ment of detainees does not occur without those responsible having to account for the actions before the court of law."

There are other important organizations which have assisted, monitored, and reported on the plight of detainees, including the Dependents' Conference of the South African Council of Church, the South African Institute of Race Relations, and the Catholic Bishops' Conference. The general secretary of the Bishops Conference has recently been released following 5 months of detention in Giskei, one of the regional areas of South Africa which the government claims is independent.

Obviously, time does not permit me to go into great detail regarding detention and torture in the various homelands of South Africa, nor to discuss the situation in Namibia, which South Africa continues to occupy in defiance of international law.

It is rather unfortunate because some of the most flagrant abuses of human rights are now occurring in these areas.

I would point out, however, two excellent studies which have recently been completed discussing in detail the pernicious conditions that currently exist in the homelands. One is entitled "Ruling With the Whip," written by Nicholas Haysam, a South African lawyer, and published by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, at the University of Witwatersrand.

And, the other is "Human Rights in the 'Homelands,': South Africa's Delegation of Repression," written by Miriam Locob, a South African journalist, which is soon to be published by the Fund for Free Expression in New York.

I have been asked to give some recommendations about what might be done in South Africa. I'm not certain that much can be done that will have a positive, beneficial impact on torture in South Africa.

I recognize that efforts are underway in Congress to limit new investments in South Africa, among other things, and I support that effort. However, I do offer these additional recommendations aimed specifically at torture:

One. The Congress should publicize the work of the Congressional Ad Hoc Monitoring Committee on South Africa, and seek means by which the committee or Congress can take a strong public stand against torture and the maltreatment of detainees.

Two. Our Embassy in South Africa should be instructed to send observers to political trials in South Africa and to speak out forcefully against torture when it is exposed during court hearings.

Three. We should provide moral and material support for the families of detainees; and

Four, reinforce and strengthen the ban on exports of items that may be used for torture.

Secretary Abrams has admitted that that has been done and I do support that effort. There are other steps that might be taken, but these are at least the minimum.

To some extent, it is difficult to address the question of torture in South Africa because torture is, in part, an attitude.

The problem is that the Government of South Africa considers itself to be under seige both internally and externally. As a minority government, the vast majority of its people-South Africa exhib

its this seige mentality which gives rise to and supports the possibility of torture.

The administration has argued that it has limited influence in South Africa, and that what influence it has must be exercised through quiet diplomacy. The policy of constructive engagement was supposed to accomplish this; however, the record for the first 3 years is not good. There has been, as I've mentioned, eight deaths in detention, and torture is as widespread as ever. It is perhaps not fair to make comparisons, but with respect to human rights improvements, the situation was far better 3 years ago. If ever a time existed for the administration to demonstrate the constructive engagement of the viable alternatives to public condemnation, that time is now running out.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we should note that South Africa is a tortured society. I have spoken this morning regarding a rather narrow definition of torture. But, I think it is important to note that there are other kinds of torture that take place in South Africa, when families are uprooted from their homes and dumped in areas that barely support life, when human beings are forced to carry passes and humiliated when they do not have them, and, finally, when human beings are forced to be separated from their husbands, wives and children.

These are not questions that can be answered today. But because they are important to black South Africa and because black South Africans are determined to bring about a change in their country, there will continue to be torture in South Africa.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Arnold's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MILLARD W. ARNOLD, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS

In a nation where the abuse of human rights constitutes a daily occurance, it is not surprising that the international community has focused its concern on the repeated allegations of torture that have arisen in South Africa.

I have been asked to address the question of torture in South Africa, the institutions and organizations in that country which monitor human rights particularly those that concentrate on the issue of torture and, finally, to offer recommendations regarding U.S. policy.

I have traveled extensively throughout South Africa and was mostrecently in the country in March where I had the opportunity to speak with representatives of various organizations working for change. Those conversations, together with intensive study of South Africa over the years,

have helped me develop a sharper understanding of that society and the forces which shape it.

It is no exaggeration to say that if one is detained in South Afric they are almost certain to tortured. Too many allegations and more than enough evidence lends ample support to the charge that torture is commonplace

However, there is also evidence to show that it is no longer the case that an indifferent South Africa is prepared to pretend that torture doesn't exit. This is not to suggest that white South Africa has become more caring or deeply concerned about the plight of largely black detainees. It is to suggest, however, that since the death of Steve Biko in 1977, various organizations and institutions have come into existance primarily as a consequence of the shocking press reports and political trials detailing the brutal, yet routine use of torture by South Africa's infamous security police.

Torture is no recent phenomena in South Africa. Almost from the day that whites arrived in Cape Town in 1652, torture became a standard practice within the country. To some degree is was largely as the result of the introduction of slavery, but it could also be traced to the harshness of Calvinism and the "white man as boss" attitude of the times. As a result, there was an almost complete disregard for the physical well-being of people of color. Unfortunately, some of that disregard has carried over to the present.

In the early days of South Africa, torture was primarily used to force a person to admit a crime out of his or her own mouth. If accused, there was a presumption of guilt and a confession was necessary to show absolute proof. Rather than being regarded as prove of innocence, the failure to make a

confession, even after the most intense torture, was regarded as a sign of extreme criminality and the lack of any true.repentance.

However, torture was not elevated to an art form in South Africa until the Afrikaners came to power in 1948. Concern about the rising dissent within the country and the failure to gain a conviction in the "Treason Trial of 1956, the Afrikaner government introduced legislation designed to suspend habeus corpus and provide the police with wide powers of detention and interrogation. In 1963, the General Law Amendment Act was passed which authorized senior police officers to arrest without warrant and to hold an individual for 90-days for questioning. Under the legislation, courts had no jurisdiction to order the release of any person detained. By the time it was repealed in 1965 to be replaced with a more onerous 180-day detention law and then subsequently the unlimited detention of the Terrorism Act, over 1000 people had been held, most of whom were never formally charged. The law was a precedent. The security police were free to do as they pleased. Soon there were serious allegations of assaults upon detainees and the first three of what would be many, died while in detention under this law.

From 1963 through 1975, twenty-two people died while in police custody and those that survived charged that the police were routinely using torture to elicit information or confessions. In affidavits and statements to various

international organizations including the United Nations and Amnesty

International, former detainess and prisoners alleged that they had been

electrocuted; forced to bathed and drink from urinals and ordered to jump in place while wearing shoes containing small stones.