Thread: Thai prime minister accused of war crimes

”Iran, the Philippines and China" You're in great company there, Thailand. And America.

TAN_Network TAN News Network

Red-shirts to submit complaint to Intl Court of Justice on Jan 31 on the crackdown of their gathering in May 2010

Doubt that will go anywhere

http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1039839

Govt Unfazed by Red-shirt Group's International Court Move

UPDATE : 20 January 2011

The deputy prime minister in charge of national security has shrugged off the red-shirt group's plan to file a lawsuit against the government with the international court over the deaths of 91 people during the crackdown on protesters last year.

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban commented on the red-shirt group's plan to file a lawsuit against the Democrat-led government with the International Criminal Court on March 31 for the crackdown on red-shirt protesters that killed 91 people in May 2010.

Suthep said he is not concerned about the matter as the truths and facts about the crackdown were apparent.

He also questioned the red-shirt group's move to bring the case to the international court, doubting whether it has grounds to do so.


Suthep stated that lawsuits which are usually brought to the international court should involve massacres.

The deputy PM stated that the extrajudicial killings of over 2,000 alleged drug suspects during the administration of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra should have been brought to the international court instead.

Asked whether the Department of Special Investigation's inconclusive probe into the deaths of the 91 protesters would shake foreigners' confidence in Thailand and leave questions for Thais, Suthep said the investigation will need more time before a conclusion can be reached.

Further asked about the plan by relatives of the Italian photographer killed during the crackdown on red-shirt protesters to sue the government for compensation, the deputy PM said they have the right to do so as an affected party and the matter will be considered by the Thai court.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011...-30146881.html

ASK THE EDITOR

Plea to ICC : Red shirts face bumpy road ahead

Published on January 21, 2011


Robert Amsterdam's appointment as lead lawyer in the red shirts' attempt to seek "justice" at the International Criminal Court, may have been met with some frowns.

He is on the other hand representing someone associated with controversial Muslim deaths in Thailand's deep South, first of all, not to mention some alleged extra-judicial killings of Thai drug suspects.
Real doubts, though, must be revolving around how far this long-overdue ICC campaign by the red shirts can go, Amsterdam or no Amsterdam.

The ICC has been mentioned since the Thai political conflict caused bloodbaths in April and May last year. Every time the issue came up, however, it faded away in a hurry simply because Thailand is not a member country of the ICC, which was set up to help people fight human rights or war crimes when all else failed.

When new red-shirt leader Thida Tavornseth earlier this week announced a definite plan to sue the Abhisit government in the ICC, nothing has changed when it comes to the court's jurisdiction. The most the red shirts can aim for is for the ICC to "accept" their suit. That could be construed as a political victory, one that, however, may have the least impact on the domestic scene.

The ICC is empowered to summon suspects from member countries, numbering just a little over 100. Non-member governments, however, have been totally uncooperative. Since the court's jurisdiction deals mostly with crimes governments are accused of committing, the court's success rate concerning non-members is virtually flat.

Amsterdam has highlighted "Bangkok Massacre" on his website, referring to the deaths of protesters and alleged militants during last year's political turbulence. The possibility of the "Bangkok Massacre" going to the ICC was mentioned in a recent letter submitted by a US congressional committee asking Thaksin to "brief" the panel on Thai democracy, an invitation that was eventually cancelled.

One potential issue for the ICC to consider is the fact that not only red protesters were victims of violence. Several soldiers died last April, and not from mere bricks or stones either. In 2008, yellow-shirt protesters, rivals of the red movement, were killed in a crackdown ordered by politicians associated with Thaksin.

What preceded the 2008 and 2010 bloodbaths was similar, with anti-government protesters getting belligerent. The yellow shirts had occupied Government House and were marching to Parliament when commandos began a crackdown. The red shirts, acting under the "If they could do it, so can we" pretext, seized key intersections and set up a virtual entrenchment allegedly guarded by armed men.

Before the May 19 crackdown that killed about 20 people, a hospital was invaded, prompting evacuation of patients, and a Skytrain station came under attack, causing casualties. In what could be a glimpse of how allegations and counter-allegations would overwhelm an ICC trial, the Department of Special Investigation claimed yesterday that while many protesters died at the hands of the military last summer, there were cases for which red militants were allegedly responsible.

How Amsterdam will address the non-red deaths or injuries in the lawsuit remains to be seen. It's also interesting how he will portray the arson spree in the afternoon of May 19 when the red shirts were scattered. In defending the Suvarnabhumi Airport seizure in 2008, the yellow shirts claimed they were desperate for justice for fellow protesters who had been killed.

Years of major political conflict mean no hand is clean in Thailand. The red shirts have the right to seek justice but such a campaign can easily be exploited, especially if suspicious characters are let through the door. If a trial could ever take place, it would be at best a contest to see which side is better at telling half-truths. At worst only blatant lies would prevail.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

may have been met with some frowns.

Yes we know that- we know where too.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

an invitation that was eventually cancelled.

No. Postponed.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

how he will portray the arson spree in the afternoon of May 19 when the red shirts were scattered.

Arson spree after the massacre? nothing to do with his case. ICC is to do with crimes committed by governments anyway. I guess the Thai 'government' could just admit it was illegitimate, resign, and have done with it. Probably the best thing really.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Years of major political conflict mean no hand is clean in Thailand.

We know that too. We also know some hands are much dirtier than others. We even know which governments were legally elected as per the Constitution, and which weren't and are hence illegitimate.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Non-member governments, however, have been totally uncooperative.

H'mm, why might that be?
kindly explain this to your trade partners in the West, Thailand.

Whilst he's about it, I think Amsterdam should probably launch an action against the illegal and mutinous coup conspirators too.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Suthep said he is not concerned about the matter as the truths and facts about the crackdown were apparent.

After all, what possible light could the military shed on what happened? So - no problem that they have declined to cooperate with any [cough, cough] "investigation".

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Asked whether the Department of Special Investigation's inconclusive probe into the deaths of the 91 protesters would shake foreigners' confidence in Thailand and leave questions for Thais, Suthep said the investigation will need more time before a conclusion can be reached.

So - conclusively - no contradictions there, then.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/loca...thai-territory

ON the RECORD

ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes on Thai territory

• Published: 21/01/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

A law firm representing the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship plans to file a petition against the government over last year's protest violence in the International Criminal Court. ICC vice-president Hans-Peter Kaul, who is in Bangkok, speaks to ACHARA ASHAYAGACHAT about the petition and the court's jurisdiction with respect to Thailand.


Kaul: ICC would welcome Thailand

The anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship says it will petition the ICC to look into the deaths of the more than 90 people killed during the April-May 2010 crackdowns. Has the ICC received the petition and how will it process it?

As a judge at the ICC, I have no possibility of knowing, at this stage, whether this group has submitted or not such a petition to the Office of the Prosecutor. Article 15 of the statute provides for the possibility of non-governmental organisations or even individuals to send information on crimes which appear to have been committed to the prosecutor. The prosecutor has then to examine whether the information in question concerns crimes within the jurisdiction of the court.

The prosecutor is certainly aware that Thailand is not a state party to the Rome Statute [the treaty that established the ICC and which, among other things, establishes the court's functions, jurisdiction and structure]. Therefore, the ICC cannot have jurisdiction with regard to any crimes allegedly committed on Thai territory as long as Thailand has not ratified the Rome Statute.

Can the ICC put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community?

According to the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction ratione materiae [subject-matter jurisdiction] only over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole - namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes pursuant to Articles 6 to 8 of the Rome Statute.

A high death toll may be a first indication that such crimes might have been committed, but further prerequisites, in particular the legal requirements of the crimes, must be fulfilled.

The Office of the Prosecutor is the first organ of the court to determine whether any crimes are indeed crimes within the jurisdiction of the court or whether they are serious ordinary crimes falling exclusively under the criminal jurisdiction of the state concerned.

In Thailand's case, the UDD argues that it cannot receive justice or truth from the government-appointed fact-finding body. They need a non-partisan or outside party to help.

Let me be clear that the court cannot have jurisdiction over crimes committed on Thai territory even if these crimes would amount, for example, to crimes against humanity pursuant to Article 7 of the statute.

Furthermore, if Thailand were a state party to the ICC, such cases would be admissible only if Thailand itself would be unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out the investigation or prosecution of such crimes.

The Rome Statute gives the primary right to investigate and/or prosecute such serious crimes to states and national criminal systems. It thus acknowledges and respects the primary and sovereign right of states to deal with such crimes.

No Thai security personnel or leaders have ever been tried for the deaths of protesters - for the 1973, 1976 or the 1992 demonstrations. Nor has any official been tried for alleged extrajudicial killings, such as in the case of up to 3,000 deaths under former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's [2003] war on drugs. When security forces were put on trial for the death of 80 Tak Bai protesters [in Narathiwat in 2004], the court absolved them of any responsibility. Do you have any comment on this?

ICC jurisdiction ratione temporis (temporal jurisdiction) is only for crimes committed after the entry into force of the Rome Statute, which occurred on July 1, 2002. The ICC is, therefore, unable to deal with crimes that occurred in 1973, 1976 or 1992, or other mass atrocities committed in the past.

Furthermore, in the case of Thailand, the ICC would have complementary jurisdiction with regard to Thai nationals or any conduct which has taken place on the territory of Thailand only after the entry into force of the Rome Statute for Thailand - that is, two months after the ratification of the Rome Statute by Thailand.

Thailand took part with an able and constructive delegation in the Rome Conference which adopted the Rome Statute on July 17, 1998. There is no doubt in my mind that all of the 114 state parties of the court - among them Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh and Cambodia - would like to see Thailand as a partner in the ICC.

A positive first step could be the elaboration of a proper translation of the Rome Statute into the Thai language. All those interested in Thailand could then see and assess for themselves whether the ICC has the potential to contribute to more justice.

Thailand’s Impunity is Nothing to Celebrate | Robert Amsterdam Thailand

Thailand’s Impunity is Nothing to Celebrate



I thought it would be worthwhile to point toward a recent editorial published in The Nation commenting on our preparations to submit a report before the International Criminal Court (ICC) on behalf of the Red Shirts and other victims of political violence in April and May of 2010. Firstly, it is unfortunate to note that the authors have apparently not bothered to read our Preliminary Report to the ICC, which is available to the public Preliminary Report into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand With Regard to the Commission of Crimes Against Humanity as well as in Thai, and specifically answers many of the questions raised in the article. Secondly, it is disappointing but perhaps not surprising that the authors appear to “celebrate” the state’s ongoing impunity rather than condemn it, while attempting to rationalize the killings with various shades of ambiguity.

The political crisis in Thailand has become so overwhelmingly distorted that observers have lost their sense of what constitutes a crime, and, at the most extreme, the value of a human life. The Nation article doesn’t just attempt to brush off accountability before international law, it also implies that it’s OK for the Thai Royal Army to kill citizens without consequence, just because it has been done before. Take, for example, the state’s treatment of the deaths of journalists who were not affiliated with any political faction. There was Hiro Muramoto, whose death was captured on CCTV that the government refuses to share, or Fabio Polenghi, whose family has been insulted and mocked by the state’s obdurate refusal to provide any facts about the events leading up to his death.

It’s hard to think of any other country in the world today where some 90 citizens can be murdered in cold blood on the streets of its capital, while its government provides not one statement or report to hold even a single individual accountable, and then the media obediently praises their criminal negligence. The closest parable to come to mind are the recent events in Tunisia, where the regime sent the army into the streets to kill some 78 protesters, resulting in a massive public outcry which forced President Ben Ali to resign and flee to hide in Saudi Arabia. The outcome in Thailand has been rather different, with Abhisit and the Democrats preparing to steal another unfree and unfair election.

What separates our claim before the ICC and the laundry list of other instances of violence listed in The Nation article is the careful collection and presentation of evidence, which is historically unprecedented. The events of April and May 2010 bear strong similarities with well-known incidents of violence that have taken place over the past four decades. In none of these previous instances — October 14, 1973, October 6, 1976, and “Black May” 1992 — has anyone responsible for the deaths of dozens of demonstrators faced any form of accountability. None of those involved in the 1973 massacre were ever investigated or prosecuted, while both the 1976 and 1992 incidents were whitewashed by decrees that granted amnesty to everyone involved. Given how these instances were treated, no reasonable person can expect that a fair and complete investigation into the most recent killings would ever be allowed to take place in Thailand. Unfortunately there are people in Thailand who want this entrenched system of impunity to continue, and fail to see the extraordinary damage these kinds of cases inflict upon the country’s legal system and its society. We don’t expect to erase impunity and bring accountability to Thailand overnight, but rather take the initial steps forward in this long process.

The Nation article opens the discussion on whether or not the Red Shirts will achieve “victory” in the ICC. But what they fail to realize is that simply by filing this claim, and finally bringing all the facts and evidence of these murders to light before the public and before the international community for the first time, we have already won. Simply by airing these facts in a comprehensive legal brief and contributing thousands of hours of work to this petition, the Red Shirts have shown themselves more responsible to all Thais than a junta caught in a cover up.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It’s hard to think of any other country in the world today where some 90 citizens can be murdered in cold blood on the streets of its capital, while its government provides not one statement or report to hold even a single individual accountable, and then the media obediently praises their criminal negligence.

The closest parable to come to mind are the recent events in Tunisia, where the regime sent the army into the streets to kill some 78 protesters, resulting in a massive public outcry which forced President Ben Ali to resign and flee to hide in Saudi Arabia. The outcome in Thailand has been rather different, with Abhisit and the Democrats preparing to steal another unfree and unfair election.

Indeed and the world remains silent in the meantime unawares - waiting for Washington's lapdogs - HRW and AI - to bark - but they can only do so upon command. The OHCHR still hand wrings over drug dealer killings ignoring the murder of unarmed protesters in April/May 2010 - as they are told to do, with UNODC backing - but others are stirring - and the nest is awakening.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Suthep said he is not concerned about the matter as the truths and facts about the crackdown were apparent.

So the investigation run by the DSI has revealed the who? what? when? where? and how of the 91 deaths?

It's hard to see past the sea of Red in Thailand at the moment, even though the blood has been mopped up.

Red shirts, and Red faces.

^
The big question is this:

In the next year or so, when yellow-nutcase general launches the authoritarian crack down that puts paid to democracy, will there be enough metrosexuals in Bangkok's lower middle classes to join the reds to fight back?

I doubt it.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The deputy PM stated that the extrajudicial killings of over 2,000 alleged drug suspects during the administration of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra should have been brought to the international court instead.

Excellent idea, send the case to the ICC. Or even better you could try Thaksin for these real crimes in Thai courts. Nail him, nail the police , the army, and the state officials who colluded with him in the war on drugs murders.

Oh I see the problem. Just get him for a signature on a land transfer document. That will have to do.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

One potential issue for the ICC to consider is the fact that not only red protesters were victims of violence. Several soldiers died last April, and not from mere bricks or stones either. In 2008, yellow-shirt protesters, rivals of the red movement, were killed in a crackdown ordered by politicians associated with Thaksin.

Yes, the ICC should consider all these matters. They should also realize that ONE yellow shirt protester was killed by a police fired tear gas canister. The other death was of a yellow shirt who was carrying explosives to the protest and accidentally blew himself up. Mr Abhisit, the opposition leader at the time attended his funeral.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

If a trial could ever take place, it would be at best a contest to see which side is better at telling half-truths. At worst only blatant lies would prevail.

