Right to life and liberty in Bangladesh

THE human rights situation in Bangladesh came under Universal Period Review (UPR) for the second time on April 29, 2013. The working group concerned adopted the report on Bangladesh on May 2, 2013.
In her submission, the head of the Bangladesh delegation, the then foreign minister, claimed that the government was “focused on building a robust normative and institutional framework… to ensure that all citizens enjoyed all human rights as guaranteed in the Constitution.” Among other things the minister highlighted that “independence and effectiveness of the national Election Commission to hold free, fair and impartial national elections” were ensured as well as various measures taken “to ensure independence of the judiciary and enhance the functional independence, effectiveness and credibility of the National Human Rights Commission, Anti Corruption Commission and Information Commission.”
The UPR Report goes on to document the “government's unequivocal stand on 'zero tolerance' against human rights violation by the law enforcement agencies (LEA) as well as on their impunity,” and its “commitment to end the culture of impunity.”
The minister also reiterated that “extrajudicial killing was not permitted by law and as per Penal Code, LEAs could resort to use of force or firearms only for self-defence and protection of public life and property.” She said that there was no scope for impunity for LEAs under Bangladeshi laws and the Codes of Conduct and Rules of Engagement of the concerned LEAs. Disagreeing with the suggestion that enforced disappearance was frequently resorted to by LEAs, the minister explained that “the term did not exist in Bangladeshi laws.” She asserted that “association of LEAs or state machinery with such criminal acts was deliberately done to undermine their credibility and create misperception in the public mind.”
On freedom of speech, the minister claimed that “the government had rescinded rules and regulations that were considered to have impeded freedom of press…” and that “government had ensured that all reported cases of violence against journalists were followed through with investigation and prosecution…”
The importance of the UPR process can hardly be over-emphasised. It provides an opportunity for the governments concerned to engage in self-reflection. It also creates scope to take stock of their own performance and measure them against the laws of their own lands and international standards.
It is against this backdrop of the importance of the UPR process and the commitments made by Bangladesh at the April 2013 session that a brief evaluation of the country's performance in the post-UPR period is of relevance.
It may not be improper to state that there was a major gap between the claims made by the leader of the Bangladesh delegation in April and the unfolding of events centering round the last general elections. The hollowness of the claim about the “independence and effectiveness of the national Election Commission to hold free, fair and impartial national elections” and the independence of the Anti Corruption Commission has been established beyond doubt.
Some data gathered by the Odhikar team are of relevance here.
Firstly, despite the government's reiteration of 'zero tolerance' policy on extra-judicial killings, there has been little sign that it has been adhered to. Preliminary estimates of Odhikar show that in the period between May 2013 and February 2014 as many as 245 people were allegedly killed extrajudicially. A breakdown of types of these killings shows 76 died in so-called crossfire, 12 due to torture, 153 were shot to death and 4 died due to beating.
Secondly, there have been 28 cases of alleged disappearances. In the period preceding and following the last general elections (October 2013 to February 2014) there had been a sharp rise in cases of enforced disappearances (21), many of whom were political opponents.
Thirdly, 48 persons died in prisons between May 2013 and February 2014.
Fourthly, journalists faced threats and intimidation during the reporting period. The media reported 89 cases of injury and assault against journalists and 14 cases of threats meted out to the members of the media.
One may therefore argue that the government has thus far made little progress in bringing about an end to extrajudicial killings, disappearances and custodial deaths, despite its repeated assurances to the world community of its 'zero tolerance.' The increase in the instances of involuntary disappearances has also been an issue of concern. The propensity of the political leadership to deny that these heinous practices take place only helps breed their perpetuation and the rise of a culture of impunity.
The Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 and its recent amendments have become a major threat to freedom of expression. The vague provisions making it a cognisable and non-bailable offence, and enhanced penalty, have made it a draconian law. Already several journalists, bloggers and human rights defenders have been charged under the law.
The government has plans to formulate a new broadcasting policy. There is a general concern among the media and political circles that such a policy would bring about tighter control over freedom of expression. Already, an important section of media professionals have publicly alleged that the electronic media is under pressure. They claimed that state directives are imposed on television channels in their choice of hosts and guests of television talk shows. Any new policy with regard to public broadcasting in such an adverse condition, in all likelihood, would be directed to curbing of freedom of expression.
As with freedom of expression, the right to organise has also come under stress during the reporting period. In the last few weeks the nation has seen how senior leaders of the ruling party have reacted to reports prepared by credible and reputed public watchdog bodies such as Shujan (Citizens for Good Governance) and the Transparency International Bangladesh. This lack of tolerance and utter disdain for public accountability are ominous signs for those who stand up for rule of law and good governance.
One may therefore conclude that Bangladesh is yet to deliver on its commitments made at the UPR. It needs political will to make a break from the culture of impunity and bring about change. Those ruling the state need to internalise the fact that rule of law and good governance go hand in hand, and it is incumbent on them respect the rights and dignity of every human being.
 

The writer teaches International Relations and coordinates the Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit, University of Dhaka.