Thailand's
Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibit the introduction
of evidence that has been obtained pursuant to threat,
deception, or pursuant to a.(56)
This statute has the effect of barring any plea agreements
with defendants. Even without a plea agreement, Thai
Courts are reluctant to accept the testimony of one
defendant against another.(57)
In cases where a witness was involved in the alleged
crime, but was not charged, testimony is allowed provided
there are special circumstances, including other corroborative
evidence; and even in these cases, the witness's testimony
is deemed to have little evidentiary weight.(58)
However the testimony of a cooperating witness, i.e.,
a witness who has participated in a criminal venture
with the knowledge and consent of the police, in order
to aid an investigation, has been deemed admissible.(59)
The
Thai Court also presents a different view as to the
use of audio tapes as evidence against an accused from
that of United States Courts. In general, audio tapes
are considered a second-class form of evidence, and
must be corroborated by other evidence before they are
considered credible by the Trial Court.(60)
Additionally, the installation of listening devices
in people's homes or on their telephones may be restricted
by the Thai Constitution, which protects the people's
right to privacy(61) and
the right to freedom of communication.(62)
In most civil law countries, the use of undercover operations,
as well as various forms of electronic surveillance
(other than phone taps, which are legal in most European
states) are illegal.(63)
Conclusion
: The laws in many countries, including
Thailand, are changing in response to DEA lobbying activities.(64)
In the 1997 International Narcotics Control Strategy
Report, the United States praised Thailand for carrying
out drug control policies and programs, extraditing
Thai citizens, assisting in convicting a high ranking
army officer in US courts, and for "very good cooperation
at all levels."(65)
Although
most governments are currently in the process of enacting
as many bases for criminal jurisdiction as possible,
the United States seems to be the most effective in
demanding the foreign recognition of its claims to extraterritorial
jurisdiction.(66) The United
States has the greatest global apparatus of international
law enforcement, diplomatic, and intelligence resources.
Most foreign governments are susceptible to United States
pressures which can include domestic law enforcement
actions, and economic sanctions.
The
United States law enforcement activity in Thailand has
been extensive and effective. Although the extradition
and mutual legal assistance treaties between the United
States and Thailand are bilateral, and afford each country
equal rights, the law enforcement activity has been
primarily unilateral, with the United States spending
a disproportionate amount of resources in law enforcement
activities in Thailand. The extradition treaty reflects
the common law approach, i.e., requiring extradition
of one's own nationals based on the territorial principle,
or the "effects" doctrine. Although the treaty
allows Thailand to refuse extradition of its own nationals
so long as it vicariously prosecutes them in the Thai
courts, this provision has not been carried out in practice.
With United States law enforcement agents maintaining
a sizable presence in Thailand, working in conjunction
with Thai authorities, and providing training and support,
Thailand has been compelled to adapt its law enforcement
practices to those of the United States. Nevertheless,
areas of conflict in practice and procedure still exist.
The assistance that Thailand receives from the US may
entail some degree of infringement of Thailand's sovereignty
and the compromise of certain aspects of its legal heritage.