And exactly why would this be the case? At best, more of the truth would be revealed.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Therefore, the ICC cannot have jurisdiction with regard to any crimes allegedly committed on Thai territory as long as Thailand has not ratified the Rome Statute.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Let me be clear that the court cannot have jurisdiction over crimes committed on Thai territory even if these crimes would amount, for example, to crimes against humanity pursuant to Article 7 of the statute.

There you go then.

You'd think Amsterdam would save his fee payer some money and tell him/her/them that.......

Originally Posted by Bobcock

You'd think Amsterdam would save his fee payer some money and tell him/her/them that.......

Thaksin is too dumb and too ferocious to understand that laws outside Thailand are to be followed, the lawyer probably told him already but the dumb fuck probably think a miracle will happen if he keeps praying to the right amulet

Time for Thailand to join the international criminal court
Sat, Jan 22, 2011

Dr Jur. H. C. Hans-Peter Kaul

On behalf of the presidency and all 18 judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), I would like to convey good wishes to the people of Thailand.

This week I have the pleasure of visiting this beautiful country as a participant in an international conference about the ICC.

The ICC is an independent, permanent court that was set up to end impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

The ICC is the result of long-lasting efforts by the international community to put an end to the kind of unimaginable atrocities that have plagued humankind for far too long.

The ICC is based on a treaty, the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998 and is now joined by the majority of the independent states of the world.

The ICC is not a substitute for national justice systems. Under the Rome Statute, even when a state joins the ICC, it remains the primary responsibility of that country's own justice system to exercise criminal jurisdiction over international crimes.

The ICC is a court of last resort, which can try individuals suspected of being responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes only when a country's national justice system is unable or unwilling to do so.

Therefore the ICC is a kind of safety net that provides additional assurances of accountability for the gravest crimes of concern to humanity, thereby also contributing to the prevention of future atrocities.

The ICC is a neutral, judicial and non-political body that observes the highest standards of fairness and due process in all of its activities. It is not part of the United Nations system but the two organisations cooperate on many issues.

The ICC is based on the principle of full respect for the sovereignty of states and it is solely the decision of each nation whether to join the ICC or not. The court's membership is constantly growing and currently numbers 114 states parties from the five regions of the world.

The states parties represent diverse legal and religious traditions as well as many different constitutional systems such as republics, federations and monarchies. This geographic, cultural and political diversity demonstrates the truly international nature of the ICC.

Thailand has a progressive record of joining international legal treaties, including 9 out of the 11 core international human rights treaties.

Thailand is also a strong supporter of the UN by contributing to UN peacekeeping operations and hosting the offices of over 25 UN agencies in Bangkok.

Thailand's commitment to human rights and peaceful relations with other countries would no doubt be bolstered by joining the ICC.

Thailand has a long history of participation in the ICC process.

A senior government delegation from Thailand participated in the Rome Conference in 1998 where the ICC Statute was adopted.

On October 2, 2000, Thailand took a very important first step toward the ICC by signing the Rome Statute.

Last month I was delighted to notice that a high-level delegation represented Thailand at the 9th session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute held at the UN headquarters in New York.

By taking the next step of ratifying the Statute, Thailand would send out a clear signal of commitment to the rule of law, peace and the struggle against impunity, not only at home, but around the world.

Ratification also gives a state the equal right to nominate candidates and to vote in the election of the highest officials to the ICC.

The next elections for the prosecutor and six posts of judges will take place in 2012, so now would be an excellent time to join the ICC to shape its future development and make it even more global than it is now.

In the meantime, the time is ripe for the Rome Statute to be translated into the Thai language.

Following the good example of many Asian nations where the Rome Statute has been translated into a country's official language, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, an accurate Thai translation would bring about an improved understanding of the ICC and its mandate.

This would be an important measure for Thailand in support of assessing the historic treaty, and deciding whether to ratify or not.

Several Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea, have already ratified the Rome Statute and many more are considering joining the ICC family. Cambodia and Timor-Leste joined in 2002 as the only two Southeast Asian states parties so far.

