16 Years On, Red Shirt Crackdown Cases Near Expiry with No Progress

The cases concerning the crackdown on the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), also known as the Red Shirt protests in April–May 2010, have now reached their 16th year. In the 12 years since the military coup by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), the cases have stagnated with no progress and only four years now remain before they expire.

The case files have passed back and forth between various state agencies. As far as can be understood from statements by the relevant authorities, prosecutors have now referred the case back to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to conduct another round of investigation. This raises questions about how much physical evidence from the crime scenes still remains after all these years, and how many witnesses are still alive and available to testify in court.

 “This case is a case that is about politics. We cannot deny that, because it arose from political protests. There was a crackdown on the protests and orders to use force, which comes from politics.” said Chokchai Angkaew, one of a loosely organised group of lawyers who are helping the families of those killed in the crackdown pursue the cases and who have represented them in several inquests into the deaths. 

“There are clear signs that those who were in power at the time, including the military itself, do not want this matter reopened. If it were reopened it would be clear, because the facts from the findings of the court inquests into the deaths show who was responsible,”

Chokchai believes that responsibility for prosecuting these cases ultimately lies with the state. However, this has left members of the public with little ability to advance the cases, contributing to their stagnation. The inquests into the deaths, which made some progress under the government of Yingluck Shinawatra, were not pursued further following the military coup in 2014, which was led by officers who had been involved in the 2010 crackdown.

Criminal proceedings against state officials, which the activist group argues should be heard in the criminal courts, fall under the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), where no progress has been made. Military prosecutors have also declined to indict in cases referred to military courts, including the six deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram.

Where do the cases stand now?

In May 2026, Pol Lt Gen Rutthaphon Naowarat, Minister of Justice, addressed the Senate in response to a question from Senator Thewarit Maneechai regarding progress in cases related to the crackdown on the protests.

He said the Ministry has established a “Main Operations Centre for the Investigation of Special Cases Concerning the 2010 Unrest” to expedite investigations and prevent 383 cases from reaching the statute of limitations. The cases are divided into four categories: 156 terrorism-related; 25 involving threats or coercion against the government; 181 involving attacks on members of the public and state officials; and 21 involving damage to government military equipment.

Under the third category, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has recommended prosecution and taken legal action in 13 cases.

13 Cases where the Department of Special Investigation has recommended prosecution and taken legal action

Status of Cases involving deaths

The Minister of Justice’s statement does not clarify the status of cases involving deaths. Thida Thavornseth, a leader of the UDD and co-founder of the People's Council Demanding Justice for 2010, provided reporters with a document from the DSI’s Bureau of Security Crime that had been submitted to the House Committee on Law, Justice and Human Rights in October 2024. 

The document identifies 89 deaths that fall under the DSI’s responsibility but does not include one case in Khon Kaen (Songsak Sinongbua), two cases in Udon Thani (Aphichat Rachiwa and Phoen Wongma), and one case linked to tear gas exposure (Anan Chinnasongkhram).

Local police investigators conducted post-mortem examinations in all 89 cases under Section 150, Paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires an inquest to determine the cause of death in cases of unnatural death. Of these, 58 cases ended at the post-mortem examination stage. The DSI subsequently took the following actions in these cases: 40 cases were discontinued; 9 cases resulted in no prosecution orders; 2 cases resulted in no prosecution orders because the suspects had died; and 7 cases led to prosecutions, but the courts later acquitted the defendants.

The seven deaths that led to prosecution orders included three main cases. In the “Black Shirt” case involving five military personnel killed by M67 grenades at Dinso Road, all five defendants were acquitted due to unreliable evidence and concerns over double jeopardy. In the case of Kittiphong Somsuk, a UDD protester found dead at Central World, the court ruled he died from fire-related suffocation but could not prove arson by the defendants; one person was convicted only for violating the Emergency Decree, while three others were acquitted. In the case of Thanyanan Thaepthong, who died in an explosion on Silom Road on 22 April 2010, no court reports or judgment details were found.

The other 31 cases in which the DSI determined that deaths were potentially caused by state officials proceeded under Section 150, Paragraph 3, requiring a court inquest. Of these, 25 investigations were discontinued, while 6 cases involving deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram were referred to military prosecutors and later dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. 

