AI Index: NWS 21/03/97

AI NEWSLETTER

May 1997

World Wide Appeals

GUATEMALA

Eleven dead: no one brought to justice

As villagers in Xamán prepared to celebrate the first anniversary of their return to Guatemala in October 1995, an army patrol entered the community. Soldiers opened fire indiscriminately, leaving 11 former refugees dead and 30 others injured, including three soldiers. Among the dead were eight-year-old Santiago Coc Pop and seven-year-old Maurilia Coc Max. More than 18 months later, no one has been brought to justice for the massacre. The pattern is a familiar one. Today, as in the past, the overwhelming majority of those who order, plan, carry out or cover up human rights violations in Guatemala never appear before a court.

Santiago Coc Pop and Maurilia Coc Max were from a community of former refugees and displaced persons in Xamán, Chisec, Alta Verapaz Department. Their families were among the hundreds of thousands of people who fled the country in the late 1970s and early 1980s to escape systematic torture, "disappearances" and killings by the security forces. After more than a decade in exile, the families returned to Guatemala. A series of agreements and accords ending 35 years of armed conflict should have guaranteed their safety. Instead, they were once again under attack and faced with a judicial system which continues to fail the victims of human rights violations.

Officials initially denied any army involvement in the massacre and then claimed the patrol had been attacked by villagers -- a claim which has been discounted by national and international organizations who have investigated the massacre. These organizations are unanimous in holding the soldiers responsible, yet none has been convicted.

Four days after the massacre, the military commander responsible for the army patrol involved was dismissed, but no criminal charges have yet been brought against him. In November 1996, eight members of the army patrol who had previously been released on bail were rearrested. Investigations into the massacre are continuing. But as long as witnesses, lawyers and prosecutors are harassed and threatened, confidence in the authorities' political will to bring those responsible to justice can only be further undermined.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, at the height of the counter-insurgency campaign, the security forces were responsible for the killing or "disappearance" of tens of thousands of Guatemalans, the vast majority of them indigenous people. Little progress has been made in clarifying the fate of the victims or in bringing those responsible to justice. Today, human rights violations in Guatemala are on a much lesser scale. But members of the security forces and of government-backed armed groups continue to carry out killings, torture, ill-treatment and in some cases "disappearances". Their victims include indigenous activists, former refugees, religious personnel, street children, trade unionists and peasant farmers and labourers seeking land rights and better conditions. Those classified as "undesirable" or "disposable", mainly criminal suspects, are also the victims of violations. People involved in trying to expose human rights violations, such as judges, lawyers and journalists, are harassed and threatened. Few of these abuses are investigated by the authorities; even fewer result in convictions.

Ensuring that those who commit human rights violations are brought to justice is a vital factor in preventing further violations. As long as the authorities fail to deliver justice, it sends a clear message to those responsible for killings, "disappearances" and torture; they can continue to commit human rights violations with impunity.

See Guatemala: State of impunity

(AI Index: AMR 34/02/97); and Guatemala: Appeals against impunity

(AI Index: AMR 34/03/97).

PHILIPPINES

First execution for over 20 years imminent

The first execution in the Philippines for over 20 years could take place within the next few months. AI has condemned the Philippine Government's reintroduction of the death penalty, and has voiced its fear that if this initial execution takes place, it could pave the way for many more.

Leo Pilo Echegaray, a 35-year-old house painter, was convicted in 1994 of the rape of his step-daughter. His death sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court in June 1996 amid concern that the fairness of his trial may have been prejudiced by the judge's alleged lack of impartiality; the judge concerned had founded an organization known as the "Guillotine Club" whose members are all reported to be judges who have passed death sentences. In February 1997, the Philippine Supreme Court reconfirmed the death sentence on Leo Pilo Echegaray. His execution could take place as early as August 1997.

The last execution in the Philippines was carried out by electrocution in 1976. When President Corazon Aquino came to office in 1986, a new Constitution was drawn up providing for the abolition of capital punishment. However, following sustained pressure from the security forces and deep public concern over a rise in violent crime, the death penalty was reintroduced in December 1993. Since the reintroduction of the death penalty, however, there has been no indication of a decrease in crime.

