Condemned Police Officers, Two Others Freed On Bail: Thailand

[chooka]

I here that these gentlemen have been spotted in the last 24 hours partying at a nightclub on the Gold Coast, Australia.

[maidu]

What are Thai blogs saying about this? Are average Thais aghast, or is it just another helping of mai pen rai with watery starch rice? Has the judge who made the call - been named and shamed?

[cms22]

What is so so sad is that the media in this country (and particularly TV and newspapers) don't even bat an eyelid. In a country that has any degree of democracy or is not faced with a dictatorship, good journalism often highlights and then prompts changes in bad systems/processes/laws etc. The pliable Thai journalists, editors and media owners should hang their head in shame...

Agree with your comments about the media.

Unfortunately reporting, by Thai reporters, of a matter like this is a process. Listen to the words spoken by the judge, take a copy of any handout material and then put it into a 'story'. As you see again and again there are large gaps and many unanswered obvious questions, even conflicting information.

In almost all instances journalists / reporters don't quickly analyse what they have and quickly identify the gaps, don't identify the other facts or information needed to give a complete picture, and don't form and ask the questions that Jo public would want quickly answered.

They just don't ask questions (lots of reaons behind this). There is no such thing as investigative journalism. (Would you be brave enough to investigate a large number of Thai politicians, would you be brave enough to investigate senior police officers?)

On the other hand I've had dealings with the English language dailies, in terms of providing materials for their business pages. They arrived at my office, would not accept prepared literature (written profesionally with media in mind, on a thumb drive), insisted that we explain the research based concept etc., and barely listened to what was being said.

Then I asked if they would provide a draft so that I could be sure important details weren't missing or weren't explained the way my company wished. The journalists reaction - they were insulted that I was suggesting they cannot write English. My Thai staff and myself explained carefully that my comment was not about their English language abilities. Bottom line, they were insulted, left and deliberately didn't take the thumb drive.

A few days later the article appeared, full of mistakes and destroying the value of the research findings.

We withdrew from any further work with this newspaper.

This is very sad. I'm not specifically speaking about your company, but about the quality of journalists in this country. We will not move towards free speech, major social development, transparency, progressive democracy etc until journalists in Thailand can write what needs to be exposed. Unfortunately, capability-wise the Thai journalists are a long way from that right now.

However, I don't agree that subjects of journalists' copy should be given approval to publish. In an ideal world the details would be correct anyway, but when you start sending subjects of a story copy to approve before publication it is a dangerous road to go down. In the UK, for instance, where the standard of journalism remains high (despite all the shameful NI problems) copy approval is only allowed on the most technical of subjects.

A very interesting topic though!

Edited August 4, 2012 by cms22

[Jawnie]

A police officer can get bail even though convicted of murder and subject to a death sentence but a person accused of saying a few bad things about the royal family (an Article 112 charge), can not get bail.

Priceless....but not in a good way.

[whybother]

Worldwide the authorities are at war with drugs. But as some posters have rightly pointed out, they are slowly losing the battle with the drug syndicates and to these criminal gangs. Most of the present anti drug supply and possession procedures has been a total failure and out dated.

Drugs can now be obtained easier and cheaper than ever before, the demand is increasing and has created an illicit international trade controlled by violent criminal gang entrepreneurs. These mafia gangs are involved in the business of suffering and death that is worth billions of dollars worldwide per year.

It is obvious that more extreme measures to combat the drug mafia cartels are required. I’m sure many will agree that South America is a prime example of what can happen if these drug gangs start to take control and the situation gets out of hand.

Drug possessors and users are as bad as the dealers, because it is they that are fuelling the trade. If there is no demand, then the dealers go out of business.

If drug suppliers and possessors are apprehended than they become pwned, and whatever is their fate, than so what? As long as they are put out of circulation is all that matters, because in the long term, it will save lives.

The solution is simple; don`t do drugs, in any shape or form, because the majority point of view is; drugs are not wanted here.

That in NO WAY justifies the killing of people without trial, and particularly people that have nothing to do with drugs.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[maidu]

The solution is simple; don`t do drugs, in any shape or form, because the majority point of view is; drugs are not wanted here.

Are you including the most abused and most harmful drug also? Just wondering.

[softgeorge]

The solution is simple; don`t do drugs, in any shape or form, because the majority point of view is; drugs are not wanted here.

Are you including the most abused and most harmful drug also? Just wondering.

Sex??

[Buchholz]

the teenage victim's aunt, Pikul Prohmchan, as saying she would seek to extend her enrollment in a witness protection programme now that the convicted killers have been set free.

"I'm afraid that we might be killed before the convicts receive the capital punishment," she said.

An Unidentified judge of the Bangkok Criminal Court ordered the execution of former senior sergeants Angkarn Kammoonna, 48, Sudtinan Noanting, 43, and Pansin Uppana, 42, after the were found guilty of premeditated murder and hiding a corpse.

http://www.southeastasiantimes.com/

This quote from the same news item is very interesting............

The committee's report said: On January 14, 2003 Thaksin chaired a meeting of provincial governors, police chiefs and heads of agencies and instructed them to wage all-out war on illicit drugs, classified as a national security threat which must be resolved without mercy, and any casualties were deemed necessary.

The result of the instruction was the formation of a National Drug Suppression Centre that compiled a blacklist of alleged traffickers.

The police and other authorities were then encouraged to shorten the blacklist by extrajudicial killings.

The report includes a statement by Thaksin at a March 23, 2003 meeting that traffickers could go to only two places, jail or a funeral.

It lists 2,656 drug-related killings involving 2,921 deaths during the three-month campaign.

Victims group to take 'drug war' death to The Hague

A network of police-brutality victims Tuesday requested help from the Democrat Party in filing complaints with the International Criminal Court over the death of a teenage boy at the hands of Kalasin-based police officers during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government's "war on drugs".

A Thai court recently convicted the officers of killing 17-year-old Kiattisak Thitbunkhrong in 2004.

The groups are led by an aunt of Kiattisak. She said she and several other members would be joint complainants in a number of lawsuits against Thaksin filed by the Democrat Party.

Democrat Secretary-General Chalermchai Srion said a briefing would be held next week to report on the progress of the Party's own efforts to lodge the complaints and extract compensation from the Yingluck government.

-- The Nation 2012-08-07

Edited August 7, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

THAILAND: Five police convicted of murder in landmark ruling

Asian Human Rights Commission - August 8, 2012

The Asian Human Rights Commission greets with cautious optimism the landmark ruling of the Criminal Court in Bangkok to convict five police officers for the murder of a teenager during the "war on drugs" in 2004, and hopes that it will serve as a precedent of sorts for other cases of police and state officials accused of similar crimes.

On 30 July 2012, in Black Case No. 3252/2552, 3466/2552, the Criminal Court found five out of the six police officers accused of murdering Kiettisak Thitboonkrong, age 17, in 2004. The six defendants were Pol. Snr. Sgt. Maj. Angkarn Kammoonna, Pol. Snr. Sgt. Maj. Sutthinant Noenthing, Pol. Snr. Sgt. Maj. Phansilp Uppanant, Pol. Lt. Col. Samphao Indee, Pol. Col. Montree Sriboonloue, and Pol. Lt. Col. Sumitr Nanthasathit, all officers stationed in Kalasin Province, northeast Thailand.

The police had arrested Kiettisak on 16 July 2004 for allegedly stealing a motorcycle. When his family heard this news, they went to the police station and attempted to talk to him. After returning multiple times, his grandmother was allowed to witness his interrogation on 22 July 2004 and told to wait for him to be bailed out later that day. But Kiettisak never came home and several days later his mutilated body was found in a neighbouring province.

