Fun With Insomnia Blog

Southern human rights political lawyer Sittipong Chandharaviroj has repeatedly witnessed the “unspoken anguish” of his Muslim clients whenever they appear in public wearing shackles.

“Even if they don’t speak out, I know from looking into their eyes that it is traumatic for them to appear in chains,” he said.

Many jailed suspects and prisoners charged in relation to the southern insurgency are respected local religious leaders.

Being fettered and forced to wear orange prison uniforms when they appear in court is a public humiliation for them and their relatives, he said.

When they are in chains, it is also physically difficult for them to kneel and perform prayers during trial intervals.

Mr Sittipong, who defends people accused of security crimes in the three southernmost provinces, is among those calling for changes to the way shackles are applied, saying the law has been abused.

Anyone charged in security cases has to wear chains to court, even though about 80% of those chained suspects will be acquitted in the end, he said.

Apart from the stigma that comes with them, shackles can also endanger the health of the prisoners, with tetanus a real threat should the chains turn rusty and cut them.

Inmates have to polish the shackles themselves and wear thick socks to prevent themselves from being wounded or cut, Mr Sittipong said.

The use of shackles and handcuffs is restricted by law, but the Corrections Department and police routinely escort criminal suspects to court wearing fetters.

As of May, 218,566 people were being held in prisons nationwide, the department says.

Of this number, 75% are convicted prisoners. The rest are waiting for appeals, trials, investigations or in pre-trial detention.

Rights advocates have long criticised the use of shackles and other restraints.

They regard them as a means of physical and mental torture that deprive inmates of human dignity.

The issue re-emerged after some detained leaders and supporters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), charged with acts of terrorism but viewed by some groups as political prisoners, appeared in the media wearing shackles.

The Truth for Reconciliation Commission (TRC), appointed to investigate violence during the state’s crackdown on UDD protests, last week proposed the government review the use of restraints, citing officers’ widespread ignorance about how to apply them under the Corrections Act.

TRC head and former attorney-general Kanit na Nakorn made the suggestion in response to criticism of the treatment of red shirt leaders and their supporters held under the emergency decree. They have been forced to wear leg irons even though they have yet to be indicted or convicted of any crime.

The law prohibits the fettering of inmates while they are being detained in prison, but it allows officers to shackle them if they are taken from jail. However, the suspects or prisoners must be viewed as escape risks, or at risk of harming themselves and others if they are to be fettered.

Prison officers do not adhere to the law and, in fact, apply restraints to most inmates during transfer, he said.

“Excessive use of these devices occurs all the time without change,” Mr Kanit said. “Authorities must use proper discretion and sound rationale based on the principles of the constitution and the Criminal Code.”

The Corrections Department said it will free prisoners from their chains and leg irons once it finds better equipment to prevent them from escaping.

Director-general Chartchai Sutthiklom said alternative equipment such as electronic ankle bracelets, wrist bracelets or electronic belts must be introduced first, to track the movements of inmates if leg irons and chains to restrain their movements are banned.

“We use shackles as a preventative measure, not for torture,” Mr Chartchai said.

Restraints are applied to suspects in all serious criminal cases as law enforcers feel they cannot afford to transfer suspects or prisoners from jail to court and back to jail unchained, he said.

The agency does not have enough staff to thwart inmates who attempt an escape from custody.

Curbs on when restraints legally can be applied are for prison custody only, he said. They do not apply during transfer, when authorities are allowed to use shackles.

Some liken calls for reform to the way shackles are applied to the modernisation of capital punishment in which the execution method was changed from beheading to firing squad in 1934, and then to lethal injection in 2003.

For now, the department must abide by a 1998 Interior Ministry regulation which lays down chains, leg irons and handcuffs as the instruments of restraint.

political lawyer Mr Sittipong said law enforcers rarely take into account inmates’ human rights.

Claims by the department that it is forced to apply restraints because it is short of escorting officers are not correct in all cases, he said.

The South has no shortage of police officers and armed soldiers for prisoner transfers, he said.

“Suspects are treated as if they have been convicted, which is against the constitution,” he said.

“Changing the way shackles are applied is a good start. Suspects and prisoners can build on that and assert other rights that should be theirs under the law,” he said.