Friday, February 1, 2008

Evaluation of Human rights situation regarding torture practices in Cambodia, Thailand and Sweden

CONTENTS

Chapter 1-Introduction
1.1.Overview of torture
1.2.Objective of paper
1.3.Methodology
1.4.Definition of torture

Chapter 2-Legal instrument prohibits torture
2.1.International human rights law prohibits torture
2.2.Adherence to international human rights treaties and the domestic law
2.2.1.Cambodia
2.2.2.Thailand
2.2.3.Sweden

Chapter 3-Factors caused torture
3.1.The non-independence of judiciary
3.1.1.Cambodia
3.1.2.Thailand
3.1.3.Sweden
3.2.Government lacks political will to combat torture
3.2.1.Cambodia
3.2.2.Thailand
3.2.3.Sweden

Chapter 4- Analysis
4.1.Compare Cambodia against itself between 2004 and 2006
4.2.Compare Thailand to Cambodia
4.3.Compare Sweden to Cambodia

Chapter 5- Conclusion

References





Chapter 1-Introduction to torture

1.1.Overview of torture
Torture is the serious and gravest crimes that have been occurring in many countries. It is protected by the ways of silence from the victim and the denial from the responsible perpetrator. In most cases of torture, the perpetrators do not admit it and they have always take measures to avoid leaving evidence. Victims are frightened and traumatized, and they often don't want to reveal the experience they had gone through or to file legal complaint against the perpetrators. Government in most cases, finds its way to cover up torture. To take step to reduce and prevent torture is to prosecute the perpetrators, of which the judiciary must be independence and the government has to have political will to combat torture.

1.2.Objective of paper
The paper aims at comparing the situation of torture of three constitutional monarchy countries, Cambodia, Thailand and Sweden, by choosing Cambodia to be the based country of comparison with the country with good human rights record, Sweden and a neighboring country which has a record of level of bad human rights record, Thailand. The paper will also explore what the effective ways that Cambodia can take from Sweden to combat torture practices in her countries.

1.3.Methodology
The comparison and the analysis of this paper is based on the secondary data taken mainly from the report of U.S. Department of State, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, OHCHR and relevant NGOs report. Also from direct reading of the relevant domestic laws and international human rights laws. The style for citation is MLA.

1.4.Definition of torture
Torture is the infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure.[1]

The definition of torture is explained in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). The article states that "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”

Under this definition of Convention Against Torture, not all pain or suffering is considered to be torture. There have to be elements which required that the pain or suffering must be intentional or systematic, and not the pain from accidental and lawful sanction. The pain or suffering must be committed by a public official such as the police and prison officials, and for the purpose to get information or force confession, inflict punishment, intimidate, coerce or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.[2]

Chapter 2-Legal instrument prohibits torture

2.1.International human rights law prohibits torture
Torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, article 7 and article 10[3]. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 5[4] also prohibits torture. The Convention Against Torture, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948 reaffirms the prohibition of torture and provides additional safeguards to ensure that torture and similar practices cannot occur, and that the state party to the convention take measures to prevent anyone under their control from committing torture.

The prohibition of torture is further reiterated in article 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 10 of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[5]

Torture is universally condemned, and whatever its actual practice, no country publicly supports torture or opposes its eradication. The prohibition against torture is well established under customary international law as jus cogens; that is, it has the highest standing in customary law and is so fundamental as to supercede all other treaties and customary laws (except laws that are also jus cogens). Criminal acts that are jus cogens are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that any state can exercise its jurisdiction, regardless of where the crime took place, the nationality of the perpetrator or the nationality of the victim.[6]

2.2.Adherence to international human rights treaty and the domestic law

2.2.1 Cambodia
Cambodia has ratified six major human rights treaties, including International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Convention Against Torture, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Convention on the Rights of the Child.[7] The Cambodia constitution, article 31 recognizes and respect for the human rights as set out in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the covenant and convention related to human rights, woman’s rights and rights of the child. In addition to article 31 of the Cambodia constitution, article 38 specifically prohibits torture and other ill treatment and determined that the confessions obtained through torture is not admissible as evidence of a guilt. The same article requires that the officials responsible for torture be punished. Despite the amounts of human rights instruments it has ratified, the government has not fulfilled its report obligation. Regarding the Convention Against Torture, Cambodia has submitted the initial report only after the nine-year delay in its submission and the paucity of information on the practical enjoyment of the rights provided in the Convention.[8]

2.2.2.Thailand
Thailand has acceded to four major human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)[9]. Section 31 of the 1997 constitution provides for the Thai people to enjoy the right and liberty in his or her life, and not to permit torture, brutal act, or punishment by a cruel or inhumane means, thought the punishment by death penalty as provided by law shall not be deemed the punishment by a cruel or inhumane means under this paragraph.[10] However, the torture has continued and the police tortured and beat suspects to extract confessions. Although the constitution was revoked following the September coup d’etat in 2006 and announced martial law, it was maintained that the interim constitution still have the references of the protections incorporated from the 1997 constitution and specific laws pertaining to prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment remain in force. Though, there was no confirmed reports of torture during the period of martial law[11]. Despite its willingness in ratified the human rights treaty, the government has not fulfill its report obligation. Regarding to the ICCPR, which also prohibits torture, Thailand has submitted its initial report after more than six years delay.[12]

2.2.3.Sweden
Sweden has ratified most of the UN instrument involving human rights and other regional instruments, in particular it ratified all the seven key human rights treaties.[13] Sweden has also fulfilled its reporting obligation under the international human rights law. Human rights are primarily protected through three Constitutional laws, the Instrument of Government, the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. Responsibility for ensuring the non-violation of human rights rests with the government.[14]

Chapter 3-Factors caused torture

3.1.The non-independence of judiciary
3.1.1.Cambodia
The constitution provides for an independent of judiciary, but the judiciary is subject to be interfered by the government and political influence. The courts-widely viewed as corrupt, incompetent and biased, and continued to be used to advance political agendas, silence critics, and strip people of their land.[15] The lack of independence and integrity of the judiciary, the prosecutorial authorities, and the legal profession pose a fundamental threat to human rights. Ministers and senior government officials enjoy wide immunities for breaches of the law, while innocent people become, at the instigation of the Government, the victims of the legal system. Thus, far from protecting human rights, the legal system becomes a principal agency of oppression.[16]

3.1.2.Thailand
The constitution provided for independent of judiciary before the coup of 19 September. However after the coup, the coup leaders repealed the constitution and issued a decree announcing that all courts with the exception of the Constitutional Court would continue to operate as normal. The judiciary was subject to corruption and outside influences although generally, it has been seen as independent. The lack of progress in high-profile cases involving alleged abuse by the police and military make the public lost their trust in the justice system and discouraged victims of human rights abuses from seeking justice[17].

3.1.3.Sweden
The constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected this provision in practice. Citizens of Sweden can also file appeal in matter related to the state to the European Court of Human Rights, as it is one of members of the European Union.[18] According to the report of U.S. Department of State Report, Country report on human rights practices, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor for consecutive years (2004 to 2006) reported no cases of the non-independent court related cases.

3.2.Government lacks political will to combat torture
3.2.1.Cambodia
Cambodia is constitutional monarchy with a population of approximately 13.8 million[19]. The 1993 constitution provides for the separation of power between the legislative, executive and the judiciary. However, the government, the executive branch dominated and interfered with the latter branches.[20] The security forces beating and use other forms of physical mistreatment to extract confession from the prisoners. The perpetrators are often treated with impunity. Cases of torture committed by security forces are reported in various reports of local and international human rights organizations.[21] The government has not taken step to address torture, and a government high ranking official have asserted that torture during interrogation was sometimes necessary to force suspected criminals to provide information. Though, he reported to have retracted his comments following extensive media coverage and criticism.[22] (see 4.1 below)

