AFAD - Reclaiming Stolen Lives

Contents

FOREWORD

MUGIYANTO
CHAIRPERSON, AFAD

INTRODUCTION

MARY AILEEN DIEZ BACALSO
SECRETARY GENERAL, AFAD

COUNTRY SITUATION:

CHINA
INDIA (JAMMU AND KASHMIR)
INDONESIA
NEPAL
PAKISTAN
PHILIPPINES
SRI LANKA
THAILAND

MUNIR’S CASE

AFAD’S RESPONSE

FEDEFAM’S LETTER

STATISTICS ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE IN ASIA:

CHINA
INDIA (JAMMU AND KASHMIR)
INDONESIA
NEPAL
PAKISTAN
PHILIPPINES
SRI LANKA
THAILAND

EPILOGUE

AFAD’S THEME SONG, DESAPARECIDOS

INDEX

BOOK WRITERS

Reclaiming Stolen Lives
Country Situation: Thailand

Top The Grim Tales of Disappearances in a Troubled Democracy By Darwin B. Mendiola

Justice Delayed, Justice Denied

‘’I want the government to pay concern to everyone and address this matter
seriously. Our family members should not be forced into disappearance
without accountability from the government.”23- Angkhana Neelapaijit

Thailand is a signatory to several international human rights treaties. Its 1997 Constitution even recognizes and upholds the fundamental human rights of all persons. However, in the deterioration of human rights conditions, what matters to the government is not what the laws say but how it can circumvent the laws in order to justify their actions. By looking at the Thai government’s attitude towards human rights violations over recent years, it can be characterized by outright closure, lack of enthusiasm to investigate, continuing state of denials and failure to ensure accountability. The prevailing culture of impunity for human rights abuses by state actors, growing threats for human rights defenders, resurging violence in the south and the breakdown of civil safeguards have combined to undermine the rule of law.

The 1973-76 uprisings, though, moved the country from military rule to civilian government but only ending up in oblivion. The government wanted people to forget what had happened. No one has been brought to justice for the deaths and disappearances of hundreds of people. Those who are responsible were simply removed from their post only to be given honorary status by the government.

Several committees were established by the government to conduct investigations on the aftermath of the Black May 1992 events. Although some parts of the committees’ reports have been made public, no one has been named responsible for ordering the troops to open fire on unarmed demonstrators. The families of the victims lodged charges against five leaders of the National Peace Keeping Council (NPKC) but they were dismissed due to the legal effect of an Amnesty Decree issued by Prime Minister General Suchinda Khraprayun on 23 May 1992 shortly before he resigned from his post as prime minister. The Amnesty Decree provided pardons to both the state forces and the demonstrators. Ironically, the Thai
judiciary upheld the Amnesty Decree.

During the tenure of General Chavalit Yongchaiyuth as Prime Minister, the families of the victims constantly received some kind of support. But the demand for the return of the remains, if they had been killed, has never been fulfilled by all previous administrations after the May ’92 incident. The military uses national security as an excuse to conceal information about the whereabouts of the victims. In 2001, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand was established under provisions of the 1997 Constitution. The NHRC has a limited mandate to investigate and redress past human rights violations, including the events of May 1992. With government restrictions and financial control, NHRC has failed to function fully and autonomously in accordance with the international standard of operation for a national human rights institution. NHRC can issue reports of any findings and make recommendations but it does not have power to enforce its decisions.

In an effort to halt the resurgence of violence in the southern border provinces, the Thai government created several investigative committees to examine both Tak Bai and Krue Se incidents. A significant step was made by the government in the creation of the National Reconciliation Commission in April 2005. NHRC , in its final report, concluded that the military has committed a dereliction of duty in handling the Tak Bai and Krue Se incidents. However, no one was prosecuted. Compensation, however, was paid to victims on condition that a legal case against the authorities should be dropped.

In August 2006, 23 reported cases of forced disappearances in the south that occurred from 2002 to 2005 were acknowledged by the Thai government. The families of victims were offered 100,000 Thai baht (USD 2,500) each as compensation. However, the government did not give any information about the whereabouts and fate of their loved ones. Angkhana Neelaphaijit, the chairperson of the Working Group on Justice for Peace, and wife of disappeared lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, rejected the notion of compensation saying that, “the acceptable compensation is to review the truth and to bring the responsible person(s) to justice according to the law.”24 The Internal Security Act was passed on 20 December 2006 that confers immunity from prosecution for human rights abuses to nearly all government authorities.

Middle

Of all the reported cases of disappearances connected with the counterinsurgency operations of the Thai government against the Muslim insurgents in the south, the disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit is the only case that has been brought to court and has elicited a significant level of public attention. With widespread publicity and pressures from local and international human rights communities, one of the five police officers, charged for Somchai’s abduction was convicted but only on a minor charge of coercion and sentenced to three-year imprisonment. He was later freed on bail pending appeal. The other four returned to active duty while one of them was even promoted while the trial was still under way.

Human Rights First, a leading human rights advocacy organization based in New York City and Washington, D.C., which monitored Somchai’s case from the onset, believed that this trial did not conclusively address the disappearance of Somchai Neelaphaijit because according to their monitoring report, the charges never reflected the gravity of the crime to which Somchai fell victim.

The charges of gang robbery and coercion simply do not encompass the disappearance and apparent killing of Somchai. The root of the problem in this case seems to be the absence of evidence due to a half-hearted investigation. The weak inquiry, including inadequate forensic investigation and the failure to follow key leads, was due primarily to the problem of the police force being entrusted to investigate its own members. Additional concerns include inadequate protection of witnesses (a responsibility also entrusted to the police), and rules of evidence that interfered with the effective presentation of the case.25

In response to the growing public demand to reopen Somchai’s case, the newly elected government of Samak Sundaravej appointed Sompong Amornwiwat as Minister of Justice. He is the elder brother of a former DSI Director-General, Police General Sombat Amornwiwat who was removed from his post following the failure to gather convincing evidence on finding the truth behind the disappearance of Somchai and to prosecute the perpetrators.

At the height of the “war on drugs” campaign, the Thaksin government bowed to the mounting public pressure to investigate the unexplained killings of 2,500 suspected drug dealers. He then appointed an investigation panel led by former deputy attorney-general Praphan Naikowit to look into these deaths, but nothing came from its investigation. After the military coup of 19 September 2006, the interim government set up another committee to conduct an investigation on the issue but that panel also failed to come up with conclusive findings. Until now, what really happened in 2003 remains a mystery.

Bottom

When the practice of enforced disappearances in Thailand was brought to the attention of the United Nations, the international body has consistently expressed its concern and called on the Thai government to take necessary steps to address the situation. Unfortunately, the Thai government has so far ignored it.

Specifically, in 2005, the treaty body monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, recommended investigations
of gross human rights abuses in the country and the bringing of emergency regulations in force in the south into line with international law. None of these things has been done, nor is there any evidence of intent, although Thailand has committed itself to comply with the covenant. In July 2006 the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings said that the emergency regulations make “impunity look like the official policy” of the government. He has repeatedly requested to visit Thailand but has been ignored. For its part, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has received and followed a growing number of cases from Thailand with concern, although the number remains small due to the persistent intense fear among the families that they would face retribution if they complained, particularly to international agencies.26

As a consequence, there has been no successful prosecution of anyone for a crime of enforced disappearance in Thailand. Neither is there a law criminalizing such an act, nor has there been any satisfactory steps that the Thai government has undertaken to sign and ratify the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In fact, during the three-year negotiations from 2003 to 2005 of the Inter-Sessional Working Group to Elaborate a Draft Legally-Binding Normative Instrument for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, it was observed by the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) that the Thai delegation was present but did not actively participate. Although, it joined the consensus for the adoption of the text for the Convention, it didn’t present its official position. During this time, international human rights groups like AFAD had been lobbying for Asian governments to support the treaty. When AFAD together with one of its two member-organizations in Thailand, the Relatives Committee of the May 1992 Heroes spoke to the delegates of the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the UN in Geneva, the Thai government representatives did not give any commitment except to further study the text. On the occasion of the 75th session of the UNWGEID which was held in Thailand in May 2005, AFAD sought an audience with Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But Thai Foreign officials explicitly declared that it was not the government’s priority. During the Thaksin administration, the government did not only give a cold shoulder but it very nearly told the human rights groups to get out the door. However, the attitude of the Thai government eventually changed after the adoption of the Convention by UN General Assembly in 2006. It became receptive to the idea of dialogue when it attended a forum on the international treaty against enforced disappearances sponsored by civil society in Thailand in February 2008.

During the March 2008 session of the UN Human Rights Council, international human rights groups held a parallel activity sponsored by the International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearance and the French government. Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Somchai Neelapaijit, was invited to present her husband’s case. Mr. Sihasak Phuangketkeow, Thai Ambassador to Geneva who was present during the event, responded positively by promising to recommend to the Thai government the immediate resolution of Somchai’s case and to adopt necessary measures to stop enforced disappearances in the country.

Notes:
23 My Missing Husband. Retrieved July 13, 2008 from http://www.tve.org/whywomencount/se_asia_pacific.html.

24 Thailand: Angkhana refuses cash; demands justice. (Press Release, AHRC-PL-065-2006.) Retrieved July
13, 2008 from http://www.ahrchk.net/pr/mainfile.php/2006mr/365/?print=yes.

25 Trial Monitoring Report: The Disappearance of Somchai Neelaphaijit. (2006, February 21). New York:
Human Rights First.

26 Thailand: Please raise question of forced disappearances in Thailand with visiting Deputy Prime Minister.
(2006 August 9). Retrieved July 13, 2008 from AHRC-OL-043-2006, http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/
mainfile.php/2006statements/681/.

Pictures and Images: