Opinion; Subjects: BANGLADESH, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-15317 (E) 211025 211025
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025
Opinion No. 40/2025 concerning Shahriar Kabir (Bangladesh)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 27 February 2025, the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Bangladesh a communication concerning Shahriar Kabir.
The Government submitted a late response on 13 May 2025. The State is a Party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
General Assembly
Distr.: General
21 October 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
2
GE.25-15317
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Shahriar Kabir is a citizen of Bangladesh, born on 20 November 1950. He resides in
Dhaka and is a film-maker, journalist, writer and human rights activist. Mr. Kabir is the
President of the Advisory Committee of the Forum for Secular Bangladesh. Previously, he
was the president of the Executive Committee of the Forum for nearly 25 years.
5.
Mr. Kabir has promoted secularism and equality in Bangladesh and in the South-Asia
region. He reportedly made documentaries against extremist ideologies, including one
focusing on links of the largest Islamist political party in Bangladesh to terrorism, and called
for trials of those accused of crimes committed during the war of independence in 1971.
6.
The legal provisions governing the deprivation of liberty, as contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act No. V of 1898), are over a century old and do not set out
procedures to be followed before and after arrest. This often leads to abuse of the process,
and police authorities often resort to torture to extort information.
7.
Mr. Kabir was arrested on 17 September 2024, just after midnight, by personnel from
the Detective Branch of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police. The authority that ordered his arrest
is unknown.
8.
The Detective Branch does not have the authority to arrest a person without the
assistance of personnel assigned to a specific police station. Hence, police officers from four
police stations (Banani, Badda, Tejgaon and Ramna) accompanied the Detective Branch
personnel at the time of Mr. Kabir’s arrest.
9.
At the time of the arrest, the Detective Branch personnel did not clarify under which
case, or under which police station’s purview, Mr. Kabir was being arrested. He was told that
he was being arrested in relation to a murder case, but no further details were provided. Later,
when he was produced before a magistrate, Mr. Kabir was told he had been arrested in
relation to Ramna police station Case No. 1, dated 5 September 2024.
10.
Mr. Kabir uses a wheelchair and needs to take medicine due to age-related
complications. At the time of his arrest the police did not allow him to take medicine or
clothes with him.
11.
After Mr. Kabir’s arrest, journalists visited the above-mentioned four police stations
for information on the details of the case. Officials in all the stations informed the journalists
that they were unaware of any details.
12.
While Mr. Kabir’s family was not informed of where he was being held in custody
after his arrest, from subsequent court records it was revealed that he was being held by the
Detective Branch of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police at the Police headquarters on Minto
Road.
13.
At 9.30 a.m. on 17 September 2024, hours after his arrest, Mr. Kabir was produced
before the Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate Court. He was not represented by legal counsel.
14.
The moment Mr. Kabir – who was in handcuffs – came out of the prison van that had
transported him to the court, members of a crowd started to throw items at him and shout
verbal abuse. At the courthouse, Mr. Kabir was attacked by the crowd; he was punched
several times. The police had equipped him with a heavy helmet and a bulletproof vest.
15.
In a video released on social media, the police are seen protecting themselves rather
than Mr. Kabir. Mr. Kabir was dragged to the second floor of the court building. The police
did not provide Mr. Kabir with a wheelchair or allow him to use the elevator. A mob was
waiting for Mr. Kabir on the stairs as well, and subjected him to violence similar to what he
experienced outside the building.
16.
Mr. Kabir has a metal rod in his upper and lower left leg; he thus cannot walk freely
and needs a walking stick or a wheelchair. During the court proceedings, Mr. Kabir requested
permission from the Court to sit on a chair, but the magistrate did not allow him to do so.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
GE.25-15317
3
17.
During the proceedings of 17 September 2024, the magistrate ordered that Mr. Kabir
be remanded from prison to the police station for the Dhaka-1000 area until 23 September
2024, on the following grounds: that Mr. Kabir was being accused in a murder case; that the
investigation into the case was pending; that he may intimidate witnesses or jeopardize the
investigation; and that he may be a flight risk. During this remand custody, neither his family
members nor colleagues were allowed to meet with Mr. Kabir.