3.2.2.Thailand
Thailand is constitutional monarchy with a population of 65.43 million. In September 2006, Thaksin’s government was overthrow in a bloodless coup by a military leader.
Under the administration of Prime Minister Thaksin, there were reports of killings, and torture in the south of Thailand by security force and the insurgents and the introduction of new security legislation[23]. Based on human rights reports of different institutions, torture practiced by the police and security forces have become a common practice in Thailand, not just in the alleged security threats, but also in the ordinary criminal cases. There is report of torture which are of institutionalized nature and in several cases it approved by senior government officers. There is no political will from the government to combat torture. (see 4.2 below)

3.2.3.Sweden
Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a population of over nine million. The king is the largely symbolic head of state. The government heads by prime minister, exercises executive authority. The security forces is effectively control by the civilian authority. In general, the government of Sweden respects the human rights of its citizens. Although there are reports of human rights problems, but the individual instances of abuse are being addressed with the effective means provided under the law and by the judiciary.
There were reports of isolated case of torture and ill-treatment committed by police officers, but the responsible police officers had been brought to prosecute or dismiss from the police service. For example, in May 2005, a court convicted two police officers for assault and excessive violence against a 64-year-old man. The court sentenced each of the officers to three-months' imprisonment and dismissed them from the police force. In September authorities initiated investigations against three police officers accused of use of excessive violence during a confrontation near Stockholm in September. The investigations were ongoing at year's end.[24]

Chapter 4-Analysis

4.1.Compare Cambodia against itself between 2004 and 2006
The country report on human rights practice of 2006 of US Department of state cited information from Human rights NGOs LICADHO, which reported that “in the first six months of the year, authorities tortured 96 detainees, of whom 78 were tortured in police custody. Based on interviews with thousands of detainees from 18 of the country's 24 prisons, LICADHO added that kicking, punching, and pistol-whipping were the most common methods of physical abuse, but techniques also included electric shocks, suffocation, caning, and whipping with wire. ADHOC, another NGO monitoring human rights across the country, recorded approximately 150 cases of physical assaults and torture committed by police and military agents”.[25] Human Rights Watch, 2006 world report described torture continues to be used by police officers in their attempt to extract confessions from suspects in detention. The report went on citing a case happened in a prison in Kompong Cham province, where human rights groups reported torture of prisoners who were believed to be responsible for the prison break.[26]

The U.S. Department of state, Cambodia country report on human rights practice of 2005, reported torture continued to be a serious problem in the police custody and in prison. The police or security personnel who were responsible for torture are often protected from prosecution or disciplinary action by local government authority. The report cited an information of torture from a local NGO who monitored 17 prisons provided that during the year of 189 inmates interviewed by the NGO, 25 claimed they were tortured upon their arrival at prison, and 52 others claimed they were tortured while in police custody.[27] The torture in police custody also reported in the Amnesty International, 2005 Report. The report highlighted an assertion of a high level of police official who told the public that torture during interrogation was some time necessary to force suspected criminals to provide information, though the official retracted his comments following a lot of criticisms.[28]

The U.S. Department of state, Cambodia country report on human rights practice of 2004 reported that during the year, there were credible reports that military and civilian police officials used physical and psychological torture and severely beat criminal detainees, particularly during interrogation. A local NGO reported that in interviews with prisoners in 18 prisons, 106 claimed to have been tortured, 65 of this group while in police custody and 41 while in prison. Members of the police and security force who carried out abuse often were protected from prosecution or disciplinary action by local government authorities, despite some central Government efforts to curtail or eliminate violations of prisoners' rights and to address problems of accountability.[29]

To compare the reports of the same institution, the U.S. Department of State of non random years and the random year of the report of others organizations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International above, the torture practices committed by the police and security forces to extract confession from the prisoners have been practiced in many police custodies and at prisons in Cambodia. The number of torture cases remained high in 2006, though it is slightly different from the previous year by comparing the U.S. Department of State report between 2004 and 2006. From the analysis of the U.S. Department of State reports, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International of 2004, 2005 and 2006, no perpetrators were reported to have been brought to justice. The perpetrators’ commanders would compromise the case to ensure that the perpetrators were protected against any prosecution for his/her crime. The court, in general has not taken into account the complaint of torture when the accused testifies to it at the court, or just dismisses the charge of torture against the perpetrator.

