The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information about the case of a human rights defender tortured by the police in Imphal, Manipur state. It is reported that the police arrested and tortured the victim, Oinam Bikramjit, in custody. The victim fears that he will be re-arrested and tortured if he takes any actions against the police officers.
According to the information received by the AHRC, the Manipur State Police Commando Unit arrested Mr. Oinam Bikramjit on September 1, 2009, along with three other human rights defenders namely: Ms. Mutum Ibemhal, Ms. Mayanglambam Radhesana and Ms. Oinam Amuthoi.
At about 5pm on that day, police officers surrounded the house of Mrs. Ibemhal, in Imphal West District. Ibemhal along with Bikramjit, Radhesana and Amuthoi were having tea. The officers searched the house but found nothing incriminating. Soon, a team of women police officers arrived and arrested Ibemhal, Bikramjit, Radhesana and Amuthoi. It is reported that the police violated all legal procedures regarding arrest of persons.
The police produced the four detainees at the Imphal Chief Judicial Magistrate court, on the next day. The Court released Radhesana and Amuthoi on bail but remanded Bikramjit and Ibemhal into custody. The Court allowed the police to keep Bikramjit and Ibemhal in police custody instead of judicial custody till 4 September. On 4 September the police produced Bikramjit and Ibemhal again in court, and the court remanded them into judicial custody till 17 September.
At this point the officers from Nambol Police Station approached the court with a prayer to allow them to arrest Bikramjit in connection with a case concerning the burning of Nambol Sub Divisional Office that happened on August 20, 2009. The court ordered to produce Bikramjit before the court and allowed the Nambol police to record their arrest of Bikramjit. Then they produced Brikamjit in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Bishnupur with a prayer for police remand. The Court allowed the application and remanded Bikramjit into police custody till September 7, 2009.
In the meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Imphal West District issued an order on September 5, 2009 to detain Bikramjit under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The NSA allows preventive detention of a citizen for prolonged periods with limited possibilities of bail. Bikramjit was not brought before the Bishnupur court on 7 September.
According to our information, the police tortured Bikramjit in custody. Bikramjit along with others were released from custody on January 7, 2010. But he is suffering from physical as well as mental trauma from the severe torture inflicted upon him while in custody. It is reported that the police resorted to brutal forms of torture upon Bikramjit, including electrocuting him. Bikramjit is afraid that the police will detain him again if he initiated any action against the officers. He requires immediate expert medical assistance and counseling for trauma.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Oinam Bikramjit is a human rights activist in Manipur. He is an active campaigner in the state-wide movement calling for the withdrawal of the draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 from the state. He has also been vocal against the extrajudicial executions carried out by the security forces in Manipur. He is the General Secretary of the United People Front of Manipur. He is part of the Apunba Lup, an umbrella body of different organisations in Manipur. It is believed that Bikramjit's arrest was a kneejerk reaction by the state government against the mass protest organised by Apunba Lup and other human rights organisations against the 23 July killings in Manipur. For further reading about the 23 July murder, please see AHRC-UAC-098-2009; AHRC-UAC-122-2009 and The state of the republic is showcased in Manipur.
The NSA allows detention of persons considered as security risk anywhere in India. Under its provisions, the authorities could detain a suspect without charge or trial for a period up to one year. The state government must confirm the detention order, which is reviewed by an advisory board within seven weeks of the arrest. The process however is non-transparent. The NSA limits the power of the lower courts like the magistrate courts to review detention orders and thus deprive the persons detained under this law from obtaining any immediate legal redress. Declaration of a state of emergency is no precondition to charge a person under the NSA. For these reasons the NSA has been misused by authorities in India. In particular, the NSA is used against human rights and other political activists to silence opposition.
In February 2009, the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention released a joint study along with other Special Rapporteurs on the practice of arbitrary detention in countering terrorism. It stated that 'arbitrary detentions and disappearances have been a longstanding concern in India, particularly in the states in which the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 applies'. During the 2008 Universal Periodic Review of India, the Human Rights Council also remarked that the continuing reliance on special powers under legislations such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 the Public Safety Act, 1978 and the National Security Act, 1980 in areas declared to be disturbed is cause for serious human rights violations.
According to the information received by the AHRC, the Manipur State Police Commando Unit arrested Mr. Oinam Bikramjit on September 1, 2009, along with three other human rights defenders namely: Ms. Mutum Ibemhal, Ms. Mayanglambam Radhesana and Ms. Oinam Amuthoi.
At about 5pm on that day, police officers surrounded the house of Mrs. Ibemhal, in Imphal West District. Ibemhal along with Bikramjit, Radhesana and Amuthoi were having tea. The officers searched the house but found nothing incriminating. Soon, a team of women police officers arrived and arrested Ibemhal, Bikramjit, Radhesana and Amuthoi. It is reported that the police violated all legal procedures regarding arrest of persons.
The police produced the four detainees at the Imphal Chief Judicial Magistrate court, on the next day. The Court released Radhesana and Amuthoi on bail but remanded Bikramjit and Ibemhal into custody. The Court allowed the police to keep Bikramjit and Ibemhal in police custody instead of judicial custody till 4 September. On 4 September the police produced Bikramjit and Ibemhal again in court, and the court remanded them into judicial custody till 17 September.
At this point the officers from Nambol Police Station approached the court with a prayer to allow them to arrest Bikramjit in connection with a case concerning the burning of Nambol Sub Divisional Office that happened on August 20, 2009. The court ordered to produce Bikramjit before the court and allowed the Nambol police to record their arrest of Bikramjit. Then they produced Brikamjit in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Bishnupur with a prayer for police remand. The Court allowed the application and remanded Bikramjit into police custody till September 7, 2009.
In the meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Imphal West District issued an order on September 5, 2009 to detain Bikramjit under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The NSA allows preventive detention of a citizen for prolonged periods with limited possibilities of bail. Bikramjit was not brought before the Bishnupur court on 7 September.
According to our information, the police tortured Bikramjit in custody. Bikramjit along with others were released from custody on January 7, 2010. But he is suffering from physical as well as mental trauma from the severe torture inflicted upon him while in custody. It is reported that the police resorted to brutal forms of torture upon Bikramjit, including electrocuting him. Bikramjit is afraid that the police will detain him again if he initiated any action against the officers. He requires immediate expert medical assistance and counseling for trauma.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Oinam Bikramjit is a human rights activist in Manipur. He is an active campaigner in the state-wide movement calling for the withdrawal of the draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 from the state. He has also been vocal against the extrajudicial executions carried out by the security forces in Manipur. He is the General Secretary of the United People Front of Manipur. He is part of the Apunba Lup, an umbrella body of different organisations in Manipur. It is believed that Bikramjit's arrest was a kneejerk reaction by the state government against the mass protest organised by Apunba Lup and other human rights organisations against the 23 July killings in Manipur. For further reading about the 23 July murder, please see AHRC-UAC-098-2009; AHRC-UAC-122-2009 and The state of the republic is showcased in Manipur.
The NSA allows detention of persons considered as security risk anywhere in India. Under its provisions, the authorities could detain a suspect without charge or trial for a period up to one year. The state government must confirm the detention order, which is reviewed by an advisory board within seven weeks of the arrest. The process however is non-transparent. The NSA limits the power of the lower courts like the magistrate courts to review detention orders and thus deprive the persons detained under this law from obtaining any immediate legal redress. Declaration of a state of emergency is no precondition to charge a person under the NSA. For these reasons the NSA has been misused by authorities in India. In particular, the NSA is used against human rights and other political activists to silence opposition.
In February 2009, the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention released a joint study along with other Special Rapporteurs on the practice of arbitrary detention in countering terrorism. It stated that 'arbitrary detentions and disappearances have been a longstanding concern in India, particularly in the states in which the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 applies'. During the 2008 Universal Periodic Review of India, the Human Rights Council also remarked that the continuing reliance on special powers under legislations such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 the Public Safety Act, 1978 and the National Security Act, 1980 in areas declared to be disturbed is cause for serious human rights violations.