CCTV claim sows mistrust
The army’s explanation this week about the absence of CCTV camera footage at a crime scene where 17-year-old Lahu activist Chaiyaphum Pasae was shot dead by a soldier last year has not only come too late but has also deepened the public mistrust of the military’s claim that the extrajudicial killing was made in “self-defence”.
The killing took place on March 17 last year at a checkpoint in Chiang Mai’s Chiang Dao district where soldiers claimed they found 2,800 methamphetamine pills in a car that Chaiyaphum and his friend drove past.
The soldiers claimed Chaiyaphum tried to throw a hand grenade at them in his attempt to escape, and so one fired the shot that killed him in “self-defence”.
In sharp contrast, bystanders told Thai PBS that Chaiyaphum was dragged out of the car and beaten by the soldiers who also fired two gunshots to threaten him. When he managed to run away, he was shot dead. If their accounts are true, it would have been an illegal extrajudicial killing.
In a letter responding to a request by Chaiyaphum’s lawyer, the army said the CCTV camera footage of March 17 had been erased from recorders and replaced automatically by new footage of records from March 20-25. That statement has perplexed both the lawyer and the public.
With at least seven cameras installed at the crime scene, the footage is the most important piece of evidence that can help determine whether the killing was in self-defence or a crime. Since there still conflicting accounts about exactly what happened, the soldiers should have been aware from the day of the incident that they could not afford to have this evidence “go missing” or be “erased”.
The army’s clarification this week conflicts with accounts given earlier right after the killing by 3rd Region Army commander Lt Gen Vijak Siribunsop and army chief Chalermchai Sitthisad, which confirmed they had reviewed the footage and therefore that it existed.
Earlier, both the army and the police who investigated the case against Chaiyaphum and his friend over allegations of illicit drug trading had refused to unveil the footage, saying it could undermine the case. But none of them said it was erased until later this year when the police told a human rights lawyer there were no recordings on the hard disk given by the army.
If the army had come up with the statement about the evidence being erased right after the killing, the case would not be mired in so many unanswered questions as it is now.
Why didn’t the soldiers make and keep a copy of the footage right away after the killing to be used as evidence to justify their “self-defence” in court? As law enforcement officers, they should have known this could have given weight to their claims. More importantly, letting the evidence be erased or go missing could land them in trouble and end up with them being accused of destroying or concealing evidence — obstruction of justice that is also a punishable crime.
The footage would not only reveal the truth about Chaiyaphum’s case but also assure the public that extrajudicial killings are subject to thorough investigation.
The pattern of the crime narrated by the soldiers is similar to another incident that took place at the same spot a month earlier. Another Lahu man was accused of possessing drugs, and allegedly tried to harm officials and run away before being shot dead. Like Chaiyaphum’s, his death remains a mystery.
Thailand has been unable to hold state officials accountable for extrajudicial killings, torture or forced disappearances due to a flawed and biased justice process.
The missing footage once again will prevent the justice system from fulfilling its mission of getting to the bottom of yet another mysterious killing.