AI INDEX: ASA 20/029/2003 6 November 2003
India
Abuse of the law in Gujarat: Muslims detained illegally in Ahmedabad
I. Introduction
This document presents well-founded reports of the use of arbitrary and
illegal detention by Crime Branch police in Ahmedabad in the past year.
Evidence is also presented of the torture and ill-treatment of
detainees. These human rights violations are being carried out in the
context of a large number of arrests of individuals suspected of
involvement in a range of alleged conspiracies against the state(1).
These alleged conspiracies include the killing of 59 Hindus in Godhra
in February 2002 (which sparked communal violence resulting in the
deaths of over 2,000 Muslims in the following three months) and
subsequent acts of violence which are alleged to have been planned and
carried out in retaliation for the killing of Muslims (further
information is provided in Section II of this report).
All those formally arrested and charged in relation to these
conspiracies are Muslims and almost all have been charged under
provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA).(2) Many of
these spent periods of time in illegal detention prior to their
"formal" arrest. Others reportedly continue to be held indefinitely in
illegal detention.
This report focuses on the abuse of arrest and detention procedures in
relation to these arrests. It reinforces concerns about the breakdown
of the rule of law in relation to the Muslim minority in the state and
the increase in human rights violations facilitated by the use of POTA.
(3) Amnesty International is also aware of significant concerns about
procedures for fair trial raised by advocates acting for some of those
detained under POTA.
Information received by Amnesty International indicates that in the
course of operations to identify and take into custody those allegedly
involved in these conspiracies, Crime Branch police in Ahmedabad from
Gayakwad Haveli Police station have routinely resorted to arbitrary and
illegal and incommunicado detention, denied access of detainees to
lawyers and relatives, denied access to medical attention and used
torture or ill-treatment to induce confession. Provisions of POTA which
were claimed as "safeguards" for detainees by the Government of India
when the statute was passed, appear to have been routinely ignored,
along with legal safeguards contained in the ordinary criminal law and
Supreme Court guidelines for arrest and detention. While evidence
presented in this report relates specifically to Gayakwad Haveli Police
Station, Amnesty International is concerned that patterns of illegal
detention may be being replicated in other areas of the state where
there is even less scrutiny of police practises. The fact that senior a
state police official appears to have endorsed the illegal actions of
police heightens these concerns (see under Section IIIi below).
The courts in Gujarat have to date failed to take any action to prevent
or investigate and prosecute most of these illegal actions despite on
occasion being confronted with allegations and evidence. The widespread
use of incommunicado detention by police against members of the Muslim
minority in Ahmedabad is reported to have terrorised the Muslim
community who have been too scared to make official complaints.(4)
Detailed information on other individuals has been almost impossible to
confirm because of the reluctance of relatives to make complaints for
fear of retribution preventing lawyers from challenging the illegal
detentions in any formal legal proceedings.
The cases of two men which are presented in this report are somewhat
unique in that a complaint concerning their treatment was presented
before the Gujarat High Court. However, concerned for the safety of the
two men and their relatives, Amnesty International is withholding their
names from publication.(5)
Amnesty International understands that only a handful of habeas corpus
petitions have been filed on behalf of those illegally detained,
because of the overwhelming fear of retribution amongst relatives and
even lawyers. However, what is of considerable concern is that the High
Court appears to have ignored their complaints thereby denying them
their right to have their complaint of torture independently and
impartially investigated as set out under Article 13 of the United
Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). Their
cases appear to exemplify the routine flouting (and acceptance of that
flouting) of safeguards against torture or ill-treatment by
institutions of the criminal justice system.
Amnesty International would like to point out that in researching
information on which this report is based, it has not been able to
visit Gujarat to interview detainees or police or government officials
concerned, as it would have liked to have done. Unfortunately the
organization's request for a visit to Gujarat has so far been denied by
the Government of India. However, this report is being sent to the
authorities in Gujarat and Delhi for comment. It is based on
discussions with lawyers and human rights activists (many of whom have
been subjected to threats and harassment because of their work on these
issues); publicly available legal documentation and press reports.(6)
II. Background
The context in which these arrests have been taking place is one of
heightened communal tension, with allegations that the ruling Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) government of the state actively connived in
violence against Muslims perpetrated in the aftermath of the killing of
Hindus in Godhra in February 2002. (7) More than 2,000 people,
predominantly Muslims, were killed, and thousands more were displaced
from their homes between the end of February and May 2002 in Gujarat.
Sporadic incidents of communal violence continue to this day.
Allegations of state connivance in the violence against Muslims have
been given strength by the failure of the criminal justice system to
bring those responsible to justice - a fact highlighted by the Supreme
Court in a recent order which reportedly referred to "connivance"
between the government and prosecution service.
As of mid-October, Amnesty International understands that there are 82
accused in detention in the Godhra conspiracy case. Around 50 accused
have been declared to be absconding.
