|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Publications
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| Drapchi | TAR No. 1 Prison | Lhasa | Prison |
| Powo Tramo | TAR No. 2 Prison | 500 km. east of Lhasa | Prison |
| Sangyip / Yitridu | Unit
No. 5/Lhasa
Lhasa Muncipal Prison |
Lhasa | Prison / Laojiao |
| Seitru | Unit No. 1 | Lhasa | Laojiao / Forced job Placement |
| Gutsa | No. 4 Branch | Lhasa | TAR Detention (Observation) Centre |
| Trisam | Unknown | 10 km. west of Lhasa | Detention Centre |
| Tibetan Military Prison | Unknown | 1 km. east of Lhasa | Laojhiao |
| Chamdo Sethog Thang | Unknown | Chamdo County "TAR" | Military prison |
| Shigatse Nyari | Unknown | 7 km. northwest of Shigatse | Detention Centre |
| Tsethang | Unknown | Lhoka Nyadong County | Detention Centre |
Throughout this report the term “arrest” is used in the same sense as detention, to describe the taking of a person into custody by the police or another security force. In official Chinese documents the term “arrest” is used only to describe the formal laying of charges against a detainee, a procedure which may take place months after the person is first detained, if at all.
The prison plans that are shown below were provided by former political prisoners who were detained in those institutions.
Drapchi Prison (in Chinese, Di Yi Jianyu - No. 1 Prison) is sometimes referred to as the “TAR” Automobile Factory. It is believed to have been constructed in 1960 and is located in the north-east outskirts of Lhasa City. Due to overcrowding, the southern gate of Drapchi Prison was reportedly demolished and expansion work commenced at the prison in April 1998.
In December 1989, Drapchi was divided into five divisions, and for the first time there was a different section for the male political prisoners. Since 1993 Drapchi has expanded and been divided into seven divisions - the first, second, fourth, sixth and seventh for male criminal prisoners, the third for female prisoners, both political and criminal, and the fifth division for male political prisoners. The fifth division has been further divided into two sub-divisions. Each cell in the fifth division is designed to hold 12 prisoners and there are 12 cells in each sub-division. The seven divisions are currently housed in eight cellblocks. Prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment or execution after two years imprisonment are held in the first division.
On October 30, 1997, the BBC Summary of World Broadcasts reported that Xinhua had reported on October 24, 1997 that Drapchi Prison had 968 inmates, including about 200 women, with 75 per cent of them being ethnic Tibetans (726). Warden Luosang Gelie [Lobsang Geleg] said “The inmates work no more than six hours per day, five days a week, and each inmate attends at least seven study sessions per week. The prison also invites renowned personages, experts and scholars to give lectures on laws and Tibet’s history, development and changes.” He added that the per capita living expenses of the prison had reached 2,500 yuan ($312.50) annually, the highest among all Chinese prisons.
In January 1998, TCHRD reported that Drapchi held some 350 known political prisoners. Chinese officials recently said that it held approximately 800 prisoners of whom 75 per cent are Tibetan, 20 per cent are Han Chinese and the remaining 5 per cent are from other minorities. They added that there were “over 90” prisoners held at Drapchi for crimes against state security, i.e. political prisoners. According to a letter received from Tibetan political prisoners held in Drapchi in March 1997, at that time there were 520 political prisoners in Drapchi Prison of whom 250 were female and 270 were male.
Only judicially sentenced prisoners are sent to Drapchi. Chinese authorities have told visitors that the men detained there are those with sentences of five years or more. However, many male Drapchi prisoners are in fact serving lighter sentences. It appears that all women who have been judicially sentenced in political cases are now sent to Drapchi regardless of the length of their sentences. In May 1998 Chinese authorities claimed that all religious prisoners (i.e., monks and nuns) were held at Drapchi. There may be one or more labour camps attached to Drapchi.
There is a small basketball court that is used for meetings of prisoners and visiting delegations. Foreign delegations are believed to be briefed in or near the administration offices and then taken to the cellblocks in which the criminals are kept. They are not believed to be shown the political prisoners cellblocks. See the plan of Drapchi Prison for details of the prison layout.
Sangyip is officially known as the People’s Armed Police (“PAP”) No.1 Branch. It is a military and prison complex located in the north-eastern suburbs of Lhasa. It is believed to have opened in March 1964 and includes:
- Sangyip (or Yitridu) Prison (in Chinese, Di yi zhidui - Unit No. 1) which is either a “re-education through labour centre” (laojiao), otherwise known as an administrative detention centre, or a “forced job placement centre”, a semi-custodial centre where some prisoners have to work after release, in this case repairing motor vehicles. It is probably situated within the compound officially named the “People’s Armed Police Automobile Team” or within the group of compounds named officially as the People’s Armed Police (PAP) No.1 Branch. Prior to 1970 it was used as a detention centre.
- Tibetan political prisoners have been held here throughout the history of this prison. Since1987, Yitridu has been used primarily as a military camp for the placement of Chinese army personnel. However, political prisoners still seem to be taken here at times when other prisoners in Lhasa fill up or when extra solitary confinement cells are needed. For instance, political prisoners were detained here following the large protest in March 1989 when other prisons and detention centres in Lhasa were full. It is now comprised of six different blocks that can accommodate 600-700 (who are primarily military personnel). TCHRD records indicated that there were six political prisoners detained here as of January 1998.
- Seitru, or No.4 Branch, (in Chinese, Di si chu), (in Tibetan, Dasungkhang Shipa) is the TAR Detention (Observation) Centre and is situated in the north of Lhasa City. It is believed to have been constructed in 1983 and prisoners have been held here since 1984. It is a regional interrogation and detention centre for holding prisoners who have not been “arrested”, i.e. not charged. Those suspected of more serious political crimes, such as organising protests or collecting politically sensitive information, are believed to be held here for interrogation, possibly under the supervision of the State Security Bureau. Seitru has the capacity to hold approximately 70 inmates in its three cellblocks. Each of the cellblocks has 12 cells. See the plan of Seitru for details of its layout. TCHRD had records indicating that six political prisoners were held here as of January 1998.
- Outridu, or Authiti, (in Chinese, Di wu zhidui or Unit No. 5) was formerly a reform through labour centre (laogai) but is now a re-education through labour centre (laojiao) and may be the institution that Chinese authorities recently described to the EU Troika as Lhasa Municipal Prison. It is almost empty of political prisoners today as most were moved from here to Trisam in mid-1992, perhaps because of a brief pro-independence protest by the Sangyip prisoners on May 20, 1991. Confinement cells used to punish prisoners measure six feet by three feet and do not have windows. Chinese authorities are reportedly expanding the capacity of Outridu by building several new blocks of cells. There are currently four cellblocks. There are reported to be approximately 500 criminal prisoners currently held in Outridu.
This prison, built in the early sixties, is one of the largest prisons under the ambit of the “TAR’s” Prison Management Committee. From the 1960s to the early 1990s, many political prisoners were held in Outridu. It has expanded significantly since 1990. After separate divisions were made for political prisoners in Drapchi Prison in 1991, all the political prisoners in Outridu were transferred to other prisons, including Drapchi. However, political prisoners are occasionally still sent to Outridu Prison to be placed in solitary confinement when such cells in other prisons are full. In March 1992 three female political prisoners, Chungdak, Phuntsok Palmoe and Dawa Dolma, were transferred from Drapchi Prison to Outridu and were kept there in solitary confinement for 15 days. In May 1998, some political prisoners from Drapchi may have been sent to Outridu following a protest in Drapchi Prison.
Photo No. 4: Outridu Prison
Both Outridu and Drapchi Prisons are under the control of the “TAR’s” Prison Management Committee and therefore the rules and uniform are substantially similar in both prisons.
- A new modern prison has been built in the northern outskirts of Lhasa which may be intended as a higher security facility or a city or prefectural level Public Security Bureau Detention Centre. It has two cellblocks and possibly a third with 12-14 cells each. It is located about 100 metres southwest of Outridu prison and it seems likely to be part of the Sangyip complex. Its name is unknown.
Sangyip Prison and Seitru are the only sections of Sangyip known to be holding political prisoners but, due to the difficulty in obtaining information, the reality may be quite different.
Gutsa Detention Centre
Gutsa Detention Centre (in Chinese, Si ke - No. 4 Unit) is the detention centre for the prefecture of Lhasa. It is located three kilometres east of Lhasa near the Kyichu river. Gutsa’s main section holds prisoners who are “under investigation” or waiting sentences. Most of its inmates have not been “arrested” (i.e. charged) or given administrative sentences. It is also believed to include a re-education through labour centre and a shelter-and-investigation unit for holding vagrants. Many prisoners are reportedly forced to do manual labour such as breaking rocks. There may also be a separate women’s section named “Chinyugoa”, located right behind Gutsa, although other reports say that women are kept within Gutsa itself. See the plan of Gutsa Detention Centre for details of its layout.
As of January 1998, TCHRD knew of 64 political prisoners who were under detention at Gutsa. Many of the political detainees held at Gutsa were transferred to Trisam in 1992.
The age of criminal responsibility in the PRC is 14 years old yet in Tibet prisoners are sometimes held and sentenced below this age. Juvenile prisoners appear to be generally kept at Gutsa Detention Centre. Under the CRC and the ICCPR, as well as under Chinese law, children must be held separately from adults but the reality appears to be very different in Tibet. There were reports in 1990 that Gutsa had separate sections for each but later reports indicated that efforts to keep the different sections separate were abandoned around 1992 and that juvenile prisoners are now kept with older ones. None of the juvenile prisoners who we interviewed reported being segregated from the adult prisoners or treated differently from them. They were subjected to interrogations and beatings and made to work just as the adults were.
While Gutsa is predominantly for prisoners who are awaiting sentencing, approximately 1 per cent of prisoners are believed to be held here after sentencing, generally for periods of up to one year.
Trisam Prison
Trisam is a laojiao (or re-education through labour centre) and is probably intended for the Lhasa municipality. Its official name is unknown. It is sometimes referred to as Toelung Dechen or Toelung Bridge and is located in Toelung County, 10 kilometres west of Lhasa. The prison building used to be a school for peasants and nomads. Trisam was opened in or around February 1992 and has since received many of the political prisoners from Sangyip, Outridu and Gutsa.
Trisam has three units: the first for male political prisoners, the second for male criminals and the third for women prisoners, both political and criminal. The prisoners are held in three cellblocks and there are three cells in each cellblock. Male political prisoners are held in the first division, male criminals in the second division and female prisoners in the third division. It seems to specialise in political prisoners and it has been suggested that it may have been built in 1992 in response to the increase in numbers of political prisoners around that time. See the plan of Trisam for details of its layout.
Inmates are known to perform hard labour at Trisam, including looking after pigs and agricultural work. At least eight cells at Trisam are reported to be used for solitary confinement for prisoners who have refused to answer questions during interrogation or for those who express dissent; each of these cells is approximately two square metres in area with no windows. Prisoners kept inside these small rooms are fettered on their wrists and ankles.
Sherab Ngawang, who was 12 years old when she was arrested, died three months after her release from Trisam Prison in February 1995. She was sentenced to three years imprisonment in 1992 and detained first at Gutsa and then transferred to Trisam. Her death was apparently due to being beaten at Trisam for pulling a face at prison guards, or to lack of political treatment, according to unofficial reports from Tibet.
As of January 1998, TCHRD knew of 11 political prisoners detained at Trisam. TIN believes that at least 50 inmates at Trisam are political prisoners, some of whom have reportedly been held for up to four and a half years under administrative detention. A former political prisoner who was released from Trisam in January 1997 reported that there were approximately 300 prisoners held at Trisam.
Powo Tramo Prison
Powo Tramo is the name of the village nearest to the prison. Its official name is unknown but it is also commonly referred to as TAR No. 2 Prison (Ch.: Bo’o). The Chinese government has acknowledged the existence of a “Reform Labour Detachment” in or near the town of Tramo in Powo County, 500 kilometres east of Lhasa, near Nyingtri (Ch.: Linzhi). It is believed to have opened in March 1962. It has a number of sub-sections in the neighbouring area, of which Powo Zhungar is believed to be one. Powo Tramo, formerly referred to as a laogai, but now called a prison by the Chinese authorities, is run by the regional authorities for prisoners who have been sentenced to ten years or more.
There are believed to be 30 cells here together with an additional six cells designed especially for solitary confinement. At its height, the complex and surrounding units are believed to have held over 10,000 prisoners. As of January 1998, TCHRD’s records showed that 11 political prisoners were held there.
Tibetan Military Prison
This military prison, which is administered by the PLA, has existed since 1959. In 1992 or 1993 it moved to Tsalgungthang, about 11 km. east of Lhasa. Some political prisoners are known to have been held here in 1989 but, due to the expansion programmes undertaken in other prisons since then, it is not known whether any more have subsequently been brought here. It now holds military prisoners.
Prefectural Detention Centres and Laojiao
There are prisons in the administrative seat of each prefecture. There are six regions in the “TAR” besides Lhasa Municipality. The table below shows the administrative seat for each such region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These prisons are probably laojiao (administrative detention centres) and kanshuo suo (detention centres for prisoners who have not yet been sentenced). In addition, there are prisons at the county level which are generally for prisoners who have not yet been sentenced. Chinese authorities reported to the visiting EU Delegation in May 1998 that each region and a number of counties also had a local detention centre.
Shigatse Nyari Detention Centre
This prison is located about 7 km. north-west of Shigatse in the Nyari valley, in Shigatse County. It was constructed in 1960. Both political and criminal prisoners are held here. Most people who are arrested in any of Shigatse’s 18 counties are held here although some are held in their respective county detention centre. Many of the political prisoners are Tibetans who have visited India and are detained for several months on their return to Tibet, accused of bringing political documents or tapes from India or Nepal. TCHRD believes that as of late 1997 there were approximately 160 prisoners held at Nyari, of whom approximately seven were political prisoners. Ngawang Choephel, who was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment , and several assistants of Chadrel Rinpoche (the head of the search party for the Panchen Lama) are reportedly held there, together with three monks from Tashilhunpo Monastery who have been there for more than three years.
In 1997, Nyari Detention Centre consisted of five cellblocks, each of which held a different category of prisoner and had 10 cells. Tibetans caught trying to flee to India were held in the first block, sentenced prisoners in the second block, female prisoners in the third block, prisoners under interrogation in the fourth block, and prisoners accused of petty crimes who were only held temporarily in the fifth block. Prisoners are assigned to work in vegetable fields and to perform general farm labour. There are approximately 30 mu of fields and in addition there is a fruit farm on which the prisoners are made to work.
As is the case with most other detention centres, the prison guards are all PSB officials and the PAP guard the prison walls and the surrounding area. A former prisoner who was held in Nyari Prison in 1997 reported that he was only fed twice a day and that there is no medical clinic or services in the prison.
Lhoka Nyadong County/Tsethang Detention Centre
This prison, which was constructed in 1960 and is now one of the largest county prisons in the “TAR”, is located in Lhoka Nyadong County in Lhoka Region. It holds more prisoners than any other county prison in the “TAR”. Both political and criminal prisoners are held here. Many political prisoners are detained here for around one year while they are interrogated and their case is investigated.
Chamdo Sethog Thang Detention Centre
This prison is located in Chamdo County, “TAR”. It was constructed in 1960 and is believed to be one of the largest in the “TAR”. It is believed to have the capacity to hold approximately 1,500 prisoners. Recently the prison has been expanded and the number of criminal prisoners held here has increased.
Prisons in Tibet Outside the “TAR”
There are numerous prisons in Tibet that are located outside the “TAR”. Because of the number of Chinese in Tibetan areas outside the “TAR”, Tibetans do not form a majority in these penal institutions. Former political prisoners who were arrested in Amdo and Kham (the Tibetan Provinces outside “TAR”) report that Tibetan political prisoners are generally held with the other prisoners and that they are not divided into different divisions to distinguish the political and criminal prisoners. This may be because Tibetans are a minority in these areas and so to date there have not been sufficient numbers of Tibetan political prisoners, when compared to the prison population as a whole, to warrant separating them. It appears that most Tibetan political prisoners who are arrested in Amdo and Kham are kept in the prison nearest to them rather than transferring them to a particular penal institution where all such prisoners are held.
One former prisoner, Lukar Jam, recalled
that he was held in two prisons in the Tibetan Province of Amdo (Ch.: Qinghai):
Pinang, which is close to Siling (Ch.: Xining) City and Terlengkha (Ch.:
Delingha) Detention Centre, which is west of Tso Ngonpo (Ch.: Qinghai)
Lake and East of Wulan County. In Pinang Prison, where he was held during
part of 1994, he was the only political prisoner out of approximately 60
to 70 other inmates, although he knew of others who had been held there
earlier. In Terlengkha Detention Centre, where he was also held in 1994,
he was one of four Tibetan political prisoners out of approximately 90
prisoners.
In the Laogai Handbook, the Laogai Research Foundation identified and listed over 1,000 laogai throughout China. Of these, 13 are located in the “TAR”, 32 are in Qinghai Province and six are located in Sichuan Province (which encompasses parts of both Kham and Amdo Provinces). This list is not exhaustive and does not include all laogai in China or any detention centres. In addition, a former Tibetan political prisoner reported that, including himself, seven political prisoners were held in Kanlho Prison in Kanlho Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Gansu Province in 1997.
Some Tibetan political prisoners are held in Chinese prisons that are not even in Tibet. For instance, Chadrel Rinpoche, the former abbot of Tashilhunpo Monastery in Shigatse and head of the official search team for the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, is held in Chuandong No. 3 Prison in Dazu County, Sichuan Province.
CHINESE LEGAL SYSTEM
The Chinese legal system is very different to that of many other countries. Well-known concepts such as “innocent until proven guilty” and the right to legal representation are unknown in the PRC. In their place are Chinese concepts such as “verdict first, trial second,” “leniency for those who confess, severity for those who resist” and “reform or re-education through labour”. Tibetans are routinely arrested, held and interrogated for months without any contact with the outside world. They are not entitled to see their families, let alone a lawyer, until the procurator puts a case to the court with a suggested verdict that the court rubber stamps. It is only relatively recently that political prisoners report that they have had a trial at all.
Despite modifications to the PRC’s Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) which were put into effect in 1997, arbitrary arrest without warrant or charge, prolonged detention without trial and denial of access to legal counsel are still commonplace for Tibetan prisoners. Many prisoners report being tortured during interrogation to confess to their crimes. Closed trials involving “state secrets” are still permitted under the revised law. Torture and ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners held in detention centres, prisons or labour camps remains widespread, sometimes resulting in death. According to official sources, between January and July 1997, between 300 and 400 cases of torture and ill-treatment were investigated by the procuracies throughout China. The real incidence of torture is believed to be much higher as illustrated by the fact that all interviewees were subjected to some form of torture and none of them reported being able to make any complaint, let alone to instigate an investigation.
As recently as 1991, the Chinese government claimed to have no political prisoners:
In China, ideas alone, in the absence of action which violates the criminal law, do not constitute a crime; nobody will be sentenced to punishment merely because he holds dissenting political views. So-called political prisoners do not exist in China. In Chinese Criminal Law “counter-revolutionary crime” refers to crime which endangers state security, i.e., criminal acts which are not only committed with the purpose of overthrowing state power and the socialist system, but which are also listed in Articles 91-102 of the Criminal Law as criminal acts, such as those carried out in conspiring to overthrow the government or splitting the country, those carried out in gathering a crowd in armed rebellion, and espionage activities. These kinds of criminal acts that endanger state security are punishable in any country.Such acts may indeed be punished in most countries, but a different interpretation is used to determine what constitutes such acts. All of the interviewees were political prisoners, most of whom were arrested for taking part in peaceful protests where they called out “Free Tibet” or “Chinese leave Tibet” and sometimes handed out pamphlets with the same message. These kinds of acts are not punishable in most countries as “crimes”, whereas in the PRC they carry imprisonment of up to six years.
