*EPF308 04/02/2003
Text: Laos Justice Lacking, U.S. Human Rights Study Finds
(Dept. of State's Report on Human Rights Practices in Laos) (3250)

Arbitrary arrests and inhumane prison conditions bring strong criticism from the U.S. Department of State in their annual Report on Human Rights Practices.

The report on Laos states: "Prisoners were abused and tortured, and prison conditions generally are extremely harsh and life threatening."

The document further details numerous human rights violations committed by the authoritarian regime. "Members of the security forces abused detainees, especially those suspected of insurgent or antigovernment activity," says the report.

The Lao government also restricts civil liberties such as freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association. Religious leaders are particularly targeted and constrained.

The complete Department of State report on Laos can be found online at:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18251.htm

Following are excerpts from the Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2002 for Laos:

(begin text)

Laos

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

March 31, 2003

The Lao People's Democratic Republic is an authoritarian, Communist, one-party state ruled by the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP). Although the 1991 Constitution outlines a system composed of executive, legislative, and judicial branches, in practice the LPRP continued to control governance and the choice of leaders at all levels through its constitutionally designated "leading role." In February national elections were held to select a new 109-person National Assembly, and at its inaugural session in April, the Assembly reelected the President and ratified the President's selection of a prime minister and cabinet. The judiciary is subject to executive influence.

The Ministry of Public Security (MOPS, formerly known as the Ministry of Interior) maintains internal security but shares the function of state control with the Ministry of Defense's security forces and with party and popular fronts (broad-based organizations controlled by the LPRP). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with MOPS support, is responsible for oversight of foreigners. The MOPS includes local police, immigration police, security police (including border police), and other armed police units. Communication police are responsible for monitoring telephone and electronic communications. The armed forces are responsible for external security but also have some domestic security responsibilities that include counterterrorism and counterinsurgency activities and control of an extensive system of village militias. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control over the security forces. Some members of the security forces committed serious human rights abuses.

Laos is an extremely poor country with an estimated population of 5.5 million. The economy is overwhelmingly agricultural, with 85 percent of the population engaged in subsistence agriculture. The sharp income inequality between participants in the monetary economy and those in the subsistence economy is demonstrated by the fact that the mean annual income is about $335 and the per capita gross domestic product about $1,700. Since 1986 the Government has abandoned most of its socialist economic policies in favor of market-based ones. It officially welcomes foreign investment, and is gradually strengthening its legal framework, including laws to protect property rights, but the domination of the state-owned banks and enterprises and a reluctance to embrace far-reaching reforms have slowed the process. The country is heavily dependent on official foreign aid and on remittances from Lao living abroad.

The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses. Citizens do not have the right to change their government. Members of the security forces abused detainees, especially those suspected of insurgent or antigovernment activity. Prisoners were abused and tortured, and prison conditions generally are extremely harsh and life threatening. Police used arbitrary arrest, detention, and surveillance. Lengthy pretrial detention and incommunicado detention were problems. The judiciary was subject to executive, legislative, and LPRP influence, was corrupt, and did not ensure citizens due process. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Government restricted freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association. The Government continued to restrict freedom of religion, and police and provincial authorities arrested and detained more than 60 members of Christian churches, with 4 members of religious communities in custody or incarcerated for their religious beliefs at year's end. Unlike in previous years, there were no reports of forced renunciations of faith involving profane rituals such as drinking animal blood, although there were isolated reports from some areas that ethnic minority Protestant communities continued to be pressured to renounce their faith. Authorities in some provinces allowed Christian communities to reopen churches that had previously been closed, and in July the Government issued the Decree on the Administration and Protection of Religious Practice aimed at providing guidelines to both religious groups and authorities on permissible religious activities. The Government imposed some restrictions on freedom of movement. Societal discrimination against women and minorities persisted, although the Government actively supported a policy of encouraging greater rights for women, children, persons with disabilities, and minorities. The Government restricted some worker rights. Trafficking in women and children was a problem.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

There were no confirmed reports of politically motivated killings by government officials during the year. There were unconfirmed reports of deaths of Hmong villagers in connection with security force operations against insurgents in remote parts of Saisomboun Special Zone and in Xieng Khouang, Vientiane, and Bolikhamsai Provinces.

The Constitution and the Penal Code prohibit torture; however, in practice members of the security forces subjected prisoners to torture and other abuses. Credible sources reported that detainees sometimes were subjected to beatings, long-term solitary confinement in completely darkened rooms, and burning from cigarettes. In some cases detainees were held in leg chains or wooden stocks. During the year, several persons arrested for religious activity were held in wooden stocks or shackles for part of their confinement. At least one religious detainee was seriously beaten by authorities while under detention.

Prison conditions generally were extremely harsh and life threatening. Food rations were minimal, and most prisoners relied on their families for their subsistence. The Government discriminates in its treatment of prisoners, restricting the family visits of some and prohibiting visits to a few. Credible reports indicated that ethnic minority prisoners and some foreign prisoners were treated particularly harshly. Prison authorities used degrading treatment, solitary confinement, and incommunicado detention against perceived problem prisoners, especially suspected insurgents. On occasion the authorities used incommunicado detention as an interrogation method; in isolated cases, this was life threatening when prisoners were detained in such conditions for lengthy periods. There were confirmed reports that a few jails placed prisoners in leg chains, wooden stocks, or fixed hand manacles for extended periods (see Section 2.c.). Medical facilities were extremely poor or nonexistent. Some prisoners died as a result of abusive treatment and lack of medical care. Prison conditions for women were similar to those for men. Prisons hold both male and female prisoners, although they were placed in separate cells. Juveniles were housed together with adult prisoners.

The law provides for arrest warrants issued by the prosecutor, and the Constitution provides for procedural safeguards; however, in practice the Government did not respect these provisions, and arbitrary arrest and detention remained problems. Police sometimes used arrest as a means of intimidation or to extract bribes. Police exercised wide latitude in making arrests, relying on exceptions to the requirement for arrest warrants for those in the act of committing a crime or for "urgent" cases. Incommunicado detention was a problem (see Section 1.c.). There is a 1-year statutory limit for detention without trial; the length of detention without a pretrial hearing or formal charges by law also is limited to 1 year; however, these limits often were ignored in practice. The Office of the Prosecutor General must authorize police to hold a suspect pending investigation. Authorization is given in 3-month increments, and, in theory, after a maximum of 1 year, a suspect must be released if police do not have sufficient evidence to bring charges. Access to family or a lawyer is not assured. There is a bail system, but its implementation was arbitrary. A statute of limitations applies to most crimes. In practice, alleged violations of criminal laws involving national security led to lengthy pretrial detentions without charge and minimal due process protection of those detained. Authorities sometimes continued to detain prisoners after they had completed their sentences, especially in cases where prisoners were unable to pay court fines.

During the year, government authorities arrested and detained more than 60 Christians, at times holding them in custody for months (see Section 2.c.). According to confirmed reports, those detained without trial at year's end for their religious activities included one person in Phongsaly and one person in Houaphanh; one person detained in Savannakhet was released in December. Seven lowland Lao men who returned from China have been detained without trial since 1997. An eighth member of this group was released in 2001.

The Constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary and the prosecutor's office; however, senior government and party officials influenced the courts, although perhaps to a lesser degree than in the past. Impunity was a problem, as was corruption. Many observers reported that judges can be bribed. The National Assembly Standing Committee appoints judges for 5-year terms; the executive appoints the Standing Committee. The Assembly may remove judges from office for "impropriety." Since 1991 one judge at the district level has been removed for improper behavior.

Most of the country's 450 judges had only basic legal training, and many had few or no references upon which to base their decisions. The National Assembly's Law Committee routinely reviewed Supreme Court decisions for "accuracy" and returned cases to the Court or the Prosecutor General's Office for review when it felt a decision had been reached improperly.

In some instances, police administratively overruled court decisions, at times detaining a defendant exonerated by the court, in violation of the law.

The Government limits citizens' privacy rights, and the Government's surveillance network is vast. Security laws allow the Government to monitor individuals' private communications (including e-mail) and movements. However, some personal freedoms accorded to citizens expanded along with the liberalization of the economy. . . .

MOPS monitored citizens' activities; in addition, an informal militia in both urban and rural areas, operating under the aegis of the military, has responsibility for maintaining public order and reporting "undesirable elements" to the police. The militia usually was more concerned with petty crime and instances of moral turpitude than with political activism, although some rural militia may be used for security against insurgents. A sporadically active system of neighborhood and workplace committees under the control of the popular front organizations played a similar monitoring role. . . .

Local officials in Kasi district of Vientiane Province and Khamkeut district of Bolikhamsai Province reportedly forced a number of Christians out of their villages because they had refused to change their religious beliefs (see Section 2.c.). . . .

RESPECT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES

The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the Government severely restricted political speech and writing in practice. The Government also prohibited most criticism that it deems harmful to its reputation. The Penal Code forbids slandering the State, distorting party or state policies, inciting disorder, or propagating information or opinions that weaken the State. Citizens who lodged legitimate complaints with government departments generally did not suffer reprisals, but criticism of a more general nature, or targeting the leadership, may lead to arrest.

All domestic print and electronic media were state-owned and controlled. Local news in all media reflected government policy. Television talk shows and opinion articles referred only to differences in administrative approach. Although domestic television and radio broadcasts were closely controlled, the Government made no effort to interfere with television and radio broadcasts from aboard. In practice many citizens routinely watched Thai television or listened to Thai radio, including news broadcasts. A few Asian and Western newspapers and magazines were available through private outlets that had government permission to sell them.

The Constitution provides for academic freedom; however, the Government restricted it, although over the past several years it has relaxed its restrictions in certain areas. Both citizen and noncitizen academic professionals conducting research in the country may be subject to restrictions on travel and access to information and to Penal Code restrictions on publication. As the sole employer of virtually all academic professionals, the Government exercised some control over their ability to travel on research or to obtain study grants. However, the Government, which once limited foreign travel by professors, actively sought out these opportunities worldwide and approved virtually all such proposals. . . .

The Constitution provides for freedom of assembly; however, the Government restricted this right in practice. The Penal Code prohibits participation in an organization for the purpose of demonstrations, protest marches, or other acts that cause "turmoil or social instability." Such acts are punishable by a prison term of from 1 to 5 years. If defendants are tried for crimes against the State, they may face much longer sentences of up to 20 years or possible execution.

The Constitution provides citizens with the right to organize and join associations; however, the Government restricted this right in practice. The Government registers and controls all associations and prohibits associations that criticize it. Political groups other than popular front organizations approved by the LPRP are forbidden. Although the Government restricted many types of formal professional and social associations, in practice informal nonpolitical groups met without hindrance. . . .

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, the authorities, particularly at the local level, interfered with this right in practice.

The Constitution prohibits "all acts of creating division of religion or creating division among the people." The LPRP and the Government apparently interpreted this section as inhibiting religious practice by all persons, including the Buddhist majority and a large population of animists. Although official pronouncements acknowledged the positive benefits of religion, they also emphasized its potential to divide, distract, or destabilize.

In July the Prime Minister's Office issued a Decree on the Administration and Protection of Religious Practice. The decree, which has the effect of law, was designed to specify clearly the range of activities permitted religious groups or practitioners. The decree permits minority religious groups to engage in a number of activities that had previously been considered by most authorities to be illegal, such as proselytizing and printing religious material. However, it requires religious groups or individuals to obtain permission in advance for these activities, in most cases from the Lao Front for National Construction, the party-controlled organization that oversees religious issues on behalf of the Government. Although most religious leaders were hopeful that the new decree would lead to increased religious freedom, some were concerned that its requirements for advance permission would actually hamper religious activity. . . .

