Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) deeply regrets to inform you that a local court in southern Thailand has ordered after four years of hearing the post-mortem inquest over the death of 19 men, on the pretext of self defense, that the policemen who killed them cannot be charged. The court had depended on the police version, ignoring the accounts of witnesses and evidence proving otherwise.
UPDATED INFORMATION:
In the conclusion of its post-mortem inquest, on September 15 of this year the Provincial Court in Songkhla ordered that the policemen at Sabayoi municipality cannot be charged for the death of 19 men.
The court order, signed by Judges Mr. Supphachoke Korkua and Ms. Warinda Permthaweephon, have ruled that the victims were “armed and carrying firearms and explosives” and were attempting to harm police officers; thus, justifying the police actions of shooting them on 28 April 2004. Read the unofficial translation of the full text of the order here.
However, the order had apparently ignored the testimonies of other witnesses, including the expert witnesses and evidence questioning the police claims that the victims were armed, that they were insurgents and had exchanged fire with them.
In our previous appeal (UP-075-2007), we reported that the owner of the restaurant where the victims had been killed, testified that the victims were unarmed and had not exchanged fire with the police. The three men, whom the police claimed entered the restaurant after allegedly attacking a police checkpoint at the Sabayoi municipality market, were also unarmed.
Furthermore, a medical doctor testified that the bullet wounds the victims suffered were mostly in their heads or upper bodies.
In May 2007, Naiyana Suphapuenga, a commissioner from the National Human Rights (NHRC), has also testified that there is no evidence that could support the police allegations the victims had possessed heavy weapons and had attacked a police checkpoint. The gunshot wounds of the victims were in their backs, which is unlikely to happen in a crossfire situation (UP-081-2007).
The Commissioner’s findings, however, obviously did not merit any response from the court judge as they made no mention about it in their order.
You can also read a comment on this case: Thailand court ignores facts of killings.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
In Thailand, before a case against any security forces is filed in court, the Criminal Procedure Law requires that a post-mortem inquest should be conducted first by the court judges. This is to establish whether or not there is a case for them to answer.
However, once the court judges conclude that there is no case for security forces to answer in court–regardless of how the findings were made or questions as to the merits of the judgment–there is no means to appeal or challenge it.
It should have also been the responsibilities of the public prosecutor to exhaust all possible means to hold the security forces responsible for committing violations; however, the public prosecutors were instead been seen acting as defendants of the security forces than of performing their duties to put forward witnesses and evidences to prove their case in court.
This inquest procedure is also flawed as it does not allow relatives of the victims to present witness or evidence. These are solely reliant upon the approval and the discretion of the prosecutor. As a result, the relatives of victim or the complainants would have to rely on their lawyers to prove a case–for instance, by asking the crucial questions to witnesses that prosecutors are not making.
Thank you
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)
