This page summarizes cases raised with Thailand by the Special Rapporteur between May 1, 2011, (when the Special Rapporteur took up his functions) and February 28, 2017 (the date of the last public release of communications). Communications are released to the public once per year. This page also contains observations on these communications and on responses received from Thailand.
Communications and observations are divided into sections based upon which observation report they originally appeared.
Each communication is referenced as urgent appeal (UA), allegation letter (AL), joint urgent appeal (JUA) and joint allegation letter (JAL) – the hyperlinks lead to these documents. This is followed by the date the communication was issued, as well as the case number and the State reply (also hyperlinked if available).
Summaries and communications are published only in the language of submission (in the case of Thailand, English).
None
Observations
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Thailand for its response to his communication of 9 January 2013. He however regrets that no reply has been received to the communication of 25 July 2012. He considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation of Governments with his mandate, and urges the authorities to provide as soon as possible detailed responses to all the concerns raised in his communications.
The Special Rapporteur remains deeply disturbed about the killing of Ms. Montha Chukaew and Ms. Pranee Boonrat, and calls on the Government to keep him informed on the prosecution undertaken in relation to this case.
The Special Rapporteur urges the authorities to take all relevant measures to ensure that any individual and legal entity can peacefully exercise their rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. He recommends that the Government put in place an enabling and safe environment allowing individuals to exercise their legitimate freedoms without undue hindrances. A thorough and independent investigation into any allegations of any human rights violations, including acts of intimidations or harassments, committed against those exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, should be conducted; those responsible should be held accountable; and victims should be provided with full redress.
The Special Rapporteur refers to Human Rights Council resolution 21/16, and in particular operative paragraph 1 that “[r]eminds States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law”.
The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Thailand of his country visit request sent in September 2011, to which a response is yet to be received. In this connection, OP6 of resolution 15/21 states that the “Human Rights Council… [c]alls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his or her tasks, to provide all necessary information requested by him or her, … and to consider favourably his or her requests for visits”.
Observations
The Special Rapporteur thanks the authorities of Thailand for its replies to his communications. He notes the arrest of three suspects in relation to the murder of Mr. Prajob Nao-opas, as well as the criminal charges to be brought, and disciplinary action or administrative punishment to be undertaken, against them. He calls on the authorities to apprise him on the latest development in relation to this case.
The Special Rapporteur recommends that the authorities put in place an enabling and safe environment that is conducive to the free expression of civil society allowing individuals to exercise their legitimate right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association without undue hindrances.
The Special Rapporteur refers to Human Rights Council resolution 24/5, and in particular operative paragraph 1 that “[r]eminds States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law”.
The Special Rapporteur reminds the authorities of his country visit request sent in September 2011 and October 2013, to which a response is yet to be received. In this connection, OP6 of resolution 15/21 states that the “Human Rights Council… [c]alls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his or her tasks… and to consider favourably his or her requests for visits”.
Observations
Responses to communications
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for the numerous replies received during the period under consideration and regrets that two communications did not receive a reply to date. He views responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation of Governments and calls upon the Government to continue engaging with his mandate on these crucial issues, in conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010).
Environmental and land rights defenders
The Special Rapporteur notes with concern indications that numerous environmental and land rights defenders were subjected to threats, violence or harassment in the reporting period. He expressed his dismay at the multiple violations detailed in the communication of THA 2/ 2015, including the killings of Mr. Pitan Thongpanang, Mr. Somsuk Kohkrang and Mr. Chai Bunthonglek, the attempted killing of Mr. Suwit Jeh-Soh, the temporary incommunicado detention of Mr. Pianrat Boonrit and the threats made against environmental and land rights defenders as well as community members. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the reply on 2 April 2015, informing him of the status of the investigations and looks forward to receiving further information on the outcome of the proceedings. Regarding the context provided by the Government related to the long history and the complexity of land disputes, he recalls that precisely in relation to complex situations, the effective exercise of the rights to peaceful assembly and association can be important means tocall for greater respect for human rights. Furthermore, these rights provide for a non-violent alternative for seeking change and also give authorities a chance to gain insight into views and sentiments of its citizens.
Rights to peaceful assembly and association in the context of projects relating to natural resource exploitation
In relation to attacks and threats to environmental activities in the context of a project relating to natural resource exploitation, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his concern about the allegations of attacks against villagers of Nanongbong and members of the Khon Rak Ban Keod Group of environmental activists who have been campaigning against the environmental and health impacts of gold mines in their communities (THA 5/2014). He takes note of the response from 9 September 2014 providing further information on the police investigation into the case and detailing other mechanism and initiatives for the protection of human rights defenders. He recalls that the State committed to protecting and promoting rights set forth in international law and standards, and in that regard, awaits further information on the outcome of the proceedings and investigations related to the case.
The Special Rapporteur also stresses that environmental, land rights and other activists and groups that advocate rights of those at risk are targeted because of their lobbying activities, including for effective consultation and participation of communities affected by land-related decisions. He urges that a positive environment allowing and promoting the rights of all people to freely associate and assemble is essential in the context of exploitation of natural resources to ensure a fair, transparent and accountable process that benefits all the parties involved (A/HRC/29/25, paragraph 67).
Environment in which these rights are exercised
The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the right to freedom of association obliges the Government to take positive measures to create and maintain an environment in which individuals exercising this right are able to execute their functions freely, without being subjected to acts of intimidation or violence (A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 63). Over a decade after the enforced disappearance of Mr. Somchai Neelaphaijit, a human rights lawyer and senior member of two lawyers’ associations,, he urges the Government to ensure that the perpetrators are held criminally responsible (PR 11/03/2014). Impunity for such violations may act as a powerful deterrent for other civil society members to exercise their rights to peaceful assembly and association.
The Special Rapporteur reiterates his dismay at the suspension of the Constitution and imposition of martial law on 20 May 2014 (THA 6/2014) and acknowledges the reply of the Government from 13 June 2014. While he welcomes the efforts to decrease the measures taken under the Emergency Laws and notes the indication that these are temporary emergency measures until an interim constitution is put in place, he stresses that democratic processes are essential to the guarantee of human rights. In that regard, the Special Rapporteur notes his concerns regarding the curbing of fundamental rights since the military assumed power in the country (PR 13/06/2014). He is alarmed at allegations that indicate a continuing trend of restrictions on, and arrests of, individuals exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Regarding the public criticism of authorities and charges, detention or convictions of 21 individuals in relation to lèse-majesté offences (THA 13/2014), the Special Rapporteur is aware of the Government’s response, which justified the application of lèse-majesté laws, giving reasons including the protection of the rights or reputation of the King of Thailand and the necessity of lèse-majesté to uphold national security and public order. The Special Rapporteur continues to disagree with this rationale and this interpretation of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crime Act and considers that they do not comply with Thailand’s international human rights obligations, which include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In that regard, he requests further information on the measures taken, in order to repeal or amend the lèse-majesté laws and to bring domestic legislation into conformity with Thailand’s obligations under international human rights instruments such as the aforementioned Covenant.
The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the situations of members of associations, including the cases of Ms. Nurainee Uma, Ms. Khongkachomkiet and Mr. Homla-or and those related to the activities of the associations in monitoring and documenting cases human rights violations (THA 4/2014 and THA 10/2014).
Moreover, he expresses concern at the reported instance of arbitrary arrest, torture and other ill-treatment in custody of student activist Ms. Kritsuda Khunasen, by members of the military forces, in relation to her affiliation with the United front of Democracy against Dictatorship (THA 9/2014). In this regard, he echoes the serious concerns expressed by the Committee against Torture during its recent review of the State, about bout the continued allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment of detainees by the military, the police and prison officials (CAT/C/THA/CO/1, paragraph 10). Without a reply from the Government providing clarification of this case, the Special Rapporteur, reiterates his concerns about the lack of investigation into those allegations and the ungrounded arrest warrant issued against Ms. Khunasen.
He is particularly worried when these allegations take place in a context of restrictions to multiple rights and fundamental guarantees, against human rights defenders and political opponents in Thailand following the military coup and imposition of martial law (THA 9/2014, THA 10/2014).
The Special Rapporteur stresses that while the State does not have to agree with the opinions and criticisms expressed by people who embrace different convictions or beliefs, it has a positive obligation to ensure the existence of an enabling environment for civil society, in terms of enjoyment of the rights of peaceful assembly and association, so that it may exist, operate and express itself freely and without fear.
Draft Public Assembly Act
The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concerns about the draft Public Assembly Act, which may unduly curtail the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of opinion and expression if adopted in its present form. Among his chief concerns are articles 7 and 11 (related to the regime of authorization for planning protests); article 13 (specifying that an authorized body may instruct the organizers to modify a public assembly); article 27 (relevant to the policing of assemblies); article 28 (pertaining to the disciplinary liabilities of a competent official who undertakes actions to contain a public assembly); article 18 (which prohibits assemblers “from causing inconvenience to the general public”); and article 30 (providing that the organizer of a public assembly may be subject to imprisonment for minor reasons, including failure to notify the competent authority of the intention to hold an assembly).
The Special Rapporteur is of the view that, as it stands, the draft Act is inconsistent with the obligations Thailand has committed to under international law. He recalls that the exercise of the freedom to peaceful assembly must not be subjected to previous authorization (A/HRC/20/27). Authorities ought to provide assembly organizers with timely and complete rationale for the imposition of restrictions and law enforcement officials must be held personally and fully accountable for violations of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly (A/HRC/20/27).
Country visits
In reference to the country visit requests he sent in September 2011 and October 2013, the Special Rapporteur would like the Government to takes note of his desire to carry out a country visit to Thailand in the framework of his mandate. He hope to receive a positive reply from the Government, in the spirit of Human Rights Council resolutions 15/21 and 24/5 which call upon States to consider his requests for visits favourably.
Observations
Responses to communications
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Thailand for its responses to his communications of 16 July 2015 (THA 7/2015) and 25 February 2016 (THA 9/2015). He takes note of the acknowledgement made by the Government of his communication of 27 May 2015 (THA 5/2015), and looks forward to receiving substantial information on the concerns raised in this letter.
The Special Rapporteur reiterates his grave concern about the killing of Mr. Masawee Masalae and the attempted killings of Mr. Torlep Sapa-Ing, Mr. Rorsuwan Bu-Nae and Mr. Arsae Niseng, as well as the reported failure of the police to protect them and other persons in a similar situation, and to investigate these acts. Further concern is reiterated that the attacks appear to target former detainees initially charged with security-related offenses but subsequently acquitted or released for lack of evidence, in Yala Province and Pattani Province, in Thailand, including three members of the Justice for Peace Network (JOP). He urges the authorities to undertake a thorough and independent investigation into these cases, hold the perpetrators accountable, and provide remedies to the victims and families of victims.
While noting the response of the Government to his letter of 16 July 2015, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his serious concern that the alleged arbitrary detention, prosecution, and trial before a military court of the 14 students were linked to their participation in a series of peaceful protests against the current regime and forced evictions of rural communities in north-eastern Thailand. He remains concerned about the fact the students were tried before a military court despite their status as civilians. He stresses that military tribunals should have jurisdiction only over military personnel who commit military offences or breaches of military discipline, and only when those offences or breaches do not amount to serious human rights violations.
The Special Rapporteur remains particularly worried about the context in which restrictions to multiple rights and fundamental guarantees against human rights defenders and political opponents in Thailand have taken place, following the military coup and imposition of martial law. He stresses that while the Government does not have to agree with the opinions and criticisms expressed by people who embrace different convictions or beliefs, it has a positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders and political opponents, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation and harassment of any sort.
In this regard, he reiterates his disagreement with the rationale behind the use of the lèse-majesté legislation as a means to protect the rights and reputation of the King of Thailand and the necessity to uphold national security and public order. He considers that it does not comply with Thailand’s international human rights obligations, which include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In that regard, he requests again further information on the measures taken, in order to repeal or amend the lèse-majesté laws and to bring domestic legislation into conformity with Thailand’s obligations under international human rights instruments.
The Special Rapporteur wishes finally to refer to the joint report on the proper management of assemblies he prepared with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/31/66), which is highly relevant to the present situation in Thailand.
Country visit
The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit Thailand, as indicated by his letter sent in September 2011 and October 2013. He trusts that such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider favourably his requests for visits.
Observations
Responses to communications
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Thailand for its response to three of his communications out of five sent during the reporting period. He regrets that he has not yet received a response to his fourth and fifth communications.
While the Special Rapporteur notes the Government’s assertion that Thailand is in a period of transition and reform, he reiterates his grave concern expressed in the two communications of 27 May 2016 that acts, orders, and announcements have been used to criminalize, severely restrict and deter the exercise of the rights of freedom of expression and access to information in Thailand, in particular on those expressing dissenting and critical views. He also reiterates his concern with regard to the reportedly insufficient procedures, lack of adequate judicial oversight, and overly broad definitions of the provisions which purportedly grant powers to security officers to unduly interfere with the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
The Special Rapporteur expresses severe concern for the killing of farmer and environmental human rights defender Mr. Payao Panroj and the disappearance of land rights defender Mr. Den Kamlae. Mr. Kamlae is a leader amongst networks of local villagers defending their land, and opposing the Kohn San Forest Project, established by the state-owned Forest Industry Organisation. Further concern is reiterated at reports of the alleged attempted assassination of Mr Supoj Kansoj, nephew-in-law of Mr. Chai Bunthonglek, a member of the Southern Peasants’ Federation of Thailand (SPFT). Since its creation in 2008 the SPFT movement has been campaigning for community land rights in an ongoing dispute with the palm oil company Jiew Kang Jue Pattana Co. Ltd. Although at least four SPFT members have been killed since 2010, no one has reportedly been held accountable for any of these attacks. Further concern is expressed at the alleged threats and intimidations against members of the Network of Individuals Affected from Gold Mining. The Special Rapporteur is gravely concerned that these events may be directly linked to their legitimate and peaceful activities in the defense of human rights through the exercise of their rights to freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
The Special Rapporteur reiterates his concerns regarding the criminal prosecution against 13 activists of the New Democracy Movement (NDM) for campaigning to encourage voters to reject the draft Constitution on the grounds that the draft lacked important democratic guarantees. In matters of high public and political interest, such as a constitutional referendum, he restates the importance of allowing and encouraging diverging opinions and public debate by citizens, civil society actors and by the media, as well as protecting the rights of individuals to form associations and assemblies designed to encourage opinions and foster debate.
The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the Government’s response to his communication regarding the charges brought against human rights defenders Ms. Porpen Khongkachonkiet, Mr. Somchai Homla-or and Ms. Anchana Heemmina. Nevertheless, he reiterates his grave concern regarding the use of criminal sanctions on cases related to defamation, which may have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression and association and the legitimate and peaceful work of civil society and human rights defenders.
Overall, the Special Rapporteur urges the authorities of Thailand to protect and promote the rights to free association and peaceful assembly. In this regard, he reminds the Government of its positive obligation to ensure that civil society, including human rights defenders and political activists, can carry out their legitimate work free in a safe and enabling environment without fear of threats or acts of intimidation, harassment or assassination of any sort.
Country visit
The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit Thailand, as indicated by his letter sent in September 2011 and October 2013. He trusts that such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call upon States to consider favourably his requests for visits.
For the full reports, containing communications, replies and observations for all countries, see the following links:
Report A/HRC/20/27/Add.3: May 1, 2011 to March 15, 2012
Report A/HRC/23/39/Add.2: March 16, 2012 to February 28, 2013
Report A/HRC/26/29/Add.1: March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014
Report A/HRC/29/25/Add.3: March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015
Report A/HRC/32/36/Add.3: March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2016
Report A/HRC/35/28/Add.4: March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017
