9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ   Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon stated that apart from Prachatai website, other websites also feature political opinions during that time and Ms. Nopphawan was simply a user. The Reference webmaster is obliged to monitor and censor statements that are inappropriate. He had no idea if the MICT officers had notified Prachatai asking them to remove the posts. Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon further testified that reading the statements alone may not make an ordinary person to make any interpretation. They have to be read together with other information and the readers shall be able to link it with various events and personalities and will find it lèse-majesté. An Internet user can be a person interested in following news and information, and therefore has the right to know. Regarding how in the meetings of the Committee, decisions are made as to which statements are found to be insulting the monarchy, the police officer said they rely on legal provisions. Internet users are also obliged to heed to the law. He had no idea if the website has a setting in place for other users to remove any posts and he was not aware about the number of posts posted daily in Prachatai website and he had not known the accused personally. The witness examination was adjourned at 11.30 am, and many observers from Thailand and abroad were there to give a lot of support to the accused. 2 September 2011 Examination of prosecution witness no. 9, Pol. Lt. Gen. Winai Wongbuppha, Secretary of the Committee to Review Lèse-majesté Cases, not present during the trial, but has submitted a written testimony 6 September 2011 Examination of prosecution witness no. 10, Lt. Col. Nitipat Wutboonyasit (formerly known as “Damrong”), an inquiry officer in charge of the case and arresting office Judge Kamphon Rungrat arrived in the courtroom around 10.00 am. Lt. Col. Nitipat Wutboonyasit, 44 years, beginning from 10.15 am stated that while working on the case, he was serving in the Operations Division 1, Crime Suppression Division, as an inquiry officer. He was asked to carry out the search of the accused’s notebook computer. At present, he is an inquiry officer of the Crime Suppression Division in charge of offenses concerning consumer protection law. Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that in November 2008, not sure about the date, he was informed about the case. An MICT officer has sent him a copy of complaint prepared by Mr. Aree Jiworarak who accused the accused of allowing posters to post lèse-majesté statements in the computer system. Then he started to compile documentary evidence and report to the National Police Chief and a committee has been set up to work on the case. The Committee reviewed each of the posts to identify if they were offensive to the monarchy. He was not sure if all statements reviewed were considered an insult to the monarch (statements mentioned in Exhibits J23-32). Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that from tracing the URL, it could be derived that the posts had been made on Prachatai website, and then the accused was serving as webmaster. From further investigation, it was found that the office of the accused was located in Huay Kwang (current address), and then court warrants  were applied for on charges that the servic provider deliberately encourage or consent to the inputting into a computer system any information deemed a threat to national security and being false information.  Then, a search warrant was applied prior to the raid at Prachatai’s office.   The arrest warrant and search warrant were issued on 3 and 5 March 2009, respectively. Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he carried out the search on 6 March 2009 by first producing the warrant. Upon encountering the accused, he produced the arrest warrant and made the arrest of the accused and seized her notebook computer for investigation. The accused was then taken to Operations Division 5, CSD, and signed to acknowledge the charges. Then, she was taken to Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra, the inquiry officer, and he then relinquished his duty. In addition, he also stated that he could not identify the posters as per Exhibits J1-9 and he was not the interrogator of the accused during the investigation. Other officers covered up the duty including Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra. He had not known the accused before. Defence lawyer’s cross examination: Lt. Col. Nitipat used to attend a meeting with MICT and was aware that webmasters had been invited to attend. The meeting took place on 1 November 2007 and in the letter of invitation, Pol. Lt. Gen. Theeradet Phothong, was the Chairperson of the meeting. That’s all he could remember. He further testified that he could not recall if the accused had attended the meeting aimed at seeking cooperation to quell the dissemination of statements deemed lèse-majesté. He was not aware that Pol. Lt. Gen. Theeradet Phothong concluded the meeting by praising Prachatai as a model website in an attempt to remove inappropriate statements. He was also not aware if Pol. Lt. Gen. Theeradet also said during the conclusion that such removal system was not popular in other websites. Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he could not recall of the MICT officers notified Prachatai asking them to remove the posts. When Mr. Aree Jiworarak came to lodge complaint to him, Mr. Aree told him to take action on all cases, but he did not inform the police officer as to whom to be pressed with charges. It was subject to further investigation of the inquiry officers. Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he had summoned the accused to ask questions and asked her to read the posts found in Prachatai. When the accused was invited for interrogation, the posts had already been spotted by the MICT officers and a court order to block access to the posts had already been requested. He described that the materials he received from Mr. Aree was a printout from computer. He could not remember if  Mr. Aree had already sent a letter asking the website to remov the posts. Regarding the case against Ms. Nopphawan, Lt. Col. Nitipat said the accused was then invited to testify as a witness. Then, she was not pressed with any charges yet. During the interrogation of the accused, he failed to remind her of her rights and that any information she was to give as a witness in this case could be used as incriminating evidence agains her later. Lt. Col. Nitipat further stated that apart from the accused, there was another person who should be aware of the posts, and he did summon the person to ask questions, but he could recall who the person was. The defence lawyer gave him Exhibit J43, a inquiry report of the case against Ms. Nopphawan prepared by the inquiry officer, and asked him about the connection between the case against Ms. Nopphawan and the case against the accused. Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he was actually not the officer who prepared the report on the case against the accused. He simply signed the report since he was part of the investigating team. But he confirmed that he had read the report before and did signed the report, but could not recall which case it was and how. The Exhibit shown to him contained documents that had been rearranged after the case was transferred from the police to the prosecutor. As for documentary evidence, the two inquiry reports could be used in tandem with each other. Maybe all the documents were included, he had no idea, since all the supporting documents were rearranged by Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 15/26