UPDATE (Thailand): Failure by the Department of Special Investigation to conduct a prompt investigation into the disappearance of prominent human rights lawyer 

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Pol. Gen. Amonwiwat,

I am concerned that the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has still not made any progress in its investigation into the disappearance of prominent human rights lawyer, Somchai Neelaphaijit.   The DSI was given the task on July 19, 2005 to investigate the case.  But, it has been almost half a year now and it seems no steps have been taken by the DSI.

Mrs. Angkhana Neelaphaijit, the wife of Somchai has complained both to the DSI and the Minister of Justice with regards to the perceived poor performance of the DSI.  According to Mrs. Angkhana, she herself has not been informed of any progress by the DSI in this case and fears that the DSI has not conducted a thorough investigation.  As a result Mrs. Angkhana has personally presented a letter to the Minister of Justice, Police General Chidchai Wanasatidya, highlighting the deficiencies in the DSI’s supposed investigation.

I am very disappointed to hear that the DSI, the only body in Thailand not under the direct control of the police with the authority to investigate and commence prosecutions in criminal cases has so far failed in its duty and neglected to instigate an investigation into a case deemed to be of ‘public interest’.  Much high expectations were placed on the DSI since it is in effect the de facto agency for investigating serious complaints against the police in Thailand.  Therefore, I urge you to make sure that the relevant personnel start taking steps to investigate Somchai’s abduction.

In the DSI’s investigation, special attention should be paid to several key factors that have arisen during the trial of the five policemen suspected of being involved in Somchai’s disappearance.  I am aware that there have been observers present in the court throughout the trial, and that from their observations, it is apparent that the Metropolitan Police Bureau failed to collect and properly analyse all available evidence that could answer questions arising from Somchai’s abduction.  The police did not follow correct procedures and allegedly coerced and intimidated witnesses into giving testimonies.  Even one of the investigators, Pol. Lt. Col. Phakorn Samukiri of the Bangrak District Police Station, admitted under oath that in his personal opinion maybe there was not enough detail in the investigation.  The following are just a few of the central concerns that I have regarding the Metropolitan Police Bureau’s investigation:

i.   The investigation neglected to properly inquire after the vehicle that was allegedly used to abduct Somchai.  According to several eyewitnesses, they saw a black sedan parked behind Somchai’s green Honda Zerfilo, but there was a failure to positively identify the model of the car.  This information regarding the car used by the perpetrators is a key piece of evidence that if properly investigated may allow the car to be traced.  Still, the police appear to have not adequately taken this into consideration.

ii.   Many of the procedural gaps in the police investigation came to light during the trial process.  The collection and recording of eyewitness testimonies was extremely problematic.  The police did not begin to distribute leaflets in the vicinity of the area until March 24, although the case was opened on March 15.  None of the eyewitnesses were taken to the scene of the crime to verify whether or not their statements were accurate.  As a result, there were many factual problems in each eyewitness’s testimony.  Some of the police investigators also testified only that they were given oral orders to conduct investigations into the case, raising questions in court over precisely who was and was not involved in the inquiries.

iii.   The alibis and past histories of the defendants were not properly investigated.  According to Pol. Lt. Col. Phakorn Samukiri, he had investigated each place that Somchai had gone on March 12, but he had failed to interview each defendant to find out where he purportedly was at the time and to check whether there were any witnesses to support the alibi.  Furthermore, whereas the five defendants had initially denied that they know each other, during the course of the trial it became apparent that this was not the case and that they had in fact had prior relations.  However, these – and the possible links to other accomplices in the crime – are not known to have been thoroughly explored by the police investigators.

iv.   Serious questions persist over the forensic science work conducted in relation to the investigation.  According to Pol. Maj. Gen. Chuan Vorawanich, commander of the Scientific Crime Detection Division, his division investigated Somchai’s car on March 16, and examined the fingerprints and 20 strands of hair they collected.  They found that eight of the 20 strands of hair were unidentified and none of the fingerprints matched with the records of previous perpetrators in criminal cases.  However, during the witness’ testimony he did not mention whether any of the fingerprints matched with the victim’s own fingerprints.  Normally, there must be fingerprints of the driver himself.  There is concern that the police may have unintentionally destroyed some of the vital forensic evidence.  More importantly, Dr. Khunying Porntip Rojanasunant of the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) is known to have also investigated the vehicle, site and route of the alleged abduction; however, no evidence from Dr. Porntip nor from the CIFS was presented in court.

