The trial has begun of activist and conscientious objector Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, charged with draft evasion for refusing to take part in military conscription as an act of protest against compulsory military service. At the end of witness examination, Netiwit requested that the Samut Prakan District Court petition the Constitutional Court to rule whether the Military Service Act is unconstitutional.

Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal

The trial is thought to be the first trial of a conscientious objector in Thailand. Netiwit said conscientious objection has never been used to protest military service before in the country, and that this is the first time such a case has been taken to court. He noted that conscientious objection is now an internationally recognized reason for refusing military service and that Thailand has the obligation to protect an individual’s right of conscience.

Netiwit first declared his refusal to participate in military conscription as a conscientious objector in a statement on his 18^th birthday. The 29-year-old said he intends to fight the charge until the end of the procedure because he is fighting for a better future for the country.

Witness examination took place at the Samut Prakan District Court on 10–11September. According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), Netiwit testified that he refused to participate in military conscription because it goes against his conscience. He cited the Buddhist belief that one must not take the lives of others, and said that it is against his beliefs to take up arms. Answering a question from the defence lawyer during examination, he said that he would rather be imprisoned than serve in the military.

At the end of the hearings, Netiwit requested that the Court submit a petition for the Constitutional Court to rule whether the Military Service Act violates Article 31 of the Constitution, which protects the freedom of religion. He argued that all religions are against killing. It would therefore be against the conscience of a religious person to participate in military service and have to take part in operations that may affect others’ lives.

The verdict is scheduled to be delivered on 3 November. However, the hearing may be postponed until the Constitutional Court has ruled on the issue.

Netiwit was charged with draft evasion after he refused to take part in military conscription in April 2024 as an act of protest against compulsory military conscription in Thailand, which he said is a violation of human rights and personal moral beliefs. It is outdated, ineffective, undermines democracy, and enforces a system of oppression. He was indicted in May 2025.

Ahead of the hearing, Amnesty International called for the charge against him to be dropped.

“Netiwit’s refusal to take part in this outdated system should be a wake-up call for the Thai authorities to urgently reform the country’s legal framework to allow for alternative services, in line with international human rights law and standards,” said Amnesty International’s Regional Research Director Montse Ferrer.

Ferrer noted that international law requires countries with compulsory military service to provide alternative, civilian forms of service, and that Thailand has an obligation as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and a member of the UN Human Rights council to “respect and uphold the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and refrain from punishing conscientious objectors.”

Meanwhile, War Resisters International, along with a network of antimilitarist and pacifist organizations, issued a joint statement in support of Netiwit, noting that his refusal to take part in compulsory military service is a stance recognized and protected by international law and prosecuting him not only violates Thailand’s international obligations but undermines freedom of conscience. They called for the Thai authorities to drop the charge against Netiwit and take legislative steps to recognize the right to conscientious objection to military service.

Netiwit is an education reform activist and has also worked with communities surrounding Chulalongkorn University facing eviction and rising rents. He has been vocal about his objection to compulsory military conscription, and on his 18^th birthday, he published a declaration saying that he is a conscientious objector and will not participate in military conscription, which he said is obsolete, and asking why supporters of peace and nonviolent action cannot reject conscription.

All Thai men over 21 years of age who have not completed reserve officer training are required by law to participate in the draft and join the military either voluntarily or by participating in a lottery, unless they do not meet physical and mental health standards. No exception is made for conscientious objectors.

Military Service Act is unconstitutional, says academic

Tossapon Tassanapan

Dr Tossapon Tassanapan from Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law, People’s Party MP Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn, and writer Sulak Sivaraksa were summoned as expert witnesses, while Netiwit and one of his friends testified for the defence.

Dr Tossapon testified that the Military Service Act is unconstitutional and is in violation of Thailand’s international human rights obligations.

He noted that the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is enshrined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party. This right cannot be limited even during emergency, he said, and Thailand has never issued a reservation on it. According to a UN Human Rights Committee general comment, conscientious objection to military service is recognized as an exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. An alternative to military service should be provided so conscientious objectors can still perform civic duties.

Religious freedom is also protected by the 2017 Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution in line with international obligations, it should therefore include the right of conscience.

Dr Tossapon finds the Military Service Act to be problematic, unconstitutional, and in violation of the ICCPR, as not only does it punish conscientious objectors, it also discriminates against and stigmatizes LGBTQ people. The Thai government does not provide an alternative to military service, while current conscription levels areexcessive.

The military and the Ministry of Defence’s refusal to amend the Act in line with the Constitution and international human rights obligations creates an unreasonable burden for citizens and in violation of Article 77 of the Constitution, which requires the government to revise laws that violate people’s rights and freedoms.