On July 18 the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) described how a victim of alleged abduction, torture, armed robbery, illegal detention and extortion by Thai police has over three years been unable to excite any genuine interest or attention in his case by any government agency. As there is no part of the government with the purpose of receiving and investigating complaints of gross abuses by the police in Thailand, none feels the responsibility to do anything about them.
The AHRC has itself over a number of years observed how the system in Thailand works to apparently, but not actually, respond to complaints. Communications with various government agencies have revealed the same pattern of inaction in all cases where the accused are police. Take the following examples:
1. The alleged attempted rape of Ma Thet Thet by a policeman in Mae Sot, Tak was inquired into by the Department of Rights and Liberties Protection (DRLP) under the Ministry of Justice. In a letter of 11 April 2006 one of its deputy directors informed the AHRC that the department “had contacted Provincial Police Region 6 in order to verify this case and was informed that… this incident really occurred as claimed…. but by persons who falsely claimed to be police officers by dressing [in] similar outfits”.
2. The alleged brutal torture of Urai Srineh by police in Chonburi was inquired into by the Ministry of Interior. Through a letter of 3 November 2005 it informed the AHRC that it had instructed provincial authorities to investigate and that they had found that the victim had been tortured but “Mr Srineh said that he was not tortured brutally by the Police and confirmed that the group of men were not the Police”.
3. The alleged illegal raid and confiscation of documents from a migrant workers union in Mae Sot by immigration and police officials was inquired into by the DRLP, which informed the AHRC through a 25 October 2005 letter that “Immigration Division 3 has investigated the matter and revealed that… all concerned officials followed the prescribed procedures without the use of violence or damage of any personal properties”.
4. The alleged extrajudicial killing of Sunthorn Wongdao by police in Nonthaburi was inquired into by the Ministry of Interior, which informed the AHRC through a letter of 25 August 2005 that provincial authorities were instructed to investigate and had found that “Bang Yai District Police had performed the autopsy and concluded that it was a suicide”. The police said that the victim killed himself by shooting five bullets into his chest and head. The Department of Special Investigation said that it could not take up the case.
5. The alleged brutal torture cases of Anek Yingnuek and three others and also Ekkawat Srimanta by police in Ayutthaya were inquired into by both the DRLP and Ministry of Interior, which informed the AHRCÂ in turn that the cases had been passed to the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC). Attempts by the AHRC to point out that as the allegations related to torture the NCCC was not an appropriate investigating agency fell on deaf ears. There is also no evidence that the NCCC ever investigated any of the complaints. The AHRC also found out that statements that the concerned police had been removed from duty were either false or that the police had resumed their duties after a short period of suspension. The Ombudsman declined to take up the case because it was in court, even though the complaint to the Ombudsman and matter before the court were different. The victims testified in court that they had been tortured but their testimony was overlooked by the court on procedural grounds. A family member of one of the victims has since herself been sued for defamation by one of the accused police.
The AHRC is not aware of a single genuine complaint of police abuse by an ordinary person in Thailand that has led to a satisfactory investigation and prosecution of the alleged perpetrators. Even high-profile cases such as that of abducted human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit struggle to get into the courts and obtain a fair hearing.
The reason for this failure, which has been pointed to by many concerned agencies and experts, is the absence of an independent unit to receive and investigate complaints. In this it is necessary for the AHRC to again recall the concluding remarks of the UN Human Rights Committee in 2005, when it assessed Thailand’s compliance with a core human rights treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
“The Committee is concerned at the 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]… any investigations have generally failed to lead to prosecutions and sentences commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed, creating a culture of impunity. The Committee further notes with concern that this situation reflects a lack of effective remedies available to victims of human rights violations, which is incompatible with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (arts. 2, 6, 7). The State party should conduct full and impartial investigations into these and such other events and should, depending on the findings of the investigations, institute proceedings against the perpetrators. The State party should also ensure that victims and their families, including the relatives of missing and disappeared persons, receive adequate redress… The State party should actively pursue the idea of establishing an independent civilian body to investigate complaints filed against law enforcement officials.”
An independent civilian body to investigate complaints filed against law enforcement officials: were such an agency to exist, the victims in any one of the cases mentioned above would be able to make their grievances heard with some reasonable expectation of a response. It would no longer be necessary to designate each of the cases as “alleged”, because the complaints could be appropriately scrutinised and addressed. Unfortunately, Thailand has shown no inclination to implement any of the suggestions made by the UN committee, let alone this one.
International human rights law depends upon implementation. Where countries such as Thailand sign up to treaties and appear before UN bodies and experts but show no sincere interest to consider or implement their proposals, all is made a mockery. It is meaningless to agree to principles but not put them into practice. It is also hypocritical to pretend otherwise, as in Thailand’s case, when its representatives mouth politely about concern for human rights standards in order to try for a seat on the new UN Human Rights Council or get the deputy prime minister elected as UN Secretary General. If Thailand wants its people to hold key international postings, it should only expect to be able to do so by showing some genuine concern for the mandates and reputations of UN agencies, and pursue their findings on its own record.
UN recommendations matter, and one that matters for Thailand more than most others is the Human Rights Committee’s recommendation that it look to setting up an independent agency to receive and investigate complaints against the police. So far there is no evidence that the government of Thailand has even acknowledged this suggestion, let alone “actively pursued” it. If it cannot even do this much then what hope can victims of police abuses expect to have in the future? And if it cannot even do this much then what hope can the government of Thailand expect to have to get itself elected to the UN Human Rights Committee, let alone get its deputy prime minister into the UN top job? These are related concerns, and the government and people of Thailand alike should have a strong interest in them.
