Asian Centre for Human Rights

Dedicated to promotion and protection of human rights in Asia

The Banana Republic of Thailand:
Rule of the jungle in the name of emergency
Embargoed for: 20 July 2005
1. INTRODUCTION
2. ANALYSIS OF THE EMERGENCY DECREE
a. Subversion of parliamentary democracy
b. Supremacy of the military
c. Restriction on freedom of movement and the lack of guarantees against forced relocations of civilians 
d. Restriction on the freedom of assembly and expression
e. Legalising arbitrary arrest and detention
f. Attachment and destruction of property etc.
g. No right to privacy
h. Denial of the freedom to leave the country

i. Legalising man-made humanitarian crisis through economic embargo
j. Legalising incommunicado detention
k. Prime Minister is above the Constitutional Court!
l. Legalising Impunity
3. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. INTRODUCTION

In a scant disregard for national and international outrage, on 15 July 2005, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra government submitted the “Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation, B.E. 2548” to replace the existing martial law and grant the Prime Minister absolute power to declare a state of emergency. After the signing of the Decree by His Majesty the King of Thailand, it came into force on 16 July 2005. [1] On 18 July 2005, the government of Thailand declared emergency in the three southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat. [2] Although, the government reportedly decided to omit the application of Section 9 and some parts of Section 11 [3] for the time being, it can invoke such provisions at its own whims.

On 19-20 July 2005, the United Nations Human Rights Committee is about to conclude examination of the Initial Report of Thailand. A number of civil society organisations have submitted various shadow reports. Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) submitted its shadow report, Thailand: Not Smiling on Rights.

With specific request from the members of the UN Human Rights Committee, the government of Thailand provided an unofficial translation of the Emergency Decree during the examination of the periodic report.

Asian Centre for Human Rights has conducted a cursory scrutiny of the Emergency Decree. It shows that the Emergency Decree violates the cardinal principles of administration of justice, due process of law and the rule of law. Even the Constitutional Court cannot question the decree. It makes Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra an absolute dictator.

With this Emergency Decree, Thailand has become a Banana Republic!

2. ANALYSIS OF THE EMERGENCY DECREE

a. Subversion of parliamentary democracy

Section 5 of the Emergency Decree provides:

“Section 5. In the event of the occurrence of emergency situation, the Prime Minister deems it appropriate to mobilise administrative officials or police officers, civil officials or military officers to jointly prevent, remedy, suppress, contain the emergency situation, provide rehabilitation or assistance to the people, the Prime Minister upon the approval of the Council of Ministers is empowered to declare a state of emergency be it applicable to the whole Kingdom or in some area or locality as necessary under the circumstances. In the case where the approval of the Council of Ministers cannot be obtained in a timely manner, the Prime Minister may declare the emergency situation and subsequently shall seek the approval of the Council of Ministers within three days. If approval of the Council of Ministers is not sought within the time prescribed, or the Council of Ministers refuses approva1, such Declaration of a state of emergency shall cease to be in force.

The Declaration of a state of emergency under paragraph one above shall be in force for the duration prescribed by the Prime Minister but shall not exceed three months from the date of declaration. In the case where it is necessary to extend such period, the Prime Minister upon the approval of the Council of Ministers shall have the power to declare the extension of duration of enforcement provided that each extension shall not exceed three months.

At the end of emergency situation or upon any denial of approval by the Council of Ministers or upon the lapse of the period under paragraph two above, the Prime Minister shall declare the termination of such Declaration of state of emergency.”

While the debate on an emergency law has been continuing for over six months, one wonders as to why Prime Minister chose to impose it as a Decree rather than a parliamentary legislation, more so when Thai Rak Thai party has overwhelming majority in the parliament. What was the hurry? Or is it another indication of the authoritarianism of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in the name of tackling the situation in Southern Thailand?

The government has subverted the parliamentary democracy both through its imposition as a Decree and through exclusion of the parliament from any future process for the declaration of emergency.

The process of declaration of the Decree and the Decree are unconstitutional.

