Army explains reason for baby's DNA sample
Play
Action defended as way of bringing bombing suspect to justice
THE ARMY yesterday explained why it collected a DNA sample from the five-month-old son of Seri Waemamu, a fugitive suspect in a 2012 car-bomb attack in Songkhla’s Hat Yai district.
However, a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said collecting a DNA sample from a baby to prove his father’s guilt was unacceptable.
The sample was taken during a November 21 house search to locate the elusive Seri in Pattani’s Nong Chik district.
“The collection of the baby’s DNA – by a cotton swab for cells from the inner side of its cheeks – was very important, as the baby’s DNA would be close to his father’s,” said Colonel Yutthanam Phetmaung, deputy spokesman of the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) Region 4 front command.
“The authorities didn’t have Seri’s DNA. We could use this sample to compare it with evidence of attacks recorded, so investigation for his arrest would be more efficient and accurate.
“The search by police, Army and administrative officials at a house where Seri’s wife stayed was witnessed by a kamnan and other community leaders,” he said. “The collection of DNA and fingerprints of the suspect’s wife, her baby and two relatives was done with the persons signing consent letters.”
Yutthanam said Seri was clearly identified by surveillance footage and witnesses as the culprit in the bomb attack at Lee Gardens Plaza Hotel on March 31, 2012, which resulted in five deaths and dozens of injuries. Seri also has 12 other arrest warrants out for him.
NHRC member Angkana Neelapaijit yesterday said collecting a DNA sample from a five-month-old baby was a big mistake.
The action violated at least three principles, she said: human rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Child Protection Act. Even though it was for the nation’s security, the officers shouldn’t ignore the child’s rights.
To the Army’s claim of obtaining permission from the baby’s mother, Angkana said that under the convention, the mother didn’t have any right to allow her baby to do that.
Saying she saw the consent letter, Angkana said the name signed on the paper wasn’t that of the baby’s mother, which she was told was a small mistake. “If the mother felt uneasy with such an action, she could file a complaint to the NHRC to prevent a further violation of her privacy,” she suggested.
Using the emergency decree to justify the collection of people’s DNA could be regarded as a violation of their dignity, she said.
“Even in the place where an emergency decree is active, collecting people’s DNA samples without their consent would be inadmissible in court,” she added.
Meanwhile, unrest in the deep South continued. Deputy superintendent Pol Lt-Colonel Pongsakorn Khemrat and his two subordinates, Pol Lieutenant Uthai Phanthong and Special Chief Petty Officer Thaweesak Chuayram of Narathiwat’s Rusoh Police Station, were seriously injured in an ambush by militants armed with M16 assault rifles yesterday morning.
The officers were taking a drug suspect to a rehabilitation programme when the gunmen hiding in roadside bushes shot at them. Police collected 50 spent bullet cartridges from the scene.
Authorities believe the attack was aimed at proving their armed power and to retaliate for the officers’ earlier arrest of a suspect after a July 16 gun attack and subsequent truck arson, which resulted in the deaths of two Rusoh-based soldiers.
