In Dialogue with Thailand, Experts of the Committee against Torture Welcome New Law Criminalising Torture and Enforced Disappearance, Ask about the Treatment of Detainees and Prison Overcrowding

The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the second periodic report of Thailand, with Committee Experts welcoming the State’s new law criminalising torture and enforced disappearance, and raising questions about the use of restraints and solitary confinement on prison inmates, prison overcrowding, and the high percentage of inmates charged with drug offences.

Liu Huawen, Country Rapporteur and Committee Expert, welcomed the adoption of the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act in 2022, which, for the first time, criminalised torture and other forms of ill treatment and enforced disappearance, and led to the withdrawal of Thailand’s interpretative declaration to articles one, four and five of the Convention.

Todd Buchwald, Country Rapporteur and Committee Expert, expressed concerns regarding the continued use of restraints such as shackles and the permanent shackling of death row inmates. There were reports of solitary confinement of prisoners for up to three months. Could prisoners appeal the use of restraints and solitary confinement?

Recently, Mr. Buchwald noted, the number of prison inmates had increased to 301,000, well above the system’s capacity. One prison reportedly operated at 385 per cent capacity. There was a high percentage of prisoners incarcerated for drug-related offences, reportedly close to 73 per cent. What measures were in place to reduce overcrowding and how effective had they been?

Introducing the report, Aimon Siangyai, Director General, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice of Thailand, and head of the delegation, said the adoption of the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act in 2022 and its enactment in February 2023 was a groundbreaking development in the country’s legal framework for the eradication of torture. The law introduced necessary preventive measures and imposed penalties on perpetrators, superiors, accomplices and supporters.

The delegation said that within prisons, the necessity of restraints needed to be reviewed every 15 days and restraints needed to be removed when no longer required. Solitary confinement could not last for longer than one month; inmates were allowed to leave solitary confinement cells at set times and had the right to meet with lawyers.

Thailand had updated penitentiary acts to bring them in line with the Mandela Rules and address overcrowding, the delegation said. Regulations on alternative places of imprisonment had been established to ease overcrowding. Certain inmates who were not considered to be threats to society would be detained at home under electronic monitoring from 2025.

The Narcotics Code of 2021 put more emphasis on human rights in drug policies, the delegation added. The Code promoted patients’ rehabilitation and social reintegration. The Ministry of Health had drug treatment facilities that could accommodate up to 15,000 patients. These were helping to address the issue of prison overcrowding.

In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, said that, based on the dialogue, the Committee would select three or four priority recommendations that could be addressed by Thailand within one year. It would continue to engage in dialogue with the State party through the follow-up procedure. The Committee aimed to make its concluding observations relevant to the State party.

In her concluding remarks, Ms. Siangyai said the Committee’s questions and recommendations would contribute to improving the fulfilment of the Convention in Thailand. The State party would continue its work toward preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Thailand looked forward to presenting further progress in this regard in its next report.

The delegation of Thailand consisted of representatives from theMinistry of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Judiciary, Royal Thai Police, Immigration Bureau, National Security Council, Ministry of Public Health, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Thailand at the end of its eighty-first session on 22 November. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 7 November at 3 p.m. to continue its examination of the fourth periodic report of Jordan (CAT/C/JOR/4).

Report

The Committee has before it the second periodic report of Thailand (CAT/C/THA/2).

Presentation of Report

AIMON SIANGYAI, Director General, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice of Thailand and head of the delegation, said that after submitting its first report, Thailand had made significant progress as well as improvements regarding the implementation of the Convention. It had withdrawn its interpretative declarations on three articles of the Convention, namely articles one, four and five, with respect to the definition of torture; criminalisation of torture, attempts to commit torture as well as complicity; and jurisdiction over acts of torture. Moreover, Thailand became a party to the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in June 2024. These achievements reflected the Government’s attempt to raise standards and upgrade the implementation of the Convention.

The adoption of the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act in 2022 and its enactment in February 2023 was a groundbreaking development in the country’s legal framework for the eradication of torture. It defined and prohibited the acts of torture, enforced disappearance, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and aligned national laws with international standards.

