A. ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF LIFE AND OTHER UNLAWFUL OR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED KILLINGS

There were numerous reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings. Police policy requires internal investigations of all significant uses of force by police, including actions that resulted in serious physical injury or death, usually by a professional standards unit that reports directly to the inspector general of police. The government, however, neither released official statistics on total killings by security personnel nor took transparent measures to investigate cases. Human rights groups expressed skepticism regarding the independence and professional standards of the units conducting these assessments and claimed citizens were being deprived of justice. In the few known instances in which the government brought charges, those found guilty generally received administrative punishment.

Law enforcement raids occurred throughout the year, primarily to counter terrorist activity, drugs, and illegal firearms. Suspicious deaths occurred during some raids, arrests, and other law enforcement operations. Security forces members frequently denied their role in such deaths. They claimed that when they took a suspect in custody to a crime scene to recover weapons or identify coconspirators, accomplices fired on police, police returned fire and, in the ensuing gunfight, the suspect was killed. The government usually described these deaths as “crossfire killings,” “gunfights,” or “encounter killings.” Media also used these terms to describe legitimate uses of police force. Human rights organizations and media claimed many of these crossfire incidents constituted extrajudicial killings. Human rights organizations claimed in some cases law enforcement units detained, interrogated, and tortured suspects, brought them back to the scene of the original arrest, executed them, and ascribed the death to lawful self-defense in response to violent attacks.

Extrajudicial killings dramatically decreased from the previous year. Domestic human rights organization Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) reported 19 individuals died in alleged extrajudicial killings or while in custody, including four in so-called crossfires with law enforcement agencies and eight due to physical torture before or while in custody. According to another domestic human rights organization, of 25 incidents of alleged extrajudicial killings between January and September, four deaths resulted from law enforcement crossfire killings, 10 persons were shot to death by law enforcement officers, and 10 others died from alleged torture while in custody.

In March domestic think tank Centre for Governance Studies released a report analyzing cases of extrajudicial killing between 2019 and 2021. The report claimed police, particularly the Detective Branch, were involved in more extrajudicial killings (51.2 percent of cases) than the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) (28.8 percent of cases). The report noted the number of extrajudicial killings in Cox’s Bazar was far higher than the rest of the country.

In November media reported Shaheen Miah was killed in a “gunfight” with the RAB in Rupganj in Narayanganj district near Dhaka city. In April media reported Mohammad Raju was killed in an alleged crossfire gunfight with the RAB in Comilla. A few days later, a second incident of alleged extrajudicial killing occurred when Kaiser Ahmed was killed in a gunfight with the RAB in Manikganj.

In January a Cox’s Bazar court handed down the death sentence to two of the officers accused of killing retired army Major “Sinha” Mohammad Rashed Khan, with six others receiving life sentences. In 2020, police in Cox’s Bazar allegedly shot and killed Khan at a checkpoint. The court acquitted seven individuals due to a lack of credible evidence. At the time of the incident, Sinha’s killing generated intense public discussion on police, extrajudicial killings, and other law enforcement excesses. The January court decision was the first guilty verdict for an alleged “crossfire killing.”

B. DISAPPEARANCE

Human rights groups and media reported disappearances and kidnappings continued, allegedly committed by security services. Between January and September, a local human rights organization reported 16 persons were victims of enforced disappearances. The government made limited efforts to prevent, investigate, or punish such acts. Civil society organizations reported victims of enforced disappearance were mostly opposition leaders, activists, and dissidents. Following alleged disappearances, security forces released some individuals without charge and arrested others. In May international rights organizations International Federation of Human Rights and the Asian Federation against Involuntary Disappearances, along with domestic rights groups Mayer Daak and Odhikar, issued a public letter claiming government-sponsored enforced disappearances against human rights advocates continued in the wake of December 2021 U.S. sanctions imposed upon RAB officials. The letter stated the families of disappeared individuals received frequent intimidation and threats for speaking out. Political opposition alleged police forces did not register complaints from families of those subjected to enforced disappearances.

In April Mayer Daak (Mother’s Call), an organization of members of the families of victims of enforced disappearances, held a press conference where it stated enforced disappearances continued unabated, particularly cases involving opposition party members. In August the organization alleged members of the ruling Awami League party had been uploading fabricated images on social media to malign the characters of female members of the victims’ families.

In January Human Rights Watch released a statement condemning the government’s dismissal of criticism in response to allegations of rampant enforced disappearances. Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report noted “a range of human rights abuses by law enforcement agencies – including enforced disappearances, custodial deaths, arbitrary arrests, and torture – have continued unabated.”

In March the Centre for Governance Studies launched a report analyzing 71 cases of enforced disappearances between 2019 and 2021. According to the report, the RAB was responsible for 40 percent of the disappearances and the Detective Branch of the national police was responsible for 30 percent. The report claimed a third of the disappearance cases were from Dhaka, with most victims being politicians and businesspersons. Students made up 11 percent of the victims.

