publications

<<previous  | index  |  next>>

III. Arrests

The Arrest of Lobsang Dondrup

Chinese authorities have produced inconsistent versions of events. Official reports at the time of the verdict identified Lobsang Dondrup as having been apprehended “fleeing the scene” of the April 3, 2002 blast.36 However, one person told Human Rights Watch that a local Sichuan television news program initially broadcast a picture of an ethnic Chinese man who was being sought in connection with the bombing.37 According to the source, it took another two days before Lobsang Dondrup was publicly identified as a suspect, allegedly after a woman who saw him fleeing called the authorities.

The Sichuan broadcaster announced that the unidentified caller should come to the TV station for a reward. However, on April 24, 2002, when the identity of the reward recipient was announced, Xinhua (the official Chinese news service) identified a male college student as the one who had collected 20,000 renminbi (approximately U.S.$2,500). The student was praised for “providing crucial clues that led to the arrest of the suspects behind a downtown explosion.”38 He reportedly was near the site when the explosion occurred.

The Xinhua story went on to say that thanks to the student, it took only ten hours after the noontime detonation to capture Lobsang Dondrup. The time lapse suggests he was detained at 10:00 p.m. on the night of April 3 and conflicts with implications in official reports that he was caught at the site or fleeing the site, or at the time of the explosion. However, a number of Tibetans told Human Rights Watch that neither official version was accurate. They said Lobsang Dondrup was detained well after 10 p.m. on April 3.

Although many informants reported that Chinese officials with whom they worked and local television sources all said that Lobsang Dondrup “confessed immediately,”39 another official told Human Rights Watch that he initially refused to speak to the police on the grounds that he could not speak Chinese and that it was not until he was moved from a Chengdu facility to one in Dartsedo that he “confessed” and allegedly implicated Tenzin Delek.40

At least two other Tibetans were held, each for two months in mid-2002, on suspicion of direct involvement in the explosions. Reports indicated both men were roughly treated and had been warned of severe punishment should they speak out about their detentions.41 One of the two has fled the country.

No record of Lobsang Dondrup’s alleged confession has been made available by Chinese authorities. Furthermore, there is no available evidence buttressing government claims that Lobsang Dondrup linked Tenzin Delek to any of the bombings. One official report simply asserted that Lobsang Dondrup worked “in concert” with Tenzin Delek but gave no other details.42 In a semi-official telephone interview, the head of the Ganzi (Kardze) judiciary claimed that although Lobsang Dondrup set off the explosions, Tenzin Delek financed the operation.43 He also alleged that Tenzin Delek composed the message inscribed on the pro-independence leaflets said to have been found at the Chengdu bomb site, but made Lobsang Dondrup copy it in his own hand and then burn the original44 (security officials regularly check the handwriting on leaflets against a wide range of suspects——sometimes all the monks in a small monastery will have to submit handwriting samples——in an effort to identify a perpetrator). However, Human Rights Watch has learned that Lobsang Dondrup was illiterate and could not write his name or form many of the component parts of Tibetan script. A deformed hand might have further compromised his ability to write.45

According to official statements, Lobsang Dondrup was convicted on the basis of his confession. He reportedly repudiated it during the sentencing hearing. Chinese authorities routinely use torture on Tibetan political activists in order to extract confessions.46 This has raised concerns that such methods were used against Lobsang Dondrup, concerns heightened by his incommunicado detention prior to trial.47

The Arrest of Tenzin Delek

Public Security Bureau officials from Sichuan province and Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture waited four days after the Chengdu blast to move against Tenzin Delek. On April 7, he and three of his closest associates, Tamdrin Tsering, Aka Dargye, and Tsultrim Dargye, were seized during a nighttime raid on Jamyang Choekhorling monastery, located in Nyagchukha. Nyagchu county police officers and military personnel arrived several hours after the raid and helped secure the area.

It has been reportedthat the arresting officers abused some of those they took away and did considerable damage to the facility. Tamdrin Tsering, one of those detained, was reported to have been badly beaten. One source told Human Rights Watch: “In the place where he usually slept, the furniture was all broken up and you could see that there had been a struggle, and there was blood on the floor.”48

A person inside the detention center who witnessed the men’s arrival reported that Tamdrin Tsering and Aka Dargye appeared to have been beaten.49

It is unclear how many monks remained at Jamyang Choekhorling after the raid——probably between fifteen and thirty. They were held in the monastery for several days for questioning, then ordered to leave both the monastery and the area. Some went to other monasteries, including Orthok; some went home. The doors to the monastery’s temple were then locked.

Area residents interviewed said they should have been anticipating Tenzin Delek’s seizure for some time before the Chengdu explosion. Several weeks before the raid at Jamyang Choekhorling, security officials in Lithang, Nyagchu, and several other counties executed an orderly plan to collect residents’ rifles. The weapons, many costing as much as ten yaks, were not illegal and had been registered with the authorities. In hindsight, some residents, while acknowledging that the timing could have been coincidental, attributed the collection to preparations for Tenzin Delek’s arrest.50



36Zhizao Tianfu Guangcheng Baozha Anjian…,” Sichuan Daily; See Appendix II, “Interview with Kardze Court Judge.”

37 Human Rights Watch interview with DQ, April 3 2002.

38 “Chinese student rewarded for giving ‘crucial clues’ in Chengdu blast,” BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific — Political, April 24, 2002, text of report in English by official Chinese news agency Xinhua (New China News Agency), April 24, 2002.

39 Interview with KR, December 14, 2002.

40 Interview in February 2003 with a Chinese official who wishes to remain anonymous, describing a conversation he had with an official in Chengdu.

41 Human Rights Watch interviews with DQ, April 3 and April 17, 2003.

42Zhizao Tianfu Guangcheng Baozha Anjian …,” Sichuan Daily.

43 See Appendix II, “Interview with Kardze Court Judge.” Additional information on the tape denigrated Tenzin Delek, saying, for example, that the Lithang Public Security Bureau came to court with a videotape documenting their discovery of women’s clothing, bras, medicines, and dynamite at Jamyang Choekhorling. He asserted that Tenzin Delek had been expelled from Lithang monastery for drinking and fighting, an accusation refuted by Tibetans (Human Rights Watch interview with HM, August 7, 2003). The speaker also implied that the Dalai Lama never “recognized” Tenzin Delek, and that the local people had come to regret they ever trusted him. See also “Tibetans Were Denied Lawyers in Bomb Trial — Chinese Judge Says Men Confessed to Bombings,” Radio Free Asia, December 5, 2002.

44 Ibid.

45 Human Rights Watch interviews with EJ, July 16 and September 24, 2003.

46 Mickey Spiegel, “Exile Accounts” in Tibet Since 1950…, pp. 112-141.

47 Further suspicion of torture followed after Lobsang Dondrup’s ashes were delivered to his family, which had made repeated requests that Chinese authorities return his body intact, as was the usual practice.

48 Human Rights Watch interview with KR, December 19, 2002.

49 Ibid.

50 Human Rights Watch interview with DQ, April 3, 2003.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

February 2004