Bangladesh

Heard at Field House on 29th & 30th September 2010.

11 July 2011 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Country of origin information (COI) - Domestic violence - Effective protection - Gender-based persecution - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Right to family life - Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) - Social group discrimination - Social group persecution - State protection - Women-at-risk | Countries: Bangladesh - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1 April 2011 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Persecution based on political opinion - Political parties - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Australia - Bangladesh

Application for judicial review.

30 March 2007 | Judicial Body: Australia: Federal Magistrates Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Changes of circumstances in home country - Country of origin information (COI) - Non-state agents of persecution - Persecution based on political opinion - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - State protection | Countries: Australia - Bangladesh

This case is no longer country guidance: SH (Prison Conditions) Bangladesh CG [2008] UKAIT 00076.

17 June 2002 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Bihari - State protection | Countries: Bangladesh - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers contains rights on every humanbeing and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of persons, e.g., the AAPSU, to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do so. No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the State without being inhibited by local politics. Besides, by refusing to forward their applications, the Chakmas are denied rights, Constitutional and statutory, to be considered for being registered as citizens of India.

9 January 1996 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Chakma - Citizenship / Nationality law - Constitutional law - Right to life - Rights of non-citizens - State protection | Countries: Bangladesh - India