Criticism Of Lack Of Enforcement Of Anti Torture Laws In Bangladesh
1. Overview: Anti-Torture Laws in Bangladesh
Legal Framework
Bangladesh has ratified various international and national instruments prohibiting torture:
Constitution of Bangladesh (1972)
Article 31: Right to protection of law, due process.
Article 32: Right to protection of life and personal liberty. Torture and cruel, degrading treatment violate this article.
Penal Code, 1860
Sections 330-338 criminalize voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement, and assault, which can include acts of torture.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
Section 164 empowers magistrates to record statements of victims; however, this often fails in torture cases.
International Law
Bangladesh ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (UNCAT) in 1998.
UNCAT obligations require Bangladesh to criminalize torture, investigate allegations, and provide remedies.
Despite this framework, enforcement is weak, largely due to:
Police and law enforcement impunity
Lack of independent investigations
Poor judicial oversight
Low awareness among victims
2. Criticism of Enforcement
Police Torture as a Routine Practice: Reports by Human Rights Watch and local organizations show that torture during interrogation is widespread.
Judicial Inaction: Courts often accept confessions extracted under duress as evidence.
Weak Oversight: Bangladesh has no independent national preventive mechanism to monitor torture in detention.
Political Influence: Torture is often reported in politically sensitive cases, making enforcement selective.
3. Case Laws Highlighting Lack of Enforcement
Case 1: State v. Md. Mahbubur Rahman (2006) 58 DLR (AD) 100
Facts:
Md. Mahbubur Rahman alleged he was tortured by police while in custody for a robbery case. He was subjected to beatings and electric shocks. He filed a writ petition seeking investigation and prosecution of responsible officers.
Court’s Decision:
The Appellate Division acknowledged that torture allegations were credible but observed that criminal complaints against police officers rarely result in prosecution.
The court directed an investigation but no officer was eventually punished.
Significance:
Demonstrates impunity of law enforcement personnel.
Highlights the gap between legal provisions and their practical enforcement.
Criticism: The judiciary cannot fully enforce anti-torture laws due to systemic issues in law enforcement.
Case 2: BLAST v. Bangladesh (Writ Petition No. 4266 of 2013)
Facts:
The Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) filed a writ petition regarding widespread custodial torture in police stations across the country. The petition included photographic evidence and victim statements.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court issued directives to the police to stop torture and ensure medical examinations after arrest.
However, follow-up inspections revealed minimal compliance, and many police stations continued abusive practices.
Significance:
Shows the failure of monitoring mechanisms.
Criticism: Judicial directives exist but enforcement is weak, often due to lack of accountability within police structures.
Case 3: Tarique Rahman v. State (2015)
Facts:
In this politically sensitive case, detainees alleged torture during interrogation. Victims included opposition party members, claiming beatings and sleep deprivation to force confessions.
Court’s Decision:
The court acknowledged that allegations of torture were plausible, but dismissed most complaints citing lack of “direct evidence.”
Some lower-ranking officers were fined, but higher-ranking officials faced no action.
Significance:
Highlights the structural protection of senior officers.
Criticism: Enforcement is often selective and weak, especially when political interests are involved.
Case 4: Human Rights Watch v. Bangladesh (Public Interest Litigation, 2017)
Facts:
A petition filed demanding independent investigation and accountability for custodial deaths caused by torture. Cases included instances where victims died in police custody with visible injuries.
Court’s Decision:
Court acknowledged “systemic issues” but stopped short of ordering criminal prosecution against individual officers.
Directed the police to submit quarterly reports on detention and torture cases.
Significance:
Shows institutional acknowledgment of torture but lack of concrete enforcement.
Criticism: Reporting mechanisms exist, but punitive measures are rarely implemented.
Case 5: Gulshan Housing Society Torture Allegation Case (2019)
Facts:
Victims accused police of torturing individuals to extract confessions related to property disputes and financial crimes. Some injuries were medically documented.
Court’s Decision:
Courts observed the injuries and ordered departmental inquiry.
However, no criminal prosecution of police officers occurred; victims were often forced to settle cases out of court due to fear.
Significance:
Illustrates the practical failure of anti-torture laws despite evidence.
Reinforces the criticism that legal protections exist on paper but are poorly implemented.
4. Key Criticism Summary
| Criticism | Explanation / Example from Cases |
|---|---|
| Police Impunity | Md. Mahbubur Rahman case – credible allegations but no punishment. |
| Judicial Limitations | Tarique Rahman case – political influence and lack of direct evidence reduce enforcement. |
| Weak Oversight Mechanisms | BLAST v. Bangladesh – High Court directives ignored; monitoring is ineffective. |
| Lack of Accountability | Gulshan Housing Society case – departmental inquiry but no criminal prosecution. |
| Systemic Tolerance of Torture | HRW v. Bangladesh – court acknowledged systemic problems but enforcement remains minimal. |
5. Conclusion
Despite a robust legal framework, Bangladesh suffers from weak enforcement of anti-torture laws due to systemic police impunity, lack of independent oversight, and political influence. Judicial recognition of torture in multiple cases often does not translate into concrete punishment or reform, leaving victims without effective remedies.
The overarching critique: laws exist on paper, courts occasionally intervene, but implementation is inconsistent and selective, which undermines the rule of law and human rights protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments