Apr 12, 2023 | DFF, Statements
JAKARTA – Parliamentarians from Southeast Asia strongly condemn the decision by the Thai authorities to hand-over three members of Myanmar opposition forces into the hands of junta allies, where they are likely to be tortured, or worse. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) calls on the Thai government and the international community to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
“For far too long, the Thai authorities have been forcing asylum seekers and refugees back to Myanmar where they are at risk of persecution. This is a clear violation of international human rights law, norms and principles,” APHR Chair and member of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Mercy Barends, said today.
According to information APHR received from local civil society organizations, on 1 April, three members of a Myanmar opposition group crossed into Thailand to seek medical treatment. On their way to Mae Sot, the three men were stopped at a checkpoint and taken into custody by Thai immigration. Then, on the morning of April 4, the Thai authorities handed them over to the Myanmar junta -allied Border Guard Force (BGF), despite efforts from opposition groups to negotiate a release. Witnesses say that BGF troops shot at the men after the handover. According to media reports, at least one of the men was killed. The fates of the other two remain unclear.
Despite sharing an extensive border of more than 2,400 kilometers with Myanmar, the Thai government has not been welcoming to refugees who seek to escape the brutal violence of the Myanmar military. Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Thailand for sending back those who cross the border. Asylum seekers from Myanmar in Thailand also face a precarious situation, where they lack legal protection and risk being deported at any time.
Earlier this year, the Thai government officially adopted the UN Convention Against Torture, which states that “no government organizations or public officials shall expel, deport, or extradite a person to another country where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or enforced disappearance.” Releasing these three men into the hands of the Myanmar junta, which has repeatedly arbitrarily arrested, tortured, and at times even extrajudicially executed dissidents, is clearly in violation of this convention.
“We urge the Thai government to allow those fleeing conflict in Myanmar to enter Thailand safely and to prioritize their protection. Thai authorities must immediately halt the deportation of citizens from Myanmar who face immense risks to their physical well-being in the hands of the junta,” said Barends. “In light of the upcoming Thai elections, we also urge all Thai political parties and candidates to address human rights concerns on their platforms. Lastly, we call on ASEAN, ASEAN member states, and the international community to put pressure on Thailand to ensure that all people are treated with dignity and that their rights are respected and upheld. No person who faces persecution in the country they are fleeing should be detained and forcibly returned.”
Feb 10, 2023 | DFF, Statements
JAKARTA – Parliamentarians from all over Southeast Asia are urging the Thai government to listen to the demands of two young activists on hunger strike, and do everything they can to save their lives. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) also would like to invite Members of the Thai Parliament and relevant authorities to open a debate on amending the draconian lèse-majesté Law, with which both activists have been charged.
Tantawan “Tawan” Tuatulanon and Orawan “Bam” Phupong, 21 and 23 years old respectively, started their hunger strike on 18 January to demand reforms in the Thai justice system, the release of political prisoners and the abolition, or reform, of some of the laws used against dissidents, including the lèse-majesté law. According to media reports, the two activists are extremely weak, and there is concern for their lives.
The two activists face charges of lèse-majeste for publicly holding a sign asking whether the motorcades of members of the royal family, that often entail road closures in Bangkok, create inconveniences for the public. Tantawan also faces a second charge for the contents of a livestream she conducted on Facebook.
“It is tragic that these two young women feel that they have to put their lives at risk to fight for their beliefs. Whatever one may think of their ideas, they should be allowed to express them freely, as it would happen in a truly democratic country, and not amidst a climate of repression that leads to such extreme ways to voice dissent. Right now, the first priority should be to save their lives, but it is also crucial to initiate a candid debate on their demands,” said Kasit Piromya, former Thai Foreign Minister, and APHR Board Member.
Article 112 of Thailand’s Penal Code states that, “whoever defames, insults, or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent, or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” The Thai law of lèse-majesté, designed to defend and protect the revered monarchy, is one of the strictest in the world. It is often interpreted in a very loose manner and has been used widely in recent years as a weapon against political rivals. The main reason for this is that any Thai citizen can bring charges against anybody for allegedly violating Article 112.
A series of student protests broke the taboo on the monarchy in Thailand in 2020, demanding reforms on the institution, but they largely faded out in 2021, when the authorities began to crack down on protestors with accusations of lèse-majeste, as well as other offenses.
According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, at least 215 people in 234 cases were prosecuted under Article 112 between November 2020 and June 2022, including 17 minors. Of these lawsuits, at least 108 were filed by regular citizens, while the rest were filed by different Thai state institutions.
“There must be a law that protects the honor and safety of the Head of State, but it should comply with human rights standards. Article 112 prescribes an excessive punishment, and has been used all too often in a malicious way as a political weapon. Lawmakers in Thailand should look to reform the law. The penalties should be reduced, without a minimum sentence, and ordinary Thais should not be able to bring such charges; that only fosters witch-hunts. Only the Bureau of the Royal Household and the Public Prosecutor should be entitled to bring charges against those deemed to have defamed the king. A thorough revision of the lèse-majesté law will help to democratize Thailand, but will also benefit the monarchy itself, as an open debate of its role in modern Thailand is more necessary than ever,” said Kasit Piromya.
Click here to read this statement in Thai.
Jan 26, 2023 | DFF, Statements
JAKARTA – Parliamentarians from Southeast Asia urge the Thai government to stop engaging with the Myanmar junta, led by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, as it continues committing all sorts of atrocities against its own population in order to cement its power after the failed coup d’état in February 2021. They also petition the Thai authorities to provide help to refugees and asylum seekers fleeing persecution and military attacks from the neighboring country.
The call to disengage the junta comes after a meeting between the top leaders of the Myanmar and Thai armed forces in Rakhine State, western Myanmar. The Chief of the Royal Thai Armed Forces, General Chalermphon Srisawasdi, and Min Aung Hlaing met on 20 January with the aim of “further cementing mutual trust, mutual understanding and friendly ties between the two armed forces,” according to media controlled by the Myanmar junta.
As the high-level meeting was taking place, the Myanmar military was launching indiscriminate airstrikes in a village located in Sagaing region, killing at least seven villagers and injuring over thirty. On several occasions, stray shells have landed in Thai territory when the Myanmar military was conducting aerial attacks in neighboring Karen and Karenni states.
“By engaging with the junta, the Thai military and government are turning into enablers of the crimes against humanity that it is perpetrating on a daily basis. No geopolitical interests can justify that. The junta has also shown utter disrespect to ASEAN, of which Thailand is also a member, by disregarding the Five Point Consensus it signed three months after the coup. No ASEAN member state should have ‘friendly ties’ with a military that has turned Myanmar into a center of instability which is threatening the whole region,” said Charles Santiago, former Member of Parliament in Malaysia, and Co-Chairperson of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
The Five Point Consensus was signed by the ASEAN member states and the Myanmar junta in April 2021 to put an end to the violence, seek a negotiated solution to the conflict and address the humanitarian crisis. As APHR has repeatedly stated, Min Aung Hlaing has not shown any willingness to comply with its terms from the beginning. The report of the International Parliamentary Inquiry into the global response to the crisis in Myanmar (IPI), organized by APHR, urged ASEAN to abandon the Five Point Consensus in its present form, as it has clearly failed.
“As we demanded in our IPI report, ASEAN should engage the National Unity Government (NUG) of Myanmar, as the legitimate authority of the country, and re-negotiate a new consensus with it and aligned ethnic organizations. ASEAN decided early on not to invite representatives of the junta to high-level meetings, and countries like Malaysia and its current Chair, Indonesia, have shown willingness to engage the NUG. By meeting Ming Aung Hlaing, Thailand is undermining those efforts and furthering divisions within the regional group,” said Santiago.
In this vein, Thailand hosted a meeting in December to discuss the crisis in Myanmar, attended by the foreign ministers of the Myanmar junta, Laos and Cambodia, as well as the deputy foreign minister of Vietnam. Significantly, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore did not attend.
Thailand and Myanmar share a border of over 2,400 kilometers, and the attacks by the junta have displaced hundreds of thousands. Yet Thailand refuses to accept refugees fleeing the onslaught of the Myanmar military on the other side of the border, often pushing back those who cross it after a few days or even a few hours, as human rights organizations have often denounced in the last two years. Asylum seekers from the neighboring country do not fare much better in Thailand, where they have no legal protection and live in constant fear of deportation.
“Thailand has a history of welcoming refugees from Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam since the 20th century wars in Indochina. The government should open its borders to the refugees fleeing war in the Myanmar ethnic states along its borders, and provide legal protections to those who seek political asylum, including defectors from the Myanmar military. It should also facilitate cross-border aid by local civil society organizations and international NGOs. Once again, on these issues the main interlocutors the Thai government should engage with in Myanmar are the NUG, aligned ethnic organizations, and the vibrant civil society, not a criminal military completely unable to solve the crisis it has created,” said Santiago.
Click here to read this statement in Thai.
Nov 30, 2022 | DFF, Statements
BANGKOK – กลุ่มสมาชิกรัฐสภาอาเซียนเพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชน เรียกร้องให้สมาชิกรัฐสภาไทยร่วมกับประชาคมโลกสนับสนุนประชาธิปไตยในเมียนมา มีนโยบายช่วยเหลือประชาชนเมียนมาอย่างจริงจังและมีประสิทธิภาพ เพื่อนำเมียนมาไปสู่ประชาธิปไตยแบบสหพันธรัฐ แม้ว่าเผด็จการทหารของ มิน อ่อง หล่าย ล้มเหลวในการควบคุมประเทศ แต่กองกำลังฝ่ายสนับสนุนประชาธิปไตยไม่สามารถขับไล่กองทัพออกจากการเมืองของเมียนมาได้เองโดยลำพัง กองกำลังที่ต่อสู้เพื่อประชาธิปไตยต้องการความช่วยเหลือจากพันธมิตรในประชาคมโลก
29 พฤศจิกายน 2565 เวลา 13.30 น. ที่สมาคมนักข่าวนักหนังสือพิมพ์แห่งประเทศไทย กลุ่มสมาชิกรัฐสภาอาเซียนเพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชน (ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights: APHR) โดยมี กษิต ภิรมย์ หนึ่งในคณะกรรมการของAPHR และ ชลิดา ทาเจริญศักดิ์ ผู้อำนวยการมูลนิธิศักยภาพชุมชน (People’s Empowerment Foundation :PEF) เป็นตัวแทนแถลงชี้แจงสถานการณ์การละเมิดสิทธิมมุษยชนที่เกิดขึ้นภายในเมียนมา พร้อมเรียกร้องให้สมาชิกรัฐสภาและสื่อมวลชนไทยให้ความสนใจกับสถานการณ์ในเมียนมา ย้ำว่าหากประเทศเพื่อนบ้านของไทยอยู่ในภาวะวิกฤต ปัญหาเหล่านั้นอาจกระทบมาถึงไทยผ่านทางชายแดน เช่น การลักลอบค้าสัตว์ป่าและทรัพยากรธรรมชาติ การค้ามนุษย์ การค้ายาเสพติดและอาวุธเถื่อน
“ประเทศไทยควรให้ความช่วยเหลือด้านมนุษยธรรมให้ตกถึงประชาชนคนตัวเล็กตัวน้อยของเมียนมาอย่างแท้จริง โดยการเปิดชายแดนให้ชาวเมียนมาหลบหนีมาหาที่ปลอดภัย เปิดรับผู้ลี้ภัยจากการสู้รบ และผู้ลี้ภัยทางการเมือง ให้เข้ามาอยู่ในไทยเป็นการชั่วคราว และให้ความคุ้มครองผู้ลี้ภัยทางการเมือง โดยไม่ผลักดันพวกเขากลับสู่ประเทศเมียนมาในขณะที่รัฐบาลทหารยังครองอำนาจ การให้ความช่วยเหลือด้านมนุษยธรรมเหล่านี้ ไทยไม่จำเป็นต้องจ่ายเงินมูลค่ามหาศาล เนื่องจากปัจจุบันมีสหประชาชาติและรัฐบาลต่างชาติให้ความช่วยเหลือด้านเม็ดเงินอยู่แล้ว นานาชาติเพียงต้องการให้ไทยเปิดทางแก่การส่งความช่วยเหลือด้านมนุษยธรรมข้ามพรมแดนมากขึ้น” กษิต ภิรมย์ คณะกรรมการของ APHR และอดีตรัฐมนตรีกระทรวงการต่างประเทศของไทยกล่าว
ทั้งนี้ นับตั้งแต่กองทัพเมียนมาทำการรัฐประหารเมื่อวันที่ 1 กุมภาพันธ์ 2564 สถานการณ์ในประเทศยังคงถดถอยอย่างต่อเนื่อง เผด็จการทหารนำโดย พล.อ. อาวุโส มิน อ่อง หล่าย ได้ทำสงครามกับประชาชนอย่างป่าเถื่อน และทำลายเศรษฐกิจของประเทศ โดยกองทัพได้สังหารประชาชนไปแล้วอย่างน้อย 2,371 ราย และมีผู้พลัดถิ่นหลายแสนคน เผด็จการทหารยังจำคุกนักโทษการเมืองไม่ต่ำกว่า 15,000 คน และทำให้การทารุณกรรมผู้ถูกจับกุมเหล่านั้นกลายเป็นกิจวัตร ซ้ำยังเปิดฉากปราบปรามเสรีภาพการแสดงออกและการรวมกลุ่มอย่างกว้างขวาง รวมถึง การปราบปรามสื่ออิสระและประชาสังคมอย่างรุนแรง
