-678b49917def2.jpeg)
Faisal Mahmud
On January 15, at the Poet Shamsur Rahman Auditorium of the Bangla Academy, an emotionally charged and unsettling scene unfolded.
Two documentaries—one 15 minutes long, the other 7 minutes—were screened on a makeshift screen.
These films delved into the police brutality and command failures during the July Uprising in Bangladesh, which resulted in the overthrow of the iron-fisted Sheikh Hasina regime after 15 years of rule, all within the span of three weeks.
The deaths and the trauma from the July Uprising remain fresh in the public’s memory, with numerous videos of police brutality against unarmed protesters circulating on social media since the events.
However, what set these documentaries apart was the meticulous breakdown of the events and the detailed analysis of the videos, providing near-conclusive evidence of police violence.
As the lights of the auditorium were turned back on following the screening, the audience was visibly shaken. Some were in tears, others wore expressions of disbelief, while many were overcome with anger at the senseless brutality they had just witnessed.
Among those in the audience were Yasmin Sooka and Frances Harrison—respectively the Executive Director and Director of the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP), the organization behind the documentaries, produced in collaboration with Tech Global Institute.
Yasmin is a renowned international human rights lawyer and a leading expert in transitional justice. She served on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission from 1996 to 2001 and chaired the committee responsible for the final report between 2001 and 2003.
Yasmin was also appointed by the United Nations to serve on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone from 2002 to 2004. In 2010, she was named to a three-member Panel of Experts advising the UN Secretary-General on accountability for war crimes committed during the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war, with the report published in May 2011.
Frances Harrison, a former BBC correspondent who covered Bangladesh, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Iran for decades, is the author of Still Counting the Dead, a book that tells survivors’ stories from the final stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war.
Frances has been a visiting research fellow at Oxford University and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, where she wrote a handbook on Bangladesh.
Together, these two accomplished women founded ITJP and have recently collaborated with British journalist David Bergman and a team of Bangladesh-based journalists to investigate the killings that occurred during the July Uprising.
After nearly six months of work, ITJP released two documentaries and a 72-page report focusing on the deadly incidents of August 5 and July 19, two of the most violent days of the uprising.
Yasmin and Frances visited Bangladesh to present their findings, and former Bangla Outlook editor (English) Faisal Mahmud, who was also one of the investigators for ITJP, interviewed them about their work.
Faisal Mahmud is taking interview; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
Here is an excerpt from that conversation.
Faisal Mahmud: When did you first consider establishing the ITJP project, and how did you get involved with it? Yasmin, you go first…
Yasmin says the idea of forming ITJP came when Frances invited her for a book launch in London; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
Yasmin Sooka: After I left the panel advising the Secretary General on Sri Lanka in 2011, people continued to contact me, offering new evidence. However, the pivotal moment came when Francis [Harrison] invited me to the launch of her book in London.
At that time, we had a highly skilled investigator who had worked on Sri Lanka over multiple phases and was assisting various parties. He encouraged the panel I was part of to pursue further investigation. So, we all gathered in London to discuss how to initiate this project. I believe Frances can provide more detail on that.
Francis Harrison: I had done a BBC documentary about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in 2013, which was very controversial. The film covered issues of torture, sexual violence, and ongoing abductions that were happening that year.
Following that, I met with my publisher, who asked what I wanted to do next. I mentioned that I’d been in touch with international lawyers who suggested that we need to document more cases to determine whether these actions constituted crimes against humanity—whether they were widespread and systematic.
Frances says she didn’t have any idea of running an NGO first; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
I wanted to act fast, before the next session of the Geneva Human Rights Council. It was December, and I didn’t have any experience running an NGO, but I came up with a budget figure off the top of my head, and my publisher cut it in half.
I then reached out to Yasmin and the investigator who had worked with her—Dana Urban, a highly skilled investigator. Together, we built a team with support from the Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC), who provided us with lawyers.
We managed to take 40 detailed witness statements in about three months, focusing mainly on sexual violence by the Sri Lankan security forces during 2009. Lawyers spent three or four days with each victim to document their testimony. We then compiled everything into a report, which, in my view, is still one of our best because it was our first. We put so much energy into it.
YS: We had to present our findings at the Human Rights Council. Interestingly, even though many of the barristers were highly skilled, they didn’t know how to ask questions about sexual violence. Dana Urban, who had a great sense of humor, told me, “You need to use the word ‘sex’ and not shy away from it.”
We had to teach them how to properly document sexual violence, emphasizing that the discomfort should be felt by the interviewer, not the victim. Once we had all the statements, we worked together to analyze the data.
For me, it was almost like continuing the work I’d done on the panel, but this time we had the opportunity to investigate in more depth. It really underscored how, even though the situation seemed to be over, human rights violations continued.
FM: What was the impact of that report?
Yasmin says their report makes UN Human Rights council to call for an investigation in Sri Lanka; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
FH: The report led to a resolution at the Human Rights Council, which called for an independent investigation into Sri Lanka. I should mention, though, that the impact wasn’t only from our report—there was also Callum McCray’s documentary for Channel 4, which played a huge role.
Still, the resolution paved the way for the investigation, which ran for about a year or a year and a half. They produced a report that became a cornerstone for us, a crucial document for corroborating the crimes. Since then, our understanding has grown as more evidence and testimonies have emerged, especially since it’s almost ten years later.
That initial report was key for driving sanctions, peacekeeping vetting, and universal jurisdiction cases. It laid the groundwork, and we’ve continued to build on it by linking evidence to perpetrators and updating it as new information comes in.
FM: So, Yasmin, when did you first consider starting a project on Bangladesh?
Frances says their initial focus on Bangladesh was regarding economic corruption; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
YS: It was last year. The main focus initially was really on the economic crisis in Bangladesh.
FH: David [Bergman] joined us to work on Sri Lanka and helped put together a report on torture, which is available on our website. He didn’t travel to Sri Lanka; he worked from London, analyzing testimonies and writing up the reports, providing context.
In the process, he went through a large number of statements related to sexual violence and torture, having access to our secure database. So, he saw the inner workings of our organization and contributed to our Sri Lanka work. Later, the idea of focusing on Bangladesh emerged, and we began discussing a small pilot project.
We thought about using our experience with sanctions and visa bans, but this time focusing on Bangladesh. We had some initial conversations about how to approach it, but we weren’t yet looking at the entire history of the country. Instead, we focused on specific actors, both from a human rights and economic crisis perspective.
Unfortunately, we didn’t manage to launch it right away. By the time we began, [July] protests had erupted, and we went through a difficult couple of months, reworking and adjusting the project’s focus.
Eventually, we found a direction, and we’ve been able to move forward because, being a small team with minimal bureaucracy, we’re able to adapt quickly. I think this agility is also due to my background in journalism—we don’t just stick to a plan if it’s not working. We recognize when we need to pivot.
FM: About the documentaries and reports produced by ITJP, how do you envision these being used to bring the perpetrators of the July massacre to justice?
YS: When constructing our documentaries, we carefully consider all the potential evidentiary challenges that any prosecutor would face when introducing digital evidence in court. This is often the first hurdle. We also take extra steps to authenticate the videos, as proving their authenticity is a key concern for prosecutors.
Additionally, we use technologies like chrono-location and geolocation to strengthen the evidence. Over time, we’ve developed a better understanding of how cell phone data can be used in trials of this nature.
One crucial issue we’ve focused on is informed consent—not only from the person who recorded the video, but also from the witnesses whose statements and materials are part of the case. We make sure they understand how their information will be used and ensure they play a key role in handling the material.
A particular challenge for us has been how to handle the sharing of footage with larger bodies like the UN, which was already running an investigation in Bangladesh at the time. We’ve had several discussions about the complexities of sharing evidence with organizations like the UN.
Yasmin says a particular challenge for us has been how to handle the sharing of footage with larger bodies like the UN; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
Once you hand over footage, they essentially take ownership of it, and there’s a risk that organizations could change their stance on how the evidence is used in the future. We’ve encountered situations where organizations shift their priorities, and the materials might not be used to support accountability measures as originally intended. We had discussions with UN representatives, and it became clear to both sides that they might not have the resources or the expertise to manage the footage in the way we would need them to.
FM: Frances, you’ve been in Bangladesh for about a week now. Could you share your experiences so far? Who have you met, and what was the response to the documentary screening?
FH: During our time here, we had the opportunity to meet with student leaders-turned-advisers to the interim government, including Nahid [Islam] and Mahfuj [Alam]. We also spoke with Advisor Asif Nazrul, Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman, and ICT Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam.
In addition, we engaged with the families we’ve been documenting, along with several journalists, newspaper editors, and human rights activists. Civil society representatives also participated in the discussions.
FM: How did they respond to your work?
FH: For us, the most significant response came from the families, because ultimately, this work is for them. The fact that they saw value in the films we created—how we pieced together fragments of video, told their stories, and analyzed the evidence—was deeply meaningful for our team and all our partners. The families’ endorsement of our work felt like a powerful affirmation.
Frances says showing the films to the family was pretty difficult; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
Of course, showing the films to the families was difficult. We were concerned about the emotional toll of watching videos of such traumatic events, especially when the victims were their loved ones. For instance, showing a mother and father footage of their son being shot was incredibly hard.
But we worked hard to present it in a way that was humane, respectful, and supportive. The fact that we could do that, and do it in a way that was sensitive to their pain, felt essential. If we hadn’t made that effort—if we hadn’t come here, met with the families, and engaged with them directly—I think it would have been a very different experience for all of us.
One of the most moving moments for me was the event where the families had a chance to speak directly to the government and the Chief Prosecutor. When the family members addressed Tajul Islam, the chief prosecutor, and said, “Mr. Chief Prosecutor, we want justice,” it was incredibly powerful.
Two family members spoke, and their words brought the entire audience to tears. When the elderly man finished speaking and stepped down from the platform, Tajul Islam embraced him. That was a deeply emotional and respectful moment, and I think it showed the prosecutor’s genuine respect for the families. He sat there listening to the event for hours, and when he responded, it was clear he understood that his work was for the victims and their families who had lost so much.
FM: With your extensive experience as a journalist and human rights worker, what do you think are the chances of Bangladesh holding those responsible for the July massacre accountable?
FH: Ah, that’s the million-dollar question. I think there are some positive signs. For one, there is an abundance of evidence here—there’s a wealth of video footage, and there is openness to addressing these issues.
But collecting, securing, and storing all that evidence is a huge challenge. Six months down the line, it’s clear that there’s a need for more capacity building, more expertise, and more external support to help navigate this. It’s an incredibly tough task.
However, the fact that the information is accessible, and that some people who were affected by the protests are now in government, is significant. This gives you a solid starting point. But achieving justice for everyone involved will take a long time.
Frances says achieving justice for everyone involved will take a long time; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
You might see one or two individuals held accountable, but there are many more who still need to be brought to justice. For all the families who’ve lost loved ones, they want everyone involved to be held accountable.
The families also emphasized, in all our meetings with them, that justice isn’t just about the criminal trials—it’s about building a new Bangladesh, one with a different political culture where such violence and impunity can’t happen again.
They expressed real concerns that if those responsible remained in power, or returned to power, they could face future threats. More broadly, they don’t want this to happen to anyone else’s children.
They want to see an end to this culture of violence and impunity. That kind of transformation takes time, and a lot of hard work. But I am encouraged by the efforts I’ve seen here—the commitment and determination of people to make that change happen.
FM: Yasmin, I have a question about the possibility of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. You have experience with this from your work on the South African commission. Have you had discussions with Bangladeshi officials, and do you think a Truth and Reconciliation Commission could be established here?
YS: That’s a tough question. The term “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” often leads to misunderstanding, especially in Bangladesh, where many people associate it primarily with reconciliation.
Yasmin says a commission is less about forgiveness or forgetting and more about uncovering the truth and understanding the structural issues that allow state repression to persist; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
In reality, such a commission is less about forgiveness or forgetting and more about uncovering the truth and understanding the structural issues that allow state repression to persist. It’s about addressing political intolerance and the role of corruption—issues that go beyond the idea of reconciliation.
When we talk about a commission here, it’s really about examining what happened in Bangladesh—why it happened, and what factors allowed such repression to continue for so long. It’s about developing a historical narrative that everyone can at least accept, especially in light of the fact that there are people who still deny these violations ever took place.
As I’ve said before, it’s not about creating a “better class” of people; it’s about using the past as a foundation to build a better future. But is Bangladesh ready for that? There’s often an expectation that a Truth Commission should be about forgiveness or reconciliation, and I don’t believe that’s the right approach here.
