Saudi Embassy 'upset But Not Surprised'

[waerth]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Saudi-embassy-upset-but-not-surprised-30230568.html

 

THE SAUDI ARABIAN embassy and relatives of a Saudi businessman whose mysterious disappearance 24 years ago upset Thai-Saudi relations voiced disappointment over a court ruling yesterday that dismissed a case against five police officers.

 

The Embassy's Charge D'affaires Abdulelah al-Sheaiby said he would report the ruling to the Saudi government, which will consider the next moves in regard to bilateral relations.

 

The Criminal Court yesterday dismissed charges in the high-profile trial of five Thai police accused of snatching and murdering Mohammad al-Ruwaili, a Saudi businessman with close links to the Saudi palace, in 1990.

 

The court said the charges were dismissed because the public prosecutors' evidence was weak and failed to convince the court that the officers had been involved in the murder and kidnapping.

 

Abdulelah al-Sheaiby said at a press conference later he was not surprised by the ruling. His side had doubted the |fairness of the trial after learning about the abrupt change of the judge shortly before the ruling.

 

He described Thai-Saudi relations as being "on-and-off" for a long period and noted "there is nothing that could make it worse".

 

"My side was already worried that the ruling would not be in line with the facts after learning that there was a change of judge," he said.

 

"I want to stress that Saudi Arabia is disappointed with the ruling."

 

He called for the media to consider the reasons behind the change in the judges, saying this could only lead to criticism and questions.

 

Speaking at the same press conference, Ateeq al-Ruwaili, the businessman's brother, said he was very disappointed with the ruling and expressed the view that the change of judge had made the trial unfair.

 

Lawyer Anek Kamchoom said his clients were not happy with the ruling but he would certainly submit an appeal, as allowed, within 30 days.

 

The disappearance of the businessman, along with the theft of invaluable jewels by a Thai janitor from a Saudi palace and the killing of three Saudi diplomats in Bangkok between 1989 and 1990, has severely strained Thai-Saudi relations.

 

The businessman is thought to have been abducted and killed |while police were searching for the jewellery.

[waerth]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/402740/saudis-disappointed-in-blue-diamond-verdict

 

Saudis 'disappointed' in Blue Diamond verdict

 

Saudi Arabia's top diplomat and the brother of the Saudi businessman who disappeared in Thailand nearly 24 years ago expressed disappointment Monday after the Criminal Court acquitted five men with close police connections.

 

Abdalelah Mohammed A Alsheaiby, the Saudi charge d'affaires to Thailand, said he hoped for an appeal in the latest case that sprang from the theft of a revered Blue Diamond and a large amount of jewellery from a Saudi palace in 1989.

Matrouk al-Ruwaili, a brother-in-law of the missing businessman at the centre of Monday's case and a complainant in the case, said he felt Thailand after 24 years was still showing lack of fairness. He said he would press for an appeal.

Riyadh also will quickly be mulling possible additional retaliatory measures in response to the "disappointing verdict," added Mr Abdalelah.

The Southern Bangkok Criminal Court spent 30 minutes on Monday reading the verdict that acquitted the five defendants, all of whom are current or past police officers. Cleared for lack of evidence were Pol Lt Gen Somkid Boonthanom, a former police inspector-general and younger brother of a 2006 coup participant; Pol Col Sorarak Jusanit, superintendent of Sommoei police in Mae Hong Son; Pol Col Praphas Piyamongkol, superintendent of Nam Khun police in Ubon Ratchathani; and two decommissioned officers, Pol Lt Col Suradej Udomdee and Pol Sgt Maj Prasong Thongrung.

The five were charged in connection with the suspected abduction and possible murder of Saudi businessman Mohammad al-Ruwaili in February, 1990. The court said it must give the benefit of the doubt to all the defendants, since there was not enough evidence to convict the men.

The fact that Pol Lt Col Suvichai Kaewpluek, a key witness, failed to appear in court but only provided written statements weakened the empirical evidence in the case, according to the court's decision.

 

Mr Abdalelah held a press conference soon afterward, saying the the embassy was not surprised but displeased with the verdict.

"Since a leading judge in the case has been changed just months before the conclusion of the verdict had already raised our concerns and worries that it would affect the results of the case in a negative light to the interests of Saudi Arabia," said Mr Abdalelah.

He said he would quickly send the verdict results to Riyadh, where the government would consider what response to the disappointing verdict could be.

Because of developments in the past, Saudi Arabia expelled 40,000 Thai workers, banned citizens from tourism in Thailand, and cut off almost all trade. Diplomatic relations are at the lowest level, and the only designated jobs of the embassy are to observe developments in the 1990 cases, and provide visas for Thai Muslims for the haj.

The jarring problems began when a Thai janitor stole the jewellery from the palace of then-Prince Faisal, who later became king. Back in Thailand, then-police lieutenant general Chalor Kerdthes ordered the killing of the thief's family and began distributing the stolen gems. In 1990, three Saudi diplomats were gunned down in Bangkok. Then, al-Rawaili, a private businessman reportedly investigating the jewellery thefts and the Thai labour racket, disappeared.

"There have been several attempts to intervene in the case, upon defendants appeal to change the judge," Mr Abdalelah alleged. "The requests have been denied until two months after the release of the verdict. The timing of the judge's replacement is very dubious and easily leads to the question of justice" in the case.

Matrouk al-Ruwaili, the abducted man's brother-in-law said he was certainly disappointed. "After all these 24 years, Thailand still shows a lack of fair judgement. In fact changing the presiding judge in the middle of the case is a negative thing for either side," said Mr Matrouk.

"We will appeal the verdict," added Ateeq al-Ruwaili, an elder brother of the missing Mohammad, also in Bangkok to hear yesterday's court decision.

Lawyer Anek Bounkhoum said Mohammad's family had relied upon the "empirical witness" Pol Lt Col Suvichai. He "knew all about the abduction and murder," said Mr Anek.

But Lt Col Suvichai, who lives in the United Arab Emirates, had refused to go before the court for fear of reprisal. He was examined at a UAE court and at the Thai embassy in Abu Dhabi before senior officers from the Office of Attorney General and the Department of Special Investigation, said Mr Anek.

"The public prosecutor attempted to get the witness accounts and upon the Procedural Criminal Code this could be done. Witnesses who cannot show up at court could see their written testimonies weighed at the court," said Mr Anek.

Faisal Albogami, a legal counsel from Riyadh observing the case, added that throughout the trial the presiding judge Somsak Pholsong has listened to Lt Col Suvichai's account.

But the defendants appealed to the Criminal Court to discount the written testimony, and even petitioned the Constitutional Court to annul the written evidence. Neither court approved the request, so the written statement remained in evidence.

Monday's decision effective annuls use of the Suvichai evidence, even if an appeal is launched, said Mr Anek.

In two statements under oath, Pol Lt Col Suvichai said he learned about the abduction of al-Ruwaili from one of the defendants. But in his last statement to the Criminal Court, Pol Lt Col Suvichai claimed he was "present" when the businessman was abducted to a hotel in Bangkok's Khlong Tan area. Hotel staff who testified in court were unable to confirm he was present.

The court also said prosecutors failed to establish that a ring, which prompted the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to reopen the case, belonged to the missing businessman.

Without proof of guilt against the accused, the court ruled to dismiss the case.

Fahad, another member of the Riyadh monitoring committee, said it was sad that "until today there is no answer for the loss of Saudi sons, brothers and people".

He was a junior diplomat attached to the embassy in Bangkok when the first diplomat was killed several months after the initial jewellery theft. Three more men were killed later, he said, although no body ever was found of abduction victim al-Rawaili.

"Saudi Arabia has never even been given clarification on the death of our four diplomats killed in Bangkok, let alone seeing justice served," said Mr Fahad. "Now a chance in the only remaining case is just thrown away from the court."

In a separate interview, Mr Abdalelah said the criminal lawsuit against the five policemen was the only remaining case that might bring some justice to the Saudi Arabian nationals as the cases of the slain diplomats are considered closed due to the litigation expiration.

"Of course, the (Riyadh) government will be displeased with the verdict as this case is in the attention of the Saudi king and the public. The king of Saudi Arabia will have a final say whether and how Riyadh should respond to the disappointing and unfair verdict," said Mr. Abdalelah.

Pol Lt Gen Somkid was all smiles after hearing the ruling but declined to discuss the case because he was obliged by the bail condition not to talk about it. He remains on bail until the decision of whether to appeal.

The DSI reopened the investigation in 2009, one month before the statute of limitations expired, after it obtained the statement from Pol Lt Col Suvichai about the ring claimed to belong to the missing businessman.

Suwat Apaipak, a defence lawyer, said the prosecution was obliged to appeal the ruling but he is confident the Appeal Court will uphold the ruling.

Asked about the relations between Thailand and Saudi Arabia, he hopes Saudi authorities will understand the case properly follows the criminal justice system

Thongchai Senamontri, chief judge of the Criminal Court, insisted the abrupt change of the judge responsible for the case was not related the trial.

He said judge Somsak Polsong who was responsible the case was removed after he was suspended from duty in January over allegations of temporary release of suspects in a separate case.

Mr Thongchai said bilateral relations are a sensitive issue but he hopes Saudi authorities understand the procedures of the Thai criminal justice system.

Caretaker Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul said the change of judge is part of the normal procedure and the ministry will explain the issue to the Saudi diplomats.

[Flashermac]

Revered Blue Diamond?

[cavanami]

One of the better LOS coverups!

[Flashermac]

For those unfamiliar with it ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Diamond_Affair