution, which is intended to pave
the way for a constitutional monarchy in upcoming years (see
Section 3). The judicial system consisted of three branches,
the Sub-Divisional Court, the District Court, and a High
Court. Only the King can pardon or commute a sentence. Judges
were appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Chief
Justice and may be removed by the King. There was no uniform
system of qualifications for judge appointments. For example,
a nongovernmental organization (NGO) reported that the Chief
Justice had not completed formal high school studies before
his judicial appointment. Village headmen adjudicate minor
offenses and administrative matters.
The Office
of Legal Affairs (OLA) conducted state prosecutions, drafted
and reviewed legislation, and rendered legal counsel. The OLA
was composed of a Legal Services Division (which eventually
was to become the Ministry of Law and Justice) with domestic,
international, and human rights sections; and a Prosecution
Division, with a criminal section and a civil section.
Criminal
cases and a variety of civil matters were adjudicated under a
legal code established in the 17th century and revised in 1958
and 1965. State-appointed prosecutors filed charges and
prosecuted cases for offenses against the State. In other
cases, the relevant organizations and departments of
government filed charges and conducted the prosecution.
Defendants were supposed to be presented with written charges
in languages that they understood and given time to prepare
their own defense. However, according to some political
dissidents, this practice was not always followed. There were
reports that defendants received legal representation at
trial, and that they could choose from a list of 150
government-licensed and employed advocates to assist with
their defense; however, it was not known how many defendants
actually received such assistance. A legal education program
gradually was building a body of persons who have received
formal training abroad in the law. For example, the Government
sends many lawyers to India and other countries for legal
training; 54 persons have completed legal studies abroad, and
43 more were enrolled. Village headmen, who had the power to
arbitrate disputes, constitute the bottom rung of the judicial
system. Magistrates, each with responsibility for a block of
villages, could review their decisions. Magistrates' decisions
could be appealed to district judges, of which there was one
for each of the country's 20 districts. The High Court in
Thimphu is the country's Supreme Court.
Defendants
have the right to appeal to the High Court and may make a
final appeal to the King, who traditionally delegated the
decision to the Royal Advisory Council. Trials were supposed
to be conducted in open hearings, but NGOs alleged that this
was not always the case in practice. Courts decisions were not
published and public access to the country's laws was limited.
The National Library houses the legal codes in the national
language, but other copies or volumes were not available to
the public. There was a legal requirement that citizens pay
for their own legal counsel; however, many citizens were
unable to afford representation and thus in practice did not
receive legal assistance in court.
Questions of
family law, such as marriage, divorce, and adoption,
traditionally are resolved according to a citizen's religion:
Buddhist tradition for the majority of the population and
Hindu tradition for the ethnic Nepalese. Nonetheless the
Government states that there is one formal law that governs
these matters.
Some or all
of the approximately 106 prisoners serving sentences for
offenses related to political dissidence or violence,
primarily by ethnic Nepalese during 1991-92, may be political
prisoners (see Section 1.e.).
In 1999 the
King pardoned prisoner Tek Nath Rizal, a prominent ethnic
Nepalese dissident and internationally recognized political
prisoner. In 2000 Rizal was granted permission to leave the
country to receive medial treatment in India; however, at
year's end, NGOs reported that the Government has failed to
restore his house and land, which in effect, forced him to
lead a migratory life and move from one place to the next.
f. Arbitrary
Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
There are no
laws providing for these rights. According to human rights
groups, police regularly conducted house-to-house searches for
suspected dissidents without explanation or legal
justification. The Government requires all citizens, including
minorities, to wear the traditional dress of the Buddhist
majority in all public places, and strictly enforced this law
for visits to Buddhist religious buildings, monasteries, or
government offices; in schools, and when attending official
functions and public ceremonies; however, some citizens
commented that enforcement of this law was arbitrary and
sporadic.
Section 2
Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom
of Speech and Press
The
Government restricts freedom of speech, and to a lesser extent
freedom of the press. The country's only regular publication
is Kuensel, a weekly newspaper with a circulation of 15,000.
It also reports stories on a daily basis through its on-line
edition. Kuensel was formerly government-run and human rights
groups have stated that government ministries reviewed
editorial material and suppressed or changed content.
According to the Government, Kuensel was independent and was
funded entirely through advertising and subscription revenue.
Its board consists of senior civil servants and private
individuals. Kuensel, was published in English, Dzongkha, and
Nepali languages, and it supported the Government but did
occasionally report criticism of the King and of government
policies in the National Assembly. For example, the Kuensel
published a series of articles that exposed corrupt practices
of some Ministers during the year. Some journalists who worked
for Kuensel were reportedly subjected to threats and
harassment by the Ministers and their activists. The
Government maintained that there were no restrictions on
individuals starting new publications, but that the market was
too small to support any. Nepalese, Indian, and other foreign
newspapers and magazines were available, but readership was in
the hundreds and primarily limited to government officials.
After a
10-year ban on private television reception, in 2000 the
Government began to allow broadcasts of locally produced and
foreign programs. There were more than 33 cable providers in
the country with more than 10,000 subscribers. A large variety
of programming was available, including CNN and BBC. The
Government did not censor cable content. The Government radio
station broadcasts each day for two hours in the four major
languages (Dzongkha, Nepali, English, and Sharchop).
The
Government inaugurated the country's first Internet service
provider, Druknet, in 1999; it had 1,820 subscribers as of
late 2000. There were Internet cafes in Thimphu, Phuentsholing
and Bumthang. The Government did not censor any content on
Druknet except for pornography, which was blocked. There
were no reported restrictions on academic freedom.
b. Freedom
of Peaceful Assembly and Association
The
Government restricted freedom of assembly and association.
Citizens may engage in peaceful assembly and association only
for purposes approved by the Government. NGOs and political
parties were illegal under the law. Although the Government
allowed civic and business organizations, there were no
legally recognized political parties. The Government regarded
parties organized by ethnic Nepalese exiles--the Bhutan
People's Party (BPP), the Bhutan National Democratic Party (BNDP),
and the Druk National Congress--as "terrorist and
antinational" organizations and declared them illegal. These
parties, which seek the repatriation of refugees and
democratic reform, did not conduct activities inside the
country.
c. Freedom
of Religion
The law
provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government
restricted this right in practice. The Drukpa branch of the
Kagyupa School of Mahayana Buddhism was the state religion.
Approximately two-thirds of the population practiced either
Drukpa Kagyupa or Ningmapa Buddhism.
The Drukpa
discipline was practiced predominantly in the western and
central parts of the country, which was inhabited mainly by
ethnic Ngalongs (descendants of Tibetan immigrants who
predominate in government and the civil service, and whose
cultural norms have been declared to be the standard for all
citizens). The Ningmapa school was practiced predominantly in
the eastern part of the country, although there were
adherents, including the royal family, in other areas. Most of
those living in the east are ethnic Sharchops--the descendants
of those thought to be the country's original inhabitants. The
Government subsidized monasteries and shrines of the Drukpa
sect and provided aid to approximately one-third of the
Kingdom's 12,000 monks. The Government also provided financial
assistance for the construction of Drukpa Kagyupa and Ningmapa
Buddhist temples and shrines. NGOs reported that permission
from the Government to build a Hindu temple was required but
rarely granted. There were no Hindu temples in Thumphu,
despite the migration of many ethnic Nepalese to Thumphu. The
Drukpa branch of Buddhism enjoyed statutory representation in
the National Assembly (Drukpa monks occupy 10 seats in the
150-member National Assembly) and in the Royal Advisory
Council (Drukpa monks hold 2 of the 11 seats on the Council);
the Drukpa branch was an influential voice on public policy.
