9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ   Technology (MICT) Reference 9 February 2011 An examination of prosecution witness no. 2, Mr. Thanit Prabhatnan, Legal Officer, MICT 10 February 2011 An examination of prosecution witness no. 3, Mr. Somsak Suppajirawat, Legal Officer, MIC and CCA competent officer. An examination of prosecution witness no. 4, Mr. Pairat Yawong, private attorney. 12 February 2011 An examination of prosecution witness no. 5, Lt. Col. Dr. Wiwat Sitthisoradet, Science Office (SB3),  Forensic Chemistry and Physics Document Examinations, Criminal Record Division 1 September 2011 An examination of prosecution witness no. 6, Capt Khirirak Maraksa. An examination of prosecution witness no. 7, Lt. Col. Suraphong Thammapitak, Investigating Officer in this case. 2 September 2011 An examination of prosecution witness no. 8, Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon Thuanthong, Committee overseeing the interpretation of statements as per Exhibit J32. An 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 An examination of prosecution witness no. 10, Lt. Col. Nitipat Wutboonyasit, an inquiry officer in charge of the case and arresting officer. 9 September 2011 An examination of prosecution witness no. 11, Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra, an inquiry officer in charge of the case. 20 September 2011 An examination of defence witness no.1,  Mr. Jon Ungphakorn, co-founder of Prachatai website and currently. An examination of defence witness no. 2, Dr. Nirand Pithakwachara, co-founder of Foundation for Community Educational Media. 21 September 2011   An examination of defence witness no.3, Mr. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the accused in this case. 11 October 2011   An examination of defence witness no.4, Mr. Danny O’Brien, expert on internet law from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), USA, former IT consultant to Virgin.net, The Guardian, Wired  and Channel 4 14 February 2012 An examination of defence witness no. 5, Ms. Sawatree Suksri, lecturer, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University and expert on computer crime law An examination of defence witness no.6, Dr. Kittibhum Juthasamith, Director of Phusing Hospital, Sri Saket and Prachatai webboard user An examination of defence witness no. 7, Assist. Prof. Jittat Fakcharoenphol, lecturer, Department of Computer Engineering, Kasetsart University and ICT expert 15 February 2012 An examination of defence witness no.8, Mr. Wanchat Padungrat, founder of Pantip.com 16 February 2012 An examination of defence witness no. 9, Assist. Prof. Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, Ph.D., Vice Dean on Graduates’ Affairs,  Department of Journalism, Chulalongkorn University, as mass media expert and researcher on internet content oversight 10 April 2012 The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Media Defence – Southeast Asia (MD-SEA) jointly submit this legal opinion to the Chief of Criminal Court in support of the defendant in the case of Public Prosecutors of the Office of the Attorney General v. Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn (Black Case No. Or. 1167/2553). The document has supported the defendant’s claim that there was no intentionally support or consent to the importation of the said 10 statements onto Prachatai webboards using three arguments below: 1. Section 15 of the Computer-Related Offences Commission Act is not an allowable restriction on freedom of expression under international human rights law. Thailand is a State Party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As such, it has the obligation to abide by the Convention’s provisions and guarantee the rights embodied therein. Although the UN Human Rights Committee laid down allowable restrictions or legitimate grounds for the state to restrict freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself. Section 15 of the Computer-Related Offences Commission Act is a form of restriction on the exercise of freedom of expression. However, it does no pass the test for the determination of permissible restrictions under Thailand’s international legal obligations. 2. Section 15 of the Computer-Related Offences Commission Act does not provide sufficient notice of what constitutes criminal conduct, thereby undercutting the principle of legality and risking arbitrary enforcement. There was no definition of what act constitutes “intentionally supporting or consenting” to the importation of unlawful material onto the Internet. The law’s vagueness led to a violation of the right of Ms. Chiranuch because it does not give proper notice to intermediaries how to avoid conduct that would make them criminally responsible. 3. Intermediaries should not be found liable for content on the Internet of which they are not author. Ms. Chiranuch is not being prosecuted as the author or the person who imported allegedly unlawful statements into the computer system, but as a service provider or intermediary allegedly “intentionally supporting or consenting” to the act of importation. In her testimony on 21 September 2011, Ms. Chiranuch explained to the Court that she had implemented all possible measures to prevent any unlawful content to appear on Prachatai web boards. However, the speed of the Internet and the large amount of messages on the web boards especially in the time of the incident in 2008, it is impossible for any web master to monitor and screen 2,800 to 2,900 new messages every day. The number was beyond the screening capacity of any individual web master. Therefore, a finding of guilt in this case would mean a regression of human rights standards in Thailand and will also cast a chilling effect on all Internet service providers in the country. https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 4/26