On June 21, the representative of Thailand to the United Nations in Geneva addressed the first sitting of the new UN Human Rights Council. In his speech, Dr Chaiyong Satjipanon stated that, “Thailand is in favour of the retention of the [former Commission on Human Rights’] Special Procedure mandates, as we believe that they are instrumental in advancing the cause of human rights…”
Among those special procedures to which the representative was referring is the very important work of the person appointed to monitor killings by state agencies or persons working on their behalf or instigation: the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. At present that post is occupied by Professor Philip Alston.
Thailand is among those countries with a horrific record of extrajudicial killings. The first “war on drugs” that left over 2500 dead in 2003 and the mass killings in the south during 2004 drew international attention. Quite aside from these incidents, killings by the police or other state officers and gunmen working for them occur routinely in Thailand, and are invariably justified or put down as “suicides”. This much recognised by the UN Human Rights Committee, which assesses states’ compliance with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, when in 2005 it expressed concern at “persistent allegations of serious human rights violations, including widespread instances of extrajudicial killings and ill-treatment by the police and members of armed forces” in Thailand. It added that “any investigations have generally failed to lead to prosecutions and sentences commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed, creating a culture of impunity”.
So it was that the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions on 8 November 2004 rightly requested to visit Thailand, in order to review the situation and offer advice. Professor Alston describes in his 2005 annual report that in January and March of the following year he instead received written replies from the government “on the establishment and the report of an independent fact-finding commission” into the killings. Not to be deterred, in August and November of 2005 he again “notified the Government of his continuing interest in undertaking a visit”; however, “no reply has been received”.
In the same section of his 2005 report, and perhaps with Thailand in mind, Professor Alston describes the importance for the work of special procedures that states cooperate with requests for visits, and stresses that a major challenge for the Human Rights Council will be to address the problems associated with these:
“The almost universally acknowledged loss of credibility by the Commission on Human Rights in recent years had much to do with its failure to take up cases in which particular Governments failed to invite or permit appropriate access to special procedures. Thus one of the major challenges confronting the Council will be to devise a procedure for recording the number of requests addressed to each Government, noting cases involving outright refusals and delaying tactics, and taking appropriate action….”
Thailand failed to obtain a seat on the inaugural Human Rights Council and its representative was speaking before the opening session as an observer. One of the reasons for this failure was its government’s incomplete compliance with special procedures, and notably its persistent disregarding of the reasonable requests to visit made by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions. It is disingenuous of Dr Chaiyong now to stand before the new council and say that the government of Thailand supports the continued work of the special procedures when the record shows otherwise.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre recommends to the government of Thailand that if it truly wishes to support the UN special procedures then it must do so first by responding immediately to the repeated requests for a visit by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions and secondly, by making a standing invitation to all UN experts seeking to visit in accordance with these procedures. As the government of Thailand is known to be intent upon getting a seat at the council in 2007, it would go a long way towards this objective if it were to take these two important steps in the meantime.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre also strongly urges the new Human Rights Council to take up the proposal made by Professor Alston that there be a means to monitor state’s compliance with requests for visits and oblige cooperation in most instances, in particular, with regards to members of the council and those countries seeking membership. Without this minimum commitment to the work of special procedures, assertions that they are “instrumental in advancing the cause of human rights” will remain hollow.
