Amnesty Report on Thai Deportations

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Amnesty Report on Thai Deportations of Refugees


************************** BurmaNet **************************
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
**************************************************************

September, 1994.

Here is the complete text of Amnesty International's new report on Burmese
refugees.  The published version includes illustrations which are not
included here.  Anyone desiring a uucp encoded version can contact BurmaNet.

strider@xxxxxxxxxxx

****************************************************

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

THAILAND: Burmese and other asylum-seekers at risk


TABLE OF CONTENTS



Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1

Arrest and detention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3

Conditions and ill-treatment in detention . . . . . . . .   6

Detention beyond the period of sentencing . . . . . . . .   8

Deportation to Myanmar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

Forcible return of refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

Refugees from the ethnic minority groups in Myanmar . . .  16

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17






Introduction

Amnesty International is concerned that the treatment of
asylum-seekers in the Kingdom of Thailand does not meet
minimum international standards, and that some refugees are
subject to detention, ill-treatment and forcible return to
countries where they may face serious risk of human rights
violations.  Forcible return of refugees directly
contravenes the principle of non-refoulement, as stated in
the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:

     "No Contracting State shall expel or return
     (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to
     the frontiers of territories where his life or
     freedom would be threatened on account of his race,
     religion, nationality, membership of a particular
     social group or political opinion."

Although Thailand has to date not acceded to the 1951
Convention or to its 1967 Protocol, the principle of non-
refoulement is recognized as a norm of customary
international law which applies to all states, whether or
not they have acceded to the Convention.  

     Hundreds of thousands of refugees, mainly from
Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma) and Viet Nam have sought
refuge in Thailand in the last 40 years, as war and
political repression forced people to flee their homelands. 
Thailand has allowed large numbers to stay within its
borders for many years, but recently the treatment of
asylum-seekers and refugees has become increasingly harsh. 
In particular those from Myanmar, who now form the largest
single group of refugees in the country, are at risk of
detention and forcible return. 

     Amnesty International is concerned that most asylum-
seekers and refugees have no legal recognition of their
special status in Thailand. The Government of Thailand has
failed to establish any procedures for determining refugee
status, and therefore asylum-seekers have no opportunity to
have their claims for asylum examined by the authorities.
Rather, many of them are prosecuted and detained under Thai
law for "illegal immigration". Amnesty International is
further concerned that court procedures associated with
"illegal immigration" cases fall short of basic minimum
international standards.

     Refugees and asylum-seekers from many countries are
routinely detained in Thailand, and charged with "illegal
immigration".  However, as Amnesty International stated in
its report on Thailand in 1991, this treatment is in
contravention of international standards for the protection
of refugees, including Conclusion 44 of the Executive
Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).  This conclusion: 

     "Expressed the opinion that in view of the hardship
     which it involves, detention should normally be
     avoided...Recognized the importance of fair and
     expeditious procedures for determining refugee
     status or granting asylum in protecting refugees
     and asylum-seekers from unjustified or unduly
     prolonged detention...Stressed that conditions of
     detention of refugees and asylum-seekers must be
     humane...and reaffirmed the fundamental importance
     of the observance of the principle of non-
     refoulement..."

Thailand is a member of the Executive Committee which
adopted Conclusion 44 by consensus in 1986.  

     The operations of the UNHCR in Thailand are strictly
limited by the Thai Government, and thus the full range of
measures for the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers
which the UNHCR can offer in many countries cannot be
properly implemented in Thailand.  The UNHCR in Thailand is
able to register as "persons of concern" some of the people
who are able to apply to the organization, and whose cases
they accept.  The Statute of the UNHCR states that such
persons include anyone who:

     "...owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted
     for reasons of race, religion, nationality or
     political opinion, is outside the country of his
     nationality and is unable or, owing to such
     fear...is unwilling to avail himself of the
     protection of that country..."

However, registration with the UNHCR in itself does not
provide adequate protection against detention or harassment
in Thailand.  

     In April and May 1994 Amnesty International conducted
interviews with refugees and asylum-seekers who had been
subject to ill-treatment and detention by the Thai
authorities and, in some cases, forcible return to the
country they had fled.  Many had been detained at the
Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) in Bangkok on more than
one occasion, and all those who spoke to Amnesty
International were concerned for their safety in Thailand. 
Out of concern for their personal security, Amnesty
International has withheld any details which could lead to
the identification of those who gave testimony reflected in
the report.  

