'My son was eliminated by police'

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/My-son-was-eliminated-by-police/218979/

Express news service

Posted online: Thursday , September 20, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Thursday , September 20, 2007 at 01:09:03Chandigarh, September 19 The suo motu notice taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the 1991 bomb blast case took a curious turn with Darshan Singh Multani, father of Balwant Singh Multani, claiming that his son was eliminated by the police.

Filing an affidavit in the court, Multani, a retired IAS officer from Punjab cadre, has rubbished the claims of the UT Police that had declared Balwant a proclaimed offender and a suspect in the bomb blast case aimed at eliminating former UT Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Sumedh Singh Saini.

Multani has also demanded a CBI inquiry into the case.

Meanwhile, the Division Bench headed by Justice Mehtab Singh Gill expressed strong displeasure over the "inaction" of the Chandigarh Police. "Nothing worthwhile has been done by the Chandigarh Police to procure the presence of proclaimed offenders (POs) since 1993. The filing of reply seems to be a delaying tactic and only to derail the process of the court to not to bring POs to justice," the Bench held.

Balwant was arrested from Mohali on December 13, 1991 and was booked under TADA and criminal conspiracy. He was then taken to Gurdaspur, from where, according to the police, he escaped on December 19, 1991.

Rubbishing the stand taken by the UT Police, Darshan said, "Balwant Singh was killed extra-judicially or eliminated by police to save their skin. They have concocted the story of Balwant's alleged escape from police custody. Therefore, it needs to be inquired by CBI and the erring police officials should be punished."

Darshan has further alleged that he had applied for grant of regular bail for his son Balwant on December 17, 1991. The prosecution took the stand that Balwant had escaped from Gurdaspur and thus could not be produced.

Accusing the Chandigarh Police of making a false statement, Darshan, in his affidavit, alleged that Balwant had not escaped, but was tortured so badly that he could not even walk. Alleging that Balwant was murdered on December 11,1991, Darshan has questioned as to why no action has been taken against any police official for Balwant's escape.

Narrating his struggle to seek legal action against erring officials, Darshan has further stated that he had written a number of representations to the Chief Minister, Governor of Punjab and the Prime Minister of India. He had even filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking CBI inquiry and immediate action against police officials. The petition, however, was turned down.

Meanwhile, Additional Superintendent of Police, Interpol, N S Kharayat, in a reply sought by the High Court, said the Chandigarh Police did not respond to Interpol's requests of reissuing red corner notices against POs. The officer said after the expiry of the red corner notice issued against Manmohanjit Singh alias Minta, a suspect in the case, the Interpol wrote to the then Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, asking if the notice needs to be extended. The UT Police never responded to the query, Kharayat submitted in court.

Another message was sent to IG from Interpol, Washington, dated April 12, 2006, requesting to be informed whether India intended to request extradition of Minta through diplomatic channels.

Meanwhile, Interpol (IP) Washington was requested to arrest Minta provisionally, but the IP, Washington replied that he could not be arrested without a formal request for the same.

Finally, IG, Chandigarh informed that they had taken up the matter with the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration and requested Minta's name may not be elected from red corner notice. The officer has further submitted that National Control Bureau (Interpol) has no role to play so far as arrest and extradition of Minta is concerned.

The High Court has requested Sat Paul Singh, of special crime branch, to be present in the court on October 5, the next date of hearing.

who was balwant
Balwant (28) had a degree in civil engineering, and was working as a junior engineer with Chandigarh Tourism and Industrial Development Corporation (CITCO) in Chandigarh since May,1989. He was likely to be promoted as SDO by December 31, 1991.
Balwant was taken into custody by Chandigarh Police on December 11, 1991 at 4 am from his house in Mohali in a raid. Darshan has alleged that the family was neither informed about Balwant's whereabouts nor were they allowed to take any legal assistance.

Are there witnesses?
In his affidavit, Darshan Singh Multani has stated that there are witnesses who have seen Balwant in custody. Their names will only be disclosed to the investigating agency if they are ensured protection.`

---

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

India and CEDAW: Who’s Afraid of Too Much Equality?

