Secret detention cells in the name of "hospital" and "clinic"

During the tenure of the ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina, victims of enforced disappearance were detained in secret detention centres, two of which were given the code names "hospital" and "clinic." The intelligence wing of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) was primarily responsible for operating these detention centres.

The detention centre known as the Taskforce for Interrogation or TFI Cell, located within the premises of the RAB-1 office in Uttara, was codenamed "hospital." It was operated under the authority of the RAB headquarters but specifically overseen by RAB’s intelligence wing.

The detention centre code named "clinic" was located within the premises of the RAB headquarters itself. Due to its glass-enclosed structure, it was also referred to as the "Glass House."

Details of these two secret detention centres have been revealed in the second provisional report of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances. On 4 June, the commission submitted this report to the chief advisor Professor Muhammad Yunus at the state guest house Jamuna. Titled “Unfolding the Truth: A Structural Diagnosis of Enforced Disappearances in Bangladesh,” the report outlines the roles, both direct and indirect, played by all the security forces involved in the disappearances.

The interim government formed the inquiry commission on enforced disappearances on 27 August 27. The commission is investigating cases of enforced disappearance that occurred between 6 January 2009, and 5 August 2024. On 14 December the commission submitted its first provisional report, titled “Unfolding the Truth,” to the chief advisor. The report revealed evidence indicating the involvement of ousted the prime minister Sheikh Hasina as a key orchestrator in various enforced disappearances carried out over the past 15 years.

The report also indicated how evidence related to enforced disappearance had been destroyed after 5 August, when the Awami League government toppled in the face of the student-mass uprising. It said the evidence had been destroyed in the Joint Interrogation Cell (JIC) run by the Directorate General Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and other agencies.

The second report summarised the previous incidents, saying that as investigations advanced, newer incidents of evidence being destroyed were being discovered. Much evidence in the secret detention facilities run by RAB in the name of "hospital" and "clinic" had also been destroyed. This was carried out by the accused agencies. As a result, important information and clues were wiped out, hampering investigations and creating delays. Later, the detention facilities were identified with the help of descriptions provided by the victims.

The family of Mir Bin Quasem (Barrister Arman) says that he had been disappeared on 9 August 2016 from Mirpur DOHS. He is the son of Mir Quasem Ali, member of Jamaat's central executive council who had been hanged on charges of crimes against humanity. Arman returned to his family on 6 August from the secret detention cell. It was basically from his narrative that the inquiry commission located the detention centre "hospital".

The commission’s report states that in the initial phase, there was information suggesting that Barrister Arman had been detained at DGFI’s secret detention centre known as “Aynaghar” (JIC). However, the first indication that he may not have been held there emerged from his own testimony. Each detention centre had distinct operational characteristics, particularly the behaviour of the guards, time for using the toilet, sounds of the surroundings, the type of food served, and other sensory cues that help identify a specific facility.

Arman’s descriptions clearly did not align with the known features of DGFI’s detention centres. His account did not match those of other detainees held by DGFI, such as Brigadier General (retd.) Abdullahil Amaan Azmi (son of Ghulam Azam).

According to the report, Aram was interview in order to clear up these discrepancies. Gradually from his description it became evident that he had been detained at the TFI cell run by the RAB headquarters in the RAB-1 premises. When the commission visited the TFI cell for the first time on 16 October, the authorities said that this has been abandoned for at least two years. The commission found this to be plausible because the place was run down, in a state of disrepair and neglect.

Arman had said that the floor beneath his feet was cold and tiled. However, when members of the commission visited the site, they found the floor to be uneven and made of rough cement, which had clearly been in place for a long time. This discrepancy raised suspicions. The commission observed square-shaped marks on the floor, which could be remnants of removed tiles. Following this, the commission interrogated the responsible officials in search of information about the tiles.

Arman had been blindfolded most of the time during his detention. Like the other detainees, he too managed to give some sort of idea of directions and movements from memory. The inquiry commission asked him to draw a map accordingly. This map stepped up the commission's suspicions about the location of the cell. From a picture sent to Arman, he felt that is was the door to his room which was later blocked. This changed the direction of the investigations.

According to the report, it was based on these observations that the commission contacted the International Crimes Tribunal. They sent a blueprint and requested a comparison between the internal and external measurements of the relevant wall. After the measurements were analysed, it became fairly certain that the claim of the facility being abandoned was untrue. When the wall was subsequently broken open, a hidden room was discovered in completely intact condition, perfectly matching Barrister Arman’s description. At that point, the commission confirmed that Arman had been held in that secret room for over eight years.

The inquiry report stated that after the discovery of the secret room in the TFI cell, the commission conducted further inquiries into the timeline of evidence destruction. The commission then confirmed that the process of destroying and concealing evidence at this location began in August 2024, immediately after Hasina left the country. This process continued throughout the month of September.

The commission’s report indicates that the destruction of evidence did not cease even after changes in senior positions within RAB. It states that the then-Director of RAB’s intelligence wing remained in his position from before 5 August until the commission’s inspection on 16 October. However, a change in the position of Additional Director General (Operations) occurred in the first week of September. Even under the new officer, the destruction of evidence continued. Although the director of the intelligence wing was later replaced by an acting director, obstacles to accessing information persisted.

