More than four years after the disappearance of Karen rights activist Porlajee "Billy" Rakchongcharoen, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) is starting to feel the heat.
Last week, the DSI agreed to accept the case as a special case as urged by the activist's common-law wife Pinnapa "Mueno" Prueksapan. It's a major U-turn decision by the agency, albeit a bit too late, which last year tersely threw out her petition.
Before he disappeared, Mr Porlajee fought against eviction orders and had been in conflict with government officials at Kaeng Krachan National Park in Phetchaburi. He was last seen on April 17, 2014, in the custody of state officials led by then-park chief Chaiwat Limlikit-aksorn chief who accused him of having wild honey in his possession.
At the time of his arrest, the activist had a legal tussle with Mr Chaiwat, suing him for setting fire to the Karen community's bamboo huts and rice barns during a raid in 2011 which was part of a series of forest evictions in preparation for the registration of the area in Phetchaburi as a World Heritage site.
Due to the confrontation with the state, it is believed that he is a victim of enforced disappearance.
The Karens filed complaints against Mr Chaiwat who confessed to arresting the activist for collecting wild honey, but claimed that he released him after a warning. The claims were disputed by Mr Porlajee's family who later filed complaints with authorities. Mr Porlajee has never returned home while the Karen community has struggled in court in the hope they will be allowed to return to their ancestral land.
Mr Chaiwat and his team faced a murder charge related to the activist's disappearance but were eventually acquitted for "lack of evidence." The team were later reinstated into state service, and earlier this year Mr Chaiwat was promoted to a C-10 position overseeing the 10th forest office in the northern part of the Northeast.
While the DSI's U-turn in the case is welcome, there are questions of how further the agency can dig into the case after four years of what some see as negligence. It missed a chance to look into the case, as it dismissed the petition by the activist's wife citing a technical, yet weak reason: the couple was not married legally. Without a marriage certificate, they have five children together.
Such questions are valid for the case which bears similarities to a high-profile enforced disappearance case involving human rights lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit who went missing in 2004.
At the time of his abduction which took place in broad daylight in the Ramkhamhaeng area, the lawyer was representing a group of Muslim suspects in relation to the southern insurgency who alleged they were assaulted by police officers in a bid to force them to confess.
Five police officers were charged in the Somchai case, and in 2006 only one officer was sentenced for coercion while the remaining four were released for lack of evidence.
As the Neelapaijit family fought on, the Supreme Court eventually acquitted the five police in 2015 while the DSI sluggishly handled the case, which bore no fruit after nearly 12 years.
The following year after the Supreme Court's ruling, the DSI told the Neelapaijit family of its decision to give up. Angkhana, Mr Somchai's wife who became an active human rights defender, quoted the DSI statement that: "The investigation is over, and the DSI will carry it no further as there are no culprits."
Such a conclusion is a disappointment, not just for the Neelapaijit family but the society as a whole.
Now, with the decision to look into the Billy case, the agency has to face new expectations. Some observers cast doubts on its determination given media reports that linked the DSI change of stance to pressure on the Prayut Chan-o-cha administration from international organisations regarding the case to which it initially paid no attention.
But the DSI should know that this is a chance for the agency to prove its sincerity in its role in maintaining the law. Of course, it must have learned the complexities of cases that involve state authorities in particular in the Somchai disappearance. Very likely, they are to meet similar difficulties in the Billy case.
Both missing activists, due to their staunch challenge to the authorities had became "enemies of the state," and as attested in the Somchai case, any endeavour to find truth was tough and riddled with obstacles. Not to mention the culprits have had the time to taint -- or even destroy -- evidence to get away with the crimes.
But there is no excuse for a compromise. The DSI must be instrumental in deconstructing the culture of impunity which is deep-rooted in this country.