Home / News / Urgent Appeals / THAILAND: Young man tortured and at risk of further torture in army custody

THAILAND: Young man tortured and at risk of further torture in army custody

August 30, 2012

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-156-2012

30 August 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THAILAND: Young man tortured and at risk of further torture in army custody

ISSUES: Torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, military
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission is deeply concerned about a recent case of torture in the south of Thailand. Romuelee Loh-oh, 21, was arrested under unclear circumstances, tortured and repeatedly interrogated under inhumane conditions. His family was subject to repeated, intimidating searches of their home. This case is indicative of the entrenched practices of torture currently in use by the Thai state security forces that have developed and hardened into place since the declaration of martial law over the country's south in January 2004. These practices terrorize individual citizens and families, fail to stem the widespread violence and further engender mistrust of the authorities by the citizens.

CASE DETAILS:

On 21 August 2012, a shooting took place in Saiburi, Pattani province. The two suspects who allegedly carried out the shooting had fled following the incident. Soldiers came to examine the area and found bomb-making materials on the street. A telephone had been dropped on the ground. The soldiers then went to Mr. Romuelee’s home, near where the incident took place. When the soldiers arrived, including two in a pick-up truck and two on motorcycles, they greeted Romuelee and searched the house. On August 22, a larger group of soldiers from the same unit returned to the house to question Romuelee’s mother.

On August 24, at 5am, a still larger group of soldiers and policemen came to search the house. They seized items and an hour later took Romuelee to the Saiburi police station and then took him to a camp at Wat Liab (Liab Temple). After Romuelee had already been taken from the house, a joint operations new unit came to search the house for a third time. They took chemical samples from every person in the house. The results said that Mr. Rawi, the elder brother of Romuelee, had carbon powder and bomb residue on his body. Rawi was then taken to the camp at Wat Liab as well. Rawi and Romuelee were taken to Chulabhorn Camp together. When they arrived at the camp, Rawi and Romuelee were separated for interrogation. Rawi was sent to an independent forensic evidence center. He was questioned about his life and work history and then released to return home. Romuelee was detained at Chulabhorn Camp.

On August 26, the entire family went to visit Romuelee at Chulabhorn Camp. When they saw Romuelee, they noticed that his body was hot and he was walking bent over. When they asked him what was wrong, he said that the soldiers had pulled on his penis twice; that they made him take off his clothes and kept him in a room with cold air. He was interrogated from evening until morning. His back was bruised. He was not able to pray consistently. The officials told Romuelee that he was a suspect because his phone number was in the recent call list of the telephone dropped in the area where the shooting took place on August 21. Romuelee said that his phone number might be in the phone found at the scene because he dialed incorrectly. He did not know the two suspects in the case. But they also asked him about unrelated issues, such as a person who had fled while out on bail in another case. They asked him about the case of his older brother who was extrajudicially killed in 2006. Romuelee did not know why the soldiers asked him these unrelated questions.

In addition, on August 24, after Romuelee and Rawi were taken to Chulabhorn Camp, another unit of soldiers specializing in chemical investigation came to the Lah-oh house and questioned the men's mother. They set up 21 points for checking around the house and area, and left. On 26 August, a different unit of soldiers came to search the house again. The repeated searches of the house by different units have caused the family to be afraid, and constitute a form of harassment.

On August 27, Romuelee was transferred to Lamphaya military camp, Raman district, Yala province. He has been detained without any charge being informed. The authorities concerned have said that he has been kept for investigation under the Emergency Decree that is in effect in the southern provinces of Thailand. Because no charge has been laid, he cannot ask for bail because his detention is not under Criminal procedure. Consequently, his family complained to the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand on 28 August 2012 about the case.

Please see the sample letter below for some further details.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The AHRC and partner organisations have for some years highlighted the need for the emergency regulations in the south of Thailand to be repealed if fundamental rights are to be protected. For further details see: http://thailand.ahrchk.net/edecree/

For more cases and information on Thailand, please visit the AHRC's Thailand page: http://www.humanrights.asia/countries/thailand

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the authorities listed below, urging them to release the accused in this case and investigate his alleged torture.

Please be informed that the AHRC is writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, the Working Group on arbitrary detention, and to the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia concerning the case.

To support this appeal, please click here: 

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear _________,

THAILAND: Detainee tortured and at risk of further torture in army custody

Name of detainee: Mr. Romuelee Loh-oh, 21, of Pattani Province

Place of detention: Lamphaya military camp, Raman district, Yala province

I am writing to you to call for urgent intervention into the case of a young man who has allegedly been tortured in army custody in the south of Thailand, and who is at risk of imminent further torture.

On 21 August 2012, a shooting took place at Moo 3, Bu-ruh sub-district, Saiburi district, Pattani province. The two suspects who allegedly carried out the shooting had fled following the incident. Soldiers came to examine the area and found bomb-making materials on the street. There was a telephone dropped on the ground in that area. The soldiers then went to Romuelee’s home, approximately 2 kilometers from where the incident took place. When the soldiers arrived, including two soldiers in a pick-up truck and two on motorcycles, they greeted Mr. Romuelee politely and searched the house.

