![[:th]CrCF Logo[:]](https://i0.wp.com/crcfthailand.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Logo-a1.png?fit=696%2C297&ssl=1){kind=logo}
- ”Pretrial detention” is an exception, according to criminal justice principle, provisional release must be the rule. Pretrial detention can be done only as an exception. If the court denies bail without legal ground, it could constitute a human rights violation.
- Political prisoner
- No intent to abscond
- Not able to tamper with evidence
- Not able to commit dangerous crime
- Not being an obstacle to ongoing investigation
- Therefore, there is no reason for the court to impose pretrial detention.
- Despite legal provisions which permit the use of EM with an alleged offender/defendant,
- Section 108 third paragraph of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the legal ground based on which an alleged offender/defendant can be detained pretrial. The court may stipulate any condition governing the residence of the person provisionally released or any other condition or if they consent to wearing EM. (All of these are aimed at preventing the abscondence. One condition can be imposed at a time, not multiple conditions at one time.)
- Section 112 third paragraph of the Criminal Procedure Code upholds the principle of necessity whereby “No excessive burden or condition requiring the observance of the person provisionally released or bailor may be included in the bail bond.”
- Requiring an alleged offender/defendant to wear EM pending the trial is a breach of fundamental human rights.
- Human dignity
- Right to privacy
- Presumption of innocence: Neither alleged offender nor defendant shall be treated as a convicted person.
- The use of EM or the imposition of condition to remain inside one’s residence as part of the preventive detention can be used only following the final verdict of the court to convict the defendant.
- Political prisoners concede to wearing EM since the court requires that if they do not wear it, they shall not be provisionally released.
- By imposing additional conditions including being barred from participating in a public assembly which may lead to public disorder, being barred from recommitting the same act for which one is indicted including an offence against the monarchy, being barred from participating in any activity which may offend the monarchy, and how these acts can consequently lead to the revocation of bail, this may constitute a requirement that violates the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Such requirement is also disproportionate since their act is yet proven guilty.
