Although the unrest in Bangkok seems to have subsided for now, many believe the Thai political crisis is far from finished. The State of Emergency remains in place in the capital and 23 other provinces since a resurgence of protests is possible. As the defeated Red Shirt leaders are in detention, opponents blame authorities for the violence during which 89 people were killed and more than 1800 wounded. Many international human rights organizations actually accused Abhisit Vejjajiva’s government of reckless use of lethal force and violations of fundamental rights. Are these allegations the fact of biased international media and misunderstanding of the Thai political culture, as affirmed by the government? To what extent do the presumed human rights violations threaten the reconciliation process within the Thai society?

On 11 March, ahead of the first peaceful Red Shirts rally, the Thai government imposed the Internal Security Act as a preventive measure, putting the military in charge with powers to impose curfews, restrict numbers at gatherings and set up man check points. According to the International Commission of Jurists, the Act fails to clearly define the concept of threat to national security since no specific level of violence is required to assess such a threat. Pointing his finger at the scare tactics used by Abhisit, Associate Professor Somchai Preecha-silpakul of Chiang Mai University criticized the Act for being about government security, rather than state security. The State of Emergency declared on April 6 enabled authorities to gag reporting considered to cause instability. But according to Reporters Without Borders, some of the 36 censured media were neutral and independent. In this context, the international media, despite accusations of bias, was the only non-official source on the sequence of events. Beyond the questionable legitimacy of these measures, they above all violated Thailand’s commitments in terms of human rights, in particular Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of speech.

The army crackdown on protesters on 10 April injured 800 people and killed 25 – including 19 civilians, 5 uniformed soldiers and a Japanese cameraman – and fueled international accusations of violations of the concept of proportionality, of international principles on crowd dispersal and of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The military initially claimed that it only used rubber bullets and tear gas in the clash but video footage showed soldiers firing assault rifles in fully automatic fire mode in the direction of protesters. While Red Shirts had only used rocks, sticks and petrol bombs up until then, they seized a large amount of military equipment left behind by retreating troops on 10 April. From this moment on, forensic evidence was not sufficient to determine who used the weapons and to establish responsibility for casualties. Consequently, even though most of the victims were civilians, accountability of a violent minority among the Red Shirts became undeniable to all stakeholders.

The use of force by the Army also included extra-judicial targeted assassinations. On 13 May, former Major General and Red Shirts leader Khattiya Sawasdipol was shot in the head, apparently by a sniper. These assassinations officially sought to 'separate extremist elements from the ordinary people among the Red Shirts'. But army snipers reportedly also killed two medical workers distinctively wearing a white medical uniform, and injured foreign reporters. On 15 May, several areas of the city were designated as 'live fire zones' by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight. Human Rights Watch accused the Thai government of unlawful and unnecessary use of lethal force on this occasion.

But accusations did not only come from western NGOs. Thailand's House of Representatives began on 31 May a debate led by the opposition Puea Thai Party on a censure motion against the government for using excessive force leading to civilian casualties, arresting and mistreating Buddhist monks who had joined the protest, and censoring the media. Responding to these severe accusations, PM affirmed there would be an independent investigation into whether the army used undue force against civilians. While Abhisit successfully secured more than half the parliamentary vote, Dr Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, says the no-confidence debate was a needed exercise to collectively internalize what had happened. However, the nomination by Abhisit of Kanit Nanakorn, a former attorney general very close to government figures, to head protest probe further divided the society. The Puea Thai Party responded by calling for international watchdogs to take the lead in the investigation. Overall, it seems the 5-points reconciliation process promoted by the government will fail as long as all stakeholders are not convinced of the legitimacy and independence of the investigation of recent violations.

Joining the UN Human Rights Council on 15 May has been a real boost for Thailand's sagging image on the international scene. Amidst the crisis, this Thai seat signifies the confidence of the international community in Abhisit’s government. While international pressure is lowered by the relative calm in Bangkok, reconciliation will depend on Abhisit’s commitment to human rights and democracy.