Amnesty International has called on the Indian government to clarify reports of seven disappearances that took place during 1987 and 1988. Eye-witnesses claimed that they saw three of the ‘disappeared’ while in Punjab police custody. Although some police investigations were conducted, there has been no independent investigation of these ‘disappearances’

The following is the fourth and final part of the Amnesty report.

Despite official denials, there are indications that the police were specifically looking for Mr. Veeramani in the days before his reported abduction. Three members of the Youth Centre have claimed that they were arrested a few days before Veeramani’s “disappearance” and those they were beaten by the Tamil Nadu police to force them to disclose his whereabouts. All three allege that the police refused to keep records of their arrest or bring them before a magistrate as the law requires. One of them, Nathan says that he was arrested on 22 August 1988 by policemen from the Adugodi police station, was held at the Kadagod Halli and Commercial Street police stations and was then handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Tamil Nadu and beaten. He was released on 26 August the day after his relatives had brought a habeas corpus petition in court, asking that he be brought before the court. Two others, Mr. Arumugam and his wife Mrs. Lalitaha, claim that they were arrested one day earlier, on 21 August at 10 pm from their home at K.G Halli by a joint party of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu police. They say that they were beaten with sticks by the Tamil Nadu police while being interrogated about the whereabouts of members of the Youth Centre, specifically Veeramani.

Amnesty International believes that the detailed reports about Veeramani’s arrest and his own account of what happened to him while in unacknowledged detention are credible even though officials have denied them. Veeramani’s own account of his mistreatment in custody by the Tamil Nadu police is corroborated by various eyewitnesses, including another former detainee who saw him while he was held in unacknowledged detention.

Avtar Singh Sidhu: “Disappearance” of 47 days resolved

Avtar Singh Sidhu, an owner of a pesticides shop in Muktsar, Faridkot district Punjab, “disappeared” on 14 October 1988 after he voluntarily reported to the Director General of Police (DGP), K.P.S. Gill at his residence in Chandigarh in the presence of a former member of parliament (MP). He is approximately 30 years old and is the president of the Youth Akali Dal, one of the Sikh political parties. At the time of his arrest, the former MP, accompanying him to the police station, received assurances from the DGP that he would be dealt with in accordance with the law. When relatives later tried to establish Avtar Singh Sidhu’s whereabouts, the DGP denied any knowledge of his detention. But following appeals on his behalf to the Governor of Punjab and other authorities, he was finally released unconditionally at the end of November 1988.

Relatives believed that he was held in early November at Faridkot police station (CIA headquarters), but they were not given any information on his whereabouts. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot reportedly told members of a civil liberties organization who had started investigations into his “disappearance” that Avtar Singh Sidhu was detained at Faridkot police station but that visits could not be allowed as the DGP was handling the case personally. More than one and a half months after his arrest, Avtar Singh Sidhu had still not been brought before a magistrate nor had he been allowed any visits by his relatives or lawyers. When lawyers asked the Director General of Police about him, they were reportedly told by him that he did not remember the details of the case and that he would respond to the request in due course after making inquiries. When the lawyers pointed out that the Director General of Police had himself taken Avtar Singh Sidhu into custody in the presence of a prominent citizen he reportedly replied that there was nothing on record to show this. Further attempts to establish his whereabouts, including appeals to the governor of Punjab made by the relatives and lawyers were unsuccessful until 30 November 1988 when he was suddenly released unconditionally.

After his release, Avtar Singh Sidhu described how he was kept in unacknowledged detention and tortured after he handed himself over to the DGP on 14 October.

“After about two hours, Sudarshan Chopra, the superintendent headquarters, Faridkot turned up and took me into his custody. I was put into a jeep, a white Gypsy whose glasses were tinted black. There were five policemen in uniform inside the jeep. Another escort jeep followed us. As I got into the jeep, the policemen started handcuffing me. I protested. I had committed no crime nor was I arrested formally. How could they handcuff me then? They refused to relent. When the jeep moved Chopra asked me to reveal to him my caches of AK47 rifles in Chandigarh. I was shocked at the question. I told him that I had no weapons, in Chandigarh or anywhere else. He threatened to arrange for my torture right away. But he did not stop and drove on to Faridkot.

That night I was locked up in a cell at the CIA interrogation center Faridkot. There were seven others in the cell (X) who had been arrested from my house was also there. The cell was cold. We were not given blankets. There was no toilet. Everyone urinated and defecated in a corner which spread out all over. At about 7 a.m. the next day, Deshraj, S.P Operations came cell accompanied by fifteen or twenty other policemen’s Deshraj did not put any questions to me. He ordered his men to take me out of the cell to a large open veranda, Deshraj and Brar sat down on chairs and others started removing my clothes. They had not asked me a single question. I protested vehemently but to no avail. They tore up my shirt and stripped me naked. My hands were bound to the back with my turban. Three constables got behind me and started pulling my hair. Someone brought an iron pestle, about six feet long and five inches thick and placed it on my thighs. The policemen got on to the top of the rod and two others, holding the pestle from both the ends started rolling it up and down between my hips and knees. This they did for ten to fifteen minutes. Can you imagine how I felt? It could not have pained more if my legs had been amputated. Deshraj now put his first questions rather his assertions: militants came to my house: I had weapons for them, I knew their hideouts. What could I say? No militant came to my house. I did not know where they hid themselves and their weapons. “Why was I in politics?” Deshraj changed his line. “Why did I give away information about false encounters to journalists?” he asked me. He was saying that I will have to give up politics. My torture was resumed and intermittently broken for interrogation and resumed again. I was caught in this cycle for the next four days. I fainted many times and considered myself as good as dead. During the nights they did not let me sleep. The moment my eyes shut they hit me with the butts of their rifles or kicked me in the groin. They would not even let me sit down.”

After his release, Avtar Singh and his Family have expressed fear about their safety. They claim to have been harassed by the police on several occasions, and say that they have been arrested and detained for short periods of time.

“Amnesty International’s Recommendations for the Investigation and Prevention of Disappearances”

“Disappearances” are grave abuses of ‘human rights which the Organization of, American States has to be crime against humanity: “Disappearances” ‘vio-late the right to liberty and security of the’ person, the right to an effective remedy and the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention rights; guaranteed, respectively, in articles 3,8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 2 of the International Covent on Civil and Political Rights to which India is a party. If a person disappears” he or she may also have been inhumanely treated, tortured, or arbitrarily killed. “Disappearances” are a grave threat to the right to humane treatment, the right not to be tortured and not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s life, provided in Articles 10, 7 and 6 of the International Covent on Civil and Political Rights.

The United Nations (UN) has repeatedly expressed its concern about “disappearances” in various parts of the world and has called on governments to take effective measures to resolve and prevent them. The UN General Assembly on 20 December 1978 adopted a resolution (33/173) in which it expressed the international community’s deep concern about: “reports from various parts of the world relating to enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons as a result of excesses on the part of law enforcement or security authorities…concern also at reports of difficulties in obtaining reliable information from competent authorities as to the circumstances of such persons, including reports of the persistent refusal of such authorities or organizations to acknowledge that they hold such persons in their custody or otherwise to account for them…”

The UN General Assembly called on governments “to devote appropriate resources to searching for “disappeared” persons and to undertake speedy and impartial Investigations” Furthermore law enforcement and security authorities or organizations should be held legally responsible for “unjustifiable excuses which might lead to enforced or involuntary disappearances.

United Nations bodies have also repeatedly stressed the right of families to know the fate of their relatives, a right incorporated in Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which the United Nations Sub-Commission on ‘Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities subsequently reaffirmed in resolution 1986/55.

It is to be emphasized that ‘ “disappearances” are not frequently reported in India.-Yet, if no steps are taken now to resolve the as yet un-clarified cases of “disappearances” to bring those responsible to justice rand halt future “disappearances” such practices could become more widespread. This is especially a danger in situations where the security forces assume wider powers -of arrest and detention at times of armed opposition as is the case in various parts of India, especially Punjab. The United Nations-Working: Group on ‘Enforced -or- Invohintary Disappearances has underlined how important it is that states, in such situations, adhere to the rule of law and only take measures limited in strict proportion to the problem. In its latest report, the working group concluded “the group also noted with concern that, in situations of internal strife and non-international conflict, the State security apparatus tends to assume an increasingly ‘predominate role.-The group recognizes of course the right and duty of States to take exceptional measures in ‘certain Circumstances of grave public disorder. Such measures ‘must, however, remain proportionate to the problem; be limited in time and must not reduce the power of civil authority unduly. (E/CN.4/1989/18, para314).

In order to resolve cases of “disappearance”

  1. That the government institute speedy, impartial and independent investigations: into cases of “disappearance including the s seven listed in this report and inform of the findings without delay. Those carrying at the investigations ‘should have powers to enforce “attend dance attendance and cooperation ‘of witnesses, to have the means in to protect ‘them and to make. Investigations on the sport ‘and to obtain the records of law enforcement and Security agents suspected of involvement i in the case. In those cases where an independent i inquiry has already been’ ordered to investigate” cases of “disappearance” such as ‘the cases which occurred two years ago in Meerut; Uttar Pradesh the dozens of ‘findings of the inquiry should be published i in full and without delay.

This recommendation is in line with the urgent request by the United Nations General Assembly to governments ‘to hold’ such ‘inquires in all cases of “disappearance”.

