THAILAND: Young man allegedly illegally detained & tortured by army

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 23-year-old teacher named Sukri Ar-dam in southern Thailand. Sukri was arrested by the police acting under special powers to deal with the ongoing conflict in the south, and he was then handed over to soldiers. He was held in an army camp for more than seven days without charge, during which he was allegedly tortured severely. He is now again in police custody and is in serious need of protection.

CASE DETAILS:

Around 4pm on 10 April 2007, Sukri Ar-dam left his residence in his father’s car and stayed overnight near where he was teaching at the English Study Camp in Yala province. He stayed with his classmate from Prince of Songkhla University, Pattani Campus.  Sukri has been active at the university since his student days, working on student social camps and making visits to various areas to meet local people.

Around 4pm the following day, April 11, he volunteered to drop some friends off from the study camp in central Pattani district, before returning home to Napradoo in the same province. Around 7pm as he drove to the village entrance, and passed a police checkpoint. The police stopped him and searched his car. As his license and car insurance had expired, they asked him to produce his ID card. They then informed him that an arrest warrant had been issued for him by the local police station, whereupon they took him to Inkayuthboriharn Army Camp in Nongchick District, Pattani. At 9pm Sukri called his brother-in-law and informed him that he was being held in custody there.

On April 12, Sukri’s sister went to the camp but was denied permission to visit him. On April 16 his family went to the camp but once again was denied access. They were informed that the commanding officer would not allow the relatives of the suspects from Napradoo to receive visitors.

Sukri was not the only one arrested. Before him, soldiers had surrounded houses in Napradoo and arrested Abdulfahta, Muhama Waekachi, Kamaruding Moosor and two other suspects in connection with the beheading of local resident Chuan Kaewthongprakam on 8 February 2007. On April 19 a state officer brought Sukri’s sister to visit Kamaruding in Inkayuthaboriharn Camp. Kamaruding told her that a police officer had informed him that Muhama Waekachi, another suspect, had confessed to the crime and so Kamaruding should also make a confession. Sukri’s sister observed that while he was talking an officer named Hayeeyusoh came to pat him on his shoulder. Later the officer took her to visit Muhama Waekachi, who told her that he and six others had done it, and that Sukri was one of them. He said that Sukri was responsible for keeping a watch while the others committed the crime and that he had burnt tyres, scattered nails and sprayed paint on the road and nearby signboards. However, on the date of the murder Sukri has an alibi, as he was teaching in the local Islamic school.

On April 26, a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand and his team went to visit Sukri in the camp. Sukri testified that he was tortured while in custody. He told the NHRC fact-finding team that he was tortured by persons who were not in uniform. He was taken to an inquiry room on April 11, where he was kicked, assaulted and strangled by a well-built man until he felt difficult to breathe. He was then transferred to another inquiry room, where seven to eight men took turns to torture him. He was kicked in all parts of his body, and the perpetrators flicked his genitalia. Sukri was also forced to take off his underwear and put it onto his head. The torture lasted for about two to three hours until he was unconscious. The NHRC fact-finding team also observed scars and severe injuries on his knees, back and mouth.

On April 27, 28 and 29 Sukri’s relatives were again denied permission to visit him.

On May 1, the police applied to the Pattani Provincial Court, requesting to extend Sukri’s period of detention under the Emergency Decree. Sukri’s lawyers filed another application against the request, arguing that the suspect was detained unlawfully. They also asked the court to release him. The court arranged an inquiry to decide the legality of the detention on the next day.

On May 2, the police requested the court to issue an arrest warrant. The court rejected the request as Sukri is already detained. However, the police requested the court to transfer him from the army camp to Kokpho District Police Station. The court granted the police’s request to detain him for 12 days.

On today May 3, Sukri’s lawyers are again requesting the court to grant him bail.

—————————————–

BACKGROUND:

The Emergency Decree was introduced in mid-2005 in the southern provinces of Thailand to combat the violent conflict in the area. It grants the army and police with wider powers than the martial law. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings has commented that the Decree makes it possible for officers to get away with murder. When the military regime took power in September, it voiced concerns about ending the emergency regulations in the south. However, it has instead kept extending the Decree (see further UP-007-2007).

This case shows how the the Emergency Decree results in torture and other serious human rights abuses. Persons can be detained for up to 30 days without any charge, and they are held outside of conventional detention facilities as they are not yet considered as formally charged. State officers are therefore encouraged to keep detainees in secret locations, and do whatever they like without fear of being prosecuted. (Please refer to: AS-024-2007; AS-255-2006; UA-111-2007; UA-034-2007; UA-348-2006)

Torture is also not limited to the south of Thailand. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is widely practiced both by the police and the army across the country. Since there is neither any law prohibiting torture nor any effective witness protection scheme in Thailand, the victims and witness are easily intimated to drop their complaints. (Please refer to the following cases: UA-410-2006; UA-233-2006; UP-157-2005; UP-137-2005; UP-88-2005)

In October 2006, a senior bureaucrat admitted that perhaps 30 per cent of criminal cases in Thailand are fabricated (see AS-261-2006). For instance, in November 2006, 58 men were accused of causing the military to use force against a protest outside the Tak Bai police station in Narathiwat province, which lead to the deaths of some 85 persons, 78 in army custody. The case was dropped after the state admitted that there was no evidence against them (see AHRC-OL-060-2006).

Although there are a new law and a new office for protection of witnesses and victims, protection is offered only by the police on their own terms. It is ineffective in cases which the security forces are themselves the perpetrators. (See: Protecting witnesses or perverting justice in Thailand, article 2, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2006.)

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the relevant Thai authorities to seek justice and protection for the victim. Please also urge the government in Thailand to lift the Emergency Decree and join the UN Convention against Torture as soon as possible.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER