UPDATE (Thailand): Constant changes of prosecuting attorneys in Somchai’s case undermines judicial process 

[RE: FA-06-2004: THAILAND: A human rights lawyer Mr. Somchai Neelaphaijit missing… UP-20-2005: THAILAND: Human rights lawyer still missing after nearly one year; Action needed today to have case transferred; UP-24-2005: THAILAND: Thai minister refuses to act on missing human rights lawyer case; UP-37-2005: Thai PM orders action on missing human rights lawyer, while court hears of torture; UP-45-2005: Wife of missing human rights lawyer intimidated; UP-49-2005: THAILAND: Government commits to giving witness protection to missing lawyer’s family; UP-89-2005: THAILAND: Repeated failed commitment to assign Department of Special Investigation to Somchai case; UP-107-2005: THAILAND: Special call for observers to attend September 7, 8 & 9 court hearings over missing human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit… UP-118-2005: THAILAND: Fourth special call for observers to attend court hearings over missing human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, UP-123: Grave concern about change of principal judge in case of missing human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, UP-126-2005: Fifth special call for observers to attend court hearings over missing human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit]
———————————————————————-
UP-130-2005: THAILAND: Constant changes of prosecuting attorneys in Somchai’s case undermines judicial process

THAILAND: Disappearances; Defective prosecution system; Impunity
———————————————————————–

NEW SOMCHAI NEELAPHAIJIT WEBPAGE: www.ahrchk.net/somchai

———————————————————————-

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is gravely concerned by the constant change of prosecuting attorneys in the case against five police officers who were charged with abduction of human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit and the incompetent and manner with which they have worked. Most recently, on 3 November 2005 when it was the first day for the defence witnesses to take the stand, there were again new prosecuting attorneys, who were not aware the details of the case, and they could hardly conduct effective cross-examination.

Such low-quality performance by the public prosecution effects not only on the outcome of Somchai’s case but also reflects very badly on the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Criminal Litigation and indeed the entire judicial system of Thailand.

We call for your urgent intervention into this matter. Please write to the Attorney General of Thailand and urge him to ensure that the same lawyers would deal with the case for its duration. Please also urge him to dispatch a senior advocate to the proceedings, considering the manifest important of this case.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
———————————————————–

UPDATED INFORMATION:

On 3 November 2005, the case against five police officers in connection with the alleged abduction of human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit (Black Case No. 1952/2547) was heard at the Bangkok Criminal Court. However, there were again new prosecution attorneys, who were previously unknown to the case. In the morning there were four and in the afternoon there were two. During the hearing process, they appeared completely unfamiliar to the case. When it came time for the cross-examination, remarkably the lawyers confessed that they did not know the details of the case well and requested the judge to postpone the cross-examination until the next day. However, the presiding judge refused their request and allowed them 20 minutes before proceeding. As a result, they could not effectively cross-examine the defendants even though it was critical for the prosecution.

The judge also asked the prosecuting attorneys why they keep changing, both in numbers and in persons. They replied that the other lawyers were assigned other cases.

The AHRC is extremely disturbed to hear of the incompetent and unprofessional manner with which the case has been handled by the public prosecution. If this is the way a prosecution is conducted in high-profile cases such as Somchai’s, it is easy to imagine that in ordinary cases the performance is far worse. The lawyers’ consistent low-quality performance in the court and their frequent changes illustrates a lack of seriousness in handling Somchai’s case by the public prosecution.

The AHRC therefore urges the Attorney General to ensure that the same lawyers will deal with the case for its duration. A senior advocate should remain in the proceedings throughout, considering the importance of this case and the complicated and lengthy trial proceedings.  We refer you to also see the AHRC statement and press release regarding this matter: AS-111-2005 and AHRC-PL-69-2005.

LATEST UPDATES:

The AHRC has earlier issued an Urgent Appeal and expressed our concern over the possible change in the principal judge over the trial of five police officers in connection with the disappearance of Somchai Neelaphaijit (See further: UP-123-2005). We are happy to inform you that this did not eventuate.

On November 1, the court again heard testimonies regarding the alleged tortue of Somchai’s clients by the police, when two senators who visited the detained torture victims addressed the court. Sak Korsaengruang, chairman of a Senate committee looking into Somchai’s disappearance and the last prosecution witness, said that he believed Somchai’s disappearance was linked to his complaint to the court that police interrogators had tortured his five clients.

Mr. Sak also said his investigation team had worked with Pradit Charoenthaithawee, a member of the National Human Rights Commission, and Porntip Rojanasunant, then deputy director of the Justice Ministry’s Central Forensic Science Institute. Later the team and the two experts visited and examined the five suspects in prison. Marks on their bodies confirmed that they had indeed been tortured. Mr. Sak said the five told his team that they had been physically abused by the police to force a confession to crimes they had never committed. One of the suspects claimed police gave him electrical shocks, causing severe burns to his testicles and penis. Another suspect claimed he had been made to stand naked on his toes on a chair, with a rope around his neck for one whole night. He would have died if he had fallen.

Regarding the testimony of the first defendant, we refer you to an article in the Nation newspaper: Suspect gives alibi in Somchai case

FURTHER BACKGROUND TO THE CASE:

The AHRC has released copious material speaking to the importance of the disappearance of Somchai Neelaphaijit: all material has now been compiled on the new webpage: www.ahrchk.net/somchai.

For additional information or inquiries regarding the case please contact the Urgent Appeals Desk of the AHRC.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter to the Attorney General of Thailand demanding that the same lawyers would deal with Somchai’s case for its duration and that the court process would be conducted by highly qualified professional lawyers. Please note AHRC has just learnt that the Attorney General has changed. Please use the new name as follow.

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