Chinese law requires that those who are to be moved off their land or are to have their property confiscated must be consulted, and, if they are moved, compensated for their losses. Articles 41 and 111 of Chinas constitution guarantee the right to consultation, as does the 1989 Administrative Procedure Law.135That law and the 1986 General Principles of the Civil Law of the PRCalso stipulate compensation for property seized illegally. The 1998/1999 Land Administration Law spells out the process by which property can be requisitioned, processes by which compensation should be paid, and amounts, but indications are that these are rarely followed.136
Article 13 of Chinas constitution was amended in 2004, and stipulates that the right to lawful private property is inviolable, and that [t]he State may, in the public interest and in accordance with law, expropriate or requisition private property for its use and shall make compensation for the private property expropriated or requisitioned.137 However, the guarantees set out in the new constitutional provision amendment were incorporated in ordinary legislation via the Property Rights Law, which was only adopted on March 16, 2007 and is not scheduled to come into effect until October 2007. The Property Rights Law provides protection of the right to property,138 including housing and means of livelihood,139 and while it makes provision for expropriation of property and houses, in the public interest such expropriation must comply with procedures prescribed by the relevant Law and relocation compensation shall be paid under the law, and the lawful rights and interests of the person subject to expropriation shall be safeguarded; where an individuals dwelling unit is expropriated, the dwelling condition of the person subject to expropriation shall also be assured.140
During the debate preceding the adoption of the law one commentator noted, The calls for defining public interest derive from the truth that [it is] an excuse [that is] too vulnerable to abuse an umbrella of protection for abusive public servants. Many worried about such abuse are citing forced evacuation in land requisitions by government departments.141
The Chinese government has repeatedly stated that herders are not forced to move, but had the right to chose whether they wanted to resettle.142According to a state media article in December 2004, Under the policy principle, The government shows the way, the masses chose freely, 7,366 households had already signed a contract to stop herding livestock.143
More recently, in one of many similar articles, the official Xinhua news agency quoted a local official in October 2006 as guaranteeing that the government would respect and not interfere with the decision of herders to go back to the grassland if they chose to do so:
However, interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch detailed below paint a markedly different picture, of an experience characterized not by choice and consultation, but often by coercion and arbitrary action.
The interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch make clear that there is little evidence of meaningful participation by the affected communities in the decisions to resettle people. As some of the accounts show, even those who have tried to advance their complaints through the relevant local authorities have had no success. This account came from a farmer in Drakgo county in Sichuan whose fields had been confiscated:
Others described their inability to influence the decisions to confiscate land. Many reported that local officials announced the land confiscation and resettlement policies as orders from the central government, and therefore not to be questioned.
Many interviewees expressed anxiety about the arbitrary policy shifts with respect to land access and use, and the absence of transparency about developments that fundamentally affect their communities. B.U., from Machu in Gansu, told us,
Despite the governments claim to the contrary, some Chinese studies obtained by Human Rights Watch acknowledge that the interests of herders have often been harmed through the loss of their original land rights:149
A number of similar studies also criticize the general lack of legality surrounding resettlement of herders, noting that the transfer of land rights often is not explicit.151 In particular, they observe that resettlement policies have been marked by insufficient legal involvement,152 a lack of legal knowledge from all the parties,153 and that government departments have an insufficient knowledge of the law.154 Underlining the arbitrary character of relevant decisions by local authorities, one study notes that in many cases, administrative orders have superseded the law, and stand in contradiction with laws and regulations.155
In addition, a number of Chinese authors note the persistence of conflicts between government departments,156 a factor that helps explain the variation in policies experienced by some of the interviewees cited in this report.
Although Chinas 2004 White Paper on human rights said that 14.77 billion yuan had been paid out in compensation to farmers across the country whose land had been requisitioned,158 the standard of compensation provided to the Tibetan herders is clearly inadequate (the standards according to international law are discussed in Chapter IV, above). Claims of nonpayment are endemic, and there are also allegations of corruption and discrimination in the compensation process.
The amounts paid in compensation in Tibetan areas vary considerably. At one end of the spectrum, in 2004 the Qinghai government pledged that each household would receive 80,000 yuan (US$10,000) as production and construction subsidies, and that over five years each household would receive 8,000 yuan (US$1,000) in grain subsidies.159 At the other, there are cases in which there has been no compensation at all.
The failure to adequately compensate those resettled is most clearly seen with respect to housing. In some instances, local authorities have provided alternative housing for those resettled, though it is clear from the testimonies that this is generally regarded as inadequate. In at least one instancethe case of the Shawo Dam evictees described aboveno housing was provided.
Newly built accommodations in semi-urban centerstypically, the local township or countyare low quality, unfurnished, two-room dwellings, and often in larger compounds of identical dwellings. Families are relocated to these irrespective of family size. Some of the people interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that some of the new houses were so small that occupants had to pitch tents in the small yard in front, but were not permitted to build themselves new houses adjacent to the government-built structures. N.M., from Nangchen (Nangqian) county, Yushu prefecture, in Qinghai province, commented to us about families crammed into these uniform two-room houses, I went to see them when they were moving in, and I felt that they would not really be able to stay in such a place.160
F.R., from Machen county in Golok prefecture, Qinghai province, described the trend this way:
Many households had built houses for themselves at their winter grazing sites in recent years, but these also had to be abandoned when they were re-settled.162
According to at least one interviewee, the housing allocation process is also arbitrary:
Some said the accommodation is provided free,164 but most said they had to at least split the cost for house construction with the government or provide a down payment.165 For example, if the government says it is giving 10,000 yuan (US$1,294) per house in a resettlement colony, which is supposedly half the cost, it would ask each family to give the other half. However, some people complained that after the construction was complete, it was evident that the house could not have cost what the government claimed:166
Some suggest that they are in fact being asked to pay high costs in addition to those of the actual house. As B.U., from Machu (Maqu) county, Kanlho (Gannan) prefecture in Gansu province, remarked,
Another person questioned why the government needed any additional revenue contributions from those relocated:
In some instances local officials have threatened to withhold compensation as a tool to expedite resettlement among those who tried to resist.
Compensation payments were also promised ostensibly to help families make the transition to their new livelihood as shopkeepers or entrepreneurs in the urban economy. Amounts reported to us ranged from one-time cash payments of 7,0008,000 yuan171 (US$900-US$1000) to handouts of a few sacks of rice or wheat flour over the first year or two.172 Interviewees said that larger sums had been promised initially but do not appear to have materialized.173 One interviewee acknowledged that annual payments of around 2000 yuan were being made, but also said that recipients were resorting to sifting trash to supplement their income.174 Some who spoke to Human Rights Watch also contradicted statements in the official media that state assistance was available to help relocated households retrain or start businesses.175
Even those who received some compensation received less than the amount they ought to have been given, which led to disputes. As T.L., from Chentsa (Jianza) county, Malho (Huangnan prefecture), Qinghai province, told Human Rights Watch, Our family also has to move. We received 11,000 yuan in compensation for our house, orchard, and trees. We had over 200 apple trees altogether and more than 2,000 trees. According to T.L., they were supposed to have been paid 28 yuan for a big tree, 20 yuan for a medium-sized one and 15 yuan for a small one, but the prices they got ranged from 4 yuan for a large tree to 1.5 yuan for a small tree. He continued,
In 2005 in Sangchu county in Kanlho prefecture, Gansu, an area used for military training by the Peoples Liberation Army North-West Command (based in nearby Lanzhou) was fenced off, apparently for construction of a military airfield, with no direct compensation for locals. This led to protests in the county town in May 2005 which were forcefully suppressed.177 Another example was given by P.O., who said that land in a formerly pastoral area of Chabcha (Gonghe), the capital of Tso-lho (Hainan) prefecture, including some converted to agriculture since the fencing policy was enforced, was confiscated by the military in 2004, without compensation.178 Locals were told they could work as laborers on the military farm for a minimal wage if they wished, and heavy fines were imposed on households if their cattle grazed inside the fence.