Citizens of other faiths, mostly Hindus, enjoy freedom of
worship but may not proselytize. Followers of religions other
than Buddhism and Hinduism generally were free to worship in
private homes but may not erect religious buildings or
congregate in public. Under the law, conversions were illegal.
Some of the country's few Christians, mostly ethnic Nepalese
living in the south, state that they were subject to
harassment and discrimination by the Government, local
authorities, and non-Christian citizens.
The King
declared major Hindu festivals to be national holidays, and
the royal family participates in them. Foreign missionaries
are not permitted to proselytize, but international Christian
relief organizations and Jesuit priests were active in
education and humanitarian activities. The Government
restricted the import into the country of printed religious
matter; only Buddhist religious texts can be imported.
According to dissidents living outside of the country,
Buddhist religious teaching, of both the Drukpa Kagyupa and
Ningmapa sects was permitted in the schools, but the teaching
of other religious faiths was not. Applicants for government
services sometimes were asked their religion before services
are rendered. All government civil servants, regardless of
religion, were required to take an oath of allegiance to the
King, the country, and the people. The oath does not have
religious content, but was administered by a Buddhist lama.
For a more detailed discussion see the 2002 International
Religious Freedom Report.
d. Freedom
of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration,
and Repatriation
Citizens
traveling in border regions were required to show their
citizenship identity cards at immigration check points, which
in some cases were located at a considerable distance from
what is in effect an open border with India. By treaty
citizens may reside and work in India.
The country
was not a signatory to the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol (see Section 5).
The Government states that it recognizes the right to asylum
in accordance with international refugee law; however, the
Government has not formulated a policy regarding refugees,
asylees, first asylum, or the return of refugees to countries
in which they fear persecution.
According to
one credible human rights source, until recently the
Government systematically arrested and imprisoned Tibetan
refugees crossing the border with Tibet. This policy was
followed under a tacit agreement with China. So invariable was
this policy that Tibetan leaders advised refugees not to use
routes of escape through the country, and refugees have not
done so for several years. Since Tibetans effectively were the
only refugee population seeking first asylum in the country,
the issue of first asylum did not arise during the year.
Section 3
Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change
Their Government
Citizens do
not have the right to change their government. The country is
a monarchy with sovereign power vested in the King. However,
during 2001 a draft constitution was written. A newspaper
quoted the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as saying that
the committee discussed the merits of multiparty politics. The
drafting committee was chaired by the Chief Justice of the
High Court and was, according to the Government, composed of
representatives of the Monastic body, the people, the
judiciary, and the Royal Government. The Government indicated
that the Constitution would be a codification of existing
Buddhist-influenced societal standards. In 1998 the King
devolved his day-to-day executive powers to the Council of
Ministers, who were elected by the National Assembly from
among themselves, but reserved control of "matters of national
sovereignty and national security" for himself. He also
introduced term limits for his Council of Ministers and
proposed measures to increase the role of the National
Assembly in the formation of his Government. The National
Assembly elected a new Council of Ministers and Government in
July 1998 to a 5-year term. In July 2001, the National
Assembly elected six Royal Advisory Councilors. There were
elected or partially elected assemblies at the local,
district, and national levels, and the Government claimed to
encourage decentralization and citizen participation. These
elections were conducted in much the same way as National
Assembly elections. Since 1969 the National Assembly has had
the power to remove ministers whom the King appoints, but it
never has done so. Political authority ultimately resided in
the King, and decisionmaking involves only a small number of
officials. Officials subject to questioning by the National
Assembly routinely make major decisions, but the National
Assembly is not known to have overturned any decisions reached
by the King and government officials.
Political
parties do not exist legally. The Government has banned
parties established abroad by ethnic Nepalese, Sarchops, or
Eastern Bhutanese (see Section 2.b.).
