FindingsReportRequestforLegalorPolicyRecommendations

NationalHumanRightsCommissionofThailand

March10,2015(B.E.2558)

FindingsReportNo.115/2558

Re: AllegationthatKhonKaenSugarIndustryPublicCompanyLimited,recipientofalandconcessiontogrowsugarcaneandestablishasugarfactoryinCambodia,hascausedhumanrightsviolationsagainstCambodiancitizens

Complainants: FoundationforEcologicalRecoveryandCommunityLegalEducationCenterCambodia[LaterreferredtoasTowardsEcologicalRecoveryandRegionalAlliances(TERRA)]

Defendant: KhonKaenSugarIndustryPublicCompanyLimited

1.Background

The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand received a complaint letter from theCommunityLegalEducationCenter(CLEC)datedJanuary6,2010filedunderComplaintNo.58/2553.Thecomplainantalleged thataThai company,KhonKaenSugar IndustryPublicCompanyLimited,received through a Cambodian subsidiary company an economic land concession in Sre Ambeldistrict,KohKongprovince,Cambodia.ThisactionhasledtotheviolationofCambodia’sLandLawoneconomiclandconcessionsandviolationsofhumanrightslawsandstandards,resultinginillegalpossession of local people’s land, loss of their livelihood and work opportunities, loss of foodsecurity, lack of educational opportunities, worsening poverty and even threats of violence. ThecomplainantrequestedforaninvestigationbytheNationalHumanRightsCommissionintothisThaicompany’sactionswhicharerelevanttohumanrightsviolationsinCambodia,toensurejusticeforthecomplainantandCambodiacitizensindistress.

2.ComplaintReview

2.1Substance of Complaint and Investigative Jurisdiction of the National Human RightsCommission

TheNationalHumanRightsCommission reviewed this complaint and found that the issuemayinvolveactionsbyaprivateThaicompanyinviolationofinternationalhumanrightsagreementsofwhichThailandisaparty,namely:theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR),theInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(ICESCR),andpossiblythe2011Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. Thealleged actionsmay also be human rights violations against Cambodian citizens. According to the2007ConstitutionofThailandunderArticle82andArticle257Paragraph1(ineffectatthetimeofthis investigation) and the1999 National Human Rights Commission Act under Article 15(2), the

NationalHumanRightsCommissionhastheauthorityto“investigateandreportonactionsoractsofnegligence which violate human rights or international human rights commitments of whichThailandisaparty.”Therefore,itwasfoundthatthiscomplaintisrelevanttohumanrightsviolationsand lieswithin the investigative jurisdictionof theNationalHumanRightsCommissionofThailandaccordingtoArticle15(2)ofthe1999NationalHumanRightsCommissionAct.TheNationalHumanRights Commission assigned the Subcommittee on Civil and Political Rights to review thismatter.Later,theSubcommitteeonCivilandPoliticalRightstransferredthiscomplainttotheSubcommitteeonCommunityRightsforinvestigation.

2.2IssueunderInvestigation

This investigationreviewedthecomplaint filedalongwithrelevantdocuments,statementsof the parties involved and relevant agencies, as well as a review of the duties and authorityaccording to the 2007 Constitution of Thailand Article 257 Paragraph 1 and the 1999 NationalHumanRightsCommissionActArticle15(1),(2)and(3).Theissueunderinvestigationwaswhetherthe actions of Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Public Company Limited in Sre Ambel district, Koh Kongprovince,CambodiacausehumanrightsviolationsagainstthecitizensofCambodia.

3.Investigation

For this investigation, statements were requested of the complainants, Khon Kaen SugarIndustryPublicCompanyLimited, theStockExchangeofThailand, theThaiMinistryofCommerce,andtheThaiOfficeofCaneandSugarBoard.Thestatementsaresummarizedasfollows:

3.1 StatementoftheComplainants

The complainants, as non-governmental organizations in Thailand who monitor andadvocate forhumanrightsprotectionandresolutionofhumanrightsviolations inCambodia,gaveverbal statements together with representatives of Cambodian citizens and submittedaccompanyingdocuments.Accordingtotheirstatement,KhonKaenSugarIndustryPublicCompanyLimited (KSL) entered into a joint venture with Cambodia and Taiwanese investors to receive aneconomic landconcession thatviolated the lawsofCambodia,with thepurposeofmanufacturingsugar inthelandconcessionlocatedinSreAmbeldistrict,KohKongprovince,Cambodia.This landconcessionisthecauseofillegalconfiscationoflandfromlocalcitizens,killingoflivestockbelongingtolocalresidents,violentthreatsandharassmentagainstresidentswhodonotsubmitoragree,andworsening of poverty for local residents due to the loss of food security from these actions. Atimelineanddetailsoftheseactionsareasfollows:

1. Timeline

In March 2006, the Cambodian Cabinet approved in principle the granting of a landconcession for an economic project to Koh Kong Sugar Industry Co. Ltd. (KSI) and Koh KongPlantationCo.Ltd.(KPT).BothofthesecompaniesaresubsidiariesofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl.According to the Complainants, Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl split its investments into twocompanies toavoid restrictionsunder the2001LandLawofCambodiawhich limits themaximumeconomiclandconcessiontoeachconcessionrequestofnomorethan10,000hectares(2001LandLawofCambodia,Article59)or62,500raiofland(1hectare=6.25rai).Inaddition,the2001Land

Law also restricted economic land concessions to include only government property. Thegovernmentcannotconsenttotheuseofprivatepropertypossessedbycitizensforeconomiclandconcessions. However, the Cambodian government has the authority to expropriate land underprivatepossessiontograntconcessions,butonlyafter thegovernmentexpropriationprovides fairandequitablereparations.(2001LandLawofCambodia,Article38andArticle42)

Inthiscase,affectedCambodiancitizensaffirmedtheirrightfulpossessionoflandaccordingtoArticle30oftheLandLawofCambodia,whichstatesthat:“Anypersonwho,fornolessthanfiveyearspriortothepromulgationofthislaw,enjoyedpeaceful,uncontestedpossessionofimmovableproperty that can lawfully be privately possessed, has the right to request a definitive title ofownership.Anypersonwhopossessedtheimmovablepropertyforlessthanfiveyearsmayrequestadefinitivetitleofownershipafter fiveyearsofpossession.” (2001LandLawofCambodia,Article30).Inaddition,Article31statesthatanypersonwhohadbeenenjoyingpossessionbeforethe2001LandLawofCambodiaentered into forceand fulfillsall requirements tobecomeanownerof thepropertymaybeauthorizedbythecompetentCambodianauthoritytoextendthelandpossessionuntil the legallyprescribedperiodof fiveyears toattainpermanent titleofownership.Moreover,Cambodianauthoritiescannotdenythisrighttoattainthetitleoflandownershipifthepossessionispeaceful and uncontested. (Land Law of Cambodia 2001, Article 31) The residents of Chikhor,ChhoukandTrapengKendalvillageshavelivedontheirlanduncontestedformorethan5yearsandhavepossessedthe landpeacefully,uncontested,and inapublicallyevidentandcontinuousact ingoodfaith.Therefore, theseresidentsarewithoutquestionentitledtotherightofpossessionandfulfilltherequirementstorequestandattainlanddocumentsorlandtitlesandreceivemarketvaluefor their land in the case of expropriation. Furthermore, all 3 villages have been assigned asParticipatory Land Use Planning Policy (PLUP) implementation areas, following the Cambodiangovernment’sinitiativeaccordingtothelandusepolicy(May2001)andtheStrategicFrameworkonLandPolicy(September2002).Inaddition,therewasacollaborativeworkingprocessbetweennon-government organizations and government agencies in Koh Kong province, including joint fieldsurveys, deliberations and mapping, with the purpose of supporting sustainable land use. Thisconfirmsthatallegationthatthelandconcessionwaslocatedinareaswhichvillagersoriginallyreliedfor livelihood. Inaddition to this statement, thecomplainants submittedmapsshowing that the3villagesarelocatedintheParticipatoryLandUsePlanningPolicyimplementationareas.

InAugust2006,KohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.,whichwasownedbySenatoroftheCambodiaPeople’s Party (CPP) Ouknka Ly Yong Phat, received a land concession of 57,340 rai (9,174.4hectares). Koh Kong Sugar Industry Co. Ltd., which was owned by a Thai citizen named Mr.Chamroon Chinthammit, received a land concession of 59,170 rai (9,467.2 hectares). In total, thelandconcessionsconsistedof116,510rai(18,641.6hectares).

Accordingtothecomplainants,forcedevictionoflocalvillagersoccurredbeforethesigningof this land concession agreement in August 2006. The destruction of homes, farmland, livestockgrazingareas,andothervaluablepossessionscausingresidentstofleefromtheirvillagesinChhouk,Chikhor and Trapheng Kandal villages in Sre Ambel district. As a result of the use of violence bygovernment officials during eviction, five residents were injured and at least two residents wereshot.

Inaddition to theviolenceused in the forcedeviction, the landconcessionsweregrantedwithout prior public hearings. Villagers learned that the land they possess for residence andlivelihoodhasbeengrantedconcessionstoprivatecompaniesonlywhenbulldozersalreadyenteredanddestroyedtheirlandandpossessions.Noenvironmentalimpactassessmentwasconducted,andnoplanforrelocationwasissuedaccordingtothestipulationsofCambodianlawoneconomiclandconcessions.

InSeptember2006,villagersorganizedseveralprotestmarchesduetoworseningeffectsofcompany actions on villagers land. Confrontations occurred and villagers were injured. However,localofficialspreventednon-governmentalorganizationsandtheCambodianHumanRightsActionCommittee(CHRAC)tomonitorandinvestigatethesituation.

OnNovember12,2006,companyrepresentativesandcommunityleadersmetandagreedtodelay any decision. The companies would temporarily cease razing and eviction of villagers.However,thecompaniesviolatedthisagreementandcontinuedtorazelandandevictvillagersfromtheseareas.

OnMarch5,2007,morethan120citizenstravelledtoPhnomPenhtosubmitdemandstoseveralgovernmentagencies.OfficialsattheCambodianMinistryofInteriorreassuredvillagersthattheirproblemwouldberesolved.

InMay2007, theCambodianMinistryof Interior’s Secretaryof Stateorganizedameetingbetween company representatives, community resident representatives and theCommunity LegalEducation Center (CLEC). Government recommendations as a result of this meeting includedrecommendations that the companies should cease razing and eviction of residents and thecompaniesshouldworkwithcivilsocietytoresolvethesituation.Nonetheless,formorethan1yearfollowing this meeting, the recommendations were ignored by local government officials andcompanyrepresentatives.Thiscausedsomeresidentstoacceptmoneyfromthecompaniesatarateof almost 1,000 US dollars per hectare (6.25 rai). Even though these residents agreed tocompensation from the companies, another problem arose due to the fact that companymeasurementsofthelandareawerelessthantheactuallandarealostbyvillagers.

In the complaints’ view, human rights violation occurred were tied to Khon Kaen SugarIndustry Public Company Limited, a public company registered in Thailand in the business ofexportingsugar.KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclenteredajointventurewithKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.andKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd..Inthepast,KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclheld50percentshares inbothKohKongSugar IndustryCo. Ltd. andKohKongPlantationCo. Ltd.. In addition, 30percentofthecompanyshareswereownedbyaTaiwanesecompanyandtheremaining20percentof company shares were owned byMr. Ly Yong Phat, Senator of the Cambodian People’s Party.Later,KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclpurchasedadditionalsharedandasof2014owned70percentshares in both Koh Kong Sugar Industry Co. Ltd. and Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd.. In addition,representativesofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclholdmanagmenetpositionsinbothcompanies,asreflectedinpage17oftheKSLGroupAnnualReport2010,ThailandandtheletterissuedbytheThaiMinistryofCommercetotheBoardofDirectorsatKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.datedJanuary4,2010about the change inbondsbelonging toKohKongSugar IndustryCo. Ltd.which indicatedanew shareholding structure of 70 percent shares held by Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl and 30

percent shares held by Ve Wong Corporation.

The complainants insisted that Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl was well aware of theallegationsthatcompanyactionsviolatedthelawonlandconcessionsandhumanrightsstandards,asreflectedintheletterissuedbyKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcladdressedtotheCommunityLegalEducation Center dated August 26, 2008. The letter requested additional information on theseallegations,whichtheCommunityLegalEducationCenterprovidedtothecompany.However,therewas no further correspondence from Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl. In the complainants’ view, itwouldbeimpossibleforKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcltobeunawareofthevillagers’sufferings.Inaddition to the information that the complainants sent directly to Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl,complaintswere also filed to the company regarding incidents that occurred both in and outsideCambodiasince2006,andseveraloftheseincidentsinvolvedKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcldirectly.

