The prosecution of children for political expression directly contravenes international human rights principles, especially the rights of children that Thailand is obligated to uphold under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Using the criminal justice system to suppress children’s expression not only breaches the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly but also highlights systemic issues. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) audit report points to a persistent pattern of violations of children’s rights, reflecting practices that fail to prioritise the best interests of the children involved.
The Principle of the Highest Interest of the Child (CRC, Article 3): A Key Foundation Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
The Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “the best interests of the child” is a fundamental principle that guides all decisions concerning children. This principle encompasses many aspects of decision-making, with a focus on safeguarding the right to life and survival. It also includes the rights to protection, development, and participation for children. Interpreting the principle of the best interests of the child involves prioritising their development, education, and mental health in any legal decision that affects them.
Especially in the context of child rights defenders, the Children’s Rights Committee has advised that the principle of “maximum interest” should not be limited to welfare or protection from harm. Instead, it must also encompass the civil and political rights of children, including freedom of expression, the right to seek, receive, and communicate information, as well as the rights to association and privacy. This broader interpretation is particularly important for child rights defenders, as States parties often use concerns about children’s protection or welfare as an excuse to restrict children’s rights to expression and association.
When considering any legal measures, such as prosecution or the Amnesty Act, decisions should prioritise safeguarding children’s future and minimise the effects of involvement in the justice system. What actions expose a child to psychological stress? Educational disruption or imprisonment opposes the state’s primary duty to ensure children’s right to survival and development.
The Amnesty Act is a vital tool for reducing negative impacts and creating conditions favourable to the proper growth of the child.
Furthermore, the state’s use of violence or harsh criminal justice against children for expressing their opinions is a serious violation and conflicts with the “best interest of the child”.
Children’s Right to Participation, Expression, and Assembly (CRC Articles 12, 13, 15)
The Convention on the Rights of the Child clearly recognises that all children possess the same human rights as adults, including the right to speak and express their opinions (Article 12), the right to seek, receive, and transmit information (Article 13), and the right to peaceful assembly (Article 15). However, violations of these rights have occurred in many forms. Violations of children’s rights to expression, assembly, and peaceful protest are not limited to the use of direct force but also include intimidation, harassment, and surveillance.
For example, undercover government officials tracking students, monitoring their searches, and posting them on social media. The Civil Rights Commission has concluded that officials who monitor or investigate, interfering with a child’s life beyond reasonable legal grounds, violate the right to privacy under Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Background searches and sharing information on social media, known as doxxing, are digital tactics used to damage reputations. This harassment simultaneously infringes on the right to privacy and the right to expression, aiming to undermine the credibility of political activities.
Furthermore, the decision to proceed with criminal prosecution of children who commit offences under the Emergency Act, especially after the COVID-19 situation has eased, raises concerns. Additionally, many cases are prosecuted repeatedly, including charges with severe penalties such as Sections 112 and 116 of the Criminal Code, leading to children going through the criminal justice process multiple times. These repeated prosecutions can harm mental health and are not in the best interests of the child, as they overlook the impact of such actions, which include the adverse effects on mental well-being and the potential hindrance to children’s developmental rehabilitation caused by criminal prosecution.
The right to be protected, protected, and treated appropriately in the judicial process (CRC Articles 37, 39)
The Convention Mandates that the state protect children from harm (Article 19) and promote their physical and mental rehabilitation (Article 39). However, a report on the investigation into violations of children’s rights by the NHRC found that police officers used excessive force to arrest children. They were not fully informed of the allegations or their legal rights, nor were they allowed to see their parents or consult a lawyer while in custody. It was also revealed that bonding devices, such as plastic straps, were used during the arrest and detention of children, and that children were detained alongside adults.
