25.06.2003 - Source: ReliefWeb

About 20,000 Afghans, who have been living in the "waiting area" strip close to the Chaman border crossing, will be shifted to other areas as UNHCR closes the camp for security reasons ("UNHCR closes 'unsafe' Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan (AFP)") [#13796],  [ID 2292]

Document(s): Open document

23.06.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Shaidayee IDP camp outside Herat city will close in the next few months; distribution of food rations in the camps halted ("Out of sight, out of mind: The fate of the Afghan returnees") [#13706],  [ID 2293]

"Shaidayee IDP camp outside Herat city will close in the next few months, and the government and international agencies are organizing the evacuation of the camp. Residents of that camp who continue to be in need of protection and cannot return to their places of origin have been “encouraged” to move to Maslakh IDP camp some kilometers further away. At the time of Amnesty International’s visit, residents of Shaidayee that had “decided” to return to their home villages stated that the main reason for this decision was the fact that the distribution of food rations in the camps had been halted. This withdrawal of food assistance was part of an “exit strategy” being developed by the World Food Programme (WFP) and UNHCR in collaboration with the local Ministry for Refugees and Repatriation. The land on which Shaidayee camp was built is allegedly owned by the provincial government, which wants the land back. As part of the exit strategy, IDPs in both camps were told that the food rations would be stopped by the end of March 2003, and IDPs in Shaidayee were told that they would have to leave the camp a month later. Food rations in both Shaidayee and Maslakh were halted as of 1 April 2003, although WFP carried out one further distribution of only half the standard ration in mid-April. Abdur Raouf, who used to be a sharecropper in Faryab province, stated that his family had no other choice but to go back to try to find work. He claimed that if he stayed in Shaidayee for even another ten days his five children would die of starvation.
Amnesty International has serious concerns about the way in which this exit strategy has been put into operation and, more fundamentally, about the lack of sufficient attention to the human rights of the individuals affected by such a strategy. There is a dubious morality, not to mention legality, involved in using food as the means to “induce” people to return to their places of origin. By violating the basic right to adequate food, the international agencies, including WFP and UNHCR, involved in this exit strategy effectively become responsible for causing the forcible return of IDPs from Shaidayee and Maslakh camps. In addition, the blanket withdrawal of food assistance constitutes a blunt instrument, which disproportionately affects vulnerable individuals. Amnesty International has learned that food rations to IDPs in both camps were stopped before an accurate vulnerability assessment could identify those individuals, such as female headed households, unaccompanied minors, the elderly and the ill, that were unable to fend for themselves. Abrushan, a widow living in Shaidayee camp, told Amnesty International that she couldn’t go back to her village in Herat province because she had no house there. Yet, she said, she was “so hungry; they have stopped our food and I don’t know how to find a job.”
Maslakh camp still shelters large numbers of Pashtuns from Faryab province as well as IDPs from provinces such as Uruzgan that are unable to return to their home villages for protection reasons. Other vulnerable populations in the camp, such as unaccompanied women, the disabled and the elderly will also not in the foreseeable future be able to return to their homes in conditions of safety and dignity. There is, in addition, no durable solution in sight for most of the camps’ large Kutchi populations, many of whom have lost their livestock and ability to their regain their former nomadic lifestyle. While some inhabitants of Maslakh camp are able to earn a living in Herat city, Amnesty International urges the authors of an exit strategy for both Maslakh and Shaidayee to be mindful of the continuing protection and assistance needs of sections of the camp population. For instance, the camp is located an hour’s drive away from the city, and IDPs are often unable to pay truck operators to transport them. This is compounded by the fact that much of the “work” found by IDPs in Herat is confined to begging on the streets, the income from which is extremely unpredictable. An exit strategy is only acceptable if it is primarily aimed at achieving the sustainable and rights respecting return of the camp population to their home or preferred destination. Forcing the movement of persons, whether to their home provinces, urban centers or to another IDP camp for reasons of political expedience, to free the land for commercial use or due to donor pressure will ensure that returns are unsustainable, and is in contravention of international human rights standards."

Document(s): Open document

31.08.2002 - Source: UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan

UNAMA: Local military in Khost sets deadline to vacate IDP camp ("Afghanistan Weekly Situation Report Relief, Recovery and Reconstruction (25 -31 August 2002)") [#8571],  [ID 2294]

"An IDP community living inside the perimeter of an abandoned military base in Khost has indicated that the chief of the local military garrison is now claiming the return of the military compound to his unit; reportedly, the IDP community has been given a deadline to vacate the premises. This issue is currently being tracked and will be reported on in subsequent reports."

Document(s): Open document

06.06.2002 - Source: Human Rights Watch

HRW: Militia abuses in IDP camps ("Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper: Afghanistan: Return of the Warlords") [#7373],  [ID 2295]

"The competition between Jamiat and Junbish and the establishment of their military posts within or in close proximity to IDP camps has had dire consequences for the security of camp residents. Among the abuses against civilians reported to Human Rights Watch have been forcible relocations, compulsory performance of military support functions, and sexual violence. Two large camps with which these abuses have been associated are Camp 65, in Chimtal district, west of Mazar, and Sakhi camp, located east of the city.

Camp 65

Junbish forces partially reoccupied Camp 65, a former military base, amid a heavy buildup of troops and military hardware by the rival parties in and around Mazar in late April and early May. Internally displaced persons whose settlements lay close to the newly established Junbish base were forcibly evicted and their dwellings bulldozed, according to humanitarian aid workers and camp residents; the remains of their demolished homes were clearly visible when Human Rights Watch visited the camp in early June. Most of those who had been evicted—largely ethnic Arabs and Tajiks from Shiram in Sar-e Pul province—relocated on their own to the outskirts of the camp, at a site without easy access to water resources.
[…]"

Document(s): Open document
Open document

06.06.2002 - Source: Human Rights Watch

HRW: Forced labour in IDP camps ("Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper: Afghanistan: Return of the Warlords") [#7373],  [ID 2296]

"Concurrently with the establishment of the Junbish presence, male residents of the camp were ordered to serve as night watchmen and dig trenches—in both cases without payment. M, who estimated his age as being between 55 and 60, and S, a man of about 30, went to the base to complain on behalf of the camp population. Both were severely beaten by Junbish troops for their efforts.[…] S was beaten in the same manner and remained unconscious for about two hours, A said. The troops’ demand for unpaid labor did not end until two weeks later, he added, after the fighting between Junbish and Jamiat had ended."

Document(s): Open document
Open document