The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

DrB0b

[AHRC Open Letter] THAILAND: Case of Darunee Chanchoengsilapakul, denied freedom of expression & politicization of the judiciary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 4, 2009
AHRC-OLT-022-2009

An Open Letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression and Independence of Judges and Lawyers by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Frank La Rue
Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND

Gabriela Carina Knaul de Albuquerque e Silva
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND

Fax: +41 22 917 9006
Email: freedex[at]ohchr.org; SRindependenceJL[at]ohchr.org


Dear Special Rapporteurs

THAILAND: Case of Darunee Chanchoengsilapakul, denied freedom of expression & politicization of the judiciary

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you to request urgent intervention in accordance with your respective mandates in response to the case of Darunee Chanchoengsilapakul, and also with a view to wider concerns about steadily declining freedom of expression and increasing politicization of the judiciary in Thailand.

Darunee, as you may already be aware, was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison on 28 August 2009 on three counts of lese majesty. The charges arose from one of many speeches that she made after the 2006 coup, in which she alluded to the links between the monarchy and the coup-makers, among other things. Darunee attempted three times to obtain bail but it was denied, although the court had no specific grounds upon which to refuse it under section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, she was tried in a closed court under section 117 of the code, which stipulates grounds for a closed trial as interests of public order or national security. Her lawyer submitted an application to the Constitution Court for the trial to be invalidated on the basis that it was in violation of her constitutional rights to try her in this manner, but it was refused.

The AHRC is not aware of another case in recent times in which a defendant has been treated as such an extraordinary threat over a question of free expression. We believe that she was treated in this manner because she chose to fight the charges, rather than plead guilty and seek a royal pardon. Accordingly, we shall be making a submission to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that the imprisonment of the defendant violates international law by virtue of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that, “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

The trial and conviction of Darunee brings together two key concerns of the AHRC regarding the human rights situation in Thailand in the last few years: the decline in freedom of expression and the rise in use of the courts for blatant political purposes.

With regards to the first, the situation in Thailand is complicated by the proliferation of many types of media, which give the false impression that there is a relatively high level of free expression in the country. In fact, most of the broadcast media are tightly controlled and much of them are in the hands of government agencies and the armed forces. The newspapers and other print periodicals, which in the 1990s had a good reputation, have for the most part in recent years practiced heavy self-censorship or have become openly partisan since the removal from power of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The Internet and streets remain spaces for communication, which is why the authorities have tried to patrol both vigorously and make examples out of their targets. Prior to Darunee’s case, a man was sentenced to 10 years in jail for posting offensive images of the king online, and there are a number of other cases pending for alleged Internet offences, including under the highly ambiguous provisions of the Computer Crime Act BE 2550 (2007). Government agencies have also reportedly blocked thousands of web pages with little or no oversight, the majority of them of political nature.

With regards to the second concern, the AHRC has watched with alarm as the superior judiciary was in 2006 reconstituted along lines set by the military regime that took power that September, and has since been used for explicitly political purposes. In 2008 the senior courts twice removed elected governments consisting of Thaksin sympathizers under bizarre provisions of the anti-democratic 2007 Constitution that were inserted for the express purpose of emasculating parliamentary democracy. On the other hand, there is yet to be any satisfactory legal action taken against the organizers of the protests that occupied Government House and the international airport last year. The effect of these and other cases, including that heard against Darunee, has been to diminish greatly the standing of the courts in Thailand, at cost to themselves and society as a whole. Whereas in the past it was uncommon to hear people talking of the judiciary as politicized, now the expression “double standards” has become common parlance when talking about the law and its application.

The current government of Thailand has, despite the fact that it came to power through a backdoor, tried to insist that it is concerned for the situation of human rights in the country and is keen to cooperate with international monitors, including through the inviting of Special Rapporteurs. Accordingly, in addition to our request that you submit a joint urgent intervention to the government of Thailand on the case of Darunee Chanchoengsilapakul, we ask that you also consider submitting requests for invitations to visit the country formally and study recent events for yourselves. The situation in Thailand is of sufficient importance not only because it has worsened considerably in recent years but also because the country has a strong influence on developments in the wider Southeast Asian region, being among the larger and more developed of its peers and a key member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. If nothing is done to arrest its continued decline on a range of human rights indicators then the effects will be damaging not only for Thailand but for the region as a whole.