Article 218 of the 1997 Constitution of Thailand upholds the supremacy of the parliament over the declaration of emergency. Paragraph 3 of Article 218 states, “In the next succeeding sitting of the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers shall submit the Emergency Decree to the National Assembly for its consideration without delay. If it is out of session and it would be a delay to wait for the opening of an ordinary session, the Council of Ministers must proceed to convoke an extraordinary session of the National Assembly in order to consider whether to approve or disapprove the Emergency Decree without delay. If the House of Representatives disapproves it or approves it but the Senate disapproves it and the House of Representatives reaffirms its approval by the votes of not more than one-half of the total number of the existing members of the House, the Emergency Decree shall lapse; provided that it shall not affect any act done during the enforcement of such Emergency Decree”. [4]

The Council of Ministers has replaced the parliament!

The fact that it is not subject to parliamentary approval implies that there are no checks and balances as to under what circumstances the emergency can be imposed. The two requirements stipulated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No 29 for invoking article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - that the situation must amount to a public emergency, which threatens the life of the nation, and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency [5] – are not met by the Emergency Decree.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 29 stated, “measures derogating from the provisions of the Covenant must be of an exceptional and temporary (emphasis ours) nature”. [6] There is no bar as to how many times emergency can be extended. The Emergency Regulation states that “In the case where it is necessary to extend such period, the Prime Minister upon the approval of the Council of Ministers shall have the power to declare the extension of duration of enforcement provided that each extension shall not exceed three months”.

b. Supremacy of the military

Section 7 and 8 of the Emergency Decree provide:

“Section 7. In an area or locality prescribed in a Declaration of a State of Emergency under section 5, the powers and duties vested individually in a Minister of a Ministry or severally in Ministers of more than one Ministry or having charge and control of the execution of any law or is so empowered under any law, where it concerns only such powers that relate to the issuance of a permission, approval, order, command or aid in the prevention, remedy, suppression or ending an emergency situation or providing rehabilitation or assistance to the people, shal1 be temporarily transferred as powers and duties of the Prime Minister in order that instructions and remedies during the situation can be carried out in an integral, expedient and efficient manner.

The transfer of all or part of powers and duties of Ministers under paragraph one as powers and duties of the Prime Minister shall be in accordance with a Notification published by the Council of Ministers.

The Prime Minister shall have the power to appoint competent officials to perform duties under this Emergency Decree and to carry out functions under laws which have been transferred to the powers and duties of the Prime Minister under paragraph one. A person so appointed as a competent official shall have the powers under such laws. In this regard, the Prime Minister may authorize any governmental agency or competent official under such law to continue to exercise their previously assigned functions, provided that the exercise of functions shall be in accordance with the rules laid down by the Prime Minister.

In a case where the Prime Minister appoints a civil servant, a police officer or a military officer holding a position not lower than Director-­General, Police Commander in Chief, Commander General or the equivalent thereof as a competent official and designates such person as a Chief Official responsible in remedying the emergency situation in an area and to have charge and control over other officials and competent officials, the exercise of functions by relevant governmental agencies and officials, including competent officials, shall comply with instructions of the Chief Official, except for the exercise of military functions, which must be in accordance with rules and regulations concerning the use of military force, provided that this must be consistent with guidelines stipulated by the Chief Official.

In the case of necessity, the Council of Ministers may set up an ad-hoc Special Task Force to provisionally exercise functions under this Emergency Decree until the Declaration of a State of Emergency has been terminated.

The Prime Minister may authorise a Deputy Prime Minister or one or more Ministers to exercise powers under paragraph one, paragraph three or paragraph four on his/her behalf or may entrust such persons to oversee the exercise of functions by the relevant governmental agencies, competent official under paragraph three, Chief Official under paragraph four and the agency under paragraph five and shall be deemed to be the superior official of the Chief Official, government officials and relevant competent officials.

Section 8. For the benefit of coordinating the exercise of functions in an appropriate manner and befitting the circumstances and well-being of the people in the area over which a State of Emergency has been declared, the Prime Minister or a person assigned by the Prime Minister may issue an order appointing a group of persons or a person as an advisor for the exercise of functions of a competent officia1 or as an assistant to the competent official in the exercise of functions under this Emergency Decree.

