wfn.org | Nepal: Bhutanese Refugees Screening Seriously Flawed

["Frank Imhoff" <FRANKI@elca.org>]

Nepal:	Bhutanese Refugees Screening Seriously Flawed
Leading international NGOs declare process invalid 
 
KATHMANDU, Nepal, 2 September 2003 (LWI) - The screening of Bhutanese
refugees by the governments of Bhutan and Nepal is fundamentally flawed, a
joint mission of non-governmental organizations declared at the end of a two
week mission to India and Nepal.  
 
As Nepal and Bhutan prepared for further talks next week, the delegation
urged donor governments to insist the process meet international human rights
and refugee standards.
 
"The refugee screening process violates every international norm in the
book," said Rachael Reilly, refugee policy advisor with Human Rights Watch. 

 
The mission visited the Bhutanese refugee camps in south east Nepal where
more than 100,000 refugees have been living in seven camps since they were
arbitrarily stripped of their nationality and forcibly expelled from Bhutan
in the early 1990's.  Nearly one sixth of Bhutan's population was forced to
flee the country, making Bhutan one of the highest per capita refugee
generators in the world.  
 
In March 2001, after years of stalemate, the governments of Bhutan and Nepal
embarked on a bilateral screening process in Khudunabari camp - with a
population of 12,000 - to determine the identity of the refugees and their
reasons for leaving Bhutan.  The results of the screening were announced on
June 18, 2003.	
 
Refugees told the mission about some of the serious anomalies and failings
in the verification process.  These include:
 
7 Refugees were forced to recount their reasons for leaving Bhutan to the
authorities of the same government responsible for their persecution and
flight.  
7 The criteria on which the categorization was made have not been made
public - thus making it impossible for refugees to effectively appeal their
classification.
7 The majority of the refugees (70%) were classified as "voluntary migrants"
after signing "voluntary migration forms" under duress on leaving Bhutan. 
Many refugees in this category told the delegation that they were forced to
flee discrimination, arbitrary detention, sexual violence, and threats to
their physical safety in Bhutan.
7 In some cases, members of the same family have been placed in different
categories, even though their reasons for fleeing Bhutan are identical, thus
risking the separation of families in the event of repatriation to Bhutan. 
7 In some cases children born in the refugee camps have been classified as
so-called "criminals" and could be liable to stand trial in Bhutan.
7 Some refugees who were minors in Bhutan and thus were not given identity
documents have been classified as non-Bhutanese, even though their parents 
possess identity papers and have been put in different categories.
7 The joint screening team only interviewed male heads of households, thus
denying women the opportunity to have their claims fairly considered.  There
were no women on the joint screening team for most of the process.
 
Refugees were divided into the following categories: Category I - bona fide
Bhutanese citizens (293 people - just 2.5 percent of the refugees); Category
II - refugees who supposedly "voluntarily" migrated from Bhutan (8,595 people
- 70 of the refugees); Category III - non-Bhutanese (2,948 people - 24
percent of the refugees); and Category IV - refugees who have committed
"criminal" acts, including those who participated in so-called
"anti-national" (pro-democracy) activities in Bhutan (347 people - 3 percent
of the refugees).
 
"This process simply does not stand up to scrutiny under international law,"
said Peter Prove, Assistant to the General Secretary of the Lutheran World
Federation.  "Refugees have been classified as 'criminals' in the absence of
clear charges or any semblance of a trial, and apparently in punishment for
exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and
association."
 
Category II is similarly flawed.  All the refugees classified as so-called
"voluntary migrants" told the mission that they signed so-called "voluntary
migration forms" under duress when they were expelled from Bhutan.  Many were
unaware of the content of these forms and that signing them would result in
their loss of citizenship under Bhutanese law.
 
"Under international law everyone has the right to leave and return to their
own country," said Ralston Deffenbaugh, President of the Lutheran Immigration
and Refugee Service.  "Bhutan's policies clearly violate this right."  
 
