Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
ii
Human Rights in
Bangladesh 2007
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
iii
Human Rights in
Bangladesh 2007
Editors
Sara Hossain and Dina M Siddiqi
Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK)
Dhaka 2008
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
iv
Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK)
26/3 Purana Paltan Line
Dhaka 1000
Bangladesh
Tel: 880-02-8315851
Fax: 880-02-8318561
E-mail: ask@citechco.net
Website: www.askbd.org
First Published 2008
© Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK)
All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
Cover designed by Manan Morshed
ISBN: 984 - 300 - 002431 - 4
Published by Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK). Text setting, layout and design at
ASK Computer Section, 26/3 Purana Paltan Line, Dhaka 1000. Printed by
Shahitya Prakash, Dhaka 1000.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
v
Contents
List of Tables vi
List of Boxes vi
Glossary vii
Acronyms viii
Contributors x
Acknowledgments xi
1. Overview: Contradictions and Continuities, Challenges and Concerns 1
2. Legislative and Institutional Developments 15
3. Judgments on Fundamental Rights 21
4. Impunity 24
5. Right to Life and Livelihood 28
6. Right to Liberty 35
7. Right to Fair Trial 43
8. Right to Freedom from Torture 46
9. Right to Freedom of Expression 50
10. Right to Freedom of Religion 55
11. Right to Shelter 61
12. Prisoners’ Rights 65
13. Workers’ Rights 69
14. Women’s Rights 75
15. Rights of Adibashis 80
16. Children’s Rights 87
17. Rights of Persons with Disabilities 89
18. Conclusion: Changing Rhetoric but Continuing Practice? 92
19. Recommendations 94
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
vi
List of Tables
V.1: Extra-Judicial Killings, 2004 to June 2008 29
V.2: Extra-Judicial Killings by Law Enforcing Agencies in 2007 29
V.3: Deaths of Prisoners in Jail in 2007 31
V.4: Political Violence in 2007 32
IX.1: Violence against Journalists in 2007 51
XII.1: Number of Children in 57 Prisons in 2007 68
XIII.1: Workplace Deaths in 2007 72
XIV.1: Comparative Data on Violence Against Women, 2003 to 2007 78
XIV.2: Fatwa-instigated Violence in 2007 78
List of Boxes
V.1: Cholesh Richil 30
VI.1: Jahangir Alam Akash 37
VIII.1: Tasnim Khalil 47
IX.1: The Case of Md. Arifur Rahman 52
X.1: Ending Impunity? Arson Attack and Murder
in Shil Family, Bashkhali 58
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
vii
Glossary
Adibashi Indigenous people of Bangladesh
Alpin Weekly supplement of Prothom Alo
Bosti Slum
Dakhil Madrassah examination, equivalent to SSC
Durga Puja Major Hindu religious festival
Fatwa Opinion of an Islamic jurist (mufti). In Bangladesh some
Imams, madrassah superintendents or village eld ers have issued
fatwas imposing punishments such as stoning and flogging.
Gherao Siege/Blockade
Gonogrephtar Mass arrest
Hartal A general strike which prevents movement of transport
Hilla A requirement under Islamic Shariah law for an inter vening marriage
to enable a divorced woman to remarry her husband. Hilla
is not officially allowed in Bangla desh, but is sometimes dictated
by fatwas in villages
Jatiyo Sangsad National Parliament
Jhum Slash and burn cultivation method used by ethnic in the CHT
communities
Kabinnama Marriage registration document
Khas land Government owned land
Khas Public land
Langarkhana Shelter providing free food to indigent
Longorkhana Shelter providing free food during an emergency
Madrassah Islamic religious school
Muktijoddha Freedom fighter
Naraji petition Petition of objection
Nikah Marriage contract
Paharis Hill peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts
Pourashabhas Municipalities
Shalish Traditional mode of dispute resolution
Shontrashis Gangsters
Upazila Second tier of local government
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
viii
Acronyms
AC Assistant Commissioner
ACC Anti-Corruption Commission
ADAB Association of Development Associations, Bangladesh
ADD Action on Disability and Development
AL Awami League
ASK Ain o Salish Kendra
BCL Bangladesh Chhatra League (AL’s Student Wing)
BDR Bangladesh Rifles
BELA Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers’ Association
BEPZA Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority
BLAST Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust
BNP Bangladesh Nationalist Party
BNWLA Bangladesh Women Lawyers’ Association
BSMMU Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University
BTRC Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
against Women
CHT Chittagong Hill Tracts
CID Criminal Investigation Department
CMCH Chittagong Medical College Hospital
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
CTG Caretaker Government
CUP Coalition for Urban Poor
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DB Detective Branch
DC Deputy Commissioner
DGFI Directorate General of Forces Intelligence
EC Election Commission
EPO Emergency Powers Ordinance 2007
EPR Emergency Powers Rules 2007
ETV Ekushey Television
FIR First Information Report
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HBRI House Building Research Institute
ICS Islami Chattro Shibir (JI’s Student Wing)
ILO International Labour Organization
IMF International Monetary Fund
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
ix
JCD Jatiyotabadi Chattro Dal (BNP’s Student Wing)
JI Jamaat-i-Islami
JMB Jamat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh
MP Member of Parliament
NGO Non-Government Organisation
NHRC National Human Rights Commission
NSDPL North-South Property Development Ltd
OC Officer in Charge
PCJSS Parbattya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samity
PCJSS Parbattya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samity
PIL Public Interest Litigation
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSC Public Service Commission
RAB Rapid Action Battalion
RAJUK Rajdhani Unnayan Kortripokkha
RMG Readymade Garments
RU Rajshahi University
SoE State of Emergency
SPA Special Powers Act 1974
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Fund
UP Union Parishad
UPDF United Peoples’ Democratic Front
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
x
Contributors
ATM Morshed Alam is an Advocate and Senior Research Organiser at ASK.
Shahida Begum is Programme Coordinator-Child Labour, Save the Children
Sweden Denmark.
Jhon Asit Das is Senior Investigator, Investigation Unit, ASK.
Manzoor Hasan is Director, Institute of Governance Studies, BRAC University,
Bangladesh.
Mosharraf Hossain is Country Representative, Action on Disability and Development
(ADD), Bangladesh
Sara Hossain is a barrister practicing in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
Tanim Hossain is a barrister practicing in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh,
High Court Division.
Nazrana Imaan is a barrister.
Soma Islam is Deputy Director, Advocacy and Public Interest Litigation, Bangladesh
Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST).
Jenefa Jabbar is a barrister practicing in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High
Court Division.
Naeem Mohaiemen works in digital media technology and also creates interdisciplinary
art projects in Dhaka and New York.
Faustina Pereira Ph.D, is an Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh and
Director, Human Rights and Legal Services, BRAC.
Md. Obaidur Rahman is Deputy Country Representative, Save the Children
Sweden Denmark.
Md. Shahiduzzaman is Special Correspondent of the New Age, Dhaka.
Dina M. Siddiqi Ph.D, is a researcher and consultant on gender and human
rights. She will be a visiting professor at the South Asian Center, University of
Pennsylvania in 2008.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
xi
Acknowledgments
Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), a national human rights and legal services organisation,
has been working consistently for 20 years to monitor the human rights
situation and to provide support to survivors of human rights abuses, in particular
those from vulnerable groups or marginalised communities, through legal aid,
investigation, documentation, research and advocacy. ASK has drawn on its own
interventions and its work with lawyers and human rights activists across the
country in framing this report.
This report has been compiled and edited by Sara Hossain and Dina M Siddiqi
from contributions by a team of authors, namely ATM Morshed Alam (the right
to life and to freedom of religion), Shahida Begum (children’s rights), Jhon Asit
Das (prisoner’s rights), Manzoor Hasan (institutional developments), Mosharraf
Hossain (rights of persons with disabilities), Tanim Hossain (rights to liberty and
fair trial), Soma Islam (right to shelter), Nazrana Imaan (judgments on human
rights), Naeem Mohaiemen (rights of Adibashis), Jenefa Jabbar (workers’ rights),
Faustina Pereira (women’s rights), Md. Obaidur Rahman (children’s rights) and
Md. Shahiduzzaman (rights to freedom from torture and freedom of expression).
The introduction and overview was written by Dina M. Siddiqi. We take this opportunity
to thank them all. We are grateful to those who read through and
commented on the report, in particular Hameeda Hossain, Rayhan Rashid, Asif
Saleh, Nowrin Tamanna and Ahmed Ziauddin. Thanks for research assistance is
due to Dilruba Naoshin.
We acknowledge the contribution of several newspapers and of representatives
of other institutions, in particular members of the PIL Unit of the Bangladesh
Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Bikash Basak (OSHE) and Deloer Hossain
(Save the Children-UK) for allowing us to use their materials and documents.
The team at ASK responsible for the coordination of this report comprised
ATM Morshed Alam (who deserves special thanks for also contributing drafts
and providing invaluable research assistance), Salma Chaudhury and Afroditi
Panna. We acknowledge the contribution of ASK’s Investigation Unit for its investigative
reports, the Advocacy Unit for information on court developments
and the Documentation Unit for data compiled from news reports. As ever,
thanks are due to Manan Morshed for the cover design, to Anil Chandra Mandal
for the make up and layout and Shahitya Prokash for printing this volume.
Sultana Kamal
Executive Director

Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
1
OVERVIEW
Contradictions and Continuities, Challenges and Concerns
Summary
This report lays out key developments related to human rights and citizens’
security – most particularly the State of Emergency – as they unfolded
in 2007. It outlines legislative and institutional developments and
judgments relevant to the enforcement of human rights. It focuses in particular
on the rights to life, liberty, freedom from torture, freedom of expression
and the right to freedom of religion, as well as the right to shelter,
and on specific concerns arising in relation to the rights of prisoners,
workers, women, religious minorities, Adibashis (indigenous people), children
and persons with disabilities.
Overview
The year was full of contradictions and paradoxes. In January 2007, the
newly installed interim caretaker government (CTG), backed by the military,
imposed a state of emergency (SoE) and declared as its goal the holding
of elections as soon as conditions were conducive. This Report therefore
focuses its analysis on this new political regime and its relationship to
the establishment of a democratic rights framework. However, rather than
assume a complete break in modes of governance after 11 January 2007,
the report charts continuities as well as departures from past state practices
and modes of citizens’ resistance as they relate to human rights concerns.
It also provides a brief assessment of the steps initiated by the Government
to restore the democratic process and to undertake institutional
reforms. In other words, the report looks both at and beyond the
State of Emergency.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
2
In this backdrop, the Government’s record with respect to human rights
has been inconsistent and contradictory. The review below indicates that in
2007 some spaces opened up – for example on issues of institutional reform
in certain areas and with respect to increased personal security for many
with the receding of political violence -- while others receded. Important
steps were taken to seek accountability through law for wide-spread corruption
and abuse of power, but these became mired in concerns about the
process undertaken and allegations of abuses of safeguards on arrest, detention
and trial. This context also triggered broader demands for ending impunity,
particularly in relation to crimes against humanity and war crimes
committed during the war of liberation of 1971, which gathered momentum,
but had not elicited a clear response either from mainstream political
forces or the Government by year end. In some instances, initiatives were
taken to erode the edifice of impunity by re-activating long dormant investigations,
whether of corruption or murder, where the alleged involvement of
powerful persons had prevented any effective scrutiny. At the same time,
new instances of arbitrary application of law were witnessed, and new concerns
arose regarding the limits on judicial remedy. The army and intelligence
agency's role under the interim CTG, while more extensive and overt,
remained opaque and officially undocumented as before. Indeed, many state
structures and practices from the past remain embedded in the system, ensuring
continuing impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations and
those responsible for abuse of power, and preventing effective redress for
violations and blocking possible reforms.
Background to January 2007
Before assessing the human rights record in 2007, it is necessary to review
the conditions under which the current interim CTG emerged. This
sought to legitimate its existence and the decision to impose a SoE in the
wake of spiralling anarchy in the political arena in late 2006. Its stated intention
was to resolve a long-standing and violent deadlock between the
two main political alliances, the Awami League (AL)-led Fourteen Party Alliance
and the recently incumbent Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
3
Four Party Alliance (and its principal ally the Jamaat-i-Islami). The immediate
cause of the political impasse concerned the terms under which parliamentary
elections scheduled for 22 January, 2007 would be held. The
BNP-led Four Party Alliance’s five year tenure had been marked by rampant
corruption, overt politicisation of the judiciary, the bureaucracy and
all public institutions, and had left the electoral process deeply compromised.
Symptomatic of the broader political culture, the leading opposition
parties had largely responded with confrontation and intransigence.
This instability and insecurity, to which there seemed to be no end, escalated
as the election date drew nearer, and caused acute hardship to ordinary
citizens whose lives and livelihoods were affected by repeated blockades,
shutdowns and violent street battles. By the end of 2006, the country appeared
to many observers to be on the brink of collapse. In the process, the
credibility of the institution of the Caretaker Government, itself designed to
bypass partisan politicians and to enable smoother democratic transition,
had eroded sharply by the end of the year. Things came to a head following
the resignation in mid-December 2006 of four Advisors to the then CTG,
who said that they were unable to work towards fair and free elections due
to political pressures and who protested the BNP-appointed President Iajuddin
Ahmed’s unilateral decision to call the military in aid of the civilian
authority. President Iajuddin hastily reconstituted a new set of Advisors with
little or no public credibility. His purported appointment of himself in the
position of Chief Advisor, and thus the executive head of the CTG in October
2006 was by then under serious legal challenge before the Supreme
Court. The crisis continued until 11 January 2007 when -- reportedly under
military and international pressure1 -- President Iajuddin declared an SoE
and appointed a new set of advisors to the CTG, headed by Dr. Fakhruddin
Ahmed, a technocrat, as Chief Advisor.
11 January 2007 and after
Ordinary citizens as well as many members of civil society greeted the initial
formation of the interim CTG on 11 January 2007 with a sense of relief
and even of optimism. The paradox of emergency rule being welcomed –
1 See The Economist, “The Coup that Dare not Speak its Name”, January 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
4
at least initially – by the population points to the tremendous disenchantment
with politics as usual that had built up in the previous few years. The
arrest and trial of ‘high-profile’ politicians for corruption also appeared for
the first time to create a dent in the culture of impunity. However, this
welcome wore off considerably over the year, as apparent from reports in
the media of the CTG's plummeting popularity among sections of the
populace. Issues such as the handling of student protests at Dhaka University,
an inability to prevent sharp rises in food prices and other essentials,
highly publicized cases of over-reach by intelligence agencies, and the
manner and mode of holding the corruption trials, including allegations of
selectivity, among other things, have eroded the interim CTG’s standing.
From the outset, the CTG’s stated political agenda was to create conditions
that would enable the holding of free and fair elections, and its end
goal to hand over power to a democratically elected government regime. In
this connection, the Government announced a highly publicized ‘anticorruption
and anti-crime drive’ during which many previously ‘untouchable’
political and business figures were arrested. The Government also
initiated a series of institutional reforms: these included the preparation of
a more comprehensive and inclusive voter list, re-constituting and then
reforming three institutions which had largely lost all credibility due to
their incapacity and incompetence in discharging their mandate in accordance
with law and their overt bias to the earlier ruling regime, namely the
Election Commission (EC), the Public Service Commission, and the Anti
Corruption Commission (ACC). The heads of the Election Commission
and ACC, respectively Justice MA Aziz and Justice Sultan Hossain Khan,
after months of public demands for their resignation, finally attended at
Bangabhaban and tendered their resignations. Late in the year, the High
Court declared that the appointment of Justice MA Aziz as Chief Election
Commissioner while simultaneously holding the post of a sitting judge of
the Appellate Division had been illegal and unconstitutional.2 Significant
changes were also made to the Attorney General’s Office, with many of
2 Judgment dated 12 November 2007. News reports dated 13.12.2007, in The Daily Star, Ittafaq, and Prothom
Alo. Another writ had also been filed challenging the appointment of Justice Sultan Hossain Khan.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
5
those who had benefitted from partisan appointments, most particularly
the former Attorney General himself, resigning after serious criticisms of
their roles while in office. Despite continuing demands from the Bar and
civil society to take action with respect to ensuring the integrity of the Supreme
Court, and to address the impact of the Court on the partisan removal
and appointment of judges, no major steps were taken in this regard
till year end; however, one High Court Judge, against whom proceedings
had been initiated before the Supreme Judicial Council regarding allegations
related to his qualifications for the post, resigned while the proceedings
were pending.3 Citizens’ groups and the media greeted such moves
with enthusiasm.
Important legislative developments included the adoption of rules enabling
the separation of the lower judiciary from the executive – a process
that had been mired in continuing delays under previous governments; reform
of the legal framework for corruption prosecutions; revision of the
electoral roll, and proposals for electoral reform; and promulgation of the
National Human Rights Commission Ordinance, as well as preparation of
a draft Right to Information Ordinance and a draft Police Ordinances.
By year end, concerns arose about the substance of these changes, and
whether they represented actual structural reforms and could or would be
effectively implemented. Concerns about the militarization of institutions
were also raised as they were more generally (in relation to the implementation
of the Emergency Rules) about the involvement of military in civilian
functions such as criminal investigations (in relation to the anti-corruption
drive). Other concerns related to the commitment of the political parties
once returned to power post-election to continue some of the ongoing reforms
including with regard to new legislation on reform of political parties
or strengthening institutions and safeguarding them from partisan interference.
From a human rights perspective, the most serious concern arose
from the blurring of means and ends that took place in 2007 in several
critical areas. The approach toward and process of attaining the stated
goals of the Government frequently left much to be desired.
3 Later, the High Court held that the action of the University in cancelling the results of this judge and
others candidates on grounds of tampering with marksheets etc after a delay of many years was without
lawful authority and should be cancelled: 12 BLC (2007) 679.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
6
The Rule of Law and Due Process under Emergency Rule
The Emergency Powers Ordinance and Rules introduced extensive restrictions
on safeguards on arrest and detention as well as providing a speedier
trial procedure in special court, with major incursions on due process
rights in practice. Notably, the EPR initially precluded the option of bail
for anyone arrested under emergency provisions (even following later
amendments, any person directly accused of an offence under the EPR
could not seek bail directly). Restrictions on the right to seek bail – which
effectively ousted the powers of the lower courts to even consider applications
for bail in any case falling within the EPR – were unprecedented and
resulted in greatly increasing the pressure on the Supreme Court to grant
relief. Further, orders given in the exercise of powers vested under the Ordinance
were purportedly made immune to review by any court. This prevented
the lower courts from giving relief, particularly bail, in such cases,
and also limited the Supreme Court’s powers in its criminal jurisdiction.
However, the Supreme Court continued – albeit unevenly -- to exercise its
powers of judicial review, including over such orders. Under the Emergency
Powers Orders, the Supreme Court’s powers to hear any matters
directly seeking enforcement of fundamental rights was also suspended.
The EPR, used in combination with the Special Powers Act of 1974,
vested inordinately wide powers of preventive detention in law enforcement
authorities. Under Rule 16(2) of the EPR, individuals could be taken into
custody, without the right to seek bail, on suspicion of committing or being
likely to commit “prejudicial” acts. There were also reports of individuals
being detained by security forces and taken to undisclosed locations for indefinite
periods of time, without producing them before a magistrate or
even showing them as arrested. In a number of cases, preventive detention
orders were issued and then specific charges of corruption or other offences
were instituted. Significantly, in most cases, the High Court declared the
preventive detention orders illegal, despite the Government’s claim that the
High Court’s powers to review such orders had been ousted by the Emergency
Rules. However, the Supreme Court stayed such judgments in respect
of habeas corpus petitions brought within the Court’s criminal jurisdiction
(see section on liberty).
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
7
The increased powers given to security forces under the EPR encouraged
indiscriminate arrests without warrants. According to some press reports,
the number of people arrested in 2007 was estimated to be around
230,074.4 In moments of crisis such as the August student protests at
Dhaka University (see below for details), the state resorted to indiscriminate
mass arrests. In this instance, police arrested 200 people but filed 35
cases against an extraordinary number of 82,300 individuals, only 18 of
whom were named. Even the general pattern of repeated arrests, already
familiar from previous regimes, now occurred on a more frequent basis –
first preventive detention without charges, then one or more specific cases.
Another familiar form of abuse of process was the immediate re-arrest of a
person from the jail-gate, or even earlier, following their release on bail.
The right to a fair trial became another early casualty of the Emergency.
The suspension of fundamental rights translated into an enhanced
lack of recognition or respect for due process rights, already rarely observed
in practice. Under the new legal framework, the investigation and
trial of EPR cases were procedurally differentiated from other cases.
Emergency provisions were applied retroactively to certain pending cases
regarding corruption, financial crimes or other offences brought under the
EPR to enable speedier processes of investigation and trial.
Freedom of Expression, Dissent and Censorship
The EPO and the Emergency Powers Rules (EPR) both contain wideranging
provisions that restrict freedom of expression. The interim CTG
insisted such provisions would not be applied, although in practice, it invoked
these draconian laws on critical occasions to rein in dissent and
criticism of the regime. It also employed indirect modes of censorship, by
invoking the threat of application of these laws.
In addition to arrests of persons on allegations of corruption, security
forces and intelligence agencies used their considerable powers of detention
and investigation under the EPR to intimidate dissenters and critics of
the regime. These issues are highlighted by the cases of journalists Tasnim
4 ASK Documentation Unit. Data compliled from 13 National dailies (Prothom Alo, Bhorer Kagoj, Sangbad,
Ittefaq, Janakantha, Jugantor, Inquilab, Shamokal, Noya Digonto, The Daily Star and New Age).
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
8
Khalil, a freelance journalist and stringer for CNN, who was arrested without
a warrant and severely ill-treated before being released following intense
lobbying on his behalf and seeking asylum abroad, and of Jahangir Alam
Akash, who faced several extortion cases (see Box VIII.1 and Box VI.1).
Events surrounding the arrest of Arifur Rahman in September, 2007
further undermined the interim CTG’s record in respecting due process,
the right to freedom of expression and stated neutrality toward all political
parties. The publication of Rahman’s cartoon, already in circulation, resulted
in demonstrations by these groups on the streets openly inciting violence
against the publisher, printer and cartoonist (demonstrations being
expressly forbidden under the EPR but curiously enough allowed in this
instance), and ultimately to his detention and then proscution on charges
of hurting the religious sentiments of a community (see Box IX.1).5 Demonstrators
also demanded the resignation of the publisher and editor of the
newspaper which owned the supplement in which the cartoon was published.
The editor was obliged to apologise publicly to religious authorities.
The trajectory of this case raised troubling questions about who is allowed
to speak and which groups are heard under this regime. The public apology
of the editor of the newspaper in question points to the general environment
of fear and the particular forces to be feared in contemporary
Bangladesh.
The Government reacted to the August disturbances not only with a
show of force but also by placing explicit curbs on the media. It asked two
private television stations, Ekushey TV and CSB News which provided
extensive coverage of the campus incident, to refrain from broadcasting
any news that was “provocative,” or airing any programs that were critical
of the regime. In this case, “provocative” apparently meant critical of the
regime. The government eventually cancelled CSB’s broadcasting license
on technical grounds.
In general, a climate of fear and self-censorship prevailed in the media.
Several newspaper editors and individual journalists reported receiv-
5 [Ed Note: Arifur Rahman was released following his acquittal, in 2008].
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
9
ing phone calls from intelligence agencies asking them not to publish or
discuss “provocative” news. Paradoxically, daily talk shows on private
television channels, which often included trenchant criticism of the government,
proliferated. However, these were at times targeted for censorship
whenever the state has felt threatened or vulnerable, and many selfcensored
themselves and their participants.6 Security forces and intelligence
agencies also used their considerable powers of arrest and detention
to silence/intimidate dissenters and critics of the regime. Moreover,
as seen in the events surrounding the arrest of cartoonist Arifur Rahman,
uncomfortable questions arose about the stated neutrality of the CTG, or
sections of it, in relation to Islamist groups. Right wing religious groups
were able to organize numerous street protests with impunity in the face
of Emergency Rules clearly prohibiting such actions. Meanwhile groups
such as garment workers and farmers received very different treatment
from the police. Thus, the “cartoon controversy,” along with other incidents,
raised troubling questions about who would be allowed to speak
and which groups could be heard without threat or obstruction under
this regime.
Freedom of Assembly
On August 20, an altercation between several students of Dhaka University
and army personnel stationed at the university turned violent. Police
responded with disproportionate force. Unpredictably and rapidly, the violence
spiralled beyond university premises and attracted many nonstudents.
From an original demand to remove army camps from all public
educational institutions, the thrust of the protests shifted to calls for the
immediate removal of the SoE. When the demonstrations appeared to veer
out of control, the Government imposed a curfew on major cities.
Whether the protests signalled general disaffection with the regime, as its
critics claimed, or was a “conspiracy” to destabilise the country as the gov-
6 Media outlets owned by members of the previous regime, such as NTV and RTV, have continued to
function, although under new management. Questions remain regarding the manner of acquisition by
powerful political actors or businessmen close to the past BNP-led Alliance of the proprietorship of some
of these broadcasters, such as Channel One or CSB for example.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
10
ernment insisted, is a matter of interpretation. Certainly the manner of arrest
of teachers and students of both Dhaka University and Rajshahi University,
in particular the treatment in custody of Professor Anwar Hossain,
General Secretary of the Dhaka University Teachers Union, and the ultimate
manner of their release, highlighted all too clearly the abuse of process
endemic under the emergency regime. The response to the event and
its aftermath dramatized the militarist logic underlying the Government’s
law and order agenda.
Continued Marginalisation of the Disenfranchised/Shrinking
Spaces to Voice Concerns
As in other years, 2007 saw numerous instances of the suppression of
workers’ and peasants’ rights, frequently in a coercive and violent manner.
Protesting garment workers were arrested and charged with violating
Emergency Rules prohibiting public demonstrations. In one case police
shot at and killed several jute mill workers in Chittagong. In Khalishpur,
too, the police brutally suppressed workers demonstrating against the closure
of jute mills and their dismissal without payment of arrears. In July,
after protesting farmers attacked an Upazila Parishad office when it ran
out of supplies of desperately needed fertilizer, the state addressed the issue
as one simply of law and order and, instead of addressing their grievances,
it filed criminal cases against 5,000 unnamed farmers.
In early January, immediately after the promulgation of Emergency, the
Government launched a highly visible and coordinated series of forced
evictions across the country. The indiscriminate clearance of hawkers from
sidewalks and inhabitants of slums from their homes took place without
any prior notification (as required by law) and without any plans for rehabilitation
or compensation. The consequences were devastating for those
who were displaced and whose livelihoods were destroyed overnight. The
evictions were part of the authorities’ campaign to remove illegal structures
and to eliminate “terrorists” from operating in slums. Ironically, in its
drive to establish law and order, the Government violated a host of fundamental
rights guaranteed in the constitution, including those to life, shelHuman
Rights in Bangladesh 2007
11
ter and livelihood. As in earlier years, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was
critical in protecting the rights of those evicted or in danger of eviction.
Notwithstanding, forced evictions by the state occurred throughout the
year, even where Supreme Court orders had directed a stay on eviction.7
In all these instances, this non-elected government generally acted no differently
from its elected democratic counterparts in the past. Some examples
pointed to a more responsive approach where clear wrongs were pointed out, for
example in the establishment of a high-level Bosti Rehabilitation Committee, but
the implementation of such initiatives appeared slow and cumbersome. The
problem lay in the political and economic structure, and in a state which favours
capital against labour. Moreover, a confrontational political culture and the polarisation
of civil society have closed off spaces for citizens to express their grievances
meaningfully. The practice of citizenship (for those outside the purview of
middle class civil society) has been intermittent, unpredictable and mostly muted.
The most effective way for marginalized citizens – even within a formal democracy
- to be heard is through violent protest. The SoE did not create such conditions
or practices, although it may have muted them at least for more marginalised
or vulnerable citizens, even more. Ironically, the voices demanding their
rights which were heard most insistently in 2007 were those of the sections of the
elite – the so-called ‘VIP’ politicians and businessmen -- who had previously been
‘untouchable’ by the law.
Developments throughout the year tended to be negative both for Paharis
in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) as well as for Adibashis living in
the plains. The death in custody of the prominent Garo8 rights activist,
Cholesh Richil, was by far the most notable single incident of custodial
violence of the year. The gruesome nature of his death, including signs of
extensive torture, catalysed national protests, and propelled the case to the
international level. Despite this, the findings of the report of the one man
Judicial Inquiry Commission ultimately appointed, and any action taken,
are not public to date (see Box V.1).9 Press and human rights reports indi-
7 Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Human Rights in Bangladesh 2006, ASK, Dhaka, 2007, p23.
8 An indigeneous community primarily based in the Mymensingh District.
9 The suppression of impoverished groups, including ethnic minority populations, who resist mainstream
“development” imperatives that threaten their lives and livelihoods is nothing new. Indeed, Cholesh
Richil was not the first to have lost his life resisting the ill-conceived Eco Park project; earlier Piren Snal
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
12
cate that Richil was targeted for his strident opposition to the Eco-Park
project in Madhupur (Tangail District), thereby threatening the interests of
powerful business and political lobbies, as well as certain Forest Department
officials. In the CHT, the situation deteriorated further. As in earlier
years, the expropriation of Pahari land by Bengali settlers continued, apparently
with the tacit support of the Army. Targeted arrests of Pahari activists
both within political parties, and civil society, was notable, with the
well-known environmentalist and community leader, Rang Lai Mro, allegedly
subjected to torture following arrest and convicted and sentenced in
what has been reported to be highly unfair trial. The extent to which these
negative developments were due to the actions and policies of the Government
and the degree to which they are the outcome of longer-term
policies and measures is difficult to determine. Either way, meaningful demilitarisation
in the region or a re-assertion of civil forces in the area
would be difficult to achieve under the SoE.
However, developments on the human rights front were not uniformly
negative for vulnerable and marginalised groups. The CTG convened the
first meeting of the CHT Advisory Committee in seven years and made
commitments to proceeding with implementation of the Peace Accord
(though few clear steps were taken in this regard).10 Questions of the cultural
and linguistic rights of ethnic minorities also came to the fore.
The situation of religious minorities remained relatively stable. However
continuing concerns remained regarding the failure to amend the
Vested Property (Return) Act 2001, or to effectively implement it address
the issue of systematic expropriation of lands belonging to ethnic and religious
minorities.
In contrast to the above, notable progress was made on specific policy
issues related to the rights of persons with disabilities. The adoption of the
Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) by the UN
had died in police firing in 2004 while demonstrating against the same development. The case highlights
a larger and longer term problem relevant to all regimes, elected or not, about the nature and direction
of development.
10 [Ed Note: During 2008, the Government announced that it would activate the Land Dispute Resolutions
Commission in the CHT, and also withdrew restrictions on the use of mobile phones in the area].
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
13
General Assembly on 13 December 2006 was quickly followed by the
Government’s signature and then ratification of the treaty on 30 November
2007 and a number of public commitments were made by the Government
to ensure the rights of persons with disabilities.
Unfortunately, the concerns of the more ‘invisible’ minorities remained
unaddressed. For instance, hijra demands for constitutional recognition as
a separate category remain unheard, although they were for the first time
enrolled in the electoral roll by the Election Commission (though not in a
separate category, as demanded).11
The Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs initiated dialogue with
activists to further ongoing efforts to frame a law on domestic violence.
The Government also undertook a review of the PRSP guidelines on gender.
Women’s groups lobbied hard for the government to restore the
original version of the National Policy on the Advancement of Women
1997, which had been changed surreptitiously in 2004 under the Four
Party Alliance Government to omit many clauses which secured women’s
rights, in particular those expressly mandating equality.12 However, there
was little progress in other long-standing demands for legal reforms such
as the withdrawal of reservations to CEDAW or amendments to the Citizenship
Act of 1951.
Given problems of classification and categorisation, as well as of under
reporting, and the absence of reliable statistics, it is difficult to assess progress
in the investigation and prosecution of cases of violence against
women by the State. Despite such problems, existing statistics allow us to
extrapolate overall trends and directions. Trends in violence against
women remained relatively unchanged in 2007, although there was a decrease
in most categories of violence.13 The number of reported rapes and
gang-rapes remained troublingly high, although both fell from the previous
11 “Separate gender identification for hermaphrodites demanded”, The Daily Star, 11 June, 2008.
12 [Ed Note: Their efforts came to fruition in March 2008, when the Chief Advisor announced a revised
version of the National Policy on the Advancement of Women].
13 This corresponds to the results of a survey carried out the BRAC Development Institute which found
that a majority of respondents felt crimes against women had decreased in 2007 and attributed this decrease
to the existence of the state of emergency: see National Dissemination Seminar on Deepening
Democracy, Building Citizenship and Promoting Participation, BRAC Development Institute, 16 July,
2008.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
14
year. Acid attacks went down dramatically. However, a significant proportion
of acid-related violence continued to be related to “vengeance” or intimidation
attacks and could be traced to disputes over land. The routinisation
of violence as a means of dispute resolution, a generalized environment
of impunity, especially with respect to crimes against women, and the symbolic
use of women’s bodies in larger power struggles, have all contributed
in the last decade to keep this kind of violence at shockingly high levels.
Further, these statistics did not reflect important social transformations
within ethnic minority communities. Reports suggest that Adibashi and Pahari
women increasingly faced dowry related violence, a phenomenon unknown
in these communities until recently. The incidence of child marriages,
also relatively new, is reported to have gone up.14 One reason for
the relative neglect of indigeneous women’s issues is their continued marginalisation
in the mainstream women’s movement.
14 “Integration of Indigenous Women into Mainstream Rights Movements Stressed” New Age, 12 March,
2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
15
2
LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENTS
On 12 January, the Emergency Powers Ordinance and the accompanying
Rules were promulgated, extending the state’s powers to arrest, detain and
try persons accused of certain crimes with a focus on corruption and financial
crimes, restricting the safeguards on arrest and detention in these
cases, and providing for speedier processes of investigation and trial, as
and disqualifications on participation in elections for those convicted of
such offences. The two Emergency Powers Orders passed on 12 January
2007 prohibited seeking judicial remedies for enforcement of constitutionally
guaranteed fundamental rights or the hearing of any such pending petitions.
The Emergency Powers Rules imposed extensive restrictions on certain
rights, (particularly the right to liberty, safeguards on arrest and detention,
freedom of movement, assembly, association, expression and property
as well as the right to home and correspondence) with the Orders specifically
limiting the right to a constitutional remedy in cases of violations.
Subsequently, the Government also undertook legislation aimed at institutional
reform, focused on the separation of the lower judiciary, rehauling
electoral laws and procedures, and providing for the establishment of a
national human rights mechanism. Other laws passed during the year provided
for the establishment of the National Acid Control Council, to
monitor the implementation of the Acid Control Act, 2002, 15 and for
Mobile Courts, which empower Executive Magistrates and other officers
to ‘preserve law and order’ and take timely action to prevent crime.16
15 Section 2 of the Acid Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007.
16 Mobile Courts Ordinance, 2007, Ordinance 31 of 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
16
Criminal Justice System and Emergency Rules
The EPRs included an unprecedented and absolute prohibition on the
right to seek bail in respect of any offences brought within it (which includes
offences under the EPR as well as those under certain other laws).
Following public criticism of over-reach, the Emergency Rules were
amended on several occasions, first to limit the category of cases in which
the EPR special procedures for investigation and trial would apply, and
then expressly to allow family members of the principal accused under the
EPR to obtain bail.
The Emergency Power Orders No. 1 and 2 prohibit respectively the filing
of any new petitions or the hearing of any pending petitions related to
the enforcement of fundamental rights. Rule 19E of the EPR provides that
no person who is accused or faces investigation in relation to any EPRrelated
offence may seek a remedy from a higher court in relation to any
action taken in the course of the investigation and trial until after the trial
process has been completed.
After some initial confusion, the High Court on 22 April, 2007 also
gave a judgment holding that it could in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction
continue to provide relief, including bail, on a case by case basis, depending
on the facts and circumstances involved. Following a Government petition
for permission to appeal against this judgment, the Appellate Division
on 24 May 2007 stayed the judgment pending hearing of the appeal.
As a consequence, it was not possible, with respect to EPR-related cases,
to invoke the High Court’s powers to grant bail or to quash of proceedings
on the ground of abuse of process (under Sections 439, 497, 498 and 561A
of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in its criminal jurisdiction, except on
very limited grounds.17 However, the Supreme Court continued to exercise
its powers of judicial review (as distinct from its powers to enforce fundamental
rights) to provide such remedies during the year.
17 ASK Bulletin, June 2007, at p.12. [Ed Note: The Appellate Division in State v Moyezuddin Sikder, judgment
dated 23 April 2008, held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail in the case of any
case filed under Rule 19(Gha) of the EPR unless the case is filed mala fide, or not by the proper authority,
but may do so in respect of cases filed under Rule 16(2)].
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
17
The EPRs also established specific time-limits for trials to be held in
Speedy Trial Courts, or Special Tribunals, and provided for special rules of
evidence to be applied, as well as limiting rights to bail pending appeal.18
Notably, Emergency Rules could be applied retroactively. In other words,
offences committed before promulgation of the EPR could be brought
within their ambit.19
Anti-Corruption Commission Act
The Anti-Corruption Act 2004 was amended twice during the year. The
first amendment on 18 April 200720 introduced several new sections, of
which section 18(2) empowered the commission to give ex post facto approval
of any action taken by any officer of the commission between 7
February and 24 February, 2007 without its prior approval, and section 21
empowered any officer of the commission to arrest anyone on suspicion
of corruption without any warrant and even before filing of a case against
the person. Further, the new section 28(ka) declared any offence under the
act to be cognisable and non-bailable.21
The second amendment on 22 November 2007 which was given effect
from 9 May 200422 replaced section 3(2) stating “the Commission will be
an independent, autonomous and neutral commission.”
In earlier years, the lack of independence of the ACC had been a cause
of widespread criticism in the media and within civil society, and early steps
18 Section 2 of the Ain-Srinkhola Bighnokari Oporadh (Druto Bichar) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007
[Law and Order Disruptive Offences Act (Speedy Trial) (Amendment) Ordinance] establishes a 30 day
time limit for trial of offences (to be calculated from the date of lodging a complaint at the court). Section
3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007 provides that the Special Judge shall conclude
the trial of an offence within forty-five days from the date of taking of cognizance, and if this is
not possible shall do so within a further fifteen days, after recording appropriate reasons in writing, conclude
the trial within the fifteen days thereafter.
19 Section 3(4) of the Emergency Powers Ordinance, 2007.
20 The Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance 2007, Act 5 of 2007, dated 18 April 2007.
21 [Ed. Note: A Division Bench of the High Court Division (comprising Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury
and Justice Mashuque Hosain Ahmed) on 4 August 2008 issued a rule to explain in two weeks why
the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance 2007 promulgated on April 18, 2007 should
not be declared unconstitutional. The High Court passed the order after hearing a public interest litigation
writ petition filed by Supreme Court lawyer Ahsanul Karim challenging the legality of the Anti-
Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance 2007.(See Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Shamokal and
New Age, 5 August 2008).
22 The Anti-Corruption Commission (Second Amendment) Ordinance 2007, Ordinance 34 of 2007, dated
22 November 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
18
were taken in 22 February 2007 to make new appointments to the ACC of
the former adviser to the caretaker government and ex-army chief Lt General
(retired) Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury as the chairman, and former district
judge M Habibur Rahman and former National Board of Revenue
(NBR) member Abul Hasan Manjur Mannan as the commissioners.
Separation of the Judiciary
A decade after the landmark Appellate Division judgment in Masdar Hossain’s
case,23 and after both previous elected Governments had failed to take
such action, the Government finally promulgated laws to put in place the long
standing demand for establishing a legal and administrative framework for
separation of the lower judiciary from the executive. On 10 January, a full
bench of the Appellate Division had directed the then Attorney General AJ
Mohammad Ali to publish notifications within a week in the official gazette
with respect to the remaining sets of Rules earlier framed for effecting separation
of the judiciary. Curiously, the then Attorney General more or less
openly conferred with the former Four Party Alliance law minister, Moudud
Ahmed, before deciding to seek, and obtain, a further adjournment in the
case. However, after the change of personnel in the CTG, and the appointment
of Dr. Fakhruddin as Chief Advisor, the Government in a landmark
move on 16 January, 2007 published the gazette notifications of the four sets
of Rules. These four rules were the Judicial Service Commission Rule 2002,24
Bangladesh Judicial Service Pay Commission Rule 2002,25 the Bangladesh Judicial
Service (Service Constitution, Composition, Recruitment Suspension,
Dismissal and Removal) Rules 200226 and the Bangladesh Judicial Service
23 In 1999, the Supreme Court had issued its 12-point directives in the Masdar Hossain case to ensure
separation of judiciary from the executive. Notable points included: (a) the establishment of the Judicial
Service Commission with a majority of members to be recruited on merit from senior judges of higher
and lower judiciary; (b) Rules to be made to comply with the requirements of Article 115 of the Constitution
for the control and discipline of the judicial officers giving primacy of the Supreme Court over
the Executive; and (c) the establishment of a Judicial Pay Commission to ensure the financial independence
of the judiciary. Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Masdar Hossain, 2000 BLD (AD) 104; Secretary, Ministry
of Finance v Masdar Hossain (1999) 52 DLR (AD) 82; Masdar Hossain v Secretary Ministry of Finance
(2000) 52 DLR, 94-108.
24 SRO No 7-Ain/2007, dated 16 January 2007.
25 SRO No 8-Ain/2007, dated 16 January 2007.
26 SRO No 9-Ain/2007, dated 16 January 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
19
(Posting, Promotion, Leave, Control, Discipline and other Service Condition)
Rules 2001.27 Amendment of the over one century old Code of Criminal Procedure
provided for the establishment of a separate executive and judicial
magistracy and also for the respective magistrates’ appointments, duties and
hierarchies.28 With the institutional structure in place, and with some reports
of an increase in disposal of cases,29 there nevertheless remains much to be
done in terms of ensuring a truly separate judiciary in terms of ensuring that
the lower judiciary are protected from all ‘extraneous influences’, and in terms
of changing attitudes and mindsets to foster a culture of independence, as well
as to provide mechanisms to ensure the integrity and efficiency of the system
in delivering justice.
National Human Rights Commission Ordinance
Two years after its initial commitment to the UN Human Right Council, the
Government finally promulgated the National Human Rights Commission
Ordinance, 2007. The proposed Commission is to consist of one chairperson
and two members, including a current or retired judge of the Supreme
Court. The President, with the advice of the Selection Committee, will appoint
the members of the Commission. The Commission’s powers include
investigation of human rights abuses, mediation in specific cases, recommendations
to the appropriate authority to take legal action, and in very limited
cases referrals to the Supreme Court, as well as more general powers to
disseminate information and create awareness of human rights. ASK and
other human rights organisations and activists have raised a number of questions
regarding the capacity of the proposed NHRC to function as an effective
human rights watchdog.30 Two main concerns include the composition
of the six member selection committee, which is executive-heavy;31 and the
27 SRO No 10-Ain/2007, dated 16 January, 2007.
28 Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007, Ordinance 4 of 2007, dated 10 April, 2007.
29 See report of 33,104 cases disposed of in November alone: Ittefaq, 03 December, 2007.
30 Press statement by ASK and Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), Reporter’s Unity Conference
Room, 30 December, 2007. Also see http://askbd.org/web/.
31 The six member selection committee is to be constituted by a Supreme Court judge, the Cabinet Secretary,
the Attorney General, the Accountant General, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission
(PSC) and the Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. There is no Member
of Parliament Member included in the Selection Committee (Section 6 of the Ordinance).
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
20
fact that the NHRC has no jurisdiction to investigate cases which are already
pending in a Court or Ombudsman or Administrative Tribunal.32
Voter List
Regarding electoral reform, the Electoral Rolls Ordinance, 2007 repealed the
Electoral Rolls Ordinance, 1982 and created provisions to facilitate the current
voter registration process. 33 Major steps were taken to proceed with the
voter listing process throughout the year, with progress being made in including
communities who had earlier been excluded, and special facilities
being provided for among others persons with disabilities. As noted in the
overview, early in 2007, the Election Commission which had been the centre
of controversy during the political crisis of 2006, was re-constituted with
new appointments to all three positions, with Dr. ATM Shamsul Huda, a
retired senior civil servant being appointed as Chairperson and Muhammed
Sohul Hussain and Brigadier General Muhammad Sakhawat Hussain
(Retd) as Commissioners.
Local Government
Several changes were made to laws concerning local government. Powers to
suspend or remove local government officials, pending proceedings against
them, were also provided to prescribed authorities, with the previous approval
of the Government, and provisions made for their handing over
powers to Commissioners to be appointed in their stead.34 These laws contained
ouster clauses purporting to restrict any judicial scrutiny of orders
made under them. Provisions were made for panels to be appointed within
each City Corporation, to include one woman elected to a reserved seat, and
to function in place of the Mayor in case of his/her absence.35
32 Section 11(2) of the National Human Rights Commission Ordinance 2007.
33 Ordinance 18 of 2007.
34 See the Paurashava (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007, Ordinance 21 of 2007.
35 See Chittagong City Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, the Dhaka City Corporation (Amendment)
Ordinance, the Khulna City Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, the Rajshahi City Corporation
(Amendment) Ordinance, the Sylhet City Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, the Barishal City Corporation
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
21
3
JUDGMENTS ON
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
This report usually reviews judgments of the Supreme Court on human
rights protection. Given the operation of the Emergency Powers Orders
Nos. 1 and 2 from 12 January, which suspended filing or hearing of petitions
for enforcement of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court gave no
new judgments during the year on enforcement of human rights (although
it considered human rights issues indirectly by way of judicial review). This
chapter is therefore limited to judgments decided earlier but reported in
2007, along with orders in public interest petitions issued during the year.
Equal protection of the law: The High Court held that Rule 8 of the Police
Officers Ordinance 1976 Regulation 861 was unconstitutional, on the
ground that it allowed for arbitrary imposition of punishment, either under
the Ordinance or the more lenient Police Regulations of Bengal, resulting
in violations of the equal protection of law.36
Religious discrimination: The High Court held that Muslim law of preemption
regarding urban property is discriminatory inasmuch as it places a
Muslim citizen at a higher plain than non-Muslim citizens and this also affects
the secular nature of the Republic. Specifically, it held that the Muslim law
of pre-emption insofar as it relates to urban property is void on the ground
that it discriminates between citizens on the ground of religion and faith,
as under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural and Tenancy Act 1949 a non-
36 Amirul Islam vs Bangladesh and others (Spl Original) 59 DLR (2007) 258, judgment dated 15 May, 2006, para
10 at p. 261.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
22
Muslim contiguous land holder cannot maintain an action for pre-emption
but a Muslim can.37
Right to life: The Court built on its earlier case law holding that the right
to life includes the right to livelihood and requires the state to provide alternative
resettlement to slum dwellers prior to eviction. It also opened a
new dimension in its right to life jurisprudence holding that the failure of
state authorities, including local authorities to ensure access to safe and potable
water constituted a violation of the right to life as guaranteed by Articles
31 and 32 read together with Articles 15 and 18 of the Constitution.38
Right to liberty: The High Court held that detention in safe custody
against the will of a detained person was illegal.39
Safeguards on arrest, legal aid: The failure to ensure legal aid for a prisoner
facing a death penalty until after closure of evidence of the first witness
violated not only the relevant provisions of criminal procedure, but also
Article 33 guaranteeing safeguards on arrest and detention, in particular the
right to legal counsel.
Fair trial: The Appellate Division held that after a conviction under martial
law, directing a fresh trial would infringe the right under Art 35(2) of the
Constitution, and would not be in interests of justice.40 The High Court also
held that the sanction issued by the Government required to prosecute certain
cases must be based on the materials on record, or would otherwise
constitute an incurable defect preventing the trial from proceeding.41
A series of judgments were reported on the issue of juveniles in detention,
the most important holding that young offenders have the right to be
tried in juvenile court,42 and that a child above nine and below fourteen
37 Younusco K Textiles v Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing, 12 BLC (2007) HCD 202 at para 18.
38 Rabia Bhuiyan MP v Ministry of LGRD and others, 59 DLR (207) (AD) 176, judgment dated 27 August, 2005,
para 7 at p. 448.
39 Jatiyo Mahila Ainjibi Samity v Bangladesh and other (Criminal), 59 DLR, (2007) 447, judgment dated 23 May,
2006.
40 Mohammad Ullah v Sessions Judge, Noakhali and others, 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 351, judgment dated 22 November,
2005.
41 Barrister Md. Rafiqul Islam Mia v Government of Bangladesh and others (Spl Orig), 59 DLR (2007) 407, judgment
dated 18 October, 2006, para 11 and 13 at p. 409.
42 State vs Md. Roushan Mondal @ Hashem (Criminal), 59 DLR (2007) 72, judgment dated 9 July, 2006.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
23
years of age who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to
judge the nature and consequences of his conduct would be exempted
from criminal liability. Another judgment held in any case where the accused
claims to be below 16 years at the time of trial, there is a duty placed
on the court to investigate his/her age to determine the appropriate forum,
and that this duty is pursuant to the mandate under Article 28(4) of the
Constitution to take special measures for the protection of children.43
Public interest litigation: New public interest cases were filed seeking accountability
of state actors for their failure to implement their legal obligations,
among others in relation to workplace deaths, resettlement of slum
dwellers prior to eviction, and continued imprisonment of foreign prisoners
who had served out their sentences, as well as children in prisons. The
orders issued by the High Court in such cases are discussed in the relevant
chapters below.
43 Rahmatullah (Md) v State (Criminal), 59 DLR (2007) 520, judgment dated 5 April, 2007, para 12 at p. 522.
See however, Masud Rana (Md) alias Babu v State, 59 DLR (2007) 196, in a case under s561A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, where it was held that any objection regarding the age of a child should be raised
at trial, and would not be available if the child’s age exceeds the age limit during continuation of trial, as
s/he would then be a misfit if ordered to be sent to a reformatory school along with other offenders instead
of a jail.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
24
4
IMPUNITY
The culture of impunity, having grown consistently over four decades and been
reinforced periodically, following the initial failure to prosecute effectively those
responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Liberation War,
appeared to be briefly questioned in the first stages of the Anti-Corruption and
Crime Drive, as persons known to be wholly beyond the reach of the law were
finally arrested and put on trial. However, the manner in which these cases continued,
with frequent challenges on due process grounds, and selectivity in prosecutions,
as well as the failure to launch a similar drive on accountability for human
rights abuses, indicated that this drive could not be seen in itself as addressing the
problem at its roots. At the same time the failure to hold any investigations or
prosecutions for past or ongoing allegations of human rights violations - most notably
in the case of reports of extra-judicial executions, further embedded and reinforced
impunity in practice.
While progress was made in a few cases, for example in concluding the trials of
those found responsible for the extensive bomb attacks across the country in 2005,
many other long-running cases remained in the court dockets. Public campaigns
on the issue of accountability for war crimes also gathered momentum, with the
Sector Commanders Forum spearheading demands for establishing a Special Tribunal
for this purpose.
The section below highlights developments in a few key cases regarding the assassinations
of national leaders, and killings of politicians and academics and journalists
and of human rights defenders in which proceedings have remained pending
for years, and in some cases decades.
Bangabandhu Murder Case: After a lapse of over six years since the appeal
against conviction and sentence by those responsible for the assassination of
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
25
former President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the murder of his family members
in August 1975, the new Chief Justice, Md Ruhul Amin, convened a bench of
three judges to begin hearing the appeals. On 7 August, the hearings began, and
on 23 September, leave was granted to appeal against the High Court’s judgment.
44 One of the appellants, Major (retd) Mohiuddin, was extradited from the
USA on 17 June to stand trial, and on 16 September 2007, after condoning the
delay, the Appellate Division granted his petition to file a petition for leave to
appeal against conviction and sentence, and stayed the death penalty awarded
against him in the meantime. Regular appeals were filed by October 2007.45
Killing of Shah AMS Kibria: On 27 March 2005, Awami League leader and former
Foreign Minister, Mr Kibria was murdered following a grenade attack on a
public meeting in Habiganj. On 12 December, in the presence of the Home Secretary,
the Committee on Monitoring of Sensational Murder Cases directed reinvestigation
of the case. However Mr Kibria’s widow, Asma Kibria, expressed
serious concerns that re-focusing the investigation process on the involvement of
the Islamist militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad’s possible involvement in the murder
was meant to obscure the involvement of senior officials of the former ruling
BNP-Jamaat Coalition.46
Killing of Professor Taher : Prof. Taher, of the Geography and Minerals Department
of Rajshahi University (RU), was murdered on 1 February 2006; his
body was found on 3 February in a manhole on campus. His son, Sanjid Tanvir
Ahmed Alvi, filed a murder case on 3 February 2006, but charges were finally
framed against the accused in the Special Tribunal only on 18 June 2007 against
Assistant Professor Miah Md Mohiuddin of the Geography and Minerals Department,
the former Secretary of Islamic Chattro Shibir of RU, Mahbub Alam
Salehi, and the caretaker of Prof. Taher’s home, among others. The Court heard
19 witnesses in July. At this point the Trial Court Judge expressed his ‘embarrassment’
to continue further hearings and the record was forwarded to the Sessions
Court in Rajshahi. On 17 October, the case was transferred by government
order to the Speedy Trial Tribunal in Rajshahi, but due to some errors on
the record the Speedy Trial Tribunal refused to accept the case into its dockets.
The Sessions Court gave an order on 7 October holding that this error on the
44 Lt Col (retd) Syed Faruk Rahman, Lt Col (retd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, Lt Col (retd) Mohiuddin
Ahmed, Major (retd) Bazlul Huda and Major (retd) AKM Mohiuddin all obtained leave to appeal.
45 Inquilab, Prothom Alo, 29 October, 2007; Inquilab, Noya Digonto, 30 October, 2007; Prothom Alo, 31 October,
2007.
46 Statement of Asma Kibria, Janakantha, 8 October, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
26
record should be corrected from a higher court, and the entire process was suspended
for a further three months. 47
Killing of Manik Saha: Manik Saha, a well known journalist, was killed on 15
January 2004 in a bomb attack near the Khulna Press Club. Two separate cases
were filed by SI Ranjit Kumar on 17 January in Khulna Police Station, Khulna.
On 20 June 2004, the police submitted a charge-sheet against 14 persons. On 22
December 2004, the case was sent to the Speedy Trial Tribunal, Khulna. On 4
January, the Court started hearing evidence, and on 11 April 2005, after hearing
evidence from fourteen witnesses, the Judge ordered re-investigation. On 11
November the next year, the intelligence branch of the Khulna Metropolitan Police
was given responsibility in this matter. According to news reports, the officer
concerned has stated that the terms of reference of this investigation were not
specified by the Court.48 The Detective Branch filed an additional charge sheet in
November 2007.
17 August 2005 Grenade Attack on Courts: On 17 August 2005, about 500 bomb
explosions took place in courts across the country, for which the heretofore unknown
underground Islamist organisation, the Jamatul Mujahideen Bangladesh
(JMB) claimed responsibility. The headlines of leaflets left at the site of all the
blasts, declared ‘We demand Allah’s Law’. A total of 154 cases were filed in relation
to these incidents, and the investigation in 27 of these has not yet concluded.
Trials have begun in only 16 of the cases. A source from the Police Intelligence
Unit, Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was quoted in the press as stating
that out of 45 cases relating to the bomb attacks in or around Dhaka, the trial
has concluded in only one, with no charge sheets having been submitted in 14
cases, and 30 cases remaining under-trial.49
21 August 2004 Grenade Attack on AL Rally, Killing of Ivy Rahman and others:
Three years into the August 21 grenade attack on an Awami League (AL) rally
which killed AL Women’s Secretary Ivy Rahman, the investigation has barely
progressed. Reportedly the current investigations are focused on a group of Afghan
war veterans led by Mufti Abdul Hannan of the Harkat-ul Jihad, and their
47 Noya Digonto, 8 January, 2008. [Ed Note: In May, 2008, the Rajshahi Speedy Trial Tribunal convicted
four persons of the killing of Prof. Taher, namely, Rajshahi University (RU) teacher Dr Mia Mohammad
Mohiuddin, the caretaker at Taher’s residence Jahangir Alam, his brother Abdus Salam and brother-inlaw
Nazmul. The Tribunal acquitted two of the accused, former RU Islami Chhatra Shibir president
Mahbubul Alam Salehi, and Jahangir’s father Azimuddin Munshi, see Prothom Alo, 23 May 2008.]
48 Sangbad, 15 January, 2007.
49 Prothom Alo, 17 August, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
27
confessional statements admitting involvement in other grenade attacks (for example
on the British High Commissioner, Sylhet City Corporation Mayor Badaruddin
Ahmed Kamran, and an AL rally led by Suranjit Sengupta). Investigators
claim that they were not able to obtain evidence corroborating the confessional
statements earlier made by Joj Miah and the other two accused, and made new
claims implicating the Harkat-ul-Jihad.50
However, there were real concerns
about whether the investigation would be completed successfully.51
Piren Slan murder case: The three-year old murder case of Piren Slan, an Adibashi
leader, resumed on 13 July.52 A Magistrate’s court in Tangail ordered the
Officer-in-Charge (OC) of Modhupur Police to record the case. Snal was killed
when police opened fire on a procession of Adibashi people protesting against a
proposed eco-park which would have adversely affected the habitation and livelihood
of the indigenous communities in that area. Earlier, when a judicial enquiry
report had concluded that the police or the forest-guards were not responsible
for his death, Piren’s father filed a ‘naraji’ petition [petition of objection],
which was ultimately accepted by the Magistrate.53
50 ATM Morshed Alam, “Partho Natok-er Hotara” (Creator of Partho drama), Jugantor, 22 June, 2008.
51 “Aug 21 Grenade Attack: No headway in probe for last government’s insincerity”, The Daily Star, 21
August, 2007. [Ed Note: On 11 June 2008, the police submitted a supplementary charge sheet before
the Dhaka Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court against 22 persons including Mufti Hannan of the
Harkatul Jihad, former State Minister of the BNP Government, Abdus Salam Pintu and his brother
Moulana Tajuddin. The names of twenty persons were not sent up in the charge sheet including Joj
Miah and Saibal Saha Partho – earlier falsely accused and ill treated (see on Partha, ASK, Human Rights in
Bangladesh 2005 at p53. Partho was was discharged from the case on 18 June 2008 following a petition
on his behalf by ASK).
52 The Daily Star, 14 July, 2007.
53 An application declining to accept the conclusion of the report discharging the accused persons of
criminal liability.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
28
5
RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD
The constitutional guarantee of the right to life, that is the right not to be
deprived of life save in accordance with the law, cannot be suspended or
derogated from under any circumstances. However as in earlier years, state
security forces reportedly continued to be responsible for extra-judicial
killings in the form of “cross-fire deaths”, and for custodial killings, and
also to be responsible for the loss of lives of among others, women and
workers through failure to enforce existing laws, and for loss of livelihood
of slum dwellers.
Extra-Judicial Executions
Both before and after the Emergency, extra-judicial killings by the joint
security forces continued unabated. There were reportedly 180 alleged extra-
judicial executions by security forces, including the killing of 155 persons
in what were deemed by both newspapers and the authorities to be
incidents of ‘cross-fire’. As Table No. V.1 below shows, the number of
‘cross-fire’ deaths while in custody fell dramatically, from 196 in 2006 to 34
in 2007. However, ‘cross-fire’ deaths before arrest went up somewhat from
62 in 2006 to 81 in 2007. In the first six months of 2008, 54 deaths
through “cross-fire” were reported. Only four such deaths in custody took
place. The rise in ‘cross-fire’ deaths occurring before a person is taken into custody
provoked uncomfortable questions as to whether this shift in patterns
reflected an attempt to reduce the responsibility of the concerned agencies
for such killings.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
29
Table V.1: Extra Judicial Killings from 2004 to June 200854
Year
Nature of Violence
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
(till June)
Crossfire (without arrest) 46 94 62 81 54
Crossfire (in custody) 88 260 196 34 4
Physical torture (without arrest) 3 1 7 9 2
Physical torture (in custody) 23 11 26 18 7
Shot (without arrest) 33 11 61 24 5
Shot (in custody) 12 - - 14 1
Suicide (as claimed by the police
after arrest )
2 - - -
1
Total 207 377 352 180 74
Table V.2 : Extra Judicial Killings by Law Enforcing Agencies in 200755
Force/Agency
Nature of Death
RAB RAB &
Police
Police Joint
Forces/
Army
Total
"Crossfire" (not arrested) 59 2 20 81
"Crossfire" (in custody) 19 1 14 34
Physical Torture
(not arrested)
2 5 2 9
Physical Torture
(in custody)
2 11 5 18
Shot (before arrest) 9 15 24
Sick (in custody) 9 5 14
Total 91 3 74 12 180
In one case, Saju, a member of the Awami Jubo League, died on 3 March,
2007 reportedly after being detained at the Narayanganj Fatullah Army
Camp for around 30 hours. He had been not produced before the Court
within the stipulated 24 hours after arrest. Nor had his family members
been informed of the reasons for his arrest. During his detention he was
not allowed to meet anyone. Camp officials stated that he had died of
heart failure, but family members insisted that this was not the case. ASK
wrote to the authorities seeking an investigation into the incident and demanding
legal action against any person found responsible for Saju’s death.
It has not received any response to date.56
54 ASK Documentation Unit, Statistics compiled from 13 national dailies.
55 ASK Documentation Unit.
56 ASK Investigation Report, 5 March, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
30
In another case, on 14 June, 2007 Taushid Ali, 26 years, and Raju, sons
of the late Taleb Ali, were arrested from their grocery store by the Joint
Forces57 and were produced in Kulaura Police Station Moulavibazaar. On
16 June they were sent to court and from there to jail custody. Later they
were sent in a critically ill condition first to Moulvibazar Sadar Hospital
and then to Osmani Medical College Hospital. On 23 June, Toushid died.
Eyewitnesses to his arrest and detention stated that they believed that he
had been severely beaten in custody.58
ASK investigated several alleged extra-judicial killings during the year.
BOX V.1: Cholesh Richil, age 40, Modhupur: On 17 March 2007, Cholesh
Richil, a noted environmental activist and Garo community leader was returning
home with three other persons from a wedding when he and his companions were
arrested at Kalibari in Muktagacha and taken to an army camp in Kakraid. At about
5 pm, the three persons travelling with Richil were released from custody. Both
Richil and Pratap Jambil were allegedly tortured brutally. Later that night Richil’s
family was informed by the authorities that he had died. When they received his
body the next day they found it covered in bruises and cuts and other signs of violence.
59 Richil’s wife tried to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) at the Madhupur
Police station. The official on duty refused to record the FIR, instead recording
an entry of an unnatural death case. 60 ASK’s repeated demands, along with those of
others, led to the Chief Advisor’s announcing establishment of a Judicial Inquiry
Commission, but further demands to publish the Report of the Commission and to
bring to justice those responsible for Cholesh’s killing have gone unheeded.
Marks on body of Cholesh Richil
57 Comprising the Armed Forces, Bangladesh Rifles and the police.
58 ASK Investigation Unit.
59 ASK Investigation Report, 19 March 2007.
60 UD Case No. 02 of 2007, dated18 March 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
31
Deaths in Prison
News reports suggested that a total of 106 persons died in prisons across
the country, of whom 67 were under-trial prisoners, and 39 were convicts.
There was no official information available regarding the causes of their
deaths, or the holding of any related inquiries by the authorities.
Table V.3: Deaths of Prisoners in Jail in 200761
Division Under trial
Prisoners
Convicted Prisoners
Dhaka 22 12
Chittagong 12 3
Rajshahi 13 8
Khulna 12 12
Barisal 4 1
Sylhet 4 3
Total 67 39
Death Penalty
According to ASK sources, in the last seven years a total of 30 death sentences
were carried out. 62
In the absence of published official information, news reports suggest
that 188 death sentences were awarded by courts across the country during
2007, and that some 953 prisoners were sentenced to death during the
year, as opposed to some 900 prisoners in 2006; amongst them were the
27 JMB members convicted of the August 2005 bomb attacks in courts
across the country.63 On 29 March, seven members of the JMB convicted
of murder for carrying out the bomb attacks in courts all across the country
as well as the November 2005 bomb attack which killed two judges in
Jhalakathi, were hanged. The refusal to allow the convicts an opportunity
61 ASK Documentation Unit.
62 The death penalty remains on the statute books, in relation to offences under, for example, the Penal
Code 1860, the Special Powers Act 1974, the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjaton Domon Ain 2000, the Narcotics
Control Act 1990, the Official Secrets, Act 1923, the Arms Act 1878 and the Explosives Act 1884. [Ed
Note: The death penalty has also been provided for terrorism related offences under the Anti-Terrorism
Ordinance 2008].
63 Prothom Alo,18 October, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
32
to make a last statement gave rise to media speculation that they were precluded
from disclosing sensitive information regarding their sources of financing,
access to explosives and, significantly, their links with existing
powerful interest groups.64
Violence between Political Party Cadres
In a dramatic contrast to previous years, there was a significant reduction
in deaths and injuries resulting from internecine political conflict among
the major parties. This was not perhaps unexpected given the restrictions
on political activities under the SoE. According to news reports, there were
38 incidents of such conflict, some seven persons were killed, and another
1,153 injured. Most of these incidents occurred in less than a fortnight, before
11 January 2007, when tensions were running especially high and
when political activities were still ongoing.
Table V. 4: Political Violence in 200765
Political Parties Incidents Injured Killed
AL – BNP 21 325 6
AL - Shibir 1 10 -
AL - Jamaat 2 23 -
BNP – LDP 1 6 -
Jamaat - LDP 1 1 -
Mohajot (AL Allaince) - 4 Party Allaince 1 40 -
Oborodh (Blockade) 3 650 -
Sub Total 30 1055 6
Intra-party Clashes in 2007
BNP- BNP 7 78 1
AL- AL 1 20 -
Total 38 1153 7
Workplace Deaths
Reports of 229 workplace deaths were noted, with the vast majority in the
construction industry; other high risk industries include ship breaking and
manufacturing. While these deaths went largely unnoticed, the death of fifteen
64 Bangladesher Jongi Tothporota o Tar Bichar, ASK, 2007, at p. 63.
65 ASK Documentation Unit.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
33
workers during the demolition by RAJUK of the multi-storied Rangs Bhaban,
caused widespread shock. The demolition started the day after the Appellate
Division had held that the floors above the sixth story of the building had
been constructed illegally without obtaining the necessary permission from
RAJUK. The apex court hearing took place in the context of widespread media
criticism of the state’s failure to act against illegal constructions by powerful
companies, given that it had been only too quick to demolish the hutments
of slum dwellers. Ironically, RAJUK’s failure to act in compliance with
its legal obligations, was first demonstrated by its failure to act against
RANGS for so many years, and second horrifyingly by its failure to observe
construction safety laws. The grim result was that on 5 August, one worker
fell to his death from the seventh floor of the building, while trying to demolish
it manually with hammers and other instruments. On 8 December, another
fourteen workers were killed when the building’s roof collapsed.66
Rangs Bhaban (left), demolition work (middle) and dead
body of a worker after collapse of Rangs Bhaban (Right) on
8 December, 2007.
Medical Negligence
According to news reports, some 126 persons including 34 children died as
a result of medical negligence. Reportedly some 18 cases were started in
relation to these incidents, but their outcome by year end was not known.67
66 Prothom Alo, 5 August, 2007; Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, 9 December, 2007. See section below on Workers’
Rights.
67 ASK Documentation Unit.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
34
Threats to Livelihood
Hawkers: The forcible evictions of hawkers from footpaths across the
country -- without any notice, or offer of compensation or alternative spaces
-- caused severe disruptions to the livelihoods and basic survival. The
Government’s logic in carrying out the evictions appeared to be that the
hawkers were illegally occupying these spaces and obstructing traffic or
pedestrian movements. Following widespread protests from the media
and human rights defenders, the Government eventually established five
holiday markets in Dhaka city, where hawkers were permitted to trade on
specified days of the week. This step was grossly inadequate to meeting
the needs of the thousands who had been affected by the evictions.
Hawkers competed to secure the few available spaces, sometimes with
appalling consequences: in one incident, two hawkers were reportedly run
over and killed by a pick-up while they were lying on a footpath in order
to occupy the space for their trading.68
Jute Mill Workers: In the name of saving the jute industry, the Government
embarked on a programme of closures and lay-offs, with severe
consequences for thousands of workers. On 1 August, a lay-off was
declared in relation to four nationalised jute mills. When a lay-off was
declared earlier on 15 April, workers immediately held protests
demanding arrears in wages and benefits due to them from Platinum,
then Crescent, Star and People’s Jute Mills. On 21 April, Abdur Rahman
Munshi, 54, a worker of Platinum Jute Mills was killed, allegedly
following police assault. Another ten workers reportedly died of hunger
and lack of medical care.69 A national relief committee was established by
the workers to start a langarkhana (soup kitchen), but this was not able to
function after the third day of food distribution, due to threats by the
police on duty to arrest those responsible.70 In other words, the state did
not support workers even in their legitimate claims to collect past wages
and benefits. Rather, it punished them.
68 Prothom Alo, Ittefaq, 23 June, 2007.
69 ASK Documentation Unit..
70 ASK Bulletin, September 2007, p 14; Shomokal, 24 September, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
35
6
RIGHT TO LIBERTY
The beginning of the year was marked by widespread violence, political instability
and a total lack of direction in terms of democratic succession in the
country. Violent confrontations between the two leading political alliances
leading to national shut-downs on the one hand and public protests on the
other, combined with draconian actions by the President Iajuddin headed
CTG, resulted in large sections of the urban population being confined to
their homes, facing restrictions on their rights to liberty and movement.
As the President Iajuddin led CTG appeared to lose control over the
increasingly politically turbulent situation the law enforcing authorities carried
out mass arrests against several thousand people, including people
sleeping in the streets in urban areas, on the eve of the 14 Party Alliance’s
planned three-day siege of Dhaka City, scheduled from 5-7 January. The
then CTG gave the Armed Forces the power to arrest without warrant
from dusk to dusk between 10 to 29 January. Over 30,000 people were arrested
during this time.71 It was becoming increasingly transparent that the
members of the then CTG and the Four Party Alliance were both intent
on holding elections, originally scheduled for 22 January at any cost and
that elections held in this situation would trigger violent conflict.
During the SoE
In this context, the stepping down of Dr. Iajuddin as the Chief Adviser
and the swearing in of new Advisors to the CTG was welcomed by many
political leaders and others in civil society. For the first few days the
71 ASK Documentation Unit.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
36
Promulgation of Emergency was accompanied by relative peace and quiet.
However, increasing disquiet was soon expressed at the imposition of
sweeping powers to the Government and the law enforcing agencies under
the EPO and the EPR. Extensive powers were given to law enforcement
agencies to arrest and detain persons, particularly for financial crimes and
on corruption allegations. Section 5 of the EPO provided that orders made
in the exercise of powers vested under the Ordinance were immune from
review by any court. By Emergency Powers Orders the right to move the
courts for enforcement of fundamental rights was suspended. The EPR
itself barred the right to bail for under trial prisoners and pending appeal.
These provisions and their applications are outlined below.
Emergency Powers Rules
Preventive Detention: Under Rule 16(2), read with Rule 19Gha of the
EPR, a person can be arrested and held in custody on suspicion of committing
a ‘prejudicial act’ for an indefinite period without any right to bail.
Rule 21 further provides that the provisions for issuance of orders of preventive
detention under the Special Powers Act 1974 (SPA) would be applicable
against persons suspected of having committed or about to commit
any offence under any law mentioned in the EPR. The combined application
of orders of detention under the SPA and arrests under Rule
16(2) by the joint forces resulted in alarming instances of curtailment of
liberty with very limited recourse to legal redress. In the absence of official
statistics, the number of persons held in custody was estimated in news
reports to stand at about 230,074.72 On 3 April 2007, the Appellate Division
stayed a series of judgments by the High Court which had declared
illegal orders of preventive detention, including those given to many ‘VIP’
detainees, on a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government challenging
the High Court’s jurisdiction to review such orders under Section
491(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the High Court contin-
72 ASK Documentation Unit on the basis of press-reports. It is unclear whether these figures include the
‘mass FIR’ cases which referred to thousands of un-named persons, but did not necessarily result in arrests,
and also whether they accounted for persons arrested, but subsequently released.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
37
ued to exercise its powers of habeas corpus, reviewing such detention orders
under its constitutional jurisdiction (under Art. 102(2)).
Restrictions on Bail: The EPR provisions which appeared to deny all
courts’ jurisdiction to grant bail to those accused under any law mentioned
in the Rules was challenged in Moyezuddin Sikder v DC Khulna.73 The High
Court in its judgment on 22 April stated that it was competent notwithstanding
the EPR provisions, which could not be applicable to the Supreme
Court, to entertain applications for bail in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On a petition
by the Government, the Appellate Division stayed the operation of
this judgment on 20 September.74
BOX VI.1 Jahangir Alam Akash
Jahangir Alam Akash, a Rajshahi-based journalist who worked for the Daily Sangbad,
news channel CSB75 and Deutsch Welle news agency, faced arrest and torture.
He was charged with extortion and obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court
on 16 October. While on bail, he was arrested by RAB on 23 October under Rule
16(2) EPR. He then obtained bail from the Rajshahi Sessions Judge’s Court on 19
November and came to Dhaka for treatment, but again faced a fresh case of extortion
on 25 November. This time an order of sanction was issued by the authorities,
bringing the case within the EPR. He was able to challenge the legality of the
sanction before the High Court and again obtained bail. Akash appeared to have
been targeted and victimised for his reports on alleged corruption and human
rights violations by certain influential people within the administration and within
the security forces, as well as powerful local political leaders.76
Bail to family members: An issue of particular concern arose as a result of
the practice of arresting close relatives of those accused of corruption. Even
in cases where there were no specific allegations against such persons, their
73 59 DLR (2007) 287.
74 Sangbad, 21 September, 2007. [Ed Note: The AD later reversed the judgment with some exceptions
being made, see footnote 17].
75 This channel had also been shutdown allegedly (according to media reports) in connection with their
reporting of the August incidents.
76 “Ondhokare 15 Ghonta” (15 Hours in Total Darkness) by Jahangir Alam Akash, published on 28
February, 2008; see also “One Year On: Human Rights in Bangladesh under the State of Emergency”,
Amnesty International, 10 January 2008. See- www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/one-yearhuman-
rights-bangladesh-under-state-emergency ; and see Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ),
News Alert 2007, New York, 26 October, 2007, http://www.cpj.org
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
38
applications for bail were not entertained by the courts since the cases
were being conducted under the EPR. Following increasing criticism of
this over-reach, the EPR was amended on 10 September expressly allowing
courts to consider granting bail to a co-accused if such person is wife, a
child aged 18 years or below, unmarried daughter, mother, mother-in-law
or sister of the main accused.
Corruption Related Arrests
Many of the arrests and detentions following the Emergency related to the
anti-corruption drive. Initially publicly welcomed, since this appeared an unprecedented
move in the history of the country and urgently needed, the
process was fraught with confusions and excesses. An issue of particular concern
was the method by which persons, including some ‘high profile’ figures,
were taken into custody. In some cases, they were first arrested without a warrant,
then they received orders of preventive detention, and only then faced
specific cases of corruption under the Anti Corruption Commission Act of
2004 or other specific allegations under special or ordinary criminal laws. Particularly
disturbing reports related to the alleged taking into custody of persons
by the joint forces to unknown locations and their interrogation, without
their production before any Court and without any information on the
grounds of arrest or their whereabouts being provided.
Arrests of Human Rights Defenders
Several noted human rights defenders were taken into custody in the first
weeks following the Emergency. Another wave of arrests affected NGO
personnel in the CHT following the abduction of a DANIDA Official (See
Chapter 15).
In the early hours of 12 January, within hours of the Proclamation of
Emergency, two senior officials of the Association of Development Associations,
Bangladesh (ADAB), Md. Abul Kashem Palash, Coordinator, Dhaka
Division, and Md. Aminul Islam, Director, were arrested by RAB from their
homes. They were taken to Dhaka Central Jail and served with orders of preventive
detention, on allegations that they were involved in ‘organising slum
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
39
dwellers’ and thereby causing a threat to national security. They were not produced
before any court nor allowed access to their lawyers for two months
into their arrest. The High Court declared their detention illegal and improper
on 26 February 2007. Although the Government filed appeals, the Advisory
Board recommended that the detention orders should not be extended, and
they were ultimately released after obtaining bail in several criminal cases that
had been filed against them on amongst others, allegations of rioting, unlawful
assembly, voluntarily causing hurt, etc.
On 17 January, Shahidul Islam, Director of Uttaran, an NGO based in
Satkhira, was arrested by the joint forces and taken to the local army camp
where he was allegedly tortured, before being handed over to the police. He
reportedly required urgent medical attention within hours of his detention
and remained hospitalized for a prolonged period.77 After the High Court
directed the Government to show cause as to why his detention should not
be declared unlawful, he was implicated in three separate criminal cases, on
charges of murder, and non-payment of arrears of wages to former employees.
One of the latter cases was brought within the EPR by way of issuance
of an order of sanction. Ultimately, the sanction order was withdrawn, and
Islam was released on bail by the High Court.
Incident at Dhaka University on 22 August, 2007
77 “Shathkhirai Uttaran Porichalok Shohidul Islam Grephtar” (The Director of Uttaran, Sathkhira Shahidul Islam
arrested), Shamokal, 28 January, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
40
August Protests
In early 2007, the practice of mass arrests, carried out to obstruct political
meetings or processions, common in previous years, decreased in number,
possibly precluded by the wholesale ban on public assembly put in place
under the SoE. However, this practice recurred in the aftermath of the August
protests which began on the Dhaka University Campus and spiralled
beyond. The violence began after an incident in which an army officer from
the camp established in the University playing fields reportedly slapped a
student for ‘bad manners’ while they were watching a football match. In
protest, students first demanded immediate withdrawal of army camps from
the campus. After failed attempts at mediation involving senior officers and
university teachers, the protests and ensuing violence spread out in the city,
with some reports pointing to the involvement of those beyond the campus,
including political parties. The police resorted to mass arrests, including of
students, in the aftermath of the incident and a curfew was imposed sine die.
Students who were being treated for wounds caused by police action left the
hospital, or refused to seek medical care, out of fear of arrest.78 The police
filed 35 cases in Dhaka against 82,300 un-named members of public, naming
only 18 of them, accusing them of involvement with the violence and
destruction that followed the incident.79 They also arrested about 200 people,
including students, in connection with these cases.80 There were four
cases in which three thousand un-named students from Dhaka and Jahangirnagar
Universities were implicated.81 Eventually, the Dhaka Metropolitan
Police Commissioner clarified that in fact these figures related to
multiple cases against the same individual, so the actual number of persons
accused in these cases would be around 10,000.82
Arrests of University Teachers and Students
On 24 August, the joint forces arrested five teachers from Dhaka and Rajshahi
Universities for their alleged involvement with the 22 August
78 Bhorer Kagoj, 22 August, 2007.
79 Bhorer Kagoj, 26 August, 2007.
80 Jugantor, 25 August, 2007.
81 Jugantor 26 August, 2007.
82 Bhorer Kagoj, 27 August, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
41
incident at Dhaka University and its aftermath. They were not informed of
the allegations against them, and were taken to unknown locations for
questioning. The families of these teachers only came to learn about their
whereabouts 36 hours after their arrest. Family members of Professor
Anwar Hossain, General Secretary of the Dhaka University Teachers Association,
and Professor Harun-ur Rashid alleged that both men were
physically and mentally tortured during interrogation.83 In a separate case,
in December, at the trial of six teachers of Rajshahi University, two of the
teachers were acquitted and four were convicted on charges of violating
emergency provisions by participating in a silent procession to show support
for those arrested at Dhaka University. However, in the face of increasing
student-led protest, in particular focused within Dhaka and Rajshahi
Universities, presidential pardons were granted to the four convicted
teachers of Rajshahi University Moloy Kumar Bhowmik, Syed Selim Reza
Newton, Dulal Chandra Biswas and Md. Abdullah al Mamun - and they
were released on 10 December.84 On 22 January 2008, three of the arrested
Dhaka University teachers, Dr. Sadrul Amin, Dr Anwar Hossain and Dr
Harun-ur Rashid, were convicted of breaching the Emergency Powers
Rules, but were released on the same day following the issuance of Presidential
pardons.85 Professor Nimchandra Bhowmik was acquitted.
Demand by teachers and students on campus for trial of army and police re August incident
83 Jugantor, 26 August 2007.
84 Prothom Alo, 11 December 2007.
85 New Nation, 23 January 2008.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
42
Threatened Arrest of Farmers
Farmers who demonstrated against state failure to ensure the adequate
supply and distribution of fertiliser also found themselves the victims of
mass arrests. On 4 July 2007, the police filed a criminal case against five
thousand un-named farmers in Chapai Nowabganj District, after farmers
queuing up for fertiliser in front of the Nachole Upazilla Parishad office
had protested violently against the refusal of concerned officers to deliver
fertiliser.86 Again, on 20 August, in Pabna, after a group of frustrated farmers
had barricaded the highway and brought out processions demanding
access to fertiliser, the police filed a case against 400 farmers, accusing
them of unlawful assembly and destructive activities.87
86 Jugantor, 11 July, 2007.
87 Shamokal, 23 August, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
43
7
RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL
Emergency Rules and fair trial: The Emergency Powers Ordinance and
Rules established a legal framework that provided for special procedures to
be applied regarding the investigation and trial in Special Courts of certain
offences (mostly related to financial crimes and corruption)88 to enable
them to be fast-tracked and prioritised. The Rules also provided for offences
relating to ordinary crimes - under the Penal Code for example - in
cases where a sanction was given by the Government to be brought within
their purview.89
Concerns were raised regarding the manner of issuance of sanctions in
a number of cases, and writs were filed before the Supreme Court challenging
the basis for their issuance. However, only limited remedies were
initially available from the higher courts given suspension of the right to
seek judicial enforcement of fundamental rights by Emergency Orders
Nos. 1 and 2.
In several cases of high profile or ‘VIP’ corruption suspects, specific
criminal charges were also accompanied by orders of preventive detention.
Rule 21 of the EPR specifically provided that the provisions of the Special
Powers Act 1974 could be applied in respect of persons who were suspected
of having committed any offences mentioned in Rule 14 or 15.
88 Rules 14 and 15 declared the offences in respect of which the emergency provisions would be applicable.
They include possession of illegal arms and explosives, sabotage, hoarding, adulteration of food and
medicine, counterfeiting currency and government stamps, black-marketing, smuggling, possession of
narcotics, and offences under the Anti Corruption Commission Act 2004, the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act 2002 and the Income Tax Ordinance 1984..
89 Rule 19 (Nio) of the EPR provided for the requirement of prior sanction of the government if the provisions
of the EPR were sought to be applied in the investigation, trial, appeal, bail, and other relevant
matters in relation to a case.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
44
A number of high-profile cases of alleged corruption occurring under
previous regimes were brought within the Emergency Powers Rules.
About 77 former Ministers, MPs and business persons, as well as the two
former Prime Ministers, were arrested in relation to offences triable under
the emergency provisions.
Bail: Rule 19Gha of the EPR states that an application for bail cannot be entertained
by any court if a case is being tried under the emergency provisions.
Although the High Court gave a judgment holding90 that this Rule could
not preclude the Supreme Court from entertaining applications for bail,
the judgment was stayed pending appeal by the Appellate Division and at
year end awaited a final determination on the issue. 91
Investigation: In several ‘high-profile’ cases, interrogation tapes were leaked,
and the contents of ‘confessions’ by the accused person were widely reported
and broadcast, effectively leading to a trial by media.
Torture and Ill-Treatment in Custody: Reports of torture in custody were
made in relation to several cases involving human rights defenders and
‘VIPs’ (see Chapter 8).
Trial by special courts: Rule 19Ka of the EPR has laid down a strict limit
of 60 days for the disposal of cases under Rule 14 or 15 by any court or
tribunal. As a result of this, the rate of disposal of cases by the Anti-
Corruption Tribunals have been faster than in the past. However, reportedly
proceedings of 150 corruption cases have been stayed by the higher
court following writ petitions by defendants.92
Penalties: The excessive length of the sentences delivered in cases tried
under the EPR provoked concern. Media commentaries commented that
the Tribunals in passing these sentences failed to apply their discretion in a
judicious manner.
Death sentences: The conviction of seven members of the Jama'atul Mujahideen
Bangladesh (JMB) for the November 2005 assassination by bomb
attack of two judges at Jhalakathi, was followed by their execution by
90 Moyezuddin Sikder v DC Khulna, 59 DLR (2007) 287.
91 [Ed Note: See footnote 17 re Appellate Division reversing this judgment in 2008].
92 The Daily Star, 5 February 2008.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
45
hanging in the late hours of 29 March at different jails across the country.93
All the death sentences were examined and confirmed by the High Court
in an extraordinarily expeditious manner and their appeals for clemency
were also turned down by the President of the country. Despite the consensus
amongst major human rights organisations against capital punishment,
these executions attracted little or no comment other than speculation
about why the sentences were executed in such haste.94
Juvenile justice: The right of juveniles to a fair trial was recognised by the
Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in State v Md. Roushan Mondal alias
Hashem,95 which re-emphasised the requirement under the Children Act
1974 of ascertaining the age of the child accused and the need to keep
them out of confinement either by releasing them to the custody of their
parents or guardians or by considering their discharge under Section 53 of
the 1974 Act.
93 The Daily Star, 31 March, 2007.
94 See Bangladesher Jongi Tothporota o Tar Bichar, ASK, 2007.
95 59 DLR (2007) 72. See section on judgments.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
46
8
RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM TORTURE
Allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment
continued to be of concern in 2007. Reportedly, out of 180 extrajudicial
executions during the course of the year, 27 occurred following torture.
96 A case which catalysed national and international attention outrage
was that of Cholesh Richil, a Garo community leader and environmental
activist, who died on 18 March, following his arrest by the joint forces (see
Box V.1).97 Allegations of torture on other prominent human rights defenders
were also made during the year. For example, on 27 January, Shahidul
Islam, the Director of the NGO Uttaran, Tala, Satkhira, was reportedly
tortured in custody after his initial arrest by the Joint Forces as a result
of which he spent weeks in the Jail Hospital.98 In February, Rang Lai Mro, a
leader of the Mro community, prominent environmental activist, and elected
local Union Parishad Chairman of Sualak, Bandarban in the Chittagong Hill
Tracts, was arrested and reportedly tortured by army personnel. He too was
hospitalised for weeks in a serious condition. Tasnim Khalil, a freelance
96 See Table V.1: Extra Judicial Killing in 2007.
97 “Adibashi neta Cholesh Ritchil er mrittur ghotonai gotito bichar bibhagio tadonto committeer protibedon prokash kora
hok” (Publish the report of Judicial Inquiry Committee constituted on Indigenous leader Cholesh
Ritchil’s death), written statement by Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Association for Land Reform and Development
(ALRD), Nijera Kori, Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and Bangladesh
Environmental Lawyer’s Association (BELA), National Press Club, 28 February, 2008. See
http://askbd.org/web/.
98 “Shathkhirai Uttaran Porichalok Shohidul Islam Greftar” (The Director of Uttaran, Shathkhira Shahidul Islam
arrested), Shamokal, 28 January, 2007. See also Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2007, Released
by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, US Department of State,
11 March , 2008, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100612.htm .
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
47
journalist who also worked on projects for Human Rights Watch and was
CNN’s local news representative was arrested on 11 May, 2007, by the Directorate
General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and tortured for 22 hours
following his arrest [See Box VIII.1].99 Jahangir Alam Akash, a journalist
and human rights activist, was arrested and beaten by RAB in Rajshahi on
23 October, 2007 [see Box VI.1]. No action as been taken to investigate any
of these allegations of torture.100
BOX VIII.1: Tasnim Khalil
Disquiet grew in cases where the law enforcing agencies were seen to extend
their targets beyond the allegedly corrupt to dissenting voices within civil society.
The journalist Tasnim Khalil was arrested by the joint forces on 10 May
without any warrant or any specific charge.101 He was not informed of any specific
allegation against him, instead being told that they could arrest anyone
without warrant under the emergency powers.102 Khalil was later on released
without any charge on 11 May at 11 p.m. He has since confirmed in an interview
with Human Rights Watch that he was arrested at gunpoint for his reports
criticising the activities of RAB and the excesses of the joint forces. During
the interrogation he was physically abused and tortured by the joint forces
who repeatedly accused him of anti-state activities, and lowering the image of
the country in the eyes of foreigners.103 Following extensive advocacy on his
behalf nationally and internationally, Khalil was able to leave Bangladesh with
his family and sought asylum in Sweden.
There were no reports available as to whether any action had been taken
against those responsible. Following the August incidents on Dhaka University
Campus and beyond, several of the teachers and students arrested
99 “The Torture of Tasnim Khalil: How the Bangladesh Military Abuses Its Power under the State of
Emergency”,Human Rights Watch, February 2008 Volume 20, No. 1(C), Seewww.
hrw.org/reports/2008/bangladesh0208/.
100 “One Year On: Human Rights in Bangladesh under the State of Emergency”, Amnesty International,
10 January, 2008. See- www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/one-year-human-rightsbangladesh-
under-state-emergency ; see also “Bangladesh: Indigenous peoples living on the edges of
riots”, Asian Centre for Human Rights, 29 August, 2007.
101 “The Torture of Tasnim Khalil: How the Bangladesh Military Abuses Its Power under the State of
Emergency”, Human Rights Watch, February 2008 Volume 20, No. 1(C), Seewww.
hrw.org/reports/2008/bangladesh0208/.
102 Bhorer Kagaj, 12 May, 2007.
103 “The Torture of Tasnim Khalil, How the Bangladesh Military Abuses its Power under the State of
Emergency”, Human Rights Watch, February 2008, Volume 20, No 1(c). See
http://hrw.org/reports/2008/bangladesh0208/ .
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
48
were also reportedly tortured.104 A Judicial Inquiry Commission established
following this incident took evidence but by the time this report went to
press it had not yet been published, although the Government had stated
that this would be done.105
Other than human rights defenders, several of the 127 so-called “VIP”
prisoners – including former Ministers and business persons -- facing serious
corruption charges alleged that they had been subjected to torture including
threats of being killed in 'crossfire’.
While Emergency Rules prohibited seeking any judicial remedies for
enforcing fundamental rights, the High Court and, in an important new
development, the lower courts, began to issue directions that police interrogation
be carried out at the jail gate in pursuance of earlier High Court
guidelines which had previously only rarely been applied.106 Media reports
indicated that such directions had largely been given in cases involving
‘VIP’ prisoners. For example, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an
order on 16 October to interrogate Md. Nurul Islam, Chairman of Jamuna
Group, at Dhaka Central Jail Gate.107
An initiative was taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs108 during the
year for reform of the century old Police Act 1861, with proposals drafted
for establishing an independent Police Complaints Commission and for
incorporating in the new law the High Court’s guidelines on arrest without
warrant and on remand. However, as of the end of the year, the Government
had yet to initiate any public consultations on the draft law.109 The
104 “Char Shikkhokh 11 Shikkhatri bekoshur khalash: shaja praptoder dondo moukuph” (Four teachers, 11 students
acquitted: sentences pardoned) Jugantor, 22 January, 2008, Dr. Anwar Hossain’s Speech, TSC, 23
January, 2008.
105 Ed Note: On 15 November, 2007, the Judicial Inquiry Commission headed by Justice Habibur Rahmen
handed over the report which reportedly identified 24 primary causes for the incident and also
contained a finding that the teachers had not provoked the situation to the Chief Advisor, but it has
not yet been published. Shomokal, 12 March, 2008, Jugantor, 3 April, 2008.
106 These guidelines are set out in Bangladesh Legal Aid Trust and Others v Bangladesh, 55 DLR (2003) 363.
107 “Nurul Islam Babul-key jail gatey jiggashabad korar nirdesh (Direction to interrogate Nuril Islam Babul at the
jail gate), Prothom Alo, 17 October, 2007.
108 Police Reform Programme, Bangladesh Police, Ministry of Home Affairs, See- http://www.prp.org.bd/.
109 “The Daily Star Roundtable on Draft Bangladesh Police Ordinance 2007”, The Daily Star, 6 September,
2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
49
proposed National Human Rights Commission110 if set up and given effective
powers could at least have met the demand to provide for independent
investigations of allegations of torture, but till the date of printing the
NHRC had not been established.111
110 “Jatio Manobadhikar Commission Oddhadesh 2007” (National Human Rights Commission Ordinance
2007), Ordinance 40 of 2007.
111 [Ed. note: The National Human Rights Commision Ordinance 2007 came into force from 1 September
2008, but the NHRC itself had not been constituted at the date of publication of this report].
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
50
9
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The right to freedom of press and information faced an immediate threat
with the promulgation of the SoE, as the Emergency Powers Order and
Rules both contained wide-ranging provisions for restricting freedom of
expression. In the face of widespread media criticism, the Government declared
that these legal provisions would not be applied. In practice, however,
the media remained under pressure, receiving frequent telephone directives,
which in turn induced chronic self-censorship.
Immediately after the August demonstrations on the Dhaka University
campus and beyond, the Government specifically asked two private broadcasters,
Ekushey Television (ETV) and CSB News, to refrain from broadcasting
any ‘provocative’ news, documentaries, talk shows and discussions
critical of the government.
A number of journalists faced torture, threats or harassment from law
enforcement agencies, (gangsters), government officials, or the student
wings of various major political parties as noted in Table IX.1. Cases were
brought against 63 journalists and three newspapers in connection with
published reports, and two legal notices were served on newspapers.
Reports of journalists facing threats and harassment from security
forces raised particular concern.Two journalists who had published investigative
reports critical of the military were Tasnim Khalil and Jahangir
Alam Akash. Khalil, a freelance journalist was arrested on 10 May from his
home and reportedly taken to an army camp and tortured [See Box VIII.1
and VI.1 respectively].
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
51
Table IX.1: Violence against journalists in 2007112
Nature of Violence and Alleged Perpetrators Number/Person
Murdered 3
Threat to Murder 56
Newspaper/TV Channel banned 2
Intimidation/threats/harassment by
Law enforcing agencies 97
Local “terrorists” 72
Militants, including underground leftwing groups 37
BNP Cadres 8
Awami League Cadres 7
Islami Chattro Shibir 3
BNP and AL jointly 10
Government employees 5
Others 8
Besides the government, the media have also faced intimidation from
other quarters. Editors of national newspapers tendered an apology
through a statement in the national press, and in a meeting before the
Khatib of the National Mosque, for any ‘inadvertent hurt to religious sentiment’.
These apologies were made in the wake of repeated protests, processions
and threats by certain extremist organisations following the publication
of a cartoon in Prothom Alo’s satirical supplement, Alpin,113 on 17
September. The cartoonist, Arifur Rahman, faced arrest and detention for
over six months (see box).114 Saptahik 2000 (Weekly 2007), a weekly magazine
(belonging to the same group of newspapers as Prothom Alo), was
also compelled to withdraw its 21 September issue and its editor, publisher
and writer, noted poet Daud Haidar, were accused in a separate criminal
case of ‘causing hurt to religious sentiment’ for printing certain comments
by Daud Haidar.115
112 Statistics compiled from 13 national dailies.
113 Prothom Alo, Special weekly publication Alpin issue no. 431, 17 September, 2007.
114 The specific case against him was C R Case No. 2298 of 2007 dated 20 September, 2007 under section
295A of Penal Code. [Ed note: He was acquitted in 2008].
115 “Shaptahik 2000 editor, publisher, writer sued”, New Age, 26 September, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
52
BOX IX.1: The case of Md. Arifur Rahman
The harassment of Md Arifur Rahman, a freelance cartoonist, for the reproduction
of a cartoon already in circulation was a classic example of the abuse
of executive power and abuse of the legal process. Arif was taken into custody
by the Detective Branch of the police after a cartoon drawn by him was published
in a weekly supplement of the daily Prothom Alo on 17 September. He
was kept in the Tejgaon Police Station lock-up without being told why he was
being detained, refused permission to contact friends and family and denied
access to a lawyer. Despite the fact that he was never produced in court, as
required after any arrest, the Magistrate sent him to jail custody. Two days
later, a criminal case was filed against him under Section 295A of the Penal
Code, charging him with hurting religious sentiments.
Arif was not given any opportunity to consult a lawyer, either while he was
in police custody or after he was charged of a criminal offence and sent to jail
in that connection.116 Weeks after confinement in Dhaka Central Jail, Arif was
suddenly informed that an order of detention had been passed against him on
19 September, even though there was already a criminal case against him on
the same matter. This detention order was subsequently extended, on two occasions,
at each time for a period of ninety days,117 before finally being declared
to be without lawful authority by the High Court. Arif was ultimately
acquitted in 2008 by the trial court and released from custody.
Besides intimidation, the media, both print and electronic, have also experienced
severe crises financial and otherwise resulting from some of
their owners being implicated in cases of corruption. The declaration and
media enlistment of more than 160 newspapers and periodicals were cancelled
on allegations of irregular publications while one daily newspaper,
Ajker Kagoj, announced that it was closing down due to fund shortages.118
The first 24-hour news channel in the country, CSB, was taken off air on 7
September, 2007, after being formally charged with forgery media commentary
however referred to CSB’s sympathetic broadcast of the August
student protests as the unstated reason for its closure.119
116 Appeal to the Chief Advisor by 25 prominent citizen on 24 January, 2008.
117 Arif’s detention was declared illegal by the High Court on 4 February, 2008.
118 “Ajker Kagoj shut down”, The Daily Star, 20 September, 2007.
119 Rajshahi based journalist Jahangir Alam Akash, who was a regional correspondent for CSB, and was
arrested shortly after the closing of the television station, has noted that while he was in custody, RAB
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
53
Journalists and other staff members in several media organisations, including
the daily newspapers Janakantha, Amar Desh, Khabarpatra and Khabarer
Antaraley, and the television channels Channel 1, RTV, Baishakhi and Bijoy
TV were deprived of regular wages and other financial benefits for months
on end after their respective editors and owners failed to arrange payment
for them, after being arrested on charges of corruption, many of them being
former Ministers or businessmen or persons close to the previous ruling
parties whose means of acquisition of the media houses were not always
transparent.120 The Government declared a wage board award for the
media industry, but the award became uncertain due to various concerns
raised, and no review committee was established by year end to re-examine
and eradicate the flaws.
The only major positive development involved the Government’s announcement
that it would promulgate a law on the Right to Information
Bill, and a draft Bill was finally made available for public discussion in
2008, a long-cherished demand of the media people and citizens’ group. 121
Several features limiting the right for information were widely criticized by
human rights groups and in the media.
Several persons who were subsequently convicted on corruption
charges instituted criminal cases for defamation against newspapers which
had printed such allegations. For example, a former Minister of the Four
Party Alliance filed a defamation case on 16 January, 2007 against editor Golam
Sarwar, publisher Salma Islam and the owner Md. Nurul Islam of Jugantor
for publishing a report namely “Durnitite first Najmul Huda” (Najmul
officials specifically mentioned CSB among other news outlets for which he had turned in critical reports:
see Box. VI.1 See also “CSB News silenced: Given 7 days to explain why permission won't be
cancelled permanently”, The Daily Star, 7 September, 2007.
120 Janakantha editor and publisher Atiqullah Khan Masud; Amar Desh, NTV and RTV chairman Mosaddak
Ali Falu MP(BNP); NTV managing director Enayetur Rahman Bappi; Channel 1 chairman MAH Selim
and managing director Giasuddin Al Mamun, close associate of the former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia’s
son Tareq Rahman; CSB director Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, Advisor to former Prime Minister
Khaled Zia; The Independent’s owner, Beximco’s Vice-chairman Salman F Rahman; Jugantor owner Nurul
Islam Babul; Khabarpatra owner Hafiz Ibrahim; Khabarer Antoraley publisher Sigma Huda, Advocate and Bijoy
TV chairman ABM Mohiuddin Chowdhury, Mayor of Chittagong were arrested and detained during
the anti-corruption drive. Shamakal owner Abul Kalam Azad reportedly went into hiding after being asked
by the Anti-Corruption Commission to submit his wealth statements.
121 See web site of Bangladesh Government, Ministry of Infromation, http://www.moi.gov.bd/.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
54
Huda is the first in Corruption) on 13 January, 2007.122 In another case,
the Metropolitan Magistrate on 18 January, 2007 asked the editor, publisher
and the chief reporter of Jugantor to appear before the court after
former State Minister for Home Affairs, Lutfozzaman Babar, filed a defamation
case with respect to a report titled “Iman Ali of Savar fell victim to
Babar” on 9 November, 2006 and another report “Babar: Mr. Ten Percent”
on 15 January, 2007.123 Other defamation cases were filed by
Khamba Limited against Jugantor on 21 January,124 by the former Mayor of
Rajshahi City Corporation and BNP leader, Mayor Mizanur Rahman Minu,
against Prothom Alo on 31 January,125 by the former head of the Board of
Investment Mahmudur Rahman against The Daily Star on 6 February126 and
on 12 March.127
Despite some progress, none of the trials of the persons accused of
killing leading journalists had concluded by year end. In the case regarding
the 2004 murder of Manik Saha, which had remained pending under investigation
for many years,128 the Detective Branch of the Police finally submitted
an additional charge sheet on 21 November, 2007.129 In the case
regarding the 2000 killing of Shamsur Rahman, Jessore bureau chief of the
daily Janakantha, there has been no further progress since the submission
of the charge sheet in 2005.130
122 “Jugantorer biruddhe Najmul Hudar manhani mamla” (Defamation case against Jugantor by Nazmul Huda)
Inqilab, 17 January, 2007; “Jugantorer biruddhe Najmul Hudar manhani mamla” (Defamation case against Jugantor
by Nazmul Huda), Sangbad, 17 January, 2007
123 “Jugantorer biruddhe Baborer manhani mamla” (Defamation case against Jugantor by Babar), Bhorer Kagoj, 19
January, 2007; “Babar sues Jugantor editor for defamation”, The Daily Star, 19 January, 2007.
124 “Judicial probe ordered into cases against Jugantor editor”, The Daily Star, 22 January, 2007; “Jugantorer
biruddhe Khambar mamla” (Khamba sued Jugantor for defamation), Prothom Alo, 22 January, 2007.
125 “Prothom Alor biruddhe Minur mamla” (Minu filed case against Prothom Alo), Prothom Alo, 1 February,
2007; “Minu sues Prothm Alo editor, publisher”, New Age, 1 February, 2007.
126 “Daily Star-er biruddhe Mahmudur Rahman-er mamla daier” (Mahmudur Rahman filed case against
The Daily Star), Prothom Alo, 7 February, 2007.
127 “Mahmudur sues The Daily Star for 25cr defamation”, The Daily Star, 13 March, 2007. See ASK, Human
Rights in Bangladesh 2006, ASK, Dhaka 2007 regarding earlier defamation case filed by Mahmudur Rahman
against the Centre for Policy Dialogue.
128 “Bichar to durer kotha teen bochore shesh hoini purno todonto” (Investigation has not been completed
yet, even 3 years has elapsed), Sangbad, 15 January, 2007.
129 “Sompurop obhijog pottro dakhil koreche DB” (Additional charge sheet submitted by Detective Branch),
Prothom Alo, 1 December, 2007.
130 “Sangbadik Shamsur Rahmaner shoptom mrittu barshiki” (Journalist Shamsur Rahman’s 7th death anniversary:
trial still pending), Prothom Alo, 16 July, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
55
10
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
While there were few reports of interference with the practice of religion,
there were incidents of discrimination against certain religious groups in terms
of denial of equal protection of the law with respect to enjoyment of property
as well as in respect of acts of violence by private parties and little evidence of
action to effectively investigate and prosecute in such cases. The year saw
continuing reports of expropriation of land, both through use, or rather
abuse, of law and through forced evictions and occupations, as well as sporadic
reports of attacks on individuals within certain religious communities.
‘Vested’ Property
The year saw continuing reports of powerful interests forcibly dispossessing
members of religious and ethnic minorities of their lands, with little
evidence of state action to intervene or provide redress. Six years after the
enactment of the Vested Properties (Return) Act 2001, it was apparent that
many properties illegally declared as vested properties had still not been
restored to their original owners. The extent of such dispossession was
underscored in a new study by Professor Abul Barakat, claiming that some
1.2 million Hindu families out of a total population of 2.7 million Hindu
families nationwide had been affected directly by this law, and that within
the last six years from 2001- 2007, about 200,000 Hindu families had lost
1,22,000 bighas of land in this way.131 This study further suggested that the
131 Abul Barkat, Shafique uz Zaman, Md. Shahnewaz Khan, Avijit Poddar, Saiful Hoque,M Taher Uddin,
“Deprivation of Hindu Minority in Bangladesh Living with Vested Property”, ALRD, SAMATA, NIJERA
KORI, HDRC, Pathak Shamabesh, 2008.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
56
majority of those who had benefited from abuse of the law included persons
with close connections to the Government of the time, and to political
parties.132
In many land-grabbing cases, minority-owned lands continue to be
forcibly expropriated through illegal occupation and forced eviction. In
some cases, government authorities were directly implicated. For example,
on 5 June 2007, the authorities in the Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka tried to
evict a largely Hindu community of about 8,000 persons, and to remove a
temple from the settlement at Chakuli, following public announcements in
the area. News reports stated that there are several pending lawsuits relating
to the area, and even an order of the High Court for maintaining the
status quo with respect to occupation of the land. Following a news-report
published on 6 June 2007,133 ASK’s investigation team visited the site,
called on the concerned authorities to address the rights of the inhabitants,
and drew attention to the destruction of their homes and the threat to a
place of worship, and the need to follow appropriate legal procedures, and
in particular to respect any pending High Court orders.134
In other cases, the persons responsible for such dispossession were local
gangs or powerful persons. It was unclear from the information available
whether there had been any intervention by the police in any of these
cases. For example, in Gobindopur village, Union Sripur, Jamalpur, a group
of share-croppers allegedly took forcible possession of some five acres of
land owned by Sachinda Mohan Dev, after threatening him and his family,
who appealed to the Government for redress.135 Again, in Bara Andharmanik
village, Upazilla Kachua, Bagherhat, freedom fighter Balahari
132 Ibid.The report claimed that during the tenure of the Awami League government, in 1997, 44% and
32% of those responsible for taking over vested property were involved with the Awami League and
the BNP respectively, while during the BNP’s tenure, in 2006, some 45% of those responsible were involved
with the BNP, 31% with Awami League, 8% with Jamaat-e-Islami, and 6% with the Jatiya
Party.
133 “An effort to evict houses and temple in Pallabi”, Prothom Alo.
134 “Effort to evict dwelling houses including temple in Pallabi, ASK’s concerns”, Press Release, Dated 7
June, 2007.
135 “Jamalpure Songkha loghu poribarer 5 acre jomi jobor dokhol: proshashoner dare dare ghureo protikar meleni” (Five
acres of land of minority family of Jamalpur were grabbed: no remedy from the administration), Sangbad,
22 February, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
57
Mridha and his wife Shantirani Mridha were reportedly beaten up and
forcefully evicted from their ancestral homestead on 3 July 2007, by an
armed gang reportedly with the help of the police. Following an earlier
threat of eviction on 14 June 2007, Mridha had sought the intervention of
the Executive Officer of the Upazilla, who asked the concerned Officer in
Charge to take action, but no action was taken thereafter.
Other incidents of eviction were reported in relation to attacks by local
gangsters on vulnerable communities, and the landless. A news report alleged
that the police had failed to take any action after an arson attack on 7
January 2007 by an armed gang on 50 landless households mainly from the
Santal and Hindu communities136 who had been living for eight months
on government owned land at Amui’r village, No 2 Sundarban Union, Sadar
Dinajpur Upazilla. Reportedly, the attackers threw a five year old child
into the fire and threatened to kill the 150 people living in those dwellings,
and injured some 22 persons.137 Shammilito Shamajik Andolon and ASK
conducted a joint investigation into these allegations. They found that the
attackers had held the child hostage, while they forced other inhabitants to
leave the houses before setting it alight. The authorities, including the District
Administrator, the Executive Officer of the Sadar Upazilla and AC
(Land) had denied that these families were landless and claimed that they
had occupied land owned by a private party with the backing of ‘some
NGOs’. At the time of investigation, the affected families remained on the
land and most appeared, on initial inquiry, to be landless.138
Attacks on Temples, Festivals
As in earlier years, sporadic incidents of destruction of idols and attacks on
Hindu temples were noted in the media. Relatively prompt police responses
were also reported, though the final outcomes of these incidents
were not known. In one report, it was alleged that an attack by some local
shontrashis [gangsters] resulted in injuries to some fifteen persons including
women in Chandpur village, Union Kadra, Upazilla Shenbag, Noakhali, on
136 “Dinajpure shonkhaloguder 50 barite petrol dhele agun diache sontrashira” [Terrorists after pouring petrol set
alight 50 households of religious minorities], Janakantha, 9 January, 2007.
137 Ibid.
138 Report of ASK and Shonmilito Shamajik, following onsite investigation on 28 January, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
58
28 January 2007, with the police arresting six people that day.139 In another
incident, some eight persons were hurt, and a temple and its deities destroyed
in Naogaon fishing village in Upazilla Bajitpur in Kishoregonj, on
24 March 2007, with the police then arresting five people.140
BOX X.1: Ending Impunity? Arson Attack and Murder
in Shil Family, Bashkhali
On 18 November 2003, an arson attack on the home of Tejendra Shil, in Shilpara
village, Shandganpur, Banshkhali Upazilla, Chittagong resulted in the
deaths of a family of eleven, including a child aged 4 days and a man aged 75
years. Despite repeated claims by the victims that an influential elected local
government official and political leader were involved the police submitted a
charge sheet to the Bashkhali Magistrate’s Court on 14 December 2005 which
did not include them. The Magistrate accepted the charge sheet and on 15 October
2006 sent the case to the Chittagong Sessions Court for trial. Rana Das
Gupta, the prosecuting lawyer, alleged that the police had deliberately submitted
the charge sheet more than two years after the incident, and omitted any
reference to the killings and without any substantial and proper investigation,
without even taking into consideration the statements made by the accused to
RAB, police and journalists regarding the involvement of certain people in the
commission of the offence.141 On 17 October, the complainant challenged the
charge sheet and applied for re-investigation.142 On the application of the
complainant, Bimol Shil, the Sessions Court, Chittagong, finally ordered reinvestigation
of the incident.143
In another incident, it was reported that a group led by a Jubodal leader of
Upazilla Dumuria, District Khulna, threw a Durga idol in the pond on 30
September and that the police visited the place and promised to take
action.144 Again, on 8 October 2007 a Durga idol under construction was
139 “Shenbage Hindu-der utshob-e hamla: mohila shaho ahoto 15, atok 6”, Janakantha, 28 January, 2007; “Shenbage
Hindu samproda-er dormio onushthan-e hamla, ahoto 15”, Jugantor, 28 January, 2007.
140 “Bajitpur-e puja mondop-e santrashi hamlai 8 jon ahoto, grepter 5”, Prothom Alo, 27 March, 2007.
141 Ibid.
142 “Banskhalite lomhorshak 11 hatta mamla: charge sheet grohon na kore punorai todonter adesh” Bhorer Kagoj, 21
March, 2007. See also “Banskhalite 11 hatta mamla odiktortodonter adesh”, Jugantor, 21 March, 2007;“Obhijog
pottro karij punorai todonter adesh”, Prothom Alo, 21 March, 2007; “Banskhalite 11 hatta mamla odhiktodonter
nirdesh Janakantha, 22 March, 2007; Banshkhalite tragedy dibosh-e nihoto der shorone shobha: hottakander mool
ashami Aminur Rahman-k grapt-er dabi”, Jugantor, 19 November, 2007; “Banskhalir 11 jonke puriya hatta
mamla todonter nam-e prohoshon”, Shamokal, 19 November, 2007.
143 Ibid.
144 “Dumuria-e jubodal neta-r nettrette protima pukure phele deha holo”Janakantha, 3 October, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
59
destroyed in village Nauripara, Upazilla Kalmakanda of District Netrokona.
When the Police Superintendant of Netrokona was informed
about this incident, he reportedly asked the Kalmakanda police station to
take necessary action after investigation.145 In Dargacha Dakkhin Para, Union
Kharna, Upazilla Shahjahanpur, Bogra, a group of persons destroyed
four idols under construction on 7 October 2007. When the local Puja
Celebration Committee informed the police, the response they initially received
was that the incident had occurred due to a dispute regarding a private
pond. The matter was ultimately settled by mediation between the
communities.146
Attacks on Individuals
Attack on Ahmadiyas: The Khatme Nabuwat Movement (KNM) Bangladesh,
which has spearheaded the campaign against Ahmadiya Muslim
Jamaat, and also been implicated in attacks and threats on individual
Ahmadiyas, was not able to hold any public events during the SoE. However,
there were several serious threats to the life and property of members
of the Ahmadiya community, allegedly led by the KNM and by other
Islamist groups.147 For example, the house of Abdus Sattar, President of
the Ahmadiya Muslim Jamaat, Shorishabari Upazilla branch, was burnt
down on 14 February 2007.148
On 1 May 2007, the “Jadid-Al-Quaida Bangladesh”, a hitherto unknown
organisation, claimed responsibility for planting bombs in Dhaka,
Chittagong and Sylhet and circulated leaflets threatening to kill the members
of Ahmadiya Muslim Jamaat unless they accepted the Holy Prophet
Mohammed (PBUH) as the last prophet by 10 May 2007.149 The police
145 “Komla bander nauriparai durga protima bhangchur”Ittefaq, 10 October, 2007; “Netrokona-e durga pujar murti
bhangchur”, Shamokal, 10 October 2007; “Netrokona-e durga protima bhangchur”, 10 October, 2007.
146 Bogura-r Shahjanpure durga protima bhangchur”, Bhorer Kagoj, 10 October, 2007.
147 “Series Explosions: Ahmadiyyas point at bigots”, The Daily Star, 8 May, 2007; “Ahmadiyya muslim jamater
Ahoban: Amader dhormo-kormo korte din”, Prothom Alo, 8 May, 2007; “Ahmadiyyas call for identifying patrons
of militants” New Age, 8 May, 2007 . See AMJB Press Conference, 7 May 2007 claiming that
Alami Majlish-e-Tahfuje Khatme Nabuwat, Khatme Nabuwat Sangrakkhan Committee, Amra Bangladeshi
and Jahase Mostaba might be involved with KNM Bangladesh/
148 “Shoribarite Ahmadiyya jamater shobhapotir barite Agni sangjog”, Prothom Alo, 16 February, 2007.
149 “Shara deshe nirapotta jordar: Ahmadiyya somprodai o NGO-te atokongko” Sangbad, 3 May, 2007; “Boma hamla:
Kulnai Ahmadiyya-ra atongke” Janakantha, 3 May, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
60
filed a criminal case, but its outcome was not known.150 Reportedly, the
Jongi Domon [Anti-Terrorism] Cell within the police began investigations
into Jadid-Al-Quaida. The Ahmadiya community reported that there was
no regular police deployment at any of their mosques and that they had
not been informed of any arrests or other action taken to bring those responsible
to account.
Voter Registration
While official statistics regarding religion were not compiled during the
voter registration process, some organisations expressed concern at reports
that such information had been sought from some voters. Clarifications
were obtained by the Election Commission that this had occurred due to
an error, and that such data would not be officially recorded. 151
150 Ibid. SI Sayed Farukh Ahmad of Kotwali station filed a criminal case on 30th April 2007 under the
Explosives Act 1884, sections 3, 4 and 5, against four to five un-named persons. The Home Ministry
ordered heightened security in every district.
151 ASK Memorandum, Communication of PIL Unit with Election Commissioner’s Office, 13 January,
2008.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
61
11
RIGHT TO SHELTER
This year saw a repetition of the familiar scenario in which urban slum dwellers
faced violations of the right to shelter and to adequate housing due to
forcible eviction and displacement, often by government agencies. As in previous
years, securing the right to shelter remained a huge challenge, not only
because Bangladesh is resource-scarce and densely populated, but also because
of the lack of prioritisation in policy formulation. These problems were
further and severely exacerbated this year by the sudden spate of forcible evictions
of slum dwellers and street hawkers which took place across the country
following the promulgation of the SoE, without any provision for their alternative
relocation or rehabilitation, or even an opportunity to shift their belongings.
Such evictions resulted in gross violations of basic human rights,
including the rights to life, shelter, water, sanitation and livelihood.
Major incidents of forced evictions were met by protests from organisations
working on housing rights, with varied responses from the State.
For example, concerned government authorities including, ironically
enough, the House Building Research Institute (HBRI), forcibly evicted
slum dwellers in Kallyanpur Basti on 21 January 2007 with less than 24
hours prior notice, in the name of a clean up operation against ‘shontrashis’
[gangsters]. ASK protested against this eviction being carried out in the
face of a pending order of stay by the High Court, and called for urgent
rehabilitation of the evicted persons. On 15 July 2007 the High Court extended
the stay order till disposal of the Rule.152 Similarly, following news
reports published on 7 June 2007 of the threatened eviction by Army per-
152 Order dated 15 July, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 7585 of 2005.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
62
sonnel of existing residents and the destruction of a temple153 at Chakuli
under Pallabi Police Station, an area falling within the Dhaka Cantonment,
ASK drew the attention of the authorities to pending stay orders of the
High Court relating to specific plots within the area, and expressed its concern
on the issue; the eviction was ultimately suspended on humanitarian
grounds. On 12 September 2007, ASK again expressed its concern regarding
the threatened eviction of Mohakhali Shat Tala Basti, Dhaka and
sought urgent rehabilitative measures. However, a part of the basti was
later dismantled and the inhabitants evicted.154
Eviction of Rampura Bosti, Dhaka
Human rights groups and sections of the press publicly criticized the evictions
under the SoE. Four organisations (ASK, BLAST, BELA and CUP)
met the Advisor, Ministry of Housing and Public Works on 24 January
153 ASK Investigation Unit, 7 June, 2007.
154 ASK Legal Reform and Court Advocacy Unit.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
63
2007 to submit a memorandum expressing their concern and demanding
immediate action. On 1 March 2007, this Ministry155 formed a high-level
eight-member committee, headed by Prof. Nazrul Islam, a leading expert
on urban planning, to identify government owned land (khas land) on the
outskirts of the capital to rehabilitate evicted slum dwellers. BLAST, ASK
and CUP then submitted a rehabilitation plan to the Committee for Dhaka
only. The Committee submitted a report to the Ministry of Housing and
Public Works on 24 March 2007 and identified 6.69 acres of land in and
around Dhaka of which three acres were selected to rehabilitate evicted
slum dwellers.156 The Ministry of Housing and Public Works also allocated
funds for this purpose. However, by year end the Government was yet to
translate this plan into reality.
Concerns were also raised regarding continued non-implementation of
the first public-private partnership for a low-cost housing scheme for rehabilitation
of slum-dwellers at Bhashantek, Agargaon, Dhaka. Under this
scheme, a private company, the North-South Property Development Ltd
(NSDPL) was to invest in the development, while the Government was responsible
for among others, supervising and monitoring the project implementing
and construction activities and confirming the final allocation of the
flats. According to news-reports, the prices of flats for slum dwellers and
low income groups were fixed at Taka 200,000, and 355,000 respectively,
with no slum dwellers having been allocated any flats to date.
In addition to advocacy with Government bodies, concerned NGOs
sought legal protection from the High Court in urgent cases of threatened
evictions, with varied levels of success. In one case, despite allegations regarding
the threatened eviction of some 496 families in Charbanda, near the
Kirtonkhola River in Barisal District, the High Court refused to intervene,
observing that administrative relief could be sought.157 However, in another
case the High Court directed the Mirpur Housing Authorities to show cause
155 Ministry of Establishment, Planning Section-1, Memo No-gre gaa ma/ pori-1/jagrik-06/2007/59,
dated 1/3/2007.
156 “Dhaka Shohorer Bostibashider puronbashon bishoyok committeer protibedon (khoshra copy)” Draft report of the
committee on rehabilitation of slum dwellers of Dhaka city, dated 24 March, 2007.
157 BLAST v Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 6385 of 2007, filed on 19 July, 2007 challenging DC,
Barisal’s notice for eviction of the landless families.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
64
why the threatened eviction of 400 persons (80 families) who had been living
in Mirpur Kachukhet Basti, Dhaka since 1996, after their village homes
were destroyed through river erosion, should not be declared to be without
lawful authority and also directed them to allow the inhabitants to remain
there for a further period of two months.158
In a landmark judgment, the High Court held that the 2005 threatened
eviction without any alternative rehabilitation of 153 families from the
New Bhasantek (“Gudaraghat”) Bosti at Mirpur, Dhaka was without lawful
authority and directed the Government to make arrangements for the
rehabilitation of all slum dwellers there within two years.159
158 BLAST v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 10380 of 2007, filed on 2 December, 2007, challenging the
Mirpur Housing Authority’s notice upon the slum dwellers to vacate the land.
159 BLAST and others v. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 5915 of 2005, judgment dated 15 November,
2007, per Mr. Justice A.B.M Khairul Haque and Justice Syed Md. Ziaul Karim.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
65
12
PRISONERS’ RIGHTS
The year saw continuing concerns regarding prison conditions and prison
overcrowding. These concerns failed in large measure to be translated into
any clear actions, as the wide-ranging recommendations of the Munim
Commission on Jail Reform 1980 continued to gather dust.
The number of deaths in prison was recorded as 106 persons (including
three women), forty of them in Dhaka Division alone. Among them,
sixty seven (including one woman) were under trial. Except for one case,
reportedly resulting from a clash among inmates, the cause of these deaths
was not known, and there was no information regarding whether any inquiry
had been held in this connection.
The usual over-crowding was exacerbated by the sudden jump in the
numbers of under-trial prisoners resulting from the restrictions of bail in
cases under the Emergency Powers Rules which left the police and courts
with no option for some time but to remand to custody any person accused
of such offences. Chronic over-crowding, with the current total
prison population standing at about 78,000, almost three times its capacity
of 26,000, resulted in intolerable conditions for most prisoners.160 About
three times in excess of the national capacity of 1,128 for female prisoners,
160 Of the 81 jails across the country, including eleven central jails, 56 district jails, and sixteen thana jails,
the central jails hold both under-trial and convicted prisoners, while the others hold only under-trial
prisoners. See Sangbad, 23 April 2007, referring to comments of former Adviser Azizul Haque that in
81 jails across the country there are more than 78,000 prisoners although the capacity is 26,198. See
also Ittefaq, 20 March 2007, citing figures given by the Jail Authorities of there being about 78,000 prisoners
in jails across the country with a maximum capacity of 26,000.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
66
some 3,256 women were in prison as of 11 July 2007. While the Jail Code
allocates a space of 36 square foot for each prisoner, this level of overcrowding
in theory allowed no more than one square feet of standing
space in some jails.
Persistent complaints were made about the low quality and hygiene of
food, inadequate water supply, unhygienic toilets and damp environment
with consequent health complications for prisoners, including diarrhoea,
dysentery, TB and skin disease. These issues did not in general affect ‘VIP’
prisoners, who were able to obtain ‘Division’ entitling them to better accommodation,
and the right to wear their own clothing and obtain food
from outside the prison. The two former Prime Ministers, Begum Khaleda
Zia and Sheikh Hasina, were not held in any existing prison but in separate
houses within the Jatiyo Sangsad (National Parliament) Compound designated
as ‘sub-jails’. Following reports of such special facilities for ‘VIP’
prisoners, a retired school-teacher filed public interest litigation seeking
similar facilities for Muktijoddhas, and the High Court directed the Government
to show cause why this should not be done.161
Limited facilities inside the jails deprived many prisoners of basic access
to health care and medical treatment. Special beds or wards for prisoners
while available in hospitals outside the jail premises usually remained occupied
by those with money or political influence.162 Reportedly, till 14 July
2007 there were twelve “VIP” prisoners (and no ‘ordinary’ prisoners) assigned
to the beds available in the BSMMU Hospital’s prison cell.163 After
reports that women ‘VIPs’ with serious medical conditions remained without
specialised treatment for a considerable period,. on 11 July 2007, six
women’s rights activists appealed to the Chief Advisor to transfer them
from jail to hospital.164
161 A T M Morshed Alam, ASK Bulletin, December, 2007 at p. 17.
162 See reports of ‘VIP prisoners’ over-staying in hospital beds: Sangbad, 14 May 2007, Shamokal, 29 January,
2008, Prothom Alo and New Age, 1 February, 2008.
163 Shamokal, 14 July, 2007.
164 “Haspatale sthanantore 6 nari netree’r abedon” [6 Women Leaders’ Appeal for Hospital Transfer], Ittefaq, 12
July, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
67
The most vulnerable of the prison population included children, juveniles
and foreign nationals. Despite existing laws and judgments requiring
the transfer of juveniles to correction centres and other approved safe
homes,165 more than 1,712 children including 258 girls were sent to prison
over the year in 2007.166 These juveniles found themselves crammed in
jails with convicted adult criminals, while many seats in the three state-run
Juvenile Correction Centres and six Safe Homes remained deserted, with,
for example, only 292 inmates against a capacity of 700 in October 2007.
More than 400 children were living in prisons with their mothers.167
About 740 foreign prisoners, of whom 241 had served out their sentences,
continued to languish in jails across the country, and were unable
to return to their countries of origin, lacking any passport/travel documents.
168 Efforts at ensuring compliance with earlier High Court Directions
continued, with legal services organisations, including ASK,
BLAST, BNWLA and Save the Children, working closely with concerned
Government departments to obtain relevant information and provide legal
aid to release foreign prisoners, women and children as well as indigent
prisoners.
Some positive developments occurred during the year, including the
opening of the first women-only prison on 16 July, with a capacity of 200,
and with a day-care centre for children with mothers,169 and initiatives by
the Inspector General of Prisons to hold vocational training and literacy
programmes for prisoners, and by the Ministry of Home Affairs to undertake
reform of the Jail Code.
165 Sections 48 and 49, Children Act 1974 provide that any child arrested for non-bailable offences should
be released on bail or detained in a remand home or a place of safety. See Suo Moto Rule 248 of 2003;
Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v. Bangladesh and others, 57 DLR (2005) 11; State v. Md.
Raushan Mondal alias Hashem, 59 DLR (2007) 72; Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v. Bangladesh
and others, 4 BLC 600 and Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) & another v. Bangladesh
and others, 7 BLC 85. The High Court has also given orders in pending cases during the year, directing
the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Inspector General of Prisons to comply with these provisions,
and to take immediate steps to remove children and juveniles from prisons.
166 Information received from Save the Children UK, Bangladesh.
167 Jugantor, 11 July, 2007.
168 ASK, Legal Advocacy Unit. See also New Age, 3 October, 2007, Jugantor, 7 October, 2007.
169 Bhorer Kagoj, 17 August, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
Table XII.1: Number of Children Admitted in 57 Jails in 2007170
Division
Dhaka Chittagong Rajshahi Khulna Sylhet Barisal
Total
Month
B G T B G T B G T B G T B G T B G T B G T
January 37 5 42 49 3 52 18 0 18 3 0 3 11 5 16 6 0 6 124 13 137
February 37 12 49 33 3 36 10 0 10 2 2 4 24 4 28 8 3 11 114 24 138
March 73 9 82 60 0 60 21 3 24 4 1 5 37 4 41 8 1 9 203 18 221
April 41 1 42 39 7 46 22 1 23 2 0 2 12 3 15 14 5 19 130 17 147
May 63 17 80 29 8 37 10 1 11 2 2 4 18 5 23 2 1 3 124 34 158
June 37 13 50 30 5 35 17 2 19 5 1 6 24 2 26 3 0 3 116 23 139
July 44 15 59 38 8 46 15 2 17 3 0 3 20 7 27 6 0 6 126 32 158
August 39 12 51 19 6 25 11 0 11 2 1 3 19 8 27 2 0 2 92 27 119
September 47 7 54 27 2 29 17 1 18 3 1 4 15 4 19 0 0 0 109 15 124
October 37 5 42 15 4 19 5 1 6 5 0 5 12 7 19 12 0 12 86 17 103
November 43 5 48 37 8 45 18 0 18 6 0 6 13 6 19 2 1 3 119 20 139
December 51 8 59 26 4 30 10 0 10 6 0 6 13 6 19 5 0 5 111 18 129
Total 549 109 658 402 58 460 174 11 185 43 8 51 218 61 279 68 11 79 1454 258 1712
170 Data compiled by Save the Children UK, Bangladesh. B= Boy, G= Girl, T= Total.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
13
WORKERS’ RIGHTS
The year 2007 saw the beginning of implementation of the Bangladesh Labour
Act 2006, as well as of the National Minimum Wage and the Sectoral
Minimum Wage for the garment sector, both fixed in 2006. The Government’s
continuing engagement with civil society on drafting the Labour Law
Welfare Foundation Bill, pending since 2006, laid the ground for new opportunities
for protection of workers’ rights, both in the formal and informal
economy. During the year, the World Health Organisation assisted in drafting
a National Occupational Health and Safety Strategy for Bangladesh.171
However, the lack of compliance with existing laws and policies, and
with Bangladesh’s own constitutional and international treaty obligations,172
combined with flagrant and continuing violations of the right to association
and assembly, continued to severely hamper the scope for enforcement of
workers’ rights. Under the SoE, the express prohibition on public meetings,
demonstrations and trade union activities further hampered an already repressive
climate for enforcement of labour rights. The space for dialogue
and collective bargaining for settlement of labour disputes between employers,
workers and government shrank even more.
As in earlier years, the discourse on labour rights was focused largely
on the situation of garment workers, and, to a degree, on migrant workers.
The situation of the majority of workers, most within the informal econ-
171 http://www.corporateaccountability.org/international/bangladesh/main.htm.
172 See Article 14, Constitution of Bangladesh, which provides that one of the fundamental principles of
state policy is to emancipate workers from any sort of exploitation. See also ILO Conventions Nos. 87
and 98 on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

