deliberation of the case as necessary and appropriate, and the complainant and the defendant may examine this evidence with the consent of the court." 22. We welcome the introduction of Article 165/2, which protects rights to access to justice, including the right of the defence to submit and test evidence, as part of the right to a fair trial, protected under ICCPR article 14, at the preliminary hearing stage. This can assist the court in determining where a case lacks merit. This article, in itself, however, does not adequately protect individuals and HRDs against SLAPP, as alluded to by the draft NAP. 23. Article 165/2 applies only to criminal cases filed by a private complainant, and not to civil cases and, where the court thinks fit, criminal cases filed by public prosecutors, which amount to SLAPP. Article 165/2, however, only mandatorily applies to the preliminary hearing stage, which will only be held if the case is a prosecution charge sought by a private individual or entity; such a preliminary hearing is not necessary in cases filed by public prosecutors.25 Article 21 of the Public Prosecution Organ and Public Prosecutors Act B.E. 2553 (2010) 24. Article 21 of the Public Prosecution Organ and Public Prosecutors Act B.E. 2553 (2010) states that: “Should a public prosecutor find that a criminal prosecution will be of no use to the general public, will affect the national safety or security, or will impair significant interest of the State, he shall refer his opinion to the Attorney-General who may then render an order of non-prosecution.” 25. Noting that SLAPP lawsuits are filed against individuals who are merely exercising their fundamental freedoms, these lawsuits should be determined per se as ‘meritless’ and be dismissed by public prosecutors at the very inception of any such lawsuit. Prosecutors should be competent to simply exercise their general power to not bring any such lawsuit to court in accordance with Thailand’s laws and Thailand’s international legal obligations. It, therefore, should not always be necessary that public prosecutors use the abovementioned article to dismiss SLAPP lawsuits. 26. Furthermore, as SLAPP lawsuits can burden defendants with harassment and distress from the moment they are filed, early dismissal or rejection of meritless lawsuits by public prosecutors is necessary. Public prosecutors, as well as inquiry officers, should therefore be encouraged to exercise their ordinary powers as set out under articles 140 to 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code to render a non-prosecution order at the outset to minimize undue and negative effect of SLAPP lawsuits. The draft NAP should also, in this regard, precisely address the crucial roles of public prosecutors and inquiry officers in protecting the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly with respect to judicial harassment through SLAPP. Other relevant laws 27. In addition, specific laws should be repealed or amended to ensure that the exercise of fundamental freedoms are not effectively criminalized in Thailand, including criminal defamation (Articles 326-328 of the Thai Criminal Code), Article 14 of the ComputerRelated Crime Act, Article 116 of the Thai Criminal Code and the Public Assembly Act, which have been used to clamp down on freedom of expression, information and assembly.26 This should be explicitly addressed in the draft NAP, in particular in the action plan to “push for the review, amendment and repeal of relevant laws, 25 Article 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code For further analysis, please see: 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, para 16-23, available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/THA/INT_CCPR_CSS_THA_26602_E.pdf. 26 6