NEW YORK – On the eve of the verdict in the trial of five policemen charged with the disappearance of a prominent Thai Muslim lawyer named Somchai Neelaphaijit, Human Rights First called for further investigation into the case. The verdict is scheduled for January 12 at 1:30 p.m.

“We will be watching the verdict closely, but whatever the outcome, the response of the Thai government to this horrible crime has been wholly inadequate” said Neil Hicks, Director of International Programs. “They must charge someone with Somchai’s disappearance. The pursuit of lesser theft charges against the suspects in his disappearance has created a sham trial, while the actual crime is going unpunished.”

Mr. Neelaphaijit disappeared on March 12, 2004, just days after filing a complaint alleging that five of his clients had been tortured in police custody. Five policemen were charged in his disappearance: Major Ngern Thongsuk, Lt. Colonel Chadchai Leiamsa-ngoun, Major Sinchai Nimbunkampong, Sergeant Chaiyaweng Phaduang, and Corporal Randorn Sithikhet. Amazingly, the policemen were charged with stealing the lawyer’s watch, car, and cell phone, but not with his disappearance or murder.

Mr. Neelaphaijit was one of a small number of courageous lawyers assisting clients charged with national security offenses in the conflict area of southern Thailand, home to Thailand’s Muslim minority. Approximately 1000 people have died in the last two years, many at the hands of unidentified gunmen. In this context, there has been pressure on security forces to make arrests, and in many cases innocent civilians are swept up in searches for armed militants.

“Somchai worked to break the cycle of conflict, using the legal system to protect clients from torture and unjust imprisonment,” said Hicks. “Unless his disappearance is adequately investigated and punished, human rights defenders will not feel safe.”

Human Rights First has monitored the trial and will be issuing a detailed trial report incorporating the verdict. There were some signs that the government was dealing with the case seriously, such as the relatively rapid trial schedule. However, Human Rights First has identified a number of significant concerns with respect to the trial, which are listed in the background document included below.

Human Rights First’s Concerns about the Somchai Neelaphaijit Disappearance Trial

January 11, 2006

Human Rights First periodically attended the trial and interviewed numerous parties involved in the process. We have identified a number of concerns, which we will explain further in a more detailed trial report to be released later this month:

The police should not be trusted to investigate themselves: The investigation has been left in the hands of the police, despite the fact that all defendants are members of the police force. This conflict has led to charges of inadequate forensic work and unexplored leads. Despite repeated, and often contradictory, claims that the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) would mount an investigation, there have been no signs of an active investigation. Efforts by the Thai Senate have been stymied in part by a lack of government cooperation.

Most of the alibi witnesses were longtime colleagues and in some cases junior staff of the defendants, one of whom has remained an active member of the police force. The others have reportedly already requested reinstatement in anticipation of a verdict of not guilty.

Inadequate charges: The charges of gang robbery and coercion simply don't fit the crime. While there are some gaps in the Thai legal framework regarding involuntary disappearances, the root of the problem seems to be the absence of evidence due to a half-hearted investigation. Under Section 309 of the Criminal Code (coercion) the defendants face up to 5 years in prison. Under Section 340 (gang robbery) the defendants face up to 20 years in prison, though such sentences would be unlikely for members of the police force.

Inadequate witness protection: While the Government of Thailand has a witness protection program housed in the Ministry of Justice, in most cases the actual protection is carried out by the police, which would be inappropriate in this case. Neelaphaijit’s wife, who is also a co-plaintiff in the case, received several threats. At least one eye-witness reportedly gave courtroom testimony that differed from initial statements to the police, raising fears of intimidation.

Rules of evidence: The trial operated under rules of evidence in which lawyers were not given access to documents and other exhibits in advance of their introduction in court, making cross-examination of witnesses much more difficult. This problem was exacerbated by frequent turnover on the prosecution team.

- 30 -