Jatuporn and the IPU II

Thanks to a reader for pointing out Robert Amsterdam’s blog post regarding the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s continuing interest in the disqualification of red shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan from his parliamentary position.

Earlier, PPT posted on the unanimous resolution adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Governing Council at its 191st session held in Quebec in late October 2012 on Jatuporn’s loss of parliamentary position. An online version of the resolution is available and it also begins on page 123 of the PDF of the IPU meeting.

Amsterdam refers to the new IPU statement as an “historic resolution” and notes that at:

most recent summit in Ecuador, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) – a body which has permanent observer status at the UN and which is considered by the UN to be the leading international organisation for parliaments – has issued an historic resolution condemning the unlawful disqualification of Thai Member of Parliament Jatuporn Prompran.

This refers to a meeting of the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians on 22-27 March 2013 and its resulting decisions that go to the IPU’s Governing Council as draft resolutions. The IPU Decision (the link is fixed and clicking downloads a large PDF, with Jatuporn’s case beginning at page 50) states, inter alia, that it considers:

that, although the Thai Constitution specifically provides for the disenfranchisement of persons “detained by a lawful order” on election day, preventing those accused of a crime from exercising the right to vote is at odds with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 25 of which guarantees the right to “take part in the conduct of public affairs” and “to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections” without “unreasonable restrictions”;

… in this regard that denying an incumbent member of parliament temporary release from prison to exercise the right to vote is an “unreasonable restriction”, particularly in the light of the Covenant’s provisions guaranteeing persons accused of a crime the right to be presumed innocent (Article 14) and “separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons” (Article 10(2)(a)); points out that Mr. Prompan’s disqualification also appears to run counter to the spirit of Article 102(4) of the Thai Constitution, which stipulates that only those convicted, not those accused, of a crime lose their right to stand for election once a candidacy has been submitted….

In addition, the draft resolution notes the circumstances of Jatuporn’s arrest and jailing, with the implicit view that it was a contrived case by Army and judiciary:

On 10 April 2011, Mr. Jatuporn took the stage during the commemoration organized at the Democracy Monument in Bangkok to mark the first anniversary of the government’s response to the Red Shirt demonstrations; in his speech, he criticized the then government and the Royal Thai Army for using the pretext of “protecting the monarchy” to criminalize the Red Shirt movement and kill its members the year before; Mr. Jatuporn also criticized the Constitutional Court for sparing the Democrat Party from dissolution, making reference to leaked video recordings that showed some of the justices colluding with party officials; following this, representatives of the Royal Thai Army filed a complaint alleging that Mr. Jatuporn had committed lese-majesty in his speech; the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) asked the Criminal Court to revoke his bail following the complaint, which it did on 12 May 2011; Mr. Jatuporn was subsequently held in Bangkok Remand Prison until 2 August 2011; the DSI subsequently dismissed the charge and the case was referred to the Office of the Attorney General for consideration on 17 January 2012….

In making its draft resolution, the IPU committee refers to a letter from the Secretary General of the House of Representatives in Thailand and “[r]eaffirms its [the committee’s] view that the letter does not dispel its concerns that Mr. Jatuporn was disqualified on grounds that appear directly to contravene Thailand’s international human rights obligations…”.

Jatuporn and the IPU

Thanks to the Red Shirts blog, PPT has become aware of the unanimous resolution adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Governing Council at its 191st session held in Quebec in late October on Jatuporn Promphan’s loss of parliamentary position. An online version of the resolution is available and it also begins on page 123 of the PDF of the IPU meeting.