v.  The details of the phone records of the five defendants were not fully investigated.  This is perhaps the strongest piece of investigative work and evidence presented to the courts.  The mobile phone records show that the five accused had called one another 75 times in the hours before the disappearance of Somchai on March 12 2004.  By contrast, they had called one anther rarely in the days before and after that.  The calls were also made from areas close to where Somchai was known to have been at the time.  After Somchai’s car was found on March 16, the number of calls between the five suddenly increased again to more than 30 calls.  The five defendants all offered incredulous and at times contradictory explanations as to why the records were wrong or they were not using the telephone at the time.  There is still a wealth of information to be derived from the telephone records especially since the phone records of the fifth defendant, Pol. Lt. Col. Chadchai, the most senior of the five officers and a key figure in the alleged abduction, were not released.  I presume it is within the powers of the DSI to obtain and use this phone record to the full extent for the purposes of its investigation.

vi.   Eyewitnesses to the alleged abduction reversed or undermined their pre-trial statements during their testimony in court, raising questions over the methods used by the Metropolitan Police Bureau in obtaining evidence.  For example, Ms. Chaweewan Yuthaharn was shown a video of the defendants during the investigation and according to records she positively identified the fist defendant, Pol. Maj. Ngern Tongsuk, and the fourth defendant, Pol. Sgt. Rundorn Sitthiket.  But in court she became hesitant and could no longer recognise him.  This pattern was repeated with two other eyewitnesses: specifically Ms. Kamolthip Phromthawee and Ms. Sunan Kongkem.  Whenever the prosecution requested the eyewitnesses to take a look at the accused, they quickly replied that they had not seen any of them.  But by contrast, when asked about their memories of Somchai, the witnesses replied that the person they saw abducted was Somchai.

vii.   There is no evidence of any investigation into who ordered the five accused or other persons to abduct Mr. Somchai.  It is widely accepted that whoever was responsible for the carrying out of the abduction, they were acting on instructions from a superior or superiors.  I am not aware that any further investigations were conducted other than the five accused in the case, to link them to others in the chain of command that may have been responsible for giving orders.  At various stages, senior figures in the government have reportedly made observations on what they have heard about the abduction.  The wife of the victim has herself stated that the prime minister told her that her husband was taken to Ratchaburi Province.  There has been no attempt to investigate senior government figures and identify their sources of information, or other reported evidence linked to the abduction to persons in positions of authority.  Nor were any senior police officers called to testify in the court for this purpose.

This is only a list of the most pressing issues that I feel the DSI should immediately investigate, but I hope that via a thorough examination of all the relevant persons and evidence, more issues will be raised and answered by the DSI.  I place my confidence in the DSI since they are the only avenue of justice available to monitor and scrutinise the work of the police.

I look forward to your immediate intervention in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

———————————————————————-

PLEASE SEND A LETTER TO:

Pol. Gen. Sombat Amonwiwat
Director-General
Department of Special Investigation
Ministry of Justice Building
Chaeng Wattana Road
Pakkred, Nonthaburi
Bangkok 11120
THAILAND
Fax: +66 2 913 7777
Email: dir.gen@sid.go.th

PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:

1. Pol. Gen. Chidchai Wanasatidya
Minister of Justice
Office of the Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Justice Building
22nd Floor
Chaeng Wattana Road
Pakkred, Nonthaburi
Bangkok 11120
THAILAND
Tel: +662 502 6776/ 8223
Fax: +662 502 6699/ 6734 / 6884
Email: ommoj@moj.go.th or chidchai@moj.go.th

2. Pol. Lt. Col. Dr Thaksin Shinawatra
Prime Minister
Government House
Pitsanulok Road, Dusit District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Tel: +662 280 1404/ 3000
Fax: +662 282 8631/ 280 1589/ 629 8213
E-mail: thaksin@thaigov.go.th or govspkman@mozart.inet.co.th

3. Prof. Saneh Chamarik
Chairperson
The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand
422 Phya Thai Road
Pathum Wan District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Tel: +662 2219 2980
Fax: +66 2 219 2940
E-mail: commission@nhrc.or.th or saneh@nhrc.or.th

4. Ms Hina Jilani
Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights defenders
Att: Ben Majekodunmi
Room 1-040
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (Attn: Special Representative on HR defenders)
E-mail: bmajekodunmi@ohchr.org

5. Mr. Diego Garcia-Sayan,
Chairperson
c/o Tanya Smith
Secretary a.i.
UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
C/o OHCHR-UNOG, 1211 Geneva 10,
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (Attn: Working Group on Disappearances)
E-mail: urgent-action@ohchr.org

6. Mr. Leandro Despouy
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the independence of judges and lawyers
Att: Sonia Cronin
Room: 3-060
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9160
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (Attn: Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers)
E-mail: scronin@ohchr.org

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission