One of the questions that has constantly plagued me is why Shugden practitioners have not sued the CTA in the International Courts. Although I do not accept the stance of the Indian Courts, I understand their politically motivated decision to take a neutral (and hence biased) position vis-a-vis abuses against Dorje Shugden practitioners on Indian soil.
But where is Amnesty International in all this? In searching further, this is what I found:
Amnesty International on Dorje Shugden
(Amnesty International | USA | June 1998)
Amnesty International's position on alleged abuses against worshippers of Tibetan deity Dorje Shugden
Amnesty International (AI) has received and studied a large amount of material alleging human rights abuses against worshippers of the Tibetan Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden. These alleged abuses are reported to have happened largely in Tibetan settlements in India.
None of the material AI has received contains evidence of abuses which fall within Al's mandate for action — such as grave violations of fundamental human rights including torture, the death penalty, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, or unfair trials.
While recognizing that spiritual debate can be contentious, Amnesty International cannot become involved in debate on spiritual issues.
AI campaigns on the grave violations of human rights in Tibet, as well as the rest of the People's Republic of China. In 1997 a widespread crackdown on Tibetan nationalists and religious groups continued. At least 96 Tibetans, most of them Buddhist monks and nuns, were reported to have been detained during the year for peacefully exercising fundamental freedoms. A continuing "patriotic reeducation campaign" in monasteries and nunneries has led to expulsions and arrests. Prison conditions remain harsh in Tibet and prisoners are often ill-treated for minor infringements of prison regulations.
[Source:http://www.friendsoftibet.org/databank/usgeneral/usg8.html]
It is a shame that the action did not receive more support from the international Shugden community. It would have been very difficult for the persecuted monks and the average Tibetan to launch a suit against CTA at the UN on their own. Surely getting the ban onto the international stage is one way of demanding an answer from the CTA as well as HHDL.
Around the same time, the following cases of religious persecutions successfully reached the UN and received effective support:
_ Assistance to the Palestinian People (Resolution 53/89 of 7 December 1998) and a discussion of the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (Resolutions 53/53-53/57 of 3 December 1998);
_The question of East Timor , a Catholic former Portuguese colony annexed by Islamic Indonesia shortly after its independence (Resolution 53/402 of 15 December 1998);
_ The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Resolution 53/35 of 30 November 1998) and the War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslav Republic ("Preliminary...").
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were particularly interested in the case of East Timor, which resulted in criticism of the UN for its lack of past action on the issue. Another case which caught the attention of international human rights bodies was Russia and its former Republics that passed laws limiting state recognized religious groups. Russia was formally cited for discriminatory practices against Muslims, as in the case in Uzbekistan.