Yours sincerely

Basil Fernando
Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Cc: Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok, Thailand
[AHRC Open Letter] THAILAND: Case of Darunee Chanchoengsilapakul, denied freedom of expression & politicization of the judiciary

__________________

Rural Surin

Wasn't aware that the U.N. {or their cousin associations} had the ability to intervene or overturn such 'individual' cases. Will be interesting to follow the developments. Good luck to Khun Chanchoengsilapakul. Thanks, Bob.

bretby

My understanding is that the UN Special Rapporteurs are able to investigate and report back to the UN with their recommendations. It is then up to the UN to decide what if any action will be taken and whether to communicate on the issues with the relevant Government concerned.

What is interesting about this open communication is the timing of it just as the political tensions in Thailand are heightening and heading to a massive clash on the 19th Sept. Also the fact that the underlying element in it seems to be pro UDD.

DrB0b

Really? I think the underlying element is pro human-rights and pro straight talking. How do you work out that it's pro UDD? The timing is hardly peculiar, it comes shortly after the sentencing of Darunee so releasing it now makes perfect sense. Are you familiar with the long-term work of the AHRC, they've never shown any particular favour to one side or the other in Thailand, they stick to the terms of their mandate - which is standing up for Human Rights throughout Asia.

Rural Surin

I believe we could be treading on shakey ground when it's expected that a formidable Int'l governing body {U.N.} can have a say so towards sovereign domestic laws and mandates. Every country might have it's share of unworthy and seemigly inane laws, but as sovereignty dictacts, it's up to the respected populations to change in one form or another. All that being said, I tend to be quite suspiscious towards independent human rights associations, as they pick and choose issues and causes which are politically subjective and manipulated - nothing truely fair across the board. Rather conflicted and contradictory, as I would be in Da Torpedo's corner.

__________________
WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Rural Surin

Agreed Bob. The timing might be happenstance. This particular case should have no real bearing nor relation to Thai domestic political affliations, but instead an issue of said 'misjustice' - in the human rights arenas.

bretby

Maybe if you read the letter again it may alter your blinkered approach.
It is not just about Darunee but about events which have occurred since the coup and since Thaksin was removed from power and the underlying theme concerns the power and the slanted way that the judiciary behaves as well at the Military involvement, the control of the media and the deterioration of human rights in the country etc. In other words the whole way in which the country is run at present.

I am sure that the Asian Human Rights Commission do a great job.

I am also sure that the UN Special Rapporteurs are fully aware of the situation in Thailand and the circumstances surrounding Darunee without having to be informed by this open letter. So yes the timing and publishing and the reasoning behind this method of communication is very interesting.

DrB0b

I think it's more the case that a declaration from the UN Human Rights Commission would carry some moral weight internationally. It would also help publicise internationally the ongoing abuses of the LM law in Thailand. The UN as far as I know, has no legal power in this matter. This really should have been done by Thailand's domestic Human Rights organisations but unfortunately they're either preoccupied with the extremely large number of other, very serious, human rights violations in Thailand or, like the Thai National Human Rights Commission, actually complicit in covering up abuses or, like Amnesty Thailand, too lazy, too disinterested, or too cowardly to take a stand on LM issues.

DrB0b

Yes, I'm aware of that. I still don't see why you should say the letter is pro-UDD. It sticks to the facts. It presents the case and the background to the case and shows that this case is part of an ongoing deterioration of the justice and human rights situation in Thailand.

bretby

Yes, I`ve already said most of that, but do try to read between the lines and you may get a fuller picture of the overall theme of this letter.

DrB0b

If it sticks to the facts then it sticks to the facts, doesn't it? If, as you've agreed already, the letter is factual and if, as you've implied, those facts reflect the UDD version of the current state of Thai society then it necessarily follows that the UDD are telling the truth, basic logic. What does not necessarily follow is that the AHCR is displaying any particular bias towards that group.

DrB0b

Some interesting stuff about Amnesty Thailand from PPT. Unfortunately, because of TD policies, I've had to censor some of it - marked by asterisks. Unredacted version at New: Amnesty International is confused about human rights in Thailand « Political Prisoners in Thailand


New: Amnesty International is confused about human rights in Thailand
by thaipoliticalprisoners

Thanks to a reader for pointing out a very important story PPT missed. It is Marwaan Macan-Markar and from 31 August 2009 (“Lese Majeste Law Tests Mettle of Human Rights Groups”). Marwaan makes a point PPT has been posting about as well: “Thailand’s draconian lese majeste law is steadily emerging as a testing ground for the principles that renowned international human rights lobbies stand for.”