In June the High Court suspended court proceedings against photojournalist and news editor Shafiqul Islam Kajol, who faced three charges that were first filed in 2020 under the Digital Security Act (DSA). Allegedly, the government forcibly detained Kajol in 2020 and did so incognito for 53 days. Kajol spent a total of 237 days in prison on defamation charges and was released on interim bail in December 2020. The June suspension of proceedings followed a primary hearing on three appeals made by Kajol. The cases were ongoing.

In May the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances (WGEID) reviewed previously submitted cases of potential enforced disappearance. The UN body is investigating a total of 81 cases of enforced disappearance in the country. Earlier in the year, the WGEID noted the government provided information regarding some cases of enforced disappearance, but the WGEID did not consider that information sufficient to determine the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared persons. The WGEID reported receiving complaints regularly concerning disappearances, mostly relating to alleged disappearances of members of opposition political parties.

C. TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, AND OTHER RELATED ABUSES

Although the constitution and law prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, local and international human rights organizations and media reported security forces, including those from the intelligence services, police, and soldiers seconded into civilian law enforcement agencies, employed torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.  The law allows a magistrate to place a suspect in interrogative custody, known as remand, during which questioning of the suspect may take place without a lawyer present.  Human rights organizations alleged many instances of torture occurred during remand.  Some victims who filed cases under the Torture and Custodial (Prevention) Act were reportedly harassed and threatened, while some were forced to withdraw their cases due to fear.

According to multiple organizations, including the UN Committee against Torture (UNCAT), security forces reportedly used torture to gather information from alleged militants and members of political opposition parties.  These forces reportedly used beatings with iron rods, kneecappings, electric shock, rape and other sexual abuse, and mock executions.  Numerous organizations also claimed security forces were involved in widespread and routine commission of torture, occasionally resulting in death, for the purpose of soliciting payment of bribes or obtaining confessions.  In March the UNCAT released a statement criticizing the government for its lack of response to its 2019 report, calling on the government to recognize torture as an “urgent concern”; to “cease engaging in the practice of unacknowledged detention”; and to set up an independent commission of inquiry into the RAB.

According to international and local civil society, activists, and media, impunity was a pervasive problem in the security forces, including within but not limited to the RAB, Border Guards Bangladesh, Detective Branch of Police, and other units.  Politicization of crimes, corruption, and lack of independent accountability mechanisms were significant factors contributing to impunity, including for custodial torture.  While police are required to conduct internal investigations of all significant abuses, civil society organizations alleged investigative mechanisms were not independent and did not lead to justice for victims.

In February media reported Ujir Mia died after alleged torture in police custody.  Police arrested Mia on charges of stealing cows, and witnesses arrested with Mia stated police brutally beat him and hung him upside down.  After Mia’s death, villagers blocked a local highway for three hours, demanding punishment of the police officers.  In March news stories reported a leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) died at the hospital while undergoing treatment hours after he was picked up and interrogated by the RAB.

During UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet’s August visit to the country, she called for “an impartial, independent, and transparent investigation” into allegations of torture, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances.  Bachelet also called for the country to rethink its position with regards to its nonparty status to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, pointing out, “Bangladesh is party to all the core UN human rights treaties, except for it.”

On June 26, a joint statement made by several human rights organizations, including Odhikar and the International Federation for Human Rights, condemned acts of torture performed by police, with Odhikar reporting 90 individuals were tortured to death between November 2013 and May 2022.  The joint statement includes condemnation of inaction by the government, claiming, “torture, both physical and mental, has become an institutionalized practice in the country.”

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Prison conditions were harsh and at times life threatening due to severe overcrowding, inadequate facilities, physical abuse, corruption, and a lack of proper sanitation and social-distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.  There were no privately run detention facilities.

Local human rights organization ASK reported 65 prisoners, of whom 37 were on trial and 28 were convicted, died in jail custody.  Former detainees reported some inmates who died in prison were transported to a hospital and pronounced dead due to natural causes.

Abusive Physical Conditions:  As of November, according to the Bangladesh Prisons Directorate (BPD) as reported by local press, 81,156 prisoners were held in 68 facilities across the country designed to hold approximately 42,600 inmates.  Prison superintendents stated they had no capacity to isolate inmates infected by COVID-19.  During the pandemic, the government opened three COVID-19 isolation centers in the districts of Keraniganj, Feni, and Kishoreganj.  Some released prisoners alleged many prisons underreported cases of COVID-19.  Authorities often incarcerated pretrial detainees with convicted prisoners.

Prison Directorate statistics revealed 43 of 141 positions for prison doctors were vacant as of August, with only five doctors assigned to prisons full-time.

Conditions in prisons, and often within the same prison complex, varied widely.  Authorities held some prisoners in areas subject to high temperatures, poor ventilation, and overcrowding.

While the law requires holding juveniles separately from adults, authorities incarcerated many juveniles alongside adults.  Children were sometimes imprisoned (occasionally with their mothers) despite laws and court decisions prohibiting the imprisonment of children.  The BPD continued to operate under provisions from British colonial law that allow children up to the age of seven to remain with their mothers in custody.  Authorities held female prisoners separately from men.

Although Dhaka’s central jail had facilities for those with mental disabilities, not all detention facilities had such facilities, nor are they required by law.

Administration:  Prisons lacked any formal process for offenders to submit grievances.  Prisons had no ombudsperson to receive prisoner complaints.  Retraining and rehabilitation programs were extremely limited.

Independent Monitoring:  The government permitted visits from government inspectors and nongovernmental observers who were aligned with the incumbent party.  No reports on these inspections were released.  The International Committee of the Red Cross continued to support the BPD and assisted 68 prison centers across the country, including supplying personal protective equipment and helping the government operate isolation centers to alleviate the spread of COVID-19.  According to the BPD, district and magistrate judges visited the prisons at least once every month.

Improvements:  The BPD attempted to address overcrowding by adding and renovating housing units in several jail locations.  The BPD undertook modernization projects at 32 facilities to increase security and provide a safer living environment for detainees and staff.

D. ARBITRARY ARREST OR DETENTION

The constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, but the law permits authorities to arrest and detain an individual without an order from a magistrate or a warrant if authorities perceive the individual may constitute a threat to security and public order, or if authorities perceive the individual is involved with a serious crime.  The constitution provides for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of his or her arrest or detention in court, but the government did not generally observe these requirements.  Media, civil society, and human rights organizations accused the government of conducting enforced disappearances not only against suspected militants but also against civil society and opposition party members.  Authorities often held detainees without divulging their whereabouts or circumstances to family or legal counsel, or without acknowledging having arrested them.

Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees

The constitution requires arrests and detentions be authorized by a warrant or occur because of observation of a crime in progress, but the law grants broad exceptions to these protections.

Under the constitution detainees must be brought before a judicial officer to face charges within 24 hours, but this was not regularly enforced.  The government or a district magistrate may order a person detained for 30 days to prevent the commission of an act that could threaten national security; however, authorities sometimes held detainees for longer periods with impunity.

There is a functioning bail system, but police routinely rearrested bailed individuals on other charges, despite directives from the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division prohibiting the rearrest of persons on new charges without first producing them in court.

Authorities generally permitted defense lawyers to meet with their clients only after formal charges were filed in the courts, which in some cases occurred weeks or months after the initial arrest.  Detainees are legally entitled to counsel even if they cannot afford to pay for it, but the country lacked sufficient funds to provide this service.  Many detainees were not permitted to communicate with others outside of detention.

Arbitrary Arrest:  Arbitrary arrests occurred, often in conjunction with political demonstrations or speech, or as part of security force responses to terrorist activity, and the government held persons in detention without specific charges, sometimes to collect information regarding other suspects.  The expansiveness of the 1974 Special Powers Act grants legal justification for arrests that would often otherwise be considered arbitrary, since it removes the requirement that arrests be based on crimes that have occurred previously.  Human rights activists claimed police falsely constructed cases to target opposition leaders, workers, and supporters, and that the government used the law enforcement agency to crack down on political rivals.

From August to December, police arbitrarily arrested thousands of opposition BNP members during otherwise peaceful protests.  Following two clashes between the BNP and the Awami League in Netrakona and Madan, police filed charges against 759 BNP leaders and activists.  In December media reported police headquarters announced that police arrested more than 6,000 individuals during a nationwide “special drive.”  While police claimed this drive was to control crime, human rights organizations and observers noted most of the arrested persons were from the opposition party.

Pretrial Detention:  Arbitrary and lengthy pretrial detention continued due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited resources, lax enforcement of pretrial rules, and corruption.  Lawyers attributed the overuse of arbitrary and stringent laws such as the DSA, some of which have do not allow for bail, as another explanation for the high numbers of pretrial detentions.  In some cases, the length of pretrial detention equaled or exceeded the sentence for the alleged crime.

E. DENIAL OF FAIR PUBLIC TRIAL

The constitution provides for an independent and impartial judiciary, but corruption and political interference compromised its independence.  The government generally did not respect judicial independence and impartiality.

Human rights observers maintained that lower courts sometimes ruled based on influence from or loyalty to political patronage networks, particularly in cases filed against opposition political party supporters.  Observers claimed judges who made decisions unfavorable to the government risked to other jurisdictions.

Observers alleged judges sometimes accepted bribes from attorneys or other court officials for bail or acquittal in criminal cases.

Corruption and a substantial backlog of cases hindered the court system, and the granting of extended continuances effectively prevented many defendants from obtaining fair trials.  During the pandemic, media reported many courts were closed and very few operated virtually, exacerbating case backlogs.  In some cases, defendants remained in custody during the trial for longer than the maximum custodial sentence of the crime for which they were charged.

Defendants who could not afford an attorney or chose to remain undefended were not eligible for bail during proceedings.  The National Legal Aid Services Organization offered some services to defendants who could not afford private attorneys, but access to those services often required burdensome formalities and extensive periods of time.  Many defendants were unaware of these services.

Trial Procedures

The constitution provides the right to a fair and public trial, but the judiciary did not always protect this right due to corruption, partisanship, and weak human resources.  Legal experts noted prosecution witnesses often did not show up in court to give oral testimony and there were insufficient judges to handle the pending case load in a timely manner.