A 1995 study conducted by TIN of 879 political detainees found that the largest categories of offences were demonstrating (65.3 per cent) and writing and distributing leaflets (15.5 per cent). The study also found that only 18 prisoners out of more than 1,000 cases described by Tibetans as political detentions had been involved in violent acts.
Until recently, detentions of Tibetan political prisoners were made pursuant to the PRC’s CPL prohibition on “crimes of counter-revolution” which was broadly defined in Article 90 as “all acts endangering the PRC committed with the goal of overthrowing the political power of the dictatorship and the proletariat and the socialist system.” In 1994, Asia Watch calculated that, while the overall rate in the PRC of those sentenced for “counterrevolutionary” crimes was 0.3 per cent of the total convicted prisoner population, the rate in Tibet was 6.5 per cent. The group also pointed out that in Tibet, whose population accounts for only around 0.2 per cent of the total population of China, there were more known political and religious prisoners reported to be in jail than in the rest of the country combined. It is clear that Tibetan political prisoners are vastly over-represented in the PRC’s prisons.
In May 1998 the Chinese authorities reported that there were 200 prisoners who were held for what are now called “crimes against state security” (formerly known as “counter-revolutionary” crimes before legislative changes in 1997). In contrast, TCHRD estimates the current number of political prisoners detained in Tibet at approximately 1,200.
Considering China’s criminal law, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention held in 1995 that “municipal legislation that considers such activities as ‘counterrevolutionary propaganda and agitation,’ ...is liable to be considered inconsistent” with the UDHR and the ICCPR. New legislation was passed into law effective from October 1, 1997 that eliminated crimes of counterrevolution from the criminal code but replaced them with a very similar offence of “endangering state security”. By incorporating a concept recognised in international instruments, the PRC seems to be attempting to deflect domestic and international criticism of the harsh and arbitrary nature of its criminal charges. However, the new offence is at least as broad as the prior “counterrevolutionary” offence. It now appears that almost any expression of political opinion in Tibet can amount to endangering China’s state security. For example, in its 1998 White Paper entitled “New Progress in Human Rights in China’s Tibet Autonomous Region”, China justified its repression of free speech under a broad interpretation of “state security”.
Pre-Trial Detention
A suspect is generally held completely incommunicado during the investigation period. Revised provisions requiring police to notify a suspect’s family within 24 hours of placing him or her in detention may be dispensed with if it would “hinder the investigation” or if there is “no way to notify them”. Similarly, the right to counsel may be denied in cases involving “state secrets” - a term expansively used in the PRC and particularly invoked in cases of political activism.
The internationally recognised right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty has not been incorporated into Chinese criminal provisions. The right to remain silent is also absent. Since the guilt of a suspect is generally predetermined, refusal to confess is seen simply as a sign of obstinacy and disobedience. Officials threaten detained suspects with: “Lenience for those who confess, severity for those who resist” (tanbai congkam, kangju songyan).
Methods of extracting a “confession” from a suspect include intensive interrogation and torture sessions. Suspects, already severed from the outside world, are worn down by hours or days of repetitive questioning; weakened by food, water and sleep deprivation; and broken by physical and mental abuse. Their so-called “confession” is later used against them in sentencing.
Of the five forms of pre-trial criminal detention, the only one subject to any review by a non-police organ is arrest and numerous loopholes in the original and the revised criminal provisions allow for almost indefinite custody. The original CPL provided that suspects could be held for a maximum of three months during the investigation stage, the revised CPL permits detention for up to seven months. Administrative detention has been the most commonly applied measure as it is subject to virtually no outside checks and holding limits may be ignored. Under administrative detention, people may be held for three years without trial and this term is sometimes extended to four years. If no case can be made then a subject may be released without ever being charged.
In its 1996 report on the Revised CPL, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights stated: “The core deficiency in the Chinese system is the enormous power that the police have to detain suspected criminals.” It later added that: “The most glaring deficiency of the revised CPL is the discretion it grants to the police to use ‘state secrets’ as a justification for denying suspects access to a lawyer during the investigation phase.” Both these matters involve infractions of international conventions and result in regular violations of the human rights of Tibetans.
Prisoners are generally held in detention for three to six months, although it is sometimes longer, before they are either released without charge, sentenced without trial to a laojiao (re-education through labour centre) or “arrested,” i.e. charged with an offence and sent for trial. The ability to issue a formal arrest warrant and arrest a prisoner lies with the PSB and the Procuracy.
"Trial" and Sentencing
A common Chinese maxim sums up China’s criminal procedure: xian pan hou shen – “verdict first, trial second”. The guilt of the accused is generally decided during pre-trial investigation by committees made up of Public Security Bureau or Party representatives. Amdo Sangye, a former judge of the Qinghai High Court in Xining who was interviewed by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) recalled that virtually all of the judgments were based on reports of the police investigation and that judges did not possess the power to acquit based on the examination in court. He said “If a Judge’s conclusion is different from that of a police report, he will have to confer with the police and the procuratorate and they will have to come to a mutual decision." The Judge informed the ICJ that, although defendants were provided with lawyers, in actual practice the lawyer could not defend the accused. He also said that in the great majority of cases that came before him defendants had been beaten by the police and subsequently signed confessions.
On June 11, 1998, the Tibet Daily reported that Chinese courts in Tibet acquitted less than one per cent of defendants between 1992 and 1997. Bai Zhao, president of the People’s High Court was quoted as saying that courts in the “TAR” tried 6,291 people in the past five years and found 0.73 per cent not guilty. More than half of the defendants were given sentences ranging from five years to death, Bai said. He did not give a breakdown as the number of death sentences meted out by Chinese courts is not released by the PRC. He also did not say how many of the defendants were Tibetans.
Many of the interviewees had no trial at all although it now appears that most prisoners are tried. Some of the interviewees were kept for up to one year and nine months in detention and then were released without any trial or explanation. Yeshi Damdul, imprisoned in 1989, was told at his trial that it was the first trial for political prisoners since 1959, although Bagdro was also put on trial in Lhasa in January 1989 together with five other political prisoners. None of the interviewees who had a trial had any legal representation. Some of them were offered the chance to be represented by a lawyer but no one took the opportunity as none of them believed that it would make any difference. The interviewees were extremely cynical about the Chinese legal system.
Damchoe Palmo recalled: "The first time that I was arrested there was no trial. The second time we had a trial but we did not have any legal representation. We had the right to legal representation but we never availed of it as there was actually no one to represent us as it would place his or her job at risk. Also, we knew that our sentence had already been decided and so there was no use. The second time that I was arrested...there was the trial and then a few days later the sentence was read out at the prison. We were not asked anything, there was no proper questioning - they just read out the charges against us and asked us whether we had anything to say but nothing that we said could change anything as it was all already decided."
Yeshi Damdul stated of his experience in 1989: "I had two trials. The first time they mainly declared my sentence and then said that they would give us one week to consider the sentence declared by the court and that we would then be called in a weeks’ time for the final sentencing…The first trial was held in the public court of Tsethang - I don’t remember the real name of that court. For the second court session we were taken to the public cinema hall where the public was gathered, including our parents and families and friends, and our sentence was declared. Six of us, including me, were tried together for our involvement in distributing leaflets. Four others were tried at the same time for their involvement in demonstrations in Lhasa. After we were told our sentence we were taken away from the hall and back to Tsethang Prison. Once we reached there, the prison authorities told us that we could appeal to the People’s Court in Lhasa if we were not satisfied. They also told us that because we were political activists it was almost impossible to win a case if we wanted to appeal. They told us that our case was totally different from that of criminal prisoners.
I didn’t have an opportunity to be represented by a lawyer. We didn’t even know when we would be taken to court until we were actually taken away…During the first court session the three PSB officers from our village were in the court to act as eyewitnesses to what we had done. The procurators questioned them. We had put up wall posters twice but were only caught the second time. Although we weren’t arrested the first time, at the trial the PSB officers said that they had seen us. We denied that we’d done it the first time and questioned the police officers. We were allowed to say that it wasn’t true and that we had only put up posters once.
I was found guilty of being a ‘counter-revolutionary propaganda activist’. This is considered to be a very serious crime. Our participation in the demonstration was not considered so serious as we were following others but when we started making wall posters they said that we were poisoning the public. Fortunately most of us were below 20 (I was 19) so because of our age we were given more ‘lenient’ sentences. I was sentenced to five years imprisonment. They said that if we were older we would be given a longer sentence.”
Gyaltsen Choetso said: "The second time that I was arrested I was taken to court twice with three other nuns. There was a judge there who declared what my crimes were. The name of the court was the People's Intermediate Court. When I was at Gutsa I was first asked questions by the local PAP then some procurators came and then some interrogators from the court came for two or three weeks. The worst interrogators were the PAP and the procurators as they beat us when they visited but the court officials didn’t beat us. While I was in court the police declared my crime and the judge asked whether I needed anyone to explain things to me. I said that I didn't want anyone to explain things on my behalf as I could talk for myself. The court declared that we had demonstrated in the Barkhor and detailed what we had done and we said that what they had said was correct. After the court session we were taken back to Gutsa…I was never sentenced although I was taken to the court twice with the other nuns."
Lhundup Monlam, who was arrested in 1990, stated: “I was taken to court and the trial was in both Tibetan and Chinese. The court was the Gyangtse County Public Court. I could understand a little Chinese although most of the proceedings were in Tibetan. The decision was made by the Chinese. I was told that I could have a lawyer but I said that I didn’t want one...On July 24, 1990, I was sentenced to four years and six months. They told me that my sentence would have been four years but as I had taken so long to confess they had extended it by six months.”
Ngawang Choezom described her “trial”: “After 15 days I was made to stand in line with some other prisoners and one by one the officials read out our sentences. We were videoed. They read out what we were accused of doing and then our sentences.”
Laojiao — “re-education through labour”
In March 1996, the Administrative Punishments Law (APL) was passed into law in the PRC. While the CPL is the statute governing punishment under the criminal law, the APL governs “administrative sanction”. Administrative sanctions are frequently used against Tibetan suspects and the system of laojiao – “re-education through labour” has been retained under the new law.
While “re-education through labour” theoretically applies principally to those who commit minor offences falling short of crimes, it has been widely used against political dissidents and Tibetan nationalists. Such a sentence is determined by a Re-education through Labour Management Committee made up primarily of PSB representatives. There is no right to counsel or to a hearing and individuals may be detained for up to three years, with a one-year possibility of extension for “failure to reform”.
Prisons and Laogai — “reform through labour”
The Chinese criminal system has traditionally had a strong emphasis on laogai – “reform through labour”. However, on December 9, 1994, the National People’s Congress of the PRC promulgated a Prison Law that officially replaced the term “Laogai” with the term “Prison”. The only effect of this change is that the institutions that were previously classified as laogai appear to have simply been relabelled as prisons. The basic aim of the laogai system was not simply punishment but also “reform and change for the better”. Inmates of both prisons and labour camps (which are now both classified as prisons), are subjected to intensive labour requirements which are considered effective both in diminishing individual political zeal and in creating production profits. They are also required to undergo intensive ideological training. This includes admitting their “criminal” past and promising to “reform” themselves in accordance with communist doctrine.
Precisely how the Chinese authorities determine which political prisoners to send to prisons and which to administrative detention centres is somewhat unclear. Prisoners can only be held in administrative detention centres for an initial period of three years but it is sometimes unclear why certain prisoners are judicially sentenced while others are administratively detained. Sometimes the more “sensitive” long-term political prisoners are sent to prisons where they can be held in isolation. All political prisoners who have been judicially sentenced are sent to prison and all prisoners who receive administrative sentences are supposed to be sent to separate “re-education through labour” camps but it is objectively difficult to determine who the authorities send for administrative detention and who for trial.
Ultimately, there is little difference between the placements as prisoners in prisons must also work, often in on-site factories or hot houses. Labour camp prisoners may be involved in heavy farming, mining or construction work, sometimes in desolate, inhospitable areas of Tibet. “Reform” labour is mandatory for up to ten hours a day, with one day off every fortnight. In certain seasons prisoners are expected to work 12 hours a day or even more if a particular timetable must be met. Those administratively sentenced to re-education through labour are purportedly paid for their work, but the minimal payment rarely covers more than their food and electricity charges.
In some cases, Tibetan political prisoners are made to continue working even after completing their term. This may occur where the prisoner cannot show he or she has anything to return to, or where it is deemed that the prisoner has “failed to reform”. These workers are still kept largely as prisoners and they are only occasionally permitted to leave to visit their families.
After release
When eventually released, former political prisoners are discriminated against regarding employment opportunities and the availability of social services. If they are monks or nuns, they are forbidden from rejoining any monastery or nunnery. Former political prisoners generally experience a lot of difficulty finding employment, often forcing them to rely economically on other family members. Once released, prisoners who had been judicially sentenced are required to return to their respective home towns to be allocated ration cards and to register with the town or county office. If a prisoner's release papers contain remarks concerning the prisoner having failed to mentally reform he or she is kept under surveillance during the term of his or her deprivation of political rights and often afterwards too. Such prisoners are watched or followed and their families may also be targeted for suspicion or discrimination. Long and brutal detentions have left physical and mental scars; they are haunted by nightmares of the past; some are crippled; some suffer chronic depression; many are alone. Many ex-political prisoners are re-arrested.
Release Paper from Drapchi Prison
English Translation:
Name: Yeshi Damdul. Sex: Male. Current age: 28 years old. Place: Lhoka Gongkar County. Charged with counter-revolutionary propaganda activity. Arrested on 1989/10/19. Sentenced by Lhoka People’s Intermediate Court to five years imprisonment and five years deprivation of political rights from 1994/3/16 to 1997/3/15. Having completed his prison term, he is being released. Issued by TAR Prison on 1994/3/16.
Points to be noted:
1. Person issued with this document will have to go to Gongkar
PSB office before 1994/4/10 to report.
2.
No one is to change anything in this report.
Under such circumstances, many former political prisoners make the harrowing choice to leave their family and homeland and make a new life in exile. There are today approximately 500 former political prisoners struggling to live in exile. Trauma and confusion associated with adjusting to an unfamiliar environment, language, culture and way of life is inevitable.
MARCH 1997 LETTER FROM DRAPCHI POLITICAL PRISONERS
Excerpts from the English translation of the letter follow...
The subject of human rights has been widely recognised by the well-informed people of this world since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Countries have drafted articles to protect and promote the values of human rights yet some countries continue to disrespect these basic human values…
We want to single out the fact that the Chinese have pretended to respect human rights in China and Tibet before international representatives. Being signatories to this declaration, China continues to violate the basic and fundamental freedoms of the Tibetan people. They greedily entered through our eastern border in 1949 and finally occupied Tibet by force in 1959…
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and on behalf of the six million Tibetans, His Holiness the Dalai Lama described the critical condition of the Tibetan people before the United Nations and to many other nations including the United States and requested urgent action. In 1987 in particular His Holiness the Dalai Lama proposed a five-point peace plan with the hope of beginning peaceful negotiations with China. The Chinese government rejected this proposal and condemned His Holiness. This is unbearable to us and we are unable to remain silent.
Since 1959 and the brutal occupation and colonisation of the Chinese regime, the Tibetan people have been roused to call for their freedom and demonstrate against the brutal Chinese suppression. This resulted in the death of 1.2 million Tibetans and the ongoing imprisonment of Tibetans still today. However the truth will last forever.
From 27 September 1987, Tibetan people once again staged a peaceful demonstration against China. Led by monks and nuns, hundreds of Tibetans joined the uprising to demonstrate their opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet. In the clampdown of successive demonstrations, the Chinese army opened fire, killing and critically wounding many on the spot and imprisoning thousands of unarmed demonstrators. The Chinese authorities forced the detainees to confess under harsh interrogation.
In Tibet torture is the only method of interrogating. In prison, cruel and degrading methods of torture are inflicted to extract confessions. These include: deprivation of food, water, and air; confinement in a freeze room; setting guard dogs onto prisoners and the use of electric cattle prods.
In some cases prisoners are charged as ‘criminals’ and administrative detention is imposed by local authorities without supervision by an independent judiciary. The legal procedure established by the Chinese authorities is regarded as the highest authority, thus the Tibetan people have no right to appeal before the court.
After imprisonment, political prisoners are detained incommunicado. They are kept under strict vigilance by special guards sent by the Chinese authorities and there are limits placed on their visitation rights. Only a single member of a political prisoner’s family is allowed to visit once a month, while the other prisoners have no limit on their visitation rights. Political prisoners are frequently prohibited from receiving rations provided by their relatives, while other prisoners have no restrictions on such rations.
Political prisoners have no bed, instead they must use rubbish cloths as their bed. Political prisoners are forced to eat rotten and contaminated food and no one has the right to appeal for their good health.
On political grounds prisoners are required to denounce from their heart His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Tibetan freedom, and to pledge their love for the Communist Party. At the same time, prisoners must accept the Chinese laws and regulations upon prisoners, renounce what they have done in the past and agree to accept the laws in the future.
If the prisoners refuse to accept these principles, they are subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment using all torture instruments: beating with iron rods, sticks, iron padlocks and cuffing of hands and feet for many days without any food. This resulted in the death of Sangay Tenphel.
The Chinese do not take any responsibility upon themselves for sick prisoners. Even if sick inmates are taken for consultation, only outdated medicines and equipment are used. It was as a result of this that Lhakpa Tsering and Kelsang Thutop died in prison.
Political prisoners are regularly subjected to forced blood extraction and intensive exercises. Political prisoners are also compelled to praise whatever the jailer or prison guards say. Even when the guard makes a false statement we are forced to praise the communist values and ideologies. Nonetheless we are united and never listen to these statements. That is why we are severely beaten and deprived of food, water and sleep.
It is very hard to write the whole story in detail. If we complain about the maltreatment in the prison to the relevant offices, they not only ignore the complaint but also our prison sentences are greatly extended. We are kept under strict surveillance and brutal suppression. In this way the prison guards are promoted and rewards are presented to them by the higher authorities.
In the “Tibet Daily” newspaper it was stated that, during an official meeting, the Public Security Bureau and the Judicial Office of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) decided to award those guards who had worked hard in disciplining the political prisoners with the extra facilities.
Now we have 253 political prisoners in Drapchi Prison, ranging in age from 15 to 70 and with prison terms ranging from 1 year to 19 years. The present condition in Tibet is critical and more restrictions are being imposed. We are especially susceptible to the above mentioned atrocities which are directly inflicted upon us. Therefore we appeal to people of the world who love and support truth, peace, democracy and human rights.
From all political prisoners of Drapchi Prison.
10th March 1997
CONFINED CONDITIONS
General
The interviewees reported that they were kept in very poor conditions. Many former prisoners said that their cells were very dirty, that they had to go to the toilet in a container in the room, often in front of many others, and that they had very little opportunity to wash themselves. Some prisoners stated that there was excrement on the floor of their cell when they were first placed there. Many prisoners had to sleep on the floor without any mattress or blankets, generally until either their families sent them such items or, after some time, the prison provided them.
Some prisoners reported having to lie side by side with their 20 cell mates, so tightly squeezed together that they were like sardines in a can, with no room to move. Others said that there was enough room in the cells but that each cell was just an empty concrete room, with no beds or anything else except a tin container in the corner to use as a toilet. Some prisoners had bunk beds in their cells while others slept on wooden planks above the ground. There appears to be very little consistency between prisons in the level of facilities that prisoners were entitled to.
Interviewees' accounts of the frequency with which they could wash varied considerably. It appears to be up to the guards as to when prisoners are allowed to wash or, if the times are set, they are extremely infrequent and vary considerably between penitentiary institutions. One prisoner was not able to wash more than twice in five years while others reported that they could wash about once every two weeks. The one occasion on which most prisoners said that they were able to wash was before they were hospitalised.
While the prisoners’ accounts all differ, it is clear that none of them were kept as envisaged by the UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. These provide that:
10. All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation…At Drapchi, each cell has a cell leader and secretary who are in charge of ensuring that the cellmates work hard and keeping a record of any punishments that they are due. The two representatives from the cell meet regularly with prison officials to check each prisoner’s behavioural record. In recent years this has taken the form of a system whereby prisoners are given and required to maintain 100 points; points are added for exceptionally good behaviour and detracted for bad behaviour. Prisoners can reportedly have their sentence lessened if they consistently maintain a score in excess of 100 points over several years.
12. The sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner.
13. Adequate bathing and shower installations shall be provided so that every prisoner may be enabled and required to have a bath or shower, at a temperature suitable to the climate, as frequently as necessary for general hygiene according to season and geographical region…
14. Prisoners shall be required to keep their persons clean, and to this end they shall be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness…
19. Every prisoner shall, in accordance with local or national standards, be provided with a separate bed, and with separate and sufficient bedding which shall be clean when issued, kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness.
Conditions at Drapchi Prison:
The EU Delegation visited Drapchi on May 4, 1998 and reported that:
Conditions there were relatively comfortable, with 12 prisoners to a room each with single bunks. Accommodation was bare and basic but not too much unlike a Chinese barracks or even a student dormitory…The delegation were told that those sentenced for crimes against state security were not treated differently from other prisoners. There were about 90 such people in the prison. They shared the same cellblocks as other prisoners, and there were no special detention blocks for them.This is in direct contrast to reports from political prisoners. Certainly there are separate divisions at Drapchi for the political prisoners and it is incorrect to say that there are no special detention blocks for them. It is unclear which part of the prison that the EU Delegation was shown.
Jampel Monlam said: “Drapchi prison was divided into five divisions shortly after I arrived. I was in the fifth division that was for political prisoners. The political prisoners were kept together so that we could be more easily controlled. The number of political prisoners grew to about 500. I was placed in a cell that was about 15 feet by 12 feet. Twelve of us were kept together in this cell. There was one long bed that we all slept on, lying next to each other...There was a container in our cell for us to go to the toilet. You can imagine how this was when one of the cell mates had diarrhoea or stomach aches - the noise, the smell…Sometimes two of us had to go at the same time!
In five years I was able to wash twice. In 1991 bathrooms were built in expectation of a foreign delegation but, because there were no prison regulations governing their use, we were not taken to use them. Instead the officials used them. We couldn’t get to them ourselves as the guards had to take us and they wouldn’t do so as there were no regulations.
The prison officials took away all our civilian clothes and our personal possessions, including sacred threads and photos, and burned them in front of us. We were provided with a prison uniform that was made out of very coarse material. We were each provided with one quilt that was not really enough in the winter…In the summer the temperature was all right except when we had to work in the vegetable gardens which were covered with plastic and stiflingly hot. The weather was a problem in winter. We younger ones could manage the cold but it was very difficult for the older prisoners who were used to wearing clothes that were lined with fur in winter. They suffered a great deal.”
Damchoe, who was kept in division three in Drapchi, recalled: “There were 12 of us in the cell. It was a big room with bunk beds. There were mattresses and blankets in the room. The cell was open from the morning until the early evening so we could leave the cell to go to the toilet. We could wash but there was no hot water.”
Thupten Tsering stated: “In Drapchi Prison I was put in a cell with 12 other political prisoners. The room was quite big, about 15 feet by 30 feet - it was not crowded. There were six double bunks. We kept our belongings, such as our bowls, under the bunks. There was a toilet room that we were able to use. In Drapchi we were allowed to wash about once a month.”
Yeshi Damdul described the manner in which the prisoners were organised in their cells: “The prison authorities asked the prisoners of each cell to appoint a group leader and one who acted as a quasi-secretary. The job of the ‘secretary’ was to watch the behaviour of the other prisoners. On the walls of each cell there was a list with all our names on it and we were all given 100 points to start with. We had points added or taken away depending on how hard we worked and whether or not we were considered a good prisoner. Sometimes a prisoner got 105 points and that meant that he was considered very good as he had worked hard and then he would be treated very well. Some prisoners who didn’t co-operate with the prison authorities or didn’t really work hard or failed to participate in the prison exercises had points deducted from their total and they had to suffer more. It didn’t really matter whether you got a few more or less than 100 points.
Every month the prison officials called the group leader and the secretary for a meeting at their office. The cell representatives had to report how their group had worked during the month and any other incidents that had arisen...Criminals were lead to expect that if they worked very well for four years and got over 100 points regularly in that time their sentence term would be reduced. But political prisoners never expected this.”
Conditions at Gutsa Detention Centre:
Ngawang Choezom recalled: “In the inner part of the prison I was put in a small cell with another six women prisoners. The cell was about 12 feet by eight feet. When we were all lying down there was no room for anyone else - it was very crowded. Generally I was only held with political prisoners but sometimes criminal prisoners who were being transferred from one cell to another were put in my cell for a few days. Sometimes Chinese criminal prisoners were in the cell temporarily...The only thing in the room was the tin container that we had to use as a toilet. We were not allowed out to go to the toilet, we just had to use the tin container that was in the cell. There was nothing to lie on and nothing to cover ourselves with. We had to sleep on the cement floor.
Officially we were allowed to wash about once every two weeks but sometimes a kind prison guard would let us out for 15 minutes so we could wash more often than that…We weren’t given any uniform. I wore my nuns’ clothes…It was quite cold in winter as there was one small window and a hole in the door that the wind would rush through…The light was kept on all night.”
Dawa Kyizom said: “When I was transferred to Gutsa I was kept in a cell with four other nuns and one lay woman...The others had been sentenced to six years imprisonment. The men were kept in the same sized cell as us but there were 22 of them and they only had one toilet pot between them. The room was about 12 feet by 12 feet. In my cell there was room to sleep but where the men were kept they were very squashed and slept side by side at night with their bodies touching.
We had a pot in our cell for a toilet. We had to pass our urine through the small hole in the door that the guards used to pass us our food. We were given a mattress and a cotton quilt. Gutsa looked quite clean from the outside to trick the United Nation’s organisations but from the inside it was filthy...The food and the clothes that we were given were dirty and never enough. We were often cold - our quilts were not warm enough.”
Rinzin Kunsang stated: “The women prisoners were held in one large building which had many separate cells. Each of the nuns that I was arrested with was held alone in one cell. My cell was about 12 feet by 6 feet. After one month I shared my cell with another woman prisoner who was a criminal. She had been arrested because she was a prostitute. She asked me many questions about why I had been arrested and I thought she was a spy who would tell the guards if I said anything to her. This was the only person I had to talk to in the whole two months.
There was nothing in the cell. The floor was cement and it was stained with blood. Initially, I was not even given a mattress, blanket or quilt. After 10 days I was provided with a ragged mattress and a blanket. I was given one steel bucket to be used for a toilet. I could not even wash once in the whole two months I was kept in Gutsa. We were not even provided water to drink...There was one window that was quite large and covered with bars. It was quite light in the room. At sunset the guards would turn on the electric light which was kept on all night.”
Dorjee Namgyal recalled: “In Gutsa, the cell I was put in was a long dormitory. It was about 25 feet by nine feet. It was designed for 10 people but there were eight of us when I was there. I don’t know what the other cells were like as we had no opportunity to communicate with other prisoners. The beds were elevated planks of wood on which we all slept side by side. There was an iron door with a small window in it and next to the door was a window with bars on it. There was a toilet container in the corner that was made of plastic and was quite large. It was always smelly...In Gutsa I had no opportunity to wash in the four months I was held there.”
Gyaltsen Choetso recalled: “There was nothing in the cell except a tin container that we had to use to go to the toilet and a bowl for food. There was no mattress or blanket. We were never given anything from the prison authorities but after about 20 days we got something to wear from our families - I got a blanket, a thick quilt, a pillow and a sheet from home. After one month the prison authorities gave us a mattress…There was only one window with glass which was about six inches by one foot and one red electric bulb that was kept on all night.”
Conditions at Trisam Prison:
Ngawang Choedon said: “The Chinese government says that Trisam is not a prison but a detention centre but it is not really different from Gutsa prison. In Trisam prison we were made to exercise and had an opportunity to learn something but otherwise everything was the same. My cell at Trisam was big enough for 10 but only eight of us were put in it. It was quite a small room...There were upper and lower bunks. We were not provided with any mattress or blanket but we were allowed to get them from our homes. I got mine from friends after a few days. There was also a tin container in the cell to use as a toilet but the guards would let us out to go to the toilet whenever we asked them...We were not allowed to wear nuns clothes but were made to wear a chuba (Tibetan traditional dress for lay people).”
Leusang recalled: “At Trisam, twelve people were held in the same cell. The cell was not so clean. There were three big buildings, each with 13 cells containing 12 prisoners. About three hundred prisoners were held there. Each of the cells was about 15 feet by 10 feet large. There were upper and lower bunks. There was a small amount of room to move in. There was a cupboard at the end of the room but there were no chairs or tables. The prison didn’t give us anything - even the blankets we had were either what we had brought ourselves or were from our families...We were given pants and a shirt for a uniform.
It was cold in winter, but not too cold...There was one light. It was turned off at 11 o’clock. There was also one window so we had some natural light.”
Conditions at Sangyip Complex:
Sonam Dolkar was held alone in a cell for five months until another prisoner was put with her because she was too ill to move. She remembered: “My cell was six feet by eight feet. I was kept alone for about five months and then was put with a Chinese woman prisoner from Dechung. She was put in the cell because at that time I was so sick that I couldn’t even move to the door or collect my food or empty my toilet container…There was one bed, a table, a mattress, a quilt and a steel toilet container in the cell. It was quite clean. At least once a week they would come and search my room. If there was anything on the wall they would abuse me. When I was held at Gutsa for two days there was nothing at all in the cell…There was no opportunity to wash as I wasn’t let out of the cell. They did not provide me with anything to wear - when I was arrested I had grabbed some extra clothes from home.”
Thupten Tsering said: “I was kept alone in my cell in Seitru for eight or nine months. There was enough space for two beds in the cell. The conditions at Seitru were worse than at Drapchi...When I was held alone in Seitru, there was a small hole in the door where the officials would pass the food through to me. There was a mattress, an old sheet and a blanket. There was no toilet for me to use. I had to go to the toilet in a small pot in my room.”
Yeshe Togden stated: “In Outridu, there were 15 cells, each of which held 20 men. It was a large complex, including factories, a garage, a rock shaping area and many vegetable gardens. Many prisoners have been kept there since 1959. The cells were about 14 feet by 10 feet. There was not enough room for the 20 men to sleep there. Ten of us slept vertically and the others horizontally. We each only had about one foot of space to lie across. We all had to squeeze up together to sleep. We slept on a part of the cell that was raised in cement and then covered with wooden planks. On top of this was a layer of canvas and on top of us we had one quilt but it was falling apart. We were only allowed to sleep on the raised area of the cell. At first we couldn’t sleep on it but after a while we got used to it. It was freezing, especially as Tibet is very cold in March.
The toilet was filthy and full of flies. This was especially awful as there was no water and so everything in the toilet was just left there, rather than being washed away. The lack of water was to punish us as it left no marks, even though it affected our health. Sometimes we were allowed to go to the toilet but there was a specified time allowed which was seldom enough for all of us and so we would run to get there first when we were allowed out. Otherwise we had to use the container in our cell...When we arrived, there were water facilities but these were stopped shortly afterwards. Water was so scarce that I could not wash for almost four months. We were only given a small pot of about 400 grams to wash ourselves and four or five pieces of clothing.”
Conditions at Other Prisons:
Adhe Tapontsang recalled the prisons she was kept at in the late fifties and early sixties, some of which were outside the “TAR”: “In Karze prison when I was first arrested I was kept handcuffed for 20 days and placed in a cell with 10 other women. There was no light in the room. We were only allowed out of the room briefly at 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. to empty our toilet containers.
In Dhartsedo prison the room was completely empty and had no furniture. We all had to sleep side by side as it was so crowded. In the middle of the room there was a large steel container for us to use for a toilet. We had to go to the toilet in front of everyone - it was very embarrassing. We were not supplied with anything - there were not even blankets. We only had blankets if we were given them by our families. The Chinese would look at us through a small window and check what we were doing.
In 1966 when I was transferred to Minyak Ra Nga Gang we were taken to one room with two officers then we were called one by one to have our hair cut. We were made to take off our chubas (Tibetan dresses) and forced to wear the Chinese blue uniform that had writing on it saying ‘Prisoner’. We were told that from that moment we were not allowed to speak Tibetan as they thought we were sharing secrets. We were only allowed to speak Chinese. We had to try to speak to Chinese but it was very difficult. One old women absolutely could not speak Chinese so she pretended to be dumb and never spoke at all.”
Palden Gyatso said: “In 1959, my prison, which was called Norbukhungtse, was a monastery that had been transformed into a prison (a common occurrence in those times) since there had not previously been so many prisoners in Tibet before the 1959 uprising. Because of the lack of official facilities, lines were drawn on the monastery walls in chalk and we were each given just enough space to lie down. You had to bring your own bedding in 1959...We were given a prison uniform that was replaced once every two years.”
Dawa Kyizom stated: “At Taktse military camp I was kept in a long house with six cells. I was alone in the cell and there was no one in the rest of the house - there were no other prisoners at that time. The room was about 15 feet by 15 feet. There was a large fence around the complex but, when I was there, there were no other prisoners. There was a window but it opened from the outside and I had no control over when it was opened - the guards would open or close it whenever they felt like it…In the 28 days that I was held at Taktse military camp I was never allowed to wash.”
Lobsang Shakya recalled his experiences at Karkhang Military Camp: “I think that maybe the prison used to be an army camp. The cell I was put in was about 12 feet by eight feet. I was kept there alone. The roof was made from tin. The only things in the cell were a torn mattress and an old sheet that I was given after I had been there a while. For the first five days I had to use a toilet container but then I was allowed to go out of the cell to go to the toilet...I could only wash my face twice in the month that I was in prison. I could never wash my body. When I was ready to go to hospital they washed the blood off my face...It was very, very cold in the cell. Sometimes kind prison guards would lend me their shirts to wear but otherwise I had nothing and just had to freeze...There was no light in the cell but there was a large barred window.”
Yeshi Damdul reported: “At Tsethang it was a very large prison. There were only two cell blocks. One was for criminal prisoners who had committed minor crimes and the other was for prisoners who had committed more serious crimes, like political prisoners. There were about 40 criminals there and 16 political prisoners. Everyone was kept in a separate cell. It was a big room - bigger than 15 feet by 10 feet. The cell was totally empty - there was nothing at all in it...no bed, no mattress, no blanket, nothing. When I was first arrested, it was March and it was extremely cold so I suffered a lot. For one week I was given nothing - it was really too cold - I could not even sleep at night because of the cold. Then after seven days I was given a sort of mattress made by blankets that I had to use as both a mattress and blanket. About one month later I was allowed to receive some blankets and a mattress from my family. There was only a tin bucket that I could go to the toilet in... After staying in the cell for four months I had not even been able to wash my face.”
Lhundup Monlam stated: “At Gyangtse prison there were only four prisoners. It was the PSB who were in charge of the prison. At Nyari conditions were much better than at Gyangtse - there was a window in the room. There were four prisoners in my cell and the room was made to hold eight. We had to work in the vegetable fields. At Nyari there were four mattresses and one thermos and two other containers for us to use to wash in the cell...In Gyangtse prison it was very cold in winter and I was leg cuffed so I suffered a lot from a pain in my leg arising from the cold.”
Lukar Jam recalled: "In Terlengkha Detention Centre there were seven or eight prisoners in each cell. The cell was about 12 metres by 12 metres. We had wooden beds with mattresses but we had to bring our blankets from home. There was one small window with iron bars. In the winter it was very cold so we lit coal fires in the cell and the room filled with carbon monoxide."
PRISON DIET
General
Prisoners were simply not given the basic necessities to which all human beings are entitled. The meagre quantity and poor quality of prisoners’ diets was something that most interviewees complained of, second only to the physical abuse that they were subjected to. Almost all former prisoners complained that they were given an insufficient quantity of food. Many of them also said that the food was extremely dirty and strewn with dead insects and some even recounted that the food had faeces floating in it. A further disturbing element of the prisoners’ accounts is the frequency with which they were denied access to water. Food is a fundamental human need and should be supplied in sufficient quantity. Further, it should not be something that is distributed on a discriminatory basis, or as a punishment. At times lack of food was used to punish the prisoners, for instance, when prisoners were first arrested and interrogated and also when they were put into solitary confinement.
The former prisoners reported that they had a variety of diets, depending on the prison in which they were kept. Generally, prisoners were given a diet consisting of rice gruel (rice cooked in hot water, like a watery rice porridge), tingmo (steamed bun) and vegetables. There were many complaints that the vegetables, which generally just meant cabbage, or occasionally potatoes or carrots, were dirty. Prison food was reportedly generally cooked very simply with no attempt to make it palatable - many prisoners complained that the vegetables were merely boiled and not even cooked in oil. Tibetans are accustomed to a high protein and fat diet, consisting of a lot of meat and dairy products. The prison diet was therefore all the more difficult for them to adjust to.
Some former political prisoners stated that criminal prisoners were given preferential treatment in respect of food. Criminals were given rice whereas the political prisoners were only given tingmo and criminals were reportedly allowed to eat first so that they received more vegetables while the political prisoners were merely given the leftovers.
Prisoners were generally able to supplement their diets with food brought by relatives from outside the prison and more recently prisoners at Drapchi Prison report that they were able to purchase extra food from a shop within the prison. It is alarming that prisoners must rely on food received from visitors or purchased separately in order to merely have a sufficient quantity of food to eat or to form any kind of balanced diet.
Prisoners are generally required to eat their food inside their cells although some prisons, including Trisam, have a separate dining room. Eating in the prison cells is inappropriate, particularly in light of the fact that many prisoners do not have a separate toilet but just a container in their room without any kind of separation from the “living area”. This is clearly an unhygienic and humiliating aspect of prison life.
Many prisoners reported health problems arising from the poor quality of the food and leading to diarrhoea and stomach-aches. Others who had suffered from torture-related internal injuries and kidney problems found it very difficult to digest the prison food but had no alternative.
The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC recently stated:
The government guarantees the provision of food, clothing, shelter and articles of daily use for prison inmates. Each prison in Tibet has separate dining facilities and diets for inmates of different groups and provides for them Zanba [Tibetan: tsampa] (roasted highland barley flour), buttered tea, sweet tea, etc. every month.The stories of the inmates differ significantly from this - most prisons do not have separate dining facilities and prisoners complain of not having enough of any type of food, let alone their ethnic preference. The quality and quantity of the food available at the detention centres appears to be markedly worse than that at the “prisons”, with some of the most frightening stories originating from Gutsa Detention Centre. Lukar Jam, who was held at Terlengkha Detention Centre from 1994 to 1995, was hospitalised when he weighed only 30 kg. He recalled that the primary reason for his illness and ensuing weight loss was the poor prison diet and unhygienic conditions.
The individual accounts listed below are in stark contrast to the UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Rule 20 of those rules provides:
Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.Rinzin Kunsang, who was imprisoned in Gutsa Prison in 1988, stated: “We were not provided any water to drink. The criminals were fed first. We got whatever was left after them. The food was very dirty and there was not enough. Around 7 a.m. we were given rice gruel, then for lunch two small tingmos and then in the evening we got more rice gruel. The criminals were given vegetables but we were only served the root of the vegetables. We were never served anything to drink and there was never enough food. We were very hungry. When the food was ready the guards opened our cell doors and then passed in the food to us. We had to eat it in our cells.”
Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it.
Tenzin Choedon described her daily diet while at Gutsa Prison in 1988: “In the morning we were given rice gruel, for lunch we were fed two small tingmo and vegetables that had just been boiled in water. For dinner we had the leftovers from lunch. The food was cooked by the criminals who put cigarette butts in it and once I even saw stools in the ‘soup’. Every three days we were also given a cup of water or black tea. It was summer when I was locked up and we were very thirsty but there was nothing we could do except remember what running water was like. That sometimes helped us to salivate. We were not given enough to eat and were often hungry.”
Yeshe Togden recounted his experiences in Outridu in 1989: “... for almost four months we did not have any water supply. In the morning we were given one small handful of tsampa with black tea and salt. Because we had so little food we really relished what we had: in the morning with our tsampa we mixed a tiny bit and then slowly, slowly licked it, and so on. We were fed twice each day - sometimes there was lunch and no dinner and sometimes dinner and no lunch. The second meal consisted of two pieces of tingmo and vegetable soup. The ‘soup’ was more like vegetable broth as there was no trace of vegetables in it except for some roots. Even the roots were not given to us unless we especially tried to fish them out - and then we were whacked on the head with the serving spoon for our trouble!
The soup was very salty and had a lot of chilly in it. It was prepared in half a rusty oil drum, so the soup was the colour of rust. We were so hungry that people went and stole tingmo, even right in front of the guards, as their hunger was stronger than their fear.
At night we were very thirsty because the soup was so salty but there was no water for us to drink. We were so dehydrated that often we could not even urinate. We had a container in our cell to hold our urine but, even with 20 of us in the cell, we only had to empty it once a week. The only liquid we received all day was the tea and the salty soup…When we left the cell we had to lean against a wall as we were so weak.
If we ever got any water, even about 500 ml., it was like a blessing and we treasured it so much that even with 20 of us in the cell it was in the tin for so long that the tin started to rust. Of course we still drunk it. In the evenings when there was a cool wind blowing we sat and opened our mouths like lizards as the cool breeze was almost like having some moisture at the back of our throats…Our thirst was even worse than the hunger…there were many people who were very weak and suffering from malnutrition.”
Bagdro complained of lack of food in Gutsa Prison in 1989:
"At Gutsa we were given very dirty food —
it was very dirty potatoes and a small tingmo and something
to drink. Sometimes we were given one small cup of black tea and one small
tingmo, or at other times it was a small amount of vegetables (just one
or two leaves) mixed with water and a small tingmo. There was so little
to drink that I had to drink my own urine. Even that there was not enough
of and before long I could not even go to the toilet as I had so little
to eat or drink... I was starving and was afraid that I would die. I even
tried to eat my shirt."
Yeshi Damdul described the prison food at Tsethang in 1989: "In the morning we were given one small tingmo with a cup of black tea, for lunch sometimes we were given two tingmo and a cup of black tea and sometimes two tingmo with a very small serving of vegetables and for dinner the menu was not regularly fixed — sometimes it was very light noodles and sometimes very light vegetables. At the beginning the food was somewhat clean but slowly it deteriorated and later I couldn't think about how good or clean the food was - I was too hungry and had to eat everything that I was given."
Gyaltsen Choteso recounted her experiences at Gutsa in 1990: “We were served very dirty food. When we were served vegetables they had not even washed the dirt off and sometimes there was excretion in the food. It was also very salty so we could not eat it. In the morning we were served rice boiled in hot water that was yellow - not the proper colour - and at lunch we were given one tingmo with dirty vegetables or sometimes if there was a kind cook we could sometimes get two or even three tingmo. In the evening we had to eat the same as at lunch. The criminals were served rice once a week although political prisoners were not given rice at all until towards the end of my time in prison when we were sometimes given rice and sometimes black tea. Black tea was served at midday to all prisoners except political prisoners.
The prison authorities never served enough food to fill my stomach, but I could get some food from my family through prison guards for a bribe. I suffered a lot from hunger.”
Lhundup Monlam described his diet at Nyari Prison in the Shigatse region in 1990: “At Nyari, the food was very poor. We were usually just given black tea with tsampa, for lunch we were given rice with vegetables or sometimes rice in hot water and in the evening we were given black tea with tsampa. We were never satisfied with the amount of food. In the vegetables we could see many white insects because they were not washed properly.”
Gyaltsen Palsang, who was held in Gutsa Detention Centre in 1993 for one year and eight months, recounted: “At 4 a.m. we were given a cup of black tea, for lunch there was either rice with vegetables or plain rice or tingmo and for dinner one small tingmo…There was not enough food and we were very hungry. Because of the poor quality of the food we got diarrhoea with blood, we had sore stomachs and felt very weak. The food was given to us through the hole in our cell door. We did not have a separate time to leave the cell to eat.”
Lukar Jam recalled the prison diet at Terlengkha Detention Centre in 1994: “We were only given two meals each day. We had a daily allowance of 250 grams of flour and we could also get hot water. So normally for breakfast we just had boiling water with noodles made from the flour or tingmo. For dinner we generally had two tingmo which we made with the flour we had left over from breakfast. Occasionally we would have vegetables that were left over from the market because they were starting to rot.”
Lobsang Shakya spoke of conditions in Karkhang Prison outside Shigatse in 1995: "We were only fed twice a day. Around 9 a.m. we were given either rice in hot water or, sometimes, one small tingmo. Around 6 p.m. we received rice and vegetables but the vegetables had just been boiled - not even cooked in oil. The food was very dirty, it was a red or yellow colour and sometimes there were the bodies of dead insects in it. It was really not enough to eat. I was always very hungry…The first week I ate the food in my cell but after that I was told to eat it somewhere outside, always alone…The guards always told me to eat quickly.”
Prisoners Starved to Death in the Sixties
In the early sixties, after China had occupied Tibet, Tibet experienced its first ever famine. Particularly during the period from 1960 to 1962, as a result of the Chinese campaign known as the “Great Leap Forward,” many thousands of Tibetans died from starvation in the prisons alone.
The Panchen Lama wrote in his 70,000 Character Petition of 1962 addressed to the leaders of the Chinese government:
In the past, although Tibet was a society ruled by dark and savage feudalism, there had never been such a shortage of grain. In particular, because Buddhism was widespread, all people, whether noble or humble, had the good habit of giving help to the poor, and so people could live solely by begging for food. A situation could never have arisen where people starved to death and we have never heard of a situation where people starved to death.Adhe Tapontsang recalled: “When I was in Dhartsedo Prison in 1959 we were given little more than a glass of very liquid porridge three times a day…There was plenty of water but nothing else to drink. After about 10 days we were so weak from hunger that we could not even stand.
When we were transferred to Golthok lead mines we had the same food but it was even worse than before…Our health quickly deteriorated. The work during the day was very hard and we could not get nearly enough food to sustain us. The men started to put insects in their porridge: the one they thought was best was a yellow creature with a red head. The women were too afraid to eat insects.
Soon, due to the lack of food, I could not even walk. One day I lay down and did not go to work and I was beaten. All we had to eat was one glass of rice gruel three times a day…Many, many people died from starvation. Everyone had a different way of coping. When they were dying, some called out His Holiness’s name, others went mad - they just cried out for food for hours until they had no more energy to cry. Then they just died. One man died and an insect that he had eaten came out of his mouth. It was truly terrible to look at his face. His cheeks were deeply sunk in his face and his eyes were completely back in their sockets.
We could not count the number of prisoners who starved to death. Every night we slept side by side and in the morning many in the room were dead. Every day people died. Once I went to sleep as usual, lying beside two women friends. In the middle of the night one of them didn’t seem to be moving anymore so I checked to see if she was still alive. She was dead. I turned to tell my other friend but she had also died. Everyday at least 10 people died from starvation. This happened for three years every day from 1960 to 1963.
From 1960 to 1963, 12,019 prisoners died from starvation. I know this because at the end of the three years the head of the prison was changed and when the new head arrived the number of deaths was declared.”
Palden Gyatso stated: “In 1959, my family had to bring food as the prisons were not organised yet. Later, when there was a general food shortage in Tibet, we were provided with black tea three times per day but our families had to bring money to cover the cost of fuel. Around 1962, we were no longer allowed to receive food from our families. Instead, the guards supplied us with one container every day which contained about four handfuls of tsampa, sometimes without any seasoning or salt, with only a little water - this was all we received to eat or drink in a day...Around 1969, many people died of starvation in prison. It was worst in 1960-62 when the numbers of people dying from malnutrition and starvation were uncountable.”
WORK AND ACTIVITIES
Theoretically, work can provide the opportunity for prisoners to learn new skills and take valuable experiences away from the time that they have spent in prison. However, prisoners held in Tibet are forced to perform manual labour with no thought of obtaining new skills but merely increasing production for the state. Prisoners are given production quotas which they must meet or they are punished and sometimes beaten. In Tibet prisoners are frequently employed in agriculture and in lumbering, where work is exceptionally demanding and accidents are frequent. Chinese law stipulates that prisoners may not be required to work more than twelve hours per day, with a day of rest once every two weeks (Article 53 of the Statute of Reform Through Labour). However, some of the interviewees reported that they were sometimes forced to work longer than this if there was a particular deadline to meet and also that the fortnightly day off was occasionally waived.
The Laogai Regulations describe the rationale of the Laogai/Prison system in the PRC:
Chapter 1. General Principles: Article 1:…the regulations are adopted specially in order to punish all counterrevolutionaries and other criminal offenders and to compel them to reform themselves through labour and become new persons.Prisoners who had been sentenced were generally required to work eight-hour days and to perform manual labour. Many prisoners had not previously worked before due to their young age, time in monasteries or nunneries or in school. The adjustment to forced physical labour was therefore difficult for them. The type of work that they were required to perform varied depending on what institution they were held in. Until recently the Chinese penal system divided the “prisons” into different categories - prisons and reform through labour camps, although now they are all known as prisons. The accounts of the prisoners does not indicate that there were material differences in the manner in which they were treated or the work which they were required to perform at the different institutions.
At Drapchi, male prisoners generally worked either in the vegetable fields, labour construction, brick-making factories or repairing automobiles while females were required to clean human excrement from the toilets or work in tailoring or cleaning and sorting wool. Recent reports indicate that male political prisoners at Drapchi are no longer forced to work but have to “exercise” all morning and then undergo “re-education” sessions in the afternoon. In other prisons, particularly in Southern Tibet, prisoners cleared forests and worked in lumber mills. Often, prisoners were required to work in stifling hot greenhouses that were filled with fumes from the chemicals that were sprayed on the plants. They were also made to perform demeaning and humiliating tasks such as scooping out the faeces from the prison toilets and taking them to the fields to spread them as manure.
The interviewees reported that they were required to meet a certain labour quota based on the value of their production. The PRC closely monitors the prison system in the “TAR” in order to profit from the prisoners’ work. On October 3, 1990, the “TAR” Public Security Bureau Party Secretary stated that the prison and labour complexes in the “TAR” had contributed 16 million yuan (approximately US$2,000,000), which was then 10 per cent of the TAR’s total economic output. He added that in 1980 the prisons and labour reform camps contributed 100 million yuan (US$13,000,000) and that during the period of 1975-79 a net profit of approximately 2 million yuan was generated and forwarded to Beijing by “TAR” labour camps.
Contrary to what a number of former political prisoners reported, the EU delegation was informed by the Chinese authorities that:
The prison educated the [mostly illiterate prisoners] and taught Tibetan and Chinese up to Middle School standard. The general regime was of five days’ work and two days’ rest. Of the five working days, three are spent in manual labour and two on study and politics…Prisoners were able to earn around 2,000 yuan a year through their labour and through raising pigs and vegetables. Conduct and labour performance were reviewed monthly and marked up in complex charts on the prison wall.A number of interviewees were detained beyond the length of their sentence and were forced to continue to work in conditions that were very similar to those imposed when they were imprisoned. Although they no longer had a lock on their door, their right to leave the compound was strictly limited and they were paid, if at all, far less than they would have received if they were free. Human Rights Watch stated that:
In China, where prisons constitute an important source of income for the country, prison authorities forcibly retain some prisoners who have finished serving their sentences for continued employment. Under this policy, which has been in place since the early 1950s, prisoners throughout the country have been forced to remain in prison after the expiration of their sentences as so-called workers, usually for the rest of their lives. The working conditions and production quotas of these workers are virtually the same as those of prisoners.
Ex-political prisoners report that they were given harder work than the criminal prisoners and were made to do things like break rocks into small pieces and clean toilets. Prisoners generally seem to have one day of each week free from work but in some prisons they were made to work every day without fail. Prisoners are required to work regardless of their physical circumstances or of any injuries they may have. For instance, Kunchok Tsomo, whose arm was broken when she was arrested, was required to work cleaning and separating wool at Drapchi Prison for three years despite never receiving medical treatment for her injury. She kept her arm in a sling. It appears that it may now be too late for her arm to heal properly as flesh has grown around and inside the broken bone. Accounts of work performed by prisoners in the early sixties are frightening in their intensity and authorities’ lack of regard for life or the prisoners’ welfare.
In recent years prisoners have recounted being forced to “exercise” in much the same manner as Chinese soldiers. They are made to do many types of activities, ranging from running quickly to staring directly at the sun. Any failure to perform the particular exercise in the required manner is swiftly punished, generally with the prisoner receiving some sort of a beating. For this reason, many prisoners refer to the “exercise” as a form of punishment and it was clear from the interviews that all the prisoners deeply resented the activities, not just because of the physical exertion but also the mental control that was simultaneously exerted over them.
Prisoners who have not yet been sentenced are not generally allowed to leave their cells except for interrogation and possibly for five minutes once a day to empty their toilet container. There is simply nothing for the prisoners to do in their cells: they are not allowed pens or paper; they are often kept in solitary confinement or are not allowed to talk to their cellmates; they are not allowed to practise their religion; and their days are spent with nothing to think about except the timing of their next interrogation session. Given that prisoners are commonly held for six months, and sometimes even longer, without being sentenced, the fact that they remain incarcerated in a cell often by themselves is inhumane treatment in itself.
Leusang, who was held at Trisam Prison, stated: “We had to work all day except for lunch time. We had to leave our cell at 7 a.m. to start work and we would finish at 6 p.m. We did many different kinds of work. Sometimes we worked in government medicine factories. We had to do manual work like carrying bricks and cement on our backs and working in construction. We never had any holidays except for the first and the fifteenth of the month when, if the work wasn’t too important, we were allowed the day off to see our visitors. We were supposed to make 25,000 yuan each year.
Each of the buildings had a monitor who was allowed to go into town to find work for the rest of us. That person then took us in to do the work. The guards made us have competitions in our jobs so that we had to work very hard - things like digging up the earth, putting in sewerage pipes, etc. Some people, including me, fainted while we were working. Sometimes we had to lean on the wall to walk properly as we felt so weak. Many people were emaciated and anaemic. They would suddenly black out for a few minutes. There were also people who were mentally ill when I arrived and they didn’t have to do any work.”
Bagdro stated of his time in Drapchi: “We had to work cutting stones every day except Sunday...The work was worse for political prisoners than for criminals.”
Dawa Kyizom said: “We were let out of the cell to go to work from 9 a.m. until noon and then we were put back in the cells and then we were made to work again from 3 until 6 p.m....The men were forced to cut stones which was very arduous labour and the food was not enough to give them the strength for this. Sometimes the men blacked out as they worked. Sometimes we were made to gather the faeces from the communal toilet and to spread it over the fields and sometimes we were made to do manual work, like carrying cut stones, ploughing the fields, watering the vegetable gardens or sweeping the prison.”
Ngawang Choedon recalled: “At Gutsa we were only let out for five minutes each day. At Trisam we could often leave the cell and stay out for an hour or two.
At Trisam I was made to work in the vegetable garden, planting potatoes and cabbage. We were also made to go to the toilets and collect the faeces and to carry two buckets to the fields and spread it there. We were made to work in other fields during the harvest time - we had to thresh the wheat and do other things like that. If we had work to do we would have to do it after finishing our food in the morning. We worked from morning until evening. The guards could decide whether we were able to rest on Sunday - some of the kind guards let us rest but the crueller ones made us work...When I was at Gutsa I sometimes had to do some of the same kind of work as at Trisam but it was not common.
At Trisam Prison in the early mornings we were made to run as fast as we could and then to march together and to turn backwards and forwards and to stand in line. We didn’t enjoy this. We were taught these exercises in Chinese...we were given the instructions and sometimes we didn’t understand them and so they beat us with sticks when we didn’t turn as they had told us to.”
Lhundup Monlam stated: “At Nyari we had to work in construction and in the vegetable fields. We had to work for eight hours a day every day of the week...it was very difficult as I had no experience of working.”
Damchoe Palmo recalled her experience at Drapchi from 1994 to 1996: “From the wool that was soaked and dried we had to yarn four sang - we had to separate the strands and get the wool ready to make into carpets and sweaters...we had to complete the four sang in one day and were never allowed to leave one for the next day. In winter there was not much light so we had to complete the job in the evening under electric lights. We had to work from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 to 5 p.m. (or sometimes 6 p.m. in winter). The wool work was what we were supposed to do but sometimes the exercise sessions just ripped our schedule apart. We couldn’t return to our cells until the work was finished.
In Drapchi, we were made to ‘exercise’ but it was really a form of punishment. They made us stand very still with pieces of paper under our arms and between our legs and we were severely reprimanded if we moved or the paper fell down. They also made us stand with bowls of water on our heads and sometimes they forced us to stare into the sun directly with our eyes open. They told us that we should be like soldiers in the army. If we did something wrong they would kick us and sometimes whip us with their belt buckles or a stick or cane or give us electric shocks. During one of the sessions a guard said to me that my way of looking was insolent and that there was a look of disgust in my eyes. He was training us at the time and after he said it he lashed out and kicked me in the chest with his boots. The kick was so hard that even the person behind me fell over and the print of his boots was on my shirt and my mouth was full of blood...I don’t know why, maybe I bit my tongue. Now I have a very weak sternum and I still suffer from that incident.
The exercise sessions lasted a long time – I’m not sure exactly when we started but the stars were still bright in the sky and we continued until breakfast, around 8 a.m. Then we resumed after breakfast when we might be made to look up directly into the sun or something else. If we did something wrong or our performance had not been satisfactory then we were even made to continue after lunch. In the evenings we sometimes had to continue from 5:30 p.m. until 9:30 or sometimes even 10 p.m. In between, if our morning exercise session had been satisfactory, after lunch until dinner we had to do our wool work...People died because of the exercise - so many people were beaten severely after they did something incorrectly. They made us do all kinds of things - running, drills...everything that a regular soldier in China had to do except to learn kung fu. The soldiers at least got good food to eat but our food was very poor - and none of us were soldiers. Everyone was kicked, everyday.”
Adhe Tapontsang recalled: “When I was held at Gothok lead mines we were made to construct buildings for the prison. We had to start work at 5 a.m. and to work for four hours. Then we had a break for some food and then we were made to work for another four hours. We had to dig earth from the mountain slope. The place was a lead mine and the work was very arduous. We were all given a hammer to flatten the lead after it had been found. The work was divided so that the stronger prisoners built the new buildings that we were going to live in and the weaker prisoners were forced to work in the mines.”
Yeshi Damdul stated: “At Tsethang, there was no way to be fulfilled as there was no work and I was kept in the cell all day long. It was difficult to pass the day. For the first four months I was only allowed out of the cell when I was being interrogated. After four months I was occasionally allowed out of the cell but it was very rarely…
At Drapchi, we were taken out of the cell every day. Early in the mornings we were forced to do Chinese exercises - we had to stand up and sit down and sometimes we were forced to march. It was very hard for us. Immediately after finishing the so-called exercise we had breakfast. After breakfast we had to go to work - sometimes we had to work in the vegetable greenhouses and sometimes we had to dig up the vegetable fields or cut rocks into small pieces. We were also made to empty the prison toilets - we had to go in them and take out the faeces with buckets. It was really horrible to have to go into the overflowing toilets and scoop the faeces up with buckets. Then we had to put it in carts and take it to the fields.
The work was very difficult. When we were asked to work in the greenhouse we were all given a different section of the field that we had to work on. If we were late in completing our work on that section we were beaten and tortured. We had to do a lot of forced labour and were never paid for it. When we worked very hard to satisfy the prison authorities we were considered to be good prisoners. We had to work for about 11 hours every day including the exercise and education sessions. The exercise was very horrible and difficult for us. It was about seven or eight hours that we had to do physical labour. We had to work everyday except Sunday.”
Jampel Monlam, w