2. TypesofHumanRightsViolationsandResultingDamage

Accordingtothecomplainants,humanrightsviolationsthatoccurredinSreAmbeldistrict,KohKongprovinceconsistedofthefollowing:

(1) ForcedEvictionandDestructionofVillagers’Property

According to thecomplainants, forcedevictions,destructionofhomes, farmland, livestockandothervaluablepropertyoccurredbeforethelandconcessionagreementwassigned.Morethan456householdsfrom3villages-Chhouk,ChikhorandTraphengKandal–inSreAmbeldistrictlostatotal of approximately 5,000 hectares of land. Violent police force was used during landexpropriation,resultingin5villagersinjuredandatleast2villagerswereshot.Furthermore,priortograntingoflandconcessions,nopublichearingwasheld,noenvironmentalimpactassessmentwasconductedandnorelocationplanwasissuedaccordingtoCambodianlaw(Sub-DecreeNo.146onEconomicLandConcessions2005,Article4(3)-(5)).

(2) LossofLand

TheLandLawofCambodiastatesthatanypersonwhohadbeenenjoyingpossessionbeforetheLandLawentered into forceand fulfillsall requirements tobecomeanownerof thepropertymaybeauthorizedbythecompetentCambodianauthoritytoextendthe landpossessionuntilthelegally prescribed period of five years to attain permanent title of ownership. (2001 Land Law ofCambodia,Article30).Suchpossessionmustbeuncontested,peaceful,publiclyevidentandanactingoodfaith.(2001LandLawofCambodia,Article38).Inaddition,anypersonwhohadbeenenjoyingpossessionbeforetheLandLawenteredintoforceandfulfillsallrequirementstobecomeanownerof the property may be authorized by the competent Cambodian authority to extend the landpossessionuntil the legallyprescribedperiodof fiveyears toattainpermanent titleofownership.Cambodianauthoritiescannotdenythisrighttoattainthetitleoflandownershipifthepossessionispeacefulanduncontested.(LandLawofCambodia2001,Article31)

Accordingtothecomplainant,villagersofChhouk,ChikhorandTraphengKandalvillages inSreAmbeldistricthavelivedontheirlanduncontestedforover5years.Theirpossessionofthelandhas been uncontested, peaceful, publicly evident and an act in good faith. Therefore, villagersrightfullypossessedtheirlandandwereentitledtoattainpermanenttitleofownership,inaddition

tomarketvalue for their land in thecaseofexpropriation.Prior to the landconcessions, villagersreliedonagricultureastheirmainsourceofincome.Afterthelandconcessionsandtheuseoflandconcessions to grow sugarcane, land fertility was lost. In addition, agricultural crops grown byvillagerswererazed,causingvillagers torelyonpreviouslyharvestedcropstosurvive. Inaddition,villagers homes were destroyed. The razing of these areas occurred even before the Cambodiangovernmentnotifiedtheapprovalofthelandconcessions.

Thelossoflandandthelossoftheabilitytoenternearbyforestscausedvillagerstostrugglein raising livestock. This used to be amajor source of supplemental income. Ever since the landconcessionsof2006, thenumberofhouseholds raising livestockdecreased from82percent to69percent,and theaveragenumber the livestockperhouseholddecreased from10 toonly3-4.Theproportionof households raising 5 or fewer animals as livestock increased from38percent to 80percent.

Villagerswerealsocompelledtoselltheirlivestockatalowprice,duetothelackoflandforgrazing.Duetothelackof land,animalsbegangrazing innearbyareasor in landconcessionareasusedforgrowingsugarcane.Asaresult,securityofficialsofKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.andKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.aswellaslocalofficialsdetainedtheseanimalsanddemandedransomfromvillagers. In some cases,many livestock animalswere shot dead, causing the livestock owners tobecomeevenpoorer.

LandexpropriationalsoviolatedCambodia’sSub-DecreeonEconomicLandConcession(No.146NK/BK).Nopublichearingwasheld,noannouncementwasmadeandnoenvironmentalimpactassessmentwas conducted (Sub-DecreeonEconomic LandConcession,Article4).On this issueofallegedillegallandconcessionagreementbetweenthecompaniesandtheCambodiangovernment,220householdsfiledalawsuitatKohKongCourtin2007,claimingthatcitizenswerenotinformedandhadnoopportunity to participate in the land concession process. Afterwards, the companiesattemptedtonegotiateandcompensatecitizenswhofiledthelawsuit.In2009,12plaintiffsagreedto withdraw from the lawsuit, leaving 203 households still in litigation. In 2013, Koh Kong CourtendedthelitigationprocessandtransferredthecaseforreviewbytheCadastralCommission.Thisagencyhasamechanismformanagingcertaintypesoflanddispute,aspartofthestatemechanismforlandmanagement.AccordingtoKohKongCourt,thiscaseisbeyondthejurisdictionofthecourtbecause villagers had no land titles. The Cambodia Legal Education Center (CLEC) has sincesubmittedalettertothisCommission,requestingthatthelawsuitbereturnedtoKohKongCourtforconsideration and, if the case were to be transferred, the responsible authority should be theNationalAuthorityofLandDisputeResolutioninstead.

Thecompany’soffertocompensatevillagersweredeterminedaccordingtothecompany’sdiscretionalone.Inaddition,theofferwasambiguous,inequitable,andinmostcasesnotsufficientto compensate for the actual damage. Most villagers indicated that they had not received anycompensation.Thismaybeduetodecliningcompensationratesthatweretoolow,orbecausetheyneverreceivedanyofferofcompensationfromthecompanies.

The loss of land preventedmany villagers from producing sufficient food to sustain theirhouseholds. Inaddition,villagerswereprevented fromenteringnearby forests togatherbamboo,nipah palm leaves, andwood for home construction, which they had access to prior to the land

concessions.Afterthelandconcession,entrancetotheselandsandforestedareaswereclosedandthosewhowishedtoenterwererequiredtopayafee,whichwastoohighforthevillagerstoafford.

(3) LossinLivelihoodandEmploymentOpportunities

Thelossoflandforagricultureandlivestockraisingoccurredtothepointthatvillagerscouldnolongerfarmorraiselivestockforsubsistenceastheyusedtodo.Thus,villagerslosttheabilityofself-reliance. According to villagers, their ability to sustain themselves was greatly reduced. Onevillagerusedtoearn1,000USdollarsperyear,withplentyoffoodforsubsistence.Afterhislandwasexpropriatedforthelandconcession,thisvillagerhadtobakecoconutbreadtosellforsubsistenceand his income was reduced to just 1 US dollar per day. Another villager also lost incomesignificantly.Heused to raiseasmanyas20 livestockanimalsbut thatnumber reduced toonly8animals.Someofhisanimalswereshotdeadbycompanysecurityofficials,andsomeotheranimalshadtobesoldinexchangeformoneytopurchasefood.

Becausevillagerscouldnolongerrelyonagriculturalandlivestockforincome,manyvillagershadnochoicebut tobecomecompanyemployees,despite thecompany’sstipulationthatanyonewhowantedtobecomeemployeesmust revoke theirclaimto landownership indisputewith thecompany. A survey found 66 percent of all households in the 3 villagers work as employees insugarcaneplantations.Mostworkasdaily laborers forseasonal jobs, suchasplantingandharvestfromNovembertoMay.Duringthisperiod,mostvillagersearn2.50USdollarsperdayandwork5-20dayspermonth.Eventhoughthecompaniesprovidehigherremunerationforoffice jobs,mostvillagers in the area have difficulty competing for these positions because they lack the relevantknowledge and skills. Therefore,most villagers have access to only low-paying and unstable jobs.Thisisparticularlythecaseforpoorvillagerswithlowcapital.Asaresult,mostvillagersdeclinethecompanies’offertopaycompensationforlandlossbecausevillagersbelievethatlandownershipismoreimportanttotheirlivelihood.

(4) LossofEducationalOpportunities

Thelossofformermeansofsubsistencecausesa lossofeducationalopportunitiesfortworeasons. Firstly, many households must tend to their livestock and prevent their animals fromenteringthecompany’ssugarcaneplantations.Thiscompelsmanyyoungpeopletoleaveschooltotendtotheanimals.Secondly,manyhouseholdsarecompelledtosendtheirchildrentoworkandearnadditionalincometocompensateforthelossinhouseholdincome.

(5) PhysicalInjury

Policeforcewasfirstusedtoevictvillagersfromtheirlandin2006.Atthattime,5villagerswereinjuredbythepolice,2villagerswereshotandmanymorewerehitwiththeendsoftherifle.One villager recorded imagesduring the bulldozers’ razingof villagers’ home.One year later, thisvillagerwasassassinatedbybeingaxed todeath. Lawyersandhuman rightsadvocateswhoentertheareaarealsofollowedandharassedbyprivatesecurityofficialsandlawenforcementofficials.

According to the complainants, the companies falsely claimed that the land underconcessionwasdeterioratedland.Infact,thelandconcessionsconsistedoffertilelandsuitableforagriculture. In addition, the land was assigned as Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP) policyimplementationareas.KohKongisnotanarealackingindevelopment,andvillagershavelivedand

reliedonthislandforlivelihoodforalongtime.Accordingtothecomplainants,thecompaniesalsofalselyclaimedthatthelandconcessionswereuncontested.Thecomplainantshaddescribedthesecontestations in letters by the complainants and official reports by various agencies, includingLicadho,theCambodianHumanRightsActionCommitteeandtheAsianHumanRightsCommission,among others.

3.2 StatementoftheDefendant

KhonKaenSugarIndustryPublicCompanyLimited

ThestatementbyKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclcanbesummarizedasfollows:

(1) StatementtotheSubcommitteeonCivilandPoliticalRights(1.1) Written statement, dated July 20, 2010. Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl is a

shareholder in a company that invests in Cambodia, which is a legal person registered underCambodian law. The claim of human rights violation occurred in Cambodia, and the complainantwhoallegedlysufferedfromhumanrightsviolationsareCambodiancitizens.Asforthequestionofwhetherthehumanrightsviolationsoccurred,KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclhadnoknowledge.Itisa company policy of Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl to conserve nature and conduct anenvironmentally-friendly business, in addition to valuing local communities, towards a secure andsustainable business.

(1.2) VerbalstatementonSeptember5,2011.KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclinvestedinsugarcane plantations and the construction of a sugar manufacturing plant in Cambodia. Theseinvestments required land concessions from the Cambodian government. Most of the landconcessionsgrantedconsistedofdeterioratedforestsandthecompanyneededtoimprovethelandareasbeforeanysugarcanecouldbeplanted.Localresidentsknewbestwheretheappropriateareaswere for planting. Therefore, prior to the receiving the land concession, company employeesentered the areawith local officials to inspect the land to findout howmanypeople lived in thearea.TheCambodiangovernmentwereplanningtorelocatevillagersfromthelandconcessionareaandfindnewhomesforthem.ThecompanycontributedtothefundsfortransportingresidentswhohadtoberelocatedaccordingtorecommendationsbytheCambodiangovernmentandhasevidenceofhowmucheachhouseholdwaspaid.

During the company’s business operations in sugarcane plantation and sugarmanufacturing in Koh Kong, there were 2 shareholders: a Cambodian national who was a localpolitician and a Taiwanese national. The landwhich KhonKaen Sugar Industry Pcl developedwasunder the jurisdiction of an opposing political party in Cambodia. There were differing opinionsregardinginvestmentsbyKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl.Somevillagersagreedthatthisinvestmentwould bring development to the area, creating jobs and income for people. Some villagersdisagreed, saying that after receiving compensation from the company for relocation, theywouldstill move back to the area. The company pled for assistance from local government agencies innegotiating with these villagers to relocate. This is the extent of political involvement in thisproblem.

As for the roughly 100 households of villagerswho are former residents of the area,compensationwouldbepaidtoonlythosewhohadproofofresidence,andcompensationwouldbepaid only to thosewho agreed to relocate. The process of relocation is the responsibility of localgovernment agencies. The amount of compensation varied according to the living conditions andland area of each villager’s household. The company insisted that every villager who agreed torelocatereceivedcompensation.

The company did not have any information about the new area of residence forrelocated villagers. The Cambodian government assigned new residences, which include land foragriculture. The land that Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl received as concession was deterioratedforest land, not appropriate for farming. The areawas also elevated and rainwouldwash all themineralsfromthetopsoil.Inaddition,thisareawaslocatedfarfromdevelopmentandinaccessibleformotorvehicles.Evenifvillagerscouldgrowcrop,theywouldnotbeabletobringtheircropoutforsale.

Thecompanysent representatives fromThailandto inspect theareaonaverageonceper month. Each time, the company did not receive villagers’ complaints or witness any sign ofprotest. In addition, the EuropeanUnionhas a condition that itwill not purchase sugar fromanycompanywithhumanrightsviolations.AccordingtotheinvestigationreportissuedbytheEuropeanUnioninJanuary2011,KhonKaenSugarIndustrycouldstillsellitsproductstotheEuropeanUnionbecausethecompanyhasnotactedinviolationoftheEuropeanUnionrules.ThesugarproducedinKoh Kong is a raw sugar used as startingmaterial in themanufacturing process for white sugar,whichiswidelyconsumed.ABritishcompanyisinchargeforrefiningthisrawsugarintowhitesugar.In the company’s opinion, these allegations were political, with the intention of turning thecompany’sinvestmentsintoavehicleforpoliticalconflict.

Regardingthecompany’sshareholderinKohKong,theCambodianshareholderhasnowwithdrawnallofhis investmentsandhassetuphisownsugarmanufacturingplantandsugarcaneplantation,locatedapproximately180kilometersfromthecompany’soperationsinKohKong.Asaresult,KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclowns70percentofallshares,andtheremaining30percentofsharesareownedbytheTaiwaneseinvestor.

RegardingCambodianinvestmentlaws,foreignnationalsareallowedtoownallsharesinsugarmanufacturingoperationswithoutanylimitations. Inaddition,thecompanies inKohKongcurrentlyreceiveinvestmentsubsidyfromtheCambodiangovernment.

InternationalinvestmentbyKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclwasconductedthroughaunitunder the Thai Embassy responsible for promoting international investments, with no assistancefrom the Thai national government. The Thai government has not agency directly responsible forsupportingThaiinvestmentsabroad.KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclwouldliketheThaigovernmentto improve this situation. In somecountries, lawsarechangedoftenand thesechangescause thecompany’sprofitearningstofluctuate.

Thecompanyhadnoknowledgeof the reportby theCambodia representativeof theUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRightsthatthecompany’sbusinessoperationscausedhuman rights violations. The company also had no knowledge of the shooting of villagers andvillagers’ livestock animals, or the use of villagers’ farmland as land concessions. The company

negotiated for the relocation ofmost villagers prior to taking action. The only exception iswhenvillagers refused to enter negotiations. The company suspected that some villagers remain in theconcession area. In the company’s opinion, the company’s business operations are not likely tocause any damage to villagers’ farmland because villagers never had access to sell their farmproduceduetothelackofvehicleaccess.

Regarding the amount of land concession granted, the company explained thatCambodian lawallows foreachcompanyto receiveonly10,000hectaresof land.Therefore,KhonKaen Sugar Industry Pcl set up 2 companies to increase the land that would be available forsugarcane plantation and the sugarmanufacturing plant. Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd. signed thelease fromKohKongSugar IndustryCo. Ltd. to setup sugarcaneplantations,under the conditionthatKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.mustsellsugarcanetoKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.asitssolebuyer.These2companiesare2distinctbusinessentitiesandpaytaxesseparately.

Thelandsurveyconductedin2005-2006requiredtravelbyhelicopter,becausevehiclesstillcouldnotenterthearea.Thecompanyinsistedthatanyvillagerslivingintheareawouldhavebeen visible to the surveyors because the entire area was deteriorated forest, approximately 30kilometerswideand40kilometerslong.Villagersalsowouldnotbeabletotraveltheareawithoutcars.However, thecompanycouldnotprovideanyphotographs fromthat timeperiod toconfirmthis statement, because the Cambodian government prohibited taking photographs fromhelicopters.

Thecompanyhassetupaconflictresolutionworkinggrouptoresolvetheconflictwithvillagers. A meeting was attended by local officials and village groups and resulted in severalagreements. For instance, if villagers call on the company to cease operations in an area, thecompany must cease its operations otherwise officials have the right to confiscate companymachinery.However,thecompanyhasreceivednoreportfromtheworkinggroupofanyconflictofsuchseverity.Asforsecuritymaintenanceofthearea,thecompanyhiresprivatesecurityemployeesinCambodiatoprotectthesafetyofcompanyemployeesandcompanyproperty.

Thecompanyexplainedthat itemploysapproximate600people,ofwhich150peopleareThainationalsreceivingmonthlywages.TherestareCambodianlaborersfromlocalareaseitherwithin in Koh Kong province or Sre Ambel district, hired through a broker. These laborers eitherplant or maintain the sugarcane plantations and harvest sugarcane during harvest season. Theirwages are paid daily or according to each job. Hiring foreign laborersmust abide by regulations.Namely, beyond the business preparation period, local labor must make up 90 percent of allemployed labor. This is why the company must develop Cambodians into beginning andintermediate production controllers within 5 years. In addition, the number of CambodianemployeesisalreadyquitehighbecausethecompanycannotemployThainationalstoworkinKohKongatthewagesappropriateforThainationalsandalsobecauseThainationalscannotendurethelivingconditionsinKohKong.

(2) StatementtotheSubcommitteeonCommunityRights

KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclprovidedanadditionalverbalstatementtotheSubcommitteeonCommunityRightsonFebruary18,2013whichcanbesummarizedasfollows:

Ahistoryofthecompany’soperations:

1. On March 20, 2006, the Cambodian Cabinet approved land concessions of 10,000hectareseachtoDutyFreeShopandKohKongInternationalResortClub.

2. OnMay19,2006,bulldozersandarmedguardsbeganclearingland.3. OnMay29, 2006,KohKongPlantationCo. Ltd. (KPT) andKohKongSugar IndustryCo.

Ltd.(KSI)registeredascompanies.4. On June20,2006,DutyFreeShopandKohKong InternationalResortClubsubmitteda

writtenrequesttotheCambodiangovernmenttochangethenameofconcessiongrantees.5. OnJuly18,2006, theCabinetapprovedthe transferof landconcession fromDutyFree

Shop to Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd. (KPT) and the transfer of land concession from Koh KongInternationalResortClubtoKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.(KSI).

6. OnAugust2,2006,theMinistryofAgriculture,ForestryandFisheriessignedaconcessionagreementwithKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.(KPT)andKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.(KSI).

The company received total land concessions of approximately 125,000 rai. However, thecompanyhasusedonly65,511raior52percentforsugarcaneplantations.Theremaininglandisstillforestlandwhichthecompanyrefrainedfromusingbecauseitwouldliketomaintaintheforest.

The company has also encouraged nearby villagers to grow sugarcane to sell to thecompany.Thecompany’sgoalistosupportfarmerstogrowsugarcanesustainably,atlowercostandhigherproductivity,andmostimportantlytoreducetheuseofchemicalsorpesticides.Inaddition,thecompanyhasencouragedvillagerstoworkinthecompany’sfactory.

Koh Kong Sugar Industry Pcl is a public company and operates in the stock exchange.Therefore,thecompanyhighlyvaluesgoodgovernanceandhumanrights.Thecompanyhaswantedtonegotiatewithvillagerswhofiledcomplaints,butvillagersrefusedtonegotiate.Thereareonly9villagersleftwhorefusecompensation.Thecompanyhasalwaystriedtocontactthesevillagers,butthereisstillnonegotiationwiththese9villagers.

Thecompany isawarethatvillagershavenotitlesordocumentsverifying landownership.The company has not used villagers’ residences for business operations, because villagers’residencesarelocatedalongtheroadside.Asforlandthatvillagersclaimedtobetheirfarmland,thecompanyinspectedtheareasandfoundthemtobedeterioratedforest.

The company has consisted paid compensation. To date, compensation has been paid for500households.However,theactualimplementationisbylocalgovernmentagenciesonbehalfofthecompany.Thecompanyallocatedabudgetof60millionThaibahtforcompensation.

(3) WrittenStatement,datedNovember20,2013

KohKongSugarIndustryPclsubmittedawrittenstatementinresponsetothereportbytheSubcommitteeonCivilandPoliticalRightsentitled“FindingsReportby theNationalHumanRightsCommission, Subcommittee on Civil and Political Rights on the Participation of Khon Kaen SugarIndustry Public Company Limited on Sugarcane Plantations in Koh Kong Province, Kingdom ofCambodia.” Dated July 25, 2012, this report alleged that Koh Kong Sugar Industry Pcl committedviolationsagainstlandusedforsubsistenceandfundamentalhumanrightsofvillagersinKohKongprovince,Cambodia.Thecompanysubmittedthefollowingresponse:

1. IllegalPossessionofVillagers’Land1.1 Koh Kong Sugar Industry Co. Ltd. and Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd. (henceforth

referred to as “the company”) were granted rightful land concessions by the Cambodiangovernment on August 2, 2006. The land concessions were transferred from two Cambodiancompanies,KohKong InternationalResortClubandDutyFreeShop,whichwereoriginallygrantedconcessionsonMarch20,2006.

1.2 Following the company’s concessions, the company conducted a field survey and

land inspection jointly with Khon Kaen University. The survey found thatmost of the concessionareas consisted of deteriorated and abandoned forest, and the soil was in poor condition, notappropriateforagriculture.Thetraveltothelandconcessionareasatthattimerequiredcrossingbyraft asmanyas three timesbefore reaching the concessionarea. Itwas found thatmost villagerslivedalongthemainroadoutsidetheconcessionarea.Onlyaminorityofvillagers lived insidetheconcessionareawithoutanyroadaccess.

1.3 The project conducted a survey jointly with community leaders and governmentofficials.Compensationwasnegotiatedforaffectedvillagers,accordingtoproofoflandpossession.At the time, compensation agreements were signed individually, with clear evidence of paymentthroughreceiptsandphotographswithfingerprints.

1.4 The company began receiving additional complaints from villagers regardingfarmland,andinvestigatedthesituation.Wheneveritwasfoundthatvillagerscouldshowproofofrightfullandownership,thecompanypaidadditionalcompensationtovillagers.

1.5 Approximately 200 households still claim that they have rights over the landconcessionarea(onlyabout7percentofthetotal landconcessionarea)withoutanyproofoflandownershiporanyrelevantdocumentssupportingtheirclaims.Asaresult,thecompanycannotissuecompensationand/orreturntheland.ThesevillagersfiledalawsuitatKohKongProvincialCourt.

1.6 Afterdeliberations,KohKongProvincialCourt ruled thatvillagershadnoproofofrightfullandownershipandreturnedthiscasetotheLandDepartmentofKohKongProvincialOfficeon August 30, 2012. Nevertheless, the company continue to negotiate and compensate mostvillagers. There remainsonly about9householdswho refuse tonegotiatewith the company. Thecompany does not know the reason behind this decision. Meanwhile, these villagers still cannotshowanyprooffortheLandDepartmenttoissuetheirlandtitles.

1.7 For more than 60 years, Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Public Company Limited hasoperateditsbusinessbyvaluingtheprinciplesofinternationalhumanrightsandrespectforpeople’srightsandliberties,withinThailandandabroad.Thecompanyhasnopolicytopossesslandwithoutlegal rights. The companywill gladlypay compensationor reparations, or even return the land, ifvillagerscanproviderightfulproofoflandrights(thisproofisnecessaryforthecompanytoshowtothe Cambodian government). To date, these villagers still cannot provide such proof, but havesubmitted complaints to many organizations as evident in the news. As a foreign investor, thecompanyhasthedutytorespectandabidebythe lawsofCambodia.All landconcessionsarestillowned by Cambodia. The company is merely leasing the land according to the concessionagreement. When the concession agreement expires, the company will have to return all landconcessions back to the Cambodian government. Therefore, the company cannot return or handoveranylandtoanyonerightfully,withouttheapprovaloftheCambodiangovernment.

2. UseofViolenceinForcedEvictionandTrespassingVillagers’Land

2.1 TheCambodiangovernmentassignedthelandconcessionareastothecompanyandoversawtheassignmentofrelocationforvillagerslivinginconcessionareas.

2.2 ThelandconcessiongrantedtothecompanywastransferredfromtwoCambodiancompanies who first received the concession. The use of violence occurred before the companyreceiveda transferof landconcession.Therefore,KohKongSugar IndustryCo. Ltd.andKohKongPlantation Co. Ltd. did not take part in any use of violence in forced eviction and trespassing ofvillagers’land.

2.3 KohKongSugar IndustryCo. Ltd.andKohKongPlantationCo. Ltd.donot supportanyactionsthatviolatehumanrights.

2.4 Koh Kong Sugar Industry Co. Ltd. and Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd. has neversupportedororderedtheuseofviolenceinevictingvillagers.