I am certain that not only the 114 states parties, but also the court itself, would be delighted to welcome Thailand as a new state party.

Dr Jur. H. C. Hans-Peter Kaul is vice-president of the International Court of Justice.

He is in Bangkok to speak at a seminar co-organised by Thammasat University and the German Embassy on "Human Rights and the ICC", and on Monday 24 will meet Ambassador of the EU, Mr David Lipman, and actual representative of the EU presidency, Hungarian Ambassador, Mr Tomjai Denes, to discuss the present state of affairs of the ratification process of the ICC Statute in Thailand.

news.asiaone.com

^
Time for the ICC to to start going after right-wing regimes too..

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/poli...-it-can-t-help

Reds unfazed after ICC says it can't help

UDD examines other avenues to sue Abhisit

• Published: 24/01/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

The red shirt movement is vowing to continue its fight against the government despite being told by the International Criminal Court that it could not help the group in an action to sue the Abhisit administration over alleged violence against its critics.

Red shirt supporters raise their hand and feet clappers during a gathering at the Democracy Monument last night. The anti-government red shirts made their way from the Ratchaprasong intersection to the monument in the afternoon and were expected to disperse before midnight last night. THITI WANNAMONTHA

United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship chair Thida Thavornset said yesterday the movement could pursue other international avenues after representatives of the ICC indicated the court had no jurisdiction to decide on "political crimes" in Thailand.

Ms Thida and Jatuporn Prompan, a Puea Thai Party MP and leading member of the UDD, met the ICC's second vice-president, Hans-Peter Kaul, yesterday to discuss the scope of the court's authority in relation to the political situation in Thailand.

The meeting took place against the backdrop of a major rally by the red shirts in which tens of thousands gathered at Ratchaprasong intersection in the early afternoon before moving to the Democracy Monument on Ratchadamnoen Avenue. Traffic was paralysed on Petchaburi Road and in nearby areas.

The red shirt leaders announced they had agreed to hold rallies just once a month, instead of the two they have been staging.

Mr Kaul told Ms Thida and Mr Jatuporn that Thailand did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Netherlands-based court as Bangkok had yet to ratify the treaty it signed in 2000.

He also explained how the ICC worked and showed the UDD leaders a book of guidelines. He refused to discuss Thai political issues.

Ms Thida and Mr Jatuporn tried to explain the underlying problems that led to the violence that claimed 93 lives in April and May last year as red shirt protesters sought to overthrow the government. German ambassador Hanns Heinrich Schumacher also attended the meeting, which was held on the sidelines of an ICC conference on the protection of human rights in Bangkok.

"We were told it was unlikely the ICC would be the relevant adjudicator for the case of the crackdown against the red shirt protesters," Ms Thida said.

"But we are not discouraged by the technical limitations. We can pursue other international avenues for bringing the government to justice."

Red shirt sympathisers had hoped the ICC would accept a case against the government.

Shopping malls around the Ratchaprasong intersection were open as usual during yesterday's red shirt rally, police said. Mr Jatuporn said the red shirt leaders planned to address the demonstrators at Ratchadamnoen Avenue until midnight before dispersing.

National police chief Wichean Potephosree has spoken to senior police via video-conference on ways to prevent potential bloodshed between the UDD and the rival People's Alliance for Democracy.

The PAD will hold a demonstration tomorrow at Makkhawan Bridge near Government House and some police fear red shirts could turn out to confront them. Senior police have been ordered to keep demonstrators from the two camps away from key government offices and parliament.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"But we are not discouraged by the technical limitations. We can pursue other international avenues for bringing the government to justice."

oh yeah how ? UN Security Council maybe ?

^ It's the embarassment value BF, you know that.

Originally Posted by Mid

Dr Jur. H. C. Hans-Peter Kaul

Whilst the good doc is right, fat chance of that happening right now.
Even takkie would likely oppose it- because they'd be after him for the southern insurgency stuff, and the drug dealer shooting spree.