India and CEDAW:  Who's Afraid of Too Much Equality?
http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF172.htm

India and CEDAW:  Who's Afraid of Too Much Equality? In February 2006, the Indian Supreme Court directed the Central and State governments to finalise the compulsory registration of marriages nationwide regardless of community. In July 2007, the Court asked the five State governments—Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh, and Jharkhand—that had not yet fully implemented the February 2006 order to explain why they had not done so. This recent decision should be seized as an opportunity by India's Central and State governments rather than viewed as a burden.  The Supreme Court's directives echo the commitment India made under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which urges State Parties to ensure that "all necessary action, including legislation… be taken …to make the registration of marriages in an official registry compulsory".  Though not a panacea, such compulsory registration of marriages may help reduce the incidence of child marriages and marriages without consent as well as increase the likelihood of women obtaining financial support and custody of children upon divorce and a fair share of their husbands' estates upon their death.  When ratifying CEDAW in 1993, India declared with respect to Article 16(2) that it supported the principle of universal and compulsory marriage registration, but such registration "is not practical in a vast country like India with its variety of customs, religions and level of literacy".  Though India's declaration is correct to point to the serious practical difficulties involved in complying with Article 16(2)—and on that score at least, the Centre's forthrightness is refreshing—this is hardly a valid reason to abandon the attempt.  Imagine the same argument being made with respect to other rights outside of the gender context, such as the right to counsel or the right to appeal in criminal cases.  Citing "impracticality" as an excuse for not recognising the existence of such rights would be a non-starter, just as it should be for marriage registration.  Thus, with the Supreme Court leading the way on the registration front, India should withdraw its declaration and recommit itself to all of the provisions of CEDAW.                                                    Of course, this charitable reading of India's CEDAW declaration—that India is concerned about agreeing to be bound by an international law requirement with which it would have difficulty complying—may mask a more disturbing reality.  Namely, that the Central government and the State governments are willing to expend very little political capital on behalf of advancing gender equity or for ameliorating the specific rights violations suffered by women in India.  The Gujarat Killings and Violence Against Women  One telling example concerns criminality and violence against women.  India's combined second and third periodic report to the CEDAW Committee admits that reported crimes against women rose from 135,771 in 1999 to 140,601 in 2003. India argued that this increase was actually a good thing because it reflected an increased awareness of legal rights and of reporting of violations. However, without comparison to non-existent data of women who were victims of crimes but did not report them to the police, such government conclusions are speculative and ultimately misleading.  They miss the larger point that whatever gains are made in awareness and reporting, at the end of the day, there is little measurable progress being made in how many women are victimised.  Furthermore, though India's report to the Committee took note of the "[e]ver increasing violence against women" and touted "a well-planned Programme of Action with short and long-term measures at the National and State levels", it provided few practical details, including specific goals, target populations, and implementation strategies. In fact, the Committee concluded that India has yet to develop a national plan to address violence against women—a step that the Committee recommended in 2000—and "urges [India] to proceed without delay" in implementing this recommendation.  Perhaps even more disturbing is the Central and Gujarat state government's continuing passivity in responding to the aftermath of the 2002 Gujarat communal violence. That episode of violence resulted in over 2,000 deaths and included at least 300 acts of sexual violence, only a handful of which were reported. The CEDAW Committee at its February 2007 session expressed particular dissatisfaction with the sparse detail India provided on Gujarat in its report, prompting the Committee to request a follow-up report on Gujarat by January 2008.   Thus far, neither the Union government nor the Gujarat state administration has satisfactorily rehabilitated or compensated victims of the violence, families of those killed, and displaced persons. Despite the Indian Supreme Court's order to reopen over a thousand court cases, only 13 persons had been convicted as of January 2007.   The CEDAW Committee expressed deep concern at the conditions in Gujarat because it has meant prolonged suffering for many women, especially Muslims, who were targeted in acts of violence, including sexual violence. The criminal justice system failed in adequately following up on filed complaints. Thus, it is not surprising that the Indian government has shied away from providing substantive information regarding its efforts to combat and remedy atrocities against women.   The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, proposed in 2005 and currently pending in Parliament, seems to address some of the issues raised by the violence in Gujarat by providing "institutional arrangements for relief and rehabilitation". However, the Bill neglects to define offences such as crimes of sexual violence in accordance with international law, referring only to definitions in the Indian Penal Code, which do not "sufficiently recognize the gender-specific nature of offences inflicted on women, such as those perpetrated during the violence in Gujarat".  In its next report to the Committee, India has the opportunity to make good the gaps in its previous reports. But to do so, it must first ensure accountability for past violations.  Atrocities by security forces  As worrying as violations by private actors are, violations perpetrated by agents of the state are particularly corrosive.  The enforcement and abuse of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)—largely unregulated by the Central government—has resulted in innumerable incidents of arbitrary detention, torture, rape, and looting by security personnel.  The CEDAW Committee noted the conditions in Manipur, where the Assam Rifles—a paramilitary group—allegedly raped and killed Thangjam Manorama Devi in 2004 on mere suspicion of her being a member of an armed group. Indeed, as the CEDAW Committee noted, the government has not responded to widespread protests advocating the "long overdue" repeal of the AFSPA.  Another glaring example of state violence against women has been the killing of Kauser Bi, who was allegedly eliminated because she knew about the extrajudicial execution of her husband by the Gujarat state police.  Socioeconomic Rights: Health and Education  The sorts of human rights concerns facing women in India are of course not limited only to extra-judicial executions, rape and other forms of violence.  For example, the Indian government admits that "there are striking disparities in the health status of women and children, particularly girl children", most dramatic within scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, and other tribal and rural communities. CEDAW's report notes that the leading cause of death for women in India is complications resulting from pregnancy and childbirth. In nearly half of India's states, "the rate of safe deliveries of babies is less than 25 percent". Overall, the safe delivery rate is at less than 50 percent.  Further, in answer to queries from the Committee, India was unable to supply any data on the prevalence of HIV/AIDS or on national programmes designed to combat the spread of HIV—despite the fact that the government has acknowledged HIV/AIDS as "one of the most serious public health problems in the country".   India's National Alliance of Women's Organisations (NAWO) identifies education as "the key policy and programmatic concern of the Indian government", yet a serious educational gender gap remains. Initiatives such as the Sarv Shiksha Ahbiyan (Education for All) and the Midday Meal Programme have witnessed some success, increasing girls' primary enrollment from 40% in 1990-91 to almost 60% by 2003.  Nevertheless, NAWO notes that girls' enrollment drops sharply in the transition from the primary level to secondary schooling.  Enrollment rates for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, rural, and Muslim girls are substantially lower. While India's 86th Constitutional Amendment, passed in 2002, mandates free, compulsory education for all children ages 6-14, "the amendment is yet to be made operational".    Conclusion  The record so far shows that India has failed to take the extensive measures necessary to improve the conditions of women forced to cope with violence and socioeconomic marginalisation.  The entire burden of this failure rests not only with the Central government, but also with various State governments that have not acted to comply with the Centre's policies on gender rights or even with Supreme Court orders.  India's next periodic report to the CEDAW Committee provides a useful opportunity to improve the record and demonstrate respect for, and compliance with, international human rights norms and conventions.