Although reports of unpaid compensation to resettled herders almost never surface in state media reports, some official sources suggest that the problem is endemic. In one study, a Chinese expert notes that even in the cases where the state itself allocates funds for resettlement programs, The funds do not reach their destination on time, and many resettled herders can not lead a normal life. Some herders return to their original pastures or carry on with their pastoral activities.179 An official account from the Qinghai Land Resources Bureau attests to large scale unpaid compensation problems. In one single district, a drive to rectify land management led to the payment of 3.14 million yuan (US$400,000) in unpaid compensation for herders, resettlement expenses and other unpaid compensation for land confiscation.180
Some of the people we interviewed made direct allegations of corruption in the relocation agencies.
In an article published in March 2004, Zhang Yuanqing, an official from the Qinghai provincial land resources bureau, recounts that many infrastructure projects he has examined simply did not include any budgetary provisions for the payment of compensation for land use and land confiscation:
Chinese officials and state media claim that resettlement policies are welcomed by Tibetan herders, and generally deny incidents of unrest. One typical article states,
But local surveys by Chinese researchers paint a markedly different picture. According to one such study, ecological migration policies are fostering ethnic unrest in Qinghai and other Tibetan areas.
In fact, despite official claims to the contrary, the Chinese authorities are well aware of the extent of dissatisfaction among Tibetans targeted by the resettlement projects. In 2005 the central authorities appeared sufficiently concerned to commission through the National Science Foundation a series of studies on Social Stability in Qinghai Tibetan Autonomous Region.185
One of the resulting studies, carried out by the Qinghai Minorities Institute, acknowledged that ecological migration policies suffered from serious problems in design and implementation, and that they were fueling ethnic strife. If these problems were not addressed in a timely manner, the authors of the studies warned, this could severely influence the social and political stability of Qinghai and even of the entire Northwest regions. The study recognized that in the concrete implementation of the [ecological migration] process, contradictions and disputes arise between out-migrants, in-migrants, and the government.
The authors called the authorities to address the defects of the resettlement policies:
These findings are not isolated. Another study conducted at the same time also concluded that, if not correctly addressed, then the economic problems could evolve into a nationalities relations problemsor, in other words, ethnic unrest.188
The legacy of repression and poor education in Tibetan areas means that few Tibetans have a sense that they have any rights to object at all, let alone the right to participate in these decisions. Some see their inability to advance grievances as a direct result of discrimination. Whatever local Tibetans say it wont have any effect. There are no Tibetan officials in higher positions of authority, noted Z.R., a Tibetan from Chabcha (Gonghe) county, Qinghai province.189
Yet, there have been cases of defiance toward the resettlement and associated developments including mining and the construction of slaughterhouses. At its mildest, defiance has taken the form of refusing compensation for fear that doing so would be used to justify permanent withholding of land from use by the herders. As one interviewee told Human Rights Watch,
The same interviewee told Human Rights Watch about a 2003 mass wire-cutting protest by local people in Sershul, Sichuan, who were angry at being excluded from their former pastures and livelihood, resulting in a confrontation with the army and arrests of alleged ringleaders. In this case, local leaders subsequently announced a compromise, according to which they agreed to a reduction of the fenced area in 2005.191
However, in other instances there have been more violent responses. Human Rights Watch has been told about two local protests against mining operations in Tibetan areas, which have involved physical attacks on mine workers, and arrests.192
Recently constructed slaughterhouses in pastoral areas of northwestern Sichuan have been the focus of the most concerted protests. Local people in areas where these incidents took place claim that they have been ordered to donate animals for slaughter on a per household basis. In some cases, local protests have been led by religious figures, and have led to arrests and violence. Clearly slaughterhouses are offensive to Buddhist beliefs, and these have provided some sanction for the protest, but to Tibetan herders it appears that the slaughterhouses also represent the influx of Han Chinese entrepreneurs. Protests have happened primarily at privately owned slaughterhouses because their demands for livestock, unlike those of state-owned facilities, are not legally enforceable.
Three young interviewees spoke to Human Rights Watch about a slaughterhouse near Sershul. They gave varying accounts about the numbers of people arrested for mounting a petition against it. One interviewee, L.U., said that there had been an attempt to bomb the facility.193 R.A. told Human Rights Watch of threats of unspecified punishment by local officials if herders refused to comply with the order to slaughter animals.
R.A., from Sershul (Shiqu) county, Kandze (Ganzi) prefecture in Sihuan, provided a remarkably complete account of the petition protest mounted against this particular slaughterhouse, and its consequences:
Human Rights Watch was also given an account of the development of Denma township in Sershul into a county town and the construction of a slaughterhouse there, also with a household quota. This development was also protested by local religious leaders.196
The most dramatic incident to have been reported so far was a mass attack by locals on a slaughterhouse in Manigango in Derge county in August 2005. The slaughterhouse, located in a predominantly Tibetan part of Sichuan province, had been a point of contention with local herdsmen since its construction in 2004. Local officials had reportedly been paid bribes equivalent to US$11,000 to facilitate the construction of the privately-owned slaughterhouse. After its construction, local Tibetans reportedly came under pressure from these officials to sell their livestock to the new slaughterhouse. The herders also claimed that the theft of their livestock increased, driven by the opportunity of selling the stolen animals to the slaughterhouse. The slaughterhouse told them it was taking steps to avoid acquiring stolen livestock, but authorities of the Derge County Public Security Bureau allegedly failed to respond to the herders complaints.197
In late July or early August 2005, some 300 Tibetans reportedly burned down the privately-owned slaughterhouse.198 The legitimacy of their grievances does not justify such violence, and Human Rights Watch believes that the perpetrators should be prosecuted. However, the events over the following days and months entailed additional violations ofrather than greater respect fordue process.
On the day after the slaughterhouse was burned, police and army units detained several dozen people, many of whom had been identified from a videotape taken by slaughterhouse staff during the attack. Most detainees were released later that day, but several were kept in detention. According to an eyewitness with whom Human Rights Watch spoke, those held in custody were beaten and tortured. Some who were badly injured were taken to a hospital in Kandze. Local citizens registered a complaint with the provincial government, which sent an investigation team to the hospital. When local Public Security Bureau officials learned of the teams visit, those injured during the protests were reportedly moved out of the hospital.
132 Human Rights Watch interview with F.H., from Pema (Banma) county, Golok (Guolou) TAP, Qinghai province, January 16, 2006.
133 Human Rights Watch interview with F.W., from Sangchu (Xiahe) county, Kanlho TAP, Gansu province (Amdo), July 20, 2006.
134 Human Rights Watch interview with M.S., from Tsigorthang (Xinghai) county, Tsolho (Hainan) TAP, Qinghai province, May 12, 2005.
135 See in particular articles 2 and 9 of the 1989 Administrative Procedure Law.
136 Land Administration Law (1998/1999), https://product.chinawe.com/cgi-bin/lawdetail.pl?LawID+434 (accessed June 14, 2005).
137 Constitution of the Peoples Republic of China, amended March 14, 2004, by the 10th National Peoples Congress at its Second Session, http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html (accessed May 22, 2007), art. 13.
138 Property Rights Law, arts. 32 - 39
139 Property Rights Law, arts. 64 and 66.
140 Property Rights Law, art. 42.
141 Defining Public Interest, China Daily, September 2, 2006, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-09/02/content_679962.htm.
142 The ecological resettlement work in the Three rivers area perfectly respect the right to chose of Tibetan herders, Xinhuanet (www.news.cn), October 30, 2006 [三江源生态移民工作充分尊重藏族牧民的选择权. 新华网, 2006年10月30]/ Available at http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2006-10-30/122811370432.shtml (accessed February 24, 2007).
143 3,050 herder households from the Three river areas will resttle between this winter and next spring, Xihai Metro News, December 2, 2004 [三江源地区3050户牧民今冬明春实现定居, 西海都市报, 2004年12月2日], http://email@example.com (accessed February 17, 2007).
144 The ecological resettlement work in the Three rivers area perfectly respect the right to chose of Tibetan herders, Xinhuanet (www.news.cn). Some Tibetan herders said that officials had told them their relocation was only a temporary measure to allow for rejuvenation of the pasture. F.R. reported to Human Rights Watch, They said they will protect, prevent, guard, and manage the land and water by growing grasses and trees on the pasturelands for 10 years, after which they said they will let the herders return to their pasturelands and buy livestock to restart herder lives. Human Rights Watch interview with F.R., from Machen (Maqin) county, Golok TAP (Guolou) prefecture, Qinghai, November 24, 2004.
145 Human Rights Watch interview with L.P., from Tengchen county, Chamdo prefecture, TAR, August 20, 2006.
146 Human Rights Watch interview with R.E., Drakgo county, Kandze TAP, Sichuan province, January 2006.
147 Human Rights Watch interview with F.H., from Pema (Banma) county, Golok (Guolou) TAP, Qinghai province, January 16, 2006.
148 Human Rights Watch interviews with B.U., from Machu county, Kanlho TAP, Gansu province, October 6, 2004.
149 Meng Linlin, Bao Zhiming, Survey of Ecological Migration Studies, Journal of the Central University for Nationalities , p. 49.
153 Yang Weijun, Study of the development polices of the ecological migration of ethnic areas of Western China, Journal of the Second Northwest University for Nationalities, Issue 4, 2004, p. 7 [杨维军, 西部民族地区生态移民发展对策研究, 西北第二民族学院学, 报2005年第4期, 第7页].
156 Meng Linlin, Bao Zhiming, Survey of Ecological Migration Studies, Journal of the Central University for Nationalities ,p. 50; and Yang Weijun, Study of the development polices of the ecological migration of ethnic areas of Western China, Journal of the Second Northwest University for Nationalities, p. 7.
157 Human Rights Watch interview with S.O., from Jomda county, Chamdo prefecture, TAR, May 5, 2006.
158Chinas Progress in Human Rights in 2004, Section 4: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/20050418/index.htm, (accessed February 12, 2007).
159 3,050 herder households from the Three river areas will resettle between this winter and next spring, Xihai Metro News.
160 Human Rights Watch interview with N.M., from Nangchen (Nangqian) county, Yushu TAP, Qinghai province (Amdo), January 25, 2005.
161 Human Rights Watch interview with F.R., from Machen (Maqin) county, Golok (Guolou) TAP, Qinghai, November 24, 2004.
162 Human Rights Watch interview with A.M., from Machen (Maqin) county, Golog TAP, Qinghai province, September 16, 2005.
163 Human Rights Watch interview with B.R., from Tarri (Darlak) county, Golog TAP, Qinghai province (Amdo), January 21, 2005.
164 Human Rights Watch interview with F.R., from Machen (Maqin) county, Golok (Guolou) TAP, Qinghai province, November 24, 2004; Y.S., from Ngaba county, Ngaba TAP prefecture, Sichuan province, June 6, 2005.
165 Human Rights Watch interviews with B.U., from Machu (Maqin) county, Kanlho TAP, Gansu province, October 6, 2004.
166 Human Rights Watch interview with R.J., from Machu (Maqin) county, Kanlho TAP, Gansu province, April 18, 2005; O.R., from Kyidrong (Jilong) county, Shigatse prefecture, TAR, September 8, 2005.
167 Human Rights Watch interview with F.H., from Pema (Banma) county, Golok (Guolou) TAP, Qinghai province, January 16, 2006.
168 Human Rights Watch interviews with B.U., from Machu (Maqin) county, Kanlho TAP, Gansu province, October 6, 2004.
169 Human Rights Watch interview with B.R., from Tarri (Darlak) county, Golog TAP, Qinghai province (Amdo), January 21, 2005.
170 Human Rights Watch interview with N.M., from Nangchen (Nangqian) county, Yushu TAP, Qinghai province (Amdo), January 25, 2005.
171 Human Rights Watch interviews with D.Z., from Machen (Maqin) county, Golog TAP, Qinghai province, August 26, 2005; A.M., from Machen (Maqin) county, Golog TAP, Qinghai province, September 16, 2005.
172 Human Rights Watch interviews with E.M., from Pema county, Golog TAP, Qinghai province, February 27, 2006; B.R., from Tarri (Darlak) county, Golog TAP, Qinghai province (Amdo), January 21, 2005.; F.H., from Pema (Banma) county, Golok (Guolou) TAP, Qinghai province, January 16, 2006.
173 HRW interviewees either made no mention of annual payments to supplement income as announced in the official media (usually several thousand yuan per year for up to 10 years), or said that promised payments had not been made. The details of compensation payments are understandably complex and variable. In a series of interviews broadcast on Qinghai Radios Tibetan service in September 2006, for example, it was clarified that the considerable number of households formed by the younger generation in the years since pasture was allocated under the Responsibility system, who have no entitlement to land use, are being given only half the compensation due to the parent households. Local officials frankly admitted that initial promises had not been met: Chaktar Tsering, leader of Gongmatoema township in Gabde county, told the radio interviewer, When we first announced this (relocation) policy, we announced that many different kinds of assistance would be available to ordinary people. But in the course of implementation, we were not able to put many of these into practice, so these days many people have lost confidence [in the word of the authorities], and moreover, there is great anxiety over production and livelihood. Qinghai Radio report by Tashi Bhum and Pema Rikdzin, July 9, 2006.
174 Human Rights Watch interview with D.W., from Pema county, Golog TAP, Qinghai province (Amdo), March 16, 2006.
175 Tendar, the party secretary of Sangrima township in Darlak county, told Qinghai Radio that relocated herders who opened shops or vehicle repair workshops were exempt from tax and that some had been sent for training in vehicle repair and other skills. Still, he continued, the 6000 yuan annual income supplement paid by the state was insufficient, and loans should be made available to relocatees to start businesses, since collecting yartsa ganbu was still their only actual source of income. Qinghai Radio report by Tashi Bhum and Pema Rikdzin, September 18, 2006.
176 Human Rights Watch interview with T.L., from Chentsa (Jianza) County, Malho (Huangnan) prefecture, Qinghai province (Amdo), December 22, 2004.
177 Human Rights Watch interview with F.W., from Sangchu (Xiahe) county, Kanlho TAP, Gansu province (Amdo), July 26, 2006; N.G., from Sangchu (Xiahe) county, Kanlho TAP, Gansu province (Amdo), December 14, 2006.
178 Human Rights Watch interview with P.O., from Rebkong (Tongren) county, Tsolho TAP, Qinghai province, October 25, 2006.
179 Meng Linlin, Bao Zhiming, Survey of Ecological Migration Studies, Journal of the Central University for Nationalities , p. 49.
180 Qinghai provincial land resources bureau, Qinghai Regularizes Land Use, January 22, 2004. [青海省国土资源厅, 青海规范园区用地行为, 2004年 1月22日].Available at http://www.qhlr.gov.cn/readnews.asp?xh=114 (accessed February 17, 2007).
181Human Rights Watch interview with S.Z., from Chentsa (Jianza) county, Malho (Huangnan) prefecture, Qinghai province, December 14, 2005.
182 Zhang Yuanqing, Strengthening land management and promoting economic development: Some thoughts on the rectification of the organization of the land market, Qinghai Land Administration, March 2004, p. 24-26 [张元青, 加强土地管理促进经济发展--治理整顿土地市场秩序的一些思考青海国土经略, 2004年3月, 24-26页].
183 Guoluo Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture celebrates its 50th anniversary, Peoples Daily Online (http://english.people.com.cn), August 2, 2004, http://english.people.com.cn/200408/02/eng20040802_151616.html (accessed February 12, 2007).
