ENDNOTES 1 United Nations Human Rights Council, “Human Rights Council Opens Special Session on the Situation of Human Rights of the Rohingya and Other Minorities in Rakhine State in Myanmar,” 5 December 2017. 2 Republic of the Gambia v Republic of the Union of Myanmar (Application Instituting Procedures and Requesting Interim Measures) 2019. 3 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137; Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted and entered into force 4 October 1967) 606 UNTS 267. 4 Saul B., Mowbray J., and Baghoomians I., “The last frontier of human rights protection: Interrogating resistance to regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific,” (2011) 18. 5 The Act contains provisions that criminalize violations such as irregular entry, and provides for detention in various situations (Sec. 3(2), read with Sec. 14). 6 A note on informal justice and other alternatives to the formal justice system, as the authors recognize their importance in this context. Although this protection note does not directly address informal and hybrid justice mechanisms, the authors remain cognisant of their significance, which is central to lived experiences of justice and the rule of law. The authors encourage high legal principles and standards to be applied in any adjudication process, whether informal, formal, or hybrid, for which this protection note can provide a benchmark for practice. For more information see: Access to Justice for Rohingya and Host Community in Cox’s Bazar, International Rescue Committee, 8 July 2019. 7 This includes the April 2018 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Bangladesh and the UNHCR (UNHCR, “Bangladesh and UNHCR agree on voluntary returns framework for when refugees decide conditions are right,” 13 April 2018) and statements by the Bangladeshi Home Affairs Secretary (Humayun Kabir Bhuiyan, “Bangladesh not to let in Rohingyas anymore,” Dhaka Tribune, 8 September 2019). While this exemption is understood to have been applied, there continues to be significant legal uncertainty surrounding legal stay and documentation and consequent legal implications. While this lack of clarity is perhaps both intentional and strategic, there are several arguments that advocates can put forward, as exhibited through various case law included in this document, to support this position and acknowledge the availability and applicability of legal protections. 8 For example, the principle of non-refoulement, while the cornerstone of refugee protection under the 1951 Convention, is enshrined in several international and regional human rights instruments, including in Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 16 of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons and Enforced Disappearances, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (e.g. GC 6), and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (e.g. GC 32). Refugee protection obligations that arise under various international human rights treaties beyond the 1951 Refugee Convention are sometimes referred to as “complementary protection regimes” or subsidiary forms of protection. 9 Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU) v Bangladesh (High Court judgment, dated 31 May 2017). 10  efugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU) v Government of Bangladesh (WP No 10504 of 2016 dated 31 May 2017) R (SC HCD) 9; Application of The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar) (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures: Order) 2020 23. 11 This was confirmed in the case of Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU) v Bangladesh (High Court judgment, dated 31 May 2017), in which the Court observed that to keep a Rohingya man in jail even after the expiry of his prison term would contravene Article 32 of the Constitution that guarantees to every person, including non-citizens, the right to life and liberty.[0][0] 12 Discussing the case of a Nigerian national jailed in Bangladesh who lacked the financial means to acquire legal counsel, Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Mr. Anisul Haque clarified in 2019 that there is no legal impediment to providing Legal Aid to destitute foreigners under the Legal Aid Services Act: “Our law calls for the provision of legal aid to helpless and indigent prisoners behind bars. There is no mention here as to whether or not the prisoner is a citizen of Bangladesh or not.” See Abu Saleh Rony, “Helpless Foreign Prisoners too will Receive Free Legal Aid,” Samakal, 9 October 2019. 13 UNHCR, “Bangladesh and UNHCR agree on voluntary returns framework for when refugees decide conditions are right,” 13 April 2018. 14 Humayun Kabir Bhuiyan, “Bangladesh not to let in Rohingyas anymore,” Dhaka Tribune, 8 September 2019. 15 United States Department of State, “2020 Trafficking in Persons Report,” (June 2020) 93-97; Arpeeta Shams Mirzan, “The Released Prisoners: Analyzing the Legislative Gaps in the Detention Scheme of the Foreigners in Bangladesh,” (June 2014) 18. 16 See e.g., ICC Pre-Trial Chamber III, “Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar;” UN Human Rights Council, “Myanmar: UN Fact-Finding Mission releases its full account of massive violations by military in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States.” 17 UNHCR has issued biometric ID cards to Rohingya who arrived in Bangladesh from August 2017 onwards under the Biometric Identity Management System (BIMS), see UNHCR, “More than half a million Rohingya refugees receive identity documents, most for the first time,” 9 August 2019. 18 UN Document CMW/C/BGD/Q/1/Add. 1. 19 It is of note that such orders do not clearly identify under what authority the Cabinet Division is acting, leaving open possible constitutional challenges. 20 See, for example, Pochon Rikssi Das vs Khuku Rani Dasi 50 DLR (1998) (HCD) 47; Meher Nigar v Mujibur Rahman 47 DLR (1995) (HCD) 18; Nirmal Kanti Das v Srimati Biva Rani 47 DLR (1995) (HCD) 514. 21 As clarified in the opinion of the High Court Division in Pochon Rikssi Das v Khuku Rani Dasi 50 DLR (1998) (HCD) 47. 22 See Zahidul Islam, Strengthening Family Courts: An Analysis of the Confusions & Uncertainties Thwarting the Family Courts in Bangladesh, BLAST, November 2006: 8. 79 BE YOND REFU GE: ADVANCING LEG AL PROTECTIONS FOR ROHINGYA C OMMUNITIES IN BANGL ADESH