CAT/C/BGD/CO/1 international human rights law as enforced disappearance, whether or not the victim is killed or reappears later. The Committee notes that the State party’s delegation rejected the proposition that enforced disappearances occur in Bangladesh frequently and that in the single case acknowledged by the delegation in which officials were criminally prosecuted for conduct amounting to enforced disappearance, involving several individuals in Narayanganj, the law enforcement officials were convicted of the crimes of “abduction” and “murder”. The Committee also notes that the State party’s delegation asserted that allegations that its authorities had engaged in enforced disappearance should be presumed to be false in cases where the alleged victim has subsequently reappeared, as in the case of Hummam Quader Chowdhury. 15. The Committee notes that Mr. Chowdhury’s case was raised by the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances in 2017, along with those of Mir Ahmed Bin Quasem and Abdullahil Amaan Al Azmi, all of whom were reportedly detained by unknown authorities after they campaigned for the release of their fathers from custody following their conviction by the International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh. The Working Group had also expressed serious concern that the practice of enforced disappearance was occurring increasingly frequently in Bangladesh. The Committee regrets that the State party did not provide information regarding whether it had investigated the allegations that these men had been held for lengthy periods in unacknowledged detention by law enforcement authorities, nor did it provide information concerning the status of ongoing investigations into other cases in which its authorities were alleged to have engaged in conduct meeting the definition of enforced disappearance, such as in the death in custody of Ekramul Haque and the disappearance from police custody of Sheikh Mokhlesur Rahman (arts. 2, 4, 12, 13, 11 and 16). 16. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Unambiguously affirm at the highest level of government that law enforcement authorities must immediately cease engaging in the practice of unacknowledged detention; (b) Publish a list of all recognized places of detention and ensure that no one is held in secret or incommunicado detention anywhere in the territory of the State party; (c) Ensure that any official found to have held an individual in unacknowledged detention is prosecuted and punished with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, including in cases where the individual was subsequently released; (d) Ensure that all allegations of unacknowledged detention, disappearance and death in custody are promptly and thoroughly investigated by a body that is independent of the authorities alleged to have been responsible for the detention; (e) Ensure that all places of deprivation of liberty in the State party are monitored by an independent authority with the power to carry out unannounced visits to places of detention and speak confidentially with any individual in the facility, and that representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also permitted to access all places of detention; (f) Consider ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (g) Because offences such as “abduction” do not sufficiently communicate the serious nature of unacknowledged detention carried out by or with the complicity of State officials, prohibit “enforced disappearance” as a distinct crime in the legislation, reflecting the definition set out in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and consider ratifying the Convention. 5