BHUTAN/NEPAL/INDIA/UNHCR: Denial of the right to refugee; Political maneuvering, stagnation and human rights violations
One year has past since the refugees of Khudunabari, the first and smallest Bhutanese refugee camp in Nepal, were verified on 14 Dec. 2001, but there has been little or no activity to verify the remaining 88 percent of, or 89,100, Bhutanese refugees.
It was hoped that verification would lead to the speedy repatriation of the 100,000 Bhutanese refugees who have been in exile for over a decade. However, like the first bilateral discussions between Nepal and Bhutan in 1993 where they agreed to do precisely this, the refugees languish in camps, victims to political maneuvering. Repatriation seems to be years, if not decades, away.
Despite its signature to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Bhutan took measures to ethnically cleanse the Nepali speaking Bhutanese known as Lhotshampas. Lhotshampas are Southern Bhutanese of Nepali origin, most of whose predecessors settled as farmers in southern Bhutan between 1875 and 1940. With the aim to implement its one nation one culture policy based on the traditions of the ruling Ngalong ethnic group, the 1958 Citizenship Act giving citizenship to Lhotshampas who had lived in Bhutan for at least ten years and owned land, was retroactively narrowed by the Citizenship Acts of 1977 and 1985. Not only was the requirement of residence in Bhutan extended from ten to twenty years, but language and cultural requirements that reflected those of the Ngalongs were also made compulsory. The 1985 Act began to be enforced arbitrarily on southern regions alone, with additional outrageous requirements: those who could not show documentation from 1958, even if they had documentation of residence in 1957, were not considered citizens. Protests and petitions to the king that began in 1990 resulted in violence, costing the lives of both citizens and officials. Unfortunately, even those who petitioned peacefully were deemed “anti-national” and many were imprisoned. Policies were created so that anyone who were deemed “anti-national” would be evicted from the country. Evidence shows that threats, coercion, torture, rape, arrests, and harassment were used to make many Lhotshampas leave Bhutan; during this time homes were destroyed and 76 of the 114 schools in southern Bhutan were closed. Some refugees were forced to sign Voluntary Migration Forms (VMF), to which the government denies. From 1990 to 1993 over 80,000 refugees crossed the border to India and then Nepal.
Unfortunately, little has been done to change the situation. For over a decade the dignity and livelihood of the Bhutanese refugees have been violated, and though the refugee status, by its very nature is supposed to be temporary, refugee life has become systematized and institutionalized. For ten years these refugees have queued for their rationing of food and clothing, and, unlike Tibetan refugees in India, are prohibited from working. Movement is restricted and, due to donor drain, educational opportunities for youth have been curtailed. The bleakness of repatriation has led some to consider violence. Furthermore, safety within the camps cannot be taken for granted. Cases of sexual violence committed by UNHCR officials against Bhutanese refugee women and girls have been recorded since 2000.
Though bilateral talks between Nepal and Bhutan agreeing to a verification process leading to the repatriation began in Oct. 1993, it was only during the 10th bilateral meeting on Dec. 2000 that they agreed to establish the Joint Verification Team (JVT), which was made up of either Bhutanese or Nepali officials alone. The process was criticized as being opaque ?as neither by what equation one would be deemed Bhutanese or what they would with the findings was told ?and slow, and a mere show to appease the international community. Though measures were taken to speed the process in the 11th bilateral talk in Aug. 2001, Amnesty International estimated that six years would be necessary for all refugees to be verified. Though the interviews that began in Khudunabari, the least populated of the seven camps, ended on 14 Dec. 2001, the JVT did not disclose the results of the verification. Furthermore, the JVT made no further actions to proceed in completing the verification of the six remaining camps, leaving approximately 88 percent or 89,100 yet to be verified, according to the Association of Human Rights Activists Bhutan (AHURA Bhutan). AHURA, 99.8 percent of the Khudunabari refugee families presented valid documentary evidences to the JVT.
A year has past, but the next (12th) bilateral talk is still pending, and both states have yet to come to any conclusion as to how the Bhutanese refugees should be categorized. Nepal’s proposal of a two-part categorization (Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese) during the 11th bilateral talk was rejected by Bhutan. Bhutan instead insisted on the four-part categorization agreed in 1993 a) Bonafide Bhutanese, if they were forcefully evicted, b) Bhutanese who emigrated, c) Non-Bhutanese, and d) Bhutanese who had committed criminal acts? but many NGOs and refugees have been concerned that this violates international norms of citizenship and would take away the citizenship of many Bhutanese refugees, especially since many of the terms of the categorization remain undefined. Bhutan’s main contention is that many of the refugees in the camps are not in fact true Bhutanese nationals, but illegal migrants, local citizens of Nepal, or those who willfully forfeited their right to citizenship by leaving the country. Evidence shows the contrary.
Furthermore, thus far no measures have been taken to discuss the repatriation procedures and the conditions to which the refugees will return. Evidence state that the government has pillaged houses and villages of the refugees, only to repopulate them with Northern Bhutanese. Discrimination against the Lhotshampas continues within Bhutans borders. Civil servants who had relatives in refugee camps were forced to retire and Lhotshampas continue to be harassed. Though Bhutan is party to the CRC, and is obligated not to discriminate children based on ethnicity or descent, in June 2001, the Committee on CRC expressed concern because Lhotshampas children received de facto discrimination in access to education and services.
Though the UNHCR’s responsibility is to promote the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, its involvement to speed the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees has been disappointing and the UNHCR remained unresponsiveness to Oxfam-GB’s 2000 report on sexual abuse in the camps. Only after a Nov. 2002 expose from the Khatmandu Post did the UNHCR headquarters investigate and admit that 16 UNHCR officials were guilty of committing sexual violence against Bhutanese refugee women and children. As the UNHCR has taken steps to review the refugee camp situation, it can take greater participation in the verification process, urging both governments to come to a proper conclusion regarding the categorization of the refugees.
Though the international community responded with outrage to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, little consistent attention has been given to the plight of the Bhutanese refugees. Governments and donor agencies continued to pour resources into Bhutan, and only a handful of NGOs sought to place the needed pressure on the governments of Bhutan and Nepal. Though the European Parliament passed a June 2000 resolution, calling on Bhutan and Nepal with cooperation with all parties involved to reach an agreement for the early and voluntary repatriation of refugees to their country of origin, its members like Denmark, Austria, and the Netherlands continue to donate funds to the Bhutanese government, without directly addressing the refugee matter. These three states, in addition to other donors like Japan and Switzerland are all party to the CSR. Furthermore, donor states, which also include India and Kuwait, have all ratified or acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and affirm that fundamental rights are not exclusive to their States citizenry but to all human beings.
Furthermore, India is Bhutan’s largest donor country its lack of involvement has been disappointing, particularly because a) 25,000 Bhutanese refugees are said to be residing in India and b) many of the Nepal-based refugees had fled first to India, only to be taken eastward to Nepal. The Indo-Bhutan Treaty of 1949 states that while India will not interfere in Bhutan’s domestic administration, Bhutan will be guided by Indias advice to international relations and as India has great influence as a sub-regional leader, India can play a critical role in furthering the discussion between Nepal and Bhutan.
As there has been little movement since the verification of the first camp, and as the Bhutanese refugee situation is an international matter, AHRC urges you to send letters to the governments of a) Bhutan, b) Nepal, and c) India, d) donor countries (Denmark, Austria, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland), and the UNHCR.
Please write your own letters or use the sample letters below.
SAMPLE LETTER
1. To the King, H.M. Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan
One year has past since the refugees of Khudunabari, the first and smallest Bhutanese refugee camp in Nepal, were verified on 14 Dec. 2001, but there has been little or no activity to verify the remaining 88 percent, or 89,100, of Bhutanese refugees.
I write with great disappointment regarding the lack of progress of the repatriation of the 100,000 Bhutanese Refugees who continue to languish in refugee camps across the border of Nepal and India.
From the start, though it was hoped that the Joint Verification Team (JVT) would quickly verify the status of the refugees and resolve the decade-long refugee problem, the verification procedure was criticized as a mere show to appease the international community: it was opaque and slow. It was not told by what equation one would be deemed Bhutanese or what they would do with the findings, only Nepalese or Bhutanese officials were members of the JVT, and Amnesty International and other organizations have said that it would take six to ten years to completely verify all refugees. This year’s past inactivity seems to confirm the concerns. After the complete verification of the first and smallest refugee camp, Khudunabari, no further verification has been done, no verdicts made, and the 12th bilateral discussion still pending.
Therefore, I urge that your government make steps for the verification process be resumed, but one that is both transparent and efficient. As it is an international matter and a matter of refugee concern, to ensure that refugee interests are presented and that verification is done properly, members of the refugee community and the UNHCR must be part of the JVT. The number of the JVT must be increased to expedite the verification process, a clear timeline must be created to monitor its effectiveness, the formula of verification must be formalized and publicized, the blueprint for how repatriation will be handled must be created, and Bhutanese members of the JVT must have not been agents who were enforcers the 1985 Citizenship Act.
Furthermore, categorization of refugees must be based on international norms of citizenship, and not on national legislation alone. In fact it is disappointing to learn that Bhutanese national legislations violate the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to which your government has signed, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which your country has ratified.
Finally, I urge your government to ratify and respect the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee. I urge the government to take active measures to agree on a two-part categorization of Bhutanese citizenship, with terms clearly defined, in accordance with international standards of human rights and take all measures necessary to for the quick and safe repatriation of Bhutanese refugees. Please implement the recommendations given by 2001 report from the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Thank you for your government’s commitment to uphold human rights standards and I look forward to hear of your quick attention to the matter.
—–
2. To the Government of Nepal,
1. Mr. Sher Bahadur Deuba
Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Nepal
Office of the Prime Minister
Singha Durbar
Kathmandu, NEPAL
Tel: +977 1 227955 or 1 228555
Fax: +977 1 227786
One year has past since the refugees of Khudunabari, the first and smallest Bhutanese refugee camp in Nepal, were verified on 14 Dec. 2001, but there has been little or no activity to verify the remaining 88 percent, or 89,100, of Bhutanese refugees.
I write with great disappointment regarding the lack of progress of the repatriation of the 100,000 Bhutanese Refugees who continue to languish in refugee camps across the border of Nepal and India.
From the start, though it was hoped that the Joint Verification Team (JVT) would quickly verify the status of the refugees and resolve the decade-long refugee problem, the verification procedure was criticized as a mere show to appease the international community: it was opaque and slow. It was not told by what equation one would be deemed Bhutanese or what they would do with the findings, only Nepalese or Bhutanese officials were members of the JVT, and Amnesty International and other organizations have said that it would take six to ten years to completely verify all refugees. This year’s past inactivity seems to confirm the concerns. After the complete verification of the first and smallest refugee camp, Khudunabari, no further verification has been done, no verdicts made, and the 12th bilateral discussion still pending.
I commend Nepal’s step in stating that Bhutanese refugees must be categorized according to international norms of citizenship where a refugee is either Bhutanese or non-Bhutanese, rather than a four-part categorization. However, Nepals role must be greater to expedite the process.
Therefore, I urge that your government take steps to ensure that the verification process be resumed, but one that is both transparent and efficient. As it is an international matter and a matter of refugee concern, to ensure that refugee interests are presented and that verification is done properly, members of the refugee community and the UNHCR must be part of the JVT. The number of the JVT must be increased to expedite the verification process, a clear timeline must be created to monitor its effectiveness, the formula of verification must be formalized and publicized, the blueprint for how repatriation will be handled must be created, and Bhutanese members of the JVT must have not been agents who were enforcers of the 1985 Citizenship Act.
I urge your government to ratify and respect the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee. I urge the government to take active measures to agree on a two-part categorization of Bhutanese citizenship, with terms clearly defined, in accordance with international standards of human rights and take all measures necessary to for the quick and safe repatriation of Bhutanese refugees.
Finally, I request that you urge the UNHCR to be more involved in protecting the rights of the Bhutanese refugees. Though the UNHCRs responsibility is to promote the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, its involvement to speed the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees has been disappointing. Though the UNHCR is the designated protector of refugees, the UNHCR remained unresponsiveness to Oxfam-GB’s 2000 report on sexual abuse in the camps, giving the perpetrators impunity. Only after a November 2002 expose from the Khatmandu Post did the UNHCR headquarters investigate and admit that 16 UNHCR officials were guilty of committing sexual violence against Bhutanese refugee women and children. As the UNHCR has taken steps to review the refugee camp situation, please collaborate with the UNHCR so that the process of repatriation would be expedited.
Thank you for your governments commitment to uphold human rights standards, and I look forward to hear of your quick attention to the matter.
—
3. To the Government of India
2. The Prime Minister of India,
H.E. Atal Bihari Vajpayee
South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi 110 011
INDIA
Tel: +91 11 3016996 (Joint Secretary of PM), 3018939 (Personal Secretary of PM)
Fax: +91 11 3016857/3019545 (Office), +91 11 3019334 (Residence)
E-mail:vajpayee@sansad.nic.in or http://pmindia.nic.in/writetous.htm
One year has past since the refugees of Khudunabari, the first and smallest Bhutanese refugee camp in Nepal, were verified on 14 December 2001, but there has been little or no activity to verify the remaining 88 percent, or 89,100, of Bhutanese refugees.
I write with great disappointment to hear that India while is the largest donor of Bhutan and the largest democracy in the world, your government has not been taking the necessary steps to encourage and place due pressure on the Bhutanese government for the speedy repatriation of the 100,000 population who continue to languish as Bhutanese refugees in your country or in refugee camps across the border of Nepal.
From the start, though it was hoped that the Joint Verification Team (JVT) would quickly verify the status of the refugees and resolve the decade-long refugee problem, the verification procedure was criticized as a mere show to appease the international community: it was opaque and slow. It was not told by what equation one would be deemed Bhutanese or what they would do with the findings, only Nepalese or Bhutanese officials were members of the JVT, and Amnesty International and other organizations have said that it would take six to ten years to completely verify all refugees. This years past inactivity seems to confirm the concerns. After the complete verification of the first and smallest refugee camp, Khudunabari, no further verification has been done, no verdicts made, and the 12th bilateral discussion still pending.
Though the international community responded with outrage to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, little consistent attention has been given to the plight of the Bhutanese refugees. Governments and donor agencies have continued to pour resources into Bhutan, where only a handful of NGOs sought to place the needed pressure on the governments of Bhutan and Nepal. Despite its signature to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Bhutan took measures to ethnically cleanse the Nepali speaking Bhutanese known as Lhotshampas. Many of its legislations violate CERC and CRC.
The European Parliament passed a June 2000 resolution, calling on Bhutan and Nepal with cooperation with all parties involved to reach an agreement for the early and voluntary repatriation of refugees to their country of origin. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its 7 September 2001 report urged the Bhutanese government to “make greater efforts to expedite the verification process and consider the possibility of repatriation individuals within a reasonable time following individual verification.”
Your states silence has been particularly disappointing because a. 25,000 Bhutanese refugees are said to be residing in India and b. many of the Nepal-based refugees had fled first to India, only to be taken eastward to Nepal. The Indo-Bhutan Treaty of 1949 states that while India will not interfere in Bhutans domestic administration, Bhutan will be guided by Indias advice to international relations. As the Bhutanese refugee situation is an international matter, as India has great influence as a sub-regional leader, and as your state affirms that fundamental rights are not exclusive to individuals with particular citizenship but to all human beings, I urge your government to take greater actions in placing needed pressure to expedite the verification and full repatriation of the Bhutanese refugees with the requests highlighted:
Please stress that the verification process be resumed, but one that is both transparent and efficient. As it is an international matter and a matter of refugee concern, to ensure that refugee interests are presented and that verification is done properly, members of the refugee community and the UNHCR must be part of the JVT. The number of the JVT must be increased to expedite the verification process, a clear timeline must be created to monitor its effectiveness, the formula of verification must be formalized and publicized, the blueprint for how repatriation will be handled must be created, and Bhutanese members of the JVT must have not been agents who enforced the 1985 Citizenship Act.
Furthermore, categorization of refugees must be based on international norms of citizenship, and not on national legislation alone. In fact Bhutanese national legislations violate the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to which Bhutan has signed, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Bhutan has ratified. Please encourage them to implement the recommendations given by 2001 report from the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Please urge both the governments of Nepal and Bhutan to ratify and respect the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee, and the governments to take active measures to agree on a two-part categorization of Bhutanese citizenship, with terms clearly defined, in accordance with international standards of human rights and take all measures necessary to for the quick and safe repatriation of Bhutanese refugees.
