a-7557-2 (ACC-IND-7557-2)

Das vorliegende Dokument beruht auf einer zeitlich begrenzten Recherche in öffentlich zugänglichen Dokumenten, die ACCORD derzeit zur Verfügung stehen, und wurde in Übereinstimmung mit den Standards von ACCORD und den Common EU Guidelines for processing Country of Origin Information (COI) erstellt.
Diese Antwort stellt keine Meinung zum Inhalt eines Ansuchens um Asyl oder anderen internationalen Schutz dar.
Wir empfehlen, die verwendeten Materialien im Original durchzusehen. Originaldokumente, die nicht kostenfrei oder online abrufbar sind, können bei ACCORD eingesehen oder angefordert werden.
Die folgenden Ausschnitte aus ausgewählten Quellen enthalten Informationen zu oben genannter Fragestellung (Zugriff auf alle Quellen am 19. April 2011):
·      USDOS - US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2010 – India, 8. April 2011 (verfügbar auf ecoi.net)
„Although the central government provides guidance and support, the 28 states and seven union territories have primary responsibility for maintaining law and order. The MHA[1] controls most paramilitary forces, the internal intelligence bureaus, and the nationwide police service, and it provides training for senior police officers of the state-organized police forces. According to HRW, cases of arbitrary arrest, torture, and forced confessions by security forces were common. Several laws, including part of the criminal procedure code and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), were used to provide legal protection for members of security forces who violated human rights.
Officers at all levels acted with impunity, and officials rarely held them accountable for illegal actions. Military courts investigated cases of abuse by security officials. When a court found an officer guilty of a crime, the punishment often was a transfer.” (USDOS, 8. April 2011, Section 1c)
·      HRW - Human Rights Watch: The “Anti-Nationals”, 1. Februar 2011 (verfügbar auf ecoi.net)
„On three separate days in 2008, India was plunged into panic as synchronized bombs struck three major cities, killing 152 people and injuring hundreds of others. […] The state response was massive. In sweeps across the country, state police brought in scores of Muslim men for questioning and promptly labeled many ‘anti-national.’ The police arbitrarily detained, tortured, and ill-treated many bombing suspects to get them to confess. In several cases, the police themselves appear to have drafted the confessions. Suspects suffered further mistreatment while in jail awaiting trial, and faced unfair proceedings in court.
The spate of 2008 bombings was followed by the November 26, 2008, attack on the entertainment and commercial hub of Mumbai, in which 10 Pakistani gunmen went on a killing spree inside two luxury hotels, a hospital, the main railway station and a Jewish center. […] Nonetheless, as detailed in this report, the security forces in India, the world’s largest democracy, have time and again responded to these horrific attacks by committing numerous, serious human rights violations in their quest to identify and prosecute suspected perpetrators. These abuses are both unlawful under Indian and international law and counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.“ (HRW, 1. Februar 2011, S. 2-10)
·      HRW - Human Rights Watch: World Report 2011, 24. Jänner 2011 (verfügbar auf ecoi.net)
„The security forces have at times used excessive force in suppressing violent street protests in Indian-administered Kashmir; the clashes resulting in more than 100 deaths and thousands of injuries to both civilians and security forces. […]
There were repeated allegations of unlawful detention, torture, and other ill-treatment by police to secure confessions in response to such attacks. In several cases, the police themselves appear to have drafted the confessions. The suspects suffered further abuses while in jail awaiting trial and even in court.“ (HRW, 24. Jänner 2011)
·      Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2010, 24. Juni 2010
„Police often torture or abuse suspects to extract confessions or bribes. Custodial rape of female detainees continues to be a problem, as does routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, particularly minorities and members of the lower castes. The Asian Centre for Human Rights reported in 2009 that between 2001 and March 2009, 1,184 deaths in police custody were reported, nearly all as a result of torture. The group estimates that the actual number of deaths is far greater. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and handles roughly 80,000 complaints each year. However, while it monitors abuses, initiates investigations, makes independent assessments, and conducts training sessions for the police and others, its recommendations are often not implemented and it has few enforcement powers. The commission also lacks jurisdiction over the armed forces, which severely hampers its effectiveness. […]
Security forces operating in the context of regional insurgencies continue to be implicated in disappearances, extrajudicial killings, rape, torture, arbitrary detention, and destruction of homes. Despite several calls for its repeal, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the Disturbed Areas Act remain in effect in a number of states, granting security forces broad powers of arrest and detention. Security forces also continue to hold suspects under the National Security Act, which authorizes detention without charge for up to one year, as well as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. In response to spiraling Naxalite-related violence, the Chhattisgarh state government passed the Special Public Protection Act in 2006, with broad language allowing three-year detentions for ‘unlawful activities’ and criminalizing the provision of support to the Naxalite rebels, even if under duress. The criminal procedure code requires the federal or relevant state government to approve prosecution of security force members, but such approval is rarely granted, leading to impunity for personnel implicated in human rights abuses.“ (Freedom House, 24. Juni 2010)
·      HRW - Human Rights Watch: Broken System; Dysfunction, Abuse, and Impunity in the Indian Police, 4. August 2009
„While India rightly touts itself as an emerging economic powerhouse that is also the world’s largest democracy, its police forces—the most visible arm of the Indian state—are widely regarded within India as lawless, abusive and ineffective. […] Instead of policing through public consent and participation, the police use abuse and threats as a primary crime investigation and law enforcement tactic. The institutional culture of police practically discourages officers from acting otherwise, failing to give them the resources, training, ethical environment, and encouragement to develop professional police tactics. Many officers even told Human Rights Watch that they were ordered or expected to commit abuses.
