The Case Against Blanket Immunity: UN Report Challenges Self-Defense Claims in Bangladesh

WHAT HAPPENED?
UN’s Stance Against Blanket Immunity

On February 12, 2025, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) published their fact-finding report on human rights violations and abuses related to the protests of July and August 2024 in Bangladesh.

On page 61, paragraph 262, the United Nations expressed its concern about the interim government’s “blanket exclusion of prosecution” to “many perpetrators of revenge violence and abuses” between July 15 and August 8.

On October 14, 2024, the interim government led by Dr. Yunus announced that

The interim government’s justification behind this blanket immunity can be broken down into three parts:

1. Violence by the movement participants was “mostly” done in the form of desperate self-defense, or
   

2. In response to extreme provocation, and
   

3. The blanket immunity is necessary “to stabilize the situation, heal the nation in the post-conflict period, and promote national reconciliation.”

In light of these comments from the interim government, the UN’s statement in the report can be boiled down into the following five layers:

1. Key Human Rights Obligations

Every country has a duty to protect the rights to life, personal security, and freedom from discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, or religion.

This means governments must investigate and punish crimes like murder, serious violence, and discrimination-based attacks that were intentional.

2. What Crimes Should NOT Be Exempt from Arrest or Prosecution?

Certain crimes are too serious to be excused from legal consequences, such as:

• Murder and other crimes against life

• Sexual and gender-based violence

• Severe physical assaults

• Arson (burning down homes with people inside)

• Crimes targeting people because of their ethnicity, religion, or gender

3. Victims' Rights

People whose homes or properties are damaged or looted should have the right to:

• Sue the perpetrators in civil court

• Hold authorities accountable if they failed to protect them

4. Self-Defense in Criminal Cases

The right to self-defense can still be used as a legal argument, but each case should be judged individually rather than applying a general rule that excuses all actions.

5. Fairness in Justice

For a country to heal and reconcile after violence or conflict, its justice system must be fair and impartial, meaning everyone should be held accountable based on law, not bias.

In this article, we will investigate primarily two things:

1. Can we classify the criminal actions carried out by the protesters or individuals disguised as students as "self-defense"? Should we treat Jamaat-e-Islami, Shibir, and BNP as hostile actors during the movement or merely just entities exercising their right to self-defense?
   

2. Is the blanket immunity morally justified?

FUNDAMENTALS
What is Self-Defense?

An act is generally considered self-defense when it meets the following five criteria (non-exhaustive list):

1. Imminent Threat: The threat of harm must be immediate and present.
   

2. Proportional Response: The force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the threat faced. Deadly force, for example, should not be used against minor threats.
   

3. Lack of Alternatives: Self-defense is only justified when there is no reasonable way to escape or avoid harm.
   

4. Reasonable Belief: The defender must genuinely believe that their life or safety (or that of another) is at risk.
   

5. Unlawful Aggression: The person acting in self-defense must be responding to an unlawful attack or a legitimate threat.

When Can an Act NOT Be Considered Self-Defense?

An act loses its justification as self-defense if:

1. Provocation: If the person claiming self-defense initiated or provoked the attack, they generally cannot claim self-defense.
   

2. Preemptive Attacks: Initiating violence against perceived opponents or authorities without an immediate threat.
   

3. Retaliation or Revenge: Self-defense is not revenge; an act committed after the threat has passed is no longer self-defense.
   

4. Use of Force Against Lawful Actions: Attacking law enforcement or security personnel performing their legal duties does not usually qualify as self-defense.
   
   Also, vandalizing public or private property (as property cannot "attack").
   

5. Non-imminent Threats: Responding to verbal threats or potential future harm is generally not considered self-defense.
   

6. Disproportionate Force: Using excessive force beyond what is necessary to neutralize the threat.

Therefore, if we can constructively prove with evidence that many attacks during the movement fulfill the above six criteria of not being considered as self-defense, then we can reasonably conclude that the blanket immunity offered by the interim government is morally wrong and protects human rights offenders.

EVIDENCE #1
BNP Leader Boasts About Involvement in Enayetpur Police Killings

On August 4, 2024, 15 police officers of Enayetpur Police Station in Sirajganj were beaten to death. Eight bodies were discovered near a mosque, three in a pond, and one in a field, with another found hanging from a tree. Most of the victims were unclothed. The station was set on fire, and weapons and ammunition were looted.

BNP's Sirajganj District Unit General Secretary Saidur Rahman Bachchu bragged about BNP’s pivotal role in the brutal police killings.

🔍 Assessment

A large crowd led by BNP (as substantiated by Saidur Rahman Bacchu) attacked police officers who were performing their legal duties in the police station and did not pose any threat to any protester.

Therefore, this event cannot be considered “self-defense,” and the perpetrators should be prosecuted instead of offering them immunity. Despite Bacchu’s confession, no legal action has been taken by the interim government.

EVIDENCE #2
Far-Right Islamist Leader Admits Role in Enayetpur Police Killings

One of the leaders of the far-right Islamist political party publicly admitted that they killed the police officers of Enayetpur Police Station.

🔍 Assessment

According to the statement, it is evident that radical groups also participated along with BNP in the police killings of Enayetpur.

As the perpetrators are disclosing their crimes and bragging about their "accomplishments” in killing law enforcers, legal actions must be taken by the interim government instead of citing “self-defense to absolve them from their crimes against humanity.

EVIDENCE #3
Coordinator Hasib Admits to Metro Rail Arson and Police Killings

Hasib Al Islam, one of the student movement coordinators, said that

🔍 Assessment

As one of the coordinators takes credit for the attack on the police and metro rail, we can reasonably conclude that the Students Against Discrimination (SAD) group didn’t carry out these acts in self-defense; instead, they killed police and set fire to metro rail with the intent to destabilize Bangladesh.

EVIDENCE #4
Shibir Leader Farhad Brags about Siege Plan

Secretary of Bangladesh Islami Chhatra Shibir’s University of Dhaka Unit, S M Farhad, stated in a public event:

🔍 Assessment

The recent revelations from multiple SAD coordinators, BNP, and Shibir leaders made it evident that in so many cases the preconditions of self-defense were absent. Instead, violence, arson attacks, destruction of both public and private property, lynchings, and killings were an integral part of the movement aimed at unseating a constitutionally elected government.