
“We are like a
soccer ball,
kicked by
Rohingya refugees in

Report by:
Chris Lewa, Researcher
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Copyright
@ 2003
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Secretariat:
Samsennok, Huaykwang,
Tel: (66 2) 276 9846-7
Fax: (66 2) 693 4939
Email: info@forumasia.org
Website: http://www.forumasia.org
All or portion of this book may be reproduced by any non-governmental organization or people’s organization for use in human rights advocacy, provided acknowledgement of the source is given. Notification of such use would be appreciated.
Email: chris@forumasia.org
Picture by:
Printed in
June 2003
Note:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
·
Map
6
·
Introduction
7
- Root causes
9
-
UNHCR’s Proposal 12
-
-
Issues of Concern 13
·
The Current
Situation in the Camps: Coercion, Harassment
and Forced Repatriation 14
- Repatriation figures 14
- Overview of the Abuses in the Camps
and their Consequences 17
- Reduction of Humanitarian Assistance 19
·
Conclusion 20
·
Recommendations 21
·
Appendices:
The Refugees’ Voices 23
Appendix 2 - A
refugee account of a meeting with UNHCR in Kutupalong
camp 25
The author would like to warmly thank
the refugees who have shared their experience and, in particular, her research
partners in
FORUM-ASIA is thankful for the support
of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (Rights
& Democracy),
Chris Lewa,
Project Coordinator,
FORUM-ASIA
|
The Online Burma Library is the best
source of online reports on |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
About
21,500 Rohingya refugees are sheltering in two camps, Kutupalong
and Nayapara, in southern
These
21,500 refugees under UNHCR protection are only the visible side of the
crisis. Since 1996, thousands of
Rohingya, both repatriated refugees and new arrivals, have continued to flee to
The root causes of the continuous influx of Rohingya into
In May 2003, the number of refugees
being repatriated rose dramatically (704 people in May against 93 in
April). At the same time, disturbing
reports denouncing forced repatriation, intimidation and coercion suddenly
began pouring out of the two Rohingya refugee camps in
This report attempts to give a voice to
the Rohingya refugees in the camps and includes 57 refugee accounts
illustrating the types of abuses used by the camp authorities to enforce
repatriation. These testimonies denounce
26 acts of forced repatriation itself, usually involving detention in the camp
followed by a forceful removal to the transit camp and back to
Refugees unwilling to repatriate have
been arrested and then given the choice of signing up for repatriation or going
to jail (5 cases of threats and 5 cases of actual transfer to jail). Families have had their ration book seized
until they agreed to repatriate (6 cases of deprivation of food). Other incidents have involved physical ill
treatment (12 cases of beatings), sudden transfer to other sections of the camp
(5 cases), destruction of housing (2 cases).
The consequences have been particularly dramatic
when families have been divided, when children have been separated from their
parents, wives from their husbands, old people left behind and sick refugees
abandoned (19 cases of family separation).
As a result of these pressures, many refugees fled from the camp to
avoid repatriation. Often, the male head
of the household runs away, leaving women and children vulnerable in the camps
(1 rape case reported). These accounts
seriously challenge the voluntary character of the ongoing repatriation
exercise. And, thus far, UNHCR has
remained rather quiet.
The UNHCR proposal also promotes
self-sufficiency within the local host community pending return. The UNHCR
initiative of promoting “temporary local
integration” raises many questions with regard to protection and
feasibility of self-reliance in an already tense and saturated
environment. The Government of
Bangladesh has not endorsed the proposal, and yet the UNHCR is already moving
into the implementation phase.
FORUM-ASIA calls upon the UNHCR and the
Government of Bangladesh to immediately halt these forced repatriations and
ensure that the principle of voluntariness is respected. In particular, we call on the UNHCR to
continue to provide effective protection and humanitarian assistance to the
Rohingya refugees in the camps until a durable solution emerges.
MAP
Bangladesh-Burma border and location of the refugee camps[1]

INTRODUCTION
In May 2003, disturbing reports
denouncing forced repatriation, intimidation and coercion suddenly began pouring
out of the two Rohingya refugee camps in
The purpose of the present report is
primarily to give a voice to the distressed Rohingya refugees, who are totally
ignored in the decision making process concerning their future and safety. Between October 2002 and early June 2003,
Forum-Asia has received reports of more than 200 incidents, 40% of them in May
alone[2]. These refugee stories provide overwhelming
evidence of coercion and intimidation in the camps and seriously challenge the
voluntary nature of the repatriation process.
They corroborate the findings of Refugees International’s bulletin,
“Lack of Protection plagues
Forum-Asia is deeply concerned by these
alarming reports of harassment and forced repatriation, and seeks to alert the
international community so that it may act to ensure that these abuses cease
immediately, and that UNHCR uphold its mandate by providing effective
protection and assistance to the Rohingya refugees.
This report first provides a background
to the Rohingya refugee crisis and examines the root causes of the exodus found
in the policies of exclusion and discrimination practised
by the Burmese military regime. With no
durable solution in sight for the refugees in
THE ROHINGYA REFUGEE EXODUS AND
ITS ROOT CAUSES IN
Today,
about 21,500 Rohingya refugees are sheltering in two camps, Kutupalong
(about 8,500) and Nayapara (about 13,000), located
between Cox’s Bazar and Teknaf in southern
The
21,500 refugees in the Nayapara and Kutupalong camps under UNHCR protection are only the
visible side of the crisis. Since 1996,
thousands of Rohingyas, both repatriated refugees as well as new arrivals, have
continued to trickle back from
Rohingya
who have settled outside the camps regularly face arrests, deportation or
eviction. In November 2002, the local
Teknaf administration launched an eviction campaign against illegal migrants in
the District, leaving thousands homeless and under threat of deportation. With nowhere to go, they set up a makeshift
settlement in Teknaf where today more than 4,000 Rohingya are still camping out
in extremely precarious conditions without assistance, adequate water and
sanitation[7].
Root Causes in
The
root causes of the continuing influx of Rohingya lie across the border in
Arbitrary confiscation of land
without compensation continues, either to provide land for new Buddhist
settlers or to build and enlarge military camps, including plantations to grow
crops for the military for their own food as well as for commercial
purposes. In 2002, at least two new
“model village” for Buddhist settlers were established in
As documented by the ILO in early 2003[10], forced
labour is far from being eradicated in
Illegal taxation and
extortion are widely and increasingly reported.
In particular, Rohingya need to obtain permission to get married, and
the large fee demanded is beyond the means of many. The
tactic of arresting people for minor offences or just for being out after dark
and demanding high bribes in return for their release appears to have become
common practice recently. Moreover, the
military control over the local economy, both directly through collection of
taxes at checkpoints and from the border trade, and indirectly through a
monopoly system on local commodities based on business licences
granted in exchange for high bribes, forbids any free-enterprise initiative and
hampers any economic development.
The
Rohingya in
Political
will on the part of the military junta is required to end these policies of
exclusion and discrimination and to improve the lot of the Rohingya
people. But as long as the SPDC
considers the Muslims in
THE UNHCR PLAN FOR THE CAMPS:
PROMOTING SELF-SUFFICIENCY PENDING VOLUNTARY RETURN
Life in the refugee camps in
More than ten years after the exodus,
no durable solution for the Rohingya refugees is in sight. Voluntary repatriation can only be considered
for a small number of refugees, local integration has always been rejected by
the Bangladesh Government for fear of creating a pull factor, and resettlement,
in the shadow of 9/11, is now largely a dead issue.
UNHCR has been promoting voluntary
repatriation as the preferred solution[14]. To this effect, lengthy negotiations have
been carried out over the past years between UNHCR and the Burmese Immigration
authorities in order to accelerate the rate of clearances[15]. This procedure has been burdensome, and until
recently had yielded few results. Over
the last two years, however, UNHCR has renewed its efforts to reactivate the
process and has succeeded in getting the Burmese authorities to drop some
conditions for return related to the acceptance of incomplete families and of
refugee children born in the camps.
Based on a survey conducted in the
camps in 2000, UNHCR estimates that today a maximum of 4,000 refugees would opt
for voluntary repatriation[16]. On the other hand, the Burmese government
would be ready to accept back about 5,000[17]. However, the UNHCR figures for voluntary
return and the junta clearances are not necessarily for the same refugees. Some refugees who are not cleared may be
willing to return to
UNHCR’s Proposal
Claiming
financial constraints and donor fatigue, UNHCR has now come up with a new
“solution” to address this protracted refugee situation: “Promoting self-sufficiency pending voluntary return” (within the
local host community). In early 2003, a
Concept Paper was submitted to the Government of Bangladesh, which proposes the
transfer of responsibility for the assistance tasks in the two refugee camps to
the
To
enable the refugees to become self-reliant, the UNHCR proposal includes
income-generating projects, vocational training and quick impact projects, as
well as the upgrading of facilities and infrastructure for the local community
to increase absorption capacity.
The time frame for implementation
comprises three main phases:
1.
At the end of June 2003, UNHCR will cease to provide support
for the repatriation exercise. Any
return after this date will be dealt with on a bilateral basis between
2.
At the end of December 2003, UNHCR will end material support
for the “care and maintenance” of refugees in the camps, and this
responsibility will be taken over by the Government of Bangladesh.
3.
At the end of December 2004, the UNHCR office in Cox’s Bazar
will close down. UNHCR claims it would
continue to monitor the protection of refugees beyond 2004.