Following his death, his family launched a campaign to investigate and hold the police in Kalasin accountable for his murder and the murders of 27 other individuals by police of the same station during and following the so-called "war on drugs". After an extraordinary effort on their part to bring the killers of Kiettisak to justice, the court finally reached its verdict just over a week ago. It sentenced three police officers to death for their actions, while one it sentenced to life imprisonment, and one to seven years in prison.

It took Kiettisak's relatives seven years to secure this outcome. At their urging, in 2005, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) in the Ministry of Justice began investigating the case. It spent three years doing so. On 18 May 2009, the public prosecutor charged six police officers with premeditated murder and with concealing Kiettisak's corpse to hide the cause of death. Because this case was investigated under the Special Investigation Act it was sent to the Criminal Court in Bangkok. The public prosecutor conducted the case and Mr. Kittisapt Thitboonkrong, father of Mr. Kiettisak, successfully sought and obtained permission from the court to act as a joint plaintiff, represented by lawyers from the Lawyers' Council of Thailand working pro bono. The hearings took another three years. Observers for the AHRC attended many of the hearings throughout the duration of the trial.

In its verdict, the Criminal Court found Pol. Snr. Sgt. Maj. Angkarn Kammoonna, Pol. Snr. Sgt. Maj. Sutthinant Noenthing guilty of premeditated murder and hiding a corpse. It sentenced them to death. Pol. Lt. Col. Sumitr Nanthasathit it found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Pol. Col. Montree Sriboonloue it found guilty of abusing his authority to aid in protecting his subordinates from criminal prosecution and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The Criminal Court found Pol. Lt. Col. Samphao Indee innocent of involvement in the murder of Mr. Kiettisak.

With some reservations, the AHRC considers this ruling an important step towards ending impunity for state violence in Thailand. It is the first case of which the AHRC is aware in which police responsible for killings during the "war on drugs" under the government of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra have been held to account for their crimes.

It is also the first case arising from the so-called "war" that the DSI investigated. In February 2003, Thaksin announced the beginning of the "war" with an unequivocal message to police and other state officials--that any and all necessary actions should be taken to free the country of the drug menace, including killing. Over the next three months, it became clear that the message served as a carte blanche for the use of murderous violence against citizens, rather than using the provisions of the Criminal Code to investigate and prosecute. By May 2003, an estimated number of over 2500 people had been killed. Kalasin Province was the first province in the country that the government declared had "won" the war.

This ephemeral victory was achieved at the cost of many lives taken illegally, at the hands or bidding of state agents. Kiettisak was but one victim.

Rather than holding state officials who used extrajudicial violence against these citizens to account, in the worst cases, perpetrators of crimes have been rewarded. In most cases they have been tacitly and conveniently ignored. One of the long-term effects of this approach has been the further consolidation of impunity for state violence in Thailand. Therefore, this case stands out among other cases of extrajudicial killing in Thailand over the last ten years, in which courts have been unwilling to hold state officials to account, notably in the cases of the mass deaths in custody following the Tak Bai incident, and the April-May 2010 killings. Even in cases in which courts have ruled that a citizen has died while in state custody due to the actions of state officials, such as the March 2009 torture and death of Imam Yapa Kaseng, the actions of state officials have been classed as matters of official "duty" and they have been exempted from allegations of murder. This is the larger context in which Kiettisak was murdered, in which his relatives and other Kalasin residents struggled to secure justice and accountability, and against which the Criminal Court gave its ruling.

Given that this is also the first case in which a court decision has been reached, the AHRC welcomes the guilty verdict as a clear sign that the judiciary is willing to hold police to account for their use of extrajudicial violence against citizens. At the same time, the AHRC as a matter of principle opposes the death penalty under all circumstances, and calls for the sentences in this case to be reviewed, such that the convicted police officers instead receive appropriate prison terms.

Additionally, the AHRC is gravely concerned that the convicted officers have obtained bail pending appeal. The convictions for these sentences are of such gravity that good reason exists to expect that the convicted police will attempt to evade punishment by absconding or other means. They may also seek to obtain revenge against one or more persons who testified against them.

In the well-known case of disappeared human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, the one officer convicted of an offence in connection with his disappearance himself subsequently disappeared, and is suspected to have faked his own death; he was subsequently acquitted on appeal. In the meantime, Somchai's family received frequent threats against their own lives. The AHRC fears that in this case too the convicted police if allowed to walk free pending appeal may yet find ways and means to pervert the course of justice and undermine this hard-fought result.

Consequently, it urges that the granting of bail be revoked and the five convicted officers be imprisoned while awaiting appeal outcomes.

Finally, the text of the court decision was not read in its entirety on the day the decision was announced in the Criminal Court, and the Asian Human Rights Commission is awaiting the release of the full judgment by the Criminal Court. We call on the Criminal Court to make this important decision available to the public as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, the AHRC will undertake a detailed analysis of the court decision in the case of the murder of Kiettisak Thitboonkrong with respect to the political and legal context and history of impunity for state violence in Thailand as well as the relevant international human rights standards.

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-157-2012

[Buchholz]

THAILAND: Statement on the death penalty imposed on three police officers for extrajudicial killing of Kiattisak Thitboonkrong

Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA)

August 9, 2012

On 30 July 2012, in the Black Case No. O3252/2552 involving the murder of Mr. Kiattisak Thitboonkrong, 17 years old, the Criminal Court condemned to death the first three defendants including Pol. Snr. Sgt. Maj. Angkarn Kammoonna, Pol. Snr. Sgt. Maj. Sutthinant Noenthing and Pol. Snr. Sgt. Maj. Phansilp Uppanant. In detail, they were penalized for one year in jail for their offence involving the removing of dead body to conceal the cause of death and inflicted with death sentence for premeditated murder. In the same case, the fifth defendant, Pol. Col. Montree Sriboonloue, was convicted to seven years in jail for abusing his office since he misused his power as an in charge investigator to help other persons from being brought to justice. The sixth defendant, Pol. Lt. Col. Sumitr Nanthasathit, was convicted to life sentence for conspiring to commit a premeditated murder. The fourth defendant, Pol. Lt. Col. Samphao Indee, was acquitted.

In this case, the first to sixth defendants have been prosecuted for conspiring to commit a premeditated murder and removing the body and concealing the cause of death and for abusing their power as investigation officers to prevent other persons from being brought to justice. The first to third defendants and the sixth defendant, police officers of the Maung Kalasin Police Station, were accused of killing Mr. Kiattisak Thitboonkrong, 17 years old, an alleged offender in a thief offence.

After he was brought out of the police station, he was allegedly strangled to death and an attempt to conceal the cause of his death was made including moving his body to a makeshift in a paddy field in Ban Bung Na, Changharn District, Roi Et Province, and having it hung there.

Eyewitnesses have also been subjected to intimidation. The incidence took place around 21-22 July 2004 during the harsh War on Drug by the Thaksin Shinawatra government. A number of people were found dead during the implementation of the policy to suppress drug trafficking throughout the country including Kalasin where the killing of Mr. Kiattisak was supposed to have taken place. There are also many other similar cases under investigation.

The Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) and the undersigned human rights organizations would like to express our opinions on the case as follows;

1. Efforts by concerned parties including the affected families, eyewitnesses, Department of Special Investigation (DSI), public prosecutors, attorneys of co-plaintiffs, and the judges in the investigation should be commended. The case is an exemplary attempt to bring to justice any officers committing an offence and would help to end impunity among governmental officers. The case also reflects many obstacles to the attempt to bring to justice officers who commit criminal offences owing to the culture of impunity whereby mutual favour is given among officers. In addition, given that the concealing of the cause of death and destruction of evidence in this case was committed by police officers themselves, it was not very easy to prove their guilt. Several witnesses were subjected to intimidation as well. The verdict in this case sets a good example that governmental officers who commit any crime should also be brought to justice, just like other civilians and other officers in higher ranks. It should help to eventually eliminate the culture of impunity among the officers. As state officers who have more power than civilians, they shall exercise their power cautiously, honestly, justly with integrity and respect in rights and freedom and dignity of people who own the country. And to upkeep public order and peace, they shall refrain from abusing their power.

