Fact-Checking Policy

Civic Vision Bangladesh (CVB)
Human Rights · Rule of Law · Democratic Accountability

Last updated: 16 September 2026

Purpose and Scope

Civic Vision Bangladesh (CVB), formerly Bangladesh HR Defender, seeks to make factual claims accurate, traceable and appropriately qualified. This policy guides verification in reporting, analysis, opinion, advocacy, translations, headlines, captions and visual material published under our editorial responsibility.

Our website remains hr-defender.blogspot.com. These standards also guide the review and correction of earlier publications under the former name.

Routine editorial verification differs from a dedicated fact-check. A dedicated fact-check identifies a specific claim, examines evidence and explains its conclusion. Publication on CVB does not mean that every statement has received independent external verification.

1. Selecting Claims Fairly

We prioritize verifiable claims with public significance, potential harm or relevance to human rights, governance and accountability. Selection also depends on available evidence and our capacity to investigate responsibly. Agreement or disagreement with our editorial position must not determine the result.

We apply comparable evidential standards across political, religious, national and institutional affiliations. This does not require an equal number of checks about every group.

Personal preferences, value judgments, predictions and proposals should not receive a factual verdict unless a specific testable assertion can be identified. Factual premises within opinion and advocacy remain subject to verification.

2. Define the Claim and Its Context

We seek the original wording and identify who made the claim, when, where and in what context. We establish the relevant time period, location and meaning of key terms. Compound statements may require separate assessments.

We examine whether quotations, clips or screenshots accurately represent their source. Satire, hypothetical examples and edited extracts should not be treated as literal assertions without checking context. Harmful misinformation should be reproduced only to the extent necessary to explain the assessment.

3. Evaluate Sources and Corroboration

Evidence may include original documents, public records, court materials, datasets, interviews, authenticated visual records, academic research and reporting with transparent sourcing. Each source is assessed for authenticity, proximity to events, methods, date, incentives and limitations.

An official statement establishes what an institution said; it does not automatically establish the truth of its account. The same scrutiny applies to advocacy groups, political actors, news outlets and interested parties.

• Seek original evidence and establish its provenance where possible.
• For serious or disputed claims, seek independent corroboration and relevant contrary evidence.
• Recognize that several reports repeating one source are not independent confirmations.
• Avoid a mechanical source-count rule: one decisive record may resolve a question, while numerous weak reports may not.
• Explain material reliance on a single source and any limits on verification.

Anonymous information may justify enquiry but requires assessment of the source’s access, reliability and motives. A screenshot, anonymous allegation or AI-generated answer alone is insufficient for a definitive finding of serious misconduct.

4. Our Review Process

1. Identify: state the precise claim and why it matters.
2. Trace: locate its original source and context.
3. Examine: assess supporting evidence, contrary evidence and alternative explanations.
4. Consult: seek relevant expertise or a response where necessary, considering conflicts of interest.
5. Assess: decide what the evidence establishes and what remains uncertain.
6. Explain: publish the reasoning, accessible sources, review date and limitations.
7. Revisit: consider credible new evidence and correct material errors.

Where safe and practicable, we retain appropriate source notes or copies so conclusions can be revisited. Confidential records need not be published simply to demonstrate that verification occurred.

5. Numbers, Documents and Legal References

For statistics, we check the source, units, denominator, period and definitions. We distinguish totals from rates, estimates from confirmed counts, and association from causation. Survey findings require attention to methods, sample size and uncertainty.

For documents, we assess authenticity, completeness and relevance. A draft, proposal or announcement should not be presented as an implemented measure. An allegation, complaint or charge must not be represented as an adjudicated finding.

Legal and policy references should identify the jurisdiction, relevant date and source status. We distinguish the text of a rule from our interpretation and explain material uncertainty rather than presenting disputed conclusions as settled.

6. Images, Recordings and Translations

Visual and audio verification may include tracing the earliest available version, reviewing complete recordings, comparing locations and dates, examining metadata and seeking corroboration. We describe checks actually performed. No single technique is treated as infallible.

Authentic material can mislead when assigned the wrong date, place or caption. Metadata may be absent or altered. Reverse-image results and automated detection tools provide leads, not conclusive proof on their own.

Realistic illustrations, composites, reconstructions and AI-generated images must be labelled where readers could mistake them for documentary evidence. Visuals must not falsely imply credentials, institutional endorsement or events that have not been established.

Translations should preserve meaning, context and qualifications. Translated quotations should be identified as translations. Where ambiguity could change a conclusion, we seek competent language review or state the unresolved limitation.

7. Fairness and Opportunity to Respond

Before publishing serious adverse findings about identifiable people or organizations, we seek a meaningful opportunity to respond where practicable and safe. Requests should explain the substance of the concern and allow reasonable time in light of urgency and complexity.

Responses are assessed as evidence rather than automatically accepted or dismissed. Silence is not proof of wrongdoing. If publication proceeds without a response, we explain the position where appropriate and consider substantive information received later.

8. Conclusions and Verdict Labels

Conclusions must be proportionate to the evidence and limited to the claim examined. Where a short label helps, it must accompany an explanation:

• Supported: the central factual assertion is substantiated by the evidence examined, within stated limits.
• False: reliable evidence contradicts the central factual assertion.
• Misleading: wording, presentation or omitted context creates a materially inaccurate impression, even if some elements are correct.
• Mixed: a compound claim contains separately identifiable supported and incorrect elements; each is explained.
• Unverified: evidence is insufficient for a reliable conclusion. This does not mean the claim is false.

A narrative assessment may be preferable when a label would oversimplify. Lack of accessible proof is not proof that an event did not occur. We do not infer intent to deceive merely from an error. Conclusions reflect the evidence available at the stated review date and may change with credible new information.

9. Human Rights and Source Safety

Verification must consider risks to survivors, witnesses, children and communities facing retaliation. We minimize unnecessary collection or disclosure of identifying information and consider informed consent, context and foreseeable harm.

Protected evidence or identifying details may be withheld while we explain the basis and limits of findings as far as safely possible. This must not be used to exaggerate certainty. Where verification is insufficient or risks cannot be adequately addressed, we may defer publication, anonymize material or publish a qualified account.

10. AI Assistance and Human Responsibility

AI may assist with organizing material, transcription, translation or drafting. It is not an authoritative source or independent corroboration. Material claims, quotations and citations must be checked against underlying evidence.

We do not invent sources, testimony or verification steps. AI-detection scores alone do not establish fabrication. Substantial AI involvement should be disclosed when it materially affects understanding of authorship or method. Sensitive information should not be submitted to external tools without appropriate safeguards.

11. Responsibility and Disclosure

Minhaz Samad Chowdhury holds final editorial responsibility for CVB. This independently operated platform does not claim a separate verification department, independent review of every article or accreditation by an external fact-checking body.

Relevant personal, professional, organizational and financial interests should be disclosed. Work concerning the editor’s own activities should be identified accordingly. Additional review may be sought where feasible, with its scope accurately described.

Advertising, sponsorship or pressure from interested parties must not determine factual conclusions. Editorial independence should be demonstrated through transparent methods and accountable decisions.

12. Corrections and Reconsideration

Readers may challenge findings or submit new evidence. We assess substantive requests on their merits, including those critical of CVB. Established material errors require a correction and dated explanation. If a verdict or central conclusion changes, the notice should make that clear.

Significant corrections should also be carried into related translations, graphics and posts under our control where practicable. See our Corrections Policy.

A reconsideration request should identify the article, challenged claim, supporting evidence and requested change. If a concern remains unresolved, explain any overlooked evidence or methodological issue. This is an editorial reconsideration process, not an independent appeals tribunal.

13. Contact and Policy Review

Editorial contact: info.hrdefender@gmail.com
Alternative: rightsmanbest@gmail.com

Use the subject line Fact-check request — [claim or article title]. Explain confidentiality needs before sending sensitive evidence. Requests are prioritized by significance, potential harm and capacity; submission does not guarantee a published fact-check or immediate response.

This policy will be reviewed as CVB’s practices develop. Material revisions will be reflected in its update date.

---

Visit our About CVB · Editorial Policy  ·  Fact-Checking Policy · Corrections Policy · Privacy Policy · Contact and Terms of Service for further information.