Executive Summary :
Bangladesh is a secular, pluralistic parliamentary democracy with a vibrant civil society. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League (AL) retained power in the January 5 parliamentary elections, which were preceded by months of political turmoil and violence perpetrated by several political parties. After the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its allies boycotted the election and engaged in a series of violent strikes in a dispute over the composition of the government that oversaw the elections, the ruling party won the elections, with more than half of all seats uncontested. Most international observers characterized the elections as controversial and falling short of international standards due to the boycott. Authorities failed at times to maintain effective control over security forces.
The most significant human rights problems were extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances, some restrictions on online speech and the press, and poor working conditions and labor rights.
Other human rights problems included security force torture and other abuse, widespread official corruption, arbitrary arrests and detentions, weak judicial capacity and independence, and lengthy pretrial detentions. Authorities infringed on citizens’ privacy rights. Politically motivated and intraparty violence remained serious problems. Some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) faced continued legal and informal restrictions on their activities. Women suffered from unequal treatment. Early and forced marriage remained a problem. Many children were compelled to work, primarily in the informal sector, due either to economic necessity or in some instances trafficking. Discrimination against persons with disabilities was a problem, especially for children seeking admittance to public school. Instances of societal violence against religious and ethnic minorities persisted, although many government and civil society leaders claimed these acts had political or economic motivations and should not be attributed wholly to religious beliefs or affiliations. Discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation continued.
Weak regard for the rule of law not only enabled individuals, including government officials, to commit human rights violations with impunity but also prevented citizens from claiming their rights. The government took limited measures to investigate and prosecute cases of security force abuse and killing.
The constitution provides for the rights to life and personal liberty; however, the media and local and international human rights organizations reported the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.
The government neither released statistics on total killings by security personnel nor took comprehensive measures to investigate cases, despite previous statements by high-ranking officials that the government would show “zero tolerance” and fully investigate all extrajudicial killings by security forces. According to the media and local human rights organizations, no case resulted in criminal punishment during the year. In the few instances in which the government brought charges, those found guilty generally received only administrative punishment, but at least one significant case was pending at year’s end. Some members of the security forces acted with impunity. The government increased the number and frequency of training sessions of investigators for an internal inquiries cell (IEC) within the paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) that investigates cases of human rights abuses. The IEC investigated 29 cases through mid-November, compared with a total of 17 in the three previous years; findings of guilt also increased.
The legal aid and human rights NGO Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) reported that during the first eight months of the year, security forces, including the RAB, committed an estimated total of 113 killings, and the local human rights NGO Odhikar reported security forces killed 136 persons in the first nine months of the year. There were an estimated 179 extrajudicial killings in all of 2013. The deaths occurred during raids, arrests, and other law enforcement operations. The government often described these deaths as “crossfire killings,” “gunfights,” or “encounter killings,” terms used to characterize exchanges of gunfire between RAB or police units and criminal gangs, although the media sometimes also used these terms to describe legitimate uses of police force.
On April 27, RAB officers in Narayanganj in broad daylight abducted and killed seven individuals, including a prominent local politician. The officers were allegedly freelancing for a local strongman with AL connections. The government forced into retirement and arrested the officers responsible; investigations continued at year’s end.
Political violence decreased but did not end after the January 5 elections. According to ASK, 124 persons were killed and 6,087 injured in political violence from January through August. There were 77 incidents of intraparty violence within the ruling AL, resulting in the deaths of 22 persons and the injury of 996 others. In the opposition BNP, there were 13 incidents of internal violence, in which three individuals were killed and 83 injured. These incidents were often linked to criminal activities rather than to political motives. Incidents of nonlethal, politically motivated violence also occurred.
In Nilphamari on December 2013, a group of alleged BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami (Jamaat) supporters attacked the motorcade of AL politician Asaduzzaman Noor, now the cultural affairs minister. While Noor survived, five other persons died in the clash. In the weeks following the election, local residents found the bodies of three prime suspects in the attack roadside and behind buildings. Two bodies bore marks of multiple injuries, while the third had a single gunshot wound.
Disappearance: Disappearances and kidnappings, some committed by security services, continued. According to Odhikar, from January through September, there were 35 disappearances allegedly involving security personnel, compared with 14 in all of 2013. For the same period, ASK estimated there were 80 disappearances, compared with 53 in all of 2013.
On May 15, a group of men in a van attempted to abduct ASK Director Mohammed Noor “Liton” Khan as he was leaving his office. Khan previously reported threats in response to his documentation of RAB abuses.
In February men in plainclothes but showing police Detective Branch identification took local BNP leader Omar Faruk from his home in the Laxmipur district of Chittagong. Faruk’s family said he was taken away in a truck with RAB markings. Both the police and RAB denied knowledge of his whereabouts; as of November, Faruk was still missing.
Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment: Although the constitution and law prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, local and international human rights organizations and the media reported security forces, including the RAB and police, employed torture and physical and psychological abuse during arrests and interrogations. Security forces used threats, beatings, and electric shock, and law enforcement officers sometimes committed rapes and other sexual abuses. According to Odhikar, security forces tortured 10 persons to death in the first nine months of the year. The government rarely charged, convicted, or punished those responsible.
The Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act of 2013 criminalizes torture in custody and stipulates a minimum punishment of life imprisonment, with fines for law enforcement officers and security agencies or government officials for causing the death, torture, or inhuman treatment of detainees. The act also makes an offender liable for paying the victim’s family 200,000 taka ($2,500) in compensation. Moreover, the act states that officials guilty of death in custody, torture, or inhuman treatment may not justify their acts by citing exceptional circumstances, including state of war, internal political instability, state of emergency, or an order from a superior officer or public authority.
The law contains provisions allowing a magistrate to place a suspect in interrogative custody, known as remand, during which questioning of the suspect can take place without a lawyer present.