A person appointed under paragraph one shall enjoy protection to the same extent as in the exercise of functions by a competent official within the scope of the appointed functions.”

Sections 7 and 8 of the Emergency Decree must be read with Sections 10 and 15.

Section 10 provides that the Prime Minister is empowered to “to order the use of military force in order to assist administrative officials or police officers in terminating the serious situation or controlling the situation so as to promptly secure order, provided that the performance of functions by military officers shall have identical powers and duties to the powers and duties of a competent official under this Emergency Decree, whereas the scope of the use of such powers and duties of the military shall be in accordance with the conditions and time condition prescribed by the Prime Minister but shall not exceed the powers under martial laws in the case where martial laws apply”.

Section 15 provides thatA competent official or a person having identical powers and duties to a competent official under this Emergency Decree shall be a competent official under the Penal Code and shall have the powers and duties of an administrative official or police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code as prescribed by the Prime Minister”.

While under section 10 of the Emergency Decree, the military is mandated to assist administrative officials, under Section 15, they can operate independently. Section 15 provides that the performance of functions by military officers shall have identical powers and duties to the powers and duties of a competent official under this Emergency Decree”. It is nothing but bringing back military dictatorship through the backdoor. Most importantly, the role of the provincial governors has been terminated.

           

c. Restriction on freedom of movement and the lack of guarantees against forced relocations of civilians

Section 9 of the Emergency Decree provides that:

 

“Section 9. In case of necessity to remedy and promptly resolve a State of Emergency situation or to prevent the worsening of such situation, the Prime Minister shall have the power to issue the following regulations:

(1) to prohibit any person from leaving a dwelling place during the prescribed period, except with the permission of a competent official or being an exempted person;

(4) to prohibit the use of communications routes or vehicles or prescribe conditions on the use of communications routes or vehicles;

(5) to prohibit the use of buildings or entry into or stay in any  place;

(6) to evacuate people out of a designated area for the safety of such civilians or to prohibit any person from entering a designated area”

These provisions make Thailand an “Open Jail” for the non- ethnic Thais i.e. religious minorities, indigenous hill tribes, migrant workers and refugees. Indigenous hill tribes whose citizenship applications have not been yet processed, the migrant workers and refugees are required to take permission from different authorities from district Chief to Provincial government to travel outside the designated areas on the grounds of “maintaining the security of the State, public order, public welfare, town and country planning or welfare of the youth” as provided under Article 36 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand.

These provisions under the Emergency Decree also violate Article 35 of 1997 Constitution of Thailand relating to liberty of dwelling and Article 36 of the 1997 Constitution of Thailand relating to traveling and the liberty of making the choice of his or her residence within the Kingdom of Thailand. 

These provisions also violate Article 12 of the ICCPR relating to the right to freedom of movement.

Moreover, the power “to evacuate people out of a designated area for the safety of such civilians or to prohibit any person from entering a designated area” is illegal without any checks and balances. Article 17 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts stipulates the following conditions against forced relocations:

“Article 17.-Prohibition of forced movement of civilians.

1. The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. Should such displacements have to be carried out, all possible measures shall be taken in order that the civilian population may be received under satisfactory conditions of shelter, hygiene, health, safety and nutrition.

2. Civilians shall not be compelled to leave their own territory for reasons connected with the conflict.”

 

There is no such guarantee in the Emergency Decree. Rather Section 11(6) empowers the Prime Minister “to issue a notification [of] the prohibition of any act or any instruction to perform an act to the extent that is necessary for maintaining the security of the state, the safety of the country or the safety of the people”.

d. Restriction on the freedom of assembly and expression

Section 9 also provides:

Section 9. In case of necessity to remedy and promptly resolve a State of Emergency situation or to prevent the worsening of such situation, the Prime Minister shall have the power to issue the following regulations:

(2) to prohibit the assembly or gathering of persons at any place or any conduct which may incite or lead to an unrest;

(3) to prohibit the publication, distribution or dissemination of letters, print materials or any means of communication containing texts which may instigate fear amongst the people or is intended to distort information which causes misunderstanding of the emergency situation affecting the security of state or public order or public moral both in the area or locality where a State of Emergency had been declared or the whole Kingdom;”

While Article 44 of the 1997 Constitution of Thailand provides the liberty to peaceful assembly, Article 37 provides the liberty of communication by peaceful means. Article 39 provides the citizens the liberty to express his or her opinion, make speeches, write, print, publicise, and make expression by other means.

