23.01.2013, Somyots Gefangenentransport trifft mit 40-minütiger Verspätung am Gericht ein. |
FOR THE ENGLISH VERSION CLICK HERE!
kurze Info:
Mehr Informationen zum Prozess und einen kurzen Lebenslauf findet ihr auf meinem Blogeintrag vom 19.Dezember 2012:DEUTSCHE VERSION
oder/or ENGLISH VERSION
Für einen Bericht aus dem Gerichtssaal 704 mit einem Kommentar zum Urteil von Nicola Glass: HIER KLICKEN! (nur in Englisch)
Am Mitwoch, den 23.Januar 2013, wurde Somyot Prueksakasemsuk nach fast zwei Jahren in Untersuchungshaft von den Richtern des Strafgerichtshofes wegen Majestätsbeleidigung (Paragraf 112 des Strafgesetzbuches) zu zehn Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt. Die Strafe wurde um ein weiteres Jahr auf insgesamt 11 Jahre Haft erhöht, weil die Richter der Meinung waren, er habe mit seiner Straftat auch gegen die Bewährungsauflagen eines Urteils aus dem Jahre 2009 verstoßen (er wurde damals wegen Beleidigung zu einem Jahr auf Bewährung verurteilt).
Während der 50 Minuten andauernden Verlesung der Anklagepunkte und des Urteils musste Somyot stehen, obwohl er an einer schweren Gichterkrankung leidet. Außerdem muss angemerkt werden, dass auf Anordnung des Gerichtshofes vom 19.Dezember 2012 zwei neue Richter ernannt wurden (beide sind stellvertretende Generaldirektoren des Gerichtshofes), und dass nur einen Monat vor der Urteilsverkündung.
http://www.facebook.com/events/518304444869575/522286227804730/?notif_t=plan_mall_activity
Bangkok Post vom 23.01.2013:
The four-judge panel emerged 90-minute later than initially scheduled and spent most of the time reading the two articles subject to the charge, published in February and March 2010 in the magazine in a column called "Kom Khwam Kid" written under the pseudonym Jit Polachan. The judges rebutted the arguments and opinions given by seven defence witnesses but put weight on prosecution witnesses, including Tongthong Chandrangsu, the Prime Minister's Office permanent secretary, security officers from the Internal Security Operating Command (Isoc), and librarians at the National Library of Thailand. Citing the prosecution witnesses, the court said anyone reading the two articles would easily understand that they referred to His Majesty the King. The court did not refer to defence arguments that since the writer, revealed to the court as Jakrapob Penkair, was not a defendant in the case, the editor of the magazine should also not be convicted. Also the defence arguments that Somyot was accused in the case because he was a dissident, active against the government of the day, and that the arrest was made when the political atmosphere was highly volatile. The defendant was known to express opinions opposite those the then government and he was accused of being part of a plan to topple the monarchy - a case which was later dropped as the Department of Special Investigation found there was not enough evidence to pursue it.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/332219/somyot-jailed-for-11-years-over-royal-insult
Im Gerichtssaal 704 hatten sich mehr als 150 (manche Beobachter sprechen von mehr als 200 Personen) Zuschauer und Beobachter eingefunden. Darunter Vertreter von NGO´s, den Botschaften, thailändische und internationale Medienvertreter, Unterstützer wie z.B. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, Pavin , Somsak , Thida Thavornseth, Rosmalin Tangnoppakul und andere, enge Freunde und natürlich seine Frau Sukunya (genannt Joop) und sein Sohn Panitan (genannt Tai).
Nach Verlesung des Urteils waren viele Zuschauer über die Höhe des Strafmaßes geschockt, einige hatten Tränen in den Augen, andere umarmten sich und sprachen einander Trost zu.
Aber außerhalb des Gerichtes hatten sich wiedermal nur eine Handvoll Anhänger und Beobachter eingefunden, um ihre Solidarität mit diesem altgedienten Aktivisten der Arbeiterbewegung zu bezeugen. Wieder mal keine große Unterstützung von seinen "alten Freunden"(vielleicht waren sie zu sehr damit beschäftigt sich zu bereichern oder ihre Macht zu sichern). Es ist schon sehr traurig mit ansehen zu müssen, wie schnell er von den Menschen, denen er über all die Jahre geholfen hat, vergessen wurde, oder schlimmer, bewusst ignoriert wird.
In einer Großraumzelle wartete Somyot auf die Wachen, die ihn in den Gerichtssaal eskortieren sollten. |
Aber Somyot hat zumindest weltweit immer noch zahlreiche Freunde und Unterstützer: Immer noch gibt nationale und internationale Kampagnen gegen den Somyot-Prozess. Am 17.Januar 2013 haben 381 Unterstützer (110 Organisationen und 271 Einzelpersonen) einen Brief an die Premierministerin Yingluck Shinawatra, den Justizminister und an die Nationale Menschrechtskommission übergeben, in dem sie ihre Sorge um die Einengung der Redefreiheit in Thailand ausdrücken und die bedingungslose und sofortige Freilassung Somyots fordern.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/free-somyot/381-endorsers-organization-and-individual-across-the-world-call-for-free-somyot-/404975482922085
Während der gesamten Prozessdauer war Somyot inhaftiert. Alle zwölf Anträge (der letzte wurde am 8.Januar 2013 gestellt) seiner Familie und Anwälte auf Freilassung gegen Kaution wurden vom Gericht, zum Teil ohne Angabe von Gründen, abgelehnt.
Wartebereich für Gefangene im Keller des Gerichtshofes. |
Dieses Gerichtsurteil macht mehr als deutlich, dass die thailändische Justiz (besonders extrem seit dem Putsch 2006) mehr und mehr die Interessen konservativer Eilten, Gruppierungen und Parteien vertritt, die versuchen, die unbequemen Stimmen innerhalb der Gesellschaft wie z.B. Blogger, Webmaster und Journalisten (z.B. Chiranuch Premchaiporn), Menschrechtler und Aktivisten der Arbeiterbewegung (z.B. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk), politische Reformbewegungen (wie die Khana Nitirat Gruppe) und politische Gegener (wie z.B. DaTorpedo, Surachai oder Yoswarit Chuklon) zum Schweigen zu bringen. Natürlich, das Gesetz wegen Majestätsbeleidung und dessen drakonische Anwendung ist mehr als hundert Jahre alt und es wurde immer wieder gegen Reformer, Aktivisten und Oppositionelle angewendet, aber noch nie so inflationär wie zur Zeit. Offensichtlich verfallen die alten Eliten aus Angst, all ihre Besitzstände und Privilegien zu verlieren, in Panik. Sie versuchen offensichtlich ein Klima der Angst im Land zu erzeugen, um die Reformer und Aktivisten einzuschüchtern und sie von der wachsenden Unterstützung innerhalb der Gesellschaft abzuschneiden. Diese Zustände erinnern mich an die Hexenjagd McCarthys von 1947 bis 1956 in den USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
Ein gutes Beispiel für die drakonische Auslegung des Gesetzes 112 war das Urteil gegen den krebskranken und pensionierten Lkw-Fahrer Amphon Tangnoppakul (Auszug aus dem Urteil):
Der Staatsanwalt konnte ausdrücklich nicht beweisen dass der Angeklagte die Textmassages verschickt hat, wie in der Anklageschrift behaupted wird...der Grund jedoch, dass er (der Staatsanwalt – Anm. d. Bloggers) nicht in der Lage war, Zeugen (für die Tat – Anm. d. Bloggers) zu finden, beruht auf der Schwere des Verbrechens, da jeder, der beabsichtigt, eine solche Straftat zu begehen, ein solches Vergehen nur ohne Zeugen durchführen würde...Es (das Gericht – Anm. d. Bloggers) muss daher die Schuld von den Indizien herleiten, die vom Staatsanwalt angeführt wurden ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampon_Tangnoppakul
Ein weiteres bizarres Beispiel ist der Prozess gegen den Komiker und UDD-Unterstützer Yoswarit Chuklom (aka Jeng Dokjik). Das Gericht verurteilte den 54-jährigen Komiker wegen einer Geste während einer Rede auf einer politischen Veranstaltung im Jahr 2010:
...Das Gericht musste feststellen, dass der Angeklagte Yossawarit Chuklom während seiner Rede auf einer Protestkundgebung gegen die damalige vom Militär gestützte Regierung in 2010, den König nicht direkt genannt habe. Aber durch die Geste, die zeigen sollte, dass man nicht über alles frei Reden dürfe (er legte sich beide Hände auf den Mund), so entschied das Gericht, erweckte er den Eindruck, er rede über die Monarchie. "Auch wenn der Angeklagte den König nicht explizit genannt habe,"so urteilte das Gericht,"so könne die Rede (Geste) in keiner anderen Weise interpretiert werden."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/world/asia/in-thailand-a-broader-definition-of-insulting-royalty.html?_r=1&
This is indeed a new dimension of how arbitrarily lèse majesté is being applied here, on top of an already ambiguously written law (“insulting, defaming or threatening”): As many other lèse majesté (e.g. Ampon’s) or similar cases (e.g. Chiranuch’s) have shown, the principle is actually “in dubio contra reo” (“when in doubt, decide against the accused”) for many different reasons. Since the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply here, the prosecution is mostly not interested in the actual evidence (or the lack of in some cases), but rather in the “intent” of the alleged crime.
Außerhalb des Gerichtsgebäudes verkündete der Anwalt Somyots, dass man gegen das Urteil Berufung einlegen werde. Aber ob der Antrag zugelassen und das Berufungsverfahren erfolgreich sein wird, ist mehr als fraglich.
Somyot´s Anwalt Karom Polpornklang |
Inoffizielle Übersetzung des Gerichtsurteils (nur in Englisch)
Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney General (OAG) Prosecutor
V.
Mr. Somyot Pruksakasemsuk Defendant
The plaintiff charged that in the period between the daytime of 15 February 2010 and the daytime of 15 March 2010, the defendant defamed, insulted and threatened His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the Head of the Kingdom of Thailand, through the publication, distribution and dissemination in public of the Voice of Taksin magazine, Vol. 1, no. 15, issued in the latter fortnight of February 2010. The issue contains a column entitled ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ written by the user of the penname Jitra Polchan which features an article entitled ‘Plan for a Bloodbath, Fight between generations’ on pp. 45-47. The content of the article conveys the message that His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej was the person who gave the order for the massacre in the 6 October 1976 event, and had been planning situations to slaughter a number of people mercilessly after the verdict to seize Thaksin Shinawatra’s assets. This is unfounded, and hence constitutes an act of defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. In the period between the daytime of 1 March 2010 and the daytime of 15 March 2010, the defendant defamed the monarch of the Kingdom of Thailand through the publication, distribution and dissemination in public in Bangkok and the provinces throughout Thailand the Voice of Taksin magazine, Vol. 1, no. 16, issued in the first fortnight of March 2010. The issue contains a column entitled ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ written by the user of the penname Jitra Polchan with an article entitled ‘6 October 2010’ on pp. 45-47. The content of the article conveys the message that His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej was implicated in various conflicts and bloodshed in Thailand, and that His Majesty masterminded initiatives which dismantled pro-democratic movements. This information is unfounded and thus it constitutes an act of defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The Court was requested to prosecute the defendant under Sections 58, 91 and 112 of the Penal Code, and to add the term of imprisonment from Red Case no. O1078/2552 previously ordered by the Criminal Court to any term of imprisonment passed on the defendant in this case.
The defendant denied the charge, but admitted that he was the same person as the defendant in the previous case where the plaintiff had requested the term of imprisonment to be added to any passed in this case
In considering the testimony, the plaintiff’s evidence and the defendant’s evidence, this case raises the question as to whether the defendant has actually committed the offence as charged. While the plaintiff charged that the defendant committed the offence of defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of the Kingdom of Thailand through the publication, distribution and dissemination of the Voice of Taksin magazines which constitutes a violation of Section 112 of the Penal Code. Against this the defendant contended that the Printing Act of 2007 abolished the Printing and Publishing Act of 1941 and hence the defendant was not guilty of a violation under Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code. This means the defendant was not guilty of a violation of the 1941 Printing and Publishing Act only, but his act in violation of Section 112 of the Penal Code as charged was not absolved by the implications of the law as such. In response to the defendant’s plea that he was not the writer of the articles brought to court by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has prosecuted the defendant for defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty through the publication, distribution and dissemination of the Voice of Taksin magazine. The defendant’s plea, therefore, does not concern the prosecuted act and hence is not an issue in the case that the Court will consider. The Court, thus, will not proceed according to Section 104, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, in addition to Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As to whether the defendant has committed an act in breach of Section 112 of the Penal Code, the ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ articles in both issues of the Voice of Taksin magazine include content which does not mention names, but was written with the intention to link past events together. When events of the past are brought together, it can be implied that they refer to His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The contents of the articles are thus acts of defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty the King. That the defendant published, distributed and disseminated the articles is hence indicative of the intent to defame, insult and threaten His Majesty in violation of Section 112 of the Penal Code. The publication of two issues at different times constitutes two different offences.
The Court rules that the defendant is found guilty of violating Section 112 of the Penal Code. As his acts were committed on different occasions, he shall be prosecuted according to each offence. In accordance with Section 91 of the Penal Code, the defendant is sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment for each offence, totalling a ten-year term for two offences. By adding to a one-year term of imprisonment from the previous Red Case no. O1078/2552, the defendant is sentenced to 11 years in prison.
V.
Mr. Somyot Pruksakasemsuk Defendant
The plaintiff charged that in the period between the daytime of 15 February 2010 and the daytime of 15 March 2010, the defendant defamed, insulted and threatened His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the Head of the Kingdom of Thailand, through the publication, distribution and dissemination in public of the Voice of Taksin magazine, Vol. 1, no. 15, issued in the latter fortnight of February 2010. The issue contains a column entitled ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ written by the user of the penname Jitra Polchan which features an article entitled ‘Plan for a Bloodbath, Fight between generations’ on pp. 45-47. The content of the article conveys the message that His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej was the person who gave the order for the massacre in the 6 October 1976 event, and had been planning situations to slaughter a number of people mercilessly after the verdict to seize Thaksin Shinawatra’s assets. This is unfounded, and hence constitutes an act of defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. In the period between the daytime of 1 March 2010 and the daytime of 15 March 2010, the defendant defamed the monarch of the Kingdom of Thailand through the publication, distribution and dissemination in public in Bangkok and the provinces throughout Thailand the Voice of Taksin magazine, Vol. 1, no. 16, issued in the first fortnight of March 2010. The issue contains a column entitled ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ written by the user of the penname Jitra Polchan with an article entitled ‘6 October 2010’ on pp. 45-47. The content of the article conveys the message that His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej was implicated in various conflicts and bloodshed in Thailand, and that His Majesty masterminded initiatives which dismantled pro-democratic movements. This information is unfounded and thus it constitutes an act of defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The Court was requested to prosecute the defendant under Sections 58, 91 and 112 of the Penal Code, and to add the term of imprisonment from Red Case no. O1078/2552 previously ordered by the Criminal Court to any term of imprisonment passed on the defendant in this case.
The defendant denied the charge, but admitted that he was the same person as the defendant in the previous case where the plaintiff had requested the term of imprisonment to be added to any passed in this case
In considering the testimony, the plaintiff’s evidence and the defendant’s evidence, this case raises the question as to whether the defendant has actually committed the offence as charged. While the plaintiff charged that the defendant committed the offence of defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of the Kingdom of Thailand through the publication, distribution and dissemination of the Voice of Taksin magazines which constitutes a violation of Section 112 of the Penal Code. Against this the defendant contended that the Printing Act of 2007 abolished the Printing and Publishing Act of 1941 and hence the defendant was not guilty of a violation under Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code. This means the defendant was not guilty of a violation of the 1941 Printing and Publishing Act only, but his act in violation of Section 112 of the Penal Code as charged was not absolved by the implications of the law as such. In response to the defendant’s plea that he was not the writer of the articles brought to court by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has prosecuted the defendant for defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty through the publication, distribution and dissemination of the Voice of Taksin magazine. The defendant’s plea, therefore, does not concern the prosecuted act and hence is not an issue in the case that the Court will consider. The Court, thus, will not proceed according to Section 104, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, in addition to Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As to whether the defendant has committed an act in breach of Section 112 of the Penal Code, the ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ articles in both issues of the Voice of Taksin magazine include content which does not mention names, but was written with the intention to link past events together. When events of the past are brought together, it can be implied that they refer to His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The contents of the articles are thus acts of defaming, insulting and threatening His Majesty the King. That the defendant published, distributed and disseminated the articles is hence indicative of the intent to defame, insult and threaten His Majesty in violation of Section 112 of the Penal Code. The publication of two issues at different times constitutes two different offences.
The Court rules that the defendant is found guilty of violating Section 112 of the Penal Code. As his acts were committed on different occasions, he shall be prosecuted according to each offence. In accordance with Section 91 of the Penal Code, the defendant is sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment for each offence, totalling a ten-year term for two offences. By adding to a one-year term of imprisonment from the previous Red Case no. O1078/2552, the defendant is sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Translated by Piangtawan Phanprasit, Source: http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2013/01/44842
Bildergalerie
Die Zufahrt zum Zellentrakt wurde von mit Schrotflinten und Gewehren bewaffneten Wachen gesichert. |
Nach dem Urteil. |
Auf dem Weg zum Gefangenentransporter. |
In solchen Wagen werden bei uns die Spürhunde transportiert. |
Vereinzelte Proteste vor dem Gerichtsgebäude nach dem Urteil. |
Chiranuch Premchaiporn |
Einfach nur traurig. |