COURTS FREE SOUTHERN THAILAND DETAINEES, BUT HUMAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 BANGKOK 005647 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP/MLS AND DRL E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/01/2017 TAGS: PGOV PHUM PINR PREL PTER ASEC TH SUBJECT: COURTS FREE SOUTHERN THAILAND DETAINEES, BUT HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS PERSIST REF: A. BANGKOK 5593 (ARMY BANS DETAINEE TRAVEL) ¶B. BANGKOK 5570 (CLIMATE OF FEAR) ¶C. BANGKOK 5435 (SOUTHERN RAID OPERATIONS) ¶D. BANGKOK 4653 (UNDERSTANDING THE INSURGENCY) ¶E. BANGKOK 4201 (SOUTHERN HUMAN RIGHTS IMPROVEMENTS) Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission James F. Entwistle, reason 1.4 ( b) and (d). SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (C) Summary: A mixed October 30 ruling by Thai provincial courts, observed by Embassy political officers, compels the military to release 97 detainees from southern Thailand participating in an army-run "reeducation" training program. The ruling appears to allow the program to continue, although lawyers are split as to whether the ruling compels the military to release all detainees in the program. An army order prohibiting many detainees from returning to their homes in four southern provinces remains in effect despite the verdict, prompting welfare concerns for those freed. Contradicting the claims of military officials, the detainees and human rights activists openly questioned the program's legality and effectiveness but seemed moderately pleased that the verdict did permit the detainees to leave the camps. The fate of the detainees and the military program remain unclear. Representatives of Thai civil society have expressed gratitude for the Embassy's observation of recent events. End summary. COURTS ISSUE MIXED RULING -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Since July, the Army has operated "reeducation" vocational training camps in Surat Thani, Chumporn and Ranong provinces to detain 300 individuals from southern Thailand who were arrested in June in widespread "sweep" operations designed to combat the southern insurgency. None of these individuals was charged with criminal offenses and some detainees claimed the Army had forced them to participate in the training programs conducted in these camps. On October 30, local courts in Chumporn, Surat Thani, and Ranong provinces ordered the Army to release 97 of these detainees who on October 5 had filed a habeas corpus petition challenging their detentions and forced participation in the Army program (reftel A). Embassy poloffs observed the reading of the verdicts in the Surat Thani and Chumporn courts. On October 31, Thai and English-language print media reported the presence of Embassy observers in the court rooms. NGOs have expressed gratitude for the USG attention to this issue. ¶3. (SBU) In a partial victory for the army, the courts opined that the army training program does not constitute a form of detention as defined in the Thai criminal code, but rather is a credible and voluntary training program. The courts also ruled, however, citing article 32 of the Thai constitution, that forcing the petitioners to attend the training program against their will is contrary to the constitution and that the Army must permit the petitioners (51, 28 and 18 in Chumporn, Surat Thani, and Ranong provinces respectively) to leave the camps if they so choose. The court noted the army failed to demonstrate a legal basis for forcing the petitioners to participate in the training program. ¶4. (C) It remains unclear whether the court decision applies to the remaining army program participants, reportedly 206 people, who did not file court petitions. Lawyers in Chumporn and Surat Thani expressed differing opinions to poloffs as to whether the ruling forced the Army to allow all the detainees to leave, or whether those not named on the original petitions would need to file their own petitions. Lawyers for the detainees and representatives of NGOs who also monitored the legal proceedings expressed disappointment that the courts ruled the training program was "good," thereby allowing it to continue. Preeda Tongchumnum, a Law Society of Thailand attorney who was working with the petitioners in Surat Thani through an NGO, criticized the BANGKOK 00005647 002 OF 004 courts for "ignoring" evidence that program participants were coerced to attend the army program. The lawyers were pleased, however, that the court decision was "in line with the law" in that it sustained the petitioners' constitutional rights to liberty by permitting them to leave the camps. ARMY TRAVEL BAN REMAINS IN PLACE -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The court rulings did not address a July 22 Thai Army order, based on martial law, that prohibits some 387 people -- the vast majority participants in the army training program -- from returning to their homes in Thailand's insurgency-plagued southern provinces of Yala, Pattani, Narathiwat, and Songkla. While reading the verdict, the Chumporn court judge noted that even though detainees may now opt to leave the army training program, the army travel restriction would still prevent them from returning to their homes. Following the ruling, the Surat Thani and Ranong petitioners, all of whom were reportedly listed in the army travel ban order, chose to depart the camps immediately and were transported to the Surat Thani central mosque which has offered them temporary shelter. (Note: The Army's travel ban extends for six months from the day the order was put into effect, July 22. At the end of the six month period, the Army can extend the travel ban at its discretion. End note.) ¶6. (C) Following the ruling, army representatives at the court proceedings in Chumporn offered to lift the travel ban for the Chumporn petitioners and allow them to return home two months early if the petitioners agreed to complete the vocational training program. (Note: 50 of the 51 Chumporn petitioners were scheduled to complete their training by November 24, while the 51st will complete the training in December. End note.) Such an offer does not appear to have been extended to detainees in other provinces. Wanit Lamlua, the Chumporn petitioners' attorney, did not trust the sincerity of the army offer and advised his clients to return to the camp for three additional days "as free men" to give Wanit time to exact the army's pledge in writing. According to Wanit, if the Army's offer is legitimate, the petitioners will have the option of either returning home early should they complete the program, or leaving the camp immediately yet having to wait an additional three months to return to the South, when the travel ban expires. Wanit told us that he would advise his clients to immediately leave the camp if the army failed to provide a written guarantee to support its offer. DETAINEES EAGER TO LEAVE THE CAMPS -------------- ¶7. (C) Prior to the court rulings, poloffs conversed with detainee petitioners who attended the verdict readings. In Chumporn, the detainees appeared hesitant to comment on conditions at the camp, but some confirmed earlier reports they had not been permitted to meet with attorneys. The Surat Thani detainees said that conditions in their camp were difficult but livable. Diana Sarosi, a representative of the NGO Nonviolence International who observed the Chumporn ruling, told poloff that she believed conditions in the camp were "nice" based on photographs she had seen. Several detainees expressed eagerness to return to their families, although many seemed unaware of the military order that prohibited their return to their southern villages. Detainees in Surat Thani appeared to be well briefed by their attorney, but unclear about specifics of the court proceedings. Prior to the verdict reading, the Surat Thani attorney told his clients that they must peacefully accept the verdict, regardless of its content. If the judges ruled against them, he said they would find a legal way to challenge the ruling. He joked with them that they all appeared to be dressed as if they were going home. The Surat Thani detainees we spoke with were aware of the 4th Army's order barring them from returning to their homes, but where uncertain what they could do if the judge ruled in their favor. BANGKOK 00005647 003 OF 004 ¶8. (C) Both the Surat Thani and Chumporn detainees said two to three hours per day in the camps were spent doing vocational training activities, and the rest of the time was spent listening to radios, watching television or playing sports. Detainees in Surat Thani were allowed one visit per month from their families, but due to the expense of traveling to the training camps, they did not receive many visits. The Chumporn detainees said that the Army had permitted some family members to live at the training site. The detainees also said they were paid a minimal stipend for attending the training camps. Army officials claimed that the Chumporn detainees received approximately $3.60 per day after expenses for food and shelter were deducted. (Note: The minimum wage is approximately $5.80 per day. End note.) ARMY OFFICIALS DENY COERCION -------------- ¶9. (C) Prior to the verdict reading in Chumporn province, poloff spoke with Thai military legal officers defending the army training program. Royal Thai Navy Captain Thanyaphat Sisuanphan, a legal officer at the Internal Security Operations Command Region 4 in Pattani province, praised the army program for providing direction to the lives of the detainees and teaching them useful life skills. He insisted that detainees had been free to leave at any time since they arrived at the camp, and added that the fact that nobody had left thus far testified to the benefits of the program. (Note: Prominent human rights advocate Angkanna Neelaphaijit, the wife of missing and presumed dead human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit who sat next to poloff in the courtroom, strongly disagreed with Thanyaphat's assessment. End note.) Another army lawyer seemed disappointed that the detainees wanted to depart the camps, saying "we have taken good care of them, we know each other well, we have even played sports together." ¶10. (C) Commenting on the army order prohibiting individuals from returning to their homes in the South, the military representatives claimed that the order was necessary to prevent "militant supporters" from aiding the insurgency. Thanyaphat said the army would respect a court order to release participants in the army program, but said that those who chose to leave could be subject to prosecution for terrorism-related offenses since they would have shown they "lack sincerity by not completing the training" for which they had "volunteered". When asked if detainees would be permitted to meet with their attorneys, Thanyaphat said that detainees "do not have to meet with lawyers since they are not in a detention facility." IMPACT OF RULING STILL UNCLEAR -------------- ¶11. (C) It remains unclear what effect the court ruling will have in the longer term. Lawyers and human rights defenders told us they fear for the safety of the detainees who will opt to leave the camps, and also worry that the government will blame acts of violence committed in the near term on released detainees. Questions remain as to where many of these individuals will stay until the army's travel ban expires. Angkanna told us she fears there is no way to prevent the army from arbitrarily extending its travel restriction for released detainees at the conclusion of the order's current six-month time frame. ¶12. (C) Angkanna, whose organization promotes the use of the Thai judicial system to peacefully resolve disputes, expressed optimism that the court rulings would encourage other aggrieved southerners to turn to the judicial system to resolve conflicts with the state. Further court cases appear likely, as Wanit said he intends to petition the courts to release all army detainees held beyond the 37 day limit permitted by martial law and the emergency decree. The lawyer for the Surat Thani petitioners said he plans to file habeas corpus petitions for the individuals remaining in the Surat Thani army camp. COMMENT BANGKOK 00005647 004 OF 004 -------------- ¶13. (C) The provincial courts' rulings strike a compromise between detainees and the army. The ruling is likely to leave the army training program in place for the next group of army detainees, whom army officials expect to arrive in the training camps after the first batch has departed in late November. The fate of the petitioners who have been released but cannot yet go home, as well as the prospects for the detainees who still remain in the army camps, remains unclear. Concerns remain about the long term toll these legal maneuvers may have on people caught up in the security sweeps in the South. The Army, through its "strategy" of keeping potential militants away from their homes in the South, has displaced individuals far from their families, jobs, and homes. Although it is not clear if any of these individuals are involved with the insurgency, the Army's actions at a minimum make this group of people prime targets for possible recruitment by insurgents. We will continue to work closely with human rights organizations to monitor the situation as it develops. BOYCE