An average of 12 people are currently being sentenced to death each month in the Philippines -- one of the highest rates in the world. There are now believed to be about 300 prisoners on death row. Although the worldwide trend is for abolition of the death penalty -- some 20 countries have abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes or all crimes since 1989 -- the Philippines unfortunately sits with its neighbours in Southeast Asia as a notable exception to this trend. AI, working together with local pressure groups, has recently renewed its campaign against the death penalty in the country and region.

For further information, see Against the tide: the death penalty in Southeast Asia (AI Index: ASA 03/01/97).

ETHIOPIA

More than 5,000 former officials charged

Ethiopia's Special Prosecutor has now completed the process of charging officials of the 1974 to 1991 government with genocide, war crimes, homicide, "disappearances" and torture.

In addition to 46 members of the 1974 military government, known as the Dergue, currently on trial and 25 others being tried in absentia -- including former President Mengistu Haile-Mariam (in exile in Zimbabwe) -- 5,198 further former officials have now been charged. Their number includes 2,246 people currently in detention -- most of them since 1991 -- and others abroad.

Those now charged include former government, military and party leaders. All face the death penalty. Among them is Mammo Wolde, the 65-year-old Olympic gold medallist, who claims he is innocent. Trials began in March and will last many months.

The current trial of members of the Dergue, which started before the Central High Court in Addis Ababa in late 1994, is proceeding slowly. About 200 prosecution witnesses have testified so far. Defendants have legal defence representation and the right of appeal.

AI, which supports the principle of "no impunity" but has criticized long delays in charging and trying the detainees, is urging that court arrangements are made as soon as possible to ensure fair trials within a reasonable period. AI is campaigning for the death penalty to be excluded, as is the case for the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

NEWS IN BRIEF

—Since the start of the year, hundreds of people have been killed in random and targeted attacks by armed opposition groups in Algeria, AI reported in February. Many of the victims of these attacks have been women and children. Hundreds of people have also been killed in "anti-terrorist" operations by militias armed by the state and by the security forces during the same period. AI has criticized the continuing indifference of the international community to the plight of Algeria's civilian population, and has urged the Algerian Government to take concrete measures to protect civilians and to bring to justice those responsible for the recent atrocities.

—Serious human rights violations continue to take place in Yemen despite the country's obligations under international human rights treaties and its own domestic legislation, AI has warned. Although Yemen is a state party to major international human rights treaties, arbitrary arrest and detention of political suspects by the security forces remain regular practice, torture is frequently reported, and the country's courts continue to impose the death penalty. ''Disappearances'', extrajudicial executions, human rights violations against refugees and women, and human rights abuses by armed political groups have also been reported. See Ratification without implementation: the state of human rights in Yemen (AI Index MDE 31/01/97).

—In the Romania entry in the Amnesty International Report 1979, AI stated that "several reports... alleged that one of the strike leaders, named Dobre, subsequently died after being run down by a car in circumstances never properly investigated by the police". At the time it was impossible for AI to confirm or substantiate these reports. AI welcomes the news that Costic Dobre, a prisoner of conscience and one of the leaders of a coalminers' strike in Romania in 1977, is alive and living with his family in the United Kingdom.

—AI has launched an Internet web-site designed to link in with the current refugee campaign (http://www.refuge.amnesty.org). Like the recently upgraded main AI web-site, AI On-Line (http://www.amnesty.org), it is fast and user-friendly, combining information about cases with news of AI's campaigning. AI On-Line itself is now regularly updated with the latest Worldwide Appeals and the texts of major external documents recently issued by AI.

WORLDWIDE APPEALS

SYRIA

Prisoner of conscience 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Khayyiris serving a 22-year prison sentence. His sentence, the longest known to have been passed by the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC), was imposed after an unfair trial.

'Abd al-'Aziz al-Khayyir was reportedly arrested in Damascus on 1 February 1992 by members of Military Intelligence. He was initially held in incommunicado detention and may have been tortured.

