No. 49/2023: “Tawan” Tantawan Tuatulanon

Victim Name:

“Tawan” Tantaluan Tuatulanon

Detention Status:

Released

Date of Adoption:

3 October 2023

Categories:

  • Category I: Detention without legal basis
  • Category II: Detention resulting from the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by international law
  • Category III: Violation of the right to a fair trial leading to detention.

Information on the Violation of Rights

  • In early 2022, Tawan began working with the groups “Draconis Revolution” and “ThaluWang”, which were reported to be groups peacefully campaigning for democracy in Thailand. The ThaluWang group conducted activities such as public opinion polls. It was reported that ThaluWang members would enter the subway carrying posters with questions, often concerning public support for and views on the monarchy. They would then distribute ribbons to passengers, with each color representing an answer to the question. ThaluWang members would invite passengers to tie the ribbon representing their answer to the handrails on the subway so that the response could be measured.

.

Arrest and Charges

  • On 26 February 2022, Tawan was arrested for conducting an opinion poll on whether the lèse-majesté law should be abolished. Her wrists were bound with zip ties, and she was not allowed to have a trusted consultant accompany her at the police station. She was fined 5,000 THB and released, with the restraints leaving bruises on her wrists.
 
  • On 5 March 2022, Tawan was arrested again on Ratchadamnoen Road, Bangkok, while live-streaming a royal motorcade route. It was alleged that the sound from her live stream recorded her questioning the way police officers dispersed a group of farmers who were protesting along the route. These farmers were demanding that the government solve their agricultural debt problems. In the live stream, Tawan stated that the farmers’ protest was dispersed so that the King could pass without hearing the protest. She then indicated that the way the police responded to the farmers showed that the monarchy was more important than the people.
 
  • During the arrest, no arrest warrant was shown. Tawan was charged and arrested at the scene, with several arresting officers partially reading her rights. However, it was claimed that a detention request for Tawan, signed by a police lieutenant from Nang Loeng Police Station, was submitted.
 
  • It was reported that officials believed Tawan’s actions might incite hatred towards the monarchy, and if she were granted bail, she might flee and be difficult to track down. Tawan was detained under the Criminal Code Section 112, which imposes a penalty of 3 to 15 years imprisonment for anyone who defames, insults, or threatens the King, Queen, Heir-apparent, or Regent. In practice, this provision is often used to silence political dissidents.
 
  • Female crowd control police took custody of Tawan and put her into a police car. The superintendent of Nang Loeng Police Station claimed she resisted official orders. Female officers sat beside her in the car and took her to Phaya Thai Police Station, which was not the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. However, she was later quickly moved to the Police Club in Lak Si District on the outskirts of Bangkok. This was reported to be an attempt to prevent her supporters from following her and organizing a protest at the police station. It was claimed that Tawan was detained at the Narcotics Suppression Bureau headquarters, located inside the Police Club, and it was reported that after being detained at the Police Club for about two hours, Tawan was finally allowed to meet with her lawyer.
 
  • On 6 March 2022, Tawan was charged under the lèse-majesté law, based on the reason that her opinions during the live stream might incite people to hate the King. On 7 March 2022, she was granted bail for 100,000 THB with certain conditions, including that she must refrain from using social media to incite others to protest or participate in any political assembly.

.

Bail revocation

  • On 20 April 2022, Tawan’s bail was revoked because the Court claimed her social media activities constituted a repeat offense. This accusation was based on documents and images on social media that the judge compiled personally, and such evidence was unlikely to have been presented to the Court through the correct procedure for submitting evidence. Tawan was subsequently taken to the Central Women’s Correctional Institution.
 
  • One day after her bail was revoked, on 21 April 2022, Tawan began a hunger strike protest against pre-trial detention. She refused all food, accepting only water and sometimes milk.
 
  • On 17 May 2022, a Member of Parliament (MP) from the Move Forward Party requested bail for Tawan, using his status as collateral. Reports indicated that his request was denied on the grounds that he did not provide a payslip to confirm his employment and that there were no other special reasons to grant bail. Subsequently, he submitted a certificate from the Secretariat of the House of Representatives confirming his salary.
 
  • On 20 May 2022, Tawan’s bail extension was granted for another seven days. The MP submitted another bail request, and a bail hearing was scheduled for May 26, 2022.
 
  • On 26 May 2022, Tawan was granted bail, and on 27 May 2022, she was released with a 30-day bail condition. At that time, Tawan had been on a hunger strike for 37 days. However, the bail conditions at that time resembled house arrest. She was not allowed to leave her residence unless a detailed request was submitted and approved by the Court. She was also required to wear an EM bracelet for location tracking. Furthermore, she was prohibited from leaving the country.
 
  • In November 2022, Tawan’s trial dates were set. The prosecution’s witness examination was scheduled for 8 to 10 August and 16 August 2023, and the defendant’s witness examination was scheduled for 17 to 22 August 2023. A verdict was expected one to two months after the trial concluded, and if found guilty, Tawan was expected to be sentenced on the same day.
 
  • On 16 January 2023, Tawan appeared before the Court to request the revocation of her own bail, and to demand the release of other political activists by granting bail, as well as calling for judicial and legal reform, including the repeal of the sedition and lèse-majesté laws. This resulted in Tawan’s detention. On 18 January 2023, Tawan began another hunger strike. This time, she refused both food and water inside the Central Women’s Correctional Institution to protest what she viewed as unfair pre-trial detention against critics of the monarchy.
 
  • On 20 January 2023, Tawan lost consciousness and was transferred to Thammasat University Hospital. She refused all food, water, and most medical treatment, including antacids, and was extremely weak, unable to move without assistance, experiencing severe abdominal pain, swollen lymph nodes, and was at risk of cardiac arrest due to malnutrition and potassium deficiency. Considering her symptoms, a group of human rights lawyers sent representatives to visit her daily. However, on 28 January 2023, it was reported that correctional officers denied the group access to visit Tawan, stating it was a public holiday.

.

Release

  • On 24 February 2023, Tawan was allowed to leave the hospital on her own initiative to engage in a peaceful protest in front of the Supreme Court, but in the following week, her health deteriorated due to the hunger strike, and she was readmitted to Thammasat University Hospital.
 
  • Subsequently, Tawan announced the end of her hunger strike on 11 March 2023, and was officially discharged from the hospital on 23 March 2023.
 
  • After leaving the hospital, it was claimed that Tawan was released pending trial. Her trial was set to begin in August 2023. If found guilty, she could face up to 15 years in prison. Due to the consistently high conviction rate under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, Tawan was highly likely to be convicted of the charges. Furthermore, there were no legal obstacles to prevent the government from re-detaining her pre-trial or imposing other restrictions on her liberty.
.
(Information as of 16 November 2025)

Arbitrary Detention under Category I: Lack of Legal Basis

  • In relation to the arrest of Tantawan Tuatulanon on 5 March 2022, while she was live-streaming before a royal motorcade in front of the United Nations building in Bangkok, the Working Group recalls that, for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that a law may in the abstract authorize an arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the specific circumstances of the case, typically through an arrest warrant, arrest order or equivalent document, and any detention must be subject to the effective control of a judicial or other competent, independent and impartial authority. In the present case, Ms. Tuatulanon was apprehended without a warrant, and the Working Group considers that she was thereby denied the protection of the guarantees set out in articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
 
  • The Working Group further notes that, although Ms. Tuatulanon was granted conditional release on 27 May 2022, the conditions attached to that release – including the requirement to remain in her residence unless expressly authorized by the court to leave, the obligation to wear an electronic monitoring device and the prohibition on leaving the country – in practice amounted to house arrest. In line with its deliberation No. 1 on house arrest, the Working Group considers that such conditions are tantamount to deprivation of liberty, as Ms. Tuatulanon was confined to closed premises which she was not free to leave.
 
  • The Working Group also recalls its established jurisprudence that detention pursuant to legislation that is itself incompatible with international human rights law lacks a legal basis. In this regard, it reiterates its previous finding that section 112 of the Criminal Code is vague and overly broad, does not define what expressions constitute “defamation”, “insult” or “threat” to the monarchy, and leaves the determination of whether an offence has been committed to the unfettered discretion of State authorities. As such, section 112 fails to meet the requirements of legality and foreseeability and is incompatible with article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 15 (1) of the Covenant. Ms. Tuatulanon’s arrest, pre-trial detention and subsequent house arrest, based exclusively on this provision, therefore lack a valid legal basis.
 
  • For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Tuatulanon is arbitrary under category I.

.

Arbitrary Detention under Category II: Exercise of Fundamental Freedoms under International Law

  • The Working Group considers that Ms. Tuatulanon’s live-streamed commentary and subsequent social-media posts fall squarely within the scope of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as protected by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant. Her conduct consisted of peaceful political commentary and the dissemination of information and opinions of legitimate public interest, including criticism of the manner in which the authorities treated protesting farmers and broader discussion of the role of the monarchy in public life.
 
  • The Working Group recalls that the mere fact that expression is regarded as critical or even insulting to a public figure, including those exercising the highest political authority, is not sufficient to justify the imposition of criminal sanctions. Laws should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity or status of the person alleged to have been impugned. Nor does the material before the Working Group indicate that Ms. Tuatulanon’s statements incited violence, hatred or discrimination, or that they posed any genuine and demonstrable threat to national security, public order, public health or morals.
 
  • Under article 19 (3) of the Covenant, any restriction on freedom of expression must be provided by law, pursue one of the legitimate aims enumerated in that provision and be necessary and proportionate to that aim. The Government has not demonstrated that the arrest, pre-trial detention, house arrest and ongoing prosecution of Ms. Tuatulanon constituted a necessary and proportionate response to her peaceful exercise of freedom of expression. On the contrary, the use of section 112 to criminalize such expression, coupled with the severe penalties attached to that offence, has a pronounced chilling effect on public debate and deters others from engaging in legitimate criticism or discussion of matters of public concern.
 
  • For the above reasons, the Working Group found that Tawan’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, violating Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 and ICCPR Article 19. The Working Group will submit Tawan’s case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression for appropriate action.

.

Arbitrary Detention under Category III: Violation of International Norms concerning the Right to a Fair Trial

  • ICCPR Articles 9(3) and 14(3)(c) state that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time and without undue delay. The reasonableness of the delay in bringing a case to trial must be assessed according to the circumstances of each case, taking into account the complexity, the conduct of the accused, and the handling by state authorities. Since the Working Group found that Tawan’s detention was arbitrary as it resulted from the peaceful exercise of rights, the delay in Tawan’s legal proceedings is unreasonable.
 
  • Although Tawan has been released pending trial, the government has an obligation to ensure a speedy trial. In this regard, the Working Group noted that the prosecutor took unnecessary steps that delayed the proceedings, including failing to respond to the defense lawyer’s motions, causing delay. Considering these factors, the Working Group found that the trial schedule in August 2023, which was more than a year and a half after Tawan’s arrest, was unacceptably long and constituted a violation of ICCPR Articles 9(3) and 14(3)(c).
 
  • Based on the above reasons, the Working Group concluded that Tawan’s violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to due process were significant factors making her deprivation of liberty arbitrary.
  1. Has Tawan been released, and if so, on what date?
  2. Has any compensation or other remedy been provided to Tawan?
  3. Has any investigation been conducted into the violations of Tawan’s rights, and if so, what were the findings of that investigation?
  4. Have any laws or practices been amended or changed to ensure Thailand’s laws and practices align with its international obligations and with the present opinion?
  5. Have any other measures been taken to give effect to this opinion?
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
    • Article 9: Right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention
    • Article 14: Right to a fair trial
    • Article 15: Principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law)
    • Article 19: Right to freedom of opinion and expression
 
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
    • Article 9: Prohibition of arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile
    • Article 10: Right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
 
  • UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders
    • Article 1: Right to promote and strive for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms without being threatened
    • Article 2: Right to work with others and participate in organizations for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
    • Article 5: Right to assemble, express, and access information
    • Article 6: Right to access, disseminate, and exchange information on human rights.