3. KillingandConfiscationofLivestockAnimalsinExchangeforRansom

3.1 KohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.andKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.hasneverkilledorconfiscatedanylivestockanimalsinexchangeforransom.

3.2 If livestock animals belonging to villagers are found wandering in the landconcessionarea,thecompanyreturnstheseanimalstotheirownerswithoutdemandinganymoney

4. HarassmentorThreatagainstVillagersinLandConcessionArea

The company has never committed such actions. Throughout the time of KSL’s businessoperations,thecompanyhasalwaysemphasizedbuildingpositiverelationshipswiththecommunity.

5. UseofChildLabor

5.1 The allegations by Equitable Cambodia and Inclusive Development InternationalagainstKohKongPlantationCo. Ltd. reliedonlyonphotographsandvideoswhichwereproducedfromstagingandfalseinformation,causingextremedamagetothecompany’sreputation.

5.2 Thecompanyhasevidenceandreliableinformationtorefutetheseallegations.Thevideosreleasedontheuseofchildlaborcontainedhiredactors.

5.3 Thecompanyhasneveremployedworkersbelowtheageof18.5.4 Companypolicystrictlyprohibitshiringofsubcontractworkersbelowtheageof18.

If we find subcontract workers below the age of 18, the company immediately terminates thesubcontractemploymentagreement.

5.5 The company is inspected by Cambodia’ Department of Labor and Pro TerraFoundation,whichconfirmthatthecompanydoesnotemploychildrenbelowtheageof18.

5.6 Imagesofchildrenlivingwiththeirfamiliesonsugarcaneplantationsreflectsnormallife and typical Asian culture to bring children and grandchildren to live in the workplace. Thisreflectsclosecaringforone’soffspring.Thecompanyhasapolicytopromoteaccesstoeducationforthesechildren,givingemphasistotheconstructionofschoolsandtemplestopromotechildren’saccesstoeducationinthefuture.

ActionsbytheCompany

Ontheuseoflandconcessionandcompensationforvillagers:

1. The company has paid additional compensation to affected villagers, with proof ofpaymentinphotographsanddocumentswithfingerprintsofvillagerswhoreceivedcompensation.

2. Manyvillagershavebecomecompanyemployees,allofwhomarehappytobeemployedandearnagoodincome.Inaddition,thecompanyhasencouragedvillagerstogrowsugarcaneandprovidedthenecessaryknowledgetoencourageadditionalincomeforvillagersandthecommunity.

3. Thecompanyhasconstructedschools,roadsandbridges.4. Thecompanyhasdonatedfundsfortheconstructionandmaintenanceoftemplesinthe

villages.5. ThecompanyhascollaboratedwithWildAid,aninternationalorganizationdedicatedto

natureandwildlifeconservation,topreservewatershedareasandlargetreesandtomaintainforestareaswithinthelandconcessiontoensurefertilityintothefuture.

6. The company operates every sugar manufacturing process to be as environmentally-friendlyaspossible.Organicmatterisusedtomaintainsugarcaneplantationstoreducetheuseofchemicalsandtobenefitthesoil,waterways,forestandthelivelihoodofvillagers.

7. In the case of accidents or emergencies thatmay affect the environment and villagersnearby,thecompanypolicyistopreventandresolvetheproblemimmediately.

8. Over the past seven years of operation, the company has generated a great deal ofdevelopmenttothelocalcommunity.

3.3 StatementsbyRelevantParties

3.3.1StockExchangeofThailand

The Stock Exchange of Thailand submitted a statement in writing that Khon Kaen SugarIndustryPublicCompanyLimitedorKSLisacompanyregisteredintheStockExchange,withdutiesto disclose information and act in accordance with the responsibilities of a registered company.KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclhasdisclosedinformationontheinvestmentinconstructionofasugarmanufacturing plant in Koh Kong, Cambodia through the Stock Exchange information system, asfollows:

1. OnApril21,2006,onbehalfofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl,ChiefExecutiveOfficerandBoardPresidentMr.ChamroonChinthammitsubmittedalettertoBoardMembersandManageroftheStockExchangeof Thailand. The letter indicateda request toexplainabout the investment insugarcane plantation and the establishment of a sugar factory in Cambodia. Khon Kaen SugarIndustryPclandsubsidiarycompanieswantedtoinformthatKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclplannedto setupa joint venture inCambodia inorder to request thepermit toopena sugar factoryandobtain a land concession of 20,000 hectares (125,000 rai) in Koh Kong, Cambodia. According tocompany estimates, total investment for this project would be approximately 2 billion baht.Investmentwillbeincrementalfrom2006to2009.Thecompanyexpectedtoholdnolessthan50percentsharesofregisteredcapitalinthejointventure.

2. OnAugust2,2006,onbehalfofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl,ChiefExecutiveOfficerandBoardPresidentMr.ChamroonChinthammitsubmittedalettertoBoardMembersandManagerofthe Stock Exchange of Thailand to inform about investment in the sugarcane plantation and theestablishmentofasugarfactoryinCambodia.OnAugust2,2006,KhonKaenSugarIndustryPcland

foreignpartnersinthejointventureenteredintoaMemorandumofUnderstanding(MoU)withtheCambodian government to lease a 90-year concession of 20,000 hectares of land to be used forplanting sugarcane and establishing a sugar factory in Cambodia. Two new companies wereestablishedwith50percent sharesof registeredcapitalheldbyKhonKaenSugar IndustryPcl.,30percent shares held by a Taiwanese shareholder and 20 percent shares held by a Cambodianshareholder. The two companies are Koh Kong Plantation Company Limited (KPT) and Koh KongSugarIndustryCompanyLimited(KSI).

Koh Kong Plantation Company Limited (KPT) will operate the business of sugarcaneplantation in Cambodia, and Koh Kong Sugar Industry Company Limited (KSI) will operate thebusinessofsugarcaneplantationandestablishmentofasugarfactoryinCambodia.

3. OnJune25,2007,onbehalfofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl,ChiefExecutiveOfficerandBoardPresidentMr.ChamroonChinthammitsubmittedalettertoBoardMembersandManageroftheStockExchangeofThailand,notifyingthecapitalincreaseinKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.(KPT).On June8, 2007 (MeetingNo. 2/2550), theBoardof KohKongPlantationCompany Limited (KPT)approvedthecapitalincreaseforKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.(KPT)toplantsugarcaneplantationsinCambodiaaccordingtolandconcessionrights.OnJune22,2007(MeetingNo.3/2550),theBoardofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclapprovedthiscapitalincrease.

4. OnDecember4,2007,onbehalfofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl,ChiefExecutiveOfficerand Board President Mr. Chamroon Chinthammit submitted a letter to Board Members andManageroftheStockExchangeofThailandabouttheinvestmentinasugarfactoryinKohKongwitha daily capacity of 6,000 tons of sugarcane. Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl wanted to inform thatKhonKaenSugar IndustryPclhas invested50percentshares inKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.(KPT)since 2006 toward a sugarcane plantation project in the land concession area of 20,000 hectares(125,000rai).Sugarcaneproductivityhasbeenaccordingtoprojections.Therefore,tomeetplansforproductionofrawsugarbyearly2009,KohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.,asubsidiaryofKhonKaenSugar IndustryPclwhichholds50percent shares,hasdecided to invest inconstructionofa sugarfactorywiththedailycapacityof6,000tonsofsugarcaneinKohKong,Cambodia.

3.3.2MinistryofCommerce

TheMinistryofCommercesubmittedaverbalstatementonFebruary18,2013whichcanbesummarizedas follows: There iscurrentlynoThaigovernmentagencyor relevant regulationwiththeexplicitmandate tooversee foreign investmentbyprivateThai companies.Thaiagencieswithduties related to commerce generally only oversee foreign investment by foreign companies inThailand. Inaddition, it isnormal foreverycountry in theworld toencourageprivate investors toinvestinothercountries.Therefore,iflawsorprinciplesweretoexistocontrolbusinessoperationsinforeigncountries,itwouldonlybeaboutthegoodgovernanceprincipleswhichbusinessesalreadyfollow.

3.3.3OfficeoftheCaneandSugarBoard

The Office of the Cane and Sugar Board submitted a written statement which can besummarizedasfollows:

KhonKaenSugarIndustryPcloperatesabusinessinsugarandrelatedbusinessesunderthenameKSLGroup.Thecompanypolicyistoproducethehighestqualityofsugar.ThecompanyhastoabidebydutiesaccordingtoArticle44ofthe1984CaneandSugarAct.Forinstance,thedutytoactinaccordancewithregulationsandannouncementsoftheCaneandSugarBoard,thedutytoacceptcane from cane growers andheadsof cane grower groups in accordancewith stipulations by theCaneandSugarBoard,thedutytoproducesugaraccordingtocharacteristics,qualityandquantityas indicatedbytheCaneandSugarBoard,etc.Moreover, theCaneandSugarBoardhasthe legaldutiesaccordingtoArticle61ofthesamelegislation.ItsdutiesincludeperformingsecretarialdutiesoftheBoardandotherBoardsaccordingtotheCaneandSugarAct,compilingandanalyzingdataoncaneandsugarproduction,sugarconsumptionandsales,promotinganddistributinginformationonsugarproductionandinformationonbothdomesticandinternationalsugarmarket,amongothers.

Furthermore,theOfficeofCaneandSugarBoardisagovernmentagencywhichservesasanintermediaryorganization,coordinatingcollaborationbetweencanegrowersandsugarfactories,inorder to promote, support andoperate the cane and sugar industry in accordancewith the 1984CaneandSugarAct.The jointventurebetweenKhonKaenSugar IndustryPclandCambodianandTaiwanese business partners in Cambodia is beyond the legalmandate of theOffice of Cane andSugarBoardaccordingtothe1984CaneandSugarAct.

3.3.4CollaborativeWorkingGroupon“TheChangingLivelihoods,NaturalResourcesandEconomyafterEconomic LandConcessions toKohKongPlantationCo. Ltd. andKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.inCambodia”

Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliances (TERRA) and the Community LegalEducationCenter(CLEC),asmembersoftheworkinggroup,submittedinformationintheformofareport entitled “Livelihood,Natural Resources andHousehold Economy in SreAmbelDistrict, KohKongProvince:BeforeandaftereconomiclandconcessionstoKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.andKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.”Thereportwasbasedon2typesofinformationgathering:1)Focusgroupinterviews,onceineachvillage.Approximately5-7villagersfromvariousgroupsjoinedeachfocusgroupandansweredquestions. 2) Questionnaire,completedby188householdsoutof200households total who together filed a lawsuit on rights violations and land loss, demanding landreturn.The188householdsconsistof70households inChhoukvillage,105households inChikhorvillageand13householdsinTrapengKendalvillage.Findingscanbesummarizedasfollows:

(1) Villagehistory,tribalhistory,beliefsandtraditionsofthe3villages

The3villagesinSreAmbeldistrict,KohKongprovinceaffectedbysugarcaneplantationandsugar industry following theeconomic landconcessions toKhonKaenSugar IndustryPcl (KSL)areChhouk,ChikhorandTrapengKendalvillages.Villagersofall threevillagesareofKhmerethnicity,which is themajority ethnic group in Cambodia. According to villagers, their ancestors settled indistantandnearbyvillagesalongtimeago.ThetimeframeclaimedbyvillagersispriortothereignofKingNorodomSihanouk,whichmeansthatsettlementbeganbefore1941(B.E.2484).Thecurrentgenerationofvillageresidentswereallbornandraisedinthesevillages.

BecausemostvillagersareBuddhists,theirBuddhistbeliefshavequiteaheavyinfluenceontheirwayof life.Theybelieveandrespectthespiritsofancestors.Thereisanannualceremonytopay respects to ancestral spirits after every harvest season. This ceremony is to ensure posterity,

peaceandprosperity.Anotherceremonyrelatedtoancestralspiritsiscalled“NeakTa,”topreventdiseasein livestock,whichholdsparticular importanceinTrapengKendalvillage. Inaddition,thereareotherceremoniesorganizedaccordingtoslightlydifferenttraditionsforeachhousehold.

(2) LandUseandCharacteristicsofAgriculturalProductionintheVillages

Villagerscategorizethelandinto4maintypesoflandandlanduses:1)Highland,whichhasquitehighlevelsoffertilityandcangrowmanytypesofcropsuchascorn,cassava,watermelonandcashew nut, among others. However, this land has already been granted to the company’s landconcession;2) Floodplain,whichvillagers tend touse forgrowing riceandasgrassland for raisinglivestock;3)Forest,whichisusuallylocatedonmountainslopes.Thistypeoflandisforpublicuses,withnoindividualownership.Everyonecancollectivelyusethislandforcollectingforestgoods.;4)Residential area, which villagers consider as separate from farmland, rice fields and forests.Residentialareaisstrictlylimitedforbuildinghomesandresidences.

According to interviews, this landwas first settledby villagers and turned into farmlandalongtimeago.Thereisevidenceofcontinueduseandevidenceofbirthinthisarea.Thetimeframecanbeforasoldas70yearsagoorasrecentasthe30-40yearsago.Forexample,settlementsincethe1970s.Regardless,mostresidentsconfirmlandusepriorto2000,whichistheyearindicatedinCambodian law regarding the right to land for those who possess it for no less than five years.Villagers in the community have common knowledge and agreement as to which plot of landbelongstowhom,andrecognizethatagriculturalcropssuchasrice,pineapple,fruitandothertreessuchasmangoanddurianareaformofpersonalpossession.Inaddition,treesindicatethelengthoftime in land use and are considered a part of family inheritance, passed on from generation togeneration.

(3) UseofOtherNaturalResources

Forest land is a very important area for the community. Villagers benefit from naturalresources from the forest,whichused tobe foundeasily andwithinproximity the villages. Thesenatural resources includevariousvines, rattan,rubberoil,honey,various fruitandherbs.Villagerscollect plants in the forest and transform them for household uses. For instance, weaving rattanbaskets,burningcharcoal,andmakingtraditionalmedicine.Villagerscansell theseproducts inSreAmbeldistrict,KohKongprovince,aswellaskeeptheproductsforhouseholduse.Inaddition,theforestisusedasgrazinglandforlivestock.However,eventhoughvillagerscanstillentersomeoftheremainingforests,thereisalackofaccesstoresources.Inthepast,villagersusedonlyhalfadaytogatherforestgoods.Butbecausetheforesthasbeenrazedandfencedoff,peoplecannotreachtheforestedareasaseasilyonfood.Theymustspendtheentiredaywalkingjusttogetinandoutoftheforestedareas.

(4) CompanyEntry

The company entered into the three villages in 2006, just one year after the 2005 Sub-DecreeonEconomicLandConcessionswasannounced. Inthebeginning,companyrepresentativesandvillagechiefsenteredthevillagesandusedlandsurveyingequipmenttodigsamplesandtestforlandfertility.Theseactionswerewithoutanydeclarationof intenttothevillagers.Later,companyrepresentativesreturnedwithmuchequipmentincludingtractorsandbulldozers.Theybeganrazing

andtakingpossessionofvillagers’landwithoutanypriornotice.Whenvillagerscontestedandtriedto stop them, they simply claimed that villagers had no right to the land because all the landbelonged to the government. Villagers insisted that they did not wish to give the land to thecompany, but some villagers believed that they had no land rights and had to acquiesce to thecompany’spossessionoftheirland.

Villagers who accepted the company’s compensation received only compensation for theloss of land used for crops. However, there were several hundred hectares of land belonging tovillagers thathadbeendestroyedbythebulldozers.This land includedpaddy fields,cropssuchaswatermelonandcashewsandlandusedforgrazingbylivestock.Additionally,somepartsofsacredforestsandspiritual forests inChhoukvillageweredestroyed.Villagersbelieve that the remainingarea was not destroyed due to the area’s sacredness. In general, the land exempted fromdestructionconsistedofonlylandusedforvillagers’homes.

(5) ChangeinVillageLivelihoodandNaturalResourcesaftertheEconomicLandConcession

5.1Lossoflandandcropyield

According to information gathered from 180 households (based on a total of 188questionnaires),thetotallandareaforgrowingriceandothercropsconsistedof1,401.84hectares(8,761.5rai),dividedinto457.83hectares(2,861.45rai)oflandforgrowingrice(bothhighlandriceandpaddyrice)withanaverageof2.55hectares(15.89rai)perhousehold,944.01hectares(5,900rai)of land forothercrops (orchards)withanaverageof5.24hectares (32.77 rai)perhousehold.Together, each village household possessed an average of 7.78 hectares or 48.66 rai for rice andorchards. However, all 180 households lost the land and were left with only 200.83 hectares(1,255.18 rai) of land, consisting of 191.33 hectares (1,195.8 rai) of rice-growing land and 9.5hectares(59.37rai)oforchardland.Thetotallandremainingforeachhouseholdisonlyanaverageof 1.11hectareor 6.33 rai.Of the180households, 34households loss rice-growing landand163householdslostorchardland.

The lossof land foragriculturalproductionhasadirecteffecton income fromagriculturalproduction. Based on information gathered from 159 households, the economic value of riceproductionbyvillagerspriortothelandconcessiontotaled466,680,200riel(3,482,688baht),oranaverageof2,935,096riel(21,904baht)foreachhousehold.Afterthelandconcession,theeconomicvalue of rice production decreased to only 177,309,300 riel (1,323,204 baht), or an average of1,115,152riel(8,322baht)foreachhousehold.Thisisanimmediatedecreaseof62percent.

5.2Reducedincomefromorchardcropsbeforeandaftertheeconomiclandconcession

Basedondataanalysisasgatheredfrom160households,theincomeinthesethreevillagesfromthesaleoforchardcropswas significantly reduced.Before the landconcession, thevalueofhousehold consumption and sale of orchard crops totaled 2,087,291baht (279,697,000 rai). Afterthe concession, the valuewas reduced to 45,522 baht (6,100,000 rai). This valuewas eliminatedentirelyinChikhorvillage.

5.3Reductionandreducedvalueoflivestockanimals,beforeandafterthelandconcession

Acomparisonofthenumberandvalueoflivestockanimalsbeforeandaftertheconcessionalso revealed a significant decrease. For large animals such as cows and buffaloes, the reducednumber was directly related to the reduced land area for grazing. Based on the informationgathered,itwasalsofoundthatthetotalvalueoflivestockinthe3villageswasreducedasmuchas28 percent after the land concession. This reduced value may include factors of the differentvaluationofanimalsamongdifferentindividuals.

5.4Reductionofforestgoods

Anotherclearchangeisthedrasticreductionofforestgoods,duetotherazingoflargeareasofforestland.Villagersalsohavelimitedaccesstotheforest,incontrasttofreeandopenaccessinthe past. Villagers who wish to enter the forest must walk through the company’s sugarcaneplantations and are required to pay entrance and exit fees to the company’s security officers. Ifvillagersdonotpay,thegoodstheygathermaybeconfiscatedandtheyhavetoreturnhomeempty-handed.Someforestareasdonotrequirewalkingthroughthecompany’ssugarcaneplantations,butthese forests are located much further away and are thus not conveniently accessible by footbecausetheyrequirealldaytoreachtheforest.

5.5Highercostofliving

Villagersinthethreevillagershavetobeartheburdenofahighercostofliving.Inthepast,villagerscouldgrowfoodforconsumptionandsale.Forexample,villagerswereabletodemonstratethat a crop of watermelon used only 75 days and could generate several million riel of income.Moreover, villagers could gather fish from thewaterways, collect various goods from the forests.Now,villagersmustusemoney tobuyalmosteverything.Theymust sell livestockanimals to rentfarming equipment during the planting season. Villagers are more often ill due to deterioratingenvironmentalconditions.Manyvillagersmustborrowmoneytosurvive.Takingintoaccountalloftheabovefactors,eachhouseholdhasahighercostoflivingatapproximately5,000-40,000rielperday(37.42-299.27baht),dependingonthenumberofdependentsineachhousehold.

5.6Debt

Therapidandseverelossoflandhascausedcitizenstosufferinmanyways,includingbeingdeniedbyvarioussectorswhichtheymightrelyonintimesofdistress.Villagershavehadtoborrowmoney from banks, financial institutions within the community or local businessmenwho chargeinterest.Somefamilieswhostillhavelandarecompelledtosellthelandtorepaytheirdebt.Insomecases,villagerssuffer fromtheeffectoftheprojectandtrytoborrowmoneyfrombankstomakeendsmeet in timesof need.However, their request for loans are rejectedbecausebanksbelievethatvillagersborrowmoneytoorganizeprotests.

5.7Lackofeducationforchildren

Basedon informationgathered from219children inall threevillages, therehavebeen86childrenwhohadtoquitschoolafterthelandconcession(27childreninChhoukvillage,44childreninChikhorvillageand15childreninTrapengKendalvillage).

5.8Divisivenesswithinthecommunities

Ontheissueofchangingcommunitycircumstances,villagers indicatedthatthecompany’sentry into the area has caused a change in the communal living situation. In the past, villagersconducted natural exchanges with others within the community during farming and agriculturalproduction.Aftertheforcedevictionandlossofland,manyresidentshavehadtoleavetheirvillagepermanently. Many other villagers must look for work outside the village, which are usuallydemandingontheirtime.Workershavelittleopportunitytoreturnhometovisitthecommunities,resulting in increasing community divisiveness and the lack of time for communal gathering andinteractions. In addition, the company’s entry and actions in the area has created somemistrustamongvillagersbecause“communityresidentsarebeginningtobeafraidtospeakthetruthtooneanother,duetoinfluencesorfearofharassmentfrompowerfulfigures.”

According to the information gathered, it was found that 10-20 percent of residents inChhouk, 20 residents in Chikhor and some residents of Trapeng Kendal have had to findwork bymigratingtootherprovincesandorevenothercountriessuchasMalaysiaandThailand.Mostworkasconstructionworkers,drivers,cleanersorseamstresses.

5.9Villagers’employmentinthecompany

Itwasfoundthataconsiderablenumberofvillagersfromallthreevillageshavehadtoworkfor the company – 30 percent of households in Chhouk village and 50 percent of the entirepopulationofChikhorvillage.Mostvillagerssaytheyhavenochoice.Theworkisnotfull-timeandismostly labor-intensive, such as planting sugarcane, cutting sugarcane, fertilizing fields, drivingemployeeshuttles,loadingsugarcaneontotrucks,etc.Villagersalsosaythewagesarenotreflectiveof the labor-intensivenessof their tasksandarenotalwayspaidon time.Their income fluctuatesaccording to the amount of work they can get. Most villagers who cut sugarcane will earnapproximatelyadailywageof10,000-15,000riel(74.82-112.23baht).Theirwageswillbecalculatedbased on the number of sugarcane bundles they can harvest. Approximately 20-25 stalks ofsugarcanemake1bundle,and1bundle ispaid100riel(0.75baht).Workasatractordriverearnsmoreandiscalculatedbylandarea.Forexample,70,000riel(523.75baht)per1hectare.

Wagesfromthesejobsareunstable,duetothelimitedavailabilityofonly3-7workdayspermonth.Moreworkisavailableduringtheharvestseason,whichtotalonly1-3monthsperyear,fromDecembertoMarch.Inaddition,manypeoplesufferillnessesfromthelabor-intensiveworkandtheuseofchemicals.Villagersindicatethattheirwagesareinsufficienttotreattheirillnesses.

4.RelevantLaws,InternationalCovenantsandGuidingPrinciples

The Subcommittee on Community Rights reviewed this complaint in accordance with the2014InterimConstitutionofThailand,the2007ConstitutionofThailand(inforceduringthetimeofthisinvestigation),the1999NationalHumanRightsCommissionAct,theInternationalCovenantonCivil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, theASEANHumanRightsDeclaration,andtheUnitedNationsGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights:ImplementingtheProtect,Respect,RemedyFramework.

(1) InterimConstitutionofThailand,2014

Article4: Subject to theprovisionsof thisConstitution, all humandignity, rights, libertiesandequalityofthepeopleasprotectedbytheconstitutionalconventionunderademocraticregimeofgovernmentwiththeKingasHeadofStateandby internationalobligationsboundbyThailand,shallbeprotectedandupheldbythisConstitution.

(2) ConstitutionofThailand,2007

Article 82 Paragraph 1: The State shall promote friendly relations and cooperation withothercountries,adopttheprincipleofnon-discrimination,andcomplywithtreatiesonhumanrightstowhichThailand is aparty. It shall also follow theobligations committed toother countries andinternationalorganizations.

Article257:TheNationalHumanRightsCommissionhasthepowersanddutiesasfollows:(1) Investigate and report on the commission or omission of acts which violate human

rightsorwhichdonot complywithobligationsunder international treaties towhichThailand is aparty,andproposeappropriateremedialmeasurestothepersonoragencycommittingoromittingsuchactstotakeaction.Inthecasewhereitappearsthatnoactionhasbeentakenasproposed,theCommissionshallreporttotheNationalAssembleforfurtheraction.

