Two Chinese Uighur Muslim men today pleaded not guilty of involvement in Thailand's worst-ever bomb attack on a popular Brahma temple here as they appeared before a military court with the lawyer of one of the suspects alleging that his client was tortured to force confession.
The two accused Bilal Mohammed, alias Adem Karadag, and Yusufu Mieraili, who were arrested soon after the bombing on August 17 last year, were brought before the military court handcuffed and in shackles for a plea hearing in the military court.
The suspects made their first appearance at the military court in the case since November, when they were read the charges against them.
Police had claimed that the two had confessed to playing a role in the country's worst-ever attack that killed 20 people mostly Chinese tourists and wounded at least 120 others.
Thejudge read the charges of attempted and premeditated murder, possession of illegal weapons and illegal entry to the two men through a Uighur translator.
Both the men, who are in prison for last six months, said they were not guilty of the bombing charges. However, Mohammed admitted he had entered the country illegally.
Mohammed's lawyer Schoochart Kanpai said that his client had been tortured to force confession.
Both sides will review evidence in April.
No group claimed responsibility for the bombing. Thai authorities had claimed that it was done to avenge the government's crackdown on human trafficking gangs.
However, some analysts suspected it might have been the work of Uighur separatists who were angry that Thailand in July had forcibly repatriated more than 100 Uighurs to China, where they may be persecuted.
Police awarded themselves USD 84,000 reward after the arrest of Mohammed, who is accused of being the man seen in CCTV footage wearing a yellow T-shirt and placing a backpack at the shrine moments before the explosion.
During questioning authorities say Mieraili, 26, confessed to delivering the backpack bomb to another man who planted the device.
Police chief Chakthip Chaijinda said it was the defendants' right to retract their earlier confession, but police have witnesses and clear evidence to prosecute them.
