On 19 September 2014, the Appeal Court upheld the Criminal Court’s ruling in the case of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk. Somyot was found guilty of two violations of Article 112 of the Criminal Codeand sentenced to ten years in prison on 23 January 2013, with one additional year from a prior case for a total of eleven years in prison. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk is a long-time labour rights activist and human rights defender who was prosecuted in relation to two articles published in Voice of Taksin magazine, a print publication with which he worked as magazine editor. At the time of the initial conviction, the Asian Human Rights Commission joined Thai and international human rights organizations and others concerned with freedom of expression that condemned the case as a significant blow to human rights in Thailand (AHRC-STM-027-2013). The decision by the Appeal Court upholding the initial conviction and sentence reflects and consolidates the profound crisis of freedom of expression following the 22 May 2014 coup. Following the decision by the Appeal Court, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk has indicated that he will continue the struggle in his case and will appeal to the Supreme Court.
Somyot was found guilty under Article 112, which states 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.” As in many other cases, the vagueness of Article 112 was used in Somyot’s case by the Thai state to constrict freedom of expression, thwart the practice and protection of human rights, and silence dissenting opinions.Similar to the case of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn (See the AHRC’s campaign pagehere), Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was not prosecuted and found guilty for writing articles deemed to violate Article 112, but rather prosecuted for his proximity to content written by another individual deemed to violate Article 112. The prosecution argued that his work in printing, distributing and disseminating two issues of Voice of Taksin magazine which contained two articles deemed to violate Article 112 was itself an equal violation of the law as writing the articles.
The Asian Human Rights Commission is concerned about the circumstances surrounding the reading of the decision by the Appeal Court. Neither Somyot nor his family or legal team were informed that the decision was going to be read ahead of time. Given that the Appeal Court decisions are frequently completed weeks before they are read publicly, the Court would have had ample time to notify the family and legal team. This decision to not announce the reading ahead of time meant that Somyot’s family and other human rights defenders could not be present to support him in the courtroom. Prachatai reported the response of Sukanya Prueksakasemsuk, Somyot’s wife and a human rights defender, to this action; she commented that, “The fact that the authority didn’t inform on the day that the verdict’s going to be delivered is not in accordance with the rules and is not transparent. I missed an opportunity to listen to the verdict myself, especially when the court affirmed the verdict. This greatly affected him. I wanted to come and supported him, but I couldn’t.”
At the time of the initial decision by the Criminal Court, the Asian Human Rights Commission observed that the decision was an ominous warning to anyone involved in publishing, distributing or selling print or other media. There is not an official censorship board in Thailand that officially inspects every piece of print material before it is published, but with this case, Article 112 was established as an unofficial censorship measure. What made this particularly dangerous is that the enforcement and interpretation of Article 112 is both uneven and as indicated by this and other cases, highly political. Writers and publishers do not know that they have crossed the invisible line demarcated by the law until the police knock on their doors to take them away. In the intervening time since the initial decision, the enforcement and interpretation of Article 112 have both grown even more politicized.
The Appeal Court ruling affirming the conviction and lengthy sentence of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk comes at a time in which the number of individuals facing prosecution under Article 112 is at an all-time high in Thailand. While Article 112 has been part of the Criminal Code of Thailand since its last revision in 1957, there was a sharp upsurge in both complaints filed and prosecutions carried out under the law in the years following the 19 September 2006 coup. Another significant leap in the number of cases has occurred since the 22 May 2014 coup by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). According to information collected by Prachatai and the Internet Dialogue on Law Reform (iLaw), there are currently twenty-one cases under Article 112, including both those who have been convicted and those who are awaiting trial. Fifteen of these cases are new since the coup.
The Asian Human Rights Commission wishes to indicate our grave concern over the growing crisis of freedom of expression in Thailand and calls for the immediate release of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and all others detained, either following conviction or awaiting charge or trial for crimes of freedom of expression under Article 112 and related laws. Until this happens, the AHRC will continue to closely follow this and all other cases of alleged violations of Article 112 and encourages those concerned with human rights and justice in Thailand to do so as well.
