Wednesday, November 07, 2018

Asia Bibi

                                        The condemnation to death of Asia Bibi
The trial and condemnation to death of Asia Bibi is certainly one of the most horrifying examples of death penalty. She is a Christian Pakistani woman, convicted and sentenced to death by a Pakistani Court in November 2010. The facts of the case have always been subject to fierce debate. Yet, inconsistencies in witness testimonies and fragmented evidence did not prevent the court from securing Bibi’s conviction and from passing the death sentence. In 2014, the Lahore High Court upheld her death sentence. Nonetheless, the execution was stayed in July 2015, when the Pakistani Supreme Court agreed to hear her appeal. It was listed to take place during October 2016. Unfortunately, the appeal had to be adjourned after one of the three judges due to hear the case, Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, recused himself quoting a conflict of interests. Two years later, on October 31, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down the judgement acquitting Asia Bibi. The judgment indicated that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 

The decision of Pakistan’s highest court appears to matter little to the protesters. They have little respect for law and legal procedure.

Obscurity surrounds the case. Despite the acquittal, it was announced that Bibi had not been released, and that in any event, she would not be allowed to leave Pakistan. Then it was announced that she had left for an unknown destination. Clearly, if released in Pakistan she would have been brutally murdered by frantic mobs. Her husband and lawyer, are also trying to find refuge abroad, as are two of the judges who agreed to her acquittal.  Even before the acquittal, Shabez Bhutti, Minister of Minorities, and Salman Taseer, Governor of Punjab, who visited Asia Bibi in prison and argued her innocence were assassinated. The former was murdered by Taliban, the latter by his own bodyguard. 
It is clear that forcing Asia Bibi, now 47 years of age, to stay in Pakistan amounts to the imposition of a death sentence, what changes is that the execution will most likely come at the hands of an angry mob, not under the control of the justice system. This prediction is not far removed from reality, protesters are already calling for Asia to be hanged, and a mullah in Peshawar has promised a fortune, 500,000 rupees to anyone who kills her.

While details of the original offense are obscure, it relates to the alleged ritual impurity of a non-Muslim woman in an environment of fanatical religion. What was Asia Bibi accused of?

The trial stems from an argument Asia Bibi had with a group of women in June 2009.They were harvesting fruit in the full heat of the sun when a row broke out about a cup of water. Asia herself describes the incident which took place beside a well:

"I pull up a bucketful of water and dip in the old metal cup resting on the side of the well. The cool water is all I can think of. I gulp it down and I feel better. I...fill the cup again, this time holding it out to a woman next to me...She smiles and reaches out...There is a cry, 'Don't drink that water, it's haram!
'Listen all of you, this Christian has dirtied the water in the well by drinking from our cup and dipping it back in.. Now the water is unclean and we can't drink it"

Prosecutors alleged that in the row which followed, the women said Asia Bibi should convert to Islam and that she made offensive comments about the Prophet Muhammad in response.
She was later beaten up at her home, during which her accusers say she confessed to blasphemy. She was arrested after a police investigation.

Whatever the details, the fault is trivial. What arose in the subsequent verbal brawl cannot be more serious than the alleged uncleanliness. There are photographs of demented crowds calling for the hanging of Bibi. This is certainly not the teaching of the Prophet whose action to save the life of a woman taken in adultery is as striking as an identical event in the life of the founder of another world religion. Such actions strike at the heart of humanity, beyond all laws, religions, legal systems and ethical standards. 
Details of the incident are taken from "Blasphemy, the true heart-breaking story of the woman sentenced to death over a cup of water" Asia Bibi, who is illiterate, related the event in secret to a French journalist, through her husband who alone could visit her. Hachette Digital, London 2011
The book reveals her deep devotion to her husband and five children, all of whose lives are in danger.
                                                                               
                                                      Men call for death of Bibi

                                                                                                         
                                                                         

   In surat 5 of verse 32, the Koran teaches that anyone who kills an innocent person kills all  mankind, and anyone who saves a life saves all mankind


November 10: Scared of Muslim backlash, UK denies asylum to Asia Bibi

November 14: A voice of reason
Prominent British Muslims, including three imams - Qari Asim, Mamadou Bocoum and Dr Usama Hasan - have written a letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javidasking him "to make a clear and proactive statement that Britain would welcome a request for sanctuary here" The letter, also signed by MPs from across the political divide, goes on: "We are confident that action to ensure Asia Bibi and her family are safe would be very widely welcomed by most people in Britain, across every faith in our society. "If there are intolerant fringe voices who would object, they must be robustly challenged, not indulged."

November 12: Bibi's lawyer, Saif-ul-Mulooktold the Bild am Sonntag German newspaper that Asia Bibi "would be happy if she could leave for Germany with her family."

Bibi, who was acquitted by Pakistan's Supreme Court on blasphemy charges on October 31, is reportedly still in Pakistan despite her release from jail. Her life is in extreme danger, from frantic Muslim extremists 
Mulook fled Pakistan to the Netherlands a day after the court's decision.

Friday, October 26, 2018

Singapore kills again, and again, and again.....


In an unannounced hanging, Selemat Bin Paki was hanged yesterday in Singapore.

Two other condemned prisoners await execution, scheduled for today.

On October 25th Singapore's Supreme Court sentenced to death a 30 year old security guard, Gabi Avedian charged with importing 40.22 g of heroin, overruling an Appeal Court sentence of 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane on a less severe charge of attempted trafficking.
The sentencing judges had "grave reservations" about testimony of assurances given to Gabi when he undertook delivery,  that the drugs were not heroin
The sentence raises a semantic issue. It would appear that "grave reservations" outweigh the standard for capital punishment sentencing, requiring evidence of guilt to be "beyond reasonable doubt". Would the scales of justice hang even for the one against the other? Are life and death in Singapore dependent on so fine an issue

Singapore has already execute six persons this year, perhaps eight by today

Friday, October 05, 2018

Singapore kills again

deathpenaltythailand has long been a friend and admirer of  Singapore lawyer Ravi. I am familiar with his method of engagement for those whose lives he tries to save. First, he engages with the family of the accused, learning all he can about the life of his client. He asks for some small object which was a treasured possession of the accused and keeps it before him to remind him continually of the real person involved. Then he devotes his excellent legal skills to explore every avenue of defense. I have heard all too often of court appointed lawyers who meet for the first time with the accused on the day of trial, and choose the easy option of recommending an admission of guilt, which may result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty. The tactics of defense of Ravi are often ingenious, exploiting every possible flaw in the arguments of the prosecution. His dearest clients are those most disadvantaged in society. His greatest suffering is to meet with failure and see another life sacrificed on the alter of "Justice".    

"I just received heartbreaking news from 2 lawyers representing drug traffickers that their clients are going to be hanged at 6am tomorrow. In total there will be three state sanctioned executions- Zainuddin, Abdul Wahid and another - all for drug trafficking. A dark day for me as I felt helpless when one of the lawyers asked me to help his client whom he says is 100% innocent.I know he has done his best and is as desperate as I am thinking about what can be done. This will be one of the highest number of hangings in a single day in recent times. I will be writing to the authorities to halt the executions and to impose a moratorium on the death penalty, though I know this will fall on deaf ears as has done before ..... I will be heading to Changi prison later to say a prayer and to express my solidarity with the families of the 3 victims of yet more state murders."

Saturday, September 08, 2018

Death Penalty in Malaysia for providing free cannibis oil to patients

                                                                            
"Death sentence for Malaysia man who gave patients free cannibis oil"
See website <https://www.talkingdrugs.org/death-sentence-for-malaysia-man-who-gave-patients-free-cannibis-oil>

 death penaltythailand usually provides a synopsis  of such a story, but for some reason this site is guarded by the most extensive legal gobbledegook ever encountered. Please  follow at the above url. The image is not from this source. Only the heading is reproduced

A more detailed account of the case is available. For full detail see
 https://tindakangerakasuh.wordpress.com/2018/09/03/death-penalty-for-distributing-cannabis-oils/


Shah Alam High Court, Selangor, Malaysia
Criminal Trial 45A – 83 – 09/2015
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS MUHAMMAD LUKMAN BIN MOHAMAD
Thursday, 30 August 2018, MUHAMMAD LUKMAN BIN MOHAMAD (HealTHCare) was convicted and condemned to death by Shah Alam High court judge Dato ‘Haji Ghazali bin Haji Cha. He was charge under Section 39B Dangerous Drug Act for possession 3.01 litre Cannabis oil and 279 grams of compressed cannabis. He was arrested at residence on December 7 2015 along with his wife who was his 6 months pregnant.
Lukman was represented by lawyer Farhan Maaruf. Farhan had argued that Lukman was not involved in any crime or a criminal that threatened national security. He was not associated with any illegal syndicates but merely collaborated with several independent organizations such as Bani Tenang dan G.E.N.G.G.A.M (Gerakan Edukasi Ganja Malaysia/ Malaysia Ganja Education Movement) that focused on educating the public on medical marijuana. The cannabis oils were intended to treat diseases and not to get high or any criminal activities as claimed by the prosecutor.  For those who were too poor to pay, Lukman provided them with free cannabis oil. All these demonstrates that HealTHCare was not a profit-making syndicate.
.................
Lukman is in Kajang Prison, awaiting for his appeal at Court of Appeal.

Any support and inquiry from the public may contact his lawyer, Farhan Maaruf & Co at 018-566399 @ 03-64129063 @ Fax: 03-64129063.

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Website Statistics

Viewers of this website

         Spain 163
         Thailand 84
         United States 82
         Latvia 53
         France 37
         Russia 24
         Brazil 18
         China  17
         Unknown Region 16
         Indonesia 16

Courtesy of www.blogger.com 25/8/2018 

Friday, August 24, 2018

Summary of the 63 crimes incurring the death penalty in Thailand


Aggravated Murder.
The following aggravated forms of murder are punishable by death: committing murder “by employing torture or acts of cruelty;” murder of an ascendant, murder of an official, or murder of those who assist officials; murder to prepare or facilitate another offense; murder “for the purpose of securing the benefit obtained through any other offence or of concealing any other offence or of escaping punishment for any other offence committed by him;” murder or attempted murder of a member of the royal family; [6] and murder or attempted murder of a foreign head of state that has friendly relations with Thailand.
Murder.
Murder (even without aggravating factors) is punishable by death.
Other Offenses Resulting in Death.
The following offenses are punishable by death if they result in the death of a victim, even in the absence of an intent to cause death: committing a theft or a gang-robbery; raping a woman or girl or committing “indecent acts” on a child under the age of 15; having sexual relations with a girl under the age of 15, even if they are consensual; forcibly detaining, enslaving or trafficking a child under 15 years; kidnapping to obtain a ransom or supporting such an offense; and committing arson or causing an explosion. Causing (or attempting to cause) the death of a member of the royal family, the head of a foreign friendly state or an accredited foreign representative is also punishable by death, and it is unclear whether the law requires evidence of intent.

In March 2015, the National Legislative Assembly voted to amend the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2008 to make human trafficking a capital offense if it causes a trafficking victim’s death.
Terrorism-Related Offenses Not Resulting in Death.
Arson of State buildings or places of mass gatherings, religious sites, or public transportation vehicles is punishable by death. Reports indicate that airplane hijacking is also a capital offense under the 1978 Royal Act on Certain Offences Related to Air Travel, which we were not able to locate during our research.
Rape Not Resulting in Death.
Raping a woman or girl under the age of 15 with a gun or explosives, or with the intent to murder, is punishable by death if it results in serious injury.
Arson Not Resulting in Death.
Committing arson or preparing to do so by setting fire to a building or vessel used as a human dwelling, a building or vessel used for storage or manufacture of goods, public places such as a house of entertainment, a meeting place, a State building, a place for performing religious ceremonies, a railway station, airport, or public parking, or a boat, airplane or train used for public transportation, are punishable by death.
Kidnapping Not Resulting in Death.
Kidnapping for ransom and causing grievous bodily harm or any physical or mental injury by torture to the kidnapped person is punishable by death. Being an accomplice to this offense is also punishable by death.