Finally, I request that you urge the UNHCR to be more involved in protecting the rights of the Bhutanese refugees. Though the UNHCRs responsibility is to promote the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, its involvement to speed the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees has been disappointing. Though the UNHCR is the designated protector of refugees, the UNHCR remained unresponsiveness to Oxfam-GBs 2000 report on sexual abuse in the camps, giving the perpetrators impunity. Only after a November 2002 expose from the Khatmandu Post did the UNHCR headquarters investigate and admit that 16 UNHCR officials were guilty of committing sexual violence against Bhutanese refugee women and children. As the UNHCR has taken steps to review the refugee camp situation, please encourage and collaborate with the UNHCR to take greater participation in the verification process, urging both governments to come to a proper conclusion regarding the categorization of the refugees.
Thank you for your governments commitment to uphold human rights standards, irrespective of border, and I look forward to hear of your quick attention to the matter.
—–
3. To Donor Countries (excluding India)
One year has past since the refugees of Khudunabari, the first and smallest Bhutanese refugee camp in Nepal, were verified on 14 December 2001, but there has been little or no activity to verify the remaining 88 percent, or 89,100, of Bhutanese refugees.
I write with great disappointment to hear that while your country continues to donate needed resources to Bhutan, it has not been taking necessary steps to encourage and place due pressure on the Bhutanese government to quickly repatriate the 100,000+ population who continue to languish as Bhutanese refugees in refugee camps across the border of Nepal and India.
From the start, though it was hoped that the Joint Verification Team (JVT) would quickly verify the status of the refugees and resolve the decade-long refugee problem, the verification procedure was criticized as a mere show to appease the international community: it was opaque and slow. It was not told by what equation one would be deemed Bhutanese or what they would do with the findings, only Nepalese or Bhutanese officials were members of the JVT, and Amnesty International and other organizations have said that it would take six to ten years to completely verify all refugees. This years past inactivity seems to confirm the concerns. After the complete verification of the first and smallest refugee camp, Khudunabari, no further verification has been done, no verdicts made, and the 12th bilateral discussion still pending.
Though the international community responded with outrage to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, little consistent attention has been given to the plight of the Bhutanese refugees. Governments and donor agencies have continued to pour resources into Bhutan, where only a handful of NGOs sought to place the needed pressure on the governments of Bhutan and Nepal. Despite its signature to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Bhutan took measures to ethnically cleanse the Nepali speaking Bhutanese known as Lhotshampas. Many of its legislations violate CERC and CRC.
The European Parliament passed a June 2000 resolution, calling on Bhutan and Nepal with cooperation with all parties involved to reach an agreement for the early and voluntary repatriation of refugees to their country of origin. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its 7 September 2001 report urged the Bhutanese government to “make greater efforts to expedite the verification process and consider the possibility of repatriation individuals within a reasonable time following individual verification.”
As your state affirms that fundamental rights are not exclusive to individuals with particular citizenship but to all human beings, and has your money has both direct and indirect ways of supporting Bhutanese government policies, I urge your government to take greater actions in placing needed pressure to expedite the verification and full repatriation of the Bhutanese refugees with the requests highlighted:
Please stress that the verification process be immediately resumed, but one that is both transparent and efficient. As it is an international matter and a matter of refugee concern, to ensure that refugee interests are presented and that verification is done properly, members of the refugee community and the UNHCR must be part of the JVT. The number of the JVT must be increased to expedite the verification process, a clear timeline must be created to monitor its effectiveness, the formula of verification must be formalized and publicized, the blueprint for how repatriation will be handled must be created, and Bhutanese members of the JVT must have not been agents who enforced the 1985 Citizenship Act.
Furthermore, categorization of refugees must be based on international norms of citizenship, and not on national legislation alone. In fact Bhutanese national legislations violate the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to which Bhutan has signed, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Bhutan has ratified. Please encourage Bhutan to implement the recommendations given by 2001 report from the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Please urge both the governments of Nepal and Bhutan to ratify and respect the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee, and the governments to take active measures to agree on a two-part categorization of Bhutanese citizenship, with terms clearly defined, in accordance with international standards of human rights and take all measures necessary to for the quick and safe repatriation of Bhutanese refugees.
