download the report - International Campaign for Tibet

Rukhag 3: The Nuns of Drapchi Prisonwindow and shouted, and gave details on this [whether or not the details were true]. The officials insisted that wehad done this and that, and even if we denied it, [the informers] said that we had done it. If they did this, theirsentences would be reduced, so they would report a lot of information. Each year there is a general meeting duringwhich they lower sentences. If they give a lot of information, [their sentence is reduced] by three years. If they don'treport much, by two years, and at a minimum a sentence is reduced by one year. [In our cell] all the non-politicalprisoners had their sentences reduced by one year or one and a half years.” 163Unit chiefs did not rely solely on human watchfulness. Norzin Wangmo commented on the relationship between the cessationof normal work and the introduction of heightened security:“They stopped the work [outside the cells]. If we worked then we were able to talk to each other. If we were keptin our cells there was no one to talk to. They kept a camera in our cells. If we talked, they could see it in the officeof the tutrang.” 164Lobsang Choezin confirms that both ordinary criminals and video surveillance were utilised in “new rukhag 3”:“There are 12 in a cell, and generally two or three of them are kept to [watch over] us. If they talk about us, theirsentence is reduced. After the 1998 incidents the windows of our cells were never kept [unattended]. Someonealways went up and down to watch us. They also put something black [surveillance cameras] in the cells to watchus. The [surveillance camera] registers all that it sees and hears. They put it above the door in August 1998. Afterthat no one was put on guard outside at the windows during daytime, but they were kept on guard outside during thenights.” 165Maintaining such a regimen over an extended period of time has an innately punitive function, but it also addressed anotherproblem. Officials were anxious to control the spread of information about the protests and their aftermath. According to oneof the earliest reports received by TIN, the wording of which suggests it was written before mid-May and may have originated166within Drapchi, prison staff were ordered to remain in the compound and not return to their homes at night. It is unknownhow long the stricture lasted, but refusal to allow anyone to leave Drapchi also affected prisoners scheduled for release duringthe first weeks following the protest. Lobsang Choezin and co-demonstrator Gyaltsen Sherab, whose sentences expired on16714 June, were released two weeks late. Six more Unit 3 prisoners were due for release in June; it isn’t known whether theirreleases were delayed as well.Isolation between cells remained effective long after the first weeks had passed. Choeying Kunsang wasn’t released untilFebruary 1999, but didn’t learn of any news, including the deaths, until after leaving Drapchi. She recalls meeting her familyoutside the prison gates:“When we were released from prison, we were all taken out separately. Our family members were waiting outsidein the evening, and then we met them. [Officials] said, ‘You are not allowed to do all kinds of things after yourrelease, and you are not allowed to say a single word about what happened in prison. Your prison term has expiredbut your political rights are suspended. If you talk about what happened in prison we will give you a sentence twiceas long as your last one’”. 168Another measure taken to inhibit information flow was the suspension of visiting rights. Regulations allow prisoners tothreceive visitors once monthly, on the 20 at Drapchi. After the May protests, visits for political prisoners were halted.52