Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained detailed information about a trial in Thailand that has been going on for 14 years. The trial of four men for allegedly planning to kill the former Supreme Court president has gone on since 1993 even though the police have not presented material evidence against the accused, who claim that they were set up. Two of the defendants were kept in jail for seven years before being released on bail. Although either the court or the public prosecutor could have closed the case a long time ago, neither have done so: 91 judges have so far heard the case, which is again continuing this week.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF EVENTS:
In May 1993 the police Crime Suppression Division (CSD) in Bangkok reportedly learned of a plan to kill the then-Supreme Court president, Pramarn Charnsue. On May 20 it recorded a statement by a man called Pratum Sudmanee that he had been asked to kill the judge, but did not intend to do it. On May 25 the CSD organised for Pratum and another man to go with two other men, Mah Dechanuphap and Nen Mahavilai, to the front of the judge’s house. There the police arrested Mah and Nen and accused them of planning to kill the judge. Pratum and the other man were released without charge, to be witnesses in the trial.
On May 28 the police arrested Apichit Angsutharangkul after getting testimony from another person alleged to be involved in the plot, who they also did not charge in exchange for him being a witness. That same person implicated the fourth defendant, Rangsan Torsuwan, who was charged on June 8 and who surrendered to the police on the next day. The Supreme Court president said on television that he believed that Rangsan was behind the plot, due to a conflict between the court president and Rangsan’s wife.
On July 16, although the police had not yet finished their inquiries and recorded all witness testimonies, the four men were charged by the public prosecutor with planning to murder the senior judge. The trial has gone on since 1993 until now.
PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE:
Although there are lots of alleged problems of criminal procedure in this case, still the court and prosecution have not stopped it from concluding for 14 years. The prosecution witnesses went on from 1993 to 2005. In that time, from 1994 to 2005 only two police generals testified. At the end of 2006, the case had been heard 461 times by an incredible total of 91 judges. Meanwhile, Mah and Nen were kept in jail for seven years before they were let out on bail.
The court is obliged by law to make the case go quickly and fairly. It has the power to close the case if there is no proper evidence presented or for other procedural reasons, but it has not done so in this instance, even though the defendants have asked it to do so many times. The prosecutor and attorney general have also not done anything about it.
Among the many questions that arise about the investigation of this case and the trial, why did the police release three persons who were supposedly involved in the plot to kill the senior judge but arrest the four others? Was the arrest of Mah and Nen entrapment? Did the police obtain anything other than hearsay evidence against Apichit and Rangsan? Did they record all witness testimonies properly and immediately? Did the public prosecutor make sure that the police did their job properly and according to the law, and that there was enough evidence to take it to court? Did the court also ensure that there were sufficient grounds upon which proceed with the case?
During the trial, the defendants tried to get some of these questions addressed by raising matters of law concerning the criminal procedure and its legality under the abrogated 1997 Constitution. These were then referred to the former Constitution Court. In 2000 that court gave a ruling that whatever procedure the police followed, it must be completely legal or the case would be invalid; and, that the order to authorise the first police investigation was not a “provision of law under the… constitution”. From this decision it would seem like the lower court hearing the case had enough grounds to dismiss it; but still it did not do so.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
In Thailand, courts typically give a lot of freedom to state officers appearing as witnesses, especially if they are senior police or army officers. Non-appearance is used as a strategy to prolong cases, particularly where the prosecution appears to have no firm evidence. For instance, in the trial of 58 men accused after the protest outside Tak Bai police station that led to 78 deaths in 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)
Not only under Thailand’s law but also under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand has joined, the authorities must make sure that a case does not take too long to finish. This depends on each case, but in most decisions based on the ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee has decided that a few years should be long enough. For example, in the case of Lalith Rajapakse vs. Sri Lanka nearly three years was too long and a violation of the ICCPR (See Justice delayed, human rights denied, article 2, vol. 4, no. 4, August 2005). Under the ICCPR the court should also make sure that no one is kept in jail waiting for trial for too long.
The AHRC has documented other instances also in which criminal cases in Thailand have gone on without evidence and even though there are allegations of serious problems in procedure. See for instance the Tak Bai case, above, and also: UA-040-2005.
On the other hand, in cases where there is ample evidence against accused police and army officers there have been no effective investigations or prosecutions. See for instance: UP-028-2007; UP-205-2006; UA-233-2006; UP-137-2005, AHRC-OL-008-2007. See further the case of abducted human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/somchai.
See also a recent letter by the AHRC to the United Nations on policing in Thailand: AHRC-OL-006-2006.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the justice minister and other authorities in Thailand to ask that this case be withdrawn from the court and that also there be internal investigations to find out why it could run since 1993 without completion. Please also call for reforms to stop such injustices occurring in the future.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear _________,
THAILAND: 14-year trial of Somphon (a.k.a.) Mah Dechanuphap & 3 others, and serious problems of criminal procedure
Names of defendants:
1. Somphon (a.k.a Mah) Dechanuphap, aged 55 in 1993, of Nakhon Sawan
2. Nen Mahavilai, aged 49 in 1993, of Nakhon Sawan
3. Apichit (a.k.a Lek) Angsutharangkul, aged 48 in 1993, of Nakhon Sawan
4. Rangsan Torsuwan, aged 53 in 1993, of Bangkok
Case: Black Case No. 990/2536, Bangkok South Criminal Court: being prosecuted by the Office of Criminal Litigation of Southern Bangkok, No. 1, under Penal Code sections 288, 289, 83 & 84
I am writing to you to express special concern about the case of Somphon Dechanuphap and three other persons who have been prosecuted in the Bangkok South Criminal Court since 1993 for allegedly plotting to kill the president of the Supreme Court. I am concerned both that the duration of this case has been far too long and that there are many alleged irregularities that cast doubt over the investigation and trial process.
According to the information that I have received, on 16 July 1993 the four men were charged with planning to kill the then-Supreme Court president, Pramarn Charnsue, after the Crime Suppression Division (CSD) had reportedly learnt of the plot in May.
However, there are many serious questions about the investigation and charges against the accused. For instance, why did the police release three persons who were supposedly involved in the plot (Pratum Sudmanee, Bamroon Chaimuang and Banjerd Jannapalin) but arrest the four others? Why did the police organise for Mah and Nen to go to the front of the house of the judge and arrest them instead? Did the police obtain anything other than hearsay evidence against Apichit and Rangsan? Did they record all witness testimonies properly and immediately? Did the public prosecutor make sure that the police did their job properly and according to the law, and that there was enough evidence to take it to court? Did the court also ensure that there were sufficient grounds upon which proceed with the case?
Although there are lots of alleged problems of criminal procedure in this case, still the court and prosecution have not stopped it from going on for some 14 years. The prosecution witnesses went on from 1993 to 2005. In that time, inquiry officer Police General Chumpon Manmai testified from 1994 to 1996 and inquiry officer Police Colonel Thavee Sodsong testified in 1994 and again in 1996, and thereafter he alone testified until 15 November 2005, excluding the period when the Bangkok South Criminal Court referred certain questions of law to the Constitution Court (199799) as sought by the defendants. At the end of 2006, the case had been heard 461 times by an incredible total of 91 judges. Meanwhile, Mah and Nen were kept in jail for seven years before they were let out on bail.
I am aware that the court is obliged by section 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of Thailand to make the trial “speedy, continuous and fair”. Also, under article 14(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a party, everyone should be “tried without undue delay”, and under its article 9(3) defendants should not be detained for a long time awaiting the result of a trial.
Under sections 161 and 174 of the CrPC the court can order that a case is closed if it “is of opinion that it is not necessary to take further evidence or carry out any further proceedings” or if “a charge does not conform with the law”. In this case, the court has not used these powers, even though it let two senior police officers testify for some 11 years, and even though the Constitution Court seemingly gave it sufficient grounds to do so (Ruling No. 1/2543).
In its initial report to the UN Human Rights Committee, the Government of Thailand said that, At present one has to accept that there are delays in the criminal process no matter at the inquiry, indictment or trial in the court.” Although Thailand claims to be working to deal with these delays, this case shows the extent to which they are related to systemic problems at all levels. It is also not acceptable for the government simply to say that “one has to accept that there are delays”. For the defendants in this case certainly it offers no comfort or solution.
In conclusion, I urge that
1. This case be referred to the Attorney General for review and recommendation that it be withdrawn, given the unreasonable protracted delay, the lack of material evidence and the verdict of the Constitution Court.
2. Inquiries be conducted by the appropriate organs within the Office of the Attorney General and the courts into the handling of the case, in order to prevent similar instances in the future.
3. Thailand ratify the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR to allow for individual complaints in cases such as these to be lodged before the UN Human Rights Committee.
4. The recommendation of the UN Human Rights Committee in its assessment of Thailands compliance with the ICCPR in 2005 that it should actively pursue the idea of establishing an independent civilian body to investigate complaints filed against law enforcement officials be implemented without delay.
5. There be thorough independent reviews of criminal justice in Thailand with a view to making lasting and far-reaching reforms in the supervisory system of the police, the independence and authority of the public prosecution, the laws of evidence and the integrity of the courts.
Ultimately, even where others fail in the performance of their tasks, the courts are the final bulwark to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and ensure justice. Where they also fail and themselves also cause suffering, not only do they cause misery to the persons before them but also demoralise the entire society. It is for this reason that the utmost attention is needed to ensure that this does not happen.
Yours sincerely,
——————–
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
Mr. Charnchai Likitjitta
Interim Minister of Justice
Office of the Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Justice Building
22nd Floor Software Park Building,
Chaeng Wattana Road
Pakkred, Nonthaburi
Bangkok 11120
THAILAND
Tel: +662 502 6776/ 8223
Fax: +662 502 6699/ 6734 / 6884
Email: mo@moj.go.th
PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:
1. General Surayud Chulanont
Interim Prime Minister
c/o Government House
Pitsanulok Road, Dusit District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Tel: +662 280 1404/ 3000
Fax: +662 282 8631/ 280 1589/ 629 8213
E-mail: spokesman@thaigov.go.th or prommin@thaigov.go.th
2. Mr. Aree Wongaraya
Interim Minister of Interior
Office of the Ministry of Interior
Atsadang Road
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND
Tel: +662 224-6320/ 6341
Fax: +662 226 4371/ 222 8866
Email: mo@moi.go.th
3. Mr Pachara Yutidhammadamrong
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Lukmuang Building
Nahuppei Road
Prabraromrachawang, Pranakorn
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND
Tel: +662 224 1563/ 222 8121-30
Fax: +662 224 0162/ 1448/ 221 0858
E-mail: ag@ago.go.th or oag@ago.go.th
4. Ms Wanthanee Keratipibul
Permanent Secretary
Supreme Court
6 Ratchadamnock Nai Road
Kwang Prabarommaharachawang
Pranakorn District
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND
Tel: +662 224 1505/ 1609
Fax: +662 226 60055. Prof. Saneh Chamarik
5. Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission of Thailand
422 Phya Thai Road
Pathum Wan District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Tel: +662 2219 2980
Fax: +662 219 2940
E-mail: commission@nhrc.or.th or saneh@nhrc.or.th
6. Mr. Leandro Despouy
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
Att: Sonia Cronin
Room: 3-060
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9160
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR INDEPENDENCE JUDGES & LAWYERS)
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)