omy and outside the industrial sector, failed to draw the attention of media
or civil society (with some exceptions), let alone of state authorities.
Within this narrow focus, some advances could be seen during the
year, for example in increasing payment of minimum wages in the garment
sector. However, even in this respect, a report by the Directorate of Labour
noted that at least 145 garment manufacturers, up to the end of 2007,
had not implemented the Taka 1,662.50 minimum wage, while 262 factories
were found not to have paid regular salaries to workers.173 More positive
developments included reports of increasingly regular consultations
between employers and unions, as well as greater awareness and implementation
of participation committees, and trainings by the Ministry of
Labour of employers’ representatives on workers’ rights.174
Formal sector workers – particularly in the garments sector – endured
low wages, failure of employers to pay arrears, unsafe and unhealthy working
conditions, and unjust termination and dismissal. In the absence of effective
trade union activity, there was little opportunity for collective articulation
of these grievances or their redress. Even where trade union representatives
continued to operate informally, they had limited impact,
given the existing divisions amongst them, and more importantly, their
failure to represent more than a small percentage of the labour force. As in
previous years, the scope for litigation to enforce individual claims remained
limited, despite the availability of some specialized services by legal
aid groups. Thus, delays in adjudication of labour disputes, the lack of free
collective bargaining, and the existence of ineffective institutions hampered
the protection of workers’ rights.
There were several intense confrontations between employers and workers,
both in the garments sector and in the jute mills,175 and repressive intervention
by the state on such occasions against workers’ protests. ASK and
173 Jamshed Rahman, Chief Inspector of Department of Inspection of Factories and Other Establishments
(in Charge), referred to this report and to the cause for unrest being the failure of employers to
meet their legal obligations: The Daily Star, 6 February, 2008.
174 Ibid.
175 See Anu Muhammad, “Pat, Pat Shilpo o Pat Bhumi: Nirmito Songkot”, ASK Bulletin, September 2007, at p.
2 on the background to the closure of the jute mills.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

others conducted on-site investigations into a number of these incidents and
issued statements demanding full settlement of workers’ dues, and investigation
into the incidents of police violence as well as withdrawal of cases
against workers.
Khalishpur: 176 For five days from 17 April, protesting workers demanding
arrears of wages clashed with police at the Khalishpur Industrial Area
in Khulna.
On 17 April, following the beginning of the protests and police lathi
charges and tear-gassing, the police filed cases against some 2,000 workers at
Khalishpur Police Station and injured about 50 workers. On 18 April, in further
clashes, another 70 workers were
injured. The police also entered the
workers’ colonies and lathi-charged them,
along with their families. A second case
was filed against 2,500 workers at
Daulatpur Police Station. On 19 April, a
BJMC representative and the Khulna
Police Commissioner separately met with
the workers, who said they would not
return to work unless the arrears were paid.
That day, the Government announced layoffs
for 45 days at Platinum Jute Mills and
of 21 days at Star, Peoples and Crescent
Jute Mills. On 20 April, protests against layoffs
continued. On 21 April, a procession by school students within the mill
premises was lathi-charged by police and 20 students were injured. About 100
workers and about 20 police officers were reportedly injured in clashes. The
police filed a third case against some 2,000 workers. On 26 April, the BJMC
finally issued a cheque for Taka 197.7 million in settlement of the workers’
demands, the outstanding arrears in all jute mills being about Taka 700 million
at the time.
176 ‘Flash Back: Roktakto Panchdin’ [Five Bloody Days] Inquilab, 27 August, 2007. ASK Press Release, 19
April, 2007; The Daily Star, 20 April, 2007.
Longorkhana (mass free kitchen )at Khalishpur
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