There is no proportional separation of child detention areas. Perform the tasks mentioned above. The detention practices seriously violate the right not to be subjected to violations against life and torture (Article 37), primarily by excessive force and restraint. They are contrary to humane treatment and respect for dignity. Failing to inform detainees of their rights and access to legal counsel breaches the right to legal and fair assistance. Detaining children alongside adults is against the requirement to separate them from adults. Subjecting children to psychological stress also contravenes the state’s duty to promote both physical and mental rehabilitation (Article 39).
At the same time, the NHRC has clearly determined that, in many cases, the conduct of police officers in arresting and detaining children does not align with the operational framework for safeguarding children’s rights under the Juvenile Court Act 2010 and is not in accordance with the “principle of the best interests of children”. It was stated that the officer’s use of excessive force exceeded the reasons for arrest. Failure to inform a child of their rights at the time of arrest and the use of plastic wrist restraints are considered violations of child protection principles.
The Standards of Justice, in accordance with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No. 24 (2019), interpret children’s rights in the justice process. It states that it calls on States parties to shift from punishment to rehabilitation, emphasising the expansion of case diversion from the formal justice process and the promotion of non-custodial measures instead of criminal prosecution. Additionally, this General Comment encourages States Parties to consider establishing a minimum age for criminal punishment.
Diversion of the Case
Diversion is a measure that reduces social stigma and facilitates children’s reintegration into society. Many domestic legal systems, including the Juvenile and Family Court Act, have recognised various forms of diversion mechanisms, such as comparative fines, rehabilitation, and other methods. The prosecutor’s order not to prosecute or the organisation of meetings involving family and community groups are examples. These measures should be implemented at the police or prosecutor levels to minimise court proceedings as much as possible.
The Juvenile and Family Court and Juvenile and Family Trial Procedures Act B.E. 2553 (2010) sets out special measures instead of criminal prosecution under Section 86. The condition is that the offence is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment if the offender is fully qualified, i.e., has no prior imprisonment sentences and is aware of the offence. If the plan is fully implemented, the court will provisionally resolve the case. However, children subjected to special measures must show “remorse” for their actions by confessing. The confession can be used as evidence in the trial process.
In some cases, when preparing a child’s rehabilitation plan, the child’s opinion is not considered, leading to the implementation of inappropriate, not in the child’s best interests, special measures. Often, the child may choose to undergo special measures but is still detained as part of the programme. For example, this applies to children prosecuted under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. Although Thailand has established special measures to remove children from the justice system, in practice, it has been found that many children, especially in cases related to protests and political expression, are still brought into criminal justice. Therefore, the enforcement of special measures does not align with General Opinion No. 24, which emphasises prosecuting children only as a last resort and prioritises rehabilitation in the juvenile justice process.
The Amnesty Act as a Tool to Restore Justice and Human Dignity
When the state prosecutes people for “expressing their thoughts,” the Amnesty Act is an important policy tool that helps “end cases” and “restore rights” to those prosecuted for exercising their right to freedom of assembly and political expression. The Amnesty Act measures prevent individuals from facing lengthy court processes and eliminate the need for a criminal record, which could impact their future. Restoring these rights is equivalent to restoring the dignity of the people, including children who used them to exercise their civil and political rights.
In the report on investigating violations of rights against children, the NHS has proposed enacting legislation to grant the Amnesty Act and end the prosecution of children accused of crimes related to political expression in the past. The Civil Rights Commission notes that it is clear the continued criminal prosecution of children after the crisis, based on charges related to the Emergency Decree or other laws, conflicts with principles of “children’s best interests.”
Such litigation not only creates a prolonged legal burden but also continuously affects children’s development and mental health. Therefore, the Amnesty Act or case termination is regarded as a vital symbolic remedy because it signifies the state’s recognition that prosecuting children for exercising their right to freedom of expression contradicts human rights principles and the best interests of the child, which includes removing criminal records related to political expression in childhood. It is essential to aim to restore social development and education, and to allow a return to everyday life (according to Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child). Without the Amnesty Act, ongoing prosecution will ultimately harm children psychologically, educationally, and in terms of life opportunities.
