INDIA: Dalits snare trapped

Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM

A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission

Two Teenage Untouchable Girls Gang-Raped and
Hanged While Police Dismiss Father's Pleas for help

The recent escalation in atrocities committed on Dalits is surprising even for Bihar, a province notorious for crimes against members of the community. The only things worse than the state’s failure to stop the crimes are the reasons the crimes are being committed.

Can one really burn alive a 15-year-old child for the “crime” of his goats straying into the paddy fields of a so-called upper caste man?

The gory incident in Rohtas is not a standalone one. It follows the gang-rape of six Dalit women on October 9 in Bhojpur and the incident involving more than 150 Dalits getting chased out of their village in Gaya after a member of the community was killed in September.

It is still too early to fear the return of caste-based massacres that once bedevilled Bihar. Yet, the situation is bleak for many reasons. The violence can be attributed, in part, to the changed political scenario. The BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP), considered to be the party representative of the upper castes in the province, deserted the incumbent government led by the Janata Dal United (JD-U), which itself, largely, draws its support from the backward castes and Mahadalits, a term it coined for those worst off amongst the Dalits.

The uneasy, yet successful, alliance between the JD-U and BJP had brought together communities with centuries of animosity and had resulted in a temporary lull in violence against Dalits. That is, to state it differently, while there was no decline in everyday acts of individual atrocities committed on the members of the Dalit community, large-scale organised violence along caste lines had witnessed a decline. And, of course, there were exceptions to this general reality; the community did face occasional collective attacks, such as in the aftermath of killing of Brahmeshwar Singh, alias Mukhyia, the head of notorious upper caste militia, blamed for many Dalit massacres.

The alliance had compelled erstwhile warring communities to share space without reconciliation, without dealing with past animosities. The upper castes in the alliance saw it as a political necessity – to keep the other backward castes away from power, after having a government more representative of their interests On the other hand, the marginalised saw it as a way to maintain their claim on state resources. However, the then chief minister, and JD-U’s top leader, Nitish Kumar’s dogged refusal to accept Narendra Modi as prime ministerial candidate unravelled the alliance and exposed the fault lines of old animosities and atrocities.

It is in this context that the state is witnessing a renewed cycle of atrocities committed on the community, often on the flimsiest of the grounds, i.e. grounds that would have earlier been ignored by the same criminals. The fact that few of the perpetrators get caught and punished for such crimes emboldens them. If one go by the recent verdicts of the High Court of Bihar, it would, perhaps, be the only place in the world where pogroms and massacres have been found committed by no one. This is the refrain in case after case, be it Bathani Tola massacre case of 21 Dalits, which witnessed the acquittal of the 23 accused that were convicted by a lower court, or the Nagri massacre case involving the killing of 11 Dalits, or the Lakshmanpur Bathe massacre case of involving 26 deaths, or even the Mianpur massacre case which saw the killing of 9 Dalits. All the accused have been acquitted for lack of evidence.

The acquittals were bound to create tension and re-open wounds, and that they did. These acquittals also emboldened the upper castes to attempt a reclamation of their political control in the state from the other backward castes and Dalits.

Unfortunately, the response to the renewed wave of attacks from the political leadership has been inadequate. The state administration keeps failing to enforce the rule of law and punish the perpetrators of caste violence to deter others. The BJP, on its part, has kept quiet on the increasing attacks, to ensure that its core support base remains unoffended.

And, this is precisely what makes the threat of further escalation in violence loom large. The way forward is to ensure that those guilty of committing such heinous crimes do not get away scot-free and for political will to be mobilized to normalise relations.

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Raid of Forward Press office-attack on freedom of expression

 Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM

A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission

The police raid on the Nehru Place office of Forward Press is a deplorable attack on freedom of expression. The Forward Press, a progressive magazine aimed at marginalised and underprivileged sections of India society, had focussed on Bahujan-Shraman (roughly meaning the majority that lives off its labour and not by exploiting others) traditions. The issue carried articles reinterpreting stories in Hindu scriptures including one that reimagined the story of the killing of Mahishasur (buffalo demon) by Goddess Durga as a struggle between the Aryans and non-Aryans. The article was opposed by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) unit of Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for harming religious sentiments. On the evening of the 9 October, the protests had turned into a clash between ABVP members and other JNU students who were celebrating Mahishasur Martyrdom Day.

