Torture Redress Mechanism in Nepal and Bangladesh: a comparative perspective

This article focuses on redress for torture victims in Nepal and Bangladesh. Drawing on fieldwork in Nepal and Bangladesh, we show that seeking redress is not a straightforward process of detection, documentation and advocacy but is conditioned by a relation between legal provisions, the practice of human rights work and political mobilisation. In both countries, despite the active work of human rights organisations to document widespread torture, accountability is limited. Nepal and Bangladesh have taken two very different paths towards accountability. Nepal stresses on civil compensation whereas Bangladesh focuses on criminal liability. Comparing the two approaches to accountability enables us to reflect on the potentials and limitations of both approaches. While there has been increased activities, networks and documentation by human rights organisations in the two countries, our findings suggest that the poor and the marginalised, those particularly vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment, may not report incidents of violence and abuse, due to their precarious situation, fear of repercussions and lack of resources that are necessary to report cases and seek justice. Hence, we suggest a third approach that places protection alongside accountability. We argue that human rights work must consider protection concerns of the victims to ensure adequate and relevant legal assistance and political advocacy for accountability.