Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
Human Rights Violations in Indian Occupied Kashmir: A Legal Perspective
2018, International Journal of Kashmir Studies
The Kashmir conflict is not only a territorial concern for India and Pakistan but along with its diplomatic, economic, legal, political and regional dynamics, it is an issue which is directly related to the intrinsic and inalienable right to life of millions of people. However, the brutal acts of the Indian government Kashmiris have been denied the right to life, property, education and significantly the right to self-determination.
INAM UL HAQ , DR. MUZAFAR A H M A D DAR
From Magna Carta to the bill of rights, from an authoritarian regime to democratic set up, no one has declined the value of human rights. Human rights are indispensable for democratic life and realization of their best selves by human beings. They are the product of increasing levels of enlightenment and peoples; quest for equality and dignity. This paper will present the human rights violation in Kashmir through the lens of rape, crackdowns, and tortures of detainees in Kashmir. The conflict in Kashmir, which has its origin in the states disputed accession to India in 1947, sees a great violation of human rights from both countries alongside the border and stepped up their attacks, murdering, kidnapping and soon. The paper will present the current scenario in Kashmir and the work done by human rights organization like Amnesty international and Human rights watch, and also highlight the work done by NGOs and measures taken by government of India.
International Journal of Kashmir Studies (IJKS)
Journal ijmr.net.in(UGC Approved)
This article is about Human rights abuses in Indian-administered portion of Kashmir. Indian-administered portion of Kashmir is suffering with every moment death of human rights. Mass killings, forced disappearances, torture, rape & sexual abuse to political repression & suppression of freedom of speech have become an integral part of their day to day life. The Indian central reserve police force, border security personnel and various militant groups have been accused & held accountable for committing severe human rights abuses against Kashmiri civilians. The Kashmiri insurgents are of the view that Indian-administered portion of Kashmir is a part of Pakistan. Hence only the Pakistanis have the right to live on that land. But the question arises how far it is appropriate to create one's existence at the cost of crushing the existence of those who are quite innocent & have no fault of their own, except that they were given birth on that land. This chaos has put innumerable questions before us demanding serious attention & immediate solution.
A BSTRACT: Kashmir is an intractable conflict between the two South Asian countries : India and Pakistan. It had affected people of tiny nation badly. Every individual suffered here in this vale of paradise which was known as the beautiful region across the globe. But its irony that due to unrest, turmoil , and cycle of violence , people lost their kiths and kens ; and because of all that , State of Jammu and Kashmir suffered a lot. This valley has seen plenty of untold stories of massive violations of human rights committed by Indian army, police , and by some of the militant groups. Since 1989, the people of Kashmir were killed, tortured, humiliated , and injured. Thousands of the people were killed due to cycle of violence prevalent in Jammu and Kashmir. Thousands of the people got injuries and they became disabled to work. Many are those who lost their beloved children’s, daughters, sisters, mothers , and some women have lost their beloved husbands, who were only the source to c...
Afghanistan. India's Mughal rulers, who conquered much of the territory in 1586, were so taken by the beauty of its landscape that they called it jannat—paradise. For the last six decades Kashmir has been a paradise lost, its people trapped in the vortex of a bitter sovereignty dispute between India and Pakistan over their lives and land. Genesis of sovereignty dispute over Jammu and Kashmir can be traced back to the British colonial period in Indian history. Jammu and Kashmir acceded to the Indian Union under very special circumstances in 1947, with Maharaja Hari Singh's hands being forced by the Pakistani-backed invasion of tribal raiders. To fight whom the maharaja needed the services of the Indian army. Because of this Jammu and Kashmir continued to witness serious human rights violations. Security forces were responsible for plenty of custodial killings. Hundreds of people have disappeared in Jammu and Kashmir since the internal armed conflict began in 1990. Civilians were often killed by security forces as retribution for killings of security forces. The Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act; and Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act of 1990 provide impunity to the security forces. Under Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act of 1990, no legal proceeding can be brought against any member of the armed forces without the permission from Central Government. This paper aims to study the main issues regarding such frequent violation of human rights, the reasons of unabated violence, human rights abuses, denial of civil and political rights, absence of mechanism of justice heightened militarization and survellience because of counter terrorism strategies in Jammu and Kashmir.
Waseem Ahmad Dar
Orient Research Journal of Social Sciences
DR. MARIA SAIFUDDIN EFFENDI
The 73 years old conflict in Kashmir is defined in various ways by India, Pakistan and international authors yet none of the definition is accepted as concrete and final. Pakistan sees Kashmir in terms of an indigenous struggle of Kashmiris for their right of self-determination. It also expresses concern over constant human rights violation in Kashmir. India views Kashmir as an internal conflict and defines the freedom movement of Kashmiris as an insurgency. Kashmiris, the main conflict actor, define their struggle as a freedommovement to gain freedom from Indian governmenttoenjoy socio-political rights and consolidate their distinct identity of 'Kashmiriyat'. For the past 10 years, the violence in Kashmir has taken its most brutal form where the victims are as young as a 3 month old infant and as old as 80 + years. This study attempts to define Kashmir conflict through its technical interpretation under legal framework whether it is a struggle for the right of self-determination, or an insurgency as described by Indian government, if not then wouldthe massive scale of human killings be termed as a genocide.
Centre for Strategic and Contemporary Research
On 5 August, India abrogated Article 370 from its constitution through presidential order. The erasure of the Article ceased the autonomous status of Indian held Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and bifurcated the Muslim-majority state into two union territories with Buddhist-majority Ladakh getting detached from J&K. The Indian decision of revoking Article 370 came after days of uncertainty and massive military build-up in the disputed territory. Coupled with massive military build-up, a crackdown was imposed in the state by virtually cutting it off from the rest of the world both physically and virtually. This piece of writing will analyze the violations of fundamental human rights in J&K by the imposition of crackdown through international human rights law.
Diponegoro Law Review
Desi Nur Cahya Kusuma Putri
The dispute in Jammu and Kashmir has been tensed by the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution by the Indian government in the end of 2019. The existence of Kashmir has become one of matters as the main focus between India-Pakistan conflicts. People are under diverse senses of de facto and de jure martial law. Estimated from 1990, thereabouts 70,000 people have been killed, 8,000 people have been subjected to enforced disappearances, thousand of them also victims of repressive laws and Indian security forces humiliate the protestors and detainees frequently. The research is normative legal research by using statute approach and case approach through literature review. The research aims to discuss and analyze the implementation of the rights of self-determination pursuant to Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. The results of the study indicate all the disputes should be ended by giving the right to self-determination, which should be given to the people of Kashm...
부평출장샵＼〔 카톡;nw 30 〕부평출장마사지 부평콜걸샵 SOD 30, NET 부평출장안마 부평모텔출장 부평출장부르는방법 부평유흥업소 부평출장안마가격 부평출장샵후기
Illapa Mana Tukukuq
Applied Physics …
Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture
24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 2004. Proceedings.
Anand Kumar Singh
Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences
Zulfahmi Ab Rahman
Maria da Luz Antunes
Educação e Pesquisa
Rita de Cassia Gallego
Open Cultural Studies
GABRIEL ALONZO HUAMAN OCHOA
Imaginations: Journal of Cross-Cultural Image Studies/revue d'études interculturelle de l'image
Journal of World Trade
Gabrielle Zoe MARCEAU
Journal of Experimental Botany
JOSE MARIA GOMEZ-SANCHO
IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
An official website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Fact Sheet 42 CFR Part 2 Final Rule
Date: February 8, 2024
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Office for Civil Rights announced a final rule modifying the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Patient Records regulations at 42 CFR part 2 (“Part 2”). With this final rule, HHS is implementing the confidentiality provisions of section 3221 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (enacted March 27, 2020), which require the Department to align certain aspects of Part 2 with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Rules and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH).
The Part 2 statute (42 U.S.C. 290dd-2) protects “[r]ecords of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance use disorder education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States.” Confidentiality protections help address concerns that discrimination and fear of prosecution deter people from entering treatment for SUD.
The modifications in this final rule reflect the proposals published in the December 2, 2022, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and public comments received from: substance use disorder and other advocacy groups; trade and professional associations; behavioral and other health providers; health information technology vendors and health information exchanges; state, local, tribal and territorial governments; health plans; academic institutions, including academic health centers; and unaffiliated or anonymous individuals. Following a 60-day comment period, HHS analyzed and carefully considered all comments submitted from the public on the NPRM and made appropriate modifications before finalizing.
