[sacw] sacw dispatch (27 Oct )

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
27 October 1999
____________________
#1. A Benevolent Dictatorship? [in Pakistan]
#2. HRW report: Crime or Custom? Violence Against Women in Pakistan
#3. CPJ letter to Prime Minister of Bangladesh
#4. Lets Lobby for a Woman Commissioner to India's Nat. Human Rights Commiss=
ion
#5. Documentary Film on 'safe custody' in Bangladesh
____________________
#1.
Economic and Political Weekly
October 23 issue.

A BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP?
By S Akbar Zaidi

>At the end of July this year, I was engaged in a long conversation with a
>friend from India who is a professor at the School of Oriental and African
>Studies in London. The discussion, not surprisingly, was Kargil and the
>developments that had taken place in our two countries since February. In
>the period between February and end July, a number of important
>developments had taken place. The most significant of these were, the
>Lahore Peace Process and Declaration, the war in Kargil, the end of BJP's
>second tenure in government and the forthcoming elections in India, and
>finally, Nawaz Shariff's July 4th dash to Washington to ask for President
>Clinton's help in coming up with a face-saving solution for Pakistan so
>that it could withdraw from Kashmir/Kargil somewhat respectfully.
>
>I told Professor Rathin Roy that Nawaz Shariff was genuinely interested in
>peace with India as he was a businessman and he realised that better trade
>and economic relations would ease some of the pressure on Pakistan's
>visibly shaken economic condition. Trade and economic relations would
>benefit Pakistan overall and particularly the Punjab, which had land links
>with India and would allow cheap and easy access to Indian imports and raw
>materials. Punjab was Nawaz Shariff's main constituency as much as it is
>the army's. With Pakistan facing a growing debt burden and with pressure to
>reduce expenditure, the military was also reluctantly coming round to the
>need for reduction in its share of the budget, with some belt-tightening
>leading to a slowing down in military recruitment over the middle to long
>term. Besides, now that Pakistan had become a nuclear power, there may have
>been some arguments which suggested the need for a smaller conventional
>army. I argued that not only was Nawaz Shariff interested in a peace
>initiative with India, but now probably so was the military, as it had
>realised that with Pakistan's economy in a shambles and its debt situation
>increasingly unsustainable, the only way out to solve Punjab's employment
>and economic situation, was to involve the army's Punjabi constituency in
>trade and economic activity, and better relations with India offered that
>possibility. However, Kargil intervened.
>
>I have maintained since the Kargil fiasco became public something that I
>tried to convey to Professor Roy, that this intrusion into Indian Kashmir
>was organised and masterminded by a section of the army or the ISI (Inter
>Services Intelligence), to undermine the sensible and urgently required
>peace process initiated by the civilian government of Nawaz Shariff. I also
>felt that this was not something that Nawaz Shariff would have initiated as
>it contradicts his earlier efforts of gaining a larger profit from trade
>and economic opportunities which would have benefited him, his family, his
>business interests and his constituency. There was no logic to Nawaz
>Shariff's action. I tried to convince Professor Roy, that the military was
>independent of civilian control and wanted to sabotage the peace
>initiative, as the military was the most important beneficiary of any war
>hysteria over Kashmir. Professor Roy said in disbelief, that no one in
>India would understand how a military could be independent of civilian
>control in a democracy, even one like Pakistan's. In September this year,
>Niaz Naik, a former Federal Secretary and emissary of Nawaz Shariff went
>public and said exactly the same, that Kargil was instigated by the
>military and the Prime Minister knew nothing about it until it was far too
>late.
>
>The events last week have only confirmed the view that it is the military
>which still holds supreme power, and rules (and now governs) Pakistan and
>makes all important decisions, despite a period of democracy which had
>lasted almost exactly eleven years. The as yet unformed military
>government will be the ninth in these eleven years, which includes four
>elected and four care-taker governments. Such is the state of democracy in
>Pakistan, that none of the four elected governments -- the two of Benazir
>Bhutto and two of Nawaz Sahriff -- have completed their tenure. The first
>three were dismissed by the President and the last one by the military. The
>key difference in all these dismissals is, that while the earlier three
>were dismissed by the President, he had the constitutional right and
>provision to do so under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of
>Pakistan. This time round, the President no longer has the power, and the
>military has acted unconstitutionally.
>
>General Pervez Musharraf in his second address to the nation said that
