New Delhi: In a fact-finding report released on Wednesday (February 12), the United Nations stated that former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and senior political leaders were directly involved in operations that led to serious human rights violations during last year’s student-led protests.
The UN human rights office also stated that the political vacuum following Hasina’s ouster led to a “broad pattern of violence” against minorities.
However, it noted that the motivations were varied, with incidents centring on “religious, ethnic and political biases”.
After weeks of student-led protests, Hasina fled to India on August 5 last year aboard a Bangladeshi military aircraft and has since remained in the Indian capital.
The interim government, led by chief adviser Muhammad Yunus, had requested her extradition, but there has been no progress on the matter.
While unveiling the report in Geneva, UN human rights chief Volker Turk avoided directly addressing whether accountability for Hasina was feasible without her return from India, making no mention of the South Asian country.
Instead, he raised the possibility of referring Hasina for prosecution to the International Criminal Court, but indicated that this would be contingent on universal jurisdiction.
India, however, is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.
“There is also the issue of ensuring that when individuals who have committed serious crimes are outside the country, universal jurisdiction can be applied in those states. Where such jurisdiction is possible for grave violations of international human rights law, it can be part of the accountability process,” he said.
In response to multiple media queries on whether the UN could play a role in bringing Hasina back to Bangladesh, another senior UN official indicated that the world body had little involvement but urged states to cooperate in ensuring accountability.
“The issue of extradition is really a bilateral process, but we hope that states will cooperate and support each other towards this goal of accountability – whether that’s India or other states where people may take refuge,” said Rory Mungoven, head of the Asia-Pacific Division at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or OHCHR.
The Bangladesh interim government has welcomed the report by the UN human rights office, which was based on an investigation conducted last September.
A team comprising investigators, a forensic physician and a weapons expert visited Bangladesh following an invitation from the Yunus government to carry out the probe.
The UN report estimated that up to 1,400 people may have been killed between July 1 and August 15, with thousands more injured – most of them shot by Bangladesh’s security forces.
It further indicates that 12-13% of those killed were children.
Bangladesh police reported the deaths of 44 officers.
The report even said that a “significant number of the killings by state security forces and Awami League supporters would amount to the crime against humanity of murder, as set forth in Article 7 of the Rome Statute”.
The report documented cases of sexual violence perpetrated by ruling Awami League supporters and noted that the UN office also received reports of threats of rape and sexual violence committed as “revenge violence” after August 5.
Turk described the Hasina government’s security crackdown as “a calculated and well-coordinated strategy by the former government to hold onto power in the face of mass opposition.”
He added that there were “reasonable grounds to believe hundreds of extrajudicial killings, extensive arbitrary arrests and detentions, and torture were carried out with the knowledge, coordination and direction of the political leadership and senior security officials as part of a strategy to suppress the protests.”
He further stated, “The testimonies and evidence we gathered paint a disturbing picture of rampant state violence and targeted killings, that are amongst the most serious violations of human rights, and which may also constitute international crimes.”
According to him, “accountability and justice are essential for national healing and for the future of Bangladesh.”
The OHCHR collected testimony from senior officials involved in handling the student protests, who stated that the political leadership, including Hasina, directed operations that resulted in human rights violations.
The report cited a senior official’s testimony, stating that “the then-prime minister personally ordered killings when she told senior officials present at a meeting on 19 July to ‘arrest the ringleaders of the protests, the troublemakers, kill them and hide their bodies.’”
It further noted that “in other meetings, she personally discussed the violent clearing of the Dhaka-Chattogram highway with senior security officials.”
Senior officials also told UN investigators that Hasina approved a plan to cover up the arbitrary arrest and detention of student leaders by the Detective Branch and Directorate General of Forces Intelligence.
A day before leaving Dhaka, she chaired a National Security Council meeting in the morning and a second meeting in the evening at her residence.
During these meetings, the prime minister, the home affairs minister and top security officials formulated and agreed on a plan to use force to stop the “March on Dhaka” in August.
The UN report stated, “In pursuance of that plan, police and, in at least one instance, also army personnel fired at protesters in violation of international human rights law and committed extrajudicial killings.”
It found that in some cases, security forces shot and killed unarmed protesters at point-blank range, demonstrating a clear intent to kill.
In many other instances, security personnel fired live rounds from military rifles and automatic pistols at crowds, aiming at the head and torso.
Shotguns loaded with lethal metal pellets were also used at close range, often with multiple shooters firing multiple rounds.
The report noted, “Persons discharging such weapons and their commanders would have been aware that this conduct would result in the death of some members of targeted crowds in the ordinary course of events.”
It emphasised that “in most cases, such killings could find no justification as self-defence or defence of others since the victims were either peaceful protesters, vandals of property, or rioting persons who posed no imminent threat of death or serious injury.”
On the issue of attacks on minorities, the OHCHR reported that it conducted 34 interviews, including with 12 victims of attacks between July 1 and August 15, 2024. It also met with members of several advocacy organisations and civil society groups.
The report noted that “corroborating the true extent of violence against these groups has proven challenging,” particularly as reports from advocacy organisations “often conflict to varying degrees with those of on-the-ground journalists.”
Nevertheless, it stated that “the information provided by interlocutors” “indicates a broad pattern of violence against specific communities rooted in religious, ethnic and political biases, with incidents clustering around themes of property destruction and the suppression of diverse identities.”
The UN report highlighted that “the power vacuum created by the unrest and overrunning of police stations led to increased vulnerabilities for distinct religious and indigenous groups, particularly Hindus, indigenous groups in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and Ahmadiyya Muslims.”
However, it noted that the motivation behind the attacks was not solely communal.
“Different and often intersecting motives drove these attacks, ranging from religious and ethnic discrimination to perceived opportunities for revenge against Awami League supporters among minorities, local communal disputes, including about land, and interpersonal issues,” said the report.
The OHCHR also observed that “misinformation has clouded the understanding and context of several incidents, emphasising the importance of verified sources in reporting these events.”
The attacks on minorities, particularly Hindus, after Hasina’s ouster were repeatedly raised by the Indian government.
While the interim administration acknowledged some incidents, it asserted that the issue was exaggerated and accused the Indian media of conducting a systematic misinformation campaign.