18.
On 23 September 2024, Mr. Kabir was again produced before the Metropolitan
Magistrate Court. An aggressive crowd, albeit smaller in size, was waiting for him. Mr. Kabir
was in handcuffs and had been provided with a helmet and a bulletproof vest.
19.
Despite the presence of a greater number of police personnel, the crowd chanted
slogans against Mr. Kabir and threw items at him. Once again, the police did not provide a
wheelchair or allow Mr. Kabir to take the elevator. The Court again denied Mr. Kabir the
possibility of being seated in court.
20.
There are nine cases against Mr. Kabir, all involving the crime of murder by direct or
indirect inducement and relating to killings during the protests of July and August 2024.
Mr. Kabir is one of dozens of accused persons in each of the murder cases against him. He
was “shown arrest”, meaning that he was “arrested” for a new case while being detained for
a separate case, in six cases, and three cases are under investigation.
21.
The detention orders are reviewed when Mr. Kabir’s lawyer files bail applications,
which the lawyer has done on a regular basis. Miscellaneous bail applications were filed
before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge against the bail rejection orders of the Metropolitan
Magistrate Court. Those applications were rejected as well.
22.
Mr. Kabir’s lawyer submitted bail applications on 23 September 2024; 1, 2, 6, 14, 23
and 30 October 2024; and 11 February 2025. In these bail applications, Mr. Kabir’s lawyer
has noted the following: that Mr. Kabir is 74 years old; that he suffers from various ailments;
that he is not receiving suitable treatment while in detention; that the detention order is illegal
since Mr. Kabir was not involved with any of the alleged offences; that he is being detained
only for his views towards secularism and ensuring human rights for all; that the police have
not obtained any concrete evidence to date that Mr. Kabir is involved with any of the alleged
offences; that the police, following the guidance of the Government, are using delaying
tactics to prolong the investigations; that Mr. Kabir is a citizen of Bangladesh and will not
abscond from the country; and that Mr. Kabir will abide by any conditions ordered by the
Court.
23.
These pleas were rejected by both the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and the
Metropolitan Sessions Court. Bail applications will also be submitted in three cases before
the High Court Division.
24.
The prosecution, in response to requests by an investigation unit of the police, has
appealed to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court to place Mr. Kabir in remand custody so that
investigations can be conducted. The magistrate ordered remand custody in five of the nine
cases against Mr. Kabir. Mr. Kabir was held by the police until 23 September 2024. He was
then transferred to Keraniganj Prison, in Dhaka District, under the custody of the Bangladesh
prison authority. He is currently detained at the Kashimpur prison, in Gazipur. It generally
takes about seven to eight years for a criminal trial involving a murder charge to be
concluded.
25.
On 2 October 2024, Mr. Kabir’s lawyer submitted an application seeking medical
assistance on the grounds of Mr. Kabir’s medical conditions, including a mini-stroke, kidney
stones, conditions resulting from sleeping on the floor while in detention during the cold
season, neck and shoulder pain resulting from the heavy helmet Mr. Kabir wore during court
hearings, and the metal rod in his leg. Mr. Kabir’s family provides medication, but it is not
handed over to Mr. Kabir, and the medication provided in the prison is inadequate.
26.
The prison physician advised against Mr. Kabir’s physical presence in Court.
Mr. Kabir’s lawyer applied to continue proceedings without producing Mr. Kabir each time
in court. This application was allowed by the court and Mr. Kabir is now produced in court
only when his presence is deemed necessary.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
4
GE.25-15317
27.
Applications for special treatment in prison were rejected by the court on multiple
occasions without proper cause. On 2 October 2024, the magistrate stated that all medical
assistance would be provided in accordance with the prison rules.
28.
Mr. Kabir was reportedly psychologically tortured by the police, who pressured him
to confess to making blasphemous comments against Islam. During a hearing on Mr. Kabir’s
bail application, the public prosecutor emphasized that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Kabir
was due to a debate Mr. Kabir had had with a religious leader on a television talk show. The
source submits that this indicates that Mr. Kabir was arrested for his ideological position and
not for his involvement with any alleged crimes.
29.
The source argues that Mr. Kabir’s case falls under categories I, II, III and V.
30.
In relation to category I, Mr. Kabir’s deprivation of liberty allegedly lacks legal basis,
in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) of the
Covenant and article 33 of the Constitution.
31.
Murder and other charges are cognizable and non-bailable offences; the police do not
need to obtain a warrant from a magistrate before arresting a person for a cognizable offence.
However, the police must have a prima facie case against a person to arrest under such
charges. The police did not have a prima facie case against Mr. Kabir at the time of arrest
and did not provide any case details or mention any crime for which he was being arrested at
the time of his arrest.
32.
Mr. Kabir’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under Category II, since it has been
carried out in response to his exercise of his legitimate right to freedom of expression and
opinion and freedom of association guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (the source cites articles 2 and 7) and the Covenant (the source cites article 26).
33.
Mr. Kabir is reportedly an influential “elder intellectual”. As a result of his detention,
many secular intellectuals in the country are imposing self-censorship and many have left the
country.
34.
Mr. Kabir’s detention violates his right to freedom of expression, since he was
planning to criticize the interim Government for releasing from detention individuals accused
of terrorism; for failing to protect religious and ethnic minorities, as well as monuments and
works of art; and for forcing teachers and intellectuals to resign from their jobs.
35.
Mr. Kabir’s right to assembly was also infringed as he was preparing to organize
peaceful demonstrations. The authorities also curtailed his freedom of movement, as he
would have travelled abroad to voice his criticism.
36.
Mr. Kabir, as an independent national leader and activist, would have been
instrumental for young people in Bangladesh who wish to take part in the next elected
Government.
37.
Mr. Kabir’s detention also falls under category III, as it violates the right to a fair trial,
as set out in articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration and articles 9 and 14 of the
Covenant.
38.
When Mr. Kabir was presented to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court on 17 September
2024, senior lawyers of the Dhaka Bar Association were not able to represent him because
of an aggressive crowd in and around the Metropolitan Magistrate Court that attacked
Mr. Kabir and any lawyer who wanted to represent him. The authorities did not provide a
public defence lawyer for Mr. Kabir. Furthermore, the police authorities have not submitted
charge sheets against him.
39.
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh had issued guidelines concerning arrest and
remand (police custody) in a case concerning Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust, a
non-governmental organization. None of the applicable mandatory standards were followed
during arrest of Mr. Kabir. In that regard, the source notes the following:
(a)
At the time of the arrest, Mr. Kabir was not informed of the charge or the case
for which he was being arrested;
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
GE.25-15317
5
(b)
Mr. Kabir was arrested by officials from the Banani and Badda police stations
and was kept in custody at the Tejgaon police station; according to the law, he must be kept
under the custody of the police station of the officials who arrested him or where the case
was filed;
(c)
The police did not inform Mr. Kabir’s family about his whereabouts from the
time of his arrest until the time Mr. Kabir was produced before the Dhaka Metropolitan
Magistrate Court;
(d)
The police and the magistrate did not follow the mandatory standards set out
by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in the case involving the Bangladesh Legal Aid and
Services Trust, in particular with regard to Mr. Kabir’s arrest, producing him before a court
and ordering his remand, among other aspects;
(e)
Mr. Kabir was not represented by a lawyer of his choice and was physically
and verbally attacked in court;
(f)
On 16 September 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Bangladesh
Police declared that there would be no arrests in 500 collective cases filed in August 2024
involving thousands of accused – most of whom do not have any connection with alleged
crimes – without collective investigations being conducted; Mr. Kabir’s arrest was carried
out in contravention of this statement.
40.
In its general comment No. 35 (2004), the Human Rights Committee states that
detention must be justified as reasonable, necessary, and proportionate in the light of the
circumstances and reassessed as it extends in time. Articles 27, 31 and 35 of the Constitution
of Bangladesh and precedents of the Supreme Court guarantee fair trial rights for citizens.
41.
The source submits that the courts are not independent and thus do not uphold these
rights, which is evident by the fact that Mr. Kabir and other activists have been arrested
without evidence and then presented with fictional charges. The source recalls that
Mr. Kabir’s multiple pleas for bail have been rejected.
42.
Even though the magistrate had approved the request for “division status”, affording
Mr. Kabir certain amenities on the basis of his sociopolitical status, age and medical history
and of threats to his security in prison, the Deputy Commissioner of Gazipur has not approved
this decision to date. Mr. Kabir has suffered from fever and chest infections. The state of his
physical and mental health has deteriorated significantly during his time in detention.
43.
The magistrate, without considering Mr. Kabir’s physical condition, remanded
Mr. Kabir in police custody.
44.
By not providing Mr. Kabir with the necessary healthcare, the authorities are violating
his human rights and principles pertaining to equality in human dignity, enshrined in
articles 1, 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 7 of the
Covenant. Moreover, the conditions of Mr. Kabir’s detention have been inhuman and
undignified, in violation of article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. The source submits that Mr. Kabir has not enjoyed the
presumption of innocence, as the Government and the judiciary have predetermined his guilt
and treat him as a criminal.
45.
Furthermore, Mr. Kabir’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category V, because
it results from the expression of his political opinions and the peaceful exercise of his civil
and political rights. The source specifies that Mr. Kabir’s arrest is connected to his political
and secular opinions and his views against religious extremism.
(b)
Response from the Government
46.
On 27 February 2025, the Working Group transmitted allegations made by the source
to the Government through its regular communication procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide, by 28 April 2025, detailed information about the
current situation of Mr. Kabir and any comments on the source’s allegations. The Working
Group also requested the Government to clarify the factual and legal grounds invoked by the
authorities to justify Mr. Kabir’s arrest and continued detention, and to provide details
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
6
GE.25-15317
regarding the conformity of the relevant legal provisions and proceedings with international
law, in particular with the human rights treaties that the State has ratified.
47.
The Government submitted its reply on 13 May 2025, after the deadline. The Working
Group cannot accept this response as if it were provided within the time limit. In accordance
with paragraph 16 of its methods of work, the Working Group will render its opinion on the
basis of all the information it has obtained.
2.
Discussion
48.
In determining whether Mr. Kabir’s detention was arbitrary, the Working Group has
regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the
source has established a prima facie case for breach of international requirements constituting
arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if
it wishes to refute the allegations.2
(a)
Category I
49.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without any legal basis being invoked.
50.
In evaluating Mr. Kabir’s detention under category I, the Working Group will begin
by considering whether the criminal charges against him are based on factual or legal
substantiation or are politically motivated.3 The Government claims that Mr. Kabir’s initial
arrest as accused No. 33 in Ramna police station Case No. 1 on 17 September 2024 followed
legal procedures and was based on credible evidence gathered during the investigation by the
Detective Branch of Dhaka Metropolitan Police and the Ramna police station.
51.
However, the Government’s first case against Mr. Kabir for murder, attempted murder
and other crimes rests solely on his televised talk show, where he allegedly indirectly incited
violence. No rational and fair person would admit a culpable causal link between a mere
television appearance and the serious crimes for which Mr. Kabir is accused without
additional reasonable explanation. In its late reply, the Government has not offered an
explanation as to how Mr. Kabir incited violence on television and how this resulted in
bloodshed.
52.
For the other murder and attempted murder charges, the Government has simply stated
that they are under investigation even though almost a year has passed since Mr. Kabir’s
initial arrest on 17 September 2024. The Working Group notes that Mr. Kabir was not a
member, let alone a senior official, of the police, the Rapid Action Battalion, the Ansar and
Village Defence Party, the military or any other government body or the ruling party before
or at the time of the shootings and killings of protesters by the security forces under the
former Government in July and August 2024.
53.
