Thailand: Computer Crime Act, 2017 where they are left to government authorities to enforce. For this reason, we have consistently advocated for the abolition of criminal defamation laws. The HR Committee has similarly urged all states party to the ICCPR to abolish criminal defamation laws.47 Such laws rarely can be said to pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate. We also note that human rights law does not recognise protection of the reputation of deceased individuals. Moreover, we note that the Sections 16(1) and (2) allow courts to order the destruction of and compel individuals to destroy 16(2) have a positive obligation to destroy data or face criminal penalty. These provisions amount to content-based censorship and go beyond what is already an illegitimate and disproportionate restriction. Section 16 should be stricken entirely. Recommendations: Criminal defamation provisions in Section 16 of the Act should be abolished; Subsections 16(1) and 16(2) must be stricken entirely. Procedures and investigations The remaining sections of the Amended Act set out investigatory powers and procedures, which comprise some of the most worrisome portions of the Act. While ARTICLE 19 does not propose to conduct an exhaustive analysis of this part of the Act, we do make some important observations as they pertain to the protection of the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. Punishment for participation in offences Section 15 punishes any s offence under Section 14. Notwithstanding the existing problems with Section 14 as enumerated above, it also appears that a proposed intentionality requirement under Section 15 was stricken from the current version of Act. This means that service providers can potentially be held responsible for aiding and abetting computer-related forgery without any systems are used for forgery. From comparative perspective, we also note that Article 11 of the Cybercrime Convention Section 15 provides wide discretion to the Minister to exempt a service provider from liability if they cooperate with investigations, opening up the provision to become a coercive tool. Recommendation: Section 15 should require that aiding and abetting liability only attach where an individual or entity acts intentionally to further the underlying offence. The provision allowing the Minister discretion to exempt a provider from liability should be omitted. 47 HR Committee, Concluding observations on Italy (CCPR/C/ITA/CO/5); Concluding observations on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (CCPR/C/MKD/CO/2). ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Rd, London EC1R 3GA Page 20 of 24 www.article19.org +44 20 7324 2500