Involuntary confessions, complicit magistrates: alarming findings surface in enforced disappearance commission probe

Subjected to relentless torture, a 19-year-old youth, a victim of “enforced disappearance” by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), was coerced into memorising a confession written by officials.

Despite pleading with the magistrate to remove law enforcers from the courtroom and take his statement privately, the magistrate dismissed his requests. The confession, prepared by his captors, was accepted and recorded as voluntary.

This is just one of the many harrowing testimonies collected by the commission investigating enforced disappearance.

A critical inquiry into the enforced disappearances has exposed a pattern of forced confessions extracted under duress -- often facilitated by magistrates who failed to uphold legal safeguards, according to an official commission report.

In its second interim report, the commission documented numerous instances in which detainees were allegedly tortured by elite security forces, including the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), forced to memorise pre-written confessions, and pressured into repeating them before magistrates who were, in many cases, present alongside the very officials accused of abuse.

The report suggests that in many such cases, magistrates not only failed to act independently but were also complicit -- knowingly recording statements obtained under duress in violation of procedural law.

The 19-year-old, whose statement appears in the report, recounted asking the magistrate for a private conversation. Instead, he was told: “They’re [police] not leaving. Say whatever you have to say here.”

He tried to explain that he had been abducted, tortured, and forced to memorise a confession. The magistrate insisted he sign the recorded confession anyway, saying large parts had already been deleted and no further edits would be made.

IGNORING DUE PROCESS

The report accuses law enforcement of routinely securing confessions through torture and intimidation, and points to the complicity or negligence of magistrates in violating procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 164 of the country’s Criminal Procedure Code.

Under Section 164, magistrates must inform detainees that they are under no obligation to confess and that any confession may be used against them.

Crucially, if the magistrate suspects the confession is not being made voluntarily, they are bound by law not to record it. But the report documents numerous instances where this protocol was blatantly ignored.

In some instances, magistrates allegedly dismissed detainees’ complaints outright.

A 27-year-old man, who said he had disappeared for 42 days, described how a magistrate shrugged off his account of torture, saying, “Your name is in the FIR -- what can I do?” before ordering a fresh remand.

FABRICATED CONFESSIONS

The report also documents allegations that confessions were often fabricated or distorted. One victim, a 37-year-old man spirited away by the RAB in 2017, said that while he acknowledged having friends over to read books, the written confession stated he had been involved in “Jihadi activities” -- a claim he denies ever making.

“They just wrote whatever they wanted,” he said. “I was blindfolded. I didn’t even know I was in a 164 hearing room.”

A man detained by the Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime (CTTC) unit in 2020 said officials warned him that if he didn’t confess as instructed, they would “bring his wife, beat him as they liked, and no one could stop them”.

Others were told they would be killed or kept indefinitely in secret detention unless they agreed to deliver scripted statements. In one instance, a detainee was warned that refusal would result in his family being harmed.

A SYSTEMATIC PATTERN

The commission identified what it described as a “systematic, unlawful method” of extracting confessions, based on analysis of numerous cases across multiple years, agencies, and regions.

“There appears to be a consistent pattern,” the report states, “in which institutional actors used coercion and procedural violations to obtain confessions, effectively criminalising political opposition and legitimising repression.”

The report cites pressure tactics including prolonged detention, repeated remands under the same charges, psychological intimidation, and threats of fabricated cases or death in “crossfire” -- a euphemism often used for extrajudicial killings.

One detainee who was held by RAB for 113 days said he was given four days to memorise a statement. “They told me ‘If you don’t say these things, we’ll file five to seven more cases against you. But if you comply, we’ll let you go under a single, minor charge’.”

Another victim said he was coached through the night, and then sent to court in the morning. When he tried to speak privately with the magistrate, explaining that he had been forced to learn the confession under threat, the magistrate responded dismissively.

“They told me ‘You don’t have land or money. Just sign’, and that was it.”

LEGAL INSTITUTIONS COMPROMISED

In its concluding observations, the commission said the judicial process has been subverted to serve political ends, including neutralising dissent and legitimising state repression.

Magistrates, it noted, in several cases appeared “disinterested” or acted with “undue haste,” merely stamping documents without proper inquiry.

“Victims clearly stated they were warned of dire consequences if they refused to sign under Section 164 or failed to deliver their statement before the magistrate,” the report says. “These included direct threats, physical torture, extended disappearances, and harm to family members.”

LACK OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION

The commission’s report notes that victims were repeatedly produced before court to extract confessional statements, yet were denied legal representation.

It suggests that compliance with legal procedures could have been ensured had the victims been allowed access to lawyers.

Citing the account of a victim who was disappeared for 13 days by RAB in 2019, the commission wrote: “The judge asked if we had any lawyers. We had been taken straight from our disappearance to the court. How could we hire a lawyer?

“We said we had none… So the judge granted four days’ remand.”

Another victim, disappeared for 315 days in 2016 after being allegedly abducted by DGFI and RAB, told the commission: “In court, the magistrate asked ‘You don’t have a lawyer. Do you have anything to say?’

“We replied, yes, sir, we do. How can there be a remand when we weren’t even here? As we described our disappearance in detail, the magistrate himself was surprised. He said ‘Alright, fine then’.”

Describing a later courtroom exchange, the victim said: “The magistrate told the prosecution ‘They’re claiming to have been forcibly disappeared, but you’re saying you arrested them the day before yesterday--how do you respond to that?’

“The Chattogram police commissioner, who sought our remand, said ‘They are trained. If they weren’t, how could they speak like this?’

“He argued ‘If they were disappeared, why are their moustaches trimmed? Why are they wearing clean clothes?’ But they had trimmed our moustaches and dressed us up just the day before we were presented to the media.”

The victim added, “The magistrate then granted a three-day remand, instructing that, in line with High Court guidelines, no form of torture or physical abuse should be used during remand.”

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The issue of enforced disappearances and “Ayna Ghor” or “house of mirros” secret detention centres resurfaced after the fall of the Awami League government amid a massive student-led uprising.

On Aug 27, the interim government formed a five-strong commission led by retired Justice Moinul Islam Chowdhury to investigate such incidents.

The panel submitted its first interim report to Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus on Dec 14, followed by a partial public release the next day.

In that report, it claimed to have found evidence linking ousted pime minister Sheikh Hasina to the “command structure” behind enforced disappearances during her administration.

On Jun 4, the commission handed over a second interim report to the interim prime minister.

This included illustrated testimonies from victims and law-enforcing agencies personnel, detailing torture and forced confessions.

Earlier, on Feb 12, Yunus visited three secret detention centres notorious as “Ayna Ghor”.

He was accompanied by fellow advisors and members of the commission.

The panel has reviewed the period from Jan 6, 2009 to Aug 5, 2024.

It received 1,850 complaints and, after screening 1,350 of them, prepared the second report.

The report states that magistrates, judges, and tribunals are duty-bound to ensure justice without fear, favour, or bias.

It, however, observes that the judiciary largely failed to play an active role in preventing enforced disappearances under Hasina’s rule, despite being made aware through several legal proceedings.

Based on its findings, the commission has placed two key recommendations before the government—one addressing future strategies, the other focusing on past corrections.

To rectify the past, it recommends amending the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009, to mandate case resolution within one year and to expedite the disposal of thousands of “politically motivated” anti-terror cases filed against victims of enforced disappearance.

For the future, it advises abandoning the US-backed “security-centric model” in favour of a “comprehensive and rehabilitative counterterrorism strategy” that effectively addresses the ideological, social, and economic roots of extremism in a more sustainable manner.

[Writing in English by Syed Mahmud Onindo and Sheikh Fariha Bristy]