Non Pa Sang
Loei Province 42240
66 – 1 – 965 – 1493 and 66 – 1 – 220 - 6598 (for Lao and Thai);
4 – 726 – 4836 (for Dutch, English, French)
July 6, 2005
Christine Dekkers (Mevrouw Christine Dekkers)
General’s Office (Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen)
Subject: Order from Attorney General to Police Required
refer to my letter of May 3, 2005, requesting your assistance in the search for a 16-year-old boy from Thailand, Oliver Albert Chanyut Chokjanphen, in Belgium
Chanyut was separated from his mother, Thanomjit Chokjanphen, more than six years ago when the latter failed to return to
Belgium from Thailand.
He called his native village in Thailand
recently in an effort to contact his family.
family telephoned and wrote to numerous people in Belgium,
requesting help in contacting Oliver Chanyut. But the Belgians and Thais in Antwerp
who claim to know Oliver Chanyut and offered to help the family contact him have been uncooperative. School and police employees
have been particularly uncooperative.
Chanyut’s actual residence is unknown. It is not the address claimed by Antwerp
city officials. Thus, friends, neighbors and relatives sent mail to the # 2 city public school in northern Deurne District
(Stedelijk Instituut voor Secundair Onderwijs Deurne # 2 [SISO 2 Deurne]). Several school employees maintain that Oliver
Chanyut attends the school.
February 25, the school’s non-academic supervisor of students (leerlingenbegeleider), Paul Callot, or the school principal (directeur), Guy T’jampens, admitted that he and other employees had stolen (some
200) postal items addressed to Oliver Chanyut (in the past three years).
school employee indicated that they gave Oliver Chanyut’s mail to an inspector at the juvenile division of the city
recently, according to Belgian postal records, a letter for Oliver Chanyut sent from Thailand on June17 was taken by Callot on June 24 (copies attached). But Oliver
Chanyut has not called home as he should have done upon receipt of the letter.
law, the school must give the student all messages from his mother (and other relatives). There is no conceivable reason for
withholding mail. Only the family has a legal right to custody and care. Any claim otherwise is false and fraudulent.
police cannot delay delivery of the mail without a formal order from a court of law.
theft of Oliver Chanyut’s mail by school and police personnel is criminal. The thieves probably hoped to find cash or
other items, such as books, video cassettes and discs, that they could sell. Given the previous conduct of school employees,
their theft of mail is also a personal expression of bigotry and pedophilia.
year, one or more school employees sent vulgar e-mail messages in Oliver Chanyut’s name, obviously without Oliver Chanyut’s
landlord of Essenstraat ---- in Antwerp,
---------------------, is holding mail for Oliver Chanyut that was delivered
after Thanomjit returned to Thailand in
1999. Oliver Chanyut has not picked up the mail because school employees stole messages asking him to pick it up. Someone
other than Oliver Chanyut tried to pick up the mail from ---------------------.
2002, hundreds of other postal items addressed to Oliver Chanyut at the Essenstraat address were received by Mrs. Thanomjit’s ex-husband, Phousith Sibounloeang,
a Laotian refugee with Belgian citizenship. But Phousith did not give Oliver Chanyut the mail. Several Thais reported that
Phousith peddled Oliver Chanyut’s mail to employees and patrons of his Thai restaurants in Antwerp that he frequents,
in particular the Bosuil, Gambrinus, Ploy Phochana, ----------------,
, Thai Garden and --------------- and another
Thai establishment, the Thai Bel Barber Shop and Beauty Salon, which closed two years ago.
family fears for Oliver Chanyut’s safety. Thieves and others who abused Oliver Chanyut in one way or another could murder
or permanently cripple him to prevent him from identifying and exposing them.
previous prosecuting attorney of Antwerp, Werner Van Walle; the latter’s secretary, Peter Locquet; and several assistant
prosecuting attorneys failed to give urgent requests from the family due and proper consideration. Three of the assistant
prosecutors concerned are currently your subordinates in the Attorney General’s Office. Another former assistant prosecuting
attorney, ------------, who is now in your office, did not respond to seven
letters sent to him since last August.
family would be grateful for your assistance.
order to the city police to put Oliver Chanyut in direct telephone contact with his family is indispensable and urgently required.
correspondence will be posted on an advertised internet website if there is no response.
behalf of the Chokjanphen family, I am,
as stated (6)
Websites with relevant
View published sites:
to Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, for
Contact with Loved One, May 3, 2005: http://thanomchokjanphen.tripod.com/openlettertotheattorneygeneralofantwerpbelgium/
A Second Open Letter to the Attorney General of Antwerp,
Christine Dekkers, July 6, 2005: http://thanomchokjanphen.tripod.com/asecondopenlettertotheattorneygeneralofantwerp/
A Third Open Letter to the Attorney General of Antwerp,
Christine Dekkers, September 16, 2005:
A Fourth Letter to the Attorney General of Antwerp,
Christine Dekkers, November 15, 2005:
Fifth Unanswered Letter to the Attorney General of Antwerp,
Christine Dekkers, January 12, 2006:
Attorney General Dekkers Ignores Sixth Urgent Letter, April 12, 2006:
Seventh letter to Attorney General of Antwerp,
Christine Dekkers, Unanswered, June 20, 2006:
Websites with relevant up-to-date information: