Human Rights in India - Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

The record of correspondence for 2007 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, A/HRC/4/20/Add.1.

India: Death in Custody of Rajendran in Kerala

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of India has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Letter of allegation dated 19 December 2005 sent with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture

We would like to bring to your Government’s attention information we have received concerning the following case:

Rajendran, aged 37, a salesman of Raj Nivas, Kodamkulam, Neeleswaram Post Office, Kottarakkara, Kollam District, Kerela.

On 6 April 2005, he was arrested outside Sanker Hospital by the Assistant Sub Inspector Babu of Kollam East Police Station. He was taken to Kollam East Police Station where he was forced to remove his clothes and beaten by Assistant Sub Inspector Babu. He was then beaten by five other unidentified policemen. He died in police custody and was taken to the District Government hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Without in any way implying any conclusion as to the facts of the case, we should like to appeal to your Excellency to ensure that the death of Mr. Rajendran is promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated in accordance with the United Nations Principles on the effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. We would also like to draw your Excellency's attention to Article 12 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which requires the competent authorities to undertake a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed.

We urge your Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that accountability of any person guilty of the murder of Mr. Rajendran is ensured in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention Against Torture. We also urge your Government to ensure that any dependents are provided with appropriate compensation in accordance with Article 14 of the Convention Against Torture. We also request that your Government adopts effective measures to prevent the recurrence of killings such as the above described.

It is our responsibility under the mandate provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Commission, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters in relation to each of the cases referred to above:

3. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to this case. If no inquiries have taken place or if they have been inconclusive please explain why.

4. In the event that the alleged perpetrators are identified, please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken; Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?

5. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the victim or the family of Mr. Rajendran.

Violation alleged: Deaths due to the use of excessive force by law enforcement officials

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the preliminary information provided by the Government of India with respect to the incident in Orissa and will request the report of the commission of inquiry that was established. The Special Rapporteur would also note that he has received no clairification of the incident in Assam.

I would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to information I have received regarding two incidents in which lethal force was allegedly used against protesters. In the first incident, three university students were killed by the police on 23 December 2005 in Assam while protesting the alleged sexual molestation of their fellow students by police on a train. In the second incident, twelve tribal people were shot and killed by the police on 2 January 2006 while demonstrating against the construction of a Tata Steel plant in Kalinga Nagar in Orissa. It has been alleged that the use of lethal force was not justified under the circumstances.

If these allegations were correct, there would be ground for serious concern. Therefore, while I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to the fundamental principles set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 6 of the ICCPR provides that every individual has the right to life, that this right shall be protected by law and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. The U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials applies this standard to the policing of unlawful public assemblies. These principles explain that to disperse a violent protest or assembly, law enforcement officials may only use firearms when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary (§14). In all circumstances, the intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life (§9) and after a clear warning of the intention to use firearms has been provided (§10).

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly to seek to clarify all such cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on these cases to the Commission, I would be grateful for your cooperation and observations on the following matters:

2. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any police investigation, and judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation to the deaths of the above mentioned victims.

3. Please provide the full details of any disciplinary action and prosecution undertaken with regard to the police officers responsible for the above mentioned shootings.

4. What instructions or guidance, if any, were law enforcement officers given with respect to the dispersal of this assembly? If no specific instructions were provided, what are the general rules or training given police on dispersing assemblies?

Response of the Government of India dated 30 August 2006 to a letter of allegation dated 22 August 2006

The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations Office and other International Organisations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and has the honour to refer to the letter No. AL C/SO/2l4 (33-23) dated 22 August 2006 from the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, requesting for information relating to the following two incidents : (i) Alleged killing of three university students by the police on December 23, 2005 in Assam State, India (ii) Alleged killing of 12 tribal people by the police on January 2, 2006 in Kalinga Nagar, Orissa State, India.

With regard to the first incident, the Permanent Mission of India would like. to convey that the details have been forwarded to the concerned authorities for ascertaining the facts.

On the second incident, the Permanent Mission of India bas the honour to forward the following Facts:

On January 2, 2006, an estimated crowd of 1000 agitators armed with bows and arrows had assembled at Salbrga Nagar, Jajpur, Orissa, to prevent the construction of a boundary wall by tata Steel LTd which was being done with the support of the district administration on land acquired by the Industrial Development Corporation (IDCO), Government of Orissa, and allotted to industrial homes for setting up industrial complexes. The displaced persons had been agitating for some time against the low compensation rate given by the State Government as compared to the sale price charged front the industrial houses benefited by land allotment. The agitation was also directed against the Government and the companies for not having delivered the promised rehabilitation package, including employment to one eligible person per family losing the land.

According to the report of the State Government, 13 persons including one police Havildar and 12 agitators were killed in police firing, three of them while undergoing treatment at the Hospital.

Immediately after the incident, the State Government announced an ex-gratia payment of Rupees 100,000 which was subsequently raised to Rs 500,000. The State Government also offered an aid of Rupees 50,000 and free specialized treatment for the injured and employment of one member of each of the affected families. Government also announced a payment of Rs. 500,000 as ex gratia from Prime Minister's National Relief Fund to the next of kin of all the 13 persons killed.

The State Government of Orissa has also set up an Inquiry Commission consisting of a sitting Judge of Orissa High Court under the Commission of Inquiries Act,1952 to submit a report within six months.

The State Government has also constituted a Group of Ministers (GOMs) on 5 January 2006 to review the rehabilitation package to the displaced persons and come up with a revised rehabilitation policy.

The Government of Orissa has been advised to take all possible steps to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future.

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of India has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

I would like to bring to your Excellency’s Government attention, information I have received concerning the alleged extrajudicial execution of Mr. Longjam Surjit, a resident of Samurou Makha Leikai within the jurisdiction of Wangoi police station of Imphal West District, Manipur.

According to the information received, on 31 August 2006, Mr. Longjam Surjit was killed by the officers from the 22 Maratha Light Infantry, based at Mayang, Imphal, Manipur. It is alleged that Surjit was shot dead by the army when he went out looking for his missing horse with his friend Mr. Naorem Brajamani. According to our source, they went separate ways looking for the horse by the banks of the river Nabul, when Mr. Brajamani heard shots coming from the direction in which Surgit had gone. Scared of the shots Mr. Brajamani ran back home. The next morning Mr. Surjit was found dead.

The army reportedly claimed responsibility for the killing and affirmed they had to shoot at Mr. Surjit because he tried to open fire on the army officers. The army also claimed they had found arms and ammunitions in Surjit’s possession, a possibility that his family has denied.

During a public meeting which local residents organized, it was decided that Surgit’s family would not claim his body from the mortuary, unless there was an independent investigation into this case. During the meeting, the local residents reportedly claimed that security forces often executed alleged militants of secessionists groups instead of bringing them to trial, and affirmed that most of those summarily executed are falsely reported to have died during armed clashes between the army and militants in "encounter killings." According to our sources, this situation is linked to the fact that the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958 is in force in this area.

In a letter dated 24 August 2005, I had previously raised with your Excellency’s Government information I had received concerning alleged extra-judicial executions in Manipur. On that occasion, I suggested that the (Special Power) Act, 1958 violates non-derogable provisions of international human rights law and can thus facilitate the perpetration of extrajudicial executions, by giving the security forces the power to shoot to kill in circumstances where members of the security forces are not necessarily at imminent risk. Furthermore, the Act provides that no person can start legal action against any member of the armed forces for anything done under the Act or purported to be done under the Act, without permission of the Central Government which, I understand, is rarely given. Prosecutions of security force personnel, even where the facts are well established, have apparently been rare.

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I respectfully request that your Government ensures that the death of Mr. Longjam Surjit is promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated, in accordance with the United Nations principles on the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions.

In this connection, I would like to recall the principle whereby all States have “the obligation (…) to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”, as recently reiterated by the 61st Commission on Human Rights in Resolution 2005/34 on “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” (OP 4). The Commission added that this obligation includes the obligation “to identify and bring to justice those responsible, (…) to grant adequate compensation within a reasonable time to the victims or their families and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, in order to (…) prevent the recurrence of such executions”.

Furthermore, I would like to refer Your Excellency's Government to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which provides that every individual has the right to life and security of the person, that this right shall be protected by law and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life.

In its General Comment on Article 6, the Human Rights Committee has observed “that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities."

Both Article 4(2) of the ICCPR and Principle 8 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provide that exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any derogation from the right to life and security of the person. Besides, Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials provides that law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.

In this connection, I would like to urge your Excellency’s Government to consider either repealing the (Special Power ) Act, 1958 or ensuring that it and any other such future legislative measures comply fully with international human rights and humanitarian law treaties to which India is a state party, especially the ICCPR and the four Geneva Conventions. In the interpretation of these obligations full account should be taken of the detailed standards included in the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, and the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights Council and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all such cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on these cases to the Council I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following six matters:

3. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations (autopsy), and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to the death of Mr. Longjam Surjit If no inquiries have taken place or if they have been inconclusive please explain why.

5. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the family of Mr. Longjam Surjit.

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of India has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

We would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received concerning Mr. Saju, a private bus conductor who reportedly died from custodial torture for refusing to pay bribes to police officers in Kerala state.

According to the information received, on 8 September 2006, Mr. Saju was taken into custody by three police officers from Kunnathunadu police station, on an allegation that he was involved in the theft of three telephone posts. According to our sources the posts had been abandoned by the Kunnathunadu telephone office on the road near Mr. Saju’s home, and he picked them up and used them as a protective barricade around an open well so that children and animals would not fall into the well.

The police officers reportedly told Mr. Saju he had to give them 3000 rupees (68 USD) if he wanted to be released, money that Mr. Saju refused to pay. Reports indicate that Mr. Aliyar, a person who was also taken into custody by the police officers in connection with the same crime, was released by the police after he accepted to bribe the police officers.

On 9 August 2006, at about 3:00 pm Mr. Saju’s wife went to Kunnathunadu police station to visit her husband who told her that he had been tortured because he refused to pay a bribe to the police officers. Ms. Saju returned home and at about 4:30 pm she received a call informing her that Mr. Saju was at the Kolenchery Medical College. At the hospital she was informed that her husband died at the police station. A doctor asked her whether Mr. Saju had any previous ailments. Ms Saju said her husband was perfectly healthy and that he had complained about the police torturing him while he was held in custody.

Without in any way implying any conclusion as to the facts of the case, we respectfully request that your Government ensures that the death of Mr. Saju is promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated, in accordance with the United Nations principles on the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions.

In this connection, we would like to recall the principle whereby all States have “the obligation (…) to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”, as recently reiterated by the 61st Commission on Human Rights in Resolution 2005/34 on “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” (OP 4). The Commission added that this obligation includes the obligation “to identify and bring to justice those responsible, (…) to grant adequate compensation within a reasonable time to the victims or their families and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, in order to (…) prevent the recurrence of such executions”.

Furthermore, we would like to draw your Government’s attention to articles 12 and 7 of the Convention against Torture. Article 12 requires the competent authorities to undertake a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed, and article 7 requires State parties to prosecute suspected perpetrators of torture. We would also like to draw your Government’s attention to paragraph 3 of Resolution 2005/39 of the Commission on Human Rights. Paragraph 3 stresses that “all allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment must be promptly and impartially examined by the competent national authority, that those who encourage, order, tolerate or perpetrate acts of torture must be held responsible and severely punished, including the officials in charge of the place of detention where the prohibited act is found to have been committed, and takes note in this respect of the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Principles) as a useful tool in efforts to combat torture;”.

It is our responsibility under the mandate provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly and extended by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters in relation to the case referred to above:

2. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations (autopsy), and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to the death of Mr. Saju. If no inquiries have taken place or if they have been inconclusive please explain why.

3. In the event that the alleged perpetrators are identified, please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken; Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?

4. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the family of Mr. Saju.

Correspondence from 2006

The record of correspondence for 2006 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1.