People are polite and will listen to these ideas, but the reality is that there needs to be a national conversation about how to address these issues. Such information won’t come solely from trials. The state prosecution has ambitious plans for many trials, but the global experience shows that, even with the best intentions, it takes a long time.
Trials are by nature selective, and they focus on individual criminal responsibility. What we’re really looking at is structural and political responsibility, because these are systemic crimes.
There are certainly people in Bangladesh who are open to exploring this issue, but they’re also very focused on seeing individual perpetrators held accountable. Many are particularly keen on seeing the head of government held accountable. That’s going to be a long road. And in the end, even that won’t resolve all the other challenges Bangladesh faces.
However, there’s a good starting point. The interim government has already set up six commissions, some of which have reported, and their findings and recommendations could feed into a broader process. This would allow for the creation of a commission with overarching responsibility for addressing the past.
The experience of many post-conflict countries shows that unless you confront these issues head-on, it’s impossible to build a new society. To build a society where all citizens can enjoy their fundamental rights, these issues need to be addressed.
FM: I have a question about those who intellectually supported the Awami League regime. The challenge lies in applying the law retrospectively. While we can identify the problem, it’s difficult to apply legal frameworks to past actions. For example, individuals who, after a massacre, wrote in support of the regime, such as condemning protesters or justifying government actions. There’s evidence showing how their writings contributed to sustaining the regime. Legally, how can we address this—particularly media figures who supported the regime through intellectual work? Can the ICT’s legal framework address this, and is there any provision in the Rome Statute that could define material support through writing? Is it even feasible to legally define this?
YS: If you look back at Nuremberg, there were two main challenges: one was the issue of retrospectivity, and the other was whether something was considered a crime at the time it occurred. In law, there’s the principle that you cannot hold someone accountable for something that wasn’t a crime at the time.
This is actually a significant challenge. And it’s one we face in South Africa today as well. Although the international community and the United Nations declared apartheid to be a crime against humanity, South Africa only recently ratified the relevant conventions. In prosecuting such crimes, we argue that, regardless of when South Africa signed the convention, customary international law applies. Under that law, these were crimes at the time they were committed.
So, I would say that the ICT prosecutor would need to invoke the principle of customary law to address these two issues. But this is where a Truth Commission becomes incredibly valuable, because it can deal with these very questions. A commission can look back as far as necessary and investigate the role of the media in supporting a repressive state.
Yasmin says a commission is less about forgiveness or forgetting and more about uncovering the truth and understanding the structural issues that allow state repression to persist; Photo Credit: Saqib Sarkar
In South Africa, for example, we looked at how media outlets helped spread disinformation or target individuals, sometimes even inciting violence. A Truth Commission has more flexibility in addressing such issues than a prosecution might, particularly because a skilled defense lawyer could argue that the law at the time didn’t encompass such actions.
Now, in a case like this, even if the prosecutor invokes customary law, a clever defense could challenge whether it applied at the time, which complicates things. In places like London or Singapore, we’ve seen that even when national law seems narrow, customary international law can still apply. For instance, Singapore never signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, but we argued that they were bound by customary international law and therefore had to comply with its provisions.
So, while it might not be impossible to pursue this through legal channels, especially with the right invocation of customary law, a Truth Commission is far better equipped to address these issues comprehensively. It allows for a broader exploration of the media’s role and the structural support for regimes, offering a clearer path for historical justice.
FM: Frances, your take on this…from a journalistic point of view…?
FH: When we consider journalists’ reactions to a media commission with a narrow mandate focused only on recommending reforms, it’s crucial to recognize that this isn’t a truth commission specifically dedicated to the media.
After speaking with journalists, many expressed frustration that the commission hasn’t engaged with them and voiced concerns about censorship, self-censorship, and the way information was controlled in the past. They want to be heard.
It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re seeking criminal accountability for censorship in those particular instances, but they do want their experiences to be acknowledged. And this is just a small example—it applies across many sectors and involves numerous stakeholders.
A truth commission, by contrast, provides a platform for such information to be shared publicly, allowing society to reflect on it. While journalists may be familiar with issues of censorship and self-censorship, it’s crucial for the broader public to hear these experiences directly, to understand them, and to integrate them into their perceptions of how society functions and how it should evolve in the future.
FM: Thank you both for talking with us.
Bangla Outlook
