publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

IV. Mistreatment of Returnees from Cambodia

When I was finally allowed to return to my village and see my wife, she was shocked by how swollen and bruised my face was.
—Jarai refugee who voluntarily returned to Vietnam from Cambodia in 2005.

Since 2001, several thousand Central Highlanders have fled to Cambodia to escape the Vietnamese government crackdown. Hundreds who were trying to seek UNHCR’s protection were forcibly returned by Cambodian and Vietnamese police from border areas in Cambodia.76

Of the asylum seekers who have been able to reach the protection of UNHCR, most have been recognized as refugees and resettled abroad. Between 2002 and 2004, several hundred Central Highlanders voluntarily repatriated to Vietnam from UNHCR refugee camps in Cambodia, primarily under bilateral arrangements between Cambodia and Vietnam.

The 2005 Memorandum of Understanding

In January 2005, UNHCR entered into a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the governments of Cambodia and Vietnam. The agreement, which was signed without advance notice to embassies in Hanoi and Phnom Penh, has been heavily criticized by international and Cambodian rights groups for authorizing forced repatriation of recognized refugees who refuse resettlement abroad, and for its insufficient provisions for monitoring and protection of returnees once back in Vietnam. Although UNHCR acknowledges that there were deficiencies in the MoU, it stands by the agreement, arguing that securing Cambodia’s commitment to continue providing temporary asylum to Central Highlanders was a trade-off for insufficient guarantees regarding monitoring and access inside Vietnam.

In fact, in 2004, prior to the agreement, asylum space in Cambodia was at risk. When a number of recognized Highland refugees refused resettlement abroad, Cambodia began to threaten to cease providing temporary asylum to Central Highlanders if a residual population of refugees developed within its territory.77 But rather than pressing Cambodia to abide by its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, specifically the prohibition against non-refoulement, UNHCR agreed to a MoU providing for forced returns of refugees who did not want to be resettled abroad.78

Under the MoU, refugees who refuse to resettle abroad are to be returned to Vietnam.79 Implicit in this agreement is the idea that refugee protection ceases for refugees who refuse resettlement. However, the cessation clause of the Refugee Convention establishes no such ground for the cessation of refugee status; to the contrary, the Convention emphasizes the right of refugees to choose their durable solution.80 The MoU refers to “safe and orderly” repatriation, but does not require that refugee repatriation be voluntary.81 The lack of such guarantees may result in the forced return or refoulemment of refugees.82 This violates the principle of non-refoulement, which is the cornerstone of refugee protection. UNHCR is duty-bound by Article 33 of its own Refugee Convention to oppose the expulsion or return of a refugee to a place where a refugee's life or freedom would be threatened. Yet, under the MoU, UNHCR is placed in the position of promoting and facilitating the return of refugees to a place where the threat of persecution that caused them to flee has not fundamentally changed.

Forced return of Central Highlanders to Vietnam under current conditions runs counter to UNHCR’s own guidelines on voluntary repatriation and risks violation of Cambodia’s non-refoulement obligations under international refugee and human rights law.83 More worrying still, the MoU makes no promises that the Vietnamese government will not punish or prosecute returnees for practicing their religion or expressing their political opinions. By specifying that the Vietnamese government agrees not to punish or prosecute returnees for their “illegal departure,” the MoU remains conspicuously silent regarding the range of other grounds for which the Vietnamese authorities may punish returnees. This is particularly troubling, given the numerous recorded cases of Vietnamese government persecution, abuse, and torture of activists, religious leaders, and individuals who have been deported or who have voluntarily returned from Cambodia.84

Finally, the MoU fails to provide for an effective, credible, and unfettered protection and monitoring presence by UNHCR in the Central Highlands to monitor the safety of those who are repatriated and obtain the reliable and objective information needed for potential returnees to make informed decisions about repatriation. The MoU states only that the Vietnamese Government and UNHCR will “consult and cooperate” on visits to the returnees “at an appropriate time.”

Many of UNHCR’s monitoring visits to the Central Highlands have not been conducted in a way that would allow returnees to speak freely and confidentially. UNHCR’s visits with returnees have often been conducted in group settings or in the presence of government officials and both uniformed and plainclothed police,85 making it difficult for returnees to speak frankly.

