India: Government Arbitrarily Detained & Forcibly Transferred Rohingya Human Rights Defender In Defiance Of U.N. Ruling
The Government of India arbitrarily detained Rohingya human rights defender Mohammad Arfat for more than four years without due process, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled, Fortify Rights said today. The recent ruling, which responds to a complaint filed by Fortify Rights in May 2024, calls on Indian authorities to provide Mohammad Arfat with reparations, prevent future violations, and cooperate with the U.N. Refugee Agency to ensure his protection and potential resettlement.
More than 40 days after the Working Group issued its decision, Indian authorities defied the U.N. ruling, forcibly transferring Mohammad Arfat to another country, where he now remains in hiding due to ongoing threats to his security.
'India's prolonged and arbitrary detention of Mohammad Arfat was both unlawful and unconscionable. He should never have been detained, let alone forcibly transferred out of India following the ruling,' said John Quinley, Director of Fortify Rights. 'The U.N. Working Group's opinion reaffirms what we have known all along—India violated international law by detaining a recognized refugee for years, and then put him even further in harm's way.'
In the published opinion, adopted during its 101st session, the U.N. Working Group determined that India's detention of Mohammad Arfat since 2018 was arbitrary, lacked any legal basis, and deprived him of due process. The opinion finds that his detention was based solely on his status as a Rohingya refugee and that India violated key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—to which India is a state party and legally bound to uphold— including Articles 9 and 14, which protect against arbitrary detention and ensure the right to a fair trial.
Upon his release from arbitrary detention, Mohammad Arfat told Fortify Rights:
I was beaten by Indian police when I was first detained. … My health [after years] in Indian detention was not good, and I could not see a doctor. I became very sick over the years. … Now [after my release and transfer] I feel mentally and physically unwell.
The U.N. Working Group is a body of independent human rights experts established by the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate and provide opinions on cases of deprivation of liberty that are allegedly arbitrary or inconsistent with international standards.
Fortify Rights filed the 20-page complaint to the Working Group on May 30, 2024, along with an annex of more than 90 pages supporting Mohammad Arfat's case and his right to liberty. The U.N. Working Group's opinion in response to Fortify Rights' submission expressed grave concern for Mohammad Arfat and recommended that Indian authorities:
[E]nd the arbitrary detention of Mr. Arfat by immediately and unconditionally releasing him and to liaise with UNHCR to grant him protection and a remedy, befitting his status as an asylum-seeker, which could include resettlement in a third country.
The U.N. Working Group also recommended that the Indian government provide 'compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law,' for the harm caused to Mohammad Arfat, and that those responsible for the violation of his rights be held accountable, urging the Government 'to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Arfat and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.' Instead, India forcibly transferred Mohammad Arfat to another country shortly after the ruling.
In addition to Mohammad Arfat's case, beginning on May 6, 2025, Fortify Rights documented how Indian authorities carried out mass arrests of Rohingya refugees in New Delhi. The next day, the authorities forced at least 40 of them back to Myanmar, where the military junta has been carrying out a genocidal campaign and where the Arakan Army — an ethnic resistance army fighting the Myanmar military junta in an ongoing revolution — has also carried out atrocities against the Rohingya people. In this instance, the India Navy dumped the refugees into the sea near the Myanmar border, placing their lives at grave risk in violation of international law.
During the same crackdown, India also forcibly deported other Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh, which hosts more than one million Rohingya refugees in crowded and tightly controlled camps.
On May 15, 2025, Tom Andrews, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, called India's forcing Rohingya into the sea 'unconscionable' and 'outrageous' and, in response, he launched an inquiry. Andrews said in a statement that forced returns to Myanmar are a 'serious violation of the principle of non-refoulment, a fundamental tenet of international law that prohibits states from returning individuals to a territory where they face threats to their lives or freedom.'
Furthermore, on March 3, three U.N. experts, including Special Rapporteur Andrews, raised concerns about India's 'widespread, arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees from Myanmar' in a letter to the Indian government:
Conditions in places of detention are reportedly dire. Detainees from Myanmar, the majority of whom are Rohingya, are reportedly held in severely overcrowded cells, and do not receive adequate nutrition, clean water, or medical care. Facilities are reportedly unsanitary. Detainees lack clean clothes, bedding, and access to sunlight. Many detainees are reportedly suffering from illness, infections and other medical problems and are unable to access adequate medical care.
India must immediately end its arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees and provide reparations to all harmed by the government's reckless and violent crackdown on their rights, said Fortify Rights.
India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol and lacks a domestic asylum law; however, it remains obligated to respect the international customary law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to situations where they are likely to face persecution and other serious human rights abuses. India's forcible return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar—where they face grave risks of persecution, violence, or death—also violates several international treaties to which India is a state party, including the ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, and 9), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 6 and 22), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 5).
Forcibly returning Rohingya refugees to Myanmar also violates the Genocide Convention, to which India is a state party, said Fortify Rights. By returning victims of genocide to a country where that genocide is ongoing, India may be failing in its obligation to prevent genocide under international law. Moreover, by knowingly contributing to the continuing genocide through the forced return of survivors, India risks legal complicity in the very crimes the Convention is meant to prevent.
'India has legal obligations to protect Rohingya refugees under treaties it willfully entered into,' said John Quinley. 'India should immediately and unconditionally free all refugees in detention and provide compensation for any harms inflicted.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Economies race to avoid steeper tariffs before Friday, US and China hold talks tomorrow in Sweden
Where do other US trade talks stand? South Korea: Extra pressure Seoul is racing to reach a deal with Washington, as Tokyo's success in landing an agreement has 'amped up the pressure for South Korea', a government source told AFP. Local media reported that Seoul was preparing to propose more than US$100 billion in investment as part of a broader agreement, with expected participation by major firms such as Samsung and Hyundai Motor. The South Korean Government did not confirm this. South Korean officials have outlined proposals to deepen collaboration in sectors like shipbuilding, semiconductors, and batteries. National Security Adviser Wi Sung Lak has told reporters that the two countries are in 'the final and most crucial phase of negotiations' to avert Trump's proposed 25% duty. India: Cautious optimism Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal told Bloomberg Television last week that he was optimistic his country could reach an agreement with the US to avert Washington's 26% tariff threat. Goyal insisted there were not any sticking points in the US-India relationship or in trade talks and clarified that immigration rules - including those around H-1B visas for skilled workers - had not come up in negotiations. Despite Goyal's remarks, local media reported the prospects of an interim deal before August 1 had dimmed. Taiwan: Working hard Taiwanese Premier Cho Jung Tai said last week that officials are 'working hard' on negotiations, amid worries that an unfavourable tariff level could hit the self-ruled island's economy. Vice-President Hsiao Bi Khim said Taipei's negotiating team was 'working almost 24 hours a day to achieve trade balance and Taiwan's industrial interests, and even to further deepen co-operation'. Canada, Mexico: Deal unclear Although Canada and Mexico were spared from Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs announced in April, goods from both countries entering the US generally face a separate 25% duty if they fall outside a North American trade pact. This figure stands to jump to 30% for Mexico come August 1, while the level for Canada was set at 35%. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said her Administration was 'doing everything' possible to avert the duties and that she would speak with Trump if necessary to try to reach a pact. Trump told reporters at the weekend there was no deal with Canada so far. Brazil: Political nature Brazil is girding for a virtual trade embargo on its planes, grains, and other goods if Trump's threatened 50% tariff on its exports takes effect on August 1. The US runs a trade surplus with Latin America's biggest economy, which was not originally expected to face steeper tariffs under Trump's 'reciprocal' duties plan. Trump has not attempted to hide the political motivation in targeting Brazil, citing a judicial 'witch hunt' against his right-wing ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, when he unveiled the tariff rate. The