That same night, the Special Branch of the Delhi Police raided the office of Forward Press and detained four of its staffers. The police team also vandalized the office and confiscated all the copies of the October issue of Forward Press on the basis of a complaint filed in the Vasant Kunj Police Station. Evidently, the action was taken without any orders from a competent authority. Raiding the office of a reputed magazine and confiscating its latest issue without any court order reveals the increasing threats to the tolerant culture that allows intellectual debates. It shows that the government is planning to muzzle all dissent with force.

The raid also raises a pertinent question over the increasing use of the bogey of "hurt sentiments" as a weapon of silencing the dissenters. Deciding the veracity of such claims is strictly the job of the courts and not the police. The police, in fact, are duty bound to protect the dissenters from majoritarian bullying and protect their right to celebrate whatever they want (so long as it does not pose a genuine threat to public safety). Both the magazine and the students commemorating Mahishasur martyrdom day posed no such threat.

Additionally, India has a long tradition of engaging with religious symbolisms and myths and reinterpreting them for mobilising underprivileged communities. Further, Bahujan renditions of popular texts also have a long tradition, starting from Jotiba Phule and going up to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar and Periyar E. V. Ramasamy. Periyar, in fact, had publicly burnt down the idols of Hindu gods and used very harsh language for Hindu deities. Would Delhi Police have arrested him if he was around today?  Hinduism itself has many sects whose religious beliefs are absolutely different from the mainstream version. There are communities who worship Ravana and not Lord Rama. There are communities which celebrate Bali Raja (king Bali) as their god and not Lord Vishnu. Can one banish such communities because they "hurt the sentiments" of some group or the other? Can one even think of banning polytheism on demand from minority communities as it might offend their monotheistic traditions? Does it sound absurd? It does and so do the police actions at the beck and call of ever ready to get hurt sentiments.

For its part, Forward Press has clarified that its October issue was a special number devoted to "Bahujan-Shraman tradition", has well researched articles from leading writers and professors of prestigious universities, and carries "absolutely nothing in the issue that can be described as objectionable under the Indian Constitution". It also argues that their objective was "not to humiliate or hurt the sentiments of any community or group" and they are merely trying "to identify and rejuvenate the symbols of Bahujan culture and civilization".

These claims may be challenged but the right place to do that is a court of law and the proper authority is a judicial magistrate, not the police. The AHRC strongly condemns the raid and vandalism, as well as the arrest of Forward Press staffers. It also is concerned for the security of the consulting editor and the editor-in-chief of the magazine. The two have gone into hiding fearing arrest and are demand that their rights be respected, not trampled upon.

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

THAILAND: Junta summons additional HR defenders

Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 8:54 PM

A statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission 

Junta also summons activists, academics, and journalists

At approximately 9 pm on 1 June 2014, the National Council on Peace and Order Maintenance Council (NPCO) issued Orders No. 42-44/2014 broadcast on the radio and television demanding that 38 persons report themselves to the Jamjuree Room at the Army Club on Thewet Road between 10 am and noon on 1 June 2014. Similar to earlier orders, the penalty for not obeying the summons carries a maximum prison term and a 40,000 baht fine.

The list includes a number of human rights defenders, activists, academics, and journalists. Jittra Kotchadet is a long-time labour rights activist and human rights defender. Tewarit Maneechay is a human rights defender and journalist for the independent media site Prachatai. Suthachai Yimprasert, a historian at Chulalongkorn University, and Kengkij Kitirianglarp, a political scientist at Chiang Mai University, are two academics who have consistently acted in support of human rights. Pranee Danwattananusorn is the wife of Surachai Danwattananusorn, a former political prisoner, and she has worked to support and defend the rights of political prisoners and human rights defenders. Karom Phonpornklang is a lawyer who has defended numerous political prisoners. The full lists are as follows: 

Order No. 42/2557:
1.Mr. Karom Phonpornklang
2. Mr. Ruangkrai Likhitwattana

Order No. 43/2557
1. Police Colonel Narit Sawaengjit
2. Mrs. Noi Daengpao
3. Miss Karin Prachan
4. Mr. Sittichai Kittinaesaworn
5. Mr. Praphat Chongsongwon
6. Mr. Chakraphan Yomchinda
7. Mr. Banyat Yenjaichuay
8. Mr. Narongsak Plai-aram