184 Li Jiacaidan, Yang Hude, Analysis of current ethnic relations in Qinghais Tibetan Autonomous Areas, Nationalities Research in Qinghai, vol. 17, no. 3, July 2006, p. 49 [李加才旦, 杨虎德, 当前青海藏族自治地区民族关系探析, 青海民族研究, 第17 卷第3 期2006年7 月, 第49页].
185 Projects from the National Science Foundation in 2005: Study on Social Stability in Qinghai Tibetan Autonomous Region, approval number 05XSH016 [2005年国家社科基金项目《青海藏族自治地区社会稳定研究》，课题批准号：05XSH016].
186 Li Jiacaidan, Yang Hude, Analysis of current ethnic relations in Qinghais Tibetan Autonomous Areas, Nationalities Research in Qinghai, Vol. 17, No. 3, July 2006, p. 49. [李加才旦, 杨虎德, 当前青海藏族自治地区民族关系探析, 青海民族研究, 第17 卷第3 期2006年7 月, 第49页]
187 Li Jiacaidan, Yang Hude, Analysis of current ethnic relations in Qinghais Tibetan Autonomous Areas, Nationalities Research in Qinghai, Vol. 17, No. 3, July 2006, p. 49. [李加才旦, 杨虎德, 当前青海藏族自治地区民族关系探析, 青海民族研究, 第17 卷第3 期2006年7 月, 第49页]
188 Meng Linlin, Bao Zhiming, Survey of Ecological Migration Studies, Journal of the Central University for Nationalities , p. 49.
189 Human Rights Watch interviews with Z.R., from Chabcha (Gonghe) county, Tsolho (Hainan) TAP, Qinghai province, January 14, 2005.
190 Human Rights Watch interview with B.E., from Sershul (Shiqu) county, Kardze (Ganzi) TAP, Sichuan province, September 30, 2005.
191 Human Rights Watch interview with B.E., from Sershul (Shiqu) county, Kardze (Ganzi) TAP, Sichuan province, September 30, 2005.
192 Human Rights Watch interview with J.E., from Sok (Suo) county, Nakchu prefecture, TAR, December 1, 2004; R.S., from Tolung Dechen county, Lhasa municipality, TAR, March 4, 2005; M.W., from Machu county, Kanlho TAP, Gansu province April 22, 2005; H.D., from Dulan county, Tsonub TAP, Qinghai province, July 8, 2005; K.R., from Sog Dzong county, Dechen TAP, TAR September 23, 2005; J.K., from Jomda county, Chamdo prefecture, TAR, October 3, 2005; C.W., from Damshung county, Lhasa municipality, TAR, February 3, 2006.
193 Human Rights Watch interview with R.C., from Sershul (Shiqu) county, Kandze (Ganzi) prefecture, Sichuan province, May 25, 2005; R.A., from Sershul (Shiqu) county, Kandze (Ganzi) prefecture, Sichuan province, August 6, 2005; L.U., from Sershul (Shiqu) County, Kandze (Ganzi) prefecture in August 2, 2005.
194 Human Rights Watch interview with R.A., from Sershul (Shiqu) county, Kandze (Ganzi) prefecture, Sichuan province, August 6, 2005.
195 Human Rights Watch interview with R.A., from Sershul (Shiqu) county, Kandze (Ganzi) prefecture, Sichuan province, August 6, 2005.
196 Human Rights Watch interview with K.O., Sershul (Shiqu) county, Kardze (Ganzi) prefecture, Sichuan province, July 22, 2005.
197 Human Rights Watch interviews with J.K., from Jomda county, Chamdo prefecture, TAR, October 3, 2005; M.U., from Derga county Kandze prefecture TAP, Sichuan province, January 23, 2006.
198 Tibetan Nomads Set Fire to a Chinese Slaughterhouse in Sichuan, Radio Free Asia, September 8, 2005.
199 See, for example, China: Fears for Tibetan Slaughterhouse Detainees, Human Rights Watch news release, March 30, 2006, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/30/china13101.htm.