Report on Bhutanese refugee women in Nepal encountering gender-based violence
( rape, domestic violence, sexual and physical assault, and trafficking of
girls and women) and systematic discrimination in access to aid Trapped by
Inequality: Bhutanese Refugee Women in Nepal http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/
nepal0903/nepal0903.pdf Human Rights Watch September 2003 BHUTAN/NEPAL Trapped
by Inequality: Bhutanese Refugee Women in Nepal TABLE OF CONTENTS MAP 1: Nepal
and
Bhutan............................................................................................................................................
3 MAP 2: Location of Bhutanese Refugee Camps in Nepal
......................................................................................
4
GLOSSARY.....................................................................................................................................................................
5 I.
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................
8 II.
RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................................
12 To the Government of
Nepal...................................................................................................................................
12 To the Government of
Bhutan.................................................................................................................................
13 To the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
...................................... 13 To Humanitarian Aid Agencies
..............................................................................................................................
15 To the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
............................................................................................
15 To International Donors
...........................................................................................................................................
16 III.
BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................................
17 Crackdown on Ethnic Nepalese in
Bhutan............................................................................................................
17 State Persecution of Ethnic Nepalese Women and Girls in Bhutan
................................................................. 18 A
Protracted Refugee
Situation...............................................................................................................................
20 A Flawed Categorization
Process...........................................................................................................................
22 Women's Limited Participation in the Verification and Categorization
Process........................................... 23 Ethnic Nepalese Women's
Status in Bhutan
........................................................................................................
26 Women's Status in
Nepal.........................................................................................................................................
27 IV. DISCRIMINATION IN REGISTRATION PROCEDURES AND ACCESS TO
AID............................ 29 Discrimination against Women and Children in
Refugee Registration
........................................................... 29 Non-Registration
of Ration Cards in Women's
Names......................................................................................
31 V. GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE IN REFUGEE
CAMPS................................................................................
36 Guidelines for Preventing and Responding to Gender-Based Violence
.......................................................... 37 Gender-Based
Violence in Nepal's Refugee
Camps...........................................................................................
38 The Government of Nepal and UNHCR: A Case of
Negligence.....................................................................
41 VI. EVALUATING REFORM: STRENGTHS AND GAPS IN THE RESPONSE TO GENDER-BASED
VIOLENCE
....................................................................................................................................................................
45
Security........................................................................................................................................................................
46 Guidelines for Humanitarian Aid
Staff..................................................................................................................
47 Women's Leadership
................................................................................................................................................
51 UNHCR Staffing
.......................................................................................................................................................
52 Reporting and Referral Systems
.............................................................................................................................
53 Response to Domestic Violence
.............................................................................................................................
54 Response to Other Forms of Gender-Based Violence and Discrimination
..................................................... 57 Women's Focal
Points..............................................................................................................................................
59 Breaches of Confidentiality
.....................................................................................................................................
60 Problems with Administration of Justice
..............................................................................................................
61 VII. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
.................................................................................................................
64 Protection from Violence
.........................................................................................................................................
65 Gender Discrimination in the Transfer of Citizenship
........................................................................................
69 Participation in the Verification and Categorization
Process............................................................................
70 VIII.
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................................
72
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................................
73 Appendix A--UNHCR-Nepal Subagreement Amendment: "Standards of
Conduct"................................. 73 Appendix B--Selected Web Resources
on Gender-Based Violence in Refugee Settings........................... 75
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................................................
76 Human Rights Watch 2 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) MAP 1: NEPAL AND BHUTAN Human
Rights Watch 3 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) MAP 2: LOCATION OF BHUTANESE REFUGEE CAMPS
IN NEPAL Human Rights Watch 4 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) GLOSSARY 2003 Guidelines
Sexual and Gender-Based Violence against Refugees, Returnees and Internally
Displaced Persons: Guidelines for Prevention and Response. A manual originally
produced in 1995 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) for addressing gender-based violence. UNHCR updated the manual
in 2003. Bhutanese Refugee Women's Forum (BRWF) An refugee women's organization
focusing on income-generation, health, and women's rights with representation
in all seven refugee camps housing Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. Camp Management
Committee (CMC) The camp management committee (CMC) is the refugee-run
administration in the camps. The CMC is headed by the camp secretary and is
made up of representatives from each sector in the camp. The CMC has committees
that coordinate birth and death registrations, food distribution, and health
programming, and that determine responses to social problems, like disputes
within families or between neighbors. Camp Secretary The head of the camp
management committee in a refugee camp. The camp secretary is elected by
refugees. CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women. Children's Forum A children's group under The Lutheran World
Federation focusing on children's rights and participation with representation
in all seven camps. Counseling Board The counseling board is made up of elected
representatives from the CMC. The counseling board serves as a community
justice mechanism to resolve day-to-day problems in the camps. CRC Convention
on the Rights of the Child. Discrimination against Women Article 1 of CEDAW
defines discrimination against women as "any distinction, exclusion, or
restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of
impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women,
irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women,
of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social,
cultural, civil or any other field." Human Rights Watch 5 Volume 15, No. 8 (C)
Domestic Violence Domestic violence, also called "intimate partner abuse,"
"battering," or "wife-beating," refers to physical, sexual, psychological, and
economic abuse that takes place in the context of an intimate relationship,
including marriage. Domestic violence is one of the most common forms of
gender-based violence and is often characterized by long-term patterns of
abusive behavior and control. Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Violence that is
directed against a person on the basis of gender or sex. It includes acts that
inflict physical, mental, or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts,
coercion, and other deprivations of liberty. Examples of gender-based violence
are sexual violence, domestic violence, emotional and psychological abuse,
trafficking, forced prostitution, sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, and
harmful traditional practices (e.g. female genital mutilation, forced marriage,
or widow cleansing). IASC Task Force The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
is made up of member United Nations agencies and invited nongovernmental
organizations. In March 2002, the IASC created a special task force to address
sexual exploitation in humanitarian crises. The task force drafted a plan of
action that includes a core set of principles for a code of conduct for United
Nations employees and aid workers. Implementing Partners/Implementing Agencies
Organizations that have subcontracted with UNHCR to carry out aid work in the
camps. In Nepal, the World Food Programme (WFP) provides food aid; the Nepal
Red Cross Society distributes food and non-food rations; the Asian Medical
Doctors Association (AMDA) provides primary health care; The Lutheran World
Federation (LWF) provides water, housing, and sanitation; Caritas provides
education; and the Nepal Bar Association provides legal counseling and legal
representation for vic tims and alleged perpetrators of serious crimes,
including gender-based violence. Inspector General's Office (IGO) The UNHCR
Inspector General's Office (IGO) is based in UNHCR's Geneva headquarters. The
IGO investigates allegations of misconduct by UNHCR staff. Joint Verification
Team (JVT) The Joint Verification Team is made up of representatives from the
governments of Bhutan and Nepal. The JVT verified refugees in Khudanabari camp
and categorized them to determine eligibility for repatriation to Bhut an and
the conditions of such repatriation. Refugee Coordination Unit (RCU) The
Refugee Coordination Unit (RCU) is the Nepalese government authority in Jhapa
and Morang districts that implements all government policy in the seven camps.
RCU offices are stationed in each camp to oversee administration. Two Nepalese
government Human Rights Watch 6 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) officials staff each camp,
and the district-level RCU office is based in Chandragadhi, Jhapa district.
Sector Head The sector head is an elected member of the refugee-run camp
management committee. The sector head is responsible for addressing problems in
his or her sector, usually comprised of two to five subsectors. He or she
forwards unresolved cases to the camp secretary or RCU. Sexual and Gender-Based
Violence (SGBV) See Gender-Based Violence. UNHCR and its implementing partners
use the term SGBV; however, this report uses "gender-based violence" to
acknowledge that sexual violence is usually gender-based. Sexual Exploitation
The IASC Task Force defines sexual exploitation as any abuse of a position of
vulnerability, differential power, or trust for sexual purposes; this includes
profiting monetarily, socially, or politically from the sexual exploitation of
another. Subsector Head The subsector head is an elected member of the refugee-
run camp management committee. The subsector head is responsible for addressing
problems in his or her subsector and forwarding more serious cases to the
sector head. UNHCR The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) is mandated with the protection and care of refugees. UNHCR
and the government of Nepal jointly administer the Bhutanese refugee camps.
Verification and Categorization Process Nepal and Bhutan have implemented a
bilateral verification and categorization process in Khudanabari camp in order
to verify whether camp residents are Bhutanese, and to categorize them as
evicted Bhutanese citizens, voluntary migrants, non-Bhutanese, or Bhutanese who
have committed crimes. Women's Focal Point The women's focal point is an
elected member of the camp management committee. She is responsible for
supporting women in the camps by counseling them and channeling their
complaints to appropriate entities, including UNHCR, the RCU, and health care
providers. Human Rights Watch 7 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) I. SUMMARY Sometimes I was
beaten so badly I bled. My husband took a second wife. I didn't agree.... He
said, "if you don't allow me to take a second wife, then the ration card is in
my name, and I'll take everything." I have asked my husband for the health card
and ration card and they don't give it to me.... I have not gotten approval to
get a separate ration card. --Interview with Geeta M. (not her real name),
Bhutanese refugee camps, Nepal, March 26, 2003 Bhutanese women who are living
as refugees in Nepal, many for more than a decade, confront not only the
hardship of life in refugee camps, but also the injustice of gender-based
violence and discrimination. Refugee women and girls have reported rape, sexual
assault, polygamy, trafficking, domestic violence, and child marriage in the
camps. Women suffering domestic violence are unable to obtain safety or their
full share of humanitarian aid because of discriminatory refugee registration
procedures and inadequate protection measures. The registration system also
prevents married refugee women from applying for repatriation or rations
independently and prohibits them from registering children not fathered by a
refugee. More than one hundred thousand Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees live
in seven refugee camps jointly administered by Nepal and the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in southeastern Nepal.