In addition, the Narcotics Act, which makes forcibly drugging a woman or person lacking legal competence a capital offense, likely affects whether certain kidnapping offenses in Thailand are punishable by death.
Drug Trafficking Not Resulting in Death.
The death penalty can be imposed for manufacturing, importing or exporting category 1 or “dangerous” narcotics for commercial purposes.
Drug Possession.
Possession of more than 20 grams of category 1 or “dangerous” narcotics is a capital offense. The use of deception, coercion, intimidation, physical threat, or dark influence to force any woman or person lacking legal competence to take narcotics is also a capital offense.
Economic Crimes Not Resulting in Death.
The death penalty may be imposed on a government official or a democratic representative, a judicial official or a prosecutor for demanding or accepting a bribe. In July 2015, an amendment to the Anti-Corruption Act expanded the death penalty to foreign officials and staff of international organizations who demand or accept a bribe.
Treason.
The following treasonous offenses are punishable by death: endangering the life of the King or committing a deadly or violent action against the royal family; causing or attempting to cause the death of the head of a friendly foreign state or an accredited foreign representative; committing or threatening to commit an act of violence to overthrow the constitution or seize power; acting with the intent to cause the country to fall under the sovereignty of a foreign State or to deteriorate the independence of the State; a Thai citizen taking up arms against Thailand or assisting an enemy; and committing any act with the intent to cause danger to the external security of the State, if such danger occurs.

A number of treason and espionage offenses are also reportedly punishable by death under the Military Criminal Code.
Espionage.
Espionage to aid an enemy in preparation for battle or during wartime is a capital offense. Reports indicate that the Military Criminal Code also imposes the death penalty for espionage.
Military Offenses Not Resulting in Death.
A number of capital treason offenses laid out in the Criminal Code are relevant to the military, including instigating neglect of duty by a member of the armed forces, committing mutiny, deserting, committing a breach of discipline, and bearing arms against the country.

We were unable to locate the Military Criminal Code during our research, but reports indicate that it also imposes the death penalty for the following offences: dodging the draft, deserting or deserting one’s duty in the face of the enemy; surrendering against orders or more generally committing acts of insubordination in the face of the enemy; initiating or organizing a conspiracy or armed rebellion through armed threats, armed assault, or by creating public unrest; assaulting a commanding officer in the face of the enemy; and abandoning or destroying military property, equipment or supplies in face of the enemy. A number of treason and espionage offenses are also punishable by death under the Military Criminal Code. Any offence committed by a released prisoner of war returning to active combat duty is also punishable by death.
Other Offenses Not Resulting in Death.
- Offenses against women and minors: Procuring, recruiting, luring, enticing or coercing a child under the age of 15 to gratify the sexual desire of another person; or using deception, coercion, intimidation, physical threat, or dark influence to force any woman or person lacking legal competence to take narcotics are punishable by death.

- Use of firearms or explosives: The illegal use of firearms or explosives is a capital offense under the Firearms and Accessories, Explosives, Fireworks, and Other Equivalence Act, which we were not able to consult first-hand.

- Attempts: Certain attempted offenses may be punished like the offense itself: attempting to cause the death of a member of the royal family, the head of a foreign friendly state or an accredited foreign representative, and attempted murder of a member of the royal family or a friendly foreign head of state are punishable by death.
Comments.
As of September 2014, the National Legislative Assembly set up under military rule was considering a bill creating a new terrorism-related capital offense for destroying or damaging an aircraft, or committing an act in an airport which causes death or forces the closure of an airport.

(The 63 capital crimes are listed in a Thai language document distributed by the Ministry of Justice. The convenient format used here is from https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=thailand where references to articles of the criminal code are included)

In a Human Rights Council notice addressed to Thailand:
“ Death penalty. While welcoming the de facto moratorium on executions, the Committee reiterates its concern that domestic law punishes with the death penalty crimes relating to corruption, bribery and drugs, which do not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes” within the meaning of article 6 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee is also concerned about the large number of cases in which the death penalty has been imposed (arts. 6-7). The State party should consider abolishing the death penalty and acceding to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. If the death penalty is maintained, the State should take all measures necessary, including legislative action, to ensure that it is limited to the most serious crimes, such as acts carried out with the intention of killing.” UN document CCPR/C/THA/CO/25 April 2017


Image: mariafresa.net/clipart/law-gavel-clipart.html

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Execution of Aum Shinrikyo members

There are many who believe that if ever the death penalty is justified it is so in the case of the Aum Shinrikyo cult members who killed 19 people and injured thousands in a sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo underground railway. The Aum cult was based on the belief that the end of the world was coming, and that those outside the cult would go to hell, unless killed by cult members.
The executions pose a challenge both to those who wish to abolish the death penalty and to those who support it. The supporters are vehement in their belief, as shown by the almost unanimity of those commenting on news reports of the atrocity. To them it is evident that for such a crime the perpetrators must die, and that all terrorists should be executed. The highly emotional aspect of the demand appears to be a belief in retribution, an eye for an eye, a life for a life, a principle that is deeply embedded in the human psyche. The evolutionary origin of this powerful belief certainly derives from a human history which had to evolve through aeons when revenge was the only available response to individual or group injury. Such a response has only been replaced with the development of state retributive justice, where the state and its organs of justice have taken on the responsibility of responding to injustice. The state has at its disposal other punishments than the talion of an eye for an eye. But the rage for vengeance lingers on. The other justification for execution is the certainty that the perpetrators will not repeat their crime. An argument for deterrence is hardly relevant against attacks by fanatical assailants, who in modern days are willing to make suicide attacks.
What is the response of abolitionists to such awful crimes? Their response is informed by the historical development of the conviction that human life is inviolable, most strongly expressed in that symphony of humanity "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", created from the experience of the two most savage wars experienced by the human race: "Everyone has the right to life..". This right was cruelly violated by Aum Shinrikyo, but also by those who have executed them. To kill the killers is to share their rejection of the unique value of life, and no satisfaction from revenge can justify the rejection. This realisation of the value of human life has developed throughout the same long history as our sense of justice. The two should never conflict. However, a hunger for justice can hardly compete with the rage of vengeance.

