A/HRC/22/45 453. The ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth cases concerned Messrs. Wandi Gazi, Abdullah Eitae, Manasay Lohlanay and Eruwan Masay, all from the Malayu indigenous group, who, on 23 May 2007, were allegedly taken by six soldiers from a temporary military checkpoint near a market, on the main road between Yaha district and Yala district, Yala province, to an unknown location. 454. The thirteenth case concerned Mr. Saman Meethum who, on 2 June 2007, was allegedly last seen near Loop village, Loop sub-district. According to the information received, a police major from Yang Talat Police Station is reportedly believed to be responsible for the alleged disappearance. 455. The fourteenth case concerned Mr. Kamol Lausophaphan who, on 7 February 2008, was last seen at Ban Phai Police Station, Khon Kaen province. 456. The fifteenth case concerned Mr. Roosaming Samamae who, on 10 March 2009 was allegedly arrested at local Beu-Reah Mosque by three men wearing army ranger uniforms and wool facemasks. General allegations Summary of the general allegations 457. Information was submitted by sources concerning obstacles encountered in the implementation of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This information was transmitted to the Government after the Working Group‘s ninety-eighth session. 458. The source alleged that enforced disappearances have been carried out in Thailand for many years as a method to stamp out dissent or to eliminate suspected criminals outside of the rule of law. 459. The source also alleged that two official policies directly contributed to the creation of an environment in which enforced disappearances along with other gross violation of human rights have taken place: 1) the highly militarized counter-insurgency approach adopted in southern Thailand by various regional governments beginning in 2001 under the Thaksin Administration; and 2) the so-called War on Narcotic Drugs Policy implemented by Prime Minister Thaksin in 2003. 460. The source argued that the counter-insurgency policies in the south led to the implementation of three emergency legislative frameworks, namely, 1) Martial law, which allows for detention of up to seven days for interrogation without a warrant or judicial review and without the right to challenge the detention; 2) the Decree on Government Administration in Emergency Situations issued in 2005, which allows for detention with a court warrant without criminal charges for up to seven days and renewable for up to 30 days; and 3) the Internal Security Act, which reportedly allows for detention of anyone suspected to be involved in insurgency or terrorism in a military training camp for up to six months by the order of court without any requirement of pending criminal charges or conviction. Such laws as well as the ‗good faith‘ clauses, which provide immunity for officials from civil, criminal and disciplinary penalties for acts performed in good faith, facilitate impunity for enforced disappearances as demonstrated in a number of documented cases. 461. The source also argued that the counter-insurgency approach led to the militarisation of the southern part of Thailand where currently 74, 000 security officers are deployed and further 4000 troops are authorised to be deployed in the region. According to the source, such militarisation of the region contributed to the increase in enforced disappearances. 111