Written statement submitted by the Asian Indigenous and

Distr.
GENERAL

E/CN.4/2004/NGO/137
8 March 2004

Original: ENGLISH

English only

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sixtieth session
Item 14 (c) of the provisional agenda

SPECIFIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS:
MASS EXODUSES AND DISPLACED PERSONS

Written statement* submitted by the Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network (AITPN), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status

The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31.

[1 February 2004]

UNHCR: Protector turns predator for Burmese refugees in New Delhi

"We have five demands: money to meet our daily requirements, reimbursement of medical bills, security, money for education and work permit," said one of the refugees sitting on the pavement outside the UNHCR office. "If they can't meet all our demands, we want resettlement in a third country. . The Hindu, New Delhi, 8 July 2003

On 12 November 2003, the Delhi Police personnel from Lodhi Road Police Station resorted to unprovoked lathi-charge of the peaceful Burmese asylum seekers and refugees after the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees urged the Government of India to remove the refugee protesters by using any means. UNCHR provided carte blanch to the Delhi Police and the refugees who have been in protest for 23 days at that time were severely beaten – resulting into broken limbs – and charged under various offences under Indian Penal Code. UNHCR has failed to condemn the use of disproportionate force and apologise for giving carte blanch to the Delhi Police in clear violation of the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement personnel. UNHCR also did not provide any legal assistance to the arrested refugees.

The maltreatment of refugees in general and Burmese refugees in particular by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in New Delhi is nothing new. It would not be an under-statement to state that the main interest of the UNHCR is not protection of refugees but to somehow maintain its office in India.

A case study of the UNHCR's dealing with Burmese asylum seekers

There are more than 900 recognized Burmese refugees living in New Delhi under the protection of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in New Delhi. There are also about 600 Burmese nationals in New Delhi who have not been recognized as refugees by UNHCR. Most Chin refugees came to India after their camps were destroyed in Saiha, Mizoram in 1995.

As the Chin armed opposition groups did not sign any cease-fire agreements with the military Junta as yet, repression in the Burmese State of Chinland increased manifold. Since early 2002, more than six hundred Burmese nationals have fled to India seeking refugee status with the UNHCR office in New Delhi. The face serious repression by the Burmese military junta such as using them as forced labour for military purposes and other human rights violations. However, as of June 2003, only 20 of these 600 have been recognized by the UNHCR 'refugees". The rest are being denied refugee status without any written explanation as to the reasons for the rejection.

Of those 20 who have been recognized as refugees, only 5 refugees have been deemed eligible to receive the Subsistence Allowance. In the absence of any skill to find job or legal work permit, the question arises as to how are the refugees supposed to survive in Delhi?

The mal-treatment of refugees by the UNHCR's New Delhi office could be summarised in the following way:

a) UNHCR: Above the law

In UNHCR's Chief of Mission, Lennart Kotsalainen in a letter to Burma Support group in Nordic countries dated 3 July 2003 states "The arrival of applicants suddenly increased between the months of May to July 2002 when almost 600 asylum seekers from Myanmar approached our office. The number of new arrivals thereafter dropped sharply to the level we had experienced in the past. UNHCR has called 631 Myanmarese applicants for refugee status interview between the months of May to December 2002. In view of the high number of unexpected applicants and in order to ensure quality of the interviews, the waiting period for a first interview (following registration already conducted) unfortunately was extended up to 4 months. UNHCR interviewed 478 Myanmarese cases during the above time period while 153 cases did not turn up for the interview. Of the 478 cases interviewed 19 cases were accepted, 419 cases were rejected and 40 cases were pending a first interview in the beginning of 2003. In addition 105 cases had appealed and were pending appeal results." . Letter of UNHCR Chief de Mission to Burma Support Groups in the Nordic cited at http://www.burma.no/nbk/svarbrev/030303_svar_unhcr.htm

The problems of the asylum seekers could be classified in the following way:

First, as the UNHCR Chief of Mission states out 631 refugees, about 153 asylum seekers about 24.25% of the asylum seekers have not appeared for interview. As neither the government of India or UNHCR has any policy to support the asylum seekers while waiting for a decision. The asylum seekers have no other means to support themselves. Therefore, a lot of them return to the North East even if the Damocles sword of refoulement hangs.

Secondly, there is no transparency in the decision making of UNHCR on the grant of refugee status. The UNHCR never provide the justification in writing as to grounds for rejection of asylum to the concerned applicants. Contrary, if the government of India orders deportation of any asylum seekers and the same is challenged in the court, the government of India must justify its action before the court. As UNHCR acts as judge and jury on its decisions, appeal mechanisms of the UNHCR are neither transparent nor meet the standards of due process of law.

b) Inadequate Subsistence Allowance and discrimination on the basis of sex

In 1994, UNHCR increased the subsistence allowance to Rs. 1,400 and Rs. 600 to the dependent person respectively. Although, the prices of essential commodities have increased manifold in the last nine years, UNHCR has decided not to increase the subsistence allowance. The UNHCR does not obviously take into account the inflation in the country.

Rather, UNHCR has been consistently reducing the Subsistence Allowance. More than 400 Burmese refugees who are living in New Delhi held a demonstration in front of UNHCR office in New Delhi on 17 February 2003 to protest against the threat to cut subsistence allowance. Demonstrators shouted " Don't stop----Subsistence Allowance", "Don't treat refugees ---as Animals", "Silent killer---- UNHCR" etc. . http://www.mizzima.com/archives/news-in-2003/news-in-feb/17-feb03-19.htm

c) Promotion of illegal work

The refugees in India do not have the right to work. Yet, UNHCR consistently promotes "self-reliance" of the refugees by encouraging participation in vocational training courses with a view to obtain jobs. In the absence of the right to work, the UNHCR's self reliance policy is nothing but promotion of illegal work. In addition, there is job scarcity even for the Indian nationals. Refugees who do not have the language skills in Hindi and English are disadvantaged and face discrimination.

d) Education

A large number of families report widely varying amounts of money received for the education of their children. There is a strong commitment in the Burmese community to both primary and higher-level education, but many can simply not afford it – especially those who have had their SA cut off, or those with large families or additional dependants to provide for. For most, the education allowance provided by UNHCR does not cover the actual costs of a child's education. While new education initiatives have been introduced by UNHCR with the intention of improving access to education, these proposals have largely been met with disinterest or scepticism due to UNHCR's failure to adequately consult or inform refugees about the plans. . Ibid.

e) Medical Care:

UNHCR has a policy of reimbursing refugees for expenses related to medical care and treatment – provided that it is obtained at a government hospital. The policy is implemented on the presumption that the refugees have the necessary money first to spend at government hospital and then follow bureaucratic procedures of the UNHCR and claim reimbursement later. Since UNHCR provides Rs 1400 to the head of the family out of which the refugees are expected to cover rent, food, travel etc, is it fair and reasonable to expect that the refugees have the money in advance? Moreover, the reimbursement provided by UNHCR does not cover their total expenditure and there is not a transparent or consistent policy regarding the calculation of such reimbursements. This shows the extreme insensitivity of UNHCR to the plight of the refugees.

In addition, the refugees face discrimination at government hospital – ranging from neglect to verbal abuse, sometimes because of their inability to communicate. In serious cases, the refugees are unable to wait for long periods of time at a government hospital.

When the UN agencies such as UNHCR's New Delhi office turn predators, refugees and asylum seekers are unlikely to find an ally in the Delhi Police.

________________

* This written statement is issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting non-governmental organization(s).