Creating oversight body to prevent custodial torture

Given the long history of torture and even deaths of detainees in police custody, the creation of an independent oversight mechanism to prevent such serious human rights abuse has been long overdue. Especially, with the nightmarish experience of gratuitous murders in police custody and establishment of secret torture and death chambers called 'aina ghar' and other forms of human rights abuse during the past 16 plus years of autocracy, the need for such an (oversight) authority would not be felt more pressing. In this connection, Bangladesh under the current interim government in a commendable move in July this year has already ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT). Notably, this is an international treaty that establishes a system of regular and independent visits to places where people are deprived of their liberty (such as in prisons, immigration centres and, especially mental hospitals) to prevent torture and ill-treatment.

However, just ratification of the OPCAT is not enough to stop instances of gross human rights abuse by law-enforces at various detention centers. In fact, laws by themselves or being a signatory to such conventions with the best of intentions cannot ensure safety of people whether in custody of the law or in the street or even in their homes if the political authority is not willing to respect such laws or international protocols. The examples of rights abuse both at home and abroad abound. Consider, on this score, the case of the law styled 'Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act, 2013' that the government of the time had enacted. But thanks to the legacy of official inaction and the culture of impunity, the Act remained largely ineffective.

In recent times, in particular, the world is witnessing extreme cases of such tortures and egregious violation of human rights under the watch of the international rights bodies including those run by the UN. Such failures on the global stage as well as in national contexts to protect citizens from torture by the enforcers of law whether in custody or not, should be reason enough for the rights bodies to press those in power harder so the laws and protocols are made effective. It is against this backdrop that recently a seminar was held in the city where human rights advocates, experts, academicians, diplomats concerned about the issue as well as government leaders expressed their views about operationalising OPCAT by way of establishing an effective 'National Preventive Mechanism (NPM)' to monitor the detention facilities to prevent torture. It would be worthwhile to note at this point that it is obligatory on the part of the nations that have ratified OPCAT to establish an independent national authority in the style of NPM. What is special about an NPM is that unlike passive legal bodies, it is a proactive mechanism to prevent torture at detention facilities under a government.

The NPM functions through conducting regular visits, which are not announced before, to the potential places where such violent human rights abuse like torture take place either at police stations, or psychiatric centres or at any private facilities. Its functions also include examining condition of the detainees, if they are under treatment and assess their potential risks of torture or ill-treatment. The NPM can also recommend measures to relevant state authorities on how to improve existing conditions of the detainees and prevent future abuses. Most importantly, the authorities in question would be under legal obligations to examine recommendations so made and engage in dialogues with NPM towards their implementation. The good news is that the interim government has meanwhile gazetted the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Ordinance 2025 to clear the way for establishing a national torture prevention body. Hopefully, given the limited time in hand, the government would be expeditious enough to complete the remaining tasks for constituting the anti-torture oversight authority.