Arrest and detention

The declared policy of the Thai Government since 1993 has
been to enforce a "crackdown" on "illegal immigrants"
within the country.  Thailand does have large numbers of
"illegal immigrants", many of whom come to the Kingdom
seeking work.  However, a proportion of people who enter
the country "illegally", without documentation, are asylum-
seekers and refugees, fleeing from human rights violations
in their own countries.  The current policy of the Thai
Government does not make any allowance for the special
situation of those who are asylum-seekers or refugees, and
the majority of those arrested without adequate
documentation are prosecuted and detained for "illegal
immigration" regardless of their reason for being in the
country. Once an asylum-seeker or refugee is arrested, and
found not to be in possession of the appropriate
documentation, then prosecution and detention for "illegal
immigration" follows automatically, even if this person is
a UNHCR-registered "person of concern".  The only exception
to this is when an individual is able to pay a bribe
demanded by the local police, and avoid prosecution.
   
     Arrests of asylum-seekers and refugees in Bangkok often
take the form of late night or early morning raids in
residential areas.  Such raids tend to affect asylum-
seekers from Myanmar in particular, as many of them are
young and living in over-crowded conditions, where they are
easily traced.  One young Burmese man described his arrest:

     "I was arrested in Lard Prao [a district in
     Bangkok] on 8 December 1993.  We were sleeping, and
     the police arrived at six in the morning.  There
     were seven people in my room, and upstairs there
     were four more people, so 11 were arrested from our
     apartment.  I had only been in Bangkok for one week
     when it happened."

One of those arrested on 8 December told Amnesty
International that he had not been able to register with
UNHCR because, "I was arrested on the date of my UNHCR
interview".

Another explained what happened to him after being
arrested:

     "When you are arrested, the police take you to the
     police station and open your case as an immigration
     case.  You are kept behind bars.  They ask your
     name and the names of your parents, then they write
     it down in Thai. You have to sign a paper written
     in Thai. I think it contains the information about
     the names."

When people are arrested and taken to police stations, no
translation services are available.  The majority of
asylum-seekers arrested are unable to understand Thai, and
therefore do not know what is happening to them.  After
spending one or two days in the police station in the
locality of their arrests, all those arrested for "illegal
immigration", including asylum-seekers and refugees, are
usually transferred to the IDC, which is situated on Soi
Suan Phlu, in Central Bangkok.  At the IDC, an immigration
officer takes over the case from the police, and the
detainees are given illegal immigrant detention cards. 
There are interpreters available at the IDC for many
languages, who are able to explain the legal process to
detainees.  Detainees are taken to court from the IDC.  The
court they are taken to is dependent upon the place of
arrest.  In court, the charges are read out in Thai, and no
translation service is provided.  One young Burmese man
told Amnesty International:

     "They read out the sentence.  I did not say
     anything at the court, I had no lawyer.  The
     hearing lasted about 15 minutes."  

Another said:

     "When you are in the court, if you try to explain
     your situation, the court authorities do not accept
     it.  Thais say that if you have no passport and you
     are a foreigner, then you are an illegal immigrant
     under Thai law.  Even if you are a UNHCR "person of
     concern", you still have to go through the same
     procedure at IDC." 

     During the court hearings, asylum-seekers are given no
opportunity to state why they are in the country, or
whether they are recognized as "persons of concern" by the
UNHCR.  Anyone without a passport and valid visa is
regarded as an "illegal immigrant", and the purpose of the
court hearing appears to be simply to pass sentence, rather
than to weigh the evidence.  Sentences for "illegal
immigration" are standard: people arrested in central
Bangkok are fined 70 baht a day, for 60 days, making a
fine of 4,200 baht, while those arrested outside the
central area are fined 70 baht a day for 40 days, making a
fine of 2,800 baht.  Asylum-seekers who do not come from
Myanmar are required to pay the fine and leave the country
(at their own expense) or to serve the relevant sentence
(40 or 60 days) and leave the country.  It is ironic that
for many asylum-seekers and refugees, their main protection
against forcible return to their country of origin is the
fact that if they cannot pay for a ticket, they will not be
sent back.  Rather, they will remain in detention at the
IDC, after the period of their sentence is served, often
for many months.     

     Asylum-seekers and refugees from Myanmar must pay the
fine or serve the sentence and are deported to a so-called
"safe area" of the Thai-Myanmar border, which is determined
by the Thai authorities.  However, there is another option
for some refugees from Myanmar.  Burmese students and
political dissidents who have been involved in the pro-
democracy movement in Myanmar since 1988, or whose cases
have otherwise been accepted by the UNHCR as those of
"persons of concern", may register with the Thai Ministry
of the Interior for permission to remain in Thailand, at a
safe area camp in Raatchaburii province.  Those who are
registered may be returned to the safe area camp on payment
of the fine or at the end of their sentence.  Conditions
there are not unduly harsh, and refugees are able to obtain
permission for leave of absence of up to one week a month,
and are free to visit the local town during the daytime,
while they are at the safe area camp.  UNHCR are on site at
the safe area camp for five days a week, and various
voluntary agencies provide training programs and activities
for the refugees.  Any Burmese refugee wishing to obtain
resettlement in a third country must be registered for the
safe area camp and stay there, prior to moving to his/her
country of asylum.  But the option to go to the safe area
camp is available only to certain categories of refugees
from Myanmar who can register to do so.  These are just one
group of people who seek refuge in Thailand, and those who
do not fall into this group are not able to go to the safe
area camp, even if they would like to.   

     Amnesty International is particularly concerned that in
Thailand there are no processes by which asylum-seekers can
gain legal protection, and there is no special recognition
of their particularly vulnerable situation. UNHCR-
registered "persons of concern" and others with a genuine
fear of human rights violations should they be returned to
their own country are not treated any differently under
Thai law than a migrant worker who has been working in the
country without a permit, or a tourist who has overstayed
on a visa.  As such, the legal position of asylum-seekers
and refugees falls far short of international standards.

     Amnesty International opposes the detention of refugees
and asylum-seekers unless they have been charged with a
recognizably criminal offence, or unless the authorities
can demonstrate in an individual case that the detention is
necessary, that it is on grounds prescribed by law, and
that it is for one of the specified reasons which
international standards recognize may be legitimate grounds
for detaining asylum-seekers. International standards do
not recognize "illegal entry" as a reason for which asylum-
seekers may legitimately be detained.  International
standards also state that the detention of asylum-seekers
or refugees should normally be avoided. In any cases where
refugees and asylum-seekers are detained, governments have
a duty to ensure that those detained are held in humane
conditions which comply with international standards, and
that they are not subjected to torture, or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. 

     The Thai Government's policy of detaining asylum-
seekers and refugees is in clear contravention of these
standards. Moreover, it has a seriously detrimental effect
on their ability to seek protection. For example, detention
of UNHCR-registered "persons of concern" in Thailand
prevents these individuals from making direct applications
to embassies of countries which may be able to offer them
asylum.  Furthermore, conditions of detention in Thailand
are often so harsh that refugees sometimes are driven to
abandon their efforts to seek asylum in a third country,
and some even risk return to their country of origin,
although they may face human rights violations in that
country.  
Conditions and ill-treatment in detention

Conditions of detention at the IDC in Bangkok fall far
short of basic international minimum standards, and in some
cases amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 
Detainees are held in 10 rooms, two of which are reserved
for women and children.  Eight of the rooms each measure 16
metres by six metres (the two other rooms being smaller),
and each has within it a small partitioned space,
originally intended as a sleeping area, but usually
occupied permanently by detainees who have been in the IDC
for many months.  There are two lavatories per room, and a
bathroom space for showering and obtaining drinking water.
Each of these rooms is occupied by over 100 people at a
time, and often as many as 200 to 300 people are held in a
room at one time.  All the people who talked to Amnesty
International spoke of overcrowding in these rooms.  One
said:

     "When I arrived at the IDC they put me in room six. 
     At that time there were 250 people there, but it
     increased later to 300...I could not stretch out to
     sleep, and the legs of the people on the opposite
     side were intertwined with our legs.  We had to
     stay on the floor to sleep, without mats.  I
     couldn't take any exercise and felt tired all the
     time, and weak."

Another said:

     "I did not have my own space.  When I was sitting
     somewhere, that was my space.  If I went to the
     toilet, then someone else would take my space.  To
     sleep, we were all next to each other curled up on
     the floor."

There is often chronic overcrowding in Bangkok IDC, to the
point where the inmates cannot all lie down at the same
time.  At times, detainees have had to sit with their knees
bent for several months at a time, and when they were
finally released, they were unable to walk.  There is no
provision for exercise at all.  Overcrowding leads to
health problems, particularly fungal infections of the
skin, which occur frequently, as it is difficult for the
inmates to stay clean and dry in the hot and humid
environment.  Voluntary organizations attend the detainees
in the IDC, and provide medical care as far as is possible,
but many of the health problems experienced by the
detainees would probably not arise if conditions were
adequate.  

