Publications

---

Annual Report 2004

Right to Information

Introduction

Individuals can claim their rights when they are aware of them. Such awareness can be achieved when information is widely made available, accessible and disseminated. The right to information therefore lays the foundations for several other fundamental rights: for example, it gives a meaning to the right to participate, which has been acknowledged as fundamental to the realization of the right to development.¹

In 1946 the UN General Assembly in its very first session recognized that

“freedom of information is a fundamental human right and is the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated” and that “freedom of information implies the right to gather, transmit and publish news anywhere and everywhere without letters. As such it is an essential factor in any serious effort to promote the peace and the progress of the world.”²

The right to information is enshrined in two fundamental documents of the International Bill of Human Rights. Both article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) include the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas as part of the right to freedom of expression.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression has repeatedly stated that “the right to seek, receive and impart information is not merely a corollary of freedom of opinion and expression; it is a right in and of itself.” ³ Therefore, the right to information is an integral part of the broader right to freedom of opinion and expression. It helps specify the content of the right to freedom of expression and better defines some of its constitutive elements. In fact, the right to information encompasses three interrelated dimensions:

1. The right to impart information;
2. The right to receive information;
3. The right to seek information.

The right to impart information entails the existence of free and independent media and the availability of a pluralistic system of information. The right to receive information includes the possibility for all individuals to receive objective, complete and timely information. The right to seek information encompasses the possibility to access public records and documents as well as any other available source of information.

Therefore, the enjoyment of the right to information is subordinated to the degree of commitment and cooperation of the State. On the one hand, the State should take positive action to ensure that an objective, complete and timely information reaches all segments of society without discrimination based on ethnicity, language, religion or gender. Moreover, the State should refrain from interfering in the free exchange and dissemination of information and from preventing individuals from accessing information that should be freely available to the public.

THE RIGHT TO IMPART INFORMATION

Freedom of broadcasting

For the vast majority of people in Tibet, broadcasting, especially through the radio, is the primary source of information and news. It is therefore of paramount importance that this medium can operate independently and in the public interest. However, in Tibet the Chinese government still has a monopoly over broadcasting, with a ban on private broadcasters. This is in contrast with the spirit of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to impart information and ideas through any media.

In this regard, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression expressed the view that State monopolies over broadcasting “can no longer be justified and that all States should put in place regulatory frameworks which provide for the licensing of both commercial and community broadcasters, including through terrestrial transmission systems”. ⁴

The Special Rapporteur was also of the view that a

“key way to serve the public interest is by ensuring the availability of the widest possible range of information and ideas through broadcasting”⁵ and that “minorities have a right to access the airwaves. Public broadcasters should ensure that their programming serves all members of society and broadcasting authorities should take steps to ensure that minority groups have non-discriminatory access to licenses. ”⁶

However, in Tibet, whether it is in televisions or radio, reporters have no other option but following and strictly complying with editorial guidelines issued by the authorities. In fact, the subjects to be covered and the angle of coverage of reporting are generally pre-decided in conformity with the government’s views.

In November 2004, a former Tibetan radio journalist, whose name cannot be disclosed, gave TCHRD a detailed account of how the government’s policies affect the broadcasting sector in Tibet. He said:

“Every year the government imparts to journalists the directives on the issues that should be highlighted in the media. These directives should be circulated only within the media circles and must be kept secret. In the beginning of 2004, we were given four directives: firstly, journalists are not allowed to report on any event or news related to religion. Only the religious events sponsored by the government can be covered. Secondly, journalists are not allowed to report the activities of the international foundations and non-governmental organizations, operating in various areas of Tibet. This ban was actually introduced in 2001. Thirdly, the journalists cannot report on any protest or demonstration against the government. Lastly, there is a restricted scope for reporting on natural disasters and calamities. For example, when a number of animals die due to a heavy snowfall in winter times, even if a reporter covers the story, the report is not broadcasted instantly. The information will be partly used in a different context later on, once the authorities have started taking some action on the matter. The news will then be reported in a different context, saying that the Chinese Communist Party and the Government have done such and such thing as a relief measure for the natural calamity. But there will be no report on the number of animals killed and the scale of losses suffered by the nomads.” ⁷

Editorial freedom is further constrained by the presence of party members in the highest positions of the broadcasting department. They exercise a tight control over the content of the reports to be broadcasted, thus ensuring its compliance with the government’s directives.

