An entire government-sanctioned system was set up to disappear, detain, torture and execute victims.

A report of the inquiry commission, submitted to Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus on Saturday, states, "…Evidence suggests that far from being passive or accidental or, indeed, the work of isolated rogue officers, these systems reflect a deliberate design orchestrated by a central command structure."

The report, which was shared with the media yesterday, notes that the concerted efforts of different agencies "could not have emerged organically or without centralised direction".

The report details the methods used by law enforcers to target, abduct, torture, detain and kill victims of enforced disappearance.

Disappeared victims came out of captivity in two ways — they were either executed or framed in trumped up charges.

Of the 758 complaints received by the commission, more than a fourth (27 percent) never returned.

This is only a preliminary report, and does not divulge identifying details.

The commission has identified at least nine detention facilities operated by the Directorate General Forces Intelligence (DGFI), RAB and the police's Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime unit.

RAB detention cells were in buildings that had strikingly similar layout, noted the report. As an example it said that the illegal detention facilities of RAB 11 in Narayanganj, RAB 7 in Chattogram and RAB 2 in Mohammadpur were in nearly identical buildings, in spite of being in geographically different places.

"Such uniformity strongly indicates centralised planning and oversight," it said.

MISDIRECTION

A key finding of the inquiry was that the culture of enforced disappearance "was systematically designed over 15 years to remain undetectable".

The concerted misdirection would begin right at the abduction when plainclothesmen of one agency would falsely claim to be from another, to make detection difficult and denial easy. "If DGFI was operating, they would claim to be RAB; if it was RAB, they would claim to be DB, etc."

The forces often exchanged their victims too, moving them around so that it would be difficult to ascertain where exactly they were or who had abducted them.

While one agency carried out abduction, another would be charged with incarceration and yet another agency would be delegated with execution, or release.

"As a result, even individuals directly involved in victim elimination teams often lacked knowledge of who they were eliminating or the broader context of the operations."

TARGET SELECTION AND SURVEILLANCE

The commission said that law enforcers would forcibly disappear people acting on orders from politically connected or influential figures.

The notorious murder case of seven people in Narayanganj was cited as an example clearly pointing at politicians using enforced disappearances for personal gain.

The commission concluded, based on interviews with victims and members of armed forces, that mobile technology was integral to surveillance. While one victim said his captors had referred to a private phone call, others said they had received suspicious phone calls before their abduction where no one spoke on the other side. "These calls were presumably used to pinpoint the victim's location."

ABDUCTION AND DETENTION

Victims were picked up from the streets or their homes, typically at night. But there have also been instances where victims were picked up from public places like ferries and roadsides. They were often called out before being forced into minivans (microbuses).

"Once inside, they were immediately blindfolded, handcuffed, and threatened with weapons. Frequently, torture, such as beating or electrocution, began almost immediately" notes the report.

The report cites an instance of a smooth abduction where onlookers on a ferry did not suspect anything. In another instance, the report says, "…an eyewitness reported: 'I had tea with him, and he started off for his home. Fifteen minutes later, I found his bicycle and books lying by the roadside.' Since the victim survived, It was possible to piece together the details of his abduction…"

"However, in cases where the victims did not return, especially when taken from isolated areas, there is often no evidence to indicate what happened to them."

Victims were detained for varying periods, ranging from a couple of days to eight years. The report notes that contrary to popular belief, not all detainees were housed in secret cells. Some were kept with other regular or legal detainees as well, which "highlights the complexity of their detention circumstances".

Detailed interviews of living victims have helped the commission to map their locations during detention.

"…In one instance, a victim described a distinctive door in a facility, allowing us to identify a room that had once been subdivided into three cells, even though the partitions were demolished by the time of our visit."

TORTURE

The commission found that with agencies like the detective bureau and the police counter terrorism unit, "torture was carried out in a manner that integrated it into the daily operations of these offices".

Detainees reported that workers calmly worked at their desks completely ignoring the screams of agony coming from close by, "suggesting a disturbing normalisation of such practices at these offices."

But the facilities managed by RAB and DGFI were outfitted with specialised infrastructure for torture. One instance from 2010 of a young man abducted by RAB from Dhanmondi stands out.

 "He reported that he was taken to a room where his lips were immediately sewn without the use of any anaesthetic." The victim later described the procedure as similar to patching together cowhide.

In another incident from 2018, another man reported that his genitals and ears were electrocuted, also at a RAB facility.

"The consistency in the torture practices, despite the significant temporal and geographical separation between these cases, strongly suggests that such practices were not only systemic but also institutionalised across these forces."

The full details of the commission's findings will be presented in its final report.

EXECUTION

Once abducted, the only way out was to either be executed or be framed with trumped up charges.

The commission has received "some verified reports detailing the methods of execution". The interim report says that one method of execution was by a gunshot to the head. The bodies were then tied with cement bags and thrown into rivers. "This method was described by military officers who had served in RAB as standard procedure to ensure that the bodies would sink," said the report.

Specific execution spots and disposal sites included some locations along the Buriganga River, Shitalkkhya River (Kanchan bridge) and Postogola bridge. In fact, the Postogola bridge had a boat, confiscated from the pirates of Sundarbans, that had been modified for use in these operations, notes the report.

The reports narrates the experience of one RAB battalion commander, where he was made to witness an execution as a part of his orientation into the force.

The session, conducted by the head of RAB intelligence of that time, featured two executions on a bridge, to initiate him into RAB.

"Another soldier, previously deputed to RAB intelligence, described a victim attempting to escape by jumping into the river. He retrieved the victim who was immediately executed on the spot," states the report.

One soldier reported that he was ordered to carry a body and lay it across a railway line. Others waited in the car till a train ran over the body and dismembered it. In another instance a living victim said he was pushed in front of an incoming vehicle on the highway. "By chance, the vehicle swerved and avoided hitting him."

The officer abandoned the effort unwilling to make a second attempt and thus spared the victim.

RELEASE

The commission notes in the report that it has travelled to prisons to gather testimonies and in the process, even spoken to victims on death row. "A deeply troubling pattern has emerged from the accounts of surviving victims of enforced disappearances in Bangladesh."

Victims reported that even though their captors admitted they were not involved in the alleged criminal activity, they were still charged with criminal cases.

The victims reported hearing their captors telling each other that the disappearance could not be simply reversed without a formal explanation. "To cover up the illegal nature of their enforced disappearance, these victims were then 'shown arrested' and implicated in fabricated cases."

RENDITION

Indian involvement in Bangladesh's enforced disappearances is a matter of public record, says the commission and cites two highly publicised cases—Shukhranjan Bali, who was abducted from Bangladesh Supreme Court premises and resurfacedin an Indian jail, and BNP leader Salauddin Ahmed.

The BNP leader's case "exemplifies certain practices of the Bangladesh-India rendition system." The report, cites Ahmed, to point towards a formalised collusion between the two sides. Ahmed said he was taken to the India-Bangladesh border where he was handed over to Indian officials. "The formal nature of the handover, combined with the presence of suspected Bangladeshi security personnel wearing 'jom tupi' (meaning executioner's hood) well inside Indian territory to avoid recognition, underscores the high level of coordination between the two governments and their respective security forces."

Interviews with soldiers in RAB intelligence yielded information about the regular practice of exchanging captives. "On one occasion, two captives were received and subsequently killed by the side of the road after the exchange."

On another occasion a captive was handed over alive to another agency. In return RAB intelligence handed over two captives from Bangladesh to India, says the report.

The report concludes noting, "Whilst the soldier was unable to furnish us with the names of the captives, this level of official security service coordination underscores the systemic and transnational nature of enforced disappearances."

It goes on to recommend that the ministries of home and foreign affairs "extend their best efforts" to identify any Bangladesh citizens who may still remain incarcerated in India.