Dear friends,
Though the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is pleased to note the start of a long-awaited investigation into the illegal arrest and torture of a rickshaw puller and a day-labourer after an Urgent Appeal was issued, the investigation is seriously flawed. The torture took place at Paikgachha police station in 2008 and the officer accused is still working there now and involved in the investigation. We are disappointed to note the unreasonable demands being made of the victims in the inquiry, and the freedom the accused officer has so far had to intimidate them. We also consider it unreasonable that the victims be summoned to testify far from their homes at such short notice without assistance, since they have few means by which to pay for the journey.
UPDATED INFORMATION: (According to the victims, their family members and witnesses within the police station)
According to our latest reports, the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) of the Dakope Circle of Khulna District Police issued a notice to Paikgachha police station on 12 June 2009, summoning victims Shahidul Islam and Monirul Islam to testify. See details of their case here: AHRC-UAC-049-2009
They were asked to travel to the office of ASP Md. Arefin Jewel in Dacope Upazilla, around three hours’ journey away, the following day, as ordered by Police Headquarters and the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Khulna Range. A Mr. F. M. A. Razzak, a co-detainee and victim, and a human rights defender, was also called. The appeal about his torture and detention can be found here: (UAU-065-2008)
Although the notice was served to Razzak and to Shahidul’s mother on the same day (while Shahidul was working in a brick field about 80 km away) no notice was served to Monirul Islam. The next day, the day of the appointment, the accused officer Ayub Ali reportedly went to Shahidul’s house and told his mother: ‘Do you know what will happen to me and you now? I will have to pay to settle the matter and I might be transferred. But the police will be here forever, and I will arrange for your son and his advisers to languish in jail for years.’ Due to the fear, the short notice, the distance and the need to miss work, none of the victims went; Shahidul’s mother was too scared to tell her son about the summons at all.
The ASP issued a second notice on the 23 June asking the same three to appear before him the following day, but all received the notices too late to be able to arrange it. A third notice was issued on 18 July, setting a new meeting for 20 July. The constable who served the notice asked that Shahidul first visit the local station, but since he’d been tortured there before he refused. On 20 July he hired a motorbike taxi to take him to testify. It cost him four times his daily wage.
Yet after giving his account, Shahidul reports that ASP Jewel questioned him aggressively, asking why he complained to the human rights organizations, and to think about what would have happened to him “if the police did not allow your release from (the alleged) petty charge, and instead fabricated a bigger case?” The implication was that the victim should be grateful to the officers for not falsifying another charge after his torture for the original false charge.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
It should also be noted that though the second in command in this police station has been accused of breaking the law and grossly abusing his position, he was not suspended from duty. He should have been, as noted by Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and Sections 856 and 858 of the Police Regulation of Bengal, 1943. The latter gives the Inspector General of Police and other senior officers the power to suspend, dismiss or remove any police officer of below the rank of Inspector. Yet instead Ayub Ali continued to enjoy the authority of his position in the victims’ neighbourhood, where he interfered with the investigation with the knowledge of other officers. Considering this, it is surprising that the victims were brave enough to file the case in the first place.
It is already difficult for a poor Bangladeshi to get a complaint into the system, yet when they do there is still plenty to discourage them from pursuing it. As we see in this case, disinterested or aggressive police officers are the first barrier. There seems to be little difference in attitude here between the perpetrator and the investigating ASP.
The police inquiry system is often impractical in Bangladesh, and it is sad to note that the police rarely consider the affordability of their requests during investigations, and that worse, can use it to their tactical advantage, requesting victim’s to travel distances they can’t afford at very late notice. Shahidul earns around 100 Taka per day and Monir earns around 70 and neither man can afford to miss work, yet the journey between their homes and Dakope Upazilias costs about 400 Taka. The police are provided with resources for their work; it would be heartening to see these used for something other than victim intimidation. It would certainly start helping to turnaround the profound distrust most civilians have of the police.
The families have already gone through financial hardship as a result of the torture. The rehabilitation costs and lack of salary meant that Shahidul’s children (13 and 7) were pulled from school and put to work in the brickfields with his wife. He had to sell his rickshaw and is now a day labourer.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
The Asian Human Rights Commission has already written to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture urging his intervention into this case. Please write to the officials listed below in this appeal calling for them to investigate the allegation of intimidation and threats by police officers, and act accordingly. The victims and their families must also be adequately compensated.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear __________,
Re: BANGLADESH: An officer accused of torture keeps his post and is using it to intimidate victims and witnesses
Names of victims:
1. Mr. Monirul Islam Monir; son of late Mr. Nawab Ali Gazi; a day labourer in a plantation nursery in Godaipur village under Paikgachha police station, Khulna district.
2. Mr. Shahidul Islam; son of Mr. Shahar Ali; a day labourer in a brick filed near Bagharpara police station, Jessore district.
Both live in Takia village, Khulna district, under the jurisdiction of the Paikgachha police station.
Names of officials involved:
1. Mr. Ayub Ali; Sub Inspector of Police; attached to Paikgachha police station, Khulna district.
2. Mr. Md. Arefin Jewel; Assistant Superintendent of Police; Dakope Circle Police Office, Khulna district.
Date of incident: June 13 and July 20, 2009.
Place of incident: Takia village under Paikgachha police station and the Office of ASP Dakope Circle, Dakope, Khulna district.
