*NATIONAL PEOPLE’S TRIBUNAL ON KANDHAMAL* > > *JURY’S PRELIMINARY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS* > > *24 AUGUST 2010* > > The National People’s Tribunal (NPT) on Kandhamal, held in New Delhi on > 22-24 August 2010, was organized by the National Solidarity Forum - a > countrywide solidarity platform of concerned social activists, media > persons, researchers, legal experts, film makers, artists, writers, > scientists and civil society organizations to assist the victims and > survivors of the Kandhamal violence 2008 to seek justice, accountability and > peace and to restore the victim-survivors’ right to a dignified life. > > The jury of the NPT was headed by *Justice A.P. Shah*, former Chief > Justice of the Delhi High Court. Joining him as jury members were *Harsh > Mander (*member of National Advisory Council), *Mahesh Bhatt *(film maker > and activist), *Miloon Kothari *(former UN Special Rapporteur on Right to > Housing), *P. S. Krishnan *(retired Secretary, Government of India), *Rabi > Das *(senior journalist based in Bhubaneswar), *Ruth Manorama *(women and > dalit rights activist), *Sukumar Muralidharan *(Delhi-based free lance > journalist), *Syeeda Hameed *(member of Planning Commission, Government of > India), *Vahida Nainar *(expert on international law, mass crimes and > gender), Vinod Raina (scientist and social activist with a specific focus on > right to education), *Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat *(former Chief of Naval > Staff) and *Vrinda Grover *(advocate, Delhi High Court). > > ****** > > *Introduction * > > Thousands of *dalits *and *tribals* belonging to the Christian minorities > in the Kandhamal region of Orissa were victims of organized violence > starting in August 2007. According to government figures during the last > bout of violence from August to December 2008, in Kandhamal district alone > more than 600 villages were ransacked, 5600 houses were looted and burnt, > 54000 people were left homeless, 38 people were murdered. Human rights > groups estimate that over 100 people were killed, including women, disabled > and aged persons and children; and an unestimated number suffered severe > physical injuries and mental trauma. While there are reports of four women > being gang-raped, many more victims of sexual assault are believed to have > been intimidated into silence. 295 churches and other places of worship, > big and small, were destroyed. 13 schools, colleges, and offices of 5 > non-profit organizations damaged. About 30,000 people were uprooted and > lived in relief camps and continue to be displaced. During this period about > 2,000 people belonging to minority communities were forced to repudiate > their Christian faith. More than 10,000 children had their education > severely disrupted due to displacement and fear. Today, after two years, > the situation has not improved, although the administration time and again > claims it is peaceful and has returned to normalcy. With a view to create > conditions for justice and accountability for the violence, the National > Solidarity Forum organized a National People’s Tribunal (NPT) on 22-24 > August 2010 at the Constitution Club in Delhi. The objectives of the > Tribunal were: > > 1. To provide a platform for victim-survivors and their families to > voice their experiences, perceptions, demands and aspirations to civil > society at large; > > > > > > 2. To study and analyse the long-term and short-term causes and impact > of the Kandhamal violence; > > > > > > 3. To assess the role, conduct and responsibility of various > organizations, groups of individuals or persons, in influencing, > precipitating and escalating the violence; > > > > > > 4. To assess the role played by the state and district administration > and public officials, including the police, before, during and after the > pogrom; > > > > > > 5. To assess the functioning of the criminal justice system for fixing > criminal accountability and prosecuting the guilty; > > > > > > 6. To study and analyse the various rights of victims and survivors > that have been violated during the violence and thereafter; > > > > 7. To recommend both short-term and long-term remedial measures for > promoting an efficient delivery of justice and reparations, and for > strengthening peace-building, prevention of communal violence and > secularism; and > > > > > > 8. To present the findings and recommendations before civil society, > including the media, and to persuade the government and other agencies to > pursue the necessary follow up action to restore dignity, right to life, > justice and peace to the victim-survivors of Kandhamal violence. > > > > The Tribunal heard 43 victims, survivors and their representatives, and 15 > experts who presented studies / fact-finding reports on the Kandhamal > violence. Documentation related to each case, consisting of affidavits, > court documents, medical and other supporting documents, as well as copies > of reports and studies on the violence were placed before the jury for its > perusal. The depositions were on a range of issues including a) *adivasi*and > *dalit* rights to religious and culture freedom; b) role of police, > administration and the criminal justice system; c) issues relating to > housing, compensation, relief, rehabilitation, food and livelihood, > displacement and migration of the victims; d) impact on children and their > education; e) gender violence and violations of human rights; and f) role of > media, political parties, and civil society in peace and reconciliation > processes. Formal invitations were extended to the Ministry of Minority > Affairs, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Ministry of Women’s Development and > Child Welfare, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, as well as the > National Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Minorities, > National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Scheduled > Tribes and National Commission for Women to participate in the > proceedings of the Tribunal. However, there was no participation from the > concerned ministries and commissions. > > ** > > *PREAMBLE* > > The jury records its shock and deep concern for the heinous and brutal > manner in which the members of the Christian community, a vast majority of > who are dalits and tribals were killed, dismembered, sexually assaulted and > tortured. The deliberate destruction of evidence pertaining to these crimes > came to the attention to the jury. There was rampant and systematic looting > and destruction of houses and places of worship and means of livelihood. The > victim-survivors continue to be intimidated and systematically denied > protection and access to justice. > > > > From the testimonies heard and the detailed reports received, the jury is > convinced that the carnage in Kandhamal is an act of communalism mainly > directed against the Christian community, a vast majority of who are of > scheduled caste origin and anyone who supported or worked with the > community. It is clear to us that there was deliberate strategy of > targeting of the community, fed by groups of the Hindutva ideology such as > Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal > and the active members of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). > > The jury is further convinced that the communal violence in Kandhamal was > the consequence of a subversion of constitutional governance in which state > agents were complicit. > > The jury acknowledges and appreciates the courage, determination and > resilience of the victim-survivors and the human rights defenders supporting > them, who have braved physical, psychological and economic hardships and > intimidation to tell their stories before this Tribunal, thereby breaking > the culture of silence. After listening to the myriad accounts of all the > victim-survivors and their representatives, as well as the experts who > presented a summary of their studies / fact-finding reports on the Kandhamal > violence, the jury offers the following preliminary findings and > recommendations: > > > > *GENERAL OBSERVATIONS* > > The jury observes that a majority of victim-survivors and their families > are from marginalized groups, particularly from the *dalit* and *adivasi*(SC > and ST) Christian community, and that most live in abject poverty and on > the brink of despair. The victim-survivors and their families are yet to > obtain justice, rehabilitation or regain a right to life with dignity. The > victims/survivors have undergone incredible hardships, including physical > and psychological trauma, threats and humiliation, deprivation of a dignity, > an extensive loss of movable and immovable property, a source and means of > livelihood and their right to a decent standard of living - including food, > housing, education and health services. They have faced persecution in > all its forms – such as social and economic boycott as well as religious, > caste-based and cultural discrimination. They live under a constant threat > to their lives and personal security and continue to suffer from trauma. The > consequence is that even two year after the outbreak of the violence, the > victim-survivors are unable to return to their villages and resume their > normal way of life. They continue to be subjected to constant and overt > manifestations of communal, caste and class-based discrimination. All > victim-survivors and their representatives who deposed before the Tribunal > strongly articulated their demand for justice and security. > > > > The jury observes that communal forces have used religious conversions as > an issue for political mobilisation and to incite horrific forms of violence > and discrimination against the Christians of SC origin and their supporters > in Kandhamal. The object is to dominate them and ensure that they never rise > above their low caste status and remain subservient to the upper castes. The > jury observes, with deep concern, that a range of coercive tactics have been > used by the communal forces for conversion or re-conversion of a person into > the Hindu fold, including threat, intimidation, social and economic boycott > and coercion, as well as the institutionalization of humiliating rituals. > The state and district administrations have, on no occasion, intervened to > protect the freedom of religion and freedom of expression. > > > > The jury observes, with concern, the institutionalised communal and > casteist bias of state agencies, and their deliberate dereliction of > constitutionally mandated duties, their connivance