Since 19 September 2006, a large number of individuals have been directly and indirectly affected under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lèse majesté law”. Statistics from 2005 to 2009 reveal that there have been 547 lèse majesté cases altogether. 247 cases have reached a verdict. In April 2011 alone, this law has been used against Thai citizens in a wide number of occasions, as reported in the news. Here are the cases:

•    Violation of the rights and freedom of expression of Dr. Somsak Jeamteerasakul in public debate on the role of the monarchy in Thai society. A press conference on this matter was held on 24 April 2011.

•    On 27 April 2011, the Crime Suppression Division summoned Thanapol Eawsakul, editor of Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky) magazine to give evidence in cases where an individual filed a complaint that the Fah Diew Kan web board (now closed) might have committed lèse majesté. 54 aliases of the posters, the owners of the posts, and commentators on the posts from 46 URLs were named.

•    On the same day, the scheduling of hearings for a lèse majesté case involving an Air Force Squadron Leader took place behind closed doors at a military court in Bangkok. The Air Force officer was charged with lèse majesté based upon a comment that he posted on his own Facebook page.

•    On 30 April 2011, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, a labour activist, leader of the 24 June for Democracy Group, and managing director of Voice of Thaksin, was arrested under the lèse majesté law by the Department of Special Investigation at Aranyaprathet immigration checkpoint. He was not allowed bail. 

The rising number of lèse majesté cases, which have high penalties but vague and unclear procedures, raises concerns that the law is being used as a political tool by some powerful individuals and groups. They are creating a culture of fear and affecting the right to freedom of expression under the democratic system.  The Section 112: Awareness Group is also concerned with the usage of the law before, during, and after court hearings.

For example, closed-door hearings are a strict exception according to the highest law. Prior to the case of the Air Force officer, it was also used during the trial of Darunee Charnchernsilpakul, also known as “Da Torpedo”. The Appeal Court annulled the penalty and referred the case to the Constitutional Court to rule whether the close-door trial was constitutional or not. The cases of Dr. Somsak Jeamteerasakul and the individuals who posted comments on the Fah Diew Kan web board are clear violations of the right to freedom of expression. In the latest case, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk has not been granted bail, the authorities arguing that there was arisk that the defendant would flee or interfere with witnesses. The arrest warrant was issued in February and the accused has never shown any attempt to flee whatsoever.

The Section 112: Awareness Campaign Group makes the following comments and demands:

1.    End the use of Section 112 to violate the right to freedom of expression and to livelihood of citizens  and the creation of a culture of fear to control the public. This contradicts rights and freedoms in a democratic society. The enforcement of special laws such as security laws to suppress dissidents is also a violation of Section 29 of the Constitution (which prohibits restrictions on the rights and freedoms of individuals under the constitution except only when needed and never in violation of the key intention of those rights and freedoms). The law, apart from violating the constitution, also contravene Section 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which protects the right to freedom of expression. 

Therefore, the government has an obligation to abide by the Constitution and to promote the right to freedom of expression. Legal loopholes should not be used to create a culture of fear among citizens as is happening now.
 
2.    Since there has not yet been any amendment to the lèse majesté law, investigations and court hearings should be open to the general public. Normal warrants under regular legal procedure should be used rather arrest warrants or immediate arrests.

3.    Closed trials must remain a strict exception and should not be used widely on the basis of insubstantial reasons that have been used and cannot be proven such as that the case “violates peace and public morals”.

4.    Due process of law is the basic component contributing to a sense of justice by both the accused and the general public. In the past, the accused in lèse majesté cases are often treated as culprits by the authorities. They are not allow bail or are released for a short while. The authorities often give the reason that the penalty is high and that the accused would flee or/and would interfere with the evidence. Therefore, the group demands that the court conduct lèse majesté cases with highest level of care and highlight their principles as their priority.