An End to the Dance of Death

ประกาศใช้แผนสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งชาติ ฉบับที่ ๒
(ยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตเป็นจำคุกตลอดชีวิต)
********
มติคณะรัฐมนตรีเมื่อวันที่ ๒๐ ตุลาคม ๒๕๕๒ เห็นชอบและให้ประกาศใช้แผนสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งชาติ ฉบับที่ ๒ (๒๕๕๒ – ๒๕๕๖) โดยให้หน่วยงานที่เกี่ยวข้องนำแผนไปสู่การปฎิบัติด้วยการแปลงแผนสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งชาติไปสู่แผนบริหารราชการแผ่นดิน แผนปฎิบัติราชการกระทรวง กรม แผนพัฒนาขององค์กรปกครองส่วนท้องถิ่น
แผนดังกล่าวนี้ในยุทธศาสตร์ที่ ๓ พัฒนากฎหมายและกลไกทางกฎหมายรวมทั้งการบังคับใช้กฎหมาย เพื่อส่งเสริมและคุ้มครองสิทธิมนุษยชน โดยมีกลยุทธ์คือการปรับปรุงกฎหมายและกลไกทางกฎหมาย รวมทั้งการบังคับใช้กฎหมายเพื่อคุ้มครองสิทธิมนุษยชนให้สอดคล้องกับหลักสิทธิมนุษยชน ซึ่งมีตัวชี้วัดระดับกลยุทธิ์ ที่สำคัญคือ กฎหมายที่มีอัตราโทษประหารชีวิตได้เข้าสู่การพิจารณาของรัฐสภาให้มีการยกเลิกให้เป็นโดยจำคุกตลอดชีวิต

On 20th October 2009 the Thai Cabinet approved and proclaimed a Second National Human Rights Plan for the years 2009 to 2013. It was circulated to all relevant offices of Government for adaptation in a Human Rights Programme for implementation by ministries, departments, and in the development planning of local authorities.
This second strategic plan entails a development of the legal system and its structure, including its enforcement for the protection of human rights according to human rights policy.

The most important measure relates to the death penalty. The Parliament will discuss the abolition of the death penalty and its replacement by life imprisonment.


At the time of its proclamation the Human Rights Programme received little media attention. The Programme will be introduced to all Government Agencies by the Prime Minister in an April meeting

Issues raised in the Geneva Assembly for Abolition

"If you want to keep the death penalty, you have to pay for it. This stark message came from a consideration of the inadequacies of the legal process leading to death sentences. Prosecutors are funded to a level three to four times more than the defence, and the facilities available to the prosecution are far beyond those available to defenders. Even in the wealthiest country of all there is no legal aid for appeal, the condemned are buried in their cells and forgotten as they await their fate. The scales of justice do not stand on a level base. The death rows of the world feature the worst aspects of the prison system where the crowds destined for execution are detained in conditions that fall far short of human dignity."

In Thailand all prisoners on death row are shackled permanently; the Corrections Department claims that this measure is necessary as it cannot afford adequate staff to ensure control of death row prisoners. The Administrative Court has ruled that this is the problem of the Corrections Department, and that prisoners should not be ill-treated as a consequence. The Corrections Department refuses to accept the ruling and appeals.

Increasing Scope of Death Penalty

Press Conference to Announce Campaign Extending Death Penalty for Drug Offenses
“On 13th January 2010, in the Ministry of Interior, Mr. Chuawat Chanwarakun, the Minister of Interior, signed a petition to modify three regulations for the control of drugs, the Drug Control Act of 1976, the Drug Punishment Act of 1979, and the Effective Punishment of Drug Offenders Act of 2002. The Minister announced that his action was in support of the Interior Ministry 'Cleansing Campaign', aimed at putting an end to drug offenses, for the good of the country.
……..
Mr. Chuawat indicated that the punishment indicated article 65, namely life imprisonment, and a fine of 1 to 5 million baht, should be increased to life imprisonment, and a fine of 1 to 5 million baht, or, the death penalty. In article 66, the punishment for possession of addictive substances of more than 20 gms from four years to life imprisonment, should be increased to life imprisonment, a fine of 1 to 5 million baht, or the death penalty for a quantity exceeding 10 gms.
………
For article 93 which deals with inducing others to be addicted; if the drug involved is heroin the punishment should be doubled. In addition if the person induced is a woman or a juvenile, the punishment should be death. Amphetamines should also be included.”

The Campaign aimed to collect 10,000 signatures to support submission of the bill to Parliament. Another spokesman of the Ministry expressed the opinion that “more than 10 million people all over the country would sign”

Increased Penalties: Comment

The initiative of the Ministry of Interior to increase punishments for drug offenses, with a consequent increase in grounds for sentence of death is against Thailand’s commitments to international treaties. The reasons given for the increase are not supported by any evidence. Finally, the method of submitting the plea for legal change by mounting a campaign for public signature, is wholly inappropriate and ill advised.

Increased Penalties contravene international commitments
The increasing rejection of the death penalty throughout the world finds its inspiration in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone has the right to life”, which expressed a growing realization of the wrongness of the death penalty. The words of the Universal Declaration were expanded in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCP), “Every human being has the inherent right to life”. Provision is made for countries “which have not abolished the death penalty”, the negative expression itself indicating that abolition should be the norm. “Sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes”. The intention of the Covenant that abolition is the norm is added in the final sentence of Article 6, “Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant”, ICCP Art. 6.6
Thailand ratified this Covenant on 29th October 1996, but, contrary to the final injunction just quoted, has since justified its continued use of the death penalty by alluding to the acceptance in Article 6 that some countries have not abolished the death penalty, and need not do so.

The meaning of the words of the Universal Declaration, and of the International Convention, have been further clarified throughout the years, especially regarding the phrase ‘most serious crimes’. The strongest such clarification was issued by the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva on the occasion of the Report submitted in July 2005 to the Human Rights Committee regarding Thailand’s fulfillment of its obligations to the Covenant. In the final observations delivered by the Human Rights Committee is the admonition, “The State Party should review the imposition of the death penalty for offences related to drug trafficking, to reduce the categories of crime punishable by death”, CCPR/CO/84/THA par.14. In short, the Committee points out that drug-trafficking charges are not the ‘most serious crimes’ for which the death penalty is tolerated as a temporary expedient on the way to total abolition, referred to in Article 6.6.

Thailand ratified ICCP and submitted its first report referred to above in July 2005. It is unfortunate that despite the very wide representation of Government Departments on the occasion of the report, the Ministry of Interior was not represented. Nevertheless, they must be aware of the content of ICCP itself and of the comments made by the UN Human Rights Committee, of which the text was to be published and disseminated throughout the country. CCPR/CO/84/THA par.25. How then can the Ministry not only assent to the continued application of the death penalty for drug related crimes, but even attempt by its present action to increase the categories of crime punishable by death?


Increased Penalties not effective
At present the number of countries which have effectively abandoned the death penalty amounts to 149 countries, while only 25 countries persist in actual executions. The rapid increase in countries opting for abolition over the last twenty years follows the conviction that the death penalty is ‘useless and ineffective’. This is not the place to go into the details of this evidence, which has been well reported in the successive editions of ‘The Death Penalty’ by Roger Hood. The relevance to Asian countries is exhaustively treated in ‘The Next Frontier’ by David T. Johnson and Franklin E. Zimring . In a press conference to reveal the campaign of the Ministry of Interior to increase Penalties for drug trafficking, Mr. Saksiam Chidchop claimed that the policy was an adoption of the successful policy of Malaysia and Singapore. The evidence for such a claim is simply not available. Singapore does not reveal the total number of executions; less still does it differentiate executions on drug charges from those for other crimes. One would expect that such statistics would be openly displayed if the intention of the executions is deterrence. There are indications that the policy is not working, on the basis of such evidence as the relatively low street cost of drugs in Singapore, which would be unlikely if the trade was strongly deterred. In the case of Malaysia the reduced availability of drugs has been ascribed to the small number of international flights through it airports rather than to drug suppression punishment. The present consensus is that capital punishment does not succeed as a deterrent for either drug related or any other crimes: “..as far as some crimes threatened by capital punishment in several countries are concerned, such as importing or trading in illegal drugs, economic crimes, or politically motivated violence, there simply is no reliable evidence of any kind relating to the deterrent effects of executions” Hood, p.320, op.cit.. So much for calling on the examples of Singapore and Malaysia to persuade people to sign a petition to extend the death penalty for drug crimes!

Inappropriate Campaign for Public Signature
While it is true that public opinion concerning the death penalty has relevance, democratic government is not government by public opinion. The question has been examined by William Schabas , who writing in a chapter entitled “Public Opinion and the Death Penalty” identifies the opinion of ‘an informed citizenry’ as the motive force in evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of maturing society, and lead to acceptance of abolition. Nothing can be more wrong than to present an abstract poll that has elicited generalized emotional responses. It is certain that the signature campaign of the Ministry of Interior is not based on an educational campaign to explain the issues at stake; the option is to sign the petition or not, based on obedience to the immense forces for influence of the ministry, and an abhorrence of the evils of drug trade. Just as the drug trade was not solved by the criminal extrajudicial killings of 2003 to 2004, so, an extension of the death penalty will be equally ineffective. Drugs are an evil in society, and must be fought by cutting off the sources of supply, by social remedies to the distress that influences people to turn in despair to the mirage of drug induced relief. The task is the whole reform of society depending on education, the growth of a meaningful prosperity and culture, including a retreat from the use of violence, in which abolition of the death penalty will set a standard.
The submission of a government act by signature of 10,000 citizens was intended in the constitution to allow a way for the population to whom other avenues were closed to have their voice heard. The Ministry of Interior is already an organ of government and has the way available to submit its suggestions for democratic debate. The attempt to force the issue by a mass signature campaign headed by its officials, employees, and dependents is not an appropriate approach. It would be useful indeed if the Ministry initiated an informed debate on the issues of Capital Punishment as recommended in the UN General Assembly majority votes of 1997 and 1998 to be accompanied by a Moratorium on all executions for whatever crime.

Close of 4th World Congress on Abolition

Say No to the Death Penalty

The 4th World Congress for Abolition of the Death Penalty opened in the UN Palais the Nations in Geneva on 24th February and ended on 26th February.
1,700 men, women, and children gathered from all over the world. Those from countries which retain the death penalty told their stories which were sad to tears, but also full of hope for the end of this ancient curse which is recorded from the beginning of our history. Others, from countries where the death penalty has been abolished, came to give their support. Sometimes, they recalled with regret that the death penalty was a legacy of colonialist times, which somehow persisted when other liberties were achieved. Or, they came to acknowledge that the death penalty was an inheritance of the past which affects us all; as expressed so movingly in the words of John Donne, “The death of any man diminishes me”. All are united in the movement for abolition, which has become a worldwide tide of hope. The number of abolitionist countries continues to rise, now reaching 140. On the other hand, not only do the countries retaining the death penalty decrease in number, but in many of the others, even in the most brash in claiming the right to execute, the number being put to death is decreasing each year. A growing optimism pervades the movement for abolition. From the timeline of executions worldwide, one scholar predicted that it will all be over by the year 2025. It is even possible that rejection of the death penalty may reach a flood and achieve total abolition by 2015. What country would dare to be the last place on earth to exercise the awful trade of judicial execution, or to be identified as the homeland of the last person ever to be executed, whose name will surely be remembered for ever to the shame of humankind?