Section 9 of the Emergency Decree has taken away these constitutional rights. The freedom of the press in Thailand is already under tremendous stress. The media must neither criticise the government nor raise questions as to how the media companies owned by Prime Minister’s family member are benefiting from the government policies. With the Emergency Decree, the situation has worsened.

This provision of Emergency Decree is also not consistent with Article 19 of the ICCPR relating to freedom of expression.  The United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No 10 on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stated that “when a State party imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself.  Paragraph 3 lays down conditions and it is only subject to these conditions that restrictions may be imposed:  the restrictions must be “provided by law”; they may only be imposed for one of the purposes set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3; and they must be justified as being “necessary” for that State party for one of those purposes.”

e. Legalising arbitrary arrest and detention

Section 11 of the Emergency Decree provides

Section 11. In the case where an emergency situation involves terrorism, use of force, harm to life, body or property, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that there exists act of violence which affects the security of state, the safety of life or property of the state or person, and there is a necessity to resolve the problem in an efficient and timely manner, the Prime Minister, upon the approval of the Council of Ministers, shall have the power to declare that such State of Emergency as a Serious State of Emergency, and the provisions of section 5 and section 6 paragraph two shall apply mutates mutandis.

Upon a Declaration under paragraph one, in addition to power under section 9 and section 10, the Prime Minister shall also have the following powers:

(1)    to issue a notification that a competent official shall have the power of arrest and detention of a person suspected of having a role in causing the emergency situation, or being an instigator, making the propagation, a supporter of such act or concealing relevant information relating to the act which caused the State of Emergency, provided that this should be done to the extent that is necessary to prevent such person from committing an act or participating in the commission of any act which may cause a serious situation or to engender cooperation in the termination of the serious situation;

(2)    to issue a notification that a competent official shall have the power to summon any person to report to the competent official or to give an oral statement or submit any documents or evidence relevant to the emergency situation;”

In addition, Section 15 of the Emergency Decree provides,

“Section 15. A competent official or a person having identical powers and duties to a competent official under this Emergency Decree shall be a competent official under the Penal Code and shall have the powers and duties of an administrative official or police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code as prescribed by the Prime Minister”.

Under sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of section 11, the Emergency Decree give enormous and unhindered powers to the unidentified “Competent Official”, who is an administrative officer or police officer, to be the judge and jury in relation to arrest, detention, issuing of summon to produce documents or evidence, seizures and issuing of warrants for search, removal, withdrawal or demolition of building or structures etc.  The administrative officials have replaced the judiciary. It raises serious questions about the independence of judiciary.

These provisions are contrary to provisions of Articles 237 and 238 of the 1997 Constitution of Thailand. Article 237 provides that in a criminal case, no arrest and detention of a person may be made except where an order or a warrant of the Court is obtained, or where such person commits a flagrant offence or where there is such other necessity for an arrest without warrant as provided by law. Under Article 238, a search in a private place shall not be made except where an order or a warrant of the Court is obtained or there is a reasonable ground to search without an order or a warrant of the Court as provided by law.

Under Section 12 of the Emergency Decree, the Competent Official has the power to detain an arrested person for 7 days with maximum of 30 days with the approval of the Court. Such long period of detention is contrary to the provisions of Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Thailand, which prescribes 3 days detention, that too with the permission of the court.

Such excessive powers of arrest and detention under Emergency Decree also violates article 9 of the ICCPR.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act of the United Kingdom allowed detention up to 48 hours. The detention may be extended upto 5 days with the approval of the Secretary of State. This extended period of detention for five days was held illegal by the European Court of Human Rights in Brogan [7] case. If 4 days of additional detention under PTA of UK constitutes a breach of the Article 5(3) of the European Convention of Human Rights, the detention upto 30 days even with the approval of the judiciary is illegal by any yardstick!

f. Attachment and destruction of property etc

            Section 11 of the Emergency Decree further provides

(3)    to issue a notification that a competent official shall have the power to seize or attach arms, goods, consumer products, chemical products or any other materials in the case where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such objects have been used or will be used to commit or support an act which causes an emergency situation;

(4)    to issue a notification that a competent official shall have the power to issue a warrant for the search, removal, withdrawa1 or demolition of buildings, structures or obstructions as necessary for the exercise of functions in order to promptly terminate a serious situation where a delay might render the situation beyond control;

There is no judicial oversight for search and seizure and the use of force, removal, withdrawal or demolition of buildings, structures or obstructions.

The mass murder at Krue Se Mosque is a clear example as to how disproportionate use of force can cause gross human rights violations. In one of the bloodiest actions by the security forces, 107 persons, mostly teenagers were killed and 17 others were arrested on 28 April 2004. The killed youth, mostly armed with machetes and only a few carrying assault rifles, allegedly battled policemen and soldiers in Pattani, Yala and Songkhla. More than 30 were killed inside the historic Krue Se Mosque alone on the outskirts of Pattani in Narathiwat province. [8] The probe panel into the Krue Se mosque headed by Suchinda Yongsunthron, a former constitution judge found that the security forces did not use peaceful means to end the standoff and described the killings as an over reaction by the security forces. The inquiry commission observed that the circumstances at the mosque were not so overwhelming that troops had to resort to “excessive force.” The panel also found that the bodies of the slain militants were not examined in accordance with judicial procedures. [9]

g. No right to privacy

Section 11(5) of the Emergency Decree also empowers the President to

“(5) to issue a notification that a competent official shall have the power to issue an order to inspect letters, books, print materials, telegraphic transmissions, telephone communications or any other means of communication as well as to cancel or suspend any contact or communication in order to prevent or terminate the serious incident provided that the rules prescribed in the law on special investigation are complied with mutates mutandis”;

The right to privacy guaranteed under Article 17 of the ICCPR is taken away by the Emergency Decree.

h. Denial of the freedom to leave the country

Section 11(5) of the Emergency Decree also violate the right to leave the country. It empowers the Prime Minister

(7)    “to issue a notification that a competent official shall have the power to issue an order to prohibit any person from leaving the Kingdom where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the departure from the Kingdom will affect the security of the state or the safety of the country;

(8)    to issue a notification that a competent official shall have the power to instruct an alien to leave the Kingdom in the case where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such person is a supporter in causing the emergency situation, provided that the law on immigration shall apply mutatis mutandis”;

This violates Article 12.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides that “everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own”

i. Legalising man-made humanitarian crisis through economic embargo

Section 11(9) of the Emergency Decree also allows the government to impose economic embargo. It empowers the President “to issue a notification that the purchase, sale, use or possession of any arms, goods, pharmaceutical products, consumer products, chemical products or any equipment which may be used for causing unrest or terrorism shall be reported to or be subject to prior permission of the competent official or comply with any conditions set by the Prime Minister;”.

The restrictions on medical products and consumer products violate the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the international humanitarian laws.

j. Legalising incommunicado detention

Section 12 of the Emergency Decree provides that

“Section 12. In arresting and detaining suspected persons under section 11(1), the competent official shall apply for leave of the court of competent jurisdiction or the Criminal Court. Upon obtaining leave of the court, the competent official shall be empowered to arrest and detain the suspected persons for a period not exceeding seven days. The suspected persons shall be detained in a designated place which is not a police station, detention centre, penal institution or prisons and shall not be treated as a convict. In case where it is necessary to continue the detention in order to remedy the emergency situation, the competent official shall apply for the leave of the court to extend such detention period by seven days at a time, provided that the total period shall not exceed thirty days. Upon the expiration of such period, if the detention is still required, the competent official shall proceed under the Criminal Procedure Code.

