Analysis on the Situation of the Refugee Camps From the Rule of Law Aspect (January 27, 2007)
Camps Researched: Mae-la, Umpium, Noe Poh, Mae-la-Oo, Kareeni 1 and Kareeni 2*

1. Executive Summary

This research paper has been produced to highlight the security situation within the refugee camps along the Thai/Burma border in Thailand,' The objective of this paper is to give a comprehensive overview of the failings of the administrative, judicial and legislative structures within the camps and the consequences this has had on the individual security of camp residents. By analyzing the camps from the rule of law perspective this research indicates that without adequate institutional and structural reforms, too many individuals are vulnerable to violence and attack that deprives them of one of their most basic human rights.
The Burma Lawyers' Council (BLC) is to some extent familiar with the issues of refugees from Burma as it has been working with many of them in some camps for several years. In addition to this, the information compiled in this report was diligently gathered over an 8 month period in which staff members of the BLC conducted over 50 interviews with a diverse range of peoples. These people included camp officials, camp judges, victims of crime, witnesses to violent crime, family members affected by crime, security officials, members of various groups within the camps- such as the Karen Women's Organization (KWO), Karen Refugee Committee (KRC), The Sex and Gender Based Violence group (SGBV), members of the different ethnic resistance organizations - such as the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) - along with employees of NGOs and volunteer organizations working within and around the camps.¹

Many obstacles had to be overcome in order to produce such a comprehensive study- the least of which was the reluctance of many victims of crime to discuss their ordeal. Victims and witnesses to crime were not open to discussing their ordeals for fear of retribution from their attackers, members of the camp administration or the Thai authorities. The types of retribution included fear of attack upon their person or family, banishment from the camp or arrest and detention. These facts alone indicate the vulnerability that individuals feel and how their security is not adequately provided for by the procedures currently in place.

Other difficulties experienced by the research team included the logistical obstacles that needed to be overcome to conduct the interviews. Many interviewees were not willing to be interviewed at their homes and as such more clandestine meeting venues had to be arranged. There was also an air of resentment and suspicion towards the research team from senior camp officials as to why the research needed to be conducted and the purposes for which it would be used. Finally and interestingly, many of the most forthcoming interviewees were of Muslim background. It appears that while crime is not disproportionably perpetrated against or by Muslim residents, those of Karen and Karenni nationality were less inclined to discuss their experiences due to the negative impact this may have on their national identity and dignity.

This paper begins by outlining, step by step, the failings of the administrative system within the camp and the adverse effect these failings are having upon the individual security of the camp residents². Included in this analysis are allegations of corruption and nepotism within the administrative bodies and how these issues contribute greatly to the lack of authority and trust officials have amongst camp residents. This is followed by looking at the major issues within the legislative process and how the lack of effective legislative mechanisms within the camps has contributed to the vulnerability of residents to violence. In this section, the research utilizes case histories to substantiate the claims made and the difficulties victims of crime have in ensuring justice is served.³

The third part of this report is dedicated to the judicial process where there are significant problems. These range from the overlapping of authority between the various judiciaries and the lack of knowledge and expertise of the members of the judiciary to how deficiencies in direction from the Thai authorities have contributed to the insecurity residents feel. Incorporated in much of this analysis is how inefficient procedural codes and institutional defects within the camps are having a profoundly negative impact on the security of residents.

The final section of this research makes recommendations as to what can, and needs to be done, in order to establish more transparent, accountable, impartial and fair governance structures within the camps, so that the individual security of camp residents is greatly improved. These recommendations will focus on how adopting the principles of the rule of law as a framework for instigating institutional reform within the camps is the most effective and practical method of ensuring the objectives of this research are met; and, in so doing, ensuring a more secure and safe environment for all camp residents.

The BLC anticipates that the information and analysis gleaned from this report may be used by the refugee people themselves, governmental authorities of Thailand and the international community in order to develop a framework for establishing more effective systems of camp governance and, in the process, alleviating camp residents' susceptibility to violence. The BLC believes that by reforming these governance institutions and promoting the rule of law within the camps it will ensure a more secure environment for each camp resident and hence uphold one of their basic human rights. It will also have a positive impact on Thailand within the international community and, more importantly, if refugees become accustomed to living in camps with a background established upon the Rule of Law, their return to their mother land after a democratic transition will assist in the promotion of human rights, peace and stability of society in Burma as well as the region, as a whole.

Footnotes

1.  A comprehensive list of the questions asked during the interview process can be found in Appendix 1.
2. Annex (A) contains a comprehensive overview of the electoral procedures of each camp and the various administration bodies within these camps.
3. Appendixes 2 to 36 outline the types of crimes committed in the camps and the inconsistency and inadequacies of the legislative and judicial process. Several of these cases will be used to illustrate major failings.