The Thai government has once more denied the reports from Washington that secret prison with torture chambers exists in Thailand. The questions was brought up on the Asean meeting since Hillary Clinton is there.
But according to reports that was released by ALRC to the UN torture do take place in Thailand to make them confess to a crime or punishment in prison.
This report was published in 2005 and not much have changed since then
http://www.alrc.net/pr/mainfile.php/2005pr/109/
THAILAND: Torture rife in Thailand, U.N. told
PRESS RELEASE
ALRC-PL-42-2005Torture rife in Thailand, U.N. told
(Geneva, April 19, 2005) Torture is widespread in Thailand and extremely brutal practices are used to extract confessions in ordinary criminal cases, the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) told the United Nations today.
Speaking before the annual session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the Hong Kong-based rights group pointed to the case of Anek Yingnuek as an example.
Anek was allegedly tortured on September 9, 2004 at the Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya police station.
“To have him admit to robbery and implicate some others, the police allegedly beat him with pipes and suffocated him with plastic bags,” ALRC spokesperson Michael Anthony said.
“Then they covered his penis and testicles with ice and electrocuted him through it,” he said.
Torturers in Thailand escape punishment, the ALRC said, because there is no law making torture a criminal offence and the country has not ratified the U.N. Convention against Torture.
“There is also no avenue by which a complaint can be made directly to the high courts on a human rights violation under the constitution, which prohibits torture,” Anthony said.
No institution exists in Thailand to investigate torture and other serious human rights violations by the police.
On the contrary, a widespread attitude prevails that torture is acceptable and necessary.
In a written statement submitted earlier to the U.N., the ALRC pointed to the immigration bureau chief Pol. Lt-Gen. Amarin Niamsakul an example of a senior official who had endorsed the use torture on national television.
The ALRC said that for the government to have not dismissed the officer for his remarks was “a blot on the country’s international reputation and an affront to both domestic and international law”.
In its oral statement the ALRC said that Thailand had failed to fulfil its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a party, by not doing anything to prevent torture.
It called for Thailand to introduce a criminal law against torture, and a channel for receipt and investigation of complaints.
The ALRC also urged the government to ratify the Convention against Torture without delay.
Full text of the today’s statement follows.
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 61st SESSION
ITEM 18: EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS
Torture in Thailand and the role of national and international human rights mechanisms
Statement read by Mr Michael Anthony, of the Asian Legal Resource CentreMr Chairperson
I speak on behalf of the Asian Legal Resource Centre.
Anek Yingnuek alleges that on September 9 of last year he was tortured at the Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya police station, north of Bangkok, Thailand. To have him admit to robbery and implicate some others, the police allegedly beat him with pipes and suffocated him with plastic bags. Then they covered his penis and testicles with ice and electrocuted him through it. Anek confessed and named three friends: enough to raise the charge to gang robbery.
Anek and his friends are all standing trial [Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Provincial Court black nos 1621/2547, 1675/2547 and 38/2548]. They are in jail. None of the accused police are known to have lost their jobs, despite having been named in a number of other similarly brutal cases. None have faced criminal investigations over the alleged torture.
This pattern is repeated at police stations throughout Thailand. Torture is widespread. Beatings and ‘roughing up’ are the routine; extremely grave torture is also applied in ordinary criminal cases. Victims are held in custody until scars have faded and all evidence is lost. Most are poor persons, unable to afford lawyers, ignorant of the legal system and their basic rights, and easily intimidated by the police.
Torturers in Thailand escape proper enquiry or sanction because there is no law making torture a criminal offence. Thailand has not ratified the Convention against Torture. There is also no avenue by which a complaint can be made directly to the high courts on a human rights violation under the constitution, which prohibits torture.
Under these circumstances, the existing national and international human rights mechanisms can do little to deal with this grievous and widespread abuse.
The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand does not have the authority to pursue such cases; it can only refer them to the relevant government authorities. However, there is no institution established to investigate torture and other serious human rights violations by the police. And a widespread attitude prevails, as recently articulated by the immigration police chief on national television, that torture is acceptable and necessary.
Internationally, Thailand is a party to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which also prohibits torture. Article 2 of the Covenant stipulates that state parties must establish the means by which rights are to be enforced and remedies obtained when they are breached. But Thailand has not fulfilled this practical and integral obligation: the Asian Legal Resource Centre has pointed to this failure in its report to the Human Rights Committee to coincide with the considering of Thailand’s initial report under the Covenant this July.
Anek Yingnuek wants the abuse he has suffered at the hands of the police to be recognised and investigated, but he has no way to achieve this. The National Human Rights Commission lacks the means to afford an effective remedy. No domestic law exists to address torture, and there is no way to take his case to the superior courts. Nor can he approach the Human Rights Committee, as Thailand has not ratified the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
Effective functioning human rights mechanisms mean effective remedies. In Thailand, to eliminate the practice of torture and afford redress to the victims there must be a criminal law against torture and a channel for receipt and investigation of complaints. An avenue should be opened up by which complaints of serious rights violations under the constitution can be brought directly to the high courts. Finally, to afford a greater role for treaty bodies, Thailand should ratify the Convention against Torture and the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant without delay.
With these measures in place, Anek Yingnuek and other people like him might have a fighting chance to protect their rights, and in so doing, protect those of all people in Thailand.
Thank you, Mr Chairperson
