Final Paper Evaluations

Srinna

Your research on this paper came to a slow start and you definitely picked up quickly and submitted an outline of reasonable quality which resulted in a solid structure of this paper. The paper, as a result, does sound coherent, although the same points of inquiry are filled with information of different types and dealing with different issues, which makes the narrative very confusing. If read separately, each country analysis sounds adequate, however, if compared, there is little that can be found in terms of coherence there. I appreciate the effort you made to create some type of footnotes, although they don’t conform to any known citation standard and, therefore, don’t count toward your grade. Overall, this is not a bad effort at all, although your command of English does need significant improvement.



Buntheoun

I believe I had commented several times on your paper prior to its submission and every time I did so I stressed the importance of following the template which had developed in class very strongly. Your final product doesn’t follow the template in question and, therefore, merely falls below the level of acceptable quality of research I set for this class.


Bophal

I am glad you heeded to my numerous comments which significant enhanced the quality of your paper. Generally, it is a very solid effort, although certain aspects of it could have been done better (for instance, when you talk about the definition of ‘torture’ at the very beginning, you could have used the definition of the CAT or another convention which contains an article on torture). I was also pleased to see that you had understood the template as a whole and were able to create components which interact successfully within it. Good job on the footnotes too!


Sophorne

Shortcuts get you nowhere. After I had spent my own time commenting on 7 versions (I have them all documented in my database, if you are interested) of your outline, you decided to change your topic without consulting me prior to doing so. A result of that is the simple fact that you ended up selecting an issue which is not categorized as a human right for the reason that its violations are not committed by government but by individual persons, thus, making ‘domestic violence’ a simple matter of criminal law (usually, battery) and not a matter of human rights. I, therefore, won’t be able to count this as a submission to satisfy the main requirement of the course as your submission has little – if anything at all – to do with the title of the course – ‘human rights’.


Pisey

I am glad you were able to finish your paper, although with a different topic. You were luckier – or better researched – then Sophorne as you changed your topic to something that is also a perfectly acceptable human rights topic. I liked the hard math you did in the analysis section and what you were intending to do with the select points of inquiry. I, however, felt that somewhere towards the end of the paper you ran out time or energy to continue writing and see the arguments you had created to their logical end. This, unfortunately, affects the quality of the analysis section as well as the conclusion of this paper.


Kanal

Your paper follows the template, at least for the most part. One of the issues that I see with it is that the points of inquiry you had created are not the same – but somewhat similar – for each of the 3 countries. This backfires later in the paper when you get to analysis which come out somewhat lopsided as it is naturally difficult to compare different points of inquiry to one another. Another issue of imbalance is evident in the sections dedicated to Cambodia which are inexorably far larger than the comparable sections on India and China. I understand that this is due to the fact that there is simply more information available on Cambodia because this paper was written in Cambodia, but this doesn’t explain the significant lack of research in some areas. Too much copy-and-paste, which should be completely absence from academic papers. You are saved here, however, by some of your colleagues who set a much lower end of the curve which helps you retain your grade. Other than these, it is a solid and worthwhile effort.

Srinna's Paper

Paññãsástra University of Cambodia

MA Class
Prof. Stan
Student: Ty Srinna

Arbitrary Arrest or Detention


I, Introduction:

Arbitrary arrest and detention is a serious problem in all country around the world. It denied the right to a fair trial, and hindrance to the appeals process and it always made by the police authorities which suppressed all acts of peaceful political expression, contravening international and national law in the process, and civilian.
Arbitrary arrest and detention mean that is the arrest and detention of an individual in a case in which there is no likelihood or evidence that he or she committed a crime against legal statute, or in which there has been no proper due process of law[1].

So why arbitrary arrest and detention was happen? Who commit this act? How to resolve it?

To answer to these questions, I will select Philippines, Indonesia, and Laos to use in this topic, because all of those countries are stand in the East Asia. And they also have similar serious problem on human right in some areas in those countries. However, those problems are not the same, even they have the same name of problem, but the target of those problems is deferent. In some country, the target of arbitrary arrest and detention is focus on political issue, and some focus on not only political, but also criminal issue.

II, Methodology

On this paper, I will take Philippines as the basic country and other two countries are Indonesia and Laos by raise up the structure of the police and other authorities, the limitation of the law which cover on the police action and the cause of the arbitrary arrest and detention in each country. Then I will take the basic country to compare to itself and compare with the other two countries as we have raised up above.
In addition, I use country report on the human right practice in 2002 and 2006 in each country as the reference in this topic.

III, Situation in Philippines, Indonesia and Laos

1, Philippines:

The Philippines has 87 million of populations and it is a democratic republic with an elected president, an elected bicameral legislature, and a multiparty system. The May 2004 national elections for president and both houses of congress continued to be a source of contention, with unsuccessful attempts in 2005 and during the year to impeach the president on grounds of alleged election fraud. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces; however, some elements of these security forces committed human rights abuses.

-Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

The Department of National Defense directs the Army Force of the Philippines (AFP) and the Police National of the Philippines (PNP) is shares responsibility for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations.
The Department of Interior and Local Government directs the PNP, which is responsible for enforcement of law and order and urban counterterrorism; however, governors, mayors, and other local officials have considerable influence[2].
The New People Army (NPA) and Islamic separatist groups also share responsible for a number of arbitrary detentions and often kept contact with the informal courts set up to try military personnel, police, local politicians, and other persons for "crimes against the people" (base on the Philippines country reports 2006).

-Limitation of Police duty on arresting suspect person:

The law’s provisions against arbitrary arrest and detention but in practice the authorities routinely violated it[3]. Prisoners have the right to notify their families promptly and specify that warrants must be produced during an arrest or detention (base on the Philippines law). But there is an exceptions were allowed to the police to arrest persons without any warrants in the case of a crime is committing, for example, a suspect is caught in the act of committing a crime. The law allows investigators to issue warrants; however, at times authorities made arrests without warrants[4].
In Philippines, the authorities can make file charges within 12 to 36 hours of arrests the suspect person without any warrants, so it cause the increasing of a seriousness of the crime. For the Long period of pretrial detention also cause a problem in Philippines society[5].

- Cause of the arbitrary arrest and detention:

The political reason, corruption and bribes are cause the arbitrary arrest and detention in Philippines. All the illegal acts are done by the police and other authorities on political person and civilian base on Philippines country report 2006 [6].

2, Indonesia:

Indonesia is a multiparty republic and had 245 million populations. The president was directly elected in elections that international observers judged to be free and fair. In 2004, Voters also chose two national legislative bodies: the House of Representatives (DPR) and the newly created House of Regional Representatives (DPD). While civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, in some instances elements of the security forces acted independently of civilian authority.

-Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

The president appoints the national police chief, subject to DPR confirmation. The reports must be made by the police chief to the president but is not a full member of the cabinet. There are 250,000 officers of the national police force deployed throughout the 33 provinces. The police maintain a centralized hierarchy, and locally deployed forces formally report to their national headquarters rather than to local governments.
The military is responsible for external defense, but also has a residual obligation to support the police in their domestic security responsibilities.
In Aceh, the Shari'a police, a provincial body, is responsible for enforcing Shari'a law. Impunity and corruption remained significant problems. There were instances in which the police failed to respond to mob or vigilante violence. Police commonly extracted bribes, ranging from minor payoffs in traffic cases to large bribes in criminal investigations. From January to October, the Division of Profession and Security (Propam) reportedly investigated 5,486 police officers, including high-level officials, across the country, resulting in 240 dismissals. Other punishments varied from demotion to criminal prosecution.

-Limitation of Police duty on arresting suspect person:

The authorities must have warrants during arrest the suspect person base on the Criminal Procedure Code of Indonesia, but there is an exception, which permit the authorities to arrest suspect person without warrant when the suspect person is committing a crime. Even the law mention about the ability of the authorities, but in practice they rarely follow the law. Mean that the authorities (police) always against the law by making arbitrary arrest and detention suspect person without warrant.

-Cause of arbitrary arrest and detention:

In Indonesia, the causes of the arbitrary arrest and detention are impunity, corruption, religion discrimination, bribes, political reason which was a big problem in the society. Because in practice, Police sometime extracted bribes, ranging from minor payoffs in traffic cases to large bribes in criminal investigations[7].

3, Laos:

The Laos is Democratic Republic that has one party state ruled by the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP). In 2005, there are 5.6 million populations. The law system is base on the constitution in1991 which had the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The National Assembly elected the president and vice president and ratified the president's selection of a prime minister and cabinet. The LPRP generally maintained effective control of the security forces, but on occasion elements of the security forces acted outside the LPRP's authority.

-Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

In Laos, government had divided the structure of police responsibility on their actions for control them as bellow[8]:

-The Ministry of Public Security (MoPS) maintains internal security but shares the function of state control with the Ministry of Defense's security forces and with LPRP and popular fronts.
-The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with MoPS support, is responsible for oversight of foreigners, including ensuring that foreigners do not visit sensitive areas or have sexual relations with citizens.
-The MoPS includes local police, traffic police, immigration police, security police (including border police), and other armed police units. Communication police are responsible for monitoring telephone and electronic communications.
-The armed forces are responsible for external security but also have domestic security responsibilities that include counterterrorism and counterinsurgency activities as well as control of an extensive system of village militias.

-Limitation of Police duty on arresting suspect person

Police and military forces in Laos have the powers of arresting the suspect person, but they must have warrant during arrest those person. Police agents sometime follow the law and sometime not in making arrests. In Laos also has the exception to arrest persons in the act of committing crimes or in urgent cases.

The limitation of the detention without trail and the length of detention without a pretrial hearing is a 1-year statutory limit. However in practice the government does not follow this law’s provision. There are 3 month increments however the maximum of detention is 1 year in theory. So it means that a suspect must be released if police do not have sufficient evidence to bring charges.

According to the law limits periods of pretrial detention, the law allows Police to detain the suspect persons for 20-days of an initial arrest and can be extended to 60 days. In contrast, the prosecutors can detain a suspect 30 days initially, and also can make the extension for 20-day more. In this case prosecutors may extend police detention periods, and a district court may further extend prosecutors' detention of a suspect. The 90 days period during trial or appeal is for the district and high courts that can detain a defendant. The 110 days is for the Supreme Court to detain a defendant while considering an appeal.
Moreover, the law allows detention periods to be extended up to an additional 60 days at each level in the case of a defendant faces a possible prison sentence of nine years or longer or in the case of the individual is certified to be mentally or physically disturbed. The authorities always respected these limits in practice.

-Cause of arbitrary arrest and detention:

In Laos, there had no punishment on wrong doing of the police that is why it caused a serious problem. The police had done the corruption, because of the impunity of their country. For example, many police officers used their authority to extract bribes from citizens. According to the Police reported that sometimes the police used arrest as a means to intimidate persons or extract bribes. In addition, according to 2002 country report of Laos, the authorities sometimes continued to detain prisoners after they had completed their sentences, especially in cases where prisoners were unable to pay court fines.

On the other hand, religious discrimination and political reason are also cause of the arbitrary arrest and detention too base on confirmed reports and other some source[9].

IV, Analysis on the Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Problems:

I analyze on this problem by making Comparison on Philippines against itself, Philippines and Indonesia, and Philippines and Laos in 2002 and 2006 base on Country report of each country:

-The comparison on Philippines against itself in 2002 and 2006:

In 2002, there are many illegal arrest and detention during the year. It’s has 17 cases found by the CHR investigated and 36 cases of politically motivated arrests by the Government according on the TFDP documented. The TFDP and the NGO Philippine Human Rights Information Center has also estimated on the political prisoners in the country has around 200 cases as the total number during the year. For these numbers of the cases show that in 2002 the arbitrary arrest and detection problem were made by not only the police but also Philippines government.
In Contrast, in 2006 there are 6.5 percent of detainees were able to post bail. During that time the file charges was increasing with the seriousness of the crime. And it’s also has a problem with the long period of pretrial detention, but the courts released 67 detainees who has gotten the maximum time of detection in the prison. Later on the two detainees were released under this circumstance.

According on the information of the arbitrary arrest and detention problem at these two years in Philippines, we see that in 2002 the government or the courts did not do any act to solve these problems (arbitrary arrest and detention problem). However in 2006, we see that the courts had released many detainees who were kept in the prison with the illegal arrest and detention or no strong evidence. These also show that the arbitrary arrest and detention problems were decrease in 2006 to compare with that problem in 2002.

-The comparison between Philippines and Indonesia:

+ In 2002 (Country Report):

In 2002, Indonesia country report did not mention about the case numbers or reliable statistics of the arbitrary arrest and detention problems in their country as Philippines country. But in fact, there are many citizens who were arrest and detained without warrant by the police and other authorities during the year. For these problems were happened in some areas around the country such as in Aceh and Papua, police frequently and arbitrarily detained persons without warrants, charges, or court proceedings. In addition, even thought this report did not show the data of the cases number, but it was show about activity of the police (authorities) on the arbitrary arrest and detention[10].
According to the report on these activities of the police on the arbitrary arrest and detention, it’s can mean that Indonesia also has too many arbitrary arrest and detention cases but the government tried not to show clear on these cases number. If we compare it to Philippines, it’s hard for us to find the right balance. However we can guess that the arbitrary arrest and detention cases in Indonesia are higher than Philippine, because Indonesia government is weak leadership[11] and has many populations number.

+ In 2006(Country Report):

In 2006, both Philippines and Indonesia try to solve the problem of the arbitrary arrest and detention in their own by reforming the institution of the police (authorities). For the activity of reform this institute, we see that Philippines is more active or higher reforming than Indonesia base on the data of Philippines reforming[12]. For Indonesia, we don’t see any clear data of reforming, but we can see the activity of the government in reforming their country by removing the police who committed illegal acts[13]

-The comparison between Philippines and Laos:

+ In 2002(Country Report):
In 2002, the total number of the arbitrary arrest and detention is 253 cases[14] in Philippines during the year. However, during this year the data of detainees in Laos is not clear, they just show about the perhaps number is over 100 cases[15]. If we compare on case data of both country we can see that Philippines might get more or higher serious problem of arbitrary arrest and detention than Laos.

+ In 2006 (Country Report):

In 2006, Philippines government has tried to solve the problem of the arbitrary arrest and detention by reforming the institution of the police (authorities). So the arbitrary arrest and detention problem might be decrease step by step. In contrast, according to country report of Laos, we see there were still has a serious problem on arbitrary arrest and detention[16] without any solving by the government. Because of this reason, if we compare both country Philippines and Laos here, we can say that arbitrary arrest and detention in Laos might be higher than Philippines.

V, Conclusion

All in all, the arbitrary arrest and detention in each country (Philippines, Indonesia and Laos) still cause a serious problem even some country try to solve it. Because in each country, although it has the law and the structure of the police to be responsible on their action, in implement they generally against it. After comparing these three countries, we only see that arbitrary arrest and detention problem is getting more decrease in Philippines dislike in Indonesia and Laos base on country report in 2002 and 2006 of Philippines, was showed clear about the way of the government to solve the problem and cases number of the arbitrary arrest and detention that the other two countries are not.

Reference:
Philippines country report in 2002 and 2006
Indonesia country report in 2002 and 2006
Laos country report in 2002 and 2006











1, Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile. Human Rights Law. United Nations Cyber Schoolbus (2006-11-09). Retrieved on 2007-09-30.

[2] In the report said that:
The Department of National Defense directs the Army Force of the Philippines (AFP) and the Police National of the Philippines (PNP) is shares responsibility for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations.
The Department of Interior and Local Government directs the PNP, which is responsible for enforcement of law and order and urban counterterrorism; however, governors, mayors, and other local officials have considerable influence.

[3] The law requires a judicial determination of probable cause before issuance of an arrest warrant and prohibits holding prisoners incommunicado or in secret places of detention; however, in a number of cases, police arrested and detained citizens arbitrarily. Through December, the TFDP documented 35 cases of illegal arrest and detention involving 114 victims
[4] I got it from the country report in 2006 of Philippines
[5] In September 2005 a regional trial court judge was killed in her house in Natividad, Pangasinan. Police identified two suspects, but a judge dismissed the case and did not issue arrest warrants against the two for lack of probable cause. In January police arrested six suspects for the December 2005 murder of a Pasay City regional trial court judge; their trial was on-going at year's end. Trials in the 2004 killings of two judges were also underway at year's end, and prosecutors filed charges in the third case. Ten cases of the killing of judges remained under investigation at year's end.

[6] Corruption was a problem in all the institutions making up the criminal justice system, including police, prosecutorial, and judicial organs.
[7]. Impunity and corruption remained significant problems. There were instances in which the police failed to respond to mob or vigilante violence. Police commonly extracted bribes, ranging from minor payoffs in traffic cases to large bribes in criminal investigations. From January to October, the Division of Profession and Security (Propam) reportedly investigated 5,486 police officers, including high-level officials, across the country, resulting in 240 dismissals. Other punishments varied from demotion to criminal prosecution.

[8]The Ministry of Public Security (MoPS) maintains internal security but shares the function of state control with the Ministry of Defense's security forces and with LPRP and popular fronts. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with MoPS support, is responsible for oversight of foreigners, including ensuring that foreigners do not visit sensitive areas or have sexual relations with citizens. The MoPS includes local police, traffic police, immigration police, security police (including border police), and other armed police units. Communication police are responsible for monitoring telephone and electronic communications. The armed forces are responsible for external security but also have domestic security responsibilities that include counterterrorism and counterinsurgency activities as well as control of an extensive system of village militias.

[9] -During the year, government authorities arrested and detained more than 60 Christians, at times holding them in custody for months (see Section 2.c.). According to confirmed reports, those detained without trial at year's end for their religious activities included one person in Phongsaly and one person in Houaphanh; one person detained in Savannakhet was released in December. Seven lowland Lao men who returned from China have been detained without trial since 1997. An eighth member of this group was released in 2001.
-Some sources reported that in June authorities in Vientiane Province arrested six Hmong villagers in Muang Feuang district, reportedly because of suspicion that the six had some involvement with antigovernment insurgents.
-Police reportedly sometimes used arrest as a means to intimidate persons or extract bribes. There were reports that military forces occasionally arrested or detained persons suspected of insurgent activities.