Mr. Kabir is also one of dozens of accused persons in each of the murder cases against
him. The Working Group expresses its grave concern at the “long-standing bad practices” of
the police of carrying out arrests on the basis of first information reports of criminal cases
that listed scores of named and unnamed individuals with no legally relevant connection to
the case, or who were even linked to a case that had been entirely fabricated.4
54.
Given the manifest use of politically motivated criminal charges as a pretext to punish
Mr. Kabir for his civic activities, the Working Group considers that no legal basis justifying
his arrest and detention can be invoked.
55.
The source submits, and the Government does not contest, that Mr. Kabir was not
presented with a warrant at the time of arrest in the early hours of 17 September 2024. The
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3 Opinion No. 11/2024, para. 61.
4 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact-Finding Report: Human
Rights Violations and Abuses related to the Protests of July and August 2024 in Bangladesh
(United Nations, 2025), para. 159.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
GE.25-15317
7
Government claims that the police have the legal authority to make arrests without warrant
for “cognizable offences” in accordance with section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
56.
The Working Group has previously stated that for a deprivation of liberty to have a
legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities
must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case. This is typically
done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or an equivalent document).5
57.
The Government is not claiming that Mr. Kabir was apprehended in flagrante delicto.
Instead, its argument is that the seriousness of his alleged crimes justified his warrantless
arrest.
58.
Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that any police officer may,
without an order from a magistrate and without warrant, arrest any person against whom
credible information has been received that the person has committed a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years,
whether with or without a fine, or with the death sentence, and where police officer has reason
to believe, on the basis of that information, that such person has committed the said offence.
The Working Group also notes the Government’s unrefuted submission that the police
produced Mr. Kabir before the Metropolitan Magistrate within eight hours of his arrest.
59.
Nevertheless, such warrantless arrests must remain the exception, not the rule. To
justify an exception to this rule, there must be reasonable grounds for suspecting that an
offence has been committed by the arrested person as well as grounds for detention, such as
the risk of flight, destruction of evidence, recurrence of crime and harm to victims and
witnesses. Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also makes clear that the police
must have reason to believe, on the basis of credible information, that the arrested person has
committed the crime. Without the strict requirement of establishing probable cause,
warrantless arrest risks becoming the norm, rather than the exception.
60.
Moreover, the Government has shown no urgent grounds for detaining Mr. Kabir that
a reasonable person would consider sufficient justification for arrest without warrant. The
Working Group therefore finds that Mr. Kabir’s warrantless arrest cannot be justified as an
exception to the general requirement of the presentation of an arrest warrant to ensure the
exercise of effective judicial control.
61.
Mr. Kabir has been held in prolonged pretrial detention for almost a year, dating from
his initial arrest on 17 September 2024, with no trial yet scheduled. Article 9 (3) of the
Covenant states that pretrial detention must be the exception rather than the rule and that
release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial
proceedings, and for execution of the judgment. A detainee must be entitled to meaningful
periodic judicial review. Pretrial detention without an individualized determination of the
risk of flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime, and without consideration
of less intrusive alternatives, such as bail, electronic bracelets or other conditions in
accordance with the principle of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality, is devoid of
legal basis.6
62.
Mr. Kabir has been brought before courts and his lawyer has filed bail applications on
a regular basis, but they have been continuously rejected. The Government’s contention that
all the cases against Mr. Kabir are cognizable and non-bailable in accordance with the law
does not suggest an individualized determination. The vague reference to the risk of flight
5 Opinions No. 27/2023, para. 77; No. 66/2023, para. 44; No. 77/2023, para. 53; No. 37/2024, para. 83;
No. 62/2024, para. 69; No. 24/2025, para. 84; and No. 31/2025, para. 90. The Working Group has
maintained from its early years that the practice of arresting persons without a warrant renders their
detention arbitrary. See decisions No. 1/1993, paras. 6 and 7; No. 3/1993, paras. 6 and 7; No. 4/1993,
para. 6; No. 5/1993, paras. 6, 8 and 9; No. 27/1993, para. 6; No. 30/1993, paras. 14 and 17 (a);
No. 36/1993, para. 8; No. 43/1993, para. 6; and No. 44/1993, paras. 6 and 7. For more recent
jurisprudence, see opinions No. 6/2020, para. 40; No. 11/2020, para. 38; No. 13/2020, para. 47;
No. 14/2020, para. 50; No. 31/2020, para. 41; No. 32/2020, para. 33; No. 33/2020, para. 54; and
No. 34/2020, para. 46.
6 Opinions No. 24/2015, para. 37; No. 61/2018, para. 50; and No. 72/2019, para. 47. See also Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
8
GE.25-15317
and recurrence of crime as justification for Mr. Kabir’s pretrial detention lacks persuasive
details.
63.
The Working Group also notes the assessment by the Committee against Torture that
daily pressure on members of the judiciary in Bangladesh reportedly results in judicial
officials having to accept arrests without warrants, extend custody without oversight and
accept other measures which undermine the fundamental legal safeguards that can protect a
person from such abuses as ill-treatment and torture.7 The Government has provided no
information to counter this assessment.
64.
The Working Group concludes that Mr. Kabir’s pretrial detention lacked a legal basis
in the absence of an individualized determination of Mr. Kabir’s circumstances by competent,
independent and impartial courts and was ordered in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant and
principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment. With regard to conditions of detention, the Working
Group also notes the recommendation by the Human Rights Committee for the State to take
practical measures to reduce overcrowding, particularly by promoting alternatives to
detention, ensuring that bail determinations are made promptly and that persons on remand
are not kept in custody for an unreasonable period of time.8
65.
In the light of the above, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Kabir’s deprivation
of liberty lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
66.
Mr. Kabir was arrested on 17 September 2024 on the basis of the Government’s
unsubstantiated assertion that he indirectly instigated violence through a televised talk show.
His speech during the talk show is entitled to protection as the holding and expression of
opinions under article 19 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, unless it falls under the permitted
restrictions on this right in relation either to respect of the rights or reputations of others or
to the protection of national security, public order (ordre public), or of public health or
morals, under article 19 (3) of the Covenant. The Government has not provided arguments to
invoke any of these limitations, let alone demonstrate how the asserted acts constitute murder,
attempted murder and other criminal offences. As such, the Working Group is not convinced
that prosecuting Mr. Kabir was necessary to protect a legitimate interest under article 19 of
the Covenant, or that Mr. Kabir’s arrest and detention are a necessary or proportionate
response to his television appearance.9
67.
According to the source, Mr. Kabir was pressured by the police to confess to making
blasphemous comments, and the public prosecutor emphasized at the bail hearing that
Mr. Kabir’s detention was due to a debate with an Islamic leader on a television talk show.
The Government claims that the charge of blasphemy is not the basis for Mr. Kabir’s arrest
or remand and that his arrest and detention were not related to any ideological or political
stance he may have expressed, but rather tied exclusively to murder investigations under the
Penal Code. However, other than asserting the legality and propriety of Mr. Kabir’s
deprivation of liberty, the Government has not produced evidence, such as the transcript or
details of the discussion that took place at Mr. Kabir’s bail hearing where the public
prosecutor reportedly cited the televised debate with an Islamic leader as the reason for the
detention.
68.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Kabir has made documentaries against extremist
ideologies, including one focusing on links of the largest Islamist political party in
Bangladesh to terrorism, and that he has been calling for transitional justice for the atrocities
7 CAT/C/BGD/CO/1, para. 27. See also Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Fact-Finding Report: Human Rights Violations and Abuses, para. 323.
8 CCPR/C/BGD/CO/1, para. 26.
9 See also the Working Group’s application of the four-pronged test with regard to the application of
the principle of necessity and proportionality in opinions No. 54/2015, para. 89 and No. 82/2018,
paras. 35–40.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
GE.25-15317
9
committed during the 1971 Bangladesh war. These vocal positions have created powerful
political enemies for him.
69.
For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Kabir’s detention resulted
from his exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression, contrary to article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant, with no legitimate
aim or objective in a democratic society that may justify interference with his rights and
freedoms.