  1. That the government take effective measures to protect and guarantee the safety of relatives, witnesses and others who may have information about cases of “disappearance” so that they are protected from all acts of harassment, threats and intimidation.
  • United Nations General Assembly resolution 15 (XXXIV) of the UN Sub commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities request the Commission of Human Rights to give attention to the need for special measures for the protection of persons including relatives, giving information related to the fate of “disappeared” persons. Amnesty International knows of several cases in which such threats have been made.
  1. That the Government ensure that in all cases there is evidence that police or other members of the security forces were involved in or responsible for “disappearances”, they be prosecuted under the ordinary proceedings of criminal law. Until the allegations are proved to have been unfounded, members of the security forces under investigation should be removed from any power over potential victims.

This recommendation is based on paragraph 1(b) of United Nations General Assembly resolution 33/173. In several cases cited in this report, eye-witnesses have identified members of the police or special state police forces participating in abductions or alleged secret shootings of people who have “disappeared”. Yet, to Amnesty International’s knowledge, none of them has been brought to justice.

  1. That the government orders that fair and adequate compensation be paid to the relatives of those whom it can be reasonably assumed “disappeared” because of abuses committed by the security forces.

The “Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power,” adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1985 in Resolution 40/34, point 11, provides that: “Where public officials or other agents acting in an official or quasi-official capacity have violated national criminal laws, the victims should receive restitution from the State whose officials or agents were responsible for the harm inflicted.”

In the case of the dozens of Muslim men who “disappeared” from. Meerut, the Indian Government, ‘has already granted compensation to the relatives, although, so far, it has not acknowledged that its security forces were responsible for their “disappearance” and secret killing. But in the seven other cases described in this report, no such compensation has yet been given.

In order to prevent cases of “disappearance”

  1. That the government ensures that all arrests and detentions are promptly acknowledged by those carrying out the arrests, who should be obliged to identify themselves. That the government also ensure that the family of an arrested person is immediately informed of an arrest, the reasons for the arrest and the place where the arrested person is held and that they be notified of any subsequent transfer. The government should issue strict instructions that no unacknowledged detentions will be permitted and that police or other officials failing to register an arrest or giving wrong dates of arrest will invariably be brought to justice. There should be no secret detention.
  2. That the government introduce legislation and take other steps to ensure that all prisoners, including those held under prevention detention laws, be brought before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Magistrates should be given strict instructions not to sign detention or remand orders unless the person concerned has appeared before them and has been given an opportunity to speak.

On 9 December 1988 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any form of Detention or Imprisonment (resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988). The Body of Principles provides in Principle 11(1) that: “A person shall not be kept in detention without being given an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority. A detained person shall have the right to defend himself or to be assisted by counsel as prescribed by law.”

  1. That the government establish or maintain public and centralized registers in all Indian states of all persons held in police stations, prisons or other detention centers, including the places where they are kept. The lists should be up-to-date and be available to family members, lawyers, magistrates and other interested bodies.

The importance of keeping detailed records of all arrested persons has also been stressed in the Body of Principles, which provides in Principle 12 that: 1. There shall be duly recorded:

(a) The reasons for the arrest;

(b) The time of the arrest and the taking of the arrested person to a place of custody as well as that of his first appearance before a judicial or other authority;

(c) The identity of the law enforcement officials concerned.

(d) Precise information concerning the place of custody. :

Such records shall be communicated to the detained personal or his counsel, if any, in the form prescribed by law.”

  1. That the government ensures that all arrested persons have prompt and subsequently regular access to a lawyer of their choice and to relatives. No prolonged incommunicado detention should be permitted. .

In Amnesty International’s experience keeping people in incommunicado detention facilities grave abuses such as torture, extrajudicial killings and “disappearances”. The right of prompt access to family and counsel has also been recognized in Principle 15 of the Body of Principles, Stating:

In Amnesty International’s experience, keeping people in incommunicado detention facilities grave abuses such as torture, extrajudicial killings and “disappearances”. The right of prompt access to family and counsel has also been recognized in Principle 15 of the Body of Principles, Stating:

“Notwithstanding the exceptions contained in communication of the detained or imprisoned person with the outside world and in particular his family or counsel, Shall not be denied for more than a matter of days.”

“According to reports received by Amnesty International, Avtar Singh Sidhu learned that he was wanted by the police and decided to surrender after his mother, his brother and several friends had been arrested on and after 30 September 1988. Each of the people arrested were reportedly interrogated about his whereabouts and were told to urge him to surrender to the police. Some of them were allegedly tortured by members of the Central Investigating Agency (C.I.A), Faridkot.”’

“The UN General Assembly called on governments ‘to devote appropriate resources to searching for ‘disappeared’ persons and to undertake speedy and impartial investigations.” Furthermore, law enforcement and security authorities or organizations should be held legally responsible for ‘unjustifiable excuses which might lead to enforced or involuntary disappearances.”’

 

 

 

 

 

Article extracted from this publication >>  September 15, 1989