A recent killing in Thailand has brought to the surface some of the deep contradictions in the country’s criminal justice system. Sunthorn Wongdao was found dead in Bang Yai district, Nonthaburi province, on May 21. Sunthorn is said to have hidden in a house after being accused of shooting his wife and father-in-law in Bang Khunthien district, Bangkok. Police from that district claim that after they surrounded the house, Sunthorn committed suicide rather than surrender. But the brother of the victim has challenged that version of events and said that he believes that the police killed Sunthorn. Investigators from the Central Institute of Forensic Science support his view. According to them, neither the condition of the victim’s body nor the crime scene suggested a suicide. In fact, the victim had four bullets through a lung and one through his head. The gunshot wounds appeared to have been fired by another person at close range. Furthermore, the crime scene had allegedly been tampered with. The body of the victim seemed to have been turned over, and evidence organised to suggest a suicide. Despite this, the police concerned have reportedly continued to insist that it was a suicide–thereby stalling the investigation.
What is the role of the forensic pathologist? It is to examine a case purely on the basis of scientific facts and give an opinion that can be backed by these. In this instance, forensic pathologists from the institute have concluded that the wounds could not have been caused by a suicide. Is this view right or wrong? This is a question for the courts, not for the police, to decide. The police have no competence to do this. It is ridiculous for the police to claim that they are in a position to accept or reject the views of independently operating forensic pathologists. To do so is an affront to criminal justice and to scientific investigation of crimes.
The decision on this matter should be made not by the police investigators but by the courts. But herein lies the problem. To get the matter before a judge, it must go through the police. If the police prefer for a case not to arrive in court in a manner upon which it may be properly judged, they may take steps to obstruct it. This is a grave defect in how criminal investigations are conducted in Thailand. Particularly in relation to alleged extrajudicial killings such as this, the power enjoyed by the Thai police in pursuing or neglecting cases is an enormous barrier to the exercise of basic criminal justice. In fact, this power completely subverts the whole judicial process.
Particularly where police themselves are suspected of being the killers, it is essential that inquiries can be conducted impartially and thoroughly. The very fact that relatives of victims complain that the police are responsible creates a greater burden on the higher police authorities to ensure transparency. In this particular case, with the view of the forensic pathologists weighing heavily against the suicide story, the case must be transferred to the Department of Special Investigation under the Ministry of Justice at the very least. Other steps can be taken, including offering witness protection to the brother of the victim. And above all else, the case must be brought to court, on the basis of scientific evidence, in the fastest time available. Failure to do so will be a gross violation of human rights and a shameful subversion of the criminal justice process. The Asian Human Rights Commission also urges the public to take interest in this and similar outrageous killings –such as the recent ‘two-bullets in the head’ suicide–lest investigations of extrajudicial killings in Thailand be reduced to a joke, and public faith in the justice system be totally lost.