70.
The Working Group expresses its particular concern at the chilling effect that
Mr. Kabir’s detention reportedly has already had on the activists of the Forum for Secular
Bangladesh, who have become silent and have refrained from demonstrations and rallies for
fear that they would lead to Mr. Kabir being harmed in detention or that they would invite
more arrests. While the Government claims that it has given everyone the freedom to
organize rallies and demonstrations, it is silent about how this freedom is guaranteed for the
Forum for Secular Bangladesh, whose leader has remained in detention for almost a year.
71.
The Working Group adds that the actions for which Mr. Kabir was deprived of his
liberty, especially his active stance against religious fundamentalism, also constituted the
exercise of his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under article 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 (1) of the Covenant. The right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion encompasses the right not to profess or practice
any religion. It provides not only protection from persecution to people holding religious
beliefs but also protection against persecution to people with non-religious beliefs, such as
agnosticism, atheism and humanism.
72.
Furthermore, Mr. Kabir’s actions that resulted in his arrest and detention constituted
the exercise of the right of citizens to take part in the conduct of public affairs, under
article 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 25 (a) of the
Covenant, by exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their
representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves.10 The Working Group notes
that Mr. Kabir has been an influential voice in public debate and dialogue and that his absence
due to his continued detention may influence the elections expected to take place in February
2026 to elect a new Government.
73.
The Working Group thus finds that Mr. Kabir’s arrest and detention are arbitrary and
fall within category II.
(c)
Category III
74.
Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Kabir is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should take place. However,
investigative and judicial proceedings against Mr. Kabir have already taken place. In the light
of the above, the Working Group will now consider whether the alleged violations of the
right to a fair trial and due process were grave enough to give Mr. Kabir’s deprivation of
liberty an arbitrary character.
75.
The source contends, and the Government does not dispute, that when Mr. Kabir was
presented to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court following his arrest on 17 September 2024,
senior lawyers of the Dhaka Bar Association were not able to represent him because of an
aggressive crowd in and around the courthouse. As a result, Mr. Kabir has not been
represented by a lawyer of his choice, as most senior lawyers were intimidated by the
aggressive crowd.
76.
The Working Group reaffirms that legal counsel should be able to carry out their
functions effectively and independently, free from fear of reprisal, interference, intimidation,
hindrance or harassment. The Government has the obligation to respect, protect and ensure
the right to legal counsel, including by protecting lawyers from the threat and use of violence
by private individuals and entities. The Working Group finds that the Government’s failure
to provide adequate protection from mob violence, which prevented most senior lawyers
from representing Mr. Kabir, violated his right to equality of arms and to a fair hearing by an
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 25 (1996), para. 8.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
10
GE.25-15317
independent and impartial tribunal and his right to defend himself through legal counsel of
his own choosing under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 14 (1) and (3) (d) of the Covenant.
77.
Moreover, Mr. Kabir was not afforded the minimum guarantees necessary for his
defence, including the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his
defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing, to be tried without undue
delay and not to be compelled to confess guilt, in violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (b), (c) and (g) of the Covenant. The
11-and-a-half-month delay between his trial and his initial arrest, during which time he was
held in pretrial detention with near automatic denial of bail, also violated principle 38 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
78.
The Working Group expresses its grave concern at the allegation of torture and
ill-treatment by the police during Mr. Kabir’s detention, which compromised his ability to
defend himself before and during trial. In response to the source’s allegation that Mr. Kabir
was subjected to psychological torture by the police to extract a confession for blasphemous
comments, the Government simply stated that his mental and physical well-being were
monitored by a medical representative, without explaining who the medical representative
was or how often the check-ups were conducted. With respect to the denial of the wheelchair
and regular medication, the Government noted the need for court authorization for the former
and the lack of a valid medical prescription for the latter. However, the judicial branch is a
State organ that has an obligation to observe international law, and it is difficult to
comprehend that Mr. Kabir’s family or lawyers have failed to provide a valid medical
prescription to the prison authorities for almost a year. The Government provided no
explanation for the denial of the elevator service for Mr. Kabir.