India: Death in Custody of Abhijnan Basu

Violation alleged: Death in custody

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of India has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Allegation letter sent on 10 December 2004 with the Special Rapporteur on Torture

On the morning of 12 November 2004, Abhijnan Basu, aged 40, an inmate of the Presidency Jail, Kolkata, West Bengal was taken to MR Bangur Hospital before being taken to the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, where he remained for eight days in critical condition, with burns to 90 per cent of his body. He died on 19 November. Before his death he affirmed to hospital officials that three prison wardens were ordered by a prison official to douse him with diesel fuel and set him on fire. The prison authorities claim he committed suicide. It is reported that Abhijnan Basu believed that the prison authorities sought to silence him for the complaints he made regarding the poor quality of the prison food. Though an investigation has been launched and not yet completed, the Inspector General (Prisons) has reportedly confirmed to the media the account of the prison officials.

India: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958

Violation alleged: Impunity; Deaths due to the excessive use of force by security forces

Subject(s) of appeal: General; 2 females (minors); 32 males (1 minor); 2 persons of unknown sex

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of India has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Allegation letter sent on 24 August 2005

Allegation letter sent concerning the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), a law reportedly applicable in �disturbed areas�, including large parts of the Northeast region of India as well as in Jammu and Kashmir, where a variant of the Act was reportedly brought into force in 1990.

Concern has been expressed that the Act violates non-derogable provisions of international human rights law and has facilitated the perpetration of grave human rights violations including extrajudicial executions by granting extensive powers to the armed forces in areas where it is in force. Concern is heightened by reports that the Act has also enabled impunity for alleged perpetrators.

�

It is my understanding that a large number of armed groups who operate in the areas where the Act is in force are responsible for gross human rights abuses, including torture, hostage taking, extortion and killings of civilians. I recognise that it is the duty of the State to protect their citizens against such acts.� However, any such measures must be undertaken within a legal framework which is consistent with applicable international human rights as well as humanitarian law norms.

In this regard, I am cognisant of the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Committee in response to India�s third and most recent periodic report in July 1997. The Committee expressed its concern �at the continued reliance on special powers under legislation such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Public Safety Act and the National Security Act in areas declared to be disturbed and at serious human rights violations, in particular with respect to articles 6, 7, 9, and 14 of the Covenant, committed by security and armed forces acting under these laws as well as by paramilitary and insurgent groups." (See CCPR/C/79/Add.81, para 18).

More specifically, concern has been expressed that the AFSPA empowers security forces not only to arrest and enter property without warrant but also gives them power to shoot to kill in circumstances where members of the security forces are not necessarily at imminent risk. This conclusion seems to follow from Section 4 (a), (c) and (d) of the AFSPA.

In this connection, I would like to refer Your Excellency's Government to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which provides that every individual has the right to life and security of the person, that this right shall be protected by law and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life.

In its General Comment on Article 6, the Human Rights Committee has observed �that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities."

Concern has further been expressed that the Act in fact facilitates impunity by preventing any person from starting legal action against any members of the armed forces for anything done under the Act, or purported to be done under the Act, without permission of the Central Government. Section 6 of the AFSPA specifies that, "No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act".� This would appear to be incompatible with the obligations of the Government under Article 2 (3) of the ICCPR to ensure the provision of an effective remedy in cases involving violations of human rights.

While some action has reportedly been taken in recent years to bring perpetrators of human rights violations in the concerned areas to justice, it is alleged that the AFSPA has enabled many perpetrators to escape punishment. For instance, it is reported that, while the State government of Manipur has ordered numerous inquiries into the alleged extrajudicial executions, none of them ultimately reached any meaningful conclusions.� In this respect I would be grateful if Your Excellency�s Government could provide me with a copy of the reports of any inquiries undertaken within the past three years in Manipur.

Reports further indicate that, in the few cases when it is available, redress is slow and resource intensive for the complainant. For instance, it is alleged that, in Jammu and Kashmir, police were directed not to file a First Information Report (FIR) about an alleged crime against security forces or record accusations of misconduct by security forces in their daily logs. Remedy and redress are reportedly further limited by section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) which prohibits the National Human Rights Commission and state human rights commissions from investigating allegations of human rights violations by members of the armed or paramilitary forces.

It has been brought to my attention that, in November 2004, the Government of India appointed a five-member committee to review the AFSPA. The Prime Minister reportedly promised that the "government would consider replacing the Act with a more �humane� law that would seek to address the concerns of national security as well as rights of citizens". It is my understanding that �the Review Committee has recommended retention of the AFSPA although with some amendments. It has been� reported to me that the Committee has called for submissions on whether it should recommend to the government of India to "(i) amend the provisions of the Act to bring them in consonance with the obligations of the Government towards protection of Human Rights; or (ii) replace the Act by a more humane legislation."

I have further been informed that, in November 1997, the Supreme Court of India had limited the powers granted to the military by the AFSPA, in particular by ruling that a declaration under Section 3 of the AFSPA, which relates to the determination of �disturbed areas�, is to be reviewed every six months, by strengthening the safeguards for the rights of arrested persons and by determining that a list of pre-existing "Do�s and Don�ts" were legally binding.

While I am pleased to learn about these developments, I would like to urge your Excellency�s Government to consider either repealing the AFSPA or ensuring that it and any other such future legislative measures comply fully with international human rights and humanitarian law treaties to which India is a state party, especially the ICCPR and the four Geneva Conventions.� In the interpretation of these obligations full account should be taken of the detailed standards included in the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, principles 9 to 19 of which oblige Governments to conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra-judicial, arbitrary or summary executions, to make public the results of these inquiries and to ensure that persons identified by the investigation as having participated in such executions in any territory under their jurisdiction are brought to justice and the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to bring to your Government's attention allegations I have recently received and which refer to violations that took place in areas where the AFSPA is in force, namely Manipur, and Jammu and Kashmir. I have included the cases in an annex to this communication.

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, it is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all such cases brought to my attention.� Since I am expected to report on these cases to the Commission I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following five matters:

1. Are the facts alleged in the summary of the cases accurate? If not, in order to refute these allegations, please provide details of any inquiries carried out, including any autopsies performed.

2. If a complaint has been lodged, what action has been taken in response?

3. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, or judicial or other form of inquiry carried out in relation to this case.

4. Please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken.

5. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the families of the victims.

I undertake to ensure that your Government�s response to each of these questions is accurately reflected in the report I will submit to the Commission on Human Rights for its consideration.

Annex

Manipur

On 10 July 2003, Seikholen Kipgen alias Sesen was reportedly killed by Assam Rifles personnel in an alleged fake encounter in K Songtun under Sadar Hills, Manipur. He was reportedly arrested by personnel of the 14th Assam Rifles while visiting his in-laws. Reports indicate that he was subjected to several forms of torture and that he was attacked by an army sniffer dog before he was allegedly dressed up in a combat uniform and shot dead by the Assam Rifles personnel.

On the morning of 14 September 2003, Thatkhokam Hangsing s/o Thatkhoseh Hangsing, aged 37, Seigin Khongsai s/o Nehlal Khongsai, aged 40 and Letkhomang Hangsing s/o Lamkhojang Hangsing, aged 35, three Kuki villagers of Tingpibung in Sadar Hills, were allegedly shot dead by� personnel of the 25th Assam Rifles. A report issued in the Press Information Bureau (PIB), Defence Wing on 15 September 2003 and that claimed that three KRA activists were gunned downed by the troops of the 25th Assam Rifles near Sanakeithel village under Ukhrul district was reportedly contradicted the next day by the village elders who asserted that the victims were in fact civilians that were killed while in custody of the security personnel. It is indeed alleged that the three above-mentioned persons were arrested by the 25^th Assam Rifles personel in the early morning of 13 September 2003 and were later taken to Senakeithel Tangkhul village, where they were allegedly electrocuted before they were shot dead.

On 22 July 2003, at around midnight, Jamkholun Haokip, a 33-year-old woodcutter, was reportedly arrested from his home in Twinkul village in the Kangchup area under Lamsang police station, by the Gorkha Rifles. It is alleged that the Army personnel, who came in a civilian canter bearing a Nagaland registration, broke into his house and forcibly took him away. Some gunshots were heard subsequently and the Army personnel came back to the house at around 3:30 am asking for Mr. Haokip. A statement issued by the PIB reportedly stated that the encounter occurred during a search operation by the Gurkha Rifles personnel in the area. It is further alleged that the army personnel called out the village chief Hekhup Hangsing and forced him to inform the Lamsang Police Station about the death.

On 13 December 2003, Ahanthem Sanjoy, aged 29, was allegedly killed by the army personnel who reportedly took him from his residence in Khurai Thoidingjam without issuing an arrest warrant. His father, A Pakchao Singh, reportedly lodged a complaint the next day with the Porompat Police Station. Mr. Sanjoy�s death was only known on 18 December 2003, when a local language daily newspaper issued the news of the discovery of a body in Senjam Khunou near Leimakhong area. It is reported that the army personnel registered a First Information Report No. 82 (12) 2003 at Sekmai Police Station.

On 2 March 2004, at about 3 pm, Mr. Irungbam Samananda s/o Ramdho, aged 30, of Pungdong-bam Awang Leikai at Nongpok Sanjenthong, was reportedly shot dead by the Assam Rifles personnel about 8 kilometers south of the Lamlai Police Station in Imphal. The security forces allegedly took him from his residence on the night of 29 February 2004, at about 11 pm, without issuing any arrest warrant despite repeated insistence by his family. When the local Meira Paibis protested and tried to stop the security personnel from taking Mr. Samananda away, the troops reportedly took off with the youth through another road. Although a complaint was lodged with the Lamlai Police Station, his whereabouts remained unknown until the Assam Rifles reported to the police of having killed an alleged underground activist in an encounter. While the Assam Rifles claimed that one 9 mm pistol, one hand grenade and one WT set had been recovered in his possession, his family members strongly contended that Mr. Samananda was in fact killed in a fake encounter. Besides, although he was reported to have been wearing a loin cloth and being bare-footed at the time of his arrest, his dead body was found wearing army booths.

On 10 March 2004, at 5 a.m., Khwairakpam Ratan Singh, aged 20, was reportedly shot dead by the Assam Rifles personnel near his house at New Sekmai under the Sekmai Police Station. The Assam Rifles allegedly claimed that some militants had fired at them in the area and that Ratan Singh was killed in the gunfight. They also claimed to have found one 9 mm pistol and three live rounds of ammunition with him. However, his family members reportedly rejected these claims by reporting instead that Mr. Ratan Singh was arrested from his house shortly before he was shot dead near his house.

On 10 March 2004, at around 12.30 a.m., Khundrakpam Tejkumar, a 22-year-old third year BA student of D M College of Arts in Imphal was reportedly taken from near his residence at Uripok Khoisnam Leikai area in Imphal West district by the Assam Rifles personnel. He was participating in a Holi sports meeting. His body was allegedly found with bullet marks near a college in Naoremthong area of Imphal West, two kilometers from where he was picked up. While the Assam Rifles reportedly claimed that Mr. Tejkumar was killed in an encounter, the Uripok area residents accused the Assam Rifles personnel of killing him.

On 15 March 2004, Khumanthem Ajitkumar alias Naoba, 20-year-old son of Kh Nagor Singh of Karang Mamang Leikai, under the Patsoi Police Station, was allegedly shot dead by army personnel. Reports indicate that, at about 1 a.m. that night, the army personnel forced open the main door of his house and started beating up his younger brother Dilip Kumar and father Nagor Singh. Awakened by the turmoil, Noaba went to the room where he was then also beaten up before the army personnel took him along with them. He was first asked to change from his Khudei and wear a pant. Noaba was then requested to lead the security personnel to the residence of one Mayanglambam Mani at Kachikhul Mamang Leikai but the latter was not at home. Thereafter he was taken to his elder sister, Romita�s residence at Taokhong Lamkhai, where the army personnel allegedly physically assaulted her before taking Naoba�s brother-in-law Romen to the road where he was ordered to run. When Romen pleaded with an officer of the security personnel to save his life and refused to run, one of them told him in Manipuri to go back to his house. Romen then allegedly heard the gunmen starting to beat up Naoba before they shot him dead.