Detention and Interrogation of Returnees

Since the signing of the MoU in January, ninety-six Central Highlanders have repatriated voluntarily. In July 2005, despite protests from the international community, Cambodian authorities forcibly returned ninety-four other Central Highlanders whose asylum claims had been rejected by UNHCR, but who adamantly did not wish to return to Vietnam.86

The July 2005 Deportation

The Central Highlanders forcibly returned to Vietnam on July 20, 2005 were not recognized refugees, having had their claims for refugee status rejected by UNHCR. However the forced return was carried out under the auspices of the January 2005 MoU. The agreement provides for the forced return to Vietnam of refugees who refuse third-country resettlement, as well as asylum seekers whose refugee claims have been rejected by UNHCR. But it also provides that UNHCR will work with the governments of Cambodia and Vietnam to “bring back [to Vietnam] in an orderly and safe fashion” and “in conformity with national and international law” those Montagnards who do not agree to either resettle abroad or “voluntarily” return to Vietnam.87

Instead, Cambodian police used unwarranted violence during the forced return, which was carried out in the presence of UNHCR personnel.88 This was despite the fact that the asylum seekers at no time acted violently toward the police. They merely attempted to passively resist instructions to board the buses by sitting down and linking their arms together. After the asylum seekers ignored an order to board the buses, the police made no attempt at negotiation. Instead they began to slap, hit and use batons to beat the asylum seekers. They dragged people out of the facility by their arms, legs and, in several cases, by their hair, and pushed them on to buses. Police beat at least one woman with a baby strapped to her back, and kicked other asylum seekers as they were seated. They beat individuals with batons and used electric prods to inflict shock, even as people were boarding the buses.

One of those forcibly returned to Vietnam on July 20, 2005 was “S,” a sixteen-year-old boy who was sent back with his family. In May 2006, Human Rights Watch received information that S and his older brother had been arrested and detained by Vietnamese authorities. During their two-week in detention, they were questioned about why they had fled to Cambodia in the past and whether they were planning to try to escape again. It is not known whether they were beaten in police custody.89 Since their release, police have monitored their house and prohibited them from leaving the village without permission.

S’s family had originally tried to flee to Cambodia in August 2004. S’s father had been detained several times in Vietnam for practicing Christianity and participating in demonstrations. In July 2003 the father was arrested for allegedly helping to guide a group of asylum seekers to Cambodia. He was beaten with an electric shock baton and forced to sign a pledge stating that he would no longer evangelize or participate in political activities.

During the family’s attempt to flee to Cambodia in 2004, S—the youngest son—got separated from his family in the forest and was arrested by Vietnamese authorities. The rest of the family managed to reach the protection of UNHCR in Cambodia.

S, who was fifteen-years-old at the time, was held in detention for several days at a police station near the border, where he was handcuffed, beaten, and interrogated about his father’s activities. He was punched in the face and stomach, and beaten on his shoulders with the butt of a gun. At one point the police held a gun to his head and threatened to kill him. He was then taken to the district office, where he was interrogated for another three days. The police beat and slapped him in the face during questioning and at one point a police officer put the leg of a chair on S’s foot and sat on the chair.

After his release, five soldiers were stationed in S’s home. The police monitored him constantly and did not allow him to leave his village or even his home without notifying the authorities beforehand and checking in with them afterwards.

In June 2005, S was finally able to flee to Cambodia. However he and his family were rejected for asylum by UNHCR, even on appeal. They were forcibly returned to Vietnam on July 20, 2005.

“Double Back” Returnees

In December 2005, Human Rights Watch interviewed three “double back” refugees—Central Highlanders who, on returning from Cambodia to Vietnam, experienced such severe persecution that they fled a second time to Cambodia to seek the protection of UNHCR. The returnees interviewed in December were the first known to have fled a second time to Cambodia after being repatriated to Vietnam under the provisions of the MoU.

Human Rights Watch’s latest interviews—as well as corroborating reports about mistreatment of returnees received since 2003—indicate that at least some returnees to Vietnam suffer detention, mistreatment, and torture upon return.90 Human Rights Watch’s principal findings from these latest first-hand testimonies, as well as reports received from Vietnam in April and May 2005, and May 2006,91 about mistreatment of returnees, are that:

  • Immediately upon return to Vietnam some returnees have been detained in dark cells in the provincial prison for three to seven days.
  • The returnees have been interrogated every day about why they had left Vietnam and pressured to renounce their religion.
  • They have been beaten and tortured during interrogation.
  • Upon return to their villages, some have not been allowed to freely leave their villages or even their homes at times, and have been regularly questioned by local authorities about their whereabouts and their activities.
  • Some appear to have been forced to appear before the state media making statements of remorse about fleeing to Cambodia.92

The experiences of the returnees interviewed by Human Rights Watch in December 2005 stand in contrast to assurances they say they were given by UNHCR prior to returning to Vietnam. One of the men, whose asylum claim had been rejected by UNHCR, said he returned because “the U.N. told me there were no more problems in Vietnam. The Vietnamese police would not be angry when I returned, and I could practice my religion.”93

P, a Jarai man, a recognized refugee who voluntarily returned to Vietnam in May 2005, told Human Rights Watch that upon return he was detained in a dark cell for three nights at the provincial prison, with his hands tied even when he was given food. He was brought to an upstairs room every day for interrogation. During the first session, he said, the police asked him why he went to Cambodia. “I told them I fled because I was afraid the police would beat me,” he said. “As a response, they punched me in the face with their fists four times.”94

During subsequent interrogation sessions he was beaten in the chest, back, groin, and face; kicked in his stomach and shins with army boots; and slapped in the face. Police inserted writing pens between his fingers and then tied his hands tightly with a rope, squeezing his fingers and causing excruciating pain.95

 “When I was finally allowed to return to my village and see my wife, she was shocked by how swollen and bruised my face was,” he said.

During his time in the village, police were stationed outside his house every night. He was largely confined to his home; his wife tended the farm and brought him food. He was not allowed to gather with others for church.

P was arrested and tortured again in July 2005 after his return to his village. He was detained for five nights in a dark cell and repeatedly pressured to renounce his religion. During interrogation sessions, police forced him to lie down on his back, with his hands and feet raised in the air for three hours. If he dropped his hands or feet, he was beaten. He was also hung upside down by his feet for thirty minutes at a time. He was questioned about Dega Christianity, accused of helping people hiding in the forest, and pressured to provide names and locations of religious leaders as well as people in hiding.

Another returnee, “C,” said that he was detained, interrogated, and beaten during seven days’ detention in Pleiku immediately upon return to Vietnam in March 2005.96 After he was allowed to return to his village, he was summoned to the commune office many times; on average three times a month. Sometimes he was interrogated and released after a few hours, but on at least two additional occasions he was detained, for two days each time.

In September I was held for two days at the commune police station. I was warned not to gather for religious worship, but not beaten. In October, I was summoned again and held for two days. The police warned me to stop following my religion. They slapped me in the face, and boxed me on my ears until blood came out.

Fearing that the police would follow up on their threat to send him to prison in Hanoi the next time he was summoned, and also anxious because of the arrest of a religious leader in his area, C decided to try to flee to Cambodia again.

They told me if we catch you again you will spend nine or ten years in prison. I was afraid and I ran.

At the end of the interview, when asked whether he had anything else to say, C said:

This is the second time I’ve fled to Cambodia. Whether I live or die depends on the international [organizations]. If they send me back to Vietnam, I’m dead. I ran because I was afraid. They can beat or kill me in Cambodia, send me to prison here, but I won’t go back to Vietnam.

These testimonies, which were brought to the attention of UNHCR in January 2006, call into serious question the credibility of UNHCR’s monitoring of returnees and the assumptions on which the MoU is based—that returnees will not be persecuted and that UNHCR will be able to monitor the treatment of returnees to ensure that they are not harmed.

Human Rights Watch does not suggest that all returnees have been subjected to such persecution. The fact that we have been able to document a number of credible cases where torture and other severe forms of persecution have occurred, however, is an indication that assurances Vietnam has made in formal agreements not to harm returnees cannot be trusted, and that Vietnamese action still falls well short of respect for the human rights it is obligated to uphold as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Without a sufficient international monitoring presence and Vietnam’s refusal to acknowledge past abuses and these recent cases, there is little reason to believe that things are any different for many returnees.

Mistreatment of Highlanders in Vietnam with Families in the U.S.

Wives of refugees who have resettled abroad—especially those whose husbands are politically active or who have petitioned for them to join them in the U.S.—are treated with suspicion by local authorities. Money sent by husbands to their families in Vietnam is often rejected by local banking services, or police confiscate portions of the remittances as soon as they are collected.97

A Jarai man who sent money and a box of clothes and school supplies to his wife said that the police confiscated the entire box.98 They interrogated his wife for two days about what the money was for.

They told my wife that next time I send money, she must tell them—they will take half. The police officer tried to force her to sign a form saying that next time she would turn over 50 percent of the money to him.

Some women with husbands in the United States are summoned regularly to the local police station for questioning, as described by a Bahnar woman:

When my husband fled to Cambodia [in 2001], the authorities followed me a lot. They thought I would also try to flee. After my husband went to the U.S. the police asked me many questions: does he send money, how often, how much, and so on. I wanted to buy a hand phone because I live far from the district town but they did not allow me. They were afraid I would help the political movement.99

An Ede woman from Dak Lak showed Human Rights Watch twelve citations to the commune and district police stations that she had received from 2003 to 2006.

They would ask me about my husband: What does he do in the U.S.? Does he send you money? Do you talk with him on the phone? What do you talk about?100

In 2003 she was jailed for eleven days at the district police station. She was accused of bringing food to her uncle, who was in hiding, and pressured to reveal his whereabouts.

They were angry, and slapped me on the face and choked me. They asked me if I wanted to die. …The police made me kneel for three hours on my knees, with my hands up in the air. They placed a Bible in front of me and told me, “Pray to your Bible to help you now.” Then they put me in a cell. My hands and legs were tied. It was difficult to eat. Friends had to help each other eat.

In 2005, her paperwork to join her husband in the United States started to come through.101 When she went to the U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City to obtain her visa, police and soldiers went to her house to ask where she was.

When I got home, they sent me a warrant for questioning by the village, commune and district police. They asked what I had told the U.S. Consulate. They asked, “Who interviewed you—American or Vietnamese? Did you know the person? What did he look like? What was his name?”

Months later, when all her paperwork was completed for resettlement to the United States, a district policeman called her in one last time.

He said, “Now you are going to the United States. Tell everyone over there—your husband, your aunts and uncles, all your people: don’t do any political work over there. If you do, think about what will happen to your family still in Vietnam—your sister, your brother.”

Within two months of her arrival in the United States, her brother was arrested, beaten, and jailed on accusations of using an Internet phone to relay information to his sister and other family members in the U.S.102

[76] Human Rights Watch has received periodic reports since 2001 of Cambodian authorities forcibly returning Central Highland asylum seekers to Vietnam. See, for example: “Cambodia: Deportation of Montagnard Refugees to Vietnam,” Human Rights Watch press release, May 20, 2001; “Cambodia: Protect Montagnard Refugees Fleeing Vietnam,” Human Rights Watch press release, September 25, 2002; Repression of Montagnards: Conflicts over Land and Religion in Vietnam’s Central Highlands (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2002), pp. 138-143.

[77] There were various reasons highlanders were refusing resettlement to a third country outside the region. Some were fearful they would never see their spouses and children again. Others said they wanted to wait in Cambodia until the problems in the Central Highlands were resolved, so they could then safely return home at a later date. Others wanted make a political statement—that they fled Vietnam not as economic migrants or in order to resettle abroad, but as victims of persecution.

[78] Some UNHCR officials have cited Article 32 of the Refugee Convention to support this position. Article 32 relates to national security and public order grounds for expelling refugees lawfully in the territory of the asylum state, and provides for due process, including appeals and reasonable time for such refugees faced with expulsion to seek admission to another country. There is, however, no suggestion that Article 32 trumps Article 33’s prohibition on expelling or returning refugees “in any manner whatsoever” to a place where their lives or freedom would be threatened. Conceivably Montagnard refugees lawfully in Cambodia could be expelled from Cambodia after a proper legal procedure based on necessary and legitimate grounds, but not to a place where their lives or freedom would be threatened.

[79] This provision arose because of Cambodia’s unwillingness to countenance a residual population of Central Highland refugees in Phnom Penh, despite its obligations as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Cambodia took this stance after a number of Central Highlanders who had been recognized as refugees by UNHCR in 2004 refused the option of third-country resettlement, and also chose not to opt for repatriation.

[80] Refugee Convention, Article 1.C. A leading commentator on the Refugee Convention, James C. Hathaway, writes, “In contrast to [UNHCR’s] emphasis on the pursuit of durable solutions, the Refugee Convention gives priority to allowing refugees to make their own decisions about how best to respond to their predicament…. Rather than propelling refugees toward some means of ending their stay abroad, the Refugee Convention emphasizes instead the right of refugees to take the time they need to decide when and if they wish to pursue a durable solution.” James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 914.

[81] The MOU states: “Those who neither want to resettle in a third country nor to return to Vietnam will have one month following determination of their status to decide either to go to a third country or to come back to Vietnam. If then they do not decide, the Royal Government of Cambodia and the UNHCR will work with the Vietnamese Government to bring them back to Vietnam in an orderly and safe fashion and in conformity with national and international laws.” This contradicts UNHCR’s principles on voluntary repatriation. Global Consultations on International Protection, Voluntary Repatriation, EC/GC/02/05, April 25, 2002, para.7

[82] UNHCR’s Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation states: “the involuntary return of refugees would in practice amount to refoulement.…as a general rule, UNHCR should be convinced that the positive pull factors in the country of origin are an overriding element in the decision to return, rather than possible push factors in the country of origin or negative pull factors.” UNHCR, Division of International Protection, Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation, 1996, pp. 10-11.

[83] That is, Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

[84] See: Amnesty International, “No sanctuary: The plight of the Montagnard minority,” ASA 41/011/2002, December 18, 2002 [online] http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA410052004, (retrieved May20, 2006). Amnesty International, “Renewed concern for the Montagnard minority,” ASA 41/005/2004, April 28, 2004 [online] http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA410052004, (retrieved May20, 2006). “Vietnam: Torture, Arrests of Montagnard Christians,” Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, January 2005.

[85] Returnees interviewed by Human Rights Watch stated that people they knew to be police officers were posted in plain clothes near their homes and close to the UNHCR delegation during monitoring trips. While it is not known if UNHCR was aware of the presence of undercover police during the visits, certainly UNHCR would have been aware of the presence of uniformed security officials.

[86] “Cambodia: Police Brutality during Forced Return of Montagnards,” Human Rights Watch press release, July 25, 2005.

[87] “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Royal Government of Cambodia and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the Settlement of Issues Relating to the Vietnamese Central  Highlands Ethnic Minority People in Cambodia,” signed by Le Cong Phung, First Deputy Minister, Vietnam Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Long Visalo, Secretary of State, Cambodia Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation; and Erika Feller, Director, UNHCR Department of Intl Protection, January 25, 2005, Hanoi, Vietnam.

[88]William Shaw and Phann Ana, “Police Forcibly Repatriate 101 Montagnards,” Cambodia Daily, July 21, 2006; “CHRAC Condemns Forced and Violent Repatriation of 100 Montagnards,” Cambodian Human Rights Action Committee press release, July 20, 2005; “Cambodia: 100 Montagnards Forced Back to Vietnam,” Refugees International press release, July 20, 2005;  “Cambodia: Police Brutality during Forced Return of Montagnards,” Human Rights Watch press release, July 25, 2005.

[89] Information received by Human Rights Watch on June 5, 2006 from a human rights lawyer who interviewed family members of S, currently living abroad. The family members spoke directly by telephone with S's parents in Vietnam on May 31, 2006. The parents confirmed that their two sons had been detained for two weeks but were afraid to provide any details.

[90] For additional testimonies about mistreatment of returnees, see: “Vietnam: Torture, Arrests of Montagnard Christians,” A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, January 2005; “Vietnam: Persecution of Montagnards Continues,” A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, May 2005.

[91] In April 2005, Human Rights Watch received disturbing information about eight Central Highlanders who were among thirty-five who voluntarily returned to Vietnam in March 2005 from UNHCR shelters in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Sources in Ia Grai district reported that after Vietnamese officials received the group of returnees at the border on March 11, 2005, they drove them to Ho Chi Minh City, where they were held for several days. The nine villagers were then handed over to Gia Lai provincial authorities in Pleiku provincial town, where they were held for a week. According to these reports, while in police custody in the provincial police station, at least four of the eight villagers were beaten during interrogation. This included being stabbed in the hand with a writing pen, punched in the thigh, back, and stomach, and slapped across the face. The returnees were then discharged to district police officials and escorted back to their villages by commune police officers. Upon return to their villages they were confined to their homes, at least initially. See: “Vietnam: Persecution of Montagnards Continues,” A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, May 2005.

[92] For example, a highlander who returned to Vietnam on March 31, 2005 was quoted in the Vietnamese state press the next day as saying: "I was deceived into crossing the border into Cambodia where I was forced to stay in a concentration camp, with little food and sleep. The terrible men that mislead us said we would have lots of money and a house, but in reality there was nothing.” “More Illegal Migrants Repatriated from Cambodia,” Vietnam News Brief Service, April 1, 2005. In 2004, members of a group of thirteen Bunong who returned to Vietnam from a UNHCR site in Cambodia in October 2004 were quoted in the Vietnamese state press stating that they had been trained by UNHCR staff in the Phnom Penh sites to return to Vietnam as spies. “Vietnam accuses UNHCR of instigating refugees exodus to Cambodia,” Associated Press, December 29, 2004, citing An ninh The gioi (World Security) newspaper and Vietnam News Service, December 29, 2004.

[93] Human Rights Watch interview with C, a Jarai returnee from Vietnam, December 2005.

[94] Human Rights Watch interview with P, a Jarai returnee from Vietnam, December 2005.

[95] Human Rights Watch has received accounts of this type of torture from other Central Highland returnees, for example refugees from Ea H’leo district, Dak Lak, regarding their detention in 2002.

[96] Human Rights Watch interview with C, a Jarai returnee from Vietnam, December 2005.

[97] Human Rights Watch interviews with refugees in the United States who have family members in Vietnam, 2002-2006, as well as with newly-arrived family members from Vietnam joining refugees who resettled to the United States earlier, February-May 2006.

[98] Human Rights Watch interview with Jarai refugee in the United States who received this information from his wife in Cu Se district the night before his interview on April 18, 2006.

[99] Human Rights Watch interview on May 13, 2006 with Bahnar woman from Dak Doa district, Gia Lai, who left Vietnam earlier the same month.

[100] Human Rights Watch interview on April 18, 2006 with X, an Ede woman who left Vietnam in the spring of 2006.

[101] Since 2001, Central Highland refugees who have resettled to the United States have petitioned for their families in Vietnam to join them under a US Family Reunification Program called “Visa 93.” While the Vietnamese government was initially very slow to authorize passports and other documentation required for Montagnard family reunification cases that had been approved by the United States, during the last year a number of families—the vast majority from Gia Lai province—have arrived in the United States.

[102] The brother has been placed under house arrest under Administrative Detention Decree 31/CP. This account is similar to the testimony of an Ede woman who arrived in the United States in March as part of the Family Reunification program. Before leaving for the US to join her husband, a police officer threatened her, saying: “When you go to the United States of America you can not say anything bad about the Vietnamese government. If you do, you can not come back to Vietnam because your family members are in our hands and we will use all our power against them.” They then made her sign a paper saying that she would not say anything bad about the Vietnamese government after leaving Vietnam. H’Pun Mlo, “Human Rights in Vietnam,” Congressional Testimony before the Committee on House International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, CQ Transcriptions, March 29, 2006.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>June 2006