The refugees fled or were forcibly evicted from their homes in Bhutan in the
early 1990s, when the Bhutanese government introduced highly discriminatory
citizenship policies targeting the ethnic Nepalese population. For twelve
years, the government of Bhutan has asserted that the refugees are not
Bhutanese nationals or are voluntary migrants who relinquished their
citizenship when they left Bhutan. The governments of Bhutan and Nepal finally
initiated a process for verifying and categorizing refugees in 2001. This
process has drawn international criticism for lacking transparency, excluding
UNHCR, and failing to assess refugees' claims to Bhutanese citizenship fairly.
In the camps, UNHCR and the government of Nepal have failed to protect refugee
women's rights adequately. A key source of this failure is the continued use of
a registration and ration distribution system based on household cards listed
under the name of the male household head. Human Rights Watch interviewed
Bhutanese refugee women who had suffered domestic violence and who, despite
having separated from their husbands, were not able to obtain their own ration
cards. Most instead made ad hoc arrangements with the refugee camp management
to collect their food rations separately, thus relying on the mercy of the
management rather than a system fair to women. These women encountered problems
accessing rations meant to be shared within one household such as stoves,
blankets, and soap. They were unable to obtain separate housing, leaving them
to find refuge with other family members in already overcrowded huts or to
create makeshift arrangements with partitions. Human Rights Watch 8 Volume 15,
No. 8 (C) Following investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse by aid
workers in refugee camps in West Africa, several cases of sexual exploitation
involving refugee aid workers surfaced in Nepal in October 2002. A subsequent
investigation led to findings indicating negligence by UNHCR and the government
of Nepal in preventing and responding to widespread and long-standing gender-
based violence in the camps. Victims encountered inadequate support services
and a male-dominated refugee camp leadership that often ignored gender-based
violence or meted out harmful settlements. Since October 2002, UNHCR has made
encouraging progress in many areas of implementing a coordinated prevention and
response plan to gender-based violence in the camps. UNHCR conducted an
immediate investigation and invested resources into addressing gender-based
violence. UNHCR and Nepal took measures to introduce new reporting and referral
systems, improve security, increase the numbers of field-level UNHCR staff by
25 percent, amend the code of conduct for employees of UNHCR and implementing
partners, including refugee aid workers, and pursue remedies through the
Nepalese criminal justice system. The biggest gap in the response to gender-
based violence has been the handling of perhaps the most pervasive problem in
the camps: domestic violence. While domestic violence cases involving
hospitalization reach UNHCR, "less serious" cases, including psychological
abuse or a pattern of arguments in which the male partner regularly hit,
slapped, or otherwise used physical violence, are still often handled by
refugee camp management and the Refugee Coordination Unit (RCU) of the
government of Nepal. Despite improvements in awareness and procedures for
handling sexual exploitation and rape, refugee women suffering domestic
violence still struggle to push their cases through the camp management
bureaucracy. The methods that camp management and the RCU employ to resolve
domestic violence cases focus on reconciliation and inadequately address
women's own wishes, safety, and access to services. Women's inability to obtain
a separate ration card or independent housing exacerbates these problems, and
exposes them to further violence. Limitations in Nepalese law and UNHCR
policies also obstruct full protection for survivors of gender-based violence
and women and girls' ability to seek redress through the criminal justice
system. No existing Nepalese law specifically addresses domestic violence.
Furthermore, a thirty-five-day statute of limitations under Nepalese law for
registering rape and sexual offense cases with the police has allowed many
assailants to escape criminal prosecution. This short statute of limitations is
one reason that the refugee aid workers and Nepalese government employees
accused of sexual exploitation in October 2002 have not been prosecuted. Inside
the camps, many victims and perpetrators of gender-based violence continue to
live close to each other. UNHCR has cited constraints such as lack of space in
the already overcrowded camps and concerns that relocation would constitute
collective punishment of the families of alleged perpetrators. Victims have the
option of relocating, but as they are reluctant to leave their neighbors and
community, they perceive such relocation as further punishment. Human Rights
Watch 9 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) These problems occur in the context of a
protracted refugee situation and flawed categorization process that puts
refugees at risk of statelessness. In June 2003, the Bhutanese and Nepalese
governments announced the results of a verification and categorization process
that lacked transparency and fell far short of international standards. The
format of the interviews prevented women from fully participating in the
verification and categorization process and forced those who suffered sexual
violence in Bhutan to recount their traumas in front of all-male panels of
Bhutanese and Nepalese government representatives. The governments of Bhutan
and Nepal announced that in the first camp to be categorized, only 2.5 percent
of refugees will have the option to return to Bhutan with full citizenship,
while the rest face an uncertain future. International law protects the right
not to be arbitrarily deprived of one's nationality and establishes state
responsibility to provide protection against violence, to punish perpetrators
of violence, and to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Both Nepal and
Bhutan must fulfill their commitments to protect the human rights of women and
children as demonstrated by their ratification of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As member states of the United
Nations, they are also bound to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which is recognized as reflecting customary international law. The
government of Nepal and UNHCR should act decisively to protect women from
discrimination and violence, including by improving the response to domestic
violence, amending the camp registration sys tem, and promoting changes in
Nepalese domestic law. These actions are not only important remedies for
Bhutanese refugee women in Nepal, but also set an important precedent for the
implementation of UNHCR guidelines addressing gender-based violence in refugee
situations globally. Bhutan and Nepal must also resolve the refugee situation
through a timely and fair process that adheres to international standards and
protects the rights of all refugees, including women and children. Both
countries should ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and other major
international human rights treaties. This report is based on interviews with
112 refugees in the following camps in Jhapa and Morang districts of
southeastern Nepal during March and April 2003: Khudanabari, Beldangi I,
Beldangi II, Timai, Goldhap, and Sanischare. Of these 112 interviews, thirty-
seven were with refugees serving on elected camp management committees, members
of refugee-run nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating in the camps,
teachers, or health workers. Human Rights Watch conducted an additional thirty-
eight interviews with concerned United Nations agencies and NGOs, including the
Geneva, Kathmandu, and Bhadrapur offices of UNHCR, all the aid agencies working
as implementing partners in the camps, UNICEF, refugee advocacy groups, and
Nepalese NGOs. We also conducted nine interviews with Nepalese government
officials and police, including the foreign minister and camp-level
administrators of the RCU. In New York, Human Rights Watch interviewed
representatives of Bhutan to the United Nations. Human Rights Watch 10 Volume
15, No. 8 (C) All names and identifying information of the refugees interviewed
have been changed to protect their confidentiality. For the same reason,
certain identifying information has been withheld for other interviewees where
necessary. In this report, "child" refers to anyone under the age of eighteen.
Human Rights Watch 11 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) II. RECOMMENDATIONS To the
Government of Nepal · Amend provisions in Nepalese law that hinder justice in
gender-based violence cases. o Reform the Country Code to substantially
lengthen the thirty-five- day statute of limitations for reporting rape and
other sexual offenses. o Change the definition of rape in the Country Code to
be gender- neutral, and to include any physical invasion of a sexual nature
without consent or under coercive circumstances. o Enact the Domestic Violence
(Crime and Punishment) Bill, 2002. Incorporate proposed amendments from
advocacy groups that improve women's protection from domestic violence. o
Strengthen sexual assault legislation and include specific measures to protect
child survivors of sexual assault and abuse. o Simplify procedures for
obtaining a legally admissible medical report for rape cases by eliminating the
need for a requisition letter from the police, reducing the number of doctors
required, and admitting medical reports from private hospitals that meet
acceptable standards. · Reform Nepalese laws that discriminate against women. o
Change nationality laws so that Nepalese women can pass their nationality on to
their children. o Enact reforms to the marriage laws that will ensure women's
rights and equality with respect to entrance into marriage, during marriage,
and at its dissolution, and with respect to polygamy. o Amend custody laws so
women who marry a second time are allowed to retain custody of their children.
· Eliminate gender discrimination in the refugee camp registration and ration-
distribution system. o Provide registration documents to all refugees on an
individual basis. o Ensure that women who have separated from their husbands,
or who are in abusive relationships, can request and obtain separate ration
cards. o Reform the household card system by listing both male and female
household heads. Issue female-headed households their own ration cards. · Issue
birth certificates to all refugee children in coordination with UNHCR. ·
Improve prevention and response to gender-based violence in the camps by
revising the Bhutanese refugee camp rules and by posting more female police
officers in the camps and state hospitals. Human Rights Watch 12 Volume 15, No.