In August 1995, he was tried by the SSSC and convicted of membership of, or having links with, the Party for Communist Action (PCA). AI believes that he has been imprisoned solely for the non-violent expression of his political beliefs.

Muna al-Ahmad, 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Khayyir's wife, was detained without charge or trial in connection with the PCA from August 1987 until December 1991. She was also a prisoner of conscience.

The SSSC, which deals solely with political and state security cases, is not subject to the judicial procedures applicable in ordinary courts in Syria. Its procedures fall far short of international standards for fair trial. Defendants have no right of appeal.

+Please write, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Khayyir, and pressing for a review of the judicial system to ensure that all trials comply with international human rights standards, to:

His Excellency President Hafez al-Assad/ Presidential Palace/ Abu Rummaneh/ Al-Rashid Street/ Damascus/ Syrian Arab Republic. Telegrams: President al-Assad, Damascus, Syria. Telexes: 419160 PRESPL SY/

RWANDA

Léonidas Ndikumwamiwas sentenced to death for the crime of genocide following an unfair trial by a Kigali court on 20 January 1997.

Léonidas Ndikumwami, a 50-year-old Burundi national, has been living in Rwanda since 1972. In direct contravention of international standards, his trial and sentencing both took place while he did not have a defence lawyer -- he was denied the time to allow his lawyer to obtain authorization to represent him. His lawyer has claimed that Léonidas Ndikumwami has a strong alibi and may well be innocent.

Léonidas Ndikumwami has filed an appeal, which is expected to take around three months. However, under existing laws he will be unable to reduce his sentence by claiming mitigating circumstances.

As many as a million people died in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Léonidas Ndikumwami is among the first of thousands to be tried for their part in this human rights tragedy. He is the seventh to have been sentenced to death. Execution in Rwanda is by firing-squad.

Although AI has welcomed the opening of trials for those suspected of having been involved in the genocide, the organization continues to have serious concerns about the fairness of the trials in Rwanda, many of which have failed to conform to international standards for fair trial.

AI unconditionally opposes the use of the death penalty.

+Please write, asking for a retrial of Léonidas Ndikumwami, which would allow him legal representation and conform to internationally recognized standards for fair trial; for the commutation of death sentences; and for a debate on alternative and humane forms of punishment for those found guilty of crimes of genocide in Rwanda, to: Monsieur Faustin Nteziryayo, Ministre de la justice, Ministère de la justice, BP 160, Kigali, Rwanda.

GUATEMALA

Four men from the village of Las Majadas, in Santa María de Jesús, Quezaltenango department, "disappeared" on 19 April 1995. Their bodies were discovered the following day; their hands were tied and they appeared to have been strangled. The Guatemalan military, implicated in the killings, has reportedly blocked all investigations into the murders.

Luis Orozco Cahuex, Atilio Santos Citalán, Tereso García Cotónand his son, Arcadio García Mazariegos"disappeared" while cutting wood in an area controlled by the army. At the time of their "disappearance", soldiers were reportedly searching for members of an armed opposition group in the area.

Witnesses reported seeing the four men held by members of the military in a red pick-up truck. Days after the killings, officials of the UN Mission for the Verification of Human Rights in Guatemala (MINUGUA) reported seeing a similar truck at a nearby military base.

MINUGUA launched an investigation into the killings. However, this was obstructed by lack of cooperation from the military. The Ministry of Defence refused to authorize private interviews with the soldiers from the military patrol suspected of being involved, and those interviews which MINUGUA was able to conduct took place in the presence of a senior military official. Witnesses were unwilling to give testimonies to MINUGUA or the authorities for fear of reprisals. Investigations into the killings remain completely paralysed.

+Please write, expressing concern at the killing of Luis Orozco Cahuex, Atilio Santos Citalán, Tereso García Cotón and Arcadio García Mazariegos; urging the authorities bring to justice those responsible for the killings and to ensure that the armed forces cooperate fully with any investigation; and asking that the government ensure the safety of all those involved in the investigation; to: Minister of Defence/ Gral. Julio Arnoldo Balconi Turcios/ Ministrio de Defensa/ Palacio Nacional/ Cuidad de Guatemala/ Guatemala.

TURKEY

Urgent Action halts refoulement

Iranian citizen J.H. was detained at Atatürk Airport in Istanbul on 24 December 1996 while attempting to leave for Madrid under an assumed identity. He was taken to the Foreigners' Bureau, where he was interviewed by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). UNHCR accepted him as a genuine asylum-seeker who would be at grave risk of human rights violations if returned to Iran; the Iranian authorities have reportedly executed several members of J.H.'s family, and want J.H. himself for distributing pamphlets produced by an opposition political organization.

However, even though J.H. had been recognized as a refugee by UNHCR, and despite fears that he would face torture or execution if returned, the Turkish Ministry of the Interior decided to send him back to Iran because he had not registered as an asylum-seeker within five days of arrival.

On 30 January 1997, AI launched an Urgent Action. Members of the Urgent Action network wrote to the Turkish Minister of the Interior and Foreign Minister urging that Turkey should respect its obligations under international law and not forcibly return J.H. to Iran.

As a result of the combined efforts of the Urgent Action network, J.H.'s lawyer in Istanbul (a member of the Istanbul Human Rights Association) and AI's Spanish Section, the Turkish Ministry of the Interior reversed its decision. In mid-February J.H. was reunited with his brother in Spain.

Unfortunately, many other refugees in Turkey remain at risk. Turkey maintains a geographical limitation to the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, which means that non-Europeans (in practice, mostly Iranians, Iraqis and Africans) will not be granted refugee status. Instead, they only have the right to seek temporary asylum in Turkey until their cases are determined by UNHCR and they can be resettled in a third country. Asylum-seekers have to register with the local governorship nearest their point of entry within five days and remain there. AI has recently received new reports of asylum-seekers recognized by UNHCR being returned to Iran where they may face serious human rights violations.

BOLIVIA

Human rights defenders in danger

Waldo Albarracín, a lawyer and President of the non-governmental Bolivian human rights organization Permanent Assembly of Human Rights, was abducted and tortured in La Paz on 25 January 1997 by members of the police. He was blindfolded, beaten about the head, ears and testicles for several hours, and threatened with death. He was then taken to the headquarters of the Judicial Police and placed in a cell. He had to be taken to hospital because of his injuries and remained there for several days.

Waldo Albarracín was subsequently presented with an arrest warrant. The charges against him are believed to be connected with his call for a full investigation into the deaths of nine people, including a police colonel, during a clash between miners and police in Amayapampa, Potosí Department, in December 1996.

An investigation into the attack on Waldo Albarracín has been initiated by a parliamentary commission. While it has welcomed this investigation, AI has asked the President of Bolivia to ensure that the commission is able to carry out its work without harassment or pressure of any kind.

Since the attack, the Albarracín family has received telephone threats, and has experienced other forms of intimidation by unidentified individuals who are keeping members of the family under surveillance. However, the authorities do not seem to have taken appropriate steps to protect the family and guarantee their safety. The Albarracín family has been forced to move house.

In February 1997, Juan del Granado, President of the Human Rights Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, received anonymous telephone threats. Juan del Granado has documented and publicized complaints of human rights violations, and AI believes that the recent threats against him may be linked to his public condemnation of the abduction and torture of Waldo Albarracín.

FOCUS: Refugees

Human rights have no borders

Millions of refugees from every region of the world are trying to rebuild lives shattered by forces outside their control. They have a right to protection. But often the violations of human rights which forced them to flee their homes do not stop when they cross the border. Refugees seeking sanctuary are increasingly faced with official hostility, detention and forcible return to countries where their lives or freedom would be in danger.

SEARCHING FOR SAFETY

Every refugee represents a failure of human rights protection somewhere in the world. Each would be at risk of human rights violations if returned home.

Over the past decade the number of refugees has almost doubled as human rights crises have proliferated. Today, more than 15 million people worldwide have been forced to flee violence or persecution in their own country to seek asylum abroad. A further 25 to 30 million people are internally displaced; they have been forced to abandon their homes, but are still living in their own countries.