     Detainees are fed twice a day, but the food rations are
inadequate, and all those who spoke to Amnesty
International complained of hunger during their period of
detention.  One said "[the food] was not enough, and I was
always hungry".  Voluntary organizations try to provide
food supplements to detainees, in order to maintain an
adequate intake of nutrition.  General low-level
malnutrition is common amongst detainees who have been held
for months.  Amnesty International is particularly
concerned that children who are detained in the IDC with
their mothers are not provided with food rations.  Under
Thai law, children are not prosecuted for "illegal
immigration", but charges are brought against the
parent[s].  However, the children are detained with their
mothers in one of the women's rooms at the IDC.  They do
not qualify for food rations as there are no charges
against them, and consequently their mothers have to try to
provide them with food from their own inadequate rations. 
Some voluntary agencies are attempting to alleviate this
problem by providing food supplements.  Children who have
reached the age of four or five are able to leave the rooms
to participate in a play program organized by a voluntary
agency, but no provisions exist for children younger than
this who are not able to leave their mothers, and
consequently, very young children get no fresh air or
exercise, often for many months.   

     While Amnesty International welcomes reports that the
new leadership team in charge of the Bangkok IDC is keen to
improve conditions of detention, and is receptive to the
suggestions made by voluntary agency personnel working with
detainees, the organization remains gravely concerned at
the practice of indefinite detention of refugees and
asylum-seekers in very harsh conditions.  

     During times of extreme overcrowding at IDC, some
refugees and asylum-seekers who have been convicted of
"illegal immigration" have been detained in regular prisons
in Bangkok.  This practice is at variance with the spirit
of UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 44, which states
that "asylum-seekers should, whenever possible, not be
accommodated with persons detained as common criminals". 
Amnesty International knows of at least two cases when
UNHCR-registered "persons of concern" were detained in
Rangsit prison, on the outskirts of Bangkok, where the
other inmates were young Thai males, incarcerated for drug
offences.  One of the refugees described the conditions at
the prison to Amnesty International:

     "The prison is just one hall, with all the
     prisoners put in together.  More than 400 people
     were in a room, the same size as two IDC rooms.  We
     had to wear short trousers, and the floor was
     concrete, and we had to sit and sleep on the
     floor...there were four toilets, but no showers
     there.  You had to have a shower outside."

While detained at the prison, the "persons of concern" were
required to do penal work, assembling strip lights and
making furniture.  None of them received any remuneration
for the work they did. 

     One UNHCR-registered "person of concern" reported ill-
treatment during his detention at Rangsit prison.  He told
Amnesty International that:

     "There was a problem, because when I took a shower
     I was not allowed to use soap.  I told the
     authorities I had a skin problem and needed to use
     soap, and they said to me that I only needed water,
     and beat me.  They beat me on the back with a stick
     five times, and kicked my chest three times.  I
     suffered pain inside under my bones, and had a
     bruise on my back.  And I was still not allowed to
     use soap to wash my skin.  The prison doctor never
     came to see me, but the UNHCR doctor brought
     medicine to make my skin better."

Amnesty International has also received reports about
beatings carried out by the Thai authorities at the IDC in
Soi Suan Phlu.  One refugee said:

     "I was beaten by the police because I had no money. 
     I was beaten on February 3 1994, kicked with boots,
     10 times, by three policemen.  This happened before
     they took me upstairs to the room [i.e. on the
     ground floor of the IDC, which is not used for
     accommodation].  I fell on the floor after the
     second kick, they then kicked me on the ground. 
     For one week I had a pain in my chest, and nobody
     helped me.  I was having an identity card made when
     they beat me."
     
Detention beyond the period of sentencing   

For many refugees and asylum-seekers, a major problem they
face is lack of money.  Once they have been detained and
sentenced for "illegal immigration", they need money to pay
their fine or must serve the 40-or-60 day sentence imposed
on them.  However, whichever option they choose - and for
many without funds, there is no choice but to serve the
sentence - they are still required to pay for their own
travel costs to leave the country, and to find a country
willing to accept them.  Clearly, for those who have
insufficient funds to pay their fine, the price of an air
ticket out of the country is far beyond their resources.
They are forced to remain in detention until a third
country accepts them for resettlement, or until they find
sufficient funds to leave the country themselves.  Some
refugees are able to secure resettlement in a third
country, and once they are accepted the necessary financial
arrangements are dealt with by the UNHCR and the new host
country.  However, refugees who are difficult to place, and
whose cases are rejected by all the embassies approached,
have to stay in the IDC or attempt to raise funds for a
ticket out of Thailand.  Amnesty International knows of at
least two cases of UNHCR "persons of concern" who obtained
the necessary funds for a ticket to Cambodia, and who are
now under the protection of UNHCR in Phnom Penh.  Cambodia
has acceded to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol
and these refugees are in less difficult circumstances in
Cambodia than in Thailand, not least because the UNHCR in
Phnom Penh is free to take all necessary actions on their
behalf.  Moreover, in Cambodia the refugees are not subject
to detention.

     Asylum-seekers and refugees from Myanmar are also not
immune from long stays in the IDC beyond the end of their
sentence.  Anyone convicted of "illegal immigration" is
obliged to pay the costs of their own travel out of the
country, and this applies to asylum-seekers from Myanmar
who are deported to the Thai-Myanmar border.  Asylum-
seekers without the money to pay the transport costs will
not be deported, even after the period of their sentence
has expired.  Thus, the only protection that refugees from
Myanmar have against deportation, if they do not fall into
the category of students who are registered with the UNHCR
as "persons of concern", and with the Thai Ministry of the
Interior, to go to the safe area camp, is if they are
unable to pay the costs of their own expulsion.  Amnesty
International knows of tens of cases where people have been
detained in the IDC, often for months after their sentence
had been served in full.  When a large number of people are
in this position, concerned voluntary agencies working with
detainees sometimes raise the money for the transport costs
themselves, in an effort to get people away from the IDC,
and the ill-effects it has on the physical and mental well-
being of its inmates.  Refugees and asylum-seekers face a
dilemma in such situations, as it is better for their
health to leave the IDC, but they are often frightened to
return to the Myanmar border, as they fear human rights
violations if they are forced to return to their country.

     One case of detention beyond the period of sentencing
is of particular concern to Amnesty International.  On 3
December 1993, 13 Burmese students were arrested in a
Bangkok suburb while attending a seminar on non-violent
action for change, arranged by three Thai organizations. 
On 6 December, all 13 were convicted of "illegal
immigration", and sentenced to the standard 40 days'
imprisonment at the IDC or a fine of 2,800 baht.  However,
the Thai authorities announced a week later that 10 of the
students were to be sent to a Special Detention Centre
(SDC) at Bangkhen in Bangkok, where the Police Training
Academy is situated.  Seven of the students were released,
but the remaining six were transferred to this SDC on 4
February 1994.  Four of these six students were UNHCR-
registered "persons of concern" who had also been
registered for the safe area camp.  The UNHCR was informed
that three of the students were to be held for an extra
month beyond their sentence for "illegal immigration" as
punishment for breaching the rules for leave of absence
from the safe area camp on more than two occasions.  A
UNHCR doctor was allowed access to the students at the SDC
once a week, but they were denied any other visitors or
correspondence for a month.  The students went on hunger
strike for five days to draw attention to their situation. 
On 20 July 1994, seven and a half months after they were
arrested, and six months after their 40-day sentence had
been served, two of the UNHCR "persons of concern" left
Thailand for Australia, having been in detention since 3
December.  A third student has been accepted for
resettlement in Canada and is expected to leave soon. 
However, the fourth UNHCR "person of concern" in the SDC
has not been accepted for resettlement by any of the
embassies approached and, with the two other students not
registered with the UNHCR, is still detained in the SDC. 
Amnesty International is calling on the Thai Government to
allow these students, who have been held for five times the
length of their sentence for "illegal immigration", to go
to the safe area camp in Raatchaburii province, or to
release them.     

Deportation to Myanmar

Some refugees and asylum-seekers from Myanmar who have a
genuine fear of human rights violations there are deported
from Thailand.  These include people from ethnic minority
groups in Myanmar.  Burmese students and dissidents who
have not been able to register with UNHCR and the Thai
Ministry of Interior, often because they have been in
Thailand for a very short time prior to their arrest, or
because they are not sufficiently familiar with the correct
procedures, are also deported.  

     The deportation procedure leaves people vulnerable to
extortion and ill-treatment.  When the fine for "illegal
immigration" has been paid, or the sentence of 40 or 60
days' detention has been served, asylum-seekers from
Myanmar convicted of "illegal immigration" are normally
taken to what the Thai authorities consider to be a "safe
area" of the Thai border with Myanmar.  The majority are
taken to Halockhanie, a refugee camp which straddles the
border with the Mon state in Myanmar.  The usual procedure
is that a list of names is read out in the IDC in Bangkok
on the Thursday evening, prior to transfer to a regional
IDC on the Friday.  Everyone being deported is required by
Thai Immigration Law to pay the "fare" for their
transportation, which is usually 200 baht.  Those unable to
pay are crossed off the list, and remain in detention in
the Bangkok IDC.  Early the following morning, all those
who are to be deported are handcuffed together and taken by
bus to Kanchanaburi, a journey which usually takes three to
four hours.  At Kanchanaburi, the deportees are taken to a
police lock-up which serves as an IDC.  

