Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Thailand (Ratification: 1969)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Over a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 112 of the Criminal Code under which whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir apparent or the regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years, as well as sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 that prohibit the use of a computer to commit an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning national security (including section 112 of the Criminal Code), with a possible sanction of five years’ imprisonment. The Committee noted that under the Penitentiary Act B.E. 2479 (1936), penalties of imprisonment involve an obligation to perform prison labour. It also observed that, according to the report of the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, there had been a recent increase in lèse-majesté cases pursued by the police and the courts.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, as for the recent increase in lèse-majesté cases according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, proceedings on lèse-majesté cases are conducted with due legal process. The enforcement of section 112 does not contravene international laws on human rights. The existence of lèse-majesté is appropriate for protecting the Thai monarchy as a force for unity and the stability of the nation. Those convicted for lèse-majesté are entitled to the same rights as those convicted for other criminal offences.

The Committee observes, in this regard, that in its 2017 Concluding observations the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) was concerned that criticism and dissension regarding the royal family is punishable with a sentence of three to 15 years’ imprisonment, about reports of a sharp increase in the number of people detained and prosecuted for the crime of lèse-majesté since the military coup and about extreme sentencing practices, which result in dozens of years of imprisonment in some cases (CCPR/C/THA/CO/2, paragraph 37).

In addition, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 are drafted and implemented to curtail illegal activities and dissemination of false information, and to address the risk of exploiting an instantaneous connection for harassment and defaming other individuals. Moreover, there is no part in the legislation that allow compulsory labour as a specific form of punishment for convicted prisoners charged under section 112 of the Criminal Code and sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act. The Committee, however, observes that, in its concluding observations, the HRC expressed its concern about reports of the severe and arbitrary restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the state party’s legislation, including in the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act. The HRC was also concerned about criminal proceedings, especially criminal defamation charges, brought against human rights defenders, activists, journalists and other individuals under the abovementioned legislation, and about reports of the suppression of debate and campaigning, and criminal charges against individuals during the run-up to the constitutional referendum in 2016. The Committee finally notes that the HRC recommended that the Government consider decriminalizing defamation and, in any case, countenance the application of criminal law only in the most serious of cases, bearing in mind that imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for defamation (paragraphs 35 and 36).

The Committee further notes with deep concern that the penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour, contained in the Penitentiary Act of 1936, are retained under the 2017 amendments to the same Act.

In this regard, the Committee is bound to recall that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits all recourse to penal sanctions involving an obligation to perform labour, as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also points out that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles; even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are covered by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to, or call for, violent means to these ends (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302). In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take all necessary measures, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views or views opposed to the established system, for example, by clearly restricting the scope of these provisions to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.