This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 001659 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR SA/INS 
LONDON FOR POL - RIEDEL 
BEIJING PLEASE PASS CHENGDU 
GENEVA FOR RMA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/25/2012 
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL NP IN CH
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON STATUS OF TIBETAN REFUGEES DETAINED IN 
NEPAL 
 
REF: KATHMANDU 1245 AND PREVIOUS 
 
Classified By: DCM ROBERT K. BOGGS.  REASON:  1.5 (B,D). 
 
------------------------- 
FINES PAID; JAILED MOTHER 
AND CHILD ARE FREED 
-------------------------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) On August 22 a German philanthropist paid Nepal's 
Department of Immigration approximately USD 1500 in assorted 
fees and penalties to secure the release of a Tibetan 
refugee, detained since August 2001 for having re-entered 
Nepal without proper documentation (Reftel), and her baby, 
born in detention in February.  The Department of Immigration 
turned over the woman and child to UNHCR.  The Tibetan 
Reception Center is currently making arrangements for the 
pair's onward travel to India. 
 
--------------------------- 
COURT RULING REDUCES FINES 
--------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U)  On the same day an appellate court in Kathmandu 
ordered the Department of Immigration to explain why it had 
levied visa and late fees (totaling about USD 10,000) on a 
Tibetan refugee in detention for having entered Nepal without 
proper documentation.  (Note:  Cases for ten others similarly 
detained were also filed and are on the court docket.)  The 
court made no mention of the penalty fees (ranging from USD 
65 to over USD 500) the Department of Immigration has also 
levied on the detainees. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
GOVERNMENT IMPOSES CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  On August 24 Director of Immigration Lok Bahadur 
Khatri contacted poloff to say the 11 detained refugees will 
be released from detention provided they pay all penalty fees 
(totaling more than USD 3000) and agree to drop the remaining 
cases pending before the Appellate Court.  Khatri noted the 
decision had been taken after the Ambassador brought up the 
Tibetans' plight to the Prime Minister. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
REACTIONS FROM OFFICE OF TIBET, UNHCR 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (C)  Office of Tibet Representative Wangchuk Tsering told 
poloff he believes his Office has no option but to scrape 
together enough money to pay the penalty fees and withdraw 
the appeals.  The actual amount to be paid may be 
substantially lower than USD 3000, he speculated, as the 
woman freed August 22 had almost half of her penalty reduced 
on the basis of time served.  He has already asked his lawyer 
to contact the Department of Immigration to get firsthand 
details of the terms for the detainees' release.  Meanwhile, 
he is attempting to raise privately the money needed to pay 
the fines. 
 
¶5.  (C)  UNHCR Representative Michel Dupoizat told DCM that 
paying the penalty fees for individuals of concern to the 
UNHCR--such as these detainees--sets an undesirable 
precedent.  Dupoizat argues that the problem of transient 
Tibetans is a systemic one that needs a larger, procedural 
remedy.  The Department of Immigration, moreover, assesses 
such fees arbitrarily and inconsistently, Supang 
Sguansaitgul, UNHCR's Deputy Representative, noted. 
 
--------- 
COMMENT 
--------- 
 
¶6.  (C)  We agree with UNHCR that paying the fees sets an 
undesirable precedent.  The Government of Nepal has attracted 
considerable heat from our Embassy and others for detaining 
the refugees and for assessing such hefty and unjustifiable 
fees for their liberty.  The Appellate Court apparently 
agrees that the fees are unreasonable; hence its order to the 
Department of Immigration to justify them.  By letting the 
detainees go after paying just the penalty fee, the 
Department of Immigration avoids a potentially protracted 
court battle and more unfavorable publicity while still 
maintaining the face-saving position that the detentions were 
justified responses to violations of Nepali law. 
MALINOWSKI