2558 (2015) have reportedly been wielded against HRDs for bringing to light human rights concerns and information in the interests of the public.9 9. We note that the draft NAP has set out several action points aimed at protecting HRDs, including to “push for the review, amendment and repeal of relevant laws, mechanisms and protocols to facilitate protection of HRDs, for example with respect to witness protection laws”; “to determine or review policies, protocols, procedures and mechanisms to protect HRDs, including women HRDs, and ensure for them safe conditions of work, and to provide trainings for law enforcement agencies to ensure in practice these protection measures”; “to provide trainings for law enforcement officers to widen their knowledge of measures to protect human rights, for example with respect to the organization of assemblies, and free expression pertaining to human rights”;10 “to urge businesses … to ensure that HRDs will not be sued merely calling for rights of individuals to be protected”;11 “to promote the use of reconciliation mechanisms at all levels of the justice system”; and “to increase access to justice of HRDs who are the injured persons.”12 10. It is our concern however that judicial harassment of HRDs has not been sufficiently addressed by the draft NAP. Even as the draft NAP urges businesses to ensure HRDs are not sued for their legitimate human rights work, at present it does not clearly provide guidance on prevention of the use of legal and judicial procedures to harass and thereby curtail the work of HRDs. In earlier versions of the NAP, including the draft dated 23 August 2018, a commitment had been included to “push for an Anti-SLAPP law”.13 This provision was, however, removed from the current draft NAP. This removal was justified in the draft NAP on the grounds that the Court of Justice had already introduced legal amendments to prevent SLAPP lawsuits, in particular by enacting Articles 161/1 and 165/2 of the Criminal Procedure Code.14 The draft NAP also refers to the power of a public prosecutor under Article 21 of the Public Prosecution Organ and Public Prosecutors Act B.E. 2553 (2010) as another measure to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.15 11. We are concerned, however, that these laws are inadequate to prevent judicial harassment of HRDs for reasons set out below. Article 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code 12. Article 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recently passed by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) on 4 December 2018 during NLA Extraordinary Meeting No. 83/2561. The law has not yet been published in the Government Gazette.16 Article 161/1 states that: “In a case filed by a private complainant, if it appears to the court – or through examination of evidence called at trial – that the complainant has filed the lawsuit in bad faith or distorted facts in order to harass or take undue advantage of a defendant, or to procure any advantage to which the complainant is not rightfully entitled to, the court shall order dismissal of the case, and forbid the complainant to refile such case again. ICJ and TLHR, Joint Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in advance of the Committee’s examination of Thailand’s second periodic report under Article 40 of the Covenant, 6 February 2017, available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/THA/INT_CCPR_CSS_THA_26602_E.pdf 10 RLPD, Draft NAP, 14 February 2019, at 76 and 78 11 Ibid, at 80 12 Ibid, at 82 13 RLPD, Draft NAP, 23 August 2018, at 32 14 RLPD, Draft NAP, 14 February 2019, at 72-73. 15 Ibid, at 73 16 Available at: http://web.senate.go.th/bill/bk_data/429-3.pdf 9 3