CAT/C/BGD/CO/1 Rapid Action Battalion 17. The Committee is gravely concerned at numerous reports received of cases in which members of the State party’s Rapid Action Battalion, comprised of both members of the police and seconded military personnel, have been credibly alleged to have committed torture, arbitrary arrests, unacknowledged detention, disappearances and extrajudicial killings of persons in their custody. The Committee is similarly concerned that with the singular exception of the Narayanganj case mentioned above, members of this force have not been held criminally accountable for such violations. The Committee is concerned that section 13 of the Armed Police Battalion Act, which exculpates members of the force for actions “done or intended to be done in good faith”, has in practice given the impression that members of the force enjoy legal immunity from prosecution for torture or extrajudicial killing. The Committee notes with regret that the State party has not carried out an independent investigation into claims attributed to an anonymous senior official of the Battalion in a 2017 broadcast by Swedish National Radio, claiming that members of the force regularly abducted, tortured and killed individuals selected by their superiors and disposed of their bodies without leaving evidence, or planted weapons to support claims that they were killed in self-defence. The Committee further regrets that information was not provided to it about the composition of the internal enquiry cell of the Battalion and about the measures taken against officers in cases where complaints against members of the force were verified by the cell. The Committee is also concerned at reports that personnel that have served with the Rapid Action Battalion have frequently been deployed for service with United Nations peace missions (arts. 2, 4, 12, 13 and 16). 18. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Commission an independent inquiry into allegations that members of the Rapid Action Battalion have carried out torture, arbitrary arrests, unacknowledged detention, disappearances and extrajudicial killings as a matter of routine policy, and ensure that the personnel conducting the inquiry receive effective protection from harassment or intimidation; (b) Repeal the “good faith” clause in section 13 of the Armed Police Battalion (Amendment) Act 2003; (c) Cease the practice of seconding military personnel to serve in the Battalion and ensure that it is a purely civilian force and that members of the Battalion, like other law enforcement officers, are subject to criminal prosecution and penalties, rather than merely internal disciplinary action, in cases where they have allegedly committed torture, ill-treatment, disappearance or extrajudicial killings; (d) Establish an independent vetting procedure, with appropriate guidance from the United Nations, for all military and police personnel proposed for deployment on United Nations peace missions and ensure that no person or unit implicated in the commission of torture, extrajudicial killing, disappearances or other serious human rights violations is selected for service. Remand detention and fundamental legal safeguards 19. The Committee is seriously concerned at reports that the law enforcement authorities frequently do not provide persons deprived of their liberty with the fundamental legal safeguards against torture that have been identified by the Committee as essential to fulfilling the obligation to prevent torture in article 2 of the Convention. Reports allege that individuals deprived of their liberty are not informed about the charges against them; not given prompt access to a qualified and independent lawyer from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty, nor access to legal aid immediately after arrest and during all stages of detention, including during interrogations and hearings; not given access to an independent medical examination within 24 hours of their arrival in a place of detention, free of charge and not in the presence of police officers, nor afforded the right to request and receive a medical examination conducted in confidentiality by an independent doctor of the detainee’s choice; nor provided with the right to notify a family member or any other person of their own choice of their detention immediately after apprehension. 6