CAT/C/THA/CO/1
Special laws
12.
While noting that the delegation of the State party cited 2,889 bombing incidents in
the south and thousands of civilian and military personnel casualties, the Committee
remains seriously concerned about the numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations about
the routine use of torture and ill-treatment by security and military officials in the southern
border provinces to obtain confessions. That situation is exacerbated by the application of
three special laws, namely the 1914 Martial Law Act, the 2005 Emergency Decree and the
2008 Internal Security Act, which provide broad emergency powers to the security and
military forces outside of judicial control and reinforce a climate of impunity for serious
human rights violations. The Committee is gravely concerned that:
(a)
The special laws provide for enlarged executive powers of administrative
detention, without adequate judicial supervision, and weaken fundamental safeguards for
persons deprived of their liberty. Under section 15 of the Martial Law Act and section 12 of
the Emergency Decree, a suspect can be held for as long as 37 days, without a warrant or
judicial oversight, before being brought before a court. Also, there is no requirement for a
detainee to be brought before a court at any stage of his or her detention, nor is the location
of detention always disclosed;
(b)
Safeguards against torture, which are provided by the law, and regulations are
allegedly not respected in practice and, in particular, detainees are often denied the right to
contact and receive visits by family members promptly after their deprivation of liberty;
also, some necessary safeguards, such as the right to contact a lawyer and to be examined
by an independent doctor promptly upon deprivation of liberty, are not guaranteed in law or
in practice.
(c)
The special laws, in particular section 7 of the Martial Law Act and section
17 of the Emergency Decree, explicitly limit the accountability of officials enforcing the
state of emergency by granting immunity from prosecution for serious human rights
violations, including acts of torture, in violation of the provisions of the Convention. The
Committee is concerned at the death in custody of Imam Yapa Kaseng and Sulaiman
Naesa, which highlights the obstacles to bringing perpetrators to justice (arts. 2, 4, 12, 13
and 15).
The State party should, as a matter of urgency, take vigorous steps to review without
delay its existing emergency laws and practice and repeal those incompatible with its
obligations under the Convention, in particular by ensuring that:
(a)
Detainees held without charge under security laws are brought in person
before a court;
(b)
Detainees taken into custody are permitted to contact family members,
lawyers and independent doctors promptly following deprivation of liberty, both in
law and in practice, and that the provision of these safeguards by the authorities is
monitored effectively.
(c)
No immunity from prosecution is granted to officials who commit
offences associated with human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment.
Furthermore, the State party should carry out prompt, impartial and thorough
investigations, bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice and, if convicted, impose
sentences commensurate with the gravity of the acts committed;
(d)
No one is coerced into testifying against themselves or others or
confessing guilt and no such confession is accepted as evidence in court, except against
a person accused of torture or other ill-treatment, as evidence that the confession or
other statement was made.
4