Observations and Questions on the UN Human Rights Report

Opinion

I read the United Nations report on Bangladesh. It was a 144-page document with 377 points, and I took the time to read it thoroughly out of personal interest. Those who are strongly opposed to the Awami League and support the current government seemed overjoyed, as if they had been handed an infallible weapon after six months. However, I am now doubtful—did they actually read the entire report?

Here are my observations:

1. The UN report covers the timeframe from July 1 to August 15. The movement began on July 14, so I didn’t understand why the report started from July 1. For a comprehensive analysis of such events, the aftermath should be considered. Here, only 10 days of the aftermath were included. Although some events after August 15 were referenced, they were not given much importance.

2. Many from the movement and the current government often claim that over 2,000 people were killed by the previous government. This report, however, states the number as 1,400, including the 10 days following the government’s fall. The report’s credibility would have increased if it had specified how many were killed before and after the government’s fall. Additionally, it should have clarified how many were killed by law enforcement and how many by the protesters. According to a report in *Prothom Alo* on August 8, 232 people were killed in the two days following the government’s fall. If the UN report had categorized the deaths in this manner, it would have provided greater clarity.

3. Points 211 to 242—these 32 points seem to have been overlooked by many. These points highlight the horrific retaliatory violence faced by Awami League supporters, law enforcement, and various religious and ethnic minority groups. Point 220 mentions sexual violence against women supporting the Awami League. At least one woman was raped during a second wave of violence. Point 240 acknowledges that, despite sincere efforts, the UN was unable to directly contact the victims. Why? The UN’s response was: “Safety concerns and the difficulty of accessing remote areas where victims were unwilling or unable to come forward due to fear.” Wow!

4. In point 222, the UN investigation team states that they were unable to fully investigate retaliatory killings, particularly of Awami League workers and police, within their capacity. Although the Awami League provided a list of 144 deceased workers, the investigation team could not physically verify these cases. Why couldn’t they? What stopped them? Or was the UN subtly indicating that they were not allowed to conduct an independent investigation?

5. Point 262 states: “Many perpetrators of revenge violence and abuses against distinct religious and indigenous groups apparently continue to enjoy impunity.” Here, the report criticizes the current government’s blanket immunity policy, stating that perpetrators should not be exempt from arrest or prosecution.

6. The UN report suggests that the previous government could be tried for “crimes against humanity,” which is an international crime. It also states that if the current government upholds international standards of impartiality, the UN is prepared to assist in this matter.

7. One thing the UN report did not mention is that the crimes outlined in points 211 to 242—targeted abuses against specific religious and ethnic groups—could also qualify as an international crime, known as “genocide.”

In my opinion, there is nothing in this report that should make any side feel entirely comfortable.

– Hasan Morshed
Writer, Journalist, Researcher on Liberation War and Genocide, and Human Rights Activist.