On 17 March 2024, the Cross Cultural Foundation, together with the faculty of law, Chiangmai University, organized a seminar on “ In Remembrance: 7 Years of Chaiyaphum Pasae Killing, State Violence and Justice” at Neighborhood (Creative Space), Chang Moi Road, in Chiang Mai Province between 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The event was held on the 7th anniversary of the death of Chaiyaphum Pasae, an ethnic Lahu Youth activist who was fatally shot by a military officer at the Ban Rinluang checkpoint in 2017.
Suraphong Kongchantuek, president of the Cross Cultural Foundation, delivered the opening speech, stating that, Thailand is the home to a multitude of ethnic groups, each with unique languages and cultures that serve as expressions of their own identities. Although the indigenous people have the rights to express their identities and obtain a nationality, they ultimately face state rejection. Suraphong questioned the true meaning of being “Thai” and expressed concern over the state’s rejection to respect ethnic identities and rights. He pointed out that such bias is the root cause of the abuse experienced by indigenous people from government officials.
Suraphong made several observations that the court battle in the Chaiyaphum case which may make implication to other cases. The Supreme Court attentively considered the testimonies of the people and carefully evaluated the accounts of eyewitnesses who were ordinary villagers that witnessed the events firsthand. In addition, the Court believed that the media presented a neutral stance by promptly conducting interviews and publishing the accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the incident.
Suraphong observed that in previous cases of torture or extrajudicial killing, the government officers always said the CCTV cameras were not function. These excuses, in this Chaiyaphum case, the Supreme Court ruling set a new bar for government officials, prohibiting them from claiming that CCTV cameras are non-functional.
The First Roundtable: Voices of Victims and Their Struggle for Justice over the Past Seven Years
Yuphin Saja, a Lahu activist and Chaiyaphum Pasae’s mentor, emphasized the topic of ethnic group discrimination and challenged society’s stereotypes that associate them with drug-related issues. Yuphin said that the Lahu ethnicity has a distinct set of cultures and traditions. The Lahu way of life is farming. But the fact that the Lahu or other ethnic groups live in border areas, where drug trafficking problems are prevalent, poses a significant challenge. However, it is important to note that ethnic individuals should not been stereotyped as being associated with drugs involvement, as is commonly portrayed by society. “Many people tend to make judgements that all individuals in this area are similar, but that’s not the case because every location faces the same drug problem,” Yuphin said.
In the criminal case involving the prosecution of the offender, Yuphin said that the wrongdoer did not even apologize for what he had done. In addition, government officials are never held accountable for their wrongdoing. “We saw cases where the perpetrators of the crime were not punished. On the other hand, victims suffered consequences with no recompense or explanation. However, when authorities committed a crime, there were many reasons for acquittal. Ethnic communities had no right to speak.”
Maitri Chamroensuksakul, a Lahu activist representing Chaiyaphum Pasae, shared the difficulties and exhaustion he experienced while fighting for justice for seven years in the Chaiyaphum Pasae case. The civil lawsuit was dismissed by both the court of first instance and the court of appeals, with Chaiyaphum’s family as the plaintiff suing the Royal Thai Army to compensate for the losses inflicted, leaving Maitri with no further expectations of the Supreme Court’s decision. Nonetheless, Maitri is grateful to everyone who joined in the fight and assisted him throughout the process. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, he can tell Chaiyaphum that we gave it our all.
“The first time, the court declared that we did not win; we were devastated but we remained hopeful that the second time we would win. The second time around, we still lost the lawsuit. But why? We had been fighting for a long time, and I had lost hope that we would win. On the day of the Supreme Court’s judgement, I didn’t care. I assumed we would lose, just like before. I did not get out of bed. I was sick. After a while, a message popped up from the lawyer that we had won, but I had not seen it yet. Message notifications annoyed me, and I did not dare to turn on the TV. It’s because I assumed the outcome was the same: we lost.”
“If I could call for something. I want to call for justice and let small people like us have access to it. I was so lucky to have friends, and many lawyers came to help. But how many others will be as lucky as me?” Maitri said.
Napoi Pasae, Chaiyaphum’s mother, and his representative expressed her happiness with the Supreme Court’s verdict in favor of justice. She expressed her feelings in the Lahu language, which Yuphin assisted translating into Thai. Napoi conveyed her feelings about what happened to Chaiyaphum Pasae and her long-standing path of demanding justice, adding, “For seven years of struggling, I was not happy because I was afraid that we would not win. Now I was pleased with our first victory. And thank you to everyone who helped. Thank God, and I want to tell my son that we have won. Thank you, son.”
Second Roundtable: The Supreme Court’s Decision in the Chaiyaphum Case, an Overview of State Violence and Crimes Committed by State Officials, and the New Hope on the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act B.E. 2565
Rasada Manurasada, human rights attorney for the Chaiyaphum Phasae family, believes that the court, in this case, rendered the case thoroughly by referring to the villager’s testimony, which is the eyewitness to confirm what they depicted, also prioritizing the news reporter who interviewed the villagers since the crime had occurred. Moreover, the Court also referred to the testimony of the head of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Division, who gave an expert comment, which made the court believed that the soldier’s claim that Chaiyaphum picked up the bomb is not reasonably credible.
Rasada pointed out that numerous incidents arise as a result of actions taken by state officers. For instance, the case of Abe SaeMu, a member of the Lisu ethnic group, who fatally shot a checkpoint soldier at Baan Rin Laung one month prior to Chaiyaphum’s death. Abe’s case is identical to Chaiyaphum’s, in that his body was found with a hand grenade in his hand. Rasada emphasized that crimes committed by state officers are serious human rights violations. In the Chaiyaphum case, Rasada questioned the state officers’ maturity, particularly in terms of human rights, by asking “What are the reasons for allowing the usage of such violent weapon like M16 to the soldiers, and did the commander actually has the awareness and value people’s human dignity after ordering fire on them?”
Rasada observed that in the crime perpetrated by the state officials, officers involved during the first instant legal procedure tend to conceal their fault and defend one another. He pointed out in Chaiyaphum case that even though the law requires under the case of death by the act of the state officers, the prosecutors must come to perform the autopsy and investigate the case along with administrative officials and doctors. And the victims’ relatives must be informed of such autopsy. However, even though the checking point station was equipped with nine CCTVs, six of which were functional. Following the incident, the lawyer team arrived at the location and discovered that the cameras remained functional; they were able to record the surrounding area and displayed the footage on screens installed at the checkpoint’s station. Surprisingly, the prosecutor who was fulfilling the role of the investigating officer in this case did not include this crucial evidence that could potentially reveal the actual sequence of the incident.
Somchai Preechakul, a professor at the Faculty of Law at Chiang Mai University, stated that there have been incidents of state officials using violence in some special situations, such as during political conflicts. These cases have been documented, disseminated, and memorized by the public. Furthermore, in addition to this act of violence, there exists another form of state violence that holds equal significance. This is an instance of state violence where state agents use violence, resulting in the death of an individual in an ordinary scenario. For instance, he referred to the Chaiyaphum case an “extra-judicial death,” which means a death involving state officers without major political conflicts. This type of case can only draw society’s attention during the early stages of the incident because it was extremely traumatizing; after that, the case will be silent, with no further explicit education research or information collection regarding the case.
Somchai gathered information from the news reports during the years of 2018 and 2019 and found that an average of 40-50 individuals died from the actions of government officials. Nevertheless, there has been a lack of thorough investigation and data collection to accurately identify the underlying causes of the occurrence of the crime committed by the state in this sense. “It is ironic that extrajudicial killings can happen to anybody.” he remarked.
Somchai proposed that the Chaiyaphum case was comprised of three primary factors. The first aspect is extrajudicial killing: an act of unlawful violence committed by state officers, which frequently poses difficulties in prosecuting government personnel. The second factor is ethnicity conditions, which include myths about ethnic groups that often associate image of ethnic people with drugs. This component substantially affected the outcome of the Chaiyaphum case because even the court judgment indicated that this area is also a precarious area for drug use. Therefore, the self-defense of state officials is understandable. The political regime is the last factor. Because the incident happened after the 2014 coup d’état, it is undeniable that the justice system did not function normally after the coup.
“In the context of Thai state authorities, I believe they retain the authority to use violence against the people and are not held accountable for any of their actions. While certain noticeable cases may result in compensation, they do not result in criminal convictions and commander liability.” said Somchai.
Pornpimol Mookkhuntod, a lawyer at Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), stated that the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act B.E. 2565 represents a new hope and another step in the development of the justice process. Pornpimol referred to Section 22, of the Act which requires state officials to continuously record audio and video throughout the arrest and detention process until the detainee is brought to the inquiry officer. Also, the law requires responsible state official to immediately notify the public prosecutor and administrative official when the detention occurs. The objective of the law of this section is to allow the public prosecutor and administrative official to check and balance the police’s power.
“When discussing the Chaiyaphum case, if the incident happened when the Act was already enforced, it can primarily contribute to this case if the officer does not record video and audio during the arrest. We can at least prosecute them according to Section 157 of the Penal Code, neglecting their duties. Furthermore, this Act allows relatives to request permission to access the video and audio recording.” Pornpimol said.
Pornpimol also highlighted another positive aspect regarding this law: “From now on, in cases where official fails to adhere to this law, if the offender is soldier, they will be brought before the Criminal Court for Corruption which is a civilian court, not the Military Court as before. Relatives have the right to initiate legal proceedings as plaintiffs without having to rely on the military prosecutor’s decision to press charges, as was the case in past.
In addition, Pornpimol clarified that in cases of extrajudicial killing, officer usually justify their actions by claiming that there were clashes, fights, and disruptions caused by the victims. Therefore, the video and audio recording, as outlined in section 22 of this law, serve to not only safeguard the rights of the injured or deceased individuals but also protect the state officers involved.”
