On this International Women’s Day, and every day, we want to recognize and center the stories, voices, and expertise of women and gender minorities/gender diverse persons who languish behind bars in racist, classist, and patriarchal legal systems around the world. Fighting for women’s rights includes protecting the rights of the accused, criminalized, and condemned because they are the survivors of intersectional discrimination in oppressive systems around the world.  In the current context of ongoing attacks on the rights of women and gender minorities, it is more important than ever to stand united in our fight. The death penalty, with its targeting of minorities and its arbitrary, inhumane, and discriminatory application has no place in any of our societies and we honor the organizers, advocates, and survivors who fight tirelessly around the world to abolish it.

Signing organizations:

1. Abolition Death Penalty in Iraq
2. Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran
3. ACAT-France
4. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
5. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide (CCDPW)
6. Center for Prisoners’ Rights
7. Centre for Equality and Justice (CEJ)
8. Children Education Society (CHESO)
9. Capital Punishment Justice Project
10. Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI)
11. Harm Reduction International
12. HAYAT
13. Hope Behind Bars Africa (HBBA)
14. Humanity Diaspo
15. Human Rights Activists (in Iran) (HRA)
16. Human Rights Office of Kandy Diocese
17. Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO)
18. International Commission of Jurists – Kenya Section
19. Justice Project Pakistan
20. Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)
21. Legal Awareness Watch Pakistan
22. Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA)
23. Penal Reform International
24. Reprieve
25. The Sunny Center Foundation
26. The Advocates for Human Rights
27. The Inclusion Project (TIP)
28. Women and Harm Reduction International Network (WHRIN)
29. Women Beyond Walls
30. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty

Logos of the signatories organizations:

The Advocates for Human Rights (The Advocates) is a volunteer-based non-governmental organization committed to the impartial promotion and protection of international human rights standards and the rule of law since its founding in 1983. The Advocates conducts a range of programs to promote human rights in the United States and around the world, including monitoring and fact finding, direct legal representation, education and training, and publication. The Advocates is the primary provider of legal services to low-income asylum seekers in the Upper Midwest region of the United States. The Advocates is committed to ensuring human rights protection for women around the world. The Advocates has published more than 25 reports on violence against women as a human rights issue, provided consultation and commentary of draft laws on domestic violence, and trained lawyers, police, prosecutors, judges, and other law enforcement personnel to effectively implement new and existing laws on domestic violence. In 1991, The Advocates adopted a formal commitment to oppose the death penalty worldwide and organized a death penalty project to provide pro bono assistance on post-conviction appeals, as well as education and advocacy to end capital punishment. The Advocates currently holds a seat on the Steering Committee of the World Coalition against the Death Penalty.

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty is a membership-based global network committed to strengthening the international dimension of the fight against the death penalty. Established in 2002, its ultimate objective is to obtain the universal abolition of the death penalty. To achieve its goal, the World Coalition advocates for a definitive end to death sentences and executions in those countries where the death penalty is in force. In some countries, it is seeking to obtain a reduction in the use of capital punishment as a first step towards abolition.

Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) is the peak regional body for organisations committed to the abolition of the death penalty across Asia-Pacific, with members from 20 countries within the region. As such, ADPAN maintains that the death penalty violates the right to life, that it is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment and that the death penalty should be entirely abolished internationally.

Founded in 1922, FIDH is a global federation of nearly 200 organizations in more than 115 countries working together to protect, support and raise the voices of human rights defenders and victims through investigation, prosecution and advocacy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report supplements the report that the authors submitted in October 2022 at the List of Issues stage and provides relevant updates.1 This report provides suggested recommendations for the Committee to consider as it prepares its Concluding Observations.
Thailand fails to uphold its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

2. Thailand has failed to uphold its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, particularly for women in conflict with the law who are charged with capital offenses and women under sentence of death.

I. The Thai justice system fails to ensure that women in conflict with the law have access to justice, particularly when they face capital charges (List of Issues Prior to Reporting, paras. 4-5).

3. In its List of Issues Prior to Reporting, the Committee requested information about progress made toward, inter alia, “[s]trengthening the gender responsiveness and gender sensitivity of the justice system,” and “[e]nsuring that women belonging to ethnic minorities have access to interpretation where and when needed and that women with disabilities have access to assistance.”2

4. The Committee also focused on the disproportionate effect on women of the death penalty for drug offenses, inquiring whether authorities had conducted “any analysis of this phenomenon,” and also requested disaggregated data on women on death row, clarification of whether courts impose the death penalty against women who acted in self-defense, and response to reports that “courts are usually not allowed to consider mitigating factors such as exposure to gender-based violence, trauma and poverty.” The Committee further requested information “about any intention to codify gender-specific defences and mitigation in capital trials that include gender-based violence, trauma, poverty and economic pressure and caretaking responsibilities.” The Committee also requested information on “any steps taken to increase the resources for court-appointed lawyers in capital cases to allow for quality preparation of defence and to ensure that lawyers have the necessary expertise and experience.”3

5. In its eighth periodic report (State Party Report), Thailand reports that the “Office of the Attorney General has provided training courses for specialists in child and women’s

1 The Advocates for Human Rights et al., Thailand’s Compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Suggested List of Issues Prior to Reporting Relating to the Death Penalty, 3 Oct. 2022, https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/Res/Thailand%20CEDAW%20LOIPR%20death%20penalty%20FINAL.pdf (hereinafter List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022).
2 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, List of issues and questions prior to the submission of the eighth periodic report of Thailand, (4 Nov. 2022), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/QPR/8, ¶ 4.
3 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, List of issues and questions prior to the submission of the eighth periodic report of Thailand, (4 Nov. 2022), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/QPR/8, ¶ 5.

issues,”4 but offers no information about strengthening the gender responsiveness and gender sensitivity of the justice system in the context of women in conflict with the law. The report adds that the “Rights and Liberties Protection Department” in 2022 “initiated the work of interpreters in the process of justice” for people who are unable to communicate in the Thai language, noting without explanation a significant drop in the number of listed female interpreters from 281 in 2022 to 101 in 2023.5 It is unclear whether the Rights and Liberties Protection Department provides interpretation services to women in conflict with the law.

6. With respect to the death penalty, the State Party Report states that “[b]etween 2015-2021, Thailand had 68 incarcerated women receiving a death sentence from drug-related offenses, homicides, and related weapon offenses. During this period, the Department of Corrections did not impose the death penalty on any female prisoners. Instead their cases were reviewed for clemency each year.”6 However, this information is outdated, and Thailand does not provide any disaggregated data or further information about the nature of those crimes.

7. FIDH has obtained information from the Court of Justice confirming that since the Committee’s last review, courts of first instance have continued to sentence people to death at alarming rates: 173 in 2017; 205 in 2018; 163 in 2019; 164 in 2020; 100 in 2021; 171 in 2022; 140 in 2023; and 173 in 2024. There is no downward trend. The number of women sentenced to death over the same period was: 26 in 2017; 47 in 2018; 28 in 2019; 31 in 2020; 22 in 2021; 20 in 2022; 11 in 2023; and 21 in 2024. Women foreign nationals accounted for 4 death sentences in 2017, 6 in 2018, 6 in 2019, 10 in 2020, 5 each in 2021 and 2022, and 1 in 2023 and 1 in 2024.7 Amnesty International observed that Thailand’s “death penalty for drug related offences disproportionately affected women” in 2024.8 According to FIDH, as of the end of 2024, 364 people were under sentence of death, of which 252—including 37 women—had been convicted of drug-related offenses.9 Two additional women were under sentence of death for other offenses, meaning that a total of 39 women were on death row as of the end of 2024.10 FIDH reports that “[a]s of December2024, nearly 95% [of women under sentence of death] had been sentenced to death for drug-related offenses, which was significantly higher than the 66% of male

4 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Eighth periodic report submitted by Thailand under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2023, (11 June 2024), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/8, ¶ 23.
5 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Eighth periodic report submitted by Thailand under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2023, (11 June 2024), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/8, ¶ 27.
6 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Eighth periodic report submitted by Thailand under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2023, (11 June 2024), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/8, ¶ 29.
7 FIDH, Communications from Thailand’s Court of Justice, 15 May 2025, 6 Sept. 2024, 17 May 2022. There are some discrepancies between the official data FIDH received and the “official figures” that Amnesty International reports. For example, Amnesty International reported 115 death sentences in 2024, including 20 women and 3 foreign nationals. The Court of Justice figures that FIDH received are higher.
8 Amnesty International, Death Sentences and Executions 2024 (2025), at 27, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/8976/2025/en/.
9 Id. at 14; FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 15-16, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
10 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 15, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.; Amnesty International, Death Sentences and Executions 2024 (2025), at 27, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/8976/2025/en/.

prisoners under death sentence for drug-related offenses,” and the proportion of people under sentence of death for drug-related offenses has increased since 2020.11 According to FIDH, the number of women under sentence of death increased by 39% during 2024, from 28 to 39.12 FIDH reported that as of the end of 2024, 67% of all women imprisoned in Thailand were incarcerated for drug-related offenses.13

8. The State Party Report fails to respond to the Committee’s question regarding whether authorities have conducted any analysis of the disproportionate effect on women of the death penalty for drug offenses, and it further fails to provide the disaggregated data that the Committee requested.

9. At the conclusion of its December 2024 country visit to Thailand, the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls stated that women’s involvement in drug-related offenses “reflects a broader pattern of intersectional discrimination, where women’s vulnerability is exploited by powerful actors within drug trafficking networks, who are mostly men, yet it is the women who are disproportionately subjected to harsh penalties such as the death sentence.”14

10. Responding to the Committee’s question about court consideration of mitigation evidence and self-defense, the State Party Report states that a court “may impose a penalty less than what is prescribed by law for the offense” if the offender experienced “acts of domestic violence that constitute criminal offenses, committed as a result of repeated violence against one, resulting in severe physical or psychological harm, and a complaint has been filed for the court’s consideration in a criminal case.”15

11. The State Party Report provides no further information about consideration of mitigating circumstances at sentencing or reducing penalties or any efforts to codify gender-specific defenses or mitigation. Nor does the State Party Report provide any data about whether and under what circumstances women in conflict with the law have raised these defenses or their success rates. As discussed in greater detail in the authors’ report at the List of Issues Prior to Reporting stage, Thai judges apply mitigating factors enumerated in confidential mandatory-sentencing guidelines, and those “yee-tok” are unique to each court. Appellate courts strictly prohibit sentencing judges from considering non-enumerated mitigating factors.16

12. With respect to court-appointed lawyers for women charged with capital offenses, the State Party Report states that the Attorney General’s Office “has arranged for the appointment

11 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 16-17, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
12 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 15, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
13 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 14, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
14 UN Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, End of mission statement: Official visit to Thailand (2-13 Dec. 2024), at 9, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/wgdawg/statements/2024-12-13-eom-thailand-wgdawg-en.pdf.
15 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Eighth periodic report submitted by Thailand under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2023, (11 June 2024), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/8, ¶ 30.
16 List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022, supra note 1, ¶ 22.

and registration of volunteer lawyers . . . . to provide legal assistance to disadvantaged people who have not received justice or have a justifiable reason to receive assistance in legal consultation, litigation and resolving legal disputes. The Office of the Attorney General has also enhanced the capabilities of registered volunteer public defenders through additional training sessions held once a year.”17

13. It is unclear whether these programs are specific to women charged with capital crimes or whether every woman charged with a capital crime is entitled to state-provided legal representation. It is also unclear whether any of the training for “volunteer public defenders” or other “volunteer lawyers” relates to gender-based violence, coercive control relationships, or gender-specific defenses or mitigation that may be relevant to women charged with capital crimes. It is also unclear whether authorities provide interpreters for foreign national women charged with capital crimes so that they can communicate with their attorneys outside the courtroom.18 As discussed in greater detail in the authors’ report at the List of Issues Prior to Reporting stage, court-appointed lawyers in Thailand are under-resourced and are less likely than their private peers to engage in good practices.19

14. During its December 2024 country visit, the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls observed that “legal proceedings are not adapted to address the trauma or coercion . . . women [in conflict with the law] may have experienced, further contributing to unfair trial outcomes.”20

II. Efforts to combat gender-based violence against women fail to protect women who come in conflict with the law as a result of such violence (List of Issues Prior to Reporting, para. 9).

