(New York) – Dozens of garment workers and labor leaders are facing unfair or apparently fabricated criminal cases in Bangladesh after wage strikes in December 2016, Human Rights Watch said today. Arbitrary arrests by the Bangladesh police are growing with each passing day – nine more union organizers were arrested on February 10, taking the number of known arrests to 34.
Bangladesh police stand guard in front of garment factories in Ashulia on December 26, 2016, when factories re-opened after a five-day shut down in response to garment workers’ wage strikes.
The Bangladesh authorities should immediately release those still in detention and drop all politically motivated charges.
Global brands and donors attending the February 25, 2017 Dhaka Apparel Summit hosted by the country’s garment export association should call on the government to stop all persecution of union leaders and protect workers’ freedom of association.
“Targeting labor activists and intimidating workers instead of addressing their wage grievances tarnishes Bangladesh’s reputation and makes a mockery of government and industry claims that they are committed to protecting worker’s rights,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Global garment brands sourcing from Bangladesh and aid donors should press the government to stop persecuting workers and labor rights activists.”
Thousands of garment workers outside Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, participated in wage strikes between December 11 and 19. They came from an estimated 20 factories that supply global brands based in the Ashulia industrial area. According to information by local groups and official information, the vast majority were from factories that had no unions. The national union federations deny they had any role in or prior knowledge about these strikes. But the Bangladesh authorities used these strikes as a justification to arrest national union federation leaders and labor activists for “leading” and “planning” the strikes.
Targeting labor activists and intimidating workers instead of addressing their wage grievances tarnishes Bangladesh’s reputation and makes a mockery of government and industry claims that they are committed to protecting worker’s rights. Global garment brands sourcing from Bangladesh and aid donors should press the government to stop persecuting workers and labor rights activists.
The workers coalesced behind a demand for a monthly minimum wage increase from 5,300 takas (US$67) to 15,000 ($187) or 16,000 ($200). In 2016, the Fair Labor Association found that the purchasing power of a Bangladesh factory worker’s average compensation was below the World Bank poverty line. Both the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Export Association (BGMEA) and the government rejected a wage review. The export association closed about 60 Ashulia factories for several days, effectively locking out thousands of workers and ending the strikes.
In early January 2017, about 20 global brands sourcing from Bangladesh, including H&M, Inditex, Gap, C&A, Next, and Primark, wrote to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina supporting a wage review and expressing their concerns that union leaders and worker advocates were targeted.
Rights groups have information about 10 criminal complaints filed in December 2016, implicating about 150 named workers and over 1,600 “unknown” people for crimes, including property destruction at the factories, during the strikes. Union leaders and organizers have also now been questioned or arrested in relation to older cases. These groups are aware of 34 people who were arrested, most of them union leaders. In addition, a journalist from the ETV, a local news channel, was arrested for reporting about the strikes. A news report from early January suggests the numbers are higher, stating the police had arrested at least 44 people and were identifying another 159 suspects. The police have not provided a full list of all those arrested and where they are being held.
Based on interviews with rights groups, lawyers, and workers, and police records, Human Rights Watch found the circumstances of many of the arrests following the Ashulia strikes point to politically motivated abuse of police powers to retaliate against labor organizers rather than credible allegations of crimes. Some of the police abuse tactics in the aftermath of the Ashulia strikes mirror those previously used by authorities in other related and unrelated human rights matters. These include:
Arrests based on vague or repealed offenses from the draconian Special Powers Act, 1974;
The use of criminal complaints against large numbers of “unknown” people allowing the police to threaten virtually anyone with arrest, to repeatedly re-arrest detainees even though they are not the named accused in the cases, and to thwart bail;
The misuse of powers of “arrest without warrant” in violation of Bangladesh High Court directives, effectively making pretrial detention itself a form of punishment;
Violations of procedural safeguards aimed at counteracting forced confessions through torture, or cruel, inhuman, and other degrading treatment;
Threats by police to kill two detainees and claim they were killed in “crossfire” in a shootout with police, and a death threat to an official from the Bangladesh Independent Garments Union Federation;
Harassment and intimidation of labor activists and workers in the name of “investigations”;
The Bangladesh authorities should stop pressing these criminal cases and hold any police officers who used forced disappearances, torture, death threats, and other abusive police practices after the Ashulia strikes accountable, Human Rights Watch said.
According to a news report, the National Revenue Board has also written to banks requesting all account-related information dating from July 1, 2009 for six union leaders and some of their spouses.
“The Bangladeshi authorities seem determined to intimidate labor leaders and workers with the constant threat of arbitrary arrests to fill up the ‘unknown’ tally of alleged troublemakers,” Robertson said. “A familiar pattern of criminal cases being used against rights activists is unfolding after the Ashulia strikes.”
Based on information from workers, local labor rights groups, and newspaper reports, some Ashulia factories have also retaliated against an estimated 1,500 workers by indiscriminately firing or suspending them.
Donors and brands sourcing from Bangladesh have the responsibility to respect and protect workers’ rights, Human Rights Watch said. They should call for an end to all harassment of labor leaders, workers, and journalists, including by ending the false criminal cases.
Brands sourcing from Bangladesh should make binding agreements with local and global unions to protect freedom of association, modeled on the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, an enforceable agreement between workers and brands with a dispute resolution mechanism. Voluntary commitments in brands’ codes of conduct are ineffective to counter factory retaliation against unions.
In the interim, brands should ensure their suppliers develop corrective action plans with worker representatives, including the option of reinstating fired workers and negotiating collective bargaining agreements to resolve wage disputes.
For details about the strikes and the aftermath, please see below.
The Bangladesh Garment Industry
The Bangladesh garment industry employs about 4 million workers and generates exports worth about US$25 billion. But the country’s dismal labor rights record is marked by persistent abuses including a lack of periodic wage reviews, wage theft, management thwarting unionization in factories, and poor fire and building safety. The 2013 Rana Plaza building collapse, which killed more than 1,100 workers and injured another 2,000, forced the Bangladesh government, global brands, and factories to take steps to address fire and building safety, leading to some improvements.
In 2016, the Fair Labor Association found that for the factories it assessed in Bangladesh, the purchasing power of average compensation fell below the World Bank poverty line compared with other big apparel producers like China and Vietnam, where average compensation is 2.5 times the poverty line.
In the aftermath of the Ashulia strikes, Human Rights Watch conducted interviews with 32 workers, residents, and passersby in Ashulia. Human Rights Watch also interviewed union leaders, rights groups, and legal experts in Bangladesh, and reviewed police and other official documents and news reports. The interviews were conducted with informed consent and all names have been withheld to protect them.
The Ashulia Strikes
A wildcat strike started in Windy Apparel Ltd., which has no union, on December 11, 2016. Between December 11 and 19, workers from other factories joined the strike for various reasons. For example, in addition to seeking better wages, workers from one factory with about 400 workers told Human Rights Watch that they joined the strikes because they were also aggrieved by sexual threats and abusive taunts by a supervisor and the recent firing of a worker who was trying to form a union.
Some workers from other factories told Human Rights Watch they joined the strikes when their factory owners or managers promised a wage increase if other factories did the same. In some instances, workers said supervisors and other mid-level factory management encouraged them to strike because they believed they would also receive a pay increase if workers’ demands were successful.
During this period, high-level government officials convened multiple rounds of discussions with some factory owners and national federation union leaders about the strikes. The Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Export Association (BGMEA) refused workers’ demands for a wage review, contending that the government could not order one until 2018, that is, until five years after the previous wage review, and the government agreed. However, labor law experts told Human Rights Watch that the government can order a wage review at any time under section 140A of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006.
Labor rights groups told Human Rights Watch that in these meetings government officials ordered union federation leaders to compel workers to return to factories, disregarding the union leaders’ explanations that they had no power over workers in Ashulia’s striking factories because a vast majority of them have no unions. The strikes were ended by the December 20 factory shut down by the BGMEA.
Meanwhile, Donglian Fashion (BD) Ltd., one of the few Ashulia factories that has a registered union and whose workers did not join the spontaneous strike, resolved the wage dispute in January through a collective bargaining process that had started in November. The final agreement lays down the percentage of annual wage increase for workers, rules governing attendance bonus, and a grievance redress procedure.
Disappearance and “Arrest” Technique
Based on information from lawyers, labor rights groups, and other credible sources, many union leaders vanished. More than 24 hours later, police brought them before a court; at no times before did the police acknowledge or provide any information about their formal arrest or legal detention:
Shoumitro Kumar Das, president, Garment Sromik Front Regional Committee;
Ahmed Jibon, general secretary, Garment Sromik Front;
Following a meeting with the industrial police on the morning of December 21 in an Ashulia theme park, seven union leaders vanished. Their phones were switched off and calls from relatives and colleagues to various police departments yielded no information about them. Plainclothes policemen went to Jahangir’s home late that night and took him away, promising his wife that he would return in 30 minutes. He did not return and was unreachable. Police did not inform his family about his whereabouts.
On the night of December 22, the police produced the eight labor leaders in court. Because contact with those in detention is limited, details of their detention conditions are patchy. Lawyers said at least four of them – Kamran, Ahmed, Rahman, and Ibrahim – reported being blindfolded and detained in an undisclosed location by the detective branch; one was beaten, and another was threatened with being “cross-fired” (being killed in a staged exchange of fire with the police).
Before the detainees had access to lawyers or were produced in court, the police recorded in Complaint No. 30/524, filed on December 22, that the eight union leaders had “confessed” to instigating the strike by conducting secret meetings, distributing leaflets, and providing economic support.
On December 23, police called Huda, the journalist, invited him to a news conference, and when he arrived, forced him into a police vehicle, beat him, and drove him around Dhaka until around 4 a.m., threatening him with a “cross-fire” killing. He was produced in court the following day. Ahmed Jibon also vanished following a detective branch police phone call asking him to meet with them on the morning of December 27, and was untraceable until he was produced in court the following morning.
Use of the Repressive Special Powers Act
The draconian Special Powers Act violates the accused’s rights to due process and other international human rights standards. A leading criminal law expert told Human Rights Watch that these cases are the first time these offenses have been used against garment workers and union organizers. He also said that these are usually triable by a special tribunal, making it harder for regular criminal courts to grant pretrial bail.
The police accused some labor leaders of “sabotage” – an offense so vaguely defined that it can be abused to criminalize any exercise of workers’ freedom of association. For example, a person commits the offense of sabotage if he or she does any act “with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working of, or to cause damage to…[a] factory.”
The police have similarly filed spurious criminal complaints against nine labor leaders for committing “prejudicial acts,” an offense that has been repealed. The Shomajtontrik Sromik Front, a national union federation, challenged the use of the repealed offense in January 2017 in the Bangladesh High Court, which ruled it unlawful and ordered the magistrate’s court to release a leader of the union, Ahmed Jibon, on bail.
According to a leading criminal law expert who spoke with Human Rights Watch, the police violated Bangladesh Supreme Court rulings in their application of the Special Powers Act, where the court clearly held that even where there is damage to private property, the Special Powers Act offenses cannot be used since it does not constitute a security related offense against the state. Rights groups have repeatedly called for full repeal of the act.
Abusing the Threat of Arrest and Re-Arrest
The police intimidated labor leaders and workers by registering criminal complaints against “unknown” persons, allowing them to misuse the threat of arrest against anyone. Human Rights Watch has documented previous and routine use of this technique. The open-ended complaints against over 1,600 “unknown” people for committing crimes during the Ashulia strikes have been abused to implicate union leaders, some of whom have been arrested in as many as nine cases each. Most recently, the police rearrested Jibon, soon after a magistrate’s court released him on bail.
Police arrested three more labor leaders – Asadur Zaman, Golam Arif, and Ronju – from the Bangladesh Independent Garment Union Federation (BIGUF) soon after the Ashulia strikes and implicated them in old cases from January 2015 unrelated to the strikes. These were filed in Gazipur during the 2015 nationwide blockade called by a 20-party alliance led by the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party. None of them had been accused or previously questioned in relation to those cases. Nine more labor organizers were similarly arrested on February 10, in relation to case from August 2016, accused of obstructing police work, and released on bail on February 13.
Trumped Up, Vague Allegations
Nine of the complaints were filed by factories against some known and many “unknown” persons, each alleging a variety of crimes.
A leading criminal law expert who has reviewed these complaints told Human Rights Watch that most allegations are vague and appeared as if the “FIRs [police first information reports] were prepared at the instruction of the same person. Police just copied them by changing the names.”
Where allegations specifically detailed property damage, such as destruction of factory doors, windows, and machinery, there is no corroborating information. None of the workers Human Rights Watch was able to interview in a few of these factories and who had resumed work inside these factories said they had seen any freshly replaced machinery or fixtures, or recently damaged machinery or fixtures awaiting repairs. Local residents said they did not witness any looting or violence. On the contrary, they said the areas were teeming with police, who had put up barricades.
In one case, the factory alleged in its complaint that workers made an “irrational demand” on December 14, 2016, then disrupted work by going on strike. Workers told Human Rights Watch that a fire alarm went off that day, and management told workers to leave. Some who tried to return were told they did not need to. Workers also said that mid-level factory management and supervisors had encouraged them to leave the factory and join the strike – telling the workers that if they joined the strikes, the managers’ salaries would increase too.
The same factory manager alleged in his complaint that some workers turned violent at about 8:45 a.m. on December 20, allegedly breaking machinery and damaging glass doors and windows worth 1 million takas (US$12,492). However, workers told Human Rights Watch that on the evening of December 19, supervisors had instructed at least some of the workers to arrive late the following morning. By the time these workers arrived, the gates were closed and they were told the factory was indefinitely closed.
In another case, a factory official filed a complaint alleging that at around 8:45 a.m. on December 19, 15 named workers and 40 to 50 unknown people damaged machinery, doors, and windows worth 300,000 takas (roughly US$3,770) and looted garments worth 200,000 takas (roughly $2,515) after beating and threatening factory officials. They also alleged that the workers they named colluded with 40 to 50 unknown others and rioted on the street outside the factory, destroying vehicles. They said this forced the factory to close down for a few days.
Factory workers told Human Rights Watch that on December 19, officials announced through loudspeakers that the factory was closing and ordered workers to go home. The workers complied and left and said they saw no evidence of violence on the way out. And despite allegations of extensive damage, the workers who resumed work inside the factory after it re-opened said they did not see any freshly repaired or installed fixtures, or damaged fixtures, or hear about any such damages.
Police Harassment of Labor Activists and Death Threats to BIGUF Leader
Starting in mid-December, the Solidarity Center, which works closely with workers and unions, documented instances in which 14 national union federations were either forced by police to shut their offices in Ashulia, Gazipur, and Chittagong, or closed them because of police harassment.
According to a written incident report by the Bangladesh Independent Garment Union Federation (BIGUF) on January 20, two plainclothes policemen interrupted an ILO-sponsored health and safety training program organized in BIGUF’s Gazipur office, demanding to meet with two BIGUF organizers. More uniformed police officers entered the premises, gathered all BIGUF staff and program participants in the seminar room, noted down their personal details, and warned that they should not participate in BIGUF’s activities. According to BIGUF, one of the policemen also threatened Rashedul Alam Raju, the union federation vice-president, who was not in the room, saying that he would be caught and drowned in drain water.
Human Rights Watch has reported on a recurring pattern of such harassment in the past. In 2010, the police detained and harassed activists from the Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity (BCWS). Aminul Islam, one of the detainees, told other rights groups that the police had tortured and threatened to kill him. In April 2012, Aminul vanished and was subsequently found murdered with torture marks under circumstances that raise concerns of involvement by Bangladeshi security forces. Till today, the police investigation has failed to find suspects, and officials have not responded to a call by international rights groups and aid donors for an independent investigation.
Retaliatory Firing, Black-Listing of Factory Workers
According to information from rights groups and news reports, factory managers dismissed or suspended an estimated 1,500 workers in Ashulia after the strikes. Some workers told Human Rights Watch that their factory managers promised to send them a show-cause notice back in their homes in the village but had received no further information. Other workers said that factory officials or supervisors told them on the phone that they should not come to the factory because they would be arrested, without offering any further explanation. A third group said that factory officials gave them a show-cause notice, in standard format, with seven days to respond to allegations that they participated in or instigated violent strikes. Human Rights Watch has seen some of these notices. None was tailored to an individual worker, specifying clearly how they were implicated in the strikes, but included broad, vague allegations addressed to a group of workers.
These retaliatory dismissals and suspensions appear indiscriminate, Human Rights Watch said. Factory management also opportunistically dismissed workers perceived as “unproductive” or “trouble-makers.” A pregnant worker said that she was dismissed even though she did not participate in any strikes because of her pregnancy. A male worker who was on sick leave said he was dismissed, and a female worker said she believed she was targeted because she had complained of sexual harassment at the workplace.
One worker who was fired said he was finding it impossible to find employment in other factories:
My life has been seriously affected…I tried for a job in several factories after the incident. In January, I joined Envoy Group and worked for about half an hour. But an official came and said he cannot appoint me, without giving any explanation. Later a security guard told me our photos were emailed to other factories and that’s how they identified me. I am thinking of leaving the Ashulia area, but I don’t know if I will get a job in other areas. I have to pay my bills here – house rent and other things before I leave.
Union-Busting
Government information from August 2016 shows that only 23 factories in Ashulia had registered unions. Human Rights Watch documented numerous examples of factory officials thwarting union formation in Ashulia’s factories. Union busting has been an unchecked labor rights risk in global apparel brands’ supply chains in Bangladesh.
One union federation leader said that “participation committees” – employer-worker committees under the Bangladesh Labour Act – had begun to subtly replace factory unions. A few workers from various Ashulia factories said their factory managers did not allow “unions” but allowed workers to vote for representatives to these committees. The Solidarity Center told Human Rights Watch that participation committees either exist only on paper or are dominated by employers and do not represent worker interests.
A union office holder from a factory said: “Our factory union got the registration three months ago. When the owner became aware of this, he terminated 74 workers including the union president…Now I got dismissed along with 150 others, though I had no role in the recent protest.” In another case, workers had attempted to form a union in their factory three times, only to face factory retaliation.
Those were the words of the leader of a local women’s nongovernmental organization (NGO), describing the gender discrimination that affects every aspect of girls’ lives in Bangladesh.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been celebrated for promoting women’s empowerment in everything from education to maternity leave. But at her request, parliament is considering legislation that would allow child marriage for the first time in decades. The current law bans marriage before the age of 18 for women and 21 for men, with no exceptions. The new law would permit marriage of girls below age 18 in “special circumstances, such as accidental or unlawful pregnancy.”
The Bangladesh government is yet to take sufficient steps to end child marriage, in spite of promises to do so. Instead, in steps in the wrong direction, after her July 2014 pledge to end child marriage by 2041, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina attempted to lower the age of marriage for girls from 18 to 16 years old, raising serious doubts about her commitment.
The prime minister argues that a girl pregnant outside of marriage must be allowed to marry, or she and her child will face discrimination in accessing services. NGOs have opposed the exception and asked the government to find other ways to protect these children from discrimination. Hasina has responded by lashing out at NGOs: “They just stay in Dhaka and don't have any idea about the reality of society in rural areas.” This argument ignores the work NGOs have been carrying out for decades to prevent child marriage in villages. In contrast, the government has not gathered statistics about the prevalence of teen pregnancy or researched the difficulties facing unwed mothers and their children.
Activists are able to use the current law to intervene and stop child marriages. In villages across the country, NGOs raise awareness about the law, ensuring that families understand that it is not only illegal but also puts girls at heightened risk of health consequences including death, poverty, and domestic violence.
Since the introduction of the new proposed legislation, they say they have faced greater resistance from community members who cite the draft law as evidence the government thinks child marriage is acceptable in some situations. This has left women’s rights activists feeling abandoned by the government.
Hasina has gained a reputation as a champion of women’s empowerment in part thanks to the work of NGOs. The minister of women and children’s affairs acknowledged this when urging both groups to work together because “the government cannot do everything alone.”
When critiquing NGOs, Hasina said, “Their responsibility is very limited. They are involved in NGOs to make some money. But we have the responsibility as long as we are in power.”
Responsibility to whom? Both Hasina and NGOs have a responsibility to women and girls, in rural and urban areas. To work toward a Bangladesh free of child marriage, Hasina should remove the provision in the draft law permitting marriage under the age of 18.
It’s been a torrid few years for Bangladesh’s lucrative garment-making industry. There was the Rana Plaza disaster in 2013, when more than 1,100 workers died when an eight-story factory collapsed on top of them. In the years since the disaster, global clothing brands have become increasingly concerned about workers’ rights in Bangladesh.
Following pressure from rights groups and uncomfortable media exposés in the aftermath of the Ashulia wage strikes in the outskirts of Dhaka, international brands are starting to vote with their feet by refusing to participate in the upcoming Dhaka Apparel Summit later this month.
The summit is being hosted by the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Export Association (BGMEA). Two key speakers who were supposed to address the summit are no longer listed in the event program: the global head of production of clothing giant H&M, and a representative of the C&A Foundation, a foundation funded by the Dutch mega brand C&A.
This signals global brands’ strong displeasure at how the government, BGMEA, and some of its members have dealt with recent Ashulia strikes. The police harassed and arrested some union leaders and workers on apparently fabricated criminal cases after they went on strike over low wages.
The BGMEA says it is “working together to reach amicable settlements, wherever possible” with regard to the criminal cases filed by factories. But such non-committal platitudes are not enough. If it’s to win back the confidence of global garment brands it should urge factories affiliated to BGMEA to withdraw or support the quashing of all of the abusive criminal proceedings initiated by them and urge authorities to drop such cases. It should urge factories to rehire the workers that were unfairly sacked or suspended over the Ashulia strikes. It should also tackle disturbing reports that some of its members thwart workers who try to set up unions.
It should also address the need for a wage review, which was the principal cause of the strikes. Despite wage hikes in the country’s garment sector, workers in Bangladesh are among the lowest paid in the industry. It’s certainly possible for factories to do more; workers in two Ashulia factories, Donglian Fashion and Natural Denims Ltd., recently successfully negotiated a wage hike with employers. Currently, garment workers in Bangladesh earn so little that their average compensation falls below the World Bank’s poverty line. This injustice should not continue.
Many children in Nepal are seeing their futures stolen from them by child marriage. Nepal’s government promises reform, but in towns and villages across the country, nothing has changed.
The Problem: 37 percent of girls marry by 18 and 10 percent marry before turning 15. It’s common for boys to marry, too. Girls are more likely than boys to do child labor. But when girls work, they miss school, and being out of school makes them more likely to be married off. A growing number of children are choosing to elope, often to escape deprivation or abuse. Child marriage often results in denial of education, serious health risks from early pregnancy, and domestic abuse.
The Problem: Almost two out of every 5 girls are married before 18. Bride price perpetuates the practice. Married girls can be expelled from school and pregnant girls are often forced to drop out.
Our Advocacy: A court recently ruled that Tanzania must raise the legal marrying age to 18, but the government has appealed the ruling. We want the government to make 18 the minimum marriage age for girls and boys. We want schools to stop mandatory pregnancy testing, and we are pushing for all girls to have access to education.
The Bangladesh government is yet to take sufficient steps to end child marriage, in spite of promises to do so. Instead, in steps in the wrong direction, after her July 2014 pledge to end child marriage by 2041, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina attempted to lower the age of marriage for girls from 18 to 16 years old, raising serious doubts about her commitment.
The Problem: 52 percent of girls marry by age 18, and 18 percent before turning 15. Costs associated with education – like books and uniforms – cause girls to drop out of school, which drives child marriage. Local officials accept bribes to fake the age of child brides.
Our Advocacy: Bangladesh wants to end marriage before the age of 15 by 2021 and before age 18 by 2041. We want the government to to step away from a plan to lower girls’ marrying age from 18. We also want it to finish its long-promised action plan to end child marriage.
Child marriage in Africa often ends a girl’s education, exposes her to domestic violence and grave health risks from early childbearing and HIV, and traps her in poverty.
The Problem: Nearly one-third of girls in Zimbabwe marry before their 18th birthday. Bride price, or the practice of a man paying a woman or girl’s family money or cattle to marry their daughter, fuels this.
Our Advocacy: In positive news, the government made 18 the new marriage age for girls and boys, and there is a proposed law banning bride price for girls under 18. We want Zimbabwe to repeal all remaining laws that allow for child marriage, and to create an action plan to stop child marriage.
(New York) – The release this week of a man held incommunicado for more than six months after his apparent abduction by security forces is a step forward, but Bangladeshi authorities need to immediately reveal the fate and whereabouts of two other men held in secret detention, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today.
Humam Quader Chowdhury, who was taken away by men in plainclothes on August 4, 2016, was released March 2, 2017, near his family home in Dhaka. Two other men – Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem and Abdullahil Amaan Azmi – were also taken in August 2016 in separate incidents and have not been heard from since. They should either be charged or released without delay.
The three men are all sons of prominent opposition politicians tried and convicted by the International Crimes Tribunal set up to prosecute war crimes committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence. They have been denied access to lawyers and their family members.
“The release of Humam Quader Chowdhury is one positive step, but he should never should have been held in secret detention in the first place,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Bangladeshi authorities need to now come clean about what has happened to Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem and Abdullahil Amaan Azmi, and provide their families with answers. They were picked up in front of relatives and other eyewitnesses and there is little room for denial that security forces were involved in their enforced disappearances.”
International pressure has mounted on the Bangladeshi authorities over these and other cases. Last week, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances called on the government to reveal the whereabouts of the three men and all other victims of enforced disappearances in the country. The working group’s statement, citing concern over a rise in enforced disappearances over the last few years, was endorsed by several other UN experts.
Authorities have denied holding the men in custody, although family members cite multiple credible sources to confirm the men were held by different branches of security forces since their abductions, including the Rapid Action Battalion and the military intelligence Directorate General of Forces Intelligence.
Enforced disappearances, particularly targeting supporters of opposition parties, are routinely conducted by security forces in Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi human rights group Odhikar reported that in 2016, at least 90 people were arrested by security forces and not heard from again. Enforced disappearance is defined under international law as the arrest or detention of a person by state officials or their agents, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to reveal the person’s fate or whereabouts.
Enforced disappearances have become a scourge in Bangladesh. For far too long, far too many families have lived with the grief of not knowing where their loved ones are.
Biraj Patnaik
South Asia Director, Amnesty International
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both highlighted Bangladeshi security forces’ extensive and well-documented history of custodial abuse, including torture and other ill-treatment.
“Enforced disappearances have become a scourge in Bangladesh. For far too long, far too many families have lived with the grief of not knowing where their loved ones are,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia director at Amnesty International. “The Bangladeshi authorities need to put an end to this criminal practice immediately. They should bring those suspected of criminal responsibility to justice in fair trials without recourse to the death penalty.”
Humam Quader Chowdhury
Humam Quader Chowdhury, 33, is the son of Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, a prominent leader of the opposition Bangladesh National Party (BNP) who was executed in November 2015 following his conviction for war crimes. Humam Chowdhury is also a senior member of the BNP. On August 4, 2016, he was pulled out of his car while traveling with his mother to a courthouse to attend a hearing. His mother said that several men in civilian clothing forced Chowdhury into another vehicle. They were surrounded by other armed men in uniform.
The family had previously reported that on several occasions security force members had harassed and threatened security staff at the family home. Staff members eventually quit out of fear. Several family members went into hiding as a result of the repeated threats and intimidation. Humam Chowdhury had not been allowed to leave Bangladesh for the last seven years and had been turned back with no explanation at the airport each time he tried to leave.
Until March 2, 2017, the family had no news of Humam Chowdhury’s whereabouts.
Immediately after his abduction, his mother tried to file a general diary complaint, the standard first report of transgressions filed with the police, but the police said they would need permission “from above” to accept the report. A well-placed diplomatic source told the family that the government had confirmed it was holding Humam Chowdhury and that he had not been harmed. Another source told them that he was being held by the Detective Branch’s counterterrorism unit.
Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem
Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem, 32, is the son of Mir Quasem Ali, a prominent leader of the opposition Jamaat-e-Islami party. Quasem Ali was convicted of war crimes in November 2014 and was facing execution when Bin Quasem was abducted.
Bin Quasem is a Supreme Court lawyer who had also served as his father’s lawyer. He was abducted at his home at around midnight on August 9, 2016, by several men in civilian clothes. The men said they were members of the administration but did not identify themselves as being with any specific branch of the security forces. His wife and cousin were present at the time. Bin Quasem told the security forces that as a lawyer he knew his rights and demanded to see an arrest warrant. The men said they did not need a warrant and dragged Bin Quasem away, refusing even to let him put on his shoes.
Mir Quasem Ali was hanged in September. The government denied the family’s entreaties to allow Bin Quasem to see his father before the execution or to attend to his father’s funeral.
In the weeks before his abduction, Bin Quasem had told Human Rights Watch that he was worried about his safety. He had ruled out leaving the country because he wanted to support his family in the period before his father’s execution. His family was subsequently told, but has not been able to confirm, that he was initially held along with Humam Chowdhury at the headquarters of the Rapid Action Battalion, and was later moved to the headquarters of the Detective Branch. Bin Quasem’s wife has filed a general diary complaint. As with Chowdhury’s family, a diplomatic source confirmed that the government admitted to holding Bin Quasem but was unable to offer any further information.
Abdullahil Amaan Azmi
Abdullahil Amaan Azmi, 57, a retired brigadier general in the army, is the son of Ghulam Azam, a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party who was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to death in 2013. In light of his 90 years of age, the court ruled that Azam would serve a life sentence rather than face execution. He died of a heart attack in prison in October 2014.
Amaan Azmi was abducted on the evening of August 22, 2016. About 30 men in civilian clothes entered the grounds of his apartment building, telling staff they were from the Detective Branch. They assaulted the building caretaker, leaving him unconscious, then went apartment to apartment until they found Azmi. His wife, mother, and several staff who were present confirmed that the men said they were from the Detective Branch and told Azmi he had to come with them.
Azmi asked to see an arrest warrant. They said they didn’t have one and grabbed him and blindfolded him. He asked to take some clothes, but they refused. They took him away in an unmarked car, and the family has had no news of him since.
Like Chowdhury and Bin Quasem, Azmi had been concerned about his safety in the months before his abduction. Police, both in uniform and civilian clothes, had regularly parked outside his building and would occasionally go to the apartment to ask about him and his whereabouts. Immediately after he was taken, Azmi’s mother went to the nearest police station to file a complaint. The police took it but told her they would not register it officially. The family has heard rumors that Azmi is being held at the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence.
Belkis, 15 years old, holds her one-year-old son in the house where she lives with her mother, two sisters, and one brother. Belkis was married when she was 13 years old to a man who threatened to commit suicide if the family didn’t agree to the marriage. After 14 months, her husband sent her home; he no longer financially supports her or the baby. Belkis fears her family’s home will be washed away by river erosion by the end of the year. March 30, 2015.
(London) – The Bangladesh government should move quickly to adopt regulations to limit the harms of a new law that legalizes child marriage, Human Rights Watch said today. On February 27, 2017, the Bangladesh parliament approved a law that permits girls under age 18 to marry under “special circumstances,” with permission from their parents and a court. There is no minimum age for these marriages.
This law is a devastating step backward for the fight against child marriage in Bangladesh, which has the highest rate of child marriage in Asia, and one of the highest rates in the world, with 52 percent of girls married before age 18, and 18 percent married before age 15. Under the previous law, the legal age of marriage was 18 for women and 21 for men, with no exceptions.
“The focus now must be on containing the damage caused by Bangladesh legalizing child marriage,” said Heather Barr, senior researcher on women’s rights at Human Rights Watch. “Nothing can change the fact that this is a destructive law. But carefully drafted regulations can mitigate some of the harm to girls.”
Donors, diplomats, the United Nations, civil society, and activists fought to defeat the law. Now that the law has been passed, however, the government should ensure that the provision permitting child marriage will be used rarely and carefully.
The focus now must be on containing the damage caused by Bangladesh legalizing child marriage. Nothing can change the fact that this is a destructive law. But carefully drafted regulations can mitigate some of the harm to girls.
Heather Barr
senior researcher on women’s rights
While Bangladesh’s previous law setting marriage age for girls at 18 was widely ignored, the government in 2014 pledged to end child marriage before the age of 15 by 2021, and to end marriage before the age of 18 by 2041. It committed to develop a national action plan setting out how the government would achieve those goals, but has not yet done so.
The government has previously said that the goal of legalizing child marriage in “special circumstances” is to respond to situations involving “accidental or unlawful pregnancy” of unwed girls. Bangladesh has not done enough to help adolescent girls avoid unwanted pregnancies, such as ensuring access to information and services on reproductive health and sexuality.
In a 2015 report, Human Rights Watch found serious gaps in access to information about family planning, and access to contraception for young people in Bangladesh.
The government should move swiftly to draft regulations setting out the circumstances in which children under 18 can marry, and the standards judges should use when considering requests to authorize child marriages. The government should draft these regulations in close consultation with organizations working on child marriage and on children’s rights, many of which have decades of experience helping girls at risk. The regulation should be narrowly limited to truly protect the best interests of the child. It should also ban all marriages before the age of 16; interpretations of international law say that marriage before the age of 16 should never be permitted under any circumstances.
The Bangladesh government is yet to take sufficient steps to end child marriage, in spite of promises to do so. Instead, in steps in the wrong direction, after her July 2014 pledge to end child marriage by 2041, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina attempted to lower the age of marriage for girls from 18 to 16 years old, raising serious doubts about her commitment.
The regulations should require that a social worker be assigned to each case, to assist the judge and to follow through with services and support for girls. Before approving a child marriage, the judge should confirm that girls seeking to marry have been offered comprehensive services, including help continuing school, social service support for them and their families, and comprehensive reproductive health information and services.
Judges, along with social workers, should interview girls outside the presence of their family and intended husband and in-laws, to determine whether the girl is sufficiently mature to make this decision and genuinely wishes to marry based on fully informed consent. When judges do approve child marriages, the girl who will marry should be linked with social and health services responsible for maintaining regular contact with her to ensure that she receives reproductive health care and to address any difficulties she faces after marriage. Judges and social workers should have specialized training to handle these processes.
Judges should also be trained and required to screen for cases of sexual violence, to ensure that the girl is not a victim of rape. Lawyers and experts in Bangladesh have raised concerns that this law could be used to force girls who have been raped to marry their attackers. Judges must be clearly instructed, by regulations, that under no circumstances may they permit this to happen, and that any indication that sexual contact was non-consensual should lead to a criminal investigation – and, of course, denying requests to approve the marriage.
“Judges are now the last line of protection against this law being used to force girls into marriage against their will, or even allow rapists to escape penalty by marrying their victims,” said Heather Barr. “The government should provide clear guidance for judges, so that this provision is used rarely and with great caution.”
The debate over adolescent pregnancy prompted by this law should also drive Bangladesh to fix problems with access to comprehensive sexuality and reproductive health services and information for adolescents. The government should ensure that all adolescents have information about family planning and access to contraception. If the government’s goal is to reduce adolescent pregnancy, it should have all schools teach practical lessons about family planning, make it easy for young people to obtain contraception, and make abortion legal, safe, and accessible. At present, Bangladesh permits a procedure called menstrual regulation, which can terminate a pregnancy up to about eight to 10 weeks after a missed period. Aside from this, Bangladesh permits induced abortion only when it is necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life. Bangladesh should remove criminal penalties for abortion.
“Girls at risk of unwanted pregnancy face real problems in Bangladesh, but the answer isn’t child marriage,” said Heather Barr. “The answer includes ensuring that schools provide the information adolescents need about sex, and that the health system offers reliable access to contraception and other health services for unmarried young people.”
Last month, three UN human rights experts released a joint letter to the Bangladesh government about the country’s failing response to deadly arsenic in drinking water.
Two decades after the problem came to international attention, an estimated 20 million people in Bangladesh—mostly the rural poor—still drink water with contamination levels above the national standard.
Arsenic in water is colourless, tasteless, and odourless. But exposure to even low doses can have deadly health consequences, although the resulting illnesses—cancers and cardiovascular and lung diseases—take years to develop.
The UN experts—the special rapporteurs on the right to health, on extreme poverty, and on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation—cite research published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation in 2012 that estimates an annual death toll of 43,000 people from arsenic-related illnesses in Bangladesh.
After the extent of arsenic in drinking water in Bangladesh was understood in the mid-1990s, successive governments, international donors, and non-governmental organisations oversaw a concerted effort to test shallow wells. From 1999 to 2006, 5 million wells across the country were tested with field kits and the results communicated to their owners.
This national screening found that wells used by an estimated 20 million people yielded water with arsenic above the national standard. Subsequent studies showed that many people switched to a safe well when there was one close by.
But since 2006, such efforts have dissipated. In many cases, the red paint that used to mark wells as contaminated faded years ago.
A nationwide study of drinking water quality published in 2015 found a similar result to the earlier screening — 20 million people exposed to arsenic above the national standard. The result essentially shows no progress. What’s going wrong?
Government wells are vitally important in arsenic affected areas of Bangladesh. Deeper wells drilled down approximately 150 meters into the ground often supply water without arsenic. They can provide drinking water for hundreds of people.
Deep government wells are a potentially life-saving public good, but they are too expensive for most families in rural villages in Bangladesh to install by themselves.
Some politicians are diverting these life-saving public goods to their political supporters and allies.At the end of a long explanation of who, ideally, should get the water, a government policy states: “50% of the sites for allocation (of new wells) should be finalised after discussion with the relevant member of parliament of that area.”
As one government official told me on condition of anonymity: “If the member of parliament gets 50% (of the new allocation) and the upazila (sub-district) chairman gets 50%, there’s nothing left to be installed in the areas of acute need.”
What does this diversion look like at the village level? I visited one village where more than 90% of all wells were contaminated, but the government wells were behind compound walls in backyards, or even installed inside private houses, used by single families.
As another government official told me (also on condition of anonymity): “This (political interference) happens all over Bangladesh.”
As some members of parliament tap public goods to reward political favours in electorates all over the country, Bangladesh is expending considerable resources in areas where the risk of arsenic contamination is relatively low and where water coverage is relatively good. Put simply, the government’s deep wells that could provide safe water aren’t being put where they are most needed.
The government’s engineering experts are aware of this—in fact, some technical reports have called for targeting areas with the greatest need—but the government has failed to take corrective action.
As the letter by the special rapporteurs to the government notes: “The absence of adequate institutional structures and measures to control arsenic has left millions of the affected population to their own devices.” Underlying the problem, the Bangladesh government has not replied to the joint letter by the three UN special rapporteurs.
Perhaps government denials are to be expected. In response to our report last year that found that 20 million people still drink arsenic-laced water, the local government minister told Bangladesh media that that no one in Bangladesh currently suffers from arsenic.
Effectively addressing arsenic in drinking water requires acknowledging the enormity of the problem and reviving the commitment that the government and international donors displayed after the problem first came to international attention.
While there are technical challenges to be overcome, the real difficulty is poor governance.
The government needs a national plan to end arsenic exposure through drinking water and to install new wells in the areas where the risk of arsenic contamination is high. It should end the pernicious influence of politicians on their allocation.
(New York) – The Bangladesh government should immediately halt the imminent execution of three men convicted of a May 2004 grenade attack, which targeted the then British High Commissioner, Anwar Choudhury. Chowdhury survived the attack that took place outside the Hazrat Shahjalal shrine in Sylhet district, but was among dozens injured by the blasts. Three police officers were killed.
Police escort Mufti Abdul Hannan (3rd L), alleged leader of the Bangladesh chapter of the Islamist militant group Harkatul Jihad, to court in Dhaka October 2, 2005.
On March 19, 2017, the country’s apex court rejected the final review application of the three men on death row, all alleged members of the banned militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad (HuJI). The three men are: Mufti Abdul Hannan, HuJI founder, and two activists in the group, Sharif Shahedul Alam Bipul and Delwar Hossain Ripon.
“Criminals need to be punished, but Bangladesh is moving in the wrong direction by invoking the death penalty,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “Bangladesh should instead initiate an immediate moratorium on capital punishment because it is inherently cruel and irreversible, and should never be used, regardless of the crime.”
The evidence against the three men is primarily based on their confessions, statements that magistrates say were freely given in front of them but that the men have said were forcibly extracted through torture in police custody. Human Rights Watch has previously documented numerous cases of torture to coerce confessions, and due process violations in the Bangladesh criminal justice system that have made it difficult for defendants to receive a fair trial, including in capital cases.
Noting that "custodial torture has become a persistent trend in Bangladesh," the country’s National Human Rights Commission recently said that, "Indiscriminate order of remand for extracting confessions immensely contributes to a culture of custodial torture."
Criminals need to be punished, but Bangladesh is moving in the wrong direction by invoking the death penalty.
Brad Adams
Asia Director
Court documents show that Hannan had spent 77 days, and Bipul and Ripon 40 days each, in police custody prior to giving their confessions. During this time and throughout their interrogation, the accused were not provided access to any legal representation. All three confessions were made during this period.
Bangladesh courts have accepted allegations in previous cases that torture takes place in police custody, and local, and international human rights organizations contend that the practice is widespread. Nevertheless, the appeals court stated that, “These confessions are natural, voluntary, inculpatory, and corroborative to each other,” and were not “procured from them by means of coercion, duress, or torture.”
The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which interprets the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a signatory, has stated that there must be no “direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused, with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt. That all three convictions are based on interrogations without a lawyer present strongly suggests that they violated article 14 of the ICCPR on the right to a fair trial.
Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all countries and under all circumstances. Capital punishment is unique in its cruelty and finality, and it is inevitably and universally plagued with arbitrariness, prejudice, and error. A majority of countries in the world have abolished the practice. In 2012, the United Nations General Assembly called on countries to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, progressively restrict the practice, and reduce the offenses for which it might be imposed, all with the view toward its eventual abolition.
“Delivering justice requires adhering to the highest standards, particularly when a life is at stake, and there can be no room for doubts or mistakes,” Adams said. “Human Rights Watch has long supported justice and accountability for militant attacks, but we have also stated repeatedly that these trials have to meet international fair trial standards, and call upon Bangladesh to reject the death penalty.”
It is a challenge for governments to manage the onslaught of social media that can incite public violence. But too often, a state crackdown is aimed more at silencing critics than maintaining public order.
This is certainly the case in Bangladesh. When bloggers and activists were recently murdered, instead of protecting free speech, government officials repeatedly warned against hurting religious sentiments. The authorities, too often, curtail free expression rights in print and digital media.
On Facebook, an alleged administrator of Moja Losss, a satirical page that occasionally made fun of politicians, is facing charges for anti-government posts. Advisers to the prime minister wrongly claimed that the December 2015 arrest was for public safety and argued that the satire had crossed the thresholds of decency. In September 2016, Dilip Roy, a student activist, was charged for making “derogatory remarks” towards the prime minister in a Facebook status criticizing her decision to support a controversial coal plant.
Now it appears that Bangladesh authorities are attempting to enlist Facebook directly as an agent of censorship. The post and telecommunications minister has announced a proposal for Facebook to implement a separate set of rules for Bangladesh that will protect the nation’s culture, tradition, and history and regulate posts that hurt religious sentiment. The proposal asks for a dedicated department to respond to requests to restrict expression and verify identities with government documents, which could aid in further abusive charges. According to authorities, these proposals are necessary counterterrorism measures.
Facebook has already restricted content in compliance with local laws since 2013. In the midst of a 22-day government block on access to Facebook and other social media and communication applications in 2015, Facebook officials met with government authorities. That year marked the first time that Facebook provided authorities with data related to criminal cases.
Mark Zuckerberg has stated: “We fight to protect our community from unnecessary or overreaching government intervention.” In Bangladesh, the proposed guidelines could go beyond local laws and places restrictions on rights that hurt the very individuals Facebook claims to help by providing a platform for their voices. It is up to Facebook to reject the government proposal and fight for their users in Bangladesh, and to do so in a transparent manner.
(New York) – The Bangladeshi authorities have failed to make measurable progress in investigating the April 4, 2012 abduction, torture, and killing of prominent labor rights activist Aminul Islam, including allegations of links to state officials, Human Rights Watch said today. International donors and global brands sourcing from Bangladesh should press the government on the need for accountability for Islam’s murder.
“After five years, neither Aminul Islam’s family nor the public know the truth about what happened and who killed him,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director. “The authorities seem to have washed their hands of the entire incident by suggesting that his death was due to a private dispute – without investigating the serious allegations of security forces involvement.”
Following national and international pressure, the Bangladeshi government had pledged a high-level speedy investigation into his murder. But five years on, while police have filed charges against a missing suspect, a former garment worker, there have been no apparent efforts to investigate allegations that members of the Bangladeshi security forces were part of the conspiracy to kill the labor rights activist.
Islam, 39, was a trade union organizer with the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity (BCWS), a local nongovernment organization that supports the rights of factory workers in the garment and seafood industries. He disappeared on April 4, 2012. His body was discovered two days later, almost 100 kilometers from where he was last seen, and showed signs of torture under circumstances that raise concerns of involvement by Bangladeshi security forces.
The Bangladesh government’s failures to protect labor organizers like Aminul Islam should put it in the international spotlight until this case is solved and all the perpetrators are found and brought to justice.
Phil Robertson
Deputy Asia Director
Human Rights Watch has long called for the authorities to establish an independent body to lead the investigation into Islam’s death, particularly considering Bangladesh’s long history of protecting its security forces from any accountability.
In November 2013, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) filed charges of murder against a former garment worker, Mustafizur Rahman. Rahman’s whereabouts have been unknown since Islam’s disappearance, with Bangladesh authorities claiming that he is hiding somewhere in India.
Police photographs of Islam’s body indicated signs of torture. His right leg had injuries under the knee, his toes had been smashed, both knees had coagulated blood, and there were several bruises on the body. The Ghatail police chief, Mahbubul Haq, told journalists at the time, “He [Islam] was murdered. His legs had severe torture marks including a hole made by a sharp object. All his toes were broken.”
Islam’s work as a labor organizer for BCWS often brought him into conflict with garment factory managers. Before his disappearance, he reported receiving frequent threats and being under surveillance. BCWS helps garment factory workers form trade unions to ensure decent work and wages, and safe working conditions. However, workers who try to form or join labor unions have told Human Rights Watch that they often face harassment and threats from factory managers. BCWS staff have long faced harassment, including at one point sham criminal charges being filed against BCWS founder Kalpona Akter that carried the death penalty.
Despite reforms to labor laws since the Rana Plaza building collapsed in April 2013, killing and injuring over 1100 garment factory workers, the authorities continue to intimidate workers and labor leaders, with dozens alleging that they are facing unfair or apparently fabricated criminal cases after wage strikes in Ashulia, an industrial area outside of Dhaka, on December 2016.
“The Bangladesh government’s failures to protect labor organizers like Aminul Islam should put it in the international spotlight until this case is solved and all the perpetrators are found and brought to justice,” said Robertson. “The government has continually failed to ensure labor rights protections for garment workers, but one way to turn that around would be to set up a credible, independent, and transparent investigation into Islam’s death.”
The objective of the Transparency Pledge is to help the garment industry reach a common minimum standard for supply chain disclosures by getting companies to publish standardized, meaningful information on all factories in the manufacturing phase of their supply chains. The civil society coalition that developed the Pledge surveyed published factory lists of leading apparel companies and developed a set of minimum supply chain disclosure standards that build on good practices in the industry.
Each company participating in this Transparency Pledge commits to taking at least the following steps within three months of signing it:
Publish Manufacturing Sites
The company will publish on its website on a regular basis (such as twice a year) a list naming all sites that manufacture its products. The list should provide the following information in English:
The full name of all authorized production units and processing facilities
The site addresses.
The parent company of the business at the site.
Type of products made.
Worker numbers at each site.
Companies will publish the above information in a spreadsheet or other searchable format.
Relatives cry for loved ones trapped in the collapsed Rana Plaza building outside Dhaka on April 24, 2013.
(c) 2013 Reuters
“Sometimes I just can’t sleep without pills. I keep remembering how many people died that day.”
Shabana, her name changed to protect her privacy, survived three days buried in the rubble of Rana Plaza, an eight-story building with five garment factories that collapsed in Bangladesh in 2013.
Four years later, Shabana is still struggling to piece her life back together. She has nightmares. Depression hampers her life and ability to work. Setting foot inside a garment factory is unthinkable. She is now a domestic worker.
There was barely any publicly available information about the apparel brands that were using the Rana Plaza factories. Activists searched through the rubble for labels and interviewed survivors.
For decades, such secrecy has been the norm in the garment industry. While a handful of companies, like Adidas, Nike, Levi’s, Puma, and Patagonia, began publishing details more than a decade ago, others have recently joined. By the end of 2016, at least 29 apparel companies were disclosing some information about their source factories. Yet, company commitments to transparency about supplier information are inconsistent, with widely varying standards for what they choose to disclose. Many brands have held out completely.
Garment workers in Bangladesh face poor working conditions and anti-union tactics by employers including assaults on union organizers. In the two years since more than 1,100 workers died in the catastrophic collapse of the Rana Plaza factory on April 24, 2013, efforts are underway to make Bangladesh factories safer, but the government and Western retailers can and should do more to enforce international labor standards to protect workers’ rights, including their right to form unions and advocate for better conditions.
Last year, a coalition of labor and human rights organizations endorsed the Transparency Pledge, which sets a minimum standard for publishing supply chain information. The coalition contacted 72 apparel and footwear companies, urging them to carry out the pledge. The pledge reflects existing corporate practices on disclosure, and aims to foster a level playing field in the industry.
Seventeen companies will fully align their disclosure practices with the pledge by the end of 2017. Many others are moving in the right direction. But the industry still has a long way to go. Well-known brands and retailers like Forever21, Urban Outfitters, Walmart, Primark, and Armani are among those yet to embrace transparency.
Supply chain transparency complements other measures for worker safety and rights like the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety. Numerous brands are part of the accord and publish their supplier information.
Companies that are reluctant to adopt the Transparency Pledge sometimes claim it is a competitive disadvantage. But increasingly, their competitors are dispelling this myth.
Shabana sewed clothes in a Rana Plaza factory. But she and most other workers didn’t know the brands. “Workers should know about brands so they can tell their true stories,” she says.
(London) – British American Tobacco (BAT) should strengthen its processes for identifying and addressing human rights risks in its global supply chain, Human Rights Watch and Swedwatch said today in an open letter to shareholders. At the company’s annual shareholder meeting on April 26, 2017, shareholders will have an opportunity to press the company to take action and to increase the transparency of its efforts.
Human Rights Watch and Swedwatch described the human rights concerns they identified in their research on farms supplying BAT in Indonesia and Bangladesh, respectively. Human Rights Watch has documented child labor and other human rights abuses in tobacco farming in several countries, and since 2014 has urged the largest global tobacco companies, including BAT, to improve human rights protections and monitoring in their supply chains.
“The global tobacco supply chain has serious risks of human rights abuses including child labor, as well as health and safety risks,” said Jane Buchanan, associate children’s rights director at Human Rights Watch. “Shareholders can press BAT to do a better job identifying and addressing human rights abuses to ensure that the company’s profits don’t come at the expense of vulnerable workers.”
In a May 2016 report, Human Rights Watch found that thousands of children in Indonesia, some as young as 8, are exposed to serious hazards while working on tobacco farms, including some that supply BAT. Many child workers mixed or sprayed toxic pesticides and many suffered nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms consistent with nicotine poisoning, a result of absorbing nicotine through their skin.
Human Rights Watch had previously documented hazardous child labor on tobacco farms in the United States, including in areas where a BAT supplier, Reynolds American, was purchasing tobacco leaf. Human Rights Watch has urged BAT and other tobacco companies to prohibit children from all work involving direct contact with tobacco.
The Stockholm-based Swedwatch, in a June 2016 report, found widespread and hazardous child labor, health problems suffered by families involved in tobacco production, and other serious human rights problems in Bangladesh. Interviewees told Swedwatch that children’s work on tobacco farms interfered with their education.
In describing how the company responded to the two reports, BAT Chief Executive Nicandro Durante said, in a March 2017 sustainability report: “We conduct detailed investigations, take appropriate action to address any issues identified, and report transparently on the progress and outcomes.”
The groups raised concerns about the rigor and credibility of BAT’s monitoring practices, and its transparency in publishing details about supply chain audits.
International human rights norms like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights state that companies are responsible for identifying and addressing human rights abuses in their global supply chains, and reporting publicly on their efforts.
“Without transparency, human rights abuses go undetected and are not remedied,” said Alice Blondel, director of Swedwatch. “BAT should carry out rigorous internal and third-party monitoring and publish details on the content of the assessments and results.”
We write on behalf of the nongovernmental organizations Human Rights Watch and Swedwatch to draw your attention to serious human rights abuses we have documented in British American Tobacco’s (BAT) supply chain in the last year. Our research raises questions about whether the company has taken adequate steps to protect the human rights of the people farming the tobacco that goes into its products. At the Annual General Meeting this week, shareholders have an opportunity to ask questions about the company’s human rights due diligence practices, transparency, and accountability.
In recent weeks, BAT released a new sustainability report. The sustainability report stated, “Tobacco remains the most essential part of our product and the farmers who grow it are absolutely crucial to the success of our business.” But we have seen that these very farmers and hired farmworkers face grim realities in countries where BAT purchases tobacco. The farming families BAT describes as “crucial” to its success include young children and adults who get sick from the work. Many have little or no safety training, and lack even basic equipment to protect themselves from the risks of nicotine exposure, including Green Tobacco Sickness.
A report published last May by Human Rights Watch showed how children as young as 8 risk their health working on small-scale tobacco farms in Indonesia, including some that supply BAT. Based on interviews with more than 130 child tobacco workers, the report found thousands of children—maybe tens of thousands, or more—are exposed to nicotine and toxic pesticides while working on Indonesian tobacco farms, and many of them get sick from the work. Half of the children interviewed said they suffered nausea, vomiting, headaches, or dizziness while handling tobacco—common symptoms consistent with nicotine poisoning, which happens when workers absorb nicotine through their skin.
“After too long working in tobacco, I get a stomachache and feel like vomiting,” said one 13-year-old boy interviewed for the report. He likened the feeling to motion sickness: “It’s just like when you’re on a trip, and you’re in a car swerving back and forth.”
Farmers contracted with BAT’s export company in Indonesia did not understand the risks to child workers and could not clearly articulate the company’s expectations on child labor during interviews with Human Rights Watch.
In June, the Stockholm-based organization Swedwatch published a report based on research in three of BAT’s tobacco cultivation areas in Bangladesh. Drawing on direct observations and interviews with over 150 men, women, and children, the report found widespread and hazardous child labor, adverse health impacts on families involved in tobacco production, and other severe human rights problems.
Swedwatch found family poverty put additional pressure on children to do work that could be harmful to their health or interfere with their education. A 16-year-old boy who worked as a day laborer on a farm contracted with BAT told Swedwatch he sometimes worked 15 or 16 hours a day in the high season. “During this time I cannot go to school and I miss many classes,” he said. “This is a very important year for me as I have to sit for the national exams next year. But there is no option for me but to help my parents.” A teacher in one of BAT’s cultivation areas described how work in tobacco farming affects students: “The work in tobacco farming makes the children weak, and even those who are attending school are unable to concentrate on their studies. They lag behind in the class and lose interest to study further."
Human Rights Watch had previously documented hazardous child labor on tobacco farms in the United States, including in areas where BAT supplier Reynolds American purchased tobacco leaf. In a 2011 report, the North Carolina-based Farm Labor Organizing Committee and Oxfam documented human rights abuses, including child labor and violations of the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining on US tobacco farms. FLOC has repeatedly urged Reynolds American and BAT to take additional steps to protect the labor rights of workers in its supply chain, and ensure on-the-ground mechanisms for fair negotiations on tobacco prices and working conditions. BAT and Reynolds American are undergoing a US$49 billion merger this year.
Our research shows BAT, like many other tobacco companies, has not done nearly enough to identify human rights risks and impacts, and to shoulder its responsibility to remediate violations affecting farmers and workers in the supply chain “most essential” to its product. Under the framework established by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, tobacco companies are responsible for identifying and addressing human rights abuses in their operations. They should report publicly on those efforts.
In its recent sustainability report, BAT acknowledged that, “Agricultural supply chains are particularly susceptible to human rights violations,” and that 60 percent of child labor worldwide occurs in agriculture. Yet in Bangladesh, the company maintained that its own monitoring program found, “zero reported incidences of child labour in tobacco growing,” raising questions about the rigor and effectiveness of its monitoring practices.
BAT makes limited information about its tobacco supply chain monitoring program publicly available.
Under the company’s Sustainable Tobacco Programme, BAT suppliers complete self-assessments annually, where they grade themselves on their own performance on all of the company’s most important human rights and sustainability criteria. Unsurprisingly, BAT suppliers tend to perform extremely well on their own self-assessments. In 2014, for example, BAT’s suppliers in Indonesia got an average score of 90 percent on the child labor section of these self-assessments. The company publishes no detailed information about the specific criteria used, the content of these assessments, or the meaning of these scores.
Every three years, third-party monitors perform an in-country audit and visit a handful of farms to check for abuses. The scope, methodology, and results of the third-party audits are not made public.
At this week’s Annual General Meeting, shareholders have an opportunity to push the company to live up to those words, and to examine its human rights policies and monitoring practices, and the transparency and relevance of its public reporting. They deserve clear answers about steps the company is taking to ensure its products are not tainted by human rights abuses.
British American Tobacco should:
Ensure that all contracts and business agreements with suppliers of any size include specific requirements to respect human rights throughout the company’s supply chain, including prohibiting the use of child labor anywhere in the supply chain, specifically any work in which children under 18 have direct contact with tobacco in any form;
Collect data and qualitative information about farming communities and farms each season and utilize this information to identify potential human rights risks, including child labor and obstacles to education for children among others;
Conduct regular and rigorous monitoring in the supply chain for child labor and other human rights abuses. Human rights impact assessments should include meaningful consultation with stakeholders and vulnerable groups;
Engage entities with expertise in human rights and child labor to conduct regular third party monitoring in the supply chain;
Publish detailed information about internal and external monitoring in a timely manner. Credible public reporting should include such elements as the terms of reference for the monitors, methodology, indicators used in evaluation, scope of the evaluation (including geography and numbers of farms visited, and the numbers of farmers, family members, including children, and hired workers interviewed), detailed results, and other elements published in a form and frequency consistent with the guidance on transparency and accountability in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights;
Ensure access to remediation when human rights problems are identified. Establish and enforce penalties for suppliers who violate the company’s human rights policy. The penalties should be sufficiently severe and consistently implemented so as to have a dissuasive effect. Discontinue business with suppliers that repeatedly violate the company’s human rights policy;
Ensure that all tobacco leaf purchases can be traced to the specific farms where it was grown;
Make details on tobacco sourcing available to the public, investors and consumers by disclosing supply countries, suppliers, and size and location of cultivation areas;
Continue to engage in collaborative initiatives to address hazardous child labor in global supply chains. Such initiatives are a supplement to, not a replacement for, the company’s individual human rights due diligence across all its global leaf operations.
Shareholders can push BAT to take more meaningful action to protect human rights in its global operations.
For further information, please contact Human Rights Watch in New York (hrwpress@hrw.org; +1-212-216-1832) or London (tilianm@hrw.org; +44 (0) 20-7618-4777), or Swedwatch in Stockholm (jenny@swedwatch.org; +46 (0)8-525-203-75).
Members of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 4, 2012. Members of the RAB raided a gathering in Dhaka on May 19, 2017, arrested 28 men, paraded them in front of the media while saying they were gay, and accused them of drug possession.
Bangladesh’s notorious Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) raided a gathering in Dhaka on May 19, arrested 28 men, paraded them in front of the media while saying they were gay, and accused them of drug possession. Apparently tipped off by a resident near the venue where the group had gathered regularly in recent months, RAB officers abused their authority to humiliate the men a –flagrant privacy rights violation for an already-vulnerable minority.
While the government has taken some steps – like recognizing a legal third gender category–sexual and gender minorities in Bangladesh are under constant pressure. “Carnal intercourse against the order of nature” carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In 2015, a Bangladeshi LGBT rights organization said that “visibility can be life-threatening.” Even discreet activism can attract unwanted attention, which is made even riskier as the authorities have repeatedly failed to stand up for freedom of expression. The brutal murders of two leading, visible Bangladeshi gay rights activists a year ago foregrounded the extreme vulnerability of the entire community.
Bangladesh’s National Human Rights Commission has documented physical and sexual assaults on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people by the police. At a United Nations review, the government accepted a recommendation to enhance police training around serving women and children, but rejected a call to protect LGBT people, saying “sexual orientation is not an issue in Bangladesh.”
RAB, an elite counter-terrorism unit that has operated since 2004, has a well-earned reputation for human rights abuses. While the police did not file sodomy charges against these individuals, RAB’s choice to publicly accuse the men of homosexuality, placing them at risk of humiliation or violent attack, is dangerous and unwarranted. But Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government has remained silent after this incident.
“What both law enforcement and the media have forgotten is that they are complicit in upholding the colonial legacy of criminalizing and stigmatizing diverse sexual and gender identities and expressions,” a Bangladeshi LGBT organization that asked not to be named said of the incident.
The RAB have since handed over the 28 to the police or courts, but they all remain in custody. The authorities dealing with the 28 detainees now should respect their fundamental rights—including their right to privacy.
During a recent visit to Bangladesh to revisit my years there as a student, a colleague suggested I meet Sultana Kamal, much admired for decades of work on justice as a human rights defender.
But Kamal was not making many public appearances, because of threats from militants.
The story that emerged is a tale of authorities who, while attempting to appease some hardline religious groups, ended up compromising basic human rights principles.
In May, prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s government, which has long claimed a commitment to secularism, caved to the extremist group Hefazat-e Islami’s demands to remove a statue representing “Lady Justice” in front of the Supreme Court in Dhaka because it was deemed to be an un-Islamic religious object.
On May 28, Kamal argued during a television debate that by this logic no mosques should be permitted on the court premises. That prompted the Hefazat spokesman to call for Kamal’s arrest, and threaten that if she came out on the streets they “would break every bone in her body.” Kamal has said that after the threat was made, abusive postings appeared on Facebook, including doctored images of her being lynched.
These threats and claims of hurt sentiments are not new. They follow several lethal attacks by extremist groups on bloggers and activists for promoting secularism. Rather than condemn the attacks and arrest those responsible, officials responded by warning that “hurting religious sentiments is a crime.”
All this is happening against a background of increasing attacks on free speech by the state. Over the past two years, the government has cracked down on media and civil society.
The authorities restored “Lady Justice” to another part of the Supreme Court complex. But Bangladesh is on a dangerous course. The government needs to do much more to protect rights activists like Kamal and promote an environment where they can carry out their work free from threats and attacks. Appeasing religious extremists and silencing dissent will only lead to more violence.
Bangladesh law enforcement authorities have illegally detained hundreds of people since 2013, including scores of opposition activists, and held them in secret detention. The Bangladesh government should immediately stop this widespread practice of enforced disappearances, order prompt, impartial, and independent investigations into these allegations, provide answers to families, and prosecute security forces responsible for such egregious rights violations.
My brother asked, “Can I have your identity? What is your force? Are you RAB, CID, DB?” They did not identify themselves. He asked several times. They did not wear any uniform and they had no legal arrest warrant. Nothing. They just said, “Come with us.” My brother said, “I am a lawyer and I need to know these things.” And then they said, “We will give you five minutes to get ready. Get ready and come with us.”
–Sister of Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem, a lawyer for Jamaat-e-Islami who has been “disappeared” since August 2016
Law enforcement forces, whether it is RAB, police, or any other one, it really doesn’t matter because they all are abiding by government orders. The policy of the present government is to arrest someone and “disappear” them. Some of the government forces are very rude and cruel. But it is the government policy that I blame.
–Father of Adnan Chowdhury, a Bangladesh Nationalist Party supporter who has been “disappeared” since December 2013
Since 2013, law enforcement authorities in Bangladesh have illegally detained scores of opposition activists and held them in secret without producing them before courts, as the law requires. In most cases, those arrested remain in custody for weeks or months before being formally arrested or released. Others however are killed in so-called armed exchanges, and many remain “disappeared.”
Bangladesh law enforcement authorities have illegally detained hundreds of people since 2013, including scores of opposition activists, and held them in secret detention.
Bangladesh law enforcement agencies have a long history of human rights violations. The ruling Awami League party took office in January 2009 with the promise to end such abuses. However, according to Odhikar, a Dhaka-based human rights organization, Bangladesh law enforcement agencies have since disappeared over 320 people, including suspected criminals, militants, and, more recently, opposition members. Of these, 50 were later killed, and dozens remain disappeared. The rest were either released or formally produced in court as recent arrests.
Such disappearances continue, but many of the targets are now political opponents. In 2016, human rights organizations and the media documented over 90 people disappeared, of which 21 were killed. Nine remain disappeared at time of writing. In the first five months of 2017, Odhikar reported an additional 48 disappearances. In February 2017, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances called on the Bangladesh government to halt the increasing number of enforced disappearances. In April 2017, Swedish Radio reported on a secretly recorded interview with a senior officer in the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a counterterror unit of police and military, who admitted that the force routinely picks up people, kills them, and disposes of the bodies.
The Awami League has taken contradictory approaches to allegations of disappearances. In November 2016, confronted with cases of enforced disappearances mostly involving political opponents, Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal told Voice of America the allegations were baseless; those missing, he said, were hiding “to embarrass the government globally.” In March 2017, Law Minister Anisul Huq however acknowledged to the UN Human Rights Committee that disappearances had taken place, but claimed their numbers had been brought down to “a very low level.” Huq also said that Bangladeshi law did not recognize enforced disappearances, but “kidnapping or abductions” in the country’s “criminal environment” had been successfully investigated, and that the government had a “zero tolerance approach” toward law enforcement agencies committing crimes. “Nobody is above the law, nobody,” he said.
This report examines dozens of disappearances since the beginning of 2016, as well as the abduction of 22 activists from the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) between November 28 and December 11, 2013, just weeks before national elections in January 2014. Nineteen of those abducted in 2013 remain disappeared at time of writing. The report finds that state law enforcement agencies—particularly RAB and the Detective Branch (DB) of the police—have been involved in secret detentions and killings, despite public assertions to the contrary.
Among those picked up in 2016 whose whereabouts remain unknown are Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem and Amaan Azmi, sons of two prominent Jamaat-e-Islami opposition leaders convicted in recent trials for war crimes during Bangladesh’s independence campaign in 1971. In addition, 12 of the men killed following an illegal detention in 2016 were known activists of the opposition Jamaat.
For instance, Shahid Al Mahmud, a 24-year-old Jamaat-e-Islami activist, was picked up in front of family members on June 13, 2016. His father, Rajab Ali, described the arrest at a press conference five days later, and said he was worried that his son might be killed. On July 1, the family heard reports of two men killed in a gunfight. Aware of other cases of faked armed encounters, they went to the morgue and discovered Shahid’s body. Police claimed that they had opened fire after coming under attack by criminals. Rajab Ali told Human Rights Watch that the police were lying: “The police abducted my son and staged a gunfight drama to justify the killing.”
The 19 disappearance cases detailed in this report from 2013 all involve the BNP. The men were picked up in eight separate incidents after the BNP and its ally, Jamaat-e-Islami, launched violent protests involving arson and the use of crude bombs. Witness accounts indicate that RAB participated in at least three incidents in different parts of Dhaka in which eight BNP supporters were disappeared. In two other incidents involving the abduction of six men, witness accounts—including a sighting of the disappeared being escorted by a man with “DB” written on his vest, and another of the disappeared in a DB office—indicate the involvement of DB police officers.
Families of the disappeared have made repeated appeals to the government, visited DB and RAB offices, and sought police investigations. Some have filed cases before the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, while others have sought assistance from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), or filed habeas corpus petitions before the High Court.
Lack of Accountability
In almost all cases of enforced disappearances that Human Rights Watch documented, police did not allow the families to file a General Diary (GD)—the simplest way to report a crime or incident to the police—if the complaint contained an allegation that law enforcement authorities were involved. Police either allowed the families only to file a GD stating that the person was “kidnapped” by unidentified men, or more commonly to file a complaint saying that their family member was “missing.”
Other than in a couple of cases, the allegations of the families and witnesses have been totally ignored, and there has been no police inquiry. In a few cases where investigations have occurred, the inquiry has been cursory, without any attempt to interview eyewitnesses.
Families had varying experiences with RAB and DB. One desperate father whose son has been missing since 2013 told Human Rights Watch:
Almost every day I visited the RAB or DB office. RAB guards treated me badly and asked me not to visit regularly. They scolded me and asked me, “Why are you disturbing us again and again.” I spent two months in this way.
On the other hand, the family members of Sajedul Islam Sumon, a well-known local BNP leader who was picked up in December 2013, had political connections that enabled them to contact senior RAB officers. The officers informally admitted that RAB had picked up Sumon and five other men. One former senior RAB-1 officer told the family that the men were brought into his custody immediately after being picked up, but were then removed by other RAB officials, and that he now assumed they had all been killed.
The NHRC and courts have been ineffective in dealing with these cases. The commission has not undertaken any investigations of its own. In one case in which the NHRC did intervene on behalf of a family, it was easily brushed off with vague reassurances.
Very few families of those who have been disappeared seek legal remedy. Several told Human Rights Watch they feared legal action would seriously jeopardize the safety of their relatives—most families hope that they will be released after a period of secret, illegal detention. Others said the courts were ineffective as state agencies deny their role.
Protecting Rights
Bangladesh faces serious security challenges. In addition to concern of renewed violent protests by political opponents, authorities are grappling with a surge in attacks by Islamic militants targeting foreigners, religious minorities, writers, bloggers, editors, and gay rights activists that between 2013 and 2016 killed over 50 people.
However, the state has a responsibility to ensure that the law enforcement response does not violate human rights. Enforced disappearances are prohibited under both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Instead of accepting denials, the courts—if not the government—should order prompt, impartial, and independent investigations, and require that law enforcement authorities either release the missing persons, or provide answers to families about what happened and prosecute those responsible for the abuses.
The government should also invite the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN special rapporteurs to investigate serious human rights violations including disappearances, extrajudicial executions, and “kneecappings” and other alleged acts of torture, and make appropriate recommendations to ensure justice, accountability, and security force reform.
Key Recommendations
Promptly investigate existing allegations of enforced disappearances, locate and release those held secretly by security forces, and prosecute the perpetrators. These should include politically motivated cases involving the disappearances of members or supporters of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Jamaat-e-Islami party.
Investigate allegations of deaths of individuals in so-called crossfire or gunfights after they were already in security force custody, establish command responsibility, and prosecute those responsible.
Make strong and repeated public statements at the highest government levels that make clear that all law enforcement authorities and investigation agencies should comply with the law and that all detained people must be brought to court within 24 hours.
Immediately suspend, pending a full investigation, and remove from RAB, DB, and other law enforcement units or other position any individual for whom there exists credible evidence that they participated in an enforced disappearance. Work to disband RAB, which has been responsible for numerous and serious human rights violations, and replace with a non-military counterterrorism unit.
Ensure serious and independent investigations by inviting the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant UN special procedures—including the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—to visit Bangladesh to investigate and make appropriate recommendations to ensure justice and accountability, as well as reform of the security forces to act independently and professionally.
Methodology
This report has been researched and written by a consultant for Human Rights Watch.
It provides details of some of the over 90 reported disappearances that took place during 2016. Most of the interviews that form the basis of this part of the research were done by phone, with some additional interviews in person.
It also details 19 disappearances at the end of 2013. It uses material based on initial interviews from August to December 2014 by two journalists who worked at the time at the Bangladesh national newspaper New Age. On the first anniversary of the disappearances, the paper published a series of 10 articles.[1] As a consultant with Human Rights Watch, one of the journalists conducted further research from May to August 2016 to obtain new and updated information. The interviews took place primarily in Dhaka, but also with eyewitnesses who have since moved out of the city.
In some cases, names of interviewees have been withheld to reduce the likelihood of reprisals. Over 100 people, including family members and witnesses, were interviewed to document these cases. Interviews were conducted in Bengali and English.
Bangladeshi authorities did not respond to letters that Human Rights Watch submitted in April 2017 requesting information about the specific cases documented in this report. For information on the authorities’ versions of the cases, we therefore have relied on news accounts giving details of their responses, where such accounts are available.
I. Background
Bangladesh has a long history of human rights violations and lack of accountability for security forces.[2] However, the disappearance of 19 Dhaka-based opposition activists over a two-week period at the end of 2013 appears exceptional. The only comparable abuse was at the end of the country’s independence war in December 1971, when Pakistan military, aided by local extremists, abducted and killed 17 academics and journalists in Dhaka over a four-day period.[3]
While extrajudicial killings, or deaths in so-called crossfire incidents, have persisted for years, the Awami League committed to end these abuses after it came to power in January 2009. However, over 320 people been “disappeared” by Bangladesh law enforcement agencies for various amounts of time since the government led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed took office, as reported by the nongovernmental organization Odhikar. Since 2013, in a new phenomenon in Bangladesh, many of those targeted have been members of the political opposition.
Many of those disappeared have not returned or were mysteriously killed, often in alleged gunfights.[4] In 2016, there were confirmed reports of at least 90 disappearances.[5] Odhikar has reported 48 cases from January to May 2017. The total number is likely to be higher, as families or witnesses do not always report disappearances.
Political Background
The Awami League won an overwhelming majority of seats in the new parliament in the December 29, 2008 elections. Bangladesh has a deeply fractured political climate, and for the next five years, the main opposition parties—the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Jamaat-e-Islami—rarely attended parliament.[6] On June 30, 2011, the government amended the constitution, removing provisions that the government would hand over power to a non-political caretaker administration three months before elections.[7] The BNP and the Jamaat demanded the provision be reintroduced before the 2014 elections to ensure free and fair polling.
The government’s refusal prompted the BNP and the Jamaat to lead an 18-party opposition alliance to organize a series of three-day hartals (national strikes) and blockades to press their demands. To enforce the strikes, many opposition party activists set fire to cars and government buildings, targeting public vehicles with crude bombs. On November 8, 2013, just after the BNP announced yet another three-day hartal, the government started to crack down on BNP leaders for alleged involvement in the violence.[8]
The opposition continued to call strikes. Related street violence and retaliation by security forces resulted in deaths and injuries. The opposition also announced a poll boycott. International diplomacy, including a visit by a senior United National official, failed to lead to an agreement. Elections took place on January 5, 2014, without the involvement of opposition candidates. Thus, more than half the seats were uncontested.[9]
Clashes between supporters of the Awami League and opposition parties started again in early 2015, on the anniversary of the controversial elections. By the end of February 2015, up to 120 people had been killed in the political violence.[10] Toward the end of March 2015, under pressure, opposition parties stopped their strikes and picketing. However, a new crackdown on the opposition then began to unfold.[11]
Attacks by Extremist Groups
In parallel to the conflict between the government and political opposition, Islamic militants have since 2013 carried out attacks that have killed over 50 people. The attacks took two different forms.
The motivation for one category of attacks, which were claimed by the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Islam, has been perceived insults to Islam.[12] These attacks include the hacking of Asif Mohiuddin, an outspoken atheist blogger, in January 2013;[13] the killing of secular blogger and political activist Ahmed Rajib Haider in front of his family home in Dhaka the following month;[14] the killing of blogger Avijit Roy, a US national of Bangladeshi origin, in February 2015 in a machete attack that also seriously injured his wife; and the death of seven more people in the months that followed, including two LGBT activists. Some of the targets were among the 84 people publicly named as atheists by extremist groups.[15] Many bloggers and activists have gone into hiding, fled the country, or stopped writing.
A second type of attack, claimed by ISIS (also known as the Islamic State), has targeted foreigners in Bangladesh, as well as members of religious minority groups including Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Shia. These began in September 2015, when unknown attackers shot and killed Italian aid worker Cesare Tavella. In the following ten months, 19 people were killed in similar attacks. On July 1, 2016, militants attacked a café in the upscale Gulshan neighborhood of Dhaka, in which 18 foreign nationals, two Bangladeshis, and two police officers died.[16] Although ISIS claimed responsibility for all these attacks, the government has denied an ISIS connection, as well as the group’s presence in Bangladesh, and instead has blamed opposition parties and a revamped version of the local Islamist group Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), which police authorities term the neo-JMB.[17]
History of Disappearances and Extrajudicial Killings
One of the first well documented incidents of an apparent enforced disappearance in post-1971 Bangladesh is the case of Kalpana Chakma, an indigenous women's rights activist, who was picked up along with her two brothers from their home in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, allegedly by army officers on election day in 1996. The two brothers escaped after a few days, but Kalpana, a strong critic of the army’s role in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, remains missing, presumed dead.[18]
In 2002, the then-ruling BNP started Operation Clean Heart to tackle crime, resulting in thousands of detentions and reports of over 40 deaths, many allegedly through torture.[19] In 2004, the BNP government established RAB as an elite counterterrorism unit combining members of the armed forces and police.[20] In the first two years, Human Rights Watch identified 367 people killed by RAB in alleged “crossfire.”[21] In several cases, men were picked up by RAB, “disappeared,” and killed. RAB denied the detentions.[22]
On January 11, 2007, following violent political protests around planned elections, the military stepped in, proclaiming a state of emergency, and established a caretaker government. In November 2008, near the end of the military-backed caretaker government, the human rights organization Odhikar found that 245 people had been killed in alleged “crossfires” or “gunfights,” and 38 people had allegedly been tortured to death since January 2007.[23]
The Awami League came to power in January 2009 promising that “extrajudicial killings will be stopped.”[24] That commitment soon faltered.[25] In May 2011, a Human Rights Watch report found that since the Awami League took office, nearly 200 people had been killed in RAB operations.[26] Regardless of who has led them, governments in Bangladesh have justified extrajudicial killings as lawful self-defense.
As the Awami League’s term continued, law enforcement authorities started to increasingly target the opposition. While extrajudicial killings continued, reports of enforced disappearances, which until then were rare, increased.[27] Families and eyewitnesses have repeatedly made allegations against the Detective Branch (DB) of the police, in addition to RAB, for its alleged role in these disappearances.[28]
In a few cases, those illegally detained have been released without ever being formally arrested. For instance, in two high profile disappearances, a witness at the International Crimes Tribunal in November 2012 and a BNP spokesperson in April 2015were picked up and secretly detained in Bangladesh for around six weeks.[29] They were then discovered in Indian territory where they were arrested by Indian authorities for illegal entry. In a more recent case, the police “released” two men at a public meeting attended by the home minister who they said had handed themselves in and turned their back on militancy, though their current whereabouts remain uncertain. In May 2017, Muhammed Iqbal Mahmud, who had been picked up in Dhaka eight months earlier, was left blindfolded on the side of the Dhaka-Raipur road.[30]
In most cases, the men remain in secret detention for weeks or months before the police suddenly claim to have arrested them the previous day. The men are then taken to the magistrate court and are remanded into police custody on the basis of a concocted story.
In other disappearances, the men’s fate is more serious—they are killed in alleged “gunfire” or their dead bodies are found. In 2016, this happened to 21 of those disappeared.[31] For some, including the 19 disappeared in 2013 detailed in this report, their whereabouts remain unknown.
As of May 2016, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances had formally received information on 34 cases of alleged enforced disappearances in Bangladesh. In its annual report published in July 2016, the group reiterated “its regrets that no information has been received … concerning the alleged frequent use of enforced disappearance as a tool by law enforcement agencies, paramilitary and armed forces to detain and even extrajudicially execute individuals.”[32]
The Bangladesh government has also not responded to a request by the Working Group to visit Bangladesh, first sent on March 12, 2013, and resent on November 27, 2015. In February 2017, the group issued a statement, endorsed by four UN special rapporteurs, calling on the Bangladesh government to halt the increasing number of enforced disappearances and reveal the whereabouts of three sons of opposition leaders who had been abducted.[33]
In April 2014, Swedish Radio reported that it had in its possession a secretly recorded interview with a senior RAB official, which it had authenticated, describing RAB’s practice of disappearing and killing people. “Everyone is not an expert on forced disappearances. We have to make sure no clue is left behind,” the RAB official is quoted as saying.[34]
The government has failed to investigate allegations of disappearances and hold perpetrators to account. In 2014, for example, in response to questions about the 2013 disappearances detailed in this report, the state minister for home affairs, Asaduzzaman Khan, told New Age that though “one or two incidents” had happened at that time, “law men were not involved in any of those cases.”[35]
One exception to the lack of investigation occurred in Narayanganj district. Seven men, including an Awami League leader, were picked up by RAB officials in April 2014 over a dispute with a party competitor. A few days later, their bloated bodies floated to the surface of the Shitalakkya River, triggering a media storm. The High Court intervened, and the eventual investigation and prosecution resulted in the conviction in January 2017 of 35 people for murder, including three RAB officers.[36]
International and National Legal Standards
Although Bangladesh law does not contain any specific criminal offense of “enforced disappearance,” the Penal Code, 1860, contains offenses including “wrongful confinement”; “wrongful confinement in secret”; “abduction”; “kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person”; “kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery”; and “wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person.”[37] Penalties for these offenses range from two to ten years’ imprisonment. In addition, the Torture and Custodial Death (Prohibition) Act, 2013, makes torture an offense punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. Death by torture is punishable by a life sentence.[38]
The Bangladesh constitution also imposes obligations on the state to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen, forbidding any action that is “detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person.”[39] The state is further obligated to secure the right to life and personal liberty.[40]
In early November 2016, Bangladesh’s highest court published guidelines requiring law enforcement officers to undertake a basic set of actions when arresting a person. They include an obligation to inform a close relative or friend of the arrested person about the time and place of the detention; to make clear the location where the person is being held; and to allow the arrested person access to a lawyer or relatives. Officers must prepare a memorandum of arrest to be signed by the arrested person and complete a case diary, which must be handed to a magistrate if the officer requests custody of a suspect for more than 24 hours, setting out the allegations and need for further investigation.[41]
In Bangladesh, a prosecutor must obtain a prior government “sanction” before lodging any criminal complaint against a state official, permission that is seldom granted.[42] The law allows both police officers and the Rapid Action Battalion to escape prosecution if they can show that they acted in “good faith.”[43]
Bangladesh is obliged to follow the standards set out in the 1992 UN General Assembly's Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (Declaration on Enforced Disappearances).[44] Although non-binding, the declaration reflects the consensus of the international community against this type of human rights violation and provides authoritative guidance as to the safeguards that must be implemented to prevent it. Bangladesh also has obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrines the right to life, liberty, and security, and right to a fair trial.[45]
Bangladesh is party to the Rome Statute setting up the International Criminal Court.[46] The statute includes enforced disappearances as one of the crimes against humanity over which the court has jurisdiction.[47] The statute defines “enforced disappearance of persons” as “the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons.”[48]
Under the Rome Statute, enforced disappearances amount to a crime against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic “attack on a civilian population,” such as a state policy to plan and commit such crimes.[49]
II. Ongoing Secret Detentions and Disappearances
Human rights organizations and media have documented over 90 people “disappeared” in 2016, of whom 21 were later found dead. The whereabouts of nine remain unknown at time of writing. The others, after varying periods of secret detention, were “released” before being formally arrested.
There have been additional reports of other disappearances involving people suspected of involvement in the Holey Artisan Bakery attack on July 1, 2016, or linked to the “neo-JMB,” which are not included in these numbers. For example, it was reported that alleged militants Tamim Ahmed Chowdhury and Nurul Islam Marjan were detained in state custody for significant periods of time before being killed in so-called counterterrorism operations on August 27, 2016, and January 7, 2017, respectively.[50]
Killed Following Disappearances
The 21 men picked up and killed are set out in the table below. Twelve were Jamaat-e-Islami activists, three were Awami League members, one was a BNP activist, three were allegedly involved in murders, and two were alleged to be criminals.[51] Below the table are further details on eight of the cases, based on interviews with families and witnesses.
ILLEGALY DETAINED AND KILLED IN 2016:
Name
Date of detention
Date body was found
Summary of family allegations of pick up and death
Abu Huraira, 55
January 24
February 29
Abu Huraira, a teacher at Kuthi Durgapur Madrasa and a senior member of Jamaat-e-Islami in Jhenaidah, was picked up outside the school where he taught by men who identified themselves as DB members. His body was found a month later on the Jessore-Jhenaidah road.[52]
Mohammad Jasim Uddin, 23
February 12
March 2
Mohammad Jasim Uddin, a student at Jhenaidah Alia Madrasa and a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami student wing, was picked up in Dhaka by some men in plainclothes claiming to be police. His body was found in a field 20 days later bearing torture marks.
Mukul Rana (Sharif alias Saleh alias Arif)
February 23
June 19
Mukul Rana, accused of involvement in the killing of blogger Avijit Roy, was picked up and put in a microbus from Bashundia intersection in Jessore by men who self-identified as police. Four months later, police said his body was recovered after a gunfight.[53]
Abu Jar Gifari, 21
Shamim Mahmud, 23
March 18
March 25
April 13
Abu Jar Gifari, a Jamaat-e-Islami student leader in Jhenaidah, was picked up as he left the mosque after Friday prayers by four armed men in plainclothes, who identified themselves as police. Shamim Mahmud, also a Jamaat-e-Islami student activist, was picked up outside a grocery store by men claiming to be police. Nearly three weeks later, their bodies were recovered, allegedly with bullet wounds, near the cremation ground in Jessore Sadar Upazila.
Sohanur Rahman, 16
April 10
April 20
Sohanur Rahman, a supporter of the Jamaat-e-Islami, was arrested in Ishwarba village in Jhenaidah, in front of his younger brother. His body, with bullet injuries, was found 10 days later.
Shahid Al Mahmud, 24
Anisur Rahman, 26
June 13
June 16
July 1
Shahid Al Mahmud, a cattle farmer and Jamaat-e-Islami student activist, was picked up early in the morning from his house in Jhenaidah in front of his parents and taken away in a microbus. Anisur Rahman, also a student activist, was picked up three days later from a hostel in Dhaka.[54]Their bodies were recovered two weeks later. Police claimed they were killed during a gunfight with criminals at the Tatultala-Naldanga road in Jhenaidah.[55]
Ibnul Islam Parvez, 27
June 16
July 2
Ibnul Islam Parvez, former president of the Jhenaidah district town unit Jamaat student wing, was picked up from a hostel in Dhaka (along with Anisur Rahman, see above). Two weeks later, the police said that Parvez’s body was found in Aruakandi village following a gunfight.[56]
Nurun Nabi, 28
Nurul Islam Rashed, 27
June 23
July 5
Nurun Nabi and Nurul Islam Rashed, suspected of involvement in the killing of a police officer’s wife, were picked up by police from a house in the Millitarir Pool area in Chittagong where they were staying. Two weeks later, the police stated that their bodies were found following a gunfight at MBW Brick field close to the city.[57]
Saiful Islam, 25
July 1
July 19
Saiful Islam, an activist of the Jamaat-e-Islami student wing, was picked up by police from his hostel in Jhenaidah along with four other students, and was seen the following day by his family at a police station. Nearly three weeks later, police claimed to have found his body close to Jhenaidah highway following a gunfight with criminals.
Faruk
Hossain, 42
July 1
July 2
Faruk Hossain, claimed by police to be a member of a gang of robbers, was picked up in Jessore by four men on two motorbikes identifying themselves as police officers. Police later said his body was found following a gunfight.[58]
Oliullah
Molla, 38
July 9
July 10
Oliullah Mollah, vice president of a local brick field workers’ association and general secretary of his local unit of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party in Satkhira, was picked up by police from the Paruli bazaar area. Police later said his body was found in Ganghati village following a gunfight.
Idris Ali, 56
August 4
August 12
Idris Ali, a madrasa teacher and Jamaat-e-Islami leader in Jhenaidah, was picked up by police while returning to his house at night. Eight days later, his body was found on the Harinakundu-Jhenaidah road with marks of torture.
Mohammad Zahurul
Islam, 42
September 7
October 25
Mohammad Zahurul Islam, president of the Jhenaidah town unit of Jamaat-e-Islami and a lecturer at Keyarbazar College, was picked up on his way home for lunch in the Al Hera area by men claiming to be DB members. A month later, police said he was shot dead on the Jhenaidah town bypass road when they opened fire in self- defense.[59]
Tarique Hassan Shajib, 40
September 13
October 25
Tarique Hassan Shajib, member of Jamaat-e-Islami, was picked up just after midnight by men claiming to be police from Al Hera school in Jhenaidah town where the party often held meetings. His body was found on October 25 with that of Zahurul Islam, whose case is described above.[60]
Safinul Islam (alias Safin), 32
September 27
October 26
Safinul Islam, previously convicted in a murder case, was picked up from Dhaka by men identifiable as members of RAB. RAB denied the arrest that time, but a month later, claimed that he was killed in a gunfight at Dadrajonti village in Joypurhat.[61]
Redwan Sabbir
Abu Abdullah
Sohel Rana
December 3
December 5
Redwan Sabbir, Abu Abdullah, and Sohel Rana, three Awami League youth wing activists, were picked up by a group of about 12 men, some wearing vests inscribed with “RAB,” from a tea stall in Tokia Bazar in Natore, late at night. Their bodies, with bullet wounds, were found two days later in Dinajpur.[62]
Mohammad Jasim Uddin
Mohammad Jasim Uddin, a student at Jhenaidah Alia Madrasa, was acting president of the Jamaat-e-Islami student wing in Ganna union unit in Jhenaidah district. According to his relatives, he no longer lived at his home in the Kalohati area of Jhenaidah town, fearing arrest. However, as his mother was sick, in February 2016 he decided to visit her. He was picked up soon after. His father, Khalil Rahman, said:
We had a conversation over the phone on February 11 when he reached Dhaka. He told me that he will come to Jhenaidah the next day, but would not stay long. But then we heard from a friend of Jasim’s that he had been taken away by some men who claimed that they were police.[63]
Soon after Jasim went missing, his older brother, Saifur Rahman, went to the Rajbari police station and local RAB offices, but they denied the arrest. On March 4, his family members were informed that a mutilated body had been found at Mostabapur field in Harinakundu Upazila. His brother identified his body. Jasim had been shot in the head, and his hands and legs were tied.[64] His mother said the family did not receive a postmortem report.[65]
Abu Jar Gifari
Abu Jar Gifari, a third-year student at the Jessore MM College, was president of the local Jamaat-e-Islami student wing in Jhenaidah. Citing witnesses, Abu’s father, Nur Islam, said that on March 18, 2016, his son was picked up by four armed men who identified themselves as DB members:
The men approached my son on two motorbikes as he came out of the mosque after attending juma prayer. They handcuffed him after he gave his name and dragged him onto a motorbike at gunpoint. Some local people tried to stop this happening but the men aimed their guns at the local people and told people to not to interfere with them as they were performing their “administrative duty.”[66]
Later that afternoon, Nur Islam went to the Kaliganj police station where officers denied having carried out any such operation.[67]
Family members also met RAB officials who claimed to have no information regarding Abu’s whereabouts. “We were terrified and requested officials of law enforcement agencies not kill him in ‘crossfire.’ They however insisted that they did not pick him up,” his father said.
On the morning of April 13, the family was informed that two bodies had been found near the cremation ground in Jessore Sadar Upazila.[68] His father said:
We rushed there and witnessed the most heartbreaking scene. My son’s body was left there with another youth’s body. Both had bullet wounds and marks of torture.[69]
The other body was that of Shamim Mahmud.
Shamim Mahmud
Shamim Mahmud, 23, a second-year student at KC College in Jhenaidah and an activist of the Jamaat-e-Islami student wing, was detained on March 24, 2016. His father,Ruhul Amin,a madrasa teacher, said eyewitnesses told him that his son was sitting at a grocery store reading a newspaper in the afternoon when four men in plainclothes entered and picked him up at gunpoint. Ruhul Amin said:
When local people tried to rescue Shamim, the men said that they were police and threatened to open fire if anyone tried to stop their “operation.” Shamim was forcibly put on a motorbike. As the police motorbike went a few meters, Shamim tried to jump off. He was injured and the police still beat him. They took him away unconscious.[70]
Family members went to the Kaliganj police station but officials did not allow them to lodge a GD, and denied that they were involved in picking up Shamim. Instead, they criticized the father for allowing his son to be involved in Jamaat politics. Family members searched for Shamim at the local RAB-6 office and other police stations with no luck. They also approached a local member of parliament. However, no one could provide information about Shamim’s whereabouts.
Three weeks later, on April 13, Shamim’s body was found along with that of Abu Jar Gifarinear the cremation ground in Jessore. The family said that the body had bullet wounds and signs of torture.[71]
Sohanur Rahman
Sohanur Rahman, 16, a high school student in Jhenaidah and a supporter of the Jamaat-e-Islami, was picked up from Ishwarba village on April 10, 2016. Sohanur and his brother, Masud, were waiting for their mother to return from Dhaka when Sohanur was detained, according to their father Mohsin Ali. Mohsin said:
My younger son Masud said that at about 5:30 p.m., four people on “easy-bikes” [a three wheeled, battery powered vehicle] passed them but returned after some local people pointed them out. One man asked Sohanur his name and when he gave it to them, two people grabbed his shirt collar and dragged him to one of the easy-bikes. Local people rushed over to them and tried to stop the men from taking Sohanur away, but the men on bikes showed their weapons and introduced themselves as plainclothes police officers. Masud cried and requested the police not take his brother away. They told him that they were taking Sohanur to Kaliganj police station.[72]
Locals identified two of the men as sub-inspectors from the Kaliganj police station. The next day, family members went to the police station. Police denied they had arrested Sohanur and did not initially allow the family members to file a GD, though they later allowed it.[73]
Sohanur’s family members also met with their local Awami League lawmaker, the Jhenaidah police superintendent, and the local RAB commander, but no one provided any information on Sohanur’s whereabouts. On April 20, Sohanur’s body was found in Kharagoda village, about 17 kilometers from their house.[74] His family said that his body showed signs of bullet injuries to the head. His father said that they asked for a copy of the postmortem report, but the police refused to provide one.[75]
Shahid Al Mahmud
Shahid Al Mahmud, 24, was a cattle farmer and activist of the Jamaat-e-Islami student wing. He lived with his parents in Badanpur village in Jhenaidah district. He was detained on June 13, 2016. His father, Rajab Ali, said the family was asleep when the police came:
Just after midnight, two men broke down the bamboo boundary, entered the compound of our house, and called out Shahid’s name as though they were his political associates. My wife and I woke up and went out to the gate, and one of the two men, both dressed in civilian clothes, pulled out a gun and threatened us. I opened the door and men went and pulled Shahid from his room. They allowed him to change his clothes. He was dragged outside and taken into a black microbus. There were other men present, some wearing police uniforms.[76]
Shakib Al Hassan, who was staying at a neighboring house, said he saw his cousin Shahid being put into the microbus. The human rights group Odhikar interviewed a neighbor, Khabir Uddin, who said he recognized one of the arresting officers.[77]
Abdur Rahim, Shahid’s older brother, who lives in Jhenaidah town, said he rushed to the police station after he heard about the arrest, but police denied having any knowledge about it.[78] Later that day he went to other police stations, the local RAB-6, and DB offices, but they all denied any knowledge of the detention.
The following day, June 15, Abdur attempted to file a GD laying out what had happened to his brother and mentioning the police and name of the officer who witnesses claimed was present. He was refused:
The police refused to accept the GD saying that I cannot accuse plainclothes police officers of involvement and that I should fill in a “missing person” GD. I left the police station without filing anything.[79]
On June 18, the family held a press conference at Jhenaidah Press Club where they described Shahid’s detention.[80] On July 1, the family heard reports of two men killed in a “crossfire” incident. Aware of other cases of such faked armed encounters, they went to the morgue and discovered Shahid’s body.
The police claimed that a team was patrolling Tatultala-Naldanga road in the early morning on July 1, when at about 3:30 a.m. some criminals hurled several bombs at the police vehicle.[81] The police returned fire. After a 20-minute gun battle, two dead bodies were found, one of whom was Shahid. The police claimed to have recovered a firearm, two bullets, five sharp weapons, and five crude bombs from the spot. They also said that some officers were wounded. Shahid’s father said the police are lying. “The police abducted my son and staged a ‘gunfight’ drama to justify the killing.”[82]
Saiful Islam
Saiful Islam, 25, was a student in the Arabic Literature Department at the Islamic University in Kushtia and an activist of the Jamaat-e-Islami student wing. He lived in a private hostel along with other party activists. Saiful’s brother, Abdullah Al Azad, said that in the early morning of July 2, he received a telephone call from Saiful’s brother-in-law.
He said that Saiful had called him and told him that he had been arrested and taken to Jhenaidah Sadar police station, and that the police said he will be released if his father and the ward chairman went to the police station.[83]
Luftur Islam, Saiful’s father, said he immediately went to meet the local ward chairman to request his intervention. The chairman told them to go and speak to the police, promising to put in a word. Lutfur, along with a neighbor, Topon, went to the city police station. Saiful’s father said that they saw Saiful in one of the cells: “We saw Saiful and some other students in police custody. My son insisted that police would release him if the chairman requested them to do so.”[84]
The police agreed that Lutfur could go outside the police station and buy some breakfast for his son. But when he returned, Saiful was gone.
When I returned to the police station, the cell where my son had been was empty. The police denied that they had arrested anyone named Saiful. When I insisted that I had seen him a few moments earlier, they said that I must have been mistaken and it was illusion.[85]
Four other students that had been picked up that morning were released in the afternoon. They told Saiful’s family members that five of them, including Saiful, had been detained together and brought to the local police station. They did not know what happened to Saiful after they were released.
Fulhari Union Chairman Jamilur Rahman Bipul said that a police officer had called him and asked about Saiful. “I told the police officer that Saiful was a good person and was not involved with any criminal activities in localities. The policeman replied that Saiful was a Shibir activist in the town and the university area.”[86]
In subsequent days, Saiful’s father went to the RAB and DB offices, but they all denied any knowledge of the arrest. On the morning of July 19, Saiful’s family read on the Ekushey TV crawl that a person had been killed in a “gunfight” beside a graveyard in Ariakandi village. Worried, they went to the morgue, where they found Saiful’s body.
The police claimed that at about 3 a.m., a police team was patrolling the Dhaka-Jhenaidah highway near Madhupur-Aruakandi graveyard when some criminals hurled crude bombs at the police vehicle. The law enforcers returned fire, triggering the “gunfight,” and one of the criminals was shot by police. Others managed to flee, police said.[87]
Oliullah Molla
Oliullah Molla, 38, general secretary of his local unit of BNP, was detained by police from the Paruli bazaar area in Satkhira on July 9, 2016.[88] When his relatives went to the local Shyamnagar police station, they said that the police confirmed the arrest but refused to let them to meet Oliullah. The family also said that local Awami League leaders demanded bribes to ensure his safety. His wife said the family began to fear for his safety:
At about 3:30 a.m. the following morning, I heard sounds of gunshots from a nearby area. I become frightened wondering whether Oliullah had been shot. My fear was proven right as in the morning I was informed about the murder of my husband.[89]
Sohidullah, Oliullah’s brother, said that family members went to the hospital morgue and found that Oliullah had been shot in the head. They also saw that his right eye was out of its socket and his right hand was cut. Police, however, claimed that they were on duty in Ganghati village when at about 3:30 a.m. a group of men sped down the road on motorbikes. The police tried to stop them, but the men instead hurled bombs and opened fire on the police, resulting in a gunfight during which Oliullah was killed.[90]
Idris Ali
Idris Ali, 56, a teacher at the Hossain Ali Aleem Madrasa at Harinakundu Upazila in the Jhenaidah, was a local Jamaat-e-Islami leader. At about 8 p.m. on August 4, 2016, Idris was on his motorbike returning to his house from the market when, according to witnesses, some plainclothes people from a police post stopped him and forcibly dragged him away.[91]
Family members went to their local police station after witnesses told them about the incident. But the officer-in-charge told them that the location where Idris was allegedly taken was not within the station’s jurisdiction, and that they should go to the Shailkupa police station to file a GD. Officers there, however, declined to allow them to do so.
Idris’s wife held a press conference on August 9 describing the disappearance. On the morning of August 12, the family was informed that the body of a missing madrasa teacher was found on the Harinakundu-Jhenaidah road. A family member said they went to the morgue:
We went there and found his mutilated body. After conducting autopsy and postmortem examinations, police claimed that it was a case of a road mishap, and Idris’s motorcycle was found at the roadside. We, however, identified marks of severe torture on different parts of the body. There were marks of hammering behind the head. Tendons were slashed. All the parts of the body bore torture marks.[92]
Police claimed that Idris Ali was wanted in several criminal cases, including for the murder of a police officer.[93]
Continuing Disappearances
Cases of nine men who were picked up in 2016 and remain disappeared at time of writing are set out in the table below.[94] Some of these people, by the time of publication, may have been released or killed. Below the table are further details of five of the cases, based on interviews with families and witnesses.
DISAPPEARED IN 2016, WHERABOUTS REMAIN UNKNOWN:
Name
Pick up date
Summary
Moazzem Hossain Tapu, 28
January 26
Moazzem Hossain Tapu, an Awami League student wing activist, was picked up from an apartment in Bashundhara Residential Area in Dhaka belonging to a political rival from the same party. The men who picked him up introduced themselves to the building guard as law enforcement officials.
Bivas Sangma, 25
Probhat Marak, 50
Rajesh Marak, 22
April 14
At around 4 a.m. on April 14, about 12 men, some wearing black clothes inscribed with “RAB,” came to Gozni village in Sherpur and picked up Bivas Sangma, a student at Tinani Adarsha Degree College, and Probhat Marak, a day laborer, from their homes. The same day, Probhat’s son, Rajesh Marak, a student at a private university in Dhaka, was picked up near Bhaluka College in Mymensingh.[95]
Kamrul Islam Sikdar Musa
June 22
Law enforcement officials picked up Kamrul Islam Sikdrar Musa as he approached the house of a friend in the Kathgar area of Chittagong where his wife and children were staying. Police have said that Musa is suspected of killing a senior police official, though they deny picking him up.[96]
Yasin Mohammad Abdus Samad Talukder, 35
July 14
Yasin Mohammad, alleged by police to have been involved in Islamic militancy, was picked up by law enforcement officers from his parked car at the Kakoli bus stand in Dhaka.
Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem, 32
August 9
Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem, the son of an opposition politician, was picked up by law enforcement officers late at night from his home in Dhaka.
Amaan Azmi, 57
August 22
Amaan Azmi, the son of an opposition politician, was picked up by law enforcement officers from his home in Mogh Bazaar, Dhaka, in the evening.
Sheikh Mohammad Lotiful Khabir (alias Anowar Hossain), 45
November 10
Plainclothes dressed men, introducing themselves as from the “administration,” picked up Anowar Hossain, a homeopathic doctor, from his clinic next to his house in Boalia, Rajshai.
Yasin Talukder
Yasin Mohammad Abdus Samad Talukder, 35, a physics teacher, lived in Dhaka in an apartment with his mother. A Bangladeshi national with dual British citizenship, Yasin went to school in Bangladesh, moved to the United Kingdom in 2001 for higher studies, and returned to Dhaka four years later after suffering an assault. His family has acknowledged that in 2011, British government intelligence officers asked him to attend a number of counterterrorism interviews at the British High Commission due to concerns about his alleged involvement in militancy, and that Yasin allowed the officers access to his computer.[97] According to his family, the intelligence officers concluded he was no threat. The British High Commission declined to respond to questions related to Yasin’s background stating that “it cannot discuss individual consular cases.”[98]
On July 12, two days before Yasin was picked up, a national paper in Bangladesh published an article stating that Yasin was among the suspects listed in an FIR, filed five months earlier, for conspiring to attack private buildings.[99] Yasin’s family question the authenticity of the allegation.
On the morning of July 14, 2016, Yasin had arranged to meet his cousin Sidrat near the Kakoli bus stand so they could drive together to attend a wedding.[100] At about 11:40 a.m., Yasin called his cousin to find out where he was. Sidrat said he was 10 minutes away. Soon after, Sidrat received another phone call from Yasin. He said:
I could hear other people shouting. The conversations and shouting was not clear and Yasin was not responding to me. The call went on for three minutes and then the phone disconnected suddenly. When I called again, it was switched off. When I reached the bus stand, I found the car parked in the spot Yasin bhai told me it would be. When I saw he wasn't inside, I started to worry. I walked up and down, looking for my cousin. I then walked to the nearest ticket stall and asked the ticket seller if he knew where the driver of the car was. I asked loud enough hoping that people sitting nearby might volunteer information, but no one did. The ticket seller initially responded with a “don't know, he's probably around somewhere nearby,” but his demeanor pretty much confirmed my suspicion that something bad had happened. I walked to some further stalls and asked, but no one said anything. But I felt the initial ticket seller knew something. I went back to him and this time pressured him a bit more. Eventually he mentioned that a black microbus had parked beside the car and that some people had walked over to the car, and then the driver of the car [my cousin] got out and went with them to the microbus.[101]
Sidrat said he kept trying Yasin’s phone and then called Yasin’s mother and uncle. A police officer stationed at the local police post advised the family to go to Banani police station to file a GD. Yasin’s mother said that while the Banani police station refused to accept the complaint, she was able to lodge a GD at the Bashantec police station where she lives.[102] Yasin’s mother also informed the British High Commission about what had happened to her son, and was advised to instruct a lawyer.
Two days after the incident, a man who gave his name as Sarwar Jahan and claimed to be from the Police Bureau of Investigation came to the apartment where Yasin and his mother lived. Yasin’s mother described the visit:
He asked me all kinds of questions but when I asked him, he did not say anything about my son being detained. I noticed however that the officer had a copy of my son’s biometric mobile phone re-registration form.[103]
Then on the night of July 21, seven days after Yasin was picked up, men from RAB came to the house.
They introduced themselves as Major Nahid and Major Masud. There were also other men with them. They took all my son’s electronic equipment including his computers away with them. They did not give me any receipt.[104]
The British High Commission has confirmed that Yasin was “detained in July 2016,” and that the Foreign Office was “continuing to press the Bangladesh authorities for consular access.”[105] However, the authorities deny that they have Yasin in custody.
Moazzem Hossain Tapu
Moazzem Hossain Tapu, 28, was a former president of the Rampura unit of the Chhatra League, the student wing of the Awami League, and was aspiring to be appointed to a higher political post.
In November 2015, as a result of a clash in Rampura between the local Awami League members, Tapu went into hiding in his home village in Faridganj, Chandpur district.[106] Two months later, on January 26, his mother, Saleha Begum, said that her son called her to say that he was back in Dhaka. He left Faridganj at about 8 a.m.
Tapu suddenly told me over the phone that he had reached Dhaka as his friends Imon and Tajul had arranged a meeting with members of the Jubo League to reach a mutual understanding and end old rivalries.[107]
Later that night Tapu’s brother, Moinul Hossain Opu, said that Imon phoned him to say that Tapu had been picked up from an apartment in Bashundhara Residential Area under Vatara police station. Moinul said:
We went to the apartment immediately. One of the guards there told us that three people in plainclothes went to the apartment and picked up my brother around midnight. When the guard tried to stop them, they introduced themselves as members of DB.[108]
The family went to the Vatara police station to inquire about his whereabouts.[109] The sub-inspector on duty told them he had no information about Tapu, and they should inquire with the DB or RAB offices. On January 28, the family attempted to file a GD at the station, but the officers would not initially accept it, and asked the family to consult the DB or RAB.
On January 30, the family filed the GD. They followed up two days later, on February 1, filing a First Information Report (FIR) at the police station. They said they did so at the suggestion of the home minister, whom they met regarding Tapu’s disappearance. Since several family members hold leadership positions in the Awami League, they have a relationship with the minister, they explained, and met him more than 20 times regarding the case. They added that he made several calls to different law enforcement agencies, including the DB, RAB, and Inspector General’s Office on Tapu’s behalf.
Based on information provided by the home minister, Tapu’s family thinks that Tapu’s friends and some Jubo League leaders were behind the disappearance, and they have filed an FIR alleging their involvement. They believe Jubo League leaders bribed an RAB unit to apprehend and detain Tapu, though they did not name police or RAB officers in their complaint.
The case is now being investigated by DB. The family has organized several press conferences seeking information, and complained about threats and demands for bribes.[110] His mother Saleha Begum said: “We’ve never received an official acknowledgement that he is in custody. We don’t know where he is being held. At least if there was a body, we would know what happened. We don’t know if he’s dead or alive.”[111]
Kamrul Islam Sikdar Musa
Kamrul Islam Sikdar Musa, a sand trader who also allegedly worked as a police informant, was suspected of involvement in the Chittagong murder of the wife of a senior counterterrorism officer.[112] On June 22, 2016, he was picked up in the Kathghar area of Chittagong as he approached a house where he thought it was safe to meet his wife and children, as arranged by a friend, but which in fact had been identified by the police. His wife, Panna Akhter, said:
I and my two children were surrounded by a police woman and seven or eight policemen in one of the three rooms of the apartment while my brother-in-law [Musa’s brother] was kept separate in a second room. My brother-in-law had earlier been picked up and brought that morning by the police to the house.… One of the police officials then went out of the house, and after some time sent a message over police wireless which said that Musa is arrested. When we heard the words, I started crying. I repeatedly asked the police personnel why they have arrested my husband, and they responded by saying, “Don’t you read the newspapers. Do not you see what’s going on.” I told them that I read many things but I want to know what was exact reason behind his arrest. Then the police said, “Do not worry, he will be released.”[113]
Panna said that police have refused a GD and denied the arrest, and that authorities have threatened her since her husband’s detention for being vocal about what happened to him.[114] In early October, police announced a 500,000 taka (US$6,200) reward for information leading to his arrest.[115] Musa’s wife called the reward a “farce” since he was picked up in June.[116]
Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem
Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem, 32, is the son of Mir Quasem Ali, a prominent leader of the opposition Jamaat-e-Islami party who was convicted of war crimes in November 2014 and was facing execution when his son was picked up. Mir Ahmad is a Supreme Court lawyer who was involved in the legal team representing several men prosecuted by the International Crimes Tribunal, including his father. He was picked up from his house late on August 9, 2016, in the presence of his wife and sister, Tahera Tasnim, who said seven or eight men in civilian clothes came to the door around 11 p.m.:
He asked his wife to open the door and told us to behave normally. I was in the kitchen at this point. When the door was opened, the men asked my sister-in-law, “Where is your husband?” My brother then went to the door and the men said, “You have to come with us.” My brother asked, “Can I have your identity? What is your force? Are you RAB, CID, DB?” They did not identify themselves. He asked several times. They did not wear any uniform and they had no legal arrest warrant. Nothing. They just said, “Come with us.” My brother said, “I am a lawyer and I need to know these things.” And then they said, “We will give you five minutes to get ready. Get ready and come with us.” I said, “You cannot take my brother like this without any identity, in the dead of night. Come in the morning and take him.” I stood in front of my brother and held the hand of one of the men. The man pulled away my hand and grabbed my brother. We were running behind him. It was total confusion. There was a white microbus and he was put in it. And the vehicle drove away.[117]
The following day, his wife filed a GD in Pallabi Thana but police refused to allow them to describe the men who took Mir Ahmad as law enforcement officials, and instead required them to describe them simply as “civil-dressed” men. On December 22, 2016, she filed an FIR with the same police station.[118]
Mir Ahmad’s father, Quasem Ali, was hanged in September. Mir Ahmad was not able to meet his father before the execution or attend his father’s funeral.
In the weeks before his arrest, Mir Ahmad had told Human Rights Watch that he was worried that he might be arrested or disappeared. According to his family, a few days before he was picked up, on the same day that Humam Quader Chowdhury was detained (see below), RAB officers visited his apartment late at night.[119]
Amaan Azmi
Amaan Azmi, 57, a retired brigadier general, is the son of Ghulam Azam, a former leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party who was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to death in 2013. Considering his age of 90, the court ruled that Azam would serve a life sentence rather than face execution. He died of a heart attack in prison in October 2014.
Amaan Azmi was picked up on the evening of August 22, 2016. About 30 men in civilian clothes entered his apartment building, telling staff that they were from DB. Abul Kalam Azad, an employee in the building, said that he saw security forces, most carrying firearms, with over a dozen vehicles cordoning the house:
I was downstairs and a few of the men started asking me about the whereabouts of Azmi sir. They initially introduced themselves as “people from administration,” and later they claimed they were DB. Azmi sir used to live on the top floor but they did not find him there. Since they could not find him, they blindfolded me and started beating me. I repeatedly said I did not know his whereabouts. At this point, some of the men asked me to give them the key to the empty apartment on the fifth floor. I replied that it was with the landlord. Then, they broke down the door and found Azmi sir. I heard sir say, “Since, you are going to take me, let me take some clothes.” But, they did not allow Azmi sir to do so. They escorted him to one of the vehicles. When he was in the car, he was blindfolded.[120]
Azmi’s wife, mother, and several other staff who were present confirmed that the men said they were from DB. Azad said that the men also seized six cellphones from people in the house, as well as hard disks from the CCTV installed for neighborhood security. The family has had no news of him since. They said Azmi had been concerned about his safety in the months before his arrest.
Secret Detentions: Disappearances Before Formal Arrests
Among the disappearances in 2016 are the cases of men whose whereabouts were unknown, with authorities denying any knowledge of an arrest, until they were brought back into the formal legal system, weeks or months after the original pick up, with police claiming that they had been arrested “the previous night.” They remained effectively disappeared until that time. In the cases of two men who were alleged to be militants, police brought them to a public meeting claiming they had surrendered. In May 2017, one man secretly detained in October 2016 was released outside Dhaka.[121]
Nur Mohammed
Nur Mohammed is a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Jhenaidah district unit. His son, Mujahidul Islam, said that law enforcement officers picked up his father at about 1 p.m. on March 2, 2016, while going to the market on his motorcycle:
My father’s bike was not running properly, so he went to a garage in Hatekhola for repairs. The friend who was with my father told me that four to five people approached him and handcuffed him, and they dragged him into an easy-bike. When local people tried to stop them, the men introduced themselves as members of DB. Since then his whereabouts is unknown and his cell phone switched off. Police did not accept our GD.[122]
Sixteen days later, police claimed that Nur was arrested on March 18 in the district of Satkhira where he was “in hiding,” and that his information led to the seizure of 15 hand bombs, 40 kilograms of explosives, and jihadist literature.[123] A case was filed against him for possessing explosives and for the murder of a homeopathy doctor in Jhenaidah in January, for which ISIS had previously claimed responsibility.[124]
Noore Alam, Iftisham Ahmed Sami, and Nazim Uddin
Noore Alam, 23, a third-year student of chemistry at Nilphamari Government College, lived with his family in the Ukiler More area. On the night of April 11, 2016, he was picked up from his home by about 10 people who wore plainclothes and introduced themselves as officials from the “administration.” Kamrul Alam Nayan, his brother, said:
I was at the family shop next to our home. My brother was sleeping inside the house. Two people came to the shop after midnight and then two others joined them. They asked to buy a mobile charger. As we spoke, one of the men seized my phone and asked about my brother. I said that my brother was sleeping. When the men said that they wanted to talk to my brother, I asked them to come back in the morning. Then the four of them dragged me out of the shop, closed it, and forced me to our house. Four to six other men in plainclothes dress also joined them. They woke up my brother and gave him few minutes to dress. We asked for an arrest warrant or any legal documents, but the men assured us that they were officials from the “administration” and they were just taking my brother for interrogation, and that he will return in 20 minutes.[125]
The men dragged Noore Alam into a waiting microbus. Nayan immediately went to the Nilphamari Sadar police station, but the police claimed that they had not carried out such an operation. Other family members went to local RAB and DB offices, which also denied they had detained Noore Alam. On April 12, his family filed a GD with the Sadar police station.
Iftisham Ahmed Sami, a third-year university student, lived with friends in Dhaka. About 4 a.m. on April 29, 2016, Sami’s father, Iftekhar Ahmed Enam, received a phone call from his son’s friend and roommate:
The friend informed me that about 10 to 15 plainclothes men who claimed to be from the “administration” broke into Sami’s room and picked him up. A handcuffed young man, who was with the plainclothes people, pointed out Sami. The plainclothes men then asked Sami to change his clothes, and he was then handcuffed and taken to a car waiting outside.[126]
In subsequent days, the father went to the Boalia police station and the local DB and RAB offices, but they all denied any involvement in the arrest.
Nazim Uddin, 42, returned in July 2015 from Malaysia to live in his home town of Jessore. His wife, Nazma Aktar, said that her husband was visiting a friend in Dhaka when he was detained in the Pallabi area on May 25 by three men in plainclothes who claimed to be from the “administration.” She said:
The friend told me that they were on my husband’s motorbike when the people in plainclothes intercepted them. Two people dragged my husband into a vehicle and the other one seized the motorbike.[127]
Nazma looked for her husband in RAB and police stations in Dhaka, but no one provided any information. She filed a GD, although the police had initially refused.
On December 6, 2016, eight months after the first of these detentions, police announced that they had arrested Noore, Sami, and Nazim along with two other men they claimed were members of the banned Islamic militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami. When the three men were brought to court, they told the magistrate that they were picked up on earlier dates from different places, providing details. Kazi Shahabuddin Ahmed, assistant commissioner (prosecution), told the court that the five “Huji operatives knew how to concoct a story.”[128] The magistrate remanded all five to police custody.
Moulana Mohammad Akhter Hossain
Moulana Mohammad Akhter Hossain, a 28-year-old imam, was picked up by law enforcement officers on May 3, 2016. His brother, Mushfikur Rahman, witnessed the arrest:
It was around 9:30 p.m. I was asleep in my house at Sukhan Pukur village in Rangpur, when five to six men came and said that they wanted to talk to me and Akhter about the Union Parishad elections that had just taken place. I said that my brother was at his in-laws’ house in Birbiria. The men, dressed in plainclothes, then put me inside a white microbus, taking away my cell phone. I took the men to Akhter’s in-laws’ house. I was asked to call Akhter’s name. When Akhter’s wife Romana opened the door, we all went inside. The men then said that they were members of DB and that they needed to take Akhter away and talk to him, as he could help locate some other people, and that he would be returned after an hour.
Both of us were then taken inside the microbus. They told Akhter, who was anxious, to stay calm, as otherwise we would be blindfolded and handcuffed. The microbus then stopped in front of Pirgacha Union Parishad Office and the men told me to get off. They also returned my cell phone. I asked them to let my brother go along with me, but the men said, “We have your phone number and we will communicate with you when we need to.”[129]
The next day, Akhter’s family searched for him at the police station and local DB and RAB offices. All denied involvement in his detention. On May 6, Mushfikur said he went to the Pirgachha police station to file a GD but was told he could only file a missing person complaint. Two months after he was disappeared, on July 1, police said Akhter was arrested in Dhaka, and that he was a member of the JMB.
Monirul Islam Babu, Abdullah Al Sayem Turjo and Shoaib Biswas
On May 12, 2016, Monirul Islam Babu, 28, Abdullah Al Sayem Turjo, 25, and Shoaib Biswas, 26, were picked up in and around Kalishpur in Khulna, where they are all from.[130] On June 12, one month later, the police claimed they were arrested in Dhaka for militancy.[131]
Shoaib Biswas, a teacher in the Arabic Department at Bismillah Nagar Madrasa, was detained in the morning on his way to work. His father, Maulana Abdus Sattar, spoke with his son when he was subsequently taken to court:
He told me that he was going to the madrasa on his bicycle when he was picked up by a few men in plainclothes and taken in a white microbus on which it was written, “Emergency Electricity.”[132]
Abdullah Al Sayem Turjo is a teacher at the Bismillah Nagar Madrasa in Harintana, Khulna. His colleague, Mufti Hafizur Rahman, said:
On May 12 at around 6:15 p.m., both of us left the madrasa on our bicycles. When we reached close to Mostor intersection, a 50-year-old man blocked our way. A white microbus with a sticker “Emergency Electricity” was parked there. The person asked for our names. Then the man asked me to leave and told Turjo to stay. I saw some people came down from the microbus and grab Turjo and put him on the microbus. Then the microbus stopped in front of me and they took away my cell phone and left.[133]
The next day, Turjo’s father filed a case at the Harintana police station alleging that some unknown people had kidnapped his son.[134]
Monirul Islam Babu is an electrician who was picked up from his home. His mother, Khadiza Begum, witnessed the incident. She said:
At around 9 p.m. a man came to our home. When Monirul came out, the man asked whether he was Monirul. The man then left without saying anything. A few minutes later, over 10 people came to the house accompanied by the person who had come earlier. They forcibly took Monirul. When we tried to stop them, they claimed to be members of DB. Some of them had pistols in their waist. They told us that Monirul will be released after he had identified some people. They then dragged Monirul into a white microbus marked “Emergency Electricity.” They asked us to communicate with Khalishpur police station and left quickly.[135]
The following day, the family filed a GD with the Khalishpur police station. When he was eventually produced in court after a month-long secret detention, Monirul Islam spoke to his father and told him that “they were blindfolded inside the microbus and traveled a long way. They were kept in a dark room, but not blindfolded or handcuffed.”[136]
Rashidun Nabi Bhuiyan (Tipu)
Rashidun Nabi Bhuiyan, 31, also known as Tipu, was living at his village home in the district of Comilla. His wife, Tahera Taslima, said that on the night of May 19, 2016, some uniformed and plainclothes officers raided their house at about 1:30 a.m.:
We were woken by the sound of vehicles and people’s voices, and then around 15 to 20 police and others stormed into our house. They showed me a photo and asked me, “Do you know that person?” I replied, “Yes, he is my husband.” My husband then came out of the room. They tied his hands and blindfolded him. I went outside the house and urged them not to take him away, and one of the police officials in uniform told me that my husband was a criminal who had killed two bloggers.[137]
The following morning, Tipu’s family members went to the local Nangalkot police station find out whether he had been detained. “The police insisted that they didn’t know anything about the incident,” his wife said.[138]
In subsequent months, family members met police and RAB officials many times, but no one provided information on Tipu’s whereabouts. On October 16, 2016, five months after Tipu’s detention, police in Dhaka held a press conference claiming that he had been arrested the previous night at the Sayedabad bus station in Dhaka. Police claimed that Tipu was a leader of the Islamic militant organization, Ansar al-Islam, and that he led the team of five men who attacked Nazimuddin Samad, a university law student and secular activist, on April 6, 2016. Police said Tipu had confessed and had provided the names of his accomplices and information on the subsequent murder of gay rights activists, Xulhaz Mannan and Mahbub Rabbi Tonoy, on April 28.
Brothers Ashfaq-e-Azam Apel and Azharul Hannan
Ashfaq-e-Azam Apel, 27, a recently graduated software engineer, lived in his family home in the city of Rangpur. His father, Shamsul Hoque, said that in the early hours of June 7, 2016, Ashfaq was picked up from the family home by law enforcement officials in front of him and three other family members. He said:
Plainclothes dressed men introducing themselves as from the “administration” came to our house between 1:30 a.m. and 1:45 a.m. As we opened the door, they—two of them carrying firearms—told me that they needed to interrogate my son and that he will be returned soon. I allowed them to take my son. They put my son into a microbus which was escorted by two motorbikes and another SUV. They took away his mobile phone.[139]
In the morning, the family went to the DB office in Rangpur and the local police station, but they all denied Ashfaq’s arrest. The Kotwali police station refused to accept a GD from the father and so he instead filed a missing person report. “I also approached RAB-13 office but they also denied arresting my son,” the father said. They said, “We don’t have him.”[140]
On February 1, 2017, seven months after he was originally picked up, RAB said that they had arrested Ashfaq along with three other men following a raid on a hideout in Dhaka. RAB claimed that the men belonged to the JMB and that Ashfaq was “the group’s IT expert. He was in charge of maintaining websites and providing technical support.”[141]
Shamsul Hoque also said that on January 3, 2017, his younger son, Azharul Hannan,a marine engineer who was present when Ashfaq was picked up in June, was detained in Chittagong. Men put him in handcuffs when he stepped out of the Navy Fleet Club, a navy-run hotel, where he was attending a conference organized by the Military Institute of Science and Technology. Hoque said that police at Bandar police station refused to file a GD, citing an instruction from “high ups.” The family have not heard anything more from him.[142]
Rashid Gazi and Kamruzzaman Sagor
Rashid Gazi, 22, a second-year student at Jessore University Science and Technology, and Kamruzzaman Sagor, 22, a student at Jessore MM College, were staying at a private hostel when they were picked up on afternoon of June 19, 2016. Authorities denied the detention at first, and the students were held illegally for nearly a month. RAB eventually claimed that they were arrested on July 14.
Ripon Sardar, Rashid’s uncle, talked with the two men when they were at the police station and when they were brought to court. Sardar said that they told him:
Five to six men in plainclothes, identifying themselves as members of DB, picked up them in a white microbus on June 19. They were blindfolded and handcuffed. The microbus stopped somewhere and another person in the same condition was put next to them. The three were taken into a room where they were kept blindfolded and handcuffed. A few days later, Rashid and Kamruzzaman heard some heated words exchanged which was followed by a gunshot. They never saw or heard the third person again.[143]
Hasnat Karim and Tahmid Khan
Armed gunmen attacked the Holey Artisan Bakery on the night of July 1, 2016, killing more than 20 people and holding others inside hostage. The next morning, the hostages were rescued after security forces stormed the café, killing the gunmen. The hostages were taken to DB headquarters, where they were questioned by the authorities. This included Hasnat Karim, 47, who had gone to the restaurant with his wife and two children, and Tahmid Khan, 22, who had gone to the restaurant with two friends.
While all the other hostages were released, Karim and Khan were held illegally for a month with the authorities issuing contradictory statements about whether the men were in their custody. Karim has dual nationality with the UK, while Khan is a Canadian resident. On July 13, 2016, nearly two weeks into his illegal detention, Karim briefly met with his wife and mother.[144]
On the evening of August 3, police informed the media that both men had been arrested in Dhaka that day on suspicion of involvement in the Holey attack. The following day, they were brought to a magistrate court which passed an order remanding both into police custody for eight days for questioning. In October, the police told the court that it no longer believed that Khan was involved in the Holey attack, but filed a case against him for “a lack of cooperation with the policing authority,” claiming that he failed to appear at two police interviews on July 10 and 21, a period when he was in state custody.[145] In April 2017, a court acquitted him of this charge. Karim, however, remains in jail on a case filed relating to the Holey attack.
Humam Quader Chowdhury
Humam Quader Chowdhury, 33, is the son of Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, a prominent leader of the BNP who was executed in November 2015 following his conviction for war crimes. Humam Chowdhury is also involved in BNP politics. On the morning of August 4, 2016, he was traveling with his mother to the Dhaka District Court where they were both due to attend a hearing involving a cybercrime case alleging their involvement in the leak of the judgment convicting Humam’s father for war crimes.[146] Humam’s mother, Farhat Quader Chowdhury, said:
It was about 11:30 in the morning. We were on the way to court. Just before you get to the court you have to turn right. The traffic signal was red, so we stopped. The road was quite crowded. A couple of men came up dressed in plainclothes, and opened the door on the right. They asked my son whether he was Humam Quader Chowdhury and he replied that he was Humam, but that he had to go to court. They said, “No, you are coming with us.” Humam then got down from the car. I didn’t know what to do. They did not seem to have a car—as far as I could see they were walking him down the road.[147]
On February 24, 2017, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances issued a statement calling on the Bangladesh government to provide information as to the whereabouts of three men, including Humam.[148] A week later, on March 2, Humam was released blindfolded and disoriented on the roadside, close to his family home in Dhaka. Humam was unable to explain the location where he had been held.
Mohammad Akhtaruzzaman and Mohammad Hafizur Rahman
Mohammad Akhteruzzaman, 15, and Mohammad Hafizur Rahman, 17, both students at Kolabari Dakhil Madrasa at Ghoraghat in Dinajpur, were picked up within a week of each other. In November 2016, their fathers held a joint press conference at Dinajpur Press Club.
Akhtaruzzaman’s father, Sarowar Hossain, an agricultural worker and small businessman, said that his son was picked up from his family house early in the morning on September 28, 2016, by law enforcement officials:
They said they wanted to question Akhtaruzzaman. I asked them what offense did Akhteruzzaman commit? But they did not answer. My son was sleeping in his grandfather’s house. I woke him up and handed him over to the men.[149]
On October 16, Sarowar Hossain filed a GD at his local police station in Ghoraghat Upazilla stating that his son had gone “missing.” At the press conference on November 6, he appealed to the government for his son’s return. At the same press conference, Zillur Rahman, father of Hafizur Rahman, said that his son was picked up on October 4:
At approximately 6 p.m., a group of people introducing themselves as members of a law enforcement force came to my grocery shop situated at Raniganj bazaar and, in my absence, took my son away.[150]
On November 23, RAB brought both Akhtaruzzaman and Hafizur Rahman—along with one other man from the same madrasa—to an “anti-militancy” function in Rangpur, and said that the men were JMB operatives who had surrendered to the authorities. Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan handed over a check for 500,000 taka (US$6,200) to each of the men for their “rehabilitation.”[151] A RAB press release said that Hafizur Rahman and Akhtaruzzaman were brainwashed and radicalized by a JMB recruiter and assigned to carry out subversive activities. They had decided to surrender to law enforcers after the Gulshan and Sholakia attacks, and family members who inspired them to surrender took the two young men to RAB, the release said.[152]
Hafizur Rahman’s father gave a different account of the Rangpur event, stating that he first came to know about the ceremony when RAB told him to be present. He said he does not know where his son has been kept since the ceremony:
I first spoke to my son on the phone 25 days after the ceremony and have since had further conversations. The last time he called me was on January 13, when he asked me about my health and hanged up.That’s it. I have no idea where my son is.[153]
Khairul Islam
Khairul Islam, 26, a student at the Islamic University of Technology, was living with his family in Gazipur. His father, Abul Kashem, said men wearing jackets with “DB” written on them came to their house around midnight on the evening of October 21, 2016:
They said that they were looking for Khairul. I asked them to show any warrant of arrest but they replied that the SP [police superintendent] has asked them to take him away.[154]
However, seven days later, on October 28, 2016, police claimed to have arrested four suspected members of the banned organization Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, Bangladesh (HuJI-B), along with 14 petrol bombs and four crude bombs in the Nandoain area of Gazipur city. One of them was Khairul, who had been in their custody one week already. The police superintendent in Gazipur said the members of the banned militant outfit were arrested during a raid at an abandoned cottage inside a forest in Joydevpur at about 8 p.m. the previous day.[155]
III. Cases of 19 “Disappeared” since 2013
The 19 cases of enforced disappearances that occurred over a two-week period at the end of 2013, described in detail below, show the failure of authorities to address allegations and ensure accountability.[156] Some of these men, all Dhaka-based supporters or activists of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, may have been involved in wrongful actions during the violent election-time protests that began a month before their disappearance. Their family members say that if suspected of criminal action, they should have been prosecuted. Their families have made repeated appeals to the government, visited DB and RAB offices, and sought police investigations.
November 28: Disappearance of Samarat Molla and Khaled Hossain Sohel
On the morning of November 28, 2013, six friends living in Old Dhaka had gone to visit a mutual friend imprisoned in Dhaka Central Jail. Five of them were picked up outside the jail by men in civilian clothes. The sixth member of the group was spared because he had left minutes earlier to perform his prayers.
This case is unusual as three of the friends, who were supporters rather than post-holders of the BNP, were later released and therefore became witnesses to the detention. The other two, Samarat Molla, 27, and Khaled Hossain Sohel, 28, who held posts in the student wing of the opposition BNP, remain disappeared at time of writing.
The Pick Up
On the morning of November 28, Samarat Molla, Khaled Hossain Sohel, and four other BNP supporters—named here “W,” “X,” “Y,” and “Z”—went to the Dhaka Central Jail to visit their mutual friend Sonjoy.[157] All of them lived in Sutrapur, an area in Old Dhaka.
The men came to the prison in two groups at around 11 a.m.: Y, W, and Z in one group, and Samarat, Sohel, and X in another. They obtained “jail tokens” and entered the prison at around noon. Their friend Sonjoy, however, was not brought to the prison meeting room, and after 20 minutes they left the jail.
According to W, X, and Y—the men who were subsequently released—at around 1:15 p.m., Z wanted to say his prayers and went to a nearby mosque, leaving the five friends standing outside the jail. Y then told the others that he had some work and started to leave the prison area. As Y walked away, two men in civilian clothes approached him. He then walked back with about six men following him. Four men, who were all in civilian clothes and did not appear to have any weapons on them, asked each of them their names. “When Samarat Molla gave his name, it was clear from the men’s response that they were most interested in him,” one witness said. “They took all five of us to a silver colored microbus which was standing just outside the jail wall.”[158]
According to Samarat Molla’s family members, W, X, and Y later told them that the men had beat up Samarat, accusing him of arson attacks.
After nine days, on December 7, W, X and Y, who were not BNP post-holders, were told that they would be released the following day. They were warned against talking about their detention. At about midnight, the three of them were put into a car. The car stopped after about an hour and a half, and they were pushed out of the vehicle and told to run. They later discovered they were in Bikrampur.[159]
Samarat Molla and Khaled Hossain Sohel remain disappeared.
State Response
A day before he was picked up, police had visited Khaled Hossain Sohel’s housein Bangla Bazaar where he usually lived with his wife. The BNP student activist, who according to his family had no criminal cases filed against him, was residing elsewhere in order to avoid arrest. After the police left the house, Sohel’s wife, Sayeed Shammi Sultana, said she phoned her husband to warn him.[160]
Sultana discovered her husband was missing after his colleague, Selim Reza Pintu, said that Sohel’s phone was not reachable.[161] Fearing he had been arrested, family members and friends started contacting different police stations. Meanwhile, Samarat’s family first heard that the men had been picked up by law enforcement authorities late at night on November 28 when they received a call from a friend.[162]
The following day, Sultana lodged a missing person complaint at the Chowk Bazaar police station.[163] Meanwhile, Samarat’s sister said that she was initially told she could not file a General Diary if she alleged detention by law enforcement authorities, and was told to come back the next day where she was only allowed to lodge a missing person GD.
Sohel’s wife, Sultana, said that she and others assumed that DB officials were responsible as the men who took the five friends were not in uniform, which is usually true of the DB. However, at DB headquarters officers denied the men were in their custody. “The first question the police asked was whether they had any political affiliations. They seemed reluctant to speak to us and told us not to hang round here,” Sultana said. She said she and other family members continued to visit the DB office. “The last time we went was the tenth day after they were taken [December 8], and were told not to bother coming.”[164]
On December 8, three of the friends who had been taken with Sohel were released. One of the men phoned Sultana and she met with him to find out what had happened to her husband. All three are still in hiding at time of writing.
In May 2014, six months after the men disappeared, the police set up a 40-member anti-kidnapping team, and Sultana lodged an application.[165] Soon after, she met with an additional deputy commissioner of police who put her in touch with an official from DB. However, both families have received no further information about the whereabouts or fate of Samarat or Sohel.
December 2: Disappearance of Four Men from Shishu Park
In the early afternoon of December 2, 2013, seven activists of the BNP’s student wing, all residents of the Bangshal area in Dhaka, congregated inside the Suhrawardy Udyan park in central Dhaka. They included Mahfuzur Rahman Sohel Sarkar, 35, the Chhatra Dal vice-president of Bangshal Thana; Habibul Bashar Zahir, 27, and Parvez Hossain, 27, the president and secretary of BNP ward 71; and Md Hossain Chanchal, 32, a student wing member.
Five of the activists—including the four men named above—walked to a nearby restaurant at an intersection in central Dhaka known as Shahbagh, while the other two went to the neighboring Shishu Park to purchase tickets so that after lunch they could meet inside.[166] As the five men left the Shahbagh restaurant and walked back toward Shishu Park, four of them—Sohel, Zahir, Parvez, and Chanchal—were picked up by law enforcement officers dressed in civilian dress and bundled into a microbus. Two of the three remaining men witnessed the detention and asked not to be identified. The four men who were picked up have not been seen since.
The Pick Up
One of the men present at the restaurant, along with the other four who were disappeared, said that that the group had planned to meet at Shishu Park because they considered it safe. He said security forces caught up with them as they were leaving the restaurant:
I was the first to leave, and I noticed as I left that there were two microbuses parked ahead of us, but I got distracted because I received a phone call. I slowed down and the others went ahead of me. As they got closer to Shishu Park they came to an area of pavement where there are boundary railings of Shishu Park on the right and on the left, another set of railings which separate the pavement from the road. As they entered this area, I suddenly heard someone shouting, “Catch them, catch them.” The men could not escape as there were these railings on both sides. As this was happening,
I had not quite reached the part of the pavement [with the railings] and so I could cross the road, which is what I did. I saw my friends being grabbed and put into a microbus by men dressed in plainclothes.[167]
As soon as the vehicles disappeared, the witness called his political colleagues to warn them to stay away from Shishu Park.[168] One of the two men that had been waiting inside the main entrance of the park also witnessed the detention.[169]
Sohel’s father, Md Shamsul Rahman, said that he received a call from one of his son’s colleagues who witnessed his son’s detention. He said he then tried to find his son:
After I had finished the call, another son of mine called Sohel’s phone. It was answered but there was a lot of noise and crying. I went to Shahbagh police station and asked whether four people had been taken, but the police denied this. I found someone who I knew at the police station, and he showed me the cells and said, “Look, he is not there.” I tried to file a GD at the station but the police did not allow me to do that. I went the following day to the DB office but they said that they were not involved and had no information.[170]
Rahman was later able to file a GD in his local police station in Bangshal, but the police only allowed him to file a missing person complaint, and not allege that his son was taken by law enforcement officers.[171]
Parvez’s wife, Farzeena Akhter, said her husband had about six criminal cases lodged against him, which she claimed were all false allegations for his political activities.[172] When she and other family members went to the DB office, they were not allowed into the building. The family filed a missing person GD on December 14, 2013, at the police station.
Chanchal’s wife, Reshma Akhter, said that when her husband, who she said had no criminal cases against him, did not return as planned for a family outing, she started calling him but his phone was switched off.[173] She finally called Anwar Hossain, Chanchal’s brother. Anwar went to the police but was told that they had not arrested anyone by that name.[174]Chanchal’s relatives also went to the DB and RAB offices, but the officials denied having him in custody. They lodged a missing person GD on December 22.
Zahir’s brother, Kamal Hossain, who said that his brother had as many as 25 criminal cases of a “political” nature against him, said that the police only allowed him to file a missing person GD, which he did on December 14.[175]
A day or two after the four men were picked up, a local businessman said he saw the four men detained at the DB office:
On December 3, I visited the DB office at about 3 p.m. to meet a friend of mine who worked there. While I was there, I saw a man detained inside the DB office. On the following day, Sohel’s father came to meet me and said that his son and three others had been picked up by the police. Sohel’s father showed me a photograph and I recognized him as being the same person who I had seen the previous day in the DB office. I returned to the DB office a day or so later to confirm this. I made another appointment with the DB officer. I did not go directly to his office but went to an area on the ground floor, and I saw about seven detained men. Subsequently, I saw the photographs of the three other men that were picked up and they were of the same men that I had seen inside.[176]
The businessman then discovered that Sohel was thought to be “Chacha Sohel,” someone the authorities considered to be “notorious” in the area.
A senior police officer told me that there are strict instructions from the Prime Minister’s Office that Chacha Sohel should not be released because of his crimes. He then told me not to get involved. I called a friend in the Detective Branch with the rank of inspector and he advised me not to call again on this matter to avoid trouble. I was frightened and stopped communication with the BNP people.[177]
The businessman said that he also introduced the relatives of some of the families to a retired major, who said that he was willing to help intervene in the case.
On around the 13th of December, I brought the major [name withheld] to meet Sohel’s father. The father explained what happened to his son and the three other men. The major then called one of his friends serving in DB, and it was on speakerphone and I heard what was said. One official said, “Yes, Sohel was in our custody and we kept him for observation.” But he said that Sohel was no longer in the DB office, and that he did not where he is.[178]
December 4: Disappearance of Six Men from Bashundhara
The six men picked up were Sajedul Islam Sumon, 36, the general secretary of BNP ward 38 in Shaheen Bagh; Sumon’s cousin, Zahidul KarimTanvir, 33, whose family owned the under-construction property; Mazharul Islam Russel, 26, Md Al Amin, 26, and Asaduzzaman Rana, 27, three students at Jagannath University who were preparing to take the civil service examinations; and Abdul Quader Bhuiyan Masum, 22, a finance student at Titumir College. Sumon was the only post-holder for the BNP, and according to family members, the only one with a criminal case filed against him; the others were all supporters and activists. There were two other men present at the time, but they managed to escape.
One of the two men who escaped said that the meeting had been called by Sumon. RAB officers arrived soon after:
For 40 or 45 minutes we were chatting. We were talking about the momentum of protest. After that, four of the men left by foot, leaving four of us—Tanvir, Sumon, myself, and [name withheld] behind. Two of us then went to the other side of a cement mixing machine to have a smoke. Suddenly we saw vehicles approaching. There was more than one car, but I can’t say exactly how many. There were some men in black uniforms who came out of the vehicles. They had weapons. The cars had their lights on so I could see the men, the color of their uniform. There was one car with “RAB-1” written on it. I am sure that it was definitely RAB because of the clothes, and because I saw RAB-1 logo on the car. I could make out that people were being taken into a vehicle and that it left.[179]
A construction worker at the site who witnessed the detention said he knew Tanvir because the family owned the property and had seen Sumon earlier. He said:
Tanvir and Sumon were still standing there talking when the vehicles came. Four of the men [who came down from the vehicle] wore civil dress and another seven or eight were dressed in the black clothing of RAB, with a cloth around head. All the men had guns. Sumon and Tanvir were both beaten up before they were put in the car. “Why you are arresting us, we are not these type of people,” they said at the time of being picked up.[180]
Six hours later, early the following morning, a contractor said he was returning from a night shift to Shaheen Bagh, the area where Sumon’s family lives, when he saw Sumon, whom he knew well, inside a car that he thought belonged to law enforcement authorities.[181]
Sumon was not at that time staying at his home in Shaheen Bagh because he feared arrest, and was instead living with his cousin, Tanvir, at their apartment in Bashundhara Residential Area. Sumon’s sister, Sanjida Islam, said that they first heard that Sumon had been picked up when her family in Shaheen Bagh received a call from her aunt, Tanvir’s mother:
My aunt said that it was RAB. Within half an hour my older sister, my husband, and my mother went to the RAB office in Uttara. I was pregnant at the time so I did not go. RAB people at the gate did not allow my family members in. The men at the reception denied they were involved in the detention. My sister, father, and mother stayed outside the RAB office throughout that night, and for the next three days one family member or the other was present outside the RAB office.[182]
At about 11 p.m., one of the two men who had escaped being picked up came to their house though the back entrance. He told the family that Sumon had been taken away in RAB vehicles. The following day, Sanjida said that family members went to file a complaint with police:
The next day my mother and older sister went to our local police station in Tejgaon to file a GD but the police said that they had to go to the police station of the PO [place of occurrence]. They then went to Vatara police station but the duty officer refused to allow them to file the GD if they claimed that RAB had taken my brother. They said that they could only give a GD if they said that Sumon was missing. As we did not want to do that, we did not file a GD.[183]
Through family connections, Sumon’s family contacted a senior RAB officer [name withheld]:
He began to speak to my mother on the phone, and to send messages. He made her believe that Sumon was going to be released soon. He said for example one day, “He will be with you next time you say your prayers.” Many times, he said that they were going to release Sumon. But nothing happened. This went on for two months.[184]
Family members continued go to the RAB-1 office and RAB headquarters. At the end of January, Sumon’s mother and sister were invited to the office to meet an RAB-1 officer. Sanjida said:
He admitted that Sumon had been detained. They praised my brother, saying that Sumon is good person, had a good reputation. He said that his boss had gone to see Sumon recently, to make sure he was all right in their custody. He suggested to us that we should communicate with Ziaul Ahsan, who was in charge of operations. He gave Ahsan’s land line and mobile number to my mother. When we met Ziaul Ahsan, he was very arrogant. He said, “Why are so many army officials calling about Sumon? We have told you that we don’t have him and that we are searching for him.”[185]
The family gave its first written application to RAB on March 18, 2014, and has since given at least 12 further applications to RAB (most recently on August 21, 2016), and five to other government authorities, including the home ministry, police, and military intelligence. The family has also made a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission and filed a habeas corpus petition in court.
In May 2016, Sanjida met again with one of the RAB officials the family had met earlier, who had been a senior RAB-1 officer at the time of her brother’s disappearance, but had since left. He confirmed in a private meeting at a restaurant that RAB-1 had conducted the operation to pick up Sumon. He said that the six men had been in his custody and that he received an order to kill them, but he refused.[186]
According to Sanjida, the official said that RAB’s counterterrorism branch—under the command of Lt. Col. Abul Kalam Azad,[187] who subsequently became head of RAB’s intelligence wing—took the men from his custody. The official assumed they had been killed.[188] In August 2016, Sanjida met with Azad, but he denied any involvement and, according to Sanjida, said: “We are searching. I will try to let you know whether he is alive or anywhere else.”
Russel’s sister, Nusrat Jahan Laboni, said she waited all night for her brother to come home, and in the morning discovered that his friends were missing as well.[189] Family members approached RAB, DB, and various police stations several times but no one had any information about the detentions.[190]
Al Amin’s father filed a missing person GD at Badda police station that covered the area where they lived.[191] The family also managed to file a First Information Report on January 26, 2014.[192] Al Amin’s cousin, Yakoob, went to the construction site and the workers recognized his photograph, confirming that Al Amin was detained by RAB-1:
I asked the workers how they knew that it was specifically RAB-1. They said that the security guards who work in that area are a little educated. After Al Amin bhai and his friends were taken away by RAB, the workers went running toward the security guards, and the security guards told them that the vehicles had “RAB-1” written on them.[193]
Yakoob also went to the RAB office, where officials asked questions about witnesses to the abductions:
The RAB officer asked me if I had any record or proof with me about the complaint. I replied to them that I had a recording of the statement that the workers and the caretaker gave. I showed the officer the recording. He took a record of the recording. Then I left the office and came back home. Afterward I again contacted the officer to ask them if he has found anything about them yet. The officer replied that he will call us when it will be time. I called him three more times, but he couldn’t tell me anything else.[194]
Masum’s mother, Ayesha Ali, said the family went to a number of police stations: “They said that no one had been arrested. OnDecember 6, we went to file a GD in Tejgaon industrial area, but they only accepted a GD if we said that he was missing.”[195]
Rana’s sister, Meenara Begum, said that she too went to the police and RAB offices after she heard of the detention. They also filed a police complaint reporting that Rana was missing.[196]
Tanvir and Sumon are cousins. Tanvir’s mother, Nilifur Rana, also said that she went with her relatives to meet with RAB and DB officers, but everyone denied the detention.[197]
National Human Rights Commission
A year after the detentions, in December 2014, Sajedul Islam Sumon’s family made a formal complaint to the National Human Rights Commission. On December 17, the then chair of the NHRC wrote to the most senior civil servant of the home ministry setting out the allegation and “appealing to the government to take necessary action to bring back the son of Hazera Khatun and the others to the parents,” and to inform NHRC what action the ministry had taken by January 15, 2015.[198]
The ministry did not respond to this letter or to six other monthly reminders that the NHRC sent. However, on August 28, 2015, the ministry finally replied, stating that Sumon’s father had filed a case with the Vatara police station on January 26, 2014, and that the case was under investigation.[199] In a letter dated November 15, 2015, Sumon’s mother wrote that they had never filed a case of this kind because when they had gone to do so “the police refused to take the case.”[200]
The NHRC then wrote to the ministry stating that the police report did not contain any specific step as to “how you are trying to get the victims back,” and asked for a detailed report by December 20, 2015. On January 14, 2016, police sent a letter to Sumon’s mother asking her to come to the police station. This meeting never took place. Instead, Sumon’s family sent a note to the police setting out the details of Sumon’s disappearance.
Response from Courts
In March 2016, Sajedul Islam Sumon’s mother filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court.[201] She said that her son was illegally detained by RAB. The petition said that authorities had shown no inclination to investigate the incident, and that the court should order government authorities to produce him before the court.
On March 10, 2016, the court passed a rule nisi calling upon the Bangladesh government and various policing bodies to “show cause as to why the arrest/abduction/causing disappearance of the petitioner’s son Sajedul Islam Sumon … should not be declared to be illegal and without lawful jurisdiction,” and pass such orders as the court considers necessary.[202]
Following this order, the inspector general of police responded in an affidavit, “It was learnt from the respective units that neither Rapid Action Battalion nor any other unit of Bangladesh Police arrested said Sajedul Islam Sumon.”[203] RAB also filed an affidavit with the court stating, “RAB-1 did not pick up or arrest the petitioner’s son Sajedul Islam Sumon and others,” and that “we are trying to find out the victims.”[204]
There had been no further court hearing at time of writing, since the High Court passed its order.
Al Amin’s family was the only one to file an FIR involving the abduction.[205] His nephew, Yakoob Ali, said that some six months after the case was filed, an officer from the Vatara police station called and asked if the family had received news about Al Amin. “I said that it was the police that were supposed to be the ones providing the information.”[206]
In response to the court order following the habeas corpus application by Sajedul Islam Sumon’s family, the police filed documents relating to its investigation into Al Amin’s family’s FIR with the court. These stated that after Al Amin’s father filed a case in January 2014, a police inspector had prepared a draft map; taken statements from the petitioner, people in the surrounding area, and a witness; and had collected the victim’s mobile phone records. Police said that three investigating officers had been assigned to, and then taken off, the case. The letter concluded by saying the investigation revealed that along with Al Amin, Sajedul Islam Sumon had been abducted by “an organized criminal gang” that they were trying to identify and catch. It stated: “The case is under investigation and we are deploying modern technologies.”[207]
Dhaka Metropolitan Police authorities also said that on November 19, 2014, the investigation responsibility was transferred to the Detective Branch of the police.[208] In April 2016, following the March court order seeking state response to the habeas corpus petition, DB officials contacted Al Amin’s family and asked to get more information about the incident. Al Amin’s cousin said that the whole exercise was cruel and farcical: “I felt it was like a joke—him coming after three years and asking about [my cousin] like this. He said, ‘Don’t worry, you will get justice.’”
Early on December 5, RAB men came to the house of Adnan Chowdhury, 28, woke him up, and took him away in front of his father and wife.
The Pick Up
Chowdhury, a BNP supporter, lived with his wife and parents in Shaheen Bagh, the same area of Dhaka where Sajedul Islam Sumon lived.
Marjina Sultana Tonni, his wife, said that Adnan came home late the night of December 4 after visiting the family of local political leader, Sajedul Islam Sumon, who had been picked up along with five party colleagues.[209] Later that night, there was loud knocking, and Adnan’s father, Ruhul Amin Chowdhury, answered the door. He told Human Rights Watch:
There was a knock on the door at about 2 a.m. When I asked, one of them said that they were from the “administration.” I did not want to open the door, but he said that they were from a government force and so “I must open the door.” There were perhaps 15 to 20 people who came into the house. One of them asked, “Where is Adnan sleeping?” I showed them the room. Some of the men were wearing RAB uniforms with “RAB” written on it on both the front and back. Not all of them were wearing a uniform, some were wearing civil clothes. They told me to sit down in another room.[210]
Adnan’s wife said that soon after, some of the men entered their bedroom. She said:
When the men opened our door, they asked me to leave the room. I then heard them telling Adnan to change his clothes. I heard some of the men say, “We should talk to his wife and show some sympathy,” but they didn’t talk to me. Some of the men were wearing black uniforms, the uniform of RAB. Others wore civil dress. One had a jacket with the letters “RAB” written on it in yellow. I saw about 5 or 6 people. Some searched the rooms. At one point, one of the men said, “We will send him back.” Another man said to me, “Don’t worry.”[211]
Ruhul Amin Chowdhury said the officials asked Adnan some questions and then took him away. Some of the other men also searched the rest of the house, and questioned their tenants. He said that his son “was surprised, but did not appear afraid.” He saw that the forces had arrived in at least two microbuses and a jeep.[212]
Adnan was a BNP supporter, but he was not particularly politically active. According to his father, Adnan already had a visa and was planning to migrate to Malaysia for work. “Adnan probably didn’t think it was so serious. He didn’t realize that Sumon will be taken and that they will come after him right away,” Ruhul Amin Chowdhury said. “None of us imagined that something like this can happen. That people will disappear.”[213]
State Response
The next morning, when Adnan, who did not have any criminal cases filed against him according to his family, did not return home, his father went to the RAB-2 office, the DB office, and the Tejgaon police station to look for this son, but no one could provide information.
I went back a number of times [to the police station] over the next month to file a GD, but they did not let me file one if I alleged that RAB was involved. I then agreed to drop the word “RAB” and instead put “law enforcement agency,” but the police still did not allow me to file a GD. As a result, I did not file a GD.[214]
Adnan’s father said that authorities violated his trust:
I was sure that if they [RAB] don’t find anything against Adnan, they will let him go. They said, “We are taking him. We will bring him back.” They betrayed us. They said that they were going to return my son, but they told lies. After the day I visited RAB-1 and RAB-2, I lost all faith in them and did not visit them again. I personally handed over my son to RAB and now they are denying that, so why should I go to them?[215]
Another eyewitness saw Adnan in security force custody when Mohammad Kawsar, 22, was detained shortly afterward.
Shortly after RAB picked up Adnan Chowdhury, they brought him to identify Mohammad Kawser, 22, a driver who lived in a room in a compound in West Nakhalpara, a short walk from Adnan’s house.
The Pick Up
The gate of the West Nakhalpara compound where Kaswer lived with his wife and child was locked on the night of December 5. The caretaker, who had the key to the gate, said he was asleep at about 3 a.m. when he was woken up by 10 to 15 men asking him to open the gate. They entered the compound. “Many of the men were wearing black uniforms and some had the words ‘RAB’ written on their back,” he said.[216]
The men went to Kawser’s room. His wife and child were in Barisal with her parents, and two friends were sharing his room that night. One said:
Kawser came back from work at around midnight with a friend. Until about 1:30 in the morning, we were watching TV and chatting inside the room. Then we all fell asleep. Suddenly we heard someone beating very loudly at the door. I said to Kawser, “Open the door.” But he did not wake up. The other friend opened it and as soon as he opened it about eight or ten people entered the room and put on the light. Two of the men wore black clothes, and the others wore civil dress. Some had RAB vests.[217]
The witness said he saw Adnan, who had just been picked up by RAB officers.
They told Adnan to come inside. They used his name which is how I knew. The men were beating us and getting us to wake up as we were still half asleep. Adnan was in handcuffs and they were beating him, slapping him about. Then they asked Adnan, “Who is Kawser?” and he pointed him out. Then both were beaten. They were both screaming. Then the officers searched the room, and took the SIM cards from our phones. The men perhaps stayed for at most 15 minutes and then took Kawser and Adnan out of the room. They told me and Kaswer’s friend to stay inside. Later, we tried to come out, but the doors had been locked from the outside. We heard the forces beating and shouting at both of them outside.[218]
State Response
Kawser’s mother, Komla Akhter, works in a garment factory and lived in the Farmgate area of Dhaka. She said that one of Kawser’s friends informed her of his detention early in the morning. She went to the Tejgaon police station, where she stayed the whole day: “I tried to lodge a GD but the police refused to accept a complaint that mentioned RAB.”[219]
On the evening of December 6, 2013, BNP student activists Nizam Uddin Munna and Tariqul Islam Jhontu were picked up by law enforcement officers at Mollartek bazaar, near Dhaka’s international airport. Their whereabouts remain unknown at time of writing.
Nizam Uddin Munna, 24, was the joint secretary of the BNP student wing at Biman Bandar Thana in Dhaka. Tariqul Islam Jhontu, 28, was the joint secretary of the BNP student wing at Tejgaon College where he was studying. According to his family, Jhontu had three criminal cases lodged against him related to his political activities.
Between 9 and 9:30 p.m. on December 6, Jamal, a local businessman, was walking home after closing his shop when he saw his friend, Jhontu, in front of a laundry shop on the opposite side of the road. Jamal said he spoke briefly to Jhontu before heading home.[220] At about 10 p.m., Mohammad Joshimuddin, the laundry shop owner, was returning to his shop when he saw Jhontu being detained by men in plainclothes. He said:
I saw Jhontu handcuffed and being held by one or two men. I have known Jhontu for around seven years as he is a customer. The men holding Jhontu were in plainclothes, and I am not sure whether they had any weapons.
I walked past them without saying anything. I was very scared.[221]
Joshimuddin said that after he entered his shop, some men arrived and searched the shop. “They were asking me whether Jhontu kept anything here or not, and they searched everywhere, but did not find anything.”[222] He then saw Jhontu being bundled into a microbus parked down the road. Joshimuddin said that he did not know the contact details of Jhontu’s family, so he contacted Jamal, Jhontu’s friend who owned the shop across the street. Jamal said he informed Jhontu’s family.[223]
Nizam Uddin Munna went outside to buy medicine and vegetables at about 6:30 p.m. on the same day. Three hours later, Munna called his father, Shamsuddin, and asked him to collect the purchases from him. Shamsuddin said he witnessed his son’s arrest:
I met Munna, who gave me a small bag of vegetables and my medicine. All the shops were closed, with only roadside lights on. Then Munna received a call on his mobile. He did not answer, and instead started walking in the direction of a white large microbus, a Mitsubishi, which was standing in front of Halima Pharmacy, which was closed. When my son walked away, I was curious and walked in the same direction to see what Munna was doing. Then I saw about five plainclothes dressed men, carrying weapons, grab Munna and push him into the microbus. Seeing this, I ran toward the microbus and shouted, “Where are you taking my son?” One of the men replied, “There is an allegation against your son.” I asked the men, “Who are you?” One man replied that they were from RAB, but another replied they were from DB. The whole incident hardly took less than a minute. I was pushed away and the microbus moved away with the door open.[224]
State Response
Hasina Begum, Jhontu’s mother, said that early the next morning, Jamal, after hearing about the arrest, came and told the family that it was likely that DB had Jhontu in custody.[225] Family members then went to the laundry shop and heard what had happened the night before. Saiful Islam Mithu, Jhontu’s younger brother, went to the court assuming that Jhontu would be brought there, but he was not.[226] He also tried to file a police complaint:
On December 9, after spending the whole day in court, I went to Dokinkan police station. I wanted to mention in a GD that DB had taken my brother but the police officer on duty did not allow this. The duty officer said, “If you want to accuse a law enforcing agency of taking your brother, then you have to specify the name of the person in the DB team member who had picked him up. Otherwise you just file a GD saying that your brother is missing.” Since I had no idea about the exact identity of the people who had taken my brother I just filed a GD, stating that my brother had gone missing.[227]
Jhontu’s brother said he went to several police stations over the next few days but none had any information. He said he went to the RAB offices at least six times, but was not allowed to meet anyone.[228]
Munna’s father said he decided to go immediately to the RAB office after witnessing his son’s arrest. The guards would not let him in, but he waited outside the gates from about 10 p.m. to midnight. He said he then went to the DB office, and waited in front of the gate all night, trying to look into every vehicle that came and went. He then tried to lodge a police complaint, but was not allowed:
I approached the local police station. The duty officer told me that the police would not allow a complaint against RAB or any law enforcing agency. I was told that if I wanted to file a
GD I would have to describe that my son
went missing.[229]
On December 7, 2013, Mahabub Hasan Sujon, president of the BNP student wing in Sabujbagh Thana in Dhaka, and Kazi Farhad, president of one of its wards, were taken from a farmhouse in Sonargaon, an area just outside Dhaka. The two men had arrived there two days earlier and were planning to return the next morning. They remain disappeared.
Azad Md Sadequl Islam, a childhood friend of Sujon, said he received a call on December 5. Sujon, he said, was worried about being arrested, and asked if he could stay at Azad’s farmhouse in Sonargaon with his BNP friends for a few days over the weekend.[230] Azad joined them at the farmhouse but left for Dhaka in the evening of December 7, as he had work the following day. Later that night, one of his farmworkers called him
to tell him police had taken Sujon away:
I asked him if it was police, or DB, or RAB, but he couldn’t tell for sure. He said that men were in civilian clothes and had claimed to be police. He said when Sujon asked them to show the arrest papers, one of the policemen must have hit him, because the laborers heard Sujon cry out.[231]
One of the workers who witnessed the arrest said that five or six plainclothes men knocked on their door when they were sleeping:
They told us that they were police. We opened the door and they asked for Sujon. We told them that Sujon is not in our room. After that, they went to the room where Sujon was. Our room was then locked from the outside. They didn’t let us out. When they were leaving, they unlocked our door. We saw that Sujon was wearing pants so we assumed that he had changed from his lungi which he was wearing earlier.[232]
There was one later sighting of Sujon. A businessman who lived in Fakirapool close to where Sujon and Farhad rented property said that a couple of days after the two men were taken, he saw police take Sujon back to the rented property where they had lived.
I was having tea at a street stall. I saw of group of plainclothes men, some carrying guns, coming into the alley. Along with the men I saw Sujon, whom I knew as he had lived in the area. They took him to building no. 266 which was where Sujon used to live. All the men were in plainclothes except one man who wore a jacket with “DB” written on it. I saw that Sujon was handcuffed, and someone was holding his hand, directing him forward. The men stayed in the building for over an hour and came out with bags of material. Sujon was then taken to a white microbus that was parked in front of the Asma Hotel. I heard later that they had knocked down the door of the apartment where Sujon used to live.[233]
State Response
Sujon’s father, Abdul Jalil Khan, said he did not like his son’s involvement in politics. He said that his son had about 14 “political” cases lodged against him in different police stations alleging involvement in violence. He first heard from Azad that Sujon had been picked up by law enforcement authorities, and then he started looking for his son. He said:
Azad called me to say that his workers had informed him that Sujon and his colleague Farhad had been picked up by law enforcement officers. I expected that Sujon and his friends would be brought before court the next day, so my younger son went to the district court in Old Dhaka in the morning, but Sujon was not produced there.[234]
Meanwhile, Sujon’s wife and cousin went to the DB office, but they said that they had no information. A few days later the family filed a GD. Sujon’s father said:
They only allowed us to file a missing person GD, not one claiming him to be taken by law enforcement officers. The police said that we could file a case against the house owner [Azad] from where he was taken, but not against police or any other law enforcement agency.[235]
Sujon’s family received information from different sources that suggested that DB was involved with the detention. His cousin Shakil said that he went to the DB office a number of times, but received no new information. One of those times was around February 2014. Shakil said:
I met the assistant commissioner and he also denied knowledge of the incident and suggested that I should meet RAB and go and speak to Colonel Zia. He said if there is a crossfire probably RAB will know about it. He also said that if Sujon was taken by a law enforcement person, “I see very little chance that he is alive.”[236]
Farhad’s sister filed a GD at the Sabujbagh police station.[237] His wife, Farhana, said that she heard via a relative who was connected to the Prime Minister’s Office that it was DB officials that had had arrested him.[238] DB denies this.
In the early morning of December 12, 2013, law enforcement officers arrested Selim Reza Pintu, secretary of the student wing of the BNP in Sutrapur, from his brother’s house in Mirpur, Dhaka. According to his family, he had a number of criminal cases against him, involving alleged vandalism. Five of his political colleagues from the area had previously been picked up on November 28, though three of them were subsequently released. He has not been seen since.
The Pick Up
The political situation and arrest of BNP supporters meant that Pintu and his wife, Tarannum Nahas, had been living in an apartment in Mirpur belonging to a relative, rather than their own in Sutrapur. On December 12, security officers came searching for Pintu in the middle of night. According to his brother, Aslam Reza Mintu, five or six men with weapons made the arrest, claiming they were from the “administration.” Tarannum Nahas, who was in the room with her husband, said Pintu realized that security forces had come for him and decided not to contest his detention:
Pintu was sleeping, and when he heard the noise he knew what was happening and opened the door to the room. As soon as he opened the door they asked whether he was Pintu. He said, “Yes, I am Pintu.” Then two of the men grabbed him. Another man entered the room and asked where were Pintu’s mobiles. He had four phones and they took two of them. The other two were in my bag. Pintu asked who the men were. They said, “We are from the administration.” He asked to see their ID cards, and they said, “It will not be a problem. You will be safe with us.” My husband did not put up any resistance.[239]
State Response
Family members went to the local police station the next morning. His sister, Rehana Banu Munni, said:
They behaved badly toward us and would not initially allow us to file a GD. They said wait for some time. The police did not want to file a GD making an allegation against law enforcement people. However, after a few days a journalist, who was a friend of my brother, came and he helped us to get a GD filed mentioning that he was taken by law enforcement officials.[240]
The GD filed on December 13 states that at 1:15 a.m. on December 12: “Some 6/7 civil dressed men came to our house and identified themselves to have the authority from the government. Then they came inside our house and took my older brother Selim Reza Pintu, 31, away with them in a gray car Dhaka Metro 5070. Afterward we looked for him everywhere in the locality but we could not find him.”[241]
Pintu’s sister visited different police stations and RAB and DB headquarters. When police set up an anti-kidnapping squad in May 2014, she submitted details of his case.[242] She subsequently met Sanwar Hossain, anadditional commissioner responsible for the new squad, who told her to “be patient.” She also submitted an application to a senior RAB officer. The family did not receive any further information.
IV. Recommendations
To the Bangladesh Government
Investigations and Prosecutions
Promptly investigate existing allegations of enforced disappearances, locate and release those held illegally by security forces, and prosecute the perpetrators. These should include politically motivated cases involving members or supporters of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Jamaat-e-Islami party.
Investigate allegations of deaths of individuals in so-called crossfire or gunfights after they were already in security force custody, and prosecute officers responsible for these deaths.
Instruct police stations to accept complaints, including General Diaries and First Information Reports, from family members containing allegations against law enforcement authorities including the DB and RAB. Encourage and empower police to respond to complaints and investigate allegations of enforced disappearances.
Ensure serious and independent investigations by inviting the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant United Nations special procedures—including the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—to visit Bangladesh to investigate and make appropriate recommendations to ensure justice and accountability, as well as reform of the security forces to act independently and professionally.
Respond speedily to various queries forwarded by the National Human Rights Commission.
Respond promptly to queries from the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
Prosecute fully law enforcement authority officers of all ranks, including those with superior authority, who are found to be responsible for enforced disappearances. Punish commanding officers and others in a position of government authority who ordered or knew of these abuses.
Immediately suspend, pending a full investigation, and remove from RAB, DB, and other law enforcement facilities any individual for whom there exists credible evidence that they participated in an enforced disappearance.
Work to disband RAB, which has been responsible for numerous and serious human rights violations, and replace with a non-military counterterrorism unit.
Protection
Make strong and repeated public statements at the highest government levels that make clear that all law enforcement authorities and investigation agencies should comply with the law, and that all detained people must be brought to court within 24 hours.
Ensure that the police, RAB, DB, and other law enforcement agencies comply with the legally mandated guidelines set out in the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court given in May 2016.[243] In particular:
Ensure that a relative or friend of the detained person is informed within 12 hours of the arrest about the time and place of arrest and place of detention.[244]
Allow an arrested person to consult a lawyer of their choice or meet any of their nearest relations.[245]
Ensure that independent, qualified forensic experts examine all suspicious deaths to determine exact cause of death.
Establish an independent commission of inquiry to investigate all cases of disappearances and custodial deaths; ensure it is mandated to recommend cases for prosecution.
Ensure that people whom state authorities detain are held in known places of detention.
Expand the mandate of the National Human Rights Commission to ensure unfettered and unannounced access to all places of detention, as well as sufficient powers of investigation.
Law Reform
Ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and make the requisite changes in the law.
International Cooperation
Agree to the multiple requests made by UN special mechanisms to visit Bangladesh to conduct investigations and make recommendations.
Invite the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to visit Bangladesh to conduct investigations and make recommendations.
Ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment(OPCAT).
Thoroughly vet all Bangladeshi military and police who apply for UN peacekeeping missions to ensure that they or the unit to which they are attached have not committed human rights violations.
To the National Human Rights Commission
Strenuously press the government to allow investigations into cases of disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
Demand that the government respond in a timely and transparent manner to requests for information on cases presented to them.
Call for free and unfettered access to all places of detention countrywide.
Call for a list of all places of detention, and ensure that detainees are not being held in secret or unknown locations.
To Bangladesh’s Bilateral and Multilateral Donors including the United States, United Kingdom, China, and India
Use public and private diplomacy to press the Bangladesh government to implement all recommendations made in this report.
Refuse to work with RAB, DB, or other law enforcement or counterterror operations until they cease enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, and agree to measures with both internal and external monitoring to ensure accountability for law enforcement personnel found to be involved in human rights violations.
Acknowledgments
This report was researched and written by David Bergman, a consultant with the Asia Division at Human Rights Watch. Research assistance was provided by Iqbal Mahmud. Priyanka Motaparthy, senior researcher in the Emergencies Division, provided additional input. The report was edited by Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director; Clive Baldwin, senior legal advisor; and Danielle Haas, senior editor in the Program Office. Tejshree Thapa, senior South Asia researcher, provided additional review. Production assistance was provided by Shayna Bauchner, Asia Division coordinator; Olivia Hunter, publications and photography associate; Fitzroy Hepkins, administrative manager; and Jose Martinez, senior publications coordinator.
We would like to thank the witnesses and families of victims who spoke to us despite fear of state retribution.
[3] For a list of those killed in Dhaka from December 10-15, 1971, see the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal judgment relating to these killings, The Chief Prosecutor Vs. (1) Ashrafuzzaman Khan@ Naeb Ali Khan [absconded] & (2) Chowdhury Mueen Uddin [absconded], November 3, 2012, http://www.ict-bd.org/ict2/ICT2%20judgment/CM%20&%20AK.pdf (accessed December 12, 2016).
[4]Data collated by Odhikar, a Dhaka-based human rights organization.
[6] Hasan Jahid Tusher and M Abul Kalam Azad, “Govt cancels lease of Khaleda’s Cantt house,” The Daily Star, April 9, 2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-83375 (accessed November 27, 2016).
[7] Shakhawat Liton and Rashidul Hasan, “Caretaker system abolished,” The Daily Star, July 1, 2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-192303 (accessed November 27, 2016). In reversing its own demands while in opposition, the Awami League government argued that the appellate division of the Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the caretaker government provisions were unconstitutional, that the election commission was now strong enough to hold a fair election, and that the problem with a caretaker government system was that it facilitated army intervention, as had happened in 2007, resulting in a two-year period of emergency rule.
[9] Eighteen people were reportedly killed in election violence, in addition to attacks on minority communities perceived to be pro-government. See “Turnout low in deadliest polls,” The Daily Star, January 6, 2016, http://www.thedailystar.net/turnout-low-in-deadliest-polls-5632 (accessed December 12, 2016). See also, Human Rights Watch, Democracy in the Crossfire.
[20] The Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) was formed in March 2004 as a composite force comprised of members from the military, police, and other law enforcement groups. Members are assigned from their parent organizations, which they return to after serving with the unit. The unit is regarded as an elite counterterrorism force and has targeted, apart from criminal suspects, alleged members of militant Islamist or left-wing groups. RAB has long been criticized for human rights violations and its failure to ensure accountability.
[21] Human Rights Watch, Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
[22] Ibid., p. 35. See, for example, the case of Sumon Ahmed Majumder killed in July 2004.
[27] According to Odhikar, there were 3 disappearances in 2009, 18 in 2010, 31 in 2011, 26 in 2012, 53 in 2013, 39 in 2014, and 65 in 2015.
[28] The Detective Branch (DB), short for the Detective and Criminal Intelligence Division, is a branch of different police forces around the country. See “Detective & Criminal Intelligence Division,” Dhaka Metropolitan Police, http://www.dmp.gov.bd/application/index/page/detective-criminal-division (accessed November 27, 2016). Increasingly, DB officers have been identified as being involved in disappearances and killings.
[42] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, sec. 132 states: “No Prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under this Chapter shall be instituted in any Criminal Court, except with the sanction of the Government.”
[43] Ibid., sec. 132 (a) – (d). Armed Police Battalions Ordinance, 1979, sec. 13, as amended, states: “No Suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be against any member of the Force for anything which is done or intended to be done in good faith under this Ordinance.” At the 119th meeting of the UN Human Rights Committee, the Bangladesh law minister claimed that this section did not provide any immunity to RAB officers, as it only applied in relation to acts done following orders of the government. See UN Web TV, “Consideration of Bangladesh – 119th session CCPR,” 2:22:40, March 7, 2017, http://webtv.un.org/search/consideration-of-bangladesh-contd-3340th-meeting-119th-session-of-human-rights-committee/5350733542001 (accessed March 16, 2017).
[44]Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, adopted December 18, 1992, G.A. res. 47/133, 47 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 207, U.N. Doc. A/47/49 (1992). The Bangladesh government has not signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
[45] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976. Bangladesh ratified the ICCPR in 2000, subject to reservations to arts. 10, 11, and 14.
[51] This list is based on a combination of cases documented by Odhikar and Human Rights Watch.
[52]Interviews with two colleagues of Abu Huraira, February 15, 2017. See also, “Jamaat leader picked up ‘by cops’ found dead,” Daily Observer, March 1, 2016, http://www.observerbd.com/2016/03/01/139188.php (accessed January 15, 2017).
[116] Telephone interview with Panna Akhter, January 18, 2017.
[117] Telephone interview with Tahera Tasnim, August 10, 2016. Tahmina Akhter, Mir Ahmad’s wife, provided a similar description in email correspondence on August 11, 2016. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.
[118] First Information Report, “Case 46 on 22/12/2016.” Copy of FIR on file with Human Rights Watch.
[119] Interview with Tahera Tasmin, Dhaka, January 15, 2017.
[120] Telephone interview with Abul Kalam, August 23, 2016.
[146]Humam and his mother were both prosecuted under the Information, Communication and Technology Act, 2006, for offenses involved in the leaking of a draft of the court judgment convicting Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury of crimes committed in the 1971 independence war. After Humam was secretly detained, the court, on September 15, 2016, acquitted both him and his mother. See “Salauddin Quader’s wife, son acquitted in verdict leak case,” Dhaka Tribune, September 15, 2016, http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2016/09/15/salauddin-quaders-lawyer-gets-10yr-jail-verdict-leak-case/ (accessed December 18, 2016).
[156] The human rights group Odhikar reported a total of 53 disappearances in 2013.
[157] The identities of the four men have been anonymized for their safety. Human Rights Watch reconstructed the detention based on their account.
[158]Interview with witness “W,” details withheld, Dhaka, October 21, 2014.
[159]Interview with witnesses, Dhaka, October 21, 2014.
[160] Interview with Sayeed Shammi Sultana, Dhaka, May 9, 2016.
[161] Pintu was subsequently picked up on December 11, see below.
[162]Interview with Kaliz Fatima, Samarat’s older sister, and Taslima Begum, Samarat’s mother, Dhaka, October 10, 2016.
[163]Ibid. The GD, filed by Sultana at the Chowk Bazaar police station, states that her husband “went to Dhaka Central Jail … to see a convict. Since then there is no news of him.”
[164] Interview with Sayeed Shammi Sultana, Dhaka, May 9, 2016.
[165] This was set up after seven men were picked up by RAB officers in Narayanganj and their bodies were found in April 2014. “DMP forms anti-kidnapping squad,” The Daily Star, May 3, 2014, http://www.thedailystar.net/dmp-forms-anti-kidnapping-squad-22540 (accessed December 21, 2016).
[166]Three of the seven activists escaped arrest but witnessed the detention. These events have been reconstructed based on interviews with these three men.
[167]Interviews, details withheld, November 25, 2014, and September 5, 2016.
[168]One of the men that he called, Ujjal, was picked up later that same day, but Ujjal was produced in court.
[169]Interview with witness, details withheld, November 24, 2014.
[170]Interview with Shamsul Rahman, Dhaka, October 15, 2014.
[171]Ibid. The GD, filed on January 7, 2014, at Bangshal Thana, states that Sohel “went out of the house but never came back.… Even after searching every possible place, we did not find any trace of him.”
[172] Interviews with Farzeena Akhter, Dhaka, October 15, 2014, and May 9, 2016.
[173] Interview with Reshma Akhter, Dhaka, May 16, 2016.
[174]Interview with Anwar Hossain, Dhaka, October 15 2014.
[175] The GD, filed at the Bangshal police station by Zahir’s older brother, Kamal Hossain, states: “My younger brother went out of the house just like every other day. Later on at 2 p.m. when I called his cell phone number he told me that he was in the TSC arena. Afterwards I found his phone switched off. After searching every possible place we have found no trace of him.”
[176]Interview with witness, details withheld, Dhaka, October 9, 2016.
[179] Interviews, details withheld, Dhaka, November 30, 2014, and May 14, 2016.
[180] Interview with construction worker, details withheld, November 23, 2014.
[181] Interview with witness, details withheld, November 9, 2014. The contractor knew Sumon as he had been involved in organizing the marriage of his daughters. Shaheen Bagh is about 10 km from Bashundhara Residential Area where the six men were picked up.
[182] Interview with Sanjida Islam, Dhaka, September 22, 2014.
[188] Human Rights Watch carried out a detailed interview with Sanjida the day after the meeting, which took place on May 23, 2016. Copy of the text correspondence setting up the meeting on file with Human Rights Watch.
[189] Interviews with Nusrat Jahan Laboni, October 18, 2013, and May 6, 2016.
[190]Ibid. On December 6, 2013, Russel’s older brother filed a GD at the Tejgaon police station, stating that Russel had gone missing on December 4. “In the afternoon, he went out and did not come back,” it states. The GD is mistakenly dated November 6. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.
[191] On December 5, 2013, Al Amin’s father filed a GD at the Badda police station, stating that Al Amin had gone missing the previous day. “At around 5 in the afternoon, my oldest son, Md Al Amin, left home to go to Bashundhara, and he did not return until now. His mobile phone is switched off,” it states. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.
[195] Interview with Ayesha Ali, Dhaka, October 18, 2016.
[196] Interviews with Meenara Begum, Dhaka, October 18, 2014, and May 6, 2016. The GD is dated December 5, 2013, and was filed at the Mugda police station by Meenara Begum. “At around 5 p.m. he went out from my rented house, and until now has not returned home. I have tried to look for him in all possible places including relatives’ homes but could not find any trace of him,” it states. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.
[197] Interview with Nilifur Rana, Dhaka, November 9, 2014.
[198] Full correspondence of the National Human Rights Commission on file with Human Rights Watch.
[202] Court order relating to WP 2604/2016, given by Justice Syed Muhammed Dastagir Husain and Justice AKM Shahidul Huq, October 1, 2016.
[203] Affidavit in opposition filed by inspector general of police in WP 2604/2016, in response to order of court.
[204] Affidavit in opposition filed by Lieutenant Colonel Tuhin Mohammad Masud, commanding officer, RAB-1, in WP 2604/2016, in response to order of court, April 4, 2016.
[205] Case no. 24, Vatara police station, January 26, 2014.
[206] Interview with Yakoob Ali, Dhaka, May 7, 2017.
[207] Letter from Zuhair Hossain Khan, detective and crime department north sub-inspector, Uttara Zonal team, to joint commissioner (crime), detective and criminal information department, Dhaka Metropolitan Police, April 11, 2016, annexed to affidavit in opposition filed by the inspector general of police.
[208] Documents annexed to the inspector general of police’s affidavit in opposition.
[209] Interview with Marjina Sultana Tonni, Dhaka, October 18, 2014.
[210] Interviews with Ruhul Amin Chowdhury, Dhaka, October 23, 2014, and May 6, 2016.
[211] Interview with Marjina Sultana Tonni, Dhaka, October 18, 2014.
[212] Interview with Ruhul Amin Chowdhury, Dhaka, October 23, 2014.
[223] Interview with Jamal, Dhaka, November 25, 2014.
[224] Interview with Shamsuddin, Dhaka, May 14, 2016.
[225] Interview with Hasina Begum, Dhaka, October 16, 2014.
[226] Interviews with Saiful Islam Mithu, Dhaka, October 25, 2014, and May 16, 2016.
[227] On December 9, 2013, Jhunta’s mother, Hasina Begum, filed a GD at Dokinkan police station stating that her son had gone missing. “Around 10:30 at night on 6.12.13, he went out of the home to go to the shop, and never returned,” it states. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.
[228] Interviews with Saiful Islam Mithu, Dhaka, October 25, 2014, and May 16, 2016.
[229] Interview with Shamsuddin, Dhaka, May 14, 2016.
[230] Interview with Azad Md Sadequl Islam, Dhaka, October 20, 2014.
[232] Interview with witness, Dhaka, October 20, 2014.
[233] Interview with witness, Dhaka, December 1, 2014.
[234] Interview with Abdul Jalil Khan, Dhaka, October 20, 2014.
[235] Ibid. The GD was filed on December 11 at Sabujbagh police station by Sujon’s father. It states that Sujon “went outside the house to buy warm clothes for his kids but he has not returned since then, and there is no trace of him after searching all probable places.”
[236] Interview with Shakil, Dhaka, October 20, 2014.
[237] GD filed on December 10, 2013, by Khusdia Akhter Shila. It states, “My brother Kazi Farhad left home for work and until this day he has not returned and his mobile is also switched off.”
[238] Telephone interview with Farhana, November 11, 2014.
[239] Interview with Tarannum Nahas, Dhaka, October 23, 2014.
[240] Interviews with Rehana Banu Munni, Dhaka, September 27, 2014, and May 30, 2016.
[241]Of all the GDs filed relating to the sequence of disappearances in this two-week period, this is the only one in which the police allowed the family to mention that law enforcement authorities were allegedly involved in the initial pick up. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.
Relatives hold portraits of disappeared family members at an event calling for the end of enforced disappearances, killings, and abductions, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, August 30, 2014.
(New York) – Bangladesh law enforcement authorities have illegally detained hundreds of people since 2013, including scores of opposition activists, and held them in secret detention, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Bangladesh government should immediately stop this widespread practice of enforced disappearances, order prompt, impartial, and independent investigations into these allegations, provide answers to families, and prosecute security forces responsible for such egregious rights violations.
The 82-page report, “‘We Don’t Have Him’: Secret Detentions and Enforced Disappearances in Bangladesh,” found that at least 90 people were victims of enforced disappearance in 2016 alone. While most were produced in court after weeks or months of secret detention, Human Rights Watch documented 21 cases of detainees who were later killed, and nine others whose whereabouts remain unknown. The 90 cases include three sons of prominent opposition politicians who were picked up over several weeks in August 2016; one was released after six months of secret detention, while the other two remain disappeared. In the first five months of 2017, 48 disappearances were reported. There are allegations of severe torture and ill-treatment while in secret custody.
“The disappearances are well-documented and reported, yet the government persists in this abhorrent practice with no regard for the rule of law,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “Bangladesh security forces appear to have a free hand in detaining people, deciding on their guilt or innocence, and determining their punishment, including whether they have the right to be alive.”
Bangladesh law enforcement authorities have illegally detained hundreds of people since 2013, including scores of opposition activists, and held them in secret detention.
The report also documents the continuing disappearance of 19 opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) activists. The 19 men were picked up by law enforcement authorities in eight separate incidents over a two-week period in or around Dhaka in the weeks before the January 2014 elections.
Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 100 people, including family members and witnesses, to document these cases. Details of police complaints and other legal documents are included in the report. The Bangladesh authorities failed to respond to letters seeking their views on these cases.
Witnesses and family members told Human Rights Watch that most of the abuses were carried out by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) or the Detective Branch of the police (DB), both of which have long-recorded histories of abuse. In the case of the 19 opposition party members, witnesses said that eight were taken by RAB, six by DB, and the rest by unknown security forces.
Ruhul Amin Chowdhury, who saw RAB take away his son, Adnan Chowdhury, on December 5, 2013, said he had trusted RAB to release his son the next day. “They said, ‘We are taking him. We will bring him back,’” he said. “They betrayed us.”
A senior RAB official privately admitted to family members of Sajedul Islam Sumon, a well-known local BNP leader who disappeared on December 4, 2013, that he had had Sumon and five other men in his custody, but that they were removed by other RAB officials after he refused orders to kill them. The official assumed the six men had all been killed.
Law enforcement authorities repeatedly deny the arrests, with government officials backing these claims, often by suggesting that the men are voluntarily in hiding. The police do not allow families to file complaints alleging that their relatives have been picked up by law enforcement authorities.
In addition to enforced disappearances, there is an alarming trend of deaths occurring in secret detention of state authorities. In one such case, on June 13, 2016, Shahid Al Mahmud, a student activist of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was “dragged outside [his house] and taken into a black microbus,” his father, Rajab Ali, told Human Rights Watch. Rajab Ali said that police officers were present during the arrest, although they later denied they were holding his son. Two weeks later, on July 1, police said they found Shahid’s body after a gunfight with criminals. Shahid’s father told Human Rights Watch that the police are lying: “The police abducted my son and staged a ‘gunfight’ drama to justify the killing.”
Although the ruling Awami League party came to power in 2009 with a promise of “zero tolerance” for human rights violations, the practice of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances has persisted, with human rights organizations reporting at least 320 cases of disappearances since 2009. These include people suspected of criminal activities and militancy, as well as political opposition members.
Under international law, a forced disappearance is the deprivation of liberty by agents of the state, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.
The Bangladesh government is making a habit of complete disregard for human rights, human life, and the rule of law.
Brad Adams
Asia Director
The Bangladesh government should invite the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate these allegations and make appropriate recommendations to ensure justice, accountability, and security force reform. The Bangladesh government should also invite UN experts, including the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the special rapporteur on torture, for an official country visit, allowing them full, unimpeded access to the places and people they seek to visit.
“The Bangladesh government is making a habit of complete disregard for human rights, human life, and the rule of law,” Adams said. “The government doesn’t even bother denying these abuses, instead remaining silent and relying on silence from the international community in return. This silence needs to end.”
Selected Accounts
Secretly Detained and Killed
“The men approached my son on two motorbikes as he came out of the mosque after attending juma prayer. They handcuffed him after he gave his name and dragged him onto a motorbike at gunpoint. Some local people tried to stop this happening but the men aimed their guns at the local people and told people not to interfere with them as they were performing their ‘administrative duty.’” –Nur Islam, father of Abu Jar Gifari, who was picked up on March 18, 2016. Abu’s body was recovered with gunshot injuries on April 13, 2016.
“Just after midnight, two men broke down the bamboo boundary, entered the compound of our house, and called out Shahid’s name as though they were his political associates. My wife and I woke up and went out to the gate, and one of the two men, both dressed in civilian clothes, pulled out a gun and threatened us. I opened the door and men went and pulled Shahid from his room. They allowed him to change his clothes. He was dragged outside and taken into a black microbus. There were other men present, some wearing police uniforms.” –Rajab Ali, father of Shahid Al Mahmud, whose body was found two weeks after he was picked up on June 13, 2016
Nineteen opposition party activists were picked up by law enforcement authorities over a two-week period around Dhaka in late 2013. They remain disappeared.
Continuing Disappearances
“We went to the apartment immediately. One of the guards there told us that three people in plainclothes went to the apartment and picked up my brother around midnight. When the guard tried to stop them, they introduced themselves as members of DB.” –Moinul Hossain Opu, brother of Moazzem Hossain Tapu, disappeared since January 26, 2016
“When the door was opened, the men asked my sister-in-law, ‘Where is your husband?’ My brother then went to the door and the men said, ‘You have to come with us.’ My brother asked, ‘Can I have your identity? What is your force? Are you RAB, CID, DB?’ They did not identify themselves. He asked several times. They did not wear any uniform and they had no legal arrest warrant. Nothing. They just said, ‘Come with us.’ My brother said, ‘I am a lawyer and I need to know these things.’ And then they said, ‘We will give you five minutes to get ready. Get ready and come with us.’ … I stood in front of my brother and held the hand of one of the men. The man pulled away my hand and grabbed my brother. We were running behind him. It was total confusion. There was a white microbus and he was put in it. And the vehicle drove away.” –Tahera Tasnim, sister of Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem, disappeared since August 9, 2016
“Suddenly we saw vehicles approaching. There was more than one car, but I can’t say exactly how many. There were some men in black uniforms who came out of the vehicles. They had weapons. The cars had their lights on so I could see the men, the color of their uniform. There was one car with ‘RAB-1’ written on it. I am sure that it was definitely RAB because of the clothes, and because I saw RAB-1 logo on the car.” –Witness to the disappearance of six men from Bashundhara on December 4, 2013
“I approached the local police station. The duty officer told me that the police would not allow a complaint against RAB or any law enforcing agency.” –Shamsuddin, father of Nizam Uddin Munna, disappeared since December 6, 2013
“As soon as he opened the door, they asked whether he was Pintu. He said, ‘Yes, I am Pintu.’ Then two of the men grabbed him.… Pintu asked who the men were. They said, ‘We are from the administration.’ He asked to see their ID cards, and they said, ‘It will not be a problem. You will be safe with us.’ My husband did not put up any resistance.” –Tarannum Nahas, wife of Selim Reza Pintu, disappeared since December 12, 2013