Behind Bars: Prison Conditions in Tibet – 1998
There are many ways in which the human rights of Tibetans are violated. Initially, they are not given the opportunity to invoke their rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association. When they are caught trying to exercise these rights they are detained and other rights are violated, such as their right not to be tortured and to be treated humanely, and restrictions are placed on their freedom to practise their religion.
The report has been collated primarily on the basis of 22 interviews that were conducted in the first half of 1998 in Dharamsala, India. All the interviewees are former Tibetan political prisoners who have been living in exile for periods ranging from 11 years to less than one year. They were chosen so as to provide accounts of a selection of prisons and time periods, although greater emphasis is given to Drapchi Prison and Gutsa Detention Centre as the penal institutions in which most prisoners are held. Accounts from the last ten years are emphasised to make the report relevant to the present treatment of political prisoners. The report is limited in its scope to the treatment received by political prisoners, as they are the only sample of prisoners readily available for interviews. While the information has been compiled solely on the basis of interviews, it has been cross-checked to the extent possible.
The report is concerned with the conditions in Chinese penal institutions. The term “prisons” is sometimes used in the report to refer to institutions that the Chinese refer to as prisons, reform through labour centres, re-education through labour centres or detention centres. The reason for this is that the conditions in the different institutions are very similar and many prisoners and detainees themselves refer to them all as prisons. Also, despite the fact that the authorities may refer to a place as a detention centre, Tibetans are frequently detained there for up to six months in conditions at least as harsh as in the prisons and so it is important to document their experiences.
Before the Chinese occupation of Tibet, there were two prisons in Lhasa, both of which were very small. One of the interviewees, Thupten Tsering, recalled that, prior to 1949, if there were as many as 15 prisoners in both Lhasa jails, everyone in Lhasa would talk about how dreadful it was to have so many criminals. In addition, some of the monasteries acted as unofficial penal institutions if there were criminals located near to them. In 1959, after the Chinese occupation of Tibet, unprecedented numbers of Tibetans were jailed for participating in the uprising against the occupation. The Panchen Lama stated when addressing the “TAR” Standing Committee Meeting of the National People‘s Congress in March 1987 that:
In 1959 there were rebellions in Tibet. Forces were despatched to quell the disorder, which was a right decision and should not be gainsaid. However, a lot of innocent people were also persecuted. Many mistakes were made in the way the crack-down operations were mounted. The authorities did not make any distinction between those guilty and not guilty of participation in the disturbances. People were arrested and jailed indiscriminately. There were no interrogations. On sight Tibetans were taken to jail and beaten. Things like this are still commonplace in Tibet today.
Since 1959 the number of penal institutions in Tibet has multiplied. Official statistics from the PRC are limited as the Chinese government strictly controls the distribution of public information. However, it is clear that the number of prisons and detention centres has risen dramatically and that their capacity continues to expand to cope with the ever-growing number of prisoners, both criminal and political. In May 1998, Bai Zhao, president of the People‘s High Court said that courts in the “TAR” tried 6,291 people in the past five years and found 0.73 per cent not guilty. More than half of the defendants were given sentences ranging from five years to death. He also said that a police crackdown on crime in 1996 netted 1,286 people. He did not say how many of the defendants were Tibetan. In May 1998 a Justice Bureau representative told the visiting EU Troika that in total there were approximately 1,800 offenders in various prisons in the “TAR” and that in 1997 there were, on average, approximately 1,300 people held in detention centres. These statements by “TAR” officials and the figures they contain do not appear to be consistent but there is no way of checking the actual total number of prisoners other than through information released by the Chinese. These figures only relate to judicially sentenced prisoners and not to those who have been “administratively sentenced” and who may be held for up to four years without trial.