15. In its List of Issues Prior to Reporting, the Committee requested information “about measures taken to combat gender-based violence against women,” including “[e]fforts to increase the availability, accessibility and quality of essential services and support to victims.”21 The State Party Report describes Thailand’s “significant progress in taking continuous measures to eliminate violence against women and promote gender equality.”22

16. As discussed in greater detail in the authors’ report at the List of Issues Prior to Reporting stage, gender-based violence may influence a woman’s likelihood to commit a capital crime, as well as her likelihood of facing criminal consequences.23 The State Party Report fails to identify programs or policies that reduce the risk that gender-based violence will

17 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Eighth periodic report submitted by Thailand under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2023, (11 June 2024), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/8, ¶ 31.
18 List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022, supra note 1, ¶ 23
19 List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022, supra note 1, ¶¶ 20-21.
20 UN Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, End of mission statement: Official visit to Thailand (2-13 Dec. 2024), at 9, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/wgdawg/statements/2024-12-13-eom-thailand-wgdawg-en.pdf.
21 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, List of issues and questions prior to the submission of the eighth periodic report of Thailand, (4 Nov. 2022), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/QPR/8, ¶ 9
22 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Eighth periodic report submitted by Thailand under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2023, (11 June 2024), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/8, ¶ 47.
23 List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022, supra note 1, ¶¶ 11, 15-19.

push a woman to come into conflict with the law under the influence or manipulation of her abuser.

III. Foreign nationals face additional fair trial violations (List of Issues Prior to Reporting, para. 16(d)).

17. In its List of Issues Prior to Reporting, the Committee requested information about measures taken to “[p]rotect migrant women workers from abusive and exploitative conditions.”24 The State Party Report provides information about health insurance for migrant workers, coordination among various government agencies to ensure investigation of labor rights violations and complaints from Thai and migrant workers, as well as a Ministry of Labour collaboration on projects aimed at protecting and assisting migrant women workers.25 The report further states that 825,613 women migrant workers are authorized to work in Thailand “under Article 9.”26

18. As discussed in greater detail in the authors’ report at the List of Issues Prior to Reporting stage, foreign nationals in conflict with the law in Thailand have reported that authorities did not notify consular officials of their arrest and they did not receive consular assistance.27

IV.
Detention conditions for women do not comply with international human rights standards (List of Issues Prior to Reporting, para. 23).

19. In its List of Issues Prior to Reporting, the Committee requested information about measures taken to reduce the number of women in detention and to bring detention conditions into line with the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules.28

20. The State Party Report states that the Corrections Department “has enacted the Royal Decree on Correctional Standards B.E. 2560 (2017),” which calls on correctional facilities to improve their operational standards and bring them in compliance with the Nelson Mandela Rules. It further asserts that the Department of Corrections has “also incorporated” the Bangkok Rules “since 2010.”29 The report provides further details about the detention of pregnant and lactating women in detention,30 but other than a passing reference to physical examination of people who are newly arrived in detention facilities,31 and guidelines for handling complaints,32 the report offers no concrete information about

24 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, List of issues and questions prior to the submission of the eighth periodic report of Thailand, (4 Nov. 2022), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/QPR/8, ¶ 16(d).
25 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Eighth periodic report submitted by Thailand under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2023, (11 June 2024), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/8, ¶¶ 104-107.
26 Id. ¶ 106.
27 List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022, supra note 1, ¶ 23.
28 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, List of issues and questions prior to the submission of the eighth periodic report of Thailand, (4 Nov. 2022), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/QPR/8, ¶ 23.
29 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Eighth periodic report submitted by Thailand under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2023, (11 June 2024), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/THA/8, ¶ 142.
30 Id. ¶¶ 143-44.
31 Id. ¶ 145.
32 Id. ¶ 146.

measures to operationalize the Nelson Mandela Rules or the Bangkok Rules. It offers no information about measures to ensure availability of hygiene products.

21. Thailand has one of the highest proportions of women in prison in the world.33 According to the Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research’s World Female Imprisonment List, as of December 2024, 33,057 women were in prison in Thailand.34 This figure accounts for 12.1% of the total prison population, and gives Thailand a female prison population rate of 47.1.35 In 2024, Thailand’s total prison population increased for the second consecutive year, growing to 277,475.36 The number of women imprisoned increased by 2.4%, compared to a 0.09% increase in the number of men imprisoned.37

22. As described in greater detail in the authors’ report at the List of Issues Prior to Reporting stage, women’s prisons in Thailand are severely overcrowded.38 As of October 2024, the total occupancy rate for correctional facilities housing women stood at 99%.39 During its December 2024 country visit, the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls visited two women’s prisons and reported that both “had serious issues with overcrowding,” with the Songkhla Women’s Correctional Institution having over 100 women per room, with one communal toilet.40

23. The authors’ 2022 report explains that women in detention experience poor detention conditions that do not address their gender-specific needs, including inadequate access to sanitary napkins and clean water for bathing, as well as lack of access to gender-specific health services.41 Women detained in Thai prisons also report patterns of degrading treatment by prison guards and other officials, and they also report that prison officials sometimes threaten women who complain about detention conditions.42 In March 2025,

