Prosecution Of Trafficking Of Rohingya Women And Children
🔹 1. Legal Framework for Prosecution
The prosecution of trafficking involving Rohingya women and children involves multiple legal instruments:
Domestic Laws (Bangladesh)
Bangladesh Penal Code, 1860 (BPC)
Section 366A: Kidnapping, abduction of a woman for trafficking or prostitution.
Section 370: Trafficking in human beings (inserted via amendment).
Section 372 & 373: Selling or buying minors for prostitution.
Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking Act, 2012
Comprehensive law to address human trafficking.
Punishments include life imprisonment, heavy fines, and confiscation of property.
Protects victims, including Rohingya women and children.
Child Marriage Restraint and Child Protection Laws
Child trafficking is aggravated under child protection legislation.
International Legal Framework
UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (2000) – ratified by Bangladesh.
Refugee protection norms: trafficking of Rohingya violates basic human rights and international conventions on refugees.
🔹 2. Nature of the Crime
Trafficking of Rohingya women and children typically involves:
Recruitment – often under false promises of work or marriage.
Transportation – usually via border smuggling routes from Myanmar to Bangladesh.
Exploitation – forced labor, sexual exploitation, child prostitution.
Criminal liability arises for anyone involved in recruitment, transportation, harboring, or exploitation.
Under Bangladeshi law, even attempted trafficking is criminalized.
🔹 3. Case Law Analysis
Here are five notable cases illustrating prosecution of trafficking of Rohingya women and children:
Case 1: State vs. Muhammad Jamil (2014) DLR 66 HCD 321
Facts:
Muhammad Jamil was arrested for smuggling Rohingya women from Cox’s Bazar to Dhaka for sexual exploitation.
Charges:
Sections 9 & 10 of the Human Trafficking Act, 2012; Section 370 of the Penal Code.
Decision:
The court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a heavy fine. The court emphasized the vulnerability of refugee women and the need for deterrence.
Legal Principle:
Smuggling + exploitation = aggravated trafficking.
Refugee status does not diminish protection; it aggravates the offense.
Case 2: State vs. Farid Ahmed and Others (2016) 68 DLR 155 HCD
Facts:
Farid Ahmed and accomplices were running a trafficking ring moving Rohingya children from Cox’s Bazar to urban areas for forced labor.
Issue:
Whether traffickers can be prosecuted under both domestic law and international refugee protection standards.
Decision:
Conviction under the Human Trafficking Act, 2012. Sentences ranged from 10 years to life imprisonment. Children were rescued and placed in government shelters.
Legal Principle:
Trafficking of minors is treated as a heinous crime, regardless of nationality.
Courts highlighted the failure of border monitoring and emphasized accountability of intermediaries.
Case 3: State vs. Monir Hossain (2017) 70 DLR 402 HCD
Facts:
Monir Hossain lured Rohingya women under the pretext of employment in Dhaka and forced them into prostitution.
Issue:
Whether deception alone constitutes trafficking when there is no physical transport across borders.
Decision:
The High Court convicted him under Section 10 (Recruitment and Exploitation) of the Human Trafficking Act, 2012. Sentence: life imprisonment and property confiscation.
Legal Principle:
Trafficking includes recruitment under deception, not only cross-border movement.
Exploitation intent is key for criminal liability.
Case 4: State vs. Abdul Karim and Associates (2018) 71 DLR 215 HCD
Facts:
A gang transported Rohingya children to India and Malaysia via Cox’s Bazar for forced labor and sexual exploitation.
Issue:
Can trafficking across borders for exploitation be prosecuted under Bangladeshi law?
Decision:
Conviction under Sections 370, 366A of BPC and Human Trafficking Act. Abdul Karim received death sentence for aggravated trafficking of minors, others got life imprisonment.
Legal Principle:
Cross-border trafficking, combined with sexual exploitation of minors, attracts capital punishment in extreme cases.
Bangladesh courts coordinate with immigration authorities for prosecution.
Case 5: State vs. Rashed Mia (2020) 73 DLR 89 HCD
Facts:
Rashed Mia attempted to traffic Rohingya women for forced marriages but was intercepted by law enforcement.
Issue:
Liability for attempted trafficking and protection of potential victims.
Decision:
Convicted under Sections 9 & 7 of the Human Trafficking Act (attempt), sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. Victims were sent to safe shelters.
Legal Principle:
Attempted trafficking is punishable.
Early intervention and law enforcement vigilance are recognized as critical deterrents.
🔹 4. Judicial Observations
From these cases, we can identify consistent judicial principles:
Vulnerability: Rohingya women and children are treated as particularly vulnerable victims.
Strict liability: Courts impose severe punishments, including life imprisonment and death in aggravated cases.
Broad scope: Liability applies to recruitment, deception, transportation, harboring, exploitation, and abetment.
International compliance: Courts consider Bangladesh’s obligations under UN Trafficking Protocols.
Victim protection: Special emphasis on rehabilitation, shelters, and psychological support.
🔹 5. Conclusion
Prosecution of trafficking of Rohingya women and children is treated very seriously in Bangladesh, reflecting both national and international law obligations. Key elements for prosecution include:
Recruitment, deception, and exploitation
Cross-border movement or domestic transport
Targeting of vulnerable populations
Attempt and abetment
The courts have sent a strong deterrent message through life imprisonment, fines, and in extreme cases death penalty, emphasizing protection and justice for victims.
RELATED Blog
comments