The authorities in Gujarat allege that in retaliation for the violence
against Muslims, a series of conspiracies were hatched, to target
Hindus and prominent officials held responsible. The former Home
Minister of Gujarat Haren Pandya was shot dead on the morning of 26
March 2003. In the wake of his killing and following a series of
arrests, Gujarat police claimed to have uncovered a wide-ranging
conspiracy. The conspiracy was alleged to have encompassed a series of
bomb blasts in Gujarat in May and September 2002 and an attack on Vishwa Hindu Parishad
[World Hindu Council] leader Jagdish Tiwari. Young Muslim men were
alleged to have been trained by the Inter Service Intelligence agency
(ISI) in Pakistan. This has become known as the "ISI conspiracy", for
which Amnesty International has been informed that police filed a First
Information Report under which offences can be filed for a period
running from April 2002 to April 2003. Scores of suspects have been
detained illegally or formally under POTA in connection with this
conspiracy, including the two men referred to below.
An attack on the Akshardham Hindu temple on 24 September 2002 in
Gandhinagar in which at least 26 people were killed and over 40 injured
has also led to allegations that the attack was planned by "Islamic
militants and Pakistani intelligence operatives" and has led to a
number of arrests in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.
III. Bias within the criminal justice system in Gujarat
The processes of seeking redress by victims of communal violence in
Gujarat have raised concerns about the impartiality of institutions of
the criminal justice system in the state, including the police,
prosecution service and elements of the judiciary. This led to the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in August 2003 filing a Special
Leave Petition in the Supreme Court seeking orders for five key cases
in which individuals are accused of perpetrating communal violence, to
be tried outside the state, expressing deep concern about the "damage
to the credibility of the criminal justice delivery system and negation
of human rights of victims."
In the face of severe criticism from the international community as
well as human rights organisations and the NHRC, the Chief Minister of
Gujarat, Narendra Modi asserted in a letter sent to the President of
India in August 2003, that the state had "not deviated from the
principles enshrined in the Constitution." This report demonstrates the
hollowness of that claim. It points to violations of numerous
fundamental rights set out in the Constitution of India, including:
equality before the law (Article 14); prohibition against
discrimination (Article 15); protection of life and personal liberty
(Article 21); and protection against arrest and detention in certain
cases (Article 22). The practices of Gujarat police are also in clear
contravention of international human rights standards to which India is
a party.
IV. Blatant abuse of the law against members of the Muslim community
The cases of W and X (names withheld for security)
In two habeas corpus petitions (No.658 and 650 of 2003) filed in the Gujarat High Court on 7 July 2003, Y and Z, the wives of two men - W and his father X
- claimed that their husbands had been arrested by Crime Branch police
officers and were being illegally detained. Twenty-year-old Y, resident of Ahmedabad, alleged that her husband W had been arrested from his father's house in Ahmedabad on 15 June and that she had not seen him since. Forty-year-old Z alleged
that she had not seen her husband since he left for Jammu on business
on 19 May but that she had been told unofficially that her husband was
being illegally detained with his son, at the Gayakwad Haveli Police
Station in Raikhad, Ahmedabad, having been arrested in Jammu some time
after 20 June. Despite approaching Crime Branch officials on several
occasions, the women were told that their husbands were not in custody.
The two women approached a lawyer with their concerns about their husbands' safety. On 7 July, habeas corpus
petitions were filed in the Gujarat High Court asking the court to
direct the authorities to reveal their whereabouts. The petitions were
heard on 8 July and notice issued to the Crime Branch to discover the
whereabouts of the two men. The court set the next date of hearing for
the Crime Branch to respond, for 11 July.
On 9 July Crime Branch officers reportedly called the two women to the
Gayakwad Haveli Police Station where they were allowed to meet their
husbands for a period of around two hours, in the presence of police
officers. In a subsequent affidavit filed before the Gujarat High
Court, Y testified:(8)
"we could see with our own eyes that they were very much
beaten and there was swelling on the entire body. My husband and my
father were so much frightened that they could not properly talk to us.
Throughout our meeting they were weeping. They have specifically told
us that they have not been beaten at all for the obvious reasons.
However, that was not at all true. They could barely walk and that was
enough to suggest their physical condition."
The two men gave their wives letters in Urdu telling them to withdraw
the petitions or they would be killed. The women were then threatened
by the Superintendent of Police not to pursue the petitions or their
husbands, and they themselves, would be charged under POTA:
"That Police Inspector A threateningly
told us to withdraw our respective petitions. He told us to accompany
him to tender apology of his senior police officer for filing petitions
before this Honourable Court or else the consequences could be
unthinkable."
The women also testified that they had seen many other detained people
in the Gayakwad Haveli Police Station who were handcuffed or chained
and who indicated that they were being held in illegal detention
without the knowledge of their families.
For fear of the consequences and under extreme pressure from the
police, the two women agreed to withdraw their petitions. The next day
- 10 July - Crime Branch officers drove the women to the High Court
where they signed an affidavit testifying that their husbands had
called them from the state of Jammu and Kashmir saying that they were
safe and that therefore they now wanted to withdraw their habeas corpus petitions.
