Rights Watch
Abduction of bali and alleged torture by BSF
As Shukharanjan Bali languishes in Indian Jail, there are contradictory claims made in the media. A few weeks back, Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged Indian government to take all necessary steps to protect Bali, a long-missing witness in the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh. On the other hand, BBC Bangla Service has principally relied on court documents to conclude that Bali crossed the border illegally. As Indian court documents revealed, Bali confessed to his guilt for entering into the Indian territory illegally on his own.
According to HRW release, Bali claimed that he was abducted by the Bangladeshi police from the entrance to the ICT courthouse, detained in Bangladesh and then forced by Bangladeshi security forces across the border into India. Bali, however accused BSF of torture. He was supposedly detained and tortured before being held in Kolkata's Dum Dum jail. The accusation of torture against BSF is not new at all.
Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Torture is thus defined in the Convention against Torture (CAT) and both Bangladesh and India are parties to the convention.
Bangladesh had accessed into CAT on 5 Oct 1998. Interestingly, India signed the convention on 14 Oct 1997. Though it has been stated in Article 2(1), “Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”; India has largely failed to restrict BSF and there were reported deaths resulting from torture in previous years also.
International human rights groups on many occasions protested brutality of BSF. In December 2010; HRW launched a report, entitled, “Trigger Happy” revealing excessive use of force by BSF at the Bangladesh border. In 2012, Amnesty International also issued a release where they alleged that dozens of Bangladeshis believed to be tortured or ill-treated after being picked up by Indian border security guards. The trend though declined but there were rare incidents where perpetrators were brought to book.
Though it has been stated in Article 10 of CAT, “Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment”; there has hardly been reflected in the conduct of BSF in the border with Bangladesh. Let alone torture, BSF resorted to firing when they identified suspected behavior in the border line with Bangladesh on many occasions.
Even if Bali crossed the border illegally, this could not have been justified for torturing a person. It has been said in Article 2, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”. As it came out in the BBC Bangla; Bali crossed the border in order to meet his brother.
Responsibility of state in case of an incident of torture has been specified in the CAT. “Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction”-said in Article 12.
Will there be a prompt and impartial investigation in this case?
The writer is a human rights worker.
Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Torture is thus defined in the Convention against Torture (CAT) and both Bangladesh and India are parties to the convention.
Bangladesh had accessed into CAT on 5 Oct 1998. Interestingly, India signed the convention on 14 Oct 1997. Though it has been stated in Article 2(1), “Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”; India has largely failed to restrict BSF and there were reported deaths resulting from torture in previous years also.
International human rights groups on many occasions protested brutality of BSF. In December 2010; HRW launched a report, entitled, “Trigger Happy” revealing excessive use of force by BSF at the Bangladesh border. In 2012, Amnesty International also issued a release where they alleged that dozens of Bangladeshis believed to be tortured or ill-treated after being picked up by Indian border security guards. The trend though declined but there were rare incidents where perpetrators were brought to book.
Though it has been stated in Article 10 of CAT, “Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment”; there has hardly been reflected in the conduct of BSF in the border with Bangladesh. Let alone torture, BSF resorted to firing when they identified suspected behavior in the border line with Bangladesh on many occasions.
Even if Bali crossed the border illegally, this could not have been justified for torturing a person. It has been said in Article 2, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”. As it came out in the BBC Bangla; Bali crossed the border in order to meet his brother.
Responsibility of state in case of an incident of torture has been specified in the CAT. “Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction”-said in Article 12.
Will there be a prompt and impartial investigation in this case?
The writer is a human rights worker.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments