In its recent report, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances confirmed evidence of torture in 253 cases of enforced disappearances (EDs) and highlighted significant human rights violations by law enforcement agencies (LEAs). The commission, however, seemed focused on punishing individual wrongdoers rather than holding the state accountable or suggesting effective solutions for the victims.
Out of 1,676 complaints received, 253 cases met the international law standards for EDs, supported by general diaries, criminal complaints, and media reports. The commission verified that individuals named in these complaints had been in state custody, faced false criminal charges upon reappearing, and are currently alive, with many sharing their detention and mistreatment experiences.
Despite recognizing the evidence, the commission primarily emphasized the need for new laws to criminalize EDs, focusing on individual accountability rather than state responsibility. It suggested utilizing existing legal frameworks like the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, and the Army Act, 1952, instead of utilizing established mechanisms under the Constitution of Bangladesh and the National Human Rights Commission Act (NHRC), 2009.
By concentrating on criminalization, the commission overlooked broader principles of state accountability, such as reparations, public apologies, and guarantees of non-repetition, which victims are entitled to under international human rights law. This approach risks diminishing the commission’s efforts to a procedural exercise, detached from the real needs of victims for interim and immediate remedies.
While criminal accountability is important, the state also has a duty to provide remedies and preventive measures independently of criminal proceedings. The commission could have referred cases to the NHRC or sought High Court intervention for remedies, following precedents like the Nurul Amin and Others v Government (2015) case.
The commission’s findings, backed by documentary evidence and victim testimonies, meet the civil standard of proof for establishing state responsibility for human rights violations. However, it failed to recommend compensation or guarantees of non-recurrence by the government or relevant ministries.
The commission’s recommendations reflect a limited understanding of human rights protection through existing mechanisms and have missed the opportunity to strengthen the nation’s human rights framework beyond criminalization. The report serves as a significant documentation of human rights violations but falls short of providing realistic solutions to repair the erosion of trust in public institutions caused by enforced disappearances.