The Central Obfuscatory Court has dismissed a case brought by 3 detainees in the Deep South of Thailand accusing the Royal Thai Army (RTA) of arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture. While accepting evidence that the complainants had in fact been detained and ill-treated, and rejecting Army claims that they dun nuffink yeronner, the Court ruled that the alleged offences may have been the personally-motivated actions of individual soldiers and not an official operation. The RTA was given the dubious benefit of the doubt and the case was dismissed.

The 3 detainees presented evidence to the court that they had been arrested and detained. This took the form of camera footage of their arrests, testimony of other detainees confirming their presence in an ‘unofficial place of detention’, and public social media posts by military personnel, with photos, bragging about what they’d been up to. Medical records from local hospitals were also presented showing that the injuries sustained by detainees while in detention were consistent with torture.

Much of this evidence had already been presented in Parliament by opposition MPs speaking under parliamentary privilege. The Army has since sued the MPs in question, claiming that the brave defenders of the nation have been defamed by information that the courts have found to be true.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had also been asked to investigate the case and issued a report substantiating the detainees’ claims. It pointed out that the case was a prima facie violation of the detainees’ human rights. When asked if the RTA would take similar retaliatory action against the NHRC, a military spokesperson is reported to have said ‘Why bother? They can’t cut our budget like Parliament can.’

The court decided that the video evidence of the arrests was genuine and not, as the Army claimed, an AI-generated scene from a TV crime drama.

The Court had also subpoenaed and entered as evidence the detention records from the Ai Maengda Adult VDO Parlour, notorious among the local population as a front for an unofficial place of detention. (Screams frequently heard from the video shop were explained away as the soundtrack of BDSM films and the chains, thumbscrews and branding irons found on the premises were listed in the inventory as ‘sex aids’.)

The Court noted that the admissions register of the place of detention recorded the health of all detainees as ‘good’ at the time of admission. However, the hospital records after their release showed a sudden and severe deterioration in their well-being. The Army claimed that their own records were nothing more than pesky bureaucratic paperwork now required by the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act B.E. 2565 and should not be given any more credence than, for example, the CVs of Senate candidates. The Court rejected this claim and acknowledged that ‘something’ must have happened to the detainees between arrest and release.

When asked by the Court why the detainees had been released without being charged, a senior officer from the Judge Advocate General’s Office said he didn’t really know, but he suspected it was a case of mistaken identity ‘because half of them down there are called Mohammed.’

The Court’s verdict ruled that arbitrary arrest and detention was a violation of rights and a crime and the Army must try its very hardest not do it again. They further noted that torture and ill-treatment is also a crime and it would be very, very wrong for a state agency such as the RTA to indulge in such activity.

However, the Court inspected the social media posts of some of the soldiers involved. These betrayed a sense of glee and gloating, from which the Court concluded that the wrongdoing may have been motivated by the personal sadistic proclivities of the soldiers involved and not an official operation of the RTA. The complaint was dismissed.

But to avoid future injuries to detainees, the Court included in its verdict the suggestion that a Health and Safety inspection be conducted to determine ways to stop detainees from injuring themselves by walking into doors or falling down stairs.