Defendants do not have the right to a timely trial.  Indigent defendants have the right to a public defender, but in many cases public defenders were not well prepared nor adequately acquainted with the details of the case at hand.  Trials are conducted in the Bengali language; the government does not provide free interpretation for defendants who cannot understand or speak Bengali.

The government frequently did not respect the rights of accused persons to confront prosecution or plaintiff witnesses and present their own witnesses and evidence.  Authorities did not always respect the right not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt, and defendants who did not confess were often kept in custody.  Some defendants claimed police pressured the accused to confess under duress.

The administrative process by which lower court and jail authorities were notified of the outcome of High Court appeals was very slow.  On August 7, the High Court ordered a judicial inquiry into the matter of a defendant, Abul Kashem, who had been serving his sentence in a cell for seven years despite his acquittal by the appellate court.  After publication of this news in an online newspaper, the High Court ordered his immediate release.  In 2007, Kashem was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.  In 2013, the High Court acquitted Kashem on appeal, but its order was not communicated to the prison authorities.

Mobile courts headed by executive branch magistrates rendered immediate verdicts that often included prison terms for defendants who did not have the opportunity for legal representation.

In December media reported the court granted the RAB additional time to submit its probe report in a high-profile case involving the killing of two journalists in 2012.  This was the 94th deferral of the probe deadline.  Law enforcement officials arrested and charged eight individuals with the double murder, but the RAB had not submitted its report.

Political Prisoners and Detainees

There were reports of political prisoners or detainees.  Political affiliation often appeared to be a factor in claims of arrest and prosecution of members of opposition parties, including through spurious charges under the pretext of responding to national security threats.

In June former prime minister and chairperson of the opposition political party BNP Khaleda Zia received permanent bail on two cases filed against her for hurting religious sentiments and making derogatory remarks against Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.  This granting of permanent bail followed several short-term extensions since 2020 when Zia’s sentence was first suspended on humanitarian grounds.  In a separate case alleging abuse of power, Zia’s indictment hearing was consistently postponed throughout the year due to illness.  In 2018 Zia was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on corruption and embezzlement charges, which were first filed in 2008.  International and domestic legal experts commented on the lack of evidence to support the conviction and suggested a political ploy to remove the leader of the opposition from the electoral process.  These experts stated courts were generally slow in considering petitions for bail on her behalf.

The Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal, established in 2010 to conduct trials of those accused of war crimes and atrocities that took place during the 1971 War of Independence, was active during the year; many observers viewed the proceedings as politically motivated, as the court almost exclusively indicted members of opposition political parties.  In July the tribunal sentenced six persons to death for committing crimes against humanity in Khulna.  In March and May, the tribunal sentenced to death members of the Jamaat-e-Islami party for collaborating with the Pakistan Army.

Transnational Repression

The government used transnational repression to intimidate or exact reprisals against individuals outside its sovereign borders, including against members of diaspora populations, such as political opponents, civil society activists, human rights defenders, and journalists.

Threats, Harassment, Surveillance, and Coercion:  According to the press, police and intelligence agencies continued to harass and surveil human rights defenders, civil society leaders, and the family members of critics based outside of the country.  In March UN human rights experts called on the government to “immediately cease reprisals against human rights defenders and relatives of forcibly disappeared persons for their activism and cooperation with international human rights bodies and UN mechanisms.”

In March, Nusrat Shahrin Raka, sister of U.S.-based Bangladeshi journalist Kanak Sarwar, was released on bail after being imprisoned for 160 days.  As of December, she remained out on bail, although the cases against her continued and hearings took place every few months.  In October 2021, media reported RAB forces arrested Raka on charges of violating the DSA and drug possession.  According to the press, Sarwar believed the charges against his sister were retribution for his previous online commentary seen as being critical of the government and said his sister had committed no crime.  In 2020, the High Court directed authorities to block Sarwar’s websites in which he shared content for “anti-state distorted content.”

In September media sources reported the detective branch of the national police arrested Nur Alam Chowdhury, brother of London-based weekly Surma editor Shamsul Alam Liton, as reprisal for Liton’s stories critical of the government and his work to organize a demonstration in front of the British parliament on August 30 to mark the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.  In November the Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime (CTTC) department of Dhaka Metropolitan Police filed a case against writer and online activist Pinaki Bhattacharya and two others, Mofizur Rahman and Mushfiqul Fazal Ansary, on charges under the DSA of maligning the image of the country.  According to the case statement, on October 14, the CTTC noticed a Facebook status posted by Pinaki, who lives in France, that allegedly spread misinformation regarding the police force.  Police claimed Rahman, whom they subsequently arrested, shared the misinformation with Ansary and Pinaki, who posted it on social media.

In November media reported the Bangladesh High Commission in Canada warned Bangladeshi Canadians that a group of individuals had spread fabricated and false information against the country.  Terming those individuals money launderers, loan defaulters, and convicts, the high commission stated the Bangladesh government was observing such “anti-state” activities closely and that the Toronto consulate would refuse those persons consular services.

Efforts to Control Mobility:  There were credible reports the government attempted to target citizens for reprisal by revoking their identity documents to control mobility.  In January news outlets reported the Liberation War Affairs minister announced the government had decided to revoke the passports of Bangladeshis based overseas involved in “anti-Bangladesh activity.”

Bilateral Pressure:  There were credible reports that for politically motivated purposes, the government attempted to exert bilateral pressure on other countries aimed at having them take adverse action against specific individuals.  In September media reported the Ministry of Home Affairs sent Bangladesh missions abroad a list of those committing “anti-state” activities in foreign countries, asking those missions to pressure host governments to take any possible legal action against them.

Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies

Individuals and organizations may seek judicial remedies for human rights abuse; however, lack of public faith in the court system deterred many from filing complaints.  Courts or other mechanisms were insufficiently independent to provide effective civil remedies for human rights abuses.

Property Seizure and Restitution

The government did not implement a 2001 act to accelerate the process of return of land primarily to Hindu individuals.  The act allows the government to confiscate property of anyone whom it declares to be an enemy of the state.  It was often used to seize property abandoned by minority religious groups when they fled the country, particularly after the 1971 independence war.

Minority groups continued to report land ownership disputes that disproportionately displaced members of ethnic minorities, especially in areas near new roads or industrial development zones where land values had increased.  They also claimed local police, civil authorities, and political leaders were sometimes involved in evictions or shielded politically influential land grabbers from prosecution (see section 6, Indigenous Peoples).  While the law allows for land restitution for Indigenous persons living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), this rarely occurred.

F. ARBITRARY OR UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY, FAMILY, HOME, OR CORRESPONDENCE

The law does not prohibit arbitrary interference with private correspondence. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies may monitor private communications with the permission of the Ministry of Home Affairs, but police rarely obtained such permission from the courts when monitoring private correspondence. Human rights organizations alleged police, the National Security Intelligence, and the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence employed informers to conduct surveillance and report on citizens perceived to be critical of the government.

A. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, INCLUDING FOR MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND OTHER MEDIA

The constitution provides for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, but the government frequently contravened this right.  There were significant limitations on freedom of expression both online and offline.  Members of media and bloggers self-censored their criticisms of the government due to harassment and fear of reprisal.

Freedom of Expression:  The constitution equates criticism of the constitution with sedition.  Punishment for conviction of sedition ranges from three years to life imprisonment.

The law limits hate speech but does not define clearly what constitutes hate speech, which permits the government broad latitude to interpret it.  The government may restrict speech deemed to be against the security of the state; against friendly relations with foreign states; and against public order, decency, or morality; or which constitutes contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.  The law criminalizes any criticism of constitutional bodies.

The DSA, passed ostensibly to reduce cybercrime, provides for sentences of up to life imprisonment for spreading “propaganda” against the Bangladesh Liberation War, the national anthem, or the national flag.  Throughout the year the government widely used the DSA against persons criticizing the government, including questioning the government’s handling of the pandemic.  Increasingly, the law was used against speech found on social media, websites, and other digital platforms, including for commentators living outside of the country.  In April the Centre for Governance Studies released a report that stated at least 2,244 individuals were accused in 890 DSA cases between January 2020 and February 2022.  Politicians made up the plurality of the accused, followed by journalists.  The report claimed an average of 32 arrests per month under the DSA, with arrest rates increasing in 2021 and during the year.  Separate news stories noted even children were facing DSA charges.  At least 18 cases were filed against 20 children between ages 13 and 17 in 12 districts of the country.

In March Amnesty International reported, “Section 25 (publication of false or offensive information), Section 29 (publication of defamatory information) and Section 31 (offense and punishment for deteriorating law and order) of the DSA were used systematically to target and harass dissenting voices, including those of journalists, activists, and human rights defenders.  These actions contravened the country’s commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as its domestic constitutional obligations.”

Violence and Harassment:  Authorities, including intelligence services and student affiliates of the ruling party, subjected journalists to physical attacks, harassment, and intimidation, especially when tied to the DSA, which human rights activists viewed as a government and ruling party tool to intimidate journalists.  The Editors’ Council, an association of newspaper editors, stated the DSA stifled investigative journalism, and members published editorials stating so publicly.  Individuals faced the threat of being arrested, held in pretrial detention, subjected to expensive criminal trials, fines, and imprisonment, as well as the social stigma associated with having a criminal record.  Of 20 clauses of the law relating to crime and punishment, 14 are nonbailable, five are bailable, and one is negotiable, according to the Editor’s Council.

Minority rights organizations criticized the arbitrary detention under the DSA of minority community members on the false pretext of blasphemy.  They claimed the government arrested members of the minority community after anti-Hindu violence in October 2021, to ensure news of brutalities committed against minorities was not posted on social media.

Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media:  Both print and online independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views; however, media outlets that criticized the government were pressured by the government.  Independent media could not operate freely or without restrictions.

The government maintained editorial control over the country’s public television station and allegedly mandated private channels broadcast government content for free.  Civil society organizations stated political interference influenced the licensing process, since all television channel licenses granted by the government were for stations supporting the ruling party.