8 (C) · Empower women and children's organizations in the camps by allowing
them to register with the government of Nepal, thus allowing them to apply
independently for outside funding. · Implement a fair and timely verification
and repatriation process to Bhutan. o Ensure women's participation in the
verification and categorization process. Include women interviewers on the
Joint Verification Team. o Invite UNHCR to help facilitate and monitor the
verification and repatriation process. o Create a fair and independent appeal
process with sufficient time for refugees to present their appeal to an
impartial third party. o Announce and implement a timeline for the
categorization and repatriation of the six camps yet to be verified. · Ratify
the 1951 Refugee Convention and other major human rights treaties. To the
Government of Bhutan · Amend the citizenship laws so that women, men, and
children are protected from arbitrary denationalization and statelessness. ·
Protect women and children's rights during the repatriation and reintegration
process as outlined in the Agenda for Protection, adopted by UNHCR and states
at the Global Consultations on International Protection in 2002. · Grant all
returning refugees full citizenship and facilitate their return to their
original homes. · Implement a fair and timely verification and repatriation
process. o Ensure women's participation in the verification and categorization
process. Include women interviewers on the Joint Verification Team. o Invite
UNHCR to help facilitate and monitor the verification and repatriation process,
including by allowing UNHCR to establish a presence in Bhutan. o Create a fair
and independent appeal process with sufficient time for refugees to present
their appeal to an impartial third party. o Announce and implement a timeline
for the categorization and repatriation of the six camps yet to be verified. ·
Ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and other major human rights treaties. To
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) ·
Implement fully existing guidelines on the protection of refugee women and
children, including the Agenda for Protection, adopted by UNHCR and states at
the Global Consultations on International Protection in 2002. · Establish
psycho-social services in each camp with trained service-providers who can
provide regular and skilled counseling to victims of gender-based violence, and
who can conduct trainings for refugees, camp leadership, RCU officials, the
police, and implementing partners. Human Rights Watch 13 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) ·
Continue to implement awareness and training programs about prevention and
response to gender-based violence for refugees, the government of Nepal, and
aid agencies. o Ensure that trainings and response efforts address all forms of
gender-based violence and discrimination, including rape, domestic violence,
trafficking, child marriage, forced marriage, and polygyny. o Implement
specialized gender-training programs to enhance the knowledge and attitudes of
Refugee Coordination Unit (RCU) administrators, police, and senior management
of the aid agencies. o Train camp management committee members and women's
focal points to handle better and appropriately refer gender-based violence
cases. Training should include counseling techniques and UNHCR should provide
ongoing support and supervision. · Take a proactive approach to improving
monitoring, reporting, and referral systems for gender-based violence and child
abuse. o Ensure that all gender-based violence cases, including domestic
violence, are brought to the attention of UNHCR, addressed appropriately, and
followed up by UNHCR. o Identify and assist victims of gender-based violence or
child abuse who may be unable to come forward on their own on a periodic and
timely basis. o Monitor for cases of suspected kidnapping or trafficking. ·
Cooperate with United Nations agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
to advocate for legislative changes in Nepal to protect women and children's
rights. · Empower women and children's organizations in the camps. o Provide
greater autonomy, training, and resources to the Bhutanese Refugee Women's
Forum so that it can more effectively work on awareness-raising, outreach, and
empowerment of women. o Support the Children's Forum to conduct outreach to
children and establish more regular communication with the camp leadership in
order to identify and monitor children at risk. · Establish a confidential
environment for gender-based violence victims to seek assistance by providing
separate offices for women's focal points and by conducting information
campaigns to sensitize the refugee community, Nepalese government, and Nepalese
press about the importance of keeping identifying information about victims
confidential. · Promote transparency and accountability by providing public
information on follow-up actions taken against international staff remo ved
from their positions in Nepal in 2002. · Eliminate gender discrimination in the
refugee camp registration and ration- distribution system. o Provide
registration documents to all refugees on an individual basis. Human Rights
Watch 14 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) o Ensure that women in abusive relationships can
request and obtain separate ration cards. o Reform the household card system by
listing both male and female household heads. Issue female-headed households
separate ration cards. · Urge the government of Nepal to issue birth
certificates to all refugee children. · Continue to press the government of
Bhutan to permit UNHCR to establish a presence in Bhutan to facilitate and
monitor repatriation. To Humanitarian Aid Agencies · Ensure that protection of
refugees is an element of all programs in the camps. o Improve the training and
gender-sensitization of aid workers, including senior management and refugee
aid workers, and ensure they understand, uphold, and promote the IASC core
principles for protecting refugees from sexual abuse and exploitation. o Report
cases of gender-based violence through the appropriate referral mechanisms and
support the ability of refugees to identify and address these problems. o Take
immediate disciplinary action against aid workers, including refugee aid
workers, who have committed gend er-based violence. · Amend existing provisions
in the refugee camp school guidelines so that students cannot be expelled for
relationships with their teachers. · Recruit and retain more female aid
workers. Prioritize increasing the number of female teachers working at the
high-school level. · Ensure that medical protocols for gender-based violence
are accessible and confidential. · Cooperate with United Nations agencies and
NGOs to advocate for legislative changes in Nepal to protect women and
children's rights. To the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) · Cooperate
with UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies to ensure protection of refugee
children from gender-based violence and child abuse. Provide support for
teacher training programs and the Children's Forum. · Insist that the
government of Nepal issue birth certificates to refugee children and register
as refugees those children with a refugee mother and non-refugee father. ·
Promote the rights of refugee children at all stages of the verification,
categorization, and repatriation process, especially children at risk of
separation from their families or statelessness. · Cooperate with United
Nations agencies and NGOs to advocate for legislative changes in Nepal to
protect women and children's rights. Human Rights Watch 15 Volume 15, No. 8 (C)
To International Donors · Continue to provide designated financial and
logistical support to UNHCR and refugee host governments to improve programs
designed to protect refugee women and children from gender-based violence and
discrimination. · Insist upon and provide financial assistance for issuing
individual registration documents to all refugees. · Continue to provide
financial and logistical support to refugees trapped in protracted refugee
situations. · Strongly pressure Bhutan and Nepal to implement a fair and timely
verification, categorization, and repatriation process that adheres to
international standards and protects women and children's rights. · Emphasize
to Bhutan and Nepal the importance of including UNHCR in the verification,
categorization, and repatriation process. Human Rights Watch 16 Volume 15, No.
8 (C) III. BACKGROUND Crackdown on Ethnic Nepalese in Bhutan In the 1970s and
1980s, the Bhutanese government introduced a series of repressive citizenship
laws and "Bhutanization" policies that focused on the political, economic, and
cultural exclusion of ethnic Nepalese living in southern Bhutan
("Lhotshampas").1 The Bhutanese government, a hereditary monarchy dominated by
the Ngalongs, perceived the growing ethnic Nepalese population and their
formation of a political party as a threat to Bhutan's cultural and political
order.2 The Citizenship Acts of 1977 and 1985 included several provisions
permitting the revocation of citizenship. The government began enforcing the
1985 Act in a discriminatory manner through a 1988 census, resulting in the
mass denationalization of thousands of Lhotshampas in violation of
international human rights law. 3 The census was implemented only in southern
Bhutan, and reports suggest that local government officials made arbitrary
census classifications designed to push the Nepali-speaking community out of
Bhutan. The government of Bhutan also introduced a "one nation, one people"
policy in 1989 that forced the practice of Drukpa culture nation-wide through a
compulsory dress code and the termination of Nepali language instruction in
schools.4 1 Mathew Joseph C., Ethnic Conflict in Bhutan (New Delhi: Nirala
Publications, 1999), pp. 129-164. "Lhotshampas" refers literally to "people
living in the south." Ethnic Nepalese began migrating to southern Bhutan in the
nineteenth century and many were granted Bhutanese citizenship by the 1958
Nationality Law. Under this law, an adult may obtain Bhutanese citizenship by
owning land, residing in Bhutan for ten years, and taking an oath of loyalty to
the King. 2 Ben Saul, "Cultural Nationalism, Self-Determination, and Human
Rights in Bhutan," International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 12 (2000). Bhutan
is home to three major ethnic groups: the ruling Ngalongs live in the west,
speak Dzongkha, and belong to the Drukpa Kagyugpa sect of Buddhism; the eastern
Sarchops speak Tsangla and belong to the Nyingmapa sect of Buddhism; and the
southern Lhotshampas speak Nepali and are primarily Hindu. The government of
Bhutan feared a repetition of the events in neighboring Sikkim, where a growing
Nepalese population had supported a 1975 merger with India, and in North
Bengal, India, where the militant Nepalese Gorkha National Liberation Front
(GNLF) led an unsuccessful but bloody uprising seeking a separate Nepali state.