The law introduced necessary preventive measures, including continuous audio-visual recording throughout arrests and confinement, recording of detainees’ information before detention and upon release, and gave the right of access to detainees’ information to relevant stakeholders. It also imposed penalties of imprisonment and fines commensurate to the severity of the offence to perpetrators, superiors, accomplices and supporters, and stipulated aggravating punitive clauses when the offences led to victims’ deaths and when the victims belonged to vulnerable groups, such as children and pregnant women.

A key mechanism to ensure the effective enforcement of the law was the Committee on the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance, which had three sub-committees focusing on the development of laws and regulations, the provision of remedies, and follow up and verification. This Committee had adopted a regulation concerning audiovisual recording of arrests and the recording of the detainees’ information.

The National Human Rights Plan served as a guiding framework for agencies in addressing human rights violations across the country. The prevention and suppression of torture had been assigned a top priority in the plans on judicial proceedings and persons affected by such proceedings, as well as plans for accused persons, inmates, and those who completed prison terms. Concerned agencies were also required to report on the implementation of the plans by the end of the fiscal year.

The Government was actively working to promote a deeper understanding of the merits of the Act on the Prevention of Torture and the Convention. In 2024, the Ministry of Justice organised nationwide training for police officers, military personnel, and judicial and other relevant officials on the Act and the Convention.

Thailand attached great importance to multi-stakeholder engagement. In preparation for the dialogue, Government agencies met with civil society organizations to discuss and exchange views on various issues related to the implementation of the Convention. Thailand was also committed to constructive engagement with international organizations, mandate holders and Special Procedures under the Human Rights Council. In 2022, relevant Thai agencies had an online meeting with the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances to discuss issues at hand.

Ms. Siangyai expressed gratitude to all stakeholders involved in ensuring that the State’s obligations under the Convention were put into action. The dialogue with the Committee would further strengthen the implementation of the Convention and have positive impacts on the lives of people in Thailand.

Questions by Committee Experts

LIU HUAWEN, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, congratulated Thailand on being elected as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council in October 2024 with the highest number of votes, and for ratifying the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in May 2024.

The Committee welcomed the adoption of the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act in 2022, which, for the first time, criminalised torture and other forms of ill treatment and enforced disappearance specifically, and established procedural safeguards against such violations. The Act led to the withdrawal of Thailand’s interpretative declaration to articles one, four and five of the Convention, and made Thailand a pioneering country in Asia regarding legislation prohibiting torture.

However, the purposes of torture identified in the Act were not exhaustive and mentioned only “public officials” and not “other persons acting in an official capacity”. The Act also allowed for the application of a statute of limitations of up to 20 years to be applied to acts of torture. Further, it did not expressly prohibit the admissibility of evidence or statements obtained through torture and did not prohibit amnesties for torture. There were also concerns about the lack of severity of the penalties imposed by the Act. Had the State party considered amending the Act to bring it in line with the Convention and address these shortcomings?

Thailand also had other concerning legislative issues. The Penitentiary Act exempted prison officials from imprisonment or other criminal and civil penalties if their actions were deemed to be in good faith, proportionate, non-discriminatory, and necessary, and granted prison officers the authority to inspect and intercept prisoners' correspondence and communications. The Narcotics Prevention and Suppression Act authorised the detention of individuals arrested for a period of up to three days prior to their transfer to investigators, which significantly heightening the risk of torture and ill treatment. The Immigration Act granted police officers and immigration officials extensive discretionary powers to detain foreign nationals, with no clearly defined maximum length for administrative detention, with inadequate oversight. Individuals being deported were also required to bear their own deportation costs. The Alien Working Act also lacked provisions aimed at safeguarding the legal rights of individuals.

The application of special laws such as the Martial Law Act, the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations, and the Internal Security Act in southern border provinces significantly expanded the State’s powers while simultaneously eroding legal safeguards. The Martial Law Act and the Internal Security Act reportedly granted security forces the ability to detain individuals without a warrant for up to seven days without judicial oversight. The International Security Act also permitted broad surveillance and movement restrictions. The Emergency Decree allowed for even longer detention periods - detainees could be held without charge for up to 30 days in military camps or other non-civilian detention facilities. From January 2019 to last December, one human rights organization documented 721 cases of alleged arbitrary detention under the Emergency Decree and Martial Law Act, including cases involving minors. Would the State party consider repealing the special laws and conducting a comprehensive review of the legal system to resolve its problems?

Mr. Liu welcomed that in May 2022, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions upgraded the status of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand from “B” to “A” status. However, there were still reports that the Commission did not have sufficient capacity and authority, which affected the fulfilment of its mandate. The 2017 Organic Act of the National Human Rights Commission removed the Commission's power to file lawsuits and provide opinions to the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. How would the State party strengthen the legal basis and resources available to the Commission? How was the State party making State agencies aware of the recommendations of the Commission and ensuring that these agencies followed up on them? How was it encouraging the Commission’s cooperation with civil society?

The Committee welcomed Thailand's efforts to improve its immigration management system. However, persons seeking international protection were at risk of arrest, detention and deportation under the Migration Act for illegal entry or overstaying. Would the State party provide asylum seekers with legal residence in order to access basic rights and services? How was the Government aligning screening processes with international standards?

In recent years, there had been reports of mass expulsions, in particular of Myanmar refugees who had taken refuge near the border. On 25 June 2024, at least 150 asylum seekers from Myanmar were deported. There had also been a worrying increase in threats and attempts to deport human rights defenders and dissident refugee voices. The Committee urged the State party to ratify the International Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol as soon as possible. How did the State party ensure that extradition requests did not circumvent the principle of non-refoulement? What measures were in place to prevent mass deportations?

Conscripts in the Thai military had reported being subjected to corporal punishment, excessive physical exertion, and psychological abuse. Reportedly, the military's internal justice system had failed to adequately address or deter these abuses. Did the State party envisage amending the Military Discipline Act to remove the provisions allowing for ill treatment and corporal punishment, establish an independent oversight body to monitor military training practices, and investigate allegations of ill treatment? What clear avenues for victims and their families to seek justice and accountability did the State party provide?

Mr. Liu welcomed that Thai law had newly set 18 years as the minimum age for marriage and allowed same-sex marriages. However, there was a high prevalence of gender-based violence against women and girls, in particular domestic and sexual violence, and the Domestic Violence Act of 2007 provided for the possibility of settling cases through reconciliation and mediation. Domestic violence cases reportedly continued to be grossly underreported and under-prosecuted. The Attorney General applied for a protection order in only 16 cases, while 207 cases went to court. What measures were in place to prevent all forms of violence against women? How would the State party ensure that all persons, regardless of their legal status, could report cases of gender-based violence and that all victims could access effective remedies and protection? What awareness-raising activities had been carried out by the State party regarding violence against women? Victims of sexual harassment needed to file a complaint within three months of the date of the incident. What progress had been made in reviewing and amending the law on sexual harassment?

There were more than 3,000 child victimisation cases in Thailand in both 2022 and 2023. About 11 per cent of children aged nine to 18 years reported having experienced online harassment. The Penal Code allowed for girls as young as 13 years of age to be legally married to an offender who sexually abused them. The Committee was concerned that harmful practices such as child and forced marriages and polygamy continued to exist, especially in rural and remote areas. The Child Protection Act also allowed for the use of corporal punishment by parents, guardians and staff in alternative care settings. How was the State party making children familiar with reporting procedures? Was it working to strengthen digital protection measures? What measures were in place to prohibit corporal punishment in school and family settings, as well as forced and child marriages?

The Committee welcomed bilateral agreements with Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic and Myanmar to protect victims of cross-border trafficking. Only seven Rohingya had been identified as victims of trafficking since 2020, while the number of Rohingya arrested while transiting through Thailand had almost tripled since 2015. The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act stipulated that all migrants recognised as victims of trafficking were repatriated by default, putting them at risk of refoulement. Would the State party amend this legislation to bring it in line with international standards? How was the State party ensuring proper training for officials in identifying and supporting victims of trafficking? There was currently no cross-border mechanism between Thailand and neighbouring countries to ensure that migrant children in conflict with the law received the necessary protection. Were there plans to establish such a mechanism?

TODD BUCHWALD, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that Thailand had done a great deal of positive work over the past few years, including the new legislation on torture, and the withdrawal of the interpretive declarations to the Convention. Accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention would be a further critical step to preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. What were the prospects of its ratification?