The resolution is:

Bearing in mind that Thailand is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and therefore obliged to protect the rights enshrined therein,

1. Is deeply concerned that Mr. Prompan was disqualified on grounds that appear directly to contravene Thailand’s international human rights obligations;
2. Considers that, although the Thai Constitution specifically provides for the disenfranchisement of persons “detained by a lawful order” on election day, preventing those accused of a crime from exercising the right to vote is at odds with the provisions of the ICCPR, Article 25 of which guarantees the right to “take part in the conduct of public affairs” and “to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections” without “unreasonable restrictions”;
3. Considers in this regard that denying an incumbent member of parliament temporary release from prison to exercise the right to vote is an “unreasonable restriction”, particularly in the light of the ICCPR provisions guaranteeing persons accused of a crime the right to be presumed innocent (Article 14) and “separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons” (Article 10(2)(a)); points out that Mr. Prompan’s disqualification also appears to run counter to the spirit of Article 102(4) of the Thai Constitution, which stipulates that only those convicted, not those accused, of a crime lose their right to stand for election once a candidacy has been submitted;
4. Is likewise concerned that Mr. Prompan’s political party membership was terminated at a time when it had not been established that he had committed any wrongdoing and on account of a speech he had made that appeared to fall clearly within the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, as borne out by the subsequent dismissal of the charge; is also concerned that the courts can rule on the question of party membership when this is first and foremost a private matter between Mr. Prompan and his party and there was no dispute between them on the question;
5. Sincerely hopes that, in the light of the above, the competent Thai authorities will do everything possible to reconsider Mr. Prompan’s disqualification and ensure that all current legal provisions are in line with the relevant international human rights standards; wishes to ascertain the official views on this point;
6. Is concerned about the alleged legal basis for and facts adduced to substantiate the charges pending against Mr. Prompan and the possibility that the court may order his return to preventive detention; wishes to receive a copy of the charge sheet and to be informed of the outcome of the next hearing; considers that, in the light of the concerns in the case, it would be useful to explore the possibility of sending a trial observer to the proceedings, and requests the Secretary General to look into the matter;
7. Is also concerned that Mr. Prompan was prosecuted, sentenced and convicted on charges of defamation; concurs in this regard with the recommendation made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur that defamation should not be considered an offence under criminal law; wishes to ascertain, therefore, whether the Thai authorities are contemplating reviewing the existing legislation with this in mind; wishes to receive a copy of the first-instance rulings and to be kept informed of the appeal proceedings;
8. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the competent authorities and to the source;
9. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.

Updated: More on parliament surrounded

Update: After some limited media criticism, a fierce response from Peua Thai Party MPs, including a 2-day boycott of parliament, the government begun to reduce the huge military presence at parliament. Television news showed the troops withdrawing and razor wire and barricades being removed.

Part of the criticism today came in an extremely emotional statement in parliament by the one Peua Thai MP who showed up, spoke, and then left.As we mentioned below, the senate speaker also made a plea.

The government, which had earlier seen that images of the prime minister surrounded by military personnel was poor public relations, appears to have woken up to that fact that making parliament look like a military base in a war zone is probably not the best message. That said, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva seems not to care all that much, and in parliament was grim-faced in making statements defending his government and the military.

*

While much of the media has jumped to Abhisit Vejjajiva’s support, seemingly seeing nothing wrong with the huge “security” measures taken to “protect” parliament, Senate speaker Prasopsuk Boondej is reported in the Bangkok Post as saying that the “government should review its security measures as the deployment of troops at the parliament affects the image of the country…”.

He says: “The deployment of soldiers and the setting up of cement barricades and barbed wire inside and around the parliament building compound without giving advance notice has inconvenienced senators trying to get to work…” (PPT added the emphasis). He argues that it was unnecessary “to station a large number of soldiers at the parliament.”

He added: “In addition, there will be a meeting of senators on Monday and foreign delegates to the 122nd Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) meeting will visit the parliament the same day. If they see a large number of soldiers, it could erode the country’s image…”.

With Peau Thai Party members still boycotting and now heavily involved at the red shirt rally, the government sat in parliament virtually alone. PPT watched some of the session and it was handed over to a series of attacks on the red shirts and support for the “security” measures. Apart from allowing the Democrat Party to let off a bit of steam, it was a bit like watching one hand clapping.