Yeshey Dorji, the deputy permanent representative of Bhutan to the United
Nations, explained Bhutanese fears as follows: "What has happened in the
neighborhood is very disturbing. Look at Sikkim, Darjeeling, Ladakh. In Sikkim,
the original inhabitants are now only 17 percent of the population." Human
Rights Watch interview, New York City, May 6, 2003. 3 Article 15(2) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states, "No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his nationality." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. GAOR, 3d. Sess., pt. 1 at 71, U.N. Doc. A/810
(1948). Section 3 of the 1985 Bhutan Citizenship Act retroactively made 1958
the cut-off date for citizenship by registration. In these cases, a person had
to provide land tax receipts or other proof of residency from on or before
December 31, 1958. Vague provisions in the 1985 Act permitted government
officials to strip individuals of their citizenship arbitrarily; for example,
section 6(c) permitted the denationalization of any naturalized citizen who
"has shown by act or speech to be disloyal in any manner whatsoever to the
King, Country and People of Bhutan." For a more detailed analysis of the 1985
Bhutan Citizenship Act and international human rights law, see Amnesty
International, "Nationality, expulsion, statelessness and the right to return,"
September 2000 and Tang Lay Lee, "Refugees from Bhutan: Nationality,
Statelessness, and the Right to Return," International Journal of Refugee Law ,
vol. 10, no. 1-2 (1998). 4 AHURA Bhutan, "Bhutan: A Shangri-La without Human
Rights," March 2000; Amnesty International, "Bhutan: Human Rights Violations
against the Nepali-Speaking Population in the South," December 1992; Amnesty
International, "Bhutan: Forcible Exile," August 1994; and Tessa Piper, "The
Exodus of Ethnic Human Rights Watch 17 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) In the early 1990s,
the Bhutanese government crushed resistance by ethnic Nepalese and others who
protested the policies through large public demonstrations and the formation of
a political party calling for a multi-party democracy. Some ethnic Nepalese
were involved in violent activities, such as the burning of schools and attacks
on government officials. The government closed schools and suspended health
services in southern Bhutan. Members of the Bhutanese police and army
imprisoned, raped, and tortured many of those who were directly, indirectly, or
incorrectly presumed to be associated with the demonstrations. Government
forces also destroyed houses and forced many ethnic Nepalese off of their
lands.5 State Persecution of Ethnic Nepalese Women and Girls in Bhutan Human
Rights Watch interviewed refugee women who suffered sexual violence, arbitrary
arrest and detention, and other serious rights violations during the forced
deportations in the early 1990s. Responsibility for these abuses lay with the
Bhutanese police and army, who were often acting to enforce the policies of
government officials, including village heads, block-level administrators, and
district officers. In some cases, men, women, and children had to perform
forced labor. When their husbands or other relatives fled the country, women
were often punished or threatened, including with arrest, because the whole
family was labeled "anti-national." Female heads of household, disabled women,
and girls, often more vulnerable because of their status in society, were among
those abused. As will be discussed later, this widespread persecution
contradicts the Bhutanese government's claim that the majority of the refugees
were not fleeing human rights abuses but voluntarily migrated to Nepal. A woman
in her late thirties who lived in Samdrup Jongkhar district recounted her
experiences in 1992: My husband had taken a second wife and left me. I had
three children, two daughters and one son. At the time of the census, the
dzongdha [district official] called me to bring proof of my citizenship. I
brought proof, but the dzongdha said it's not right. After two days, the army
was brought by the block head [local official]. At nighttime they knocked on
the door. I didn't open it and then they forcibly entered. They told me, "We
have heard your brother comes to your house. Is this so?" I said, "I don't know
where he is." Then they hit me with the gun. They kicked me and I fell down. I
stood up and then they kicked me again, and I fell down again. They said we
have to torture you, then only will you tell us where your brother is. Then the
army tore my clothes. It was torture; they raped me. It was the army, two of
them raped me while the others held me down. The next morning I went to my
relative's house, but they told me not to stay with them because maybe the army
would come and do the same thing to them. One week later I fled [to Nepal].6
Nepalis from Southern Bhutan," April 1995 [online], http://www.unhcr.ch/
refworld/country/writenet/wribtn.htm (retrieved March 1, 2003). 5 Amnesty
International, "Bhutan: Human Rights Violations;" Amnesty International,
"Bhutan: Forcible Exile;" and Piper, "The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from
Southern Bhutan." 6 Human Rights Watch interview with Kira Maya R., Bhutanese
refugee camps, Nepal, March 24, 2003. All names of refugees we interviewed have
been changed to protect their identity. Other identifying Human Rights Watch 18
Volume 15, No. 8 (C) A young woman told Human Rights Watch she was raped by
Bhutanese police in the early 1990s in the course of the campaign against
ethnic Nepalese. She said, "The police took my family and accused us of having
connections with Indians. I said `yes, we have connections with them because we
live close to the border.' And then the officer raped me. I was thirteen years
old at the time. They raped me three or four times a day for seven days. They
had taken me from my house along with two other girls, my aunt's daughter, and
daughter-in-law. After that, we didn't feel like staying there. I felt my life
was at risk."7 Many other women fled Bhutan because of the physical threat or
fear of sexual violence. Saraswati D., a widow, recalled why she left Bhutan:
[In 1991] in Bhutan, the army came and said I had to entertain them, but I
didn't. Seventeen people came and threatened me. They said, "You should be the
wife of seventeen of us," and tried to pull me, to take me to the military
base. I said I'd rather die. They hit me on the chest with the butt of the
rifle and I shouted and fell. They said they'd come the next day. I couldn't
stay in my house, I had two small children. We hid in the goat shed, in the pit
where all the goat manure was. The next day they came at 9 p.m. They searched
the house and threw away all the foodstuffs. The next night we decided to
leave. I don't want to explain my journey out of Bhutan because I will cry. 8
One woman, whose case is typical of many other refugees, was compelled to sign
a "voluntary migration certificate" in the early 1990s after being abused and
threatened. Pratima M. said: The head of the village called me to his house for
the census. I was sick and unable to go. He came with a policeman and arrested
me. I spent seven days in jail. They made me carry stones, plough, and cook
lots of food. On the sixth day my daughter came to visit me. The policeman said
I had to give him my daughter. I was sleeping with my daughter and the
policeman came with a gun at midnight. My daughter and I screamed and the
policeman ran away. Then my neighbors came and stayed with me. After seven
days, the policeman took me to the dzongdha [district official]. They gave me
documents to sign, I didn't know what it said because it was in the Dzongkha
script. The officer gave me Rs. 6000 [U.S.$231] and told me I had to leave. He
said, "all your neighbors have gone to Jhapa [Nepal], you also go."9
information, including the name of the refugee camp where the interview took
place, has been omitted for the same reason. 7 Human Rights Watch interview
with Phul Maya L., Bhutanese refugee camps, Nepal, March 28, 2003. 8 Human
Rights Watch interview with Saraswati D., Bhutanese refugee camps, Nepal, March
26, 2003. 9 Human Rights Watch interview with Pratima M., Bhutanese refugee
camps, Nepal, March 23, 2003. Human Rights Watch 19 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) A
Protracted Refugee Situation Tens of thousands of people had fled human rights
abuses in Bhutan or were forcibly deported by 1992. Before they crossed the
border into India, the Bhutanese government forced many to sign "voluntary
migration certificates," thus surrendering their rights to Bhutanese
citizenship under the nationality laws. Initially, refugees fled overland to
West Bengal and Assam in India. However, harassment from the Indian police
forced them to move on to Nepal. 10 The refugees settled on the banks of the
Mai River in southeastern Nepal, where they endured unsanitary living
conditions, disease, and inadequate supplies. International NGOs began
operations to aid the Bhutanese refugees, and in 1991, the government of Nepal
and UNHCR established refugee camps. By mid-1994, approximately eighty-six
thousand refugees resided in the camps.11 Currently, more than one hundred
thousand Bhutanese are registered in seven refugee camps in Nepal, including a
significant number of children born in the camps.12 Some ten thousand non-
registered refugees live outside of the camps in Nepal and another fifteen
thousand live in India.13 Nepal and UNHCR jointly administer the refugee camps
with the World Food Program (WFP) providing basic food assistance. Several NGOs
operate as implementing partners in the delivery of aid, including The Lutheran
World Federation (LWF), Caritas, the Nepal Red Cross Society, the Asian Medical
Doctors Association (AMDA), and the Nepal Bar Association, Jhapa Unit. The
crisis of the early 1990s has evolved into a protracted dispute with most
refugees in Nepal wanting to invoke their right to return to Bhutan while the
government of Bhutan refuses them entry on the grounds that they are illegal
migrants or "anti- nationals."14 Like the majority of the world's refugees, the
Bhutanese refugees are 10 D.N.S. Dhakal and Christopher Strawn, Bhutan: A
Movement in Exile (New Delhi: 1994), quoted in Lee, "Refugees from Bhutan." 11
Amnesty International, "Forcible Exile," p. 3. By mid-1992, refugees' reports
of arbitrary arrests, torture, and rape in Bhutan had diminished, but they
continued to face threats of large fines and imprisonment if they did not sign
"voluntary migration certificates" and leave the country. Small numbers of
Bhutanese seeking refuge continued to arrive in the camps through the 1990s. 12
According to the government of Nepal, 102,140 refugees live in the camps
jointly administered by Nepal and UNHCR. Refugee Coordination Unit, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Nepal, November 30, 2002. There are also a small number of
Sarchops refugees and asylum-seekers in eastern Nepal. This group of Bhutanese
refugees and asylum-seekers primarily fled Bhutan in 1996 and 1997. E-mail
message from UNHCR Sub-Office, Damak, Nepal to Human Rights Watch, September 1,
2003. The Sarchop refugees fled persecution in Bhutan, including arbitrary
arrest and prolonged detention without charge or trial, for their political
views. Amn esty International, "Bhutan: Crack-down on `anti-nationals' in the
east," January 1998. 13 U.S. Committee for Refugees, World Refugee Survey 2002
(Washington, D.C.: 2002), pp. 149-152 (citing Nepalese authorities). 14 See
footnote 217 for a discussion of the right to return. Representatives of the
government of Bhutan have argued that the refugees are voluntary migrants who
followed their political leaders out of Bhutan in the early 1990s. "The people
were misled by their leaders, they were told they should go stay in the refugee
camps for a few months where they would get huts and food, and that a few
months later they would return in triumph.... They told people living in India
and Nepal to come live in the camps, and they would be rewarded with land in
Bhutan." Human Rights Watch interview with Yeshey Dorji, the deputy permanent
representative of Bhutan to the United Nations, New York City, May 6, 2003.
Bhutanese law defines "anti-nationals" as "those aversed [sic] to the
development of the Kingdom of Bhutan and those who assist the enemies."
Thrimshung Chhenpo Tsa Wa Sum (Law on Treason and Anti-Nationals), 1957, Human
Rights Watch 20 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) trapped in a "protracted refugee
situation," meaning they have been living in exile for more than five years and
do not have the immediate prospect of a durable solution by voluntary
repatriation, local integration, or resettlement in a third country. 15
Refugees in these situations often suffer from lack of funding because high-
profile crises involving large-scale refugee movements capture the bulk of
international attention and resources. They must not only struggle to meet
basic survival needs, but must also face the social and economic problems that
arise after years of refugee life. The Bhutanese refugee camps in Nepal have
been cited as a model because of the quality of basic services and the school
system, and the involvement and leadership of refugees in daily administration.
Human Rights Watch observed many positive features of the camps, including
well-designed water and sanitation systems, free education until tenth grade,
and the provision of a full food basket by WFP and UNHCR. 16 In addition to the
refugee-led camp administration, other refugee organizations operate in the
camps, providing skills training, workshops on health issues, and activities
for children. 17 Success in some aspects of service-provision may obscure the
fact that the Bhutanese refugees nevertheless suffer from hardships typical of
protracted refugee situations. Refugees are frustrated by their inability to
seek employment and to pursue higher education. UNHCR and health care workers
have identified an increasing incidence of mental health problems like
depression and anxiety, particularly among women. Twenty-four refugees have
committed suicide since June 2001, and another six have attempted suicide.18
Based on comparisons with reported suicides in surrounding areas, the incidence
of suicide in the refugee camps is approximately four times that of the
incidence in the local Nepalese population. 19 Though they receive basic food
rations and huts, the type of assistance that is sufficient for short-term
emergencies is inadequate for long-term living. Refugees live in overcrowded
conditions where up to eight people share one hut. They also receive clothes
only once a year, and have to seek low-paying art. 1. Bhutanese law
criminalizes "anti-national" activities such as treason, undermining the
security and sovereignty of Bhutan by creating or attempting to create
disaffection among the people, creating hostility or misunderstanding between
the government and the people of Bhutan, and promoting or attempting to promote
feelings of hatred between different religious, racial, or language groups. The
law provides that such acts can be punished by imprisonment or death. The
National Security Act, 1992, clause 4. 15 Jeff Crisp, "No Solutions in Sight:
The Problem of Protracted Refugee Situations in Africa," UNHCR Evaluation and
Policy Analysis Unit: Working Paper no. 75, 2003, p. 1. Over 60 percent of the
ten million refugees cared for by UNHCR at the end of 2002 were caught in
protracted refugee situations. Jeff Crisp and Ray Wilkinson, "Crises Without
End or Solution," Refugees , vol. 4, no. 129 (2002), p. 23 16 Many people
observed that the quality of education offered in the refugee camps was
superior to the education found in an average public school in Nepal. Refugees
receive a ration of 2,100 kilocalories per person per day, a number that meets
standards set by the World Health Organization. 17 The refugee organizations
include the Bhutanese Refugee Women's Forum (BRWF), the Children's Forum, and
Bhutanese Refugees Aiding Victims of Violence (BRAVVE). 18 E-mail message from
Douglass Cubie, United Nations Volunteers (UNV) associate protection officer,
UNHCR Sub-Office, Damak, Nepal, to Human Rights Watch, September 1, 2003. 19 E-
mail message from Giulia Ricciarelli-Ranawat, protection officer, UNHCR Branch
Office, Kathmandu, Nepal, to Human Rights Watch, August 15, 2003. UNHCR records
and follows up on all known reported suicide and attempted suicide cases. E-
mail message from Douglass Cubie, UNV associate protection officer, UNHCR Sub-
Office, Damak, Nepal, to Human Rights Watch, September 1, 2003. Human Rights
Watch 21 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) informal work so that they can supplement their
diet, buy extra clothes, or pursue higher education. Two common problems
associated with protracted refugee situations are dwindling resources and tense
relationships between refugees and local communities. As will be discussed
below in more detail, the programmatic choice to minimize UNHCR staffing in the
camps contributed to grave problems in the administration of justice,
especially in cases of gender-based violence. Furthermore, refugees cited local
threats and attacks by Nepalese as their most critical security issue.
Especially in the camps located on main roads or near the town of Damak, local
Nepalese men come into the camps, often drunk, and either taunt the refugees or
pick fights. Some local Nepalese men have also been implicated in sexual
harassment and violence against refugee women and girls. A Flawed
Categorization Process Negotiations between Bhutan and Nepal over the refugee
situation have stretched over a decade. A breakthrough in the tenth round of
ministerial talks in December 2000 led to the creation of a Joint Verification
Team (JVT) comprised of representatives from the governments of Bhutan and
Nepal to verify and categorize the refugees. A May 2003 Human Rights Watch
briefing paper, "We Don't Want to be Refugees Again," discusses serious
shortcomings of the verification and categorization process including the lack
of transparency, a highly flawed four-tier categorization system, and the
failure to include UNHCR as an international monitor.20 The verifications have
proceeded slowly--the categorization results for Khudanabari camp, the first
and only camp to be categorized (approximately 10 percent of the refugees) were
released in 2003, more than two years after the process first began. The two
governments have still not initiated a categorization process in the remaining
six camps nor set a timeline for doing so. In June 2003, Bhutan and Nepal
announced the categorization results for Khudanabari camp, stating that only
2.5 percent of the refugees were forcibly evicted Bhutanese who could return to
their lands and property in Bhutan with full citizenship. Seventy percent were
deemed "Bhutanese who voluntarily migrated," which means they will have the
option of returning to Bhutan, but they will not be able to reclaim their
original land and property, and they will have to fulfill burdensome
requirements to regain Bhutanese citizenship. 21 Without citizenship and a
UNHCR presence to monitor 20 Human Rights Watch, "`We Don't Want to be Refugees
Again,' A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper for the Fourteenth Ministerial
Joint Committee of Bhutan and Nepal," May 19, 2003, available at: http:/
/ hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/refugees/. The Bhutanese and Nepalese governments
have agreed upon a system of categorization into four groups: (1) bona fide
Bhutanese who were forcibly evicted, (2) Bhutanese who voluntarily migrated,
(3) non-Bhutanese, and (4) Bhutanese who have committed crimes. 21 Under the
1985 Bhutan Citizenship Act, citizenship through naturalization requires:
twenty years of residency in Bhutan; the ability to speak, read, and write
Dzongkha proficiently; good knowledge of the culture and history of Bhutan;
good moral character; no "record of imprisonment for criminal offenses in
Bhutan or elsewhere"; and "no record of having spoken or acted against the
King, country and people of Bhutan in any manner whatsoever." Most refugees
will not be able to fulfill the Dzongkha proficiency requirement. The vagueness
of several provisions in the 1985 Bhutan Citizenship Act permit arbitrary
interpretations that make returning refugees vulnerable to discrimination. The
government of Bhutan issued an application form to refugees for citizenship
that states, "The re-applicants shall not be associated Human Rights Watch 22
Volume 15, No. 8 (C) their repatriation, returning refugees may not have full
access to education, employment, and freedom of movement within the country. 22
The JVT classified 24.5 percent of the refugees from Khudanabari camp as non-
Bhutanese, leaving them at high risk of statelessness.23 The JVT designated the
remaining 3 percent as having committed crimes. These refugees may include
individuals whose only "crime" was the peaceful expression of political
views.24 The lack of an independent and fair appeal process compounds the
injustice of the categorization results. The JVT gave refugees merely fifteen
days to appeal and only if the refugees could provide new evidence. Well over
90 percent of the refugees submitted appeals .25 Refugee children who were
placed in categories two ("voluntary migrants") and four ("those who committed
crimes"), and who must therefore reapply for Bhutanese citizenship if their
families choose to return to Bhutan, will be at particular risk for
statelessness. Under the 1985 Bhutan Citizenship Act, applicants for
citizenship must be twenty-one if neither parent is a Bhutanese citizen and
fifteen if one parent is a citizen. These age limits will affect the vast
majority of refugee children. Since the Bhutanese government plans to reinstate
citizenship for only 2.5 percent of categorized refugees, most children will
have at least one parent who is not a citizen. Returning refugee children and
young adults will not be able to apply for cit izenship and will be stateless
inside of Bhutan; consequently, they may not be able to access public education
nor move freely around the country. 26 Women's Limited Participation in the
Verification and Categorization Process In the refugee verification and
categorization process carried out in Khudanabari camp, the JVT excluded women
from meaningful participation in the verification interviews. Women did not
have the same opportunity to answer interview questions as men, they had no
access to female interviewers, and they were unable to have independent
interviews even if they were separated from their husbands. By failing to make
the verification and categorization process gender-sensitive, the JVT has
denied women the opportunity to have their claims fairly considered, with
detrimental consequences for their resulting categorization and terms of
repatriation. Furthermore, women and children who had found safety by living
separately from abusive heads of household remain linked and dependent on them
for purposes of verification and repatriation. with activities of any anti-
national organizations/individuals." Government of Bhutan, Form KA-(C): Terms
and Conditions for Re-Application , June 18, 2003. This provision could prevent
refugees who participated in peaceful demonstrations, and their relatives, from
obtaining citizenship. 22 Human Rights Watch, "We Don't Want to be Refugees
Again." 23 As the JVT has not explained the criteria it used to categorize
refugees, it is possible that many of those placed in this category are indeed
Bhutanese and will be denied their right to return to Bhutan. 24 Given Bhutan's
treatment of political dissidents in the past, these activists could be subject
to criminal trials without due process of law or suffer other human rights
abuses during their time in pre-trial or post- conviction custody. 25 E-mail
message from AHURA Bhutan, Kathmandu, Nepal, to Human Rights Watch, July 7,
2003. 26 Human Rights Watch, "We Don't Want to be Refugees Again." Without
citizenship or appropriate security clearance documents, children in Bhutan
cannot take qualifying national exams and may be barred from high school. Human
Rights Watch 23 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) Interviewees told Human Rights Watch that
although the format of the interviews was supposed to include individual
interviews with each adult member of the household, the JVT directed most
questions to the male head of household, and asked just one or two questions,
if at all, of other members. As Kala G., a forty-seven-year-old woman from
Khudanabari camp stated, "They asked my husband about why he left Bhutan. But I
was not given a chance to tell my story, and I was tortured [in Bhutan] more
than he was."27 The group format of the interviews as well as the absence of
women on the JVT made it difficult for rape, domestic violence, and sexual
assault survivors to discuss either their reasons for flight or their
hesitations to return. Except for one woman on the Nepal team who was later
replaced, the JVT was comprised entirely of men. Furthermore, most rape victims
told Human Rights Watch that they were assaulted by army and police personnel
with the full complicity of local Bhutanese government officials, rendering
interviews with Bhutanese government officials intimidating. The failure to
promote women's full participation in the verification and categorization
process contravened international standards for refugee screening procedures
and contributed to the controversial categorization results the JVT announced
for Khudanabari camp in June 2003.28 Only 2.5 percent of the refugees were
deemed bona fide Bhutanese who had been forcibly evicted, and are therefore now
eligible to return with full citizenship. The JVT divided the rest of the
refugees into voluntary migrants, non-nationals, and criminals. Human Rights
Watch obtained the categorization results of refugees we had interviewed in
March and April 2003. The JVT placed all of the women we interviewed who had
been raped, imprisoned, or who had been assigned forced labor prior to their
flight from Bhutan in categories two ("voluntary migrants") and three ("non-
Bhutanese"). The JVT's categorization of wo men who fled from persecution as
"voluntary migrants" raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of the
verification and categorization process, as these women qualify as refugees
under international law. 29 The JVT has not shared 27 Human Rights Watch
interview with Kala G., Khudanabari camp, Nepal, March 21, 2003. 28 The
Executive Committee ("ExCom") is UNHCR's governing body, and has passed a
conclusion calling upon States, relevant United Nations organizations, and NGOs
to "[p]rovide, wherever necessary, skilled female interviewers in procedures
for the determination of refugee status and ensure appropriate access by women
asylum-seekers to such procedures, even when accompanied by male family
members...[and to p]rovide for informed and active consent and participation of
refugee wo men in individual decisions about durable solutions for them," ExCom
Conclusion No. 64 (1990). Since 1975, ExCom has passed a series of conclusions
at its annual meetings. The conclusions are intended to guide states in their
treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and in their interpretation of
existing international refugee law. While the conclusions are not legally
binding, they constitute a body of "soft" international refugee law. They are
adopted by consensus by the ExCom member states, are broadly representative of
the views of the international community, and carry persuasive authority. 29
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ("Refugee Convention"), 189 UNTS
150, 1951, entered into force April 22, 1954. In 1967 a Protocol was adopted to
extend the Refugee Convention temporally and geographically. Protocol Relating
to the Status of Refugees, 19 UST 6223, 606 UNTS 267, 1967, entered into force
October 4, 1967. Article 1(A) of the Refugee Convention defines a refugee as a
person who, "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of
race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is Human
Rights Watch 24 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) the criteria it used to categorize
refugees as "non-Bhutanese." Many of those categorized as "non-Bhutanese"
reported to Human Rights Watch that they had Bhutanese citizenship and fled the
country or had been forced to sign voluntary migration forms. Examples of
faulty and unclear categorizations include: · Chandra Maya R. and her family
were classified as "voluntary migrants." She had been persecuted by local
government officials after other members of her family had left the country.
They threatened that unless she left as well, they would burn down her house.
She was arrested, interrogated, and made to perform forced labor in 1993. Her
husband was tortured by the police.30 · Kira Maya R. was classified as "non-
Bhutanese." She possesses citizenship documents from Bhutan and was gang-raped
in 1992 by soldiers of the Bhutanese army.31 · Devi C. and her family were
categorized as "voluntary migrants." Devi C.'s brother-in-law was arrested by
the police for his involvement with a political party promoting democracy.
Police and government officials threatened and detained several members of this
party and their relatives. The police threatened Devi C.'s husband with arrest
in 1998 if his brother left the country upon his release from jail. When they
discovered her brother-in-law had fled, Devi C., her husband, and children left
Bhutan because they feared arrest.32 The results from Khudanabari camp have
also raised serious concerns about the splitting apart of households because
many families that were interviewed together had their members placed in
different categories, with some being allowed to return to Bhutan and others
not.33 These split categorizations violate Bhutan and Nepal's international
human rights obligations to address family reunification positively and in a
humane manner, and to act with the best interests of the child as a primary
consideration. 34 AHURA-Bhutan, a local human rights group, documented that 192
families were split between categories, with most family members categorized as
"voluntary migrants" and "non-Bhutanese." The governments of Bhutan and Nepal
have violated the rights of refugees by carrying out a verification and
categorization process lacking transparency and fairness, unable or, owing to
such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."
Neither Nepal nor Bhutan are party to the Refugee Convention. 30 Human Rights
Watch interview with Chandra Maya R., Bhutanese refugee camps, Nepal, March 24,
2003. 31 Human Rights Watch interview with Kira Maya R., Bhutanese refugee
camps, Nepal, March 24, 2003. 32 Human Rights Watch interview with Devi C.,
Bhutanese refugee camps, Nepal, March 24, 2003. 33 The JVT treated individuals
above the age of twenty-five, single or married, as separate family units from
their parents and siblings. E-mail message from Giulia Ricciarelli-Ranawat,
protection officer, UNHCR Branch Office, Kathmandu, Nepal, to Human Rights
Watch, September 10, 2003. 34 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), U.N.
Doc. A/44/49, 1989, entered into force September 2, 1990, arts. 3(1), 9, and 10
(1). Bhutan ratified the CRC on August 1, 1990 and Nepal ratified it on
September 14, 1990. ExCom Conclusion No. 84 (1997) urges "States and concerned
parties to take all possible measures to protect child and adolescent refugees,
inter alia, by: preventing separation of children and adolescent refugees from
their families and promoting care, protection, tracing and family reunification
for unaccompanied minors." Human Rights Watch 25 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) thus
affecting refugees' ability to exercise their right to return home. This
process has failed to ensure that past abuses against women in Bhutan were
taken into account during the interviews and that women could participate on an
equal basis with men. Ethnic Nepalese Women's Status in Bhutan The problems
women and girls face in the refugee camps reflect the discrimination and abuse
they experienced in Bhutan. Nepali-speaking Bhutanese women and girls
confronted harmful cultural practices within their Nepalese community and
violations of their human rights by the Bhutanese state. Many women in the camp
reported enduring domestic violence, child marriage, abandonment, bigamy, and
legal discrimination in the marriage and citizenship laws when living in
Bhutan. Although many women were farmers, men were considered the household
heads and wielded primary economic power as land and property were registered
under their names. Saraswati D. recounted the hardships that cultural norms
posed to her as a widow, "I was age five when I got married. I first moved to
my husband's house at age fifteen. After my husband died, when other men worked
in my fields I would be accused of having special relations with them. Fields
have to be ploughed with oxen by men. But because I was afraid of rumors, I
ploughed the fields by myself at night with a spade. I did all the work that
men did and I couldn't ask for help."35 Several women also talked about their
experiences with domestic violence, which often ended with their husband
abandoning them and taking a second wife. Abandoned women are still considered
married to the first husband except in cases of jari , in which a woman's
second husband must pay the equivalent of a dowry to the first husband.
Polygamy is legal in Bhutan.36 Women whose husbands took second wives were
usually not consulted, and suffered economic abandonment and loss of status in
the household. Many people in Bhutan are poor and live in isolated, mountainous
areas. Especially in impoverished communities, many women have little or no
education. Women do not have equal representation in political affairs. There
are no women's organizations operating independently of the Bhutanese
government, and there is still little awareness about women's rights and the
need for gender-specific services. Although Bhutan ratified CEDAW in 1981, it
has yet to submit an initial country report. Nepali-speaking Bhutanese women
also faced restrictions under the Bhutanese "one people, one culture" policy,
which mandated a national dress. This prevented them from wearing their
traditional sari, even, according to some refugees, on their wedding day. Other
women reported having their hair forcibly cut, as long hair is a valued trait
in Nepalese culture. By enforcing the uniform dress code today, the Bhutanese
government infringes upon the rights of the ethnic Nepalese community still
living in Bhutan to practice their own culture.37 35 Human Rights Watch
interview with Saraswati D., Bhutanese refugee camps, Nepal, March 26, 2003. 36
United States Department of State, "2002 Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices: Bhutan," March 31, 2003 [online], http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/2002/18310.htm (retrieved on May 30, 2003). Bhutanese men may marry more
than one woman with the permission of the first wife. 37 The right of persons
to participate in their own culture is well-established under international
law. The UDHR, recognized as customary international law, states in article 22
that "Everyone, as a member of Human Rights Watch 26 Volume 15, No. 8 (C)
Women's Status in Nepal Over the past twelve years, Bhutanese refugee women
have been under the protection and jurisdiction of the government of Nepal.