The Committee had previously expressed concern about the lack of investigations into torture and the almost total lack of criminal sanctions against offenders. The new legislation on torture provided reasons to be hopeful, but there were concerns that implementation was off to a slow start. There had reportedly been 27 allegations of torture and 26 allegations of ill treatment since its implementation, and there had been no investigations into these cases. Many judges and police officers reportedly lacked a solid understanding of the new law. What efforts had been made to educate officials about the law?

What was the composition of the new domestic Committee on the Prevention of Torture? What activities had the Committee undertaken thus far and how often had it met? How did the Committee make the public aware of its activities? What steps had been taken to ensure collaboration between the Committee, non-governmental organizations and the National Human Rights Commission? The Committee included numerous political actors, including persons in charge of the military and the police. Would the State party reshape the Committee to remove potential institutional links between perpetrators and investigators? What progress had the Committee made thus far on investigations? Why had the State party decided to remove the Committee’s power to conduct visits to places of detention? How many staff did the Committee have and how were they trained? Did alleged victims and their families participate in investigations? Were there plans to provide the Committee with more staff and resources?

The Committee had previously expressed concerns regarding the continued use of restraints such as shackles, the permanent shackling of death row inmates, and the lack of a possibility for prisoners to be held in places other than detention centres. There were reports of solitary confinement of prisoners for up to three months. Was the use of restraints as a disciplinary measure and the use of shackles as restraints prohibited when legislation was amended in 2017? Could prisoners appeal the use of restraints and solitary confinement? Had regulations on solitary confinement been amended to prevent such confinement for longer than 15 days and to bring them in line with international standards? Were there efforts to improve conditions in solitary confinement cells?

Recently, the number of prison inmates had increased to 301,000, well above the system’s capacity. One prison reportedly operated at 385 per cent capacity. There was also a serious shortage of staff and deteriorating conditions. There was a high percentage of prisoners incarcerated for drug-related offences, reportedly close to 73 per cent. What measures were in place to reduce overcrowding and how effective had they been? What efforts had been made to reduce criminal penalties for drug-related offences? Pre-trial detainees made up more than one-fifth of detainees and they were reportedly often housed with other detainees. What efforts had been made to separate detainees and to reduce pre-trial detainees? What measures were in place to ensure that victims of ill treatment in prisons could submit complaints to an independent mechanism, to protect victims from reprisals and harassment, and to investigate complaints swiftly and impartially?

There were reports that authorities routinely failed to carry out investigations into deaths in custody and there were rarely criminal prosecutions or reparations provided to families in these cases. What investigations had been carried out into deaths in custody in the reporting period? How did the State party ensure compliance with the Minnesota Protocol and the Istanbul Protocol? How would the State party ensure that the results of investigations into deaths in prisons were publicised?

Forty-three ethnic leaders had reportedly been detained for more than a decade in poor conditions. Were there prospects for their release? What measures were in place to address ill treatment in detention? How many requests for compensation had been made and how many had been granted? Regulations on remedy and rehabilitation of victims had been drafted. When would they be approved and what was their content? Did they cover non-financial forms of redress and ensure that victims could access redress even when perpetrators had not been identified?

Seventy-seven reported cases of enforced disappearance remained unresolved, with little progress made in investigations. The Committee had made statements about three high profile cases, none of which had been resolved. In one case, protection provided to one victim’s wife had reportedly been withdrawn in a secret court hearing. There had been no prosecutions for enforced disappearance since the enactment of the new legislation on enforced disappearance. What efforts had been made to investigate cases, bring perpetrators to account, and provide compensation to victims’ families? What criteria were applied in decisions to remove protection for family members? Numerous Thai activists had reportedly fled Thailand since 2014. The National Human Rights Commission had identified nine cases in which Thai human rights defenders had become victims of enforced disappearance in neighbouring countries, reporting a lack of political will to investigate these cases. How was the State party investigating these cases, pursuing accountability, and working to provide redress for family members?

There were reports of excessive use of force against peaceful protesters in 2020 and 2021, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets. Three men had been blinded by such actions, but no officials had been held accountable. What progress had been made in investigating the excessive use of force against demonstrators? How did the State party ensure that principles of proportionality were incorporated into planning for responses to protests and that all allegations of excessive use of force were promptly and impartially investigated?