[10] Indonesia country report 2002: In Aceh security forces routinely employed arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. On July 16, in Banda Aceh, local police took seven young members of the Acehnese Women’s Democratic Organization (ORPAD) into custody following a rally in which they expressed antigovernment views. The police released six of the seven women a day later, but continued to hold Raihana Diani, who helped organize the rally, through the end of the year. The authorities charged her with insulting the President, a violation of Articles 134 and 137 of the Criminal Code. On December 23, prosecutors demanded a sentence of 8 months. At year's end, Diani still was awaiting sentencing. On July 31, in Papua, Yanuarius Usi allegedly died in police custody as a result of mistreatment (see Section 1.c.). On September 26, police in Jakarta arrested and briefly detained anticorruption activist Azas Tigor Nainggolan. Tigor, Chairman of the Jakarta Residents Forum (FAKTA), allegedly slandered Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso by claiming that he had bribed city councilors.
On September 11, in southern Aceh, the TNI detained two foreign women in an area off limits to foreigners. The soldiers denied them Consular access and, according to the two women, punched and sexually harassed them. The TNI subsequently turned the two over to police, who transferred them to Banda Aceh, where they were charged with violating the terms of their tourist visas. On December 30, a court convicted them for violating the terms of their tourist visas, sentencing one to 4 months in prison and the other to 5 months.
On April 17, police in Jakarta released imprisoned Acehnese student leader Fasial Saifuddin, pending appeal of his 1-year sentence for "spreading hatred toward the state." Saifuddin, of the NGO SIRA, had demonstrated in front of the United Nations (U.N.) building in Jakarta; he had served approximately 6 months of his sentence. In November 2001, police in Banda Aceh released from detention student leader Kautsar Mohammed, who was held on the same charge as Saifuddin.

[11] Government generally has been unable to adequately address serious human rights abuses committed in the past. Inadequate resources, weak leadership, and limited accountability contributed to continued abuses by security force personnel, although with sharply reduced frequency and gravity than under past governments. The following human rights problems occurred during the year.

[12] The 115,000 member PNP has deep-rooted institutional deficiencies and suffered from a widely held and accurate public perception that it was corrupt. The PNP's Internal Affairs Service remained largely ineffective. Members of the PNP were regularly accused of torture, of soliciting bribes, and of other illegal acts. Efforts were underway to reform the institution in part to counter a widespread impression of official impunity. From January to November, the PNP dismissed 89 policemen. Of the 2,859 administrative cases filed against PNP officers and personnel, 1,398 were resolved, 944 remained under preliminary investigation, 391 underwent summary hearings, and the remaining 126 were filed with the People's Law Enforcement Board, a body composed of local government officials and NGO representatives that receives complaints filed against members of the PNP in the regions. In 2005 the PNP initiated a Transformation Program aimed at systematic institutional reform.

[13] In August Propam ordered that Southwest Sulawesi Police Chief Brigadier General Edhy Susilo be removed from his position following a disciplinary hearing on sexual harassment charges. On September 16, the provincial chief of police in East Kalimantan, Inspector General Djosua Sitompul, was removed from his position on suspicion of involvement in illegal logging.
On September 26, the South Jakarta District Court found Brigadier General Ismoko guilty of receiving bribes and sentenced him to 20 months in prison. In the same case, Commissioner General Suyitno Landung, the former head of the Criminal Investigation Division and an instructor at the National Institute of Defense, was arrested in December 2005 on suspicion of accepting bribes. On October 10, Landung was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He is the highest-ranking police official to be jailed for corruption.
On December 4, Senior Commissioner Erick Bismo, the deputy police chief in Rembang, Central Java, was removed from his position for allegedly beating 26 subordinates.

[14]- The total cases number of 253 come from taking 17 cases (found by the CHR investigated) + 36 cases (of politically motivated arrests) +200 cases (The TFDP and the NGO Philippine Human Rights Information Center has also estimated)
[15] An unknown number of persons, perhaps over 100, were in detention for suspicion of violations of criminal laws concerning national security. Security-related laws were sometimes applied to routine criminal actions to justify long periods of incarceration without trial.

[16] There were no reports that police administratively overruled court decisions by detaining exonerated individuals. However, local police reportedly continued to detain persons who had been ordered released by higher authorities. There were no known instances of police being reprimanded or punished for such behavior. The OPG made efforts to encourage compliance with the law regarding detention of suspects but acknowledged that police widely continued to ignore the law's provisions.

Bunthoeun's Paper (Late Submission)

TABLE OF CONTENT
Evaluation of Human Rights Violation Related to the Detention of Political Prisoners in China, Vietnam, and Burma.

I. Introduction
1-1-Problem definition:
1-2-Purpose of this paper:
1-3-Methodologies:
1-4-What and who are Detention and Political Prisoners?

II. Situations and Causes of Detention of Political Prisoners in China, Vietnam, and Burma

1-Situation of Detention of Political Prisoners in China, Vietnam, and Burma
1-1-China
1-2-Vietnam
1-3-Burma

2-Causes of Detention of Political Prisoners in China, Vietnam, and Burma
2-1-Causes of detention of political prisoners in China:
2-1-1-Disclosing state’s secret, Subversion, Counterrevolutionary and Political Activities
2-1-2- Lack of independence of Judiciary
2-1-3- Role of Police and Security Apparatus
2-2- Causes of detention of political prisoners in Vietnam:
2-2-1-Disclosing state’s secret, Subversion, Counterrevolutionary and Political Activities
2-2-2- Lack of independence of Judiciary
2-2-3- Role of Police and Security Apparatus
2-3- Causes of detention of political prisoners in Burma:
2-3-1-Disclosing state’s secret, Subversion, Counterrevolutionary and Political Activities
2-3-2- Lack of independence of Judiciary
2-3-3-Role of Police and Security Apparatus

III. III. State’s International Political Rights Obligations:
1- China's International Political Rights Obligations
2- Vietnam's International Political Rights Obligations:
3- Burma's International Political Rights Obligations

IV. Analysis:
-Compare China against itself between 2006 and 2007
-Compare China to Vietnam
-Compare China to Burma
V. Conclusion:
References


Evaluation of Human Rights Violation related to the Detention of Political Prisoners in China, Vietnam, and Myanmar.

I: Introduction:

1-1-Problem definition:

The Detention and Human Rights abuses in China, Vietnam, and Myanmar have became chronic and serious diseases in Southeast Asia. The human rights record from the governments remained poor. Records from independent and credible sources reported that, the governments’ officials continued to commit numerous and serious abuses. All freedoms, such as freedoms of religions, assembly, association, political participation, were restricted.

The governments used a lot of forms to suppress the rights of their people. In this reason, there are a lots of detainees were detained in the prisons and other places. There are also different kinds of detainees were detained. But, most of the detainees were considered as political prisoners.

1-2-Purpose of this report:

This report has the purpose:
To monitor and evaluate situation of human rights related to the detention of political prisoners between China, Vietnam, and Burma.
To find out the strength and the weakness of human rights those countries conducted.
To know the similarities and differences between disclosing state’s secret, counterrevolutionary, politically sensitive activities, role of police, security apparatus and so on, those countries conducted.
To realize how political prisoners or detainees were detained by those countries.

1-3- Methodologies:

The methodologies of the comparisons based on the data collection concerned with the detention of political prisoners and human rights violation that those countries committed:
-Book reading in library,
-Researching on the Website
-Human Rights Watch,
-Amnesty International,
-Office of High Commissioners for Human Rights,
-Report from U.S. Department of State…,

1-4- What and who are Detention and Political Prisoners?
The definition of these terms as the following:
Detention is the state of being kept in a place, especially in a prison and prevented from leaving[1]. Anyway, detention generally refers to a state or government holding persons in a particular area, either for interrogation, as punishment for wrong doing, or as precautionary measure while investigating a potential threat posed by those persons.

A Political Prisoner[2] is someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, because of their ideas or images is deemed by a government to either challenge or threatens the authority of the state.


II. Situations and Causes of Detention of Political Prisoners in China, Vietnam, and Burma

As known, China, Vietnam, and Burma are the authoritarian states in Southeast Asia for a long time, as specified in their constitutions. Therefore, situations and causes of political prisoners worsen from time to time.

1-Situations of Detention of Political Prisoners in China, Vietnam, and Burma

Law prohibits arbitrary detentions of political prisoners and provides the freedoms to people to involve with social movements. But, everything exists in only the papers, but the real practice is not same the paper said. The Intimidation, suppression, harassment, and detention of political prisoners are bad from year to another year. China, Vietnam, and Burma are the focal countries that international communities and UN agencies strongly worried and concerned.

1-1- China

China has been ruled by the Chinese communist party. It is the key source of its own power. It (CCP) has dominated and ruled China since 1949. CCP also has highest organ for strengthening and enlarging its own power, called National Party Congress (NPC). NPC can elect a Central Committee at every meeting one time for five years and the Central Committee also has annual meeting to select its own Political Bureau and Standing Committees to oversee the party affairs. Moreover, In order to strengthen and maintain its power, Chinese government also changes CCP members in key government posts and strengthen its central committee during each meeting.
The situation of human rights violation was very poor. There was a trend towards increased harassment, detention, and imprisonment by government and security authorities of those perceived as threatening to government authorities[3]. Government also adopted measures to control more tightly print, broadcast and electronic media, and censored online content. Freedoms were restricted, suppressed, and harassed. All activists, religious, democratic, and political activists were detained. Government dismissed to hold any political prisoners, asserting that authorities detained persons not for their political or religious views, but because they violate the law, however, the authorities continued to confine citizens for reasons related to politics and religions[4].
1-2-Vietnam

Vietnam has operated the Socialist Republic regime, so-called the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a de facto one-party and an authoritarian state, ruled and controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam[5] (CPV). The power of ruling party is dominating the other state’s powers-legislative and judicial, similar to China. The separations of power only exist in writing but in practice these powers are mostly in hand of that party. Because of inequality of the power separation, government, especially police and security apparatus under control of government, committed arbitrary arrest and detention to its own people.

The situation of human rights violation was very poor as well. There was a trend towards increased harassment, detention, and imprisonment by government and security authorities of those perceived as threatening to government authorities. Government also adopted measures, regulations, and other apparatus to control more tightly print, broadcast and electronic media, freedoms, and other activities. Freedoms were restricted, suppressed, and harassed. All activists, religious, democratic, and political activists were detained.