Furthermore, the Amnesty Act is a vital measure to address the conflict between domestic laws that limit rights and Thailand’s highest obligations under international human rights law, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Therefore, the Amnesty Act for political cases involves more than merely abolishing sentences; it entails restoring justice to those prosecuted for political reasons. Political assembly or participation is a fundamental right that the state is obliged to protect or facilitate in politics. It is a core right that the state must safeguard, not punish. However, the Amnesty Act process is complete in accordance with the principles of transitional justice. It must not stop at abolishing sentences but must be accompanied by a “guarantee that it will not be repeated” through reforms to laws and power structures that enable rights violations, ensuring that no one is prosecuted simply for exercising their right to freedom.
Impact
The cost children bear for exercising their right to freedom of assembly and political expression, beyond physical and psychological harm during protests, continues to be significantly impacted by political prosecution in their daily lives and futures. It underscores the urgent need for the Amnesty Act.
Educational Disruption and Future Opportunities
The justice system has dramatically disrupted the educational paths of many children. For example, a 17-year-old charged under the Emergency Decree was unable to apply for undergraduate admission in the quota and portfolio rounds because of ongoing lawsuits. Meanwhile, a 16-year-old accused under Section 112 had to leave mainstream school to study in the calibration system instead, due to the stress and time required to travel to courts, prosecutors, and police stations. Beyond legal proceedings, there are also educational disruptions in schools, including penalties such as disqualification from further education, issuing texts, warnings via summons, or probation by the school. Additionally, some activists have been placed on the “Watch List,” preventing them from travelling abroad to study because a passport cannot be issued until the case is resolved. These circumstances show that the legal process has seriously hampered children’s educational prospects.
Mental and Mental Health Burden
Being threatened and prosecuted has a profound impact on children’s mental health. The data confirms that many young activists have become frightened. There was a case where a 17-year-old activist in Chiang Mai province was diagnosed with traumatic mental illness syndrome, which was caused by prosecution and harassment. Human rights violations by government officials negatively affect children’s mental well-being, leading to distrust in the fairness of the judiciary and long-term anger towards government officials. The extended justice process has thus become a form of psychological and financial punishment. Confronted with repeated trials, school probation, and ongoing legal uncertainty (as reported by the NCPO), it was stated that further prosecution contradicts the “best interests of the child,” further emphasising the need for the state to take swift legal action to prevent this harm.
Therefore, the Amnesty Act presents a straightforward solution to ease the emotional burden on children and their families. Beyond the impact on children, families have been targeted by strategies aimed at suppressing political movements. Police officers visited homes and threatened parents with arrest warrants for the child if they continued their activities. This behaviour instils fear and insecurity within families. Furthermore, parents are also deprived of the opportunity to earn income and attend court with their children at every stage of the process. This emotional and financial strain bears heavily on families, increasing pressure to restrict their children’s political rights for safety and economic survival.
Surveillance and Terrorisation
Harassment goes beyond legal actions to constant interference in personal lives. Many children lead tough lives and must be watched when leaving their homes. Some individuals must disguise their identities by wearing wigs or change their travel routes multiple times before returning to their accommodation to avoid being followed. Additionally, there have been cases where police officers have tracked them to activists’ dormitories. The teacher in charge of the dormitory had to ask the activists to move out for their safety. These actions are serious violations of the right to personal well-being. Therefore, the implementation of the Amnesty Act law must happen alongside the introduction of remedial measures and the end of daily threats to restore the security that children and their families have lost.
Case Study: Delay in Creating Accountability (Warit Somnoi)
The case of Warit Somnoi’s death, the 15-year-old who was shot with live ammunition during a protest at Din Daeng Junction in August 2021, has clearly highlighted the lack of transparency and delays in delivering justice. Later, in October 2024, the court of first instance dismissed the case against the defendant in the shooting of Somnoi near the Din Daeng Police Station in 2021, citing unclear evidence and doubts, which led to the defendant being granted benefits.