The National
Assembly had 150 members. Of these, 105 were elected by
citizens, 10 were selected by a part of the Buddhist clergy,
and the remaining 35 were appointed by the King to represent
the Government. The National Assembly, which meets
irregularly, had little independent authority. However, there
were efforts underway to have the National Assembly meet on a
more regular basis, and in recent years the King and the
Council of Ministers have been more responsive to the National
Assembly's concerns. The procedures for the nomination and
election of National Assembly members state that in order to
be eligible for nomination as a candidate, a person must be a
citizen; be at least 25 years of age; not be married to a
foreign national; not have been terminated or compulsorily
retired for misconduct from government service; not have
committed any act of treason against the King, the populace,
and country; have no criminal record or any criminal case
pending against him; have respect for the nation's laws; and
be able to read and write in Dzongkha (the language, in
several dialects, spoken by Bhutanese Buddhists).
Each
National Assembly constituency consists of a number of
villages. Each village was permitted to nominate one candidate
but must do so by consensus. There was no provision for
self-nomination, and the law states that no person may
campaign for the candidacy or canvass through other means. If
more than one village within a constituency puts forward a
candidate, an election was conducted by the district
development committee, and the candidate obtaining a simple
majority of votes cast was declared the winner. During the
year, the law allowed individuals over the age of 18 the right
to vote. The law did not make clear how a candidate was
selected if none achieves a simple majority. However, it did
state that in case of a tie among the candidates in the
election, selection shall be made through the drawing of lots.
The candidate whose name was drawn shall be deemed to be
elected.
Human rights
activists claim that the only time individual citizens have
any involvement in choosing a National Assembly representative
was when they are asked for consensus approval of a village
candidate by the village headman. The name put to villagers
for consensus approval by the headman is suggested to him by
district officials, who in turn take their direction from the
central Government. Consensus approval took place at a public
gathering. Human rights activists stated that there was no
secret ballot.
The National
Assembly enacted laws, approved senior government
appointments, and advised the King on matters of national
importance. Voting was by secret ballot, with a simple
majority needed to pass a measure. The King may not formally
veto legislation, but may return bills for further
consideration. The Assembly occasionally rejected the King's
recommendations or delayed implementing them, but in general,
the King had enough influence to persuade the Assembly to
approve legislation that he considered essential or to
withdraw proposals he opposed. The Assembly may question
government officials and force them to resign by a two-thirds
vote of no confidence; however, the National Assembly never
has compelled any government official to resign. The Royal
Civil Service Commission was responsible for disciplining
subministerial level government officials and has removed
several following their convictions for crimes, including
embezzlement.
The 1998
decree provided that all cabinet ministers were to be elected
by the National Assembly and that the roles and
responsibilities of the cabinet ministries were to be spelled
out. Each cabinet minister was to be elected by simple
majority in a secret ballot in the National Assembly from
among candidates nominated by the King. The King was to select
nominees for cabinet office from among senior government
officials holding the rank of secretary or above. The King was
to determine the portfolios of his ministers, whose terms were
limited to 5 years, after which they must pass a vote of
confidence in the National Assembly in order to remain in
office. Finally the decree provided that the National
Assembly, by a two-thirds vote of no confidence, can require
the King to abdicate and to be replaced by the next person in
the line of succession. After adopting the decree, the
National Assembly elected a new council of ministers
consistent with it. Human rights groups maintained that since
only the King may nominate candidates for cabinet office,
their election by the National Assembly was not a significant
democratic reform. The King removed himself as Chairman of the
Council of Ministers in 1998. Based on an election held in the
National Assembly in 1998, Cabinet Ministers who received the
most votes rotate the position on a yearly basis. The Chairman
of the Council of Ministers serves as Prime Minster and Head
of Government. At year's end, Trade and Industry Minister
Khundu Wangchuk served as Chairman.
The Monastic
Body comprised of 5,000 monks was financed by an annual
government grant and was the sole arbiter on religious matters
in the country. The body also played an advisory role in the
National Assembly, the Royal Advisory Council, and with the
King. The King almost consistently deferred to the body's
pronouncements on religious matters and many decisions
affecting the state.
There are 15
women in the National Assembly. There are 2 women in the
Supreme Court, 23 percent of civil service employees are
women, and women hold more than 30 percent of positions at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The persistence of traditional
gender roles apparently accounted for a low proportion of
women in government, although women have made visible gains.
There are
105 elected people's representatives in the National Assembly.
All major ethnic groups are represented in the National
Assembly, including 14 ethnic Nepalese.
Section 4
Governmental Attitude Regarding International and
Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human
Rights
There were
no legal human rights NGOs in the country. The Government
regarded human rights groups established by ethnic Nepalese
exiles--the Human Rights Organization of Bhutan, the People's
Forum for Human Rights in Bhutan, and the Association of Human
Rights Activists-Bhutan--as political organizations and did
not permit them to operate in the country. AI was permitted to
visit in 1998, and later released a report.
ICRC
representatives conducted a yearly prison visit, and the
Government allowed them unhindered access to detention
facilities, including those in southern districts inhabited by
ethnic Nepalese. The chairman and members of the U.N. Human
Rights Commission Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have
made two visits to the country.
Section 5
Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Disability, Language, or
Social Status
Ongoing
government efforts to cultivate a national identity rooted in
the language, religion, and culture of the Ngalong ethnic
group restricted cultural expression by other ethnic groups.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Government instituted
policies designed to preserve the cultural dominance of the
Ngalong ethnic group. It also committed many abuses against
the ethnic Nepalese, which led to the departure of tens of
thousands of them. Many ethnic Nepalese were expelled
forcibly, and almost 100,000 of them remain in refugee camps
in Nepal. At the time, the Government claimed that it was
concerned about the rapid population growth of and political
agitation by the ethnic Nepalese. The Government claimed
ethnic and gender discrimination in employment was not a
problem. It claims that ethnic Nepalese fill 16 percent the
civic service or government employment, which was less than
their proportion of the total population. Bhutanese human
rights groups active outside the country claim that ethnic
Nepalese actually make up approximately one third of the
country's population and that the Government underreports
their number. Women were accorded respect in the traditions of
most ethnic groups, although some exile groups claim that
gender discrimination was a problem.
Women
There was no
evidence that rape or spousal abuse were extensive problems.
However, NGOs reported that many women did not report rape
either because of the cultural issues or because they were
unaware of the legal options.
The Rape Act
contained a clear definition of criminal sexual assault and
specified penalties. In cases of rape involving minors,
sentences range from 5 to 17 years. In extreme cases, a rapist
may be imprisoned for life. There were few known instances of
sexual harassment.
Women
constitute 48 percent of the population and participate freely
in the social and economic life of the country. Approximately
43 percent of enrollment in school was female. Inheritance law
provides for equal inheritance among all sons and daughters,
but traditional inheritance practices, which vary among ethnic
groups, may be observed if the heirs choose to forego legal
challenges. Dowries were not customary, even among ethnic
Nepalese Hindus. Among some groups, inheritance practices
favoring daughters reportedly account for the large numbers of
women who own shops and businesses and for an accompanying
tendency of women to drop out of higher education to go into
business. However, female school enrollment has been growing
in response to government policies. Women increasingly were
found among senior officials and private sector entrepreneurs,
especially in the tourism industry. Women in unskilled jobs
generally are paid slightly less than men. Women constitute
approximately 30 percent of the formal work force.
In questions
related to family law, including divorce, child custody, and
inheritance, were adjudicated by the customary law of each
ethnic or religious group. The minimum age of marriage for
women was 16 years, except in the case of Muslims, who
continue to follow their customary marriage practices. The
application of different legal practices based on membership
in a religious or ethnic group often results in discrimination
against women. Polygyny was allowed, provided the first wife
gives her permission. Polyandry was permitted but did not
often occur. Marriages may be arranged by the marriage
partners themselves as well as by their parents. Divorce was
common. Existing legislation requires that all marriages must
be registered; it also favors women in matters of alimony.
Children
The
Government demonstrated its commitment to child welfare by
rapid expansion of primary schools, healthcare facilities, and
immunization programs. Mortality rates for both infants and
children under 5 years dropped significantly since 1989. The
Government provided free and compulsory primary school
education, and primary school enrollment increased 9 percent
per year since 1991, with enrollment of girls increasing at an
even higher rate. Government policies aimed at increasing
enrollment of girls increased the proportion of girls in
primary schools from 39 percent in 1990 to 45 percent during
2001. In 2001 the participation rate for children in primary
schools was estimated at 72 percent, with the rate of
completion of 7 years of schooling at 60 percent for girls and
at 59 percent for boys. The number of children enrolled in
school has grown to 126,718 in 2001. There was no law barring
ethnic Nepalese children from attending school. However, most
of the 75 primary schools in southern areas heavily populated
by ethnic Nepalese that were closed in 1990 remain closed. The
closure of the schools acts as an effective barrier to the
ability of the ethnic Nepalese in southern areas to obtain a
primary education. In addition, ethnic Nepalese also claimed
that the Security Clearance Form, which is a prerequisite for
taking one's passport out of the Foreign Ministry, was biased
against ethnic Nepalese. The ethnic Nepalese said that since
the forms are based on the security clearance of their
parents, it frequently excludes children of ethnic Nepalese.
Exile groups claim that Nepalese students scoring highly on
national exams were not always given the same advantages as
other students (such as the chance to study abroad at
government expense), particularly if they are related to
prominent dissidents or refugees.
There was no
societal pattern of abuse against children. Children enjoy a
privileged position in society and benefit from international
development programs focused on maternal and child welfare. A
study by the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) found that boys and
girls received equal treatment regarding nutrition and health
care and that there is little difference in child mortality
rates between the sexes.
Persons with
Disabilities
There was no
evidence of official discrimination toward persons with
disabilities, but the Government has not passed legislation
mandating accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Societal discrimination against persons with disabilities
remained a problem.
National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities
Ethnic
Nepalese have lived in the southern part of the country for
centuries, and the early phases of economic development at the
turn of the century brought a large influx of additional
ethnic Nepalese. Early efforts at national integration focused
on assimilation, including financial incentives for
intermarriage, education for some students in regions other
than their own, and an increase in development funds for the
south. However, in the late 1980s, concern over the increase
in the population of and political agitation among ethnic
Nepalese prompted aggressive government efforts to assert a
national culture, to tighten control over southern regions, to
control illegal immigration, to expel ethnic Nepalese, and to
promote national integration.
Discriminatory measures, introduced in 1989, continued during
the year. Measures included a requirement that national dress
be worn for official occasions and as a school uniform, the
teaching of Dzongkha as a second language in all schools, and
an end to instruction in Nepali as a second language
During the
mid- and late 1980s, citizenship became a highly contentious
matter. Requirements for citizenship first were formalized in
the Citizenship Law of 1958, which granted citizenship to all
adults who owned land and had lived in the country for at
least 10 years. However, the law significantly tightened
requirements and resulted in the denaturalization of many
ethnic Nepalese. The 1985 law required that both parents be
citizens in order to confer citizenship on a child, and that
persons seeking to prove citizenship through their own or
their parents' residency in 1958 be able to prove residency in
the country at that time. In many cases, persons were unable
to produce the documentation necessary, such as land tax
receipts from 1958, to show residency. The law permits
residents who lost citizenship under the 1985 law to apply for
naturalization if they can prove residence during the 15 years
prior to that time. The Government declared all residents who
could not meet the new citizenship requirements to be illegal
immigrants. Beginning in 1988, the Government expelled large
numbers of ethnic Nepalese through enforcement of the new
citizenship laws.
The
Citizenship Act also provided for the revocation of the
citizenship of any naturalized citizen who "has shown by act
or speech to be disloyal in any manner whatsoever to the King,
country, and people of Bhutan." The Home Ministry later
declared in a circular that any nationals leaving the country
to assist "antinationals," and the families of such persons,
would forfeit their citizenship. Human rights groups alleged
that these provisions were used widely to revoke the
citizenship of ethnic Nepalese who subsequently were expelled
or otherwise departed from the country. In response to the
perceived repression, ethnic Nepalese protested, sometimes
violently. The protests were led by the BPP, which advocated
full citizenship rights for ethnic Nepalese and for democratic
reforms. Characterizing the BPP as a "terrorist" movement
backed by Indian sympathizers, the authorities cracked down on
its activities and ordered the closure of local Nepalese
schools, clinics, and development programs after several were
raided or bombed by dissidents. There were credible reports
that many ethnic Nepalese activists were beaten and tortured
while in custody, and that security forces committed acts of
rape. There also were credible reports that militants,
including BPP members, attacked and killed census officers and
other officials, and engaged in bombings.
Local
officials took advantage of the climate of repression to
coerce ethnic Nepalese to sell their land below its fair value
and to emigrate. Beginning in 1991, ethnic Nepalese began to
leave southern areas of the country in large numbers and take
refuge in Nepal. Many ethnic Nepalese claimed they also were
forced to sign "voluntary migration forms" and leave the
country, after local officials threatened to fine or imprison
them for failing to comply. According to UNHCR, there were
102,800 ethnic Nepalese refugees in seven refugee camps in
eastern Nepal as of December. An additional 15,000 refugees,
according to UNHCR estimates, were living outside the camps in
Nepal and India.
Ethnic
Nepalese political groups in exile complain that the revision
of the country's citizenship laws in 1985 denaturalized tens
of thousands of former residents of the country. They also
complained that the new laws have been applied selectively and
made unfair demands for documentation on a largely illiterate
group when the country only recently adopted basic
administrative procedures. They claimed that many ethnic
Nepalese whose families have been in the country for
generations were expelled because they were unable to document
their claims to residence. The Government denies this and
asserts that a three-member village committee, typically
ethnic Nepalese in southern districts, certifies in writing
that a resident is a citizen in cases where documents cannot
be produced.
Since 1994
there have been a series of negotiations between Nepal and
Bhutan to resolve the Bhutanese refugee problem. In December
2000, the two countries agreed upon a system to verify the
Bhutanese refugees in Nepal in preparation for their return to
the country. Refugee verifications began in March 2001. By
December 2001, all the residents of the first camp had been
interviewed, and the Bhutanese verification team went back to
Thimphu pending the start of verification at the next camp.
Refugee groups are concerned that at the present rate,
verification will take several years. Bilateral negotiations
on repatriation issues in November 2001 failed to arrive at an
agreement, and the matter was deferred to a proposed future
session of ministerial-level talks. The talks' earlier lack of
progress frustrated refugees, and some held "peace marches" to
protest their plight.
The UNHCR
monitored the conditions of the Bhutanese refugees in camps in
eastern Nepal and provided for their basic needs. U.N.
officials, diplomats and NGO representative visitors to the
camps had described conditions as generally very good, largely
as a result of efficient UNHCR administration, conscientious
government oversight and the refugees taking responsibility
for their surroundings. However, there were reports by refugee
women and children that some of the Bhutanese refugee workers
at the camps had committed sexual assault. The UNHCR responded
by conducting an investigation and the Government of Nepal
provided more police protection to the camps.
The
Government contended that many of the documents presented by
refugees in the camps were fraudulent. NGOs claimed that these
assertions by the Government represented an attempt to
eliminate the majority of the refugees from qualifying as
citizens.
In 1998 the
Government expanded its program of resettling Buddhist
Bhutanese from other regions of the country on land in the
southern part of the country vacated by the ethnic Nepalese
living in refugee camps in Nepal. Human rights groups
maintained that this action prejudices any eventual outcome of
negotiations over the return of the refugees to the country.
The Government maintained that citizens who are ethnic
Nepalese from the south sometimes were resettled on more
fertile land in other parts of the country. The failure of the
Government to permit the return of ethnic Nepalese refugees
has tended to reinforce societal prejudices against this
group, as has the Government's policy on the forced retirement
of refugee family members in government service and the
resettlement of Buddhists on land vacated by expelled ethnic
Nepalese in the south.
Section 6
Worker Rights
a. The Right
of Association
Trade unions
were not permitted, and there were no labor unions. The
Government maintained that, with very little
industrialization, there was little labor to be organized.
b. The Right
to Organize and Bargain Collectively
There was no
collective bargaining in industry. Workers did not have the
right to strike, and the Government was not a member of the
International Labor Organization (ILO). Industry accounted for
approximately 25 percent of the GDP, but employed only a
minute fraction of the total work force. The Government
affected wages in the manufacturing sector through its control
over wages in state-owned industries.
There are no
export processing zones.
c.
Prohibition of Forced or Bonded Labor
The Government prohibits forced or bonded labor, and there
were no reports that such practices occurred. However,
mandatory national service was practiced. Agricultural workers
were required to work in state service for 15 days per year.
NGOs stated that this practice was administered selectively.
For instance, NGOs believe the practice often selected poor
agricultural workers at the height of their harvesting season.
There was no evidence to suggest that domestic workers were
subjected to coerced or bonded labor.
d. Status of
Child Labor Practices and Minimum Age for Employment
The law sets
the minimum age for employment at 18 years for citizens and 20
years for noncitizens. A UNICEF study suggested that children
as young as 11 years sometimes are employed with roadbuilding
teams, which usually were made up of non-citizen guest
workers. Children often do agricultural work and chores on
family farms. The law specifically does not prohibit forced
and bonded labor by children, but there were no reports that
such practices occurred. The country has not ratified ILO
Convention 182 on preventing the Worst Forms of Child Labor;
however, as a state party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights
of the Child, the Government supports the provisions contained
therein. The country lacks a large pool of ready labor; for
major projects, such as road works, the Government brings in
hired laborers from India.
e.
Acceptable Conditions of Work
A circular
that went into effect in 1994 established wage rates, rules
and regulations for labor recruiting agencies, and the
regulations for payment of worker's compensation. Wage rates
were revised periodically, and range upward from a minimum of
roughly $2.50 (100 ngultrums) per day plus various allowances
paid in cash or kind. This minimum wage provided a decent
standard of living for a worker and family. The workday was
defined as 8 hours with a 1-hour lunch break. Work in excess
of this must be paid at one and one-half times normal rates.
Workers paid on a monthly basis are entitled to 1 day's paid
leave for 6 days of work and 15 days of leave annually. The
largest salaried work force was the government service, which
has an administered wage structure last revised in 1988 but
supplemented by special allowances and increases. The last
such increase was in 1999. According to the latest Census of
Manufacturing Industries, only 38 industrial establishments
employed more than 50 workers. Smaller industrial units
included 39 plants of medium size, 345 small units, 832
cottage industry units, and 2,154 "mini" units. The Government
favored family-owned farms. Land laws prohibited a farmer from
selling his or her last 5 acres and required the sale of
holdings in excess of 25 acres. This, along with the country's
rugged geography, results in a predominantly self-employed
agricultural workforce. Workers were entitled to free medical
care within the country. Cases that cannot be dealt with in
the country were flown to other countries (usually India) for
treatment. Workers were eligible for compensation for partial
or total disability, and in the event of death their families
were entitled to compensation. Existing labor regulations did
not grant workers the right to remove themselves from work
situations that endanger health and safety without
jeopardizing their continued employment.
f.
Trafficking in Persons
The law does
not specifically prohibit trafficking in persons; however,
there were no reports that persons were trafficked to, from,
or within the country.
Source:
US State Department webiste
US
State Department's Notice: This site is managed by the
Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State. External
links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an
endorsement of the views contained therein.
[End.]
|