33 Helen Fair and Ron Walmsley, Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, World Female Imprisonment List, World Prison Brief (6th ed. 2025) <https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_female_imprisonment_list_6th_edition.pdf&gt;.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 International Federation for Human Rights, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (March 2025) <https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf&gt;.
37 International Federation for Human Rights, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (March 2025) <https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf&gt;.
38 List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022, supra note 1, ¶ 25; International Federation for Human Rights, Thailand: Submission to the United Nations (UN) Working Group on discrimination against women and girls (Oct. 2024) <https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/20241023_thailand_wgdawg_su_en.pdf&gt;.
39 International Federation for Human Rights, Thailand: Submission to the United Nations (UN) Working Group on discrimination against women and girls (Oct. 2024) (“FIDH UN Submission”) <https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/20241023_thailand_wgdawg_su_en.pdf&gt;.
40 UN Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, End of mission statement: Official visit to Thailand (2-13 Dec. 2024), at 8, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/wgdawg/statements/2024-12-13-eom-thailand-wgdawg-en.pdf.
41 International Federation for Human Rights, Thailand: Submission to the United Nations (UN) Working Group on discrimination against women and girls (Oct. 2024) <https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/20241023_thailand_wgdawg_su_en.pdf&gt;.
42 List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022, supra note 1, ¶¶ 29, 32; International Federation for Human Rights, Thailand: Submission to the United Nations (UN) Working Group on discrimination against women and girls (Oct. 2024) <https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/20241023_thailand_wgdawg_su_en.pdf&gt;.

FIDH reported that “[w]ith regard to women’s prisons, all interviewed former prisoners reported practices that could amount to ill treatment—such as verbal abuse—or torture—such as solitary confinement and being forced to sit and roll under the sun.”43 FIDH also reported that “female prisoners faced particular challenges to maintain personal and menstrual hygiene due to the limited availability of time and water to shower. A former female prisoner at Trang Provincial Prison said female prisoners were given three minutes to take a shower, which was not enough to properly wash, particularly for those who were having their prisoner. The same former prisoner also reported that prisoners who were having their period generally received one bowl of water to wash away their blood before joining other prisoners in the common shower area.”44 Women reported that “they received personal hygiene products for free upon admission, but only indigent prisoners and those who did not receive any family visits could regularly receive new toiletries.” The frequency and quantity of menstrual hygiene products “varied greatly depending on the prison.”45

24. According to FIDH, in some prisons transgender women are held in the male section and in the same cells with male inmates, while other prisons provided separate sleeping space for transgender women, and most prisons “failed to provide specific arrangements to ensure the safety and privacy of transgender women when showering,” not giving them the option to shower separately from men.46 FIDH also received reports that transgender women experienced physical harassment by other people in detention.47

25. As explained in the authors’ 2022 report, women are likely to be detained further away from their homes than men, as there are fewer women’s prisons in Thailand.48 This distance—in contravention of the Bangkok Rules—disadvantages incarcerated women, as it serves to sever community ties, resulting in negative effects on mental health during incarceration and on social integration when released.49

43 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 37, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
44 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 37, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
45 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 37, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
46 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 40, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
47 FIDH, Thailand: Annual prison report 2025 (Mar. 2025), at 41, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/thailand_annual_prison_report_2025_-_en.pdf.
48 List of Issues Prior to Reporting Report, October 2022, supra note 1, ¶ 30; International Federation for Human Rights, Thailand: Submission to the United Nations (UN) Working Group on discrimination against women and girls (Oct. 2024) <https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/20241023_thailand_wgdawg_su_en.pdf&gt;.
49 International Federation for Human Rights, Thailand: Submission to the United Nations (UN) Working Group on discrimination against women and girls (Oct. 2024) <https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/20241023_thailand_wgdawg_su_en.pdf&gt;; Rule 4 of the Bangkok Rules states: “Women prisoners shall be allocated, to the extent possible, to prisons close to their home or place of social rehabilitation, taking account of their caretaking responsibilities, as well as the individual woman’s preference and the availability of appropriate programmes and services.” <https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Bangkok_Rules_ENG_22032015.pdf&gt;.