However, the lawyer acting for the two women persuaded them to pursue
the case in the High Court and affidavits testifying to their meeting
with their husbands were filed at the hearing on 11 July. In response,
the Court repeated its request to the Crime Branch to give a statement
as to the whereabouts of the two men. The Crime Branch continued to
deny they were in their custody. The High Court gave an order saying
that even if the two men were not in Crime Branch custody, the state
had a duty to discover their whereabouts and adjourned the case for a
further six days till 17 July.
On 16 July (as reported in the media on 17 July) W and X
were produced, along with two other men, by Crime Branch officers in
the special court established to administer POTA cases in Ahmedabad.(9)
Police claimed that they had been arrested the previous day at a
railway station in Ahmedabad, with bullets and money in their
possession and had been arrested in connection with the 'ISI
conspiracy' case. The Crime Branch officers failed to mention to the
special court that the two men were the subject of habeas corpus petitions in the High Court and the special court remanded them to 15 days police custody.
At the High Court hearing of the habeas corpus petitions
on 17 July, lawyers appearing for the state testified to the court that
the two men had been arrested under POTA and had been produced before
the Special POTA Court and were now in custody. In response, the judge
indicated that the habeas corpus petitions were no longer valid because the two men were in legal custody and dismissed them.
The judge did not take any action to investigate the claims of illegal
detention or torture or to provide remedy despite evidence before him
that the two men had been illegally detained for a month and had been
subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In response to a request by
lawyers acting for the wives of the two men to be granted leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court, the judge stated:
"In our opinion, no substantial question of law of general
importance is involved in these petitions which is required to be
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
Both men continued to be remanded to police custody until they were
finally sent to jail in the second week of August. They have reportedly
refused to provide testimony regarding their period of illegal
detention or to confirm their wives' allegations of torture, for fear
of retribution.
i. Illegal detention
Amnesty International has received information that scores of Muslim
men have been illegally detained for questioning in connection with the
killing of former Home Minister Haren Pandya (see above). Amnesty
International was told by a local lawyer that between the end of March
and the beginning of May 2003, up to 380 people had been called by
police for interrogation. Arrests have continued after May and are
reported to be still continuing. The men are not formally arrested and
no records are kept of their detention and interrogation by police. In
some cases, this "interrogation" is reported to last for two weeks,
while in other cases it lasts one or two days. Some detainees have been
allowed to see their families during this period and in other cases
relatives have been able to provide food for the young men but not been
permitted to see them. Most detainees are reported to have been held at
the Gayakwad Haveli Police Station in Ahmedabad, the headquarters of
the Crime Branch. At the end of September 2003, Amnesty International
received unconfirmed reports that between 25 and 80 individuals were
illegally detained at this police station.
There are unconfirmed reports of routine beating during interrogation
at Gayakwad Haveli Police Station. Following interrogation for several
days or sometimes weeks, some arrests have been formalised, with the
date of arrest shown in relevant documents as this later date, and with
the period of interrogation not formally acknowledged. The arrests of
around half of the 380 people reportedly arrested between the end of
March and the beginning of May are reported to have been formalised in
this way.
Most family members appear to be too scared to make representations to
the authorities about illegal detention. However, in a rare show of
public anger, members of the Muslim community in various parts of
Ahmedabad observed a bandh
[shut-down] on 2 September in protest at the arbitrary arrest and
illegal detention of Muslims. This was sparked by the arrest of five
men, including two clerics, in connection with the attack on the
Akshardam Temple in September 2002.(10) The wife of one of the suspects
publicly claimed that her husband had been detained on 9 August, not on
25 August as police claimed, and that she had visited him on four
occasions in Crime Branch custody during his period in illegal
detention. She was reported as saying: "The police told us that my
husband had been picked up for interrogation and that we should not
talk to anybody or hire a lawyer or they would inflict charges on him
which would keep him behind bars for more than 20 years."(11)
Amnesty International is extremely concerned at reported comments
attributed to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), that people
were regularly detained for questioning for days at a time without
being formally arrested or brought before a magistrate. He is reported
to have commented: "We do not arrest a person as soon as he is
detained. We first question him and after we have established his prima facie
involvement in the crime, he is arrested. And we have powers under the
CrPC [Code of Criminal Procedure] to call any person for
questioning."(12)
This statement indicates that police in Gujarat have been acting
contrary to Indian law which governs arrest and detention and Article
21 of the Constitution which denies the deprivation of personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law. The CrPC does not
allow for detention for questioning for days at a time without an
individual being brought before a magistrate. This position was
reinforced by the Law Commission of India in its 177th Report issued in
December 2001 on the Law Relating to Arrest. In that report it referred
to consultations held on the issue of arrest and concluded as follows:
"In para 3.8 of the Consultation Paper, a proposal was put
forward to the effect that no arrest shall be made and no person shall
be detained merely for the purpose of questioning. It was pointed out
that such arrest or detention amounts to unwarranted and unlawful
interference of the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. There was no serious opposition to this proposal from any
quarter. Indeed, this proposal follows from what we have stated
hereinabove, namely, that arrest should not be made in a casual manner
but only on the basis of some material on the basis of which, the
police officer is reasonably satisfied that arrest of such person is
necessary. It cannot be that the police is permitted to detain anyone
they like and question him with a view to find out whether he has
committed any cognizable offence. Such an absolute power cannot be
conceded under our constitutional system. If questioning any person
suspected of committing a cognizable offence is found necessary for the
purposes of investigation, he may be questioned by the police officer
either at the residence of the person or at such other place as may be
indicated by the person and agreed to by the police officer."(13)
In addition, Supreme Court safeguards - which include the requirement
to produce witnessed memos of arrest; to inform a relative or friend of
detention "as soon as practicable"; to maintain detailed records of
arrest and detention; to permit a detainee access to a medical
examination; and to permit access to a lawyer during interrogation -
apply to "all cases of arrest and detention".(14)
Two of these safeguards also appear in section 52 of POTA which states that:
(1) Where a police officer arrests a person, he shall prepare a custody memo of the person arrested.
(2) The person arrested shall be informed of his right to consult a
legal practitioner as soon as he is brought to the police station.
(3) Whenever any person is arrested, information of his arrest
shall be immediately communicated by the police officer to a family
member or in his absence to a relative of such person by telegram,
telephone or by any other means and this fact shall be recorded by the
police officer under the signature of the person arrested.
(4) The person arrested shall be permitted to meet the legal
practitioner representing him during the course of interrogation of the
accused person:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall entitle the legal
practitioner to remain present throughout the period of interrogations.
Section 167 of the CrPC provides that if a person is arrested and
detained in custody and the investigation cannot be completed within a
period of twenty-four hours, the person should be sent to appear before
the nearest judicial magistrate. This reflects Article 22(2) of the
Constitution which provides that "Every person who is arrested and
detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate
within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest." Magistrates are
permitted under section 167 CrPC to remand persons arrested for a
further period of police custody of up to fifteen days. POTA (section
49(2)) allows for that period of police custody to be up to thirty
days.
Sections 342 to 348 of the Indian Penal Code provide for punishment for
wrongful confinement. Section 345 provides for imprisonment for up to
two years for wrongful confinement of a person for whose liberation
writ has been issued. Referring to these sections, the Law Commission
has confirmed that they are relevant to the offence of illegal
detention by police:
"If a person is illegally arrested or is arrested without any
justification whatsoever or where the arrest is proved to be mala fide
or actuated by extraneous considerations, the police officer concerned
can be prosecuted for wrongful confinement of that person which is an
offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code; if the wrongful
confinement is for three or more days it is section 343 and in case it
is for ten days or more, it would be section 344. Sections 343 and 344
are aggravated forms of the offence specified in section 342."
The detention of individuals in a police station or unofficial
detention centre without recording the fact is a fundamental human
rights violation which encourages further abuse in the form of torture.
Detainees are effectively "disappeared"(15) and deprived of all rights
and law enforcement officials have unfettered power over them. The UN
Commission on Human Rights has repeatedly stated that "prolonged
incommunicado detention may facilitate the perpetration of torture and
can in itself constitute a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment."(16) The Special Rapporteur on Torture has further stated
the following:
"Torture is most frequently practised during incommunicado
detention. Incommunicado detention should be made illegal, and persons
held incommunicado should be released without delay. Information
regarding the time and place of arrest as well as the identity of the
law enforcement officials having carried out the arrest should be
scrupulously recorded; similar information should also be recorded
regarding the actual detention. Legal provisions should ensure that
detainees are given access to legal counsel within 24 hours of
detention. Security personnel who do not honour such provisions should
be punished. In exceptional circumstances, under which it is contended
that prompt contact with a detainee's lawyer might raise genuine
security concerns and where restriction of such contact is judicially
approved, it should at least be possible to allow a meeting with an
independent lawyer, such as one recommended by a bar association. In
all circumstances, a relative of the detainee should be informed of the
arrest and place of detention within 18 hours."(17)
Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) requires that "Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by
arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a
court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the
lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is
not lawful." The climate of fear which is reported to be preventing
detainees or their relatives from bringing proceedings before a court
and the court's apparent disregard for the rights of detainees is
effectively denying detainees in Gujarat their right to this vital
remedy.
The right to a prompt and effective judicial remedy as a means of
determining the whereabouts or state of health of persons deprived of
their liberty and/or identifying the authority ordering or carrying out
the deprivation of liberty is required to prevent enforced
"disappearances" under all circumstances (Article 9 of the UN
Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced
Disappearance). In India, High Courts and the Supreme Court are granted
powers to issue writs in response to
habeas corpus petitions under Articles 226 and 32 respectively of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that
habeas corpus
petitions should be heard expeditiously. In light of this, Amnesty
International is extremely concerned that the High Court, after hearing
evidence of the illegal detention and torture of
W and
X,
gave Crime Branch officials six days to respond. This despite the fact
that the lawyers for the two women requested the court to order an
immediate inspection of the Crime Branch police station and argued that
if sufficient time was given to the Crime Branch they would show the
two men as having been arrested under POTA.
The UN Declaration on Disappearances provides that competent national
authorities shall have access to all places where persons deprived of
their liberty are being held and to each part of those places, as well
as to any place in which there are grounds to believe that such persons
may be found. In the Indian state of Punjab, where hundreds of
"disappearances" took place in the 1980s and early 1990s, the courts on
occasion directed warrant officers to inspect places of detention to
look for detainees in response to
habeas corpus petitions. To Amnesty International's knowledge, to date, the courts in Gujarat have not availed themselves of these powers.
Amnesty International is further shocked at the attitude of the Gujarat High Court in dismissing the
habeas corpus petitions in relation to
W and
X
without reference to the evidence of illegal detention and torture.
This is particularly so in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence which
has pointed to the importance of taking a broad view in
habeas corpus petitions. In 1980, the Supreme Court commented: "Access to human justice is the essence of Article 32. The liberating writ of
habeas corpus
is no longer trammelled by the traditional limits of English vintage;
and that is why in India, as in America, the broader horizons of
habeas corpus
spread out, beyond the orbit of release from illegal custody, into
every trauma and torture on persons in legal custody, if cruelty is
contrary to law, degrades human dignity or defiles his personhood to a
degree that violates Articles 21, 14 and 19 enlivened by the
preamble."(18)
ii. Torture
Torture is prohibited under international human rights law. Even in
states of emergency it is a non-derogable right, as emphasised in
Article 2(2) of the Convention against Torture. Article 7 of the ICCPR
states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment".
Amnesty International is concerned at allegations that W and X
were subjected to torture or ill-treatment while in police custody. Due
to the prevailing (and in Amnesty International's view well-founded)
fear of retribution, allegations of torture or ill-treatment from
Muslims arrested in recent months in Gujarat have been few. On 22 July
2003 it was reported that 29 detainees brought before the special POTA
court in Ahmedabad on 21 July complained that they had been coerced
into making confessions and signing confessional statements by police
detaining them.(19) Amnesty International has also received several
unconfirmed reports of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained
illegally. In such a situation, it is paramount that detainees are
given opportunities to make complaints to an independent body and to be
protected from retribution during the course of any investigation and
after, as required by the Convention against Torture. The role of an
independent judiciary in providing such opportunities is crucial and a
central tenet of international standards for the protection of
detainees. However, Amnesty International is concerned that the
judiciary in Gujarat has failed to carry out its obligations in this
regard, despite the fact that evidence was placed before the court of
the illegal detention and torture of W and X, practices in clear violation of both Indian law and international human rights standards to which India is a party.
Judges have a special responsibility to ensure that all allegations of
torture which come to their attention at any stage of the judicial
process are subject to prompt and impartial investigation by competent
and independent bodies. Article 12 of the Convention against Torture
states that "Each State Party shall ensure that its competent
authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever
there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been
committed in any territory under its jurisdiction."(20) Article 13 of
the Convention goes further, stating that "Each State Party shall
ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture
in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to,
and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its
competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the
complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or
intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given."
Another important responsibility of judges is to ensure that statements
extracted under torture or ill-treatment are not invoked as evidence in
court proceedings, in line with international standards. Under section
32(4) of POTA, a person from whom a confession has been recorded under
sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Court of a Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate or the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate
along with the original statement of confession, written or recorded on
mechanical or electronic device within forty-eight hours. Sub-section
(5) further states that "… if there is any complaint of torture, such
person shall be directed to be produced for medical examination before
a Medical Officer not lower in rank than an Assistant Civil Surgeon and
thereafter, he shall be sent to judicial custody."
International human rights standards are clear that no-one should be
compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt (Article 14(g)
of the ICCPR). Article 15 of the Convention against Torture states that
"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is
established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be
invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused
of torture as evidence that the statement was made."
In addition, the Special Rapporteur on Torture has recommended that
"where allegations of torture or other forms of ill-treatment
are raised by a defendant during trial, the burden of proof should
shift to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
confession was not obtained by unlawful means, including torture or
similar ill-treatment".(21)
Finally, Amnesty International is concerned at reports that several
detainees have been denied access to medical treatment while in
detention.
iii. Access to legal representation
W and X were not given access to a lawyer while in police
detention - either during the period of illegal detention or following
their production in the POTA court. Lawyers filed an application with
the lower court to gain access to the two men but were not immediately
granted access to them. Amnesty International has been told that it is
impossible for lawyers to see detainees held by the Crime Branch and
that they are regularly forced to apply to the court for orders to
visit clients. However, even when the court has issued orders, Amnesty
International understands that police regularly continue to deny
lawyers access. This is in clear violation of Indian law and
international human rights standards.
Section 51(3) of POTA grants an arrested person the right to meet their
legal representative during interrogation (and does not specify that
special permission of the court has to be obtained). It is clear that
in the case of W and X, as in many others, legal representation was actively denied by police.
Principle 17(1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, states that:
"A detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance
of a legal counsel. He shall be informed of his right by the competent
authority promptly after arrest and shall be provided with reasonable
facilities for exercising it."
Principle 1 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers states that:
"All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a
lawyer of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to
defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings."
Principle 7 further states that:
"Governments shall further ensure that all persons arrested or
detained, with or without criminal charge, shall have prompt access to
a lawyer, and in any case not later than forty-eight hours from the
time of arrest or detention."
While Principle 8 states that:
"All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided
with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and
to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception
or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be
within sight, but not within the hearing, of law enforcement officials."
iv. Discriminatory use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act
Amnesty International's concerns about provisions of POTA - under which
people can be arrested on mere suspicion, can be remanded for
exceptionally and dangerously long periods in police custody and
detained without charge or trial for six months - are on record. To
date POTA has been used to arrest and detain political opponents,
members of particular communities and even children under 18 in states
throughout India.
Initially the authorities detained those accused of involvement in the
Godhra killings under POTO. However, following an outcry about the bias
in detaining people accused of involvement in the killings at Godhra in
February 2002 under POTO while detaining those accused of involvement
in the subsequent communal violence under the ordinary criminal law,
charges under POTO were withdrawn in the second week of March 2002.
Nonetheless, POTA charges were reapplied in February 2003 to those
accused of involvement in the killings at Godhra. According to the
state authorities, the decision to re-apply POTA was taken following
the confession of an accused who pointed to the involvement of Maulana
Hassan Umarji, a local cleric, who, it was alleged, had planned the
attack.(22) No charges were framed under POTA for those accused of
taking part in the subsequent communal violence.(23)
Justifying the use of POTA in the case of the killing of former Gujarat
Home Minister Haren Pandya case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
(CBI), S.K. Gupta in June 2003 argued that "investigations till now
have revealed that a major conspiracy was hatched to strike terror in
minds of a particular section of people in Gujarat by using firearms,
causing death and injury to persons as retaliation to the alleged
indiscriminate murder of members of Muslim community during post-Godhra
riots in Ahmedabad."(24)
This report does not address the application of POTA in these cases as
such, although Amnesty International believes that there is an urgent
need for a review of the application of POTA in Gujarat, as in other
states.(25) The organization is concerned about the exclusive
application of the Act against the minority community under definitions
of "terrorist acts" which are extremely vague, and criminalization of
conspiracy, abetment, advocacy and incitement (Section 3(3)) which are
extremely broad. There are indications that the Act is being used
arbitrarily and punitively against Muslims (as referred to earlier, the
Act has been used only against Muslims and one Sikh in the state):
reports indicate that police regularly threaten those illegally
detained and their relatives that they will be charged under POTA if
they fail to cooperate or make complaints about their treatment to the
courts or human rights organisations. Such threats seriously call into
question the legal and evidential basis on which individuals are being
detained and subsequently charged under POTA and reinforce concerns
expressed by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations
at the time of the enactment of the Act that it would lead to an
increase in human rights violations.
Exceptional circumstances?
The Gujarat government claims that it is taking action to foil a series
of conspiracies against the state by Islamic militants backed by
Pakistan, planned in retaliation for the killing of Muslims during
communal riots. Acts of violence which target civilians such as those
which have taken place in Gujarat in the past year and led to the
deaths of a number of civilians, have been condemned by all sections of
society, as well as Amnesty International. No one doubts that States
have legitimate and urgent reasons to take measures to protect their
nationals and others against violent attack and to bring the
perpetrators of such acts to justice. The manner in which such measures
are conducted, however, can have a far-reaching effect on overall
respect for human rights.
States are required to act with respect for the human rights of all
concerned. In the words of the Law Commission of India, "Whether it is
for securing the liberty of an individual or for maintaining the peace
and law and order in the society, law is essential. Not only should
there be a proper law, there should also be proper implementation of
law."(26) The abuse of the law by police and contradictory reports
concerning the responsibility for various acts of violence(27) only
increase concerns that the Government of Gujarat is following up its
tacit support for communal violence against Muslims in February 2002
with a targeted campaign to detain and imprison large numbers of
Muslims in a discriminatory manner.
Article 4 of the ICCPR allows for derogation from certain rights in
times of public emergency, but not all rights.(28) Importantly in this
context, derogation must also never involve discrimination. Building on
States' other obligations under international law, the UN Human Rights
Committee has developed a list of elements that, in addition to the
rights specified in article 4, cannot be subject to lawful
derogation.(29) These elements include the following: all persons
deprived of liberty must be treated with respect for their dignity;
hostage-taking, abduction, and unacknowledged detention are prohibited;
persons belonging to minorities are to be protected; unlawful
deportations or transfers of population are prohibited; and "no
declaration of a state of emergency... may be invoked as justification
for a State party to engage itself.. in propaganda for war, or in
advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that would constitute
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."
On 8 March 2002, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination(30) issued a statement recalling that the prohibition of
racial discrimination is a peremptory norm of international law from
which no derogation is permitted, and requesting States and
international organizations to ensure that measures taken in the
struggle against "terrorism" do not discriminate in purpose or effect
on grounds of race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin. The
Committee insisted that the principle of non-discrimination must be
observed in all areas, in particular in matters concerning liberty,
security and dignity of the person, equality before tribunals and due
process of law, as well as international cooperation in judicial and
police matters in these fields.
The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment on Article 9 of the ICCPR (liberty and security of person) directed that:
"if so-called preventive detention is used, for reasons of
public security, it must be controlled by these same provisions, i.e.
it must not be arbitrary, and must be based on grounds and procedures
established by law (para.1), information of the reasons must be given
(para.2) and court control of the detention must be available (para.4)
as well as compensation in the case of a breach (para.5). And if, in
addition, criminal charges are brought in such cases, the full
protection of article 9(2) and (3), as well as article 14, must also be
granted."(31)
The application of POTA, therefore should not suspend these fundamental
rights and Amnesty International notes that no formal state of
emergency has been declared in Gujarat.
V. Conclusion
Amnesty International is calling for urgent intervention to end the use
of illegal detention in Ahmedabad. Abuse of the law in India in the
form of illegal detention and torture is nothing new. Amnesty
International and other human rights organizations have documented the
practice over a number of years. However, information contained in this
report points to a systematic pattern of human rights violations being
carried out in Ahmedabad with the support of the state government and
institutions of the criminal justice system with little or no chance of
redress for its victims. It also reinforces concerns about
discrimination against Muslims within the criminal justice system in
the state.
Amnesty International is aware of the openly stated hostility of the
Government of Gujarat to human rights organisations and "international
interference" in its internal affairs.(32) But in ratifying
international human rights instruments, India has recognised the
international jurisdiction of the United Nations in relation to human
rights. The state must answer internationally for violations of human
rights.
VI. Recommendations
Amnesty International is addressing the recommendations which follow to
both the Gujarat government and the Union Government, in recognition of
their responsibility to ensure the human rights of their citizens and
to provide justice where those rights have been violated:
· To immediately ensure the independent inspection of Gayakwad Haveli
Police Station and all police stations in the state, to determine
whether individuals are being illegally detained and whether up-to-date
and accurate records of detention are being maintained. Amnesty
International recommends that such an inspection be carried out by an
independent judicial body.
· To ensure that all those illegally detained in Gujarat are immediately released.
· To ensure that where police are found to have acted illegally, prompt
action is initiated against them, including the bringing of charges
under sections 342-8 of the Indian Penal Code (punishment for wrongful
confinement).
· To give a clear and public commitment that the requirement of
sanction for prosecution of state officials found responsible for
illegal detention and/or torture will not apply to these cases since
illegally detaining an individual cannot be said to have been carried
out in discharge of official duty. Claiming such immunity from
prosecution would hold India in violation of Article 2(a) of the ICCPR
which requires states to "ensure that any person whose rights or
freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective
remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by
persons acting in an official capacity."
· To ensure that all those in detention in Gujarat are provided with an
opportunity to bring any complaints of torture or ill-treatment in a
safe environment with meaningful assurances that they will not be
subjected to reprisals.
· To ensure that any persons found to have been illegally detained are
entitled to bring proceedings against police and to adequate redress,
including compensation, in accordance with directions of the Supreme
Court.
· To give clear and public instructions to police at all levels that
detention of individuals for "questioning" without following formal
procedures for arrest and detention is not lawful, and that such
actions with be prosecuted.
· To ensure that all detainees are provided with prompt access to legal
representatives as provided for in national and international in law
and to ensure that immediate action is taken against any police
officers denying such access. Additionally to ensure that detainees are
provided with prompt access to relatives and full access to a doctor
and medical treatment where necessary, in accordance with the law.
· To make a clear commitment that state authorities will fully
cooperate with the National Human Rights Commission in the future,
granting it full access to detainees and places of detention where
required.
· To facilitate an urgent and independent review of the cases of all
those detained under POTA in Gujarat to establish the lawfulness of
their detention.
· To ensure that police and other institutions of the criminal justice
system in the state act in observance of Article 14 of the Constitution
guaranteeing equality before the law irrespective of religion.
· To invite relevant UN human rights mechanisms - including the Special
Rapporteur on Torture, the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of
the Judiciary, and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - to visit
India to study the law and practice regarding arrest and detention and
make recommendations to ensure full compliance with international human
rights standards.
********
(1) The Crime Branch has been given the major responsibility for investigating the conspiracies in the state.
(2) According to press reports, all but one of 240 people charged under
POTA in Gujarat are Muslims (240 Pota cases, all against minorities,
Times of India, 15 September 2003).
(3) In October 2001 the President of India signed the Prevention of
Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) which gave Indian police sweeping powers of
arrest and detention. The Ordinance was modelled on the former
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, with a few
modifications. POTA was subsequently enacted on 26 March 2002 but the
Act states that its provisions are deemed to have come into force on 24
October 2001. Those accused of crimes before the enactment of POTA have
therefore had charges retroactively applied. Amnesty International has
previously raised concerns about provisions of POTA which undermine
internationally recognised standards for fair trial and is continuing
to monitor the application of POTA in Gujarat and other states of
India. See India: Briefing on the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance,
November 2001, AI Index: ASA 20/049/2001.
(4) Muslim community traumatised in Godhra, Hindu, 29 April 2003.