Despite progress made by the Nepalese women's movement in recent decades, women
and girls still suffer inferior social, economic, legal, and political status
compared to men. Girls experience discriminatory treatment from birth, and
strict gender roles prevent wo men from cultivating economic independence and
social autonomy. Girls are considered burdens to the family and less valuable
than sons, who are expected to care for parents in their old age. Low education
levels among girls and women, paternalistic laws, and pervasive gender-based
violence prevent women from enjoying their human rights. Rampant poverty, lack
of awareness about deceptive and coercive methods employed by human
traffickers, and an open border between Nepal and India contribute to thousands
of Nepalese women and girls being trafficked for sex work and forced labor in
India each year.38 Discrimination against women includes legalized polygyny and
a law that prevents women from retaining custody of their children if they
remarry. 39 Shortcomings in the law that inhibit successful prosecutions for
gender-based violence cases are discussed in later sections. society ... is
entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation
and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the
economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality"; and in article 27, that: "Everyone has the
right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community...." The
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD) recognizes the "right to equal participation in cultural
activities." CERD, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, entered into force Jan. 4, 1969, art. 5(e)
(6). Bhutan signed the CERD in 1973. Under article 18 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, a state that has signed but not yet ratified a treaty
is obliged to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of a
treaty. See also, International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (no. 16), U.N. Doc.
A/6316, entered into force January 3, 1976, art.15 and International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force
March 23, 1976, art. 27. 38 Human Rights Watch, Rape for Profit: Trafficking of
Nepali Girls and Women for India's Brothels, (New York: Human Rights Watch,
1995); United States Department of State, "2002 Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices: Nepal," March 31, 2003 [online], http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/2002/18313pf.htm (retrieved on May 30, 2003). No reliable data exists on
the magnitude of trafficking in Nepal, but local NGOs estimate 5,000 to 12,000
girls and women are trafficked each year, primarily to India for sex work. 39
Polygyny refers to men having more than one wife and polyandry refers to women
having more than one husband. Polygamy encompasses both. The Country Code
states, "No male shall, except in the following circumstances, marry another
female or keep a woman as an additional wife during the lifetime of his wife or
where the conjugal relation with his first wife has not been dissolved under
the law: [i] If his wife has any contagious venereal disease and has become
incurable; [ii] If his wife has become incurably insane; [iii] If no child has
been born or remained alive within ten years of the marriage; [iv] If his wife
has become lame and unable to walk; [v] If his wife has become blind of both
eyes; [vi] If his wife has lived separately after obtaining her partition share
under No. 10 or No. 10A of the Chapter on Partition." Muluki Ain 2020 [Country
Code 1963], chapter on Marriage, no. 9. The Country Code also stipulates a
woman may only have custody of her children older than five years if she has
not "eloped" (remarried). Muluki Ain 2020 [Country Code 1963], chapter on
Husband and Wife, no. 3(2). Human Rights Watch 27 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) While
there is a growing women's movement in Nepal and increasing government
cooperation, discrimination against women remains pervasive. There have been
some recent victories for the women's movement, for example the passage of
progressive legislation improving women's property rights, increasing
punishments for rape, and legalizing abortion. 40 However, women previously
convicted of having an abortion or committing infanticide under former anti-
abortion laws remain incarcerated.41 40 Nepal Civil Code Act, 2059 (Eleventh
Amendment, 2002). The eleventh amendment to the Civil Code changed Nepal's 1963
Country Code (Mulaki Ain 2020) to protect the inheritance rights of daughters
and widows; the property rights of divorced women; and the unrestricted right
to an abortion up to the twelfth week of pregnancy. The eleventh amendment also
increased the punishment for rape up to fifteen years and removed several
provisions discriminatory toward women from the Country Code. 41 Center for
Reproductive Rights, "Nepal's King Urged to Continue Commitment to Human Rights
by Releasing Women Imprisoned for Abortion," New York, July 1, 2003 [online],
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr_03_0701Nepal.html (retrieved July 17,
2003); The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy and Forum for Women, La w and
Development, Abortion in Nepal, Women Imprisoned (New York and Kathmandu: CRLP
and FWLD, 2002). Some women who were convicted of infanticide had still births
or induced abortions. E-mail message from Sapana Pradhan-Malla, president,
FWLD, Kathmandu, Nepal, to Human Rights Watch, August 15, 2003. Human Rights
Watch 28 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) IV. DISCRIMINATION IN REGISTRATION PROCEDURES AND
ACCESS TO AID Gender discrimination in camp registration policies and in
Nepalese law has deprived many Bhutanese women and children from enjoying equal
and full access to humanitarian aid and has also prevented some women from
passing their Bhutanese nationality to their children. UNHCR and the government
of Nepal have implemented a registration system based on household cards listed
under the name of the male household head. They have failed to ensure that all
refugee women have independent access to their full entitlement of aid, which
is especially critical for women leaving polygynous or abusive households.42
Discrimination against Women and Children in Refugee Registration The
government of Nepal does not register children who have a refugee mother but a
non-refugee father. This discriminatory policy denies children rations of food,
clothes, and other goods, and makes them ineligible for repatriation to Bhutan.
These registration procedures violate children's right to be free from
discrimination based on the sex of their parent or legal guardian. 43 Moreover,
the practice of allowing refugee men to register children born of non-refugee
women, but not allowing the same for refugee women with children fathered by
non-refugee men, discriminates on the basis of sex. In the refugee camps, this
policy may also violate children's right to acquire a nationality and render
them stateless.44 One twenty-seven-year-old rape survivor said she was unable
to register her child conceived as a result of the rape because she could not
name the father. Crying, she told Human Rights Watch: I was raped. The problem
is that the child is not registered in the camps because she doesn't have a
father. She doesn't get clothes. I have submitted a number of applications to
the camp management committee. I 42 This report does not discuss the plight of
non-registered women. In some cases, refugee women failed the refugee status
determination interview at the screening post at Kakarbhitta on the India-Nepal
border, possibly because of their unfamiliarity with and fear about the
screening procedures. In other cases, they arrived after the screening post
closed in January 2001 (screening resumed in September 2003). Some women from
the local Nepalese community have also married into the camps. None of these
women or their children are able to access aid packages, and it is unclear
whether they will have a chance to accompany their families to Bhutan. Human
Rights Watch interviewed several Nepalese women who had married into the camps,
and who experienced psychological and physical abuse from their husband's
families because they were seen as burdens on the household's resources. 43
CRC, art. 2(1). 44 CRC, art. 7. UNHCR guidelines on the protection of refugee
children outline its responsibilities to prevent statelessness among refugee
children and to protect stateless persons, in part by ensuring that the births
of all refugee children are registered. UNHCR, Refugee Children: Guidelines for
Protection and Care (Geneva: UNHCR, 1995), p. 104. ExCom Conclusion No. 47
(1987) urges States to "take appropriate measures to register the births of
refugee children born in countries of asylum," and ExCom Conclusion No. 85
(1998) affirms this guideline, drawing particular attention to "children of
refugees and asylum-seekers born in asylum countries who could be stateless
unless appropriate legislation and registration procedures are in place and are
followed." Human Rights Watch 29 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) even went to
Chandragadhi. 45 The CDO [chief district officer] said they would reply, but
they haven't replied. It was last year that I visited.46 In another case, a
twenty-three-year-old refugee woman who married a local Nepalese man has two
children who have not been registered. After she married, she left the camps to
live with her husband. Facing difficulties in her marriage, including her
husband's refusal to register the children and herself as Nepalese citizens,
she returned to her parents and siblings in one of the camps. Although her own
rations were reinstated, the RCU has kept her application for the children to
be registered as Bhutanese refugees "pending" for the last three years. Without
Nepalese citizenship or registration as Bhutanese refugees, these children are
stateless. She told Human Rights Watch: I have rations, but my children don't.
I have to look for the future of my children and would like to go back [to
Bhutan] with my family. It's my husband's choice if he wants to join us or not.
In the camps, the children's registration is not done. I couldn' t get them
admission in the nursery school. Their birth registration is not done outside
[in Nepal] or here [in the camps].... I applied two or three years ago for the
children to be registered in the camps, and it has been kept pending since. I
just wrote yet another application to the RCU's office one week ago.47 The
inability of refugee women to register their children not only deprives them of
aid packages, such as food rations and access to nursery school, but also
prevents them from participating in the verification and categorization process
that would allow them to be repatriated to Bhutan. Maya S. from Khudanabari
camp recounts, "I married a local person...but then we had problems and I came
back to the camp. My husband later came to join me. I have a daughter who is
three and a son age seven. I have asked the RCU, but they said my children
won't get rations until the [JVT] team comes again, which may be after months
or years.48 I asked again one week ago and they said that I won't get a chance
to register my children now. When I went to the verification interview, they
snapped my photo but not of my children. During the interview, I asked them to
write down the names of my children, but they didn't write down their names."49
Human Rights Watch interviewed camp-level and district-level officials from the
government of Nepal's Refugee Coordination Unit. When asked about the policy
toward children born of mixed marriages, one camp-level administrator replied,
"If a woman marries outside the camp, then if they have children, the children
are not registered. But the children of a Bhutanese refugee man and Nepalese
woman will get rations."50 45 Chandragadhi is the town where the district
offices of the RCU and police are headquartered in Jhapa district. 46 Human
Rights Watch interview with Rita D., Bhutanese refugee camps, Nepal, March 28,
2003. 47 Human Rights Watch interview with Ratna G., Bhutanese refugee camps,
Nepal, April 3, 2003. 48 The JVT does not set camp registration or ration
distribution policies. The reason for the RCU administrator's reference to the
JVT is unclear, but he gave Maya S. incorrect information about how to pursue
registration for her children and eventually rejected her application. 49 Human
Rights Watch interview with Maya S., Khudanabari camp, Nepal, March 24, 2003.
