With a grim record of 10 deaths in the custody of law enforcers every month after the Awami League-led government assumed office, the nation today observes with the rest of the world the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.
According to rights activists, custodial death and torture go unabated, as the government has neither enacted a law criminalising torture nor followed the High Court verdict delivered on April 17, 2003 with directives detailing procedures of arrest and interrogation in order to stop torture in custody.
According to a study of rights organisation Odhikar, at least 286 people died in the custody of law enforcers between January 6, 2009 and May 31 this year after the Awami League-led alliance assumed power.
Most of the 286 deaths were reportedly caused by torture in custody, the rights watchdog said.
Of the 286 custodial deaths, 108 were reported in 2009, in 2010 the number of deaths in custody was 109 and 69 died between January 1, 2011 and May 31, 2011.
Besides, Odhikar records show that 126 others were tortured between January 6, 2009 and May 31, 2011.
'It is reported that allegations of torture and violation of human rights are on the rise during the present government and the actual figures of custodial death and torture are much more than the reported incidents, as in most of the cases the victims and their families do not disclose the incidents because of weak justice dispensation system and in fear of harassment,' Odhikar secretary Adilur Rahman Khan told New Age on Saturday.
The International Day in Support of Victims of Torture was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1997 and is celebrated each year on June 26.
Bangladesh ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture in 1998 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2000. The country is, however, yet to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
The countries which have ratified the convention are obliged to enact national laws criminalising torture.
No such enactment has yet been done in Bangladesh.
Besides, the government is yet to amend section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite a High
Court verdict that had asked it to reform the law to stop torture in custody in the name of interrogation.
The High Court bench of Justice Md Hamidul Haque and Justice Salma Masud Chowdhury on April 7, 2003 delivered the landmark judgement issuing a series of directives aimed at stopping abuse of power by law enforcers in arresting persons on suspicion and interrogation of people remanded in custody.
In the verdict, the court had directed the authorities concerned to build rooms with glass walls in jails for interrogation of arrested persons. Until such arrangements are made, the arrested will be interrogated at jail gates in the presence of their relatives and lawyers, the court said.
No such rooms with glass walls have been set up yet and no relatives or lawyers have been allowed to be present during interrogation of anyone arrested.
The International Crimes Tribunal on April 13 reprimanded the government for not implementing the directives, as the jail authorities informed the tribunal that they were unable to arrange interrogation of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami amir Matiur Rahman Nizami and secretary general Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed in jail.
Referring to the 2003 verdict, the tribunal chair, Justice Nizamul Huq Nasim, said, 'The government is yet to make arrangements for interrogation of the detainees in prisons eight years after the pronouncement of the verdict… It shows the attitude of successive governments in implementation of the court verdicts.'
In the verdict, the High Court issued a 15-point directive to the government and asked police officers, magistrates, jail officials, and sessions' judges to ensure that human rights were not violated.
The directives were issued in the judgement on a public interest litigation writ petition filed by the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust and a number of other rights organisations and activists challenging the abuse of arbitrary power of law enforcers to arrest on suspicion and torture of people remanded in police custody.
The writ petition was filed in November 1998 against the backdrop of the government's inaction in implementing and making public the recommendations made by the judicial inquiry commission of Justice Habibur Rahman Khan, formed to investigate the killing of Shamim Reza Rubel, a university student who died in custody of the Detective Branch on July 23, 1998. He was arrested on suspicion under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The inspector general (prisons) brigadier general Ashraful Islam Khan said that he was not aware of the verdict as it was pronounced eight years ago when he was not in prisons service.
A senior Dhaka central jail official, however, said that he had heard about the verdict but had received no directive.
The home minister, Sahara Khatun said that she could not confirm the exact situation of the implementation of the verdict.
She, however, said that the directives might not have been implemented as an appeal against the verdict was still pending with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Justice Nazmul Huq, however, during the hearing in the case of Nizami and Mojaheed on April 5, said that the Appellate Division had not stayed the operation of the 15-point directives, the implementation of which was ordered with an immediate effect.
BLAST's counsel Idrisur Rahman on Saturday said that the Appellate Division had allowed the government to appeal against the verdict for further hearing in the recommendations the High Court made for amendment to the CrPC and stayed the operation of the recommendations.
'But,' Idrisur said, 'no stay order was issued on the operation of the 15-point directives. The Appellate Division had rather said that the 15-point directives would remain undisturbed and must be implemented immediately.'
In the verdict, the High Court said, 'We are conscious that some of our recommendations cannot be implemented without making necessary amendments to the relevant law but at the same time we would like to insist that some of the recommendations may be implemented immediately as these are in conformity with some of the existing provisions of the constitution and the code itself. So, we would like to issue some directions to follow them immediately.'
In the directives, the court said when an arrested person would be produced before the nearest magistrate, the police officer would state in his forwarding letter as to why the investigation could not be completed in 24 hours and why he considered that the accusation or the information against that person was well-founded. He will also transmit a copy of the relevant entries in the case diary to the magistrate.
If the magistrate, on consideration of the reasons stated in the forwarding letter, thinks that the accusation or the information is well-founded and there are materials in .the case diary for detaining the person in custody, he will pass an order for further detention in jail. Otherwise, he will release the person forthwith, the directives said.
If the magistrate releases a person on the ground that the accusation or the information against the person produced before him is not well-founded, he will take step to prosecute the police officer for arresting the person without well-founded grounds.
The verdict said that if the magistrate passes an order for further detention in jail, the investigating officer shall question the accused, if necessary, for the purpose of investigation in a room in the jail until a glass-walled room is constructed.
Source : New Age
No comments:
Post a Comment