V.Suggested recommendations for the Government of Thailand

26. The coauthors suggest that the Committee recommend that the Government of Thailand:
• Ensure that no person is sentenced to death for an offense that did not entail the offender committing an intentional killing, and commute all death sentences imposed for any offenses that do not meet this threshold.
• Publish on an annual basis comprehensive data about women charged with capital crimes and/or sentenced to death. This information should be disaggregated by various factors, including year of birth, nationality, ethnic group, occupation at the time of arrest, crime of conviction, relationship to any victims or codefendants, current location, age of any dependent children, and status of any requests for pardon or commutation.
• Ensure that every woman charged with a capital crime has access to qualified legal counsel with prior experience in capital cases, and ensure that legal counsel receive adequate compensation as well as sufficient funding to conduct an investigation and hire defense experts as needed.
• Amend the Penal Code to codify gender-specific defenses, particularly in the context of women charged with killing or harming their abusers, regardless of whether the offender previously filed a criminal report against her abuser.
• Amend the yee-tok sentencing guidelines to specify that judges may deviate from the guidelines if special circumstances exist and in the interest of justice, and to codify gender-specific mitigation, including trauma, gender-based violence, economic pressures, and family caretaking responsibilities, and direct all courts to publish these guidelines.
• In collaboration with civil society, undertake comprehensive training for all judges and other judicial officers presiding over capital criminal proceedings to educate them about the importance of considering gender-specific defenses and gender-specific mitigation.
• In collaboration with civil society organizations, ensure that the Attorney General’s Office’s training for public defenders includes strategies for presenting gender-specific defenses and mitigation in capital trials, encompassing trauma, gender-based violence, economic pressures, and family caretaking responsibilities.
• In collaboration with civil society, ensure that all law enforcement officials receive training regarding the right to consular notification under the Vienna Convention, and conduct periodic audits to ensure compliance.
• Commute the death sentence of any foreign national brought to trial in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
• Ensure that any foreign national or other individual in need of interpretation receives qualified interpretation services beginning at the time of arrest and through and including any trial and appellate proceedings, including when communicating with counsel in preparation for trial and other court hearings.

• Take immediate measures to address overcrowding in detention facilities where women are housed.
• Direct the Department of Corrections to ensure that all women have adequate access to free sanitary napkins and other menstrual products.
• Direct the Department of Corrections to ensure that all transgender women in detention have access to sleeping and bathing facilities that are separate from men.
• Commission an independent study of all detention facilities that house women to document the extent to which those facilities comply with the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules.
• Subsidize the travel of dependent children of women in detention to visit their mothers with greater frequency.
• Investigate allegations that prison guards subject women in detention to degrading treatment.

We, the 16 undersigned groups and organizations is appalled at yet another extrajudicial killing by Malaysian police that happened on 13/8/2024(The Sun), whereby immediately after that the public is fed with the police version of what happened in an attempt to absolve the police from guilt, and with allegations that the deceased was a ‘bad person’. Was there even sufficient time for the police to conduct a proper investigation into the killing? Were the police officers in uniform or in a easily identifiable police vehicle?

In cases of extrajudicial killing, it is the police that caused the killing who should be investigated for the crime of murder and culpable homicide, not the deceased.

However, it must be noted that there have been several cases in Malaysia, where the police version of what happened was found to be LIES.

Police Version Of What Happened Found To Be False

The High Court in Ipoh on 1/2/2024 set aside an open verdict delivered in an inquest involving a police shooting in Sitiawan, Perak nearly eight years ago, and ruled it to be a homicide. “This court, under the Chief Justice’s Direction No 2 of 2019, makes a finding of homicide against the police,” he[Judicial commissioner Moses Susayan] said..’ The police and prosecution version were that Mohan got out of the vehicle and fired at the policemen, forcing them to shoot back. However, there were ‘…no bullet casing from the purported revolver used by Mohan was found. Neither were fingerprints, DNA or gunshot residue found on the alleged gun or the deceased. The Inspector-General’s Standing Orders that requires police to fire warning shots and to shoot at the leg was probably not followed. (FMT)

On 31/5/2023 that the coroner’s court, presided by Coroner Rasyihah Ghazali, for ‘police shooting that resulted in death of 3, ‘…. concluded that there was abuse of power and elements of a criminal nature in the death of three men who were shot at close range by police three years ago. “The shots were not fired in self-defense. There was abuse of power and (actions in the nature of) criminal elements by police in the death of the men,”… She said police witnesses gave evidence that shots were fired at the men from an upright position but post-mortem reports stated that the bullets pierced their bodies at a downward angle. … “The weapons described by the ballistic expert (Izzuwan Marzuki) and the investigating officer (P Visvanathan) were also in conflict,” (FMT, 31/5/2023)

We sadly note that there has been no news about the said police personnel found criminally liable for the killing being investigated and/or charged in the courts, despite the findings of the Coroner and/or the Court.