While it is difficult to gauge the number of criminal prisoners imprisoned in Tibet, it is even more difficult to obtain an accurate number of the Tibetan political prisoners in Chinese jails. Not surprisingly, official Chinese statistics give a very different picture from that of other groups who closely monitor the situation. Official numbers of political prisoners are unavailable but, as of the end of 1997, the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) estimated that there were more than 1,200 political prisoners in Tibet, including 295 women and 39 prisoners below the age of 18. In contrast, in 1991 the Chinese government claimed that it had no political prisoners on the basis that all prisoners who had political motives had been convicted of criminal offences under Chinese Criminal Law. On September 1, 1997, the Director of the Bureau of Prison Administration of the “TAR”, Tsering Punsog (Tsering Phuntsog), said that approximately 155 prisoners in the “TAR” had been charged with endangering national security, accounting for 9 per cent of the total number of prisoners. In a 1995 study conducted by Tibet Information Network (TIN), an independent monitoring service based in London, it was found that only 18 prisoners out of more than 1,000 cases described by Tibetans as political detentions were involved in acts of violence. Instead, out of 879 political prisoners, 65.3 per cent were arrested for demonstrating and 15.5 per cent for writing and distributing leaflets.
The information presented in this report relates substantially to the “TAR” and not to the
whole of Tibet as it existed prior to the Chinese occupation. The Tibetan government-in-exile holds that prior to 1949 Tibet consisted of three provinces: U-Tsang, Amdo and Kham. Since the Chinese occupation, Tibet has been carved up into the “TAR”(which primarily consists
of U-Tsang) and several other provinces, namely Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan. Almost all the interviewees whose accounts are included in this report were from the “TAR”and given the difficulties of compiling and confirming information relating to the other provinces that are part of Tibet, the scope of this report is largely limited to the “TAR”.
The international community has manifested a concern for the decent treatment of prisoners by, amongst other things, adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the UN‘s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These combine to give a basic minimum standard by which people everywhere, regardless of their nationality or political perspective, including prisoners, should be treated.
The PRC has assumed a number of international legal obligations. It has ratified, amongst others, the Convention Against Torture, the CRC and the CEDAW. It has not yet signed or ratified the ICCPR. On October 28, 1997, the PRC signed the ICESCR, which now awaits ratification.
In its White Paper entitled ―New Progress in Human Rights in China‘s Tibet Autonomous Region‖ released on February 20, 1998, the PRC stated its view that:
Strictly in accordance with the Constitution and laws, the judicial departments of the Tibet Autonomous Region protect the basic rights and freedoms, and other legal rights and interests of the citizens of all ethnic groups in Tibet. They also protect public property and the lawful private property of the citizens, punish those lawbreakers who endanger society, and maintain social order according to law. Both the crime and imprisonment rates of the Tibet Autonomous Region are lower than the nation‘s average. The legal rights of criminals are protected by law, and those who belong to ethnic minorities or religious sects are not discriminated against, but due consideration is given to their lifestyles and customs…Each
prison has a clinic, and the number of prison doctors is higher than the national average. Criminals enjoy rest days, holidays and traditional ethnic festivals, in accordance with the state‘s unified regulations. Prisoners may see visitors every month, may win a reduction of penalty or be released on parole, and may be given various awards according to law.
Unfortunately this claim is not substantiated by the interviewees‘ accounts, or by information available from various human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, TIN and TCHRD.
In recent years a number of delegations have visited Tibet at the invitation of the Chinese government and under strictly enforced conditions. Such delegations have occasionally been allowed access to prisons in Tibet, such as the EU Troika visit in May 1998. Generally, the ensuing reports indicate that such delegations encounter substantial difficulties assessing the real situation in the prisons as they are not able to speak to prisoners freely. For instance, the EU Troika visited Drapchi on May 4, three days after one protest and the day of another protest following which 11 prisoners are reported to have died. The delegation was unaware of either protest. TCHRD believes that the most effective means of compiling information on the prisons is through long-term systematic monitoring, such as that performed by the human rights groups referred to above.
Despite clear international obligations defining appropriate treatment for prisoners, the interviewees‘ testimonies raise serious questions as to the level of commitment of the Chinese government to human rights for prisoners and detainees. Article 6 of the UDHR provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” yet the former political prisoners‘ accounts are littered with descriptions of such treatment.
Please click here to download the report