Every refugee bears the scars of their own personal human rights tragedy. Some have seen their loved ones massacred, their homes destroyed and their communities devastated simply because they happened to be in the path of warring groups. Others have been imprisoned or tortured because of their ethnic origin, language or religion, or because they have spoken out against a ruthless government.

Every refugee is entitled to international protection. But the international system that is supposed to protect refugees is in crisis. The response of governments to the mass flows of desperate people fleeing war and persecution has been increasingly to ignore their obligations to protect refugees and instead to try to keep them out or send them home.

Human rights and refugees are not separate issues. If governments ensured the protection of human rights there would be no refugees.

FAILURE OF PREVENTION

War and repression of particular communities have combined to create refugee crises. Often these crises were foreseen. If the world's governments committed the necessary resources and political will to prevent human rights abuses, then many refugee crises could be averted.

In the year before the outbreak of genocidal violence in Rwanda in April 1994, the UN was repeatedly urged by human rights organizations, as well as its own senior advisers, to take action to protect civilians from massacres. These appeals were not heeded. The UN's member states allowed the situation to deteriorate and then, when mass killings began, withdrew almost all UN troops. More than two million Rwandese refugees fled their country. Since then, refugee crisis has followed refugee crisis in the region, with millions of men, women and children suffering dislocation, terror, disease and starvation.

For years the international community refused to acknowledge that the Iraqi Government was systematically killing and torturing its citizens. Iraqi refugees, both Kurds and Arabs, are continuing to pay the price of this inaction.

The disintegration of the former Yugoslavia brought mass murder, ''disappearance'', systematic rape and numerous other abuses. Over two million people in Bosnia-Herzegovina alone fled their homes. Little progress has been made in establishing conditions which would allow refugees and displaced people to return to their homes in safety and dignity. Yet in September 1996, Germany unilaterally decided to return refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina to whom it had granted temporary protection.

NORTH AND SOUTH

Some 85 per cent of the world's refugees are in countries of the south. In Africa alone there are five million refugees --one third of the world's total -- and at least 16 million internally displaced people.

These countries are some of the world's poorest, yet they have been left to bear the enormous logistic, economic and environmental strains that result from mass flows of refugees.

They have no automatic mechanism to gain assistance. To make matters worse, aid is often pledged and then not given.

However, the lack of aid does not justify the way governments are treating refugees. All governments are obliged by the norms of international law not to forcibly return refugees to situations where their human rights would be in jeopardy.

THOSE MOST AT RISK

The vast majority of refugees are women and children, a reality often hidden by the fact that most of those who manage to reach relatively wealthy countries and apply for asylum are men. Most women have fled for the same reasons as men -- to avoid repression, violence and human rights abuses. Some fear persecution because of the activities of their male relatives. Others have left their countries to escape abuses that are directed solely or primarily at women, such as sexual violence.

Women are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and human rights violations both before flight and as refugees. Despite this, they face particular obstacles when claiming refugee status. Often women asylum-seekers find it difficult to describe their experiences and those responsible for deciding on their fate often fail to understand the particular problems faced by women refugees.

For many women, asylum does not guarantee safety. Women confined in refugee camps, sometimes for years, are at risk of rape and assault from officials and other refugees. Refugee camps located in dangerous or remote locations are vulnerable to armed attacks. Many women have been murdered and mutilated in the very place to which they had fled for safety.

THE CHALLENGE FACING THE WORLD

Three quarters of Liberia's population have been driven from their homes by a civil war that has cost 250,000 lives. Some 750,000 people have found asylum in other West African countries such as Ghana, while at least a million are living in camps for the internally displaced.

Thousands more tried to escape the carnage by sea. In April 1996, men, women and children crammed into rusting freighters with little food or water and practically no sanitation. Despite the scale of suffering on these ships, numerous West African states, including Côte d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone, refused to let them land. Finally, in May the Ghanaian Government allowed some 3,000 refugees from one of the freighters, Bulk Challenge, to land.

The horrors of the Bulk Challenge are a graphic demonstration of the way in which refugees are being made less and less welcome by governments. Yet, some 45 years ago, memories of the Holocaust and the disorder following the Second World War prompted the international community to promise sanctuary to all those whose fundamental rights were at risk.

In 1951 the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (UN Refugee Convention) was agreed. This defines a refugee as someone who:

''... owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country...''

The Convention was updated and supplemented by a Protocol in 1967, and in subsequent years regional agreements in Africa and Latin America broadened the refugee definition and extended protection to groups fleeing generalized violence, as well as persecution. The majority of the world's states have now ratified the Convention and its Protocol. However, more than 50 have not.

There are millions of people who would be at risk of serious human rights violations if returned home, but who do not qualify as refugees within the definition of the UN Refugee Convention. Many of these de facto refugees are fleeing civil strife and armed conflict.

A FUNDAMENTAL DUTY

Fundamental to the human rights of refugees and to international refugee law is the principle of non-refoulement -- that no one should be forcibly returned to a country where his or her life or freedom would be at risk. This principle is so widely accepted that it is regarded as binding on all states. Despite this, many countries are forcing men, women and children back to their persecutors. Every time the principle of non-refoulement is breached, someone's life or freedom is knowingly endangered.

In July 1996, the Belgian Government returned Bouasria Ben Othman to Algeria, despite the clear risks he faced there. Four months later, the Algerian authorities informed the Belgian Government that he had been arrested on arrival in Algeria, released, then re-arrested in mid-November. On 26 November, Bouasria Ben Othman appeared on Algerian television saying he was well and that people should stop asking about him. One week later he died in detention. The Algerian police told his family that he had thrown himself out of a window.

REPATRIATION

The international body with statutory responsibility for the protection and assistance of refugees is the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Governments and UNHCR are currently promoting voluntary repatriation as the favoured solution to refugee problems. However, recently the reality for many refugees has been return home under ''voluntary repatriations'' that are not voluntary.

The governments of Zaire and Tanzania repeatedly appealed to the international community for assistance in hosting some two million refugees from Rwanda. The required assistance did not come. In November 1996, in the space of a few days, some 500,000 refugees caught between fighting and starvation in Zaire and an uncertain future in Rwanda trekked home. In early December 1996, the Tanzanian Government announced that within three weeks more than 500,000 Rwandese refugees would be repatriated. In what has become a much criticized decision of UNHCR, it agreed to support the Tanzanian policy.

At the end of 1996, a group of 19 people of Vietnamese descent were forcibly returned from Cambodia to Viet Nam, where they may face prison terms for their peaceful political beliefs. The 19, all members of the People's Action Party which advocates democratic change in Viet Nam, were deported in spite of attempts to intervene by UNHCR. All were arrested and detained on arrival in Viet Nam; their whereabouts is not known. Cambodia is a state party to the UN Refugee Convention.

In November 1996, 88 Colombian refugees, including 32 children, were forcibly returned from Panama. The refugees, peasant farmers and their families, had fled violence between left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitary units in northern Colombia which has left scores of civilians dead and many others internally displaced. As soon as the Panamanian authorities became aware of their presence they requested a Colombian Air Force aircraft to return them. Further forced repatriations were halted after international pressure and petitions from AI members.

FAILURE TO PROTECT

Many governments are trying to avoid their obligations to refugees by physically preventing asylum-seekers from entering their country. They impose visa requirements that are in practice impossible for asylum-seekers to comply with. They fine airlines and shipping companies if they allow people without the necessary paperwork to board. Boats are prevented from docking. Borders are closed.

Some states off-load their obligations to asylum-seekers by sending applicants to a ''safe third country''. Usually this is a country that an asylum-seeker has travelled through, although sometimes it is simply where the person has had to change planes. Often the third country is far from safe, and will not provide protection.

Those refugees who do gain access to countries where they apply for asylum face procedures that vary enormously from state to state and often fall below international standards. In some countries, decisions on asylum cases are effectively made by a lone immigration official, acting without any expertise in human rights or refugee protection standards. Sometimes proceedings are carried out in a language the asylum-seeker does not fully understand. Life and death decisions are often made in a couple of hours. The principles that should guarantee a fair and satisfactory asylum procedure are neither complex nor demanding: any government that claims to uphold international refugee law should comply with them.

UNJUSTIFIED DETENTION

One of the most blatant examples of the disregard many countries have for the rights of refugees is the detention of asylum-seekers -- sometimes in appalling conditions. Refugees are not criminals. They should not be locked up. Yet in many countries, they are often detained.

According to the UN Refugee Convention, asylum-seekers should not be detained unless they have been charged with a criminal offence, or unless the authorities can demonstrate that the detention is necessary and allowed under international standards.

Governments usually try to justify detention by saying the applicant arrived without the proper papers. But most refugees can only escape their countries by travelling without documents or with false papers. The UN Refugee Convention states that refugees should not be penalized for entering a country illegally. Yet states continue to use detention as a means of deterring refugees from seeking asylum or to encourage them to abandon their asylum applications.

HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE NO BORDERS

When refugees are allowed to rebuild their lives, they can enrich the societies around them. If given the chance, they contribute to their new countries, bringing skills, experiences and energy and adding to cultural diversity.

Recent history has shown that anyone can become a refugee. All refugees should be made safe from further harm and treated with the dignity that their tragic circumstances demand.

Amnesty International has launched a campaign -- Refuge! Human rights have no borders -- in response to the worldwide refugee crisis. It has three main aims:

—To prevent human rights violations so that people do not have to leave their homes in search of safety;

—To ensure that those who flee human rights violations are allowed to reach a place of safety, are given effective protection against forcible return, and are guaranteed minimum standards of humane treatment while they are displaced;

—To press for human rights to be a priority when considering refugee issues, such as programs for refugees to return home, developments in international refugee law and practice, and the protection needs of people displaced within their own countries.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

1 Join our campaign

Join our campaign to remind the world's governments - by the pressure of public opinion - that they have a duty to protect the human rights of all people, including refugees. Contact the Amnesty International office in your country and ask how you can help. We will be organizing public events, petitions and lobbying to put pressure on governments to respect human rights, particularly those of refugees.

2 Help raise awareness about refugees

Help spread the word that every refugee is a unique individual who has fled the threat of human rights violations. Distribute Amnesty International's publications and raise refugee concerns with any organizations you may belong to. Write letters to the press. Speak out against anti-refugee propaganda. Confront racist politicians who abuse refugees in an attempt to win votes.

3 Urge your government to act

Make sure your country has signed the international treaties protecting refugees. Put pressure on your government to respect refugees' rights. Demand that your government promotes human rights at home and abroad. Call on your government to use its influence to ensure that the costs and responsibilities of refugee protection are shared by all nations.

4 Show solidarity with refugees

Join campaigns against restrictive and unfair asylum policies. Support individuals who are fighting illegal deportations. Above all, work to show that refugees are welcome in your country.

PICTURE CAPTION CASES

Mariam Azimi(right), an Afghan refugee, was forced to shelter in a church in Norway with her two young children because the authorities did not believe her when she said it was unsafe for her to be sent to Pakistan. Already vulnerable by virtue of being an educated Afghan woman, she was in particular danger in Afghanistan because she campaigned for women's rights. After receiving repeated death threats, she fled to Pakistan, where she continued her campaigning. She was again threatened by Afghan Mojahedin groups who operate in border areas in Pakistan. Attempts were made to kill members of her family and she was forced yet again to flee in fear of her life. She arrived in Norway with her two young children in search of asylum. The authorities rejected her claim on the grounds that it was safe for her to return to Pakistan. As of March 1997 her claim to asylum had not been accepted.

A Bosnian Muslim (left) sits in the remains of her home in northern Bosnia.

Millions of people have been forced to leave their homes because of threats to their lives or liberty, but have not crossed - or have been unable to cross - an international border. Many are housed in camps or settlements; others live wherever they can find shelter. They are internally displaced within their own countries, and have no adequate international legal structure to turn to for protection.

These people are often exposed to further abuses or attacks by state officials or armed groups. They are still living in the state that failed to protect them in the first place. Many suffer extreme poverty and deprivation.

It is time the international community moved forward from debating the human rights of the internally displaced to adopting and implementing standards for action.