>rather than let the entire body (of Pakistan) rot and breakaway by
>following the Constitution, he decided to amputate a leg (the Constitution)
>and save the rest of the body. He has realised that he has acted
>unconstitutionally and has put the Constitution in abeyance, until that
>time when he and the military decide that it is time to hold elections
>again and to resume the process of democracy under far different conditions
>and rules. (Now where have we heard all this before?). Although Martial Law
>has not as yet, been declared, and the so-called Chief Executive has spoken
>about basic freedoms, including that of the press, the national and
>provincial assemblies have been suspended, though not as yet, dismissed.
>Numerous elected and appointed government functionaries are being held
>without any cases against them, while many others, including ambassadors,
>have been arbitrarily removed from their previous posts and assignments,
>without any explanation and reason given for this action by the military.
>So much for this brand of accountability.
>
>General Pervez Musharraf has announced a system of administration of
>government which he will head as 'Chief Executive' and will constitute a
>National Security Council which will include the naval and air chiefs and
>four other 'experts' (who need not be civilians), a think-tank to advice
>the government, and a cabinet of ministers which will work under the
>guidance of the National Security Council. The Chief Executive's immediate
>agenda includes the aim to rebuild national confidence and morale,
>strengthen the federation, revive the economy, decentralization and
>devolution, speedy law and justice, and of course, the accountability of
>those who have held power in the past. Importantly, none of the orders of
>the Chief Executive can be challenged by any court or law in the country.
>
>Professor Rathin Roy and numerous other Indian friends would probably not
>understand why the military coup has been so unanimously well received in
>Pakistan. All political parties, including important members of the
>dismissed Muslim League, and all the combined opposition, have welcomed
>General Musharraf's intrusion. There has been not a whimper of opposition
>by any quarters in the country. Even those so-called liberals and champions
>of democracy, who fought against General Zia's military dictatorship, are
>now writing articles justifying his takeover, arguing that this is the only
>way we can save Pakistan from certain catastrophe. They use arguments
>saying that authoritarian rule has provided very effective results and
>cite the example of East Asia. They say that Nawaz Shariff would have lead
>this country to destruction within a matter of a few years; by gambling on
>the military, they are hoping that this will not happen. And if it does,
>some say, well it was always inevitable. The military is their last bet,
>they justify.
>
>The liberal intelligentsia, which harbours some image of 'democracy', and
>the elite who want a 'level playing field', have welcomed the military rule
>and see General Pervez Musharraf as nothing less than a saviour, their
>messiah on a white horse. They have felt that what we had in Pakistan was
>never democracy, and have supported the dismissal of each and every one of
>the five elected governments since 1988. This section of Pakistan's
>privileged class, is more concerned with 'good governance', swift and fair
>justice, the end of nepotism and corruption, and a revival of the economy.
>It matters not how these goals are achieved, as long as someone fulfills
>them. All these things have been promised by Pakistan's new Chief
>Executive, and hence the unflinching support for him. A benevolent
>dictator, it is argued, is far better than a despotic, incompetent and
>corrupt democratically elected leader. In all this, they forget that 'good
>governance' requires participation, pluralism, accountability and openness,
>none of which can form part of undemocratic military rule, no matter how
>benevolent.
>
>Probably the main reason why there has been no protest against the
>imposition of de facto martial law in Pakistan, is that many opinion makers
>and elected representatives were fed up and tired of the way the country
>was being handled over the last decade under democracy. While democracy may
>have existed in name, this section of the Pakistani people felt that there
>problems were increasing and there were signs of further decay. For this
>group, it mattered not who would undertake reform or how that reform was to
>be undertaken, as long as it was done. Hence, their enthusiastic and
>wholehearted acceptance of the programme announced by General Musharraf, a
>programme which probably constitutes the political programme of many a
>political party in Pakistan. General Musharraf is saying exactly what a
>number of liberal groups and individuals in Pakistan have been saying for
>years. What else can they do but support him.
>
>General Musharraf has declared that he believes in democracy, and wants to
>create the conditions which would ensure 'genuine' democracy, after which
>the army will return to the barracks. This too, pleases the liberal lobby
>which now so enthusiastically supports the coup. In many ways, the
>programme of General Musharraf seems far more similar to that of the coup
>of Ayub Khan in 1958, than of General Zia in 1977. Ayub was also a
>modernist liberal, who wanted to bring about an administrative and
>managerial solution to Pakistan's problems at that time. General Zia, on
>the other hand, came on the back of a wave of mass civil unrest, with a far
>more conservative social and political programme. General Musharraf's
>guarantees to the religious minorities of Pakistan, have gone down
>particularly well with the liberal groups that constitute the Pakistani
>public.
>
>The first speeches of almost all of Pakistan's elected, dictatorial or
>caretaker leaders, have differed little in intent from that of General
>Musharraf's this week. They all talk about critical junctures,
>accountability of the past, moral authority and direction, and the like.
>After about a couple of years, the expectations with every new government
>go sour and the government begins to lose its popularity amongst the
>public. This happened with Nawaz Shariff's government as well which had a
>mandate which is never likely to be repeated gain.
>
>What the reaction of the so-called liberal and pro-democracy elements in
>Pakistan towards General Pervez Musharraf reveals, is that this important
>section does not consider democracy to be a process which takes time, often
>generations, but rather, a mechanism which puts in place instant solutions
>irrespective of how they are to take place. While they talk about
>'institutions' and institution building, they are not concerned with how
>these interventions take place, or who builds institutions in their own
>preferred manner. Most importantly, the process of building democratic
>institutions in a country which has had military rule for almost half of
>its 52 years, is not considered important enough.
>
>Call it opportunism or a lack of hope, or one last bet, but the public in
>Pakistan has overlooked a number of important facts that have taken place
>in recent times. Firstly, all the attacks against Nawaz Shariff since his
>ouster, have labeled his a one-man autocratic government which seems to be
>one of the stronger charges labeled against the former Prime Minister. Yet,
>while these people welcome General Pervez Musharraf as their saviour, they
>conveniently ignore the fact that military rule is always one-man rule and
>potentially far worse than any form of autocratic democracy. Besides,
>democracy does always have the military as a potential watchdog, its checks
>and balances, if things get out of hand; the question of replacing the
>military does not arise, and one must await events of extraordinary
>proportion to do so. The war of independence of East Pakistan with the
>secession of Bangladesh and an air crash clouded in mysterious
>circumstances, were the events which culminated in the end of martial rule
>twice in the past.
>
>Second, our good liberal friends endorse the measures taken by general
>Musharraf to initiate the process of accountability of Nawaz Shariff and
>his cronies, yet they conveniently overlook the fact that the orders of the
>Chief Executive cannot be challenged by any court in Pakistan. Moreover,
>his dismissal of the government itself and the abeyance of the Constitution
>are both illegal. Who will hold the army accountable?
>
>Thirdly, all the ground that had been taken by the liberal lobby after the
>Pakistan army's fiasco in Kargil, in terms of discussing the role of the
>military in Pakistan's economy, has certainly been lost. After Kargil, many
>of us questioned the amount budgeted to the military each year, and there
>was a possibility that the voices of democracy may have put some pressure
>on the military to reveal its accounts. Clearly, that opportunity has been
>lost for good. Linked with this, was the possibility of peace in South
>Asia, with the BJP and Nawaz governments talking peace and moving towards
>economic and trade relations to start with. This too, has been put aside
>for the moment.
>
>All those liberals who are banking on the military are the very same ones
>who backed the World Bank's Moeen Quraishi when he was a caretaker Prime
>Minister for three months in 1993. This time, they are openly stating that
>they want the military to stay for some time, two years at least, so that
>it can cleanse the democratic stables of their undemocratic components.
>They are relieved that the Chief of the Army Staff does not wear a beard
>and speak the language of General Zia or the Taliban. But this precisely is
>the problem. By supporting this intrusion by the military in Pakistan's
>politics, next time round they may get the worst end of the stick. It is
>this liberal and supposedly prodemocratic element which has probably done
>Pakistan its biggest disservice. Had they been an active and effective
>lobby in the first place, things would not have come to the stage where
>they have. Pakistan's greatest tragedy regarding democracy is not that the
>military has taken over, but that we allowed democaracy to degenerate to
>the level it did, and for this to happen in the first place.
>October 19, 1999.
___________________
#2.
[Human Rights Watch Report on Pakistan]
http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/oct/pakpr.htm

PAKISTAN: WOMEN FACE THEIR OWN CRISIS

(New York, October 19, 1999) -- In the wake of the military takeover in
Pakistan, Human Rights Watch today released a major report on the state of
women's rights in the country. The 100-page report, Crime or Custom? Violenc=
e
Against Women in Pakistan, documents a virtual epidemic of crimes of violenc=
e
against women, including domestic violence rates as high as 90 percent, at
least eight reported rapes every 24 hours nationwide, and an alarming rise i=
n
so-called honor killings.

"As the world focuses on Pakistan's dramatic political crisis, fifty
percent of the population remains caught in a different kind of crisis,"
said Samya
Burney, author of the report and researcher for the women's rights division =
of
Human Rights Watch. "Women in Pakistan face spiraling rates of gender-based
violence, a legal framework that is deeply biased against women, and a law
enforcement system that retraumatizes female victims instead of facilitating
justice," she added.

Violence against women has risen to staggering levels. Women's low social
status and a long established pattern of active suppression of women's right=
s
by successive governments has contributed to the escalation in violence. No
government has acknowledged the scale and severity of the problem=97much les=
s
taken action to end the violence against women. When a Commission of Inquiry
for women convened by the Pakistan Senate described domestic violence as
one of the country's most pervasive violations of human rights, its
findings were
brushed aside by the Sharif government. As a result of such dismissive
official attitudes, crimes of violence against women continue to be
perpetrated with
near total impunity.

"If the new leadership that emerges in Pakistan is genuinely interested in
legal and institutional reform, then violence against women is an issue it
cannot afford to ignore," said Burney. "The problem of violence against wome=
n
must be urgently and systematically tackled by whatever government comes to
power in Pakistan."

According to the new report, domestic violence victims have virtually no
access to judicial protection and redress. Officials at all levels of the
criminal
justice system do not consider domestic violence a matter for the criminal
courts. Domestic violence is routinely dismissed by law enforcement
authorities as a private dispute and female victims who attempt to register
a police
complaint of spousal or familial physical abuse are invariably turned away.
Worse, they are regularly advised and sometimes pressured by the police to
reconcile with their abusive spouses or relatives.

Women who report rape or sexual assault by strangers fare marginally better
than victims of domestic violence. Victims who are persistent and determined
sometimes succeed in registering complaints. However, reflecting the
institutionalized gender bias that pervades the criminal justice system, wom=
en
alleging rape are often disbelieved and treated with disrespect, indeed
harassed outright, by officials at all levels. They must contend with abusiv=
e
police, forensic doctors who focus on their virginity status instead of thei=
r
injuries, untrained prosecutors, skeptical judges, and a discriminatory and
deficient legal framework. "Only the most resilient and resourceful
complainants can maneuver such hostile terrain," said Burney, "And those
who do seldom see their attackers punished."

Instead of engaging in constructive dialogue, the government of Prime Minist=
er
Nawaz Sharif had actively harassed and attempted to silence women's rights
activists. Women's rights advocacy organizations increasingly had been
subjected to a range of intimidatory tactics, including stepped up governmen=
t
surveillance and threats that their organizations would be banned. "The
resurrection of civil society in Pakistan should be a top priority for
those in control of the country following the coup," said Burney. "As a
first step, the
nongovernmental sector must be allowed to function freely and independently.=
"

Human Rights Watch called for the explicit criminalization of all forms of
domestic and familial violence against women and the establishment of clear
guidelines for police intervention and protection in such cases. The
international monitoring organization also urged the repeal of Pakistan's ra=
pe
law, the Offence of Zina Ordinance, which allows marital rape, does not
establish the crime of statutory rape, and which in some cases does not perm=
it
the female victim to testify. The report also urges that Pakistani authoriti=
es
ensure that law enforcement personnel are trained to eliminate biases agains=
t
women in their responses to cases of violence against women.