1-3-Burma

Burma has been governed or ruled by a succession of highly authoritarian military regimes. Based on the history, Burma looks similar to Vietnam and China. Nowadays, the State Peace and Development Councils (SPDC), led by Senior General Than Shwe, was the country’s de facto government, with subordinate peace and development councils ruling by decree at the division, state, township, ward, and village levels. Military officers get the ultimate power for all levels of the government.

Because of these countries are the authoritarian states and powers in the central like this, that why government officials violate the law and continued to confined citizens for reasons related to politics and religion.

The government’s human rights record remained poor and unsatisfactory for these countries. Government officials at all the levels continued to commit serous abuses.

The government can do everything including killing, intimidating, arrest, especially, detention of their citizens without warrant from judiciary, etc, under the reason of protection of social order, safety, and stability of the state.

Therefore, the situation of human rights violations in China, Vietnam, and Burma worsened. The detainees were imprisoned on charges of religious and political activities. These three countries have increased their controls over political activists[6]. Governments have increased harassment, intimidation, detention, and imprisonment to all activists by using judiciary and role of police and security apparatus, especially for accusation of disclosing state’s secret, Counterrevolutionary and Politically Sensitive Activities, and Counterrevolutionary.

2-Causes of Detention of Political Prisoners in China, Vietnam, and Burma

Political, democratic activists and other revolutionaries faced serious challenges stemming from detentions the three governments. Governments accused and detained them due to many causes and reasons. So, for realizing the causes of detention of political prisoners in these countries, let’s get to know as the following:

2-1-Causes of Detention of Political Prisoners in China:

The unlawful detentions remained serious problems in China. The Chinese government claimed that she has to eliminate the unlawful detentions, but that claiming was meaningless, the real practice was different. Law also permits police and security authorities to detain persons without arresting or charging them. Therefore, Chinese government accused citizens for arrests and detentions by different ways, but the main allegations for detentions are disclosing state’s secret, subversion, counterrevolutionary, politically sensitive activities, lack of independence of judiciary, and role of police and security apparatus.

2-1-1-Disclosing State’s Secret and Subversion, Counterrevolutionary and Politically Sensitive Activities:

Conviction on charges of leaking state secrets and subversion continue to result from vaguely-worded state security and state secret laws.

The secret was a directive banning journalist from reporting on the presence of overseas dissidents seeking to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen massacres.

Related to state’s secret and subversion include freedom of expression, speech, and publication of information and press and so on. Actually, law provides for freedom of speech and press in paper-writing, but in the real practice, government did not respect these rights and continued to detain or imprison many individuals for exercising rights to free expression. Government tried to suppress and control the Internet essayists, journalist, print, broadcast, and electronic Medias tightly and used propagate government views and CCP ideology. All media were under explicit orders to follow CCP directive and public opinion. These orders limited the freedoms of reporting the news to the public. Government officials said that if the Medias published without permissions from government, they could undermine state’s policy, state’s prestige and suffer social orders.

For these reasons, the government officials used civil lawsuit to harass and used other punishment to intimidate authors, editors who published materials that criticized government and affect government policy. Moreover, there were also foreign correspondents and newspapers, radios were also restricted and arrested. The authorities have banned Tibetan-language broadcasts of Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia, and BBC etc not to broadcast domestically and internationally.

The Ministries of Information and Public Security banned and monitor all access to internets and its use. They interpreted that dissemination of information without permission from government can be subversive and slanderous to the state, especially endanger national security. There were a lot of authors, editor, Internet essayists, correspondents were imprisoned on charges of leaking state’s secret and subversion.
Shi Tao was sentenced to a ten years prison term in April 2005 for leaking state secret abroad.
In September, Zheng Yichun was sentenced to a seven-year prison term for incitement to subversion.
Ning Xianhua, labor activist and political organizer sentenced 12 years imprisonment on charges of subversion.

Anyway, those who disclosed the state secret and subversion were accused of involving with counterrevolutionary and political activities and considered as political prisoners and need to be detained[7]. The actions are regarded as counterrevolutionary and sensitive activities depend upon subjective perspective or interpretation of the evidence.


Western NGOs estimated that approximately 500 persons remained in prisons for the repealed crime of counterrevolution and thousands of others were serving sentences under the state security law, which the authorities’ state covers, crimes similar to counterrevolution. But, credible sources said that tens of thousands of political prisoners remained confined, some in the prisons and others in reeducation through-labor camps or administrative detentions.

The followings are the key activists imprisoned in China on charges of disclosing state secrets and subversion, Counterrevolutionary, Politically Sensitive Activities. They are:
-He Zhaohui convicted of illegally providing state secrets or intelligence to oversee entities by Chenzhou Intermediate People’s Court,
-Led Sichuan unit of China Democratic Party (CDP) convicted of subversion by the Dazhou Intermediate People’s Court,
-Hu Shigen, founding member of China Free Labor Union and other 15 activists convicted of organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement by Beijing Intermediate People’s Court to 20 years’ imprisonment,
-Kong Youping, 55 years, was convicted of subversion at his trial and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
-Abidjan Obulkasim, a Vighur student imprisoned in 1995 on charges of counterrevolutionary activists died in prison, of tuberculosis.
-Qin Yongmin, Democracy activists, Hua Di, Wang Sen and He Depu, internet writers.
Besides the prominent political dissidents mentioned above, there were also thousands of others serving sentences under security law and related to religious practices, counterrevolution, and China’s anti-subversion, accused and detained in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR).

Report in 2004 and 2005, there were approximately 50 political prisoners remained in TAR prison in Lhasa, and most serving sentences on charge of counterrevolution. Under China’s anti-subversion laws persecuted political prisoners as counterrevolution crimes.

According to the report from PPD estimates that nearly 70 Tibetan Political prisoners were imprisoned in TAR, nearly 35 in Sichuan province, fewer than 15 in Qinghai province, and 6 in Gansu. The overall number of Tibetan Political prisoners in Tibetan areas dropped to 117 from 145 in 2004 and 2005. There were 117 Tibetan Political prisoners and 65 of them were monks.

All the prisoners related to disclosing state’s secret and subversion, counterrevolutionary and political activities were detained, violated by the government authorities. They have no access for international humanitarian organizations to visit.

2-1-2-Lack of independence of Judiciary

The independence of judiciary is a very important tool in democratic societies to provide justice to people. It sensitizes people to joint the social activities and political participation. The judiciary is closely interrelated with government. If government is not a democratic one, then judiciary is only the tool to serve for that government’s power. In case of China as an example, China is one-party-state and ruled by Chinese Communist Party and an authorization state. China has no independent judiciary.

China’s judiciary has the source from USSR[8]. The judiciary has the Supreme People’s Court that is considered as the highest judicial organ that has the Supreme People’s Procuratorates to control the administration of justice in the basic people’s court and people’s tribunals (court of first instance), intermediate people’s courts and higher people’s court.

The separation of power is not equally weighted. The legislative and judiciary are under control of executive branch. Therefore, judiciary is only mean to sustain government’s power. China used judiciary to suppress its people to political participation. If one dares to involve with politics, he/ she has been arrested and detained.
Therefore, there were a lot of political dissidents and democratic activists were detained by lack of independence of judiciary in China.


2-1-3-Role of Police and Security Apparatus

In China, the Security apparatus has been playing an important role to strengthen the government’s power. It is made up of the Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Public Security, and its lowest organizational units are public security stations. These kinds of security apparatus have different roles and responsibilities in China, but the same purposes are to strengthen government’s power.

- The Ministry of State Security:

It is responsible for the security of the state through effective measures against enemy agents, spies, and counterrevolutionary activities designed to sabotage or overthrow China’s socialist system. This ministry was empowered by counterrevolutionary crime statutes. It also performed its operation and duty to collect both domestic and foreign intelligences.
All activities related to counterrevolutionary and political activities were arrested and the arrests on charge of revealing state secrets, subversion, and common crimes have been committed by authorities to suppress political dissidents and social advocacy.

- The Ministry of Public Security:

It includes the People’s Armed Forces, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and the state judicial, pro-curatorial, and penal systems.

It performed its roles to oversee all domestic police activities in China and to be responsible to police operations and prisons. Moreover, it dedicated departments for internal political, economic, and communication security.

- The lowest organizational units:
It maintains close-day-to-day contact with the public.
2-2- Causes of detention of political prisoners in Vietnam:

The activities of unlawful, arbitrary arrest, detention, killing, and deprivation of life were worsened even law prohibits these kinds of actions. Law cited only in the paper, the practice is different from legal senses. Therefore, Vietnamese government accused citizens for arrests and detentions by different ways, but the main allegations for detentions are disclosing state’s secret, subversion, counterrevolutionary, politically sensitive activities, lack of independence of judiciary, and role of police and security apparatus.

2-2-1-Disclosing state’s secret and Subversion, Counterrevolutionary and Politically Sensitive Activities:

Conviction on charges of leaking state secrets and subversion in Vietnam is still a serous problem to people, especially religious, political activists, editor, publishers, writers, and information correspondents and so on. It looks like in China, government used the terms “state’s secret and subversion” to ban, restrict, and detained people.

Those who release publishing, broadcast information even real information that affects the government, those were alleged “state’s secret and subversion”. Law provides freedom of expression, speech, but, governments restricted these freedoms in practice, particularly with respect to political and religious speech.

Government attempted to control and ban public access to the Internet and blocks websites considered objectionable or politically sensitive. The government established an office to monitor the Internet for unauthorized use and criminal contents including disseminating state secrets. There were several dissidents were imprisoned for the accusation of national security. They include Pham Hong Son, who is serving five years of imprisonment, Nguyen Khac Toan, serving 12 years after being arrested in an Internet café’, where he allegedly vilified government officials in emails sent abroad, and Nguyen Vu Binh, a journalist who was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for criticizing the government.

