FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICAPRIL 2010 VOLUME 59

Focus
Asia-PacificNewsletter of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center (HURIGHTS OSAKA)

March 2014 Vol. 75

Contents
From a Dark and Brutal History: Enforced
Disappearances in Timor-Leste
This is a short discussion on the current
efforts in Timor Leste to give justice to thevictims of enforced disappearances during
the period of occupation by Indonesia.
- Sisto dos Santos
Page 2
Balochistan’s Missing Persons
This is a short report on the people whohave been missing in Pakistan’s Balochistan
province.
- Kiran Nazish
Page 6Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human
Rights: The Case of Australia
This is an excerpt of the report entitled
Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human
Rights - Snapshot Report - 2013, issued by
the Australian Human Rights Commission.
It discusses the human rights issues related
to the current policies and programs of theAustralian government on asylum seekers
and refugees.
- Australian Human Rights Commission
Page 7
Human Rights in Overseas Business
Operations: The Case of Korean Companies
This is a short report on the human rights
issues involving the operations of Korean
companies in the Philippines, Burma/
Myanmar and Uzbekistan.
- Korean Transnational Corporation Watch
Page 12
Human Rights Events in the Asia-PacificThis is information on important humanrights events in the region.
Page 15

Editorial

Missing
There are likely thousands of people who went missing in someparts of Asia over the years. Families are still waiting for
information about their missing loved ones, with a weak hopethat their governments would extend help.
People suspect the involvement of state agents in most of thesecases, making the missing persons victims of enforced
disappearance.
Are the concerned governments willing to find out how thesepeople disappeared and where they are at the moment? If they
had been killed, would their bodies be found and given back totheir families? In case they are still alive, will they be able toreturn home and rejoin their families?
Are the current remedy or justice mechanisms capable ofholding accountable those responsible for the enforced
disappearances?
Is it realistic to expect the concerned governments to muster thepolitical will to formally recognize the existence of enforced
disappearances, do whatever is necessary to give justice to thevictims, and take appropriate measures to prevent theiroccurrence in the future?
Many questions exist, and answers remain elusive.

1

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75

From a Dark and Brutal History: Enforced Disappearances in Timor-Leste
Sisto dos Santos

T

imor-Leste has a dark andbrutal history. After four
hundred and fifty years ofPortuguese colonization and theJapanese military invasion
during World War II, TimorLeste achieved just eleven daysof unilaterally declared
independence before it wasinvaded by Indonesia on 7
December 1975. This came to
be
known
to,
and
c o m m e m o r a t e d b y, m o s t
Timorese as “Invasion Day.”
During the occupation period
from 1975 until its brutal end in
1999, between 186,000 and
250,000 people were killed orwent missing caused by thehuman rights violationscommitted or ordered by theIndonesian military. The fate ofanother eight hundred fiftythree people is still unknown.
The circumstances ofdisappearances include thefollowing:• The Indonesian militaryforcibly took people who,
until now, have neverreturned;• The Indonesian militaryforcibly moved the
population and people
disappeared in the process;• The Indonesian militarycaptured and detained
people who were neverreleased.

These actions were most often
associated with massacres suchas the 1983 massacre in Craras
village, now referred to as the“widows village,” and the 1991
Santa Cruz massacre. In
addition, as many as fourthousand five hundred children
aged between eight
andfourteen years were abductedby the Indonesian military andbrought to Indonesia as part of
Tenaga Bantuan Operasi, alabor support operation. Manyof these children—their
whereabouts unknown andlinks to their families severed—remain in Indonesia to this day.
While no new cases of enforced
disappearance occur recently,
the impacts of the past cases arestill very much part of many
peoples’ everyday realities.
Hence, the families of thedisappeared, most of whom
remain in the dark about thewhereabouts of their loved
ones, continue to cry out fortruth and justice and seek
information about theirdisappeared relatives.
Oftentimes, the families struggle
to meet their basic necessities;
and for most, each day is a newfight for survival. This situation
further aggravates theiroppression and suffering.
Socially, they have lost an
important connection with their
loved ones that makes them feelthat their lives are empty. Thisaffects their cultural identity

2

because when Timorese people
lose a person in their family,
they lose a part of their socialand cultural history. Without
confirmation of their loved
one’s whereabouts, families areunable to say goodbye and holdcandlelight remembrance
ceremonies – acts which areessential in their grieving
process. This prevents themissing person’s presence or
spirit from moving on andleaves the victims’ families in akind of limbo with this shadow
over their lives and homes.
Many relatives of thedisappeared are left in despair
not knowing if justice would
ever be achieved.
Attempts at Finding JusticeIn the aftermath ofindependence, the government
established several mechanisms
in a bid to understand andaddress the violations andsuffering of the people. In 2002,
the Commission for Reception,
Truth, and Reconciliation( CAV R – C o m i s s ã o d e
A c o l h i m e n t o , Ve r d a d e e
Reconciliação de Timor-Leste)
was created to uncover thetruth. During its three years ofoperation, CAVR interviewed
more than ten thousand people
including victims, combatants,
and witnesses of the conflictand human rights violations.
This process created a strong
expectation that justice would

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
be achieved—i.e., theperpetrators would be held
accountable and the victims
would regain their dignity. As aresult, the victims demonstrated
enthusiasm and enormouscourage in sharing their stories
with the public, regardless ofthe circumstance of the crime.
The 2005 CAVR report was astep forward with many positive
recommendations, including
one particularly relating to themissing children. The CAVR
recommended that Indonesia
a n d Ti m o r - L e s t e s h o u l dcontinue to uphold theMemorandum of Understanding(MOU) signed in December
2004. Facilitated by the United
Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), the MOU
guarantees children’s right tofreely access information about
their families in order for thechildren to determine their
future without any intimidation.
According to the MOU, bothcountries must help vulnerable
people living in rural areas andchildren who were separated
from their families and who are
now likely in their adulthood,find information as to thewhereabouts of each other, andgive assistance to reunite them.
In 2003, the United Nations(UN) Special Panel for Serious
Crimes issued an indictment
against retired General Wiranto.
The Timorese considered theindictment a particularly
significant moment because
then General Wiranto was thet o p I n d o n e s i a n o f fi c i a l
responsible for security before
and after the popular
consultation referendum wash e l d i n 1 9 9 9 . H o w e v e r,
because of formal procedures
and a lack of political will from