“The procedure for the approval of reports to be broadcasted is lengthy, as they usually undergo checking and rechecking to for political acceptability. All reports have to go through three levels of editing. The head of the Tibetan news section passes on the story to the head of the Tibetan language department. He in turn passes it on to one of the deputy heads of the Tibetan radio and broadcast department. Once he gives his final decision, then the news can finally be broadcasted. If there is something politically incorrect, it is his responsibility. The senior editors are in most cases party members. They make sure that the stories are in conformity with the party policies. The proportion of party members in the various media offices is high. Party membership is also beneficial for promotion.”⁸

In this respect, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to freedom of opinion and expression noted that public broadcasters should serve the public, not the Government or the party in power. This implies protection against political interference, including through the appointment of an independent governing board and respect for editorial independence.⁹ Authorities’ control over broadcasting is not limited to the information contained in the reports. It also extends to the journalists, who always have to demonstrate how their work serves the cause of the to the government and the Party.

“The journalists are put under a lot of pressure to present policy in the most positive light the angle that reflects the party policies. Media workers are required to write annual reports on themselves. For example, I had to write about the anti-splittism issues that I covered. I had to explain how my reports complied with the office rules and the governments’ directives. I also had to list the places I visited to cover news stories.”¹⁰

Right to inform versus state security

The use by the Chinese government of national security legislation to restrict and hinder the right to impart information in Tibet remains a grave concern.

Heavy penalties are set forth in article 103 of the Chinese Criminal Law for those who organize, plot or carry out the scheme of splitting the State or undermining unity of the country and for whoever incites others to split the State or undermine unity of the country. Article 105 imposes heavy penalties on those who organize, plot or carry out the scheme of subverting the State power or overthrowing the socialist system and on whoever incites others by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system.

Nyima Tsering, a 65-year-old former monk from Gyantse County, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet Autonomous Region (“TAR”), was a teacher of Tibetan language and Buddhist ethics. In December 2002, Nyima was arrested by the Public Security Bureau (“PSB”) on alleged charges of distributing pro-independence literature and detained in the Gyantse County Detention Centre. In June 2003, after six months of detention, the Gyantse County People’s Court sentenced him to five years of imprisonment for “endangering state security”. Nyima Tsering is currently serving his sentence in Drapchi prison in Lhasa.¹¹

In February 2003 Lobsang Tenphel and another individual from Karze County were arrested in connection to the criminal case of Trulku Tenzin Delek and Lobsang Dhondup. The two individuals, both relatives of Trulku Tenzin Delek, were reportedly arrested for providing information on Trulku Tenzin Delek and Lobsang Dhondup.¹² In September 2003 Lobsang Tenphen was found guilty of propagating information about Trulku Tenzin Delek and Lobsang Dhondup to the outside world and was sentenced to five years of imprisonment by the Karze People’s Intermediate Court. He is currently detained in the Ngaba Prison in Sichuan Province.¹³

With regard to the restrictions to the right to impart information imposed by the State on the ground of national security, in October 1995 a group of experts in international law, national security and human rights adopted a set of principles known as the “Johannesburg Principles”. Principle 1.1 states:

“Any restriction on expression or information must be prescribed by law. The law must be accessible, unambiguous, drawn narrowly and with precision so as to enable individuals to foresee whether a particular action is unlawful.”¹⁴ Furthermore, Principle 2 declares: “A restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to protect a country’s existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force, whether from an external source, such as a military threat, or an internal source, such as incitement to violent overthrow of the Government. [...] In particular, a restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate if its genuine purpose or demonstrable effect is to protect interests unrelated to national security, including, for example, to protect a Government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing, or to conceal information about the functioning of its public institutions, or to entrench a particular ideology, or to suppress industrial unrest.”¹⁵

Monitoring phone calls and text messages

Chinese authorities have increasingly resorted to controlling phone calls made between Tibetans in and out of Tibet. The authorities are especially targeting monks and nuns making phone calls. In July 2004, Chinese authorities sent a directive to various departments of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (“TAR”) asking to intensify scrutiny of calls made by monks from monasteries in Tibet to India and vice versa.¹⁶

In August 2004, news received from Tibet indicated that the phone calls made by Tibetans in exile to their relatives in Tibet, particularly to monasteries, have come under tight control. Tibetans in Tibet have advised their relatives and friends in exile not to discuss any political matters during telephone conversation.¹⁷

A Tibetan individual, whose name cannot be disclosed, reported that PSB officers interrogated one of his relatives in Tibet for making phone calls to India. Since then they are seldom in touch.¹⁸

Moreover, according to the government’s news agency Xinhua, Chinese authorities have also developed technologies aimed at controlling text messaging.¹⁹ The system was allegedly designed to clean up “pornographic, obscene and fraudulent” phone messages that have “infiltrated short messaging content.” ²⁰ However, the Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders said the surveillance also aims at keeping an eye on political dissent contained in mobile phones messages.²¹

The above-mentioned systems used by the Chinese authorities to monitor private conversation and information flows are in clear contrast with article 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which state, respectively, that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence” and that “everyone has the right [...] to hold opinions without interference.”

Moreover, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression pointed out that letters and conversations do fall within the scope of protection of article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).²²

Banned publications

On April 9th 2000, a report broadcasted by the government-owned TV channel, Tibet TV, listed a number of publications that were banned by the authorities, as they could represent a threat to the country’s unity. Among the material falling under the authorities’ prohibition were the

“publishing, producing, printing, photocopying, distributing or propagating [...] reactionary propaganda materials from outside the border, especially publications, audio-video products and reactionary propaganda materials advocating Tibetan independence and undermining social stability and ethnic unity by the Dalai clique.”²³

The Chinese authorities continuously persecute Tibetan individuals not only for introducing into Tibet banned publications and audio-visual products regarding the Tibetan cause, but also for the mere possession of religious educational material containing teachings of the Dalai Lama.

On December 21st 2004, Phuntsok Tsering, a 24-year-old monk from Dhargyelig Monastery in Mangpo Township, Lhatse County, Shigatse Prefecture, was arrested for possessing a teaching book of the Dalai Lama. As for January 5th 2005, he was detained in the Shigatse Prefecture Detention Centre.²⁴

On April 11th 2003 Kunchok Choephel Labrang and Jigme Jamtruk, two monks from Labrang Tashikyil Monastery, situated in the Sangchu County, Gansu Province, were arrested following a raid of the local PSB which lead to the discovery in the monks’ rooms of booklets containing speeches of the Dalai Lama. The whereabouts of Kunchok Choephel Labrang, in his late thirties, is unknown. The other monk, Jigme Jamtruk, was released on bail after thirteen days of detention.²⁵

On September 9th 2001, Jampel Gyatso, a 35-year-old monk from Phu Village, located in the “TAR” Lhatse County, was listening to audio teachings of the Dalai Lama in his room in Sera Monastery when officers of the PSB broke in seized the audio tapes. He was then taken to Lhasa PSB for interrogation and subsequently transferred to Gutsa Detention Centre in the north of Lhasa. During his three months of detention, Jampel was severely and repeatedly beaten. The Lhasa Intermediate People’s Court found Jampel guilty of “anti-government propaganda” and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment and deprivation of political rights for one year. Jampel served his sentence in the Drapchi Prison, where he was also forced to follow political education sessions. He was released on 8 August 8th 2003 upon completion of the prison term.²⁶

In November 2000, Samten, a 38-year-old monk who had escaped into exile in 1992 and studied in Drepung Monastery in South India, returned to Tibet to meet his relatives and took along 18 videocassettes about Tibet and 150 portraits of His Holiness the Dalai Lama for distribution in his native town. On December 11th 2000, officers of the Lhasa PSB broke into his residence and arrested him for possessing the above-mentioned material. He was subsequently taken into custody t a local police station and subjected to repeated acts of torture and ill treatment. Samten was then detained at “TAR” PSB Detention Centre in Lhasa and a month later was transferred to the Trisam camp located 10 Kms west of Lhasa to undergo re-education through labour. On 11 December 11th 2003, Samten was released after completing his three-year prison term. However, he had to report to the local PSB every week and sign a declaration stating that he would refrain from taking part in any political activities.²⁷

In addition to the ban on what Beijing labels as “reactionary propaganda materials”, the Chinese authorities routinely resort to censorship of writers who make positive reference to the Dalai Lama, thus deviating from the government’s stance, which requires to denounce him.

In October 2004, when the Chinese Government’s United Front Work Department and Publications Bureau determined that “Tibetan Journal”, a book on Tibet’s history, personalities and customs written by a prominent Tibetan writer, Woeser, contained “political errors”, as it praised the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama. As a result, the book was banned by the Guangdong Provincial Publishing Bureau and the director of the book’s publishing company and the book’s editor were subjected to investigation. Moreover, Woeser lost her job, and her former work unit, the government-affiliated Tibetan Cultural Association, evicted her from her home and terminated her health and retirement benefits. She was also prohibited from applying for a passport to leave the country and her work unit, the Tibetan Cultural Association, organized a special committee to carry out “thought correction” on her.²⁸

With regard to government censorship practices, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression made it clear that “special care has to be taken to ensure that writers, poets, journalists and editors are not intimidated or prevented from expressing their views in their writings through censorship or other covert methods [...].²⁹

THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED

Information monopoly

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression made it clear that one of the best guarantees of respect for the rights to freedom of expression and information lies in the existence of independent media, electronic and print, in which ownership is diversified and there is a maximum of self-regulation and a minimum of State interference.³⁰

However, in Tibet the Chinese government exercises a substantial monopoly over information and its distribution. In addition to the complete control over radio and TV broadcasting, the government extends its reach to the press, which is considered as the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “mouthpiece”.

For example, the CCP committees are responsible for appointing government representatives at the head of newspapers. The newspapers that are not directly run by a CCP organ are subjected to the Party control and influence through the party’s propaganda department. The Press and Publication Administration, which is responsible for the day to day control of newspapers at the local level, is subservient to the decisions of the Party’s propaganda department.

The leading “TAR” newspaper, the Tibet Daily, official paper of the “TAR Party Committee”, stated its purpose as follows:

“The Tibet Daily is the mouthpiece of the Party Committee, government and the people of Tibet, and an important mass propaganda tool in our region. Under the leadership of the “TAR” Party Committee, we resolutely support correct guidance of public opinion, strive to spread Party lines, guiding principles and policies, and bring into play our role of building bridges and links closely connecting the Party and government with the people, always single mindedly sticking to our responsibility to the Party, country and the broad masses, striving to bring the principles and policies of the Party and the government before the masses in a prompt, accurate and broad ranging manner [...]. “³¹

This declaration of objectives is in evident contrast with two fundamental principles that, if promoted and respected, contribute greatly to enhance the right to receive objective, complete and timely information: first of all, State-owned media have a responsibility to report on all aspects of national life and to provide access to a diversity of viewpoints; secondly, State-owned media must not be used as a communication or propaganda organ for one political party or as an advocate for the Government to the exclusion of all other parties and groups.³²

Language barriers

The Chinese language is widely used in the media across Tibet. As a result, Tibetans who cannot speak Chinese are disadvantaged and marginalized in receiving essential information. A former teacher from Chabcha Township in Qinghai told TCHRD:

“The Qinghai TV channel broadcasts its programs in Chinese for 24 hours a day. However, there is a 90-minute window of programs in Tibetan every day between 5 and 6.30 p.m., with the 15-minute news program beginning at 5 p.m. The timing for the news is not good, as people are normally working at 5 p.m. The news in Chinese is at 7 p.m., when everybody is sitting at home. It must also be said that the news in Tibetan is broadcasted one day later the transmission of the same news in Chinese. Since 1995, many Tibetans, including heads of villages, have repeatedly appealed to the Qinghai provincial authorities to increase the duration of the Tibetan programs, but so far the authorities have turned a blind eye to their request.”³³

Moreover, the production of programs in Tibetan language is by and large neglected in the media across Tibet. In fact, between 80 and 90 percent of the programs broadcasted on Quinghai TV during the daily 90-minute window in Tibetan language, is simply a translation from the original Chinese version. In this respect, a former Tibetan journalist confirmed to TCHRD:

“Another disadvantage is that there are no high Tibetan officials in the Qinghai Television Department. The authorities who sanction the news are Chinese and do not understand Tibetan. There is no provision to broadcast Tibetan news directly. The news has to be translated and broadcasted first into Chinese. Then, once permission is given, it is translated again in Tibetan and broadcasted the next day.” ³⁴

Information embargo

The U.S.-based Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America (VOA), and the India-based Voice of Tibet (VOT) are the three main stations broadcasting in Tibetan language to Tibet. China has always looked at this overseas external broadcasts as a serious threat to its monopoly of information and as interference into its internal affairs. As a result, the Chinese authorities have resorted to different methods to prevent Tibetans from listening to programs broadcasted from abroad. The authorities have tried to jam broadcasts of the Voice of America (VOA), by airing Chinese programs on the same frequency.³⁵ In Kardze Prefecture they have distributed radios with fixed bandwidth. Kunsang, a 22-year-old student living in Kardze Prefecture, told TCHRD:

“In our village, the authorities told us that old radios would be replaced with better ones. Many people in our village gladly accepted the offer and replaced their old radios with the new ones distributed by the authorities. But when we switch on the new radios, we could not listen to Radio Free Asia and Voice of America anymore.” ³⁶

In Pemba County, Chamdo Prefecture, Chinese authorities have installed towers to block the broadcasts. Dorjee, a Tibetan nomad from Pemba County, Chamdo Prefecture, told TCHRD:

“In 2002, the County officials installed huge towers in our County. Since then we have not been able to listen to Voice of America. Many people in our town blame the tower installed by the authorities.” ³⁷

TCHRD received evidence that similar towers have been installed Peding, an area located southeast of Lhasa and in Ngaba County, Tsolo Prefecture, Qinghai.

Turning a blind eye to AIDS

China faces an AIDS epidemic that has already affected vast areas of the country. According to Yang Zhengquan, executive vice president of the China Foundation for Human Rights Development (CFHRD), cases of AIDS have been reported in all of the country’s 31 provinces.³⁸ The United Nations figures put the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in China at between 800,000 and 1.5 million; the figure could jump to 10 million by 2010 if current trends continue.³⁹

The early phases of the Chinese epidemic resemble those already seen in other Asian countries, where infection has spread from high-risk to low-risk populations.⁴⁰ Although the Chinese population is believed to be in the early stages of an HIV/AIDS epidemic, concerns are great that the HIV infection may soon spread to the rural population.⁴¹ As a result, there are concerns that HIV/AIDS may spread across rural areas, including Tibet. Moreover, the increasing number of Han Chinese migrating into Tibet from neighboring provinces could accelerate the spread of HIV/AIDS across the plateau.

Without a vaccine or a cure, the main hope in curbing the epidemic resides in widespread availability and accessibility of information and education are essential to effective prevention and treatment efforts.⁴²

In 2002, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UNAIDS undertook a revision of guideline 6 on access to prevention, treatment, care and support. Revised guideline 6 and guideline 9 highlight the importance of information and education programmes for the purposes of prevention, and places them in a human rights context. Revised guideline 6 reads as follows⁴³:

“States should enact legislation to provide for the regulation of HIV-related […] information, so as to ensure widespread availability of qualitative prevention measures and services, [and] adequate HIV prevention and care information […]. States should also take measures necessary to ensure [...] the availability and accessibility of quality goods, services and information for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care and support [...].” ⁴⁴

Guideline 9 reads as follows:

“States should promote the wide and ongoing distribution of creative education, training and media programmes explicitly designed to change attitudes of discrimination and stigmatization associated with HIV/AIDS to understanding and acceptance.” ⁴⁵

However, the Chinese government has so far failed to take any significant measure aimed at making information on transmission and prevention of AIDS widely available and accessible to the public. Yang Zhengquan, executive vice president of the China Foundation for Human Rights Development (CFHRD), pointed out that the news coverage on AIDS is still limited and superficial.⁴⁶

Tashi, a local businessman in Lhasa who takes frequent trips between Lhasa and nearby rural areas, told TCHRD in 2004:

“In Lhasa people celebrate the World AIDS day. Most people are generally aware of AIDS and other disease in Lhasa. However, in rural and remote areas awareness is very poor. Nobody in the villages know about AIDS.” ⁴⁷

Dorjee, a former resident of Tsolo, in the Qinghai Province, confirmed to TCHRD:

“People in villages do not know about the AIDS disease. I don’t know if there are such cases in Tsolo Prefecture. Not only in villages, but also in bigger towns people don’t know about AIDS. There is no dissemination of information of any type on health issues including AIDS. I only heard about this disease on television when I reached Lhasa. It was reported that a woman died of AIDS. For the first time in my life, through television programs in Lhasa, I heard how this disease spreads.” ⁴⁸

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to freedom of opinion and expression reiterated its view that the effective exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information, is of the utmost importance for ensuring effective education and information campaigns to prevent HIV/AIDS.⁴⁹

Over the last years, several countries have conceived and implemented a number of good practices among policies and programs with respect to access to information for the purposes of education on, and prevention of HIV infection. These good practices included the dissemination of information on HIV/AIDS, including on transmission modes and prevention means, through publication of brochures, books, information material and leaflets; the production and dissemination of awareness campaigns targeted at specific vulnerable groups, through, in particular, radio and television programs, advertisements, video-clips, songs, theatre, exhibitions, comics, etc.; the inclusion of HIV/AIDS-related programs in the curricula of schools; the setting-up of hotlines and individual counseling systems; the development of web sites providing information on HIV/AIDS; the facilitation of access to condoms, including through their distribution during information campaigns, in schools, medical centres.⁵⁰ In regards to such good practices, it is regrettable that the Chinese government has to date remained inactive in designing and putting into practice programs that would facilitate the dissemination of information on the prevention, transmission and treatment of the HIV infection.

Manipulation of facts and figures

Another recurring feature of the Chinese administration in Tibet is the authorities’ tendency to manipulate statistics that should be of significant public interest. Figures seem to be in most of the cases unreliable, as they do not necessarily reflect the actual situation, but are the result of the authorities’ attempt to present numbers that coincide to the highest extent possible with pre-defined statistical targets.

In this respect, a former Tibetan township official in Sog County told TCHRD:

“When the figures reported by the local officials are discussed in meetings, numbers are usually set at a level that makes everyone happy. Local officials try to cover their backs, producing figures that will not have their superiors running after them.”⁵¹

In addition to the manipulation of statistics, the Chinese authorities regularly resort to distorting facts in order to present a biased and unrealistic official picture of the socio-economic conditions of the Tibetan people. This practice is widespread among the lowest hierarchical levels of the administration, whose only concern seems to be to please the higher authorities. As a result, the real socio-economic conditions of Tibetans remain hidden to the top officials, making it extremely difficult to design and implement policies that can address the numerous problems affecting Tibetans.

The testimony of a Tibetan individual arrived in Dharamsala from the Tsolo Prefecture exemplifies the local officials’ tendency to present an optimistic outlook of otherwise poor conditions during inspections carried out in villages by higher authorities. He told TCHRD:

“In 2000, a very high dignitary from Beijing came to inspect the economic conditions in our area. He was the Vice Chairman of the People’s National Congress. As usual, his visit was announced much in advance, like the visits of other high authorities. The local authorities arranged a big gala to the villagers on that day; villagers enjoyed good foods and games on that day, before the eyes of the visiting dignitary. Then the local authorities guided the dignitary to inspect three households in our village, which were actually chosen beforehand. These households were the most well off households in our entire village. The owners told the visiting dignitary that the villagers enjoy a very high living standard owing to the gratitude of Communist Party and hard work of the local authorities. In practice, in our village only 2-3 percent households have living conditions like the three households. Around 60 percent are middle-income households and all the others are extremely poor. The authorities never showed these to the visiting dignitary. Almost all the inspections are conducted in such manners. The local authorities fool common people in this manner.”⁵²

Tashi, a businessman from Lhasa, confirmed to TCHRD:

“The officials at the local level resort to under or over reporting of facts to the higher authorities, as they are afraid of reprisals from higher officials: this phenomenon has become of public domain. During the 2004 Tibetan New Year’s celebrations, one of the dramas staged by Tibetan artists showed how village officials misled county officials. The story is about a very poor family in a village. However, when the local officials hear about a visit by County and higher officials then they immediately change the basic outlook of the poor family. On the inspection day, tea and food are placed in the house and clothes are distributed to show that the family is in good condition.”⁵³