In February 2007, several hundreds ethnic Khmer (Khnown as Kampuchea Krom) Buddhist Monks in Soc Trang province peacefully demonstrated for religious freedom. Police dispersed and arrested protest leaders, with five sentenced to prison in May for accusing public disorder.
In June the Ven. Tim Sakhon , a Kampuchea Krom Monk from Cambodia, was imprisoned in Vietnam on charges of undermining national unity after being defrocked and deported by Cambodian authorities. Other religions seemed to be similar.
The state’s secret and subversion, counterrevolutionary and politically sensitive activities were used to suppress all activists not to involve in social movements.

2-2- 2-Lack of independence of Judiciary

The judiciary in Vietnam is not absolutely different form China’s judiciary. Vietnamese government uses judiciary as for tool to sustain the power. Those who want to change the government; they will be faced trial from the court. All freedoms were restricted and banned by the court. In Vietnam, the highest court is considered as the Supreme Court, whose members are appointed by the National Assembly. Besides this court, it has local people’s court at each administrative level.

Every level of the court, both national and local, was appointed by NA as well. The separation of power between executive, legistlative, and judiciary was not equalized. Legislative and judiciary are under control of the executive, SRV. In this reason, judiciary is not independent, it is dependent on SRV regime only, that why religious, democratic, and political activists strongly faced challenge in their movements. They were imprisoned and detained in prisons, reeducation labor camps, and house arrests without trial or warrant from the courts.

2-2-3-Role of Police and Security Apparatus

The Vietnamese government has the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) to control everything, especially internal security happening in the country. This ministry (MPS) controls the police, a special national security investigative agency, and other internal security units.

It also controls and maintains a system of household registration, especially checking all the activities of those suspected of engaging in unauthorized political activities.
However, The Vietnamese government has the police organizations that exist at the provincial, district and local levels.

All the levels made collaboration with the involved ministry, such as ministry of justice, ministry of foreign affair, and so on aiming at stabilizing national security, public orders, and strengthening its own power.

2-3- Causes of Detention of Political Prisoners in Burma:

In Burma, democratic and political activists and counterrevolutionaries met dangerous challenges from detentions. Government found out different means to crackdown against those activists both legitimately and illegitimately. There are a lot of reasons that government detained them. These reasons are similar to China and Vietnam, because these countries are brothers with each other. They practiced similar governmental systems, judiciary, and other punishments.

In short, the reasons were considered for detentions are: disclosing state’s secret and subversion, counterrevolutionary and politically activities, lack of independence of judiciary, role of police and security apparatus.

2-3-1-Disclosing state’s secret, and Subversion, Counterrevolutionary and Politically Sensitive Activities:

The SPDC continues to restrict all opposition political activities and to persecute democracy and human rights activists. Those were accused for disseminating the information, publication press, news that vilified the government’s prestige. Moreover, they were alleged for wanting to overthrow the government. The freedoms of press, association, demonstration, religious practice, political participation were restricted, banned without fear from the criticism of international communities.

Almost all offices of pro-democracy and ethnic nationality political parties remain closed, except headquarters in Rangoon has been put under heavy surveillance. In July 2005, 249 political prisoners were released, but the detention and arrests have been conducted continuously. More than 1100 people are currently imprisoned for their political beliefs, while Daw Aung San Suu Kyi continues to be held in virtually solitary confinement without access to newspapers, telephones, or any correspondence.

The continued detention of the leaders of the party that won the last election in Burma shows how the Military junta is fearful of political dissidents striving for democracy. In May 2006, the detention order for Aung San Suu Kyi was extended by a year. Today, Burmese government is holding more than 1,000 known political prisoners held in dozen prisons and almost 100 labor camp through the country. Many are held in separate conditions and tortured by prison and military authorities.

Burma’s military government is using its detention and harassment of political activists to smooth the way toward writing a new constitution that would allow it to stay in power. Moreover, Burma’s leaders are trying to make the public and the world community forgets that there are Many Burmese voices demanding political change.



2-3-2- Lack of independence of Judiciary

Burmese judiciary was adapted by British Style[9]. Burma’s judiciary has the councils of people’s justice are elected by the National Assembly and the Council of State, which coordinate relations between central and local levels of government. Peoples’ Court function at all levels, with jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases.
Judiciary and government are combined together at aiming to strengthen its own power in the country. Opposition political figures, religious, democratic activists were arrested under the detention orders form the court.

Government used court as the means to intimidate, suppress those who dare to against government. Nowadays, religious, liberal, and political activists fled to stay at the neighboring countries, such as Thailand, Lao, and so on, because of the court make intimidation. Besides those who did not flee to other, they faced serous challenge for imprisonment. For example, in February , 2005, the SPDC arrests nine leaders of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD), led by Hkun Tun Oo, the party that gained the Second-highest numbers of votes in the 1990 elections. As a result, the party leaders were arrested and outlawed. In secret trail, all the leadership was sentenced to life imprisonment with terms of 97 years.

2-3-3- Role of Police and Security Apparatus

The Police are auxiliary forces of the military and are under direct demand of military officers. They primarily deal with common crimes and not handle political crimes. The Myanmar police forces fall administratively under the Ministry of Home affair.

MSA officers and Police officers are responsible for detaining persons suspected of political crimes that perceived to threaten the government. Once a person is detained , MSA officers , or in some cases SB officers , take the prisoner to MSA regional interrogation centers, where MSA officers interrogate individual for a period ranging from hours to months and can change the person with a crime at any time during the interrogation.

Police frequently placed a hood on those accused or suspected of political crime upon arrest. By the law warrants for searches and arrests are required, however, MSA and police have special authority to conduct searches and make arrests at will.


III. State’s International Political Rights Obligations:

On 16 December 1966, General Assembly of United Nations had adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Ten years later, (ICCPR) took effect in 1976 for all nations as state parties to respect. So, this Right has been guaranteed by international law for human beings. Each state has obligations to respect and provide political rights to individuals in its own territory.
1- China's International Political Rights Obligations
China received a seat in UN in 24 October, 1945 and China is a permanent member of UN Security Council. In this reason, China is legally bound to respect the human rights treaties it has ratified. Sometimes, it is so hard to mobilize China to respect the political rights as well, because under traditional principles of international law articulated that “without ratification by a state, a treaty may not be enforced against that state unless the treaty codifies customary international law”. Currently, China has signed, but not ratified, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
China's obligations under the ICCPR are less coherent because the state has signed but not yet ratified the convention. Under international law, China may only be legally bound by the ICCPR if the rights contained in the treaty codify international customary law. The act of signing the treaty is nonetheless significant in terms of state obligations. According to the general principles of international law, the act of signature means China must refrain from any actions that would run counter to the object and purpose of the treaty until it has made clear its final intentions with regard to the treaty. Thus, by signing the treaty, China has an obligation to respect the rights guaranteed to its citizens under the ICCPR.
Under Article 2 of the ICCPR, each state party is obligated to recognize the rights of all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, and national or social origin.
The ICCPR guarantees each person the right to life (Article 6); the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7); the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, and the right to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest" (Article 9); the right to be taken before a judge or magistrate (Article 9); the right to a fair trial (Article 14); the right to freedom of expression (Article 18); and the right to enjoy his own culture and practice his own religion (Article 27).
China's behavior toward the Uighurs violates many of the ICCPR's fundamental principles. Arresting and detaining the Uighurs for peaceful demonstrations and religious, cultural, and political expression, clearly violates the ICCPR. Because the fear of a separatist movement is so great, the government regularly imprisons anyone remotely suspected of political activity. Religious activism, which Chinese authorities consider to be a political activity, is also a target of government repression. The Chinese government believes that such religious activities might fuel the movement for political independence. As such, no Uighurs in the XUAR seems to be free from the government's accusations.
In addition to China's obligations under international human rights law, China's practices and policies in the XUAR do not conform to its domestic legal obligations. The 1997 amendments to China's Criminal Procedure Law were designed to provide greater access to legal counsel, to abolish a regulation permitting summary trials in certain cases involving the death penalty, and to provide for notifying the detainee's family within 24 hours of arrest and detention. The Chinese police forces, however, continue to detain individuals without providing access to lawyers, and many trials continue to be conducted in secrecy. Many of the prisoners are not even charged with a specific crime. In direct violation of international and domestic law, the Uighurs continue to be held as political prisoners, denied judicial guarantees, tortured, and arbitrarily executed.

2-Vietnam's International Political Rights Obligations:

Vietnam is also a member of United Nations. Vietnam received a seat in UN on 20 September, 1977. Therefore, Vietnam is also legally bound to respect human rights as China. Under the International Charter and Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Vietnam has obligations to respect human rights because Vietnam is a state party, and its 1992 Constitution, which states in Articles 69 and 70:
The citizen shall enjoy freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, the rights to be informed, and the rights to assembly, form association and hold demonstrations in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Article 19 of the ICCPR provides for the rights of freedom of expression, but, Vietnam’s law on Publication strictly bans publications that oppose the government, divulge state secrets, and disseminate reactionary ideas.

According to the Vietnam’s Press Law articulate that all Medias serve only the voice of the government. There is no private media channel.

Based on the Articles 21 and 22 cited that, ICCPR recognizes the rights of peaceful assembly and association with others. Furthermore, Article 14 of ICCPR also articulated that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrests or detention.

So, based on these articles mentioned above, political participation opened fully to people to joint all political activities and Vietnam has full obligation to guarantee these rights and freedom as state-party in the UN.