In October police submitted to a Dhaka court a report stating that police found no evidence against Prothom Alo senior journalist Rozina Islam, who faced charges in an Official Secrets Act case.  The government arrested Islam in May 2021 under the 1923 Official Secrets Act and sections of the penal code for investigating a corruption story involving the Ministry of Health, accusing him of taking photos and stealing official documents from the ministry.  Media outlets reported Islam was confined to a government office in Dhaka for five hours and, according to her family, physically harassed and mistreated.  Islam, if convicted, could be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison or the death penalty.

Independent journalists and media alleged intelligence services influenced media outlets in part by withholding financially important government advertising and pressing private companies to withhold their advertising as well.  The government penalized media that criticized it or carried messages of the political opposition’s activities and statements.

Privately owned newspapers usually were free to carry diverse views outside politically sensitive topics or those that criticized the ruling party.  Political polarization and self-censorship remained a problem.  Investigative journalists often complained of their management and of editors “killing” reports due to fear of pressure from the government and its intelligence agencies.  Some journalists received threats after publishing their stories.  According to journalists and human rights groups, journalists engaged in self-censorship due to fear of security force retribution, prosecution under the DSA, and the possibility of being charged with politically motivated cases.  Although public criticism of the government was common and vocal, some media figures expressed fear of harassment by the government.

In a June statement, human rights organization Article 19 expressed concern regarding the killings of three media workers between March and June.  Article 19 recorded 62 incidents of physical assault on journalists across the country from January to May.

Libel/Slander Laws:  Libel, slander, defamation, and blasphemy are treated as criminal offenses, most often employed against individuals speaking against the government, the prime minister, or other government officials.  Laws referring to defamation of individuals and organizations were used to prosecute opposition figures and members of civil society.

National Security:  Authorities stated the DSA was essential to protect national and cyber security and prevent communalism.  They allegedly used the law to arrest or punish critics of the government or deter criticism of government policies or officials.

Nongovernmental Impact:  Societal pressures limited freedom of expression; atheist, secular, religious minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) writers and bloggers reported they continued to receive death threats from alleged extremist organizations.

Internet Freedom

The government restricted and disrupted access to the internet and censored online content in numerous incidents.  Laws banned virtual private networks and voice-over-internet-protocol telephone, but authorities rarely enforced this prohibition.  The government monitored private online communications without appropriate legal authority.

In several incidents the government interfered in internet communications, filtered or blocked access, restricted content, and censored websites or other communications and internet services.  From October to December, the government allegedly blocked or slowed internet services in cities where opposition parties planned rallies.  It suspended or closed many websites based on vague criteria, or with explicit reference to their pro-opposition content being in violation of legal requirements.

The Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission is charged with regulating telecommunications.  It carries out law enforcement and government requests to block content by ordering internet service providers to act.  The commission filtered internet content the government deemed harmful to “national unity and religious beliefs.”

Local media reported the country is among those allegedly using Pegasus, the Israeli-made surveillance application.  The government’s information and communication technology minister denied the software purchase and deferred further questions to law enforcement agencies.  The Citizen Lab, an international research laboratory, claimed the spyware was detected on the networks of Bangladesh Telecommunication Company Limited, the country’s largest telecommunications company.

In January 2020, authorities blocked the Swedish-based website Netra News after it published reports alleging corruption by a government minister.  As of December, the website remained blocked.

In September the Asia Desk of the Committee to Protect Journalists reported authorities temporarily blocked domestic access to the website of DrikNews, run by human rights advocate and photographer Shahidul Alam.

Restrictions on Academic Freedom and Cultural Events

Although the government placed few restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events, authorities discouraged research on sensitive religious and political topics that might fuel possible religious or communal tensions.  Academic publications on the 1971 independence war were subject to scrutiny and government approval.

B. FREEDOMS OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION

The government restricted freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.

Freedom of Peaceful Assembly

The law provides for the right to peaceful assembly, but the government generally did not respect this right.  The law gives the government broad discretion to ban assemblies of more than four persons.  The government requires advance permission for gatherings such as protests and demonstrations (see section 1.d.).

According to human rights groups, authorities continued to prohibit gatherings by opposition groups and imposed what observers saw as unreasonable requirements for permits.  Occasionally police or ruling party activists used force to disperse demonstrations assembled by opposition parties, organizations, and activists.

Opposition leaders and activists reported numerous restrictions towards organizations throughout the year.  The opposition BNP was regularly denied permission to hold events or intimidated by authorities and ruling party activists at their events.  On September 17, media reported the government had adopted a policy to confine BNP programs to specific locations within Dhaka.  In March Amnesty International released its 2021-22 report, in which it stated, “Peaceful protests by opposition political parties and students were prevented and suppressed by the authorities, on some occasions using excessive force.”

In July a man was killed and at least 40 injured in Bhola after police opened fire on opposition BNP activists protesting energy-sector mismanagement and power cuts.  Police subsequently filed two charges against more than 400 BNP leaders and activists.  In September several BNP party members were injured after activists of the ruling Awami League party attacked a candlelit program in Dhaka’s Banani area.  The BNP had announced the program to protest price increases of essential commodities and the recent killings of three party activists by police.  In response to the violence, leaders of political parties in alliance with the Awami League spoke out condemning the attacks and claimed such violence moved the country in a backward direction.

On September 19, media reported that since August 22, three BNP members were killed and more than 2,100 injured in clashes between police and Awami League activists in protests regarding the rising cost of living.  According to the BNP, in September more than 220 of its members had been arrested and police had filed at least 65 charges against at least 4,100 named and more than 20,500 unnamed members of the party.  They also claimed ruling party members vandalized the houses and businesses of BNP party members in at least 60 incidents.

Freedom of Association

The law provides for the right of citizens to form associations, subject to “reasonable restrictions” in the interest of morality or public order, and the government generally respected this right.  The government’s NGO Affairs Bureau often withheld or delayed approval for foreign funding to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), especially those working on matters the bureau deemed sensitive, such as human rights, labor rights, Indigenous rights, LGBTQI+ rights, or humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees (see sections 2.d., 5, and 7.a.).

The law restricts the receipt of foreign funds by NGOs or government officials and provides for punishment of NGOs making any derogatory comments regarding the constitution or constitutional institutions (see section 5).  Many civil society organizations claimed they faced increasing scrutiny and bureaucratic delays.

C. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/

D. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND THE RIGHT TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY

The law provides for freedom of internal movement, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights, except in three sensitive areas: the CHT, Rohingya refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, and on the island of Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal.

In-country Movement: The government enforced restrictions on access to the CHT by foreigners and restricted movement of Rohingya refugees. The refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar were surrounded by barbed and concertina wire fencing with few pedestrian gates to allow the Rohingya to move among the camps or into the local community. Bhasan Char is an island with no regular links to the mainland. Authorities caught and detained many Rohingya who tried to leave Bhasan Char or camps in Cox’s Bazar and returned them to the registered camps.

Foreign Travel: While foreign travel is allowed, some senior domestic civil society and international NGO representatives, as well as opposition party members, reported harassment and delays when applying for a visa, entering, or departing the country. The government prevented war crimes suspects from the 1971 independence war from leaving the country.

Throughout the year numerous lockdown periods and movement restrictions were enforced, sporadically, to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. While restrictions technically applied to all citizens during any designated period, civil society reported individuals from poorer communities were disproportionately arrested or punished for violating quarantine rules. Allegations of bribes to avoid movement restrictions or penalties were also reported.

E. PROTECTION OF REFUGEES

The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to Rohingya refugees.

The government is not a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol. As a result, the government claimed it was not under legal obligation to uphold the basic rights enshrined in this treaty.

Prior to the 2017 Rohingya arrivals, the government and UNHCR provided temporary protection and basic assistance to approximately 33,000 registered Rohingya refugees from Burma living in two official camps (Kutupalong and Nayapara), while the government and the International Organization for Migration aided approximately 200,000 undocumented Rohingya living in makeshift settlements in Cox’s Bazar. In 2017, more than 750,000 Rohingya fled genocide in neighboring Burma to seek safe haven in Bangladesh. As of November 30, because of this influx, 950,972 registered Rohingya refugees were living in refugee camps, makeshift settlements, and host communities. The government claimed actual numbers totaled more than 1.2 million. The government did not recognize the arrivals as refugees, referring to them instead as “forcibly displaced Myanmar nationals,” but abided by many of the established UN standards for refugees. One notable exception was that Rohingya do not enjoy full freedom of movement throughout the country. Government officials stated repatriation was the government’s only goal, stressing privileges such as freedom of movement, formal education, or livelihood opportunities could not be afforded to the Rohingya population.

A National Task Force of 25 ministries and department representatives and chaired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided oversight and strategic guidance for the overall Rohingya response. The Ministry of Home Affairs coordinated and maintained law and order for the response, with support from the Armed Police Battalion. At the local level, the Office of the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner, under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, was responsible for the management of the camps.

As of November, Bhasan Char hosted 28,760 Rohingya refugees. Media reported the government spent 31 billion taka ($310 million) to prepare for the eventual transfer of 100,000 refugees to the island. Current programs operate under a 2021 memorandum of understanding between the government and UNHCR that outlines the humanitarian and protection framework underlying UN operational engagements on the island.

On September 11, the government brought charges against 29 Rohingya in connection with the September 2021 killing of Mohammad Mohib Ullah, chairman and founder of the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace and Human Rights, in Cox’s Bazar. By October 2021, several men were arrested in connection with the killing. In March the Armed Police Battalion arrested the chief commander of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army’s Ulama branch, Maulovi Zakaria accused of having issued a fatwa against Mohib Ullah.

Access to Asylum: The law does not provide for granting asylum or refugee status, nor has the government established a formal system for providing protection to refugees. Nonetheless, the government provided significant protection and assistance to Rohingya refugees residing in the country. Prior to 2017, the government cooperated with UNHCR to provide temporary protection and basic assistance to registered refugees residing in two official camps. After the 2017 arrival of more than 750,000 additional Rohingya refugees, the government started to register the refugees biometrically and provided identity cards with their Burmese addresses. Despite this documentation system, the lack of formal refugee status for Rohingya and clear legal reporting mechanisms in the camps impeded refugees’ access to the justice system. UNHCR continued to operate registration centers to update individual and family status due to marriages, divorces, births, and deaths.

In September media reported up to 15 new Rohingya arrivals fled fighting in Burma and took refuge in the existing camps. Government officials prevented UNHCR from registering these new arrivals, and in October, several of these refugees reported they were in hiding and relying on the generosity of registered refugees for food and shelter.

Abuse of Migrants and Refugees: The government mostly cooperated with UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to Rohingya refugees, despite significant security concerns in the camps. NGOs reported human trafficking and smuggling were common in the camps, with few cases prosecuted in the country’s judicial system. When discovered, government officials returned trafficking victims to the camps.

International organizations reported gender-based violence directed against women in the camps. Intimate partner violence comprised 90 percent of the cases. The reduced footprint of international organizations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic limited reporting and monitoring of gender-based violence.

Accountability for all crimes, including human trafficking, remained a problem. Rohingya relied on government officials responsible for each camp (also known as the Camps in Charge, or CiC) to address allegations of crime. The CiCs were largely autonomous and varied in terms of responsiveness to camp needs. According to international organizations, some CiCs were susceptible to corruption. International organizations alleged some border guard, military, and police officials were involved in facilitating trafficking of Rohingya women and children, ranging from “looking the other way,” to bribes for allowing traffickers to access Rohingya in the camps, to direct involvement in trafficking.

After May Eid al-Fitr celebrations, Human Rights Watch reported extortion, harassment, beatings, verbal abuse, and unlawful or arbitrary arrest by Armed Police Battalion restricted refugees’ ability to move within the camps for the purposes of collecting rations and obtaining medication. In April Human Rights Watch also reported authorities intensified restrictions on Rohingya refugees’ livelihoods, movement, and education. The organization noted officials arbitrarily destroyed thousands of shops while imposing new obstacles on travel within the camps in Cox’s Bazar.

The 2021 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United Nations and the government has provisions to improve protections and services for Rohingya refugees on Bhasan Char. The MOU proposes expanded access to services, such as education, skills and vocational training, livelihoods, health care, and uninterrupted telecommunication services, which was funded by some international donors through the 2022 Joint Response Plan. Following conclusion of the MOU, UN organizations began delivering humanitarian aid on Bhasan Char.

Freedom of Movement: There were restrictions on Rohingya freedom of movement. According to the 1993 MOU between the government and UNHCR, registered Rohingya refugees are not permitted to move outside official camps. After the 2017 influx, police set up checkpoints on the roads to restrict travel by both registered refugees and arrivals beyond the Ukhiya and Teknaf subdistricts. Rohingya located at Bhasan Char had little means to exit the island or travel to camps in Cox’s Bazar, where many claimed to have family members, leading some human rights groups to label the situation on the island as “detention.” At least 120 refugees were arrested for trying to leave the island. On May 4 and 5, police temporarily detained 656 refugees in Cox’s Bazar when they left the camps to celebrate Eid-al-Fitr at local beaches.

A senior disaster management ministry official stated the government had decided to allow at least two trips per month from the island to the camps in Cox’s Bazar for family visits. Regular and reliable connections to and from the mainland for logistics, trade, family visit, medical, and other reasons did not exist. Refugees complained to donor representatives that they often had to wait months for an opportunity to visit Cox’s Bazar, that visits were only permitted when deemed “urgent,” and that unpaid government-appointed Rohingya community leaders had to be bribed to certify a visit request as urgent enough to merit approval and vouch for the visitors’ intent to return to Bhasan Char.

Many camp authorities introduced curfews and law enforcement patrols, particularly at night, in response to reported concerns regarding violent attacks, abductions, or kidnappings in the camps. Stating a desire to better secure the camp and protect Rohingya from migrant smuggling, the government has erected watchtowers and fencing in the camps in Cox’s Bazar. Humanitarian agencies said fencing hindered delivery of services to refugees and exacerbated tensions between refugees and host communities.

Employment: There were credible reports the government imposed restrictions on refugees’ ability to work. The government did not formally authorize Rohingya refugees in the country to work locally, although it allowed some volunteer opportunities with small stipends and limited cash-for-work activities for Rohingya to perform tasks within the camps. On August 21, the National Task Force endorsed the long-awaited draft skills development framework. The skills development framework outlines the skills and training that may be provided to refugees and host communities, with UN support, based on assumptions of the kinds of livelihoods generally available in Rakhine state.

In August Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s press secretary reported to media that the prime minister had told visiting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet that initiatives to increase Rohingya refugees’ employment and education opportunities would not be possible in Cox’s Bazar. On Bhasan Char, skills development and livelihood opportunities were limited but appeared to be increasing during the year.

Despite their movement restrictions, some refugees worked illegally as manual laborers on the informal economy, where some were exploited as labor trafficking victims.

Access to Basic Services: The rapid increase in the population strained services both inside