Major Changes in the New Part 2 Rule
The final rule includes the following modifications to Part 2 that were proposed in the NPRM:
- Allows a single consent for all future uses and disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations.
- Allows HIPAA covered entities and business associates that receive records under this consent to redisclose the records in accordance with the HIPAA regulations. 1
- Permits disclosure of records without patient consent to public health authorities, provided that the records disclosed are de-identified according to the standards established in the HIPAA Privacy Rule.
- Restricts the use of records and testimony in civil, criminal, administrative, and legislative proceedings against patients, absent patient consent or a court order.
- Penalties : Aligns Part 2 penalties with HIPAA by replacing criminal penalties currently in Part 2 with civil and criminal enforcement authorities that also apply to HIPAA violations. 2
- Breach Notification : Applies the same requirements of the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule 3 to breaches of records under Part 2.
- Patient Notice : Aligns Part 2 Patient Notice requirements with the requirements of the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices.
- Safe Harbor : Creates a limit on civil or criminal liability for investigative agencies that act with reasonable diligence to determine whether a provider is subject to Part 2 before making a demand for records in the course of an investigation. The safe harbor requires investigative agencies to take certain steps in the event they discover they received Part 2 records without having first obtained the requisite court order.
Substantive Changes Made Since the NPRM
In addition to finalizing modifications to Part 2 that were proposed in the NPRM, the Final Rule includes further modifications informed by public comments, notably the following:
- Safe Harbor: Clarifies and strengthens the reasonable diligence steps that investigative agencies must follow to be eligible for the safe harbor: before requesting records, an investigative agency must look for a provider in SAMHSA’s online treatment facility locator and check a provider’s Patient Notice or HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices to determine whether the provider is subject to Part 2.
- Segregation of Part 2 Data : Adds an express statement that segregating or segmenting Part 2 records is not required.
- Complaints : Adds a right to file a complaint directly with the Secretary for an alleged violation of Part 2. Patients may also concurrently file a complaint with the Part 2 program.
- SUD Counseling Notes : Creates a new definition for an SUD clinician’s notes analyzing the conversation in an SUD counseling session that the clinician voluntarily maintains separately from the rest of the patient’s SUD treatment and medical record and that require specific consent from an individual and cannot be used or disclosed based on a broad TPO consent. This is analogous to protections in HIPAA for psychotherapy notes. 4
- Prohibits combining patient consent for the use and disclosure of records for civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceedings with patient consent for any other use or disclosure.
- Requires a separate patient consent for the use and disclosure of SUD counseling notes.
- Requires that each disclosure made with patient consent include a copy of the consent or a clear explanation of the scope of the consent.
- Fundraising : Create a new right for patients to opt out of receiving fundraising communications.
What has not changed in Part 2?
As has always been the case under Part 2, patients’ SUD treatment records cannot be used to investigate or prosecute the patient without written patient consent or a court order.
Records obtained in an audit or evaluation of a Part 2 program cannot be used to investigate or prosecute patients, absent written consent of the patients or a court order that meets Part 2 requirements.
What comes next?
The final rule may be downloaded at https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-02544/confidentiality-of-substance-use-disorder-patient-records . HHS will support implementation and enforcement of this new rule, including through resources related to behavioral health developed by the SAMHSA-sponsored Center of Excellence for Protected Health Information . Persons subject to this regulation must comply with the applicable requirements of this final rule two years after the date of its publication in the Federal Register . The Department will conduct outreach and develop guidance on how to comply with the new requirements, such as filing breach reports when required.
OCR plans to finalize changes to the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) to address uses and disclosures of protected health information that is also protected by Part 2 along with other changes to the NPP requirements, in an upcoming final rule modifying the HIPAA Privacy Rule.
HHS planning to implement in separate rulemaking the CARES Act antidiscrimination provisions that prohibit the use of patients’ Part 2 records against them.
1 However, these records cannot be used in legal proceedings against the patient without specific consent or a court order, which is more stringent than the HIPAA standard.
2 See 42 U.S.C. 1320d–5 and 1320d-6.
3 Section 13400 of the HITECH Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 17921) defined the term “Breach”. Section 13402 of the HITECH Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 17932) enacted breach notification requirements, discussed in detail below.
4 See https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/2088/does-hipaa-provide-extra-protections-mental-health-information-compared-other-health.html .