A/HRC/31/18/Add.2 A. Contested land ownership 44. Unsettled property disputes constitute challenges in many societies, including in Bangladesh. In various ways, they are closely linked with problems concerning freedom of religion or belief. One link is the salient decline of the Hindu population in Bangladesh, which has shrunk significantly since the time of independence. The Government of Pakistan initially instituted the designation of minority owned land as “enemy property” under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act of 1965. That Act encompassed a series of discriminatory property laws targeting primarily Hindus and tribal communities in the eastern portion of the country (Bangladesh). 45. After achieving independence from Pakistan in 1971, the newly formed Bangladesh retained the inequitable provisions of the Enemy Property Act through the 1974 Vested Property Act. Hindus remained the main target, and the Vested Property Act caused many Hindu families to emigrate to India and other countries. As in many instances, when a person left the country for any reason, whether temporarily or permanently, they were designated as an “enemy” under the Vested Property Act and their property was “vested” or seized by the State. Frequently, when one Hindu member of a family left the country, the family’s entire property was confiscated. 46. In reality, much of the confiscations carried out amounted to sheer land grabbing. The Government has tried to combat this phenomenon through the 2001 Restoration of Vested Property Act, under which Hindus should be given back their lost properties. However, the implementation of the Act seems to be problematic and the returning of lost properties has reportedly been inadequate in most cases. At the same time, incidents of land grabbing at the expense of Hindus continue even today, sometimes also affecting people who had converted away from Hinduism to another religion, for instance, the Baha’i faith. 47. Settling unresolved property issues and solidifying property claims seems to be very high on the agenda of the Hindu community. Although clearly acknowledging positive efforts made by the Government, people from the Hindu community expressed helplessness and despair at their loss of personal and religious property and the stagnation in restitution measures. 48. Much insecurity concerning real estate also exists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, an area traditionally inhabited by various indigenous peoples. The lack of proper documentation proving ownership (land titles) has led to many disputes and to allegations of land grabbing. Legal insecurity also affects the land on which religious infrastructure has been built, such as temples, pagodas, churches, graveyards or cremation grounds. Obviously, this gives rise to concerns from the perspective of freedom of religion or belief, since religious community life, especially in a minority situation, cannot prosper without an adequate infrastructure, which itself presupposes legal clarity and security. 49. When visiting Bandarban and Rangamati, the Special Rapporteur met with members of various religious communities, most of whom were also indigenous. While acknowledging that their situation had improved in recent years, they were very aware of cases — including some recent cases — in which land previously utilized for religious purposes had been taken away, sometimes in connection with false documentation of land ownership, acts of vandalism and physical attacks. Legal insecurity of religious property, in combination with other factors, is a major reason underneath the feelings of vulnerability and insecurity still existing among indigenous peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region, which also affects their freedom of religion or belief. It should be noted that, from the perspective indigenous peoples, land is not just a commodity but also intimately interlinked with their identity and may even carry a direct religious or spiritual significance. 10