Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Thailand): Rights commissioner tells court that no evidence victims of police killings were insurgents
 

UPDATE (Thailand): Rights commissioner tells court that no evidence victims of police killings were insurgents

June 10, 2007

UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeal

11 June 2007

[RE: UA-398-2006: THAILAND: Three army officers identified as responsible for killings; UP-028-2007: THAILAND: No progress into prosecution of army officers for killings; UP-075-2007: THAILAND: Please attend another post-mortem inquest into 2004 killings]
------------------------------------------------------
UP-081-2007: THAILAND: Rights commissioner tells court that no evidence victims of police killings were insurgents

THAILAND: Extra-judicial killing; impunity
------------------------------------------------------

END EMERGENCY DECREE IN SOUTHERN THAILAND
http://thailand.ahrchk.net/edecree

------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information on the post-mortem inquest into the killing of 19 young men by the police in southern Thailand during 2004 (UP-075-2007). At the end of May, a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand told the court investigating the killings that the victims were unarmed and there was no evidence that they were insurgents, as claimed by the police. The inquest will continue on 21 September 2007.

As reported in our previous update, on 28 April 2004, 19 young men were killed by heavily-armed police at a checkpoint near Sabayoi municipality market. The police justified the killing as self-defence and alleged that the young men were insurgents.

On 29 and 30 May 2007, Naiyana Suphapueng, a commissioner from the NHRC testified to the court conducting the inquest into the killings, in Songkhla, that the NHRC had conducted a fact-finding mission into the killings and had concluded that there was no evidence supporting the police allegations that the victims possessed heavy weapons and had attacked the police checkpoint, as no weapons were found on the dead bodies. Furthermore, most of the bullet wounds of the victims were in their backs, which is unlikely to happen in a crossfire situation. Also, no damage was found to have occurred at the police checkpoint itself.

The NHRC also found that the police operations after the killings were deficient. They did not handle the dead bodies and autopsies properly. The bodies were not kept in hospital but left exposed in an open field under heavy rain; relatives of the victims were also not allowed to observe the autopsies.

The NHRC report on the incident raised questions about the actions of the state officers. The commission has urged that if the officers are found to have used excessive force then they should be prosecuted; however, it did not make a conclusion about whether or not they had done so as this is the matter for the court to decide at the end of the inquest.

Three government officials allegedly involved in the killings, including two police officers, were scheduled to also give evidence; however, they failed to appear in court and have thus caused a delay in the inquest.  One was Arun Lamsoh, an officer who had been deputed to the police unit responsible for the killings at the time of the incident. He did not appear in court on May 29. He sent a letter that he had been transferred to Bangkok for three months for duties as assigned by his district chief. Pol. Sgt. Pravit Puapan and Pol. Sgt. Somwong Plifah also did not come to the court on May 30, the former giving the reason that he was on leave. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Government officials in Thailand typically use non-appearance in court on various pretexts as a tactic to delay proceedings and pervert the course of justice. For instance, in the case of four men accused of plotting to kill the Supreme Court president, the case was delayed for some seven years when two senior police officers persistently failed to appear in the court; after 14 years the case is not yet complete (UA-094-2007; AS-065-2007). In the case of the concocted case against 58 protestors outside the Tak Bai police station, 85 of whose colleagues were killed, most in army custody, the army and police officers called as witnesses repeatedly failed to come to court on the designated days. Finally the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. (See further: UP-178-2006; AS-143-2006; AHRC-PL-042-2006; Tak Bai Massacre homepage -- http://thailand.ahrchk.net/takbai). In the current case, apparently even a junior police officer being on holiday was sufficient ground to cause its postponement for some three months.

The case is related to the inquest into the Krue Se killings, which found that three army officers were responsible for the deaths of 28 men on the same day. The public prosecutor is obliged by law to return the case to the police for further investigation but so far there has been no evidence of any action against the three officers; on the contrary, General Pallop Pinmanee, who has made no secret of running death squads for the state in the 1970s and 80s, has been reappointed to a senior position by the current military junta (see further: UP-069-2007; UP-028-2007; AHRC-OL-008-2007; UA-398-2006)

See also the inquest into the Tak Bai killings: UP-051-2007.

There has been no let up in wanton killings of young men by the security forces in southern Thailand since 2004. After the introduction of emergency regulations in the south in 2005 the situation worsened considerably, and again since the military takeover of Thailand in September 2006. No killers have been brought to justice. Recent cases documented by the AHRC include:
UA-174-2007: No action against army killers of two young men
AS-078-2007: Murder is not self defence
UA-111-2007: Military personnel kill 15-year-old boy, shoot-up school

SUGGESTED ACTION:

The AHRC urges all human rights defenders and concerned persons in Thailand to please attend the next hearing into this inquest. The details are as follows:

Next hearing: 21 September 2007, 9am - 4pm
Place: Songkhla Provincial Court, Platha Road, Boyang Subdistrict, A. Muang, Songkhla
Case No.: Black No. Chor. 30/2547
Under: Criminal Procedure Code Section 150

Thank you

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

 

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-081-2007
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.