with communal forces, > participation in and support to the violence and a deliberate scuttling of > processes of justice through acts of commission and omission. The state > agencies have blatantly failed to extend much-needed institutional support > to victim-survivors and protect them from ostracism, socio-economic boycott > and subjugation by non-state actors. > > > > *SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS* > > ** > > *A. **State’s Complicity and Collusion* > > ** > > · *Institutional Bias:* All testimonies and reports have pointed > towards the complicity of the police – senior officers as well as the > constabulary – during the phase of violence, and their collusion with the > wrongdoers during the phase of investigation and prosecution. Based on the > testimonies, the jury concludes that this was not an aberration of a few > individual police men, but evidence of an institutional bias against the > targeted Christian community. > > > > · *Failure to Prevent the Violence:* The police deliberately failed > to prevent the violence by a) non-implementation of the recommendations made > by the National Commission for Minorities in its reports of January and > April 2008; b) permitting the funeral procession of Swami Lakshmananda > through a 170 kilometre route through communally sensitive areas; c) > allowing hate speeches and incitement to violence; d) allowing a series of > programmes by the communal forces (such as the *bandh* of 25 August 2008, > *shraddhanjali sabhas* and *dharnas* by Hindu religious leaders). In > particular, the permission given by the state administration to the funeral > procession cannot, in any way, be a mere lapse of judgment. The state > agencies displayed long overdue political resolve when they stopped VHP > leader Praveen Togadia from visiting Kandhamal in March 2010. This late > awakening was however, of little help to the victim-survivors of the > district. > > > > · *Suspension of Police Officials:* Many witnesses deposed > about the failure of the police to protect them from the violence and their > refusal to register First Information Reports subsequently. There were long > delayed actions to check police complicity, when five police officials were > suspended for misconduct and negligence in connection with the sexual > assault on Sister Meena, and the identification of 13 police officials for > failure to protect persons and property in Kandhamal by A.K. Upadhyay, DIG > (Training). > > > > · *Destruction of Evidence by Public Officials: The jury *is > constrained to observe that public officials have colluded in the > destruction of evidence and there is testimony directly implicating the > District Collector in this misdemeanour (Case No. 24) > > > > *B. **Communal Forces, Freedom of Religion and Discrimination* > > ** > > · *Forcible Conversions:* Testimonies pointed towards forcible > conversion of Christians to Hinduism during the violence and subsequently, > as a condition for their return to their villages. No known action has been > initiated against any of the perpetrators by the administration under the > provisions either of criminal law, or the state’s Freedom of Religion Act. > > > > > · *Serious Violation of Religious Freedom:* The violent intimidation > of the Christian community, accompanied by social sanctions against the > practice of Christianity, the destruction and desecration of places of > worship, the forcible conversions to Hinduism, the killing and torture of > victims and survivors for their refusal to repudiate their faith, are all > acts violative of the constitutional guarantees of right to life, equality > and non-discrimination, as well as the right to religious freedom. > > > > · *The Role of Hindutva forces: *The accused identified in all > witness testimonies were members of Hindutva organisations. This is > substantiated by the response of *Orissa Ch*ief Minister, to a query > raised in the state Legislative Assembly, on 23 November 2009. In his > written response, Mr. Naveen Pattnaik said that pursuant to investigation, > 85 members of the RSS, 321 members of the VHP and 118 members of the Bajrang > Dal had been arrested. > > > > > > · *Discrimination on the Basis of Caste and Religion:* The targeted > violence against dalit Christians, as well as the continued discrimination > against them are violative of Constitutional guarantees of equality, > non-discrimination, right to a dignified life and the prohibition of > untouchability. Further, they amount to a serious violation of al*l > provisions *of the UN Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination > (CERD), a convention ratified by India. The Concluding Observations of its > forty-ninth session held in August/September 1996 (as it reviewed India's > tenth to fourteenth periodic reports under the International Convention on > the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, 1965), the Committee on the > Elimination of Racial Discrimination affirmed that "the situation of > Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes falls within the scope of" the > Convention.[1]<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#_ftn1>The > Committee states that "descent" contained in Article 1 of the Convention > does not refer solely to race, and includes the situation of scheduled > castes and tribes. > > > > *C. **Sexual Violence and Other Gender Concerns* > > ** > > · *Silence and Invisibility:* The jury observes, with deep concern, > that silence continues to prevail in matters of sexual assault. This applies > at all levels, including documenting, reporting, investigating, charging and > prosecuting cases. Though witness testimonies show that sexual violence was > rampant, there are only five reported cases, and an even smaller number that > have been registered and are pending in the courts. One of the testimonies > refers to the gang rape (Case No. 3), but none of the accused has been > formally charged. > > > > · *Special Vulnerability of Women:* While all victims and survivors > face intimidation and threats, women face the additional danger of sexual > violence not just against themselves but also against their daughters (Case > No. 12). The immediate consequence of such threats is a hightened sense > of vulnerability and a restriction on their movement. The jury observes that > the threat of sexual assault against women continues to be used as a tool to > prevent families from returning to their villages, to prevent women from > resuming their livelihood activities, and pursuing justice. > > > > > > · *Violation of international covenants:* The pattern of violence > against women is violative of constitutional* guarantees of equality, > non-discrimi*nation on the ground of sex as well as a right to life with > dignity. In addition, the attacks violate international standards, > including the UN Convention on Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEDAW) > which has been ratified by India. The CEDAW Committee, through General > Recommendation 19, has clarified that gender-based violence, that is, > violence > that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects > women disproportionately, amounts to discrimination against women. > > ** > > *D. **Failure of the Criminal Justice System* > > ** > > · *Arbitrary Exercise of Discretionary Power:* The jury observes, > with concern, an arbitrary exercise of the discretionary power vested in the > police and the prosecuting agencies. * *In many instances, the police have > refused to register FIRs, have delayed registering FIRs by 2-5 months, and > dissuaded victim-survivors from registering FIRs and coerced them to omit > the names of perpetrators and other details from the FIRs, particularly if > they indicated the complicity of public officials or members of communal > organizations. Victim-survivors were also shunted between various police > stations for registration of FIRs in contexts where their safety was at > risk. ** > > ** > > · *Arrests: *Many victim-survivors deposed before the jury that the > perpetrators of heinous crimes had not been arrested, and were roaming > freely and continuing to threaten, intimidate and humiliate them. > Testimonies point to an inordinate delay in arresting the perpetrators, and > a failure to arrest many more, contributing to an overall climate of > impunity. Honest police officials who attempted to arrest perpetrators > were threatened. Testimonies indicate that victim-survivors were often > threatened with arrest under fabricated charges in order to silence them and > deter them from pursuing justice. > > > > · *Investigation & Prosecution: *The deliberate destruction of > evidence, particularly of killings, through the burning or disposal of > bodies, has resulted in the absence of forensic evidence in many cases. > Investigations were marked by a neglect of the basic requirements of > gathering evidence, which severely impaired the efficacy of the prosecution. > Delay in obtaining forensic evidence, failure in obtaining corroborative > evidence and the rampant intimidation of victim-survivors and witnesses, have > led to many acquittals. > > > > > > · *Appreciation of Evidence by the Fast Track Courts: Upon perusal *of > judgments, affidavits and statements, the jury concludes that the judicial > weighing of evidence failed to recognise the extraordinary context in which > these mass crimes have been committed. Minor discrepancies in witness > testimonies in court have been given undue weightage, leading to an > alarmingly high number of acquittals. > > > > · *Judgment and Sentencing: *Studies indicate that lenient sentences > have been awarded without an acknowledgment of the gravity of the crimes > committed and their consequences, both in terms of heinous killings and > assault, as well as rampant looting of movable property and destruction of > immovable property belonging to the dalit and adivasi Christians. A fine of > Rs. 2000 has been mechanically imposed, without any correlation with the > value of property destroyed. Further there seems to have been little > attempt to apply S. 357 of the Cr.PC which provides for an imposition of a > higher amount of fine, which could be recovered and paid to victim-survivors > as compensation. > > · *Gaps in Indian Criminal Law:* The jury observes that clear gaps > exist in the criminal law to prosecute and punish those responsible for > targeted mass violence. These include the absence of investigative > procedures and evidentiary rules relating to mass crimes, such as punishing > for murder even in the absence of the body of deceased. The protections > guaranteed by law to public servants obstruct their accountability. Such > gaps make dispensation of justice in contexts of mass violence extremely > difficult. > > > > · *Relevance of International Criminal Law: *The testimonies shows > that the Kandhamal violence meets all the elements of Crimes Against > Humanity as defined in applicable international law. The jury has come > across cases where victims were dismembered or burnt alive, constituting the > crime of torture under jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. > (The International Criminal Court’s definition of torture in Article 7 does > not require that torture be committed by public officials.) That a victim > was forced to drink cow urine and shave his head amounts to cruel, inhuman > and degrading treatment under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. > > ** > > *E. **Protection of Victims and Witnesses, Access to Justice & Fair > Trial* > > ** > > · *Willingness to Testify in Court:* Those who deposed before the > Tribunal were keen, ready and willing to depose before the Fast Track > courts. However, they face severe intimidation and threats. Despite the > concerned authorities being informed, no steps have been taken to provide > any protection to the witnesses and victim-survivors. > > · *Hostile Atmosphere in Court:* The atmosphere in the trial court > (Fast Track courts) was described as hostile. The atmosphere was fearful as > the accused were accompanied by a large number of persons representing the > accused, and from communal forces. The atmosphere in court is not > conducive to a fair trial. There has been no initiative taken, either by > the Prosecutor or the court, to hold the proceedings in camera. > > > > > > · *Absence of Safe Passage:* Victims who have dared to lodge > complaints & witnesses who have courageously given evidence in court are > unable to return to their homes. There is no guarantee of safe passage to > and from the courts. They are living in other cities and villages, many of > them in hiding, as they apprehend danger to their lives. > > > > · *Threat of Sexual Assault:* Women victims and witnesses have > received constant threats of sexual violence and rape to themselves and > their daughters. Ironically most of the accused roam freely and live in > their villages and homes. > > > > > > · *Absence of Free Legal Aid:* Since most of the victim-survivors > are from underprivileged communities, there is a dire need for quality legal > aid services at state expenses. None of those who deposed before us had > been extended free legal aid services. Most victim-survivors have been > supported in court through the initiatives of non-profit organizations. The > failure of the state to provide free legal aid has contributed substantially > to an absence of fair trial. > > > > *F. **Concerns Related to Children* > > ** > > The most important finding related to children status in Kandhamal is sense > of hopelessness, injustice discrimination and fear prevailing among > children, threatening to severely impact their growth and development. > > · *Mental Health:* Children are in deep state of mental trauma. > There has been no trauma counselling for the affected children and > adolescents in Kandhamal. Even today they have night mares of running in the > jungle, with the killers in pursuit, are scared of any loud sound and are > afraid of people walking in groups or talking loudly. > > · *Education:* Large number of children has dropped out of school > due to financial and social insecurity and many have them have gone out for > work. Many of them had to discontinue their education due to discrimination > meted out to them by the school authority and also in some cases by children > in schools. Many children were forced to change school and many of them > opted for residential schools out of the state. Post violence many dropped > out due to the inability of the families to bear the expenses, fear, and > also due to lack of facilities to commute to school. > > · *Child Labour:* Many children have left education and have gone > to Kerala, Surat and neighbouring states. Even girls have gone to > Udhagamandalam (Ooty) and working in coffee plantation. there is no data > available with the district Labour Office regarding the present status of > child labour in the state. Last child labour census in the district was done > in 1997. > > · *Child Trafficking:* There are rise incidences of trafficking for > children, mainly for labour, sexual exploitation and abuse. Though there are > no consolidated data on number of children being trafficked post violence in > the district, we have come across some instances. > > ** > > *G. **Reparations * > > ** > > · *Compensation:* Compensation for loss of life, injuries and loss > of / damage to property has been awarded in an extremely arbitrary manner. > The amounts awarded are grossly inadequate and do permit victim-survivors > to regain the standards of living enjoyed prior to the violence. The > award of compensation does not recognize sexual assault or the extent of > loss of house and movable property destruction, the exclusion of which has > caused immense difficulties to victim-survivors and their families. > > > > · *Relief and Humanitarian Assistance:* From the testimonies of > victim-survivors and reports, it is evident that the relief camps did not > provide for basic facilities such as nutritious food, clean water and > sanitation, or adequate security. There was a lack of trauma counselling, > medical assistance and other forms of humanitarian assistance that ought to > have been made available to all victim-survivors in the relief camps. > > > > > > · *Safe Return or Resettlement:* Many victim-survivors have been > forced or duped into returning to their villages, where they have faced > continuous threat, intimidation and fear of attacks if they did not > repudiate their faith. Many victim-survivors and their families continue to > live on the outskirts of their villages, without any source of livelihood. > The state and district authorities have taken no proactive measures at > creating an atmosphere conducive for the safe return of victim-survivors to > their villages. By failing to recognize the right of all victim-survivors > and their families to a safe return to their villages or resettlement at > state expense, the state has grossly violated the UN Guiding Principles on > Internal Displacement 1998. > > > > · *Reconstruction of Houses and Places of Worship: *Some > victim-survivors have been provided inadequate compensation for rebuilding > their houses and many excluded from an award of compensation altogether. A > majority of places of religious worship that had been damaged or destroyed > during the violence, have not been re-built. The amounts awarded as > compensation to some are grossly inadequate for re-building such structures, > while many others have been denied compensation altogether on technical > grounds. The jury strongly believes that reconstruction of houses and > places of worship at state expense would restore a sense of confidence and > justice among the victim-survivors and their families, and restore them to a > life with dignity. > > > > > > · *Livelihood and Education:* Many educational institutions that > had been damaged or destroyed during the violence are yet to be rebuilt, > thereby depriving children from victim-survivor communities of their right > to education, jeopardizing their future opportunities and causing a > generational setback for emerging deprived dalit communities. Many > victim-survivors who lost their source of livelihood, including agricultural > land and government jobs, due to the mass displacement that took place, have > received no assistance from the state for a restoration of the same. Many > testimonies presented before the jury highlighted the fact that > victim-survivors have been illegally deprived of employment under the > National Rural Employment Guarantee Act subsequent to the violence. > > > > · *Peace-building:* Although village level peace committees had > been set up, the testimonies before the jury as well as studies and reports > indicate that such committees have not enjoyed the confidence of the > victim-survivors and have been used as a platform for further intimidation. > Notably, there has been no involvement of women in peace-building and > negotiating processes, which violates standards set by international law, > particularly UN Security Council Resolution 1325. > > ** > > *H. **Human Rights Defenders* > > > > Non-profit organizations and human rights defenders have been targeted for > their role in assisting victims with aid, relief, rehabilitation and process > of justice. Victim-survivors have testified with regard to the destruction > of personal and official property, attacks and damage to the offices of such > organizations. These are contrary to the United Nations Declaration on > Human Rights Defenders that calls upon the State to protect Human Rights > Defenders and their work.** > > ** > > ** > > *RECOMMENDATIONS * > > > > · Enquiry into and suspension of police and administrative > officials responsible for grave dereliction of duty. > > > > · Proactive prevention of programmes planned by Hindutva forces > that are divisive and propagate hate such as kalash yatra, Shraddhanjali > sabhas (memorial meetings) and dharnas by Hindu religious leaders of Orissa > held to perform rituals to eliminate the ‘enemies of Hindus.’ > > > > · Sections 153 A and B of the Indian Penal Code be strictly > enforced. > > > > · National Legal Services Authorities at both State and Central > level to set up legal cell to assist victims to register FIRs where they > were not registered or inaccurately registered, re-open closed cases, and > transfer pending cases to outside the Kandhamal jurisdiction. > > > > · A Special Investigation Team (SIT) be constituted to re-examine > the already registered FIRs for accuracy, examine registrations of fresh > FIRs, the trials that resulted in acquittals due to intimidation and/or lack > of evidence and recommend the trials that need to be transferred or fresh > trial conducted outside Kandhamal; > > > > · Proactively identify cases of sexual assault has been grossly > underreported due to fear and intimidation; and recognize and charge sexual > assault in FIRs where they have not been so recognized. > > > > · Appoint Special Public Prosecutors who enjoy the confidence of > the affected community. > > > > · State must provide protection to victims and witnesses before, > during and after the trial process according to the guidelines provided in > the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court. > > > > · Endorse the recommendations of the National Advisory Council of > drafting a new bill on mass crimes against impunity and secure > accountability for mass crimes. The draft be in accordance with the emerging > international standards of individual criminal accountability for mass > crimes as set in the statute of the International Criminal Court and > jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. > > > > · Both the State and Central government adopt at the very minimum > the Gujarat compensation package to enhance the compensation already > announced. In addition, victims of sexual assault be included as a ground > eligible for compensation and employment. , Compensation for loss of > livelihood > > > > · All mechanisms set up to improve the criminal justice response, > provide reparations, including compensation and rehabilitation be based on > human rights indicators and standards that recognises the fact that even > after two years thousands continue to be displaced. > > > > · State make all effort to provide medical and psychological, > particularly trauma counselling to the victims/ survivors, particularly the > women and children. > > > > · The specific educational needs of the children who have suffered > displacement as a result of the violence be address with measures such as > bridge school under the Sarva siksha Abhiyan, Kasturba Balika Vidhyalaya for > SCs and STs girls; and residential ashram schools. > > > > · The livelihood schemes of the state and central government be > particularly provided to the affected community including M G Narega and > special thrust be given for the affected youth in the PM’s skill training > mission. > > > > · The special component plan for the SC and the tribal sub-plan > for STs should given priority focus to the schemes directed at the affected > community. Dalit Christians to be provided all non-statutory benefits > available to schedule castes. > > > > · All training centres both of administrative and police to focus > on education and awareness about rights, secularism and constitutional > guarantees to minorities. > > > > · Restitution and Rehabilitation to follow the international > standards set in paragraphs 16-18 and 25-29 of the UN Guiding Principles on > Internal Displacement and paragraphs 52 to 68 of the UN Basic Principles and > Guidelines on Development based Evictions and Displacement, 2007. > > > > · The State should recognize the Internally Displaced Persons’ > right to return to their homes and create all possible enabling conditions > to facilitate such safe return in accordance with the above standards. > > > > · Review The Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 1967 given the failure > of the state machinery to prevent the violence and protect lives and > properties of the people. > > > > · Designate the affected areas as communally sensitive, appoint > officers with professional integrity and sensitivity to the overall communal > context and be alert to any early warning signs and develop appropriate > response mechanisms to halt the brewing of hate mobilization and religious > and caste-based discriminative activities. > > > > · Given the fact that human rights violations continue to take > place as outlined in this report, the NHRC should take immediate steps to > initiate an investigation into the incidences of violence. > > > > · The National Commission on protection of Children Rights should > investigate the need for children of the affected community to receive > trauma counselling, to respect and promote their right to education and > nutrition, take specific steps to prevent child labour and child > trafficking. Appropriate agencies at the central and state levels need to > respond to these issues. > > > > · All efforts by the central and state government to improve the > situation in Kandhamal must comply with the provisions of international > human rights instruments that India has signed and ratified including CERD, > CAT, CEDAW, CESCR, CRC, , UNPCR, UNDHR. > > > > · Confidence-building and peace-building initiatives by the state > and district administration should have the participation of members of the > affected community, particularly women. > > > > · The state and district administration should, with immediate > effect, implement the recommendations of the National Commission for > Minorities, issued in their reports of January, April and September 2008 > > > > *Justice A.P. Shah, *Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court** > > *Harsh Mander, *Member National Advisory Council > > *Mahesh Bhatt, *Film maker and activist > > *P. S. Krishnan, *Former Secretary, Government of India* * > > *Miloon Kothari, *Former UN Special Rapporteur on Right to Housing** > > *Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat,* Former Chief of Naval Staff** > > *Syeeda Hameed, *Member, Planning Commission* * > > *Vahida Nainar, *Expert International law** > > *Sukumar Muralidharan,* Free lance journalist > > *Vinod Raina, *Scientist and Social Activist, Right to Education** > > *Ruth Manorama, *Dalit & women’s rights Activist > > *Vrinda Grover* Advocate t > > *Rabi Das *Senior Journalist, Bhubaneswar > > > > > > . > >