On 22 August 2012, a larger group of soldiers from the same unit returned to the house to question Romuelee’s mother. They asked her where each of the children named on the house registration were currently. She told them that some of the children were at home and others were in Pattani. Romuelee was also at home but they did not ask him any questions.

On 24 August 2012, at 5am, a still larger group of soldiers and policemen came to search the house. They seized mobile telephones belonging to Romuelee and Mr. Rawi (Romuelee’s older brother). They also seized a pair of jeans belonging to Romuelee. At 6am, they took Romuelee to the Saiburi police station and then at 8am, they took him to a camp at Wat Liab (Liab Temple). After Romuelee had already been taken from the house, at 9 am, a new unit of approximately 40 soldiers (including those from the navy and rangers) and policemen came to search the house for a third time. They took chemical samples from every person in the house. The results were printed on a purple-colored paper and they said that Rawi had carbon powder and bomb residue on his body. Rawi was then taken to the camp at Wat Liab as well. At 1pm, Rawi and Romuelee were taken to Chulabhorn Camp together. When they arrived at the camp, Rawi and Romuelee were separated for interrogation. Rawi was sent to an independent forensic evidence center. He was questioned about his life and work history and then released to return home at 5pm. Romuelee was detained at Chullabhorn Camp.

On 26 August 2012, the entire family went to visit Romuelee at Chulabhorn Camp. The official on duty asked Rawi if three days had passed yet since his brother had been apprehended. If three days had not yet passed, then they would not allow the family to visit him. However, despite this question, which has no legal basis, the family was able to see him. When they saw Romuelee, they had a chance to touch his body. They noticed that his body was hot and he was walking bent over. When they asked him what was wrong, he said that the soldiers had pulled on his penis twice. They made him take off his clothes and kept him in a room with cold air. He was interrogated from 6pm in the evening until 6am in the morning. His back was bruised. He was not able to pray consistently. The officials told Romuelee that he was a suspect because his phone number was in the recent call list of the telephone dropped in the area where the shooting took place on August 21. Romuelee said that his phone number might be in the phone found at the scene because he dialed incorrectly. He did not know the two suspects in the case. But they also asked him about unrelated issues, such as a person named Zakariya who had fled while out on bail in another case. They asked him about the case of his older brother who was extrajudicially killed in 2006. Romuelee did not know why the soldiers asked him these unrelated questions.

In addition, at 2.30pm on 24 August 2012, after Romuelee and Rawi were taken to Chulabhorn Camp, another unit of soldiers specializing in chemical investigation came to the Lah-oh house and questioned the men's mother. More than 30 soldiers came, in two six-wheel trucks. They set up 21 points for checking around the house and area. They finished their investigation at 3.30pm and left. On August 26, a different unit of soldiers came to search the house again. The repeated searches of the house by different units have caused the family to be afraid, and constitute a form of harassment.

On 27 August 2012, Romuelee was transferred to Lamphaya military camp, Raman district, Yala province. He has been detained without any charge being informed. The authorities concerned have said that he has been kept for investigation under the Emergency Decree that is in effect in the southern provinces of Thailand. Because no charge has been laid, he cannot ask for bail because his detention is not under Criminal procedure. Consequently, his family complained to the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand on August 28 about the case.

In light of the above facts, I urge that Romuelee be released from custody, or if grounds exist for his detention in accordance with the law, that he be charged and brought before a court without delay. Furthermore, I urge that the authorities in Thailand initiate a prompt and effective investigation into his alleged torture, which is consistent with the types and methods of torture described in other cases from the southernmost provinces in recent years.

I also want to take this opportunity to express my concern about the larger phenomenon of torture in Thailand. This case is indicative, it strikes me, of the entrenched practices of torture currently in use by the Thai state security forces; practices that have only hardened since the declaration of martial law in the region in January 2004, and introduction of the Emergency Decree not long afterwards. These practices terrorize individual citizens and families, fail to stem the widespread violence and further engender mistrust of the authorities by the citizens. Consequently, if the incidence of torture in the south of Thailand is to be addressed, it is necessary that the extraordinary regulations governing the management and behaviour of the police and army in the region be lifted, and persons like Romuelee, if arrested, be treated as ordinary criminal accused in accordance with the conventional law.

Lastly I call upon Thailand to pass and implement a domestic law to prohibit torture and punish perpetrators, in accordance with the terms of the UN Convention against Torture, without delay.

I look forward to your prompt action.

Yours sincerely,

-------------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra
Prime Minister
c/o Government House
Pitsanulok Road, Dusit District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Fax: +66 2 288 4000 ext. 4025
Tel: +66 2 288 4000
E-mail: spokesman@thaigov.go.th

2. Mr. Tharit Pengdith
Director-General of
Department of Special Investigation
128 Chaeng Wattana Road
Thoongsonghong, Laksi
Bangkok 10210
THAILAND
Fax: +66 2 831 9888
Tel.: +66 2 831 9888
E-mail: tharit@dsi.go.th

3. Mr. Pracha Promnok
Minister of Justice
Office of the Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Justice Building
22nd Floor Software Park Building,
Chaeng Wattana Road
Pakkred, Nonthaburi 11120
THAILAND
Fax: +66 2 502 6734 / 6884
Tel: +66 2 502 6776/ 8223
E-mail: om@moj.go.th

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-156-2012
Countries :
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.