Lost footage shows justice is lacking

Akey factor continues to elude those on a quest for the truth behind the tragic death of ethnic Lahu activist Chaiyaphum Pasae — missing evidence. Chaiyaphum was gunned down by a soldier at a checkpoint on March 17 last year. The 3rd Army Region, which oversees the area, stands by its claim that Chziyaphum had 2,800 methamphetamine pills in his possession. It says that while attempting to escape, he threw a hand grenade at the soldiers, and one of those soldiers shot him in “self-defence”. But CCTV footage that recorded the moment when the activist met his untimely death has never been released.

A number of people, especially those who used to work with Chaiyaphum, refuse to believe the army’s claims. Their demands for the footage to be released have never been met. On Monday, lawyers for the activist’s family urged army chief Chalermchai Sitthisad to hand over the footage. Their call was in response to a ruling made by the Chiang Mai Provincial Court which went ahead with an inquest without seeing the footage — a vital piece of evidence.

The case has raised questions about the state’s “right to kill”, especially since Chaiyaphum was a member of an ethnic minority stigmatised by the government’s war on drugs.

The inquest only confirmed that Chaiyaphum was shot dead by a soldier’s firearm. It left all of the circumstances surrounding his death still shrouded in mystery. It provided no clarity about the soldier’s claim that he acted in selfdefence or the assertion that Chaiyaphum resisted.

Sumitchai Hattasan, a human rights lawyer representing Chaiyaphum’s family, asked why the court didn’t request missing part of the footage from the army as it was key evidence which would have shed light on what really happened.

The footage is also vital to whether a petition is submitted to prosecutors to determine if charges should be filed against the army. Without it, a charge is unlikely. The army said it sent the footage on a hard-disk drive to the court. But according to Mr Sumitchai, the part that captured the tragic moment went missing and a technical examination of the drive showed someone had made a copy of the missing part.

The 3rd Army Region chief Lt Gen Wichak Siribansop told the media last year that the army “had seen the footage”. He described the attempted arrest of Chaiyaphum scene by scene. This convinced the legal team that footage capturing the extrajudicial killing existed. But where is it?

“Our goal is to make sure this evidence does not disappear,” Mr Sumitchai said.

This case highlights a chronic problem in the Thai judicial process, especially in conflicts between the authorities and ordinary people, in which the delivery of justice depends on evidence held by the authorities.

Few people have access to the evidence, which raises the risk that it will be twisted, doctored or go missing. The burden of proof then falls on victims and rights defenders. In many cases, they give in or endure lengthy legal battles.

The 2004 Tak Bai incident in Narathiwat is a prime example. Despite the deaths of 85 people following a crackdown on a protest against police, prosecutors did not file charges against any official involved because evidence that could identify the wrongdoers was lacking.

The protest, mainly by Muslims, was sparked by local anger toward the police detention of six people accused of supplying ammunition to southern insurgents. Seven died at the scene, while the other 75 — who were mainly onlookers — suffocated when they were piled into trucks heading to a military camp.

With many cases ending without justice being served, a social movement has emerged, calling for reform of the flawed judicial system to assure transparency in the way evidence is gathered and presented. One suggestion is to engage multi-party stakeholders such as local administrations and rights groups in the early part of an investigation. They may observe evidence gathering by police or help make a check-list to guarantee evidence is not distorted or vanishes.

This campaign is accompanied by calls to end the “monopoly on justice delivery” and “make justice accessible for everyone”. But this idea is unlikely to gain acceptance from the major players such as police or judges who consider it a threat to them.

This is why calling for the disclosure of the footage in the Chaiyaphum case is important. If it is not part of the evidence, how can the public place their trust in the justice system?