political nature of the spat makes a last-minute deal appear less likely. Tariff categories Here is a summary of duties Trump has introduced in his second term. Global tariffs US 'reciprocal' tariffs - imposed under legally contentious emergency powers - are due to jump from 10% to various steeper levels for a list of dozens of economies. The hikes were to take effect on July 9 but Trump postponed them days before imposition, marking a second delay since their shock unveiling in April. A 10% 'baseline' levy on most partners, which Trump imposed in April, remains in place. Certain products like pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and lumber are excluded from Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs but may face separate action under different authorities. This has been the case for steel, aluminium, and soon copper. Gold and silver, alongside energy commodities, are also exempted. Canada, Mexico Canadian and Mexican products were hit by 25% US tariffs shortly after Trump returned to office, with a lower rate for Canadian energy. Trump targeted both neighbours over illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking, also invoking emergency powers. Products entering the United States under the USMCA North American free trade pact, covering large swathes of goods, are expected to remain exempt - with Canadian energy resources and potash, used as fertiliser, to still face lower rates. China focus Trump has also taken special aim at China. The world's two biggest economies engaged in an escalating tariffs war this year before their temporary pullback. The countries imposed triple-digit duties on each other at one point, a level described as a trade embargo. After high level talks, Washington lowered its levies on Chinese goods to 30% and Beijing slashed its own to 10%. This pause is set to expire on August 12, and officials will meet for further talks tomorrow in the Swedish capital of Stockholm. The US level is higher as it includes a 20% tariff over China's alleged role in the global fentanyl trade. Beyond expansive tariffs on Chinese products, Trump ordered the closure of a duty-free exemption for low-value parcels from the country. This adds to the cost of importing items like clothing and small electronics. Autos, metals Trump has targeted individual business sectors too, under more conventional national security grounds, imposing a 25% levy on steel and aluminium imports which he later doubled to 50%. The US President has unveiled plans for a 50% tariff on copper imports starting August 1 as well and rolled out a 25% tariff on imported autos, although those entering under the USMCA can qualify for a lower rate. Trump's auto tariffs impact vehicle parts too, but new rules ensure automakers paying vehicle tariffs will not also be charged for certain other duties. He has ongoing investigations into imports of lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals that could trigger further duties. Legal challenges Several legal challenges have been filed against the tariffs Trump invoked citing emergencies. The US Court of International Trade ruled in May that the President had overstepped his authority, but a federal appeals court has allowed the duties to remain while it considers the case. If these tariffs are ultimately ruled illegal, companies could possibly seek reimbursements. -Agence France-Presse
RNZ News
7 days ago
- RNZ News
Britain and India sign free trade pact during Modi visit
By Alistair Smout and Manoj Kuma , Reuters Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. (File photo) Photo: Kabir Jhangiani / NurPhoto / NurPhoto via AFP Britain and India signed a free trade agreement on Thursday during a visit by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sealing a deal to cut tariffs on goods from textiles to whisky and cars and allow more market access for businesses. Talks on the trade pact were concluded in May after three years of stop-start negotiations, with both sides hastening efforts to clinch a deal in the shadow of tariff turmoil unleashed by US President Donald Trump. The agreement between the world's fifth and sixth largest economies aims to increase bilateral trade by a further 25.5 billion pounds by 2040. It is Britain's biggest trade deal since it left the European Union in 2020 but its impact will be a fraction of the effect of leaving the orbit of its closest trading partner. It is India's biggest strategic partnership with an advanced economy, and it could provide a template for a long-mooted deal with the EU and for talks with other regions. Both sides hailed as historic a deal which will take effect following a ratification process, likely within a year, after which firms such as whisky distiller Diageo and carmakers including BMW, Nissan, Aston Martin and Tata-owned Jaguar Land Rover could benefit from lower duties. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said there would be huge benefits for both countries, making trade cheaper, quicker and easier. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Photo: STEPHANIE LECOCQ / AFP "We've entered a new global era, and that is one that requires us to step up, not to stand aside... by building deeper partnerships and alliances," Starmer said in a statement next to Modi at his Chequers country residence. Modi called the agreement "a blueprint for our shared prosperity," highlighting how Indian goods from textiles to jewelry and seafood would secure better market access. The countries also agreed a partnership covering areas such as defence and climate, and aim to strengthen co-operation on tackling crime. Modi spent nearly three hours with Starmer before going to meet King Charles at his Sandringham Estate. Under the trade agreement, tariffs on Scotch whisky will drop to 75 percent from 150 percent immediately, and slide to 40 percent over the next decade. Tariffs on drinks such as brandy and rum will be cut to 110 percent initially and end up at 75 percent. On cars, India will cut duties to 10 percent within five years from current levels of up to 11 percent under a quota system that will be gradually liberalised. In return, Indian manufacturers will gain access to the British market for electric and hybrid vehicles, also under a quota system. Under the deal, 99 percent of Indian exports to Britain will benefit from zero duties, including textiles, and Britain will have reductions on 90 percent of its tariff lines, with the average tariff UK firms face dropping to 3 percent from 15 percent. But the projected boost to British economic output, of 4.8 billion pounds a year by 2040, is small compared to Britain's gross domestic product of 2.6 trillion pounds in 2024. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast that UK exports and imports will be about 15 percent lower in the long run than if Britain had stayed in the EU. Britain's Labour government, in power for a year, has launched a reset of ties with the EU to smooth trade friction and won some tariff relief from the United States. "In an era of rising protectionism, today's announcement sends a powerful signal," said Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of the Confederation of British Industry. The Confederation of Indian Industry called it a "strong foundation for deeper market access." The deal will facilitate easier access for temporary business visitors although visas are not covered. The sides also agreed that workers will no longer have to make social security contributions in both India and Britain while on temporary postings to the other. British firms will be able to access India's procurement market for projects in sectors such as clean energy, and the trade deal also covers services sectors such as insurance. India did not manage to secure an exemption from Britain's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism - which could levy higher taxes on polluters from 2027 - as part of the deal. - Reuters
Scoop
24-07-2025
- Scoop
U.S. Court Agrees Trump Administration's ICC Sanctions Likely Violate First Amendment Rights Of Fortify Rights CEO
(Bangkok, July 23, 2025)—A U.S. federal court last week granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by Fortify Rights CEO Matthew Smith and human rights advocate Akila Radhakrishnan challenging the Trump administration's executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and banning advocates from communicating with the ICC under threat of criminal prosecution. The court issued the order on July 17 and concluded that the advocates were likely to succeed on their claim that the speech restrictions imposed on them by the executive order violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of speech. The preliminary injunction prohibits the administration from punishing the two advocates for their work related to the ICC while the litigation is pending. 'I'm grateful the court recognized the serious threat this executive order against the ICC poses to fundamental freedoms and to our ability to pursue accountability for mass atrocity crimes,' said Matthew Smith. 'This case is not only about our rights — it's about safeguarding the space for all human rights defenders to advocate for justice, speak truth to power, and demand international accountability without fear of reprisal.' Both Smith and Radhakrishnan are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—a leading American organization that defends and promotes individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. As the lawsuit explains, the sanctions violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting Smith, Radhakrishnan, and other Americans like them from speaking with the ICC's Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. 'Preventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and we're heartened that the court saw that as well,' said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. 'The First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.' Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who have devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities — like the genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban — could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude — including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes — when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC's founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC's critical work on a wide range of matters. 'Fighting this order isn't only a defense of the work I do, or the court itself,' wrote Matthew Smith in an op-ed published June 6 in the New York Times. 'It's also a statement about what kind of country we want to be.' On Friday last week, the New York Times referred to the court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction 'a striking, if tentative, blow to the president's efforts to penalize and isolate the world's highest criminal court.' For more information about the lawsuit, please see the ACLU's webpage devoted to Smith v. Trump.