(3) NationalHumanRightsCommissionAct,1999Article3: InthisAct,“humanrights”meanshumandignity,rights, libertiesandequalityof

peoplewhich are guaranteed or protected under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand orunderThailawsorundertreatieswhichThailandhasobligationstocomply

Article15:TheCommissionhasthepowersanddutiesasfollows:(1) Topromotetherespectforandthepracticeincompliancewithhumanrightsprinciples

atdomesticandinternationallevels;(2) To investigate and report the commission or omission of acts which violate human

rightsorwhichdonotcomplywithobligationsunderinternationaltreatiesrelatingtohumanrightstowhichThailand isaparty,andproposeappropriateremedialmeasures tothepersonoragencycommittingoromittingsuchactstotakeaction.Inthecasewhereitappearsthatnoactionhasbeentakenaspropose,theCommissionshallreporttotheNationalAssemblyforfurtherproceeding;

(3) To propose to the National Assembly and the Council of Ministers policies andrecommendations with regard to the revision of laws, rules or regulations for the purpose ofpromotingandprotectinghumanrights

(4) InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, towhichThailandbecameaparty

onOctober29,1996

Article 1. 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right theyfreely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and culturaldevelopment.

2.Allpeoplesmay,fortheirownends,freelydisposeoftheirnaturalwealthandresourceswithoutprejudicetoanyobligationsarisingoutofinternationaleconomicco-operation,basedupon

theprincipleofmutualbenefit, and international law. Inno casemayapeoplebedeprivedof itsownmeansofsubsistence.

3. TheStatesPartiestothepresentCovenant,includingthosehavingresponsibilityfortheadministrationofNon-Self-GoverningandTrustTerritories,shallpromotetherealizationoftherightofself-determination,andshallrespectthatright,inconformitywiththeprovisionsoftheCharteroftheUnitedNations. Article47: Nothing inthepresentCovenantshallbe interpretedas impairingthe inherentrightofallpeoplestoenjoyandutilizefullyandfreelytheirnaturalwealthandresources.

(5) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Thailand

becameapartyonDecember5,1999

Article 1. 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right theyfreely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and culturaldevelopment. 2.Allpeoplesmay,fortheirownends,freelydisposeoftheirnaturalwealthandresourceswithoutprejudice to anyobligations arisingoutof international economic co-operation, basedontheprincipleofmutualbenefit,and international law. In nocasemayapeoplebedeprivedof itsownmeansofsubsistence. 3. TheStatesPartiestothepresentCovenant,includingthosehavingresponsibilityfortheadministrationofNon-Self-GoverningandTrustTerritories,shallpromotetherealizationoftherightofself-determination,andshallrespectthatright,inconformitywiththeprovisionsoftheCharteroftheUnitedNations.

Article25: Nothing inthepresentCovenantshallbe interpretedas impairingthe inherentrightofallpeoplestoenjoyandutilizefullyandfreelytheirnaturalwealthandresources.

(6) ASEANHumanRightsDeclaration,towhichThailandbecameasignatoryonNovember18,2012.

RighttoDevelopment

Article35.Therighttodevelopmentisaninalienablehumanrightbyvirtueofwhicheveryhuman person and the peoples of ASEAN are entitled to participate in, contribute to, enjoy andbenefit equitably and sustainably from economic, social, cultural and political development. Theright to development should be fulfilled so as to meet equitably the developmental andenvironmental needs of present and future generations. While development facilitates and isnecessary for theenjoymentof all human rights, the lackof developmentmaynotbe invoked tojustifytheviolationsofinternationallyrecognizedhumanrights.

Article 36. ASEANMember States should adopt meaningful people-oriented and genderresponsivedevelopmentprogramsaimedatpovertyalleviation,thecreationofconditionsincludingtheprotectionandsustainabilityof theenvironment for thepeoplesofASEANtoenjoyallhuman

rights recognized in this Declaration on an equitable basis, and the progressive narrowing of thedevelopmentgapwithinASEAN.

CooperationinthePromotionandProtectionofHumanRightsArticle 39. ASEAN Member States share a common interest in and commitment to the

promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms which shall be achievedthrough, inter alia, cooperation with one another as well as with relevant national, regional andinternationalinstitutions/organizations,inaccordancewiththeASEANCharter.

Article40.NothinginthisDeclarationmaybeinterpretedasimplyingforanyState,grouporpersonanyrighttoperformanyactaimedatunderminingthepurposesandprinciplesofASEAN,orat thedestructionofanyoftherightsandfundamental freedomsset forth inthisDeclarationandinternationalhumanrightsinstrumentstowhichASEANMemberStatesareparties.

(7) UnitedNationsGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights: Implementing the

Protect, Respect, Remedy Framework 2011, upheld as an international standard asendorsed by the 17th United Nations Human Rights Council (A/HRC/17/31) anddistributedonMarch21,2011

I. TheStateDutytoProtectHumanRightsA. FoundationalPrinciples1. Statesmustprotectagainsthumanrightsabusewithintheirterritoryand/orjurisdiction

by third parties, including business enterprises. This requires taking appropriate steps to prevent,investigate, punish and redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations andadjudication.

2. States should set out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises domiciled intheirterritoryand/orjurisdictionrespecthumanrightsthroughouttheiroperations.

B. OperationalPrinciplesGeneralStateRegulatoryandPolicyFunctions

3. Inmeetingtheirdutytoprotect,Statesshould:(a) Enforcelawsthatareaimedat,orhavetheeffectof,requiringbusinessenterprises

torespecthumanrights,andperiodicallytoassesstheadequacyofsuchlawsandaddressanygaps;(b) Ensurethatotherlawsandpoliciesgoverningthecreationandongoingoperationof

businessenterprises,suchascorporatelaw,donotconstrainbutenablebusinessrespectforhumanrights;

(c) Provideeffectiveguidancetobusinessenterprisesonhowtorespecthumanrightsthroughouttheiroperations;

(d) Encourage, and where appropriate require, business enterprises to communicatehowtheyaddresstheirhumanrightimpacts.

EnsuringPolicyCoherence9. States should ensure that governmental departments, agencies and other State-based

institutions that shapebusinesspracticesareawareofandobserve theState’shuman

rightsobligationswhenfulfillingtheirrespectivemandates,includingbyprovidingthemwithrelevantinformation,trainingandsupport.

II. TheCorporateResponsibilitytoRespectHumanRightsA. FoundationalPrinciples

11. Business enterprises should respect human rights. Thismeans that they should avoidinfringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts withwhichtheyareinvolved.

12. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers tointernationally recognized human rights – understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in theInternationalBillofHumanRightsand theprinciples concerning fundamental rights setout in theInternationalLaborOrganization’sDeclarationonFundamentalPrinciplesandRightsatWork.

13.Theresponsibilitytorespecthumanrightsrequiresthatbusinessenterprises:

(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their ownactivities,andaddresssuchimpactswhentheyoccur;

(b)Seektopreventormitigateadversehumanrightsimpactsthataredirectlylinkedtotheiroperations,productsorservicesbytheirbusinessrelationships,eveniftheyhavenotcontributedtothoseimpacts.

14. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights applies to allenterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure.Nevertheless, the scale and complexity of the means through which enterprises meet thatresponsibilitymayvaryaccordingtothesefactorsandwiththeseverityoftheenterprise’sadversehumanrightsimpacts.

15.Inordertomeettheirresponsibilitytorespecthumanrights,businessenterprisesshouldhaveinplacepoliciesandprocessesappropriatetotheirsizeandcircumstances,including:

(a)Apolicycommitmenttomeettheirresponsibilitytorespecthumanrights:

(b)Ahumanrightsduediligenceprocesstoidentify,prevent,mitigateandaccountforhowtheyaddresstheirimpactsonhumanrights;

(c)Processestoenabletheremediationofanyadversehumanrightsimpactstheycauseortowhichtheycontribute.

B. OperationalPrinciples

16. As the basis for embedding their responsibility to respect human rights, businessenterprises should express their commitment to meet this responsibility through a statement ofpolicythat:

(a)Isapprovedatthemostseniorlevelofthebusinessenterprise;

(b)Isinformedbyrelevantinternaland/orexternalexpertise;

(c) Stipulates the enterprise’s human rights expectations of personnel, business partnersandotherpartiesdirectlylinkedtoitsoperations,productsorservices;

(d) Is publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel,businesspartnersandotherrelevantparties;

(e)Isreflectedinoperationalpoliciesandproceduresnecessarytoembeditthroughoutthebusinessenterprise.

HumanRightsDueDiligence

17. Inorderto identify,prevent,mitigateandaccountforhowtheyaddresstheiradversehumanrightsimpacts,businessenterprisesshouldcarryouthumanrightsduediligence.Theprocessshouldincludeassessingactualandpotentialhumanrightsimpacts,integratingandactinguponthefindings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed. Human rights duediligence:

(a) Shouldcoveradversehumanrights impacts that thebusinessenterprisemaycauseorcontributetothroughitsownactivities,orwhichmaybedirectlylinkedtoitsoperations,productsorservicesbyitsbusinessrelationships;

(b)Willvaryincomplexitywiththesizeofthebusinessenterprise,theriskofseverehumanrightsimpacts,andthenatureandcontextofitsoperations;

(c)Shouldbeongoing,recognizingthatthehumanrightsrisksmaychangeovertimeasthebusinessenterprise’soperationsandoperatingcontextevolve.

18.Inordertogaugehumanrightsrisks,businessenterprisesshouldidentifyandassessanyactualorpotentialadversehumanrights impactswithwhich theymaybe involvedeither throughtheirownactivitiesorasaresultoftheirbusinessrelationships.Thisprocessshould:

(a)Drawoninternaland/orindependentexternalhumanrightsexpertise;

(b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevantstakeholders,asappropriatetothesizeofthebusinessenterpriseandthenatureandcontextoftheoperation.

Remediation

22.Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverseimpacts,theyshouldprovidefororcooperateintheirremediationthroughlegitimateprocesses.

IssuesofContext

23.Inallcontexts,businessenterprisesshould:

(a) Comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognized human rights,wherevertheyoperate;

(b)Seekwaystohonortheprinciplesofinternationallyrecognizedhumanrightswhenfacedwithconflictingrequirements;

(c) Treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legalcomplianceissuewherevertheyoperate.

III. AccesstoRemedyA. FoundationalPrinciple25.Aspartoftheirdutytoprotectagainstbusiness-relatedhumanrightsabuse,Statesmust

take appropriate steps to ensure, through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriatemeans, thatwhen suchabusesoccurwithin their territoryand/or jurisdiction thoseaffectedhaveaccesstoeffectiveremedy.

B. OperationalPrinciplesState-basedJudicialMechanisms26. States should take appropriate steps to ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial

mechanismswhenaddressingbusiness-relatedhumanrightsabuses, includingconsideringwaystoreducelegal,practicalandotherrelevantbarriersthatcouldleadtoadenialofaccesstoremedy.

Non-State-basedGrievanceMechanisms28. Statesshouldconsiderwaystofacilitateaccesstoeffectivenon-State-basedgrievance

mechanismsdealingwithbusiness-relatedhumanrightsharms.

5.StatementandResolutionoftheSubcommitteeonCommunityRights

5.1 SummaryofFindings

Uponreviewofverbalandwrittenstatementsbythecomplainants,defendantsandrelevantparties,inadditiontoreviewofrelevantdocumentaryevidence,theSubcommitteecansummarizethefollowingfindings:

(1) CommunityBackgroundandCharacteristics

TheSubcommittee reviewed informationoncommunitybackgroundandcharacteristicsofChikhor, Chhouk and Trapeng Kendal villages in Sre Ambel district, Koh Kong province. TheSubcommitteefoundthatvillagerssettledinthisareabeforethereignofKingNorodomSihanouk,meaning before 1941 (B.E. 2484), or approximately 70 years ago. Because of the villagers’ earlysettlementinthisarea,theCambodiangovernmentacknowledgethesevillagers’rightstolanduseunderthenationalpolicyonParticipatoryLandUsePlanning(PLUP).ThispolicywasintroducedbytheCambodiangovernmentaspartoftheLandPolicyinMay2001andtheStrategicFrameworkonLandPolicyinSeptember2002.ItisevidentthatinthelandconcessionstoKohKongSugarIndustryCo. Ltd. and Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd., villagers have lived and established livelihoods as acommunityforalongtime.

On the issue of land use and use of local natural resources by community residents, theSubcommittee found that the community has long used the land for agricultural purposes andbenefitsfromothernaturalresourcesforsubsistence,suchastheforestandforestgoods.Itcanbesaid that this community’s way of life is based on agricultural production from the beginning ofcommunity settlement, and agricultural production has been passed on as the way of life untiltoday. Evident in the research findings of the Collaborative Working Group, prior to the landconcession, the main source of income for community residents was still from land use foragriculturalproduction.Communityresidentscategorizethelandinto4maintypesoflandandlanduses: 1)Highland,whichhasquitehighlevelsoffertilityandcangrowmanytypesofcropsuchascorn,cassava,watermelonandcashewnut,amongothers;2)Floodplain,whichvillagerstendtousefor growing rice and as grassland for raising livestock; 3) Forest, which is usually located onmountain slopes. This type of land is for public uses,with no individual ownership. Everyone cancollectively use this land for collecting forest goods. Forest land is a very important area for thecommunitytobenefitfromnaturalresourcesfromtheforest,whichcanbefoundeasilyandwithinclose distance of the villages. These natural resources include various vines, rattan, rubber oil,honey, various fruit and herbs. Villagers collect plants in the forest and put them to use in thehousehold.Forinstance,weavingrattanbaskets,burningcharcoal,andmakingtraditionalmedicine.Villagers can sell these products in Sre Ambel district, Koh Kong province, as well as keep theproducts forhouseholduse. Inaddition, the forest isusedasgrazing landfor livestock.Therefore,the forest is a very important componentof the community.; 4) Residential area,which villagersconsider as separate from farmland, rice fields and forests. Residential area is strictly limited forbuilding homes and residences. Upon contextual review of most indigenous communitiesthroughouttheSoutheastAsiaregion,whicharewidelyacceptedasagriculturalcommunities,itcanbe concluded that the land use characteristics and community way of life in the area of thiscomplaintisthesameasindigenouscommunitiesthroughoutSoutheastAsia.

On the issue of community rights tomanage and use local resources, the Subcommitteereviewed human rights principles which recognizes that the right to use natural resources as aNaturalRight,whichcannotberevokedorimpeded.Thecommunityusesnaturalresourcesforlifeand bodily sustenance, which is a fundamental human right. If the exercise of this right to usenaturalresourcesisrevokedorimpededtothepointofcausingimpedimentsorrevokingtheabilitytomaintainanormal livelihood, theactionwhich revokesor impedes that right isequivalent toahuman rights violation. For this reason, the right of access to use local natural resources isguaranteedinmanyinternationalhumanrightslaws,namelytheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPolitical Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(ICESCR). These international covenants recognize that communities have the right to self-determination, the right to freely manage their natural wealth and resources, and the right tomaintaintheirownmeansofsubsistencewhichcannotbedeprivedunderanycondition.

Inaddition,thecommunityrighttousenaturalresourcesisguaranteedintheASEANHumanRightsDeclaration.Thisdocumentwasproducedby theASEAN IntergovernmentalCommissiononHuman Rights (AICHR) with the purpose of declaring ASEAN’s intention to promote and protecthumanrightsaccordingtothepolitical,socialandculturalcharacteristicsuniquetoASEANwhilestillupholdinghumanrightsstandardsinaccordancewithinternationalprinciples.Guaranteedunderthe“Right to Development” in the ASEAN Declaration: “The right to development is an inalienablehuman right by virtue of which every human person and the peoples of ASEAN are entitled to

participate in, contribute to, enjoy and benefit equitably and sustainably from economic, social,cultural and political development. The right to development should be fulfilled so as to meetequitablythedevelopmentalandenvironmentalneedsofpresentandfuturegenerations.”

Therefore, upon review of the aforementioned information on the background andcharacteristicsof communities inChikhor,ChhoukandTrapengKendalvillages,SreAmbeldistrict,Koh Kong province, the Subcommittee is of the opinion that all 3 villages located in the landconcessionareabelongingtoKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.andKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.arenot derelict and abandoned areas as claimed by the companies, but are characteristic ofcommunitieswithalonghistoryofsettlement.Thus,all3villageshavetherighttobenefitfromlocalnatural resources for the purpose of maintaining their means of subsistence, the right to freelymanage their natural wealth and resources, and the right to maintain their own means ofsubsistencewhichcannotbedeprivedunderanycondition,asguaranteedbyICCPRandICESCR.The3 villages are also entitled to participate in, contribute to, enjoy and benefit equitably andsustainablyfromeconomicdevelopment,asguaranteedintheASEANHumanRightsDeclaration.

Beyond thecommunity rightsof these3villagesasguaranteedby international covenantsand theASEANDeclaration, theSubcommittee finds that community residents inall3villagesarealsoentitledto landrightsasguaranteedbythe2001LandLawofCambodia.AsArticle30states:“Anypersonwho,fornolessthanfiveyearspriortothepromulgationofthislaw,enjoyedpeaceful,uncontested possession of immovable property that can lawfully be privately possessed, has therighttorequestadefinitivetitleofownership.Anypersonwhopossessedtheimmovablepropertyfor less than five yearsmay requestadefinitive titleofownershipafter five yearsofpossession.”(Land Law of Cambodia 2001, Article 30) Article 31 also states that any person who had beenenjoying possession before the 2001 Land Law of Cambodia entered into force and fulfills allrequirementstobecomeanownerofthepropertymaybeauthorizedbythecompetentCambodianauthority to extend the land possession until the legally prescribed period of five years to attainpermanenttitleofownership.Moreover,Cambodianauthoritiescannotdenythisrighttoattainthetitleoflandownershipifthepossessionispeacefulanduncontested.(LandLawofCambodia2001,Article31) The residentsofChikhor,ChhoukandTrapengKendalvillageshave livedon their landuncontestedformorethan5yearsandhavepossessedthe landpeacefully,uncontested,and inapublicallyevidentandcontinuousactingoodfaith.Therefore,theseresidentsarewithoutquestionentitledtotherightofpossessionandfulfilltherequirementstorequestandattainlanddocumentsorlandtitlesandreceivemarketvalueinthecaseoflandexpropriation.

The Subcommittee is of the opinion that the Cambodian government’s Participatory LandUsePlanningPolicy(PLUP)ofMay2001andtheStrategicFrameworkonLandPolicyofSeptember2002–whichassignedthese3villagesaspolicyimplementationareas–isevidenceconfirmingthatland possession by residents of the 3 villages have been peaceful, uncontested and publicallyevident.

(2) TheStateofHumanRightsViolations

TheSubcommitteefindsthatstatementsbycomplainantsandvillagerepresentatives,bothverbalstatementsanddocumentaryevidence,wereinaccordancewiththefindingsofmanyhumanrightsorganizations.Namely,thestatementswereinlinewiththereportonhumanrightsviolations

inKohKongbytheUnitedNationsSpecialRepresentativeoftheSecretary-GeneralforHumanRightsinCambodia,asreflectedinthereportentitled“EconomicLandConcessionsinCambodia:Ahumanrights perspective,” published by theOffice of theUnitedNations High Commissioner for HumanRightsin2007.Concurrently,theAsianHumanRightsCommission(AHRC)recordedtheeventsintheAHRCUrgentAppealentitled“Cambodia: Twovillagers shotandseveral injuredduring the illegalforcedevictioninKohKong”inJune2006.

The state of human rights violations have been documented in reports by many non-governmental human rightsorganizations including: “TheChanging Livelihoods,Natural ResourcesandEconomyafterEconomicLandConcessionstoKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.andKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd. inCambodia,”a reportby theCollaborativeWorkingGroupconsistingofTowardEcological Recovery andRegionalAlliance (TERRA) andCommunity Legal EducationCenter (CLEC);“LosingGround:ForcedEvictionsandIntimidationinCambodia,September2009,”areportbytheCambodian Human Rights Action Committee (CHRAC); and the report by Ngo Sothath and ChanSophal entitled “Does Large-Scale Agricultural Investment Benefit the Poor?” published by theCambodianEconomicAssociationResearchReport(July2,2010).”

Uponreviewoftheinformationabove,theSubcommitteefindsthathumanrightsviolationshave occurred against the residents of Chikhor, Chhouk and Trapeng Kendal villages, Sre Ambeldistrict,KohKongprovince.Thesehumanrightsviolationsoccurredfromlandconcessionsandcanbereviewedaccordingtotheaforementionedhumanrightsprinciplesasfollows:

(2.1)ViolationsoftheRighttoManageandBenefitfromResources

Landconcessionscausedcommunity residentsofall3villages to lose the right to land forsubsistence, due to expropriation for the sugar industry of land that villagers have possessed foragriculturalproductionforalongtime.Inaddition,landconcessionscausedresidentsofall3villagestolosetheirrighttoaccesslocalnaturalresourceswhichthecommunitieshavereliedonandusedformaintaining theirway of subsistence for a long time. For instance, residentswere obstructedfromentering the forest to collect forest goods for subsistence, and prohibited from letting theirlivestockgrazeintheforest.Oncevillagerswereunabletocontinueagriculturalproductionorenterthe forest and collect forest goods, their means of subsistence was forcibly changed fromagricultural production as a main profession to become hired labor for industry. Because mostvillagers lack the relevant skills for industry, theywere only able towork as daily laborers,whichprovided low and unstable remuneration, insufficient to support a normal livelihood. Villagersbecamemuchpoorer,comparedtothetimetheyownedfarmland.Childrenwerecompelledtodropoutofschoolbecausetheirparentsdidnothavesufficient incomefortheirtuition.Thesechildrenwerethencompelledtoworkandearnsupplementaryincomefortheirfamilies.

(2.2)ViolationsoftheRighttoLife

Violationsof theRighttoLifeoccurredduringforcedevictionsanddestructionofpropertybelongingtovillagers,whichoccurredpriortothesigningoflandconcessioncontracts.Homesweredestroyed,farmlandwithongoingcropswasdestructivelytilled,villagers’livestockwereshotdead,and some villagers were assaulted and shot dead during the land expropriation. These violentactionsweredocumentedbytheOfficeoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRights

inthe2007reportentitled“EconomicLandConcessionsinCambodia:Ahumanrightsperspective”:“For example, sinceMay 2006, villagers in Sre Ambel district, Koh Kong province, have protestedagainst thepresenceandactivitiesofKohKongSugar IndustryCompanyandKohKongPlantationCompany. In September 2006, protests at the concession site weremet with violence by armedcompanysecurityguards,whoaremilitarypersonnel,resultingintheshootingandinjuryofafemalevillager,andassaultof fourothervillagers.Villagershavedelivered their concerns to theNationalAssemblyandthePrimeMinister’sCabinet, filedacomplaintwith theNationalAuthority forLandDisputeResolution,andprotested in frontof theNationalAssembly in July2006andMarch2007.Theprovincialgovernmenthaspromisedtoresolvethedispute,buttheconcessionairescontinuetofurtherencroachuponvillagers’farmland.”(pages17-18)

(3) RelevanceofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPublicCompanyLimited

In a letter dated November 20, 2013, Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl explained to theSubcommittee that the company has not acted in any way that can be deemed a human rightsviolationagainstvillagers. Forexample, thecompanyhasnot takenpark in theviolentevictionorencroachment of villagers’ land, has not threatened or harassed villagers, has employed no childlabor, andhasnot supported any formof human rights violations in the area. The Subcommitteeconsideredthefollowingissues:

UponreviewofthecompanyletterdatedNovember20,2013onpage3,topic2.TheUseofViolenceinEvictionandEncroachmentofVillagers’Land,topic2.2statedthat:“Thelandconcessionwe received was passed on from two companies with Cambodian nationality, who received theconcession firsthand. Acts of violence were committed before we received the concession.Therefore,KohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.andKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.hadnopartintheuseofviolentforceintheevictionandencroachmentofvillagers’land.”Thisstatementisequivalenttothecompanyadmittingthatsuchanactofviolencereallyoccurred,buttheactionsoccurredbeforethecompanyreceiveditsconcession,meaningthatKhonKaenSugarPclhadnopart intheviolentaction.

However,uponreviewofthehistoryandbackgroundofthebusinessbasedonstatementsofthecomplainants,statementsbyKhonKaenSugarPclandstatementsbytheStockExchangeofThailand made to the Subcommittee (Stock Exchange of Thailand Letter No. WK.10/2556 datedFebruary13,2013),theSubcommitteecansummarizetheeventsinchronologicalorderasfollows:

March20,2006 TheCambodianPrimeMinister’sCabinet issuedaresolutionapprovinglandconcessionstoDutyFreeShopandKohKongInternationalResortClubof10,000hectareseach(StatementbyKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl)

March21,2006 On behalf of Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl, the company’s BoardPresident and Chief Executive Officer Mr. Chamroon Chinthammit submitted a letter to BoardMembersandManageroftheStockExchangeofThailand.TheletterindicatedarequesttoexplainabouttheinvestmentinsugarcaneplantationandtheestablishmentofasugarfactoryinCambodia.Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl and subsidiary companieswanted to inform the Stock Exchange ofThailandthatKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclplannedtosetupajointventureinCambodiainordertorequestthepermittoopenasugarfactoryandobtainalandconcessionof20,000hectares(125,000rai)inKohKong,Cambodia.(StatementbytheStockExchangeofThailand)

May19,2006 Bulldozersandarmedguardsbeganclearing land. (StatementbyKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl)

May29,2006 KohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.(KPT)andKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.(KSI) registered a company called Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl, holding 50 percent shares ofregisteredcapitalstock.ATaiwanesecompany,Vewong,held30percentshares.Mr.LyYongPhat,SenatoroftheCambodianPeople’sParty,held20percentshares.(StatementbytheStockExchangeofThailand)

June20,2006 Duty Free Shop and Koh Kong International Resort Club submitted aletter to the Cambodian government requesting a change in the name of concession recipient(StatementbyKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl)

July18,2006 TheCambodianPrimeMinister’sCabinetapprovedthetransferoflandconcession fromDuty Free Shop to Koh Kong Plantation (KPT) and approved the transfer of landconcessionfromKohKongInternationalResortClubtoKohKongSugarIndustry(KSI).(StatementbyKohKongSugarIndustryPcl.)

August2,2006 Concession contract signed by the CambodianMinistry of Agriculture,ForestryandFisheries,KohKongPlantation(KPT)andKohKongSugarIndustry(KSI).(StatementbyKohKongSugarIndustryPcl.)

January8,2010 ThaiMinistryofCommerce issueda letter toKohKongSugar Industry(KSI) Board Member Mr. Chamroon Chinthammit regarding a bond change for Koh Kong SugarIndustry (KSI)which indicatedanewstructureof shareholding.Namely,KhonKaenSugar IndustryPclwillhold70percentsharesandVeWongCorporationwillhold30percentshares.(StatementbytheStockExchangeofThailand)

The above chronology reveals that Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl had no legal ties to KohKong Sugar Industry Co. Ltd. and Koh Kong Plantation Co. Ltd. until after the land concessioncontractonAugust2,2006,whichoccurredafterthelandwasclearedonMay19,2006.However,KhonKhaenSugarIndustryPclsentalettertotheStockExchangeofThailandBoardandManageronApril21,2006indicatingthatthecompanyhadplanstosetupajointventureinCambodiainorderto request a permit to establish a sugar factory and receive land concessions of 20,000 hectares(125,000rai)forsugarcaneplantationsinKohKong,Cambodia.(Thislandareainthecompany’splanwasequivalenttothe landarea laterreceivedbyconcession.)This lettertotheStockExchangeofThailand occurred before the land was cleared on May 19, 2006. In addition, a companyrepresentative of Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl issued a verbal statement to the NHRCSubcommitteeonCivilandPoliticalRightsonJuly20,2010that“…Tosurveythelandin2005-2006,wehadtotravelbyhelicopterbecausecarscouldnotenterthearea….” Thisstatement indicatedthatKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclhadenteredthelandand“acknowledgedanddisplayedintention”totakeactionsinKohKongareasince2005.

Considering the above information, the Subcommittee is of the opinion that Khon KaenSugarIndustryPcldidnotpersonally“committheactofhumanrightsviolation”againstresidentsofChikhor,ChhoukandTrapengKendalvillagesinSreAmbeldistrict,KohKongprovince.Thecompanyonly received the land concession from 2 companies of Cambodian nationality, namely Koh Kong

International Resort Club and Duty Free Shop. On the contrary, Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pclenteredintonegotiationswithvillagersintheareaandpaidcompensationtovillagers.

However, there is evidence that the land concession for sugarcane plantation and theestablishment of a sugar factory in Chikhor, Chhouk and Trapeng Kendal villages in Sre Ambeldistrict,KohKongprovinceresultedinhumanrightsviolationsagainstcommunityresidentsofall3villages. The fact that Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl received the land concession from the 2aforementionedcompaniesissufficienttoconcludethatKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclenteredintoanagreementtoreceiveatransferofbenefitsfromotherbusinessesbasedonlandconcessionsthatcausedhumanrightsviolations.Therefore,KhonKaenSugarIndustryPclisabusinessentitymustberesponsibleforhumanrightsimpactsthataredirectlylinkedtotheiroperations,productsorservicesbytheirbusinessrelationships,eveniftheyhavenotcontributedtothoseimpacts.(UnitedNationsGuiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the Protect, Respect, RemedyFramework.2011.Principle13.)

5.2 ConclusionbytheSubcommitteeonCommunityRights

Inlightoftheabovefindings,itisevidentthatthelandconcessionsbelongingtoKohKongSugarIndustryCo.Ltd.andKohKongPlantationCo.Ltd.werenotlocatedinderelictandabandonedlandasclaimedbyKhonKaenSugarIndustryPcl.Onthecontrary,thelandbelongtoresidentsofChikhor,Chhouk and Trapeng Kendal communities in Sre Ambel district, Koh Kong province. Thesecommunities livedandreliedon localnaturalresourcesasameansofsubsistencefora longtime.Thus,thesecommunitiesareentitledtotherighttoself-determination,therighttofreelymanagetheirnaturalwealthandresources,andtherighttomaintaintheirownmeansofsubsistencewhichcannotbedeprivedunderanycondition.TheserightsareguaranteedbyinternationalcovenantsandtheASEANHumanRightsDeclaration.However,theconcessionwaslatergiventothesugarindustryand resulted in serioushuman rights violationsagainst the communities,both theuseof violenceforcetoevictvillagersfromtheirhomelandandtheimpedimentsagainsttheexerciseofcommunityrightstousenaturalresourceswhichisfundamentaltotheirmainmeansofsubsistence.

TheimpactofthesehumanrightsviolationsareinpartthedirectresponsibilityofKhonKaenSugar Pcl, due to the company’s decision to receive andbenefit from the land concessionswhichcausedhumanrightsviolations,regardlessofthefactthatthecompanydidnotitselfcommittheactofhumanrightsviolation.

EventhoughthehumanrightsviolationinthisallegationoccurredinCambodia,Article2(2)oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,Article2(1)oftheInternationalCovenantonEconomic, Social andCulturalRightsandArticle39of theASEANHumanRightsDeclarationallaffirm thatmember states suchasThailandhave the clearduty toprovideguarantees forhumanrights protection according to these international agreements. This duty includes prevention oftransboundaryhumanrightsviolationsbycompanies locatedwithineachmemberstate’s territoryorregisteredundereachmemberstate’sjurisdiction.

5.3ResolutionoftheSubcommittee

The Subcommittee resolved that measures to resolve human rights violations should bepresentedtoKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclandtheThaigovernment,asfollows:

(1) ResolvedthatKhonKaenSugarIndustryPclshouldimplementthefollowingactions:1.1 Considerthefeasibilityoflandreturn,orcompensationinthecasethatlandreturnisnot

feasible1.2 Compensateforaccumulativelossesinthepast1.3 Remediatethelocalenvironment1.4 Employprinciplesofgoodgovernanceinbusinesspractices,includingtransparency,legal

complianceandhumanrightsprotection

(2) Resolved that, on behalf of the Thai government, theMinistry of Foreign Affairs and theMinistry of Commerce establish amechanism or establish official duties tomonitor internationalinvestmentsbyThaiinvestorstoensurecompliancewithfundamentalhumanrightsprinciples,usingastheUnitedNationsGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights:ImplementingtheProtect,RespectandRemedyFramework(2011)asanimplementationframework.

6. StatementandResolutionoftheNationalHumanRightsCommission

TheNationalHumanRightsCommissionreviewedthisallegation in themeetingonhumanrights protection and standards Meeting No. 2/2558 on January 12, 2015 and concluded inagreementwith theconclusionsof theSubcommitteeonCommunityRights,byamajorityvoteoffiveCommissioners (ProfessorAmaraPongsapich,Mr.TairjingSiripanich,Mr.NiranPitakwatchara,Mr.PaiboonWarahapaitoonandMs.WisaBenjamano).NHRCconcludedthatcommunityresidentsofChikhor,ChhoukandTrapengKendalvillages inSreAmbeldistrict,KohKongprovince livedandreliedonlocalnaturalresourcesasameansofsubsistenceforalongtime.Thesecommunitiesarethereforeentitledtotherightofself-determination,therighttofreelymanagetheirnaturalwealthandresourcesandtherighttomaintaintheirownmeansofsubsistencewhichcannotbedeprivedunderanycondition.TheserightsareguaranteedbyinternationalcovenantsandtheASEANHumanRights Declaration. Land concessions given to the sugar industry resulted in serious human rightsviolations,includingtheuseofviolencetoevictvillagersfromtheirplaceofresidence,impedimentsagainsttheuseofnaturalresourceswhichisfundamentaltocommunitysubsistence.TheimpactofthesehumanrightsviolationsareadirectresponsibilityofKhonKaenSugarIndustryPublicCompanyLimited, due to the company’s decision to receive and benefit from the land concessions whichcausedhumanrightsviolations,regardlessofthefactthatthecompanydidnotitselfcommittheactof human rights violation. In addition, even though the human rights violation in this allegationoccurred in Cambodia, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and theUnited Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the Protect,Respect,RemedyFramework (2013)Part1TheStateduty toprotecthumanrightsandPart2Thecorporate responsibility to respecthumanrights inparticularArticles16,17and18allaffirm thatmember states such as Thailand have the clear duty to provide guarantees for human rightsprotection according to these international agreements. This duty includes prevention of

transboundaryhumanrightsviolationsbycompanies locatedwithineachmemberstate’s territoryorregisteredundereachmemberstate’sjurisdiction.

Inlightoftheabovefindings,theNationalHumanRightsCommissionresolvedbyamajorityvoteoffiveCommissionersthatinthiscaseofhumanrightsviolationsallegation,KhonKaenSugarIndustry Pcl is in part directly responsible for the impact of these human rights violations, eventhough it did not itself commit the act of human rights violation. This is due to the company’sdecision to receive and benefit from the land concessions which caused these human rightsviolations. TheNationalHumanRightsCommission resolves to submit policy recommendationsoralleviationmeasures.

Theminority vote of two Commissioners (Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn and Pol. Gen.WanchaiSrinualnad) expressed their views as evident in the minutes of the National Human RightsCommissionMeetingNo.2/2558onJanuary12,2015andNo.3/2558onJanuary19,2015.

7. StatementandResolutionoftheNationalHumanRightsCommission

The National Human Rights Commission resolved to submit policy recommendations oralleviation measures, with the following recommendations for Khon Kaen Sugar Public CompanyLimited,Thailand’sMinistryofForeignAffairsandtheMinistryofCommerce:

7.1 Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Pcl should consider implementing the following actions, eventhoughthecompanydidnotcommitthehumanrightsviolations:(1) Thecompanyshouldconsiderlandreturninareasofdispute,orconsidercompensation

inthecasethatlandreturnisnotfeasibleinareasofdispute(2) Thecompanyshouldcompensateforvarioustypesofloss,accumulativeoftimepast(3) The company should remediate the local environment to enable local residents and

communities in Cambodia to rely on and benefit from natural resources, which isfundamentaltomaintainthecommunity’smeansofsubsistence.

(4) The company should employ principles of good governance in business practices,includingtransparency,legalcomplianceandhumanrightsprotection

7.2 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Commerce should present policyrecommendations to the Cabinet in order to establish amechanism or official duties tomonitorinternational investments by Thai investors to ensure compliancewith fundamental human rightsprinciples, using as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights:Implementing the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework (2011) as an implementationframework.

ResolvedthattheOfficeoftheNationalHumanRightsCommissionwillmonitorandrequesttheresultsoftheserecommendationswithin60daysfromthedatethatKhonKhanSugarIndustryPcl,theMinistryofForeignAffairsandtheMinistryofCommercearenotifiedofthisFindingsReport.

(Prof.AmaraPongsapich)

ChairpersonoftheNationalHumanRightsCommission (Mr.TairjingSiripanich) (Mr.NiranPitakwatchara)NationalHumanRightsCommissioner NationalHumanRightsCommissioner (Mr.ParinyaSirisarakarn) (Mr.PaiboonWarahapaitoon)NationalHumanRightsCommissioner NationalHumanRightsCommissioner (Pol.Gen.WanchaiSrinualnad) (Ms.WisaBenjamano)NationalHumanRightsCommissioner NationalHumanRightsCommissioner

Note: Viewsof theminorityvote (Mr.ParinyaSirisarakarnandPol.Gen.Wanchai Srinualnad)asevident in theminutesof theNationalHumanRightsCommissionMeetingNo.2/2558on January12,2015andNo.3/2558onJanuary19,2015.