The recent election of Thailand to the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council is a cause for elation, and an opportunity for the country to set an example for good practices, and propel the HRC to take effective action on key matters based on international standards.
It is important to note that the HRC does not have enforcement power, but is merely a forum for standard setting, monitoring human rights situations and advocating prevention of violations, protection of rights, and remediation in responding to grievances. Critically important issues still depend upon the New York-based UN Security Council (SC) which has enforcement powers, and the UN General Assembly which is the organization’s most representative body with highly persuasive powers.
Second, the HRC is serviced by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Despite its limited budget of just over 5 percent of the regular budget, the office’s presence at the regional and local levels helps to decentralize the UN which is a top-heavy bureaucracy.
Third, there are internal workings in the HRC which invite Thailand’s more effective participation. This includes the Universal Periodic Review which is a peer review process whereby all countries are vetted by other countries. The process is useful for monitoring countries that are not parties to the fundamental human rights conventions or treaties. Its weakness lies in that it is a soft process, premised on gentle persuasion, and many countries reject recommendations on essential issues.
Another key mechanism is the UN Special Procedures (SP) which are composed of special rapporteurs, independent experts, or working groups. The members are pro bono experts drawn from outside the UN to help as human rights volunteers mandated to monitor either themes (such as torture), or countries with ambivalent human rights records. A value added here is that they take complaints from victims and advocate for justice on their behalf, usually against erring states, but also other stakeholders committing violations, like the business sector. The SP are particularly accessible to the general public that does not have to go to a local court to bring cases to them.
As Thailand has already issued a standing invitation to them, the country should ensure that it has an “SP calendar,” enabling at least a couple of SPs to enter the country annually to help promote and protect human rights.
It is essential to understand that this is not interference in the internal affairs of a state, but part of international jurisdiction to promote and protect human rights based on the UN Charter and system. This is a matter of interaction, not intervention.
The human rights situation in the country needs continuous stock staking, monitoring, and leverage for constructive changes. Because despite its new equal marriage law that reformed its Civil Code, its humane policies on the HIV issue, its universal health care program, and doing well on many aspects of social, economic, and cultural rights, Thailand falters when it comes to civil and political rights, which are hampered by repeated coup d’etats and self amnesty among coup leaders.
Then there is the impunity factor enjoyed by officials who commit major crimes against the population. A key example is the Tak Bai case where some officials crammed scores of Muslim protesters in Southern Thailand into a number of trucks, leading to some 80 deaths through asphyxiation. The concerned officials failed to appear in court and a key file concerning the investigations was reported to be missing, leading to delays. The 20-year prescription/limitation period for activating the criminal law against the culprits expired before the end of October this year.
This case is symptomatic of several cases where the state is willing to pay compensation to the victims, but is deficient in bringing suspected officials to justice, thus adding to the impunity factor. Two more avenues might be explored here: internal disciplinary action that could lead to penalties in relation to rank, pay, and pension, or the prosecution of suspects under the new anti-torture law that can cover cases even before the enactment of the law itself.
The recurrent challenge is political will—for which there can be no prescription period. Asia News Network
—————-
Vitit Muntarbhorn is a professor emeritus at the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. He has helped the UN in a number of pro bono positions, including as the first UN Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography. He received the 2004 Unesco Human Rights Education Prize and was bestowed a Knighthood (KBE) in 2018. His latest book is “Challenges of International Law in the Asian Region.”
—————-
The Philippine Daily Inquirer is a member of the Asia News Network, an alliance of 22 media titles in the region.