mechanisms and protocols to facilitate protection of HRDs, for example with respect to witness protection laws”.27 Recommendations 28. In light of above stated concerns, we recommend that the draft NAP include within its action plans, a clear commitment for concrete action with the force of law to protect individuals, and in particular HRDs, from judicial harassment, including through SLAPP lawsuits. 29. We recommend, in particular, that the draft NAP include within its action plans: 29.1 The development of a comprehensive stand-alone law to fully protect workers, HRDs, and other individuals from judicial harassment through SLAPP lawsuits at the outset, in both civil and criminal proceedings, and which apply to cases brought by both public prosecutors and private individuals. Such a law should fully protect the rights to access to justice, the right to a fair trial, including due process guarantees applicable to both complainant and defendant. The law should further explicitly prohibit judicial harassment through SLAPP as a violation of fundamental freedoms protected under Thailand’s Constitution and its international human rights obligations, and should provide remedies for persons negatively affected by SLAPP lawsuits; OR 29.2 The amendment of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code to allow for the striking out of cases in both civil and criminal cases at the outset, including cases brought by public prosecutors or private individuals, on the basis that they are SLAPP lawsuits, with a clear prohibition of judicial harassment as a violation of fundamental freedoms protected under Thailand’s Constitution and its international human rights obligations, and providing remedies for persons negatively affected by SLAPP lawsuits. 30. The draft NAP should further clearly delineate the duties of public prosecutors and inquiry officers to actively protect the fundamental rights of individuals in preventing SLAPP lawsuits, including by affirming that they must exercise their ordinary powers to dismiss cases which fall under the scope of SLAPP lawsuits. 31. We recommend that Article 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code only be applied on an exceptional basis, in strict accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality, and with clarification of the term “in bad faith or distorts the facts in order to harass or take advantage of a defendant, or aims to procure any advantage to which the complainant is not rightfully entitled to”. This is necessary to provide sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct. Furthermore, Article 161/1 should also include a clear pronouncement of the protection of fundamental freedoms in line with Thailand’s Constitution and its international human rights obligations. It remains our opinion that Article 161/1 need not be used at all with respect to SLAPP lawsuits if the above noted recommendations are instituted; and in fact, it should only be used to strike out frivolous or vexatious litigation brought before the court. 32. We recommend that Article 161/1 paragraph 2 be repealed or amended to protect and guarantee the rights of individuals to access to justice and fair trial. 33. We recommend the repeal or amendment of laws to ensure that Thailand comply with its international legal obligations, including decriminalization of defamation (Articles 326-328 of the Thai Criminal Code), and amendment of Article 14 of the ComputerRelated Crime Act B.E.2550 (2007), Article 116 of the Thai Criminal Code and provisions in the Public Assembly Act B.E. 2558 (2015) which have been used to curtail fundamental rights to free expression, information and assembly. 27 RLPD, Draft NAP, 14 February 2019, at 76 7