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
the governments of Timor-Lesteand Indonesia as well as the
UN Security Council, Wiranto
was never arrested and thisindictment was never pursued.
Without UN’s political will andan effective mechanism inTimor-Leste to address crimesa g a i n s t h u m a n i t y, a nenvironment of impunity
persists in Timor-Leste andIndonesia.
S h o r t l y a f t e r, I n d o n e s i aestablished the almost farcical
Ad Hoc Human Rights Tribunal
for Timor-Leste, which proved tobe little more than a thinlyveiled attempt by Indonesia todemonstrate to the international
community that it was serious
in addressing human rights
violations. In 2005, theGovernments of Indonesia andTi m o r- L e s t e c r e a t e d t h eCommission of Truth andFriendship (CTF). The CTF,
however, focused more on
establishing good relations
between the two countries
rather than prioritizing
accountability. Therefore, while
recognizing the existence of
these human rights violations,its failure to identify theperpetrators once again denied
justice to the victims. The final
reports of both CAVR and CTF,
which were handed to the
N a t i o n a l Pa r l i a m e n t ,recommended the need togather information about thewhereabouts of thedisappeared. Since then,minimal concrete action has
been taken to implement thesereports’ recommendations. Theni n 2 0 0 9 , Ti m o r - L e s t e ’s
Provedoria dos Direitos
Humanos e Justiça (PDHJ –Ombudsman for Human Rights
and Justice) and Indonesia’s
Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi

3

Manusia (Komnas HAM –National Commission on
Human Rights) signed another
MOU on the issue of enforced
disappearances and the security
along the border between Eastand West Timor. Without serious
follow-up, the MOU expired.
The presidential andparliamentary elections of 2012
once again brought new hopefor justice to the victims andtheir families—a hope that
finally an end to their longstanding pain and suffering was
possible. During his election
campaign for the presidency,
Taur Matan Ruak often referredto the lamentation of thewidows and orphans as his
reason for running for the
public office and declared that
he wanted to play his part inputting an end to their tears. It
was this connection to thepeople that led to his election
as the fifth President of the
Democratic Republic of TimorLeste.
As President, Taur Matan Ruak
holds substantial power to pushforward the legislative process
to dignify the victims; but thiswill not be an easy process.
Po l i t i c s a n d g o v e r n m e n tmachinery present considerable
impediments to real progress.
The open criticism of theveterans’ pension scheme by
the President, a former veteranand head of the National
Defence Force (FFDTL), wasviewed as a positive sign. Thispension scheme has resulted insocial injustice and inequality,
especially for human rights
crime victims who similarly
sacrificed for the freedom ofTimor-Leste.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
However, his criticism on theattitude of greed and hunger formoney among veterans was aclear signal that human rights
organizations must emphasizein their advocacy that thevictims’ reparation was aboutg i v i n g d i g n i t y, n o t m e r efinancial compensation to thevictims, with the hope of
improving their situation.
After more than six months,
hope began to wane. Little
tangible action had been taken
to change or improve thesituation of the victims. Theirremaining hopes rest on a set ofdraft laws outlining theestablishment of a Memorial
Institute and a reparation
system. While generally
accepted by the members of the
Parliament, it has not yet
undergone the detailed articleby-article deliberation required
before enactment.
Supporting the Victims andtheir Families
In order for decision-makers
and the public not to forget
these horrific crimes and forthese crimes never to berepeated, it is important thatvictims and families form aunified voice in advocating forjustice. The HAK Association or
HAK (Hukum Hak Asasi dan
Keadilan – Law, Human Rights
and Justice) has been organizing
the victims of all past crimes
since 2001 toward this end.
In 2009, together with theInternational Center forTransitional Justice (ICTJ), the
HAK held a national congress ofvictims. The congress
established the National
Association of Victims with subassociations in every district of

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
Timor-Leste. The National
Association of Victims aims to
support victims in theiradvocacy efforts and help meettheir everyday needs.
One success story is that of
Eliza dos Santos from Liquiça,
whose husband is still missing.
For Eliza, every day was astruggle during the time when
the HAK first met her. Now, she
serves as coordinator of the
National Association of Victims
in her district and leads inorganizing public discussions
and memorials, and in lobbying
the parliament and religious
leaders.
The HAK has been holding
various activities to support thevictims: discussions withaffectedfamilies,
commemoration of themassacre days, filing petitions
to the government, issuingstatements, and organizing
demonstrations to make thevoices of the families heard. The
HAK has also been working to
identify vulnerable victims. The
HAK and other partners havebeen organizing the victims,
building their skills, seeking
educational opportunities, andestablishing livelihood projects
such as sewing, selling of local
products, and other enterprises.
Commemoration days provide
an important opportunity forfamilies to remember their
loved ones and preserve theirmemories though their deaths
have not been confirmed yet. In
2012, the HAK organized thevictims and the families tocommemorate the following
massacre days, during which
many people disappeared andwere never found: the MarabiaDili massacre of 1980—a4

tragedy which resulted inseventy-two disappearances;
Craras-Viqueque massacre of
1983; Maliana massacre ofAugust 1999; Tumin-Oecusse
massacre of August 1999; Santa
Cruz massacre of November
1991; Oedaberek-Manufahi
massacre of 1975; and, Invasion
Day massacre on 7 December
1975.
The HAK, together with otherpartner organizations, has been
documenting cases of enforced
disappearances with the aim of
producing the story of thedisappearances told from theperspective of the victims andtheir families. The informationcollection, including details
about the families of thedisappeared, also aims todetermine the level ofinvolvement of state authorities
in the disappearance cases. To
date, the HAK has collected
information on ninety-two
disappeared persons from sevenmassacre sites, including
Marabia-Dili, Liquica Church,
Ainaro, Craras in Viqueque,Mehara in Lautem, Polres
Maliana in Bobonaro and Aileu.
Th e s e a dvo c a cy a c t iv it ie scontribute to increased
community enthusiasm andawareness on the need anddifficulties in seeking the returnof the disappeared. They areimportant in pressing theParliament on the enactment ofa law on the proposed
Memorial Institute that would
oblige the State to find out thewhereabouts of those who
disappeared during theIndonesian occupation. Suchlaw would make the State
responsible for the fulfillment of
the victims’ right to reparationand the investigation of theFOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
cases to determine how thedisappearances occurred andwho were the perpetrators.
The HAK and its partners
continue to pressure politicalleaders to pay attention to thevictims and to finalize thereport of the CAVR. From 2008
to 2009, the HAK was part ofthe steering committee thatdrafted the legislative bills on
the Memorial Institute andvictim reparations. The HAK,
with its partners, continue tolobby the Members of
Parliament, as well as officers ofpolitical parties and veterans, toensure their understanding of
the importance of the pendingb i l l s . Th e H A K h a s a l s oapproached religious leaders,
particularly Catholic church
bishops, in an effort toencourage them to work
towards convincing Members of
Parliament, the Government,
and Prime Minister Xanana
Gusmao, to prioritize anda p p r o v e t h e s e l e g i s l a t iv e
proposals.
A supportive statement from theGeneral Commander of the
National Defence Force (FFDTL) issued on 25 June 2012provided indication of a slightshift in key political support.
H ow e ve r, g ive n t h einternational nature of the issue,
justice will remain elusivedespite action at the domestic
level without bilateral
cooperation and political will.
The HAK and its partners inIndonesia, particularly ICTJJakarta, Ikatan Keluarga Orang
Hilang Indonesia (Indonesian
Association of Families of theDisappeared [IKOHI]), andCommission for the
Disappeared Victims of