---

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

Impunity for enforced disappearances in Asia Pacific Region must end

Impunity for enforced disappearances in Asia Pacific Region must end

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/31/18445044.php 

Thousands of people remain victims of enforced disappearance in the Asia Pacific region. Marking today's annual commemoration of the Day of the Disappeared, Amnesty International calls urgently for an end to this atrocious practise, which constitutes a grave human rights violation and a crime under international law.

The suffering of victims and their families continues unabated. In the vast majority of cases that have taken place over decades in the region, investigations have not been conducted and the whereabouts of victims remain unknown. Amnesty International believes that the continuing failure of states to investigate enforced disappearances and abductions could pave the way for an increase of these human rights violations in the future.

Amnesty International calls on governments in the Asia Pacific region to investigate all cases of enforced disappearance in their country, and to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. Victims or the families of victims of enforced disappearance must be assured full reparation for their suffering in each case.

To this end, the organization today puts a spotlight on enforced disappearances and abductions in a selection of Asia Pacific states including India (Jammu and Kashmir), Pakistan, the Philippines, Nepal, North Korea, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

India (Jammu and Kashmir)
According to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, almost 4,000 people have disappeared since the onset of armed conflict across the state in 1989. However, the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons believes the true figure to be between 8,000 - 10,000. The majority of those who have disappeared are young men, but people of all ages, professions and backgrounds have been victims, many of whom have no connection with armed opposition groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir. Despite promises from the newly elected state authorities in 2002 that perpetrators of human rights abuses would be prosecuted, and from the central government in June 2006 that there would be zero tolerance of human rights violations committed by security forces in Jammu and Kashmir, only a fraction of enforced disappearance cases have been investigated.

Amnesty International notes a pledge by the state government that the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) would investigate all enforced disappearances. However the SHRC remains unable to order prosecutions against members of the security forces without prior sanction from the Home Ministry of the Indian Government. In August 2006, outstanding concerns over the existing powers of the SHRC and its ability to effectively investigate enforced disappearances were further heightened when its chairperson resigned over the "non-serious" attitude of the state government towards addressing human rights violations.

Unresolved enforced disappearances are not restricted to Jammu and Kashmir. In India, disappearances were regularly reported in Punjab during the period of violent political opposition between the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, and have also been reported from the North East region of India.

Nepal
Amnesty International is concerned by hundreds of enforced disappearances that took place during the ten year conflict between the government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) which ended in 2006. Earlier this year the International Committee of the Red Cross in Nepal listed more than 800 people whose whereabouts remain unknown at the hands of both the government and the CPN-M.

While Amnesty International recognises that the government of Nepal is seeking input from civil society on a draft bill for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address past abuses, Amnesty International has highlighted grave concerns with the bill. These include provisions that may allow amnesties to be granted to perpetrators of crimes under international law, including hundreds of cases of enforced disappearance. The Peace Agreement signed by the government and CPN-M in November 2006 included a pledge to publicize the whereabouts of victims of enforced disappearances within 60 days, however this has not yet been fulfilled.

North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)
Thousands of men and women have been arrested, detained or abducted by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the North Korean government. Those subjected to enforced disappearance include at least 400 nationals from South Korea, several nationals from Japan, individuals from at least ten other countries, and possibly thousands of North Koreans. Within North Korea, enforced disappearances include hundreds of undocumented North Koreans who were forcibly returned from China following famine in the mid-1990s.

Cases date back as early as 1953, and while some cases have been investigated in South Korea and Japan, there has been limited response from the North Korean government. Countless North Koreans subjected to enforced disappearance include those who have been punished for association with individuals deemed hostile to government ('guilt by association'). The North Korean government has refused to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of these missing people.

Pakistan
Several hundred enforced disappearances have taken place in Pakistan in the context of the 'war on terror' since 2002. An apparent indifference shown by the state authorities to the enforced disappearance of alleged terror suspects has also been displayed in relation to disappearances of alleged 'political dissidents', especially in Balochistan and Sindh provinces.

As a result of repeated protests and petitions in courts by families of the disappeared, and action by the Supreme Court, the government has acknowledged the custody of dozens of alleged terror suspects, but the whereabouts of the majority of those missing remains unknown. The authorities, particularly the intelligence agencies, continue to flout judicial orders issued to produce the detainees before the courts.

Press reports indicate some 100 missing persons out of more than 250 cases submitted to the Supreme Court have either been traced or released. However most of those released have been intimidated into silence about their ordeal, while those found in custody have had criminal charges filed against them. Many detainees in Pakistan have reported being tortured and otherwise ill-treated while subject to enforced disappearance. Amnesty International believes that all officials -- including police and intelligence agencies -- responsible for illegal confinement, enforced disappearances and torture, must be held to account.

Philippines
In the Philippines more than 1,600 people have been victims of enforced disappearance since the 1970s. At least 17 disappearances of political activists have been reported since January 2007. Disappearances have mostly taken place in the context of counter-insurgency operations against the communist New People's Army (NPA), and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and other Muslim secessionist groups. Victims of enforced disappearance include those seen to be political sympathisers of such groups, and Amnesty International is concerned that in the context of increased numbers of killings of political activists in recent years, patterns of disappearances have also risen.

The UN Special Rapporteur for extrajudicial executions reported a number of causes behind the pattern of political killings following a visit to the Philippines in February 2007. Local activists have linked a number of these causes - including a perceived climate of impunity protecting perpetrators linked to security forces - as contributing to renewed patterns of disappearances.

In April 2007 the abduction of Jonas Burgos, the son of a prominent journalist from the era of former President Marcos, highlighted these concerns both nationally and internationally. Jonas Burgos, an agriculturalist involved in training farmers linked to a local leftist political organisation, was reported to have been abducted by assailants linked to the military. As with many other cases of alleged disappearances, the military denied involvement and failed to attend court hearings, exacerbating fears of military impunity. Amnesty International recognises that in Congress efforts continue to introduce legislation making enforced disappearance a specific criminal offence.

Sri Lanka
Amnesty International has documented a worrying increase in enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka in recent months, with at least 21 people reportedly disappeared in August in Jaffna district alone. The increase reflects a worsening pattern, with the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka reporting that hundreds of people have disappeared nationwide since January 2007, in addition to at least 1,000 in 2006. Unlawful killings, abductions and enforced disappearance of civilians are now daily occurrences. An extremely small proportion of these human rights violations have preceded to trial or conviction of perpetrators.

More than 5,700 outstanding cases of enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka are being reviewed by the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID). Many cases of enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka implicate security forces, while others implicate armed groups including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Karuna group. Amnesty International urges the government of Sri Lanka to urgently ratify the UN Convention to Prevent Enforced Disappearances, and to invite WGEID to visit the country and to implement its previous recommendations.

Thailand
Scores of enforced disappearances have marked recent Thai history in the context of an entrenched culture of impunity for the country's security forces. The enforced disappearance of more than 20 people since the escalation of political violence in southern Thailand in 2004 have not been fully investigated. Further, perpetrators have not been brought to justice for killings and enforced disappearances during a military crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bangkok in May 1992.

Human rights defenders attempting to conduct investigations and document individual cases of enforced disappearance face serious obstacles, including death and other threats. In addition, the lack of an effective witness protection programme compounds difficulties in ensuring justice for the victims of enforced disappearance and their families.

Amnesty International calls on the Thai authorities to repeal laws, orders or decrees that can facilitate torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearances. In particular, the 2005 Emergency Decree should not be renewed when it expires on 19 October 2007. The Decree grants security forces immunity from persecution for human rights violations, and allows arbitrary detention in unofficial locations where people are held without access to legal counsel and family, or the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.

Amnesty International calls on the Thai government to sign and ratify the UN Convention to Prevent Enforced Disappearances, and to make enforced disappearances a criminal offence. While the organization recognises that some form of official compensation has been made to the families of some victims of enforced disappearance in the violence in the south, this is not substitute for full investigations and prosecution of suspected perpetrators.

Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org

> >

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do...

 

---

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

AI concerned over continued enforced disappearances in IHK

AI concerned over continued enforced disappearances in IHK

 http://www.kmsnews.org/Kashmir%20News%20Archive/31/News3108070-01.htm

Srinagar, August 31 (KMS): The Amnesty International has taken serious note of continued enforced disappearances and abductions of innocent Kashmiris at the hands of Indian army in occupied Kashmir, expressing its displeasure over non-implementation of the promises made by the puppet regime and New Delhi, regarding putting an end to human rights abuses and awarding punishments to the troops involved in crimes against Kashmiris.

In a statement issued here, the world human rights agency said, the majority of those who have disappeared are young men, but people of all ages, professions and backgrounds have been victims, many of whom have no connection with what India claims armed struggle against its rule in Jammu and Kashmir. 

The statement notes that despite promises from the state puppet authorities in 2002 that perpetrators of human rights abuses would be prosecuted, and from New Delhi in June 2006 that there would be zero tolerance of human rights violations committed by Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir, only a fraction of enforced disappearance cases have been investigated. 

The Amnesty International also notes a pledge by the puppet regime that the so-called State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) would investigate all enforced disappearances. However the SHRC remains unable to order prosecutions against members of the Indian army without prior sanction from the Indian Home Ministry. 

The statement recalls that in August 2006, outstanding concerns over the existing powers of the SHRC and its ability to effectively investigate enforced disappearances were further heightened when its chairperson resigned over the non-serious attitude of the puppet authorities towards addressing human rights violations. 

According to occupied Kashmir-based Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons and figures of the independent sources, over 10,000 Kashmiris have been disappeared in Indian troops' custody since 1989.

---

Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.