In its research, Human Rights Watch examined these two separate, but linked issues: abuses by the police against individuals, usually criminal suspects, and the conditions that facilitated and encouraged police to commit those abuses. Our findings, when read alongside other work that has been done by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media and even some government bodies, make it clear that misbehavior is deeply rooted in institutional practice. It persists and sometimes flourishes due to government failure to hold abusers accountable and to overhaul the structure and practices that enable abusive patterns of behavior.
Drawing on the extensive existing documentation of human rights abuses by the Indian police, Human Rights Watch conducted its own research and found four clusters of issues warranting attention, addressed in separate subsections of this report: police failure to investigate crimes; arrest on false charges and illegal detention; torture and ill-treatment; and extrajudicial killings. Traditionally marginalized groups are especially vulnerable to each of the first three abuses. Though stemming from the discriminatory biases of police officers, their vulnerability is also the product of an abusive police culture in which an individual’s ability to pay a bribe, trade on social status or call on political connections often determines whether they will be assisted or abused. Why do these abuses persist? Part of the problem is the working conditions of individual officers. […]
To get around these systemic problems many officers take ‘short-cuts.’ Officers told Human Rights Watch they often cut their caseloads by refusing to register crime complaints. At other times, they use illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment to punish criminals against whom they lack the time or inclination to build cases, or to elicit confessions, even ones they know are false. Such abuses contribute to a climate of fear. Many Indians avoid any contact with the police, believing not only that they will not receive assistance but that they risk demands for bribes, illegal detention, torture, or even death. Facing a reclusive public, the police are unable to get tips from informants or the cooperation of witnesses, which are both critical to solving cases and preventing crime. This, of course, creates a vicious cycle, as crimes go unreported and unpunished and the pressures on the police to deal with rising criminality increase.“ (HRW, 4. August 2009, S. 4-6)
·      HRLN – Human Rights Law Network: Accountability for the Indian police: Creating an external complaints agency, August 2009
„Torture and violence is widespread in India and is a routine strategy of police control. It includes custodial violence, physical and mental abuse, rape, threats, humiliations, and deprivations of food and water and medicines. Torture occurs because it is met with acquiescence by the superior officers. Thus, from the eyes of the people, the governmental institutions are granting it a perceived legitimacy. Citizens are usually powerless to report on torture. The police are reluctant to investigate, and when they need to explain why the person died or was injured, they often say that he committed suicide when in custody or they cite an ‘encounter’, meaning that the person either fled or resisted the arrest, which brought about the use of force. Naturally, as with all cases of police misconduct, the ones most affected are poor and socially marginalized who lack the political clout to affect police procedures. […]
Closely related to, and often involving, torture, is the case of disappearances. Thousands of people have disappeared after encountering the police. Some are later found to be dead, and some are never found. Often, the family needs to pay a bribe in order for the prison officials to confirm their relatives are detained. […]
The level of police corruption in India is breathtaking. According to a 2005 report by ‘Transparency International India’, more than one tenth (12%) of all households in India have reported to have paid bribes, in that year, to the police to get service, and 87% of those who interacted with the police perceive it to be corrupt. Most people (60%) who encounter the police face an indifferent attitude, which is often a signal that they should pay a bribe. There are also cases where torture would result if the bribe isn't paid. […]
The police systemically fail to observe due process norms. Many arrests and searches are made without the necessary prerequisites such as a warrant. People are detained for longer periods than permitted or without any reasonable cause. Confessions are often extrapolated through the use of forbidden means, such as violence and threats. In many cases, detainees cannot contact a next of kin or friend and are brought before a magistrate after the 24 hour period allotted by law has expired. […]
A FIR (first information report), the most important document without which the police will not initiate an investigation, is often the source of corruption. Under Indian law, the police must register all FIR's. However, cases of non-registration are extremely common. Indeed, it is one of the most widespread grievances of citizens, particularly from the weaker sectors of society. A variety of reasons account for nonregistration: lack of resources is often cited and the desire for a bribe in exchange for registration is common as well.“ (HRLN, August 2009, S. 11-14)
