III. F. Abuses during detention -
There have also been occurrences of abuse and torture within the detention facilities. More often than not, defendants are held in detention without the presumption of innocence and ordered to complete forced labor until their case is heard. Torturing defendants for confessions is another accusation labeled at the security personnel who are charged with guarding the detainees. In Karenni 1 a defendant who peas waiting to stand trial on a charge of theft, witnessed the interrogation and torture of a number of prisoners. The prisoners were tied upside down from a tree where their throats were put in chains and their genitals exposed and beaten. This type of incarceration and punishment does not adhere to the principles of the rule of law and exposes weaknesses in the legislative processes within the camps. Without the presumption of innocence, innocently charged people face the distinct possibility of being sentenced for crimes they did not commit.
III. G. Relationship of Thai authorities and camp judiciaries -
As stated earlier serious crimes that occur within the camps- murder, rape, narcotics, timber and weapons smuggling should all be referred to the Thai authorities for prosecution under Thai law and through the Thai judicial system. Camps have been notified of this verbally but have never received written authorization that they must do so. It is little wonder then that many serious offences are still being handled by the in-camp justice mechanisms and confusion surrounds how and who should be notified of these offences. It is understandable that the Thai authorities should wish to try serious crimes under their legal system as the crimes being committed are done so on sovereign Thai soil. Where confusion sets in is when cases are referred to the Thai authorities and they in turn instruct the camps to administer justice as they see fit. Such a case involved the rape of a 13 year old girl in Mae-la camp. The victim followed all the correct procedures as understood by her family. They reported the crime immediately to the camp judiciary who in turn reported it to the Thai authorities. The victim was transferred to Mae Sot general hospital for examination, where the rape was confirmed. Once all of this was done the Thai authorities then instructed the Mae-la camp judiciary to try the case themselves according to their laws23. These types of incidents cause confusion not only for victims of crime but also for those charged with administering justice within the camps. As no precedent has been set, the notification of serious crime, to the Thai authorities, is ad-hoc and arbitrary.
This type of situation does little to engender a sense of security and stability within the camps. Not establishing clear and adhered to protocols between the camp judicial system and the Thai system places yictims at risk, insomuch that their cases may never be heard or tried before either system. It also means that victims become exasperated with the entire legal process and may in fact decide never to report crimes against them. This means an environment develops where criminals can ?slip? through the cracks in the system and are free to commit crime again and residents worry about their personal security.
Analysis from Sociological Aspect:
The refugee camps have existed along the Thai-Burma border areas for almost three decades. As there has not yet been a genuine transition to democracy in their mother land, the Royal Government of Thailand may not force the repatriation of these Burmese refugees under the close watch of the international community. If this is the case, the refugee people should not continue to suffer from legal and human rights abuses even in the territory of Thailand. Their temporary stay in the territory of Thailand should not be an excuse to ignore the `abuses' and `violations of rights' taking place within the camps. They should at least enjoy the right to security under a certain criminal justice mechanism, regardless of whether their situation is resolved in the long or short term residents.
What is assured is that it is not practical to resolve all disputes, abuses and violations of rights taking place in the refugee camps only by Thai courts under the existing criminal justice system of Thailand. There are two main reasons for this; Firstly the Royal Thai government may not be able to afford to cover all necessary expenses for the effective extension of justice mechanism of Thailand to encompass all the refugee camps; secondly, the refugee people from Burma have different social, racial and cultural backgrounds, not to mention problems associated with language differences. As such, it is necessary to take into account how a new mechanism, centering on the camp judiciary, be created within the framework of the existing justice mechanism of Thailand to ensure that the natural justice of refugees can be achieved under the present circumstance. This can happen only if Thai society grants the existence and functioning of camp judiciaries and allow them a certain degree of autonomy. The role of any judiciary, first and foremost, is to administer justice. Denying them a certain degree of autonomy to carry out this task is to also deny camp residents the right to natural justice.
|
