THAILAND: ARBITRARY DETENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER ARNON NAMPA

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. 28/2024 concerning Arnon Nampa, asking the Government of Thailand to immediately and unconditionally release him and to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.

Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Arnon Nampa (Thailand): Opinion No. 28/2024.

ARREST OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER ARNON NAMPA FOR PROTESTING AND CRITICISING THE MONARCHY

Arnon Nampa is a national of Thailand, born in 1984. He is a human rights lawyer and a known pro-democracy activist who has been the subject of several communications to the Thai authorities from the special procedures of the Human Rights Council.

Regarding the first case, on 7 October 2021, Mr. Nampa was indicted under the section 112 of the Criminal Code (lèse-majesté) and put in detention at the Bangkok Remand Prison for his participation in a peaceful protest on 14 October 2020 after having, on 16 December 2020, presented himself to Samranrat Police Station in Bangkok. He did so as he had been summoned there, and he acknowledged nine charges in connection to his participation in the protest. The indictment is said to be the tenth. Mr. Nampa stayed in detention for 139 days, from 11 August 2021 until 22 February 2022, after being granted his eighth bail request. However, he remained in detention until 28 February 2022, when the Bangkok South Criminal Court granted bail to him in two other cases.

On 26 September 2023, the Bangkok Criminal Court found Mr. Nampa guilty of lèse-majesté and sentenced him to four years in prison. He remained detained pending the appeal as the request for bail was sent to the Appeal Court for consideration. After issues with the transmission of the request, the Court denied the bail request and all subsequent ones.

Regarding the second case, on 12 November 2021, Mr. Nampa was indicted under the section 112 of the Criminal Code and article 14 (3) of the Computer Crimes Act for criticizing the monarchy system online after he reported himself after summons from the authorities. He was brought before the Court on 15 November where the indictment was read to him and a detention order was issued. Mr. Nampa’s first bail request was denied after being postponed. The second one was granted to him on 22 February 2022 and he was freed on the 28 February under strict conditions including electronic monitoring and a curfew.

On 17 January 2024, the Bangkok Criminal Court sentenced Mr. Nampa to four years in prison being served consecutively to the first one, amounting to eight years of imprisonment.

Overall, for his human rights activities, Mr. Nampa has been charged in a total of 26 cases, 14 of which are lèse-majesté cases.

The Government was given the opportunity to contest these allegations, which it did on 4 June 2024, after the set deadline. It was therefore not accepted by the Working Group.

ARRESTED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY, SUBJECTED TO PRE-TRIAL DETENTION WITHOUT INDIVIDUALIZED DETERMINATION

The Working Group recalled its own jurisprudence and the one of other UN bodies concerning lèse-majesté provisions in Thailand and its vague and overly broad dispositions, violating international human rights law. In this light, the Working Group found the section 122 of the Criminal Code in violation of the principle of legality, rendering Mr. Nampa’s arrest in violation of the principle of legality in article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 15 (1) of the Covenant.

The source also alleged that Mr. Nampa was in pretrial detention in both cases for 139 and 100 days due to the multiple individualized bail requests rejections. Since the Working Group could not consider the late reply of the Government, it concludes that no individualized determination of the circumstances were made in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 9 (3) of the Covenant.

Hence, the Working Group found that the arrest and detention of Mr. Nampa lacked a legal basis. Thus, his deprivation of liberty qualifies as arbitrary under category I.

DETAINED FOR EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

According to the source, Mr. Nampa was detained for his statements on the King’s authority to disperse protests and criticizing the monarchy, which did not incite violence. While the Government reiterated its commitment to international obligations in its late reply, the Working Group considered that Mr. Nampa’s speeches fell within the boundaries of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, the Working Group found that his deprivation of liberty was in violation of the article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.

His situation raised many concerns to the Working Group as the usage of Internet and Social media is increasing and will likely lead to more repression of those types of communication if the Government does not bring its lèse-majesté regulations, namely section 112 of the Criminal Code and recent Constitutional Court decisions which dissolve the Move Forward Party and ban its senior figures from political life, into conformity with international law.

The Working Group concluded that Mr. Nampa’s detention was arbitrary within the meaning of Category II.

NO TRIAL WITHIN REASONABLE TIME

The source submitted that Mr. Nampa’s trial started 916 and 677 days after a criminal charge was brought against him and he was submitted to pre-trial detention for 139 days and 100 days for each case. In the source's view, those cases did not require technically complex or in-depth investigations. As such, the Working Group found that the denial of bail and the lengthy pre-trial detention were unreasonably long. In this light, the situation was in violation of Mr. Nampa’s rights to trial within a reasonable time and without undue delay, enshrined in articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant.

Therefore, considering all the above, the Working Group found that the violation of the right to a fair trial and due process of Mr. Nampa had been of such gravity as to render his deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.

DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR HIS POLITICAL OPINIONS

The source sought to demonstrate that Mr. Nampa’s political opinions were at the centre of his cases. In fact, it submitted that the numerous refusals to grant him bail and the conditions set out once he was freed, which were comparable to house arrest conditions, were indicators of a discriminatory detention. Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Nampa was charged in 26 cases, including 14 for lèse-majesté and the overall pattern in Thailand of detaining individuals who peacefully oppose the lèse-majesté laws was yet another indicator. Accepting those submissions, the Working Group considered that Mr. Nampa’s deprivation of liberty was discriminatory on the ground of his political opinions and constituted a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. Thus, the Working Group refered the case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, for appropriate action.

Hence, the Working Group found Mr. Nampa’s deprivation of liberty to be arbitrary under category V.

CONCLUSION 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 Arnon Nampa was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III and V because his deprivation of liberty was in contravention of articles 2, 7, 9, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 15, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Working Group recommended that the Government of Thailand take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Arnon Nampa 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 release him immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.

The Working Group also urged the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Nampa and to take appropriate measures.

Lastly, it requested the Government to bring its laws into conformity with the recommendations of the opinion.