·      USDOS - US Department of State: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2010 - India 8. April 2011 (verfügbar auf ecoi.net)
„Prison conditions were frequently life threatening and did not meet international standards. Prisons were severely overcrowded, sanitation and other environmental conditions often did not meet international standards, and food and medical care were inadequate. The state's 64 prisons were designed to 40,000 prisoners but reportedly housed approximately 90,000 prisoners during the year. […]
The physical status of the prison and detention center infrastructure often did not meet international standards.“ (USDOS, 8. April 2011, Section 1c)
·      India today: Death sentence, 17. Jänner 2011
„Jails in Uttar Pradesh are at bursting point. The 64 prisons in the state are meant to house 40,000 convicts and undertrials, but they are packed with about 90,000 prisoners. The average capacity of each of the 58 district jails, five central jails and one model jail in the state's 73 districts is 500-800 inmates, but each one is cramped with about 2,400-3,000 inmates. ‘Unbelievably inhuman conditions prevail in most of the jails where prisoners don't have enough space to sleep, eat or defecate,’ says an inspector-general who has recently been transferred from the jail department. Such brutal conditions lead to the deaths of about 300 inmates every year in the state's prisons, the highest number in the country. ‘In most jails, prisoners sleep in shifts at night in barracks that are dangerously overcrowded. This eventually causes diseases, leading to a high death rate,’ a jail superintendent told India Today.“ (India Today, 17. Jänner 2011)
·      ACHR - Asian Centre for Human Rights: Torture in India 2010, 13. April 2010
„Since 2000, according to the statistics submitted to the parliament by the Ministry of Home Affairs, prison custody deaths have increased by 54.02% by 2008, while police custody deaths during the same period have increased by 19.88% . In fact, under the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) rule from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, prison custody deaths have increased by 70.72% while police custody deaths during the same period have increased by 12.60%. […]
I. Patterns and Practices of Torture in Police Custody
Torture in police custody remains a widespread and systematic practice in India. ACHR’s research into patterns of torture in police custody since 2008 (ACHR’s 2008 and 2009 Annual Reports on Torture) suggests that victims suffer high risks of torture in the first twenty four hours following detention. There are no safeguards to ensure that a person taken into custody will have their detention recorded, have prompt access to a lawyer or impartial medical examination upon their arrival at the place of detention, or at the time of his release. The lack of any effective system of independent monitoring of all places of detention facilitates torture.
A. Custodial deaths […]
In a reply to the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Indian Parliament) on 12 March 2008, then Home Minister of India, Shivraj Patil cited suicide as one of the primary causes of custodial death. […]Suicide does of course occur. However, an examination of numerous cases over a number of years by ACHR suggests that the causes of deaths are often a cause for concern. There are frequent allegations by the families of the victims of torture; torture that either impacted on the victims actions or resulted in a death that was subsequently covered up. It is well established that the psychological impact of torture can inculcate feelings of deep guilt and depression sufficient to commit suicide. […]
B. Torture to extract confessions […]
A large number of incidents of torture and custodial death result from attempts to extract a confession relating to theft or other petty offences. Suspects belonging to the lower economic and social strata are particularly vulnerable. […]
C. Torture not resulting in death
The majority of torture cases do not result in the death of the victim. While the NHRC has directed all the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police to report all cases of custodial deaths within 24 hours, no such directive exists to report allegations of torture that does not result in death. Since police officials are not mandatorily required to report to the NHRC or any body on custodial torture they enjoy virtual impunity as these cases for the most part escape any official monitoring. […]
D. Torture resulting from failure to pay bribes
Paying bribe to the police is a part of daily life in India. […] During 2009 ACHR documented several cases of torture by police personnel for failure/refusal to pay bribes. […]
II. Custodial torture of women
Torture of women in custody including rape is reported regularly in India. Custodial rape remains one of the worst forms of torture perpetrated on women by law enforcement personnel. […] In 2009 the Asian Centre for Human Rights documented several cases of torture of women by law enforcement agencies. […]
III. Custodial torture of children
Illegal detention and torture of children in police custody is common in India. There is little implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which provides that the rights of ‘juveniles in conflict with law’ and the ‘child in need of care and protection’ need to be cared and protected.“ (ACHR, 13. April 2010, S. 1-29)

[1] Ministry of Home Affairs' (Anmerkung ACCORD)