According to the report, officials like the new Additional Director General, who were not directly involved in the earlier crimes, are now becoming complicit by attempting to cover up the misconduct of their predecessors, due to a prevailing culture of impunity. The commission warns that the legal consequences of such complicity could be extremely damaging for the officials involved.

The interim report also states that until 5 August, RAB’s intelligence wing operated another secret detention center. Known within RAB as the “clinic,” this facility was located within the premises of the RAB headquarters. At one point, the third floor of this facility contained nearly six small detention cells.

The commission reports that in April, after analysing testimonies from victims and eyewitnesses, the "Glass House" was identified. Prior to that, they had only speculated that a detention facility operated by RAB intelligence might exist near the airport, though its exact location remained unconfirmed. During the inspection, it was found that substantial structural modifications had been made to the interior layout. The current layout did not fully match the descriptions provided by victims. However, the positioning of the ceiling beams, marks from partition walls, and some remaining wall drawings confirmed that the space had originally consisted of six separate rooms. At the time of the visit, only four rooms remained. Two partition walls had been entirely removed, and those sections had been retiled and redesigned to resemble bathroom interiors. The removal of the original doors contributed to an overall structural transformation of the facility.

Regarding the destruction of evidence, the report states that the manner in which the wall had been removed and reconstructed clearly indicates it was not done hastily. The timeline and method of work suggest that the operation involved allocated resources and a deliberate plan.
The report also notes that while torture equipment was being removed from the TFI Cell, evidence from the detention centre at the RAB headquarters was also being destroyed. The investigation uncovered proof that these torture devices, including a rotating chair, electric shock equipment, and another unspecified torture apparatus, were all removed at the same time.

Separately, the RAB intelligence wing operated two other safe houses, one in Uttara and the other in Mirpur. These were deactivated well before 5 August. Based on inspections and collected information, the commission believes these two locations had already been dismantled.

The report also states that members of the commission have been subjected to ongoing harassment, smear campaigns, and deliberate disinformation. It notes that accusations were made against them, alleging they were secret agents of foreign intelligence agencies such as the ISI, RAW or the CIA, or that they were affiliated with religious or political extremists. In some interviews, the accused individuals openly admitted to keeping the families of commission members under surveillance.

Despite these threats and attempts at intimidation, the report emphasises that the commission’s work continued with full dedication. It states that their sense of duty and commitment to the victims ensured that neither the direction nor the pace of their work was disrupted in any way.
Beyond intimidation, the commission regularly faced procedural obstructions. Many institutions were unwilling to provide sensitive information in writing. In some cases, even a straightforward question took weeks, even months, to receive a response. Requests for data such as lists of officers, vehicle logbooks, deployment histories, or identification of responsible personnel, such as who oversaw a particular facility, were often met with prolonged silence, delays, or vague replies.

The commission reports that its investigation confirmed RAB maintained a tightly controlled and centralised command structure throughout the period of enforced disappearances. Even the smallest decisions required approval from higher authorities. For example, if a detainee in the TFI Cell fell ill, permission was needed even to administer a paracetamol tablet.
According to the commission, such details clearly indicate that the upper leadership exercised full control and oversight. The senior leadership was not only involved in administrative roles but also directly engaged in operational supervision and decision-making.

Over the past few months, the commission has summoned several officials for questioning, with plans to summon more in the future. Referring to the TFI Cell, the report states that most of the officials involved denied any responsibility in identical language, claiming they were unaware of the building’s existence or any detainees held there.

However, during the commission’s visit to the TFI Cell in October, members were explicitly informed, and observed firsthand, that the then-director of RAB's intelligence wing held the keys to the building. Therefore, the claim that the facility had been abandoned for years and never used as a secret detention site is “plainly misleading.” It is particularly significant that Barrister Arman was released from that very location, which serves as compelling and irrefutable evidence.

The commission also possesses additional material evidence indicating that even the Director General and Additional Director General of RAB were actively connected to the operations of the TFI Cell. These findings will be disclosed in the next phase of the investigation, as required by the ongoing inquiry and judicial proceedings before the tribunal.

The report provides an example in which, after an on-site inspection and photographic documentation by the commission, a particular agency still officially denied the existence of a secret detention centre. However, after direct follow-up and presentation of irrefutable evidence, the agency ultimately retracted its position and was compelled to acknowledge the facility’s existence.

In its provisional report, the commission on enforced disappearances affirms that it has obtained testimony from certain officers and staff who were stationed at the TFI Cell during periods of disappearances. These individuals admitted that various detainees were held at the site. Thus, the commission has been able to conclusively establish that the claim of the TFI Cell being long abandoned is demonstrably false. Consequently, those officials can be held accountable for the prolonged enforced disappearances and systematic inhumane treatment that occurred under their oversight within the facility.

Cases like that of Barrister Arman, supported by solid evidence and the testimony of returned victims, form a critical starting point for establishing accountability. Many of the officials responsible in Arman’s case were also in charge of other enforced disappearance operations conducted by RAB’s intelligence wing, in which the victims remain missing to this day.

Therefore, establishing responsibility in cases like Arman’s, could strike at the root of the culture of impunity. The commission states that this proves justice is possible and that even the powerful are not beyond accountability.