Order No, 44/2557
1. Mr. Suthachai Yimprasert
2. Mr. Kengkij Kitirianglarp
3. Mr. Ratchaphong Ochaphong
4. Mr. Tewarit Maneechay
5. Ms. Ulairat Chuduang
6. Mr. Amarin Sairam
7. Mr. Niphon Phadungsilpphairot
8. Mrs. Pranee Danwattananusorn
9. Mr. Kittisak Sujittharom
10. Ms. Jittra Cotchadet
11. Mrs. Salilthip Na Phattalung
12. Mr. Suwat Lambutr
13. Mr. Seriphap Sunthornchaiphak
14. Mr. Pritnarinthorn Thonburiboonsuk
15. Mr. Sarawut Phuthornyothin
16. Mr. Wanchai Chongcharoonhiran
17. Mr. Thanaporn Sriyakul
18. Mr. Pruek Prueksunan
19. Mr. Phiphat Phansuwan
20. Mrs. Yuphin Kongchandee
21. Mr. Chalieo Chankied
22. Mr. Sriphop Kornarut
23. Mr. Ekaraj Netradee
24. Mr. Panya Surakhamchornroj
25. Mr. Wanchaloem Satsaksit
26. Mr. Thanat Srinithikosit
27. No. Oo. Surapol Nawamawat
28. Mr. Kothawut Buraphitak

The Asian Human Rights Commission would like to reiterate that the use of public broadcast media to issue wide-ranging summons to citizens functions as a form of terror. Human rights defenders, activists, academics, writers, and other citizens do not know when they will hear their name announced and when they will have to turn themselves over to the authorities.

The order for citizens to report themselves represents a violation of the Government of Thailand’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand is a State Party, notably article 9, and specifically that, “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. 2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release...”

Detention of those ordered to report under these three orders of the junta is a clear case of arbitrary detention. Those on the lists have not been formally charged with any alleged crimes. If the junta has evidence that those in detention have committed wrongdoing, then they should be formally charged through the judicial system and using the Criminal Code.

While the junta has made reassurances that those who report themselves will not be mistreated, within the context of martial law and rule by the junta, this reassurance carries no weight. Citizens are subject to up to seven days of detention without the authorities having to provide evidence of wrongdoing or bring formal charges. Detainees can be held at irregular places of detention, including permanent or temporary military bases or other sites designated as places of detention. Detention in irregular places means that the possibility for rights violations, including torture, forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution is greatly increased. Those who have been released from detention have been forced to sign a statement asserting that they were not coerced, beaten, tortured, or otherwise harmed during the detention. They may not attend political meetings, participate in political movements, or leave the country without permission of the junta chief, General Prayuth Chan-ocha. The penalty for violating these conditions is the same as the penalty for not responding to a summons: up to two years in prison and/or a 40,000 baht fine.

The Asian Human Rights Commission unequivocally condemns the coup in the harshest terms and wishes to express grave concern about the rapid decline of human rights protections it has engendered. The AHRC calls on the National Council for Peace and Order Maintenance Council to immediately release all citizens being arbitrarily detained without charge and to cease creating public terror by issuing blanket summons to report to the military.

Pranee Danwattananusorn; Photo credit is VoiceTV

Jittra Kotchadet; Photo cretid Bangkok Post

Tewarit Maneechai ;Photo credit is his Twitter feed

Kengkij Kitirianglarp: Photo source is Matichon TV

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

SRI LANKA: Deaths in police custody are of serious concern

Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:39 AM

A Press Release from the Standing Committee on Rule of Law, Bar Association of Sri Lanka forwarded by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) 

Image courtesy:AHRC

Series of deaths of persons in police custody as suspects regarding the commission of criminal offences is of serious concern. The identical explanations given by the police regarding each such case of death while in custody and acceptance of such blatant manifest untruths has made a mockery of the system of administration of justice in our country. It is an insult to the intelligence of our people if the police expect the people to believe these fantasy stories about attacks on them by suspects while in custody and handcuffed.

What is strange is that these cases of brutal murder has gone unchecked and the absurd explanations given by the police has gone unchallenged.

These killings violates all international conventions on protection of persons in state custody and is in violation of the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is enshrined in our constitution that every person is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty by a competent court (Article 13(5)), no person shall be punished with death or imprisonment except by order of a competent court (Article 13(4)), any person charged with an offence is entitled to be heard at a fair trial by a competent court (Article 13(3)), any person shall not be held in custody, detained or deprived of personal liberty except upon order of a judge made in accordance with procedure established by law (Article 13(2)).

While these murders are in violation of the constitution what is of grave concern is the impunity with which these murders are committed. In no country that respects rule of law and democratic governance can these acts be condoned under any circumstances and the responsibility lies with the state to account for these violations of fundamental rights.