During the year, government authorities arrested and detained more than 60 Christians, at times holding them in custody for months. In several cases, the prisoners were handcuffed, detained in leg chains and stocks, and subjected to psychological pressure. At least one detainee was severely beaten while in detention.

A campaign begun in 1999 and continuing into early 2001 in some provinces to close churches and force Christians to renounce their faith appeared to have largely dissipated or at least to be confined to just a few districts. Religious leaders reported no incidents of persons being forced by authorities to give up their faith during the year. However, Christians in some areas reported that authorities continued to tell them that Christianity was illegal or that they should give up their faith. A 2-year-old campaign to close churches continued early in the year in some areas. However, as the year progressed, authorities in a number of provinces, including Vientiane, Savannakhet, and Luang Prabang, permitted many churches to reopen. There were no reports of security forces stopping vehicles that carried multiple passengers during Sunday worship hours in order to prevent villagers from traveling to attend worship services as had occurred in the past (see Section 2.d.).

The LPRP controls the Buddhist clergy ("Sangha") in an attempt to direct national culture. Although the state is secular in both name and practice, the Party and the Government pay close attention to Theravada Buddhism, which is followed by more than 60 percent of the population. The Government's observation and control of the training of clergy and support for and oversight of temples and other facilities constituted means for overseeing the dominant Buddhist faith as well as promoting Buddhism as an integral part of the national culture and identity. . . .

The Constitution provides for asylum and the protection of stateless persons under the law. In practice, the Government did not provide first asylum and generally did not cooperate with the UNHCR or other U.N. offices in such cases.

RESPECT FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS

Citizens do not have the right to change their government. The Constitution provides for a representative National Assembly, elected every 5 years in open, multiple-candidate, fairly tabulated elections, with voting by secret ballot and universal adult suffrage; however, it legitimizes only a single party, the LPRP. Election committees, appointed by the National Assembly, must approve all candidates for local and national elections. Candidates need not be LPRP members, but in practice almost all were. . . .

The Constitution provides for equal treatment under the law for all citizens without regard to sex, social status, education, faith, or ethnicity. Although the Government at times took action when well-documented and obvious cases of discrimination came to the attention of high-level officials, the legal mechanism whereby a citizen may bring charges of discrimination against an individual or organization is neither well developed nor widely understood among the general population.

Violence against children is prohibited by law, and violators are subject to stiff punishments. Reports of the physical abuse of children were rare. Trafficking in girls for prostitution and forced labor was a problem (see Section 6.f.). Other forms of child labor generally were confined to family farms and enterprises (see Section 6.d.).

The Constitution provides for equal rights for all minority citizens, and there is no legal discrimination against them. However, societal discrimination persisted. . . .

The Penal Code prohibits abduction and trade in persons as well as the constraint, procuring, and prostitution of persons; however, trafficking in persons, particularly women and children, was a problem. Laos was primarily a country of origin for trafficking in persons and to a lesser extent, a transit country. Although there was no reliable data available on the scope and severity of the problem, rough estimates indicated that from 15,000 to 20,000 Lao girls and young women were trafficked annually for purposes of prostitution mostly to Thailand; a small number were trafficked to China and to the United States. Some young men were also victims. As many as 100,000 citizens annually traveled to Thailand to participate in seasonal agricultural labor and some urban labor; many of these citizens were illegally in Thailand and vulnerable to exploitation and some were trafficked only after their arrival in Thailand. A much smaller number of foreign nationals transited through Laos, including Burmese to China and Thailand, and Vietnamese to Thailand. In recent years, highland minority women from the interior of the country had become the group most vulnerable to traffickers. . . .

There were no reports of official involvement in trafficking; however, anecdotal evidence suggested that local officials knew of trafficking activities and a very few profited from them. . . .

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents