Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) was established two days following the coup in 2014 by a group of human rights lawyers and social activists. Initially an ad-hoc organization, TLHR aimed to provide legal and litigation assistance to individuals who had been summoned, arrested, and detained by the military as a result of the coup, […]
28 April 2022, 9 AM – the Bangkok South Criminal Court read the verdict for the case of “Sombat Thongyoi”, a former red shirt guard accused of “royal insult” under section 112 of the Penal Code and section 14 of the Computer Crime Act for posting the caption “#verybrave #verygood #thankyou” to a screenshot of […]
Bangkok, Paris, 17 march 2022. The Thai government failed to address international concerns by refusing to accept key human rights recommendations that Thailand received during its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its member organizations Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), Manushya Foundation, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), […]
On 4 March 2022 at 9.00 am, the Ratchada Criminal Court read the verdict in the case against Narin (last name withheld) who was charged with Section 112 of the Criminal Code. Narin was accused of placing a “GuKult” sticker on the King Rama X portrait in front of the Supreme Court during the 19 […]
Translated from iLaw https://ilaw.or.th/node/6084 On 11 February 2022 at 13.00, representatives from civil society organizations conducted a press conference about the attempt to conduct tax audits on various CSOs working for human rights and being critical of the current administration. Such inquiry is viewed as an attempt to scrutinize and was made within and outside […]
21 February 2022, the Nonthaburi Provincial Court scheduled Siraphat Deeswat, a 35-year-old Nonthaburi resident who was prosecuted with Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, to a plead and review of the evidence. Siraphat was accused of taking the King Rama X’s portrait with the frame from the front of Prachacheun Village and throw the […]
During 21 – 22 February 2022, the lawyer, who was legally authorized by Parit Chiwarak, Arnon Nampha, Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, and Panupong Jadnok, submitted requests inquiring for documents to 5 agencies which are the Civil Court, the Appeal Court, the Crown Property Bureau, the Immigration Bureau, and the Thai Airways International Public Company Limited. The inquired […]
On 3 February 2022, the Lawyers Council under the Royal Patronage scheduled a legal ethics examination for Arnon Nampa. The examination came as a result of his speech on the monarchy reform at a 3 August 2020 rally at the Democracy Monument on Ratchadamnoen Road. Today, Ratsada Manuratsada — Arnon’s attorney — attended the examination […]
On 30 November 2021 9 AM, the Chanthaburi Provincial Court read the verdict of “Jarat (last name undisclosed)”, a 19-year-old freshman student at a university in Chanthaburi province accused of Section 112 of the Penal Code and Section 14 of the CCA for posting a comment criticizing the Sufficiency Economy in “Chanthaburi Page” Facebook group. […]
25 Nov 2021 – the Criminal Court read the verdict of Danai Usma’s case, a graffiti artist from Phuket who was accused of Section 14 (2) of the Computer Crime Act. Under the account “Zen Wide”, Mr. Danai Usma published a post on 16 March 2020 that he saw no Covid-19 screening measures at the […]
On the occasion of 2021 Constitution Day in Thailand and International Human Rights Day. Constitutional Court Ruling: A Selection of Documents in the Justice in Translation Justice in Southeast Asia Lab at Center for Southeast Asian Studies UW-Madison CSEAS – New presented the translation of Constitutional Court Ruling No. 19/2564: A Selection of Documents in […]
On 10 November 2021, the Thai Constitutional Court read its ruling related to the speeches of Anon Nampa, Panupong Jadnok, and Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, which were made during the Harry Potter themed rally on 3 August 2020, and a rally at Thammasat University on 10 August 2020. The Court was to rule whether the speeches constituted […]
