The UN report on July Uprising: What are its implications?

Barrister Sara Hossain. Sketch: TBS

'Those responsible for the atrocities could be prosecuted outside Bangladesh'

Barrister Sara Hossain

Advocate, Supreme Court 

This is the first time in independent Bangladesh's history that such a report on the country has been issued by a United Nations body, which makes it particularly significant. In the past, both national and international human rights organisations—operating from within and outside Bangladesh—have published similar reports. However, these were often dismissed by some as partisan or politically motivated. Now that this report has come directly from the UN's human rights body, it carries additional weight and credibility, making it difficult for any party to dispute its findings.

Another crucial aspect of the report is that it does not focus solely on killings. It also highlights other grave human rights violations, including violence against children and women. Notably, it addresses not only the mistreatment of women protesters in July but also the sexual harassment and violence faced by many female Awami League members after 5 August. 

Additionally, the report documents attacks on individuals who were not directly affiliated with the Awami League but were perceived as supporters of its ideology, as well as assaults on journalists and targeted violence against specific communities, including indigenous groups in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, and religious shrines.

Since 5 August, these issues have not been widely discussed in the public sphere. This report, therefore, holds immense importance. 

Its findings also underscore the urgent need for fair trials and justice. Unfortunately, many people in Bangladesh have continued to deny that massacres occurred in the weeks leading up to 5 August. Hopefully, this report will prompt a self-reckoning for them, and they will now acknowledge that they made a mistake by not acknowledging the atrocities and seeking justice.

The UN report also provides specific details on the types of weapons used during the July events, which will be invaluable for ongoing investigations. Moreover, an aspect that has not been widely considered over the past five or six months is that those responsible for the atrocities could be prosecuted outside Bangladesh. The report suggests that an investigation could be pursued at the International Criminal Court—an option that has yet to be explored. The interim government now has the opportunity to consider this course of action.

Individuals involved in these crimes who have fled to other countries can also be held accountable. Responsibility for their prosecution does not rest solely with Bangladesh; host countries also have a duty to bring them to justice. While efforts are already underway to repatriate these people, now that the report has confirmed human rights violations under international law, there is a legal basis to prosecute the perpetrators in foreign jurisdictions as well. This raises important questions about how such actions can be effectively pursued.

The report also makes several recommendations in detail concerning those who suffered after 5 August, which emphasises the need for justice for all victims of retaliatory violence. This is a critical issue that must not be overlooked.

It has also been stated that the UN will not share evidence from its investigation with Bangladesh unless the trials of those responsible for the violent crackdown in July meet international standards. It is now up to the interim government to ensure that these trials comply with those standards. However, a significant obstacle in this regard could be the issue of capital punishment. Additionally, there are concerns about the ability of the current structure of the International Crimes Tribunal to guarantee justice effectively. These matters must be carefully addressed moving forward.

'Intel agencies have to bring to justice those among them who committed crimes'

Nur Khan

Lawyer and human rights activist

I have only seen a small portion of the report, but what has been mentioned—especially regarding the firearms used during the July-August revolution, are firearms that are usually used in war zones. Using such weapons against one's own people and issuing directives for such attacks by the highest authorities of the state, and those who are policymakers, leaves us no alternative but to bring them to justice.  

Previously, the numbers we received ranged from 800 to 1,200 or 1,300. Since this report has been published by the United Nations, its significance is much greater, and I do not think there will be much discrepancy in the numbers. Additionally, a large number of people have been injured, and many children have been killed.  

This is undoubtedly a crime against humanity, and we all must remember that those who have committed such crimes to stay in power cannot deny their responsibility for crimes against humanity. They must be brought to justice.  

One thing is very clear: what kind of agreements do we have with the countries where these individuals are currently residing? Do we have any prisoner exchange treaty? If such a treaty exists, they should be utilised. The second point is that, since this is a crime against humanity, we are likely to receive greater support and cooperation from other countries. The main challenge now is to bring them back and put them on trial.  

Human rights activists have long been calling for the dissolution of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), and we must reiterate that demand. Another crucial issue is that intelligence agencies that have acted outside the law and the constitution—regardless of which agency — and they must now take moral responsibility for identifying and bringing to justice those within their ranks who have committed such crimes. If they fail to do so, I do not see any justification for the continued existence of such agencies.  

I have always been opposed to banning political parties, just as I opposed the banning of Jamaat-e-Islami in the past. No political party or ideology can be suppressed simply by outlawing it. Instead, our duty now is to bring to justice those individuals of Awami League involved in various crimes.  

To ensure a fair election in Bangladesh, we need to create the right environment. If we can maintain a favourable political atmosphere, then holding elections as soon as possible is crucial. At the end of the day, political parties are responsible for governing the country, and in their absence, we are witnessing significant weaknesses in governance.  

Based on the report, it is our moral obligation to ensure that justice is served as quickly as possible. The perpetrators must be identified and brought to trial so that such incidents are not repeated in the future, setting a strong precedent against such actions.

'The UN report will have no bearing on the extradition of Sheikh Hasina'

David Bergman

Investigative journalist and filmmaker

The recent UN report is extremely important, as it provides a detailed account of the killings committed in July and August. It outlines the nature of the killings, the weapons used, and, most importantly, attributes primary responsibility to the senior leadership of the Awami League, including to Sheikh Hasina herself. 

This report dismantles the narratives that the Awami League has been trying to establish over the past few months. Now, with a credible source like the UN bringing these details to light, it becomes far more difficult for the former governing party and its supporters to deny the accusations of its responsibility for the killings and other violations that took place.

Extensive international media coverage of this report was expected, however, I am disappointed by the limited attention it appears to have received. A UN report of such magnitude should have garnered far greater coverage. While I cannot speak for the media in other countries, I have not seen substantial reporting on it in the UK.

It is noteworthy that the UN has stated it will only share the evidence and findings of its report with the Bangladesh government if the trials adhere to international standards. This presents a complex challenge for the government and the International Crimes Tribunal particularly given the role of the death penalty in Bangladesh, which could become a major point of contention. In my view, the government should remove the provision for the death penalty.

As to the overall fairness and credibility of the trial process before the International Crimes Tribunal, it is still early days to make any clear assessment. Some positive changes in the law have taken place, but so much depends on its application and the culture of the court. 

The UN report will have no bearing on the extradition of Sheikh Hasina. I cant see any circumstance in which the Indian government will extradite her to Bangladesh. In my view, the Bangladesh government should ask the International Criminal Court to investigate and consider the prosecution of the conduct of Sheikh Hasina.

Beyond the July-August security force/Awami League killings, the UN report also sheds light on the recriminatory violence that took place, which the UN report stated resulted in the deaths of 52 law enforcement officials, including 44 police officers, as well as an uncertain number of Awami League politicians/supporters. These incidents should also be taken seriously, and properly investigated. The UN report raised concerns about a Home Office ordinance which appeared to provide immunity to those involved.

'Crimes that took place under Hasina and those that took place after are not the same' 

Tasneem Khalil

Editor, Netra News 

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time we are getting a very comprehensive overview of what happened during the [July] uprising and the following days. I think what we are missing out here is that there is a very clear legal determination involved in this case. And that is, OHCHR is saying that they have enough reasons to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in Bangladesh.  

NGOs, the government, [and] journalists can say something about where crimes against humanity have occurred [or] where they didn't. But generally, a statement from the UN on this matter is the biggest deal, that is the most significant point [of the said UN report]. 

'Crimes against humanity' is core to international law. So if further investigation confirms that crimes against humanity had occurred, in that case, this will take an international dimension. Not only Bangladesh, then every country will have a responsibility. It will become incumbent on every country to arrest those involved, because these perpetrators have transformed into "enemies of the human race." There is a Latin term for this. "'Hostis humani generis" [commonly used in international law to describe perpetrators of crimes against humanity] —- in short, that is the significance. 

With regards to the UN report also stating human rights violations that have continued under the interim government, crimes against humanity that took place under Hasina and those that took place under Yunus - we cannot say [label] both as systematic. That is [the crimes post Hasina's fall] were not committed in an official capacity. If there is no identification of who committed this, you cannot really prosecute a mob under international law, and that is a difference.  

But of course, the crimes committed during Hasina's regime must be investigated and those responsible brought to justice. Crimes committed after Hasina fled must also be dealt with. And that [the latter] is the responsibility of the interim government, to investigate, hold fair trials and bring those perpetrators to justice.  

In general, what I am saying is that if it is ultimately determined that Sheikh Hasina committed crimes against humanity, then it makes her "an enemy of humanity", and how Bangladesh will deal with this, using this from the UN findings, remains to be seen. 

I think that the interim government must give this report adequate significance and expand this UN fact-finding mission's remit [extend its date]. I think the standard limit is up to three years, and that should be given to them. 

What stood out for me was that it was the very first time that a UN body had addressed the question of DGFI in some detail; the report also said that they found evidence that Nahid Islam was held at Aynaghor —- this stood out very much for me. We went to Aynaghor [on Wednesday], and we were actually standing in the room he was held in, where he [Nahid] spoke to us.    

In regards to this, a proper response and action need to come from the DGFI. If that doesn't happen, then the recommendations section mentions UN peacekeeping missions [for DGFI] will be obstructed. A small part of the army has been involved with this [Aynaghor], the leadership shouldn't jeopardise the whole institution to protect the few — and that [proper measures] should come from the Bangladesh Army leadership.