Submission from Free Tibet
WORSENING HUMAN
RIGHTS SITUATION
IN TIBET
Over 1,200 detained Tibetans unaccounted for
Since Spring 2008 the Chinese authorities have
persistently failed to account for the whereabouts and identities
of approximately 1,200 Tibetans detained in the immediate aftermath
of the Spring protests.
A report issued by the US Congressional Executive
Committee on China (CECC) issued in August 2008 noted that "The
current status of more than 1,200 alleged rioters remains unknown".
Free Tibet and other NGOs have constantly called on the British
government, the EU and other intergovernmental organisations to
press the Chinese government to supply a list of all those Tibetans
still detained in connection with the protests of March-May 2008,
listing names and location of detention centre.
LACK OF
DUE PROCESS
There are grave concerns regarding the lack
of transparency and absence of legal safeguards for those detainees
who are charged and tried in Tibet's courts. There is considerable
evidence that Chinese procedural law is not being respected by
its own courts.
In April 2009 five Tibetans were sentenced to death
by the Municipal Intermediate People's Court in Lhasa for their
alleged involvement in arson attacks on commercial properties
in Lhasa on 14 March 2008 which led to the deaths of Han Chinese
business people.[183]
Three were given suspended death sentences that have been automatically
commuted to life imprisonment; but two of the Tibetans, Lobsang
Gyaltsen and Loyak, were not given suspended sentences and could
be executed at any time. There are reports that indicate that
many legal safeguards were not observed in these trials.
According to a press release issued by the Tibetan
Government-in-Exile on 22 May 2009,[184]
the family members of Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak, and those of
two other Tibetans given suspended death sentences on 8 April,
were not informed that the trials were taking place. Under Chinese
criminal procedure law the relevant public security organ is obliged
to "notify within 24 hours the relative of the detainee or
his (or her) employer about the reasons of the detention or arrest
and the locality of the confinement".
It was also stated that family members of the
four sentenced to death on 8 April were denied the right to find
legal representation for the defendants. Similarly, prisons are
obliged to "guarantee the rights of lawyers to meet their
clients".[185]
Official media reports on the Lhasa arson cases
have failed to clarify whether Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak, at
the time of sentencing on 8 April, were advised by the Lhasa court
of their rights under Chinese criminal procedure law to appeal
against their sentences. Any appeal should, according to Chinese
law, take place in an open court.
Official media reports have similarly failed
to state whether the death sentences passed on Lobsang Gyaltsen
and Loyak were referred to the Supreme People's Court; under Chinese
law all death sentences should be reviewed by the Supreme People's
Court.
There are strong grounds for suspecting that
such legal safeguards were ignored in the cases of Lobsang Gyaltsen
and Loyak. Judgements in death penalty cases are routinely not
made public and there are no institutional avenues for legal experts
and scholars to scrutinise the arguments made in court that have
led to death penalty verdicts.
MILITARY PRESENCE
The Tibetan plateau is under de facto
martial law. Free Tibet has documented a significant military
build-up in Tibet since the protests in March 2008 and the Beijing
Olympics, particularly in more restive regions.
There were widespread reports of an enormous deployment
of up to 20,000 Chinese troops into Tibet in the approach to 10
March 2009; the number of incoming troops cannot be verified as
troop movements are a state secret in China. Pictures obtained
by Free Tibet[186]
display huge numbers of armed Chinese troops and police in the
Tibetan monastery town of Labrang (Ch: Xia He, Gansu province).
"STRIKE HARD
CAMPAIGN"
On 23 January 2009 the official Lhasa Evening
News reported the launch on 18 January of a "strike-hard"
campaign in Lhasa in which around 3,000 Tibetan homes were searched,
6,000 Tibetans questioned and more than 80 detained.[187]
In the Tibetan monastery town of Labrang (Ch: Xia He, Gansu province)
in February 2009 the state media was used to announce that the
authorities would not be held responsible if anyone protesting
in the town in the approach to Tibetan New Year were killed or
arrested.
RESTRICTIONS ON
COMMUNICATIONS
In order to restrict the flow of information
within and outside Tibet the Chinese authorities regularly restrict
and monitor communications networks including internet, mobile
phones, national and international landlines in the Tibetan Autonomous
Region and Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures, making communications
within and beyond these areas both difficult and dangerous. Associated
Press reported that Lhasa residents received notice on their cell
phones from China Mobile Ltd that voice and text messaging services
might face disruption from 10 March to 1 May 2009 for "network
improvements". Similar measures have been taken in other
Tibetan communities as the government seeks to restrict communications
networks that activists used to spread word of protests in March
2008.
Detentions and convictions for communicating with
contacts within and outside Tibet further add to the climate of
fear and self-censorship. In November 2008 Wangdu, a Tibetan public
health worker, was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Lhasa
City Intermediary People's Court for allegedly forwarding information
to people outside Tibet. The same court sentenced six other Tibetans
to prison terms of between eight and 15 years for "forwarding
information" to the "Dalai Clique" (Chinese terminology
for sending information to the outside world).
TORTURE
Chinese Criminal Procedure Law specifically
prohibits the use of torture. But evidence demonstrates that there
is an alarming gap between the law prohibiting torture and its
actual implementation. Evidence collected by Free Tibet points
to the continuing widespread and routine use of torture by the
Chinese authorities inside Tibet.
Free Tibet's contention that torture remains widespread
inside Tibet was endorsed by the UN Committee Against Torture
(CAT) which in November 2008 reviewed China's record on torture.
In its conclusions[188]
the CAT stated its deep concern "...of routine and widespread
use of torture... especially to extract confessions or information
to be used in criminal proceedings" and "Continued reliance
on confessions as a common form of evidence for prosecution."
On 8 April 2009 the official Chinese news agency,
Xinhua, reported that, in at least one of the cases resulting
in death sentences (see above), a defendant's confession was used
as evidence:[189]
"His [Tenzin Phuntsog] crime deserves the
death penalty, but judges reached the verdict [death-sentence
with a two-year reprieve] while taking into consideration that
he had been put up to the violence and showed a positive attitude
in admitting his crime after he was arrested".
Free Tibet believes that the UN CAT's findings
on the routine use of torture to obtain confessions, together
with Xinhua's confirmed use of a confession of guilt as
evidence in at least one of the arson cases, means that serious
concerns must remain that the evidence presented against the five
Tibetans sentenced to death in April was unreliable and that their
convictions are consequently unsafe.
Some of the Committee's most damning assessments
on China's record on torture refer to events in Tibet in Spring
2008. The Committee noted "with great concern" reports
on the ensuing Chinese crackdown which, according to the Committee,
had "deepened a climate of fear and further inhibits accountability".
Referring to widespread arrests and detentions in the aftermath
of the Spring Uprising, the Committee noted a "reported lack
of restraint with which persons were treated, based on numerous
allegations and credible reports made available to the Committee".
In its own submission to the Committee[190]
Free Tibet submitted evidence it had obtained of Chinese government
measures to be taken against monks, nuns and monasteries who voiced
or distributed "splittist slogans" or who took part
in "illegal demonstration to incite splittism". The
measures were posted in the official Tibet Daily newspaper,
indicating the importance attached by the government to them.
They were subsequently posted on a Chinese government news website
under the heading "Order of the Kandze Tibetan Autonomous
Prefectural Government" and apply in that region. The measures
clearly created the conditions for torture:
"A monk or nun charged with quite serious
crimes will remain in custody until s/he cooperates by telling
the truth, confessing their guilt and submitting a shuyig [self-criticising
letter]".
WEAKENING OF
BRITISH GOVERNMENT'S
FOREIGN POLICY
STRATEGY TO
ADDRESS HUMAN
RIGHTS IN
CHINA AND
TIBET
There is a deepening human rights crisis in
Tibet, but little evidence that UK foreign policy instruments
are contributing to the protection of fundamental human rights
in Tibet.
Failure of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue to
make a demonstrable impact on human rights in China and Tibet
In its 2007 Human Rights Report the Foreign
Affairs Committee recommended that the British government "should
be ready to discontinue the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue if
substantial progress is not made in the coming year." According
to the Foreign Office the dialogue provides a forum for constructive
discussion on human rights issues, but by its own admission it
has not yielded any real progress on human rights in Tibet since
its inception in 1997.
The failure of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue
in 2008-09 is further evidenced by the fact that, at the request
of the Chinese government, the dialogue has taken place only once
in over 18 months despite being scheduled to take place twice
a year.
Free Tibet welcomes forums in which specific
human rights issues can be directly addressed with representatives
of the Chinese Government; however we believe the UK-China Human
Rights Dialogue, now in its 12th year, needs to be more robust
to ensure that actual progress can be measured. Unlike other UK
bi- or multi-lateral human rights processes, the UK-China Human
Rights Dialogue does not have any measurable benchmarks or timeframes
to monitor progress. The simple fact these and other meetings
(including bi-lateral ministerial meetings) have taken place are
provided as the indicators of success, as opposed to actual improvements
in human rights in China and Tibet.
COLLAPSE OF
THE SINO
TIBETAN TALKS
AFTER CHANGE
TO UK FOREIGN
POLICY ON
TIBET
On 29 October 2008, the Foreign Secretary issued
a Written Ministerial Statement in which Britain's position on
Tibet changed unequivocally, ending its stance that China only
had a "special position" in Tibet (based on principles
of suzerainty) and reversing history by recognising Tibet as part
of the People's Republic of China. This change in position was
made without parliamentary oversight.
The Ministerial Statement was issued only days before
the last round of Sino Tibetan talks which subsequently collapsed.
It is understood that the UK's change in position was cited as
a "victory" by the Chinese delegation at the talks,
and as evidence of international support for China's position
in Tibet.
The Foreign Secretary in his written statement
(cited above) referred to the Sino Tibetan talks as "...the
only forum in which there is any realistic possibility of progress
to resolve the differences between the parties involved."
With their collapse it is unclear how the UK Government now expects
the crisis in Tibet to be resolved.
The UK and China: A Framework for Engagement
Foreign and Commonwealth Office policy document, published January
2009.
While Free Tibet is encouraged that the promotion
of human rights is central to the UK's framework for engagement
with China, the stated benchmarks for human rights outcomes are
weak. This brings into question whether human rights organisations
were consulted to help identify benchmarks and directly challenges
the sincerity with which greater respect for human rights is truly
integral to the UK Government's approach to China.
For example, the strategy aims to secure China's
ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) within three years, despite the fact that China
signed the ICCPR more than 10 years ago and has not, despite repeated
requests from UN bodies, provided any timeframe or road-map for
its ratification or inclusion into Chinese legislation. On detention
without trial, the UK framework calls only for a "reduction",
a weakening of the UN's demand for its outright abolition.
July 2009
183 Free Tibet's press releases on the death sentences
are available at: http://www.freetibet.org/newsmedia/080409 and
http://www.freetibet.org/newsmedia/210409 Back
184
The Tibetan government in exile's press release is available at:
http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=935&articletype=flash Back
185
These legal safeguards under Chinese law were set out by China
in its response to the UN Committee Against Torture's questions
prior to the Committee's Fourth Periodic Review of China in November
2008. China's responses are available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.CHN.Q.4.Add.1_en.pdf Back
186
Available at: http://www.freetibet.org/newsmedia/photos-labrang-12-february-2009 Back
187
The Guardian's report is available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/28/tibet-china-security-crackdown Back
188
The UN Committee on Torture's conclusions are available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.CHN.CO.4.pdf Back
189
The Xinhua article is available at: http://www.china.org.cn/china/news/2009-04/21/content_17643102.htm Back
190
Free Tibet's submission to the UN Committee Against Torture is
available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/cats41.htm Back
| 
