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

Abominal Practice, Failed Execution

The El Pais weekend supplement prints the affidavit of the American death row inhabitant Romell Broom - who has now been granted a temporary reprieve following 18 failed attempts to administer him the lethal injection on 15 September. "(...) 15. After applying the towels, the nurse tried to access my veins, once in the middle of my left arm and three times more on the left. After the third attempt to access the veins, the nurse said the heroin had damaged my veins. That comment upset me because I have never used heroin and other drugs intravenously. I replied to the nurse that I never had used heroin.16. The nurse kept saying that the vein was there but could not get it. I tried to work helping to tie my own arm. A prison officer walked over, patted my hand to indicate that he also saw the vein, the nurse tried to help me locate it. 17. The chief enforcement officials said they would do another break and returned to tell me to relax. 18. Then I broke down. I began to mourn because I ached and my arms were swollen. The nurses were clicking needles into areas that were already swollen and bruised (.) 23. After a while, the director, Terry Collins, entered the room and told me they were going to suspend the execution. Collins said that he appreciated my cooperation and taking note of my attempts to help the team. He also expressed confidence in the team performance and professionalism. The director told me that Collins would call Governor Strickland to inform of the situation."

No Simple Matter

"Ultimately, every state should pause and consider that ending the life of a healthy man or woman is no simple matter and that even in the 21st century, executioners do not have their job down to anything like a science. No government should put people to death until it can show that the condemned person will not be racked with pain, catch on fire or prove so difficult to kill, as in Mr. Broom’s case, that the executioners are forced to try again another day."
Editorial, New York Times, October 3rd. Reference to the ‘horribly botched failed execution’ of Romell Broom in recent days. Thailand too has had it botched executions.

World Day against Death Penalty

10th October is the day when those protesting the death penalty throughout the world raise again the issue of this ancient barbaric curse in a minority of states. The majority of the world has already rejected this form of legalised murder, most recently Brazil, 139 countries in all. Thailand remains among the minority who still think it a right of the state to punish by death.
It is a morally repugnant punishment, it is useless and ineffective, and devalues the humanity of all of us. Let it end forever.
This year the objective of the World Abolition movement is to introduce abolition to the young, especially 13 to 18 year olds. It is the responsibility of this generation to see the end of Capital Punishment.

Execution Chamber in Bang Kwang Prison

Having at first refused to allow filming of the death chamber in Bang Kwang prison, it appears that the prison governor allowed Aljazeera to enter! A few years ago strong protest stopped the filming of an execution in Thailand. Present policy appears to promote the deterrent effect of executions by approaching as close as possible to the actual event of execution. The permission to film throws doubt on the aversion to execution expressed by the governor of the prison.
The compliance of the monk shown in the film, is typical of Buddhist monks in Thailand. While agreeing that the death penalty may 'theoretically' be against Buddhism teaching, they support Government policy on the death penalty.
See accompanying link in right hand column to "Bang Kwang, Execution Chamber"