Amin Jute Mill, Chittagong:177 On 9 August, clashes occurred after the police
baton-charged some 600 workers who had been demanding arrears for
over three weeks at Amin Jute Mills in Chittagong, leaving one worker
dead and at least 80, including 30 police-officers, injured. The police reportedly
assaulted ten workers, and arrested 18 persons, including five of
the injured workers. Many of the injured stayed away from Chittagong
Medical College Hospital (CMCH) for fear of arrest. As noted earlier,,
much of this unrest was fuelled by the retrenchment and closure of mills
and factories, as part of broader government policies for privatisation under
World Bank and IMF directives.178
Nasirabad Industrial Area, Chittagong: In the RMG Sector, at least 20
garment workers were injured, three of them shot, during a clash with the
Police and Ansars at Nasirabad industrial area in Chittagong on 27 March
2007. The clash broke out after the Ansars opened fire on a protest by
workers of the Sunman Group demanding payment of their basic wages,
festival bonus and cash instead of breakfast and wage payment on a piece
rate basis. Of the injured, five were admitted to Chittagong Medical College
Hospital in a critical condition.179
Table XIII.1: Workplace Deaths in 2007180
Sector Number of Deaths
Construction 107
Manufacturing 68
Service 36
Ship-breaking 6
Other Miscellaneous (including port, inland shipping) 12
TOTAL 229
177 “Workers clash with cops for wage: 1 killed, 80 hurt” The Daily Star, 10 August, 2007.
178 ASK Bulletin, September 2007 p. 2.
179 “20 Ctg RMG workers injured in clash with cops, ansar” The Daily Star, 28 March, 2007; see also Bhorer
Kagoj, 28 March, 2007.
180 This is the result of monitoring of national newspapers by the Occupational Safety Health and Environment
Foundation and the Bangladesh Institute for Labour Studies.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

