BANGLADESH: Bangladesh urged to remove barriers and take credible action to ensure protection of torture victims

On May 9th, 2006, Bangladesh was elected to the new United Nations Human Rights Council, which is currently holding its first session in Geneva. As part of the voluntary pledge the government made prior to the election, it affirmed its “deep commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights of all of its citizens.” Bangladesh further claimed to be at the “forefront of promotion and protection of all human rights at national, regional and international levels. This has been reflected in Bangladesh’s adherence to all major human rights instruments.”

On this, the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) notes with concern that Bangladesh is purposefully ensuring that victims of torture have no avenues available in seeking protection or legal redress. In acceding to the United Nations Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CAT), Bangladesh declared that it “will apply article 14 para 1 in consonance with the existing laws and legislation in the country.” Article 14 paragraph 1 states that “Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.” The government of Germany, at the time, objected and noted with concern that this declaration “constitutes a reservation of a general nature,” and that it “raises doubts as to the full commitment of Bangladesh to the object and purpose of the Convention.” Similarly, the government of the Netherlands questioned Bangladesh’s commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention, as the reservation “seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking national law.”

Domestic legislation clearly runs contrary to the rights of victims and perpetuates impunity for perpetrators of torture. Despite the strict prohibition of all forms of torture in article 35 (5) of the constitution, there is no law within domestic legislation that criminalizes torture, despite Bangladesh in line with the CAT. However, impunity is enshrined within Sections 132 and 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which legislate that prior sanction by the government is required in order for courts to take cognizance of any offence committed by any public servant, including members of the police or other forces, while on official duty. Furthermore, the government can decide on the manner in which, the offence or offences for which, and the courts before which any such prosecutions are to be conducted. In addition, the Indemnity Act 2003, which was brought into force following the notorious Operation Clean Heart in which over 11,000 persons were allegedly arrested and fifty-eight were tortured to death in late 2002, enables blanket impunity to all actions performed by the army and other security forces during the period between October 16, 2002 and January 9, 2003. Such measures, which illustrate the deeply entrenched tradition of impunity in the country, erect insurmountable barriers to halt the prosecution of perpetrators and therefore preclude all avenues for victims of torture that are seeking redress. In fact, attempting to make complaints regarding torture under such a system, rather than enabling redress for victims, actually places them in further danger, with threats and retribution including further torture are an all too common response from the authorities.

In practice, as the AHRC’s experience shows, the afore-mentioned reservation to the CAT means that Bangladesh has circumvented its obligation to provide medical treatment, compensation and other necessary support to victims of torture. For example, in the recent case of Mrs. Shahin Sultana Santa, an innocent pregnant bystander, was beaten by the police on 12 March 2006, resulting in serious injuries that led to her being forced to abort her pregnancy. She attempted to lodge a compliant against the alleged perpetrators, who are police officers and personnel, at the Mohammadpur police station in Dhaka, but they repeatedly refused to register her complaint. Two cases were later ledged at the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s (CMM) Court of Dhaka under the Penal Code and the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act (WCRPA). One of the cases was investigated by a judicial probe commission, following an order by the judge, but the commission prepared an incomplete probe report, leading the judge to order a ‘supplementary probe report’. 

When the supplementary probe report was submitted, the Judge, Mrs. Kaniz Fatema Nasrina Khanam, dismissed the case, despite the fact that the probe report asserted that “the victim was excessively tortured unnecessarily, which is punishable crime under the Penal Code, if it is sanctioned by the authority according to the section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code.” It is thought that the entire case was dropped due to alleged pressure on the judge, although the reason given was that there was insufficient evidence in relation to the charges under the WCRPA. The charges relating to torture under the Penal Code were not addressed, despite available evidence, underlining the difficulties in having such abuses even considered by the country’s subordinate and corrupt judiciary. During the course of the investigation and trial Mrs. Santa, her (lawyer) husband and the witnesses were intimidated and threatened with being implicated in fabricated cases by the police. Santa’s husband, Mr. Atiur Rahman, was attacked by armed gangs twice in three weeks. The police even threatened the medical doctor who treated Mrs. Santa and produced the medical certificate about her injuries. This case is but one amongst many.

Torture is endemic throughout Bangladesh. Its prevalence cannot be ascribed to a few “bad apples,” but rather forms part of a system of abuse that is engendered by the rampant corruption that pervades the state institutions of the rule of law–namely the police and other security forces, the judiciary and the prosecution–all of which are being perverted to serve the political and economic agendas of the ruling and other political parties in the country. 

The police profit financially at every possible occasion from their activities. Corruption, politicization and discrimination are present from the outset in any case: persons making complaints must be willing to pay and must be from an acceptable sector of society and have the right political affiliation or contacts with influential persons in order to have a hope of having their cases considered and acted upon. It is virtually impossible to have a complaint taken up if the alleged perpetrators are part of the police or their political allies, and complainants usually face threats and other abuses as a response. This is especially the case with any allegations of torture.

If a case is taken up, the police use the investigation phase to further enrich themselves. Persons under investigation are forced to pay in order to keep themselves off the Charge Sheet or to avoid being falsely implicated in other cases or being subjected to ill-treatment or torture. Torture is euphemistically referred to by the Bangladeshi authorities as the “Third Degree Method.” If payment is not forthcoming, the investigating officers will make use of this “Third Degree Method” culminating in brutal forms of torture, which may result in the death of the victim. This “Method” usually involves many brutal forms of torture, including: beating with sticks on the soles of the feet or other sensitive body areas; walking over the victim’s body; forcing hot (in summer) or cold (in winter) water mixed with chilly powder through the victim’s nose and mouth; electrocution; removal of finger-nails; sexual violence; etc. The “Third Degree Method” is used to force confessions, punish, extract money and satisfy senior officials and political leaders.

Bangladesh is now a member of the UN Human Rights Council but is an outright failure in terms of the protection of victims of torture, which is one of the most severe forms of human rights violations. If Bangladesh is to attain any credibility within the Council it must immediately rectify this situation, or be removed from the body. The country must be evaluated in detail over coming months with regard to its ability to protect victims of torture and the actions it takes to achieve the following: removal of its reservation on article 14 paragraph 1 of the Convention against Torture; issuing a clear statement denouncing torture; enacting and implementing domestic legislation that criminalizes torture, in line with international standards; implementing all recommendations concerning torture and related issues made by the United Nations human rights bodies without delay; repealing all laws that enable impunity for state actors, including sections 132 and 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indemnity Act 2003; investigating and prosecuting all allegations of corruption; providing adequate medical assistance to victims of torture as well as access to independent, well-equipped medico-legal institutions; ensuring the effective, independent investigation and prosecution of all alleged perpetrators of torture through trials that meet international standards; and providing effective protection to victims and witnesses.

The Asian Human Rights Commission deplores Bangladesh’s record on torture and the protection of victims of such abuses, and urges the government to make good on its commitments and make clear, quantifiable progress with regard to the recommendations mentioned above. Failure on the government’s part should be met with international condemnation and ejection from the Human Rights Council at the very least. If the members of the United Nations are to bring any credibility to their actions in favour of victims of torture, beyond the holding of a symbolic day of support once a year, a firm line must be taken with regard to this fundamental and grossly inhuman violation of rights.