Two comments are offered:
a) A consistent respect for human life in all respects will instill in future generations a respect which will counteract a growing lethal violence in many countries which we can neither understand nor control.
b) There is a strange resonance in the use of sarin gas in the outrageous attacks of Aum Shinrikyo, invented by Nazis, who eliminated six million people in gas chambers during their time in power. In the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders we heard the justification of following a myth of racial superiority and racial purity. Ten of their leaders were found guilty and executed by hanging on 16th October 1946
But the germ of Nazism lives on, in the protection of racial purity to justify closure of national boundaries against the human flood of those escaping from intolerable poverty, disaster, or persecution. Would it not have been wiser to keep in confinement those who had acted on the myth of racial superiority, to demonstrate the value of life which they rejected, to face them with the falsehood of their beliefs, to convince them of their error, and to testify against the Nazism which continues to recur throughout the world. Similar lessons would be available from imprisoned fanatics, to understand and counter the authors of terrorism who again afflict our world, and against whom we lack the understanding and the ability to counteract.

In fine, there is a further resonance between the defects commented on in the Nuremberg trials and the trials in Tokyo. The laws applied in Nuremberg were created by the trial itself. The execution was by hanging using the method of short drop which effects a painful death by strangulation In Tokyo the belief of cult members that they were saving their victims from hell in a world that was ending, reveals mental states, that are mad or verge on madness. The executions that followed over twenty years later ignored the mental transformation of several of the convicted, and their apologies to relatives of the victims. They were no longer led by the fanaticism for which they were being punished. Besides, the impossibility of repeating the crime from the confines of a high security prison, matches the secure barrier of death itself.

Postscript

Shoko Asahara, leader of Aum Shinrikyo, levitates

Haruki Murakami, the prominent Japanese novelist has written a remarkable set of interviews with survivors of the Tokyo sarin attacks, ("Underground", Vintage Books, 2001). The interviewees describe the horrors of the attack against innocent passengers, making the most powerful appeal for the death penalty against the perpetrators. One cannot counter the conviction of those who suffered so much. Neither is it possible to ultimately understand the motivation of those who carried out the attack, also reported by Murakami in interviews with members of Aum Shinrikyo. The motives of the accused presented during their trial were the overwhelming dominance on their lives of Shoko Asahara, an exact repeat of the defence of the accused in Nurenberg, who referred to their subjection to Adolf Hitler. One can only allow them the grace of the French saying, "Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner". But there remains the motivation and guilt of Shoko Asahara, as unanswerable as evil itself, a problem which the world's psychologies, philosophies and religions have failed to solve.
Haruki Murakami has written the most profound reflection on the death sentences against Aum Shinrikyo which it is hoped we can obtain permission to print on this site. Meanwhile, his article is available at https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20180729/p2a/00m/0na/004000c, and is I believe the nearest one can come to maintaining an opposition to the death penalty in response to the sentences of death handed down by Tokyo courts. Just as the flawed Nuremberg trials led to a development of international law dealing with major atrocities, one may hope for a reflection on the Tokyo trials which will give us greater understanding of the ultimate punishment we call Capital.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Update on Case of Teerasak Longji


Teerasak Longji, Executed On 18/6/2018 In Thailand May Be A Miscarriage Of Justice Arising out of Police Failings

Abolish the Death Penalty -

We, the 74 undersigned groups and organisations, are appalled by the recent ‘secret’ execution of Teerasak Longji by Thailand, the first execution since 24 August 2009 (Bangkok Post, 18/6/2016). Given recent facts that have been reported in the media, miscarriage of justice is a very real possibility.

Thailand had observed a de facto moratorium since 2009, and in about a year or so it would have been over 10 years, and Thailand would thereafter have been considered an abolitionist state in practice.

26-year-old Teerasak Longji was executed at Bangkok’s Bang Kwang Central Prison by lethal injection for aggravated murder. He was accused and convicted of stabbing Danudet Sookmak ,a 17-year-old high school student, 24 times before stealing his smartphone and wallet in July 2012. Teerasak had always maintained his innocence, and never confessed.

There are now serious concerns that Teerasak Longji may have been wrongly executed, just like the case of Chiang Kuo-ching, who was executed in Taiwan in 1997 after being convicted of sexually abusing and murdering a five-year-old girl. In 2011, Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice admitted that Chiang had been executed in error.

“No criminal justice system is perfect. You take a man’s life and years later, you find out that another person did the crime. What can you do?” - Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, the then Minister in the Malaysian Prime Minister’s Department.

Miscarriage of Justice

There are now questions about the investigation and prosecution in this case.

There is also the possibility of cover-up and ‘corruption’ given the fact that the police admitted that another suspect is still at large, which makes this execution of Teerasak, a possible ‘material witness’ on 18/6/2018 before all other perpetrators of the crime are arrested and brought to justice questionable. Other suspects, when arrested could also prove that Teerasak was not even guilty. Further, another witness have also emerged, who allegedly can confirm that Teerasak was innocent.

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTION QUESTIONABLE?

In a media report (Khaosod English,22/6/2018), it was stated, ‘The victim’s parents said they urged police years ago to look for another perpetrator, but they claim investigators were dismissive, telling them to gather witnesses and evidence themselves.’ Recently, the police did confirm that there was indeed another alleged perpetrator.

The police had on Wednesday(20/6/2018) stated that they are looking for another suspect...“We’re keeping up the investigation to bring in another perpetrator,” Prasert [Lt. Col Prasert Songsaeng, who’s in charge of the case ]said on Friday(22/6/2018). (Khaosod English, 22/6/2018). Lt. Col Prasert was also reported stating that Teerasak had never confessed.

The attitude and conduct of the Thai police in this case certainly is questionable. It is the duty of the police to conduct a thorough investigation, leaving no stone unturned in its quest for the truth to ensure that the correct perpetrator of the crime is brought to justice.

As such, the conduct of Lt. Col Prasert Songsaeng and the officers in charge of the investigation and prosecution is disappointing. For the police to even suggest to Teerasak’s parents to ‘gather evidence’ themselves when it is the police duty to investigate was most unprofessional.

It was also stated in the media report that, ‘…According to Prasert, police were able to obtain an arrest warrant for Teerasak, who had several drug- and weapons-related crimes on his record, within a day of the murder based on strong witness statements. They captured him the next day. He added that Teerasak has never confessed….’

This raises a doubt about whether the police and the prosecution conducted a proper investigation in this case. Did the police and prosecutors have a "tunnel vision" mentality that kept them from pursuing the real perpetrators of the crime? Were they closed to the possibility of other suspects, and simply focused on their belief that Teerasak was the guilty person – not even bothering to find the other alleged perpetrator, or the possibility that some other, not even Teerasak, committed the crime? Such ‘tunnel vision’ on the part of police and prosecutors has been proven to have caused serious miscarriage of justice – even the death of innocent persons.

The fact that a person had a past criminal record really does not mean that he committed a new crime. Past convictions may have a bearing on sentencing, but it should never ever influence the police in their investigation into a particular new crime. Jumping to conclusions, and shutting out other possibilities, is most dangerous, and it may lead to an innocent person being punished, or even deprived of life.

Justice Was Not Done In Teerasak’s Execution

Doubts have arisen as to the guilt of Teerasak’s with the emergence of an alleged witness, which was reported in the media, ‘…The witness’s claim emerged yesterday online. In it he said that he and another friend saw two other teenagers repeatedly stab another teen while he was riding a motorbike past the scene. He stopped to see what was happening and had to flee the perpetrators. He said Teerasak, whom he was familiar with, was not present at the time. Then he saw Teerasak riding toward the scene on a motorbike from the opposite direction and warned him not to continue…’ (Khaosod English, 22/6/2018)



Even if Teerasak was guilty, reasonably he would be a material witness, when he comes to the prosecuting of others who were also involved in the killing. The execution of a possible material witness, before any or all others are arrested, charged and tried would certainly not result in justice for the victim if the real perpetrators get off scot free for the lack of Teerasak’s evidence. Doubts arise whether Teerasak was suddenly executed for some ulterior motive of protecting other perpetrators.



Family Not Notified of Teerasak’s Execution

It was reported that the younger sister of Teerasak, Kanita Longji, 20, said ‘…that the family was not told he would be put to death until after it was carried out…”I don’t understand and there was no advanced notification that he would be executed…In reality, family members should be notified if an execution is to be carried out…so that relatives can bid farewell.” Kanita said that the family was planning to visit him on Tuesday because her brother had recently sent a letter asking for 2,000 Baht…’(Khaosod English, 19/6/2018)

This is most draconian when family and loved one’s of persons about to be executed are not even given the opportunity the spend some time together before execution. Such ‘secret’ executions, also denies the possibility of any last attempts to prevent the death of persons on death row.

In this case, when fact of the death was revealed in the media, it has prompted a witness to emerge who could have proven Teerasak’s innocence. Now, if information of the upcoming execution had appeared in media earlier, Teerasak may not have been executed by reason of this new witness. The failure of the police to find this witness, while they were investigating the crime is also indicative of incompetence or a lackadaisical attitude in the conduct of criminal investigation.

Therefore, we

Call on the Thailand to immediately review the case of Teerasak Longji, who was executed on 18/6/2018 to determine whether there was a miscarriage of justice, and if so, to immediately apologize to the Teerasak Longji’s family;

Call of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and the government of Thailand to forthwith conduct an inquiry on the police investigation conducted by Lt. Col Prasert Songsaeng and the police team on the killing of Danudet Sookmak in July 2012, that led to prosecution and ultimate execution of Teerasak Longji.

Call on Thailand to take action on police and enforcement personnel involved in investigations of crime, who failed to conduct their investigation professionally, competently and in a corruption-free manner, that can result in miscarriage of justice;

Call on Thailand to immediately impose a moratorium on executions, and to abolish the death penalty in Thailand

Charles Hector

Selma James

Nina Lopez



For and on behalf of the 74 organisations/groups listed below



ALIRAN, Malaysia

Australians Against Capital Punishment (AACP)

Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters- HRDP, Myanmmar

ATRAHDOM Guatemala

Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India

Brandywine Peace Community

Catholic Mobilizing Network, US

CAW (Committee for Asian Women)

Center for Orang Asli Concerns(COAC), Malaysia

Center for Prisoners' Rights, Japan

Christian Development Alternative (CDA), Bangladesh

CRCF -Cross Cultural Foundation, Thailand

Democratic Commission for Human Development, Pakistan

ECPM (Together against the Death Penalty [Ensemble contre la peine de mort]), France

End Solitary Santa Cruz County, CA, USA

Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc.

FIDU - Federazione Italiana Diritti Umani(Italian Federation for Human Rights)

German Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (GCADP)

Global Women’s Strike, UK

Global Women’s Strike, USA

GoodElectronics Thailand

Haiti Action Committee

Hands off Cain

Health and Opportunity Network (HON), Thailand

Hearty Support Group ,Thailand

Human Rights Coalition

Human Rights Coalition, Philadelphia, USA

HRC Fed Up Pittsburgh, USA

Human Rights and Democracy Media Center "SHAMS", Palestine

IDEAL( Institute for Development of Alternative Living), Malaysia

Imparsial The Indonesian Human Right Monitor

International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal

Legal Action for Women, United Kingdom

Legal Awareness Watch(LAW), Pakistan

Let’s Get Free/Pittsburgh

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility.(MPSR)

Manushya Foundation, Thailand

MAP Foundation (Thailand)

Margaret Prescod, Pacifica Radio host

Marvi Rural Development Organization- MRDO, Pakistan

Migrant Care, Indonesia

MLK Coalition of Greater Los Angeles, USA

Mumia Abu-Jamal

National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW)

North South Initiative

Odhikar, Bangladesh

Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)

Payday – USA

Payday Men’s Network

People's Empowerment Foundation (PEF), Thailand

Persatuan Komuniti Prihatin Selangor, KL & Perak (Malaysia)

Programme Against Custodial Torture and Impunity (PACTI), India

Raging Grannies

Rescue Alternatives Liberia (RAL)

Sikhoraphum Youth Group ,Thailand

Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)

Step Ahead Foundation, Thailand

TEA Togetherness for Equality and Action, Thailand

Tenaganita, Malaysia

Teoh Beng Hock trust for Democracy

The Duay Jai (Hearty Support) Group, Thailand

The Julian Wagner Memorial Fund (JWMF), Australia

The MOVE Organization (Family Africa)

The Sunny Center Foundation, New York

Think Centre, Singapore

Topanga Peace Alliance, USA

UCL - Union for Civil liberty, Thailand

Witness to Innocence

Women in Media,

Women of Color, UK

Women of Color, USA

Workers Assistance Center, Inc., Philippines

Workers Hub For Change(WH4C)



Thai version of statement

การประหารชีวิตทวีศักดิ์ หลงจิเมื่อวันที่ 18 มิถุนายน 2561 ในประเทศไทย อาจเป็นความผิดพลาดด้านกระบวนการยุติธรรม อันเกิดจากข้อบกพร่องของตำรวจ

- ยกเลิกโทษประหาร -

พวกเราซึ่งเป็นกลุ่มและองค์กรที่มีรายนามด้านล่างเสียใจอย่างยิ่งกับการประหารชีวิตทวีศักดิ์ หลงจิ ที่เกิดขึ้น “อย่างเป็นความลับ" เมื่อเร็ว ๆ นี้ นับเป็นการประหารชีวิตครั้งแรกตั้งแต่วันที่ 24 สิงหาคม 2552 (Bangkok Post, 18/6/2559) และจากการพิจารณารายงานของสื่อมวลชนเมื่อเร็ว ๆ นี้ มีความเป็นไปได้อย่างมากว่า ได้เกิดความผิดพลาดด้านกระบวนการยุติธรรม

ประเทศไทยได้ชื่อว่าเป็นประเทศที่พักการประหารชีวิตในทางปฏิบัติมานับแต่ปี 2552 และในเวลาอีกประมาณหนึ่งปีเมื่อไม่ได้มีการประหารชีวิตเกินกว่า 10 ปี ประเทศไทยย่อมมีสถานะเป็นประเทศที่ยกเลิกโทษประหารในทางปฏิบัติ

ทวีศักดิ์ หลงจิ อายุ 26 ปี ถูกประหารที่เรือนจำกลางบางขวาง กรุงเทพฯ ด้วยการฉีดยาในข้อหาฆ่าผู้อื่นอย่างทารุณ เขาถูกกล่าวหาและถูกศาลตัดสินว่ามีความผิดฐานใช้มีดจ้วงแทงดนุเดช สุขมาก นักเรียนมัธยมวัย 17 ปี ถึง 24 ครั้ง ก่อนจะขโมยสมาร์ทโฟนและกระเป๋าสตางค์ของเขาไปเมื่อเดือนกรกฎาคม 2555 ทวีศักดิ์ยืนยันมาตลอดว่าเขาเป็นผู้บริสุทธิ์ และไม่เคยรับสารภาพ

ในปัจจุบันได้เกิดข้อกังวลอย่างจริงจังว่า ทวีศักดิ์ หลงจิอาจถูกประหารจากกระบวนการที่ผิดพลาดเช่นเดียวกับกรณีของเจียงเกาจิง ที่ถูกประหารในไต้หวันเมื่อปี 2540 ในข้อหาละเมิดทางเพศและสังหารเด็กผู้หญิงอายุห้าขวบ ในปี 2554 กระทรวงยุติธรรมของไต้หวันยอมรับว่าการประหารชีวิตเจียงเกิดจากกระบวนการที่ผิดพลาด

“ไม่มีระบบยุติธรรมทางอาญาใดที่สมบูรณ์พร้อม ถ้าเราประหารชีวิตบุคคล และอีกหลายปีต่อมา เราพบว่าคนร้ายเป็นอีกคนหนึ่ง เราจะทำอย่างไรล่ะ?” ดาโต๊ะเสรี นาซรี อับดุล อาซิซ รัฐมนตรีประจำสำนักนายกรัฐมนตรีของมาเลเซียในขณะนั้น

ความผิดพลาดด้านกระบวนการยุติธรรม

ในปัจจุบันมีการตั้งคำถามเกี่ยวกับการสอบสวนและการดำเนินคดีนี้

ทั้งยังมีความเป็นไปได้ว่าเกิดการปกปิดความจริงและ “การทุจริต” ขึ้นเนื่องจากตำรวจยอมรับว่ายังจับตัวคนร้ายอีกคนหนึ่งไม่ได้ ซึ่งทำให้เกิดข้อสงสัยต่อ “พยานสำคัญ” ที่ใช้เป็นหลักฐานในการประหารชีวิตทวีศักดิ์เมื่อวันที่ 18 มิถุนายน 2561 ก่อนจะมีการจับกุมคนร้ายในคดีนี้ได้ทั้งหมดและถูกนำมาไต่สวน หากมีการจับกุมผู้ต้องสงสัยคนอื่นได้ อาจนำมาสู่ข้อพิสูจน์ว่า ทวีศักดิ์ไม่ได้เป็นผู้กระทำความผิด นอกจากนั้นพยานอีกคนหนึ่งยังปรากฏตัว และยืนยันว่าทวีศักดิ์เป็นผู้บริสุทธิ์

การสอบสวนของเจ้าพนักงานตำรวจและการดำเนินคดีควรถูกตั้งคำถามหรือไม่?

รายงานของสื่อ (Khaosod English,22/6/2018) ระบุว่า “พ่อแม่ของผู้ตายบอกว่า พวกเขาได้เรียกร้องตำรวจมาเป็นเวลาหลายปีให้ตามหาตัวคนร้ายอีกคนหนึ่ง แต่พ่อแม่บอกว่าพนักงานสอบสวนไม่ได้ให้ความใส่ใจ และบอกให้ทางครอบครัวไปรวบรวมพยานหลักฐานเอาเอง” เมื่อเร็ว ๆ นี้ตำรวจยืนยันเองว่ายังมีคนร้ายอีกคนหนึ่ง

ตำรวจได้แถลงเมื่อวันพุธที่ 20 มิถุนายน 2561 ว่ากำลังอยู่ระหว่างการติดตามตัวผู้ต้องสงสัยอีกคนหนึ่ง “เรายังคงสอบสวนเรื่องนี้ต่อไปเพื่อจับตัวคนร้ายอีกคนหนึ่ง” พ.ต.ท.ประเสริฐ สงแสง ซึ่งเป็นพนักงานสอบสวนในคดีนี้กล่าวเมื่อวันศุกร์ที่ 22 มิถุนายน 2561 (Khaosod English, 22/6/2018) มีรายงานว่าพ.ต.ท.ประเสริฐระบุว่าทวีศักดิ์ไม่เคยให้การรับสารภาพ