Corrections Department Appeals that Shackles are Necessary

Thailand Not Bound by International Treaties
Document to Appeal Court
12th October 2009
Judgement on the case of Malcolm Denis Lim, Plaintiff,
and Corrections Department, Defendant.
Concerning the judgement of the Administrative Court that the use of shackles in Klong Prem prison is an illegal abuse of the Plaintiff and the order to remove the shackles within 30 days, the Corrections Department does not agree and submits the following appeal document:
1. The document quotes the Corrections Department Act of 1936, listing the five exceptions when shackles may be used. See p.3 above:
The document refers to the discernment of the prison in deciding that the use of shackles is necessary to prevent escape. The facts relating to the prisoner should be considered, but also the conditions of the prison, the level of security, the number of prisoners, and the number of prison officials. From such considerations the defendant considers that the free circulation of the prisoner would entail the danger of escape, and that therefore shackles are necessary.
2. The document recalls the disciplinary offense of the defendant while in custody in Bambat prison, of being in possession of a type 2 drug, showing the propensity to re-offend and possibly unite with others to escape.
3. While Building 2 of Klong Prem prison is specially dedicated to the confinement of those imprisoned on account of serious crimes, there are problems with the level of security. The number of persons detained there is 787, including 40 persons condemned to death, 438 to life imprisonment, and another 309 persons. Many quarrels occur in this group and they use telephones which are frequently smuggled into the prison, so that there is a possibility that prisoners may conspire to break out and escape. Regarding the number of warders; during working hours there is one warder to 41 prisoners. Due to possible absences or special tasks requiring warders to accompany prisoners, the ratio is further reduced. At night time there is one warder for 196 prisoners. By UN standards the ratio of warders should be 1 to only 5 prisoners. In these circumstances there is reason for the exceptional use of shackles allowed in Section 14(1) and 14(3) of the Corrections Department Act, 1936. If the order to remove shackles from one person is made, others will make the same plea as the plaintiff. When they too are released from shackles, the prisoners can join together in causing trouble, join in protest, attack warders, and cause damage to prison property, as is regularly reported.
4. Regarding the argument of the Court that even if the prisoners held in Building 2 were to escape, they would still be within the confines of Klong Prem prison, the defendant responds that if the prisoners held in Building 2 escape, prisoners in other buildings will follow their lead and chaos will spread throughout the whole prison, leading to possible casualties among both prisoners and staff of the prison. Similar revolts can spread to other prisons. This outcome always follows within days as news media spread accounts of such events, resulting not only in escapes but in violent clashes and increased violence when prisoners can move about freely. Prison officials who warn the prisoners may also be attacked, as prisoners already condemned to death cannot be subject to a higher punishment for their criminal acts. Officials who supervise Building 2 are very aware of the danger which would ensue if shackles are removed, and fear for their lives in the service of their country.
5. Regarding the judgement of the Administrative Court that the Corrections Department must act according to the UN Minimum Standard Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, may we point out that these documents refer to international agreements and are only legally binding in so far as member countries draft them into their own legal systems, which is not yet the case in Thailand. Hence the Corrections Department is not bound by these agreements
6. Regarding the judgement of the Administrative Court that the fact that the Corrections Department claim that it is not yet ready on account of the buildings involved, the security system in place, and the strength of the workforce in the prisons, is injurious to the plaintiff, we point out that the Corrections Department aims and is determined to conduct the prisons in the most natural manner possible, but in a way that maintains conditions of penal detention and the corrective treatment of those imprisoned. But the available budget, the size of the workforce, the state of the buildings, the technology of controlling inmates, and the system to protect security are all limited. At the same time, the number of prisoners is increasing as well as there being an increase in the number and novelty of ways of evading laws and regulations. The Corrections Department continually strives to overcome such problems. However, as not all the problems can be solved, some difficult compromises must be made between the facilities which the prisoners should enjoy (such as freedom of bodily movement) and secure public order, the safety of personnel and property. The use of shackles must be considered. However, if prisoners wearing shackles are injured or show symptoms of injury, medical opinion may order the immediate removal of the restraints.
7. Regarding the judgement of the Administrative Court that the use of shackles is against the document of the Corrections Department of 10th June 2005, section 3, which forbids the use of shackles as a disciplinary punishment, may we point out that Klong Prem Prison did not use shackles as a disciplinary punishment. The truth of the matter is that the Plaintiff was in possession of a type 2 narcotic while detained in Bambat Central Prison showing that the behaviour of the Plaintiff was not according to civil law or prison regulations, and revealed a tendency to re-offend and possibly harm others or make an escape.
8. The Corrections Department wishes to assert that if the Plaintiff holds that the Corrections Department has illegally abused his rights on account of the order by Klong Prem Prison to shackle him according to Article 14 of the Corrections Department Act, he should have appealed against the order, according to Article 44 of Corrections Department Administrative Procedures of 1996. If he has not made such an appeal, he does not have the right to bring the present case, according to the Supreme Administrative Court ruling 186/1966.

In addition, the Corrections Department wishes to submit a further document for the consideration of the Administrative Court. The Corrections Department asserts that its treatment of the Plaintiff has been just and legal, and requests that the Court of Appeal repeal the decision of the Administrative Court.

(Additional document referred to at the end of the appeal, is a summary of five prison revolts which occurred in various prisons within the previous year, which led to 3 deaths, many injuries, and damage to prison property}

The Dignity of Mongolia

Mongolia announces moratorium on Death Penalty
"Mongolia is a dignified country ... and our citizens are dignified people," President Tsakhia Elbegdorj said in a speech to Mongolia's parliament. "Therefore, I ask Mongolia to put behind us this death penalty which degrades our dignity to death."

The BBC reported that one person was executed in Mongolia in 2008 and nine people are believed to be on the country's death row. Although abolishing the death penalty outright seems to be an uphill political battle for Elbegdorj, he has the power to commute sentences to life and to prevent any executions from taking place on his watch.

Mongolia has a population of 2.9 million and 9 people on death row. Thailand has 65 millions and 857 people on death row. Mongolia by its announcement of a moratorium will spare those 9 people from a degradation of dignity. Like Thailand, Mongolia had voted against the UN General Assembly vote in favour of a world wide moratorium on the death penalty, in 2007, and again in 2008.

Good News from New York

This website is unlikely to be noted as a good news site. However, there is this to say: in a report carried in the New York Times, only hours before year end:
There were days upon days in New York City when not a single person was murdered in 2009.
It has been the lowest murder rate since records were first kept in 1962.
New York does not execute people.

The Scandal of Shackling

The permanent shackling of prisoners in Thai jails who are condemned to death remains a serious scandal. The comment of the UN Human Rights Committee on this issue was especially forceful; “The use of shackling and long periods of solitary confinement should be stopped immediately”. UCL has followed the issue of one prisoner with particular interest. The prisoner submitted a complaint to the Administrative Court that his being shackled was against Thai law, prison regulations, and International Law. The Court responded by ordering that the shackles of this prisoner be removed while they considered the case. However, after the shackles were removed the prisoner, who was being held in Klong Prem prison, was transferred to Bang Kwang prison where he was again shackled. When the prisoner protested at such an infringement of a court order, the authorities replied that they knew nothing of such an order. Finally, on 16th September 2009, in a long and closely reasoned judgment, the Court handed down the decision that the shackles be removed. The prison was given 30 days to comply with the order. Two months later the prisoner remains shackled. The prisoner was informed verbally that the Correction’s Department was appealing the Court order. Details of the appeal are not available to the prisoner or to anyone else. The judgment applies only to the prisoner who lodged the appeal. Other prisoners must undertake a similar lengthy legal process to win relief.
Like most shackled prisoners, the above prisoner suffers from lesions caused by the chains, as shown in the accompanying photograph.
Meanwhile we are investigating reports that a prisoner remanded for deportation in the Bangkok Remand Prison has died on the 1st August 2009 from an infection caused by shackles. Fellow prisoners are prepared to testify but as the body has most likely been cremated, it is unlikely that adequate proof can be obtained.

There is no humane way to execute

Following a news item posted below concerning a failed execution in Ohio, USA:
Ohio plans execution method untried on prisoners
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio announced plans to switch from the usual three-drug cocktail used to execute inmates to a one-drug method which has never been tried on prisoners.
Under the three-drug method, the first drug makes the prisoner unconscious, the second paralyzes him and the third stops his heart — a process that death penalty opponents argue is excruciatingly painful if the first drug doesn't work.
The single-drug technique amounts to an overdose of anesthesia.
Death penalty opponents hailed the decision as making executions more humane but expressed reservations about using such an untested method. The same drug is commonly used to euthanize pets and in some parts of Europe has been used in assisted suicides.
Richard Dieter, director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, noted the new practice would essentially be an experiment performed on inmates.
"They're human subjects and they're not willingly part of this," Dieter said. "This is experimenting with the unknown, and that always raises concerns."
The inmates who are going to be executed could challenge the constitutionality of what's being proposed in Ohio.