50 Human Rights Watch interview with camp -level RCU administrator, Bhutanese
refugee camps, Nepal, March 27, 2003. Human Rights Watch 30 Volume 15, No. 8
(C) Another administrator confirmed this policy: "If an outside [Nepalese]
woman is brought into the camps, the children will be registered, but there is
no rule like that for outside men. This is the rule of Nepal under an
understanding with UNHCR: inheritance is only through the father, not the
mother."51 Camp administrators base registration procedures on Nepalese law,
which discriminates against women by denying them the ability to transfer
citizenship to their children. Section 9 of the constitution of Nepal states
that a child "whose father is a citizen of Nepal at the birth of the child
shall be a citizen of Nepal by descent" and that "[e]very child who is found
within the Kingdom of Nepal and the whereabouts of whose parents are not known
shall, until the father of the child is traced, be deemed to be a citizen of
Nepal by descent."52 Any child with a Nepalese father and a non-Nepalese mother
automatically acquires Nepalese citizenship, but this is not the case for a
child with a Nepalese mother and non-Nepalese father. Correspondingly, any
child with a registered Bhutanese refugee father may be registered in the
camps, but camp policy denies registration to children with a registered
Bhutanese refugee mother and Nepalese father. Non-Registration of Ration Cards
in Women's Names Under the current registration and ration card system,
Bhutanese refugee women are often unable to obtain ration cards in their own
names. Although there are isolated cases of household cards being issued to
women, married women are generally listed under their husband's household card.
Adult women who are single, divorced, or widowed are often "absorbed" into
their father or brother's household card. This practice denies women
independent and equal access to their full aid entitlements and if they are in
abusive relationships, may jeopardize their safety. Human Rights Watch
interviewed one twenty-one-year-old woman, Tara D., who was beaten repeatedly
by her husband to the point where she was hospitalized twice. She eventually
tried to commit suicide. She said: Now I am living separately. But my ration is
still with my parents-in-law. They say bad things [insults] but I do it my way.
I get my [food] rations, but not other benefits, like clothes. I have talked
about it in the office, but no one replied. I asked again, I was called, and I
asked for a separation. They said this is new for us, we need to discuss it
more. That was three months ago. The subsector head supports me. He gives my
husband's share to me when my husband is away. The subsector head found a place
for me to build a new hut. I had a goat and I sold it to buy materials for a
new hut. I have not been given anything. I borrowed money from others and have
not been able to pay it back yet. When it rains, the whole place gets drenched.
51 Human Rights Watch interview with camp -level RCU administrator, Bhutanese
refugee camps, Nepal, April 1, 2003. In an e-mail message to Human Rights
Watch, a protection officer with the UNHCR Sub- Office in Damak said that UNHCR
does not agree with the current policy. E-mail message from Douglass Cubie, UNV
associate protection officer, UNHCR Sub-Office, Damak, Nepal to Human Rights
Watch, September 1, 2003. 52 Nepal Const, arts. 9(1) and 9(2). Human Rights
Watch 31 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) I think that everything should be settled, and my
in-laws should not say these things to me. The ration should be separate. I
should have all materials for my hut, especially as the rainy season is coming.
UNHCR came to see me. It has been one month. They asked about the suicide,
wrote it down, and left. I want a separate ration card because all of the
benefits go to my husband's family only--like the utensils for filling water
and the hut.53 Several women told Human Rights Watch they had attempted to
obtain a separate ration card but were denied their request. The go vernment of
Nepal will issue a separate ration card to a woman only if she obtains a legal
divorce.54 Many women preferred to separate from their husbands without filing
for divorce because the change in status could endanger their custody of their
children and their property rights on return to Bhutan. Women who remarry may
lose custody of their children under Nepalese law. 55 Most women said they made
ad hoc arrangements with their subsector head to collect their food rations
separately from their estranged husband. However, they had problems accessing
rations meant to be shared within one household, such as stoves, blankets, and
soap. Additionally, they were unable to obtain separate housing, leaving them
to find refuge with other family members in overcrowded huts or to partition
off the original hut and live in one small corner. Other refugee crises have
demonstrated that having registration and ration distribution systems organized
around male household heads can lead to situations in which men squander the
household's rations on alcohol and gambling or use it as leverage to keep women
and children in abusive relationships.56 This system also puts refugee women at
the mercy of an often male-dominated camp management. Recognizing such
potential for abuse, a series of UNHCR protection guidelines over the past
decade have recommended issuing refugee women their own registration documents
and individual access to humanitarian aid.57 The 2003 Sexual and Gender-Based
Violence Against Refugees, Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons:
Guidelines for Prevention and Response emphasize as a fundamental principle
that: 53 Human Rights Watch interview with Tara D., Bhutanese refugee camps,
Nepal, April 1, 2003. 54 This practice partly stems from concerns of "double
registration" in which members of one household apply for separate ration cards
and then pool the rations, effectively doubling their aid package. However,
this policy fails to acknowledge the legal and social barriers that women must
consider before filing for divorce. This policy is also discriminatory against
women because men are listed as the household heads on the ration cards and it
is generally women who must find alternative housing and aid if they separate.
55 Nepal Country Code, No. 3(2) of the Chapter on Husband and Wife. 56 See
Human Rights Watch, Seeking Protection: Addressing Sexual and Domestic Violence
in Tanzania's Refugee Camps (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2000), p. 33. 57
UNHCR, Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women (Geneva: UNHCR, 1991);
UNHCR, Sexual Violence Against Refugees (Geneva: UNHCR, 1995); and UNHCR Sexual
and Gender-Based Violence Against Refugees, Returnees, and Internally Displaced
Persons: Guidelines for Prevention and Response (Geneva: UNHCR, 2003). Human
Rights Watch 32 Volume 15, No. 8 (C) Equal access to and control of material
resources and assistance benefits and women's equal participation in decision-
making processes should be reflected in all programmes, whether explicitly
targeting sexual and gender- based violence or responding to the emergency,
recovery or development needs of the population. 58 The guidelines emphasize
that an important method for ensuring equal access to aid and protection is to
"[p]rovide registration cards to all adult refugees (male and female)."59
However, an informal review conducted by UNHCR and the World Food Programme
(WFP) in early 2003 concluded that the cost of redesigning the registration
system in Nepal would not justify the benefits.60 The current registration
policies fail women by preventing them from obtaining an independent ration
card even if they separate from an abusive husband. Upon the request of Tara
D., whose situation is described above, a researcher from Human Rights Watch
raised her case with a camp-level RCU administrator. He replied, "I think this
case is quite satisfactorily settled. She's receiving special protection from
the subsector head. If she has complaints, then she doesn't know who to go to.
She should go to LWF [The Lutheran World Federation] for additional housing
materials." The administrator ignored the fact that Tara D. could not request
additional materials without a separate ration card and that she faced
difficulties with other types of rations as well. He further explained, "A
ration card cannot be separated. [If a woman wants to live separately] [t]hey
can set up a partition in the hut. Only if the woman takes another husband can
the ration card be changed. The RCU changes it, UNHCR has to give a separate
hut, and LWF gives separate materials."61 Even when the camp management
committee and the RCU forwarded cases to UNHCR, most women we interviewed were
still not able to obtain a separate ration card because of the camp
registration policies. Geeta M. reported: I was in class eight when we got
married. I had a child, and my husband started mistreating me. He had an affair
with another girl. I was beaten several times. Sometimes I was beaten so badly
I bled. I told the sector head. My husband took a second wife. I didn't agree,
but I had lots of pressure from the neighbors so I agreed. He said, "if you
don't allow me to take a second wife, then the ration card is in my name, and
I'll take everything." There was a fight involving my brothers, and I was taken
to the police. The case couldn't be decided by the camp secretary and the 58
UNHCR, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, p. 25. 59 UNHCR, Sexual and Gender-
Based Violence, p. 51. ExCom Conclusion No. 64 (1990) calls upon States to "
[i]ssue individual identification and/or registration documents to all refugee
women; [and] provide all refugee women and girls with effective and equitable
access to basic services...." 60 Human Rights Watch interview with Courtney
Mitchell, programme officer, World Food Programme, Kathmandu, Nepal, March 18,
2003. 61 Human Rights Watch interview with camp -level RCU administrator,
Bhutanese refugee camps, Nepal, April 1, 2003. Human Rights Watch 33 Volume 15,
No. 8 (C) counseling board, so it went to the RCU. Since it was a case of
bigamy, it went to UNHCR. I live separately with my child in an extended hut.
My husband and his wife live with his parents. We're all on the same ration
card. UNHCR asked me if I wanted freedom and independence. I want the husband
and wife to be booked [have criminal charges brought against them]. Under
Nepali law...I want them to be punished under the law of bigamy. I have asked
my husband for the health card and ration card and they don't give. Two months
ago I gave a request to have a separate ration card. There are two camp
supervisors from the RCU. They don't listen to me because they are friends with
my h