Failure to act decisively against such persons responsible for the commission of these crimes, adversely affect the image of our country and the people lose faith in the judicial system of our country. Nothing short of a full inquiry by a commission of inquiry to be constituted of present or retired judges of the Superior Courts can redeem the image of the country and restore confidence in the administration of justice. Therefore we demand the appointment of such a judicial commission to inquire and report on the deaths of suspects under police custody during the last at least 3 years.

LAL WIJENAVAKE PRIVANTHA GAMAGE
CHAIRMAN CONVENER
STANDING COMMIHEE ON RULE OF LAW — BASL

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Human Right Violation by Thaksin Shinawatra

Uploaded on Sep 15, 2007                                                                                                                         

A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status       Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:47 AM

THAILAND: The Normalization of the Violation of Human Rights in the Name of Protecting the Monarchy   --Click to see the video 

This short documentary show the Human Right Violation that happens in Thailand concerning the southern border provinces and the drug war during the former Thailand PM, Dr Thaksin Shinawatra.                                   Click to read the latest news

Courtesy Photo

1. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) wishes to raise concerns about the normalization of the violation of human rights in the name of protecting the monarchy in Thailand with the Human Rights Council. This statement is the seventh on this topic that the ALRC has submitted to the Council since May 2011. During the seventeenth session of the Council in May 2011, the ALRC highlighted the rise in the legal and unofficial use of Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA) to constrict freedom of expression and intimidate citizens critical of the monarchy (A/HRC/17/NGO/27). During the nineteenth session in February 2012, the ALRC detailed some of the threats faced both by those who have expressed critical views of the monarchy, both legal and extralegal, as well as those who have expressed concern about these threats (A/HRC/19/NGO/55). During the twentieth session in June 2012, the ALRC raised concerns about the weak evidentiary basis of convictions made under Article 112 and the CCA (A/HRC/20/NGO/37) and the concerning conditions surrounding the death in prison custody of Amphon Tangnoppakul on 8 May 2012, then serving a 20-year sentence for four alleged violations of Article 112 and the CCA (A/HRC/20/NGO/38). During the twenty-second session in March 2013, the ALRC highlighted the January 2013 conviction under Article 112 of human rights defender and labour rights activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk (A/HRC/22/NGO/44). During the twenty-third session in June 2013, the ALRC emphasized the regularization of the crisis of freedom of expression in Thailand, and noted that constriction of speech had become constitutive of political and social life in Thailand (A/HRC/23/NGO/42).

2. Over the course of the prior six statements, the ALRC first noted with surprise the active use of measures to constrict speech, then tracked the expansion of this use, and finally, the entrenchment of the foreclosure of freedom of speech. The ALRC is again raising the issue of freedom of expression with the Council in order to ensure that the regularization of this threat to human rights does not lead to it being normalized or forgotten. In the statement submitted to the Council in June 2013, the ALRC cautioned that current conditions threatened to normalize the routine denial of bail to individuals awaiting trial and appeal, the provision of substandard medical care in prisons, and the use of secrecy to restrict the openness of trials and public information about ongoing cases. In this statement, the ALRC wishes to alert the Human Rights Council to ongoing developments that lend weight to these concerns and underscore the urgency of addressing the crisis of freedom of expression in Thailand.

3. Article 112 criminalizes criticism of the monarchy and mandates that, "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years." The 2007 CCA, which was promulgated as part of Thailand's compliance as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, has been used to target web editors and websites identified as critical of the monarchy or dissident in other ways. The CCA provides for penalties of up to five years per count in cases which are judged to have involved the dissemination or hosting of information deemed threatening to national security, of which the institution of the monarchy is identified as a key part. While Article 112 has been part of the Criminal Code since the last major revision in 1957, available statistics suggest that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of complaints filed since the 19 September 2006 coup; how often these complaints become formal charges and lead to prosecutions is information that the Government of Thailand has continuously failed to provide up to the present. The CCA has often been used in combination with Article 112 in the four years since its promulgation; similar to the use of Article 112, complete usage information has not been made available by the Government of Thailand. This failure to provide information creates fear and diminishes the space for freedom of expression through the use of secrecy and creation of uncertainty.