The lesson for Thailand is that there is no humane way to kill people

Open Letter to Prime Minister

On 10th October, World Day for Abolition of the Death Penalty, five human rights organizations submitted the following letter to the Prime Minister:

จดหมายเปิดผนึกถึง ฯพณฯ นายกรัฐมนตรี

10 ตุลาคม 2552

เรื่อง การคัดค้านโทษประหารชีวิต

เรียน ฯพณฯ นายกรัฐมนตรี

ในนามขององค์กรพัฒนาเอกชนด้านสิทธิมนุษยชน ที่ทำงานด้านสิทธิมนุษยชนในประเทศไทย ขอแสดงความเสียใจเป็นอย่างยิ่งที่รัฐบาลไทยนำโทษประหารชีวิตกลับมาใช้อีกครั้ง ซึ่งก่อนหน้านี้ประเทศไทยมีความพยายามที่จะละเว้นโทษประหารนี้ไปตั้งแต่ปี 2546 แต่เมื่อวันที่ 24 สิงหาคม ที่ผ่านมา นายบัณฑิต เจริญวานิชและนายจิรวัฒน์ พุ่มพฤกษ์ ผู้ต้องโทษที่รอการประหารกลับถูกประหารชีวิตโดยไม่มีการบอกกล่าวแก่ตัวผู้ต้องขังและครอบครัวให้ทราบล่วงหน้า

ในฐานะองค์กรพัฒนาเอกชนด้านสิทธิมนุษยชน เราขอประณามการกระทำของรัฐบาลในการกระทำดังกล่าว ซึ่ง ในช่วงระยะเวลาหกปีที่สังคมไทยได้มีความพยายามเปลี่ยนแปลงทัศนคติเกี่ยวกับการใช้โทษประหารชีวิต และขอคัดค้านการใช้โทษประหารชีวิต เพื่อปกป้องสิทธิมนุษยชน โดยมีเหตุผลดังต่อไปนี้

1. ปัจจุบันนานาอารยประเทศมีความตระหนักเพิ่มมากขึ้นว่าสิทธิในการมีชีวิตอยู่เป็นสิทธิมนุษยชนพื้นฐานขั้นต่ำสุด ซึ่งที่ผ่านมาประเทศส่วนใหญ่ทั่วโลก (ปัจจุบัน134ประเทศ)ได้ยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตไปแล้ว โดยยึดถือหลักการที่ว่า ไม่มีผู้ใดสามารถทำลายชีวิตของใครได้ หรือ ไม่มีผู้ใดมีอำนาจที่จะทำลายชีวิตของผู้ใดได้

เราจึงขอถามท่านว่าเหตุใดประเทศไทยจึงยังคงประหารชีวิตประชาชนของตนเอง การที่รัฐบาลของท่านเคยแสดงเจตจำนงที่จะเคารพสิทธิมนุษยชนอันเป็นหลักประกันหนึ่งในระบอบประชาธิปไตยแต่เหตุใดในทางปฏิบัติกลับตรงกันข้ามกับเจตจำนงดังกล่าว เหตุใดหลักธรรมคำสอนของพุทธศาสนาซึ่งหล่อหลอมวัฒนธรรมไทยไม่ได้นำไปสู่การเคารพชีวิตทุกชีวิตและไม่นำมาสู่การยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตได้เลย ความจริงความเข้าใจของศาสนาพุทธไม่ต่างจากศาสนาอิสลามซึ่งพระอัลเลาะห์ผู้สง่างามและมีเมตตากรุณา ได้แสดงเจตนาในหลักการที่สอดคล้องกันกับพุทธ คือหากสามารถที่จะให้อภัยผู้กระทำผิดและสร้างความปรองดองกันได้ ก็ควรจะทำ(อัลกุรอาน 42: 40-43)

ความปรารถนาให้ยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตของผู้คนทั่วโลกปรากฏเป็นที่ประจักษ์จากผลการลงมติในที่ประชุมสมัชชาสหประชาชาติเมื่อวันที่ 8 ธันวาคม พ.ศ.2550 และอีกครั้งในปี 2551 โดยมีมติให้ทุกประเทศทั่วโลกงดเว้นโทษประหารชีวิตเพื่อเป็นหนทางนำไปสู่การยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตในที่สุด ถึงแม้มติดังกล่าวไม่ได้เป็นข้อบังคับแต่กลับส่งผลเชิงศีลธรรมอย่างมหาศาล (มติที่ 620149 ว่าด้วยการยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิต)

2. การประหารชีวิตผู้ต้องขังคดียาเสพติดเมื่อวันที่ 24 สิงหาคมที่ผ่านมาส่งผลต่อเนื่องกับผู้ต้องหาคดียาเสพติดรายอื่นๆ ตามรายงานกติการะหว่างประเทศว่าด้วยสิทธิพลเมืองและสิทธิทางการเมืองของสหประชาชาติระบุว่า ความผิดข้อหาเกี่ยวกับยาเสพติดไม่ถือเป็นความผิดให้ต้องโทษประหารชีวิต รัฐบาลไทยในฐานะภาคีของกติกาดังกล่าวไม่สามารถเพิกเฉยได้ เนื่องจากคำสั่งให้ประหารชีวิตผู้ต้องขังทั้งสองรายนี้จำเป็นต้องผ่านกระทรวงยุติธรรม และปลัดกระทรวงยุติธรรมคนปัจจุบันได้เข้าร่วมในที่ประชุมรายงานดังกล่าว ณ กรุงเจนีวาด้วย (CCPR/CO/84/THA)

3. การประหารชีวิตผู้ต้องขังทั้งสองรายโดยแจ้งให้ทราบเพียงหนึ่งชั่วโมงล่วงหน้า ซึ่งถือเป็นการกระทำที่น่ารังเกียจและไร้มนุษยธรรมอย่างสิ้นเชิง ผู้ต้องขังถูกปฏิเสธที่จะมีโอกาสเตรียมตัวก่อนถูกประหาร มิได้พบครอบครัวและญาติพี่น้อง ทำธุระส่วนตัวและอบรมสั่งเสียบุตร ความไร้มนุษยธรรมยังขยายไปถึงครอบครัวที่ไม่มีโอกาสได้พบหน้าและเอ่ยคำร่ำลาเป็นครั้งสุดท้าย

4. ความอยุติธรรมดังกล่าวยังส่งผลถึงผู้ต้องขังรายอื่นๆ ที่ต้องอยู่อย่างหวาดผวานับจากนี้ไป โดยที่ไม่สามารถรู้ได้เลยว่าชั่วโมงสุดท้ายของชีวิตจะมาถึงเมื่อใด

5. นอกจากนั้นคำสั่งประหารชีวิตที่ไม่โปร่งใส จากเบาะแสข่าวว่า เป็นเพราะผู้ต้องขังทั้งสอยังคงพัวพันกับการค้ายาเสพติดขณะอยู่ในเรือนจำ หาก เบาะแสดังกล่าวมีมูลความเป็นจริง พวกเขาควรเข้าสู่กระบวนการยุติธรรมเพื่อให้มีการพิสูจน์ความผิดต่อไป ทั้งนี้ผู้ต้องขังที่ต้องโทษประหารชีวิตทุกคนย่อมมีสิทธิที่จะได้รับการสันนิษฐานเบื้องต้นว่าเป็นผู้บริสุทธิ์จนกว่าศาลจะพิพากษาว่ากระทำผิดจริง และไม่มีใครสามารถถูกทำให้จบชีวิตได้โดยเหตุจากเบาะแสที่ไม่มีข้อพิสูจน์ได้

กล่าวโดยสรุป การประหารชีวิตนั้น เป็นการละเมิดสิทธิมนุษยชนที่ร้ายแรงที่สุดที่ไม่สมควรเกิดขึ้นซ้ำแล้วซ้ำอีกในสังคมใดๆ และพวกเราในฐานะองค์กรด้านสิทธิมนุษยชนร้องขอให้ประเทศไทยได้ไตร่ตรองถึงพันธะสัญญาแห่งการเคารพสิทธิมนุษยชนที่พัฒนามาอย่างยาวนาน และการประกาศจุดยืนร่วมกับนานาอารยะประเทศ ในการปฏิบัติตามมาตรฐานที่ว่าโทษประหารชีวิตเป็นมาตรการอันป่าเถื่อน ถือเป็นการกระทำฆาตกรรม ที่ระบบยุติธรรมของประเทศที่พัฒนาแล้วโดยทั่วไป มิอาจสามารถยอมรับได้


ลงชื่อ ประธานกรรมการ
(ดร. แดนทอง บรีน)
สมาคมสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชน(สสส.)