Outside these 31 cases, there are additional incidents suggesting that deaths may have been caused by state officials. These include the case of Sane Nilluang, who was shot on Rama IV Road on the afternoon of 14 May 2010, during the military advance from the Lumphini Park area toward Bon Kai. A foreign photographer, positioned behind the military line, captured soldiers aiming their weapons at protesters at the moment Saneh fell.

Another case involves Samaphan Srithep and Suphacheep Chullathat, who were killed on Ratchaprarop Road on the morning of 15 May 2010. Both were found lying face down, facing a military checkpoint. Photographs, eyewitness accounts, and post-mortem findings suggest that the bullets may have originated from military positions.

There are also incidents from the night of 14 May near the Din Daeng area on Ratchaprarop Road, including the death of Boonthing Pansila, a volunteer emergency responder killed while on duty. Video footage shows him facing the military line at the moment he was shot, and the direction of his wounds is consistent with this account.

These cases have seen no meaningful progress for years. The DSI’s own briefing document indicates that the cases proceeded only as far as the post-mortem examinations before prosecutors ordered the investigations suspended. 

Prosecutors later reopened the investigations, but many of the original crime scenes have since changed significantly. For example, the Bon Kai area on Rama IV Road has been redeveloped into a shopping complex. Whether witnesses can still be located and brought forward to testify remains a question for investigators. 

Family members who have spent years waiting for justice for their loved ones have gradually passed away. The younger sister of Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi travelled across continents from Italy to personally follow the investigation into her brother’s death for several years but died of cancer in April 2014.

Questions around Abhisit–Suthep’s acquittal

Last year, former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said that the courts had acquitted both him and his former Deputy Prime Minister, Suthep Thaugsuban, at the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court over their roles in the crackdown on protests, a ruling that sparked heated debate.

At the time, Abhisit ordered the establishment of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), while Suthep served as its Director during the crackdown on Ratchadamnoen Avenue on 10 April. Command was later transferred to Gen Anupong Paochinda, then army chief, before the second phase of the crackdown took place around the Ratchaprasong intersection between 13 and 19 May.

The acquittals did not result from the courts’ assessment of the facts, but were based on jurisdictional grounds. In 2014, the Court of First Instance ruled that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court, with the NACC responsible for the initial inquiry into whether the case should proceed.

During the proceedings, Thongchai Senamontri, the Chief Justice of the Criminal Court, issued a dissenting opinion under his authority arguing that the Criminal Court did in fact have jurisdiction. He also allowed injured parties, including Samorn Maithong, and the family of Phan Khamkong, killed beneath the Airport Rail Link station at Ratchaprarop on 14 May 2010, to join the case as co-plaintiffs. This was one of the first inquests in which the court found that the death was caused by military officers.

Thongchai argued that the death of Phan Khamkong and the injuries sustained by Samorn Maithong constituted criminal offences, namely jointly committing or ordering intentional murder and attempted murder. This was based on the inquest finding that Phan was killed by military officers acting under claims of official duty, and that Suthep had authorised the use of weapons, live ammunition and sniper units, indicating acceptance that lethal force could be used against civilians. He further argued that murder falls outside official duties and should be treated as a criminal offence against the state.

In his view, even if the NACC found no grounds for misconduct in office, the Criminal Court would still retain jurisdiction. Dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds risked preventing victims from pursuing criminal proceedings. He argued that where a single act may constitute multiple offences, the cases could be consolidated, with the Supreme Court empowered to transfer or combine proceedings. At the time, the case was still under consideration by both the Criminal Court and the NACC, with no final ruling yet issued. 

Despite these dissenting opinions, all three levels of the criminal courts ultimately ruled that the case was outside their jurisdiction. The NACC later concluded that there were insufficient grounds to proceed. As a result, cases brought by members of the public affected by the crackdown under the Abhisit administration have remained without meaningful progress to this day.

What about the military courts?

In September 2019, the case concerning Phan Khamkong, with Samorn Maithong also appearing as an injured witness, was filed by the families and their lawyers directly with the Criminal Court. However, both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal ruled that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the military court, on the grounds that the alleged perpetrators were soldiers, despite the fact that CRES included not only military officers but also civilian officials and politicians.

In the same month, the DSI also forwarded the case concerning the six deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram to the military court. In the inquest proceedings, the court had already made a clear finding that soldiers positioned on the BTS tracks in front of the temple, as well as those advancing from Rama I Road, were responsible for the shootings that killed all six victims. The inquest included photographic evidence taken by police officers stationed at the Royal Thai Police headquarters, which captured the military operation, as well as testimony from police witnesses who had recorded both photographs and video footage.

However, this case concluded more quickly than the Phan Khamkong case. Under the Military Court Act, only military prosecutors have the authority to file cases in military courts. After the DSI submitted the case file to the military prosecutor, the military prosecutor later issued a non-prosecution order, stating that “in this case, it does not appear that there are eyewitnesses, circumstantial evidence, or any other form of evidence that can confirm that the eight suspects committed the alleged offences.” 

Did the NCPO hit the brakes?

It is important to note that the 31 inquest cases in which the DSI submitted petitions for the courts to initiate death inquests on the basis that the deaths were caused by military officers had gradually begun moving forward. Within a two-year period, cases involving deaths entered the initial judicial stage at an average rate of about 15 cases per year. While this could not be described as fast, it did show steady progress.

Then the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) led by Prayuth Chan-o-cha staged a coup in 2014. In 2010, he had served on CRES board as Deputy Army Commander, alongside other senior military figures, many of whom later rose steadily through the ranks. Among them was Apirat Kongsompong, then a colonel and commander of the 11th Infantry Regiment (King’s Guard), who later retired as Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army.

Just 24 hours after the NCPO staged the coup, Tharit Pengdit, then Director-General of the DSI, was removed from his position, along with Attapon Yaisawang, the Attorney General who had overseen cases related to the crackdown deaths. Tharit believed that these prosecutions were a key reason behind the military coup.

The Supreme Court sentenced Tharit to two years in prison for malfeasance in office under Sections 157 and 200 of the Criminal Code, on the grounds that he had acted dishonestly with intent to cause others to face criminal punishment. This verdict was given after Abhisit and Suthep were acquitted on jurisdictional grounds. Two days before the verdict, he revealed that he was also threatened and the DSI prosecution of the high-ranking military officials was a key reason behind the military coup. 

“I was summoned to a military camp on Ratchadamnoen Road. The name of the person who summoned me should perhaps not be disclosed, but he was a very high-ranking military officer and was involved in the coup. He told me ‘Tharit, do not proceed with the 99 death cases. If you do not listen and our lot stage a coup, what would you do?’

“When the court had already ruled that the deaths were caused by military personnel using war weapons, and there were orders, if I did not act, I would not be able to remain in my position. Others would have to take over. It was unavoidable, and I did not act alone. It was handled by an investigation committee that included the police and prosecutors.

Is there still hope?

Each year’s commemoration is a countdown toward the expiry of the statute of limitations for the families of the deceased, yet there has never been a clear answer from the justice system. The current government, Chokchai noted, has not shown any effort to revive or accelerate these cases. With the current administration potentially remaining in power for up to four years, this period nearly coincides with the time remaining before the statute of limitations expires.

“I look at the trajectory from the incident until now. It’s already been 16 years. It turns out that there have only been certain periods in which these death-related cases were actually pursued under the law.” At most, Chokchai said, it is up to the families of the deceased, or civic movements to continue pressuring the government to keep the issue alive. 

Some possible solutions have been proposed including amendments to the Organic Act on the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, to allow citizens to directly bring cases against politicians, and the Organization of Military Courts Act so that criminal cases involving military personnel could be brought before civilian courts instead. 

Thida called for cases involving state officials to be returned to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. She warned that opening a channel for citizens to file complaints directly with the NACC risks shifting cases to an independent body that has often been used by conservative factions to target democratically elected politicians. Moreover, offences relating to misconduct in public office carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, even in cases involving deaths, significantly lower than the penalties available under the Criminal Code.

Thida proposed three measures: first, to amend the law so that cases arising from the 2010 crackdown are not subject to any statute of limitations; second, to ensure that military officers and politicians who commit criminal offences against civilians are tried in the ordinary criminal courts; and third, to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, at least in specific cases.

Thida argued that these measures would not only deliver justice for the families of the deceased but could also serve as a deterrent: “If in the future a political party colludes with the military to suppress the people again, they will be afraid.” She added, “We are pushing for these amendments to the law. Even if we do not succeed on the matter of the events in 2010, we hope it will be useful in the future.”