Home / News / Urgent Appeals / THAILAND: Lives of witnesses at risk if ministry does not reverse decision on protection before February 29
 

THAILAND: Lives of witnesses at risk if ministry does not reverse decision on protection before February 29

February 27, 2008

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-040-2008

27 February 2008
------------------------------------------------------
THAILAND: Lives of witnesses at risk if ministry does not reverse decision on protection before February 29

ISSUES: Witness protection; torture; disappearances; extrajudicial killing
------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is gravely concerned that despite calls from human rights defenders and organisations across Asia and around the world, still the justice ministry in Thailand has not reversed its decision to transfer responsibility for protection of witnesses in human rights cases under its control back to the police. If it does not reverse this decision before February 29, the lives of victims of torture, and relatives of people killed and disappeared by state officers will be at risk.

CASE DETAILS:

As the AHRC wrote previously, from February 29 people whose cases are being handled by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) under Thailand's Ministry of Justice will no longer receive protection from the department directly. Instead police will be responsible for them (AHRC-OLT-004-2008).

Among the persons affected is Angkhana Neelaphaijit, the wife of abducted human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, who has said that she will refuse the police. Others who have joined with her in saying that they will not accept the police are the three victims of police torture from the south of Thailand, and the relative of a victim of police killing in the north and a witness in the same case. (See further: AHRC-PRL-005-2008).

Other groups that have expressed concern about the decision and have called for it to be reversed include the May 18 Memorial Foundation (Korea), which gave Angkhana its 2006 human rights award (AHRC-FOL-004-2008).

In a related development, the AHRC is also extremely concerned and is closely watching the sudden replacement of the head of the DSI just hours after Angkhana visited the sacked head. The new director is a police officer, again securing the full control of the police over what is supposed to be a non-police agency. The new head also was the former commander of the police who were accused of abducting Angkhana's husband in 2004, and was a subordinate of the earlier DSI chief accused of perverting justice and thwarting the investigation into the case. That former DSI chief is now a deputy commissioner general of the entire police force in Thailand and his brother is the justice minister. He is also reportedly acting on an "advisory panel" for his brother.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

A witness protection programme was set up by the Ministry of Justice in accordance with the Witness Protection Act BE 2546 (2003). This act, introduced through the now abrogated Constitution of BE 2540 (1997), was a welcome albeit limited initiative because it recognised the importance of offering protection and also for the first time acknowledged that it should not be the responsibility of police to protect victims and witnesses of serious crimes, paving the way for an Office of Witness Protection under the ministry. However, it is apparent that there are now steps underway to undo the whole work of developing some notions of effective witness protection in Thailand, which are part of a bigger project to reverse all of the moves towards greater protection of human rights begun in the 1990s.

The Asian Legal Resource Centre, sister organisation of the AHRC, published a detailed report on witness protection in Thailand during 2006: Protecting witnesses or perverting justice in Thailand, (article 2, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2006.) (and in Thai).

For more details of the DSI and how despite being under the justice ministry it has to a large extent remained a de facto police agency see for instance: AS-016-2007; AS-311-2006.

See also the Somchai Neelapaijhit homepage: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/somchai 

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the Minister of Justice to urge that this decision on witness protection be reversed without delay or he will be putting the lives of many persons at grave risk. 

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ______________,

THAILAND: Please continue to ensure that witnesses get DSI protection

I am writing to you because I have heard that the victims and relatives of victims of torture, extrajudicial killing and forced disappearance in Thailand whose cases are with the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), Ministry of Justice, will from 29 February 2008 no longer get witness protection from the department. Instead the police will have responsibility for this.

Not surprisingly, those persons have said that they will not accept the police. Among them, I am aware that Angkhana Neelaphaijit, wife of abducted human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, has already petitioned the department to reverse this move, as have three victims of severe torture allegedly committed by the police.

I join calls from around the world for the Minister of Justice to reverse this decision to transfer protection powers in these cases to police officers, and instead keep responsibility for protecting persons in human rights cases under the DSI with the department. I urge that the decision be reviewed immediately. If not, in the event that anything happens to any one of these persons after February 29, then the Minister will be held responsible and condemned by the international community for this decision.

I also take this opportunity to express my gravest concerns about the appointment of Pol. Col. Thavee Sodsong as the new Director General of the Department of Special Investigation. I am aware that Pol. Col. Thavee was in fact the commander of the accused officers in the case of Somchai Neelaphaijit when stationed at the Crime Suppression Division and for this reason among others I do not believe that he is an appropriate person to head this important agency. I again urge that this decision be reviewed and a suitable person be appointed in his stead.

Yours sincerely,
----------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Sompong Amornvivat
Minister of Justice
Office of the Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Justice Building
22nd Floor, Software Park Building,
Chaeng Wattana Road
Chaeng Wattana Road, Pakkred
Nonthaburi, 11120
THAILAND
Fax: +662 502 6699/ 6734 / 6884
Tel: +662 502 6776/ 8223

2. Mr. Samak Sundaravej
Prime Minister
c/o Government House
Pitsanulok Road, Dusit District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Fax: +662 282 8631/ 280 1589/ 629 8213
Tel: +662 280 1404/ 3000
E-mail: spokesman@thaigov.go.th 

3. Mr. Noppadon Pattama
Minister of Foreign Affair
Office of the Minister of Foreign Affair
443 Sri Ayudhya Road
Bangkok 10400
THAILAND
Fax: +662 6435318
Tel: +662 643 5333

4. Pol. Col. Thavee Sodsong
Director General
Department of Special Investigation
499 Suk Prapruit Building
Prachachuen Road, BangSue
Bangkok 10800
Fax: +662 913 7777
Tel: +662 831 9888

5. Prof. Saneh Chamarik
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission of Thailand
422 Phya Thai Road
Pathum Wan District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Fax: +662 219 2940
Tel: +662 219 2980
E-mail: commission@nhrc.or.th 

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-040-2008
Countries :
Campaigns :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.