Dear friends,
The Working Group on Justice for Peace (Thailand) has informed the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) about the alleged horrific torture of a 42 year-old rubber plantation worker named Muhamud Arming Usoh in southern Thailand. The father of eight was arrested by soldiers acting under special powers to deal with the ongoing conflict in the south. He was held for seven days without charge, during which time he allegedly suffered severe psychological and physical abuse, before being transferred to the police. He was released on bail in December but now faces serious criminal charges. Meanwhile, since he complained about the alleged torture to the military he has been called by the police and questioned about why he complained. He is now in grave need of protection.
CASE DETAILS:
Around 2pm on 30 October 2006, a group of armed soldiers arrested Muhamud Arming Usoh near his home in Ra-ngae district of Narathiwat province, when he came back from work at a rubber plantation. They covered his head with a red balaclava and ordered him to lie down in the back tray of a pick-up truck. After that they took him to a place that he later found out was a military camp in Rueshoh district.
The officers there accused him of being involved in an infamous armoury raid on 4 January 2004, over which many other persons are also believed to have been detained, tortured and illegally charged (see for instance UA-094-2004). He denied knowledge and the soldiers allegedly began to torture him in an attempt to force a confession. He was tied to a chair and kicked in the face with boots until it fell over. After the chair was righted, he was hit across the head with a steel bar, causing severe pain that lasted for about eight days. The soldiers then began beating his face so hard that he still has the scars. They then burnt his neck, chest, ear and genitals with cigarettes, and smashed two or three beer bottles across his knees, at which point the excruciating pain caused him to pass out.
When Arming regained consciousness he was thrown into a shower and had ice cubes applied to his wounds to reduce the swelling. The perpetrators then took him to a room for the night, but allegedly continued with their torture–this time psychological rather than physical–by chaining him to a dog (in Islamic tradition the dog is a taboo animal). Arming was forced to sleep with the dog for the whole night.
The following day the prison authorities brought Arming food; however, he was unable to eat anything due to the swelling of his face. During the day he was moved from place to place before being taken to the main Inkayauthboriharn army camp in neighbouring Pattani province. His family learnt that he was there the day after that, and on November 2 was permitted to meet him. They saw for themselves that he had been severely tortured and accused of involvement in insurgent activities.
After seven days, on November 6, personnel at the camp told Arming to sign some documents, but as he is illiterate he could not; the documents were signed by the army personnel and he was handed over to the Ra-ngae police station. The police accused him of murder and firearms offences on the basis of the information given to them by the army.
Arming was released on bail in December. Human rights defenders had raised his case with the concerned authorities in the military and other institutions, and also have an independent medical report that verifies Arming’s allegations of the physical torture. On January 23 he was interviewed about the alleged torture by the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre, which coordinates security operations in the south.
Then, on January 30 Arming was called by the Ra-ngae police. He went with a village headman and some other local supporters; however, most of them were not allowed inside with him. He was interrogated for some hours about why he made the complaint of torture, and on other details relating to the charges against him. During this time there were around ten soldiers and five persons in plain clothes in the room. A member of the new Ad-hoc Committee on Torture of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand was also called to the police station and told that the operation to arrest him was conducted under the provincial police command.
Arming has eight children and earns around 500 Thai Baht (USD 12) per day. He must work every day to support his family and says that he has never had any involvement in anti-government activities. He is now possibly in grave danger due to his complaints and needs protection.
BACKGROUND:
The Emergency Decree over the southern provinces in Thailand was introduced by the former prime minister in mid-2005 as part of a heavy-handed approach to the violent conflict in that part of the country. It grants even wider powers to the army and police than martial law and gives them complete impunity from prosecution for any actions taken under it, prompting the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings to say that it makes it possible for them to “get away with murder” (see AHRC-PL-056-2006). Independent bodies that have studied the situation in the south have recommended that it be withdrawn, including the prominent National Reconciliation Commission (read final report).
When the new military regime took power in September, it placed as a top priority solving of the conflict in the south of Thailand, and also mouthed concerns about the need to end the emergency regulations there (AS-255-2006). But this has never happened. Instead, as the violence has continued it has extended the decree twice (see further UP-007-2007).