3-Burma's International Political Rights Obligations

Actually, Burma received membership in UN on 19 April, 1948. As mentioned, state-party in the UN has obligation to respect the human rights, especially political rights. Under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14 cited that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrests and detention”, but Burmese government did not respect this covenants of ICCPR at all.
Moreover, government did not allow domestic political rights organization to function independently and became hostile to outside scrutiny of its human rights record[10]. Mr Ibrahim Gambari , Under Secretary General for Political Affairs requested government to address human rights concerns and expand dialogue with opposition party, but his request was dismissed. Many international NGOs and UN agencies reported government increased pressure to curtail their activities and access by international personnel became more difficult.


IV. Analysis:
-Compare China against itself between 2006 and 2007

China, under control of CCP, committed serious violations to the political prisoners. China ignored everything; even China is one of member-states of UN and ratified the international political covenants, treaty, and ICCPR. Chinese government has not fulfilled its obligations under these covenants and treaties. However, members of U.N called for China stopping that violation and respect the domestic and international human rights law especially provide all freedoms to the people, but China did not follow.

Furthermore, China declined to consider respecting those rights and continued to violate stronger and stronger form one year to one year. For example, Chinese government increased to arrest and detain political prisoners and dissidents. Number of political prisoners were detained was higher.

So, the situation of human rights violations in China worsen and political prisoners faced serous challenges comparing years 2006 and year 2007. Year 2007, the numbers of political dissidents were detained higher than year 2006.
Figure of Political Prisoners were detained Year 2006 and 2007 are not fixed because there are a lots of sources to reveal this figure, but just clarifying that the figures of political prisoners are increased in the year 2007. Therefore, situation of detention of political prisoners is increased if comparing 2006 and 2007.

-Comparing China to Vietnam

But if we compare with Vietnamese governments, Human Rights violations in China is still better than Vietnam. Because China is a big country and has more population than Vietnam, and the levels of beating, punishment, and detention of political prisoners is not cruel as Vietnam. While, Freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, religions is more open than Vietnam. Furthermore, the situation in Vietnam at the Central Highland, Khmer Kampuchea Krom revealed clearly to the international communities as examples.

The figures of Khmer Kampuchea Krom both live in Kampuchea Krom and live in Cambodia were intimidated, harassed, and detained without fear and worry from the criticism from International Communities. Political dissidents and prisoners were killed in prison. Some Buddhist Monks, who escape from Vietnam to live in Cambodia, were killed by the authority backed by Vietnamese government.

The activities of intimidation, harassment, detention, and killing happened not only in Vietnam itself, but also other countries. The influence of international cooperation and diplomatic of SRV has influenced to others countries as well. Democratic, religious, and political activists were extradited to Vietnam for arrest and detention. So, activities of human rights violations in Vietnam are bad in comparing in China.

-Compare China to Burma

To the situation of human rights violation in Burma revealed clearly that it is dangerous and worse in comparing in China. Police and security apparatus of the government committed very cruelly, such as suppressing demonstration, intimidating, and harassing people and Buddhist monks not to make demonstration and others political movements.

Thousands of people and Buddhist Monks, especially democratic activists were suppressed and detained by the government. Freedoms including religious and political freedoms etc were violated

Furthermore, political activists both ordinary people and Buddhist monks run to live in the neighboring countries, such as China, Thailand and so on. The rests of them who are still living in the country were arrested, intimidate, and made surveillance by the police and security apparatus everyday. All freedoms were restricted due to national order and security –reasons and accusation of violation the constitution and the law. They were detained in the prison not conformity with the international charter and Human Rights Declaration related civil and political rights (ICCPR) that Burma himself ratified.

Moreover, the International Community, Human Right Watch, and the Amnesty International strongly worried the situation of human rights violation in these countries. Most countries around the world and International Human Rights GNOs condemned and criticized Burma about the activities of human rights violation, but Burma ignored and flouted those organs. So, these activities showed that, “Human Rights Respects in Burma is bad comparing in China.

V. Conclusion:

In short, countries mentioned above have similarities between political systems, judicial systems and the kinds of detentions of political prisoners. Those countries are the authoritarian states as the same.

Those countries have the law that provides freedom of expression, assembly, religious services; especially political participation to the people, but in the real practice was different what law said.

The situations of the detention political prisoners committed by governments and the police and security apparatus have not improved yet. The problems detentions of political prisoners are not only for Chinese, Vietnamese, and Burmese people, but also the problems of people around the world. So, these three countries should change their behavior to provide freedoms, especially political freedoms to people. Furthermore, international communities and ASEAN countries should sanction and should not back these countries to respect the international charter and civil and political covenants that were signed in the United Nations.








References
-WORLDMARK Encyclopedia of the Nations,
-http//www.fva.org/1298story09.htm,
-http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political-prisoner,
-http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78768.htm,
-http:www.laborrghtsnow.org/chinaprisoner.html
-Human Rights and Its Evaluation compiled by Stan Starygin
-http://hrw.org/English/docs/2006/07/12/vietnam13728.htm



















[1] Oxford Advanced Learning Dictionary
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political-prisoner and Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[3] http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Mar/10-815538.html
[4] http: www.ecoi.net/189077::315795.8250...mr/political-af...1/17/2008
[5] The Vietnamese Communist Party is the political successor to the Indochinese Communist Party, created in 1930 and formally dissolved in 1945. From 1945 until 1951, the party operated in clandestine fashion, until it emerged once more as the Vietnamese Workers’ Party at the Second National Congress in 1951. The Party assumed its current name in 1976, shortly after the unification of the country into Socialist Republic of Vietnam. For more details, you can see at the World-Mark of Encyclopedia of the Nations.
[6] According to the State Department ‘s latest country reports on Human Rights Practices issued by Washington
[7] Government claimed that the counterrevolutionary and political prisoners were also eligible for parole and early release on an equal basic with other prisoners but provided no evidence to support this assertion

[8] For more details , you can see at worldmark encyclopedia of the nations, Asia and Oceania
[9] For detail information about Burma’s judicial system, please see the Worldmark of Encyclopedia of the Nations, page 46.
[10] For the detail information, please at http://www.state. gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78768.htm

Evaluation of Human rights situation regarding torture practices in Cambodia, Thailand and Sweden

CONTENTS

Chapter 1-Introduction
1.1.Overview of torture
1.2.Objective of paper
1.3.Methodology
1.4.Definition of torture

Chapter 2-Legal instrument prohibits torture
2.1.International human rights law prohibits torture
2.2.Adherence to international human rights treaties and the domestic law
2.2.1.Cambodia
2.2.2.Thailand
2.2.3.Sweden

Chapter 3-Factors caused torture
3.1.The non-independence of judiciary
3.1.1.Cambodia
3.1.2.Thailand
3.1.3.Sweden
3.2.Government lacks political will to combat torture
3.2.1.Cambodia
3.2.2.Thailand
3.2.3.Sweden

Chapter 4- Analysis
4.1.Compare Cambodia against itself between 2004 and 2006
4.2.Compare Thailand to Cambodia
4.3.Compare Sweden to Cambodia

Chapter 5- Conclusion

References





Chapter 1-Introduction to torture

1.1.Overview of torture
Torture is the serious and gravest crimes that have been occurring in many countries. It is protected by the ways of silence from the victim and the denial from the responsible perpetrator. In most cases of torture, the perpetrators do not admit it and they have always take measures to avoid leaving evidence. Victims are frightened and traumatized, and they often don't want to reveal the experience they had gone through or to file legal complaint against the perpetrators. Government in most cases, finds its way to cover up torture. To take step to reduce and prevent torture is to prosecute the perpetrators, of which the judiciary must be independence and the government has to have political will to combat torture.

1.2.Objective of paper
The paper aims at comparing the situation of torture of three constitutional monarchy countries, Cambodia, Thailand and Sweden, by choosing Cambodia to be the based country of comparison with the country with good human rights record, Sweden and a neighboring country which has a record of level of bad human rights record, Thailand. The paper will also explore what the effective ways that Cambodia can take from Sweden to combat torture practices in her countries.

1.3.Methodology
The comparison and the analysis of this paper is based on the secondary data taken mainly from the report of U.S. Department of State, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, OHCHR and relevant NGOs report. Also from direct reading of the relevant domestic laws and international human rights laws. The style for citation is MLA.

1.4.Definition of torture
Torture is the infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure.[1]

The definition of torture is explained in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). The article states that "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”

Under this definition of Convention Against Torture, not all pain or suffering is considered to be torture. There have to be elements which required that the pain or suffering must be intentional or systematic, and not the pain from accidental and lawful sanction. The pain or suffering must be committed by a public official such as the police and prison officials, and for the purpose to get information or force confession, inflict punishment, intimidate, coerce or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.[2]

Chapter 2-Legal instrument prohibits torture

2.1.International human rights law prohibits torture
Torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, article 7 and article 10[3]. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 5[4] also prohibits torture. The Convention Against Torture, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948 reaffirms the prohibition of torture and provides additional safeguards to ensure that torture and similar practices cannot occur, and that the state party to the convention take measures to prevent anyone under their control from committing torture.

The prohibition of torture is further reiterated in article 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 10 of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[5]

Torture is universally condemned, and whatever its actual practice, no country publicly supports torture or opposes its eradication. The prohibition against torture is well established under customary international law as jus cogens; that is, it has the highest standing in customary law and is so fundamental as to supercede all other treaties and customary laws (except laws that are also jus cogens). Criminal acts that are jus cogens are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that any state can exercise its jurisdiction, regardless of where the crime took place, the nationality of the perpetrator or the nationality of the victim.[6]

2.2.Adherence to international human rights treaty and the domestic law

2.2.1 Cambodia
Cambodia has ratified six major human rights treaties, including International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Convention Against Torture, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Convention on the Rights of the Child.[7] The Cambodia constitution, article 31 recognizes and respect for the human rights as set out in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the covenant and convention related to human rights, woman’s rights and rights of the child. In addition to article 31 of the Cambodia constitution, article 38 specifically prohibits torture and other ill treatment and determined that the confessions obtained through torture is not admissible as evidence of a guilt. The same article requires that the officials responsible for torture be punished. Despite the amounts of human rights instruments it has ratified, the government has not fulfilled its report obligation. Regarding the Convention Against Torture, Cambodia has submitted the initial report only after the nine-year delay in its submission and the paucity of information on the practical enjoyment of the rights provided in the Convention.[8]

2.2.2.Thailand
Thailand has acceded to four major human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)[9]. Section 31 of the 1997 constitution provides for the Thai people to enjoy the right and liberty in his or her life, and not to permit torture, brutal act, or punishment by a cruel or inhumane means, thought the punishment by death penalty as provided by law shall not be deemed the punishment by a cruel or inhumane means under this paragraph.[10] However, the torture has continued and the police tortured and beat suspects to extract confessions. Although the constitution was revoked following the September coup d’etat in 2006 and announced martial law, it was maintained that the interim constitution still have the references of the protections incorporated from the 1997 constitution and specific laws pertaining to prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment remain in force. Though, there was no confirmed reports of torture during the period of martial law[11]. Despite its willingness in ratified the human rights treaty, the government has not fulfill its report obligation. Regarding to the ICCPR, which also prohibits torture, Thailand has submitted its initial report after more than six years delay.[12]

2.2.3.Sweden
Sweden has ratified most of the UN instrument involving human rights and other regional instruments, in particular it ratified all the seven key human rights treaties.[13] Sweden has also fulfilled its reporting obligation under the international human rights law. Human rights are primarily protected through three Constitutional laws, the Instrument of Government, the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. Responsibility for ensuring the non-violation of human rights rests with the government.[14]

Chapter 3-Factors caused torture

3.1.The non-independence of judiciary
3.1.1.Cambodia
The constitution provides for an independent of judiciary, but the judiciary is subject to be interfered by the government and political influence. The courts-widely viewed as corrupt, incompetent and biased, and continued to be used to advance political agendas, silence critics, and strip people of their land.[15] The lack of independence and integrity of the judiciary, the prosecutorial authorities, and the legal profession pose a fundamental threat to human rights. Ministers and senior government officials enjoy wide immunities for breaches of the law, while innocent people become, at the instigation of the Government, the victims of the legal system. Thus, far from protecting human rights, the legal system becomes a principal agency of oppression.[16]

3.1.2.Thailand
The constitution provided for independent of judiciary before the coup of 19 September. However after the coup, the coup leaders repealed the constitution and issued a decree announcing that all courts with the exception of the Constitutional Court would continue to operate as normal. The judiciary was subject to corruption and outside influences although generally, it has been seen as independent. The lack of progress in high-profile cases involving alleged abuse by the police and military make the public lost their trust in the justice system and discouraged victims of human rights abuses from seeking justice[17].

3.1.3.Sweden
The constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected this provision in practice. Citizens of Sweden can also file appeal in matter related to the state to the European Court of Human Rights, as it is one of members of the European Union.[18] According to the report of U.S. Department of State Report, Country report on human rights practices, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor for consecutive years (2004 to 2006) reported no cases of the non-independent court related cases.

3.2.Government lacks political will to combat torture
3.2.1.Cambodia
Cambodia is constitutional monarchy with a population of approximately 13.8 million[19]. The 1993 constitution provides for the separation of power between the legislative, executive and the judiciary. However, the government, the executive branch dominated and interfered with the latter branches.[20] The security forces beating and use other forms of physical mistreatment to extract confession from the prisoners. The perpetrators are often treated with impunity. Cases of torture committed by security forces are reported in various reports of local and international human rights organizations.[21] The government has not taken step to address torture, and a government high ranking official have asserted that torture during interrogation was sometimes necessary to force suspected criminals to provide information. Though, he reported to have retracted his comments following extensive media coverage and criticism.[22] (see 4.1 below)

3.2.2.Thailand
Thailand is constitutional monarchy with a population of 65.43 million. In September 2006, Thaksin’s government was overthrow in a bloodless coup by a military leader.
Under the administration of Prime Minister Thaksin, there were reports of killings, and torture in the south of Thailand by security force and the insurgents and the introduction of new security legislation[23]. Based on human rights reports of different institutions, torture practiced by the police and security forces have become a common practice in Thailand, not just in the alleged security threats, but also in the ordinary criminal cases. There is report of torture which are of institutionalized nature and in several cases it approved by senior government officers. There is no political will from the government to combat torture. (see 4.2 below)

3.2.3.Sweden
Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a population of over nine million. The king is the largely symbolic head of state. The government heads by prime minister, exercises executive authority. The security forces is effectively control by the civilian authority. In general, the government of Sweden respects the human rights of its citizens. Although there are reports of human rights problems, but the individual instances of abuse are being addressed with the effective means provided under the law and by the judiciary.
There were reports of isolated case of torture and ill-treatment committed by police officers, but the responsible police officers had been brought to prosecute or dismiss from the police service. For example, in May 2005, a court convicted two police officers for assault and excessive violence against a 64-year-old man. The court sentenced each of the officers to three-months' imprisonment and dismissed them from the police force. In September authorities initiated investigations against three police officers accused of use of excessive violence during a confrontation near Stockholm in September. The investigations were ongoing at year's end.[24]

Chapter 4-Analysis

4.1.Compare Cambodia against itself between 2004 and 2006
The country report on human rights practice of 2006 of US Department of state cited information from Human rights NGOs LICADHO, which reported that “in the first six months of the year, authorities tortured 96 detainees, of whom 78 were tortured in police custody. Based on interviews with thousands of detainees from 18 of the country's 24 prisons, LICADHO added that kicking, punching, and pistol-whipping were the most common methods of physical abuse, but techniques also included electric shocks, suffocation, caning, and whipping with wire. ADHOC, another NGO monitoring human rights across the country, recorded approximately 150 cases of physical assaults and torture committed by police and military agents”.[25] Human Rights Watch, 2006 world report described torture continues to be used by police officers in their attempt to extract confessions from suspects in detention. The report went on citing a case happened in a prison in Kompong Cham province, where human rights groups reported torture of prisoners who were believed to be responsible for the prison break.[26]

The U.S. Department of state, Cambodia country report on human rights practice of 2005, reported torture continued to be a serious problem in the police custody and in prison. The police or security personnel who were responsible for torture are often protected from prosecution or disciplinary action by local government authority. The report cited an information of torture from a local NGO who monitored 17 prisons provided that during the year of 189 inmates interviewed by the NGO, 25 claimed they were tortured upon their arrival at prison, and 52 others claimed they were tortured while in police custody.[27] The torture in police custody also reported in the Amnesty International, 2005 Report. The report highlighted an assertion of a high level of police official who told the public that torture during interrogation was some time necessary to force suspected criminals to provide information, though the official retracted his comments following a lot of criticisms.[28]

The U.S. Department of state, Cambodia country report on human rights practice of 2004 reported that during the year, there were credible reports that military and civilian police officials used physical and psychological torture and severely beat criminal detainees, particularly during interrogation. A local NGO reported that in interviews with prisoners in 18 prisons, 106 claimed to have been tortured, 65 of this group while in police custody and 41 while in prison. Members of the police and security force who carried out abuse often were protected from prosecution or disciplinary action by local government authorities, despite some central Government efforts to curtail or eliminate violations of prisoners' rights and to address problems of accountability.[29]

To compare the reports of the same institution, the U.S. Department of State of non random years and the random year of the report of others organizations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International above, the torture practices committed by the police and security forces to extract confession from the prisoners have been practiced in many police custodies and at prisons in Cambodia. The number of torture cases remained high in 2006, though it is slightly different from the previous year by comparing the U.S. Department of State report between 2004 and 2006. From the analysis of the U.S. Department of State reports, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International of 2004, 2005 and 2006, no perpetrators were reported to have been brought to justice. The perpetrators’ commanders would compromise the case to ensure that the perpetrators were protected against any prosecution for his/her crime. The court, in general has not taken into account the complaint of torture when the accused testifies to it at the court, or just dismisses the charge of torture against the perpetrator.

The judiciary is not independent, and suffers from interference by the executive and political influence, and corruption, and this has been reported again and again in all these report of 2004 to 2006.

Although Cambodia is a state party to key international human rights treaty, in particular the ICCPR and the Convention against torture, the government has not fulfill its international obligation under these treaties, including its reporting obligation provided under these treaties. There are framework and guidelines from the international human rights law and domestic law for the government to combat torture. However, ther is no political will from the government to translate into action the domestic and international law prohibit torture.

4.2. Compare Thailand to Cambodia
Police torture which documented by human rights group and legal organizations reported that torture continued with some members of the police tortured and beat suspects to obtain confessions. There are also reports of numerous cases in which citizens accused police of using brutality, threatening with false charges, and extorting bribes. The 2005 report of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of U.S. Department of State reported a numbers of torture cases, including a case of five suspects who filed legal complaint against the police torture in March 2004 through their lawyer, Somchai Neelapaichjit to the Ministry of Justice, but the lawyer was subsequently disappeared and was presumed dead.[30] The same year, Human Rights Watch reported that the police continue to torture detainees, thought there was a commitment from the National Human Rights Commission and the Police Commission to set a step to remedy the situation and to hold officers in command to responsible for torture in their stations.[31] Another report of the same year of Asian Legal Resource Center reported that torture is routinely practiced by the police in Thailand. The report is based on the largest amount of information on the practice of torture in Thailand with reference to the police. Among the police, torture is practiced both in cases of alleged security threats, and in the ordinary criminal cases. The report raised a particular concern about the types of torture, which went far beyond the day-to-day beatings and conventional roughing-up tactics that persons in Thailand usually associate with the police. The practices of inflicting wounds and electric shocks on sensitive parts of the body suggest the work of seasoned professional torturers. The report also provides cases of torture which are of institutionalized nature and in several cases it approved by senior officers.[32]

To compare Thailand to Cambodia, the situation of torture committed by police and security forces in Thailand is more serious giving the fact there is situation of insurgency in the south of Thailand until today. But, torture cases were reported to have committed by the police and security forces not only in the security concerned related cases, but also ordinary criminal cases. There is no available data on number of torture cases from the mentioned report to compare, since those report only focused on various sensitive cases and provide a general overview on torture. However, we can conclude from the nature of cases explained in the mentioned reports that torture in Thailand is more serious than Cambodia at the current stage, taking into account the insurgency in the south of Thailand. The state of judiciary is better than Cambodia in term of its independency. Though, the judiciary of Thailand is also subject to corruption and outside influences. In term of international obligation, similar to Cambodia, Thailand has not fulfill its obligation under ICCPR regarding torture prohibition. Thailand government also has not taken enough step to prevent torture, and allowed the responsible officials to be escaped from justice. Thailand has not serious to comply with the international obligation and the domestic law to combat torture.

4.3.Compare Sweden to Cambodia
The U.S. Department of State reports on human rights practices of 2006 reported that there were isolated cases that police used excessive force. During the year law enforcement authorities conducted 82 investigations of police officers and charged and convicted nine for crimes, including unlawful threat, causing bodily injury, and procurement and sexual molestation. The investigation of a September 2005 incident in which police were alleged to have used excessive force did not result in prosecutions due to lack of evidence.[33] The report of the same institution of 2005 mentioned the same situation that there were isolated reports of torture, but the responsible police officers were brought to prosecution and dismissed from the service[34]. The report of the same institution of 2004 reported that there were no reports that government officials employed officers who committed torture related crimes. During the year, the police officer charged with the 2001 wounding of three protesters was acquitted by the district court.[35]

To compare the report of the same institution of non random year from 2004 to 2006, the torture and ill-treatment committed by police officer and security forces in Sweden is very rare. The isolated cases are being addressed effectively, of which the responsible perpetrators were brought to justice, including dismissed from their services.

To compare Sweden to Cambodia, Sweden has far ahead of Cambodia in term independence of judiciary, its commitment to international obligation, and the political will to combat torture. The cases of torture have always been addressed effectively in Sweden, by which the responsible perpetrators were prosecuted.

Chapter 5-Coclusion
Based on the analysis above, cases of torture committed by the police and security forces against the suspects or prisoners in Cambodia remained to be with a high numbers by 2006. The factor that caused torture, include the non independence of the judiciary, and the lack of political will from the government to combat torture. Also, the commitment to ratify many key human rights treaties, but lack commitment to translate it into action has a question mark on the political will of the government to combat torture. There is nothing for Cambodia to learn from Thailand to look into improving the situation regarding torture, as this country also is on the similar track, though the judiciary in Thailand is in a better position than Cambodia.

Cambodia can lean a lot from Sweden to combat torture. The main thing is to prosecute the police and security forces who committed torture, as what Sweden has committed to do. As we can see from the many reports that, there is isolated cases of torture happened in Sweden, even though it is a country with a good record of human rights, where the judiciary and state institution are strong in protection their citizens. Without prosecution of the perpetrator, torture will continue to exist and to become a widespread practice.

References:
· OHCHR Cambodia. Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol. Phnom Penh: OHCHR. 2007
· Human Rights Watch, “The legal prohibition against torture”. Human Rights News. 2004. January 2008 <http://www.humanrightswatch.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm#What>.
· US Department of State. “2006 Country report on human rights practices in Cambodia”. 17 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78792.htm>.
· <http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=4&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=4> 27 January 2008.
· Human rights Committee. “Concluding observations of the human rights Committee: Thailand”. 2005. <http://www.rlpd.moj.go.th/pr/report/pdf/CCPR-Thailand-adopted-E.pdf> 29 January 2008.
· Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation. Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006.
· <http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2715/>20 January 2008.
· <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78769.htm>. 19 January 2008.
· US Department of Sate. “2004 country report on Human Rights Practices in Cambodia. 26 January 2008.<http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41638.htm>.
· US Department of State. “2005 Country report on human rights practices in Thailand” 20 January 2008. <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61628.htm>.
· Asian Legal Resource Center. Alternative Report on Thailand to the HRC. 2005. <http://www.alrc.net/doc/mainfile.php/unar_hrc_th_2005/327/>31 January 2008.
· <http://www.unhchr.ch/TBS/doc.nsf/newhvstatusbycountry> 9 January 2007.
· <http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CAT.C.CR.31.7.En?OpenDocument> 28 January 2008.
· <http://www.unhchr.ch/TBS/doc.nsf/newhvstatusbycountry> 9 January 2008.
· <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1997_Constitution_of_Thailand#CHAPTER_III:_Rights_and_Liberties_of_the_Thai_People> 28 January 2008.
· Bryan A. Garner. Black's law dictionary. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Group, 2001
· Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 1984.
· International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966.



[1] Bryan A. Garner. Black's law dictionary. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Group, 2001.
[2] OHCHR Cambodia. Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol. Phnom Penh: OHCHR. 2007: 2.
[3] Article 7: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Article 10, paragraph (1): All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
[4] Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[5] OHCHR Cambodia. Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol. Phnom Penh: OHCHR. 2007: 1
[6] Human Rights Watch, “The legal prohibition against torture”. Human Rights News. 2004. 9 January 2008 <http://www.humanrightswatch.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm#What>.
[7] More information on the status of ratification can be found at <http://www.unhchr.ch/TBS/doc.nsf/newhvstatusbycountry> 9 January 2007.
[8] More information on the conclusion and recommendation of the Committee Against torture on Cambodia can be found at <http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CAT.C.CR.31.7.En?OpenDocument> 28 January 2008.
[9] More information can be found at <http://www.unhchr.ch/TBS/doc.nsf/newhvstatusbycountry> 9 January 2008.
[10] The constitution can be found at <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1997_Constitution_of_Thailand#CHAPTER_III:_Rights_and_Liberties_of_the_Thai_People> 28 January 2008.
[11] US Department of State. “2006 Country report on human rights practices in Cambodia”. 17 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78792.htm>.
[12] Human rights Committee. “Concluding observations of the human rights Committee: Thailand”. 2005. <http://www.rlpd.moj.go.th/pr/report/pdf/CCPR-Thailand-adopted-E.pdf> 29 January 2008.
[13] More information on the ratification of human rights treaty by Sweden can be found at <http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=4&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=4> 27 January 2008.
[14] More information can be found at <http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=15&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=15> 27 January 2008.
[15] Stan Starygin. Human Rights and Its Evaluation. Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006: 791.
[16] Yash Ghai, Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights in Cambodia. Report to Human Rights Council. 2007: 10 (40).
[17] US Department of state. “2007 Country report on human rights practices in Thailand” 17 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61628.htm>
[18]More information on the judiciary of Sweden can be found at <http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=4&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=4> 27 January 2008.
[19] US Department of state. “2006 country reports on human rights practices in Cambodia” <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78769.htm> 17 January 2008.
[20] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation. Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 207.
[21] For example on April 29, a commune police chief and another police officer without a warrant forcibly arrested a man because of a personal dispute from the previous day. The policemen suspended the man upside down from the ceiling of the police station, where he was interrogated, beaten, and forced to confess to a robbery in which he had no involvement. The victim was release later that night. Following a provincial police officer’s urging, the victim to accept financial compensation and withdrew his criminal complaint from the provincial court. No legal action was taken against the police chief, and the case was terminated. Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 209.
[22] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 269.
[23] It was introduced by the former prime minister in mid-2005 as part of a heavy-handed approach to the violent conflict in that part of the country. It grants even wider powers to the army and police than martial law and gives them complete impunity from prosecution for any actions taken under it. <http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2715/>20 January 2008.
[24] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 225
[25] More information on individual case of torture can be found at <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78769.htm>. 19 January 2008.
[26] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 792 and 793.
[27] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 209.
[28] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 269.
[29]US Department of Sate. “2004 country report on Human Rights Practices in Cambodia. 26 January 2008.<http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41638.htm>.
[30]US Department of State. “2005 Country report on human rights practices in Thailand” 20 January 2008. <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61628.htm>.
[31] Example: On 5 November 2004, twenty-one-year-old Don Mahesh Duminda Weerasuiya was illegally arrested and tortured by police officers at Panadura North Police Station who apparently wanted information about Weerasuriya’s uncle. After being tortured at the police station, he was charged and held at Kalutara Prison where he was detained until November 10.
[32] Asian Legal Resource Center. Alternative Report on Thailand to the HRC. 2005 para. 68 to 75. 31 January 2008 <http://www.alrc.net/doc/mainfile.php/unar_hrc_th_2005/327/>
[33] US Department of State. “2005 country report on human rights practices in Sweden”. 31 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78841.htm.
[34] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 225.
[35] US Department of State Report. “2005 Country report on human rights practices in Sweden”. 31 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41710.htm>.