UPDATE (Thailand): Case of the killing of a migrant worker dragged on by apparent delay of trial; Public prosecutor must speed up the case

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission is seriously concerned by the apparent delay of a trial of Ma Suu, a Burmese migrant worker who died after being beaten and set on fire by her employers, Suchart and Yuwadee Akkavibul in July 2002. The accused Thai airforce officer and his wife had escaped justice for two years, because of the officer’s influence and position of authority. (See further: UA-91-2004)

According to the information we have received, hearings were held to take evidence two times on July 26 and August 4 2004. After hearing a number of witnesses and obtaining strong evidence, the public prosecutor charged the accused, Suchart and Yuwadee, with murder, confinement and harbouring an illegal alien, and the case went to the full court on November 1, 2004 (Black No. 1089/2547 at Uthaithanee Provincial Court).

However, the court delayed the trial by setting the next hearing in January 2006 saying that the court needed to handle pending cases before new ones, under a new procedure. Local human rights groups say that some new cases will be delayed for about three or four years under these circumstances. Ma Suu’s lawyer worries that the case will be weakened by this delay as it is not certain that witnesses will be available at the convenience of the court over a year from now.

The AHRC calls for your urgent intervention into this matter. Please send a letter to Mr Kampree Kaocharern, the Attorney General of Thailand, and urge him to take prompt steps to speed up the case, considering the brutality and urgency and the fact that the case has already been considerably delayed before the accused is an airforce officer. Please also urge him to take evidence from witnesses prior to the next hearing in 2006 in order to prevent damage to the prosecution case.

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

UPDATED INFORMATION:

An 18-year-old Burmese migrant worker, Ma Suu, was brutally murdered by her employees, Suchart Akkavibul and his wife Yuwadee, who set her on fire alleging theft in Lop Buri Province, Thailand, in early July 2002. Two years after the incident on June 25, 2004, Suchart and his wife finally appeared before the Uthaithanee Provincial Court. However, they were given bail on the grounds that Suchart is a state officer, although the prosecutor opposed bail. Suchart Akkavibul is a special group commander in the Royal Thai Airforce.

The public prosecutor then applied to the court in order to take testimony from the witnesses before the entry of the charge in the court under Section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code B.E.2477 [1928]. According to Section 237, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is difficult for the witness to give testimony in the future, the public prosecutor can apply motion to the court to take his testimony promptly before the entry of the charge in the court.
The court received this application and hearings were held two times on July 26 and August 4, 2004. Five Burmese workers who were employed by Suchart gave their testimony at the hearings. Their names were recorded as Mr Janai, Mr Chid, Mr Chai, Mr Nai and Mr Sang. At the hearings, they testified that they saw that Ma Suu was severely beaten by the employers. Some of them also testified that they saw her burn injuries after the incident. Another Thai employer named Samrueng Ponnikorn, who had been involved in the incident, also testified against the two accused with the agreement that he would be escape from prosecution. His elder brother, Kamron Ponnikorn has also already agreed to testify in next hearing on the same condition.

The victim, Ma Suu

Finally, the Public Prosecutor charged Suchart and his wife with murder, confinement and harbouring an illegal alien under Sections 289 and 310 of the Penal Code of Thailand and Section 64 of the Immigration Act B.E.2522 [1979]. The first hearing of the case was held at Uthaithanee Provincial Court on November 1. Although the initial progress looked good, the court set the next hearing for January 2006. As a new hearing system was enforced a year ago, the court needs time to handle pending cases filed in the old hearing system prior to hearing new cases. However, local human rights groups argue that enforcing the new hearing system is being used as an excuse to drag on trial in some cases, and this case must be heard without further delay due to its brutality and urgency. The accused Thai airforce officer and his wife had already escaped justice for two years, apparently because of the officer’s influence and position of authority.

A journalist working for the Voice of America is also scheduled to give a statement in the next hearing. He is the person who recorded Ma Suu’s statement about the incident and took her photos when he visited her at the hospital in July 2004.

Ma Suu’s lawyer worries that the delay will weaken the case and the accused will enjoy impunity in the end, as most of these witnesses may not be expected to be available at the convenience of the court over a year from now. The lawyer is also concerned that even though some witnesses may appear in the court in 2006, the evidence of the case will be destroyed because the accused is an influential state officer.

BREIF REMINDER OF THE CASE:

Ma Suu was brutally murdered by her employers, Suchart and Yuwadee Akkavibul, who set her on fire alleging theft in Lop Buri Province, Thailand, in early July 2002. Although Ma Suu sustained fatal burn injuries, her employers abandoned her in a room without treatment or food for three days and then dumped her by a roadside. On the early morning of July 7, 2002, a man found Ma Suu on the road and sent her to a hospital in town. However, she died nine days later, after implicating the accused three persons;, Suchart his wife and Kamron Ponnikorn.
Ma Suu in the hospital

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send a letter to the Attorney General of Thailand and urge him to take prompt steps to speed up the case. Please also urge the Attorney General to file the motion to the Court under Section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code B.E.2477 [1928], and take evidences from the witnesses concerned prior to the next hearing in 2006 in order to prevent loss of evidence.

 

 

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