79.
The Working Group considers that the source has established a credible prima facie
case regarding the violation of articles 5 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant, principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and rule 1 of the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela
Rules). The Government’s failure to take remedial measures compels the Working Group to
refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, for further consideration.
80.
The Working Group also expresses its concern at the Government’s failure to provide
physical protection from hostile mobs during Mr. Kabir’s presentation to court. Given
Mr. Kabir’s vocal criticism of religious fundamentalism and call for accountability for the
perpetrators of atrocities during the 1971 Bangladesh war of independence, the police should
have expected and prepared for mob attacks. Although the Working Group is relieved that
the Government has taken steps to curb such attacks, the damage appears to have already
been done. The Working Group is of the view that the Government has the obligation to
respect, protect and ensure security of person, especially for those whom it has deprived of
liberty.
81.
Given the above observations, the Working Group concludes that the numerous
violations of the right to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give Mr. Kabir’s
deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
(d)
Category V
82.
The Working Group recalls several non-cumulative indicators that serve to establish
the discriminatory nature of detention. These include the following: the deprivation of liberty
was part of a pattern of persecution against the detained person, including, for example,
through previous detention; other persons with similarly distinguishing characteristics have
also been persecuted; or the context suggests that the authorities have detained a person on
discriminatory grounds or to prevent them from exercising their human rights.11
11 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
GE.25-15317
11
83.
Regarding these non-cumulative indicators, the Working Group notes a pattern of
intimidation against Mr. Kabir in relation to his activities as an advocate for human rights.
While the Government contends that Mr. Kabir is not a victim of discrimination and his
treatment has been equal to that of other persons arrested for murder and other serious crimes,
he has faced arrest, beatings, mob harassment and other forms of persecution in the past and
dozens of other persons have been charged with Mr. Kabir in multiple cases of murder,
attempted murder and other crimes.
84.
Moreover, in the discussion concerning category II, the Working Group established
that Mr. Kabir’s detention resulted from the peaceful exercise of his human rights under
international law. When detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights,
there is a strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international
law on the ground of discrimination based on political or other views.12 The Government
failed to rebut this presumption.
85.
For these reasons, the Working Group finds that Mr. Kabir was deprived of his liberty
on discriminatory grounds, on the basis of his political opinions and his status as a human
rights defender. The deprivation of his liberty violated articles 2 and 7 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant and was arbitrary
under category V.
(e)
Concluding remarks
86.
The Working Group is extremely concerned about the source’s submission that
Mr. Kabir’s well-being is reportedly suffering, owing to multiple health complications
caused, inter alia, by the conditions of and his treatment in custody. The Working Group is
compelled to remind the Government that, in accordance with article 10 (1) of the Covenant
and rules 1, 24, 27 and 118 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, all persons deprived of their liberty
must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person,
including by receiving appropriate medical care.13 The Working Group refers the present case
to the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health and the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all
human rights by older persons.
3.
Disposition
87.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Shahriar Kabir, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 6,
5, 7, 9, 10, 11 (1), 18, 19, 21 (1) and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 2 (1), 7, 9 (1) and (3), 10 (1), 14 (1) and (3) (b), (c), (d) and (g), 18 (1),
19 (1) and (2), 25 (a) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
88.
The Working Group requests the Government of Bangladesh to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Kabir without delay and bring it into conformity
with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
89.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Kabir immediately and accord him an
enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
90.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Kabir and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
12 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; No. 13/2018, para. 34; No. 59/2019, para. 79; No. 39/2024, para. 69;
and No. 51/2024, para. 117.
13 See also opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/40
12
GE.25-15317
91.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment
of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Independent Expert
on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons, for appropriate action.
92.
The Working Group requests the Government to translate, publish and disseminate
the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
93.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Kabir has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Kabir;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Kabir’s
rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Bangladesh with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
94.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
95.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
96.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.14
[Adopted on 25 August 2025]
14 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.