United Nations Human Rights Council

The Republic of India Represented by Fabrizio Nicolosi

The issue before the Republic of India are:

1. The Use of Torture and Degrading Treatment to War Prisoners

2. The Violation of Rights of Refugee

I. The Use of Torture and Degrading Treatment to War Prisoners

The republic of India has always been involved in contrasting the use of torture and ill-treatments among war
prisoners. The prime minister and his staff have often claimed that there would be zero tolerance for human
right violations and a strong commitment to prevent arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial executions.
As a matter of fact, the establishment of The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India, has
been an important step for taking concrete measures to prevent torture, by implementing educational
programs, by promoting campaigns among law enforcement officials and society at large in order to raise
awareness of torture, its prevention and inform local authorities of what to do.
Our government stands strongly against every methods of torture, beyond the main idea that no one shall be
subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
All our efforts are linked to intensify the power and the efficiency of legislative and administrative court to
prevent acts of torture in every area of our country.
One of the main demonstrations of our efforts is the Amendment of PHRA ( Protection of Human Rights of
1993), signed in the 2006. The main objective of the act is the creation of a profitable and closely
collaboration between National Human Rights Commission and NGO Community.
Among the improvements, the NHRC is no longer required to give advance warning (intimation) to a state
government prior to conduction prison visits in that state. It was a partial success, because this new prevision
does not apply to visits to detention and interrogation centre used by the army and paramilitary forces or for
non-prison custodial facilities such as mental institution
We recognise that the NHRC alone cannot solve all of India’s human rights problems. However, reforms
must begin and the NHRC had great potential to be a catalyst for even more comprehensive reform efforts.
Even if both national press and international organizations, such as Amnesty International, aren’t satisfied yet
by the hard work done, the governments of India is sure that ours is a long but straight way to complete
democratization, and we will continue to abide by its national mechanisms and procedures to promote and
protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens.
Politically motivated violence slightly decreased but torture, death in custody and “disappearances”
continued to be reported. The main problem of the continuation of the abuse is the India’s decision to repeal
the controversial Prevention Of Terrorism Act (POTA)1.
We reconfirm that to win terrorism is useful to do preventive actions, working quickly and with more power,
because this is the only way to precede terrorist plans, to anticipate their actions and to prevent massacre.

Therefore, the Republic of India:

1
It was in force since September 11, 2001, due to terrorism attack to U.S. in New York. Under this law, people could be
arrested on mere suspicion and detained without charge or trial for six months. The law also allowed for special
investigation, as well as special courts and trial procedures.
 1. recalls the possibility to sign a second amendment for having access to military centre and non-
prison institutions ;
2. reaffirms the importance of enforce the role of legislative and administrative courts.

II. The violation of Rights of Refugees

“India is the second largest refugee-receiving country in South Asia, after Pakistan. India’s multi-ethnic, multi-
lingual society has made it an attractive destination for a lot of asylum-seekers. In spite of the presence of
such large numbers of people in the country who have fled persecution in neighbouring countries, India has
a completely ad hoc system of refugee determination, deportation and selective protection”2.

The law does not provide for the granting of asylum in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol, and the government has not established a system for providing
protection to refugees or asylum seekers. The government provided temporary protection to certain
individuals who may not qualify as refugees under the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol.

“The government generally denied NGOs and the office of the UNHCR direct access to refugee camps, even
if in some places they have access and maintained a local office. The UNHCR had no formal status, but the
government permitted its staff access to refugees living in urban centres. The government did not formally
recognize UNHCR grants of refugee status, although it provided "residential permits" to many Afghans and
Burmese. The government considered Tibetans and Sri Lankans in refugee camps to be refugees, and
provided assistance to them, but since it regarded most other groups, especially Bangladeshi refugees, as
economic migrants, it did not provide them with aid. However, in recent years, a number of court rulings
extended protection to refugees whom the government had formerly considered economic migrants. The
government permitted recognized refugees to work, and the state and central governments paid for the
education of refugee children and provided limited welfare benefits.”3

“Given the realities in South Asia, efforts should be geared towards developing comprehensive national laws
that uphold the universal principles of international refugee protection, while at the same time taking into
account the distinctive traits of the region.”4

Therefore, the Republic of India:

1. suggests to develop an ‘asylum law’ regime in South Asia must include governments, NGOs and
protection agencies alike because it is important to take a holistic view of this phenomenon.
2. reaffirms the importance of the protection of people facing persecution, rather than thinking about
how a refugee regime might open the floodgates to illegal immigrants.

2
www.infochangeindia.org/analysis124.jsp.
3
www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61707.htm
4
Sircar, Oishik , “ Refugees are not illegal migrants”.
vijaynarvekar.blogspot.com/2006/05/refugees-are-not-illegal-migrants.html