LWS/LWF in Geneva

Last, year, in a statement delivered by the Chair the Sub-Commission expressed its deep concern over the plight of the approximately 90,000 individuals in refugee camps in eastern Nepal, and others living elsewhere in Nepal and India, who had bee left in limbo for up to seven years. The Sub-Commission declared its concern over the serious human rights implications of this situation, and expressed particular concern that the on going resettlement programme in southern Bhutan, may affect some of the lands previously belonged to the refugees. Another year has passed, and the pleas of the refugee to be allowed to return to their homes in Bhutan (and the concerns of the Sub-Commission) continue to be ignored.

Last year, the Sub-Commission urged the two governments concerned to negotiate in good faith toward a peaceful solution consistent with international human rights standards. Although the governments of Nepal and Bhutan had agreed to hold substantive talks on this issue in Kathmandu in January 1999, the Bhutanese declined the invitation of the Royal Government of Nepal to set a date and an agenda for a meeting. Seven months later, the two governments have still not met to revive their moribund 'Joint, Ministerial Level Committee' talks.

Last year, being aware that the status and origin of many of the people concerned was the subject of dispute, the Sub-Commission encouraged the parties to setup an impartial verification process and to make more effective and urgent efforts to negotiate the return of the verified Bhutanese refugees. As yet no such process has been implemented and not a single one of the refugees has had his or her claims assessed impartially, or been allowed to return to Bhutan.

To assist this process, the Sub-Commission suggested last year that the governments involved should avail themselves of technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and from the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, so as to facilitate a fair and lasting resolution which takes into account the principles of international law in the areas of human rights and statelessness. As far as the authors of this statement are aware, no technical assistance has been requested or provided in relation to the specific issue of establishing an impartial verification exercise based upon accepted Principles of international human rights law.

The Sub-Commission also suggested last year that any fair and lasting solution would have to take into account representations on behalf of the displaced population. And yet, a year later, the Bhutanese refugees remain without a voice in their future, and forgotten by the international community.

The session of the Sub-Commission should act more firmly to break the silence, and, to promote real progress rather than more empty promises, towards a just and durable solution for the Bhutanese refugees.