4. At present, there are 4 persons known to be serving prison terms for alleged violations of Article 112 and/or the CCA and 1 person behind bars while undergoing trial.

a. Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to 55 minutes of speech and sentenced to 18 years in prison on 28 August 2009. Following examination of her case by the Constitutional Court, her sentenced was reduced to 15 years in December 2011. The Appeal Court upheld her conviction and sentence in May 2013.

b. Surachai Sae Dan (Danwattananusorn) was convicted of a series of violations of Article 112 related to political speeches he made and sentenced to a total of 12.5 years in prison in a series of cases in 2012. He has submitted a request for a royal pardon and is awaiting the outcome.

c. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to his work in editing and publishing Voice of Taksin magazine, which was deemed to include two anti-monarchy articles (written by someone else) and sentenced to a total of 11 years in prison on 23 January 2013 (10 years on Article 112-related charges and 1 year related to a prior case). He has submitted an appeal to the Appeal Court and is currently awaiting a decision.

d. Ekachai Hongkangwan was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to selling VCDs of an ABC Australia documentary and copies of WikiLeaks material and sentenced to 3 years and 4 months in prison on 28 March 2013. He has submitted an appeal to the Appeal Court and is currently awaiting a decision.

e. Yutthapoom (last name withheld) has been held in the Bangkok Remand Prison since 19 September 2012 on charges of violating Article 112 following a complaint submitted by his older brother related to a conversation they had while watching television at home. The witness hearings in his case began on 20 August 2013, after he endured 333 days of pre-trial detention.

6. Common to these 5 cases is that the individuals involved have repeatedly been denied bail, always on the grounds that their crimes are too grave a threat to national security to permit even temporary release, despite full cooperation of all parties in investigation and prosecution. Although some individuals were granted bail while awaiting trial, upon conviction they were all denied bail, despite ongoing processes of appeal. This is in contravention to Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party, which specifies: "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."

7. To raise one notable example of the denial of bail, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk (5c above), submitted his 15th request for bail on 24 July 2013. Along with the application, approximately 152,000 USD of property deeds were submitted as security with the request. On 26 July 2013, the Appeal Court denied the request. The justification offered was that as Somyot had been sentenced to a prison term greater than 10 years, if he was released, there was a danger that he might flee. The Appeal Court further noted that, "The actions of the defendant impacted public order and the feelings of the people," and so his release on bail was not warranted.

8. Bail is routinely granted during trials and after conviction while awaiting appeal in cases of committing violent crimes in Thailand, but routinely denied for cases involving freedom of speech. To offer one example, on 30 July 2012, in Black Case No. 3252/2552, 3466/2552, the Criminal Court found five police officers guilty of brutally murdering Kiettisak Thitboonkrong, age 17, in 2004 as part of the so-called "War on Drugs," in which close to 3000 people were extrajudicially killed across Thailand. Three of the police offers were found guilty of premeditated murder and hiding a corpse and sentenced to death. One police officer was found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. One police officer was found guilty of abusing his authority to aid in protecting his subordinates from criminal prosecution and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. All five police officers were granted bail while they appeal their conviction. In all but one of these instances, the police were sentenced to longer prison terms than Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, yet they were granted bail. Given the explanation by the Appeal Court when they denied Somyot's request that the length of his sentence meant that he might flee and that his crime impacted public order, granting the police officers bail seems strange. In the absence of an explanation from the Court, this collection of actions suggests that constricting dissident speech and protecting the monarchy are more important to the Thai state than ensuring accountability for extrajudicial violence committed against citizens by state actors.

9. The ALRC is gravely concerned about the effects of the ongoing entrenchment of the constriction of freedom of expression on human rights, justice, and the rule of law in Thailand. The frequency of the exercise of the draconian Article 112 and CCA risks the naturalization and normalization of violations of rights and the constriction of speech and political freedom. The ALRC would like to remind the Government of Thailand that under Article 19 of the ICCPR, restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are only permissible under two circumstances: "for respect of the rights or reputations of others" and "for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals." While measure 112 is classified as a crime against national security within the Criminal Code of Thailand, and this, along with the need to protect the monarchy, is frequently cited by the Government of Thailand when faced with the criticism that the measure is in tension with the ICCPR, a precise explanation of the logic for categorizing the measure as such has not been provided to date. Until this explanation is provided, the constriction of freedom of expression is arbitrary.

10. In view of the above, the Asian Legal Resource Center calls on the UN Human Rights Council to:

1. Call on the Government of Thailand to release all those convicted or facing charges under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. At a minimum, those currently being held should immediately be granted bail while their cases are in the Criminal or Appeal Courts.
2. Demand that the Government of Thailand revoke Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act.
3. Urge the Government of Thailand to allow and support the full exercise of freedom of expression and political freedom, consistent with the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which it is a signatory, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a state party.
4. Request the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression to continue ongoing monitoring and research about the brought situation of constriction of rights and individual cases in Thailand; and, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to continue to monitor and report on those cases of persons arbitrarily detained under Article 112. 

# # #

About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.