RIGHT TO SEEK INFORMATION

Government control and censorship of the Internet

Internet is a unique communication medium due to its global, decentralized, interactive and, not least, infrastructure-independent nature which allows it to transcend national barriers.⁵⁴ It provides the public and individuals with access to information sources and enables everyone to participate actively in the communication process.⁵⁵ Moreover, the global reach and relative ease of use of the Internet make it a unique and highly effective tool for the promotion of human rights, enabling an unprecedented audience previously unfamiliar with human rights education to gain access to valuable information. It can be used to disseminate positive information and materials, research and facts about immigration and minorities which can in turn support action against racism and discrimination, raise awareness, promote understanding and increase tolerance.⁵⁶

Commenting on the importance of Internet, China’s former President Jiang Zemin publicly declared that the mix of traditional economy with information technology would drive China’s economic development in the twenty-first century.⁵⁷ However, as Internet is also perceived by Beijing as a key instrument in terms of freely receiving, exchanging and disseminating political information and ideas, the Chinese authorities have increasingly placed greater attention on its control and regulation. According to the official news agency Xinhua, the government purchased approximately USD 1 Million in software “to carry out comprehensive long-term monitoring” of computers in Internet cafés across China.⁵⁸

Regulation of the Internet has also reached Tibet, particularly Lhasa and other major towns. The Chinese authorities have imposed a new surveillance system that requires users who want to access the Internet from cyber cafés to present a valid identification document in order to receive an individual registration number and password and to purchase an “Internet Browsing Registration Card” issued by the Internet Security branch. As a result, the Internet monitoring system allows the authorities to easily track every user’s e-mail exchange with the outside world and the websites visited. The Internet Security branch of the Lhasa Public Security Bureau has carried out interrogations of several Tibetans who had visited banned websites or exchanged e-mails dealing with sensitive political issues.⁵⁹ Previously, PSB officers used to install tracking software in cyber cafés and regularly collect information on the websites visited. However, this system could not allow them to know the exact individual who might have visited sensitive websites included in the government’s black list. With the new system in place every bit of information exchanged can be accurately monitored and traced to a well-identified individual.⁶⁰

Chinese authorities have used filtering systems that prevented users from accessing websites containing information that Beijing regarded as politically sensitive. The software allowed the authorities to screen out websites containing words or expressions relating, for example, to “Tibetan Independence”, “Dalai Lama”, “Tibetan Government-in-Exile”, “Human Rights”.⁶¹ A survey by Harvard Law School researchers between May and November 2002 revealed that the Chinese government prevented users from viewing several websites making reference to the Tibetan cause.⁶²

However, as Internet monitoring systems are proving relatively ineffective and increasingly expensive, Chinese authorities are putting pressure on Internet corporations to comply with the Chinese government’s policies. In their competition to conquer the Chinese market, Internet business corporations are censoring their search engine tools. The popular Internet portal Yahoo! agreed to change search engine to facilitate censorship.⁶³ The widely used search engine Google decided to launch a news service that excludes publications disliked by the Chinese government.⁶⁴ The US-based firm Cisco Systems has sold several thousand routers to enable the Chinese authorities to build an online spying system that identifies “subversive” keywords in messages. The system also enables the authorities to know who has looked at banned websites or sent “dangerous” e-mails.⁶⁵

With regard to the freedom to disseminate and receive information through the Internet, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) made it clear that “all mechanisms for filtering or blocking content are not acceptable. Any means of censorship that are unacceptable within the ‘classic media’ must not be used for online media. New forms of censorship must not be developed.” ⁶⁶

Access to information

The United Nation Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression made it clear that the right to access to information held by the Government must be the rule rather than the exception.⁶⁷ However, this statement does not seem to apply to the situation of Tibet, where the access to information is severely hampered by the State legislation on “state secrets”. The scope of what constitutes state secrets in China is not restricted to matters of national security, but covers in practice any information that has not been officially vetted prior to disclosure or publication.⁶⁸

Article 398 of the Chinese Criminal Law imposes heavy penalties on both State and non-State personnel who intentionally or negligently reveal state secrets. Moreover, State secrets laws prohibit the publication of formally classified matters, as well as information that is already publicly available if the intended recipient is a foreign or overseas individual or organization. Under these laws, administrative agencies have almost unrestricted power to determine whether information will be classified as a state secret, making the scope of classified information in China extremely large and infinitely expandable.⁶⁹

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression emphasized that “everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and that this imposes a positive obligation on States to ensure access to information, particularly with regard to information held by Government in all types of storage and retrieval systems - including film, microfiche, electronic capacities, video and photographs ­.” ⁷⁰

However, Tibetans have no means of requesting access to government-held information, and there are no administrative or judicial procedures through which agencies can be ordered to disclose information under their possession or control. At the lower echelons of government, state secrets are commonly invoked by local officials attempting to conceal specific wrongdoings from the attention of higher authorities, or in evading responsibility for incidents that have taken place in their jurisdiction.⁷¹

This practice is in evident contrast with the observations made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and information, according to which “refusal to disclose information may not be based on the aim to protect Governments from embarrassment or the exposure of wrongdoing; a complete list of the legitimate aims which may justify non disclosure should be provided in the law and exceptions should be narrowly drawn so as to avoid including material which does not harm the legitimate interest.” ⁷²

The Chinese government’s failure of ensuring access to information is particularly evident and a matter of grave concern in Tibet with regard to the authorities denial of disclosing any information concerning arrest, detention, trial and sentencing of Tibetan political prisoners. In this respect, the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche clearly exemplifies the numerous violations of fundamental human rights, including the right to access to information, carried out by the Chinese authorities in the name of “state security.

On April 14th 2004 three fact-finding experts of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression,issued a statement expressing their deep concern over the situation of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, sentenced to death on December 2nd 2002, after a trial that allegedly fell short of international norms and standards. His sentence was suspended until December 2nd 2004 and he remains in detention. Tenzin Delek Rinpoche was accused of “causing explosions” and “inciting the separation of the state”, charges he has always denied. His co-accused, Lobsang Dhondup, was executed on 26 January 2003. Numerous and credible reports have referred to serious procedural flaws during Tenzin Delek Rinpoche’s closed trial, in particular: violation of the right to a public trial; violation of the right to chose his own lawyer; denial of the right to know and have the opportunity to examine the evidence presented against him in court; as well as incommunicado detention and ill-treatment during the pre-trial period. Moreover, the three United Nations experts expressed concern at the alleged lapses in respect for human rights during the trial proceedings and urged the authorities to grant Tenzin Delek Rinpoche a new trial ensuring respect for international norms and standards of due process.⁷³

Conclusion

In contemporary society, because of the social and political role of information, the right of everyone to receive information and ideas has to be carefully protected.⁷⁴ Moreover, the right to seek or have access to information is one of the most essential elements of freedom of speech and expression.⁷⁵

In December 2003, Xudong Wang, the Chinese Minister of Information Industry, represented Beijing at the United Nations-sponsored World Summit on Information Society held in Geneva. World leaders including over 40 Heads of state/government and Vice-Presidents declared their common desire and commitment “[...] to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create access, utilize and share information and promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” ⁷⁶

Regrettably, the Chinese legislation, including the Constitution, falls short of providing a legal framework for the development of a sound media system that is in line with international standards that govern not only the right of freedom of opinion and expression, but also the right to information.

The Chinese government not only controls, directly or indirectly, through the Communist Party’s cadres, radio, television and newspapers, but also precludes its citizens from receiving information from alternative sources, including foreign media. The authorities’ longa manus also extends to the Internet, thus making it difficult for Tibetans to freely exchange information with the outside world. Moreover, the widespread culture of secrecy among the Chinese administration and the recurrent appeal to the protection of “State secrets” on the part of the authorities to withhold from Tibetans information that should be rightly theirs, contributes to negatively impact on several aspects of the life of Tibetans.

All the above-mentioned factors seriously hinder the development of an informed public opinion in Tibet, raising serious doubts about Beijing’s willingness to ensure that Tibetans enjoy the right to freedom of opinion and expression.