A precarious time: Responses to the attack on FMA Razzak

Urgent Appeals Desk, Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

The attempted eye-gouging incident at Paikgachha village, where a human rights defender and journalist, FMA Razzak and his brother were attacked on 29 April 2011 by about 40 persons mobilized by a major in Bangladesh army, Mustafizur Rahman Bokul, is a painful experience to all. It is necessary to learn from this experience so that effective action can be taken to address the very serious threats to everyone that are manifest through this extraordinarily inhumane attack.

There were glaring inefficiencies and carelessness in the police conduct prior to, during and after the incident. Razzak complained to the police about harassment from Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul’s family for months. However, the police failed make any reasonable intervention. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law and to keep the peace and when they fail to do so violence and chaos are the inevitable result. Everyone that the Asian Human Rights Commission has talked to about this incident has expressed frustration and disappointment with the way the policing system is functioning in Bangladesh. Police reform therefore is one of the major tasks for the country.

One of the things revealed in dealing with Razzak’s case is the absence of facilities to make complaints against the failures of the police. In most countries there are official channels open for making complaints against erring police officers. A citizen in Bangladesh who faces problems due to actions or omissions of the police has no avenue to bring this to the higher authorities and to get the services that one is entitled to. This creates helplessness among the victims. The creation of a mechanism to receive and to investigate complaints against police is a dire need in the country if police indiscipline is to be brought under control.

The attack on Razzak took place on April 29. Despite complaints made locally and by international organizations, at time of writing in June no one has yet recorded a statement from Razzak. The AHRC has learned that police posts are not attached to hospitals in Bangladesh and hospitals do not take it as their obligation to report to a police station when the victim of a crime is brought to a hospital. This is a serious defect that necessarily has serious adverse effects on criminal investigations.

A further shocking deficiency is the lack of facilities for forensic examination. Despite serious injury to his eyes and legs no judicial medical officer has examined Razzak or his brother. It appears that such an examination is very unlikely. The AHRC has learned that it is only at the Dhaka Medical College and laboratory that such an examination is possible, but that happens only if the police take the victim there. Without such forensic examination, valuable evidence that could be brought before courts is lost. Only criminals benefit from this absence of forensic examinations.

The AHRC is aware of how widespread the practice of fabricating cases is in Bangladesh. With the help of the police, anyone can file a fabricated case and get their opponents arrested and remanded. Fabricated charges are also filed by powerful persons who face charges for serious crimes, with the expectation of trying to settle one case as a bargain for the other. Such bargaining corrupts the system of justice and places victims of serious crimes in a severely disadvantageous position.

In attempting to help the victims of the attack on FMA Razzak, the AHRC has found fear everywhere, and an all-pervading sense of futility in pursuing justice. We have often been told that the military has such influence on everything that it is pointless to demand investigations into crimes if one of the perpetrators is from the military. We have also been told that a police-military nexus exists and that the ordinary citizen is in a helpless situation.

Despite such odds, Razzak and many others are struggling for justice. Despite widespread fear, many citizens come forward to protect people from injustice and assist victims such as Razzak and others. Hope lies with these ordinary folk who are trying to face up to a difficult problem.

Outraged calls

Both in Bangladesh and abroad, the attack on FMA Razzak prompted many calls for action against the perpetrators and for an end to impunity.

On May 4, hundreds of men, women and children at Paikgachha took to the streets demanding the arrest of Major Mustafizur and his gang. They participated in a procession in protest of the attack on Razzak and his brother, carrying a banner entitled: “People’s enraged demonstration in protest at the mysterious role of the administration on the gouging of two eyes and fracturing ofr hands and legs of newspaper editor and human rights defender FMA Razzak and his brother Bodiar”.

Speakers at the rally also demanded the removal of the police officers involved, including the Officer-in-Charge (OC) Enamul Haque and sub inspectors who assisted the perpetrators for the last two and half months to commit this latest heinous crime.