แม้อาเซียนจะพยายามแก้ปัญหาวิกฤตการณ์ในเมียนมา เช่น การออกฉันทามติ 5 ข้อ (Five-Point Consensus) เมื่อเดือนเมษายนปีที่แล้ว รวมทั้งการแต่งตั้งทูตพิเศษเกี่ยวกับกิจการของเมียนมา ทว่าจากรายงานการสืบสวนสอบสวนของคณะกรรมการการไต่สวนของรัฐสภาระหว่างประเทศเพื่อตอบสนองต่อวิกฤตการณ์ในเมียนมา (International Parliamentary Inquiry: IPI) พบว่าการแก้ปัญหาวิกฤตเมียนมายังไม่มีความคืบหน้า จัดได้ว่าประสบความล้มเหลว และโดยเฉพาะความช่วยเหลือด้านมนุษยธรรมของนานาชาติยังเข้าไม่ถึงคนตัวเล็กตัวน้อยในเมียนมา
“การช่วยเหลือยังจำกัดอยู่ในตัวเมืองบางเมืองที่อยู่ภายใต้อาณัติของฝ่ายทหาร การช่วยเหลือยังไม่ถึงมือประชาชนส่วนใหญ่ และมีจำนวนมากที่อพยพหนีตายมาอยู่บริเวณชายแดนไทย-เมียนมา ปัญหาอีกประเด็นหนึ่งคือบทบาทหน้าที่ของทูตพิเศษมีความจำกัดและไม่ชัดเจน และเป็นตำแหน่งชั่วคราว และไม่มีความต่อเนื่องในการทำภารกิจ ในการนี้จึงเห็นว่าฝ่ายอาเซียนควรแต่งตั้งบุคลากรเข้าร่วมในงานของทูตพิเศษเพิ่มเติม รวมทั้งการจัดตั้งองค์กรที่จะรองรับงานและขยายบทบาทได้มากยิ่งขึ้น และมีสถานะเป็นงานประจำ
ในส่วนที่เกี่ยวกับประเทศไทยนั้น ที่ผ่านมาเราเห็นได้ชัดว่ารัฐบาลไทยยังคงเลือกยืนอยู่ข้างรัฐบาลทหารเมียนมา และเพิกเฉยต่อความเดือดร้อนของประชาชนเมียนมา นโยบายของรัฐบาลไทยยังไม่เปิดให้มีการรับเข้ามาของผู้ลี้ภัยใหม่ และยังไม่เคยติดต่อพูดคุยกับฝ่ายประชาธิปไตยที่ต่อต้านฝ่ายทหารเมียนมา” ชลิดา กล่าว
ในขณะเดียวกันก็มีข้อสังเกตว่า บทบาทสมาชิกรัฐสภาไทยในเรื่องเมียนมานี้ยังมีความจำกัดอยู่ สมควรที่จะมีการทบทวนท่าที และดำเนินการบทบาทในเชิงรุก เพื่อช่วยร่วมแก้ปัญหาวิกฤตเมียนมา สมาชิกรัฐสภาชุดปัจจุบันควรเรียกร้องให้รัฐบาลไทยมีบทบาทในเชิงสร้างสรรค์ในการแก้ปัญหาชายแดน และการนำสันติภาพและประชาธิปไตยกลับสู่เมียนมา นอกจากนั้นรัฐบาลไทยก็ควรเปิดโอกาสให้องค์กรภาคประชาสังคมได้เข้าไปมีส่วนร่วมในการช่วยเหลือผู้อพยพลี้ภัย รวมทั้งการให้สื่อได้เข้าไปตรวจสอบจัดหาข้อมูลเพื่อนำเสนอต่อสาธารณชน
“เมื่อประเทศเพื่อนบ้านอย่างเมียนมาเดือดร้อน และเราไม่เข้าไปช่วยแก้ปัญหา ไทยจะกลายเป็นประเทศที่ได้รับผลโดยตรง เพราะปัญหาจะเข้ามาถึงเราผ่านทางชายแดนไทย-เมียนมา เช่น ปัญหายาเสพติด การค้ามนุษย์ และการลอบค้าทรัพยากรธรรมชาติ แร่ธาตุ สัตว์ป่า และอาวุธเถื่อน รวมถึงโรคระบาดที่ไม่ใช่แค่โควิด-19 ปัจจุบันสถานการณ์ด้านสาธารณสุขในเมียนมาอยู่ในขั้นวิกฤต เนื่องจากภาครัฐไม่อยู่ในสถานะที่จะดำเนินการช่วยเหลือดูแล เช่น การฉีดวัคซีนให้กับประชาชนพลเมืองได้ เพราะการสู้รบที่กระจัดกระจายไปทั่ว และความไม่พร้อมของฝ่ายกองทัพเมียนมาที่กุมอำนาจรัฐอยู่” กษิตกล่าวปิดท้าย
Nov 9, 2022 | DFF, Open Letters
8 November 2022
Re: Thai officials must drop all the ongoing prosecutions under the Emergency Decree
Dear Honorable Ambassador,
We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations, are writing to express our serious concern regarding the ongoing impact of the implementation of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation B.E. 2548 (“Emergency Decree”) in response to the Covid-19 pandemic in Thailand. We are troubled by reports of the continuing prosecution of individuals charged under the Emergency Decree, despite the end of the declaration of the “emergency situation” in all areas of Thailand as well as the effect of regulations, announcements, and orders issued thereunder.
We urge you to call on Thailand to cease all intimidation, harassment and prosecution of all individuals solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, information, peaceful assembly, movement, and public participation through the abuse of laws and administrative regulations, and to immediately drop all charges, issue non-prosecution orders, and refrain from further charges, against any individual, including those facing prosecution solely for peacefully exercising their human rights for alleged violation of the Emergency Decree.
Purportedly to combat the Covid-19 outbreak, Thailand had been operating under a state of emergency since 26 March 2020,[1] with the executive government having extended the declaration of an emergency situation 19 times since then. During this period, a series of regulations containing several Emergency Decree measures have been periodically announced pursuant to Emergency Decree powers. These include several vague and overbroad restrictions on the rights to freedom of movement, expression, peaceful assembly and public participation.
On 29 September 2022, Prime Minister Gen. Prayuth Chan-o-cha issued an announcement titled “Repeal of the Declaration of Emergency Situations in the Kingdom and other Relevant Announcements, Regulations, and Orders” (hereinafter “Announcement”). This Announcement—which came into force on 1 October 2022—effectively repealed the declaration of an emergency situation prompted by the spread of Covid-19 around the country, and at least 47 regulations, announcements and/or orders issued under the Emergency Decree, as well as announcements and orders made under other specific laws with the stated intent of combatting the outbreak. In total, the Emergency Decree was in force for more than two-and-a-half years.
Over the past two years, there has been numerous political and other protests. Among the demands typically made by political protesters are: (1) the resignation of the prime minister and a new election; (2) amendments to the 2017 Constitution; (3) no retaliation against or prosecution of activists peacefully exercising their human rights; and (4) reforms to the institution of the monarchy. The rise of multiple political groups created challenges in balancing competing objectives, between controlling the spread of Covid-19 and respecting and protecting the human rights of everyone, including to freedom of peaceful assembly.
We have reviewed, assessed and made recommendations in relation to the implementation of Thailand’s Emergency Decree in response to the Covid-19 outbreak. Our analysis has revealed that a number of the legal and practical responses undertaken by the Thai authorities purportedly to address public emergencies in the past two years have not complied with rule of law principles and international legal obligations.[2] In particular, bringing criminal charges against and prosecuting persons under the Emergency Decree for simply exercising their rights to expression and peaceful assembly could not be considered necessary and proportionate even during the pandemic; moreover, it did not adhere to the principle of legality as required by international human rights law, and was inconsistent with the legitimate purpose of ensuring the protection of public health.
