The Asiapost News

The OHCHR fact-finding report claims to present an impartial analysis of the human rights violations during the July-August 2024 protests in Bangladesh. However, upon closer scrutiny, several logical inconsistencies, methodological flaws, and potential biases emerge. This critique assesses the legal and logical validity of the report, identifying areas where it may lack credibility and objectivity.

Questionable Legitimacy and Procedural Concerns
2.1. Basis for Investigation
The report states that OHCHR was invited by the Interim Government, which took office after the forced removal of the previous administration. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of the investigation, as:
– The Interim Government itself lacks a democratic mandate.
– The timing of the investigation suggests it was conducted under the influence of the new regime, leading to potential bias.
– There is no evidence that the former government was given an opportunity to provide input before the report’s publication

2.2. Selective Evidence Collection
The report claims to have conducted over 230 interviews but does not specify:
– How interviewees were selected.
– Whether any cross-examination was conducted to verify claims.
– If statements from former government officials were adequately considered.

By relying predominantly on testimonies from groups opposed to the former government, the report risks presenting a one-sided narrative.

3. Logical Fallacies and Lack of Objectivity
3.1. Presumption of Guilt Without Due Process

The report frequently states that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the former government committed human rights violations. However:
– This standard of proof is significantly lower than what is required in a court of law.
– The report lacks substantive forensic or legal analysis to support such conclusions.
– It assumes causality between government actions and the violent suppression of protests without considering other intervening factors.

3.2. Overgeneralization and Exaggeration
The report states that up to 1,400 people were killed, many by security forces. However:
– It does not cite independent autopsy reports or ballistic analyses.
– No distinction is made between casualties due to excessive force and those resulting from violent confrontations involving armed protesters.
– The role of opposition groups in inciting or participating in violence is downplayed.

4. Legal Inconsistencies
4.1. Application of International Law
The report invokes international human rights law but fails to acknowledge:
– The government’s duty to maintain public order and protect civilians from violent elements within the protests.
– The rights of law enforcement personnel who may have been attacked or killed.
– The necessity of proportional response evaluations before condemning state actions.

4.2. Lack of Clear Legal Framework
The report suggests that actions by the former government could constitute “crimes against humanity,” but:
– It does not establish the intent required for such a charge under international law.
– There is no evidence presented of a systematic policy to commit such crimes.
– The criteria for labeling incidents as “extrajudicial killings” are vague and inconsistent.
– The report explicitly states on **page 67, section 290** that OHCHR has “reasonable grounds to believe that the crimes against humanity of murder, torture, imprisonment, and infliction of other inhumane acts have taken place, as part of a widespread and systematic attack against protesters and other civilians”【57:18†DOC-20250212-WA0017..pdf】.
– The report also alleges that on **19 July**, the Prime Minister “instructed security force officials to ‘arrest the ringleaders of the protests, the troublemakers, kill them and hide their bodies’” on **page 28, section 117**【57:1†DOC-20250212-WA0017..pdf】.
– Additionally, the report states that **Bangladesh Police provided OHCHR with the names and functions of 95 members of the Police, Awami League, or Awami League-affiliated organizations** whom the Police considered to have **provided weapons for use in violent attacks during the protests**. This list included **10 members of parliament, 14 local Awami League leaders, 16 Jubo League leaders, 16 Chhatra League leaders, and 7 police officers**. Furthermore, the Police provided the names of **160 Awami League-affiliated political leaders and security sector officials** whom they considered responsible for **inciting or ordering violent attacks**, as documented on **page 45, section 198**【69:0†DOC-20250212-WA0017..pdf】.
– However, the OHCHR report does not provide detailed witness statements from the 95 police officers listed as allegedly involved in supplying weapons. While it mentions that Bangladesh Police provided names and functions, it does not include any direct testimonies or statements from these individuals【83:11†DOC-20250212-WA0017..pdf】. This omission raises concerns about due process, as the individuals accused were not given a platform to present their side of the story.

### **5. Additional Considerations and Contextual Gaps**
#### **5.1. The United Nations’ Report on the July and August 2024 Protests in Bangladesh Has Faced Several Criticisms:**
1. **Perceived Bias Against the Former Government:** The report disproportionately focuses on the actions of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her administration, potentially overlooking the complexities of the situation. The report details directives allegedly issued by Hasina to suppress protests, which some view as an oversimplification of the events.
2. **Methodological Concerns:** Questions have been raised about the report’s methodology, including the reliability of sources and the verification of data. Given the communication disruptions during the protests, some believe that the report may not present a fully accurate account of the events.
3. **Omission of Security Personnel Casualties:** The report has been criticized for not providing detailed information on casualties among security forces during the protests. Independent sources and police headquarters report that more than 3,200 police officers were killed or burned, and police arms were looted. This omission presents an incomplete picture of the violence that occurred during this period. Additionally, student organizations have reported different casualty figures, further questioning the credibility of the UN’s claim of 1,400 deaths.

6. Conclusion
While the report raises important concerns about human rights violations, its lack of procedural fairness, selective evidence presentation, and legal inconsistencies undermine its credibility. A more balanced and transparent investigation, free from political influence, is necessary to establish an accurate historical record of the protests and government response in Bangladesh.