(5) The names of the two men and their wives are being provided by
Amnesty International to the National Human Rights Commission with a
request that the Commission investigates their cases and the broader
pattern of illegal detentions, and ensures adequate protection for the
men and their families.
(6) The harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders working
with members of the Muslim community in the state appears to be
widespread. For example, see Amnesty International's Urgent Action
update, AI Index: ASA 20/024/2003, 2 September 2003, Fear for the
safety of Teesta Setalvad (f), Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan (m), Suhel
Tirmizi (m) and other human rights defenders in Gujarat state.
(7) A train transporting a large number of Hindu kar sevaks returning
from the city of Ayodhya, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, where they had
taken part in a program promoted by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World
Hindu Council), was set on fire at Godhra, in Gujarat. The exact
circumstances of the incident are disputed. Fifty-nine passengers,
including 15 children and 25 women, were burnt alive.
(8) This is a translation from the original Gujarati.
(9) ISI links: Four arrested, Indian Express (Ahmedabad), 17 July 2003.
(10) The two clerics formed the Human Welfare Trust after the riots,
which took over the running of a hospital in Dariapur from the
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in January 2003. Local Muslims have
accused the authorities of targeting the clerics because they were
providing services to the Muslim community.
(11) Gujarat Muslims strike to protest police action, Agence France Presse, 2 September 2003.
(12) Kill-Modi plot: no evidence as yet, Indian Express, 18 October
2002. His comments were made when the Indian Express questioned the
discrepancy in the dates of arrest of Smirkhan Sarfarazkhan Pathan who
was arrested on 27 September 2002 but was shown arrested by the Crime
Branch on 1 October when the court remanded him to further police
custody. He was shot dead by police while in custody on 22 October
after allegedly trying to escape. See also Pandya Killing: Muslims get
midnight knocks, Hindustan Times, 21 April 2003, which cites cases of
individuals illegally detained and quotes the Joint Commissioner of
Police (Crime) as admitting that number of people had been picked up
for interrogation.
(13) Page 122.
(14) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
(15) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or
abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a
refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give
information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the
intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time (Rome Statute, Article 7(2)(i)).
(16) For instance, E/CN.4/RES/1998/38, 17 April 1998, para. 5;
E/CN.4/RES/1999/32, 23 April 1999, para. 5; E/CN.4/RES/2000/43, 20
April 2000, para. 7.
(17) UN Doc A/156/56, para 39(f), 3 July 2001.
(18) Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526: 1980 SCC (Cri) 815.
(19) 29 produced before POTA court, Indian Express, 22 July 2003.
(20) India has not yet ratified the Convention but as a signatory it is
obliged not to do anything which is inconsistent with its object and
purpose pending ratification.
(21) Report of the Special Rapporteur's visit to Brazil, 30 March 2001, UN Doc E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.2, at page 56, para 169 (i).
(22) On 28 August 2003, this accused reportedly retracted his
confession, claiming that it had been "forced" (Approver in Godhra case
retracts confession, Times of India, 30 August 2003).
(23) See India: The state must ensure redress for the victims - A
memorandum to the Government of Gujarat on its duties in the aftermath
of the violence, 28 March 2002, AI Index: ASA 20/005/2002, India:
Gujarat one year on -- the credibility of the criminal justice system
is at stake, 26 February 2003, AI Index: ASA 20/008/2003 and India:
Crimes against women in Gujarat - denied and unpunished, 7 March 2003,
AI Index: ASA 20/010/2003.
(24) CBI slaps POTA charges on Haren Pandya killers, Hindu, 2 June 2003
(25) In April 2003 the government constituted a Review Committee under
section 60 of POTA. Its mandate permits it to "take a comprehensive
view of the use" of the Act and entertain complaints or grievances, as
well as to "suggest measures to ensure that the provisions of [POTA]-
are invoked for combating terrorism only". On 27 October 2003 the
President, A. P.J. Abdul Kalam, promulgated an ordinance to amend POTA
to confer more powers on the Review Committee to make its decisions
binding on the relevant authorities and on the police officers
investigating the cases.
(26) 177th Report of the Law Commission, "Law relating to arrest", December 2001, p.6, available at www.nic.in/lawcom.
(27) For example police from Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir have given
contradictory reports about the role of local Muslims in the attack on
the Akshardham Temple.
(28) Article 4(2) of the ICCPR states that there can be no derogation
from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2, 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the
Covenant.
(29) See General Comment No.29 of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc.
CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001. The Human Rights Committee is
the body established to monitor the implementation by States Party of
the ICCPR and its Protocols.
(30) The Committee is the body established to monitor the
implementation by States Party to the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination. India has been a party to the
Convention since 1968.
(31) Para 4.
(32) In August 2003, in his open letter to the President of India,
Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi referred to "self-appointed and
so-called champions of human rights groups" who obstruct the path of
progress and made veiled criticisms of the NHRC's intervention in the
issue of justice to victims of the communal violence, claiming that it
had been "carried away by propaganda." (Letter from Modi to President,
Indian Express, 6 August 2003).
Back to Top ^^
|
AI INDEX: ASA 20/029/2003 6 November 2003
|
|
Back to Top ^^