According to the last round of talks between Bhutan and Nepal in May 2003,
refugees in  Category II will be required to reapply for citizenship after a
minimum probationary period of two years on returning to Bhutan.  The
stringent requirements of Bhutan's citizenship laws, including the
requirement that applicants are fluent in Dzongkha - the language of northern
Bhutan, which most of the Nepali speaking refugees from Southern Bhutan do
not speak - mean that tens of thousands of refugees would be unable to
re-acquire citizenship and could be rendered stateless.
 
A fifteenth round of talks between Bhutan and Nepal is due to begin on
September 8.  The delegation called on Bhutan and Nepal to address the
inconsistencies and inadequacies in the screening process.  In particular: 
 
7 All refugees in Categories I, II and IV should be able to return to Bhutan
in safety and dignity, with full citizenship rights, and to their original
lands and properties.  
7 Refugees in Category III should have access to a full, fair and
independent appeal process.
7 All anomalies in the process (such as family members being placed in
different categories) must be investigated by an independent third party.
7 Future screening should be according to two categories only - Bhutanese
and non-Bhutanese.  Those classified as Bhutanese should be able to return to
Bhutan with full citizenship rights.  Those classified as non-Bhutanese
should have access to a full, fair and independent appeal process.
7 Women should have full access to the verification process in order to
assess their claims independently and fairly and the Joint Verification Team
should include female interviewers.
7 Screening and repatriation should not proceed without the presence of an
independent third party.  Given its international refugee protection mandate,
this should be UNHCR.
7 Refugee representatives should be included at all stages of the
repatriation process.
 
"The international community must insist on a speedy, just, and lasting
solution for the Bhutanese refugees," said Malavika Vartak, of Habitat
International Coalition.  "They should not endorse or support a process that
would violate the refugees' rights." 
 
Delegation members: 
Rachael Reilly, Human Rights Watch
Peter Prove, The Lutheran World Federation
Fr. Varkey Perekkatt S.J., Jesuit Refugee Service
Malavika Vartak, Habitat International Coalition - Housing and Land Rights
Network
Ralston Deffenbaugh, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

For further information contact:
In Kathmandu, Rachael Reilly, Peter Prove, Malavika Vartak, Ralston
Deffenbaugh, Fr. Varkey Perekkatt S.J.: + 977 1 4410 121/ 4429 508 (Hotel
Shakti)
In New York, Rory Mungoven (Human Rights Watch): + 1 212 216 1276/ or 1 917
497 9704 (mobile)
In New York, Alison Parker (Human Rights Watch): + 1 212 216 1291/ or 1 917
535 9796
In London, Urmi Shah (Human Rights Watch): + 44 20 7713 2788
In Geneva, Peter Prove (The Lutheran World Federation): + 41 78 757 6749
(mobile) (from Wednesday, 3 September afternoon)
In Rome, Melanie Teff (Jesuit Refugee Service): +39 06 6897 738

(The LWF is a global comme absence of clear charges or anyunion of Christian
churches in the Lutheran tradition. Founded in 1947 in Lund (Sweden), the LWF
now has 136 member churches in 76 countries representing over 61.7 million of
the 65.4 million Lutherans worldwide. The LWF acts on behalf of its member
churches in areas of common interest such as ecumenical and interfaith
relations, theology, humanitarian assistance, human rights, communication,
and the various aspects of mission and development work. Its secretariat is
located in Geneva, Switzerland.)
 
[Lutheran World Information (LWI) is LWF' information service. Unless
specifically noted, material presented does not represent positions or
opinions of the LWF or of its various units. Where the dateline of a article
contains the notation (LWI), the material may be freely reproduced with
acknowledgment.]

*     *      *

LWI online at: http://www.lutheranworld.org/News/Welcome.EN.html
 
LUTHERAN WORLD INFORMATION
PO Box 2100, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: (41.22) 791.63.54
Fax: (41.22) 791.66.30 
Editor's e-mail: pmu@lutheranworld.org