Foot shackles or leg irons, sometimes accompanied by restraints, became a common practice in Thailand for detainees to wear during court trial proceedings. However, the norm violates the presumption of innocence and human dignity, and it may constitute a cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as guaranteed by Thai constitution, the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (Anti-Torture Act), and international conventions such as the CAT and ICCPR.
After the Anti-Torture Law came into force, not only were acts of torture, ill-treatment, or enforced disappearance criminalized, but the law also implemented several preventive measures. Section 26 is a channel that enables court oversight and stops the crimes immediately. The article allows “any person acting in the affected person’s interest” to file a complaint with the court in the jurisdiction if there is a claim that a person is subjected to the three crimes under the new law.
In 2024, the Cross-Cultural Foundation (CrCF) utilized this complaint procedure by filing a total of six petitions in two courts: the Thonburi Criminal Court and the Ratchadaphisek Criminal Court. These petitions requested that the courts halt the use of leg irons, arguing that they violate human dignity under the Anti-Torture Act and the principle of presumed innocence under the Thai Constitution. However, all of the petitions were dismissed. Only two of the petitions resulted in prompt ex parte hearings before their dismissal by the court.
Two cases are still in the process of appealing the orders: Case No. 732/2566, the pre-trial detainee is Mr. Sopon Surariddhidhamrong (the judge ordered the consolidation of the case to the main criminal case, the petition of Section 26 in this case was filed together with 6 petitions filed by Sopon’s parents and friends) and Case No. 4/2567, the pre-trial detainee is Mr. Anon Nampa.
On April 24, 2025, CrCF filed a complaint with the Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases Region 2. The petition was dismissed, consequently we submitted a petition for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. This was because the petition was consolidated with the main criminal case of the 13 defendants, causing the Court of Appeal to treat the first court of instance’s finding as an interlocutory order that cannot be appealed.
Despite the challenges, this year set unprecedented progress with the petition submitted by Emeritus Professor Dr. Thongchai Winichakul requesting the Ratchadaphisek Criminal Court to urgently investigate and cease cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment against the use of leg irons on Mr. Anon Nampa on May 28, 2025.1https://crcfthailand.org/en/2025/07/18/60130/
Following the petition submission, the court set the ex parte hearing for July 25, 2025. It was the first time the aggrieved person testified in court alongside the other three expert witnesses, whereas the previous two ex parte hearings on this issue only had the individual who filed the petition, CrCF’s director, or the detainees’ families testify before the court issued a dismissal decision.
Thongchai Cites Section 21 Ban on Restraints
In his petition, Thongchai asked the Criminal Court to promptly investigate and review the use of restraints on detainees, especially those awaiting trial, to ensure compliance with the prohibitions stated in Section 21 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017), which states: “The use of restraints on detainees is prohibited.” Therefore, the Office of the Court of Justice and the Department of Corrections are legally obligated to act to ensure that these rights are protected in accordance with the law and human rights principles.
Thongchai’s petition argues that Section 21 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017) prohibits the use of restraints on detainees, except in specific cases. If restraints must be used, the person ordering their use must record the reasons or necessity for doing so. This demonstrates that the law’s intention is to prohibit the use of restraints, allowing them only as “exceptions” when absolutely necessary. However, currently, the use of restraints has become a normal practice for almost all cases when detainees leave prison, no longer serving as an exception. This practice is not in line with the spirit of the law and may affect the human dignity, life, and physical liberty of detainees.
Unprecedented Hearing Under Section 26 of the Anti-Torture Law
The ex parte hearing was scheduled on July 25, 2025. Four witnesses testified in court, including Arnon as the “aggrieved person”, a constitutional law scholar, a criminal law and human rights scholar and member of the National Committee under the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act, and a prison history scholar.
Arnon Nampa testified as the aggrieved person, detailing his personal experience with the foot shackles. He stated that he has been wearing them since his detention in 2023. He described the physical pain caused by the chafing chains, which have created both old and new wounds, and the difficulty it causes him to walk.
He also highlighted the psychological impact, saying the shackles make him feel like an animal and that the sound they make is a symbol of injustice.
“To cope with the pain, some inmates tie a rope to the chain to walk more easily. Others stoop to pick up the chain, which I feel makes inmates look like monkeys.”
He noted the emotional distress it causes his family and the degrading feeling when others look down on him. Arnon also asserted that he has never shown any intent to flee and believes that the use of shackles on political detainees, or any detainee who has not been convicted, is a violation of human dignity and a form of mistreatment.
“Cases involving thoughts should not be treated like general inmates. We should not be viewed as ordinary inmates. Even if they were ordinary cases, the standards should be applied consistently. A person who is accused and has not yet been sentenced is treated as if they have already been found guilty.”
As an expert witness, Associate Professor Dr. Parinya Thewanarumitkul provided a legal and constitutional perspective. He argued that the use of shackles on an unconvicted person violates the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence (Section 29). He also explained that the Correctional Act’s provision for using shackles is an exception, not a standard rule, and that the current practice of using them routinely on all detainees to and from court contradicts this.
“In practice, when detainees are brought to court, they are put in foot shackles. The reason given is a standard form: to prevent escape. And not wearing them is an exception, which contradicts Section 21”.
Prinya highlighted that Section 21’s exception must continue to be an exception in practice. After all, the Correctional Act must be subject to Section 26 of the Constitution, which states that any law restricting rights and freedoms shall not impose an unreasonable burden. Therefore, the use of shackles on detainees who are presumed innocent until final verdicts are reached, is unconstitutional under Section 26.
Another expert witness, Associate Professor Dr. Ronnakorn Boonmee, focused on the Anti-Torture Act and the concept of human dignity. He explained that Section 6 of the Act defines “degrading human dignity” as treating a person as if they are not human. He testified that the use of shackles without a specific, necessary reason could be considered a violation of this section, even without the intent to cause harm. According to the law, while Section 5 of the law on torture requires a specific purpose, a lack of specific intention still doesn’t exempt wrongdoings that are considered cruel, inhuman, or degrading to human dignity.
“Section 6 is a provision under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT). It defines two types of offenses in the same section. The first is cruel and inhumane treatment, which is a lesser form of torture, such as slapping or assault. The second is degrading human dignity, which is treating a person as if they are not human, as if they have no human dignity, such as forcing them to be naked or to eat food placed on the floor.”
The expert illustrated the difference between Section 90 of the Criminal Code and Section 26 of the Anti-Torture Act. Section 90 of the Criminal Code oversees normal detention procedures, serving as a basic legal ground for the court to verify that a detention is lawful. However, Section 26’s function was designed to verify whether a detained person is facing torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment. To achieve this, the court has a duty to hold an immediate hearing to halt such crimes in time.
The expert illustrated the difference between Section 90 of the Criminal Code and Section 26 of the Anti-Torture Act. Section 90 of the Criminal Code oversees normal detention procedures, serving as a basic legal ground for the court to verify that a detention is lawful. However, Section 26’s function was designed to verify whether a detained person is facing torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment. To achieve this, the court has a duty to hold an immediate hearing to halt such crimes in time.
Associate Professor Saranyu Thepsongkhrao provided a historical perspective on corrections in Thailand. He testified that the history of Thai corrections shows a gradual move towards more humane practices, with some periods where the use of shackles was either reformed or completely abolished. He noted that in the past, officials had concluded that shackles were only useful for preventing escape but caused significant health and psychological harm.
“At different periods, the development of corrections has mostly been an attempt to reduce cruelty in the eyes of the international community. During Field Marshal Sarit’s era, political prisoners were not shackled, either in prison or when they went to court.”
Saranyu pointed out that the historical context was presented to support the argument that the current practice is a step backward from a historical trend toward more humane treatment.
After hearing evidence, the court dismissed the petition. In its ruling, the court dismissed the petition, stating that while the Department of Corrections officers did use shackles on the plaintiff, Anon Nampa, during his transfer from prison to the Criminal Court for his trial, their actions were within the bounds of the law. The court found that although the use of shackles restricted his freedom and could have affected his feelings and those of others, it was not a violation of the Anti-Torture Act because Section 21 of the Correctional Act of 2017 grants officers the authority to use restraints to ensure safety and prevent escape when transporting an inmate outside of prison.
The court also determined that the act of shackling did not constitute a violation of human dignity, as defined by Section 6, because the act was not excessive or intended to deliberately devalue the plaintiff’s humanity. Additionally, while the officers may not have fully documented the justification for using the restraints as required by law, the court ruled that this procedural error alone was not sufficient to classify the act as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Following the court’s order, Anont Nampa stated that he would instruct his lawyer to file an appeal.
“The court’s order today did not take into account the rights and human dignity that were diminished. In our case, there were clear wounds. The order also fails to comply with Thailand’s international obligations and minimum standards. We want this case to set a standard for other inmates to receive these rights.”
After learning of the court’s decision, Professor Emeritus Dr. Thongchai Winichakul commented on its implications for the Department of Corrections and the legal system. He expressed two main concerns. Firstly, he addressed the connotation of the result implying the lower standard for Thai society. Secondly, the order dismissing the petition confirms that the court legitimized exceptions in the law that have effectively become the norm, instead in order to have the main law enforced must be reviewed by the court case by case.
Author
- 1