ลงชื่อ เลขาธิการ
( นายเมธา มาสขาว )
คณะกรรมการรณรงค์เพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชน(ครส.)

ลงชื่อ ผู้อำนวยการ
(นายบุญแทน ตันสุเทพวีรวงศ์)
ศูนย์ข้อมูลสิทธิมนุษยชนและสันติธรรม

ลงชื่อ ประธานมูลนิธิ
( นายสมชาย หอมลออ )
มูลนิธิผสานวัฒนธรรม

ลงชื่อ ผู้อำนวยการ
(นางสาวจันทร์จิรา จันทร์แผ่ว )
เครือข่ายนักกฏหมายสิทธิมนุษยชน


ลงชื่อ ประธาน
(นายโคทม อารียา)
มูลนิธิเพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชนและการพัฒนา

(English translation)
Open letter to the Prime Minister

We, representatives of non-governmental organizations dedicated to the protection of human rights of the Thai people, are deeply saddened by the action of your Government in resuming executions after a six year hiatus. In December 2003 four persons were executed, after which a six year de facto moratorium on executions occurred. This period came to a sudden, unannounced, unexplained, and brutal end on 24th August last with the execution of Bundit Jaroenwanit and Jirawat Poompreuk.

We submit to your Government that in the last six years a large change in perspective regarding the death penalty has taken place, illustrating ever more clearly the contravention of human rights involved in resuming executions:
1. A realization that the Right to Life is the most basic of all human rights has grown stronger. The great majority of countries in the world (to date 134 countries) have ceased to apply Capital Punishment, convinced that human life is indeed inviolable.
We question why Thailand is continuing to put to death its own citizens. Do not the claimed respect for human rights of a democratically elected government recommend an opposite course of action? Does not the largely Buddhist ethic which inspires Thai culture not lead to a respect for all living things which would favour abolition? Indeed, such a Buddhist understanding finds resonance in the Muslim emphasis on the favour shown by Allah, most Gracious and Merciful, on those who forgive a mortal injury and make reconciliation (Koran 42: 40-43).
The wish of the nations of the world is revealed in the majority vote of the United Nations General Assembly on 8th December 2007, and repeated in 2008, recommending that all nations of the world progress to abolition of the death penalty, meanwhile observing a Moratorium on its application. While not mandatory, the measure has immense moral significance. (Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty, Resolution 620149)
2. The executions of 24th August concerned persons condemned on drug charges. It was clearly pointed out to representatives of the Royal Thai Government on the occasion of the first report on compliance with the Covenant on Social and Political Rights that drug offences do not constitute crimes subject to the death penalty. The order to execute two prisoners for drug offenses must have passed through the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry cannot be ignorant of the fact that such a sanction cannot be justified in international law as a current Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry was present in Geneva during the submission. (CCPR/CO/84/THA)
3. The execution of the condemned prisoners with a one hour notice is a totally repugnant and inhumane act. The condemned were denied the opportunity to prepare for death, to take leave of their families and relatives, to arrange their affairs and instruct their children. The inhumanity extends to their families, who could not meet one last time with their family member, to hear their last wishes, and the disposal of their affairs.
4. Consider too the injustice done to other prisoners who must now live with the terror that every hour may be their final hour of life.
5. In the absence of transparency regarding the order to execute, rumour is rampant that the executed had again offended by drug dealing within the prison, thus justifying their execution. If there is truth in this accusation they should have been subject to further legal procedure; even in death, persons have a right to the presumption of innocence and not to be executed by appeal to rumour.

In conclusion, the executions are an outrage against human rights, which must not be repeated. Let Thailand read the signs of the times and take a stand with the majority of the nations of the world, renouncing for ever the barbarous and unnecessary practice of judicial murder, which masquerades as legalized Capital Punishment.



Signed on behalf of: by
Union for Civil Liberty Danthong Breen, Chairman


1. Campaign Committee for Human Rights (CCHR)
2. Peace and Human Rights Resource Center (PHRC)
3. Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF)
4. Union for Civil Liberty (UCL)
5. Human Rights Lawyers Association

A reply from the Prime Minister's Office is shown above. It acknowledges receipt of the letter and states that it has been passed on to the Ministry of Justice for consideration