Additionally, as India is Bhutans largest donor country, Indias silence has been particularly disappointing because a. 25,000 Bhutanese refugees are said to be residing in India and b. many of the Nepal-based refugees had fled first to India, only to be taken eastward to Nepal. The Indo-Bhutan Treaty of 1949 states that while India will not interfere in Bhutans domestic administration, Bhutan will be guided by Indias advice to international relations. As the Bhutanese refugee situation is an international matter, and as India has great influence as a sub-regional leader, please encourage the government of India to play a critical role in furthering the discussion between Nepal and Bhutan.
Finally, I request that you urge the UNHCR to be more involved in protecting the rights of the Bhutanese refugees. Though the UNHCRs responsibility is to promote the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, its involvement to speed the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees has been disappointing. Though the UNHCR is the designated protector of refugees, the UNHCR remained unresponsiveness to Oxfam-GBs 2000 report on sexual abuse in the camps, giving the perpetrators impunity. Only after a November 2002 expose from the Khatmandu Post did the UNHCR headquarters investigate and admit that 16 UNHCR officials were guilty of committing sexual violence against Bhutanese refugee women and children. As the UNHCR has taken steps to review the refugee camp situation, please encourage it to take greater participation in the verification process, urging both governments to come to a proper and speedy conclusion regarding the categorization of the refugees.
Thank you for your governments commitment to uphold human rights standards, irrespective of border, and I look forward to hear of your quick attention to the matter.
—
4. To the United Nations High Commission of Refugees,
Prof. Rudolphus Franciscus Marie Lubbers
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
C.P. 2500,
Geneva 2,
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 739 8111
Email: webmaster@unhcr.ch
PLEASE MARK: ATT – HIGH COMMISSIONER LUBBERS
One year has past since the refugees of Khudunabari, the first and smallest Bhutanese refugee camp in Nepal, were verified on 14 December 2001, but there has been little or no activity to verify the remaining 88 percent, or 89,100, of Bhutanese refugees.
I write with great disappointment regarding the lack of progress of the repatriation of the 100,000+ Bhutanese Refugees who continue to languish in refugee camps across the border of Nepal and India.
From the start, though it was hoped that the Joint Verification Team (JVT) would quickly verify the status of the refugees and resolve the decade-long refugee problem, the verification procedure was criticized as a mere show to appease the international community: it was opaque and slow. It was not told by what equation one would be deemed Bhutanese or what they would do with the findings, only Nepalese or Bhutanese officials were members of the JVT, and Amnesty International and other organizations have said that it would take six to ten years to completely verify all refugees. This years past inactivity seems to confirm the concerns. After the complete verification of the first and smallest refugee camp, Khudunabari, no further verification has been done, no verdicts made, and the 12th bilateral discussion still pending.
Though the UNHCRs responsibility is to promote the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, its involvement to speed the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees has been disappointing. Though the UNHCR is the designated protector of refugees, I was shocked to hear that the UNHCR remained unresponsiveness to Oxfam-GBs 2000 report on sexual abuse in the camps. Only after a November 2002 expose from the Khatmandu Post did the UNHCR headquarters investigate and admit that 16 UNHRC officials were guilty of committing sexual violence against Bhutanese refugee women and children. As the UNHCR has taken steps to review the refugee camp situation, it can take greater participation in the verification process, urging both governments to come to a proper conclusion regarding the categorization of the refugees.
Therefore, I request that the UNHCR take greater involvement in the process where you urge that the verification process be resumed, but one that is both transparent and efficient. As it is an international matter and a matter of refugee concern, to ensure that refugee interests are presented and that verification is done properly, members of the refugee community and the UNHCR must be part of the JVT. The number of the JVT must be increased to expedite the verification process, a clear timeline must be created to monitor its effectiveness, the formula of verification must be formalized and publicized, the blueprint for how repatriation will be handled must be created, and Bhutanese members of the JVT must have not been agents who enforced the 1985 Citizenship Act.
Finally, please urge both Nepal and Bhutanese governments to ratify and respect the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee. The UNHCR must urge that categorization of refugees be based on international norms of citizenship, and not on national legislation alone. It must take active measures to arrange another bilateral talk and agree on a two-part categorization of Bhutanese citizenship, with terms clearly defined, in accordance with international standards of human rights and take all measures necessary to for the quick and safe repatriation of Bhutanese refugees.
Thank you for your commitment to uphold human rights standards and being the voice of the refugees and look forward to hearing of your quick attention to the matter.