Many protesters had been denied bail and been held for over a year, and were reportedly subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including beatings and burns with cigarettes. What measures were in place to eliminate the possibility of this kind of abuse? Around 108 of 116 bail applications had been rejected. Were there efforts to review the bail process and promote the principle of the presumption of innocence?

At least 15 women activists had reportedly been attacked with Pegasus software to limit their activities. The Government had denied a role in these attacks but had not committed to investigating them. Would it investigate these attacks and take steps to protect human rights defenders from such attacks? Strategic “slap lawsuits” were also reportedly being used against human rights defenders. What was the State party’s strategy for dealing with these lawsuits?

Another Committee Expert said there were reports of inhumane treatment of persons with disabilities in psychiatric institutions, including the use of electroshock therapy, excessive use of restraints, and isolation. What measures were in place to improve material conditions in these institutions, and ensure the presence and training of staff? How many cases of mistreatment in institutions had been reported over the reporting period, and how many inspections had been carried out? What measures would the State party take to improve the situation in these institutions?

The State party had one of the highest rates of women in detention in the world, with women making up 12 per cent of prisoners in 2022. There was a limited number of female prisons, and women were often incarcerated far from their families in overcrowded conditions. There were reports of invasive body searches of women in prisons. Could the State party provide information on the material conditions provided for mothers in detention? Did women detainees have access to health products and rehabilitation services? How was the State party implementing the Bangkok Rules?

One Committee Expert commended the State party for making the 2017 Constitution available in multiple languages. Were there any examples of Thai courts referring to the Convention? Thailand was not a party to the Rome Statute. Why was the State party reluctant to become a party to the Statute? Why had the State party not reformed overly harsh legislation on freedom of expression and assembly?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the law on the prevention of torture was developed through consultation with stakeholders, including civil society. The law criminalised acts of torture by public officials and others acting on their behalf. The Committee on the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance had sub-committees on assessing legislation, supporting access to remedies for victims, and conducting investigations into alleged cases of torture in Thailand and overseas. Draft legislation on assistance, remedy, and rehabilitation was currently being considered. It aimed to restore victims’ rights and support their physical and psychological rehabilitation, worked to prevent revictimisation, and called for public apologies from responsible State authorities to victims.

Various State laws made evidence and statements obtained through torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment inadmissible in court, with very limited exceptions. There were court cases in which evidence obtained through threats or misleading promises had been deemed inadmissible. To date, Thai courts had no history of admitting evidence obtained through torture. The Office of the Judiciary was setting up a working group to revise legislation to remove the possibility of admitting such evidence in all circumstances.

In cases of enforced disappearance, the statute of limitations did not start until the fate of the victim was established. If offenders did not appear before court within a set period, harsher penalties became applicable. The Office of the Judiciary was expanding and strengthening training for its officials.

The Corrections Act specified very limited situations in which the use of restraints was permitted, including when detainees posed risks to themselves and others. The necessity of restraints needed to be reviewed every 15 days and removed when no longer required. Solitary confinement could not last for longer than one month and there needed to be a mandatory break of at least five days between each period of 15 days in solitary confinement. Inmates were allowed to leave solitary confinement cells at set times and had the right to meet with lawyers.

The State party had taken steps to address the issues faced by female inmates and to implement the Bangkok Rules. Thailand’s women prisons had been recognised internationally for their best practices in the treatment of inmates. Body scans of prisoners needed to be conducted in designated areas by trained medical officers. Scanning equipment was being installed nationwide to ensure compliance with international standards. There were regulations on the treatment of pregnant inmates and inmates living with their children, who received regular health check-ups.

Thailand had updated penitentiary acts to bring them in line with the Mandela Rules and address overcrowding. Regulations on alternative places of imprisonment had been established to ease overcrowding. Certain inmates who were not considered to be threats to society would be detained at home under electronic monitoring from 2025.

Inmates could submit complaints and grievances both verbally and in writing to correctional officers. Complaints of sexual abuse were kept anonymous. Around 68 complaints of prisoners assaulting inmates had been filed in recent years, and disciplinary measures had been implemented on 14 officers, with some cases still under investigation.

All law enforcement agencies needed to comply with the law on the prevention of torture and all police officers had been trained on the law. Responsible State officials provided continuous recording of all arrests. Over 600 officers had been trained on investigating cases of violence against women and providing protection to victims. Police officers who were qualified to arrest suspects were required to wear two body cameras. The public had the right to file complaints against officials who failed to comply with torture legislation to various State agencies. All Government officials who violated the law were held accountable.

Thailand had in 2015 enacted legislation that assigned police the duty to protect public safety in the context of public assemblies. Training had been enhanced in this regard. The State party had developed a manual on responses to public assemblies that were in line with international standards. Force could only be used when necessary and in a proportionate manner. Equipment used could not cause danger to life.

The State party had developed laws and a dedicated agenda for tackling trafficking in persons. When reports of trafficking were received, investigations were immediately started. Victims of trafficking were sent to protection shelters, where they could access support services. Thai nationals and foreigners who had escaped from overseas scam centres were provided with medical services and accommodation. Protection had been offered to over 300 victims.

The implementation of special laws in the southern border areas was limited and based on necessity. The Government reviewed the use of these laws every three months. The Cabinet had approved an operation plan on the lifting of emergency decrees, which had led to the lifting of the decrees in all but 18 districts. The Parliamentary Committee was mandated with overseeing and providing advice on the use of the laws. The 2022 Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act stipulated that no special circumstances, including State emergencies, could be invoked as justifications of the acts penalised under the law.

The 2008 Internal Security Act contained no provisions conferring authority to officers regarding arrests. Arrests were subject to judicial oversight. Detainees who were not prosecuted were entitled to compensation and other remedies. Awareness raising campaigns were being carried out to make the public aware of their rights in the context of the state of emergency.

The Tak Bai incident 20 years ago had led to tragic loss. An independent investigation into the incident was promptly carried out and the Prime Minister had issued an apology to victims and their families. Compensation and remedies to the value of around 240,000 United States dollars was provided to each victim’s family. The Government was committed to preventing the reoccurrence of such an incident. Efforts had been made to bring perpetrators to justice, including the issuance of arrest warrants and efforts to locate offenders who had fled abroad. The statute of limitations for the case against alleged offenders expired in October 2024, however, these persons still faced administrative and other sanctions.

Civilian courts had jurisdiction over the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act, including for cases involving alleged perpetrators from the military. Courts considered the circumstances of the case and the risk of the offender fleeing when assessing bail applications. Around 88 per cent of bail requests were granted in 2023. There had been no direct references to the Convention against Torture in Thai court cases, but there had been references to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Thailand had punished military officers who had been found to have committed acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In one case involving the death of a cadet in swimming training, officials had been held accountable for their liability and the military had been ordered to pay compensation to the victim’s family. In another case, nine military officers had been found guilty of torturing a cadet, and eight of those nine had been imprisoned. In a third case, two army officers had been accused of inhumane treatment of a cadet. This became the first case tried under the 2022 Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act; the trial would conclude on 11 November.

The Bureau of Justice was mandated to implement the 2022 Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act; it was staffed with around 50 officers. It had conducted investigations into 11 cases under the Act. In one case, eight police officers had been charged. A hearing on another torture case would take place this month. The victim in this case had been placed on the witness protection programme.

Thailand was engaging with foreign agencies to locate the victims of enforced disappearance abroad. Addressing these cases was challenging, including due to issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity. A planned meeting with the police service of a neighbouring country on enforced disappearance cases had recently been cancelled.

Various inquiries had been carried out into the case of Somchai Neelapaijit, but the perpetrator had yet to be identified. Investigations into this case had been suspended until new evidence was found. The statute of limitations would not begin until the fate of the missing person was established. The victim’s family had been provided with compensation payments. Mr. Somchai’s wife had been placed in the witness protection programme in 2008, but protections were removed recently due to investigations having been suspended. This woman had continued her work as a human rights defender.

