Thailand’s Anti-Torture Journey: Progress and Challenges
Table of Contents
In 2007, Thailand took a significant step toward human rights protection by ratifying the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). This move was hailed as a promising gesture,signaling the country’s commitment to eradicating torture and enforced disappearances. However, nearly two decades later, Thailand’s progress remains under scrutiny, with recent evaluations highlighting both advancements and persistent gaps.
A Landmark Law with Room for Betterment
In 2022, Thailand passed a national law against torture and enforced disappearances, marking a pivotal moment in its human rights journey. The Committee Against Torture welcomed this development during its second review of Thailand’s compliance with the CAT in December 2024. However, the committee also identified critical shortcomings in the law’s definitions and implementation.
Under the CAT,torture is defined as the infliction of severe physical or mental harm by government authorities or their agents,typically to extract confessions,punish,intimidate,or discriminate. The committee found that Thailand’s definition falls short, as it requires “actual knowledge” of wrongdoing by authorities, rather than covering situations where they “should have known” about the malpractice.
Similarly, the definition of enforced disappearance in thai law is deemed too narrow. The CAT defines it as the deprivation of liberty by authorities, coupled with the refusal to disclose the victim’s whereabouts. Thailand’s current legal framework fails to fully encompass this scope, leaving room for ambiguity and potential abuse.
Key Recommendations for Thailand
The committee Against Torture has outlined a comprehensive package of recommendations to address these gaps. These include:
- Broadening legal Definitions: Expanding the definitions of torture and enforced disappearance to align with international standards.
- Strengthening Monitoring Mechanisms: Establishing robust systems to oversee compliance and investigate allegations.
- Enhancing Remedies for Victims: Ensuring victims and their families have access to justice, reparations, and support.
- Resolving Pending Cases: Addressing unresolved cases of torture and disappearances to restore public trust.
Thailand’s Ongoing Commitment
Despite these challenges, Thailand has demonstrated a willingness to improve. During the 2016 Global Periodic Review (UPR) of its human rights record, the country announced plans to ratify the Optional Protocol to the CAT (OP-CAT), a move welcomed by the UN Human Rights Office. This protocol would allow independent international bodies to inspect detention facilities, further bolstering accountability.
Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Current Status | Recommendations |
|———————————|———————————————————————————–|————————————————————————————-|
| Legal Definitions | Narrow definitions of torture and enforced disappearance | Broaden definitions to align with CAT standards |
| Monitoring Mechanisms | Limited oversight and accountability | Strengthen independent monitoring and investigation systems |
| Victim Support | Inadequate remedies for victims and families | Ensure access to justice,reparations,and psychological support |
| Pending Cases | Unresolved cases of torture and disappearances | Expedite investigations and provide clear resolutions |
A Call to Action
Thailand’s journey toward eradicating torture and enforced disappearances is far from over.While the 2022 law represents a significant milestone, the country must now focus on implementing the Committee Against Torture’s recommendations. By broadening legal definitions, strengthening oversight, and prioritizing victim support, Thailand can move closer to fulfilling its obligations under the CAT.
For those interested in learning more about Thailand’s human rights efforts, explore the latest updates from human rights Watch and the detailed analysis by The Jakarta Post.
Thailand’s commitment to human rights is a work in progress, but with continued effort and international support, the country can set a powerful example for others to follow.
Thailand’s Emergency Laws Under scrutiny: A Call for Reform
Thailand’s legal framework has come under intense scrutiny,especially its emergency laws,which have been criticized for violating international human rights standards. The Martial Law Act (1914) and the Emergency Decree (2005) have been singled out for enabling prolonged detentions without judicial oversight, raising concerns about due process and human rights protections.
This blog delves into the implications of these laws, the recommendations made by international committees, and the urgent need for reform to align Thailand’s legal practices with global standards.
The Problem with Thailand’s Emergency Laws
Under the Martial Law Act and the Emergency Decree, individuals can be detained for up to 37 days without access to courts. This practice starkly contrasts with international standards, such as those outlined in the Convention Against torture (CAT), which emphasizes the right to a fair trial and timely judicial review.
A committee reviewing Thailand’s legal framework highlighted this issue, recommending that the country revert to its Criminal Procedure code, which mandates that arrested persons be brought before a court within 48 hours. This change would ensure that detainees are not held indefinitely without legal recourse.
The Emergency Decree: A Barrier to Justice
The Emergency Decree has been particularly criticized for its restrictive provisions. Section 12 of the decree allows authorities to detain individuals in unofficial locations, effectively bypassing the official prison system.This practice not only limits transparency but also increases the risk of human rights abuses.
Moreover, the decree restricts access to legal representation and family visits, further isolating detainees. As the committee noted, this creates a system where “persons helping the authorities” are unable to provide adequate support to those in custody.
International Recommendations for Reform
The committee’s recommendations are clear: Thailand must align its legal practices with international human rights standards. Key suggestions include:
- Adhering to the 48-hour rule for bringing detainees before a court.
- Eliminating unofficial detention sites to ensure transparency and accountability.
- Guaranteeing access to lawyers and family members for all detainees.
These reforms would not only improve Thailand’s human rights record but also strengthen its judicial system, fostering greater trust among its citizens and the international community.
A Comparative Look at Thailand’s Legal Framework
| Aspect | Current Practice | Recommended Reform |
|—————————|——————————————|—————————————–|
| Detention Period | Up to 37 days without court access | Within 48 hours |
| Detention Locations | Unofficial sites allowed | Official prison system only |
| Access to Legal Support | restricted under Emergency Decree | Guaranteed access to lawyers and family |
Why This Matters
Thailand’s emergency laws have far-reaching implications, not just for detainees but for the country’s reputation on the global stage. By addressing these issues, Thailand can demonstrate its commitment to human rights and the rule of law, paving the way for a more just and equitable society.
Join the Conversation
Stay informed about global human rights issues and legal reforms by subscribing to our newsletter. Whether your looking to broaden your horizons or stay updated on the latest developments, our “Viewpoint” newsletter is the perfect source for engaging with the issues that matter most.
Sign up now to receive weekly insights and analysis directly in your inbox.
Thailand’s journey toward legal reform is a critical one, and the international community is watching closely. By adopting the committee’s recommendations, the country can take a significant step toward upholding justice and human rights for all.
What are your thoughts on these proposed reforms? Share your outlook in the comments below or explore more newsletters to stay engaged with the latest updates.p>The committee also raised the issue of impunity sanctioned by emergency laws. Under the Emergency Decree, for example, access to the administrative courts to ask for redress is prohibited. The committee went further by singling out for needed reform section 226/1 of the Criminal procedure Code, which allows the courts to make use of forced confessions. In the eyes of the CAT, such confessions are illegal.
The committee also called for a moratorium from Thailand so as not to apply the death penalty and advocated the need for a law against corporal punishment,as well as improvement in the law on domestic violence. It underlined a preferably stronger presence of the country’s National Human Rights Commission to monitor prisons and ensure impartial and effective investigations of abuses.The committee then raised the need to amend the law on compensation for victims of injustices to ensure that it covers cases of torture and enforced disappearances comprehensively.
In reality, the Committee Against Torture is somewhat different from other UN committees under UN human rights conventions, since it is very explicit about various cases needing attention. It lists prominent cases by name for attention, for example the Tak Bai case, where over 80 people died at the hands of uniformed officials, mainly due to suffocation from being crammed in various vehicles. No one has been found guilty of these crimes.
The time limit for prosecuting the culprits under Thai law expired recently, and the committee’s advice to discard the prescription period is clearly targeting the aberrations surrounding this case.
Another area of concern today is “transnational repression”, whereby a state, usually in conjunction with a neighboring state, intimidates its nationals in the second country where they have sought refuge or live. The committee explicitly raised the case of Vietnam’s Montagnards who sought refuge in Thailand a while ago.
Such a person is regarded as a “person of concern” by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, or the equivalent of a refugee, and should not be sent back to their country of origin where there might potentially be a danger to the person’s safety. Regrettably, not only have such persons of concern been arrested, but they are also now threatened with extradition to their country of origin.
Given that Thailand will become a member of the UN Human Rights Council in 2025, it should act in an exemplary manner and desist from human rights transgressions.
Policymakers at the apex of the system,please take note and rectify expeditiously and effectively.
—
The writer is a professor emeritus in the Faculty of Law at Chulalongkorn University. He has worked with the United nations as a special rapporteur,independent expert and a member of commissions of inquiry on human rights.