Emergency Decree Cases
High number of cases corresponds with periods of political movements
Based on information from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR),[3] from May 2020[4] to September 2022, at least 1,468 individuals in 661 cases have been charged with and/or prosecuted under the Emergency Decree in incidents arising out of public protests (“Emergency Decree cases”).[5] Out of them, at least 241 individuals in 157 cases are children (i.e., under the age of 18).
Criminal proceedings under the Emergency Decree make up the highest number of individuals and cases with respect to political trials in the past two years, followed by lèse-majesté cases under Section 112 of the Criminal Code.
Emergency Decree cases can be categorized as follows:
- From 26 March 2020 to 18 July 2020, which is the period before the Free Youth protest,[6] there were seven cases;
- From 15 to 22 October 2020 during which time the government declared a state of “severe emergency” in response to political demonstrations in 2020, there were 35 cases;[7]
- There are 88 cases resulting from violations of the curfew, which was imposed in accordance with the Emergency Decree. Most of these cases took place during the period of the Din Daeng protest from August to October 2021 and are accompanied by charges under the Communicable Disease Act B.E. 2558 (2015);
- There are 109 “car mob” cases —most of which occurred between July and October 2021— where individuals allegedly drove their vehicles to participate in protests at different locations in the country;[8] and
- There are 41 Emergency Decreecases where individuals were also charged under the Public Assembly Act B.E. 2558(2015). The police brought two charges—violations of Emergency Decree andPublic Assembly Act—against individuals simultaneously despite the fact that the Public Assembly Act is expressly not applicable in times of state of emergency. Prosecutors should immediately drop the Public Assembly Act charges in these 41 cases for that reason.
In at least 41 of the 661 Emergency Decree cases, the defendants “confessed” their guilt at the trial stage. In most of these cases, the court sentenced the defendants to a fine or suspended their sentences. Public prosecutors issued non-prosecution orders in at least 23 cases. Thai courts acquitted the defendants in 28 cases. Thai courts convicted the defendants under the Emergency Decree in eight cases. Thus far, only 87 cases have been concluded while more than 574 cases are still at the investigation, trial or appeal stages.[9]
During the above-noted periods, laws were enforced in an incoherent manner, as exemplified by the numerous regulations issued under the Decree at different times. Such confusion demonstrate the impropriety of reliance on the Emergency Decree to deal with a public health emergency. For instance, a severe state of emergency was declared in response to political demonstrations and implemented alongside with the existing state of emergency declared with the stated view of controlling Covid-19. At times, regulations issued under the Emergency Decree, which are secondary legislation that rank hierarchically lower than primary legislation, appeared aimed at overriding primary laws. The regulations provided that the Public Assembly Act B.E. 2558(2015) was to be applied despite the Public Assembly Act clearly stating that it is not to be used during a state of emergency.[10] In April 2022, the Lopburi District Court decided that the government issued an unlawful Emergency Decree measure—i.e. Announcement of the Chief Official Responsible for Remedying the Emergency Situation in Relation to the Security Matters (No. 9), dated 3 August 2021, Regarding the Prohibition of Assembly, Carrying out of Activities, or Gathering that Risk Spreading Covid-19—because it was endorsed by the authority without the power to do so.[11]
574 cases are still ongoing despite the end of the Emergency Decree
The repeal of the Emergency Decree, as well as the regulations, announcements, and orders issued thereunder, have not automatically resulted in the dismissal of cases where individuals faced criminal prosecution in relation to the violations of Emergency Decree measures enacted with the stated view of stopping the spread of Covid-19.
Pursuant to Section 18 of the Emergency Decree, violating the Decree measures may incur imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine of up to 40,000 baht (approx. USD$1,070), or both.
Five hundred and seventy-four cases, or 86% of all Emergency Decree cases (354 at investigation stage, 190 at trial stage, and 30 at appeal stage), are still ongoing, despite the fact that the spread of Covid-19—the purported reason for declaring a state of emergency in the first place—is now under control, and the use of the Emergency Decree has formally ended.