2. The case of Mr. Kiattisak Thitboonkrong also reflects decadence of justice system in Thailand, particularly the misuse of power by the officers and the adoption of cruel and inhumane to penalize the juvenile alleged offenders. The officers were involved with deceiving families of the victim, enforced disappearance of local people, committing cruel treatment, committing murder and concealing the cause of death, all of which are an obvious breach to the rule of law and human rights standards including the 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand has acceded since 27 October 1996.

3. A lack of respect of due process in a criminal justice process against a child under 18 years does exist. And such gross negligence has partly contributed to the death of Mr. Kiattisak Thitboonkrong by the act of officers.

4. Concerned agencies involving many other ongoing investigations on similar cases in Kalasin are urged to expedite their efforts in order to provide for justice of the victims and the innocent persons and to bring light to the truth.

5. The Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) and the undersigned human rights organizations note that death penalty is still permitted under Section 18 of the Penal Code. Capital punishment is an act to destroy the highest value of humanity which is life, and as a result human beings should not kill each other. Such a notion is also reflected in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) which enshrines the right to life and the Second National Human Rights Master Plan (2009-2013) indicates as an indicator of success to include the review of laws which permit capital punishment and to eliminate capital punishment within 2013. That Thailand still applies death penalty is tantamount to a breach of fundamental human rights principle and contradicts to the trend of respecting human rights within international community since more than 141 UN member states have revoked death penalty save for 57 countries including Thailand. In addition, capital punishment is founded on a premise of an eye for an eye and according to studies, it has failed to bring down the prevalence of crime. Punishment against a person should be appropriate to the causes and should engender a learning process to aid the offenders toward repentance.

Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA)

Union for Civil Liberty (UCL)

Campaign Committee for Human Rights (CCHR)

Peace and Human Rights Resource Center (PHRC)

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/forwarded-news/AHRC-FST-041-2012

[otherstuff1957]

^ Nice statement there, but is the author aware of the fact that the condemned have all been released and are unlikely to every be held behind bars ever again?

Edited August 9, 2012 by otherstuff1957

[Buchholz]

^ Nice statement there, but is the author aware of the fact that the condemned have all been released and are unlikely to every be held behind bars ever again?

the follow-up shows they are fully aware:

THAILAND: Urgent need for witness protection following conviction of five police for murder

August 10, 2012

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-027-2012

---------------------------------------------------------------------

THAILAND: Urgent need for witness protection following conviction of five police for murder

ISSUES: Human rights defenders, threats & intimidation, victims' assistance and protection

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On 30 July 2012 a court in Bangkok convicted five police officers of murder for the extrajudicial killing of Kiettisak Thitboonkrong during the "war on drugs" in 2004. The success of the case was due in large part to the determination of the family and willingness of eyewitnesses to testify against the police.

However, the court released all accused on bail pending appeal, despite the severity of the crimes for which they have been convicted.

Now, Kiettisak's family and the witnesses who testified against the police require continued protection, to ensure that the police do not attempt to threaten, harm or kill those persons out of revenge or in order to pervert the course of justice in the appeal process.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

On 30 July 2012, in Black Case No. 3252/2552, 3466/2552, the Criminal Court found five out of the six police officers accused of murdering Kiettisak Thitboonkrong, age 17, in 2004, guilty. This murder was the first to be prosecuted of the murders of 28 individuals by police of the same station during and following the so-called "war on drugs". The AHRC has already issued a statement on this case: AHRC-STM-157-2012.

At this time, all five police officers are out on bail pending appeal. This is despite the fact that three police officers were convicted of premeditated murder and hiding a corpse and were sentenced to death, one police officer was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison, and the fifth police officer was convicted of abusing his authority to aid in protecting his subordinates from criminal prosecution and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.