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
Violence (KontraS), have beenworking together to lobby andpressure the Indonesian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
uphold the MOU between the
PDHJ and Komnas HAM in
addressing border security andenforced disappearances.
Upon the invitation of thegovernment, Chair-Rapporteur
Jeremy Sarkin and member
Jasminka Dzumhur of theUnited Nations Working Groupon Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances (UN WGEID)
visited Timor-Leste from 7 to 14
Ju n e 2 0 1 1 t o r e v i e w t h e
g o v e r n m e n t ’s a c t i o n i naddressing enforced
disappearances and thecollection of data needed toclarify the outstanding cases in
the country. The UN WGEID
team met various government
officials including the thenPresident José Ramos-Horta.
The visit report recommended
the enactment of the proposedlaw on a “framework for thenational reparations programme
and the draft bill establishing
the public Memory Institute”
andreiterated
theimplementation of the CAVR
recommendations.1
Th e H A K , t o g e t h e r w i t hmembers of The Timor-Leste
National Alliance for an
International Tribunal or ANTI,d e l ive r e d a l e t t e r t o H i s
Excellency Ban Ki- Moon,
United Nations SecretaryGeneral during his Timor-Leste
visit in August 2012. The lettercontained a specific appeal
related to achieving justice forpast crimes and bringing toaccount the perpetrators, who
until now, have not faced any
credible legal process thatwould bring justice for victims
in Timor-Leste.
Importantly, from this work on
past crimes, the HAK has beenable to forge three additional
civil society partnerships with
the Judicial System Monitoring
Programme (JSMP), Lao
Hamutuk, and ACbit inaddressing the problem of
enforced disappearance. Given
the linkage with theseorganizations, the strength ofcivil society’s collective voice isincreased and the possibility of
progress is made more tangible.
The HAK was optimistic that thelaw on the Memorial Institutewould be enacted in 2013. But
the bill is still pending at theParliament till the first quarter of
2 0 1 4 . Th e s t a n c e o f t h eParliament has always been
more in favor of the veteransrather than the victims. Now
that the law on veterans’
pensions has been passed, it istime that victims’ needs are
addressed. The passage of draft
law on the Memorial Institutewill present a new opportunity
to genuinely pursue the issue of
enforced disappearances, while
getting reparations for thevictims may take a while longer.
Sisto dos Santos is the Advocacy
Coordinator of HAK Association(Hukum, Hak Asasi dan
Keadilan – Law, Human Rights
and Justice) or HAK, a memberorganization of the AsianFederation Against Involuntary
Disappearances (AFAD).

(Continued on page 14)

5

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICMARCH 2014 VOLUME 75

Balochistan’s Missing Persons*
Kiran Nazish

In Balochistan, a resource-richp r o v i n c e o f Pa k i s t a n ,thousands of innocent civilians,
suspected militants and activists
are missing. Locals say the
missing individuals have been
abducted by Pakistan’s military
and associated forces as a way
to suppress and subjugate theB a l o c h p e o p l e . Th e r e i sdisagreement on the actual
number of missing persons. An
association for peaceful protest
formed by some of the familiesof those missing, called theInternational Voice for Baloch
Missing Persons (IVBMP), saysthat up to eighteen thousand
Baloch are currently
unaccounted for, of whom morethan two thousand were killed
between 2001 to 2013. That
figure is much higher than datafrom other non-governmentalorganizations and human rights
organizations, but the IVBMP
says it will be publishing detailsof all its data early next year.
In October 2013, in an effort todraw international attention to
the humanitarian crisis, the
IVBMP began a long marchfrom Quetta to Islamabad.
About twenty families of
persons believed abducted andkilled by the Pakistan military,
mostly women, are taking part.
Unfortunately, the march hasreceived scant coverage frommedia, either within Pakistan orinternationally.
The Diplomat has spoken todozens of victims andinterviewed IVBMP members

during their march near Quetta
and Karachi.
IVBMP was formed to speak out
about missing sons andbrothers, urging the media andgovernment to investigate. It has
coordinators in every district inBalochistan, who report andrecord every abduction, tortureand murder. They then send thedata to human rights groups,
media and the United Nations.
Although the abductions started
in the 1970s, Mama Qadeer
Baloch says, “Things got worse
in 2001, when General Pervez
Musharraf came to power. He
started a much [...] speedier
policy against Baloch activists
and also martyred a respected
and beloved Baloch leader,
Nawab Akbar Bugti.” Qadeer
says that abductions, hatred andpolitical murders all increasedaround this time.
Later, under then President Asif
Ali Zardari, bloodied, mutilatedbodies were dumped indifferent parts of Balochistan,
claims Qadeer.
He recalls that during Zardari’sterm, then Interior Minister
Rehman Malik visited
Balochistan and warned of acrackdown. Qadeer continues,“Frontier Corps (FC) uniformed
men, come, pick up our sons.
And the ISI [Inter-Services
Intelligence] and MI [MilitaryIntelligence] also come in civil
clothing, raid our homes, pickup our boys from colleges,schools and neighbourhood.

6

Whenever they fear ourstudents will fight back, theybring in the FC’s uniformed
forces to control the situation.
They have treated our educated
lot the most horribly. This
includes doctors, thinkers,
lawyers, professors, andespecially journalists.”
Qadeer’s son, Jaleel Reki
Baloch, 23 was killed three
years after he was taken. He
was abducted from the front
door of his home in Quetta, on
1 3 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 0 9 , a f t e r
returning from Friday prayerswith friends. Eyewitnesses told
The Diplomat that there werefour unmarked cars with two FC
pickup trucks. Nearby
shopkeepers, Reki’s friends,
cobblers, vegetable vendors andother people in theneighborhood all witnessed theabduction, which they claim
was done by the ISI. Reki was ap o l i t i c a l a c t iv i s t wo r k i n g
towards a Baloch movement forliberation. His abduction andkilling present an example tomany other Baloch activists,
and many locals say that they
asked their sons to leave such
political groups when they saw
his mutilated corpse returnhome three years later.
Reki’s body was riddled withbullets. Holes had been drilled
into his bones and joints. Burnmarks were strewn across hisback. Eyewitnesses accused the
ISI, as did the then chief(Continued on page 14)

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICMARCH 2014 VOLUME 75

Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights:
The Case of Australia
Australian Human Rights Commission*For over twenty years
successive Australian
governments have adopted
various policies aimed atdeterring asylum seekers fromarriving by boat. During thisperiod mandatory immigration
detention and offshore
processing have been key
policies in attempts to reduce
the number of boat arrivals.
A u s t r a l i a ’s m a n d a t o r yimmigration detention system
wa s i n t r o d u c e d i n 1 9 9 2 .
Amendments to the Migration
Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act)in 1992 required the detentionof certain ‘designated persons’and prevented any judicial
review of detention.1 These
amendments did, however,impose a two hundred seventythree day time limit on
immigration detention.2
In 1994 the mandatory
detention regime was expanded
to apply to all non-citizens inAustralia without a valid visa,
and the two hundred seventythree day time limit wasremoved.3 At this time a system
of bridging visas was introduced
to allow persons to be released
from immigration detention incertain circumstances.4
The next major change inAustralia’s policies regarding
asylum seekers occurred in
2 0 0 1 , p r o m p t e d by wh a t
became known as the ‘Tampa
crisis’.5 In September 2001 theAustralian Government
introduced a suite of legislative
measures known as the ‘Pacific
Solution’.6 Under this policy,
asylum seekers who arrived byboat were transferred tooffshore processing centers on
Nauru and Manus Island in
Papua New Guinea (PNG)
where they were detained while
their asylum claims were
processed.
In 2008 the Pacific Solution was
dismantled by the AustralianGovernment and the remaining
asylum seekers detained on
Nauru were resettled inAustralia.
In September 2012 theAustralian Government
reinstated third country
processing for asylum seekers
who arrive unauthorized byboat after 13 August 2012. This
followed the release of thereport of the Expert Panel on
Asylum Seekers, which
recommended the recommencement of regional
processing as part of a packageof measures to deter asylum
seekers from making boat
journeys to Australia.7 After
designating Nauru and PNG as‘regional processing countries’,8in September 2012 theAustralian Government begantransferring asylum seekers to
Nauru, and in November 2012
to Manus Island.

7

On 19 July 2013 the AustralianGovernment announced aRegional Settlement
Arrangement (RSA) with theGovernment of PNG.9 Under
the RSA asylum seekers arriving
unauthorized by boat after 19
July 2013 will be transferred to
PNG for processing andresettlement (if found to be
refugees). If found not to be
refugees they will be returned totheir country of origin or acountry where they have a rightof residence.
On 3 August 2013 theAustralian Government also
signed a new Memorandum ofUnderstanding with Nauru
which provides that the
Nauruan Government will
enable individuals whom it hasdetermined are in need ofinternational protection to settle
in Nauru, ‘subject to agreementb e t w e e n Pa r t i c i p a n t s o narrangements and numbers’.10
Global and Domestic Context
In 2012, 17,202 people arrived
by boat to Australia.11 From
January 2013 to 30 June 2013 afurther 13,108 people arrived.12
Despite the recent increase inboat arrivals, Australia still
receives very small numbers ofasylum seekers, by international
standards.
As at 31 December 2012, there
were 45.2 million people in

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
the world who had been
forcibly displaced from theirhomes as a result of
persecution, conflict,g e n e ra l i z e d v i o l e n c e a n dhuman rights violations – thehighest number in eighteen
ye a r s .13 D u r i n g 2 0 1 2 a naverage of 23,000 people per
day were forced to abandon
their homes due to conflict andpersecution.14
The United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) has reported that at
the end of 2012 globally there
were 15.4 million refugees.15
The escalating crisis in Syria
was one of the key drivers of theincrease in the refugee
population in 2012. Last year
the conflict in Syria forced
647,000 people to seek refuge
in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon,
Turkey and other countries in
the region.16
In 2012 Australia received
15,963 applications for asylum,17
which constituted 2.2 percent of
the total number of applications
for asylum submitted
worldwide.18 The number of
persons seeking asylum in 2012
equated to less than 7 percent
of Australia’s immigration
intake,19 and 4 percent of theoverall growth in Australia’s
population in that year.20
In 2012 the majority of thepeople who arrived by boat inAustralia and lodged asylum
applications were fromAfghanistan. 21 The top fivesource countries for asylum
seekers who arrived by boat andmade asylum applications are
Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iran,Pakistan and Iraq.

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
Mandatory Immigration
Detention
It is mandatory under the
Migration Act for every noncitizen who is in Australia
without a valid visa to bedetained, regardless of his or
her individual circumstances.22
Once detained, unlawful noncitizens must remain in
detention until they are either
granted a visa or removed from
Australia.23
The majority of unlawful noncitizens are detained in closed
immigration detention facilities.
Of the 9,375 people inimmigration detention on 5
September 2013, 6,579 (or 70
percent) of these people were
held in secure immigration
detention facilities. 24 The
remaining 2,796 were incommunity detention.25
Of the people being held in
closed immigration detention
facilities in Australia as at 31
August 2013:• 6,136 people (75 percent)had been detained for threemonths or less
• 1,881 people (23 percent)had been detained between
three and twelve months• 189 people (2 percent) had
been detained for longer
than one year.26
As at 13 September 2013 therew e r e t w e n t y - fi v e s e c u r eimmigration detention facilities
operating in Australia, including
four on Christmas Island.27 A
map produced by the
Department showing thelocation of all these facilities is
at Appendix 3 of the full versionof the report.28

8

Th e r e a r e f o u r d i f f e r e n t
categories used to classify
immigration detention facilities:• Immigration Detention
Centre (IDC): high security
detention facility• Immigration Residential
Housing (IRH): secure
detention in a domestic
environment•I m m i g r a t i o n Tr a n s i t
A c c o m m o d a t i o n ( I TA ) :closed detention facility
which has less intrusive
security measures than an
IDC•A l t e r n a t i v e P l a c e o f
Detention (APOD): placedesignated by the
Department for detaining
unlawful non-citizens who
are assessed as posing
minimal risk to theAustralian community.
Human Rights Issues
The Commission has raised
concerns over many years thatthe system of mandatory
detention leads to breaches ofAustralia’s international humanrights obligations. For instance,
Australia has binding
obligations under article 9(1) of
the International Covenant on
C iv i l a n d Po l i t i c a l R i g h t s(ICCPR)29 and article 37(b) of
the Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC)30 to ensure thatno one is subjected to arbitrary
detention.
The Commission’s concerns
about Australia’s system of
mandatory detention are sharedinternationally.31 The United
Nations (UN) Human Rights
Committee has repeatedly
found Australia to be in breachFOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
of its international obligations
under article 9(1) of the ICCPR.32
According to the UN Human
Rights Committee, theprohibition on arbitrary
detention includes detention
which, although lawful underdomestic law, is unjust or
disproportionate.33 Therefore, inorder for the detention of aperson not to be arbitrary, it
must be a reasonable andnecessary measure in all thecircumstances.34
Under Australia’s system of
mandatory detention, thedetention of an unlawful noncitizen is not based on an
individual assessment that theparticular person needs to bedetained. Persons who aredetained cannot seek judicial
review of whether or not theirdetention is necessary. Under
the Migration Act there is notime limit on how long a person
can be detained.
These aspects of Australia’s
immigration detention regime
can result in people being
subjected to prolonged andindefinite detention, in breachof Australia’s international
obligations.
The Commission has repeatedly
raised concerns about thesignificant human impacts ofmandatory immigration
detention, including thedeterioration of the mental
health of detainees.
The Commission has longrecommended that, instead ofrequiring the mandatory
immigration detention of broadgroups of people, a person
should only be detained if it isshown to be necessary in theirindividual case. Further, time

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
limits for detention and accessto judicial oversight ofdetention should be introduced
to ensure that if a person isdetained, they are not detained
for any longer than is necessary.
A further concern is that theconditions for and treatment ofpeople in immigration detention
must comply with Australia’sinternational human rights
obligations. Key among these is
the obligation under article 10of the ICCPR to ensure that all
persons who are detained aretreated with humanity andrespect for their inherent
dignity. Guidelines for the
implementation of thisobligation and other humanrights standards are containedin the Commission’s publication
Human rights standards for
immigration detention.35
The Commission has conducted
several visits to immigration
detention centers to monitor
conditions of detention.36 The
Commission has raised
concerns about the conditions
i n m a n y o f A u s t r a l i a ’s
immigration detention facilities
and has found that many are
not appropriate places in which
to hold people, especially for
prolonged periods of time.
Australia’s mandatory detention
system has also attracted
criticism due to its cost. In
2011–2012 immigration
detention cost the Australian
taxpayers 1.235 billion
Australian dollars.37 It has alsob e e n q u e s t i o n e d wh e t h e r
mandatory detention effectively
deters people from seeking
asylum.38

9Concluding Note
President of the Commission
Professor Gillian Triggs states:39
Australia has resettled around
800,000 refugees sinceWorld War II, building one of
the world’s most successful
multicultural societies. Today,
Australia continues to have agenerous resettlement
programme and, along with
the United States andCanada, has ranked
consistently among theworld’s top three resettlement
countries.
While we have seen asignificant increase in asylum
seekers seeking protection inAustralia in recent times,
Australia’s share of asylum
applications remains a verysmall fraction of the global
total (about 2.2%). I urge theAustralian Government toensure that all asylum
seekers and refugees aretreated humanely regardlessof their mode of arrival, andto continue to uphold ourproud history of providing
protection to some of theworld’s most persecuted andvulnerable people.

For further information, pleasecontact: The Australian Human
Rights Commission, Level 3, 175
Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Australia, GPO Box 5218,
Sydney NSW 2001 Australia; ph(61-2) 9284 9600; e-mail:communications@humanrights.g
ov.au; www.humanrights.gov.au.
* This article is a slightly edited
excerpt from the report entitled
Asylum Seekers, Refugees andHuman Rights: Snapshot ReportFOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
2013, issued by the Australian
Human Rights Commission. The
full report can be downloadedat www.humanrights.gov.au/
publications/asylum-seekersrefugees-and-human-rightssnapshot-report.

Endnotes
1 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s
183.
2 See Migration Amendment Act
1992 (Cth), s 3, which inserted(then) s 54Q(2)(b) into the
Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
3 See Migration Reform Act
1992 (Cth), s 13. Note that s 2of the Migration Laws
Amendment Act 1993 (Cth)deferred the commencementof certain amendments
contained in the Migration
Reform Act 1992 (Cth) until 1
September 1994.
4 See Migration Reform Act
1992 (Cth), s 10.
5 For a description of the Tampa
crisis see, for example, M.
Crock, B. Saul and A. Dastyari,
Future Seekers II: Refugees
and Irregular Migration inAustralia (2006), pages
113-117.
6 See Migration Amendment(Excision from Migration
Zone) Act 2001 (Cth) and
Migration Amendment(Excision from Migration
Zone) (Consequential
Provisions) Act 2001 (Cth).
7 A. Houston, P. Aristotle and M.
L’Estrange, Report of the Expert
Panel on Asylum Seekers,
Australian Government (2012).
At
http://
expertpanelonasylumseekers.d
pmc.gov.au/report (viewed 1
October 2013).
8 Under the Migration Act
certain documents must be
tabled with the designations of'regional processing
countries’. Copies of the

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
designation documents tabledby the Minister are available
on the Commission’s website
at www.humanrights.gov.au/transfer-asylum-seekers-thirdcountries.
9 Regional Resettlement
Arrangement between
Australia and Papua New
Guinea (19 July 2013). Atw w w. r e f w o r l d . o r g / d o c i d /51f61a504.html (viewed 1
October 2013). See also
Memorandumof
Understanding between the
Government of the
Independent State of Papua
New Guinea and theGovernment of Australia,
relating to the transfer to, andassessment and settlement in,
Papua New Guinea of certain
persons, and related issues (6August2013).
Atwww.dfat.gov.au/geo/png/
joint-mou-20130806.html(viewed 1 October 2013).
10 M e m o r a n d u mofUnderstanding between the
Republic of Nauru and theCommonwealth of Australia,
relating to the transfer to andassessment of persons in
Nauru, and related issues (3August2013).
Atw w w. d f a t . g o v. a u / i s s u e s /people-smuggling-mou.html(viewed 1 October 2013).
11 See J. Phillips and H. Spinks,
Boat arrivals in Australia since
1976, Parliamentary Library
Research Paper (updated 23
July 2013), Appendix A. At
w w w. a p h . g o v. a u /about_parliament/
parliamentary_departments/
parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/
2012-2013/boatarrivals(viewed 1 October 2013).
12 See Phillips and Spinks,
above.
13 U n i t e d N a t i o n s H i g hCommissioner for Refugees(UNHCR), UNHCR Global
trends 2012, Displacement:
Th e N e w 2 1 s t C e n t u r y
Challenge (19 June 2013),

10

page 3. At http://unhcr.org/
globaltrendsjune2013/(viewed 1 October 2013).
14 UNHCR, above, page 5.
15 UNHCR, above, page 3.
16 UNHCR, above, page 14.
17 Department of Immigration
and Citizenship, Asylum
statistics – Australia, Quarterly
tables – March Quarter 2013(2013), page 1. Atw w w. i m m i . g ov. a u / m e d i a /publications/statistics/asylum/(viewed 1 October 2013).
18 UNHCR, UNHCR Global
trends 2012, note 14, page 3.
19 Australian Bureau of Statistics,
3101.0 – Australian
Demographic Statistics, Dec
2012. At www.abs.gov.au/
AU S S TAT S / a b s @ . n s f /allprimarymainfeatures/
7B8C452A1CDFAB9FCA257B
F100136758?opendocument(viewed 1 October 2013).
20 Australian Bureau of Statistics,
above.
21 Department of Immigration
and Citizenship, Asylum
statistics – Australia, note 17,
page 10.
22 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s
189.
23 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s
196.
24 Department of Immigration
and Citizenship, Response to
the Australian Human Rights
Commission’s (AHRC) 13
August 2013 request for
information concerning
detention and asylum seekers,
provided by email to theCommission on 16 September
2013 (DIAC response), page 5.
25 F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o ncommunity detention, seesection 2.5 of the full report(available
atwww.humanrights.gov.au/
publications/asylum-seekersrefugees-and-human-rightssnapshot-report/2-onshoredetention-and).
26 Department of Immigration
and Citizenship response, note
24, page 5.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
27 See Appendix 3 of the report(available
atwww.humanrights.gov.au/
publications/asylum-seekersrefugees-and-human-rightssnapshot-report/appendix-3australia-s).
28 The map is also available on
the Department’s website atwww.immi.gov.au/managingaustralias-borders/detention/
facilities/ (viewed 1 October2013).
29 International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, 1966,(ICCPR).
At
www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1980/23.html(viewed 1 October 2013).
30 Convention on the Rights of
the Child, 1989, (CRC). At
www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1991/4.html(viewed 1 October 2013).
31 See, for example, Human
Rights Council, Report of the
Wo r k i n g G r o u p o n t h e
Universal Periodic Review:
Australia, UN Doc A/HRC/
WG.6/10/L. 8 (2011), paras
28, 42, 49, 78, 86.123,
86.127, 86.131 and 86.132.
A t w w w. o h c h r. o r g / E N /H R B o d i e s / U P R / PAG E S /AUSession10.aspx (viewed 1
October 2013); Committee on
the Rights of the Child,
Concluding observations:
Australia, UN Doc CRC/C/
AU S / C O / 4 ( 2 0 1 2 ) , p a ra s
80-81. At www2.ohchr.org/
english/bodies/crc/docs/co/
CRC_C_AUS_CO_4.pdf(viewed 1 October 2013).
32 S e e t h e H u m a n R i g h t sCommittee’s comments in A v
Australia, Communication No.
560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/
59/D/560/1993 (1997), para
9 . 4 . A t w w w. u n h c r. o r g /r e f w o r l d / d o c i d /3ae6b71a0.html (viewed 1
October 2013); C v Australia,
Communication No.
900/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/
76/D/900/1999 (2002) para
8.2. At www.refworld.org/

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
docid/3f588ef00.html (viewed
1 October 2013); Shams et alv Australia, CommunicationNos.
1255,1256,1259,1260,1266,1
268,1270,1288/2004, UN
Doc
CCPR/C/90/D/
1255,1256,1259,1260,1266,1
268,1270&1288/2004 (2007),
para 7.2. At www.ag.gov.au/
RightsAndProtections/
H u m a n R i g h t s /DisabilityStandards/
D o c u m e n t s /ShamsetalvAustraliaViewsof1192007.pdf (viewed
1 October 2013).
33 Human Rights Committee, A v
Australia, above, para 9.2;
Human Rights Committee, Van
Alphen v Netherlands,
Communication No.
305/1988, UN Doc CCPR/C/
39/D/305/1988 (1990), para
5.8. At www1.umn.edu/
humanrts/undocs/
session39/305-1988.html(viewed 1 October 2013).
34 Human Rights Committee, Van
Alphen v Netherlands, above,para 5.8.
35 A v a i l a b l e
atwww.humanrights.gov.au/
publications/human-rightsstandards-immigrationdetention (viewed 1 October2013).
36 The Commission’s immigration
detention reports are available
on the Commission’s website
at www.humanrights.gov.au/
immigration-detention-reportsand-photos (viewed 1 October2013).
37 Australian National Audit
O f fi c e ,Individual
Management Services
P r ov i d e d t o Pe o p l e i n
Immigration Detention, Report
No 21 (2013), page 12. Atw w w. a n a o . g o v. a u /Publications/Audit-Reports/
2012-2013/IndividualManagement-ServicesP r ov i d e d - t o - Pe o p l e - i n Immigration-Detention(viewed 1 October 2013).

11

38 See A. Edwards, Back to
Basics: The Right to Liberty
and Security of Person and‘Alternatives to Detention’ of
Refugees, Asylum-Seekers,
Stateless Persons and Other
Migrants, UNHCR Legal andProtection Policy Research
Series (2011), page 1. Atw w w. r e f w o r l d . o r g / d o c i d /4dc935fd2.html (viewed 1
October 2013).
39 Gillian Triggs, Executive
Summary to the report,
available
atwww.humanrights.gov.au/
publications/asylum-seekersrefugees-and-human-rightssnapshot-report.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICMARCH 2014 VOLUME 75

Human Rights in Overseas Business Operations:
The Case of Korean Companies
Korean Transnational Corporation WatchT

he Korean Transnational
Corporation Watch (KTNC
Watch) undertook a field
investigation in 2013 regarding
human rights and the operationsof Korean companies in several
countries. Its research teams
visited a number of local sites
a n d i n t e r v i e w e d wo r k e r s ,Korean company officials,
residents in the areas
surrounding the company
premises, and government
officials in the Philippines,
Myanmar and Uzbekistan.

construction company
established business in February
2006, and currently employs
thousands of workers.

Philippines

This situation has affected theworkers’ effort to organize alabor union within thecompany. The workers of thisshipbuilding company havebeen trying to form a labor
union since 2007. Their leaders,
however, were either fired ortransferred by the company assoon as they undertook the
initial labor union activities. The
company explains that theyw e r e fi r e d b e c a u s e o finvolvement in robbery or theft,or negligence of duty. However,
the workers claim that they
were fired or transferred by thec ompa ny t o s u p p r e s s t h eformation of a labor union.

Korean companies have been
doing business in thePhilippines since the 1960s. At
present, a large number of
Korean companies are indiverse areas of business in thePhilippines involving
manufacturing, construction,and shipbuilding industries.
Korean investment is the second
largest foreign direct investmentin the Philippines, while Korean
companies play a major part in
the Philippine business
community with many of thembelonging to the one thousandbiggest firms in the country.
The field investigation in thePhilippines covered Korean
company operations in special
economic zones (EPZs). Of thetwo EPZs visited, one was the
Subic Bay Freeport Zone wherea big Korean shipping andWo r k e r s i n t h i s Ko r e a ncompany complain of lack of
security of tenure in theiremployment. According toworkers interviewed, thecompany would register themas workers of subcontractors, ordismiss and re-hire them toprevent them from becoming
regular employees under thePhilippine labor law.

The workers also complain
about accidents in theworkplace. They complain ofl a c k o f s u f fi c i e n t s a f e t ymeasures to protect workers
from such accidents.

12Interview of officials of the local
government and the Tripartite
Body 1 (a government-laborbusiness body that works“under a social pact for theenhancement and preservationof industrial peace in the
ECOZONE”) of the Subic Bay
Freeport Zone confirms thecurrent issues regarding labor
relations and occupationalsafety in the company. In
particular, they acknowledge
that the issues of having
subcontractors and nonrecognition of the employees asregular workers have beenraised in a number of occasions
already. Regarding occupationalsafety, they say that the local
government occasionally
requested the company toobserve the local labor
regulations and laws. However,
Korean companies tended to
discuss issues with the central
government agencies directly
and not with the local
authorities.
Myanmar
Nearly fifty Korean companies,
mostly in the garment industry,
operate in Myanmar. As aconsequence of the economic
reform and liberalization in the
country that included theenactment of the 2011 Labour
Organization Law (the law tookeffect in 2012 and recognized
freedom of association),2
conflicts between labor andFOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
management have increased in
Korean companies since 2012.3
The research team, with thehelp of a Myanmarese labor
non-governmental organization,interviewed eight workers fromfive Korean companies. The
workers provided the following
information:a) Low wages - the wages ofgarment workers are low
compared to the hours
worked; working overtime isde facto structurally forced;
and allowance foraccommodation does notreach the minimum amountfor living expenses.
b) Long working hours - since
the workers are paid so low,
they have no choice but towork overtime. In somecases, the company
demands workers to sign acontract that requires them
to work on Sundays. The
legal provision on forty-four
hour work schedule ishardly followed.
c) Lack of break time and poor
working condition - in mostcases, workers are only able
to take a rest for forty-fiveminutes during lunchtime.
When they work until 11
p . m . , t h e y g e t fi f t e e nminutes of dinner and breaktime.
d) Child labor - child workers(under fifteen years old) arecommon in the factories.
They work under the sameworking conditions asadults.
e) Violation of health rights t h e m e d i c a l i n s u ra n c esystem run by thegovernment of Myanmar has
only nominal coverage.
Female workers are notentitled to menstrual or

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
maternity leave. They are
given one day off when they
get married. Their sick leavemeans wage deduction.
Many workers collapse due
to long hours of overwork.
f) Violation of other rights workers are free to organizea labor union but there aremany cases where union
leaders and members havebeen fired or disciplined. In
the aftermath of 2012 massdemonstration, working
conditions in some factories
improved. However, Korean
companies tend not to
accept any form of labor
union except companydominated union. In thecase of a company that
produces shoes, members of
the union who took part in
the strike in 2012 were
fired.
Uzbekistan
Korean companies are involvedin the cotton industry of
Uzbekistan that produces amillion tons of cotton fiber
annually. A Korean state-owned
enterprise (Consortium) started
to be involved in Uzbekistan’s
cotton industry from 2010 byoperating a cellulose factory inthe country.
The summary of the information
gathered from visits to schools
and cotton fields, and frominterviews with local activists,
provides a picture of thesituation in the cotton industryof Uzbekistan as of September
2013:
1) Students aged fifteen toeighteen years are being
forced to harvest cotton;
2) Adult forced labor has
intensified;

133) T h e m o b i l i z a t i o n o fschoolteachers for cotton
harvesting seriously impedes
the right to education of thestudents in primary andsecondary schools;
4) Paid child labor is also on
the rise as adults evade
forced labor by hiring
children to take their place;and5) The Uzbek government’s
surveillance in 2013 ofactivists monitoring thesituation is more severe thanin any other year.
The Consortium has denied theexistence of forced child laborin the Uzbek cotton fields
saying it was prohibited under
Uzbek law. However, therelevant laws are not being
implemented properly. And theexistence of laws does notmean the non-existence of the
problem. The results of the field
i nve s t i g a t i o n u n d o u b t e d l yestablish the existence of forcedchild labor in the cotton
industry of Uzbekistan.
Such denial of the existence ofthe forced labor by theConsortium and other Korean
companies makes themcomplicit in the human rights
violations in the cotton industry
in Uzbekistan. They have failed
to perform due diligence ininvestigating the human rights
violations of children andadults, and in preventing andameliorating such violations
and their consequences.
The Consortium’s denial of theexistence of forced labor in
Uzbekistan is likely due toconcern about any negative
public reaction in Korea on its
link to forced labor in
Uzbekistan. Not surprisingly,
the Consortium does little toFOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
curtail forced labor and refuses
to consider an independent
monitoring system proposed by
the KTNC Watch research team.
It explains that it has only four
Korean managers in its plant,a n d wo u l d p r e f e r n o t t ointimidate the Uzbek
government.
For further information, pleasecontact: Korean Transnational
Corporation Watch (KTNC
Watch) through APIL
(Advocates for Public InterestLaw), # 505, Girl Scout
Building, 163 Anguk-dong,
Jo n g n o - g u , S e o u l , Ko r e a
110-240); ph (822) 3478-0529;
e - m a i l : i n f o @ a p i l . o r. k r ;www.apil.or.kr.

From A Dark and Brutal
History(Continued from page 5)

For further information, pleasecontact The HAK Association,
Rua Gov. Serpa Rosa, T-091,
Farol, Dili, Timor-Leste; ph (670)3313-323; fax (670) 77179655,
e-mail: lanarra.del@gmail.com or

Balochistan’s Missing Persons(Continued from page 6)

minister of Balochistan Aslam
Raisani, in a statement
presented in the High Court.
Despite the evidence, the law
has not helped his son,complains Qadeer. It is becauseof this fear and absence ofjustice that political workers are

MARCH 2014 VOLUME 75
Endnotes
1 SECTION 6. Tripartite Body,
PART IX - Industrial Harmonyin the ECOZONES, Rule XXIII Labor and Management
Relations, Rules andRegulations to Implement
Republic Act No. 7916,
Otherwise Known as "TheSpecial Economic Zone Act Of
1995", www.peza.gov.ph/i n d e x . p h p ?
option=com_content&view=art
icle&id=64&Itemid=56.
2 See ILO report, “First
conference of labour
organizations in Myanmar
since freedom of association
l aw,” 3 0 A p r i l 2 0 1 3 , a t
www.ilo.org/global/about-theilo/media-centre/press-releases/
WCMS_212027/lang--en/index.htm.
3 See "Low wages spark labor
strikes in Myanmar," The

info.asosiasaunhak@gmail.com;
www.haktl.org.
* This is an edited version of thereport of the same title andauthor in Beyond tears andborders: A compilation ofcountry situation reports in ninecountries in Asia, published by
the Asian Federation Against
Involuntary Disappearances(Manila, 2013).

now unable to live a normal lifein the cities. Anyone involved in
the Baloch movement now
either lives in the mountains or
lives abroad, mostly in Europe,
Australia, England or Canada.
Kiran Nazish is an awardwinning Pakistani journalist who
has worked for several years as
a producer and editor for
television, radio and print.

14

Nation, 18 May 2012,www.nationmultimedia.com/
aec/Low-wages-spark-labors t r i k e s - i n M ya n m a r- 3 0 1 8 2 2 8 5 . h t m l ;Sebastian Pawlita and Hnin Yu
Mai, “Strikes, unions anddispute resolution,” Myanmar
Ti m e s , 2 4 J u n e 2 0 1 3 ,www.mmtimes.com/index.php/
business/7243-strikes-unionsand-dispute-resolution.html.
4 A worker said that in someareas, the monthly rate hadreached 30,000 kyat (around
31 US dollars) due to recent
increase in real estate prices in
Yangon.

Endnote1 Report of the Working Groupon Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances Mission to TimorLeste,
Addendum,
A/HRC/19/58/Add.1, 26 December 2011, pages 15-16. Fulltext of the report available atwww.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Disap
pearances/Pages/Visits.aspx.

For further information, pleasecontact Kiran Nazish at The
Diplomat.
* This is an edited excerpt of thearticle of the same title thatappeared in the 6 January 2014
issue of The Diplomat. Fullarticle available at http://
thediplomat.com/2014/01/
balochistans-missing-persons/.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICMARCH 2014 VOLUME 75

Human Rights Events in the Asia-Pacific
ASEAN Civil Society
Conference/ ASEAN People's
Forum 2014
Th e A S E A N C iv i l S o c i e t y
Conference/ASEAN People's
Forum 2014 was held on 21-23
March 2014 in Yangon. This
year's conference has thet h em e: Advanc ing A SE AN
Peoples' Solidarity towardsustainable
peace,
d e ve l o p m e n t , j u s t i c e a n ddemocratization. It has thefollowing objectives: 1) To
strengthen diverse regional andnational voices to advance
ASEAN peoples' solidarity forsustainable
peace,
d e ve l o p m e n t , j u s t i c e a n ddemocratization; 2) To support
the role of Myanmar/Burmacivil society in the country's
democratization, development,
peace and national
reconciliation; 3) To accelerate
inclusive ASEAN people-topeople processes to achieve
peace, security, and economic,
social, environmental andclimate justice for all, including
migrant workers and thestateless and marginalized
communities; 4) To expand
learning and understanding of
the different processes andpolitical developments of
ASEAN and its members,
including peoples' struggles forhuman rights and selfdetermination in Myanmar; 5)
To assert civil society's role in
ASEAN community-building
and key processes including theupcoming review of the ASEAN
Charter and Community
B l u e p r i n t s a n d Te r m s o f
Reference (TOR) of the ASEAN

Inter-Governmental
Commission on Human Rights(AICHR). The conference wasattended by more than two
thousand participants.

H u m a n R i g h t s A dvo c a cy,
Business and Development: a
Tr a i n i n g P r o g r a m f o rCommunity Advocates from theAsia-Pacific Region

For further information, contact:
ACSC/APF Secretariat, e-mail:apfsecretariat2014@gmail.com;
banya7881@gmail.com; http://
aseanpeople.org.

T h e D i p l o m a c y Tr a i n i n g
Program (DTP) will hold its“Human Rights Advocacy,
Business and Development: a
Tr a i n i n g P r o g r a m f o rCommunity Advocates from theAsia-Pacific Region” for tendays in May-June 2014 in
Yangon, Myanmar. This program
will build the capacity ofhuman rights defenders andcommunity advocates topromote and protect their
human rights in the context of
rapid economic development,
and the impact of the private
sector on the lands andlivelihoods of vulnerable groups
including indigenous and ethnic
minorities/nationalities. The
program will explore how
existing and emerging
international human rights
standards and mechanisms canbe applied, and integrated into
effective advocacy strategies.
The training will build practicalskills for engaging in effective
advocacy with governments andbusiness.

Women, Girls and Refugee
Rights Workshop
The Women and Girls at Risk
Working Group (WAGAR) of
the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights
Network (APRRN) is hosting aworkshop on 31 March - 4 April
2014 in Chiang Mai forr e p r e s e n t a t ive s o f g r o u p s
working on refugee rights forthem to consider how theirwork addresses the particular
rights violations that happen to
refugees due to their sex/gender,and how these needs are being
met; and for them to consider
what resources are needed toeffectively address the obstacles
that are preventing groups fromaddressing the rights and needsof refugees and displaced
women.
For further information, pleasecontact: APRRN Secretariat,
888/12, 3rd Floor, Mahatun
Plaza, Ploenchit Road, Lumpini,
Pratumwan, Bangkok, Thailand
10330; ph (66 2) 252 6654;
mobile (66 8) 91125761;
w w w. a p r r n . o r g ; S k y p e :thazin810.

15

For further information, pleasecontact: Diplomacy Training
Program Ltd., The University of
New South Wales, UNSWSYDNEY NSW 2052, ABN 31003 925 148 Australia; ph(612) 9385 2277; fax (612)9385 1778; e-mail:
dtp@unsw.edu.au;
www.dtp.unsw.edu.au.

HURIGHTS OSAKA Calendar

DE
AU
OSAKA

ST
PO

BUR
E

HURIGHTS OSAKA is celebrating its 20th anniversary in 2014. Commemorative activities are plannedin December 2014.

JAPON

TAXE PERCUEPRINTED MATTERAIR MAIL

May be opened for inspection by the postal service.

HURIGHTS OSAKA, inspired by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formally opened in December 1994. lt has the following goals: 1) to promote human rights
in the Asia- Pacific region; 2) to convey Asia-Pacific perspectives on human rights to the international
community; 3) to ensure inclusion of human rights principles in Japanese international cooperative activities; and 4) to raise human rights awareness among the people in Japan in meeting its growing internationalization. In order to achieve these goals, HURIGHTS OSAKA has activities such as Information Handling, Research and Study, Education and Training, Publications, and Consultancy Services.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is designed to highlight significant issues and activities relating to human rights in
the Asia-Pacific. Relevant information and articles can be sent to HURIGHTS OSAKA for inclusion in thenext editions of the newsletter.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is edited by Osamu Shiraishi, Director of HURIGHTS OSAKA.
Sender: HURIGHTS OSAKA(Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center)
8F, CE Nishihonmachi Bldg., 1-7-7 Nishihonmachi, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0005
Japan
Phone: (816) 6543-7002
Fax: (816) 6543-7004
E-mail: webmail@hurights.or.jp Website: http://www.hurights.or.jp

HURIGHTS OSAKA