I am writing to express my concern about the intimidation of a victim of custodial torture by the perpetrator, who has retained his job, and by the investigating officer.
I am also concerned about the safety of the two victims, as well as of Mr. F. M. A. Razzak, who witnessed the condition of the two persons after their torture as a fellow detainee in Paikgachha station (as reported by the Asian Human Rights Commission in a previous appeal). I demand an impartial probe into the allegations of torture and intimidation by ASP Mr. Arefin Jewel and SI Mr. Ayub Ali.
According to the latest information, on 12 June a police constable served a notice to Shahidul Islam’s mother asking him to appear before the ASP of Dakpe Circle the next day, yet the following morning SI Ayub Ali the accused threatened her with dire consequences at the police station should they pursue the case. He was accompanied by another officer.
When Shahidul went to testify spending more than four days salary and missing a day of work to do so the ASP continued in the same vein. He allegedly asked the victim why he complained to the human rights organizations and told him to think about what would have happened to him ‘if the police did not allow your release from (the alleged) petty charge, and instead fabricated a bigger case’
This is not the quality of policing that Bangladeshis deserve or expect, particularly when they continue to pursue cases against the odds, at the risk of harm to themselves and their families.
It is already difficult for an underprivileged Bangladeshi to get a complaint into the system, yet when they do there is still plenty to discourage them. As we see in this case, disinterested or aggressive police officers are the first barrier. There seems to be little difference in attitude here between the perpetrator and the investigation ASP.
Furthermore, though the second in command in this police station has been accused of breaking the law and grossly abusing his position, he was not suspended from duty. He should have been, using the powers granted his superiors under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and Sections 856 and 858 of the Police Regulation of Bengal, 1943. The latter gives the Inspector General of Police and other senior officers the power to suspend, dismiss or remove any police officer of below the rank of Inspector. Yet instead Ayub Ali continued to enjoy the authority of his position in the victims’ neighbourhood, where he interfered with the investigation with the knowledge of other officers. Considering this, it is surprising that the victims were courageous enough to file the case in the first place.
As this case shows, the police inquiry system is impractical and irrational in Bangladesh. The police rarely consider the affordability of their requests during investigations, and worse, can use it to their tactical advantage, requesting victims to travel distances they can’t afford at late notice. Shahidul earns around 100 Taka per day and Monir earns around 70 and neither man can afford to miss work, yet the journey between their homes and Dakope Upazilias costs about 400 Taka. However the police are provided with vehicles and other resources; it would be hearening to see these used for something other than victim intimidation. The distrust of the police is only being fueled by unpleasant conduct and impractical procedures.
The families have already gone through financial hardship as a result of the torture. The rehabilitation costs and lack of salary meant that Shahidul’s children (13 and 7) were pulled from school and put to work in the brickfields with his wife. He had to sell his rickshaw and is now a day labourer.
I request that you initiate a thorough investigation into these incidents by a competent official and follow it with strong legal action against the alleged police officers, should they be proven guilty.
I urge the authorities of Bangladesh to start massive reforms in the policing system of the country so that it can be of service to its people, and so that the excessive abuse of police power is brought to a halt and the process of delivering justice can begin.
Yours sincerely,
—————
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER TO:
1. Mrs. Sheikh Hasina
Prime Minister
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Office of the Prime Minister
Tejgaon, Dhaka
BANGLADESH
Fax: +880 2 811 3244 / 3243 / 1015 / 1490
Tel: +880 2 882 816 079 / 988 8677
E-mail: pm@pmo.gov.bd or ps1topm@pmo.gov.bd or psecy@pmo.gov.bd
2. Mr. M. M. Ruhul Amin
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Supreme Court Building
Ramna, Dhaka-1000
BANGLADESH
Fax: +880 2 956 5058
Tel: +880 2 956 2792
3. Barrister Shafique Ahmed
Minister
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs
Bangladesh Secretariat
Dhaka-1000
BANGLADESH
Tel: +880 2 7160627
Fax: +880 2 7168557
E-mail: info@minlaw.gov.bd
4. Ms. Sahara Khatun MP
Minister
Ministry of Home Affairs
Bangladesh Secretariat
Dhaka-1000
BANGLADESH
Tel: +880 2 7169069
Fax: +880 2 7160405, 880 2 7164788
Email: minister@mha.gov.bd
5. Mr. Mahbubey Alam
Attorney General of Bangladesh
Office of the Attorney General
Supreme Court Annex Building
Ramna, Dhaka-1000
BANGLADESH
Fax: +880 2 956 1568
Tel: +880 2 956 2868
6. Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury
Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
6/3 Lalmatia, Block-D
Dhaka-1207
BANGLADESH
Telefax: +880 2 9137743
7. Mr. Nur Mohammad
Inspector General of Police (IGP)
Bangladesh Police
Police Headquarters’
Fulbaria, Dhaka-1000
BANGLADESH
Fax: +880 2 956 3362 / 956 3363
Tel: +880 2 956 2054 / 717 6451 / 717 6677
E-mail: ig@police.gov.bd
8. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG)
Khulna Range
Office of the DIG of Khulna Range
Khulna
BANGLADESH
Fax: +880 41 761300 (O)
Tel: +880 41 761823 (O)
E-mail: digkhulna@police.gov.bd
Thank you.
Urgent Appeal Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