In large part, the verdict in this case was secured due to the courageous actions of Kiettisak’s relatives and witnesses to the crime. Kiettisak’s aunt, Pikul Phromchan is a human rights defender and one of the leaders of the Kalasin Relatives of Deceased and Disappeared Persons due to the Actions of State Officers in the War on Drugs. She has campaigned nationally and internationally for justice in her nephew’s case as well as in those of others. In September 2011, she made an oral statement at the 18th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council calling for accountability in Kiettisak’s case and those of others in Kalasin province (Pikul’s statement can be read here: ALRC-PRL-003-2011). Sa Thitboonkrong, Kiettisak’s grandmother, and another witness, Aranya (last name withheld) witnessed the actions of the police officers in this case and provided necessary evidence during the trial.

All three witnesses were under witness protection during the seven years of this trial.

However, at the time of the reading of the conviction on 30 July 2012, all three women were informed that as the case had come to a close, their witness protection was being discontinued.

This is despite the facts of both the significance of this case as a challenge to impunity and the gravity of the convictions and sentences handed to the five police officers found guilty. In this case, the conclusion of the trial makes the need for protection of the witnesses involved more, not less, urgent.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The AHRC and partner organisations have for some years highlighted the absence of systematic, effective witness protection in Thailand, including in the current case (AHRC-UAU-029-2011) as well as the case of the disappearance of Somchai Neelaphaijit. The DSI, which is tasked with witness protection, whether due to lack of capacity or lack of will, has been unable to consistently and professionally protect witnesses in cases. Although a law for the protection of witnesses exists, when protection is provided it is very often poorly designed and implemented, ad hoc and piecemeal. Cases of this sort highlight the need for a comprehensive witness protection programme, which Thailand has the means, both in terms of finances and personnel, to implement if the political will exists.

For an earlier report on the lack of effective witness protection in Thailand issued by the AHRC’s sister organization, the Asian Legal Resource Centre, see http://www.article2....file.php/0503/.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the authorities listed below, urging them to provide adequate witness protection to the three persons at risk as a result of the guilty verdicts against the police in this case.

Please be informed that the AHRC is writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, and to the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia concerning the case.

http://www.humanrigh...RC-UAU-027-2012

Edited August 10, 2012 by Buchholz

[TwoDogz]

You can imagine them walking back to jail the day they are called up.

Miracle it is.

[coma]

What are Thai blogs saying about this? Are average Thais aghast, or is it just another helping of mai pen rai with watery starch rice? Has the judge who made the call - been named and shamed?

I bought the subject up with a well to do, educated Thai that I know well and respect. And voiced my amazement at the way these guys were turned loose on bail and her response was..you guest it. jai yen yen.

[Buchholz]

A petition was filed yesterday against the government on behalf of the families of 29 victims in Kalasin during Thaksin's Drug War and seeks remuneration for their relative's deaths.

The petition was submitted by the aunt of the young killed in this thread and was submitted to Deputy Prime Minister Pheu Thai Party MP Police Captain Chalerm.

Details on that issue as well as police removing witness protection status for the witnesses in the policemen murder convictions is in the other paper.

.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Buchholz

[Jessi]

The solution is simple; don`t do drugs, in any shape or form, because the majority point of view is; drugs are not wanted here.

Are you including the most abused and most harmful drug also? Just wondering.

Sex??

err not tonight thanks George, I have a headache.

[Jim walker]

Justice from a third world country let the murdering cops out to walk the streets, then again they might come in handy to do another job or two they are experts with nothing to loose

[timewilltell]

What ever happened about this case? Did the appeal ever get heard? Are these animals still in the police?

[kimamey]

What ever happened about this case? Did the appeal ever get heard? Are these animals still in the police?

I was thinking about this case as well a few weeks ago. Let's hope it hasn't all been forgotten.

[Somtamnication]

As with most Thai related news, once it is off the media radar screen, everyone gets bailed, forgotten and beer flows.