Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Thailand): Case of the killing of a migrant worker dragged on by apparent delay of trial; Public prosecutor must speed up the case

UPDATE (Thailand): Case of the killing of a migrant worker dragged on by apparent delay of trial; Public prosecutor must speed up the case

December 10, 2004

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

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeal
10 December 2004

[RE: UA-91-2004: THAILAND: Transparency in trial of the killers of a migrant worker demanded on 23 July 2004]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UP-80-2004: THAILAND: Case of the killing of a migrant worker dragged on by apparent delay of trial; Public prosecutor must speed up the case

THAILAND: Impunity; violence against women; rule of law
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission is seriously concerned by the apparent delay of a trial of Ma Suu, a Burmese migrant worker who died after being beaten and set on fire by her employers, Suchart and Yuwadee Akkavibul in July 2002. The accused Thai airforce officer and his wife had escaped justice for two years, because of the officer's influence and position of authority. (See further: UA-91-2004)

According to the information we have received, hearings were held to take evidence two times on July 26 and August 4 2004. After hearing a number of witnesses and obtaining strong evidence, the public prosecutor charged the accused, Suchart and Yuwadee, with murder, confinement and harbouring an illegal alien, and the case went to the full court on November 1, 2004 (Black No. 1089/2547 at Uthaithanee Provincial Court).

However, the court delayed the trial by setting the next hearing in January 2006 saying that the court needed to handle pending cases before new ones, under a new procedure. Local human rights groups say that some new cases will be delayed for about three or four years under these circumstances. Ma Suu's lawyer worries that the case will be weakened by this delay as it is not certain that witnesses will be available at the convenience of the court over a year from now.

The AHRC calls for your urgent intervention into this matter. Please send a letter to Mr Kampree Kaocharern, the Attorney General of Thailand, and urge him to take prompt steps to speed up the case, considering the brutality and urgency and the fact that the case has already been considerably delayed before the accused is an airforce officer. Please also urge him to take evidence from witnesses prior to the next hearing in 2006 in order to prevent damage to the prosecution case.   

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED INFORMATION:

An 18-year-old Burmese migrant worker, Ma Suu, was brutally murdered by her employees, Suchart Akkavibul and his wife Yuwadee, who set her on fire alleging theft in Lop Buri Province, Thailand, in early July 2002. Two years after the incident on June 25, 2004, Suchart and his wife finally appeared before the Uthaithanee Provincial Court. However, they were given bail on the grounds that Suchart is a state officer, although the prosecutor opposed bail. Suchart Akkavibul is a special group commander in the Royal Thai Airforce.

The public prosecutor then applied to the court in order to take testimony from the witnesses before the entry of the charge in the court under Section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code B.E.2477 [1928]. According to Section 237, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is difficult for the witness to give testimony in the future, the public prosecutor can apply motion to the court to take his testimony promptly before the entry of the charge in the court.

The court received this application and hearings were held two times on July 26 and August 4, 2004. Five Burmese workers who were employed by Suchart gave their testimony at the hearings. Their names were recorded as Mr Janai, Mr Chid, Mr Chai, Mr Nai and Mr Sang. At the hearings, they testified that they saw that Ma Suu was severely beaten by the employers. Some of them also testified that they saw her burn injuries after the incident. Another Thai employer named Samrueng Ponnikorn, who had been involved in the incident, also testified against the two accused with the agreement that he would be escape from prosecution. His elder brother, Kamron Ponnikorn has also already agreed to testify in next hearing on the same condition.

     The victim, Ma Suu

Finally, the Public Prosecutor charged Suchart and his wife with murder, confinement and harbouring an illegal alien under Sections 289 and 310 of the Penal Code of Thailand and Section 64 of the Immigration Act B.E.2522 [1979]. The first hearing of the case was held at Uthaithanee Provincial Court on November 1. Although the initial progress looked good, the court set the next hearing for January 2006. As a new hearing system was enforced a year ago, the court needs time to handle pending cases filed in the old hearing system prior to hearing new cases. However, local human rights groups argue that enforcing the new hearing system is being used as an excuse to drag on trial in some cases, and this case must be heard without further delay due to its brutality and urgency. The accused Thai airforce officer and his wife had already escaped justice for two years, apparently because of the officer's influence and position of authority.

A journalist working for the Voice of America is also scheduled to give a statement in the next hearing. He is the person who recorded Ma Suu's statement about the incident and took her photos when he visited her at the hospital in July 2004.

Ma Suu's lawyer worries that the delay will weaken the case and the accused will enjoy impunity in the end, as most of these witnesses may not be expected to be available at the convenience of the court over a year from now. The lawyer is also concerned that even though some witnesses may appear in the court in 2006, the evidence of the case will be destroyed because the accused is an influential state officer.  

BREIF REMINDER OF THE CASE:

Ma Suu was brutally murdered by her employers, Suchart and Yuwadee Akkavibul, who set her on fire alleging theft in Lop Buri Province, Thailand, in early July 2002. Although Ma Suu sustained fatal burn injuries, her employers abandoned her in a room without treatment or food for three days and then dumped her by a roadside. On the early morning of July 7, 2002, a man found Ma Suu on the road and sent her to a hospital in town. However, she died nine days later, after implicating the accused three persons;, Suchart his wife and Kamron Ponnikorn.

Ma Suu in the hospital

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send a letter to the Attorney General of Thailand and urge him to take prompt steps to speed up the case. Please also urge the Attorney General to file the motion to the Court under Section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code B.E.2477 [1928], and take evidences from the witnesses concerned prior to the next hearing in 2006 in order to prevent loss of evidence.  

Sample letter:

Dear Mr Kampree,

THAILAND: Case of the killing of a migrant worker dragged on by apparent delay of trial; Public prosecutor must speed up the case; (Black No. 1089/2547 at Uthaithanee Provincial Court)  

Name of Victim: Ma Suu, 18, a Burmese migrant worker
The Accused:
1) Suchart Akkavibul, a special group commander in the Royal Thai Airforce
2) Yuwadee Akkavibul, wife of Suchart Akkavibul
Case Number: Black Number 1089/2547 at Uthaithanee Province Court

It is with grave concern that I write to you regarding the apparent delay of a trial of Ma Suu, a Burmese migrant worker brutally murdered by her employers, Suchart and Yuwadee Akkavibul in July 2002.

According to the information I have received, at the first case hearing on 1 November 2004, the Uthaithanee Provincial Court delayed the trial by setting the next hearing for January 2006 despite the presence of a number of witnesses and strong evidence ensured through preliminary hearings.

This delay will weaken the case, as the witnesses concerned may not be expected to be available at the convenience of the court over a year from now. I am also concerned that the case evidence may be harmed due to the delay by giving enough time and chance to the accused to manipulate it. I would like to remind you that one of the accused, Suchart Akkavibul, is an influential officer in the Royal Thai Airforce, and he and his wife have so far escaped justice for two years because of this.

I therefore urge you to take prompt action to speed up the case in court. I also urge you to take appropriate steps to take evidence from the witnesses concerned, with the permission of the court, prior to the next hearing in 2006, in order to prevent loss of evidence.

Yours truly,


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

SEND A LETTER TO:

Mr Kampree Kaocharern
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Lukmuang Building
Nahuppei Road
Prabraromrachawang, Pranakorn
THAILAND
Fax: +66 2 224 1448 / 221 0858

SEND A COPY OF THE LETTER TO:

1. Mr Pongthep Thepkanjana
Minister of Justice
Office of the Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Justice Building
22nd Floor
Chaeng Wattana Road
Pakkred, Nonthaburi
Bangkok 11120
THAILAND
Tel: +66 2 502 6776/ 8223
Fax: +66 2 502 6699/ 6734/ 6884

2. Ms Yakin Erturk
Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
OHCHR-UNOG
Palais Wilson, 8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9022

3. Ms Gabriela Rodr?uez Pizarro
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
Att: Ms. Veronica Birga 
Room: 3-040
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 917 9336
Fax: +41 22 917 9006
E-mail: urgent-action@ohchr.org (please include in the subject box: Special Rapporteur HR Migrants)


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-80-2004
Countries :
Issues :
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.