The following day, people again rallied to make the same calls. Around five hundred people, including journalists, public representatives of the local government units, businessmen and people of all walks of life took part in the rally. The procession chanted slogans and speakers in the rally demanded the immediate termination of the major from service in the armed forces.

On May 6, citizens of Paikgachha had formed the Committee to Fight for Justice and Protection of Human Rights Defender and Journalist Razzak. On the same day, Muslim citizens of Paikgachha also arranged for a special prayer for Razzak and his family after the Friday midday prayer.

The following day, May 7, Mr. Sohrab Ali Sana, Member of Parliament for the Paikgachha-Koyra (Khulna-6) constituency, demanded the arrest of all suspects relating to the attack. The MP said that all suspects should be arrested and brought before the courts immediately. He explained that he himself is a lawyer and he is aware of what needs to be done under such circumstances. He further said that he would himself assist in ensuring justice.

Several other persons also spoke at this meeting. Mr. Mostofa Kamal Jahangir, president of the Paikgachha press club, stated that Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul and several of his family members who are responsible for this attack on Razzak should be immediately arrested and brought to justice. Several other speakers who also spoke at this meeting condemned this brutal attack and demanded the police to act responsibly and ensure that a proper legal process be carried out. Among others the president of the Paikgachha Bar Association Abul Hossain Joardar, secretary Kamrul Islam, former president GA Sabur, Government Pleader (GP) Chitta Ranjan Sarker, freedom fighters Mohammad Shahjahan Sharder, Shahadat Hossain Bachchu, former municipal mayor Sheikh Kamrul Hasan Tipu, press club secretary Bidhan Chandra Ghosh, social worker Abu Sayeed and many politicians, journalists and professionals attended and spoke.

Calls go unheeded by authorities

Despite the many calls for action against the main perpetrators of the attack on Razzak, the alleged perpetrators roame free in the days and weeks afterwards, repeatedly threatening his relatives and local citizens who participated in protest rallies demanding protection and justice for Razzak.

On 6 May, the mother of Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul led a demonstration of a group of persons, most of who were among the persons who were in the group that attacked Razzak and his brother, shouting that Razzak should be skinned alive. This group entered the Paikgachha police station and had a discussion with the Officer-in-Charge (OC) of the police station, Enamul Haque. OC Enamul, who was complicit in the barbaric attack, has been boastfully and publicly claiming that nothing will happen to him as he is a close relative of Mr. Tofael Ahmed, a former minister, Member of Parliament and a leader of the ruling political party.

The following day, apparently in an arrangement from the prior discussion, the police–under intense pressure to appear to be doing something–arrested the father of Major Mustafizur Rahaman Bokul and three others.

Subsequently two persons, Mr. Razab Behara and Azibor Sarder, who were named as the accused in the complaint filed on the attack on Razzak, went into the house of Mr. Azibor Gazi, a man who was with Razzak at the time when he was attacked and saw the whole incident. Azibor Gazi had attended several of the protest meetings demanding the arrest of suspects relating to the incident and met with the local MP about the case. The two accused that visited Azibor’s house carried long sharp knives and told Azibor’s father that his son was responsible for the arrest of the father of Major Mustafizur, and threatened to kill him. Azibor and his family fled from the house and went into hiding.

Meantime, the AHRC issued a series of open letters and made other interventions in the days and weeks following the attack on Razzak.

On May 9 and 25, the AHRC sent letters to the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh, Professor Mizanur Rahman. Representatives of the AHRC also met the chairman on a visit in response to the attack. Despite these interventions, the NHRC failed to take any effective action on the case, the chairman even failing to do so much as visit Razzak in hospital, despite promising to the AHRC representatives in person that he would do so.

In the letter of May 9, the director of policy and programmes at the AHRC, Basil Fernando, wrote as follows:

Today several representatives of the Asian Human Rights Commission met the Consul General of Bangladesh in Hong Kong, His Excellency Mr. Ashud Ahmed, at his offices in the Bangladesh Consulate. During the discussion with the Consul General the AHRC representatives said that they were visiting the Consulate on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Rabindranath Tagore and under normal circumstances that would have been for the purpose of congratulating Bangladesh on the achievements of this great man who is admired by all. However, the representatives stated that the purpose for which they had come was to talk about something which Tagore himself would have cried aloud over and felt shame for his country. This was the attempt to gouge out the eyes of a human rights activist and journalist who had been doing nothing worse than trying to help the poor people of the country to make complaints to the authorities about the problems they face.

The representatives explained to the Consul General the circumstances of the attack on Mr. FMA Razzak and his brother. The Consul after reading the letter that was handed to him stated that now in Bangladesh the government is taking complaints regarding human rights very seriously and that therefore, he expected that this problem would be looked into in all seriousness. He went on to say that there was now a very learned and respected professor who has been appointed as the chairperson of Human Rights Commission, Prof. Mizanur Rahman. He was, in fact, referring to you. He thought that you would certainly take very serious action on this matter.

Sir, the Asian Human Rights Commission has brought to your notice the problem with regard to FMA Razzak in several communications. We have also brought to your notice the long series of harassments Mr. Razzak has faced, particularly during the last three months by Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul and his family. We are hoping, that as the Consul General stated, you will look into this matter in all seriousness. For your ease of reference we are attaching some of our earlier correspondence.

What is as shocking as the meanness and the brutality of this attack is the active cooperation that this Major and his family received from the police officers of the Paikgachha Police Station. Had it not been for their active support of this military officer this incident could not have taken place.

We are copying here a letter written to the SP of Khulna relating to the culpability of the police with regard to this incident.

“We are shocked by the brutal attack on him, where there was an attempt to gouge out his eyes and also an attempt to assassinate him. You would agree that in any country this kind of an attack would be considered an exceptionally cruel act that would require prompt action on the part of the police, who have the obligation to investigate into such a crime on behalf of the State. Unfortunately, the officers of the Paikgachha police station have not shown any kind of energy and enthusiasm to act promptly and quickly and with impartiality and competence in dealing with this case.

“This is not a surprise, as the Officer in Charge (OC) of the police station and also some other police officers are hostile to FMA Razzak because he has been an independent journalist and a committed human rights activist who has in the past pointed out some of the deficiencies of the police in dealing with several matters. Quite clearly during the last three months (since late February) after the first attack was carried out against FMA Razzak and his family, the officers of this police station have quite clearly failed in their duties to carry out a proper investigation into that incident. This may be because, among other things, the attackers are an Army Major and his family. As you may know by now, the Army Major’s name is Mustafizur Rahman Bokul. Had the police conducted a proper investigation into that first incident, which took place on February 18th, the latest incident could easily have been averted. Police inaction, relating to the investigative actions that they are bound to take by law, into the incident in February created the background for the brutal attack which took place on the 29th of April.

“The failure to investigate into the incident in February was due to the assignment of the Sup-Inspector (SI) Idris Ali, a man has just promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector from an Assistant Sub Inspector without any skill of investigation, to investigate into the matter. This assignment of SI Idris Ali to investigate was made by the OC Enamul Haque, who was fully aware of the inefficiency of SI Idris Ali.

“The result of all this was the continuous harassment of Mr. Razzak and his family in March and April. The police were informed by Mr. Razzak and his families that they have been chased out of their house and that all their belongings have been destroyed and part of their possessions had been taken away by the attackers from the house of Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul. Among the valuable possessions removed from Mr. Razzak’s house are deeds relating to the properties of the Razzak family, the jewelry belonging to the women of the Razzak family, and many other documents, including the passport of Mr. Razzak.

“Razzak and his family have been prevented from entering their own house and premises for over two and a half months and the police have been informed of this.

“On one occasion, some members of Razzak’s family were attacked by Kazal Sarder, the brother of Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul. This happened in the presence of your subordinate, the ASP of the Dakope Circle, who had invited Razzak’s family as well as some other villagers to come to Razzak’s village to participate in the investigation.

“Despite of such knowledge of continuous harassment on the Razzak family, the police in fact took the side of Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul’s family and did nothing to restore Razzak’s family back to their home, from which they were compelled out by force.

“It is on the strength of the support that the Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul’s family had on the police that the attack on April 29th was carried out so openly without a crowd of over 40 persons mobilized by Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul to launch an attack on Mr. Razzak and his brother, who were unarmed and merely trying to find a vehicle for a trip the next day. From what transpired, Mr. Razzak and his family are firmly of the view that some of the officers of the Paikgachha police station were aware of the attack that was going to take place. It is their view that this attack was carried out with the knowledge of some of the police officers. In fact, the Second Officer SI Tarok Chandra Biswas, SI Idris Ali, SI Nur Islam, SI Delwar Hossain and some other officers came to the place of the incident, that is, to the house of Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul, where Razzak had been carried by Kazal Sarder and others. SI Idris Ali and another police constable assaulted Razzak’s brother Bodiuzzaman Bodiar.

“Even after Razzak had faced this serious attack on his eyes and he was completely motionless, the police did nothing to assist him or to get him medical assistance. The police in fact assumed that Razzak was dead and treated him as a dead body. They did not even take the body. Instead, they got Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul’s family to take Razzak in a van, thus leaving him to the mercy of his attackers. When he was brought to Paikgachha hospital, he was left on the floor as a dead body and the police did not intervene to ensure that he would be looked after by medical officers, even at that stage. The police also did not try to assist him to be admitted to the hospital for treatment.

“At the hospital premises, the group of persons who attacked Razzak were the surrounding the hospital. The police, instead of arresting the attackers, in fact were providing them security. At the end, when other people gathered against them, the police protected the attackers and escorted them back to their home, that of Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul.

“Shortly after the crime had taken place on April 29th, police arrived and all the attackers, including Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul’s brother Kazal Sarder, were present at the scene. These police officers saw the attackers and in fact negotiated with the attackers. But they failed to arrest these attackers. When a cognizable offence takes place in front of the police officers, it is their duty to arrest them there and then. However, days have gone by and these attackers are roaming free.

Under these circumstances, it is quite reasonable for Razzak and his family and also all others, including his associates, not to expect an impartial inquiry into this crime by the present OC and other officers of the Paikgachha police station. It is therefore reasonable to request an appointment of an impartial and competent investigator into this serious crime.

“Kindly note that despite the police having accompanying the perpetrators to the hospital and being aware of this incident, no one has yet recorded a statement from Mr. Razzak or his brother. However, Mr. Razzak, as soon as he was able, made a recorded statement on the 30th of April and I herewith attach a transcript and a copy of a CD of this statement.

“Please be kind enough to take this inquiry under your charge and to ensure that competent and impartial officers will inquire into this incident in all thoroughness, including also an inquiry into the police complicity in this crime.

We hope that all the perpetrators will be arrested and be charged as early as possible.”

Sir, we are hoping that you will take urgent action to:

a. To secure the arrest of Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul, his family members and other persons in the gang that were actively involved in this brutal attack.

b. That you will visit FMA Razzak at the hospital and inquire into his medical condition and that you will take all measures to ensure that he will receive the necessary medical assistance.

c. That you will do your utmost to ensure the security of FMA Razzak and his family which includes two children who are living in hiding out of fear of the attackers.

d. That you will do all within your mandate to ensure justice against the perpetrators and also the provision of compensation for this attack, although it is simply impossible to compensate one for a crime such as this.

Despite this and other extensive communications and efforts on the part not only of the AHRC but numerous other persons and organizations in the country and around the world, the NHRC chairman took no action. On the contrary, he sided with the army officer responsible for the attack, taking the view offered up by the perpetrator that the victim was himself a criminal and that the matter was in any event a personal one and unrelated to the NHRC mandate. Consequently, on May 25 Basil Fernando again wrote to the chairman:

I refer to my earlier letter to you dated May 9, 2011 informing you about the attack on FMA Razzak and his brother, which Razzak believes to be initiated by Army Major Mustafizur Rahman Bokul and carried out by a large group of persons led by his brother, at which there was attempt to gouge out his eyes and very serious injuries were caused to his legs, arms and many parts of his body. He was hospitalized at Trauma Centre in Dhaka. I suggested to you to visit Razzak and inquire into this matter. I later informed you that no one has recorded a statement from Razzak, no judicial medical examination was conducted and that police officers conducting the inquiry have been observed to be partial towards the alleged perpetrators.

The Asian Human Rights Commission thereafter informed you about the visit of a member of its staff Bijo Francis. He met you on 19 May.

At this meeting you agreed to visit and see Razzak on 23 May. However, we have learned that you did not visit him on that day or thereafter.

THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION’S OBLIGATIONS TO VICTIMS

The very purpose of a human rights Commission is to promote and protect human rights and this implies protection of victims of human rights abuse. An attack attempting to gouge out eyes and cause physical injuries is a serious human rights abuse.

When you met the AHRC representatives you told them that you have called the army officer, who is the alleged perpetrator, who instigated the attack against Razzak, and then you narrated what this man told about Razzak–that you summoned the major and questioned him. As expected the officer has a counter case, starting from the claim that “had he been such an influential person, his father would not have been in custody now”. You pretty much parroted what he has been told by the major, including that Razzak is a criminal, used to extort money from the people threatening that he would file cases against them, has been expelled from a former organisation he has been working with and so on as if you were in an attempt to convince the AHRC’s representatives that the major’s accusations are true. You also informed us that after being informed about the case you had taken the initiate to enquire about Razzak through a local organisation that the NHRC has been working with, and that you have received information confirming the Major’s allegations against Razzak. You finished off by saying that Razzak is misusing his association with the AHRC to damage the name of the AHRC.

Thus, you had formed your opinion even without talking to the victim or his witnesses.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE

The most basic principle of natural law is to give a hearing to the parties. Here Mr. Razzak requested you to give him a hearing about this brutal attack. You did not think that it is your duty to do so. Instead you formed an opinion against him by listening to the very person who is accused of being the instigator of this criminal attack.

A National Human Right Commission should conduct a genuine inquiry when the victims complain about abuse of rights.

The views you expressed on Razzak are unfair, baseless and false.

If you took the trouble to talk to Razzak and conducted a genuine inquiry, you would have found that Razzak does not have any criminal record at all. Further, you would have found that he is a popular human rights activist, who has engaged in helping local persons, mostly the poor, to write their petitions against wrong doings of the police and other authorities. For a well-documented proof of this position kindly see http://www.article2.org/pdf/v08n01.pdf.

We recall that the law-enforcement agencies including the army, Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and the police made attempts to kill him and harass him in fabricated criminal cases.

In December 2002 during the Operation Clean Heart the army raided Razzak’s house and brutally tortured his wife, brother and aged father, who was arbitrarily detained in prison for several months under the Special Power Act-1974 when the armed forces failed to arrest Razzak while he was away. In late 2004 the RAB arrested Razzak arbitrarily, without any legal ground, with an alleged attempt to kill him in the pretext of crossfire. Fortunately, the human rights groups were informed by his family and intervened immediately, which compelled the RAB to release him within few hours on the same day. For further details, please see AHRC’s Urgent Appeal: http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/UA-035-2007.

In November 2008, the Paikgachha police fabricated a criminal case of abduction and trafficking a teen-aged girl. The girl, who was the so called victim of abduction, was recovered later and told the police and the court that she did not know Razzak while she left her house due to certain family problems. The court discharged Razzak from the case for which he had to stay in jail for 27 days. The AHRC documented the whole issue in several publications…

Are not even attempted eye gouging and brutal attacks a matter of no concern to the Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh?

The attack on Razzak was brought to the notice of the NHRC of Bangladesh through many sources, with the request

(1) For a genuine inquiry into the allegations
(2) For medical and psychological assistance to the victims
(3) For causing Judicial Medical Examination of the injuries of the victim
(4) For providing protection to the victim

We regretfully note that, so far no action has been taken, despite so many interventions with the NHRC.

Questions about role of army officer in Bangladesh remain unanswered

The job of a military officer is to defend his country under the command of his higher officers and for this purpose the citizens of Bangladesh pay these officers their salaries. The position of an army officer carries heavy responsibilities. Among such responsibilities one of the most important ones is not to meddle in the lives of the civilians or to abuse the position for personal advantage.

Military officers for the purpose of their duties carry arms and this in itself imposes greater duties on them in their relationship with the rest of the population. Due to their right to carry and use these weapons the general population has some fear of such officers. It is therefore their obligation not to exploit such fear but, in fact, to create a contrary impression of trust and confidence in the people.

Great discipline is expected from officers of any armed forces, and the higher-ranking officers have the duty to ensure such discipline. Within the armed forces those who break this discipline are normally punished harshly.

However, in Bangladesh the series of incidents in which Major Mustafizur has been involved with regard to FMA Razzak comprises a very dismal picture of army discipline. Here, Major Mustafizur is involved in land grabbing and for that purpose he had already brutally attacked many persons, flouting the country’s laws over a long period of time. These attacks have now culminated in his use of a gang of criminals for extremely violent acts, the latest being the attempted murder of Razzak and the gouging of his eyes.

Major Mustafizur’s behavior has been reported not only to his military superiors but also to the government. Complaints had been made many times by Razzak himself, his family members and several human rights organizations.

However Major Mustafizur is still wearing his military uniform and remains in the military. Is this due to such behaviour being considered consistent with military conduct in Bangladesh? Is Major Mustafizur’s behavior common among the country’s military officers, and therefore not warranting of any special attention? These questions remain unanswered.

Threats to other human rights defenders

The AHRC on May 25 issued a statement of extreme concern for the life of one of Razzak’s strong supporters in Bangladesh, Dipal Barua, a human rights activist who went missing from near his house the morning before.

Dipal Barua, 24, had attended a human rights training course in Bangladesh organised by the AHRC in December 2009. A keen and conscientious human rights activist and devout Buddhist, he showed himself to be a person totally against any use of violence. Consequently, when he learned of the attack on Razzak and his brother, Dipal visited Razzak in hospital, and met two representatives of the AHRC during their visit to investigate the attack on Razzak from May 17 to 21.

On the afternoon of the same day that the AHRC issued its statement, Dipal returned home, and the AHRC learned that he had in fact been abducted, held illegally by unidentified government forces, and threatened that he would be killed if he did not stop his human rights work.

The story of Dipal’s terrifying ordeal reveals that the concerted attacks on human rights defenders in Bangladesh are part of a programme by agencies of the government of Bangladesh, operating in secret, to counter the campaign of the AHRC and its partners who have acted to protect the life of FMA Razzak and demand that his perpetrators be brought to justice.

The details of his abduction and interrogation are briefly as follows.

Dipal was returning from a friend’s house at Sayeedabad in the city of Dhaka between 11am and noon yesterday when on the road next to the Sayeedabad Bus Terminal a man wearing black sunglasses called to him. The man asked him where the counter of Hanif Enterprises was located. Dipal pointed in the direction of the counter. Then, the person requested Dipal to go and show the place. Dipal walked with him to show the place. They walked a very short distance and as they were passing a black jeep, someone opened the door from within and pulled Dipal inside. Both the person whom he was accompanying and someone inside said, “Get in!” Then the door closed and the jeep started moving.

Inside the vehicle there were four men, including the driver. One man sitting to the left of the driver was talking into a wireless radio. One man sat on the left hand side and one on the right hand side of Dipal. The windows of the car were tinted so that people could not see inside and Dipal could not see outside.

Immediately after taking Dipal inside the car the men snatched away his mobile phone and blindfolded him with black cloth. They also covered his head with a black hood and handcuffed him. The car drove for about an hour. On the way, Dipal asked the men, “Sir, why do you take me like this? What crime have I committed?” They did not answer the questions. Instead, they used abusive language at him.

At an unknown place, they took Dipal out of the car, and into what seemed like a room. There, they took of the handcuffs and told him to remove his clothes. He removed his shirt but not his pants. He told them that he did not want to be naked. They told him, “You should decide on that, otherwise we know how to do it”. Then he removed his pants. The men put him inside a cold room naked, and the door was closed.

Dipal thinks that he was kept in the room for about seven hours. After some time, he was thirsty. He shouted to get water but no one responded. He also wanted to urinate and shouted for help. As there was again no response, he had to urinate inside the room.

After this time, men took Dipal to another room. He thinks that the time was midnight or early morning. There were, he thinks, seven to eight persons inside this room, judging by the voices he heard.

The men in the room questioned Dipal: why had he visited Razzak in hospital many times? Why was Razzak shifted from the Dhaka Medical College Hospital to a private hospital? How much money was paid to Razzak by the AHRC? How long he has been engaged in the work of the AHRC? Who are the other persons working for the AHRC in Bangladesh? Where do these persons reside and where are they based? Are the persons currently living in Bangladesh or not? Who is the boss of the AHRC’s Bangladesh work? When does that boss visit to Bangladesh? When is the boss coming to Bangladesh for the next visit? Who came from Hong Kong to visit Razzak after his hospitalization? Whom did the AHRC team meet during their visit? Had not ten million Taka (about USD 140,000) been sent to Dipal and his friends from abroad for human rights work and where is the money?

Similar questions were repeatedly asked for an hour or so. Thereafter, the interrogators told Dipal that they were going to kill him. He got frightened and told them that he has aged parents and appealed to them not to kill him. He said that he is willing to do whatever they ask and asked them to spare his life.

Then the men told Dipal to sever all connections with all persons associated with the AHRC and not to visit any of them. The men mentioned the names of several other persons, and told him not to have any contact with them either. Among them, they specifically accused him of having contact with the leader of the political opposition in the country, Khaleda Zia, and of having met her on several occasions as part of a conspiracy to bring her to power. They told him that they were going to give him a chance and that he should use it, that if he again had contact with those persons, he would not have such a chance.

During the interrogation Dipal asked for some water and the men gave him a little. They gave two slices of bread in the morning. Then they put him back in the cold room until the afternoon time, when they took him back to the same place from where they had picked him up on the previous day.

The story of this abduction and interrogation speaks for itself. It reveals that not only are the attacks on human rights defenders in Bangladesh organized, systematic and life threatening, but they are also in particular targeting persons connected to the AHRC, or persons suspected of contact with the AHRC, presumably because of the intense pressure being brought on the perpetrators of the brutal eye-gouging attack on FMA Razzak. These attacks on human rights defenders are the response of the agents of a system of deeply entrenched impunity to an attempt in one single case to challenge the impunity of one among their numbers.

The AHRC has condemned in the strongest possible terms this sinister programme of attacks upon human rights activists and calls for all groups and individuals in both the Bangladeshi domestic and international communities to do the same. We urge that there at once be a full investigation launched into this latest incident, and for guarantees of protection for Dipal Barua and other persons associated with the AHRC in Bangladesh. We also especially request all diplomatic missions in Bangladesh to take up this matter with the government directly, and as a top priority.

The situation for these human rights defenders is extremely dangerous. As of this moment, it is very likely that many others will be subjected to harassment and also possibly to further abductions and interrogations. It is also entirely conceivable in a country where extrajudicial killings are a commonplace that the persons responsible for these threats are fully prepared to make good upon them. For these reasons, the solidarity of the international human rights community is vital for the human rights defenders of Bangladesh at this precarious time.

—————————–

This article consists of materials on the response of the Asian Human Rights Commission and partners to the attack on Bangladeshi human rights defender FMA Razzak of 29 April 2011. It has been compiled from urgent appeals, statements and other interventions. For more details visit the campaign webpage: http://www.humanrights.asia/campaigns/attack-on-fma-razzak