Gazipur: On 20 May 2007, another garment worker, Asma Akhtar, age 25
years, from Patuakhali, of Fortuna Apparels Limited, was killed when police
opened fire on workers demonstrating for overtime arrears and monthly
salaries in front of their factory in Gazipur. Twelve other workers and four
policemen were reportedly injured. Reportedly the Joint Forces were also
deployed in the area.181 The Government formed a three-member enquiry
committee but its findings had not been published by year end.
The Government and the private sector both continued, as in previous
years, to demonstrate a disturbing and callous disregard for existing
laws on workplace safety. There were 229 industrial workplace deaths
reported in the national newspapers (not including work-related road
traffic deaths and deaths at sea).182 As far as is known the Factory Inspectorate
had not investigated any of these deaths nor taken any legal
action for breach of health and safety law in relation to any death. Most
of these deaths (see Table XIII.1) were in the construction sector where
the ‘Code Enforcement Agency’ mandated under the Bangladesh National
Building Code, 2006 had still not been set up by year end.183 The
need for such an agency was clearly demonstrated by the deaths of 15
workers during the demolition of Rangs Bhaban in Dhaka carried out
following a court decision that the building had been erected illegally. 184
Following a public interest petition, the High Court directed the Government
to show cause why the failure to remove the bodies and to bury
the dead up to five days after the incident should not be declared to be
without lawful authority and further directed the establishing of an inde-
181 “Demonstration for Arrears: RMG worker killed as cops open fire; 16 hurt”, The Daily Star, 21 March,
2007, See also Prothom Alo, 21 March, 2007.
182 See: http://www.corporateaccountability.org/international/bangladesh/incidents/main.htm. See also
“2007: Occupational Accidents in Bangladesh” The Daily Star, 12 January, 2008
183 [Ed Note: Following public interest litigation, the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and
the Occupational Safety Health and Environment Foundation (OSHE) obtained an order in February
2008 from the High Court directing the Government to show cause why the failure to establish a body to
implement the National Building Construction Code 2006 should not be held to be without lawful authority.
See A T M Morshed Alam, ASK Bulletin, March 2008, p. 14. See also “HC asked government to
submit report on steps for safety of construction workers”, The Daily Star, 31 January, 2008].
184 “Rangs Building Collapse: 4 bodies recovered, many still believed to be inside” The Daily Star, 14 December,
2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

pendent inquiry committee, minus RAJUK.185 The Committee was established,
but including RAJUK representatives, and submitted its report
on 30 December 2007. Following a criminal case alleging that the contractors,
Six Star, and the owners of Rangs Bhaban had been responsible for
the deaths due to their failure to observe safety laws, the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate directed the Officer in Charge of Tejgaon Police Station to
submit an investigation report by 13 March 2008. 186
185 Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) filed the PIL, and a Division Bench comprising Justice
ABM Khairul Haque and Justice Abdul Awal issued the Rule Nisi on 12 December 2007. [Ed Note:
HRPB filed another PIL challenging the constitution of the Committee, whereupon a Division Bench of
the High Court comprising Justice Najmunara Sultana and Justice Ashfaqul Islam stayed the operations of
the Committee including a RAJUK representative for a period of three months, and directed that no steps
be taken in pursuance of the report. See A T M Morshed Alam, ASK Bulletin, March 2008, p. 14].
186 A T M Morshed Alam,, ASK Bulletin, March 2008, p. 14.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

14
WOMEN’S RIGHTS
The year was marked by alternation between raised hopes and dashed expectations
for definitive, progressive change in areas critical to women’s advancement.
Early assurances by the Government in general, and the Chief
Advisor in particular, of protection of vulnerable and marginalised groups
including women, and transparency in systems of redress, raised hopes of a
higher standard of engagement between citizens and the State. However,
reviewing state actions over the year, it seems that more could have been
achieved and more avenues could have been explored to reach goals shared
by the Government and the women’s human rights movement.
In terms of positive gains, the Chief Advisor’s public recognition of the
need for a Domestic Violence Bill,187 was followed by a welcome dialogue
initiated by the Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs with women’s
and human rights advocates on framing a law on domestic violence which
helped to accelerate drafting of the Bill and establish a commitment to
working jointly to this end. The Government (General Economic Division-
Planning Commission) also undertook a review of the PRSP Guidelines
on Gender in consultation with women's rights organisations. Following
their persevering advocacy, the Government eventually in March
2008 adopted the National Policy on Advancement of Women effectively
incorporating amendments to the original Policy 1997 (which had been
significantly watered down in the interim by the Four Party Alliance Government
in 2004 without the knowledge of women’s groups or indeed
187 “Call to Overcome Barriers Hindering Women’s Dev”, The Daily Star, 31 October, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

concerned officials, by omitting clauses expressly guaranteeing gender
equality). Concerns remained, however, both regarding the failure of sections
of the Government to respond effectively to criticism of the Policy
by Islamist parties, and even to respond to protests by such groups which
involved the use of arms and intimidation. In contrast to the Policy, other
long-standing demands of women’s organisations for legal reform were
not met: for example regarding withdrawal of reservations to the CEDAW
relating to the state’s obligations to eliminate discrimination against
women within the family or amendment of the Citizenship Act of 1951 to
ensure women’s right to transmit nationality.
Further, despite a clear articulation of demand and even a pending direction
from the High Court, the Government failed during the year to
take steps to establish Nari o Shishu Nirjaton Domon [Suppression of Violence
against Women and Children] Tribunals in the three Hill Districts of
Rangamati, Bandarban and Khagrachari thus denying the rights of women
living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts to equal access to legal remedies in
cases of violence.188
The Election Commission’s proposal for a minimum 33 percent representation
of women as part of the eligibility criteria for registration of political
parties remained uncertain, in the face of opposition by contending
parties, particularly the Jamaat i Islami.189 Concerns persisted regarding the
relative marginalisation of women holding elected offices, in particular
women ward commissioners elected through reserved seats.190
188 [Ed. Note: In Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 606 of
2006, judgment dated 24 February 2008, the High Court issued a direction upon the Government
(Ministry of Law, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Hill Tracts Affairs and Registrar of the Supreme
Court of Bangladesh) to give immediate effect to section 26 of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman
Ain 2000 and to set up such Tribunals in the three hill districts. The Tribunals were established in June
2008.]
189 “Rajnoitic doler shob committee tey 33 shotangsho nari protinidhi rakha shombhob noi” (To keep 33 per cent reserved
seats for women in all committees of political parties is not possible), Prothom Alo, 23 November
2007. Shamokal, 23 February 2008.
190 “DCC’r shongrokkhito ashoner mohila commissioner- ra obohelito, purush commissionerra tader patta denna, shoujanno
dekhanna DCC kormokortarao” [Women commissioners in DCC reserved seats are neglected, the male
commissioners give them no importance, DCC officials show no courtesy]), Janakantha, 13 January
2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

An upward trend could be seen in women’s representation in public services
such as the police and armed forces, the posts of first and second class
gazetted officers, the judiciary and diplomatic service with reservations for
women being made at 15 per cent for senior grades’ and 10 per cent for junior
grades; however, these quotas were not filled. Women’s participation in
the labour sector also increased, including in silk, fish and shrimp processing
and brick making. Notably, the proportion of women, compared to
men, employed in the garments export sector was on the decrease, partly
because of changes in the structure of the industry. 191 Wage discrimination
and workplace harassment remained pervasive.192 Rural women’s access to
personal security, healthcare, education and nutrition continued to remain
relatively low.193
Reports of violence against women, at least based on NGO investigations
and press reports, did not indicate a significant shift in numbers or any clear
trends in terms of state response from previous years. So for example, while
there appeared to be some decrease in allegations of rape - including of children
and people with disabilities - and of acid attacks, dowry deaths, domestic
violence and violence suffered by girl children in school and as domestic
workers, it was unclear if these figures represented the entirety of the landscape
of violence against women.194 Further in the absence of any official
information on the nature or number of such violations it remained unclear
what steps had been taken by the authorities to investigate or prosecute these
allegations. According to newspaper reports, there was a fifteen per cent decrease
in the number of rape cases - from 741 reported cases of rape in 2006
to 634 in 2007.195 Among these, six cases of rape allegedly occurred in police
custody as compared to five in 2006.196
191 Fahmida Khatun, “The State of Women Workers in the RMG Sector: Findings from a Recent CPD
Study”, CPD, 6 August 2007.
192 “Shob khetrei narir ongshogrohon barchey, pichiye rajnititey” [Women’s participation increases at all levels,
regresses in politics], Prothom Alo, 4 November 2007.
193 “Empowerment of Rural Women Remains a Far Cry”, New Age, 10 October 2007.
194 See Table XIV.1 , “Comparative Data on Violence Against Women, 2003 – 2007”.
195 ASK Documentation Unit.
196 “Karimganj thanai kishori dhorshito: borkhasto SI” [Young girl raped in Karimganj Police Station: SI Suspended],
Sangbad, 21 April 2007; see also cases in Brahmanbaria, reported in Shamokal, 1 June, 2007;
Mirpur Police Station, Dhaka, reported in Prothom Alo, 19 August, 2007 and Manda Police Station,
Naogaon, reported in Sangbad, 5 October, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

Table XIV.1: Comparative Data on Violence against Women197
2003 to 2007
Category of Violence 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Acid Attacks 249 228 130 142 95
Domestic Violence
(Dowry Related Violence)
705
(374)
616
(352)
689
(356)
635
(334)
577
(294)
Rape 948 618 585 515 436
Gang Rape 433 359 250 226 198
Fatwa instigated Violence 46 35 46 39 35
Taking into account the spurt in reported cases of fatwa instigated violence
during the middle of the year, there was a total of 39 such reported
cases in 2006 as against 35 in 2007. In May, following PIL by HRPB, the
High Court directed the Government to explain why legal steps should not be
taken against persons including local government elected leaders responsible
for issuing such fatwas and enforcing hilla marriages on villagers in Bogra.198
Disturbing reports of young women or their family members resorting to suicide
following rape or retaliatory threats for taking legal action against perpetrators
also continued to be made.199
Table XIV.2 : Fatwa-instigated Violence in 2007200
Nature of Fatwa
Alleged Cause
Hilla Lashes Social
Boycott
Physical
/Mental
Violence
Total Case
filed
Death
Rape 1 1 2
‘Affair’ 1 1 2
Premarital pregnancy 3 1 4
Oral Divorce 10 2 10 22 3 1
Allegation of extra marital
relationship
1 3 4 1
Allegation of sexual relationship
1 1
Total 10 7 14 4 35 4
In several cases brought under the Emergency Powers Rules, women fam-
197 ASK Documentation Unit.
198 “Bogurar ek gram e 16ti hilla biye” [16 hilla marriages in one village in Bogra], Prothom Alo, 7 May, 2007;
also,“HC rule on govt over hilla marriage affair in Bogra”, New Age, 7 May, 2007.
199 “Dhorshito kishorir attohotta” [Suicide of raped young woman], Janakantha, 3 March, 2007; Tulie’s case in
Barisal, Janakantha, 23 March, 2007, case of Shibganj school girl, Ittefaq, 17 August, 2007, cases in Bogra
and Tangail, Shamokal, 17 August, 2007.
200 ASK Documentation Unit.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

ily members related to the principal accused were denied bail without any
opportunity for the Court to consider their specific circumstances.201 For
example, on 3 July 2007 the Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge directed
that former State Minister Iqbal Hassan Mahmood (Tuku)'s wife, son and
daughter, be sent to jail custody, rejecting their bail petitions after they appeared
before the Court.202 Following amendment of these Rules in the
face of widespread public concern on this issue, the Courts granted bail to
the mother, daughter, wife, minor son and unmarried daughter of the principal
accused in such cases.
201 Section 19D of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 amended on 8 April, 2007.
202 “Tuku's wife, son, daughter sent to jail”, The Daily Star, 4 July 2007. The Investigating Officer had
pressed charges against Tuku and three family members on 28 June 2007 and the Court issued arrest
warrants against them on 2 July 2007, following which Mohammadpur police on 3 July arrested Romana
and Farah from their residence and forwarded them to the Court. A Deputy Director (DD) of
the ACC had filed the case against Tuku and the three family members on 21 March, 2007, as their
statement of wealth valued at Tk. 35.95 crore did not match with the source of their income.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

15
RIGHTS OF ADIBASHIS
This year marked the tenth anniversary of the Chittagong Hill Tracts
(CHT) Peace Accord, as well as the first year of the current Caretaker
Government. Overall, there were major negative developments for the
Adibashis both in the Chittagong Hill Tracts as well as in the plains.
There was a crack down on political dissidents, which included not only
members of indigenous political parties (JSS and UPDF in CHT), but
also civil society representatives without political affiliation who had
been vocal on the rights of the indigenous peoples. The crackdown resulted
in serious human rights violations, arbitrary arrests under false or
at least barely credible charges and summary trials under dubious conditions.
The year saw a continuation of the long-term unstated policy of
ethnic displacement in the CHT, a trend that dramatically accelerated
during the previous five years of BNP-Jamaat Government. At the same
time, a few positive trends emerged: the High Court’s judgment in 2008
regarding establishment of Sessions Courts and Nari Nirjaton Tribunals,
the first meeting of the CHT advisory committee in seven years,203 the
emergence of more reporting and editorials on both Adibashi and Pahari
issues in the media,204 and the appointment in January 2008 of Raja
Devasish Roy to the Ministry of CHT Affairs as Special Assistant to the
203 "Body to sit for first time in 7 years", The Daily Star, 29 May, 2007.
204 Sanjib Drong's regular op-eds in Prothom Alo "Words Of People Without A Country"; "Rebecca Soren
takes up her brother's struggle on Alfred Soren's death anniversary", Prothom Alo, 17 July, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

Chief Advisor (followed by announcements regaring the re-activation of
the Land Commission and the withdrawal of the ‘mobile ban’).
Deaths in Custody: Eco-Park activist Cholesh Richil
The case of Cholesh Richil was the first major case of custodial death reported
under the CTG (See Box V.1).205 Coming in the third month of the
CTG’s tenure, it was seen as a litmus test of how the Army would handle
allegations of human rights abuse; the judicial inquiry commission formed
to inquire into this death had not made public its findings as of the writing
of this report.
Racial Profiling
Army Operations, Ranglai Mro, DANIDA kidnapping
In light of a three decade long military “pacification” programme in the region,
a series of arrests, beginning immediately after the declaration of the
emergency in 2007 spread panic among Pahari activists. Various ‘operations’
were launched in this regard with names like “Operation Dabanol” (forest
fire), “Operation Uttoron” (the rising) and “Alor Shondhane” (in search of
light).206 While the Army officially stated that these operations were necessary
to disarm miscreants in the area, others alleged that these operations
were used to selectively target activists. Some key examples are: Satyabir
Dewan (General Secretary of PCJSS), Ranglai Mro (Chairman of Sualok Union
Parishad) and Bikram Marma (President of PCJSS, Kaptai upazila
branch) -- all of whom were sentenced to 17 years for alleged possession of
arms. Sai Mong Marma (Organizing Secretary, PCJSS Kaptai) was sentenced
to ten years. All targeted arrestees were vocal opponents of the army presence
in CHT, and Ranglai Mro was the leader of protests against the eviction
of 750 Mro families to make way for an army training centre in Bandarban.
Reportedly at least 50 arrests were made in 2007, including 20 members
of PCJSS and ten members of UPDF207 - both Pahari political groups that
205 Report of ASK Investigation Team dated 18 March 2007.
206 "Army kicks off anti-graft drive in CHT", The Daily Star, 27 July 2007.
207 http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,4782,0,0,1,0
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

oppose the army presence and Bengali settlers. Among the high profile arrested
activists were Santoshito Chakma (General Secretary of Chittagong
Hill Tracts Jumma Refugee Welfare Association),208 Milton Chakma (Assistant
Coordinator of Hill Watch Human Rights Forum), and Tatindra Lal
Chakma (Central Member of PCJSS).
Prompt action by the security forces in dealing with the kidnapping of
DANIDA official Hossain Shahid Shumon by an allegedly Myanmarese insurgent
outfit, was nevertheless followed by disproportionate and unjustified
action in relation to Adibashi individuals traveling with Shumon in the same
group. The Joint Forces arrested a number of local villagers and Pahari NGO
officials on allegations of their connection with the kidnapping. No formal
charges were ever lodged against any of these officials but the hapless individuals
had to pass six months in Bandarban prison before being released.
The case highlights how even extremely well-established senior officials of
NGOs who have been working peacefully with Bengali groups for many
years, may be subject to arbitrary treatment due to their ethnic background.
Right to Property: Bengali settlers and land grabbing
A three decade long policy of resettlement and pacification, in which
heavy military presence was an explicit deciding force, has made it possible
for Bengali settlers to occupy land in the CHT - reducing the Pahari
population from a one-time majority to roughly 50-60 per cent of the
population. This trend continued in 2007, with cases of Bengali settlers
reportedly displacing Paharis and grabbing lands - particularly in Khagrachari
district, but also elsewhere.209 In the case of Sadhana Tila, Buddhist
monks of a Meditation Centre were allegedly ordered to leave on 13
August 2007 by the local Army Zone Commander in order for the area to
be used for rehabilitation of 800 Bengali families. Ultimately, Bengali
families were not resettled there. Throughout the year 2007, reports of
208 [Ed Note: He was released in 2008].
209 "CHT Land Dispute Commission yet to start work in 6 years", Pradip Chowdhury, Sangbad, 5 January,
2007; "43 acres of land grabbed in Bandarban, human rights crisis", Prothom Alo, 7 January, 2007;
"Land grabbers enjoy blessings of administration officials", the Daily Star, 8 January, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

similar cases continued, some in the national media but the majority as
‘word of mouth’ from local eyewitness. While these incidents need to be
independently verified, what is undeniably clear is the sheer number of
such allegations and the overall trend of dispossession of and eviction
from land of the indigenous ethnic communities, with the government
machinery – most prominently the security forces – being constantly alleged
to be implicated. One prominent example was the Ruma army cantonment
which announced plans to expand the garrison by 7,570 acres,
and reportedly ordered more than 4,000 Mro indigenous families to vacate
the land.210
Right to Information: Continuing ban on mobile phones
limited reporting on CHT
The mobile phone revolution is one of the huge success stories of Bangladeshi
business sector, growing from less than one million phones in 1996
to 30 million subscribers today. Yet in the midst of this huge growth, all
three districts of CHT- Bandarban, Khagrachari, Rangamati—remained
almost completely outside the mobile phone coverage grid, due to a de
facto ban. The basis of the ban was not clear, though the justification apparently
given by the local authorities was that any other situation would
help the "insurgent guerilla forces." This in spite of the fact that the majority
of such forces had, since 1997, put down arms and joined civilian life.
The mobile phone blackout had caused a huge negative impact to the development
of business and commerce in the area. In an interview, Raja
Devasish Roy expressed his hope that the Government would lift the ban
on mobile phones in the region.211
Late in the year, the Government sought to impose restrictions on
events relating to Adibashi rights. One report212 alleged that the Home Min-
210 Qurratul-Ain Tahmina "7,500 acres of land to be taken for Ruma Cantonment", Prothom Alo, 13 July,
2007.
211 "Seeing everything through security eyeglasses would be a mistake", Raja Devasish Roy interview in
Prothom Alo, 17 June, 2007. [Ed Note: The mobile phone network was ultimately made operational in
the CHT from 28 March, 2008]
212 "Govt plans curbs on indigenous people's rights", 26 January, 2008,
http://www.jpnuk.org.uk/news/jan2008/26jan08.html
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

istry had issued an instruction asking authorities to "prevent intellectuals and
eminent personalities from attending functions organised by ethnic minorities."
This was in line with a report allegedly submitted to the offices of the
President, Chief Adviser, Home Ministry, Inspector General of Police and
Dhaka Metropolitan Police Commissioner which said: “Necessary measures
should be taken so that the editors, left-leaning politicians and eminent personalities
do not participate in the programmes.” The Home Ministry allegedly
sent a note to this effect to the Information Ministry on 11 October,
2007 as well as to Bangladesh Television and Bangladesh Betar. The instructions
would arguably make it impossible to hold, in the future, events such
as International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, events by Bangladesh
Adibashi Forum and Bangladesh Adibashi Odhikar Andolan.
1997 Peace Accord: Continuing Non-implementation
The landmark 1997 Peace Accord that ended the twenty year insurgency led
by the Shanti Bahini entered its tenth year with few signs of implementation.
Vital clauses that had not been acted upon by the last two political governments,
continued to remain paper promises under the current regime. However
some important announcements were made, include activating the Land
Commission, withdrawal of all “temporary camps” of Army, BDR, Armed
Police Battalions, and handing over of full control of local civil and police
administration to three Hill District Councils.213 An important step towards
enforcement of one provision of the Accord was taken with the High Court
decision to set up District Judges’ Courts in the three hill districts, a much
needed measure to clear a backlog of over 25,000 cases.214
Another positive development this year was the CTG’s decision to call
a meeting of the CHT Affairs Ministry Advisory Committee, the first such
213 "Demand for full implementation of CHT accord", Shantimoy Chakma, the Daily Star, 2 December,
2007; "Shantu Larma meets with Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury about implementation of Peace Accord",
Shamokal, 30 March, 2007.
214 Each year there are reports of unresolved cases of murder, kidnapping, land grabbing, and rape in the
region. In 2007, such reports appeared in Jugantar (11 July), Sangbad (20 May, 5 August), Janakantha (30
Jan, 20 May), Bhorer Kagoj (17 July), Shamokal (7 November), and other newspapers.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

meeting after a five year gap during the BNP-Jamaat Government. The
arrest and prosecution on corruption charges of BNP MP Abdul Wadud
Bhuiyan, who had been largely seen as being beyond the reach of the law,
was seen as a positive development by many. Foreign Affairs Advisor
Iftekhar Chowdhury’s positive remarks about implementation of the Peace
Accord also advanced the issue. However, this was starkly contradicted by
the then Law Advisor Mainul Hossein’s public statement at a meeting of
the militant pro-Bengali settler group “Parbotto Shomo Odhikar Andolon”
(The Hill Equal Rights Movement) that the Accord required revision.
Legal Challenge to Peace Accord
In a disturbing new development, a writ was filed in the High Court by Advocate
Md. Tajul Islam, a member of the Jamaat-i-Islami, challenging the
constitutionality of the 1997 Peace Accord.215 Islam claimed that the CHT
Accord was passed "amidst huge protest and rejection of the major section
of the people of Bangladesh", undermined the unitary nature of Bangladesh
and that special provisions for indigenous inhabitants of CHT were against
the Constitution. It should be noted that the 1997 Peace Accord was indeed
greeted by protests from the opposition parties, the BNP and Jamaat, with
BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia announcing a "long march" to Khagrachari.
Similar political machinations may be behind this lawsuit.216
Voter List implementation
Perhaps Advocate Tajul Islam's writ did not hope to dismantle the 1997
Peace Accord. However, filed at a strategic moment, it has already accomplished
what may be its main objective - inclusion of the settlers in the
voter list for the planned December 2008 national elections. In response to
this petition, a Division Bench ruled in August 2007 that until the writ is
215 Writ Petition No. 6451 of 2007; "High Court rule asks government to show why Peace Accord should
not be declared illegal", Janakantha, 24 August, 2007; "Future of CHT Peace Accord Uncertain", Sushil
Prasad Chakma, Jugantor, 26 September, 2007.
216 "Rangamati Shomo Odhikar Andolon demands canceling of Peace Accord", Sangbad, 26 September,
2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

disposed, the Election Commission should not differentiate between permanent
and non-permanent residents in CHT while registering voters.217
While the Constitution mandates only one electoral roll for the Parliamentary
Election, it remains to be seen whether this roll will be amended for
the holding of local government elections in the CHT in line with the Accord
and the HDC Acts.
217 "CHT voter list will not be created in line with Peace Accord", Ittefaq, 24 June, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

16
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
Bangladesh was one of the first countries to ratify the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and has also ratified ILO Convention
182 and other similar conventions. While some strides have been made,
numerous challenges remain, as identified by a coalition of 19 child rights
organisations in their Alternative Report to the United Nations Committee
on Children’s Rights, critically analysing trends in and the status of implementation
of Bangladesh’s implementation of its obligations under the
CRC. During the year, the Supreme Court gave a number of important
judgments and directions on the issue of children in custody and on juvenile
justice (see ChapterVII.1).
Violence and Abuse: Serious concerns related to the growing numbers of
children who face abuse and exploitation within the family, schools and other
institution, community and at national level.218 Official estimates from Ministry
of Home Affairs and Ministry of Social Welfare and Ministry of Women’s
and Children Affairs suggested that at least 13,220 children had been trafficked
out of the country over the last five years.219
According to ASK’s documentation unit, 38 female children aged under
6 years, 97 female children aged 7-12 years, 76 female children aged 13-
18 years were raped in 2007. Among them 38 girls were killed after rape
and three committed suicide. There are no statistics available on whether
these cases were adequately investigated and prosecuted.
218 CRC Alternative Report: Bangladesh 2007.
219 The Global March against Child Labour, 2007, http://www.globalmarch.org.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

Child labour: The government is implementing eight programmes totalling
US$ 12.7 million to eliminate all forms of child labour through awareness
raising, creating more opportunities for children’s education, income
earning opportunities for families of child labour and capacity building of
partner organisations.220 Despite that one child out of every eight is working.
221 The number of boys working as child labour is double than that of
girls (18 per cent versus 8 per cent). Again nearly one-fifth of children
from slum and tribal areas are working to earn a livelihood for themselves
and their families. A quarter of child workers do not attend schools.222
220 ILO, IPEC, 2004.
221 UNICEF, 2007
222 UNICEF, 2007.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

17
RIGHTS OF PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES
The year saw increasing attention to the rights of persons with disabilities,
with public commitments made to promote and protect such rights
through the state becoming party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CRPD), and through the announcement of pledges
of action at the national level. While some budgetary support was also allocated,
much remained to be done to activate existing mechanisms, to deliver
services and adjust perceptions in order to address the practical realities
of the lives of people with disabilities. Although disability activists
were able to articulate their demands through public meetings and events,
and to obtain interventions from high levels of Government in their support,
they were inhibited from holding a broader movement, or from taking
legal action to demand enforcement of their rights, or to challenge legal
discrimination, due to the continuation of the SoE.
Legal and Policy Changes
The adoption of the Convention on CRPD by the UN General Assembly
on 13 December 2006 was quickly followed by the Government’s signature
and then ratification of the treaty on 30 November 2007.223
223 http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=257. It did not however ratify the Optional Protocol to
the CPRD which would have given the right to submit individual complaints to the UN to those affected
by violations.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

To comply with the CRPD, the Government introduced institutional
reforms by setting up 46 focal points in the ministries and various departments
and restructured the National Disability and Development Foundation
(NDDF) as an autonomous body. However, there was no progress in
amending the Disability Welfare Act 2001.
Khokon, aged 10 year, takes part in demonstration, Photo: ADD
Significant policy commitments made during the year regarding the promotion
and protection of disability rights224 included the announcement
on 3 December by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission of encouraging
persons with disabilities in the next call for applications for jobs
in Government service. The Chief Adviser also emphasized the need for
the economic empowerment of people with disabilities through creating
jobs and providing credit and skills. These commitments were backed by
material support, as the national budget for 2007-08 allocated increased
resources for micro-credit and disability allowances to promote the economic,
social and cultural rights of persons with disabilities. The Ministry
of Social Welfare also entered into an agreement with the World Bank to
obtain a loan of US $ 25 million for the economic empowerment, social
development and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities.
Significantly, the Election Commission for the first time identified voters
with disabilities, by including related information in the voter registra-
224 See for example, the Government’s mid term review report on the Second Asia-Pacific Disability Decade
2003-2012 submitted to the high level intergovernmental meeting organized by the UN ESCAP
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

tion forms, and also took special measures to facilitate registration, with
enumerators listing persons with disabilities through home visits.
Access to Education
To further the Millennium Development Goal of universal education for
all, the Government introduced a new programme of Taka 50 million for
stipends for students with disability”. However, some reports indicated
that decisions on such stipends had not been made till yearend. The Ministry
of Social Welfare claimed that its stipend distribution policy was not
prepared till the end of the year. 225
Access to Employment
Despite the commitments noted, and the continuing demand for allocating 10
per cent of government jobs for persons with disabilities, no steps were taken
by year end to either remove existing restrictions or provide for such affirmative
measures. Disability activists reported that Government departments did
not follow existing quotas for persons with disabilities in the recruitment
process, although the quota itself was clearly identified in all advertisements of
third and fourth class jobs, for example for recruitment of Government Primary
School Teachers. At the same time, existing job advertisements, such as
those for recruitment of Assistant Judges, imposed qualifications such as the
height, weight and physical fitness of candidates that effectively debarred any
person with disabilities from applying for these jobs.226
Accessibility /Mobility
Major public institutions, including government departments and courts
did not comply with legal requirements to provide for ramps in both public
and private buildings to ensure access for persons with disabilities.227
225 See ADD, Field Monitoring Report 2007.
226 Job advertisement for Assistant Judge by the Judicial Service Commission published in the Prothom Alo,
2 August, 2007.
227 Building Construction Rules 1996 and the Dhaka Mohanagar Building Construction Rules 2006.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
92
18
CONCLUSION
Changing Rhetoric but Continuing Practice?
Viewed in isolation, many of the events documented in this volume appear
no different from violations that occurred in earlier years under elected
and more “democratic” regimes. Forcible evictions, the arbitrary arrest of
journalists, violent repression of workers’ rights and so on seem to have
been incorporated into state practice in some ways, as acceptable or at least
expected forms of negotiating with the citizenry.
At times, government actions appear to have been driven by rhetorical
zeal and self-righteousness, to the detriment of human rights. For instance,
in its efforts to establish the letter of the law in slums, the CTG itself violated
constitutional guarantees of the right to life as well as specific legal
safeguards against forcible eviction without resettlement. In the same way,
the manner of its demolition of the illegally constructed Rangs Bhaban, in
total disregard of safety laws, led to the deaths of 15 construction workers.
At other times, CTG actions went beyond the stated goal of restoring conditions
conducive to holding free and fair elections. The closure of ‘unprofitable’
jute mills, for instance, which led to the retrenchment of around 50,000
workers, was a policy decision on the structure and direction of the economy
completely outside the ambit of any Caretaker Government.
The promulgation and continuation of the Emergency, grafted on to
these existing practices of indifference to or abuse of human rights, exacerbated
the levels of impunity, in particular by removing the opportunity
for judicial enforcement of fundamental rights, and restricting the space
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
93
for public protest. Under the EPR, prosecutions were launched against
many highly influential persons earlier perceived to be ‘above and beyond’
the law, but the manner in which these prosecutions were conducted in
certain cases, and the appearance of selectivity of targets, raised serious
concerns regarding human rights and fair trial issues throughout the year.
As in other years, human rights, feminist and other citizens’ groups
challenged, with some success, numerous state actions, from the deprivation
of the right to bail under specific circumstances under the EPR, to
cases of arrest and detention and torture, and restrictions on freedom of
expression, to ongoing instances of violence against women and the forcible
evictions of hawkers and vendors. Ironically, the movement for trials
of war criminals also took on new momentum during the year, as a further
challenge to the culture of impunity.
Yet, some of the most pressing public concerns, basic issues of survival
that shape the lives of most citizens, remained marginalized in the rights
world. The rights to food and adequate nutrition come to mind immediately.
On the whole, despite the spotlight being shone on certain violations, rights
activists rarely addressed questions of redistributive justice, and failed to see
the impact of ongoing abuses on the most vulnerable members of the community.
One could argue that there existed a division of labour between the
human rights movement and the development world. This is a gap that urgently
needs to be overcome in the coming years.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007

19
RECOMMENDATIONS
ASK calls upon the Government to address past and present abuse of
power, and human rights violations in order to move towards a truly democratic
society which will respect diversity and the rights of all, not just
the powerful few. To this end it calls for urgent steps to be taken to
strengthen institutional reforms on the basis of people’s participation, and
to check abuse of laws or abuse of power to violate rights, irrespective of
the perpetrator’s identity or source of authority.
In particular, ASK calls on the Government to:
1. Take necessary steps for withdrawal of the State of Emergency and full
restoration of the enjoyment and enforcement of fundamental rights.
2. Address impunity by taking immediate steps to establish through independent,
impartial and competent persons, investigations of allegations
of custodial deaths and torture and ill-treatment, or wrongful arrest or
detention (and to repeal the Special Powers Act 1974), and take immediate
action to prosecute and punish those found responsible and to
provide reparations to those affected.
3. Hold investigations and prosecutions of those found responsible for
the war crimes and crimes against humanity of 1971, as a critical part of
the process of ending the culture of impunity.
4. Investigate any allegations of failure to act by law enforcing agencies in
cases of violence or intimidation by non-state actors against women, or
marginalised communities, including forcible occupation of land of religious
and ethnic minorities, and take appropriate action.
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
95
5. Ensure that all trials are held in accordance with established due process
norms, including the availability of prompt and competent legal aid
and representation for all indigent persons.
6. Adopt laws or policies to prevent eviction of slums without alternative
rehabilitation or resettlement in line with High Court Guidelines, stop
all further evictions without notice and without prior rehabilitation, and
implement existing schemes for rehabilitation and resettlement for all
evicted slum dwellers.
7. Pursue measures for institutional reform, including
• to ensure full independence and accountability of the entire judiciary,
and consider establishing a Judicial Reforms Commission to review
existing concerns regarding appointments and related matters;
• to activate the NHRC, and pending its establishment, set up a highlevel
review body to receive and address grievances regarding
abuses within criminal justice system;
• to establish an independent and competent public prosecution department;
• to ensure review of policing practices and procedures, reducing the
focus on arrest and imprisonment including through consultations
on the draft Police Ordinance;
• to ensure effective implementation of existing quotas in public service
and of fair recruitment policies and non-discriminatory practices
in both public and private bodies;
• to implement fully the CHT Accord of 1997, including through
withdrawal of army camps, activating the Land Disputes Resolution
Commission for the CHT and to strengthen the capacity of the CHT
Regional Council and Hill District Councils;
• to implement the Munim Commission 1980 recommendations for
jail reforms and to revise the Prisons Act and Jail Code in conformity
with international and national human rights standards.
8. Enforce labour laws on health and safety, and enable the factories inspectorate
to hold prompt and effective investigations into causes of
worker deaths and injuries, and appropriate payment of compensation,
Human Rights in Bangladesh 2007
96
and establish a monitoring mechanism to enforce the Building Construction
Act, 2006.
9. Ensure through public consultations the enactment of laws on the
Right to Information, on Remedies for Domestic Violence as well as
amendment of the Vested Property (Return) Act, the Citizenship Act
and the Disability Welfare Act in response to citizens’ advocacy and in
furtherance of the state’s human rights obligations
10. Withdraw reservations to international human rights treaties in particular
the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CERD, CAT and the CRC, and incorporate
their provisions in national laws.
11. Ratify the Rome Statute on the ICC and the Convention on the Rights
of Migrant Workers.