We consider that the Thai authorities must immediately drop all charges, issue non-prosecution orders, and refrain from further charges, against those facing prosecution for alleged violation of the repealed Emergency Decree for the following reasons:
Some measures adopted are inconsistent with Thailand’s obligations under international human rights law
The restrictions that were issued pursuant to the Emergency Decree include the imposition of night-time curfew and the prohibition of “assembly, carrying out of activities, or gathering at any place that is crowded, or to commit any act which may cause unrest”.
Under international human rights law, and particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a party, human rights and fundamental freedoms may be limited only under very narrow conditions and circumstances and for a restricted set of purposes, including to address a public health emergency. Any such limitations must be strictly necessary and proportionate to their purpose and be non-discriminatory in purpose and effect.
However, the above noted Emergency Decree measures and the manner they are applied do not comply with these conditions. They serve to limit freedom of peaceful assembly, protected under Article 21 of the ICCPR; freedom of expression and information, protected under Article 19 of the ICCPR; freedom of movement, protected under Article 12 of the ICCPR; and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, protected under Article 25 of the ICCPR. They have not been accompanied by a clear delineation of what they would entailed in the specific context of the situation targeted by these measures, as required under the principles of legality in accordance with the ICCPR. In the context of Covid-19, the imposition of criminal punishment against the violators of the Decree also extends far beyond the scope of public health measures strictly necessary to protect the rights to life and health, constituting a disproportionate punishment.[12] There has been no evidence to suggest that any of the political activities targeted under the Emergency Decree contributed to an increased spread of Covid-19, nor has there appeared to be evidence publicly presented by any State authorities.
Pursuant to Article 4 of the ICCPR, where there is a public emergency so severe that it threatens the life of the nation, certain ICCPR rights may be subject to necessary and proportionate derogations, but this may only be done to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. However, despite the relatively low infection rates during several periods, the Thai government has failed to explain the reason why it deemed necessary to resort to the Emergency Decree powers as required under Article 4 of the ICCPR as a condition for derogation.[13] In addition, the emergency situation was notified by the Thai government to the UN Secretary-General effective from 26 March to 30 June 2020.[14] In the absence of any subsequent notification to the UN Secretary-General concerning the extensions of the state of emergency, it had generally been presumed that Thailand was not purporting to derogate from any ICCPR rights beyond 30 June 2020.[15]
Against individuals exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
The rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, movement and public participation are also guaranteed by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017). Among others, Section 34 guarantees a person’s right to “enjoy the liberty to express opinions, make speeches, write, print, publicize and express by other means;” and Section 44 ensures “a person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.”
Considering the number of activists charged for violating the Emergency Decree, including violations of curfew and the prohibition on public assembly, it appears that emergency measures were adopted in their broad terms at least in part not to address a real public health emergency, but rather for other purposes, such as to target political activists who were exercising their rights to freedom of expression, public participation and peaceful assembly.
Based on the TLHR’s statistics on Emergency Decree cases,[16] public prosecutors issued non-prosecution orders in 23 cases, and the court acquitted the defendants in 28 cases. The justifications given by the public prosecutors were varied and included: there was insufficient evidence; the protest was not congested; and/or protesters had the right to peacefully assemble. One reason the court gave for acquitting the defendants is that to assemble in public is to exercise the right protected under the Constitution. Notwithstanding these acquittals, the fact that such criminal proceedings were brought against the activists in the first place contributed to their fear or exhaustion, put an unnecessary burden and had a “chilling effect” on them, and discouraged the exercise of human rights as far as the individual activists were concerned and more broadly within the general public.
Impose an unnecessary burden on the justice system resources
The prosecution of the Emergency Decree cases put an undue burden on the justice system and thereby has effectively hobbled the administration of justice in the country. In the past two years and a half, only 87 out of 661 Emergency Decree cases have been concluded. More than 50% of the cases (i.e., 354 cases) are still at the investigation stage. To prosecute such cases, the Thai justice system must utilize a significant amount of its resources, including financial, human, and time resources, for conduct that is no longer illegal following the adoption of the Announcement. Doing so would divert the State’s resources from prosecuting other ordinary and essential judicial matters.
Recommendations
We respectfully call on your government to urge the Thai government to immediately cease the intimidation, harassment or prosecution of all individuals solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, information, and peaceful assembly.
Thai authorities should immediately drop all charges, cease investigation of these cases, issue non-prosecution orders, withdraw cases or their appeals before the court, desist from appealing the acquittals, including on the basis that the underlying conduct is no longer illegal, and refrain from bringing further charges, against individuals facing prosecution for alleged violation of the Emergency Decree. Alternatively, the prosecutor should exercise their power under Section 21 of the Public Prosecutor Organization and Public Prosecutors Act B.E. 2553 (2010), where a case may be referred to the attorney general should they believe prosecution is not in the public interest or would affect the safety, security, or important interests of the nation. The attorney general, in turn, has the power not to indict or appeal, as well as to withdraw cases.
Additionally, the Thai authorities should consider quashing the convictions of individuals under the Emergency Decree. The Thai authorities should also ensure and facilitate equal access to prompt, accessible and effective remedies and reparation for all individuals who have had their rights violated as a result of intimidation, harassment or prosecution simply for the exercise of human rights.
Sincerely,
24 international human rights organizations
Click here for full list of signatories.
[1] Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, available at: https://interaffairs.psu.ac.th/images/download/covid/Declaration_of_Emergency_in_Thailand.pdf
[2] ‘The Implementation of the Emergency Decree in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Thailand – A Brief Paper’, International Commission of Jurists (July 2021), https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FINAL_APP270601_TFH_Draft_COVID_19_ED_LEGAL_BRIEFING_proofread.pdf (“ICJ Briefing on the Emergency Decree in Response to the COVID-19”)
[3] ‘กันยายน 65: จำนวนผู้ถูกดำเนินคดีทางการเมืองยอดรวมอย่างน้อย 1,860 คน ใน 1,139 คดี’, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (4 October 2022), https://tlhr2014.com/archives/49210
[4] This date marks the period when protesters started to conduct political activities again after a state of emergency was declared in March 2020.
[5] Many individuals are prosecuted in multiple cases.
[6] Pro-democracy protests, led by students from the Free Youth group and the Student Union of Thailand.
[7] For the legal briefing analyzing the implementation of Thailand’s Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation B.E. 2548 (2005) in response to protests in 2020, see: ‘Thailand: lifting of serious emergency situation in Bangkok is welcome, but emergency laws remain deeply problematic – ICJ Briefing Paper’, International Commission of Jurists (27 October 2020), https://www.icj.org/thailand-lifting-of-serious-emergency-situation-in-bangkok-is-welcome-but-emergency-laws-remain-deeply-problematic-icj-briefing-paper/.
[8] ‘1 ปี คาร์ม็อบไล่ประยุทธ์: สรุปคดีทั่วไทยไม่น้อยกว่า 109 คดี ศาลยกฟ้องไป 5 คดี อัยการสั่งไม่ฟ้อง 4 คดี’, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (July 3, 2022), https://tlhr2014.com/archives/45616.
[9] ‘แม้ยกเลิกสถานการณ์ฉุกเฉิน แต่คดี พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉินฯ จากการชุมนุม กว่า 574 คดี ยังต้องต่อสู้ต่อ’, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (October 1, 2022), https://tlhr2014.com/archives/49076.
[10] ‘1 ปี สถานการณ์ฉุกเฉินรับมือโควิด: ผลกระทบต่อเสรีภาพในการชุมนุม’, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (March 26, 2021), https://tlhr2014.com/archives/27551.
[11] ‘เปิดคำพิพากษายกฟ้องคดีคาร์ม็อบลพบุรี ชี้การชุมนุมยังไม่ถึงกับแออัดเต็มพื้นที่-ประกาศ ผบ.ทสส. ไม่มีผลใช้บังคับ ออกเกินอำนาจ’, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (May 9, 2022), https://tlhr2014.com/archives/43412.
[12] See ICJ Briefing on the Emergency Decree in Response to the COVID-19
[13] Ibid.
[14] Thailand’s Notification under Article 4(3), C.N.194.2020. TREATIES-IV.4 (Depositary Notification), 4 June 2020, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2020/CN.194.2020-Eng.pdf.
[15] See ICJ Briefing on the Emergency Decree in Response to the COVID-19
[16] ‘แม้ยกเลิกสถานการณ์ฉุกเฉิน แต่คดี พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉินฯ จากการชุมนุม กว่า 574 คดี ยังต้องต่อสู้ต่อ’, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (October 1, 2022), https://tlhr2014.com/archives/49076.
