THAILAND: ARBITRARY DETENTION OF DECEASED NETIPORN “BUNG” SANESANGKHOM

The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Thailand to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 52/2024 concerning Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom, asking the Government of Thailand to accord her family with an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.

Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom (Thailand): Opinion No. 52/2024.

DEATH FOLLOWING HER ARREST ON THE BASIS OF HER PARTICIPATION IN A PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTEST

Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom was a Thai citizen born on 8 August 1995. She was arrested for participating in a protest in 2022, where she allegedly violated section 112 of the Criminal Code, particularly the laws of lèse-majesté.

Ms Sanesangkhom was an activist advocating for students’ rights and LGBTQIA+ rights. She participated in multiple protests since 2021, first with a group called “Bad Students”, then joining another group called “Thalu Wang”, a pro-democracy organisation which used performance art and public polls in public spaces. Because of her advocacy activities, Ms Sanesangkhom was convicted once and had already faced charges in five different cases.

Ms Sanesangkhom was first arrested after a pro-democracy protest on 8 February 2022. On March 10 of the same year, criminal proceedings were initiated against the group of protesters. Ms Sanesangkhom was accused of violating the lèse-majesté law because of both the public poll and an incident with the police officers. Moreover, she was charged with sedition, based on the intention to convince the monarchy that the general public was disturbed by the royal cortège. Ms Sanesangkhom was granted bail on the condition of not arming the monarchy.

After her release, Ms Sanesangkhom did not abandon the “Thalu Wang” group, participating in a protest against the Ministry of Culture. She allegedly sprayed paint on a royal flag with other participants, all charged with sedition, trespassing and public order offences in September 2023. For this reason, on January 27, 2023, Ms Sanesangkhom’s bail was revoked, and she was detained at the Bangkok Central Women’s Correctional Institution. On January 27, 2024, she began a hunger strike, asking for a monarchy reform and protesting against people's imprisonment for expressing dissenting opinions. At the beginning of February, she started to be transferred back and forth between the detention facility and the hospital due to her deteriorating health conditions.

On May 14, 2024, at 29 years old, she suffered a cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead at Thammasat University Hospital after the medical personnel at the prison hospital could not revive her.

The officers refused to provide CCTV footage of the moments before Ms Sanesangkhom’s death, and although the Prime Minister promised an inquiry, little progress seems to have been made.

The Government of Thailand was given the possibility to respond, which it did not.

VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND SUBJECTED TO PRE-PRIAL DETENTION WITHOUT AN INDIVIDUALISED DETERMINATION

Following the source's allegations, the Working group conducted an analysis of section 112 of the Criminal Code to consider whether it complies with international standards.

Firstly, the Working Group recalled its jurisprudence related to section 112 of the Criminal Code, which consistently found the detention of individuals under this section arbitrary under category II. Secondly, the Working Group reminded that special procedures mandate holders had already expressed concern about the lèse-majesté provisions. Thirdly, the Working Group cited the Human Rights Committee, which urged the Government of Thailand to review section 112 of the Criminal Code to render it in alignment with article 19 of the Covenant. Lastly, the Working Group recalled the 2021 concerns about the monarchy law made by the Human Rights Council in its universal report.

Given this, the Working group concluded that Ms Sanesangkhom was detained without legal basis and, in accordance with the aforementioned, it considered section 112 of the Criminal Code so vague as to be inconsistent with International human rights law, in violation of articles 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 15 (1) of the Covenant.

Moreover, the source submitted that the reason behind Ms Sanesangkhom's prolonged pre-trial detention was the annulment of the bail granted to her. Notably, the bail was nullified because Ms Sanesangkhom allegedly painted a colour on the royal flag, violating that condition. The source stated that there was no individualised assessment of whether detention was reasonable and necessary. Hence, the Working Group affirmed that the bail condition was too ambiguously worded, finding the detention lacked legal basis and was established in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.

On these grounds, the Working Group found the deprivation of liberty of Ms Sanesangkhom arbitrary under category I.

DETAINED AS A RESULT OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION

The source reported that Ms Sanesangkhom’s detention originated from her exercising her right to freedom of expression, declaring that the charge of lèse-majesté clearly violated such right. In that regard, the Working Group found Ms Sanesangkhom's speeches within the limits of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

Also, Ms Sanesangkhom was allegedly imprisoned for her participation in public protests and the realisation of a public poll containing expression of dissent. These activities were carried out without pursuing any type of violence. Concerning the protest against the Ministry of Culture, allegedly spraying colour on the royal flag was regarded as vilifying to the monarchy. However, the Working Group considered the act of Ms Sanesangkhom a legitimate expression of dissent, recalling that freedom of expression also includes non-verbal forms of expression. Therefore, the deprivation of liberty was in violation of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.

Based on these findings, the Working Group found the detention of Ms Sanesangkhom arbitrary under category II.

DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF POLITICAL OPINIONS

As mentioned, the Working Group defined Ms Sanesangkhom’s deprivation of liberty as a result of her exercise of the right to freedom of expression. The Working Group noted that Ms Sanesangkhom was subjected to a total of seven legal cases, all of which were related to her political dissent and her human rights activities. Also, it highlighted the long-term pattern of the Thai government of punishing dissent under the lèse-majesté laws. Lastly, the Working Group noted that the reason for the last legal case against Ms Sanesangkhom was clearly her dissenting political opinion and that the authorities adopted general discriminatory behaviours. Consequently, the Working Group found the detention a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.

Therefore, Ms Sanesangkhom's deprivation of liberty was considered arbitrary under category V.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION

In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, and V because the deprivation of liberty of Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom was in contravention of articles 2, 7, 9, and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 19, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  

The Working Group recommended that the Government of Thailand takes the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working group considered that, taking into account all circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord Ms Sanesangkhom’s family an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.

The Working Group also urgent Thailand to bring laws, particularly section 112 of the Criminal Code, into conformity with the recommendations made in the present opinion and with the commitments made by Thailand under international human rights law.