By the end of 2004, the 20,000 or so
remaining refugees are expected to be able to support themselves fully within
the local host population pending an elusive return to
Most
observers doubt that the Bangladesh Government would officially endorse the
UNHCR’s proposal. As reported in the
national press, the Bangladesh Government position has always been adamant that
all Rohingya refugees must return to
The
position expressed by the Government of Bangladesh explicitly states that it
wants the continued cooperation of UNHCR in facilitating the repatriation
process with the Burmese Government, as well as in providing assistance to the
refugees in the camps. At the same
time,
Issues of
Concern
The UNHCR solution immediately raises
many concerns: Will UNHCR implement the plan without the endorsement of the
Government of Bangladesh? How can 20,000
refugees become self-sufficient in a local environment already saturated by
undocumented Rohingya surviving in deplorable conditions? How will UNHCR
monitor the voluntary nature of the repatriation once the process is handed
over to the
In
May 2003, Forum-Asia put these questions to UNHCR officials in
Despite
the lack of involvement of NGOs and of refugees in developing the programme,
and the lack of support for it from the Bangladesh Government, UNHCR is already
moving towards implementation of its phasing-out plan by stepping up the
repatriation exercise and reducing assistance to the refugees.
THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE
CAMPS:
COERCION,
HARASSMENT AND FORCED REPATRIATION

Repatriations 2002:
|
Month |
Families |
Persons |
|
January
2002 |
0 |
0 |
|
February
2002 |
4 |
24 |
|
March
2002 |
3 |
15 |
|
April
2002 |
5 |
34 |
|
May
2002 |
6 |
27 |
|
June
2002 |
12 |
74 |
|
July
2002 |
6 |
32 |
|
August
2002 |
3 |
14 |
|
September
2002 |
12 |
72 |
|
October
2002 |
42 |
253 |
|
November
2002 |
16 |
83 |
|
December
2002 |
21 |
109 |
|
Total: |
130 |
737 |
Repatriations
2003:
|
Month |
Families |
Persons |
|
January
2003 |
83 |
|
|
February
2003 |
10 |
61 |
|
March
2003 |
13 |
53 |
|
April
2003 |
18 |
93 |
|
May
2003 |
121 |
704 |
|
Total: |
179 |
994 |
The initiation of the UNHCR
disengagement programme has so far resulted in serious protection problems for
the Rohingya refugee population of Kutupalong and Nayapara camps.
Alarming reports of harassment, coercion and forced repatriation have
been filtering out of the camps, which prompted Forum-Asia to compile and
publish this report in order to expose these practices and give a voice to the
refugees. Particularly since May, we
have been overwhelmed by refugee complaints about indiscriminate and
involuntary repatriations, and the failure of the UNHCR to ensure that returns
are voluntary.
From
7 May, repatriation figures as well as refugee complaints began to soar
dramatically. A last attempt was
launched at getting as many cleared refugees as possible to repatriate to
A local Government representative
admitted to Refugees International: “UNHCR’s decision to withdraw from the
camps has caused us to try to speed up repatriations. The refugees who do not want to return cannot
stay here. The Government will send them
back even if they do not want to go.
This report does not imply that all
repatriations are involuntary. There are
certainly some refugees who may well choose to return to their homeland even
under the present conditions of oppression in
However, the fact that a majority of
families are being repatriated against their will points to serious
shortcomings in the process. October
2002 marked the first serious attempt at reactivating the return of refugees
already cleared by the Burmese Government.
Consequently, the level of abuses against refugees considerably
increased in the camps, and reports of coercion as well as involuntary repatriation
started leaking out. From November to
April, the figures of repatriation remained low and the numbers of complaints
dropped accordingly. During this period,
however, uneasiness and insecurity continued to prevail in the camps as
preparations for repatriation were carried out in a less conspicuous
manner. Refugees complained of new
restrictions imposed on them and a reduction in services such as the closing
down of local markets in the camps, the destruction of shed extensions, the
prohibition on growing vegetables in front of their sheds, the deterioration in
provision of health care at the Government clinic, etc.
In particular, since the end of March,
the camp authorities started focussing their attention on extracting signatures
on an affidavit from as many refugees as possible. According to the UNHCR, this affidavit was
originally introduced in order to facilitate the clearance process in
As
of 7 May, the frequency of repatriations increased to twice a week: Mondays and
Wednesdays. Policing suddenly stepped up
in the camps, and cleared families selected for repatriation were watched to
prevent them from escaping, or were detained in the office of the
Camp-in-Charge until the next morning when they were dragged onto trucks to be
sent back to
“On 25 May,
the Camp-in-Charge had selected 5 cleared families for repatriation. At dawn, volunteers working for him went to
hide in houses near the rooms where those cleared refugees stayed. As soon as they emerged out of their shed,
the volunteers caught them and dragged them to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. They
were all detained inside a room guarded by police. The next day [26 May], the Camp-in-Charge
sent these families to
Overview
of the Abuses in the Camps and their Consequences
Coercion
and harassment are widely used as a tool to persuade reluctant refugees to
repatriate. Refugees unwilling to
repatriate have been arrested on false accusations, and then given the choice
of signing up for repatriation or going to jail. Some families had their ration books seized
until they agreed to repatriate. Other incidents have involved confiscation of
the refugee’s belongings, sudden transfer to other sections of the camp to
isolate the family from the support of neighbours,
and detention in the Camp-in-Charge’s premises usually followed by a forceful
removal to the transit camp.
An analysis of the refugee accounts
attached as Appendix 3 shows various degrees in the level of involuntariness,
which can be identified as:
-
Level 1, where refugees do not have a real choice but
nevertheless agree to repatriate for family reunification. For instance, in the case of split families,
when some members have already been repatriated against their will, relatives
left behind sign up for repatriation to be reunited with their family.
-
Level 2, where refugees decide to accept repatriation
because pressure and daily harassment in the camps have become untenable.
-
Level 3, where refugees are given the choice of going back
or being put in jail, or when their ration book is confiscated, leaving them
with no other alternative than signing up for repatriation.
-
Level 4, where refugees are simply being pushed onto trucks
after being detained to prevent escape, which clearly amounts to forced
repatriation, and “refoulement”[20]. Cases reported since 7 May mostly fall into
this category.
Coercion is exerted by the
Camp-in-Charge, his staff and camp police, representing the
In
such a climate of fear, many refugees have been too scared to approach
UNHCR. Those seen talking to UNHCR are
often harassed. Moreover, refugees
complain that they cannot meet UNHCR officials in private, that a camp official
is always present, and that the national protection assistants of UNHCR are either
too busy to listen to them, or have themselves been exerting pressure on
refugees to repatriate. UNHCR has also
received dozens of letters of complaints – some photocopies were transmitted to
Forum-Asia -, and therefore cannot possibly be unaware of their plea. The general feeling among the refugees in the
camps is that UNHCR cannot or will not do anything for them.
In a desperate attempt to draw UNHCR’s
attention on the ongoing abuses and forced repatriation, many refugees from
both camps decided to surrender their family book to the UNHCR at the end of
May. Their family book confirms their
status as refugee and entitles them to food rations.
On
2 June, more than 80 families from Kutupalong camp
handed over their family book with a declaration to the UNHCR protection
officer during her visit to the camp (see Appendix no. 1). One of the refugee women reportedly told her:
“This refugee book is our identity as
refugees that UNHCR gave us a decade ago when we fled to
The reasons why refugees refuse to repatriate are many. Some
have been involved in resistance organisations or have a case pending in
The consequences of this forced
repatriation drive have been particularly dramatic when families have been
divided, when children have been separated from their parents, wives from their
husbands, old people left behind and sick refugees abandoned.
As a result of intimidation and coercion, many refugees flee from the
camps. Some take shelter with relatives
and friends in villages or towns in the vicinity of the camps. Others go to swell the makeshift settlement
of evicted Rohingya in Teknaf. It has
also been reported that the camp officials use a network of informers in order
to seek out refugees who abscond from the camps. Often, the male head of the
household runs away, leaving women and children vulnerable in the camps.
The
probability that many repatriated refugees may soon come back to
The withdrawal plan of UNHCR promoting
self-sufficiency also makes provision for the reduction of care and maintenance
services in the camps, which leads to many concerns regarding its impact on the
future welfare of the refugees[21]. As another step towards implementing its
phasing-out proposal, UNHCR stopped providing spices to the refugees in March,
resulting in the necessity for the refugees to sell part of their ration in
order to purchase this food item. In
April, UNHCR informed its NGO partners to hand over their health and nutrition
programmes targetting children under ten, pregnant
women and lactating mothers by July 2003, in order to streamline health
services under the Ministry of Health.
Refugees have often complained that government services were inadequate
and that they were treated with contempt.
Even though UNHCR promised to strengthen local health facilities, the
current understaffing and lack of expertise in the local clinics raise serious
concerns that malnourished children and women may no longer benefit from any
supplementary feeding, when chronic malnutrition is already severe. Rumours in the camp are rife that Médecins sans Frontières (MSF)
and Concern are leaving soon. While the
UNHCR plan does propose an increase in social services such as skills training
and income generation activities, it is unlikely that the
A refugee from Nayapara
camp said: “We are like a soccer ball,
kicked by
The root causes of the Rohingya refugee exodus are found in
According to the UNHCR Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation, the principle of voluntariness is the cornerstone of
international protection with respect to the return of refugees. Moreover, the UNHCR Executive Committee
Conclusions No. 40, para (b) reaffirms that “The
repatriation of refugees should only take place at their freely expressed wish;
the voluntary and individual character of repatriation of refugees and the need
for it to be carried out under conditions of absolute safety, preferably to the
place of residence of the refugee in his country of origin, should always be
respected;”
The
severe abuses documented in this report, aimed at repatriating refugees by
force, or at coercing them into agreeing to repatriate, run against the most
fundamental standards of international law and should be stopped
immediately. The UNHCR, the Government
of Bangladesh and the international community should remain committed to
addressing the plight of the Rohingya refugees in
The International Council of Voluntary Agencies stated at the
March 2003 session of the UNHCR Standing Committee in
RECOMMENDATIONS
To
the Government of
-
To stop repatriating Rohingya refugees against their will
and to immediately cease all coercion, pressure and intimidation in the camps
aimed at compelling them to sign up for return;
-
To respect the voluntary nature of the repatriation process;
-
To continue to assist and protect the Rohingya refugees until
the situation in their country of origin can guarantee a safe return;
-
To become party to the 1951 Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol;
-
To fulfil its obligations towards refugee women and children
under the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) that
To
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):
-
To halt immediately any forced repatriation from the refugee
camps in
-
To ensure that all repatriation are truly voluntary,
according the principles reaffirmed in the UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion
no. 40 and in the UNHCR Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation, regarding
voluntariness;
-
To strengthen its monitoring role in the camps in order to
provide effective protection to the refugees;
-
To continue its role of protection and assistance in the
refugee camps until a durable solution is available to the refugees;
-
To reconsider its self-sufficiency proposal in consultation
with all actors in the camps, including the refugees, in order to develop an
action plan, approved by the Government of Bangladesh, that will put the
refugees’ human rights concerns at the forefront.
To
the State Peace and Development Council (the Burmese Government):
-
To end its policies of exclusion and discrimination against
the Rohingya Muslim population of
-
To amend or repeal the 1982 Citizenship Act, with the effect of granting full citizenship and
accompanying rights, in particular the right to freedom of movement, to the
Muslims of Arakan State;
-
To cease the practice of forced labour
in
To
the International Community, including donor Governments:
-
To continue and increase financial support to the UNHCR and
other agencies to allow them to address adequately and effectively the
protection and humanitarian needs of the Rohingya refugees;
-
To raise and address with the UNHCR and the Government of
Bangladesh the alarming reports of forced repatriation and coercion in the
camps in order that to ensure these abuses cease immediately and basic human
rights of the Rohingya refugees in
Appendices:
The Voices of the Refugees
APPENDIX NO. 1
Declaration from Rohingya Refugees to UNHCR dated
To
The Head of Sub-Office UNHCR Cox's Sub:
Returning our family books to you, Dear Sir, We, the Rohingya Refugee under UN Refugee Status
hereby declare the followings: 1.
Tremendous pressures have been exerted on us since we have achieved
the Refugee Status. Since 1992 we have observed a lot of your paperwork's and compels (on
us) to merely keep the paper valid. Despite of reporting the following
matters to you we have observed no significant output. a) We have had and still
have no protection from the various Systematic Conspiracies, arbitrary
arrests, physically tortures, killings, deprivation of foods and other
assistances. Confiscation of FBs (Refugee Status)
and push backs in the name of voluntary repatriation. b) There is no solution for those of us, who have left the Camp not
being able to bear the atrocities, starvation, fabrications and misiinter protecton of the
pains in their minds. c) Forceful repatriation by putting under bonds the captured Head
of family, is purely violation of human rights. This is the present style of
repatriation. 2.
We have shown genuine reasons for not signing the affidavit. Under
the existing metamorphosed military
government the following is eminent a) Every possibility of genocide, well-founded fear of persecution,
extortion, expulsion, military armed operation (that have previously occurred
13 times) etc. b) There is every possibility of massive exodus of Rohingyas as
have been happening. It can be seen that the frequency of the exodus is
higher under the military government. Who have been disguising under
different names. c) No any possibility of re-avaidment of
national protection, re-acquisition of nationality for us and our
descendents. d) there is every possibility statelessness
of Rohingya Refugees. In context of the above and after observing
Significant progress or no any productive output any of the relief agencies
we have decided to free ourselves by returning the Refugee status to you. Thank you for the Co-operation you have given us
so far and we wish ourselves best of luck. Rohingya Refugees of
Cox's Bazar
|
A whole day meeting was held in Kutupalong camp on
The
day before the meeting, on 8 April, the Camp-in-Charge instructed all majees and volunteers to inform the refugees about the
meeting. They also used loudspeakers to
inform the refugees. The announcement was: “An emergency meeting is being
called by the RRRC. All refugees, men,
women and children, are requested to be present at this meeting tomorrow
morning [9 April].”
The next day, the majees
arrived at the meeting with the refugees of their respective sheds. Almost all
refugees arrived from the various hills.
At
“You are Rohingya Muslims and we are
also Muslims. We do not want to see you
in trouble. We always sympathise with your problems. We know why you had to leave your own
country. This is true, and you must believe that we don’t want to create more
problems to you.
We want to help you, and our intention
is to send you back to your own country only with full dignity and honour. Remember:
This [
Now I would like to suggest that you
get ready to go back to your own country.
This is your last chance. This is
the right time to go back with full honour and
dignity. Remember that the world is now
very busy with other problems. Soon the
UNHCR will be busy with other problems in other parts of the globe. UNHCR does not have much time, and they will
leave soon. And the NGOs that are
working in this camp and other camps will also leave soon. I want to remind you that this is your last
chance for repatriation in the presence of UNHCR and NGOs. As soon as UNHCR and other NGOs will stop
their activities you will lose this opportunity and a lot of other facilities.
The services that you are getting now from the UNHCR and the NGOs will no longer
be provided afterwards. You will become less privileged.
So, my last request is: Please get
ready to go back to your own country! If
you do not listen to our request, then we will apply force. So take the chance
and go back with honour.”
The first session of the meeting ended
after the speech of the magistrate Redwan.
In the second session, the head of
UNHCR delivered his speech first. He is a
Thai man and he delivered his speech in English, while one UNHCR field
assistant, a Bangladeshi man, translated it into Bengali. He told us:
“It would be better if you go
back. By this time,
Moreover, the two Prime Ministers of
One of the refugees raised his hand and
asked a question to UNHCR about the “affidavit”. He also asked: “Why should we sign it? We have not committed any crime[23]. We have done nothing wrong. So, why do we have to sign an affidavit to go
back to
Another refugee named Abu Sama said: “We are here because of the persecutions of the
Burmese regime. We did not do any
unlawful acts against the regime. We are
not guilty. The regime is. Without committing any crime, you are asking
us to sign an affidavit. Why? It is the regime that need to sign an
affidavit saying that they will never persecute us in the future, that they
will not do to us what they did in the past.
Why do you ask us to sign an affidavit and not them? Could you tell us what is written on that
document?” But no one answered Abu Sama’s questions.
The result of the meeting was negative
for RRRC and UNHCR. Most of the refugees
openly protested against the affidavit.
A refugee even said: “We will go back, but we will not sign the
affidavit.” Then the meeting ended.
The next day, the Camp-in-Charge
summoned Abu Sama to meet him at his office, but Abu Sama did not show up and fled from the camp.
Since 10 April, the Camp-in-Charge has
ordered the camp police not to allow any refugee to leave the camp. Anyone found outside the camp will be
arrested.
18 people were arrested on 10 April, of
them 12 children and 6 adults. The
Camp-in-Charge called the parents of the children and told them that if they
want to get back their children, they must first sign the affidavit. The Camp-in-Charge did the same for the
adults. Everybody is now afraid to go
out of the camp.
APPENDIX NO. 3
REFUGEE
ACCOUNTS FROM NAYAPARA AND KUTUPALONG CAMPS
These stories are the voices of the Rohingya refugees in Kutupalong and Nayapara camps,
received by FORUM-ASIA between November 2002 and May 2003. They have been collected from the affected
refugees themselves, from their relatives or from other refugees residing in
the two camps.
The chart below briefly analyses the
types of abuses used by the camp authorities to enforce repatriation, as
reported in the attached refugee accounts.
These include the act of forced repatriation itself (usually involving
detention in the camp prior to repatriation) and physical and/or mental
pressure (not always successful) to induce repatriation. Some stories report
more than one type. In some cases abuses
are also a direct consequence of involuntary repatriation such as family
separation and harassment of women.
|
Type of abuses used to enforce repatriation
|
No. of incidents May 2003 |
No. of incidents Nov 02-Apr 03 |
No. of incidents TOTAL |
|
Forced
repatriation usually following detention within the camp |
18 |
7 |
25 |
|
Detention in the camp as a pressure |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
Family separation |
9 |
10 |
19 |
|
Jail |
0 |
5 |
5 |
|
Threats of jail |
0 |
7 |
7 |
|
Beatings |
3 |
14 |
17 |
|
Deprivation of food |
1 |
5 |
6 |
|
Forced relocation within the camps |
0 |
6 |
6 |
|
Destruction of property (housing) |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
Rape and gender-based violence |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|
Others |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
TOTAL |
36 |
59 |
95 |
Terms used in the refugees’ accounts:
Camp-in-Charge: Representative of the Bangladesh Government, responsible for law and order as well as the daily running of the camps. He is assisted by several camp officers.
Majee: Rohingya refugee appointed as a leader of a refugee shed [divided in rooms] or of a section of the camp.
Volunteers: Rohingya refugees selected to assist the Camp-in-Charge and the majees in the daily running of the camp. They are the main agents for putting pressure for repatriation on the refugees.
Affidavit: Legal document to be signed
by both cleared and uncleared refugees confirming
their consent to repatriate.
Clearance: Agreement
issued for each family by the Burmese Immigration prior to repatriation, to
confirm acceptance in
Refugee book: Also
referred to as “family book” or “ration book” and issued by the UNHCR to identify
people as refugees. This is the only identification document that refugees
possess, which entitles them to protection, rations, medical care, etc. Without this book, refugees cannot get access
to any assistance or protection.
A. MAY 2003 – The
main drive of forced repatriation
“At
the beginning of May, it seemed as if a tornado had suddenly swept over the
camps and destroyed everything!”
Type of abuses: Beatings, Harassment
Mohamed Ali and his family have been
cleared by the Burmese Immigration. At
the beginning of March, Mohamed Ali was summoned to the Camp-in-Charge’s office
and asked to repatriate. When Mohamed refused the proposal, the Camp-in-Charge
and camp police beat him up. His kneecap
was damaged and he could not walk for several days. A week later, he fled the camp, leaving his
family behind.
Soon after, his wife Hasina
was called by the Camp-in-Charge. He
accused her: “You have convinced your husband to flee from the camp. Why are you campaigning against
repatriation? Why did you and other
women talk to foreigners visiting the camp?”
Hasina denied this, but the Camp-in-Charge
kept her in his office. A couple of
hours later, her detention came to the notice of other refugee women. They came to the Camp-in-Charge’s office
demanding her release and he let her go.
After this incident, the Camp-in-Charge
called her several times to his office but she never appeared.
Around the end of May, the Camp-in-Charge
again sent some volunteers to bring Hasina to his
office. She replied that she would not
go and requested them: “Do not come to me again for this purpose.” A few hours later, some camp police came
again and ordered her to go to the office.
Hasina was inside her shed with 20 other
cleared women. A policeman tried to get
her out of her shed but he failed.
Whenever he tried to enter, other women came forward to protect Hasina.
The next day, the Camp-in-Charge with
some police arrived at Hasina’s shed and asked Hasina to open. This
time Hasina opened her door and told the
Camp-in-Charge: “Sir, why are you sending your volunteers and police to take me
to your office. What is my fault? About two months ago you summoned my husband
to your office in the morning. My
husband was a very healthy man but in the evening he came back from your office
aided by two other refugees. He could
not walk. Since then, my husband has
disappeared. Now you are calling me and
sending your volunteers and police to me. My only crime is to be a
refugee. Apart from this I have
committed no other fault. Now you are
trying to send me and other refugees to
The Camp-in-Charge did not reply and left
her courtyard. The following day, the
Camp-in-Charge sent a woman field officer of UNHCR to Hasina’s
room to try to convince her. She tried
to bring Hasina to the Camp-in-Charge’s office and
assured her that she would bring her back to her room again. But Hasina refused and said: “You, [UNHCR] people, have done
nothing for us in the camp. The camp
officials, camp police and volunteers are harassing us in front of your eyes,
and you never protest against this persecution!
You are actually helping them indirectly, rather than protecting us!”
**********
¨
Refugee # 2 –
Hussein
Type of
abuses: Deprivation of food
On 6 May, the
Camp-in-Charge gave a list of 11 cleared families to volunteers and ordered
them to bring the head of those 11 families to his office. Among them only one
head of family, Hussein, came forward to meet the Camp-in-Charge. The other ten
did not.
Hussein was home when the volunteers
arrived. They told him to accompany them
and also asked him to bring his family ration book. Hussein followed them to
the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The
Camp-in-Charge told Hussein to repatriate to
The
Camp-in-Charge gave the store staff the list of the 10 other families who did
not come to his office, with a note not to distribute any food ration to these
10 families. His instructions were that
when these families come to receive their food ration, their ration books must
be seized and the Camp-in-Charge’s office informed immediately.
6 May was also
the food distribution day. Those 10
families came to queue for their ration.
All the other refugees received their ration but these 10 families were
taken aside. When one of them asked why
they were not given their ration, the store staff replied to them: “Go to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office and talk to him.
I am sending your ration books there.” But they did not go to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office and returned to their respective sheds empty-handed
without their ration and without their ration book.
**********
¨
Refugee # 3 –
Omar Hakim
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Omar Hakim’s
family has been cleared by the Burmese Immigration. His eldest son got married about 8 months
ago, but his daughter-in-law’s name is not mentioned in their family book.
On 6 May the
camp police and volunteers went to Omar’s house and summoned him and his eldest
son to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The
Camp-in-Charge then told both of them: “I hope you know that your family list
is cleared. You must go back to your country.
I don’t want to hear any argument and I don’t have time to hear any
story.” The eldest son complained: “I
can’t go back leaving my wife alone here.”
The Camp-in-Charge
did not allow Omar to go back to his shed but his son was allowed to go. The next morning the family was repatriated,
except for the eldest son.
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Bashar is a former militant of the RSO who became a
refugee in the early ‘90s and he married a refugee woman in the late ‘90s. He and his wife have a separate refugee
book. Bashar
is now the father of four children who are all registered in his wife’s book. Bashar’s name has
been cleared by the Burmese Immigration, but his wife and children have not.
In the past, Bashar was never asked to repatriate for
two reasons. The Camp-in-Charge, the majees and volunteers knew that (1) he was a former RSO
soldier and would face arrest in
Suddenly, the camp authorities, majees and volunteers changed their
attitude. During the night of 6 May
2003, some camp police arrived at Bashar’s shed with 15 volunteers. They caught him at home and brought him to
the Camp-in-Charge’s office where he was detained for the rest of the
night. The next morning, he was forcibly
repatriated to Burma.
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention within the camp
Early in the morning of 6 May, the majee and some volunteers called Noor
Ahmed to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. He
had to wait there until
The Camp-in-Charge examined him rapidly
and replied: “You look fine! I don’t
want to hear any excuse. I only know one
thing: You must go!” He kept him in the office compound. A few hours later, his wife was informed and
came to the Camp-in-Charge’s office with his medical documents. The Camp-in-Charge took his family book and
said: “OK. You can see the doctor but as
soon as your medical checkup is done, you must go back!” Two weeks later Noor
Ahmed had not been repatriated yet.
**********
¨
Refugee # 6 – Ayub Ali
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Ayub Ali’s family
was cleared for repatriation. On
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Abdur Rashid‘s
family was cleared for repatriation by the Burmese Immigration. On 6 May, he was called by the Camp-in-Charge
who told him to repatriate. Abdur Rashid was not ready to go back to
**********
¨
Refugee # 8 –
Ahmed
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation, Family separation
On 9 May, the
Camp-in-Charge sent volunteers to bring Ahmed to his office and told him that
he should go back to
A new
magistrate named Yasin, who had just been appointed
the previous evening, became very angry and insulted the old Ahmed. He used bad language, not only insulting
Ahmed but also all Rohingya people. He
finally told him: “You must go back.
Leave your three daughters and three grandchildren here!”
The Magistrate
and the Camp-in-Charge did not allow Ahmed to return to his shed. They ordered the volunteers to bring his
belongings and the rest of his family.
They kept them inside the police camp until the next Monday morning when
part of Ahmed’s family was repatriated to
**********
¨
Refugee # 9 – Noor Jahan and her sister
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation, Family separation
Noor Jahan is a widow and mother of a son aged 8. About 9 years ago, she married a refugee man,
and a few years later, her husband passed away.
She lives with Jamila, her elder sister, who
is also a widow. Jamila’s husband died in
On 10 May, the
Camp-in-Charge summoned her and instructed her that she and her son should now
go back to
The Camp-in-Charge
did not listen to the cries of Noor Jahan. He sent some volunteers to bring her son and her
belongings, and ordered her to remain inside the office compound until the next
repatriation day. That day, Noor Jahan and her son were
repatriated. The two sisters were crying
a lot, and even the refugees watching the scene were also weeping.
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Abdus Salam has been in jail since 1997 when he had been arrested
with other refugees because of his involvement in demonstrations and protests
against forced repatriation. Most of the
refugees who had been arrested then have now been released, but Abdus Salam is still in jail.
On 10 May, Abdus Salam’s wife was summoned
to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. She was told to repatriate to
Abdus Salam’s wife refused to repatriate. The Camp-in-Charge sent the police and
volunteers to bring the other members of the family and their belongings to his
office compound, and told the police to watch them until the next morning.
[Note: This account does not mention whether Abdus Salam’s wife and the rest
of her family were repatriated or not, but it is likely so.]
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Aziz’s family has
also been cleared for repatriation. On Monday
12 May, at
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation, Family separation
Amina Khatun is the head of her family. After she married in the camp, her husband
got registered on her refugee book. Her
family is now cleared for repatriation.
Some volunteers came to Amina’s house in the
late afternoon of 13 May and told her that she must accompany them to go and
meet the Camp-in-Charge. The
Camp-in-Charge told her that she must go back to
**********
¨
Refugee # 13 –
Jafar
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Detention/Forced repatriation, Family separation
Jafar has two wives
and both are living in the same shed. Jafar and his second wife are registered in the same
refugee book and they were not cleared for repatriation. His first wife and her two children have a
separate refugee book and they had been cleared.
On
On 14 May, Jafar’s first wife and her two children were ordered to get
onto the truck [to the repatriation camp] but they refused to board it. The police beat them with a cane and a stick
and pushed them onto the truck guarded by other policemen. They arrived in
**********
¨
Refugee # 14 –
Hamida
Type of abuses: Detention within the camp
Hamida Khatun is an old widow with a large family and her family
was cleared for repatriation. On 14 May,
Hamida and other members of her family were
instructed to go to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. Hamida’s family
ignored the order and did not go.
The next day, at about 12 noon, two
office assistants of the Camp-in-Charge with some volunteers and majees went to Hamida’s house,
caught her three sons and brought them at the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The office assistants locked them up inside
the office bathroom for the whole afternoon.
At about
The three
brothers came back to their shed. Before
dawn, they had disappeared with the whole family, leaving behind all their
belongings.
**********
¨
Refugee # 15 –
Type of
abuses: Family separation, Forced repatriation
Fatima Khatun is a young woman with two young children and she is
expecting her third child. Five years
ago, she married a refugee in the camp, but the couple never registered as a
new family.
In the morning
of 18 May, volunteers summoned
The
Camp-in-Charge ignored her difficulties and sent her back to
**********
¨
Refugee # 16 –
Zubida
Type of abuses: Detention and forced repatriation, Family
separation
Zubida Khatun has a
separate family book from her husband.
Her husband is listed in the family book of his parents. Zubida got married
in 1997 and she now has 3 children. All her children are registered in her
family book. Her name and the children’s names have been cleared for
repatriation, but not her husband and his family.
On 18 May, Zubida was summoned to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. She was
told to get ready to repatriate, but Zubida refused
to repatriate without her husband. The
Camp-in-Charge did not listen and ordered the camp police and volunteers to
bring her children from her room to the office.
They put them all together in a room inside the Camp-in-Charge’s
office. The next morning Zubida was forcibly repatriated to
**********
¨
Refugee # 17 –
Rashida
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation, Family separation
Rashida is the head
of a family and she has 5 daughters, all of them below the age of 10. She is married but her husband is still
registered in his parents’ family book, not with her and her children. Her clearance has arrived, but her husband’s
family has not been cleared.
In the evening
of 18 May, the camp police and volunteers brought Rashida
and her daughters to the Camp-in-Charge’s office and ordered them to remain
inside the office together with other women in a similar situation. They were all sent for repatriation to
**********
Type of
abuses: Family separation and forced repatriation
Nazir’s family has
two separate family books: one in his name and the other one in his wife’s
name. The family book in Nazir’s name includes
himself, one of his daughters and a grandson.
The other book issued in his wife’s name mentions his wife as well as 7
other sons and daughters. Nazir’s family book has been cleared by the Burmese
Immigration, but his wife’s book remains uncleared.
At about
**********
Type of
abuses: Family separation
Ayasha Begum’s
family has also been cleared by the Burmese authorities. But her husband and her younger brother have
a case in
**********
¨
Refugee # 20 –
Zakir
Type of
abuses: Destruction of property, Harassment
In the morning
of 19 May, a volunteer summoned Zakir to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office. Zakir told him that he would
go soon. But Zakir did not go. He took his family, except one of his
daughters who had married a male refugee from the same camp, and went to hide
in the jungle. They could not take any
of their belongings from their shed. At
The next day,
the Camp-in-Charge sent some volunteers and office assistants to dismantle Zakir’s room and bring all his belongings to his
office. Zakir’s
daughter was ordered to come every day to the Camp-in-Charge’s office to prove
that she remains in the camp.
**********
Type of abuses: Beatings, Detention and forced repatriation
Syed Islam is
living with his father and is registered on the same refugee book. This large family has been cleared. Syed is a teacher at one of the camp schools. His father, the head of the family, ran away
from the camp a long time ago to avoid repatriation. About 7-8 months ago, Syed had talked to the majee and some police, seeking advice on how to bring his
father back to the camp. The majee and the police had assured him that they would not create
any problem if his father returned to the camp.
Syed paid some money to the police through the majee. About 6 months ago his father returned to the
camp. Since then Syed has been paying
some money to the police every month through the majee.
Around
mid-May, Syed and four other youths went out of the camp for a few days. Syed
and his friends returned to the camp on 14 May. The camp police learnt that Syed had been
out of the camp for several days. They
caught him on 22 May and beat him up. Then the police arrested his father too
and detained them until 26 May. In the
morning of 26, the father and son as well as the other members of his family
were repatriated to
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Kashim’s family is
also cleared for repatriation. Two of
his sons had disappeared from the camp over the last 15 days. They had fled to
avoid repatriation. On 24 May, the camp
police and volunteers came to Kashim’s and took him
to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The Camp-in-Charge told him: “You cannot avoid repatriation by sending
your two sons out of the camp. You know very well where they are staying. I want you to go and bring them here
immediately.” Kashim
replied: “I don’t know where my sons are. They left the camp without informing
me. But I agree that they made a good
decision when they fled from the camp.”
The
Camp-in-Charge got angry and ordered the police to arrest Kashim. He told him: “Then, I will send you back to
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Ibrahim’s family is
cleared for repatriation. On Sunday 25 May,
Ibrahim went to the market inside the camp. An office staff of the Camp-in-Charge saw him
and caught him there. They brought him
to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The
Camp-in-Charge told him that he must repatriate to
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Abdul Fayaz is an old man of about 70. One of his sons left the camp about 3 months
ago and went to work in a restaurant in Teknaf.
A police informer told the camp officials of his whereabouts. On 25 May the camp police inspector and some
volunteers went to Teknaf to catch Adbul Fayaz’s son. They
caught him in the restaurant, arrested him and brought him back to the
camp. They called his father to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office and told him:
“Here is your son. We hope you
don’t have any other problem to avoid repatriation. Now go and get ready for repatriation. If you refuse, I will send your son to
jail.” The police inspector instructed
some volunteers and police to accompany Abdul Fayaz
and to bring back the rest of his family as well as their belongings. The police put them altogether in a room and
kept them for the night. The next
morning they were all repatriated to
**********
B. BEFORE MAY 2003
¨
Refugee # 25 –
Habib April 2003
Type of
abuses: Deprivation of food
Noor Kalam’s clearance had already arrived. On xx April a
volunteer told him to go and see the Camp-in-Charge. Noor
Kalam assured him that he would go within a short
while. But he did not go and fled from
the camp. A few days later, Noor Kalam’s wife went to collect
the ration for the family. The
volunteers distributed the ration to all the refugees queuing, but she was
asked to wait. One of them took her
ration book and went to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The Camp-in-Charge
confiscated the ration book and told her that she would get it back as soon as
she brought her husband to his office.
**********
Type of
abuses: Beatings and jail
At about
**********
¨
Refugee # 27 –
Hamid April 2003
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Forced relocation
In the morning
of xx April, two volunteers came to Hamid's room and
told him to go to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. When Hamid
reached the compound of the Camp-in-Charge’s office, he noticed that other
refugees were also waiting and a police sentry was watching them. The
Camp-in-Charge told the waiting refugees to sign the affidavit, and he
instructed the photographer to take their pictures one by one. Most of them
refused to sit in front of the camera and sign the document. The police then beat some of them by order of
the Camp-in-Charge.
Observing the situation, Hamid
decided to accept. He went to sit in
front of the camera and let the photographer take his picture. Immediately after that, he asked the
Camp-in-Charge's permission to quickly fetch some food from his room, and
promised to come back to sign the affidavit.
The Camp-in-Charge allowed him to go. Hamid
took this opportunity to leave the camp.
The next day, when he realised that Hamid
had fled, the Camp-in-Charge ordered his family to be transferred to another
section of the camp as a punishment. He
instructed the police, volunteers and majees to shift
his family every 2 or 3 days from one place to another until Hamid came back.
**********
¨ Refugee # 28 –
Zafar Meah April 2003
Type of abuses: Forced relocation and destruction of
property
Zafar Meah’s family was not in the list of clearances. On the morning of xx April, Zafar was summoned to the Camp-in-Charge’s office and asked
to sign the affidavit. Zafar did not reply. He allowed the cameraman to take the
picture. Then the Camp-in-Charge called his office assistant to bring the stamp
and asked Zafar for his signature. This time Zafar reacted and replied:
“If you want to send me back to
The
Camp-in-Charge did not answer.
Meanwhile, there was a call for the mid-day prayer and Zafar sought permission to go to pray. The Camp-in-Charge allowed him to go. But Zafar did not
return from the mosque after his prayer and ran away from the camp. Later, in the evening, the Camp-in-Charge
arrived at Zafar’s shed accompanied by camp police
and volunteers. He ordered them to
dismantle his room. The bamboo partition
walls of his room as well as the roof were totally destroyed. His family was moved to another section of
the camp.
**********
Type of abuses:
Deprivation of food
On xx April, Hajeda’s ration book was seized by the Camp-in-Charge
because she refused to sign the affidavit.
Refugees need a new signature from the Camp-in-Charge on each page of
their ration book. The previous page of Hajeda’s ration book was full, and that day she had gone to
the Camp-in-Charge’s office to obtain his signature on the next page. She handed over her book to the
Camp-in-Charge. He took it and told her
that he would sign it only on the condition that she signed the affidavit.
But Hajeda refused to sign the affidavit, and asked the
Camp-in-Charge to return her ration book without signature. But the Camp-in-Charge put her book in a
locker and told her: “It will remain there until you sign the affidavit. Go to your room and think about it!” Hajeda returned
home without her book and without her food ration.
**********
¨
Refugee # 30 –
Jashim April 2003
Type of
abuses: Threat of jail
Jashim is still uncleared. He was
summoned to the Camp-in-Charge’s office and asked to sign the affidavit but he
refused. The Camp-in-Charge started
threatening him: “If you don’t do it, I will file a case against you and send
you to jail!” and he locked him in the bathroom. Then the Camp-in-Charge sent volunteers to
bring his wife and his children. When they arrived at his office, the
Camp-in-Charge told Jashim’s wife: “If your husband
does not put his thumbprint on the affidavit, I will send him to jail
tomorrow. I will give you one last
chance. Talk to him. If he changes his mind, it will be better for
all of you.” He then ordered his
assistant to bring him out so that he could talk to his wife. Jashim’s wife and
children were crying and requested him to comply with the Camp-in-Charge’s
order. Jashim
could not oppose his wife and children and he put his thumbprint on the
affidavit.
**********
Type of
abuses: Deprivation of food
Zakir Hussein was
waiting in front of the food store to collect his ration with his ration
book. At that time, one of
Camp-in-Charge’s office staff called him and asked him to go to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office at once. The
Camp-in-Charge requested him to sign the affidavit, but Zakir
expressed his unwillingness to do so.
The Camp-in-Charge then asked him for his ration book and he gave it to
him. The Camp-in-Charge put it inside a
locker and told Zakir Hussein: “You will get your
ration book back and you will be able to get your food ration only after you
change your mind. Go back to your room
and starve with your family!” Zakir Hussein begged him to return his book without any
success. He returned to his shed.
On xx April Zakir Hussein was summoned to the office again and the
Camp-in-Charge asked him if he had now changed his mind. He cried in front of the Camp-in-Charge:
“Sir, my family is starving. Please be
kind to my family and my children. Give
me back my ration book!” But the Camp-in-Charge replied again: “First sign the
affidavit and then you will get your ration book back.” Zakir Hussein returned
to his room empty-handed.
**********
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Threat of jail
Nurul Hoque is an old man. The charcoal that he receives is not
enough for his cooking needs and he often goes to the hills to collect
firewood. On the evening of xx May, he
was returning from the hills with some firewood and was caught by the camp
police. They seized his load and beat
him up. They did not allow him to go
back to his room for the rest of the night.
The next morning, Nurul Hoque
was brought to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The Camp-in-Charge’s office staff
gave him two options: to thumb-print the affidavit or go to jail on a charge
under the Forest Act. Nurul Hoque agreed to sign the
affidavit.
**********
¨
Refugee # 33 –
Mohamed Sultan April 2003
Type of
abuses: Forced relocation
Mohammed
Sultan was summoned by the Camp-in-Charge on xx April, but he refused to go the
Camp-in-Charge’s office and fled as he knew that he would be forced to sign the
affidavit. The Camp-in-Charge then
ordered volunteers to move his family to another section of the camp. He also told the majees
and volunteers, “If anybody sees Sultan, bring him to my office or call the
police. Anyone who gives him shelter
will be punished!”
**********
¨
Refugee # 34 –
Habib April 2003
Type of
abuses: Deprivation of food
Habib’s family is not
cleared for repatriation yet. On the
morning of xx April, some volunteers came to Habib’s
shed and told him to accompany them to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The Camp-in-Charge urged him to sign the
affidavit. Habib
refused to sign and asked the Camp-in-Charge: “Why should I sign this? When you receive my clearance for
repatriation, just send me back to my country!
I will only sign the repatriation document on my way out.” The Camp-in-Charge did not answer but he
again sent the camp police and volunteers to his room to bring his ration
book. He then seized the ration book and
told Habib: “Now, go back to your room and think
again! Your ration book will be returned
after you sign the affidavit.”
Habib returned
without his ration book. He has a large
family and does not have enough food to feed his family. His neighbours have
been helping him secretly by providing his family with some food.
**********
Siddique Ahmed
returned to the camp about two months ago after spending 5 years in jail. He was accused of being an agitator in the
1997 anti-repatriation demonstrations in the camp. Siddique’s family
clearance arrived while he was in jail.
During his detention, his name was removed from his family book. After his return from jail, Siddique went to the Camp-in-Charge’s office and requested
the Camp-in-Charge to re-include his name in the family book so he could get
his food ration. But the Camp-in-Charge
replied: “Your clearance for repatriation is in my hand. There is no need to put your name again in
your family’s ration book. You should
get ready for repatriation.” Siddique did not reply and returned to his room.
On xx April, Siddique visited the Camp-in-Charge’s office again, and
argued on the same issue. He shouted:
“Why am I not allowed to receive my ration?”
At that moment, a camp police inspector arrived and started beating him
up. The Camp-in-Charge told him: “If you
don’t leave this office immediately, I will seize the ration book of your
entire family, and I will file a new case against you so that you will go to
jail again.”
**********
Type of
abuses: Harassment of women
Mamtaz Begum is a
young widow, mother of 3 children. Her name was cleared for repatriation. She used to go to Teknaf to sell
vegetables. She was able to do this by
paying a regular bribe to the majee and the camp
sentry to be allowed to go in and out of the camp.
About a week
ago, she was returning from Teknaf in the evening, and she got caught by the
camp police. They interrogated her and
she told them that she was selling vegetables in Teknaf and that she was
bribing the majee and sentry in order to go to
Teknaf. Then, the police demanded 2,000 Taka from her, but she refused to pay
anything. He shouted back at her and
accused her: “I know what you are doing in Teknaf! I have information about you! You are a prostitute! Everyday you visit
Teknaf to sell your body!" Then the
policeman pulled Mamtaz's hair and cut two-thirds of
it off [very insulting for a woman].
Since then, Mamtaz no longer went to Teknaf
and at the end of April, she was forcibly repatriated to
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention and forced repatriation
Nurul Alam’s clearance had already arrived. The Camp-in-Charge sent a volunteer to bring
him to his office and told him to repatriate to
**********
Type of
abuses: Family separation, Detention/Forced Repatriation, Jail
Abdul Hakim
has a large family. The clearance list
for his family arrived about a year ago. Since then, he has been under pressure
from the camp officials. Recently, Abdul
Hakim was again summoned to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. Hakim told him: “My three youngest sons would
be in danger if they returned to
On xx April,
the Camp-in-Charge called him again and told him to get ready to repatriate to
Abdul Hakim
returned to his shed and informed his family.
Hearing this, his three youngest sons fled from the camp at night. The next day the Camp-in-Charge learnt about
it and told Abdul Hakim: “Your sons have run away. Now you have no more excuses to refuse
repatriation. You can go back without
them.” The Camp-in-Charge ordered Abdul
Hakim to stay in his office and sent volunteers to bring the rest of his family
to his office too.
Abdul Hakim’s daughter-in-law was in an advanced
stage of pregnancy. Due to this
circumstance, she, her husband [Abdul Hakim’s eldest son] and her two children
were not repatriated. But Abdul Hakim
and the remaining members of his family were sent to the repatriation camp.
A few days later, volunteers caught the third son of
Abdul Hakim who had fled from the camp with his two brothers. He was caught while he was visiting the camp
at night. The volunteers handed him over to the camp police and the next day he
was sent to jail on a charge of theft in the camp.
**********
Type of
abuses: Detention within the camp, Beatings
Mohamed Islam
is on the list of cleared refugees. On
the morning of xx April, the Camp-in-Charge sent a volunteer to bring him to
his office. The Camp-in-Charge told him
to go back to
In the evening
Mohamed Islam went to the market to buy some vegetables. The market is on the roadside adjacent to the
camp. The office assistant of the
Camp-in-Charge and some police suddenly appeared in front of him and caught him
for violating the camp rules. They took
him to the Camp-in-Charge’s office where he was beaten severely. The Camp-in-Charge told the camp police to
keep him in their custody and continue to beat him up until he agreed to
repatriate. Mohamed Islam finally gave
his consent for repatriation.
**********
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Detention and forced repatriation
Abdus Sukur is the head of his family and they have been cleared
by the Burmese authorities. One of the Camp-in-Charge’s office assistants, a majee and some volunteers came to his room in the late
afternoon and told him that the Camp-in-Charge wanted to see him
immediately. When he arrived, an office
assistant told him: “Your family has been cleared for repatriation for a long
time. You must get ready to
repatriate. We do not want to hear any
excuse and we do not want to waste our time.”
But Abdus Sukur
refused and tried to run away. But the
office assistant caught him, beat him up and sent volunteers to his room to
fetch his wife and children and to collect their belongings. Abdus Sukur’s wife and children cried
but the officials did not budge. The
family had to spend the night in the veranda of the Camp-in-Charge’s office,
and the next morning they were all repatriated to
**********
¨
Refugee # 41 –
Ali Hossain April 2003
Type of
abuses: Family separation, Detention and forced repatriation
Ali Hossain got married about three years ago. He does not have any children. His wife’s
name is not registered in the same refugee book. Her name is her father’s family book.
On the evening
of 29 April a volunteer went to Ali Hossain’s shed
and asked him to come at once to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. The Camp-in-Charge told him that he must go
back to
Ali Hossain tried to convince the Camp-in-Charge and promised
that he would go back as soon as his wife’s family was cleared. But the Camp-in-Charge did not listen to his
request and he instructed the police to keep him in their custody. The next day, the Camp-in-Charge sent Ali Hossain to the repatriation camp without his wife.
**********
Type of
abuses: Jail, Beatings, Threat of re-arrest
Syed Akbar’s clearance for repatriation arrived a few months
ago, but he had refused to return to
On xx April, Syed Akbar
was finally released from jail and returned to his family. The Camp-in-Charge called him again and asked
him again to go back to
**********
Type of
abuses: Jail
At about 8 p.m, the Camp-in-Charge’s office called Abdullah’s name by
loudspeaker. He was asked to go and see
the Camp-in-Charge at his office.
Abdullah had recently married a Rohingya girl who was not a registered
refugee, but they were living together inside the camp. He went to see the Camp-in-Charge. The Camp-in-Charge told him: “You are
creating a lot of disturbance inside the camp.
You are the one mobilizing the ordinary refugees against signing the
affidavit and against repatriation.
Because of your subversive activities, our work is being hampered.” The Camp-in-Charge ordered the camp police to
keep Abdullah in their custody for the night.
He lodged a case against him under Section 45 and sent him to Cox’s
Bazar jail the next morning.
**********
Type of abuses: Beatings, Detention within the camp, Forced
relocation
Abdul Karim
and his family had already received their clearance. On xx April, the Camp-in-Charge summoned him
to his office and told him that he should now go back to
After sending
him to the Teknaf police station, the Camp-in-Charge called Abdul Karim’s wife and told her: “I can bring your husband back
if you promise me that you will return to
Abdul Karim
returned to the camp with a policeman in the late afternoon. His wife explained everything to him and
requested him to go back to
The
Camp-in-Charge did not allow the family to go back to their room at night and,
the next morning, he ordered their transfer to another section of the camp.
**********
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Forced relocation
Shah Alam’s family clearance had arrived. On xx March, he was summoned to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office. The
Camp-in-Charge asked him to go back to
Later in the day, the
Camp-in-Charge, camp police and a UNHCR field assistant went together to Shah Alam’s room where his family was anxiously waiting to see
the consequences of his escape. The
Camp-in-Charge call some volunteers and ordered them to pack all the family’s
belongings and bring them to the waiting truck. He also asked female volunteers to bring
Shah Alam’s wife Mahmouda
and her children to the truck.
The two young boys were crying a lot and Mahmouda,
who was 8 months pregnant, firmly refused to leave her room. She told the UNHCR representative that she
did not want to go, and that her health condition did not allow her to
travel. Neither the Camp-in-Charge nor
the UNHCR staff gave any attention to her appeal. The women volunteers dragged her out of her
room and beat her. They also hit her
belly. Finally, they managed to put her
on the truck. In the truck, Mahmouda could no longer find her two sons. The
Camp-in-Charge became angry and ordered the driver to take her to the other
refugee camp [not to the repatriation camp].
Mahmouda felt sick in the back of the
truck. After an hour, they reached the
other refugee camp and she went to the clinic to explain her condition. The doctor examined her and sent her to the
Cox’s Bazar government hospital to get treatment.
At the end of
March, Mahmouda’s father and brother were summoned by
the Camp-in-Charge. They went to his
office at about
Mahmouda’s father and
brother returned to their shed and both went out searching for her husband and
the two missing grandsons. They did not
return to the camp.
**********
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Threat of jail
Shamsul’s clearance
arrived a few months ago. At
Shamsul firmly denied
his involvement in the agitation, and complained that this was an old matter
and that all the culprits were already in jail.
The police did not want to hear anything and took him to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office. They beat him
with their sticks, pushed him down on the floor and kicked him. Then Shamsul asked
them what they wanted for his release.
The police told him: “Would you prefer to go back to
**********
Type of
abuses: Family separation
Salima Begum, aged
11, and her younger sister, Halima Begum, aged 8,
have a separate refugee card from their parents. Since their family was large, the father had
requested a separate refugee card for his two daughters so that they could
receive extra food rations. Clearance
for Salima and Halima had
already arrived, while the rest of the family was not cleared.
On xx March,
the Camp-in-Charge sent volunteers to bring the girls. As soon as they arrived
in the Camp-in-Charge’s office they were told to go back to
The
Camp-in-Charge did not allow the girls to return to their room to meet their
family. He kept them in the police
camp. The girls cried a lot, pleading to
be allowed to go back to their family, but to no avail. Their parents came to visit them the next
day, just before they were repatriated.
**********
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Detention and forced repatriation
Sayed Hossain’s family clearance arrived about a year ago. Two months ago, Sayed
was called to the Camp-in-Charge’s office.
The Camp-in-Charge asked him to get ready for repatriation. Sayed refused and
he was beaten by the camp officials and police.
They locked him up for two days inside the police camp. Two days later,
after he agreed to repatriate, they let him go back to his room so that he
could pack his belongings and organise his family for repatriation. But as soon as he was freed, Sayed took the first opportunity to run away. The same night he fled from the camp alone.
The next
morning, when volunteers went to fetch Sayed and his
family, they found that he had already fled.
Sayed took shelter in a village near the camp
and kept in contact with his family.
After about 50 days living outside the camp, Sayed
received a message from his wife that the camp was now safe for him, and that
he could come back and stay with his family.
The majee demanded 1,000 Taka to smuggle him
back into the camp and promised that he would not inform the Camp-in-Charge
about his return. Sayed
paid the majee and thus returned to the camp about 10
days ago. He went to stay again with his
family.
On xx March,
the Camp-in-Charge discovered that Sayed had come
back to the camp. He immediately sent
his office assistant, camp police and volunteers to his room to arrest
him. Sayed was
caught and brought to the Camp-in-Charge’s office. This time, the Camp-in-Charge did not take
any risk. He forced him to sign the
repatriation form and ordered the police to keep him in their custody. The next day, the camp volunteers collected
his family’s belongings and took his family to the waiting truck to be sent
back to
**********
Arefa is a widow,
mother of two daughters and one son from her former husband. She had re-married a Rohingya man who had
lived in
Arefa’s clearance for
repatriation arrived a few months ago.
On xx February, at about 9 a.m., the Camp-in-Charge sent volunteers to
call her to his office. The
Camp-in-Charge told her that she should now get ready for repatriation. He asked her to sign the repatriation
document. Arefa
refused and replied that she would not go back as long as peace and security
were not prevailing in
**********
¨
Refugee # 50 –
Latifa February 2003
Type of
abuses: Family separation/vulnerability of women, rape
Latifa Khatun is a young married
woman and mother of one child. Her
husband is not a registered refugee and he cannot stay in the camp with
her. He usually visits the camp once or
twice a month to see his wife and child.
Latifa is living in her parents’ shed and she
is the eldest daughter. The clearance
for repatriation of her parents’ family arrived a couple of months ago. At that point, her father fled from the
camp. About one month later, Latifa’s mother went to join her husband to live with him
outside the camp. Latifa
and her infant baby continued to stay in the refugee camp together with her
younger brother and sister.
At about
Then the
Camp-in-Charge ordered her to follow him and took her into his residence. The Camp-in-Charge has a separate house at
the back of his office where he lives.
His family lives in government housing in Cox’s Bazar but visits him
sometimes in the camp for one or two nights.
Latifa followed the order and went to the
Camp-in-Charge’s residence. The
Camp-in-Charge locked the door and forced her onto a bed and raped her. The Camp-in-Charge kept her in his house for
many hours and raped her many times. At
The next day, Latifa first went to the Concern office and the field
coordinator took her to the UNHCR office to report the incident. The national UNHCR protection officer asked
her why she had not come immediately to UNHCR and Latifa
explained that, as soon as she was released, she had come to the UNHCR and
Concern office, but both were already closed.
The UNHCR staff wrote down her testimony and told her that UNHCR office
in Cox’s Bazar would be informed. A week
later [when Forum-Asia received this first account], she had not yet heard
anything from UNHCR. Life in the camp
became hell for Latifa as information about the rape
circulated throughout the camp and she still had the marks of abuse on her
body.
A month later,
Osman, the majee of the
camp section where Latifa lives, was called to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office. Osman had been cleared for repatriation long ago but, being
a majee, he was never called for repatriation. Immediately after Latifa’s
rape, the Camp-in-Charge was busy with the local elections and did not bother
him. However, as soon as the local
elections were over, the Camp-in-Charge called Osman
and accused him: “How could this girl dare to complain against me? Where were you when she was making all these
accusations? Your duty as a majee was to stop her spreading this story! If you fail to control a girl, how would you
deal with and control a group of people?
I suspect that you are the one who encouraged the girl to make false
accusations against me. You are the one
who asked her to tell all this. Now it
is your time to get ready for repatriation!”.
The Camp-in-Charge called the police to the office to take Osman in custody. Osman took a quick decision and managed to run away from
the camp before the police arrived.
A few days
after Osman fled, the Camp-in-Charge sent his
assistant to talk to Latifa. He put pressure on her to withdraw her rape
allegation against the Camp-in-Charge and offered her some money. He also suggested that she file the rape
charge against Osman. At the same time, Osman’s family was transferred to another section of the
camp.
Latifa complained that, although she was investigated by
UNHCR and RRRC, her allegations could not be validated because she did not
undergo a medical examination immediately after the rape, and she claimed she
was not advised to do so by the UNHCR local staff in the camp when she first
reported the incident.
Note: In April 2003, a UNHCR official in
**********
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Family separation
About a year
ago, an incomplete list of Jamir’s family arrived
with a clearance. His two sons were
missing from it. Jamir
asked the camp officials to arrange the clearance of his whole family. He also informed the local staff of UNHCR
about the matter. But nothing was
done. The Camp-in-Charge continued to
put pressure on him to repatriate. From
then on, Jamir tried to avoid the camp officials, and
passed most of his time outside of the camp.
Just before
Eid, Jamir returned to the camp to celebrate Eid with his family. The camp
officials were informed about his presence in the camp and called him to the
Camp-in-Charge’s office. He was told to
get ready for repatriation. Jamir expressed his concern about his two sons who
were still uncleared. The office assistant did not listen to his complaints and
sent some volunteers to help his family to pack this belongings. While his family members and the volunteers
were busy packing, Jamir managed to flee.
The volunteers informed the Camp-in-Charge’s office about the
matter. The office assistant got angry
and ordered them to bring Jamir’s son. The volunteers brought one of Jamir’s
sons and beat him severely. The next day, Jamir’s family was sent to the
repatriation camp. Jamir and his two
sons were not with them.
**********
Type of abuses: Family separation and arrest
Samuda, a
middle-aged widow with 4 sons, received her household clearance for
repatriation a few months ago. But her
family list was incomplete and did not include her youngest son, who is only 7,
and another son aged 13. She did not want
to go back without them. She appealed to
the Camp-in-Charge: “My husband died here.
I only have my sons. I can’t leave two of them behind. Please don’t send
me back without them. If you can arrange
to repatriate my whole family together, I am ready to go now!” The Camp-in-Charge did not reply. Later on, camp officials came back to see
her. They insisted that she must
repatriate with the two sons mentioned on the list, leaving the two other sons
in the camp. They promised to allocate
them a room and to give them a separate refugee book. But Samuda was
determined not to return without all her children.
On xx January, a Camp-in-Charge’s office
staff-person visited her shed with some camp police, and again requested her to
return to
**********
Type of
abuses: Family separation, detention and forced repatriation
Rafiq and his
family had been called for repatriation some time ago. Rafiq had fled from
the camp with his son, and had gone to stay in different villages outside the
camps. When he no longer felt safe, he
went to Cox’s Bazar. Both father and son
started working as day labourers. Some
volunteers who were visiting Cox’s Bazar saw Rafiq
and informed the Camp-in-Charge. The
Camp-in-Charge sent them to catch him.
Early in the morning, they came to the place where Rafiq
and his son were living. Only Rafiq was caught, as his son had left early to go to
work. They brought him back to the
camp. The Camp-in-Charge and camp
officials locked him in a room until the next Wednesday [repatriation
day]. Rafiq’s
wife requested the Camp-in-Charge: “When you caught my husband, why didn’t you
try to find my son as well? How am I
going to go back to
**********
Rahima Begum is a
widow and the head of her family. Her clearance to repatriate arrived a few
months ago. Every time the
Camp-in-Charge or other officials called her for repatriation, she replied to
them: “I am alone. My son is not old
enough to take care of my two daughters, my mother and myself. I will be vulnerable over there. Let’s wait
for a better time in
On xx January
2003, the Camp-in-Charge called her and asked her to get ready to go back to
**********
¨
Refugee # 55 –
Nurul Shafi January 2003
One of Nurul Shafi’s relatives had come
to see him from Maungdaw without a border pass.
Soon after he arrived, the majee informed the
Camp-in-Charge, who sent the camp police to arrest the visitor. When the police brought him into his office,
the Camp-in-Charge sent a majee to call Nurul Shafi and told him: “Your
guest is visiting
**********
Type of
abuses: Threat of family separation
Ali Zakir
and his family have been cleared for repatriation. About 2 months ago, his wife
gave birth to a new baby and he requested the majee and camp officials to add
the newborn baby’s name to his family book.
The office staff and the majee demanded 3,000 Tk for doing this. Twenty days after he paid this amount, Ali
Zakir’s newborn son’s name was still not registered in the family book. He decided to inform the Camp-in-Charge. He went to the office with his family book
and told the Camp-in-Charge to add his son’s name. But the Camp-in-Charge
replied: “We have received your clearance for repatriation. You should be ready to be repatriated. First sign here and then I will write your
son’s name in your family book!” Ali
Zakir was helpless and was compelled to put his thumbprint on the repatriation
document. The Camp-in-Charge sent his
family to the repatriation camp on the same day.
**********
Type of
abuses: Beatings, Family separation and forced repatriation
Jabbar’s family got
clearance for repatriation. When he
learnt about this, Jabbar fled from the camp with his
son. He sent his son to stay with
relatives in a small town near the camp and he went to Teknaf. On xx November, the majee
and volunteers went to Teknaf, caught Jabbar, and
brought him back to the camp. He was
beaten up and then sent with his family to the repatriation camp, but without
his son.
**********
[1] A UNHCR map of the area is available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/+NwwBmeXml_swwwwnwwwwwwwtFqrTOwDMwGcFqo-uPPyER0MFmqDFqm7y-dFqhT0yfE3zmhwwwwwwwGFqmTT2BFqzuNlg2TE7I/rsddocview.pdf
[2]
Forum-Asia received reports from various sources, which include about 100 refugees’
accounts collected by our own research partners in
[3]
The 1991/92 crisis was the second mass exodus of Rohingya refugees over two
decades. The first one also involving
250,000 refugees took place in 1978. The
number of refugees represents over a quarter of the total Rohingya population
of
[4] Médecins sans Frontières, MSF
France, “The Rohingyas: Forcibly Repatriated to
[5]
Human Rights Watch, “The Rohingya Muslims, Ending a cycle of Exodus?”,
September 1996, http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/ROHINGYA.cycle.htm
and “Rohinya refugees in
[6] Chris Lewa, FORUM-ASIA, “The exodus has not stopped: Why
Rohingyas continue to leave
[7]
FORUM-ASIA Press Release, “Persecuted Muslims Fear Deportation to Military
[8] For details on the Citizenship Law, see Human Rights Watch, “The Rohingya Muslims, Ending a cycle of Exodus?”, September 1996, http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/ROHINGYA.cycle.htm
[9] For the impact of the 9/11 attack on the Muslim population in Burma, see Human Rights Watch, “Crackdown on Burmese Muslims”, July 2002, http://hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/burmese_muslims.pdf
[10] In relation to ILO Liaison Officer’s visit to Northern Arakan State in January 2003, the ILO Governing Body report GB.286/6 of March 2003 stated in paragraph 7: “While it is her impression that there is probably less use of forced labour in central parts of Myanmar, the situation in areas near to the Thai border where there is continuing insecurity and a heavy presence of the army, as well as in northern Rakhine State, is particularly serious and appears to have changed little.”
[11] The NaSaKa is the Border Administration Force and comprises five different government agencies: the police, military intelligence (MI), Lone Htein (riot police), customs, and immigration.
[12] In response to UNHCR, General Khin Nyunt, SPDC Secretary-1, wrote in 1998, "this issue is essentially one of migration, of people seeking greener pastures" [...] "these people are not originally from Myanmar" [...] "they are racially, ethnically, culturally different from the other national races in our country. Their language as well as religion is also different”.
[13] Médecins sans Frontières, MSF-Holland, “10 Years for the Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: Past, Present and Future”, March 2002, at http://www.msf.org/source/downloads/2002/rohingya.pdf.
[14] Michael Barnett, “UNHCR and Involuntary Repatriation: Environmental Developments, the Repatriation Culture, and the Rohingya Refugees”, University of Wisconsin, Paper presented at the 41st Annual Convention, International Studies Association, Los Angeles, California, USA, March 14-18, 2000, available at http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/bam01/ .
[15] All refugees must be cleared by the Burmese Immigration prior to repatriation.
[16] The results of the survey were never made public. UNHCR officials we spoke to have come up with a variety of figures. It should be noted that many refugees had expressed a conditional agreement. The figure of 4,000 refugees willing to repatriate today, regardless of their cleared or uncleared status, was given by a UNHCR official in Rangoon in March 2003.
[17] This figure was provided by UNHCR Bangladesh and Geneva in 2002.
[18] “Repatriation of all Rohingya refugees by
June 2003”, The Independent,
[19]
Refugees International, “Lack of Protection plagues
[20] According to the UNHCR Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation (para 2.3): “The principle of voluntariness is the cornerstone of international protection with respect to the return of refugees. While the issue of voluntary repatriation as such is not addressed in the 1951 Refugee Convention, it follows directly from the principle of non-refoulement: the involuntary return of refugees would in practice amount to refoulement. A person retaining a well-founded fear of persecution is a refugee, and cannot be compelled to repatriate.”
[21] Refugee International “Burmese Rohingya in
[22] RRRC means Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner, the Bangladesh Government agency dealing with the refugees under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief. The Camp-in-Charge is the government authority in the camp, in charge of the refugees’ overall welfare, the camp administration, and law and order.
[23]
Based on their experience in