UPDATE (Thailand): How did the killers of environmentalist Charoen Wat-aksorn die? 

[RE: UA-76-2004: THAILAND: A prominent environmentalist Charoen Wat-aksorn murdered and an independent investigation required; UP-40-2004: THAILAND: Arrest warrant issued against a local politician for the murder of Charoen Wat-aksorn; UP-77-2005: THAILAND: Department of Special Investigation fails to bring justice to Charoen Wat-aksorn case; UP-124-2006: THAILAND: Important programme to commemorate human rights defenders and discuss failed investigations; UP-128-2006: THAILAND: Please sign petition to remove head of special investigation from post; UP-134-2006: THAILAND: Special call for observers to attend trial of persons accused of murdering environmentalist Charoen Wat-aksorn]
———————————————————————-

THAILAND: Attacks on human rights defenders & environmentalists; impunity; unaccountability; problems of forensic science; lack of witness protection
———————————————————————-

 

Dear friends,

The trial following the murder of Thai environmentalist Charoen Wat-aksorn and ongoing investigation of alleged masterminds have been thrown into serious doubt since both of the gunmen who confessed to the killing have died in jail. Despite calls from the family and others, there have been no independent examinations of the dead bodies. There are now very grave doubts about how the two men died, and also concerns about any possibility of a successful trial or further investigation into the masterminds of the killing.

Prominent environmentalist Charoen Wat-aksorn was shot dead on 21 June 2004 in what is widely believed to have been a paid killing organised by “influential persons” angered by his successful campaign against an electricity power plant. Two gunmen, Saneh Lekluan and Prachub Hinkaew, admitted to the killing but denied that anyone else was behind it. Nonetheless, the police arrested two brothers who are alleged to have been involved, both active in politics and local business (UA-076-2004). The case was transferred to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) under the Ministry of Justice, which also arrested the brothers’ father, but since then made no further progress in its investigation, for which it has been criticised: http://thailand.ahrchk.net/dsi_petition/. The two gunmen were put in jail; the other three accused were released on bail (UP-134-2006).

On 21 March 2006, before the hearings to obtain witness testimonies were due to begin, Prachub died in jail, reportedly from a bacterial infection. Then as the hearings were getting underway, on August 3 Saneh also reportedly died in prison, this time reportedly due to blood circulation failure as a result of malaria. Both men are understood to have contracted HIV/AIDS.

An August 9 report in the Bangkok Post newspaper cited the prison hospital director as saying that Saneh had not shown symptoms of malaria before he died.

Many persons have questioned how both of the key witnesses could be allowed to die in the months just before the trial. The relatives of the two gunmen had reportedly earlier said that they did not expect that the men would get out of jail alive.

Charoen’s supporters and rights groups demanded an autopsy of Saneh by the Central Institute of Forensic Science or another agency outside of the police and prison authorities; however, no such investigation is known to have been done.

The DSI director reportedly assigned an officer to investigate the two deaths, but no information has been made known publicly about its progress.

The DSI has said that the case would not be affected by the two men’s deaths, but lawyers and others involved in the trial have disagreed and said that it would make it more difficult to prove the link to the other three accused. Furthermore, it is obvious that if any further information comes to light the two men will not be able to answer more questions.

The next hearings of the trial are on 7 & 8 December 2006 at the Criminal Court in Bangkok.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

The deaths of the two men raise serious questions about state responsibility for witnesses in Thailand. The new witness protection law does not extend to cover accused persons who are in detention. Detainees and former detainees whom the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) have spoken to have said that it is very easy for someone to be killed in a Thai prison and for the death to be made to appear the result of illness.

A recent special report, ‘Protecting witnesses or perverting justice in Thailand‘, (article 2, vol. 5, no. 3, June 2006) discusses these problems in detail.

For a discussion on the role of “influential persons” in attacks on human rights defenders, environmentalists and other persons working for social change in Thailand see: “Collusion and influence behind the assassinations of human rights defenders in Thailand” by Tyrell Haberkorn; in, ‘Rule of law versus rule of lords in Thailand’ (article 2, vol. 4, no. 2, April 2005).

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Caretaker Minister of Justice and other persons below to ask what progress has been made in the investigation into the deaths of the two men in prison, and whether or not an independent autopsy has been conducted as demanded by rights groups and Charoen’s supporters.

To support this appeal, please click:

 

 

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