     All those who spoke to Amnesty International about the
Kanchanaburi IDC stated that conditions there were even
worse than in the Bangkok IDC, and complained about their
treatment on arrival.  Although there are two rooms
upstairs at the Kanchanaburi IDC to accommodate the
detainees (one for men, one for women) all of them are
initially placed in a downstairs room.  One former detainee
told Amnesty International:

     "Downstairs it is very crowded, worse than
     upstairs.  There is no water and the toilet is very
     bad.  If you give the police 100 baht then you get
     moved upstairs.  If not then you have to stay
     downstairs.  Downstairs there are two toilets, and
     you are not allowed to have a shower."

Another said:

     "We were put in the downstairs rooms at
     Kanchanaburi IDC behind bars.  The police threw
     water from a hose on people because they did not
     give them money.  We were soaking wet and could not
     sleep.  After one night the police came to ask for
     money again, we bargained with them, and gave what
     we could.  I was then allowed upstairs which was
     better."

When Amnesty International consulted with the UNHCR about
this practice, it became apparent that UNHCR staff were not
shown this room on their regular inspections of police
lock-ups which serve as temporary IDCs.    

     Most deportees spend one month and five days in the
Kanchanaburi IDC, before being taken in trucks to the
border, beyond the small town of Songklaburi.  A further
charge is made for this journey, usually 100 baht.  Each
truck holds 125 people, who are forced to stand in
extremely hot and cramped conditions for the whole journey,
which can take as long as eight hours.  At the border there
is a Thai police checkpoint where the deportees get off the
trucks.  They then have to walk to the refugee camps,
escorted by Thai police in cars, with guns.  According to
reports, these same policemen will often escort the asylum-
seekers back to Bangkok for a bribe.  Those who talked to
Amnesty International claimed to have paid between 1,500
and 3,000 baht to be allowed back into Thailand.  One said,
"I had to come back, as I need to apply to UNHCR, and I
cannot do that in the jungle".

     Amnesty International is concerned not only that
refugees and asylum-seekers are being deported to the
Burmese border, which contravenes international standards
laid down for their protection, but also that the area to
which they are being returned, far from being the "safe
area" that the Thai authorities claim, is in fact a place
where people are at serious risk from soldiers of the
Burmese army, the tatmadaw.  In 1994 refugees from the Mon
state in Myanmar (most of whom are ethnic Mons fleeing from
forced portering and labour at the hands of the tatmadaw)
were forced by the Thai authorities to relocate to
Halockhanie camp which is situated in a disputed area, and
straddles the border between Thailand and Myanmar.  Prior
to this, since April 1992, their principal place of refuge
was Loh Loe camp which was located in Thailand, in an area
of jungle several kilometres from the border with Myanmar.
In spite of protests about the relocation sent to the Thai
National Security Council by the Mon National Relief
Committee (the organization responsible for the operation
of the camp), and reservations expressed by international
voluntary organizations who provide relief supplies to the
refugees, the relocation was carried out during March and
April 1994.

     On 21 July 1994, 360 soldiers from the 62nd Infantry
Battalion of the tatmadaw entered Plat Hon Pai section of
Halockhanie refugee camp, which is in Myanmar.  The troops
called a meeting of the 500 residents, and later in the day
attempted to enter the main section of the camp.  Amnesty
International has received reports that some of the
refugees were forced to walk in front of the troops as they
advanced.  The tatmadaw soldiers were driven back from the
main section of Halockhanie camp by troops from the armed
wing of the New Mon State Party who had arrived in the area
on hearing of the tatmadaw presence in the camp.  The
tatmadaw soldiers then returned to Plat Hon Pai section,
and torched half of the 120 houses there.  They left,
taking with them 16 men, eight of whom were handcuffed. 
Over 2,000 refugees then fled and took refuge on the Thai
side of the border, at the Thai border police checkpoint. 
The Thai 9th Army, which is in charge of the area, told the
refugees that they must return to the Myanmar side of the
border.  When the refugees refused to go, the 9th Army
sealed off their makeshift shelters, refusing to allow
access to aid workers, except doctors from one voluntary
organization.  A UNHCR delegation which arrived at
Halockhanie on 17 August was required to obtain military
permission to have access to the refugees. A permit was
eventually obtained, but too late to enable the visit to
take place.  Soldiers from the 9th Army visited the camp on
18 August, and told the refugees to return to Myanmar, but
did not attempt to send them back by the use of force.  

