they cannot afford to pay for it, but the country lacked sufficient funds to provide this service. Many detainees were not permitted to communicate with others outside of detention. Arbitrary Arrest: Arbitrary arrests occurred, often in conjunction with political demonstrations or speech, or as part of security force responses to terrorist activity, and the government held persons in detention without specific charges, sometimes to collect information regarding other suspects. The expansiveness of the 1974 Special Powers Act grants legal justification for arrests that would often otherwise be considered arbitrary, since it removes the requirement that arrests be based on crimes that have occurred previously. Human rights activists claimed police falsely constructed cases to target opposition leaders, workers, and supporters, and that the government used the law enforcement agency to crack down on political rivals. From August to December, police arbitrarily arrested thousands of opposition BNP members during otherwise peaceful protests. Following two clashes between the BNP and the Awami League in Netrakona and Madan, police filed charges against 759 BNP leaders and activists. In December media reported police headquarters announced that police arrested more than 6,000 individuals during a nationwide “special drive.” While police claimed this drive was to control crime, human rights organizations and observers noted most of the arrested persons were from the opposition party. Pretrial Detention: Arbitrary and lengthy pretrial detention continued due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited resources, lax enforcement of pretrial rules, and corruption. Lawyers attributed the overuse of arbitrary and stringent laws such as the DSA, some of which have do not allow for bail, as another explanation for the high numbers of pretrial detentions. In some cases, the length of pretrial detention equaled or exceeded the sentence for the alleged crime. e. Denial of Fair Public Trial The constitution provides for an independent and impartial judiciary, but corruption and political interference compromised its independence. The government generally did not respect judicial independence and impartiality. Page 10