Asia
The most troubling feature in Asia is the imprisonment of very large numbers of people for long periods in many countries without trial. With the state of emergency declared in December 1974 in Bangladesh, the trend continues of more Asian countries being governed by the use of extraordinary powers which severely limit the rights of individuals. The creation of new courts and changes in trial procedure are regrettable additions to the existing state of emergency legislation in Pakistan. Both India and Sri Lanka continue to be governed under states of emergency. The Philippines is due to enter its third year of martial law. Civil rights in the Republic of Korea have been eroded by presidential decree.
The vast scale of imprisonment has made it necessary to balance the adoption of individual cases with work in the International Secretariat to bring pressure on governments to grant amnesties to large groups of prisoners. A number of missions were sent during 1974-75 to discuss with governments general problems of imprisonment, as well as specific cases. In the last year, delegates have visited Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Republic of Korea and Taiwan.
The major event of the past year was the ending of the Vietnam war in April 1975. A temporary specialist researcher was appointed at the International Secretariat to monitor the effects of the war on political prisoners. The reported release of all political prisoners in South Vietnam was welcomed as a termination of the previous pattern of large-scale imprisonment.
During the year, Amnesty International worked on 1,000 adoption and inves- tigation cases in Asia, most of them persons detained without charge or trial. Compared with other parts of the world, the adopted prisoners tend to be detained for extremely long periods: imprisonment for more than 10 years is common. This is particularly the case with Indonesia where tens of thousands of prisoners are spending their 10th year in detention.
In the relatively few cases where trials are held for political prisoners, the charges tend to be based on vague, broadly defined laws which restrict normal forms of political opposition, and this is made worse by questionable legal procedures which hamper the prisoner in the preparation of an adequate defence.