“Amnesty International (AI) in London and the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) have pursued recently are similar. They have opted to remain silent – in public, at least – or offer tepid responses when the 100-year-old law is enforced. Yet how long these twin leaders of the global human rights movement can get away with such silence has been brought into relief by a verdict delivered in a Thai court on Aug. 28.”

PPT would argue that HRW has been a little better than AI, who have been, frankly, hopeless. There is no other word that can sum up their silence. Are they a serious human rights group in Thailand?

Apparently not. Marwaan has this from Benjamin Zawacki, a South-east Asia researcher for AI: “We have felt that working in a more private capacity than in a public way is the most appropriate and the most effective response on the lese majeste issue to date…. There is an implicit knowledge of the sensitivity of this law.” AI have been saying this since at least January (when PPT was established) and there is no evidence of any success from an AI that prefers to deal with the elite. And, the very elite that protects itself with this law. In fact, the cases continue (all of them) and the setences are getting stiffer.

And it gets worse: Zawacki explained to Marwaan that for AI, there are ”competing interests at stake; one is the right to freedom of expression. But you have an institution here that has played an important role in the protection of human rights in Thailand…”. He adds: “We can see why the monarchy needs to be protected.”

************************************************** ***********
************************************************** ***********
************************************************** ***********
************************************************** ***********
************************************************** ***********
************************************************** ***********

Thongchai Winichakul, professor of South-east Asian studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison says: “The international human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have done something that, in my opinion, were very small, light, mild, ineffective and careless…”.

Thongchai is too light and mild. AI should be ashamed of its position in Thailand on this issue. Amnesty International is hindering human rights, not helping them.

Mid

New: Darunee’s cause goes international
September 25, 2009

“Free Da! For human rights. No 1-1-2″ So said the group of protesters who rallied in front of the U.S., Australian, U.N. and E.U. missions in Bangkok for Darunee Charnchoensilpakul and against Article 112 of the criminal code that enforces lese majeste.

Prachatai (25 September 2009: “USA, Australia, EU and UN asked to intervene in Thailand’s jailing of political prisoners”) has a set of photos and some video of the gatherings where Prawase Praphanukul, Darunee’s lawyer, submitted letters to the embassies and missions in Bangkok, “asking those countries and organizations to call on Thailand to stop the imprisonment of political prisoners.”

The report is also available at Prachatai (24 September 2009: ทนาย ‘ดา ตอร์ปิโด’ ยื่นหนังสือสถานทูตอเมริกา-ออสเตรเลีย-อียู-ยูเอ็น เรียกร้องให้ยุติการกักขังนักโทษการเมือง), with more photos and a copy of the letter in Thai.

In the letter, Darunee complains that she was arrested for political crimes, was repeatedly refused bail and was tried in a closed court. She also explains that she is subject to harassment and unusual treatment in prison. “She believes that other democratic countries which respect rights and freedoms and human dignity will agree that this is a crime which the Thai government is committing against its people.”

And, she calls on these countries and organizations to “convince the Thai government to stop persecuting her and other political prisoners and set them free.”

PPT urges readers outside Thailand to raise Darunee’s case and the use of lese majeste in Thailand with their governments. Do this by contacting local members of parliament and by writing to foreign ministers. Also bring these matters to the attention of others by blogging and letter writing to newspapers.

thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com

__________________
"Keeping quiet while monks and other peaceful protesters are murdered and jailed is not evidence of constructive engagement." - Arvind Ganesan, Human Rights Watch.

"I think...I think it's in my basement. Let me go upstairs and check" - M.C. Escher

robuzo

Maybe this will encourage players like Amnesty to grow a pair.

Scratch that- a statement like this suggests they do have gall, if nothing else: "And it gets worse: Zawacki explained to Marwaan that for AI, there are ”competing interests at stake; one is the right to freedom of expression. But you have an institution here that has played an important role in the protection of human rights in Thailand…”. He adds: “We can see why the monarchy needs to be protected.”"

Makes me ashamed of AI.

__________________
露武蔵