This case shows how the emergency decree leads directly to torture and other grave human rights abuses being easily committed by the military. As persons can be detained for up to one week without charge, and must be held outside of conventional detention facilities (because they are not yet considered formally accused), state officers are encouraged to keep detainees in secret locations and do what they like to them without fear of any consequences.
However, torture is by no means limited to the south of Thailand, and anecdotal evidence suggests that it is widely practiced both by the police and the army across the country. Due to the lack of a law to prohibit torture and no effective victim and witness protection in Thailand, the alleged perpetrators easily intimidate victims not to make complaints, or to withdraw them later. See for example the following cases: UA-410-2006; UA-233-2006; UP-157-2005; UP-137-2005; UP-088-2005.
In October, a senior bureaucrat admitted that perhaps 30 per cent of criminal cases in Thailand’s courts are fabrications, without any evidence: see AS-261-2006. For instance, in November the case against 58 men accused of causing the military to use force against a protest outside the Tak Bai police station, also in Narathiwat province–which lead to the deaths of some 85 persons, 78 in army custody–was dropped after the state admitted that there was no evidence against them: see AHRC-OL-060-2006.
Thailand has a new law and office for protection of witnesses and victims; however, as protection is invariably offered only by the police on their own terms, it is ineffective in cases such as this where the security forces are themselves the persons against whom protection is sought. See: Protecting witnesses or perverting justice in Thailand, article 2, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2006.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write the relevant Thai authorities and demand justice and protection for this victim. Please ask them to compensate the victim and demand that the government lift the Emergency Decree and join the UN Convention against Torture.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear __________,
THAILAND: Protection needed for villager allegedly tortured by soldiers in Narathiwat
Name of the victim: Muhamud Arming Usoh, 42-year-old rubber plantation worker, father of eight, residing in Pongo subdistrict, Ra-ngae district, Narathiwat
Alleged perpetrators: Unidentified Royal Thai Army personnel in Ra-ngae district
Place of incident: Ra-ngae district, Narathiwat
Dates of incident: 30 October – 6 November 2006
Police case reference no.: Jor 104/2548, 28 February 2005
I am writing to express my outrage at the alleged brutal torture of Muhamud Arming Usoh by personnel of the Royal Thai Army, and to demand that he obtain justice and redress.
According to the information I have received, a group of soldiers arrested Arming near his home in Ra-ngae district at around 2pm on 30 October 2006. They covered his head with a red balaclava and ordered him to lie down in the back tray of a pick-up truck. After that they took him to a place that he later found out was a military camp in Rueshoh district. There he was reportedly accused of being involved in the 4 January 2004 armoury raid: in regards to which I have heard of other cases of persons arrested, brutally tortured and accused. Like them, he denied knowledge and the soldiers allegedly began to torture him in an attempt to force a confession, so that the victim was:
1. Tied to a chair and kicked and beaten in the face with boots until the chair fell over;
2. Hit across the head with a steel bar of roughly 12 by 2 inches;
3. Burnt on his neck, chest, ear and genitals with cigarettes; and,
4. Hit on the knees with beer bottles.
There are numerous witnesses to testify to having seen scars that accord to the description of the tortures that he suffered, and an independent medical report confirming the same.
In addition to these, the victim was allegedly chained to a dog and forced to sleep with it for the night, which constitutes a form of psychological torture as the dog is a prohibited animal for Muslims.
On October 31 the victim was reportedly moved from place to place before being sent to the Inkayauthboriharn army camp in neighbouring Pattani province. His family was able to visit him there on November 2. After seven days in army custody, on November 6 he was told to sign some documents but as he is illiterate he could not; the documents were signed by army personnel and he was handed over to the Ra-ngae District Police Station. The police have accused him of murder and firearms offences on the basis of the information given to them by the army. He was released on bail in December.
I am informed that on January 23 Arming was interviewed about the alleged torture by the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre, and subsequently, on January 30 he was called by the Ra-ngae police and interrogated about why he made the complaint of torture, and on other details relating to the charges against him. During this time there were around ten soldiers and five persons in plain clothes in the room.
This case shows how the Emergency Decree over the southern provinces in Thailand leads directly to torture and other grave human rights abuses being easily committed by the military. As persons can be detained for up to one week without charge, and must be held outside of conventional detention facilities (because they are not yet considered accused), state officers are encouraged to keep detainees in secret locations and do what they like to them without fear of any consequences. It is not surprising that the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings has said that it allows state officers to “get away with murder”. I note that although the new military government in Thailand sought to distinguish itself from its predecessor with regards to the conflict in the south, it has twice extended this decree.
I also observe that torture is reported to be widely practiced both by the Royal Thai Police and Royal Thai Army; however, due to the lack of a law to prohibit torture and no effective victim and witness protection in Thailand, the alleged perpetrators easily intimidate victims not to make complaints, or to withdraw them later. The 1997 Constitution of Thailand prohibited torture in principle, but it has now been abrogated. Successive administrations have made many commitments that the country would soon join the UN Convention against Torture and introduce a law, but they have not done so.
In view of the above, I call for the following immediate steps in this case:
1. Provide the accused with protection in accordance with the provisions of the Witness Protection Act BE 2546 (2003), as well as medical and psychological treatment;
2. Undertake an independent investigation of his allegations of torture and take action against the alleged perpetrators;
3. Review the case against the accused to determine whether or not any substantial evidence exists upon which to proceed in court; and
4. Assist the accused to lodge a claim for compensation under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act BE 2544 (2001).
Please be aware that I will be closely following developments in this case, and will be highly concerned if no action is taken by the relevant authorities, or if the victim is somehow threatened as a result of his complaint.?
More generally, I call for the Government of Thailand and its concerned agencies to:
1. Lift the Emergency Decree over the southern provinces and Martial Law over the whole of Thailand without delay;
2. Ratify the UN Convention against Torture and introduce it into domestic law;
3. Take institutional measures to stop the large number of cases entering the courts without evidence; and
4. Implement the recommendations of expert bodies on human rights in Thailand and the conflict in the south, notably the National Reconciliation Commission (Thailand) and the UN Human Rights Council in 2005.
Although the interim prime minister of Thailand has stressed his concern for the rule of law, this case and the laws and circumstances that beget it speak to how far Thailand actually is from the rule of law. I hope that you will take the necessary steps to move it back in the right direction.
Yours sincerely,
—————
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER TO:
1. General Surayud Chulanont
Interim Prime Minister
c/o Government House
Pitsanulok Road, Dusit District
Bangkok 10300
THAILAND
Tel: +662 280 1404/ 3000
Fax: +662 282 8631/ 280 1589/ 629 8213
E-mail: spokesman@thaigov.go.th
2. General Sonthi Boonyaratglin
Commander-in-Chief
c/o Royal Thai Army HQ
Ratchadamnoen Nok Road
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND
Tel: +662 280 2432-5
Fax: +662 280 2436
3. Mr. Charnchai Likitjitta
Interim Minister of Justice
Office of the Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Justice Building
22nd Floor Software Park Building,
Chaeng Wattana Road
Pakkred, Nonthaburi
Bangkok 11120
THAILAND
Tel: +662 502 6776/ 8223
Fax: +662 502 6699/ 6734 / 6884
Email: ommoj@moj.go.th
4. Mr. Aree Wongaraya
Interim Minister of Interior
Office of the Ministry of Interior
Atsadang Road
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND
Tel: +662 224-6320/ 6341
Fax: +662 226 4371/ 222 8866
Email: ommoi@moi.go.th
5. Pol. Gen. Kovit Wattana
Commissioner-General
Royal Thai Police
1st Bldg, 7th Floor
Rama I, Patumwan
Bkk 10330
THAILAND
Fax: +66 2 251 5956/ 205 3738/ 255 1975-8
Email: kovit@police.go.th
6. Mr. Pachara Yutidhammadamrong
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Lukmuang Building
Nahuppei Road
Prabraromrachawang, Pranakorn
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND
Tel: +662 224 1563/ 222 8121-30
Fax: +662 224 0162/ 1448/ 221 0858
E-mail: ag@ago.go.th or oag@ago.go.th
7. Prof. Saneh Chamarik
Chairperson
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
8. Prof. Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
Attn: Mr. Safir Syed
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 9179016 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TORTURE)
9. Ms. Leila Zerrougui
Working Group on arbitrary detention
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: WORKING GROUP ARBITRARY DETENTION)
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)
