Refugee Camps along Thai/Burma Border and Rule of Law

The two incidents highlighted in sections A and B illustrate how the absence of an independent and all encompassing camp judiciary denies victims of crime their right to natural justice. This impacts significantly on the security situation within the camps and leaves victims of crime vulnerable to repeat attacks. Knowing that interference occurs and that their crimes committed can be heard in front of more sympathetic bodies, criminals are faced with little deterrent not to break the law. Subsequently, victims feel aggrieved and frustrated by the lack of a strong and empowered judicial authority that will ensure law and order are maintained within the camps. It may also prompt victims of crime to take matters into their own hands in order to feel that justice has been served.

III. B. Institutional defects -
Exacerbating all aforementioned issues are the institutional defects endemic to all camps. These defects are; the formation, selection and duties of the security officials; inadequacies of the medical examination system, especially in instances of rape; and a lack of facilities for judicial proceedings.

The mechanism for enforcing rules and regulations within the camp is an area of deep concern. The security teams within each camp are the closest thing to a law enforcement body that each camp has. These personnel are charged with patrolling the camps and guarding those in detention. Too often security officials only follow the instructions of the camp administration and are not responsive to the needs and complaints of ordinary camp residents. In addition, the head of camp security is often a member of the administrative committee who has a vested interest in ensuring that the administration committee members are free from prosecution. Additionally the security officials charged with investigating the cases lack clear procedural guidelines. Interviewing of victims, the accused and witnesses is done at random and too often the investigators are open to corruption or have some vested interest in the case that impairs their ability to act impartially. In most cases the only way in which victims can seek justice is if they carry out the investigation themselves and provide sufficient evidence for a case to be heard. This places added stress and pressure on victims to produce evidence in order to ensure natural justice is served. Victims are often under enough stress due to the nature of the crime committed upon them and do not need the added burden of investigating crimes against them.
Victims of rape, while often subjected to horrendous physical injuries, are not always afforded swift and adequate medical care. Compounding this further is that the Thai courts only accept the medical evaluation conducted by Thai authorities. This is not always practical given the distance of the camps from the nearest general hospitals in Mae Sot and Mae Hon Son. While there are medics in the camps to provide care, these medics are made up of representatives from NGOs and as such any evaluations conducted by these bodies are not accepted by the Thai courts. In instances where Thai officials have been accused of rape, a loophole in this procedure has been used to ensure cases are never brought to trial. For example following the rape of a 14 year old girl in Mae-la camp by a Thai soldier the victim was sent to Mae Sot general hospital for medical care and evaluation. During the medical examinations however Thai Ministry of Interior (MOI) officials intervened and had the girl removed before all examinations were complete. Subsequently the Thai authorities refused to investigate the case for lack of medical evidence to the rape²⁰.

The physical infrastructures to house judicial hearings are also virtually non existent within the camps. Cases heard by section or zone leaders are often done so in their private residence which gives the hearings a lack of formality and authority. Those heard by the camp judiciary are carried out in the camp administrative offices and once again give the impression that the judicial body and camp committee are one and the same. Small matters such as this give residents the impression that the judicial process is a relatively informal affair where precedence does not hold and the law and the institutions manifested within it are not always respected by all parties involved in the judicial process.

III. C. Lack of legal knowledge of judicial officials -
As is the case in the legislative process the officials charged with administering justice within the camps are usually ignorant about the judicial process and what their duties entail. In the Karen camps, judicial officials are nominated and selected by the camp committees and those they elect are either friends of committee members or respected members of the camp. While this may be the best method currently available, without having knowledgeable people in charge of administering justice opens up many procedural problems. Firstly, cases are to a large extent adjudicated in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner as justice is served by individuals who are left to interpret the law as they see fit. Without a grounding or knowledge of the rule of law and its principles it is little wonder that the punishments meted out and verdicts reached fluctuate wildly from one case to the next. This is not to mention the negative impact this has on victims of crime and the refugee population's perception of the judicial process and rule of law.

III. D. Intervention of Administrative Authorities
There are numerous examples within the camps where these issues have impacted upon the justice that victims of crime receive. For instance in Mae-la camp a seventeen year old rape victim's attacker was initially jailed by the camp judiciary for 3 years. However the camp administration body then intervened in the case and reduced the sentence to a 3,000 baht fine²¹. These types of incidents and interferences leave victims feeling aggrieved and frustrated about the entire legal process and as such less likely to report or instigate criminal proceedings against attack in the future. This sort of attitude impacts severely on the security situation within camps as crimes are not always reported meaning criminals never face the prospect of prosecution and remain free to commit crimes again within the camps.

III. E. Inadequate and ineffective detention facilities -
The reasons why more pecuniary penalties are imposed over long term detention is in part a result of the inadequacies of the physical camp infrastructures. The areas in which defendants and criminals are held are either primitive or ineffective in keeping people incarcerated. Putting accused people in stocks is one method used, where their ankles are shackled to a wooden stock and the accused are forced to pay 100 baht each time they want to have the stock removed and a further 100 baht when being re-shackled.

Through the case studies it has also been revealed that while criminals are convicted and sentenced to detention, they are witnessed walking freely around the camps. In Karenni 2, 5 convicted murderers were observed wandering around the camp, several months after they were sentenced to serve at least 1 to 2 years jail²². In other instances, the convicted resident has been ordered to pay compensation to the victim or their families. In few instances however do these people receive their entitlements. These types of failings again impact negatively on the security situation within the camps and the well-being of its residents.

Knowing that criminals can ?get away? with breaking the law is hardly an environment that promotes feelings of security and stability amongst the general refugee population. Having convicted murders and rapists walking the streets with law abiding residents is a very tangible example of why the citizens do not feel their security needs are being met by the current camp system.