ทัศนคติและการปฏิบัติหน้าที่ของตำรวจไทยในคดีนี้ ย่อมถูกตั้งคำถามอย่างแน่นอน ตำรวจมีหน้าที่อำนวยการให้เกิดการสืบสวนสอบสวนอย่างรอบด้าน โดยไม่ให้เกิดข้อสงสัยใด ๆ ในการค้นหาความจริง เพื่อประกันว่าจะมีการนำตัวคนร้ายที่แท้จริงเข้าสู่กระบวนการไต่สวน

ด้วยเหตุดังกล่าว พฤติการณ์ของพ.ต.ท.ประเสริฐ สงแสงและเจ้าพนักงานซึ่งทำหน้าที่สอบสวนและฟ้องคดีนี้ ทำให้เราผิดหวัง ถึงขั้นที่ตำรวจบอกให้พ่อแม่ของผู้ตายไป “รวบรวมพยานหลักฐานเอาเอง” ทั้ง ๆ ที่เป็นหน้าที่ในการสอบสวนของตำรวจ ถือเป็นการกระทำอย่างไม่เป็นมืออาชีพ

ยังมีรายงานในสื่ออีกด้วยว่า “...จากข้อมูลของพ.ต.ท.ประเสริฐ ตำรวจสามารถขอหมายจับจากศาลเพื่อจับกุมทวีศักดิ์ ซึ่งเคยมีประวัติกระทำความผิดด้านยาเสพติดและอาวุธหลายกรณี โดยสามารถออกหมายจับได้เพียงหนึ่งวันหลังการฆาตกรรม โดยใช้ปากคำของพยานที่หนักแน่น และตำรวจได้จับกุมเขาในวันต่อมา ตำรวจบอกด้วยว่าทวีศักดิ์ไม่เคยให้การรับสารภาพ...”

ทำให้เกิดข้อสงสัยว่าตำรวจและพนักงานอัยการ ดำเนินการสืบสวนสอบสวนในคดีนี้อย่างเหมาะสมหรือไม่ ตำรวจและอัยการติดอยู่ในกรอบความคิดแคบ ๆ ซึ่งเป็นเหตุให้ไม่สามารถติดตามตัวคนร้ายที่แท้จริงในคดีนี้ใช่หรือไม่? เป็นไปได้หรือไม่ที่ตำรวจปิดกั้นโอกาสในการสอบสวนผู้ต้องสงสัยรายอื่น และกลับให้ความสำคัญตามความเชื่ออย่างจริงจังว่าทวีศักดิ์เป็นคนร้าย โดยไม่ใส่ใจจะติดตามตัวผู้ต้องสงสัยอีกคนหนึ่ง หรือโดยไม่คำนึงว่ามีความเป็นไปได้ที่คนอื่นนอกจากทวีศักดิ์จะเป็นคนร้ายในคดีนี้? กรอบคิดที่คับแคบเช่นนี้ของตำรวจและพนักงานอัยการ เป็นสิ่งที่ส่งผลให้เกิดความผิดพลาดด้านกระบวนการยุติธรรมในหลายกรณีมาแล้ว ทั้งยังเป็นเหตุให้ผู้บริสุทธิ์ต้องเสียชีวิต

การที่บุคคลเคยมีประวัติกระทำความผิดไม่ได้หมายความว่าบุคคลนั้นจะกระทำความผิดครั้งใหม่ ประวัติการถูกตัดสินลงโทษอาจมีผลในการกำหนดโทษ แต่ไม่ควรเป็นปัจจัยที่มีอิทธิพลต่อการสืบสวนสอบสวนของเจ้าพนักงานต่อความผิดที่เกิดขึ้นใหม่ การด่วนสรุปและการปิดกั้นโอกาสอย่างอื่นเป็นสิ่งที่อันตรายอย่างมากสุด โดยอาจส่งผลให้ผู้บริสุทธิ์ต้องถูกลงโทษ หรืออาจต้องสูญเสียชีวิต

การประหารชีวิตทวีศักดิ์เป็นสิ่งที่ไม่เป็นธรรม

ได้เกิดข้อสงสัยเกี่ยวกับความผิดของทวีศักดิ์ เนื่องจากพยานใหม่ให้ความเห็นตามรายงานของสื่อว่า “...พยานได้ให้ความเห็นทางอินเตอร์เน็ตเมื่อวานนี้ โดยระบุว่าเขากับเพื่อนอีกคนหนึ่งเห็นวัยรุ่นอีกสองคนจ้วงแทงวัยรุ่นอีกคนหนึ่งอย่างไม่ยั้ง ระหว่างที่เขาขี่มอเตอร์ไซค์ผ่านจุดเกิดเหตุ เขาได้จอดรถเพื่อหยุดดูสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น และต้องหลบหนีจากคนร้าย เขาบอกว่าทวีศักดิ์ซึ่งเป็นคนที่เขารู้จักไม่ได้อยู่ในที่เกิดเหตุในขณะนั้น ต่อมาเขาเห็นทวีศักดิ์กำลังขี่มอเตอร์ไซค์ มุ่งหน้ามาบริเวณที่เกิดเหตุจากทิศทางในตรงข้าม เขายังเตือนให้ทวีศักดิ์อย่าเข้าไปข้างใน...” (Khaosod English, 22/6/2018)

แม้ว่าทวีศักดิ์มีความผิดจริง ย่อมถือได้ว่าเขาเป็นพยานสำคัญในคดีนี้ กรณีที่จะมีการฟ้องร้องดำเนินคดีต่อบุคคลอื่นที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการสังหารครั้งนี้ การประหารชีวิตพยานสำคัญที่เหลืออยู่เช่นนี้ ก่อนจะมีการจับกุม ตั้งข้อหาและไต่สวนผู้ต้องสงสัยคนอื่น ย่อมไม่ส่งผลให้ผู้ตายได้รับความเป็นธรรม เนื่องจากคนร้ายตัวจริงอาจลอยนวลพ้นผิด เนื่องจากเจ้าพนักงานไม่สามารถอ้างอิงปากคำของทวีศักดิ์เป็นหลักฐานได้แล้ว จึงทำให้เกิดข้อสงสัยต่อการเร่งรีบประหารชีวิตทวีศักดิ์ว่า อาจมีแรงจูงใจอย่างอื่นเพื่อปกป้องคนร้ายคนอื่น



ครอบครัวไม่ได้รับแจ้งเกี่ยวกับการประหารชีวิตทวีศักดิ์

มีรายงานว่า ขนิษตา หลงจิ อายุ 20 ปีน้องสาวของทวีศักดิ์บอกว่า ‘...ทางครอบครัวไม่ได้รับแจ้งก่อนจะมีการประหารชีวิตทวีศักดิ์จนกระทั่งหลังจากการประหารชีวิตเกิดขึ้นแล้ว...”หนูไม่เข้าใจ ไม่มีการแจ้งล่วงหน้าเลยว่าพี่จะถูกประหาร...ในความเป็นจริง ทางครอบครัวควรได้รับแจ้งก่อนจะมีการประหารชีวิต...เพื่อให้ญาติสามารถล่ำลาผู้ที่จะถูกประหารได้”” ขนิษตาบอกว่า ทางครอบครัววางแผนจะไปเยี่ยมเขาในวันอังคาร เนื่องจากเมื่อเร็ว ๆ นี้พี่ชายเขียนจดหมายมาขอเงิน 2,000 บาท’ (Khaosod English, 19/6/2018)

ถือเป็นการใช้อำนาจอย่างไม่เกรงกลัวใคร โดยครอบครัวและบุคคลผู้ใกล้ชิดกับผู้ที่กำลังจะถูกประหาร ไม่ได้รับโอกาสที่จะมีเวลาอยู่ร่วมกันก่อนการประหารชีวิต การประหารชีวิต ‘แบบลับ’ เช่นนี้ยังขัดขวางไม่ให้สามารถดำเนินการในขั้นสุดท้ายใด ๆ เพื่อป้องกันความตายของนักโทษประหารได้

ในกรณีนี้ เมื่อมีการเปิดเผยรายละเอียดเสียชีวิตต่อสื่อมวลชน ได้ส่งผลให้พยานออกมาให้ปากคำยืนยันความบริสุทธิ์ของทวีศักดิ์ ซึ่งหากทางการเปิดเผยข้อมูลว่าจะมีการประหารชีวิตก่อนหน้านี้ ทวีศักดิ์อาจไม่ถูกประหารก็ได้ เนื่องจากมีพยานใหม่ปรากฏตัวขึ้น ข้อบกพร่องของตำรวจในการสอบปากคำพยานคนนี้ ในระหว่างการสอบสวนคดี เป็นสัญญาณบ่งชี้ถึงการไร้ความสามารถ หรือท่าทีที่เฉื่อยชาในการสืบสวนสอบสวนคดีอาญา

เราจึง

เรียกร้องรัฐบาลไทยให้ทบทวนกรณีของทวีศักดิ์ หลงจิซึ่งถูกประหารในวันที่ 18 มิถุนายน 2561 โดยทันที เพื่อวินิจฉัยว่าได้เกิดความผิดพลาดด้านกระบวนการยุติธรรมขึ้นหรือไม่ และถ้ามี ให้มีการขอโทษต่อครอบครัวของทวีศักดิ์โดยทันที

เรียกร้องคณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งชาติและรัฐบาลไทย ให้สอบสวนโดยทันทีต่อการปฏิบัติหน้าที่ของตำรวจโดยพ.ต.ท.ประเสริฐ สงแสงและทีมงานที่ทำคดีการสังหารดนุเดช สุขมาก เมื่อเดือนกรกฎาคม 2555 เนื่องจากส่งผลให้เกิดการประหารชีวิตทวีศักดิ์ หลงจิ

เรียกร้องรัฐบาลไทยให้ดำเนินการลงโทษเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจและเจ้าหน้าที่ผู้บังคับใช้กฎหมายคนอื่นที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการสอบสวนคดีอาญา ซึ่งไม่สามารถปฏิบัติหน้าที่ในการสืบสวนสอบสวนอย่างเป็นมืออาชีพ เต็มความสามารถ และไม่ปลอดจากการทุจริต ซึ่งส่งผลให้เกิดความผิดพลาดด้านกระบวนการยุติธรรม

เรียกร้องรัฐบาลไทยให้ดำเนินการพักการประหารชีวิตและยกเลิกโทษประหารในประเทศไทยโดยทันที

Wednesday, July 04, 2018

Most Recent Statistics on Death Penalty in Thailand


Total prison population 349,804 (M 303,717 F 46,087)


Condemned to death 517 (M 415 F 102)
- on drug charges 296 (M 201 F 95)
- on other charges 221 (M 214 F 7)

It is noteworthy that the majority of women are condemned to death for the opportunistic crime of drug dealing, very few for crimes of violence


























































Monday, June 18, 2018

Thailand ends Moratorium

Today, 18th June, 26 year old Teerasak Longji was executed in Thailand by lethal injection, ending a nine year moratorium which next year would have earned Thailand de facto abolitionist status. Announcement of the execution by the Department of Corrections referred to the savagery of the murder which led to the death sentence, carried out with a knife stabbing that inflicted 24 stab wounds. The ascribed motive was robbery of a mobile phone and money.
The Ministry said that the Court of First Instance, the Appeal Court, and the Supreme Court had each handed down the death penalty. Longji claimed his innocence at the three court proceedings. It is an anomaly of Thai justice that those who plead guilty and express regret generally receive a reduction of sentence,resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment rather than execution. Those who protest innocence throughout, as is the right of all accused, which would include those who are indeed innocent, face sentence of death. Such practice may induce the innocent to plead guilty.
The execution goes against statements of government policy that the moratorium intended abolition, and conflicts with an acceptance of the arguments for abolition expressed in several discussion meetings of the Ministry. The execution appears to have been hurried at short notice, as happened in the previous execution in 2009,later referred to by a government politician as a 'mistake'. A reference in the announcement to the execution policies of the US and China as a justification for today's execution is cynical. The execution is a severe set-back for progress to abolition in the South-East Asian region where counties are happy to justify their own actions by the example of others.
deathpenaltythailand deeply regrets reporting this execution after an intermission of nine years.