THAILAND: Another case of torture to obtain confession at Ayutthaya Police Station

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained further information about institutionalised torture at a police station in Ayutthaya province, north of Bangkok, Thailand. The latest information relates to a case of torture and forced confession in March, involving two victims. 

Earlier, one of the victims, Metta Saiphan, was referred to as the second of four victims in a September torture case from the same police station (UP-71-2004). The information now obtained is that he and a friend were arrested and tortured to obtain a confession earlier in the year, but after media publicity around other recent torture cases at the police station, his cousin lodged a complaint on his behalf. Both of the victims allegedly tortured in this case are still in detention. 

Although this case is now before the court, we urge you to write to the Minister of Justice calling on him to have a separate investigation of these allegations, particularly in light of the other reports of institutionalised torture emanating from this police station. Please also urge the government of Thailand to ratify the UN Convention against Torture, and introduce it into domestic law without delay. 

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

DETAILED INFORMATION:

Victims: 
1. Mr Metta Saiphan, 24, of Bang Kapi district, Bangkok
2. Mr Anucha Siriporn na Ratchasima, 28, of Ayutthaya town, Ayutthaya province
Complainant: 
Rattanawalee Saiphan, 28, cousin of first victim, of Bang Kapi district, Bangkok
Alleged Perpetrators: 
Police officers of Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Police Station, including some identified by another torture victim Mr Ekkawat Srimanta (UA-153-2004), who have already been suspended from service as follows: 
1. Pol. Snr Sgt-Maj. Preecha Meewongsom;
2. Pol. Sgt-Maj. Winai Kampang;
3. Pol. Sgt-Maj. Somchai Raksakul;
4. Pol. Sgt Kitti Traplom;
5. Pol. Sgt Nontawat Wonghong;
6. Pol. Cpl Suwan Ruensawang;
7. Pol. Sgt Chareon Meksaen;
8. Pol. Sgt Wichit Suanchimplee.

The other police officers named on the case record are as follows:
1. Pol. Lt-Col. Suthep Srisang;
2. Pol. Lt-Col Nareunart Phutthaisong;
3. Pol. Maj. Paitoon Wansarn;
4. Pol. Cpl Kamphonsak Phakpiboon;
5. Pol. Sgt-Maj. Suwan Ruangsawang;
6. Pol. Cpl Winai Saengphet;
7. Pol. Cpl Boonlerd Khamsamui;
8. Pol. Cpl Somkiat;
9. Pol. Cpl Krisada;
10. Pol. Cpl Phoomsirin Sommongkol;
11. Pol. Cpl Kamphon Chanwong;
12. Pol. Cpl Pradit;
13. Pol. Maj. Pairoot.

According to the information available, Metta Saiphan and Anucha Siriporn na Ratchasima were both arrested and charged with theft on March 31. According to the police report, they stole a purse from a woman while on a motorcycle, and attempted to escape. The police located and arrested them at Panancheung Temple, after which they were taken to Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Police Station for questioning. 

At the police station the two men were allegedly tortured and threatened into confessing for over one hour. The types of torture used included suffocation with layers of plastic bags, using pepper spray, beating on the body, and standing on the chest. The men were told that if they did not confess to the charge of theft, they would have another nine charges added against them. After this, they confessed. However, the police also did not place them in a line-up in order for them to be identified by the complainant, in accordance with procedure.  

The two men were put in detention and subsequently retracted their confessions; however, the case has gone to court (black no. 920/2547 at Pra Nakorn Sri Ayutthaya Provincial Court). During the initial hearings, they had a duty lawyer, who did not study the case nor give any good advice. After the cousin of Metta heard about the torture case of Ekkawat Srimanta in November, she also lodged a complaint of torture and forced confession on their behalf, and obtained a new lawyer to represent the men. On November 29 the new lawyer argued in the second court hearing that they had been tortured, and pointed to the procedural irregularities in the case. He also cited news reports of other torture cases, and named some of the police accused of torturing Ekkawat as among those who had tortured his clients. He asked a police officer appearing for the prosecution to match the names of the police officers facing inquiries over the torture of Ekkawat against those who had tortured his clients. However, after the lawyer made the allegations of torture, the police officer present and the public prosector both went missing during the afternoon hearing. The judgment in the case is expected on December 21. Meantime, the two men are being kept at Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Provincial Prison, as neither was able to meet the 200,000 Thai baht bail set for each (about US$5,000).

Meanwhile, in the case of the other three persons reported to have been tortured in the earlier update (UP-71-2004) the information received is that two of the men had admitted privately that they were guilty of robbery, and would have confessed even without being tortured. However, they have said that they had no opportunity to do so before they were assaulted and abused by the police. It also appears that the police obtained a forced confession from the third of the accused in order to boost the charge to gang robbery under section 340 of the Penal Code. Gang robbery is a more serious offence, which requires a minimum of three persons. 

 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

In recent times, there has been growing discussion in Thailand over how the investigation of crimes is completely in the hands of the police. The investigating procedure is widely recognised as flawed because the police are only interested in getting a confession, not in proper investigation. This case is a clear instance of that observation, and how torture is used for the purposes of obtaining the confession. That the police involved in the case didn’t even bother to conduct a line-up, stacked the records with the names of officers not actually involved in the case, and sent an officer who was not really involved in the to court as a witness all indicate contempt for procedure. As the purpose of procedure is to protect the rights of citizens, when it is so thoroughly undermined the same can be said of fundamental human rights.  

A recent initiative by the Minister of Justice to change the procedure and have the police and public prosecutor jointly investigate special cases is most welcome. The first two cases to be investigated in this way are in fact two recent cases of torture and inhuman treatment reported by the AHRC (UA-153-2004). However, in many police stations the practice of torture has evidently been deeply institutionalised, and greater efforts will be needed to address it. At very least, this means ratifying the UN Convention against Torture and bringing it into domestic law, along with an agency to oversee its implementation by way of investigation and prosecution of police and other security personnel alleged to have tortured detainees. 

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send a letter, fax or an email to the Minister of Justice urging him to order an independent investigation of these allegations, in conjunction with those currently under way by the Department of Special Investigation (see UP-78-2004), and to ensure protection and compensation for the victims. Please also urge him to see that the government of Thailand ratifies the UN Convention against Torture. 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER