No Thai amnesty for human rights abusers: HRW

[webfact]

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
No amnesty for rights abusers: HRW
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A proposed amnesty law should not include people who ordered or carried out human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said today.

"The Thai government should affirm that prosecuting those responsible for rights abuses, regardless of rank or affiliation, is critical to promoting human rights, the rule of law, and lasting reconciliation in Thailand," the New York-based agency said in its statement issued today.

"The ruling party's amnesty bill lets both soldiers and militants responsible for deaths during the 2010 upheaval off the hook," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

"To ensure justice for the victims of violence and to end Thailand's longstanding culture of impunity, the amnesty bill should exclude perpetrators of abuses and instead make them accountable for their crimes."

The parliament will begin the first reading of an amnesty bill proposed by Worachai Hema, a member of parliament from the ruling Pheu Thai party of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on August 7.

The bill broadly promises a full amnesty for all protesters who have been charged, prosecuted, and convicted for their actions against the state from the period since the coup that ousted Yingluck's brother, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, on September 19, 2006, to May 10, 2011.

The amnesty would include people whose actions may have affected the lives and property of others but does not include protest leaders.

Worachai told Human Rights Watch on August 2, 2013, that his bill does not mention an amnesty for members of the military because not one soldier has been charged or prosecuted for the political violence from 2006 to 2011.

Worachai's proposal fails to address the need to hold both military personnel and elements of the UDD, particularly armed "Black Shirt" militants, accountable for violence and serious abuses in 2010.

"Worachai's amnesty bill is an insult to the victims and families of the 2010 violence," Adams said. "It is totally unacceptable that those who committed serious abuses, including soldiers who pulled the triggers and commanders who gave the orders, would remain untouchable through an amnesty."


-- The Nation 2013-08-05

[Roadman]

Stick that where the sun does not shine Worachai, UDD and Pheu Thai. Only as usual 'thainess' trumps world opinion.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Roadman

[mrtoad]

And that should include the DL's part in human rights abuses, that seem to often get forgotten.

[chainarong]

One can only wounder where the PTP will exactly schedule this request on it's rather busy agenda,, keeping in mind that a former Prime minister ,was under investigation for rights abuse on he's watch by the U.N. and now resides in Dubai, little if anything will become of this request from HRW , as we all know , they do what they like , when they like, so up U jack, that's Thai Democracy at it's greatest.

[Neilly]

BANGKOK: -- A proposed amnesty law should not include people who ordered or carried out human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said today.

Now that is a fair comment

...which will no doubt will be completely ignored because it doesn't suit their needs

[jcb2001]

One can only wounder where the PTP will exactly schedule this request on it's rather busy agenda,, keeping in mind that a former Prime minister ,was under investigation for rights abuse on he's watch by the U.N. and now resides in Dubai, little if anything will become of this request from HRW , as we all know , they do what they like , when they like, so up U jack, that's Thai Democracy at it's greatest.

More problems for Pheu Thai.. Now, the International Human Rights Commission along with numerous other UN agencies are bringing this to the world's attention. Pheu Thai definitely wants this out of the international spotlight. I can't think of a better way for Pheu Thai to drop this amnesty bill like a hot potato.

[MaiChai]

I can't see how a criminal act can be dismissed via an amnesty. For example, killing someone, damage to property, etc. If I was a victim of such a crime I would not be happy the perpetrator had got away with it. The only way to properly deal with these crimes is for a court to decide. If there is insufficient evidence then the accused should be released.

Edited August 5, 2013 by MaiChai

[tonneke breda]

Living in a LALALAND

[WitawatWatawit]

Thank you HRW. We all know you are going to be ignored, but at least you've put the issue on the international table - also don't expect the army to man up over Krue Se or Tak Bai, or Thaksin and the police over the drugs killings.

[surangw]

I wonder if what some monks were up to as abuse of human rights ?

[anon2]

Ok, That will meen no amnesty for thaksin!!! ;-)

[Phatcharanan]

Living in a LALALAND

You'll be packing your bags then right?

[noitom]

But no Mr. Thai Bigs human rights traffickers ever get busted and convicted. Thailand police only announce and pose with small time operators fronting for Thai Mr. Bigs. So these Thai Mr. Bigs need not be concerned and carry on business as usual with regular payoffs and skim as a line item on their P and L.

[arthurboy]

'The Thai government should affirm that prosecuting those responsible for rights abuses, regardless of rank or affiliation, is critical to promoting human rights, the rule of law, and lasting reconciliation in Thailand," the New York-based agency said in its statement issued today.

If Thailand actually did prosecute and punish those responsible for rights abuses, it would also have to include those behind human trafficking - in all its forms.

If that ever happened - and I doubt very much that it ever will - then there would be a lot of currently influential and powerful police, military and government officials going to prison for a very long time.

But, well done HRW for getting this out there.

[ThePinkPanther]

Is there a proper definition for the term 'human rights'? I ask because this is a very vague subject. (In my mind I perceive 'human rights' to be a political toy to protect untoward behaving individuals).

[ThePinkPanther]

Whaaahahaha. Straight.

Stick that where the sun does not shine Worachai, UDD and Pheu Thai. Only as usual 'thainess' trumps world opinion.

[simple1]

Is there a proper definition for the term 'human rights'? I ask because this is a very vague subject. (In my mind I perceive 'human rights' to be a political toy to protect untoward behaving individuals).

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[tomross46]

What was determined by this investigation and what was dome?

THAILAND: So where are Thailand's judicial bodies?

April 11, 2005

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 11, 2005
AS-39-2005

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

So where are Thailand's judicial bodies?

Speaking last Friday, April 8, the head of Thailand's newly-formed National Reconciliation Commission Anand Panyarachun said that the commission would not be acting to investigate the mass killings in the south of the country during the last year. "We are not a judicial body," he is reported to have said.

Quite rightly, the commission is not a judicial body, and it should not be called upon to act like one. Reconciliation is a valuable and necessary goal, but an altogether different goal from prosecution. Neither can take the place of the other; nor are the two mutually exclusive. In fact, reconciliation rests upon a willingness to prosecute where necessary.

And so the question that persists is where are Thailand's judicial bodies? Why haven't they taken a role in addressing the mass killings of last year in order that the alleged perpetrators, not least of all the three army generals identified as primarily responsible for the 78 deaths in Narathiwat, be held criminally responsible for their actions?

This is a question that has been raised in one form or another by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) since the aftermath of the April killings, and again after October. It is a question that deserves repeating, as it is a vital one for which an answer still goes begging.

Certainly no answer to it is to be found in the 21 March 2005 note by the government of Thailand to the United Nations Office in Geneva, 'Situation and incidents in Southern Thailand'. That document stresses that the government is concerned to uphold human rights and achieve reconciliation in the south, while neatly sidestepping all of its obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates a role for judicial bodies. When states become parties to the Covenant, they undertake to provide legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures that will protect the rights it guarantees. If these measures are not undertaken, then joining the Covenant is meaningless. At home and abroad although the government publicly declares its commitment to human rights, without a role for judicial bodies, these are mere words which amount to nothing.

In his annual report, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Philip Alston quotes a letter from the government of Thailand on the mass killing in Narathiwat to the effect that "where wrongdoing is found, those responsible would be held to account by due process of law". So why does due process remain elusive? As if to underscore his concern, the Special Rapporteur goes on to remind us that, "The essential thrust of international human rights law is to establish and uphold the principle of accountability for measures both to protect human rights and to respond fully and appropriately to violations of those rights. If measures are not in place to prevent and to respond to extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions, they are unlikely to be effective in responding to other human rights violations either." He continues

"Governments which are criticized for violating the right to life under human rights law or for failing to respect humanitarian law by killing civilians who are not directly taking part in hostilities sometimes announce that they have initiated an investigation into the relevant incidents. In such cases it is essential that the results of the investigation be published, including details of how and by whom it was carried out, the findings, and any prosecutions subsequently undertaken. Broad, general statements of findings, or non-disaggregated information as to the number of investigations and prosecutions, are inadequate to satisfy the requirements of accountability in such contexts. Formalistic investigations are almost always the precursors of a degree of impunity."

A more accurate summary of what has gone wrong in Thailand since the mass killings in the south of 2004 would be difficult to find. Government-appointed panels have in each instance been quickly deployed to offset the role of judicial agencies. Findings have not been made public. Paltry compensation is being used as a device to mollify victims and their families. None of this protects human rights.

The 1997 Constitution of Thailand has been called progressive. However, the making of a constitution is only a preliminary exercise. Its test lies not in its contents but in what is done to assert the rights it proclaims. Where laws and agencies do not accompany these, a constitution is insignificant. While even in several other Asian countries there are some means by which people who suffer human rights abuses can seek redress by directly appealing to higher courts on constitutional grounds, no such avenue exists for citizens of Thailand. They are all too easily denied the right of redress that their government has guaranteed to provide under the ICCPR.

Only the judiciary can legitimately investigate the mass killings in the south of Thailand, and for that matter, the other numerous extrajudicial killings that have occurred in the country during recent years. This is properly its role and its role alone. It is under the umbrella of the judiciary that human rights can develop to their fullness without executive interference. Let the National Reconciliation Commission rightfully continue its work, but let it also be understood that no number of government-appointed commissions can preclude or replace the role of the judiciary. So again let it be asked, where are Thailand's judicial bodies?

Document Type :

Statement

Document ID :

AS-39-2005

Countries :

Thailand

Issues :

Judicial system

Edited August 7, 2013 by tomross46

[Roadman]

What was determined by this investigation and what was dome?

THAILAND: So where are Thailand's judicial bodies?

April 11, 2005

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 11, 2005

AS-39-2005

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

So where are Thailand's judicial bodies?

Speaking last Friday, April 8, the head of Thailand's newly-formed National Reconciliation Commission Anand Panyarachun said that the commission would not be acting to investigate the mass killings in the south of the country during the last year. "We are not a judicial body," he is reported to have said.

Quite rightly, the commission is not a judicial body, and it should not be called upon to act like one. Reconciliation is a valuable and necessary goal, but an altogether different goal from prosecution. Neither can take the place of the other; nor are the two mutually exclusive. In fact, reconciliation rests upon a willingness to prosecute where necessary.

And so the question that persists is where are Thailand's judicial bodies? Why haven't they taken a role in addressing the mass killings of last year in order that the alleged perpetrators, not least of all the three army generals identified as primarily responsible for the 78 deaths in Narathiwat, be held criminally responsible for their actions?

This is a question that has been raised in one form or another by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) since the aftermath of the April killings, and again after October. It is a question that deserves repeating, as it is a vital one for which an answer still goes begging.

Certainly no answer to it is to be found in the 21 March 2005 note by the government of Thailand to the United Nations Office in Geneva, 'Situation and incidents in Southern Thailand'. That document stresses that the government is concerned to uphold human rights and achieve reconciliation in the south, while neatly sidestepping all of its obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates a role for judicial bodies. When states become parties to the Covenant, they undertake to provide legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures that will protect the rights it guarantees. If these measures are not undertaken, then joining the Covenant is meaningless. At home and abroad although the government publicly declares its commitment to human rights, without a role for judicial bodies, these are mere words which amount to nothing.

In his annual report, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Philip Alston quotes a letter from the government of Thailand on the mass killing in Narathiwat to the effect that "where wrongdoing is found, those responsible would be held to account by due process of law". So why does due process remain elusive? As if to underscore his concern, the Special Rapporteur goes on to remind us that, "The essential thrust of international human rights law is to establish and uphold the principle of accountability for measures both to protect human rights and to respond fully and appropriately to violations of those rights. If measures are not in place to prevent and to respond to extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions, they are unlikely to be effective in responding to other human rights violations either." He continues

"Governments which are criticized for violating the right to life under human rights law or for failing to respect humanitarian law by killing civilians who are not directly taking part in hostilities sometimes announce that they have initiated an investigation into the relevant incidents. In such cases it is essential that the results of the investigation be published, including details of how and by whom it was carried out, the findings, and any prosecutions subsequently undertaken. Broad, general statements of findings, or non-disaggregated information as to the number of investigations and prosecutions, are inadequate to satisfy the requirements of accountability in such contexts. Formalistic investigations are almost always the precursors of a degree of impunity."

A more accurate summary of what has gone wrong in Thailand since the mass killings in the south of 2004 would be difficult to find. Government-appointed panels have in each instance been quickly deployed to offset the role of judicial agencies. Findings have not been made public. Paltry compensation is being used as a device to mollify victims and their families. None of this protects human rights.

The 1997 Constitution of Thailand has been called progressive. However, the making of a constitution is only a preliminary exercise. Its test lies not in its contents but in what is done to assert the rights it proclaims. Where laws and agencies do not accompany these, a constitution is insignificant. While even in several other Asian countries there are some means by which people who suffer human rights abuses can seek redress by directly appealing to higher courts on constitutional grounds, no such avenue exists for citizens of Thailand. They are all too easily denied the right of redress that their government has guaranteed to provide under the ICCPR.

Only the judiciary can legitimately investigate the mass killings in the south of Thailand, and for that matter, the other numerous extrajudicial killings that have occurred in the country during recent years. This is properly its role and its role alone. It is under the umbrella of the judiciary that human rights can develop to their fullness without executive interference. Let the National Reconciliation Commission rightfully continue its work, but let it also be understood that no number of government-appointed commissions can preclude or replace the role of the judiciary. So again let it be asked, where are Thailand's judicial bodies?

Document Type :

Statement

Document ID :

AS-39-2005

Countries :

Thailand

Issues :

Judicial system

At that time under the threat of Thaksins thugs and henchmen as was seen at the start of this mess where judges were harassed to rule in favor of Thaksin in "Madam only wanted to borrow our names" so that billions of illegal gains were hidden in the names of the maid and butler.

Eight years on and nothing has changed. The same thugs are in control and as can be seen by the constant piled charges against Abhisit and Suthep, yet not one against the other party involved ... the criminal paymaster in Dubai. One of the corner stone principles of democracy the upholding of the law is being trampled over by this lot of Pheu Thai criminals who have many on record of stating that as they are the elected governance of Thailand they are above the law. These UDD and Pheu Thai pimps would not know what democaracy was if it bit them in the ass.