On 16 March 2004, at around 4.45 a.m., Kamag Khongsai, aged 21, son of late Lalkholhao Khongsai of Chalwa village, was reportedly shot dead by the jawans of the 14th Assam Rifles posted at Kangpokpi at the IT Road in Turibari, 2 kilometers north of the Kangpokpi Police Station in Senapati district. According to the information received, Mr. Khongsai was shot dead when he, along with another militant, tried to flee from the security forces during an operation launched upon receiving specific information about the presence of militants in the village. It is alleged that the two militants lobbed a hand grenade and fired at the security personnel injuring one Assam Rifles officer and that he was therefore killed in retaliatory fire, while the other managed to escape. The security forces identified him as a Kuki Revolutionary Army militant, and handed the body over to the Kangpokpi Police Station. One 9 mm pistol, one magazine, ammunition, fired cases, incriminating documents and cash of Rs 11,890 were also reportedly recovered from his possession. However, family members alleged that he was shot dead after he was arrested by the security forces from Turibari around 11.30 a.m. on 15 March 2004. Besides, although it is reported that he was carrying a sum of Rs 10,000, he was found dead with empty pockets.

On 25 May 2004, the Assam Rifles personnel reportedly shot dead Thangkhopao Khongsai s/o Lengsai, a 26-year-old carpenter, and Lalengthang Kipgen s/o (late) Khaijangul Kipgen, a 25-year-old farmer, from South Changoubung. According to the information receveid, the PIB stated that the two were killed in an encounter with the Assam Rifles personnel. The statement indeed declared that, after receiving specific information, Assam Rifles troops launched an operation at Changoubung. At about 4.30 am, two persons moving away from the village were challenged and asked to stop. However they started running away and fired at the security forces, slightly injuring one AR jawans. They were then killed in retaliatory fire. Two 9 mm pistols and assorted ammunition were reportedly recovered from them. However, family members of the deceased reported that they were in fact killed after they were arrested from their respective residences. The family reportedly refused to take back the bodies from the Regional Medical Institutes� morgue in Imphal.

On the morning of 31 May 2004, Pheiroijam Sanajit, aged 32, of Nongada under the Lamlai Police Station in Imphal East district was reportedly shot dead by the security forces belonging to the 19th Rajput Rifles. His body was found at Mahajon corner situated between Senjam Chirang and Phumlou, about 8 kilometers south west of the Sekmai Police Station. While the security forces maintained that the victim was a militant who was killed in an encounter, the deceased�s family members alleged that he was killed after he was arrested. It is indeed alleged that Mr. Sanajit was in fact arrested without any warrant and taken from his residence by security personnel at about 1 am on 31 May 2004. It is further alleged that, although he was wearing a Khudei (loin cloth) at the time of the arrest, his family found him in a camouflage uniform that did not even fit him at the morgue of the Regional Institutes of Medical Sciences in Imphal. He reportedly suffered multiple bullet wounds on the chest and stomach. The Joint Action Committee against the killing of Mr. Sanajit submitted a memorandum to the Chief Minister on 31 May 2004, demanding the lifting of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from Manipur, an ex gratia of Rs 5 lakh, payment of Rs 5,000 each month to his family and also a judicial inquiry into the killing. No response has been received to this complaint. Finally, his family was allegedly pressured by the local police to perform his last rites at the local crematorium.

On 6 June 2004, the 38th Assam Rifles personnel reportedly gunned down two alleged Kuki National Front (Military Council) cadres identified as sergeant major Hekho Haokip, aged 32, of Molphei Tampak and Haopu, aged 27, of Churachandpur town. The Assam Rifles authorities, in an official release, claimed that the two were killed in encounter at Bungte Chiru village in the morning of 6 June 2004. It is however alleged that the troops entered the Bungte Chiru village on 6 June 2004 and cordoned the entire village. The troops then called out all male persons of the village to the village playground and conducted verification. After singling out the two KNF (MC) cadres, the troops shot them later in the morning at around 9.15 near the village.

On 10 June 2004

India: Visits & Communications

Correspondence from 2007

India: Death in Custody of Rajendran in Kerala

Correspondence from 2006

India: Death in Custody of Abhijnan Basu

India: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958