(Ed. Note: For over seven years relatives of those who were killed, disappeared, crippled and injured during the Thai military crackdown of the May 1992 uprising have struggled for truth, justice, and reparation. Nuttaphol Khiewborriboon, member of the May 92 Relatives Committee will present their case to the United Nations Commission of Human Rights.)

In 1991 the civilian government of Thailand was overthrown by a military coup led by a group of top army men. Later the year, a general election was called as promised by the coup leaders, and one of them, General Suchinda Kraprayoon took the premiership.

Thousands of people took the streets in Bangkok in May 1992 to demand Suchinda to step down. The peaceful demonstrations were met with brutal and violent suppression by the army. Hundreds of demonstrators, who crowded the Ratchadamneon Avenue, were shot dead or seriously wounded.

It was reported that a busload of people was fired by rows of the military men. The vehicle got burned down, and apparently none inside managed to escape. Testimonies pointed out that the corpses were taken away on army trucks to an unknown and remote place.

To the dismay of the families who lost track of their relatives the Ministry of Interior announced the death toll as 41, 38 disappeared and 11 disabled. The Hotline Information Center organised by NGOs, reported about 290 disappearances and there are more than 900 victims. After the May '92, the relatives of the deceased, the disabled, and the disappeared have formed the May '92 Relatives Committee whose main objectives are as follows;

1. To rehabilitate and give moral support among the relatives of the deceased, the disabled, and the disappeared as a result of the May '92 crackdown. 2. To demand corpses or remains of the lost ones for proper funeral rites. 3. To demand full revelation of the investigation undertaken by General Pichit Kulavanich's committee, which may shed light on the efforts to retrieve the remains. 4. To be a coordinating centre between the government and the private sectors in order to solicit support for the relatives who lost their beloved ones.

During the tenure of General Chavalit Yongchaiyuth as the Prime Minister, the families of the victims had constantly received some kind of support. But the demand for the return of the remains has never been met by all previous governments after the May '92 incident. The army uses national security as an excuse to conceal all information about the whereabouts of the remains.

In 1998, after repeated demonstrations and the submission of letters of petition, the army promised to reveal part of the said investigation and return the remains for the relatives to bring back for proper religious services. The relatives demanded further to Chuan Leekpai, the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister, but he refused all the pleas.

Attempts to Recover the Disappeared

During 1992-1994, the Relatives Committee and the Hotline Centre of Mahidol University have joined hands to identify the potential sites where the corpses were kept, but did not find even a clue.

Every year, the Relatives Committee and its affiliates, including the Student Federation of Thailand (SFT) organise a commemoration of the May incident. The demand for the revelation of the findings by General Pichit's committee and the return of the May '92's heroes' and heroines' corpses has been made to the Prime Minister and all related authorities in every of the event. This, however, went into a deaf ear.

After the latest plea during the commemoration of the May event last year, the army promised to reveal part of the findings. The issue became more complicated, as it was reported that the findings of the investigation have mysteriously disappeared from the Department of Constitution under the Ministry of Defense. All the defense officials claimed that they have handed the report to the Prime Minister who is also the Minister of Defense already. The PM initially neither confirmed nor denied his reception of the report. He admitted latter that he has kept the report, but did not have time yet to read it carefully. Asked about the approval for its revelation, he referred it to the decision made jointly by the commanders in chief of the four military units and it is classified as confidential.

Ironically, the commander-in-chief of the army agreed with opening up the report but said the disclosure ought to come at the order of the PM. According to him, what remains to be decided is whether it be a partial or a full disclosure.

In June 1999 the Prime Minister cited the Governmental Information Act, which stipulates that the revelation can be made simply with the approval made by a joint committee comprising representatives from the ministries involved; not a single person can approve it. The director general of the Governmental Information Office reportedly supported the full disclosure of the report. However to the disappointment of the May '92 relatives, the Defense Council has passed a resolution that only eight pages of the report could be made public.

The PM, as the Minister of Defense claimed that the full disclosure might bring damages to those testifying to the committee. This is blatantly against the will of the Governmental Information Act, drafted under the spirit of the 1997 Constitution, which aims to give people access to necessary information that may hold the authorities involved accountable for their actions.

Yet, of the eight pages released by the Ministry of Defense, three political party's names, which were cited as involved in the event, were erased. The relatives deem it an intentional distortion of history. The act proves that the military and the political parties are denying the public the right to know the truths of the May '92 incident. Even though Chuan Leekpai came to power thorough a general election held right after the uprising, he scantly gave attention to the attempts to address the problems of political disappearances, or even to help the relatives.

There is no good reason for the government and the army to withhold the disclosure. The Democrats also tried to fool the public around by promising to reveal the full report, but having done otherwise by persistently refusing to disclose the 600 page-report.

The relatives of the deceased have repeatedly made a plea to the government for the return of the corpses, but this all went in vain. In August seeing it obvious that the government would not respond, the families organised a procession carrying with them coffins to protest in front of the Ministry of Defense office. Again there was still no response from the Prime Minister and the Minster of Defense.

Take the National Peace Keeping Council (NPKC) Leaders to Court

With help from the Law Society, the Relatives Committee has taken five leaders of the NPKC to court demanding punishment for the deployment of troops to shoot the demonstrators, and compensation for the family members.

All the five defendants plead against the charge in 1995 . They claimed that what they did was in accordance to laws and with situation, and they all are exempted from any penalties as the Pardon Provision was passed by the cabinet right after the incident. The relatives who lodged the suit claimed the provision was not passed by a normal procedure and it was not justifiable, and therefore does not exempt the defendants from their crimes.

The relatives claims are as follow:

1. The approval of the Provision was unconstitutional, as there was no meeting of the cabinet to officially endorse it. All cabinet members were simply informed about the Provision via fax with the condition that any veto has to be made before noon of the following day.

2. The Provision was passed against the rule of law. A clemency law can be issued only by the superior authorities, which want to exempt those inferior to them from certain penalty.

3. The Provision cannot be stipulated to protect the defendants as it is destined to forgive the violators of law, but the defendants claimed that they have been undertaking lawful action.

4. The Provision was later brought to the consideration of the House of Parliament, and was annulled. According to the constitution, this gives retrospective effects to the time it was endorsed by the cabinet.

The compensation claim was also dismissed by the Civil Court.

The cases have been fought through to the Supreme Court, and all of the courts maintained the innocence of the defendants. It should be noted that none of the above arguments by the plaintiff was taken into account by the judges. Though the plaintiff claimed further that the endorsement of the Pardon Provision was unjustified under a democratic spirit as such a law reflected the interference of the administrative power over the judicial power. Similarly, the claim made by the defendants that they passed the Provision to ensure peacefulness of the nation was not justified, as on the day of its endorsement (20 May 1992), all the havoc had already ceased. All these facts were not at all mentioned in the ruling by the Supreme Court.

A Long Battle for Justice

Despite all the hurdles, especially with regard to the lack of court fees, the Relatives Committee has been struggling to push the cases through the three courts. A number of fundraising activities have been organised to raise money for all the costly legal procedure, and the provision of support for those relatives who lost their family members, many of whom were their breadwinners. But the struggle has to continue to see justice done. Our ultimate hope is simply to retrieve the remains of our beloved ones.