The full report can be found at:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/pakistan/
___________________
#3.
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA
Phone: (212) 465-1004 Fax: (212) 465-9568
Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: info@c...

October 26, 1999

VIA FAX: 011-88-02-813-244

Her Excellency Sheikh Hasina Wajed
Prime Minister, People's Republic of Bangladesh
Office of the Prime Minister
Dhaka, Bangladesh

Your Excellency:

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is deeply disturbed by the latest
brutal assault on photojournalists committed by the Dhaka police.

On Friday, October 22, riot police were dispatched to subdue a demonstration
held in the capital by Islamic activists. The police turned their batons on =
two
newspaper photographers who were documenting their treatment of the proteste=
rs.
Babul Talukder, a photographer for Dainik Dinkal, and Mintu, who works for
Dainik Janata, were both badly beaten.

When other photographers on the scene gathered to complain to senior officer=
s
about the police brutality, dozens of riot police attacked the group and
pummeled them with their batons. Among the photographers injured by the poli=
ce
in this second assault were Joy of Banglabazar Patrika; Abdur Razzak of Dain=
ik
Sangram; Enamul Huq Kabir of Dainik Muktakantha; Subir of Dainik Arthaneeti;
Swapan Sarker of Dainik Banglar Bani; Matiur Rahman Tuku and Mamun Talukder =
of
Ajker Kagoj; Bulbul Ahmed of The Independent; Salimullah Salim of The New
Nation; and Faruque Ahmed of the United News of Bangladesh agency (UNB).

As an organization of journalists dedicated to the defense of our colleagues
around the world, CPJ is dismayed by the harsh tactics that Bangladeshi poli=
ce
employed to suppress coverage of their own conduct during a political
demonstration. We have repeatedly written to Your Excellency noting the
frequent
involvement of state actors in such violent attacks against journalists, but
have received no response.

CPJ welcomes pledges by Y.B. Siddique, Bangladesh's police chief, at a semin=
ar
convened by photojournalists in Dhaka, shortly before the Friday attacks.
According to local journalists, Siddique promised to issue a memorandum
instructing police never to harass, threaten, or assault journalists for
exercising their professional duties. CPJ hopes that last week's incident wi=
ll
convince authorities of the urgent need for such directives.

CPJ urges Your Excellency to take this opportunity to initiate reforms that
will
demonstrate your administration's commitment to press freedom. We respectful=
ly
ask you to order an inquiry into Friday's brutal attack on the press
photographers, and to ensure that the officers found guilty of assaulting
journalists are held accountable for their actions.

We thank you for your attention to this matter, and eagerly await your
response.

Sincerely,
Ann K. Cooper
Executive Director

cc: The Honorable Mohammed Nasim, home minister
Bangladesh Centre for Development, Journalism, and Communication
South Asian Journalists Association
American Society of Newspaper Editors
Amnesty International
Article 19 (United Kingdom)
Artikel 19 (The Netherlands)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Congressional Committee to Support Writers and Journalists
Freedom House
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
International Association of Broadcasting
International Federation of Journalists
International Federation of Newspaper Publishers
International Journalism Institute
International PEN
International Press Institute
National Association of Black Journalists
National Press Club
Newspaper Association of America
The Newspaper Guild
North American Broadcasters Association
Norwegian Forum for Freedom of Expression
Reporters Sans Fronti=E8res
Society of Professional Journalists
Overseas Press Club
World Association of Newspapers
World Press Freedom Committee
___________________
#3
THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-
APPOINTMENT OF A WOMAN COMMISSIONER - A RARE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT A LONG
STANDING OMISSION

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:05:42 +0530

The Commonwealth Rights Initiative is an international non-partisan
independent international NGO mandated to promoting the practical
realisation of human rights in countries of the Commonwealth. It is based in
New Delhi.

We write to draw attention to the need to have more women on the National
Human Rights Commission. At present a vacancy exists for which there is a
qualified women. Such a vacancy may not arise again and we urge readers to
write and advocate for this.

The vacancy open at the National HR Commission is
in the statutory category 2(c) of the Protection of Human Rights Act. This
says that a commissioner will be appointed from persons "who is or has been
a chief justice of a high court".

=46ormer Justice Sujata Manohar is qualified for the position as she was chi=
ef
justice of Kerala High Court before getting on to the Supreme Court from
where she had retired last month or so. We hold no personal brief for
Justice Manohar, but do feel that the lack of a woman on the commission is a
situation that requires urgent and immediate attention.

There has been no single woman appointed to the post of human rights
commissioner since its inception over five years ago except for Fatima Biwi
who was appointed for a few months after which she was appointed governor.
This apart, the chair of the National Woman's Commission is a co-opted
member but that is an ex- officio category. But this does not
really integrate a woman into the body of the commission. It does not also
fulfil the need we see for parity rather than tokenism.

It is CHRI's position that the NHRC's composition (at all levels) must
demonstrate the values of equity and equality which the commission has been
set up to further. It must demonstrate its own commitment to
non-discrimination by having women commissioners on it in equal measure.
This has not happened. Hence, we have urged the commission strongly
recommend to the selection committee that there be a woman member appointed
for the present vacancy. It is my belief, though this is conjecture, that
this needs more urging.

The selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister,
the Speaker of the lower house, the Dy. Chair of the upper house and the
leader of the Opposition. We have written to them urging them to ensure that
a woman is appointed to this post. This is long overdue.

The categorisation of who qualifies to be a commissioner
is itself extremely limiting. There is a strong bias in the formulation
which favours much older people and men. If you will examine the categories
in section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 you will see that
there are few positions to which women can actually qualify given the
ability of women to get into senior enough positions of public office in
this country. For example; the fact that only a former chief justice of
India can become the head of the commission means that for the foreseeable
future there is no likelihood of any woman becoming the head of the
commission. The threshold itself is designed to act as a barrier against the
entry of women.

If the present opportunity is missed there is a likelihood
that no woman will be within this particular qualifying category for several
more years. That is why when there is a happy coincidence of a person
available who fills all the criteria who is also a woman that the
opportunity must be seized. And the need to advocate for this becomes much
more urgent and immediate at today's date

With all this in mind we urge you to write to the members of the
commission urging that they recommend a woman be appointed to the Commission
in the present vacancy that exists. You may wish to write to the Women's
Empowerment Committee of Parliament as well.

However, the commission may only informally make suggestions. The power to
appoint lies with the selection committee. I would also urge you to write to
the Home Secretary who I believe serves the committee in charge of making
the appointments. Individual letters to committee members and the Attorney
General would also I know further the issue.

WE hope you will lend your weight to this initiative.

Maja Daruwala
Director,
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative,
=461/12A, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi 110016,
India.

SEND YOUR FAXES TO THE FOLLOWING:
Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee 301-6857
Dy Chair Rajya Sabha Najma Heptullah 301-2559
Leader of the Opposition party Sonia Gandhi 301-8651
Home Minister L.K.Advani 301-7763
Speaker Lok Sabha G.M.C Balayogi 379-2927
Leader of Opp Rajya Sabha Manmohan Singh 301-6707
___________________
#5.
IN THE NAME OF SAFETY [A documentary Film]

Producer/Directors: Catherine and Tareque Masud & ASK, Bangladesh
Date: 1999
Duration: 30 minutes

Bangladeshi prisons are home to thousands of innocent people, jailed - it=92=
s
claimed - for their own protection. In Bangladesh, it=92s still a crime to
marry against your parents=92 wishes, and parents whose daughters have
married without consent can use an anachronistic Islamic law to prosecute
the groom for kidnapping. Under the legal anomaly of 'safe custody'=92 young
brides often opt to follow their husbands to prison rather than risk being
married off to men of their parents=92 choosing. Detained in separate,
single-sex prisons, these modern day Romeo and Juliets languish behind
bars - sometimes for years - dreaming of being reunited again. Safe
custody=92 is also used to justify imprisoning homeless and mentally ill
people, while still other women are jailed for their own 'safety' after
reporting rape to police. In prison, they often wait years - sometimes
subjected to rape again by prison guards - before their cases are
eventually heard. Catherine and Tareque Masud's film explores how safe
custody=92 - through arbitrary detention, lack of legal representation and
sentences without trial - is a blatant violation of the rights of due
process enshrined in the Universal Declaration.
____________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since1996.