     The Thai authorities routinely transport 250 to 500
people a week to Halockhanie where they are forced to walk
across the border into Myanmar, and the deportations have
continued in spite of the attack on the camp.  Four trucks,
carrying about 500 people altogether, went to Halockhanie
on 17 August, and more than 400 people were deported the
week before.  Amnesty International believes that
Halockhanie cannot be described as a "safe area" of the
Thai border with Myanmar, and that deportations to
Halockhanie should cease immediately.       


Forcible return of refugees

In March 1994 refugees from Myanmar, from the Pa-o, Lisu
and Lahu ethnic minorities, were forced back across the
border by the authorities in the north of Thailand, and on
11 March a forced return of some Shan refugees took place.
Amnesty International is informed that dozens of people
were forced back across the border in these operations. The
Thai authorities reportedly moved into the area where the
refugees were sheltering at six in the morning, and set
fire to their huts.  The area where these forced returns
took place is a restricted access zone in the far north of
the country controlled by the Thai military, which makes it
difficult for voluntary organizations and independent
monitors to investigate.   

     In late May 1994, hundreds of Burmese refugees who had
taken refuge in Wat Wianghom, a Buddhist temple, were
forcibly returned to the Shan State of Myanmar by the Thai
authorities in Mae Sai, Chiang Rai Province.  The refugees
had fled across the border into Thailand to avoid being
abducted as porters by the tatmadaw, who at that time were
engaged in an offensive against the Muang Tai Army, an
armed opposition group headed by Khun Sa.  Amnesty
International has many first hand testimonies from Burmese
civilians forced to act as porters for the tatmadaw.  All
of those taken are at risk of torture and other ill-
treatment by the soldiers, and many have been summarily
killed.  

     In spite of the risks faced by the refugees, the Thai
authorities in the region, including the border patrol
police and troops from Army Region Three, forced the
refugees back to the Mae Sai River, which marks the border
between the two countries. On 26 May 1994, Amnesty
International called upon the Thai authorities to cease the
forcible return of these refugees to Myanmar immediately. 


     Earlier in 1994 a large-scale forcible return of
Cambodian refugees took place.  Between 25,000 and 30,000
Cambodians fled to Thailand in March 1994, to escape
fighting in western Cambodia between the Royal Cambodian
Armed Forces and the armed opposition group the National
Army of Democratic Kampuchea (NADK), commonly known as the
Khmer Rouge.  On 25 March the Thai authorities began
returning the refugees, who were mainly women and children,
from the village of Ban Phakkat in Chanthaburi Province to
an area of Cambodia controlled by the NADK.  A spokesman
for the Thai National Security Council said at the time
that there was no need for Thailand to wait for an end to
the fighting before returning the refugees.  The refugees
were loaded onto trucks and driven to the border, where
they were forced to walk across.  In contrast to the large-
scale repatriation of Cambodian refugees organized by the
United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC),
which took place during 1992 and 1993, the refugees had no
opportunity to choose to which area of Cambodia they should
be repatriated, and all of them were returned to an area
under the control of the NADK.  According to reports the
operation was carried out by the Chanthaburi-Trat Border
Task Force, and the 563rd Company of Thai Marine Rangers. 

     The forced return drew a very strong response from the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata, who sent
a letter to the Thai Foreign Minister to protest that the
decision to return the Cambodians was taken before
arrangements for a repatriation in safety and dignity could
be made.  The High Commissioner said that she feared the
25,000 to 30,000 Cambodian civilians could be exposed to
fighting and their lives might be at risk.  UNHCR and other
international organizations did not have access to the area
to which the refugees had been returned.  The High
Commissioner complained to the Thai authorities that the
forced return was carried out while the Bangkok office of
the UNHCR was consulting with the Royal Thai Government in
order to provide assistance to the refugees, and to arrange
an orderly repatriation, in keeping with "internationally
accepted principles and practices".  The forced return of
the Cambodian refugees also prompted a strong protest from
the Cambodian Foreign Minister, who stated that the UNHCR
should be able to supervise such operations, in order to
ensure the safety of those involved.  

Refugees from the ethnic minority groups in Myanmar

Ethnic minority groups in Myanmar have been fighting
against the central government authorities for many years. 
Some of them have been engaged in warfare since 1948, when
Burma, as it was then known, became an independent state. 
Offensives by the tatmadaw since 1984 have forced large
numbers of people to flee their homes because of human
rights violations, and 70,000 refugees from ethnic minority
groups are currently living in refugee camps on the Thai
border.  The refugees are provided with food and medical
assistance by a consortium of international voluntary
agencies, with the permission of the Thai authorities. 
However, the Thai authorities have consistently refused to
allow the UNHCR to become involved in the border protection
effort. This failure by the Thai authorities to provide
UNHCR with full scope in carrying out its proper protection
role on the Myanmar border places at risk the lives and
well-being of thousands of refugees fleeing from human
rights violations in Myanmar. Because of this, it is much
more difficult for refugees from the ethnic minority groups
to register with the UNHCR, or to seek resettlement in a
third country, should they wish to do so.  The majority of
the refugees are farmers and day labourers who fled from
human rights violations committed by the tatmadaw, but who
would like to return to their homes as soon as it becomes
safe for them to do so.  However, there are also people
living in these camps who, if they returned home, would be
at risk of human rights violations by the Myanmar
authorities, because of their political beliefs and
activities, even if fighting between the Government and
armed opposition groups had ceased.  These people may wish
to seek resettlement in a third country, and at present,
because it is difficult for them to gain access to UNHCR,
or to make representations to embassies in Bangkok, it is
extremely difficult for them to leave the border areas.

     Amnesty International is particularly concerned about
the fate of the refugees from Burmese ethnic minority
groups because the Thai Government has stated that refugees
on the border will be returned to Myanmar as soon as
ceasefire agreements are in place between the armed
opposition groups and the Myanmar Government.  Most of the
armed opposition groups which have been fighting for
independence from the Myanmar Government have now concluded
ceasefire accords, and the others are under pressure to do
so.  However, despite such accords Amnesty International
knows of many cases where refugees have fled to Thailand,
having been taken to perform forced labour, often in very
harsh conditions, by the tatmadaw.  Aid workers on the
Myanmar border report a steady number of new arrivals
throughout 1994, and Amnesty International interviewed over
60 new arrivals during three days in May alone, who had
fled from forced labour and forced portering in Myanmar. 
A ceasefire agreement in itself cannot provide protection
against such human rights violations, and Amnesty
International is concerned to ensure that reliable
guarantees for the safety of returning civilians are
obtained from the Myanmar Government before any
repatriation program commences.  

     In June 1994, UNHCR declared that any repatriation of
these refugees should be voluntary, and conducted under
conditions "of safety and dignity".  UNHCR also stated that
it would be willing "to both monitor and assist" in any
such program.  Independent international monitoring of the
human rights situation in Myanmar, now and after the
refugees return home, and the involvement of the UNHCR is
essential if the refugees are to be able to go home with
confidence.  
  
Recommendations

Amnesty International calls on the Royal Government of
Thailand to:

1. Ensure that it acts in conformity with the principle of
non-refoulement, which is a recognized norm of customary
international law, binding on all states, by halting the
forcible return to Myanmar of Burmese asylum-seekers and
refugees. 

2. Accede to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees and to its 1967 Protocol, in order to better
ensure the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers in
Thailand.  Under Article 35 of the Convention, states
parties undertake to cooperate with UNHCR in carrying out
its mandate for the protection of asylum-seekers and
refugees.

3. Establish a fair and adequate procedure by which asylum-
seekers can present their reasons for fearing to return to
a particular country, and ensure that all asylum-seekers
who seek protection in Thailand have effective access to
that procedure.
 
4. Ensure that refugees from Cambodia and Myanmar fleeing
human rights violations and fighting in their respective
countries are not forced back across the borders by the
Thai authorities.  In cases where voluntary repatriation to
such countries is appropriate, arrangements should be made
in consultation with UNHCR and the refugees themselves for
repatriation in safety and dignity, at a suitable time and
place.

5. Comply with the provisions of international standards
dealing with the detention of asylum-seekers and refugees,
notably UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 44, which
states that detention of asylum-seekers and refugees should
normally be avoided, should be used only where necessary,
and should only be used for certain specific reasons;
according to international standards, "Illegal immigration"
is not a legitimate ground for the detention of refugees
and asylum-seekers.

6. Provide any refugees who are detained with an
opportunity to have the legality of their detention
reviewed by means of a prompt, fair individual hearing
before a judicial or similar authority whose status and
tenure afford the strongest possible guarantees of
impartiality and independence, and ensure that such
judicial procedures meet international standards, including
effective access to legal counsel and the services of a
competent interpreter.  
  
7. Ensure that in the event that asylum-seekers are
detained, the conditions are humane, and in conformity with
international standards.

8. Ensure that ill-treatment of detainees in the Bangkok
IDC, police lock-ups and all other places of detention
ceases, and that independent inquiries are held into any
allegations of ill-treatment.  The results of any such
inquiries should be made public and any police or other
authorities found responsible for ill-treatment should be
brought to justice.