SOMCHAI VERDICT - WHAT NEXT?

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 000711 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2015 TAGS: PHUM PGOV TH SUBJECT: SOMCHAI VERDICT - WHAT NEXT? REF: BANGKOK 000235 AND PREVIOUS Classified By: Political Counselor Susan M. Sutton for reasons 1.4 (d) ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY. The verdict in the trial of five police officers implicated in the disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit, while disappointing, opens the door for further investigation of the police role in the case. Trial observers agree that the weak effort of the prosecution is largely to blame for the four acquittals. Following the verdict, PM Thaksin publicly stated his belief that Somchai is dead and that RTG officials were involved. Thaksin assured the public that MOJ,s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) would conclude its investigation in February, but it remains unclear whether DSI has even begun work. Several sources have privately stated that the presence of trial observers from the NGO and diplomatic community helped pressure the prosecution and had a positive impact on the outcome. At the same time, Somchai,s family continues to suffer from intimidation for their efforts to pursue the case. The family vows to appeal the verdict. END SUMMARY. VERDICT RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS ¶2. (U) On January 12, the Thai Criminal Court convicted Police Major Ngern Thongsuk of coercion for his role in forcing human rights lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit into a car on March 12, 2004, after which he was never seen again. Ngern was found guilty based on the eyewitness testimony of three individuals who stated that Ngern and three to four other individuals forced Somchai into a car and sped away. Witnesses were unable to positively identify any of the other defendants. As expected, both sides have already vowed to appeal the verdict (NOTE: Thai law permits both the plaintiff and the defendant to appeal lower court rulings. END NOTE) Although Ngern has been sentenced to three years in prison, he was immediately released on a 1.5 million baht ($US 38,0000) bail. ¶3. (U) The court decided that one of the prosecution's most important pieces of evidence, cell phone records of 75 calls placed linking the five defendants on the day of the abduction, could not be taken into account. The court determined that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient technical testimony to counter the defense's allegation that the records could have been falsified. ¶4. (U) On January 17, the European Commission mission in �00A;Bangkok hosted a briefing, attended by representatives of approximately twenty Western missions, in which Somchai's widow Angkhana Wongrachen (and a co-plaintiff) and her legal advisor gave their views on the outcome of the trial. Poloffs from the US, the UK, Canada and Switzerland had frequently attended the trial as observers. Numerous NGOs remarked throughout the trial that having diplomatic observers in the courtroom had been a key factor in preventing the transfer of the judge mid-way through the trial, and in forcing the prosecution to step up its effort. WIDOW BLAMES PROSECUTION, NOT THE COURT ¶5. (U) Although both Angkhana and her legal advisor noted their disappointment with the overall verdict, they both saw reasons for optimism. They also noted their satisfaction with the performance of the judge, who they agreed had been fair. The fact that one defendent was found guilty made it appear as though all of them were involved, especially considering the judge's closing statement in which he intimated that he believed in the phone records he had been forced to ignore. The verdict ratcheted up the pressure on the RTG to expose the truth behind Somchai's disappearance, and on the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to conduct a more vigorous investigation. ¶6. (SBU) Trial observers agree that much of the blame for the verdict lies with the lackluster effort put forward by the prosecution, which consisted of both public prosecutors and voluntary counsel provided by the Law Society of Thailand. The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders reported that no single prosecutor was regularly present for the duration of the trial. In fact, one trial observer told of an occasion where no prosecuting attorney was present for over fifteen minutes of important defense testimony. ¶7. (SBU) The harshest judgment was reserved for the Law Society of Thailand, of which Somchai had been an active member. Although the Australian interpreter struggled to find an English-language word to translate the legal advisor's descriptive epithet for the President of the Law Society, she eventually decided on "ratbag". Despite having a cadre of attorneys trained in human rights law, none of these lawyers were assigned to the case. Somchai Homlaor, chairman of the Law Society's human rights division, and an Embassy contact, told Poloffs he believed that the lackluster performance of the prosecution was due in large part to a lack of motivation. With suspicion about the involvement of shadowy higher-ups in the disappearance, and reported intimidation of witnesses and even police investigators, attorneys simply did not want to be assigned to the case. Those who were assigned saw little incentive in getting to the bottom of things. Whereas many NGOs considered the case to be a landmark one, the RTG did its best to ensure that the case was given no special attention. Attorneys could reasonably believe that, as with witnesses, no special protection would be offered them. INSTITUTIONAL FLAWS CREATE LOOPHOLES FOR THOSE WITH CONNECTIONS ¶8. (U) Many observers noted that institutional flaws in the legal system, none of which are unique to Thailand, hinder the effective prosecution of cases against high-ranking defendants. First, the initial investigation was under the control of the Thai police, whose intentionally sloppy investigation shows they were clearly uninterested in investigating their colleagues. Linked to this is the fact that the prosecution in Thailand rarely conducts any of its own investigation; they traditionally rely solely on the evidence and information provided by the police. Third, there is no system in effect to protect witnesses. During the trial, several eyewitnesses changed their stories and at least one police investigator requested help from a prominent politician in response to efforts to intimidate them by unknown persons. ¶9. (U) The day following the verdict, PM Thaksin Shinawatra stated publicly, "I know that Somchai is dead, and more than four government officials were involved..." Thaksin claimed that the MOJ,s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) is actively compiling evidence to file murder charges. He vowed that DSI would complete its investigation in February. In August 2005, the MOJ,s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) announced the formation of a special panel to investigate Somchai's disappearance after Angkhana testified about the case to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva. As the court trial ended, it was unclear whether DSI had even begun its investigation. The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, which closely monitors the case, claimed that as of January 12 the special panel had yet to hold a single meeting. ¶10. (SBU) Prior to the establishment of the special panel, sources informed Post that transferring the case to DSI would be "fruitless" because "influential people" in both DSI and the Thai Police were involved. (see 05 Bangkok 1842) DSI officials have declined Poloff,s repeated requests to meet and discuss progress in their investigation. INTIMIDATION OF SOMCHAI,S FAMILY ¶11. (SBU) On the evening following the verdict, Angkhana Wongrachen informed Poloff that her car had been broken into and vandalized in the courthouse parking lot on the final day of the court proceedings. Although access to the parking lot was controlled, and security was tight outside the courthouse, nobody reporting seeing anything out of the ordinary. ¶12. (C) COMMENT. The effort (or lack thereof) to uncover the truth behind Somchai,s disappearance is a test of the RTG,s commitment to defending human rights and rule of law. The principle barrier to resolving this case is a lack of sufficient evidence due to a shoddy initial investigation and an unresponsive prosecution. Accusations that the police actively obstructed the investigation, that witnesses and the victim's family were intimidated, and DSI,s continued foot-dragging all reinforce the impression that higher-level people are attempting to cover their tracks. In the words of a member of a Muslim student organization from southern Thailand speaking in the wake of the verdict, "Somchai was from Bangkok, not the South. He was well-known and his case has international attention. If he cannot expect justice in Thailand, how can we?" END COMMENT. BOYCE