Thailand hosted more than 10 million foreign nationals, including more than five million foreigners from neighbouring countries. The State party’s policy was to return illegal immigrants to their countries of origin. They were housed in immigration facilities for a limited period before being returned. The State party had been working in close collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to process asylum requests. Persons who had made asylum requests were not subjected to involuntary returns until their cases had been processed. The State party was working to provide the necessary assistance to asylum seekers. A protection framework for detainees in long-term detention was being developed. Thai authorities would continue to make efforts to improve their living conditions. The Government had approved the budget for the construction of a new immigration facility that would be completed in 2027.

Statistics on inmates’ deaths were carefully maintained. Preventable deaths in custody were taken seriously. Prison wardens were required to immediately report deaths in custody. If there was reason to believe that prison officers were involved in the death, a fact-finding committee carried out investigations, and criminal sanctions were implemented if wrongdoing was found. Autopsies could only be conducted with the consent of the deceased person’s family.

Every prison needed to have its own infirmary; 141 prison infirmaries had been registered. Each infirmary was staffed with resident nurses and doctors. In cases of emergencies, inmates were transferred to outside hospitals. As of November 2024, there were around 69,000 pre-trial detainees, accounting for 25 per cent of all detainees. The Department of Corrections had issued guidelines on the treatment of pre-trial detainees which called for their separation from other detainees.

Inmates classified as drug users and addicts were considered as patients and received rehabilitation and treatment to facilitate their return to society. Inmates were able to participate in voluntary job opportunities and were renumerated for their work. The State party took seriously allegations that forced labour had occurred in prisons. Consequently, low-skilled work such as fishnet making had ceased in prisons. New regulations stipulated that inmates could only be employed if there were safe working conditions and transparent renumeration.

The Mental Health Act 2008 outlined standards of treatment in psychiatric institutions. Patients could refuse treatment in such institutions, which needed to employ qualified professionals. Physical restraints were only permitted to prevent harm to the patient or those around them.

One-stop crisis centres had been established to offer comprehensive support to victims of gender-based violence. These centres provided screenings and mental health care, and referred relevant cases to social health services. The State party was helping victims of domestic violence to access legal support. Legislation on domestic violence was being amended to address gaps and give priority to the welfare of victims.

The 2003 Child Protection Act was being amended to promote a participatory approach and address psychological violence. The Penal Code penalised child pornography, with a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment for perpetrators. Proposed amendments to legislation would prohibit violent forms of disciplining children by parents.

The National Human Rights Commission had recently proposed amendments to the legislation governing its actions, including to expand its mandate to seek amicable solutions to complaints. Relevant agencies took recommendations from the Commission seriously and considered them in a timely manner. The Cabinet set specific timeframes for agencies to respond to recommendations.

The State party regularly reviewed the Government’s position on the Optional Protocol to the Convention. It collaborated with relevant agencies and conducted training to promote knowledge of the Optional Protocol. There were independent internal mechanisms for submitting complaints related to torture.

The Committee on the Prevention of Torture’s sub-committee on investigations had recently screened over 500 cases, finding one in which torture could have been committed. This case had been forwarded to authorities. Another subcommittee on overseas cases of enforced disappearance had been formed on 30 August; it had begun its activities.

Thailand had recognised the role of human rights defenders in its national action plan on business and human rights. It was working to protect their activities, including by amending the Witness Protection Act to strengthen protections for them. The 2022 Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act also included measures protecting human rights defenders from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The State party was working with international organizations to develop measures to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation lawsuits.

Questions by Committee Experts

LIU HUAWEN, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that the death penalty had not been abolished in Thailand, though only one execution had been carried out in the last 100 years. Would the State party adopt a moratorium on the death penalty? As of August, there were 398 inmates under death sentences. Most persons on death row were reportedly sentenced under minor offences and represented by under-resourced lawyers. Were there efforts to reduce the implementation of the death penalty? What policies were in place to ensure that all persons charged with capital offences had access to experienced legal counsel with sufficient resources? What training did the State party provide to defence lawyers working on death penalty cases?

Over 90 per cent of the women on death row had been sentenced under drug offences. Drug related offences accounted for 62 per cent of the death row population, and more women than men were sentenced for such offences. Courts often did not take into account mitigating factors such as defendants’ young age and social instability. What studies into drug crimes were being carried out by the State party?

The 2022 Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act was a milestone for the legal system. How would the State party address conflict between it and other laws, including the Criminal Procedural Code and the Military Discipline Act?

TODD BUCHWALD, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if scanning devices had been installed in prisons since 2021. If inmates were abused by prison officials, were they required to submit complaints to the official who had abused them? What measures were in place to prevent retaliation from officials? What qualified as “detention” under State legislation? There were reports of persons being invited to meet with authorities, and that these meetings were not considered to be a form of detention. Was it correct that the interrogation of detainees was not recorded?

Civil society organizations needed to acquire permission in advance to visit prisons. Did the National Human Rights Commission also require permission? Was it able to access all places of detention? Could it meet privately with detained people? How did the State party protect those who met with the Commission from reprisals?

There did not seem to be a possibility to pass a new law that would allow for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the Tak Bai massacre. The statute of limitations needed to be eliminated from future torture and enforced disappearance cases.

Reports described living conditions in immigration detention as horrid. This issue needed to be addressed as a matter of urgent priority. Did the State party have statistics on complaints and convictions of police officers who used force excessively against protesters?

Another Committee Expert asked about procedures for involuntary hospitalisation. Were involuntary placements subject to consistent review? What independent authority could conduct monitoring visits of psychiatric and social care institutions and were their reports public?

One Committee Expert asked for more details about a pending court case with a complaint made in reference to the Convention.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the Government continued to work to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty was applied. The State party had considered a draft action plan on reforming laws on capital punishment to comply with human rights principles and improve conditions in prisons. The public continued to overwhelmingly support the death penalty. Various laws related to drugs were being reviewed. The 2022 Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act did not contradict other laws. The court applied the highest penalty in all cases of torture.

During meetings between lawyers and inmates, prison officers stood close by to prevent the smuggling of contraband. However, lawyers could request private meetings with inmates. All police officers were required to make audio and video recordings of all processes they carried out involving detainees. The National Human Rights Commission was not required to ask for prior permission to conduct visits to places of detention. All grievances submitted by prisoners were confidential. A complaints box was available to prisoners, which only the prison’s director could open. Complaints could also be submitted directly to the National Human Rights Commission.

The Narcotics Code of 2021 put more emphasis on human rights in drug policies. The Code promoted patients’ rehabilitation and social reintegration. The number of drug treatment admissions in the first half of this year had decreased from the same period last year. In 2022, Thailand included drug rehabilitation services in the national health scheme. Families and communities were involved in rehabilitating patients. The Ministry of Health had drug treatment facilities that could accommodate up to 15,000 patients. These were helping to address the issue of prison overcrowding.

The committee implementing the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act had only three permanent staff. A recommendation from the United Nations Committee against Torture to increase this committee’s staff would be welcome. The committee was developing a manual on interpretation of the Act. A centralised data system on torture cases was being considered.

In the last five years, 584 migrant children had benefited from a support scheme that helped them to access basic rights, including health care and education.

In cases of capital punishment and in cases against children with the possibility of imprisonment, courts appointed public defendant lawyers to defendants who could not afford them. Public defendant lawyers were provided with sufficient training to defend persons in capital punishment cases.

The Government was promoting a deeper understanding of the Convention and anti-torture legislation, conducting training on it for police, military and other public officers. Training on the Minnesota and Istanbul Protocols and sexual orientation and gender identity were also conducted every year for police officers and other public officials. Dialogue was also being conducted with civil society on improving the implementation of the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act and the Committee’s recommendations.

Concluding Remarks

CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, said that, based on the dialogue, the Committee would select three or four priority recommendations that could be addressed by Thailand within one year. It would continue to engage in dialogue with the State party through the follow-up procedure. The Committee welcomed the delegation’s responses provided to the Committee’s questions, which would be reflected in the concluding observations. The Committee aimed to make its concluding observations relevant to the State party.

AIMON SIANGYAI, Director General, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice of Thailand and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue. The Committee’s questions and recommendations would contribute to improving the fulfilment of the Convention in Thailand. The Government was committed to upholding the principles of the Convention. The Committee’s concerns and recommendations would be relayed to all relevant Government agencies. The State party would continue its work toward preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Thailand looked forward to presenting further progress in this regard in its next report.

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.