The Manabzamin newspaper reported that, on November 7, police arrested Anita Bhattachariya of Sylhet on a child abduction complicity charge and placed her on a three-day remand. In a police complaint, Bhattachariya’s husband alleged that during the remand, Kotwali police station officer-in-charge Monirul Islam and subinspector Hasina Akter Ankhi forced Bhattachariya to drink wine through pipes, Islam stomped on her throat, and Ankhi sexually assaulted her with a stick. Investigating authorities removed Islam and Ankhi from the station. According to newspaper reports, in March police subinspector Abdur Rahman of Nazripur in Pirojpur forced a teenage boy and girl to strip and pose for obscene cell-phone pictures before the officer raped the girl. The subinspector and others then forced the two teenagers to marry each other.
Prison and detention center conditions: Prison conditions remained harsh and at times life threatening due to overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and lack of proper sanitation. Odhikar stated these conditions contributed to custodial deaths. According to Odhikar, 39 persons died in custody through September. ASK estimated 28 custodial deaths occurred as of June 30, compared with 60 in all of 2013 and 101 in 2012.
Physical Conditions: The media and human rights observers reported the prison population as of October to be 65,662 prisoners in a system designed to hold 34,167 in 68 prisons throughout the country. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, 69 percent of inmates were in pretrial detention or undergoing trial. Authorities often incarcerated pretrial detainees with convicted prisoners.
Due to overcrowding, prisoners slept in shifts and did not have adequate toilet facilities. All prisoners have the right to medical care and water. Human rights organizations and the media stated some prisoners did not enjoy these rights. Water available in prisons was comparable with water available in the rest of the country, which was often not potable.
Conditions in prisons and often within the same prison complex varied widely because authorities lodged some prisoners in areas subject to high temperatures, poor ventilation, and overcrowding. The law allows persons with certain educational and social standing to serve their jail sentences in “divisional” custody, which featured better conditions, including increased family visitation rights and access to household staff.
While the law requires holding juveniles separately from adults, many juveniles were incarcerated with adults. Children were sometimes imprisoned (occasionally with their mothers) despite laws and court decisions prohibiting the imprisonment of minors.
Authorities routinely held female prisoners separately from men. Although the law prohibits women in “safe custody” (usually victims of rape, trafficking, and domestic violence) from being housed with criminals, officials did not always provide separate facilities.
Administration: Prison recordkeeping was adequate. Prison officials allowed prisoners to submit uncensored complaints and occasionally investigated such complaints. Authorities did not use alternatives to sentencing for nonviolent offenders, and prison ombudsmen were not available to prisoners. Authorities permitted religious observance for prisoners.
Independent Monitoring: The government did not permit prison visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other independent human rights monitors. The government allowed the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society to visit foreign detainees. Government-appointed committees composed of prominent private citizens in each prison locality monitored prisons monthly but did not publicly release their findings. District judges occasionally visited prisons. Arbitrary arrest or detention: The constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, but the law permits authorities to arrest and detain persons suspected of criminal activity without an order from a magistrate or a warrant.
The government moved to increase the jurisdiction of mobile courts headed by executive branch magistrates and give the courts powers to sentence defendants based on witness testimony instead of only on confessions. Mobile courts rendered immediate verdicts that often included prison terms; defendants were not afforded the opportunity for legal representation. The use of mobile courts decreased with the marked postelection decrease in nationwide strikes.
Role of the Police and Security Apparatus: Police, who fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, have a mandate to maintain internal security and law and order. The army, organized under the prime minister’s office, is responsible for external security, but it can be called to help with a variety of domestic security responsibilities when required “in aid to civil authority.” The army and ministry security forces maintained a significant presence in the Chittagong Hills Tracts (CHT) to monitor the 1997 CHT Peace Accord.
Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the armed forces, and the government has mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. These mechanisms were not regularly employed, however. The government took steps to improve police professionalism, discipline, training, and responsiveness and to reduce corruption. Police basic training continued to incorporate instruction on the appropriate use of force as part of efforts to implement community-based policing.
Despite such efforts, security forces, including the RAB, continued to commit abuses with impunity. Plaintiffs were reluctant to accuse police in criminal cases due to lengthy trial procedures and fear of retribution. Reluctance to bring charges against police also perpetuated a climate of impunity.
Security forces failed to prevent societal violence (see section 6).: The government or a district magistrate may order a person detained for 30 days to prevent the commission of an act that could threaten national security; however, authorities sometimes held detainees for longer periods. A magistrate must inform a detainee of the grounds for detention within 15 days, and regulations require an advisory board to examine a detainee’s case after four months. Detainees have the right to appeal.
There is a functioning bail system in the regular courts. Authorities granted criminal detainees charged with crimes access to attorneys. The government sometimes provided detainees with state-funded defense attorneys. The few legal aid programs for detainees that existed were underfunded. Authorities generally permitted defense lawyers to meet with their clients after formal charges were filed in the courts, which in some cases occurred weeks or months after the initial arrest.
Arbitrary Arrest: Arbitrary arrests occurred, often in conjunction with political demonstrations, and the government held persons in detention without specific charges, sometimes in an attempt to collect information about other suspects.
Police arrested BNP advisor Khandaker Mahbub Hossain on January 7, shortly after a public event where he called the elections “stigmatized” and “farcical.” Hossain, a prominent attorney, was charged with arson and vandalism during a March 2013 protest. He was released on bail on February 3. Police dropped the charges in August, citing no evidence of Hossain’s involvement. Pretrial Detention: Arbitrary and lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited resources, lax enforcement of pretrial rules, and corruption. According to the Bangladesh International Arbitration Centre, approximately two million civil and criminal cases were pending. In some cases the length of pretrial detention equaled or exceeded the sentence for the alleged crime.
Denial of Fair Public Trial: The law provides for an independent judiciary; however, a provision of the constitution that accords the executive branch authority over judicial appointments of lower courts and compensation for judicial officials undermines full judicial independence. Some judges reported retaliatory geographic transfers. The 16th constitutional amendment giving parliament impeachment power over high court judges passed in September, but as of November no implementing law was written, and at least one legal challenge was in process.
Corruption and a substantial backlog of cases hindered the court system, and extended continuances effectively prevented many defendants from obtaining fair trials due to witness tampering, victim intimidation, and missing evidence. Human rights observers stated that magistrates, attorneys, and court officials demanded bribes from defendants in many cases.
In December 2013 prison authorities executed Abdul Quader Mollah, despite concerns expressed by some in the international community surrounding the process leading up to his execution. In February 2013 the Bangladeshi International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) had convicted Mollah and sentenced him to life in prison for war crimes committed during the country’s 1971 war of independence. After parliament amended the ICT law to allow appeals by the prosecution, the Supreme Court Appellate Division changed his sentence to death. Although the court accepted Mollah’s right to file a review petition, it subsequently ruled against defense arguments.
In September the ICT found the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) guilty of 2013 contempt of court charges for asserting collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges, failure to take steps to protect defense witnesses, changes in the trial court panel, and lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the war crimes conviction of Ghulam Azam. The ICT cautioned HRW to be more circumspect and cautious in its comments about the country’s judiciary.
ICT prosecutions of accused 1971 war criminals continued. No verdicts were announced until November, when the ICT issued death sentences in separate cases against Motiur Rahman Nizami and Mir Quasem Ali. At the same time, the Supreme Court Appellate Division upheld one of two death sentences against Mohammad Kamaruzzaman. All three men were prominent Jamaat leaders, and Jamaat called nationwide strikes in protest.
Trial Procedures: The law provides for the right to a fair trial, but the judiciary did not always protect this right due to corruption and weak human and institutional capacities. Judges received base pay from 29,200 taka ($365) to 39,600 taka ($495) per month, depending on qualifications. Prosecutors’ low monthly retainer of 3,000 taka ($37.50) plus 200 taka ($2.50) per hour in court led some to accept bribes to influence the outcome of a case.
Defendants are presumed innocent and have the rights to appeal and see the government’s evidence. Defendants also have the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the charges against them. The Speedy Trial Act is intended to prevent undue delay of proceedings for certain offenses, such as murder, sexual assault, and robbery but frequent adjournments contributed to the backlog of cases. No jury system exists. Judges decide cases, and trials are public. Indigent defendants have the right to a public defender. Defendants also have adequate time to prepare a defense. Accused persons have the right to be represented by counsel, review accusatory material, call and question witnesses, and appeal verdicts. The government, however, frequently did not respect these rights.
On August 10, Shafiqul Islam Masud, assistant secretary of the Jamaat-e-Islami Dhaka City Unit, was arrested, charged, and held in police custody with 154 others for arson attacks and vandalism in 2013. He was arrested and held four additional times in August and September 2014. According to a prominent human rights lawyer, Masud’s whereabouts during his detentions were unknown, and lawyers were not allowed to speak with him. Defense lawyers were not allowed to speak before the court during his September 23 and 25 court appearances.
Political Prisoners and Detainees: While political affiliation was sometimes a factor in the arrest and prosecution of members of the opposition parties, the government did not prosecute individuals solely on political charges.
Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies: Individuals and organizations may seek administrative and judicial remedies for human rights violations; however, the civil court system was slow and cumbersome, deterring many from filing complaints. The government did not interfere with civil judicial procedures. Corruption and outside influence were problems in the civil judicial system. Alternative dispute resolution for civil cases allowed citizens to present their cases for mediation. According to government sources, the wider use of mediation in civil cases accelerated the administration of justice, but there was no assessment of its fairness or impartiality.
Property Restitution: The government did not take action to compensate individuals, primarily Hindus, who lost their land under the 1974 Vested Property Act (see section 2.d.).
Minority communities reported many land ownership disputes that disproportionately displaced minorities, especially in areas near new roads or industrial development zones, where land prices had recently increased. They also claimed that local police, civil authorities, and political leaders were sometimes involved or shielded politically influential land grabbers from prosecution (see section 6.).
Arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence: The law does not prohibit arbitrary interference with private correspondence; rather, intelligence and law enforcement agencies may monitor private communications with the permission of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Police rarely obtained warrants as required, and authorities did not punish officers who violated these procedures. Human rights organizations alleged the Special Branch of police, the National Security Intelligence, and the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence employed informers to conduct surveillance and report on citizens perceived to be critical of the government. The government also routinely conducted surveillance on opposition politicians. Human rights organizations and news outlets reported police sometimes entered private homes without obtaining proper authorization.
Respect for Civil Liberties: Freedom of speech and press: The constitution provides for freedom of speech and press, but the government sometimes failed to respect these rights. There were some limitations on freedom of speech. Some journalists self-censored their criticisms of the government due to fear of harassment and reprisal. Freedom of Speech: The constitution equates criticism of the constitution with sedition. Punishment for sedition ranges from three years’ to life imprisonment, but the courts did not sentence anyone under these laws. The law limits hate speech but does not define clearly what constitutes hate speech, leaving the government with broad powers of interpretation. The government can restrict speech deemed to be against the security of the state; against friendly relations with foreign states; and against public order, decency, or morality; or that constitutes contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
In February the ICT brought contempt charges against British journalist David Bergman for blog postings that were critical of ICT processes. In August, Bergman’s defense argued his criticism was covered by laws protecting freedom of thought and expression, and intended to improve the court. After several court appearances and hearings, Bergman was convicted of contempt on December 1 and ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 taka ($62.50) or be jailed for seven days.
In September, Tonmoy Malik of Khulna was fined 10,000 taka ($125) and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment under the Information and Communication Technology Act (ICTA) for distributing a parody song about Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s first prime minister.
