When Thailand's rights obligations are at stake

Much has been written about two amnesty bills tabled by Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung and by MP Worachai Hema. While many pondered over the expressed or hidden aims behind these bills, not much analysis has been done from an international human rights law perspective.

Under international law, the legality of an amnesty depends on the crime for which it is being granted. In Thailand people were charged and prosecuted for defying an emergency decree during political protests. Granting amnesty to such rally goers has been discussed. However, the stronger tendency is for political leaders to attempt to shield themselves against the possibility of future prosecutions.

The factual evidence collected by the Truth for Reconciliation Commission for Thailand (TRCT), and other reports from international NGOs, suggest that the excessive use of force by the military led to the deaths of unarmed demonstrators during the 2010 political violence. Criminal courts have already concluded that the military was responsible for the killing of civilians.

Meanwhile, the government has not adequately investigated and prosecuted patterns of killings by private individuals during the 2010 violence. This could imply an acquiescence of the state with such killings.

In both scenarios we are talking about the perpetration of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, a gross violations of human rights. And what does international law say concerning the granting of amnesties for such gross violations?

That amnesties are not permissible because victims have a right to an effective remedy and states have a duty to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of gross violations of human rights.

The right to an effective remedy is recognised under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party. Article 2.3 compels state parties to ensure that, when rights are violated, individuals have accessible and effective remedies to vindicate these rights. The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee stated that when the right to life is violated, the right to an effective remedy entails recourse to criminal proceedings. The state is obligated to thoroughly investigate and to prosecute those deemed responsible.

At the international level, there is an indisputable move towards closing the gaps that would allow perpetrators of gross human rights violations to get off scot-free. The UN updated its policy Set of Principles to combat impunity in 2005, expanding the prohibition to grant amnesty to perpetrators of gross human rights violations. The UN General Assembly adopted in 2006 the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation, which emphasised on the State duty to investigate, prosecute and punish.

Back to Thailand, the TRCT noted in its final report that those who violated the law must be held legally accountable and that the government must address violations of law by all parties through the justice system. The TRCT further stated that rushing the granting of an amnesty to perpetrators would have a negative impact on the reconciliation atmosphere. Most importantly, it called for the collaboration, especially from the victims, as they will be directly affected by an amnesty.

Prior to the Parliament recess, relatives of victims killed during the 2010 political violence raised their voices to oppose the amnesty bills. They opposed the Chalerm bill because it would benefit all involved in the unrest, including the military, but disregard the dead victims. They also opposed the Worachai bill, as it absolves the soldiers who fired at the people.

Once the Parliament reconvenes in August, it should make sure that any proposed amnesty explicitly excludes those who committed gross human rights violations. MPs might need to recognise that Thailand’s international obligations are at stake, in addition to those to victims at home.

 

 

Carlos Fernandez Torne is a PhD candidate at the Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona Transitional.