In proceeding under paragraph one, the competent official shall file a report on the arrest and detention of such suspected persons for submission to the court issuing the order under paragraph one. A copy of such report shall be deposited at the office of the competent official so that relatives of the suspected persons may access such reports for the entire duration of such detention.

The provisions on the procedures governing the issue of a warrant under the Criminal Procedure code shall apply mutatis mutandis to the application for leave of the Court under paragraph one”.

If the detainees are not detained “in a police station, detention centre, penal institution or prisons” where shall they be detained? This is authorizing incommunicado detention without access to attorney, family members or relatives. There is no mechanism for supervision of places of detention by competent national judicial authorities or the International Committee of the Red Cross.

k. Prime Minister is above the Constitutional Court!

Section 16 of the Emergency Decree provides,

“Section 16. A regu1ation, announcement, order or an act under this Emergency Decree shall be subject to neither the law on administrative procedures nor the law on the establishment of Administrative Court nor Administrative Court Procedure”.

In any country where there are basic semblance of democracy and rule of law, no Prime Minister or President can claim itself above the Constitution.

This provision makes Thailand a Banana Republic.

l. Legalising Impunity

Section 17 of the Emergency Decree legalizes impunity. It provides:        

“Section 17. A competent official and a person having identical powers and duties as a competent official under this Emergency Decree shall not be subject to civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities arising from the performance of functions for the termination or prevention of an illegal act, provided that such act is performed in good faith, is non-discriminatory, and is not unreasonable in the circumstances exceeding the extent of necessity, but does not preclude the right of a victim to seek-compensation from a government agency under the law on liability for wrongful act of officials”.

By giving complete impunity to the competent officials or appointees of the Prime Minister, the Emergency Decree has legalised the climate of impunity already prevailing in Thailand. It deprives the people of remedies to which they may be entitled in accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the ICCPR.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions lucidly summarised the impunity and extrajuducial executions in her report to the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights:

“Impunity for human rights offenders seriously undermines the rule of law, and also widens the gap between those close to the power structures and others who are vulnerable to human rights abuses.  In this way, human rights violations are perpetuated or sometimes even encouraged, as perpetrators feel that they are free to act in a climate of impunity.  ….., extrajudicial killings and acts of murder may sometimes also go unpunished because of the sex, religious belief, or ethnicity of the victim. Long-standing discrimination and prejudice against such groups are often used as justification of these crimes. The increasing difficulties in securing justice alienate the people from the State and may drive them to take the law into their own hands, resulting in a further erosion of the justice system and a vicious circle of violence and retaliation.  If unaddressed, such situations may easily degenerate into a state of anarchy and social disintegration.  Human rights protection and respect for the rule of law are central to lasting peace and stability.  It is, therefore, crucial that conflict prevention strategies and post‑conflict peace‑building efforts include effective measures to end the culture of impunity and protect the rule of law.” [10]

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Terrorism must be fought within the ambit of the rule of law and not through “State terrorism” such as the Emergency Decree. The United Nations Human Rights Committee must censure the government of Thailand and urge the government of Thailand to inform other State parties about the derogation from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), recommend to ensure that any emergency regulation comply with ICCPR.

International community must also intervene to stop complete erosion of due process of law, rule of law and violations of cardinal principles of administration of justice. The Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation, B.E. 2548 must be withdrawn.



[1] . Civic groups to seek court ruling on decree, The Bangkok Post, 18 July 2005

[2] . Govt 'eases off' in parts of decree, The Bangkok Post, 20 July 2005

[3] . Ibid

[4] . The 1997 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand   

[5] . CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001

[6] . Ibid

[7] Case No. 10/1987/133/184-187.

[8] . Southern carnage: kingdom shaken, the nation, 29 April 2004

[9] . KRUE SE MOSQUE INCIDENT: MILITANTs met to plan attack, The Nation, 26 April 2005

[10] . E/CN.4/2001/9 and Corr.1

© Copy right 2003, Asian Centre for Human Rights, C-3/441-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, India