Press Freedoms: The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views; however, the media that criticized the government sometimes experienced negative government pressure.
On August 4, the cabinet approved a national broadcast policy restricting several types of content in programs and advertising, including content that demeans officials; depicts rebellion, anarchy, or violence and undermines the public interest; or hampers foreign relations. The policy, which generated widespread public criticism, had yet to be enacted into law as of November.
On August 19, authorities arrested Rabiulla Rabi, news editor of the newspaper Inqilab, and held him under the ICTA for an online report suggesting a police official gained improper immunity by invoking the name of the prime minister. Rabi’s newspaper later published a notice admitting it had not maintained “adequate cautions.” Rabi and two others faced a potential sentence of 14 years in prison and a fine of 10 million taka ($125,000); the case remained unresolved at year’s end.
The government owned one radio station and one television station. The law mandates the Bangladesh public television station (BTV) remain the country’s only terrestrial (nonsatellite) broadcast channel. An estimated 60 percent of the population did not have access to private satellite channels, and surveys indicated almost 80 percent of citizens received their information from television. The BTV broadcast parliamentary sessions and government programming but rarely broadcast opposition views. Cable operators generally functioned without government interference. The government required all private stations to broadcast, without charge, selected government news programs and speeches by the prime minister.
Violence and Harassment: Authorities, including intelligence services on some occasions, subjected journalists to physical attack, harassment, and intimidation. According to Odhikar, one journalist was killed and 116 were attacked or threatened from January through September. According to ASK, three journalists were killed, seven were attacked or threatened by security forces, and another 123 were attacked or threatened by political parties, government officials, or criminals during the first six months of the year.
Censorship or Content Restrictions: The government indirectly sought to censor the media through threats and harassment. According to journalists, on multiple occasions government officials asked privately owned television channels not to broadcast the opposition’s activities and statements. The well-regarded newspapers Prothom Alo and Daily Star were denied access to prime ministerial events because they published reports critical of the government and prime minister.
According to some journalists and human rights NGOs, journalists engaged in self-censorship, particularly due to fear of security force retribution. Although public criticism of the government was common and vocal, some media figures expressed fear of harassment by the government. The Awami League government, like its BNP predecessor, issued new broadcast licenses to political supporters and denied them to political opponents. The government did not subject foreign publications and films to stringent review and censorship, but some foreign correspondents in the country reported pressure to self-censor. A government-managed film censorship board reviewed local and foreign films and had the authority to censor or ban films on the grounds of state security, law and order, religious sentiment, obscenity, foreign relations, defamation, or plagiarism, but was less strict than in the past. Video rental libraries and DVD shops stocked a wide variety of films, and government efforts to enforce censorship on rentals were sporadic and ineffective.
The government at times censored immodest or obscene photographs or objectionable comments regarding national leaders.
While the government expressed hopes that the National Broadcast Policy would strengthen the broadcasting industry, there were no significant government initiatives to foster media independence. Under intense public pressure, the government on October 13 terminated Information Technology and Communications Minister Latifur Siddique for his public remarks in New York criticizing the Hajj and the Bishwa Ijtema (an annual Bangladeshi Muslim event, which is the world’s second-largest religious gathering). The ruling party expelled Siddique for his comments. Following a legal petition by a Bangladeshi citizen, a court issued warrants for his arrest. Siddique returned to the country in late November and presented himself to court, which sent him to prison.
Internet Freedom
Individuals and groups generally engaged in the expression of views via the internet, although some activists stated that fear of prosecution under the ITCA limited their online speech. The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) filtered internet content the government deemed harmful to national unity and religious beliefs. The government also blocked some Facebook pages, including pages depicting the Prophet Muhammad and pages critical of both the prime minister and opposition leader.
The government used the ICTA and the threat of sedition charges, which carry a possible death penalty, to limit online activity. For example, on August 19, the Detective Branch arrested former RAB intelligence wing deputy director Mohammad Shamsuzzoha for a Facebook post allegedly derogatory to the prime minister, other government ministers, and the ruling AL.
The 2013 amendment to the ICTA increased penalties for cybercrime, made more offenses ineligible for bail, and gave law enforcement officers broader authority to arrest violators without a court order. Opponents of the law stated that section 57, which criminalizes the posting of inflammatory or derogatory information against the state or individuals online, stifles freedom of speech. In March authorities arrested and held without bail two teenage boys under the ICTA for allegedly posting comments derogatory to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad on their Facebook accounts. The BTRC reported approximately 1.5 million internet subscribers and more than 39 million additional mobile internet subscribers as of August. According to the International Telecommunication union, approximately 6.5 percent of the population used the internet in 2013.
Academic Freedom and Cultural Events
The government had few restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events. Media groups reported authorities discouraged research on sensitive religious and political topics that might fuel possible religious or communal tensions. Academic publications on the 1971 independence war were also subject to scrutiny and government approval. The ICT contempt conviction of journalist David Bergman (see section 1.e.) included a count based on Bergman’s blog post questioning the accuracy of the official government figure of three million Bangladeshis killed in the war.
Freedom of peaceful assembly and association: The constitution provides for the freedoms of assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights; however, there were instances of governmental action to limit freedom of assembly during periods of political protest and unrest.
Freedom of Assembly
The government generally permitted rallies. On occasion the government prevented political groups from holding meetings and demonstrations. The law authorizes the government to ban assemblies of more than four persons. A Dhaka Metropolitan Police order requires advance permission for gatherings such as protests and demonstrations. According to human rights NGOs, authorities increasingly used this provision. Occasionally, police or ruling party activists used force to disperse demonstrations.
Police stopped a May 3 “human chain” protest in front of the parliament building against extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances. Protest organizers said they wrote to the Dhaka Metropolitan Police for permission despite not having had to do so for previous pro
Bangladesh is a secular, pluralistic parliamentary democracy with a vibrant civil society. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League (AL) retained power in the January 5 parliamentary elections, which were preceded by months of political turmoil and violence perpetrated by several political parties. After the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its allies boycotted the election and engaged in a series of violent strikes in a dispute over the composition of the government that oversaw the elections, the ruling party won the elections, with more than half of all seats uncontested. Most international observers characterized the elections as controversial and falling short of international standards due to the boycott. Authorities failed at times to maintain effective control over security forces.
The most significant human rights problems were extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances, some restrictions on online speech and the press, and poor working conditions and labor rights.
Other human rights problems included security force torture and other abuse, widespread official corruption, arbitrary arrests and detentions, weak judicial capacity and independence, and lengthy pretrial detentions. Authorities infringed on citizens’ privacy rights. Politically motivated and intraparty violence remained serious problems. Some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) faced continued legal and informal restrictions on their activities. Women suffered from unequal treatment. Early and forced marriage remained a problem. Many children were compelled to work, primarily in the informal sector, due either to economic necessity or in some instances trafficking. Discrimination against persons with disabilities was a problem, especially for children seeking admittance to public school. Instances of societal violence against religious and ethnic minorities persisted, although many government and civil society leaders claimed these acts had political or economic motivations and should not be attributed wholly to religious beliefs or affiliations. Discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation continued.
Weak regard for the rule of law not only enabled individuals, including government officials, to commit human rights violations with impunity but also prevented citizens from claiming their rights. The government took limited measures to investigate and prosecute cases of security force abuse and killing.
The constitution provides for the rights to life and personal liberty; however, the media and local and international human rights organizations reported the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.
The government neither released statistics on total killings by security personnel nor took comprehensive measures to investigate cases, despite previous statements by high-ranking officials that the government would show “zero tolerance” and fully investigate all extrajudicial killings by security forces. According to the media and local human rights organizations, no case resulted in criminal punishment during the year. In the few instances in which the government brought charges, those found guilty generally received only administrative punishment, but at least one significant case was pending at year’s end. Some members of the security forces acted with impunity. The government increased the number and frequency of training sessions of investigators for an internal inquiries cell (IEC) within the paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) that investigates cases of human rights abuses. The IEC investigated 29 cases through mid-November, compared with a total of 17 in the three previous years; findings of guilt also increased.
The legal aid and human rights NGO Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) reported that during the first eight months of the year, security forces, including the RAB, committed an estimated total of 113 killings, and the local human rights NGO Odhikar reported security forces killed 136 persons in the first nine months of the year. There were an estimated 179 extrajudicial killings in all of 2013. The deaths occurred during raids, arrests, and other law enforcement operations. The government often described these deaths as “crossfire killings,” “gunfights,” or “encounter killings,” terms used to characterize exchanges of gunfire between RAB or police units and criminal gangs, although the media sometimes also used these terms to describe legitimate uses of police force.
On April 27, RAB officers in Narayanganj in broad daylight abducted and killed seven individuals, including a prominent local politician. The officers were allegedly freelancing for a local strongman with AL connections. The government forced into retirement and arrested the officers responsible; investigations continued at year’s end.
Political violence decreased but did not end after the January 5 elections. According to ASK, 124 persons were killed and 6,087 injured in political violence from January through August. There were 77 incidents of intraparty violence within the ruling AL, resulting in the deaths of 22 persons and the injury of 996 others. In the opposition BNP, there were 13 incidents of internal violence, in which three individuals were killed and 83 injured. These incidents were often linked to criminal activities rather than to political motives. Incidents of nonlethal, politically motivated violence also occurred.
In Nilphamari on December 2013, a group of alleged BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami (Jamaat) supporters attacked the motorcade of AL politician Asaduzzaman Noor, now the cultural affairs minister. While Noor survived, five other persons died in the clash. In the weeks following the election, local residents found the bodies of three prime suspects in the attack roadside and behind buildings. Two bodies bore marks of multiple injuries, while the third had a single gunshot wound.
Disappearance: Disappearances and kidnappings, some committed by security services, continued. According to Odhikar, from January through September, there were 35 disappearances allegedly involving security personnel, compared with 14 in all of 2013. For the same period, ASK estimated there were 80 disappearances, compared with 53 in all of 2013.
On May 15, a group of men in a van attempted to abduct ASK Director Mohammed Noor “Liton” Khan as he was leaving his office. Khan previously reported threats in response to his documentation of RAB abuses.
In February men in plainclothes but showing police Detective Branch identification took local BNP leader Omar Faruk from his home in the Laxmipur district of Chittagong. Faruk’s family said he was taken away in a truck with RAB markings. Both the police and RAB denied knowledge of his whereabouts; as of November, Faruk was still missing.
Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment: Although the constitution and law prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, local and international human rights organizations and the media reported security forces, including the RAB and police, employed torture and physical and psychological abuse during arrests and interrogations. Security forces used threats, beatings, and electric shock, and law enforcement officers sometimes committed rapes and other sexual abuses. According to Odhikar, security forces tortured 10 persons to death in the first nine months of the year. The government rarely charged, convicted, or punished those responsible.
The Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act of 2013 criminalizes torture in custody and stipulates a minimum punishment of life imprisonment, with fines for law enforcement officers and security agencies or government officials for causing the death, torture, or inhuman treatment of detainees. The act also makes an offender liable for paying the victim’s family 200,000 taka ($2,500) in compensation. Moreover, the act states that officials guilty of death in custody, torture, or inhuman treatment may not justify their acts by citing exceptional circumstances, including state of war, internal political instability, state of emergency, or an order from a superior officer or public authority.
The law contains provisions allowing a magistrate to place a suspect in interrogative custody, known as remand, during which questioning of the suspect can take place without a lawyer present.
The Manabzamin newspaper reported that, on November 7, police arrested Anita Bhattachariya of Sylhet on a child abduction complicity charge and placed her on a three-day remand. In a police complaint, Bhattachariya’s husband alleged that during the remand, Kotwali police station officer-in-charge Monirul Islam and subinspector Hasina Akter Ankhi forced Bhattachariya to drink wine through pipes, Islam stomped on her throat, and Ankhi sexually assaulted her with a stick. Investigating authorities removed Islam and Ankhi from the station. According to newspaper reports, in March police subinspector Abdur Rahman of Nazripur in Pirojpur forced a teenage boy and girl to strip and pose for obscene cell-phone pictures before the officer raped the girl. The subinspector and others then forced the two teenagers to marry each other.
Prison and detention center conditions: Prison conditions remained harsh and at times life threatening due to overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and lack of proper sanitation. Odhikar stated these conditions contributed to custodial deaths. According to Odhikar, 39 persons died in custody through September. ASK estimated 28 custodial deaths occurred as of June 30, compared with 60 in all of 2013 and 101 in 2012.
Physical Conditions: The media and human rights observers reported the prison population as of October to be 65,662 prisoners in a system designed to hold 34,167 in 68 prisons throughout the country. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, 69 percent of inmates were in pretrial detention or undergoing trial. Authorities often incarcerated pretrial detainees with convicted prisoners.
Due to overcrowding, prisoners slept in shifts and did not have adequate toilet facilities. All prisoners have the right to medical care and water. Human rights organizations and the media stated some prisoners did not enjoy these rights. Water available in prisons was comparable with water available in the rest of the country, which was often not potable.
Conditions in prisons and often within the same prison complex varied widely because authorities lodged some prisoners in areas subject to high temperatures, poor ventilation, and overcrowding. The law allows persons with certain educational and social standing to serve their jail sentences in “divisional” custody, which featured better conditions, including increased family visitation rights and access to household staff.
While the law requires holding juveniles separately from adults, many juveniles were incarcerated with adults. Children were sometimes imprisoned (occasionally with their mothers) despite laws and court decisions prohibiting the imprisonment of minors.
Authorities routinely held female prisoners separately from men. Although the law prohibits women in “safe custody” (usually victims of rape, trafficking, and domestic violence) from being housed with criminals, officials did not always provide separate facilities.
Administration: Prison recordkeeping was adequate. Prison officials allowed prisoners to submit uncensored complaints and occasionally investigated such complaints. Authorities did not use alternatives to sentencing for nonviolent offenders, and prison ombudsmen were not available to prisoners. Authorities permitted religious observance for prisoners.
Independent Monitoring: The government did not permit prison visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other independent human rights monitors. The government allowed the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society to visit foreign detainees. Government-appointed committees composed of prominent private citizens in each prison locality monitored prisons monthly but did not publicly release their findings. District judges occasionally visited prisons. Arbitrary arrest or detention: The constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, but the law permits authorities to arrest and detain persons suspected of criminal activity without an order from a magistrate or a warrant.
The government moved to increase the jurisdiction of mobile courts headed by executive branch magistrates and give the courts powers to sentence defendants based on witness testimony instead of only on confessions. Mobile courts rendered immediate verdicts that often included prison terms; defendants were not afforded the opportunity for legal representation. The use of mobile courts decreased with the marked postelection decrease in nationwide strikes.
Role of the Police and Security Apparatus: Police, who fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, have a mandate to maintain internal security and law and order. The army, organized under the prime minister’s office, is responsible for external security, but it can be called to help with a variety of domestic security responsibilities when required “in aid to civil authority.” The army and ministry security forces maintained a significant presence in the Chittagong Hills Tracts (CHT) to monitor the 1997 CHT Peace Accord.
Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the armed forces, and the government has mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. These mechanisms were not regularly employed, however. The government took steps to improve police professionalism, discipline, training, and responsiveness and to reduce corruption. Police basic training continued to incorporate instruction on the appropriate use of force as part of efforts to implement community-based policing.
Despite such efforts, security forces, including the RAB, continued to commit abuses with impunity. Plaintiffs were reluctant to accuse police in criminal cases due to lengthy trial procedures and fear of retribution. Reluctance to bring charges against police also perpetuated a climate of impunity.
Security forces failed to prevent societal violence (see section 6).: The government or a district magistrate may order a person detained for 30 days to prevent the commission of an act that could threaten national security; however, authorities sometimes held detainees for longer periods. A magistrate must inform a detainee of the grounds for detention within 15 days, and regulations require an advisory board to examine a detainee’s case after four months. Detainees have the right to appeal.
There is a functioning bail system in the regular courts. Authorities granted criminal detainees charged with crimes access to attorneys. The government sometimes provided detainees with state-funded defense attorneys. The few legal aid programs for detainees that existed were underfunded. Authorities generally permitted defense lawyers to meet with their clients after formal charges were filed in the courts, which in some cases occurred weeks or months after the initial arrest.
Arbitrary Arrest: Arbitrary arrests occurred, often in conjunction with political demonstrations, and the government held persons in detention without specific charges, sometimes in an attempt to collect information about other suspects.
Police arrested BNP advisor Khandaker Mahbub Hossain on January 7, shortly after a public event where he called the elections “stigmatized” and “farcical.” Hossain, a prominent attorney, was charged with arson and vandalism during a March 2013 protest. He was released on bail on February 3. Police dropped the charges in August, citing no evidence of Hossain’s involvement. Pretrial Detention: Arbitrary and lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited resources, lax enforcement of pretrial rules, and corruption. According to the Bangladesh International Arbitration Centre, approximately two million civil and criminal cases were pending. In some cases the length of pretrial detention equaled or exceeded the sentence for the alleged crime.
Denial of Fair Public Trial: The law provides for an independent judiciary; however, a provision of the constitution that accords the executive branch authority over judicial appointments of lower courts and compensation for judicial officials undermines full judicial independence. Some judges reported retaliatory geographic transfers. The 16th constitutional amendment giving parliament impeachment power over high court judges passed in September, but as of November no implementing law was written, and at least one legal challenge was in process.
Corruption and a substantial backlog of cases hindered the court system, and extended continuances effectively prevented many defendants from obtaining fair trials due to witness tampering, victim intimidation, and missing evidence. Human rights observers stated that magistrates, attorneys, and court officials demanded bribes from defendants in many cases.
In December 2013 prison authorities executed Abdul Quader Mollah, despite concerns expressed by some in the international community surrounding the process leading up to his execution. In February 2013 the Bangladeshi International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) had convicted Mollah and sentenced him to life in prison for war crimes committed during the country’s 1971 war of independence. After parliament amended the ICT law to allow appeals by the prosecution, the Supreme Court Appellate Division changed his sentence to death. Although the court accepted Mollah’s right to file a review petition, it subsequently ruled against defense arguments.
In September the ICT found the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) guilty of 2013 contempt of court charges for asserting collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges, failure to take steps to protect defense witnesses, changes in the trial court panel, and lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the war crimes conviction of Ghulam Azam. The ICT cautioned HRW to be more circumspect and cautious in its comments about the country’s judiciary.
ICT prosecutions of accused 1971 war criminals continued. No verdicts were announced until November, when the ICT issued death sentences in separate cases against Motiur Rahman Nizami and Mir Quasem Ali. At the same time, the Supreme Court Appellate Division upheld one of two death sentences against Mohammad Kamaruzzaman. All three men were prominent Jamaat leaders, and Jamaat called nationwide strikes in protest.
Trial Procedures: The law provides for the right to a fair trial, but the judiciary did not always protect this right due to corruption and weak human and institutional capacities. Judges received base pay from 29,200 taka ($365) to 39,600 taka ($495) per month, depending on qualifications. Prosecutors’ low monthly retainer of 3,000 taka ($37.50) plus 200 taka ($2.50) per hour in court led some to accept bribes to influence the outcome of a case.
Defendants are presumed innocent and have the rights to appeal and see the government’s evidence. Defendants also have the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the charges against them. The Speedy Trial Act is intended to prevent undue delay of proceedings for certain offenses, such as murder, sexual assault, and robbery but frequent adjournments contributed to the backlog of cases. No jury system exists. Judges decide cases, and trials are public. Indigent defendants have the right to a public defender. Defendants also have adequate time to prepare a defense. Accused persons have the right to be represented by counsel, review accusatory material, call and question witnesses, and appeal verdicts. The government, however, frequently did not respect these rights.
On August 10, Shafiqul Islam Masud, assistant secretary of the Jamaat-e-Islami Dhaka City Unit, was arrested, charged, and held in police custody with 154 others for arson attacks and vandalism in 2013. He was arrested and held four additional times in August and September 2014. According to a prominent human rights lawyer, Masud’s whereabouts during his detentions were unknown, and lawyers were not allowed to speak with him. Defense lawyers were not allowed to speak before the court during his September 23 and 25 court appearances.
Political Prisoners and Detainees: While political affiliation was sometimes a factor in the arrest and prosecution of members of the opposition parties, the government did not prosecute individuals solely on political charges.
Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies: Individuals and organizations may seek administrative and judicial remedies for human rights violations; however, the civil court system was slow and cumbersome, deterring many from filing complaints. The government did not interfere with civil judicial procedures. Corruption and outside influence were problems in the civil judicial system. Alternative dispute resolution for civil cases allowed citizens to present their cases for mediation. According to government sources, the wider use of mediation in civil cases accelerated the administration of justice, but there was no assessment of its fairness or impartiality.
Property Restitution: The government did not take action to compensate individuals, primarily Hindus, who lost their land under the 1974 Vested Property Act (see section 2.d.).
Minority communities reported many land ownership disputes that disproportionately displaced minorities, especially in areas near new roads or industrial development zones, where land prices had recently increased. They also claimed that local police, civil authorities, and political leaders were sometimes involved or shielded politically influential land grabbers from prosecution (see section 6.).
Arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence: The law does not prohibit arbitrary interference with private correspondence; rather, intelligence and law enforcement agencies may monitor private communications with the permission of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Police rarely obtained warrants as required, and authorities did not punish officers who violated these procedures. Human rights organizations alleged the Special Branch of police, the National Security Intelligence, and the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence employed informers to conduct surveillance and report on citizens perceived to be critical of the government. The government also routinely conducted surveillance on opposition politicians. Human rights organizations and news outlets reported police sometimes entered private homes without obtaining proper authorization.
Respect for Civil Liberties: Freedom of speech and press: The constitution provides for freedom of speech and press, but the government sometimes failed to respect these rights. There were some limitations on freedom of speech. Some journalists self-censored their criticisms of the government due to fear of harassment and reprisal. Freedom of Speech: The constitution equates criticism of the constitution with sedition. Punishment for sedition ranges from three years’ to life imprisonment, but the courts did not sentence anyone under these laws. The law limits hate speech but does not define clearly what constitutes hate speech, leaving the government with broad powers of interpretation. The government can restrict speech deemed to be against the security of the state; against friendly relations with foreign states; and against public order, decency, or morality; or that constitutes contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
In February the ICT brought contempt charges against British journalist David Bergman for blog postings that were critical of ICT processes. In August, Bergman’s defense argued his criticism was covered by laws protecting freedom of thought and expression, and intended to improve the court. After several court appearances and hearings, Bergman was convicted of contempt on December 1 and ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 taka ($62.50) or be jailed for seven days.
In September, Tonmoy Malik of Khulna was fined 10,000 taka ($125) and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment under the Information and Communication Technology Act (ICTA) for distributing a parody song about Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s first prime minister.
Press Freedoms: The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views; however, the media that criticized the government sometimes experienced negative government pressure.
On August 4, the cabinet approved a national broadcast policy restricting several types of content in programs and advertising, including content that demeans officials; depicts rebellion, anarchy, or violence and undermines the public interest; or hampers foreign relations. The policy, which generated widespread public criticism, had yet to be enacted into law as of November.
On August 19, authorities arrested Rabiulla Rabi, news editor of the newspaper Inqilab, and held him under the ICTA for an online report suggesting a police official gained improper immunity by invoking the name of the prime minister. Rabi’s newspaper later published a notice admitting it had not maintained “adequate cautions.” Rabi and two others faced a potential sentence of 14 years in prison and a fine of 10 million taka ($125,000); the case remained unresolved at year’s end.
The government owned one radio station and one television station. The law mandates the Bangladesh public television station (BTV) remain the country’s only terrestrial (nonsatellite) broadcast channel. An estimated 60 percent of the population did not have access to private satellite channels, and surveys indicated almost 80 percent of citizens received their information from television. The BTV broadcast parliamentary sessions and government programming but rarely broadcast opposition views. Cable operators generally functioned without government interference. The government required all private stations to broadcast, without charge, selected government news programs and speeches by the prime minister.
Violence and Harassment: Authorities, including intelligence services on some occasions, subjected journalists to physical attack, harassment, and intimidation. According to Odhikar, one journalist was killed and 116 were attacked or threatened from January through September. According to ASK, three journalists were killed, seven were attacked or threatened by security forces, and another 123 were attacked or threatened by political parties, government officials, or criminals during the first six months of the year.
Censorship or Content Restrictions: The government indirectly sought to censor the media through threats and harassment. According to journalists, on multiple occasions government officials asked privately owned television channels not to broadcast the opposition’s activities and statements. The well-regarded newspapers Prothom Alo and Daily Star were denied access to prime ministerial events because they published reports critical of the government and prime minister.
According to some journalists and human rights NGOs, journalists engaged in self-censorship, particularly due to fear of security force retribution. Although public criticism of the government was common and vocal, some media figures expressed fear of harassment by the government. The Awami League government, like its BNP predecessor, issued new broadcast licenses to political supporters and denied them to political opponents. The government did not subject foreign publications and films to stringent review and censorship, but some foreign correspondents in the country reported pressure to self-censor. A government-managed film censorship board reviewed local and foreign films and had the authority to censor or ban films on the grounds of state security, law and order, religious sentiment, obscenity, foreign relations, defamation, or plagiarism, but was less strict than in the past. Video rental libraries and DVD shops stocked a wide variety of films, and government efforts to enforce censorship on rentals were sporadic and ineffective.
The government at times censored immodest or obscene photographs or objectionable comments regarding national leaders.
While the government expressed hopes that the National Broadcast Policy would strengthen the broadcasting industry, there were no significant government initiatives to foster media independence. Under intense public pressure, the government on October 13 terminated Information Technology and Communications Minister Latifur Siddique for his public remarks in New York criticizing the Hajj and the Bishwa Ijtema (an annual Bangladeshi Muslim event, which is the world’s second-largest religious gathering). The ruling party expelled Siddique for his comments. Following a legal petition by a Bangladeshi citizen, a court issued warrants for his arrest. Siddique returned to the country in late November and presented himself to court, which sent him to prison.
Internet Freedom
Individuals and groups generally engaged in the expression of views via the internet, although some activists stated that fear of prosecution under the ITCA limited their online speech. The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) filtered internet content the government deemed harmful to national unity and religious beliefs. The government also blocked some Facebook pages, including pages depicting the Prophet Muhammad and pages critical of both the prime minister and opposition leader.
The government used the ICTA and the threat of sedition charges, which carry a possible death penalty, to limit online activity. For example, on August 19, the Detective Branch arrested former RAB intelligence wing deputy director Mohammad Shamsuzzoha for a Facebook post allegedly derogatory to the prime minister, other government ministers, and the ruling AL.
The 2013 amendment to the ICTA increased penalties for cybercrime, made more offenses ineligible for bail, and gave law enforcement officers broader authority to arrest violators without a court order. Opponents of the law stated that section 57, which criminalizes the posting of inflammatory or derogatory information against the state or individuals online, stifles freedom of speech. In March authorities arrested and held without bail two teenage boys under the ICTA for allegedly posting comments derogatory to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad on their Facebook accounts. The BTRC reported approximately 1.5 million internet subscribers and more than 39 million additional mobile internet subscribers as of August. According to the International Telecommunication union, approximately 6.5 percent of the population used the internet in 2013.
Academic Freedom and Cultural Events
The government had few restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events. Media groups reported authorities discouraged research on sensitive religious and political topics that might fuel possible religious or communal tensions. Academic publications on the 1971 independence war were also subject to scrutiny and government approval. The ICT contempt conviction of journalist David Bergman (see section 1.e.) included a count based on Bergman’s blog post questioning the accuracy of the official government figure of three million Bangladeshis killed in the war.
Freedom of peaceful assembly and association: The constitution provides for the freedoms of assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights; however, there were instances of governmental action to limit freedom of assembly during periods of political protest and unrest.
Freedom of Assembly
The government generally permitted rallies. On occasion the government prevented political groups from holding meetings and demonstrations. The law authorizes the government to ban assemblies of more than four persons. A Dhaka Metropolitan Police order requires advance permission for gatherings such as protests and demonstrations. According to human rights NGOs, authorities increasingly used this provision. Occasionally, police or ruling party activists used force to disperse demonstrations.
Police stopped a May 3 “human chain” protest in front of the parliament building against extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances. Protest organizers said they wrote to the Dhaka Metropolitan Police for permission despite not having had to do so for previous pro