The judiciary is not independent, and suffers from interference by the executive and political influence, and corruption, and this has been reported again and again in all these report of 2004 to 2006.

Although Cambodia is a state party to key international human rights treaty, in particular the ICCPR and the Convention against torture, the government has not fulfill its international obligation under these treaties, including its reporting obligation provided under these treaties. There are framework and guidelines from the international human rights law and domestic law for the government to combat torture. However, ther is no political will from the government to translate into action the domestic and international law prohibit torture.

4.2. Compare Thailand to Cambodia
Police torture which documented by human rights group and legal organizations reported that torture continued with some members of the police tortured and beat suspects to obtain confessions. There are also reports of numerous cases in which citizens accused police of using brutality, threatening with false charges, and extorting bribes. The 2005 report of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of U.S. Department of State reported a numbers of torture cases, including a case of five suspects who filed legal complaint against the police torture in March 2004 through their lawyer, Somchai Neelapaichjit to the Ministry of Justice, but the lawyer was subsequently disappeared and was presumed dead.[30] The same year, Human Rights Watch reported that the police continue to torture detainees, thought there was a commitment from the National Human Rights Commission and the Police Commission to set a step to remedy the situation and to hold officers in command to responsible for torture in their stations.[31] Another report of the same year of Asian Legal Resource Center reported that torture is routinely practiced by the police in Thailand. The report is based on the largest amount of information on the practice of torture in Thailand with reference to the police. Among the police, torture is practiced both in cases of alleged security threats, and in the ordinary criminal cases. The report raised a particular concern about the types of torture, which went far beyond the day-to-day beatings and conventional roughing-up tactics that persons in Thailand usually associate with the police. The practices of inflicting wounds and electric shocks on sensitive parts of the body suggest the work of seasoned professional torturers. The report also provides cases of torture which are of institutionalized nature and in several cases it approved by senior officers.[32]

To compare Thailand to Cambodia, the situation of torture committed by police and security forces in Thailand is more serious giving the fact there is situation of insurgency in the south of Thailand until today. But, torture cases were reported to have committed by the police and security forces not only in the security concerned related cases, but also ordinary criminal cases. There is no available data on number of torture cases from the mentioned report to compare, since those report only focused on various sensitive cases and provide a general overview on torture. However, we can conclude from the nature of cases explained in the mentioned reports that torture in Thailand is more serious than Cambodia at the current stage, taking into account the insurgency in the south of Thailand. The state of judiciary is better than Cambodia in term of its independency. Though, the judiciary of Thailand is also subject to corruption and outside influences. In term of international obligation, similar to Cambodia, Thailand has not fulfill its obligation under ICCPR regarding torture prohibition. Thailand government also has not taken enough step to prevent torture, and allowed the responsible officials to be escaped from justice. Thailand has not serious to comply with the international obligation and the domestic law to combat torture.

4.3.Compare Sweden to Cambodia
The U.S. Department of State reports on human rights practices of 2006 reported that there were isolated cases that police used excessive force. During the year law enforcement authorities conducted 82 investigations of police officers and charged and convicted nine for crimes, including unlawful threat, causing bodily injury, and procurement and sexual molestation. The investigation of a September 2005 incident in which police were alleged to have used excessive force did not result in prosecutions due to lack of evidence.[33] The report of the same institution of 2005 mentioned the same situation that there were isolated reports of torture, but the responsible police officers were brought to prosecution and dismissed from the service[34]. The report of the same institution of 2004 reported that there were no reports that government officials employed officers who committed torture related crimes. During the year, the police officer charged with the 2001 wounding of three protesters was acquitted by the district court.[35]

To compare the report of the same institution of non random year from 2004 to 2006, the torture and ill-treatment committed by police officer and security forces in Sweden is very rare. The isolated cases are being addressed effectively, of which the responsible perpetrators were brought to justice, including dismissed from their services.

To compare Sweden to Cambodia, Sweden has far ahead of Cambodia in term independence of judiciary, its commitment to international obligation, and the political will to combat torture. The cases of torture have always been addressed effectively in Sweden, by which the responsible perpetrators were prosecuted.

Chapter 5-Coclusion
Based on the analysis above, cases of torture committed by the police and security forces against the suspects or prisoners in Cambodia remained to be with a high numbers by 2006. The factor that caused torture, include the non independence of the judiciary, and the lack of political will from the government to combat torture. Also, the commitment to ratify many key human rights treaties, but lack commitment to translate it into action has a question mark on the political will of the government to combat torture. There is nothing for Cambodia to learn from Thailand to look into improving the situation regarding torture, as this country also is on the similar track, though the judiciary in Thailand is in a better position than Cambodia.

Cambodia can lean a lot from Sweden to combat torture. The main thing is to prosecute the police and security forces who committed torture, as what Sweden has committed to do. As we can see from the many reports that, there is isolated cases of torture happened in Sweden, even though it is a country with a good record of human rights, where the judiciary and state institution are strong in protection their citizens. Without prosecution of the perpetrator, torture will continue to exist and to become a widespread practice.

References:
· OHCHR Cambodia. Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol. Phnom Penh: OHCHR. 2007
· Human Rights Watch, “The legal prohibition against torture”. Human Rights News. 2004. January 2008 <http://www.humanrightswatch.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm#What>.
· US Department of State. “2006 Country report on human rights practices in Cambodia”. 17 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78792.htm>.
· <http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=4&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=4> 27 January 2008.
· Human rights Committee. “Concluding observations of the human rights Committee: Thailand”. 2005. <http://www.rlpd.moj.go.th/pr/report/pdf/CCPR-Thailand-adopted-E.pdf> 29 January 2008.
· Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation. Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006.
· <http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2715/>20 January 2008.
· <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78769.htm>. 19 January 2008.
· US Department of Sate. “2004 country report on Human Rights Practices in Cambodia. 26 January 2008.<http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41638.htm>.
· US Department of State. “2005 Country report on human rights practices in Thailand” 20 January 2008. <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61628.htm>.
· Asian Legal Resource Center. Alternative Report on Thailand to the HRC. 2005. <http://www.alrc.net/doc/mainfile.php/unar_hrc_th_2005/327/>31 January 2008.
· <http://www.unhchr.ch/TBS/doc.nsf/newhvstatusbycountry> 9 January 2007.
· <http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CAT.C.CR.31.7.En?OpenDocument> 28 January 2008.
· <http://www.unhchr.ch/TBS/doc.nsf/newhvstatusbycountry> 9 January 2008.
· <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1997_Constitution_of_Thailand#CHAPTER_III:_Rights_and_Liberties_of_the_Thai_People> 28 January 2008.
· Bryan A. Garner. Black's law dictionary. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Group, 2001
· Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 1984.
· International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966.



[1] Bryan A. Garner. Black's law dictionary. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Group, 2001.
[2] OHCHR Cambodia. Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol. Phnom Penh: OHCHR. 2007: 2.
[3] Article 7: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Article 10, paragraph (1): All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
[4] Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[5] OHCHR Cambodia. Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol. Phnom Penh: OHCHR. 2007: 1
[6] Human Rights Watch, “The legal prohibition against torture”. Human Rights News. 2004. 9 January 2008 <http://www.humanrightswatch.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm#What>.
[7] More information on the status of ratification can be found at <http://www.unhchr.ch/TBS/doc.nsf/newhvstatusbycountry> 9 January 2007.
[8] More information on the conclusion and recommendation of the Committee Against torture on Cambodia can be found at <http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CAT.C.CR.31.7.En?OpenDocument> 28 January 2008.
[9] More information can be found at <http://www.unhchr.ch/TBS/doc.nsf/newhvstatusbycountry> 9 January 2008.
[10] The constitution can be found at <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1997_Constitution_of_Thailand#CHAPTER_III:_Rights_and_Liberties_of_the_Thai_People> 28 January 2008.
[11] US Department of State. “2006 Country report on human rights practices in Cambodia”. 17 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78792.htm>.
[12] Human rights Committee. “Concluding observations of the human rights Committee: Thailand”. 2005. <http://www.rlpd.moj.go.th/pr/report/pdf/CCPR-Thailand-adopted-E.pdf> 29 January 2008.
[13] More information on the ratification of human rights treaty by Sweden can be found at <http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=4&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=4> 27 January 2008.
[14] More information can be found at <http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=15&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=15> 27 January 2008.
[15] Stan Starygin. Human Rights and Its Evaluation. Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006: 791.
[16] Yash Ghai, Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights in Cambodia. Report to Human Rights Council. 2007: 10 (40).
[17] US Department of state. “2007 Country report on human rights practices in Thailand” 17 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61628.htm>
[18]More information on the judiciary of Sweden can be found at <http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/extra/pod/?id=4&module_instance=2&action=pod_show&navid=4> 27 January 2008.
[19] US Department of state. “2006 country reports on human rights practices in Cambodia” <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78769.htm> 17 January 2008.
[20] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation. Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 207.
[21] For example on April 29, a commune police chief and another police officer without a warrant forcibly arrested a man because of a personal dispute from the previous day. The policemen suspended the man upside down from the ceiling of the police station, where he was interrogated, beaten, and forced to confess to a robbery in which he had no involvement. The victim was release later that night. Following a provincial police officer’s urging, the victim to accept financial compensation and withdrew his criminal complaint from the provincial court. No legal action was taken against the police chief, and the case was terminated. Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 209.
[22] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 269.
[23] It was introduced by the former prime minister in mid-2005 as part of a heavy-handed approach to the violent conflict in that part of the country. It grants even wider powers to the army and police than martial law and gives them complete impunity from prosecution for any actions taken under it. <http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2715/>20 January 2008.
[24] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 225
[25] More information on individual case of torture can be found at <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78769.htm>. 19 January 2008.
[26] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 792 and 793.
[27] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 209.
[28] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 269.
[29]US Department of Sate. “2004 country report on Human Rights Practices in Cambodia. 26 January 2008.<http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41638.htm>.
[30]US Department of State. “2005 Country report on human rights practices in Thailand” 20 January 2008. <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61628.htm>.
[31] Example: On 5 November 2004, twenty-one-year-old Don Mahesh Duminda Weerasuiya was illegally arrested and tortured by police officers at Panadura North Police Station who apparently wanted information about Weerasuriya’s uncle. After being tortured at the police station, he was charged and held at Kalutara Prison where he was detained until November 10.
[32] Asian Legal Resource Center. Alternative Report on Thailand to the HRC. 2005 para. 68 to 75. 31 January 2008 <http://www.alrc.net/doc/mainfile.php/unar_hrc_th_2005/327/>
[33] US Department of State. “2005 country report on human rights practices in Sweden”. 31 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78841.htm.
[34] Stan Starygin, Human Rights and Its Evaluation, Phnom Penh. Pannasastra University of Cambodia. 2006. 225.
[35] US Department of State Report. “2005 Country report on human rights practices in Sweden”. 31 January 2008 <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41710.htm>.

2 comments:

Kanal said...

I have learnt few points, after reading her essay such as problem of independant judiciary of Cambodia and Thailand and this point would contribute to torture. Although, the statistic didn't shwon how percentage of torture committed by each country, but the verble comparison is sound good enough.
For the structure, it is clear and good organize. It makes the reader easy to catch the points and know how many points will exist in her paper.

sophorne said...

I found that her paper is good. Format and stucture of the paper is prepared good. In the three points of inquiries of her are clearly as there are many referrences.

For the conclusion, she analyzes the three countries regarding the torture practice also are clearly.