EXTRADITION: THAILAND: SUWIT A.K.A. CHENG PRASOPRAT

UNCLAS BANGKOK 001757

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PGOV CJAN KCRM KJUS TH
SUBJECT: EXTRADITION: THAILAND: SUWIT A.K.A. CHENG PRASOPRAT

REF: SECSTATE 43624


1. (U) This cable is intended to address the questions posed
to Post in Reftel regarding the proposed extradition of Suwit
a.k.a Cheng Prasoprat from the US to Thailand.


2. (U) The Embassy believes that there is no merit to Mr.
Suwit's assertion in his submission to the Department that he
would be tortured if extradited to Thailand. While some NGOs
and legal organizations report that some members of the
police occasionally torture suspects to obtain confessions,
we have no reason to believe that Suwit would be subjected to
torture. As an American citizen, Post's American Citizens
Services section would closely monitor Suwit's well-being
through regular prison visits. Those visits, combined with
the relative high-profile nature of this extradition case,
lead Post to conclude that Suwit would not be mistreated
during his incarceration in Thailand. As such, and in
accordance with standard procedures in extradition cases in
which Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims are made,
Ambassador Boyce certifies that it is NOT "more likely than
not" that Prasoprat would be tortured if extradited from the
US to Thailand.


3. (SBU) Below are answers to questions posed in Reftel,
paragraph 6.

Q: Is the death penalty routinely imposed in Thailand for
non-violent drug offenses? Please include statistics on: (1)
the number of narcotics offenses charged per year; (2) the
number of narcotics convictions; (3) the number of death
sentences handed down for narcotics convictions; (4) the
number of death sentences carried out for narcotics
convictions; (5) the number of total death sentence
convictions; (6) the number of total death sentences carried
out.

A: The death penalty is mandatory for many serious
drug-related offense in Thailand including certain serious
non-violent drug offenses. However, mandatory death
sentences are frequently reduced by judges to lesser
sentences ranging from 25 years to life in prison.
Additionally, death sentences are often commuted by royal
pardon from the King or Queen. Statistics:

-- Number of narcotics cases in 2005: 40,849 (source:
Thailand's Office of Narcotics Control Board)

-- Number of narcotics convictions in 2005: Post is unable to
locate this specific statistic. However, according to
Thailand's Department of Corrections, as of May 31, 2002,
there were 106,256 persons incarcerated on narcotics
convictions.

-- Number of death sentences handed down for narcotics
convictions: Post has been unable to obtain this statistic.

-- Number of death sentences carried out for narcotics
convictions: 14 between years 1998 and present. Breakdown by
year: 1998 - 0; 1999 - 1; 2000 - 1; 2001 - 7; 2002 - 2; 2003
- 3; 2004 - 0; 2005 - 0; 2006 (to date) - 0. (Source: Amnesty
International).

-- Number of total death sentences carried out: According to
the Thai Department of Corrections, from 1997 to present, 56
executions have been carried out. Breakdown by year
(1997-present): 1997 - 2; 1998 - 16; 1999 - 2; 2000 -2; 2001
- 8; 2002 - 11; 2003 - 11; 2004 - 4; 2005 - 0; 2006 (to date)
- 0. (source: Thailand Department of Corrections)

-- Number of total death sentence convictions: statistic not
available.

Q: To the extent that the death penalty is imposed, is it
usually carried out?

A: Actual executions are becoming more rare in Thailand.
According to the Department of Corrections none have been
carried out since 2004. In fact, death sentences (including
those issued to defendants in narcotics cases) are very often
commuted under collective royal pardons which are issued
periodically on certain Thai holidays. In addition, every
convicted prisoner has the right to petition the King for an
individual pardon. Following are statistics from the
Department of Corrections on the impact of petitions for an
individual royal pardon on death penalty cases from 2001-2005.

2001: 21 Petition submitted - 12 Pardons granted (reduced
sentence)
2002: 32 Petions submitted - 32 Pardons granted (reduced
sentence)2003: 70 Petitions submitted - 63 Pardons granted (reduced
sentence)
2004: 82 Petitions submitted - 76 Pardons granted (reduced
sentence)
2005: 110 Petitions submitted - 98 Pardons granted (reduced
sentence)

Q: How is the death penalty carried out?

A: Death sentences are carried out by lethal injection.

Q: In death penalty cases, are there adequate procedural due
process protections, such as a right of the defendant to be
tried in his/her presence, the right against
self-incrimination (or not to confess guilt),the exclusion
of evidence extracted through torture, the right to produce
witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses, right to appeal,
etc.?

A: Defendants in Thailand have adequate procedural due
process protections, including a right to be present during
the trial; a right against self-incrimination; a right
against the use of threats or 'inducements' in obtaining
statements from a witness/defendant; the right to produce
witnesses and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to
appeal the verdict. These rights are implemented in practice.

Q: Are adequate lawyers available for death penalty
defendants?

A: Yes.

Q: To what extent does corruption in the judiciary prejudice
criminal cases, in particular narcotics and death penalty
cases?

A: Over the past several years, corruption has lessened in
the judiciary overall. Post is not aware of any specific
case of corruption in the judiciary that has prejudiced death
penalty cases or narcotics cases.

Q: Are there other factors related to the administration of
the death penalty that we should be taking into account in
deciding whether to seek assurances (i.e., that the Thai
prosecutors would not seek the death penalty or would
recommend clemency)?

A: In Thailand, sentencing is Qthe discretion of the judge
hearing the case. The prosecutors must bring charges for
which there is specific evidence. They can recommend that a
judge issue a lesser penalty, but their recommendations are
not binding, and the judge can sentence a defendant to death
even when the prosecutor does note pursue that sentence.
Under Thai law, the ONLY authorized sentence for the
production, importation or exportation of a Category I
controlled substance (including heroin, amphetamines,
methamphetamine, ecstasy, and LSD) is death. As such, the
prosecutor cannot give a death penalty assurance.
Nevertheless, Thailand has not executed anyone since 2004.
The judge has the option to impose the death sentence, then
immediately reduce the sentence. An admission of guilt often
results in the judge reducing the sentence to life, or 25-50
years. (Note: Section 72 of the Penal Code states that a
death sentence can be reduced to between 25 years and life.
End note.) If the judge imposes and does not reduce a death
sentence, the prisoner (or someone acting on his behalf) can
petition the monarchy to have the sentence reduced.

Q: Do we know whether the Thai prosecutors are actually going
to seek the death penalty in this case?

A: Post's contacts close to this case believe that the
prosecutors will not actively seek the death penalty in this
case. Nevertheless, under Thai law the ONLY authorized
sentence for the production, importation or exportation of a
Category I controlled substance (including heroin,
amphetamines, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and LSD) is death.

Q: Do we know whether Prasoprat is considered a big fish by
the Thai authorities?

A: Suwit's case is considered significant in Thailand because
of the nature of his alleged crimes (large-scale heroin
trafficking),and because Suwit's case represents the very
first case in which Thailand requested that a suspect be
extradited from the US. Thailand is very cooperative in
accommodating US extradition requests. The Thai are among
our best Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and
extradition treaty partners in the world. Since the
US-Thailand Extradition Treaty entered into force in 1991,
the US has extradited one individual to Thailand while the
Thai have responded favorably to over 40 requests to
extradite suspects (including Thai nationals) to the United
States. DOJ and DEA view this cooperation as vital to USG
efforts to combat drug trafficking in this part of the world.
Suwit's case is viewed as a barometer of whether this
cooperation is mutual. Given the fact that the penalty for
serious narcotics crimes in Thailand is often a mandatory
death sentence, the decision to deny Suwit's extradition
based on those grounds would seriously damage the utility of
the US-Thai Extradition Treaty from the perspective of the
Thai. Further, DOJ is concerned that a refusal to extradite
Suwit may negatively impact the broader US-Thai MLAT
relationship.

Q: What is the Embassy's sense of the Thai reaction to a
possible request for assurances from the Thai government that
Thai prosecutors will recommend to Thailand's pardoning
authority that the death penalty be commuted if it is imposed
in this case?

A: As stated above, under Thai law, sentencing is at the
discretion of the judge hearing the case. As such, the
prosecutor cannot give any such assurance. Post believes
that it would be inappropriate to request such an assurance
from the prosecutors when such an assurance, even if given,
would be meaningless in practice. Requesting an assurance
such as this would put the prosecutor's office (with whom
Post has a very positive relationship) in an unnecessarily
difficult position which would produce absolutely no benefit
to the defendant in this case.

Q: What is the status of the legal proceedings against
Boonsong a.k.a. Song Mekphongsathorn a.k.a. Thanat Yuwawanit?
Note: Boonsong's extradition was requested concurrently with
Prasoprat's, and Boonsong was wanted for the same narcotics
offense. Boonsong served a sentence in the United States and
was subsequently deported to Thailand. End note.

A: Boonsong's case concluded in late November 2005. He was
convicted and the judge issued the mandatory death sentence.

Q: What services would Embassy provide Prasoprat, as a U.S.
citizen, should he be extradited?

A: The Consular Section's American Citizens Services Unit
(ACS) would visit Prasoprat on a regular basis (once per
month during the trial phase, and once every three months
after sentencing). ACS would provide a list of private
attorneys who operate in Thailand and offer to contact an
attorney of Prasoprat's choosing. During regular ACS visits,
a Consular Officer will inquire as to Prasoprat's well-being,
listen to his concerns or requests and make the appropriate
follow up with prison officials. Prasoprat will have the
option of applying for an Emergency Medical and Dietary
Assistance (EMDA) loan from the USG. If approved, the loan
would provide Prasopat with a small amount of money each
quarter for purchase of supplemental food, toiletries, etc.
from the prison canteen. The Consular officer will also
provide leisure reading material for Prasoprat.

Q: Are individuals - both those awaiting trial and those
serving a sentence - tortured or extra-judicially executed in
Thai prisons? If so, are they more likely to be tortured or
extra-judicially executed in narcotics cases?

A: While some NGOs and legal organizations report that some
members of the police occasionally torture suspects to obtain
confessions prior to incarceration, Post is not aware of
reports of torture in prisons - both for those awaiting trial
or those serving sentences. (Note: These allegations of
police torture occur while suspects are in police custody,
not when prisoners are incarcerated in Department of
Corrections run prisons. End note.) Prisons have been known
to use leg irons to control prisoners who were deemed escape
risks, or sometimes prisoners on death row. However, this
does not constitute torture under the Department's
interpretation of the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Post
is unaware of any reports of extrajudicial killings taking
place inside Thai prisons.

Q: If torture or extra-judicial execution occurs in Thai
prisons, do public officials commit the act? Or is the
violence imposed by private actors?

A: Not applicable, see above.

Q: If public officials, are they acting in an official or
unofficial capacity?

A: Not applicable, see above.
Q: If other inmates or other private actors are responsible,
are Thai officials aware prior to the activities that
violence will occur? Are Thai officials aware of the
specific instances in advance or is it a more general
awareness of the climate of violence in the prison and the
failure by Thai authorities to take reasonable action to
prevent the violence by private actors?

A: Not applicable, see above.

Q: If violence against alleged or convicted drug traffickers
occurs, is it intentional? Is the purpose of such actions to
punish the victims for drug trafficking activity or is it due
to generalized violence in detention?

A: Not applicable, see above.

Q: Would a U.S. citizen - particularly one who is extradited
- be treated better than other narcotics defendants?

A: Suwit would likely be treated about the same as all other
prisoners in the Thai prison system. As a US citizen
receiving regular visits from ACS, he might benefit slightly
in terms of access to medical care, or access to EMDA loan
funds to purchase supplemental food from the prison canteen.

BOYCE