End Perception that Malaysia Protects Law Enforcement Who Broke the Law

The perception that Malaysia protects police and law enforcement officers from criminal prosecution must end. This is not a matter to be dealt with through internal disciplinary actions – but requires the suspected police officers to be charged and tried in Court.

Sadly, in most of these extrajudicial killings, we do not hear about the findings of the Independent Coroner, who is legally the person who will enquire and determine the cause of death, including whether any person, including the police, was criminally liable for the death. Hence, we only have the police version of what happened issued hours after the killing.

The Home Minister must disclose the findings of the Coroner’s Inquiry of all cases of extrajudicial killing by law enforcement. He must explain why the police have not been charged in court for the crime of killing. Whether, the police’s defence of ‘self defence’ will succeed is something for the Court to decide – not the police, the prosecution, the Minister or the government of the day.

Coroner must investigate immediately, and decide fast

In cases of police killing that we hear about the Coroner’s findings, it is simply too long after the said killing occurred. In cases of extrajudicial killings and deaths in custody of law enforcement, Coroners must speedily inquire into the death and render a decision as fast as possible, preferably within a month, not after years. Coroners must not only rely on the police for evidence, but also do their own independent investigations as the police do ‘lie’ at times to maybe protect their own officers.

Police are the suspects – not the deceased

In extrajudicial killings, the suspects of the crime is the POLICE, not the deceased. It is the police suspects that need to be investigated, and not the deceased. It was odd, that a media report stated that the police had commenced an investigation ‘…under the Penal Code for attempted murder’. Are they investigating the deceased, for if they are investigating the police, it should be an investigation for murder, not attempted murder since the victim died. (NST, 13/8/2024)

Extrajudicial Killings Must Be Criminalized – An offence and a deterrent penalty

Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions – is the deliberate killing of individuals outside of any legal framework – are a violation of this most fundamental right. In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution acknowledges the right to life, and in Article 5(1) states that ‘No person shall be deprived of his life …. save in accordance with law’ and this means that the State or its officers can generally only kill someone after he has been tried, convicted and sentenced to death. When it comes to the police, their duty is merely to arrest and investigate suspects – not kill them.

Malaysian law, on arrest is very clear and right to kill is limited to persons who have already been charged in court, being the time, a suspect becomes an accused, for an offence that carries the death penalty or sentence of imprisonment of 30 years or more.

Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code, amongst others, state that ‘…(2) If such person forcibly resist the endeavour to arrest him or attempt to evade the arrest such officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years but not exceeding forty years or with imprisonment for life.’

In all the known cases, those that end up being shot dead are certainly not accused persons facing trial for such serious offences.

Malaysia must enact a law making extra-judicial killing by law enforcement a crime with a deterrent penalty, as the killers in these cases are public officers responsible for law enforcement, who should never ignore the law and kill suspects, witnesses or others during the performance of their duties. The fact that we have murder and other killing offences in the law is insufficient, and the criminalizing of extrajudicial killings also will indicate Malaysia’s strong position against such killings.

First response by Home Minister is to APOLOGIZE and ensure proper investigation

After anyone is killed whilst making arrest or in police custody, the Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail first response should be to apologize for the death of any suspect. No one during arrest, custody and investigations by law enforcement should die.

He should also commit to an immediate independent investigation and for a speedy Coroner’s inquiry to determine the truth of what really happened. Was there any acceptable legal defence for the killing of persons by the police? In any case, the police personnel involved should be investigated and charged, and it is up to the Court to determine whether any defence, including self-defence will succeed in avoiding conviction.

The Minister is responsible for the police, but that does not translate that he should always come out in defence of police actions and/or ‘justifying’ possible criminal wrongdoings, trusting the police version of the facts.

On the face of it, the police broke the law when they failed to arrest a suspect alive.

Hence, as Minister responsible, he must come out expressing his remorse for what happened, and commit to a thorough investigation to determine the truth. He must also make sure that the police do not try to prematurely justify killings on the basis that the deceased was a ‘bad person’. He must leave the determination of guilt to the Courts.

It is not for the police to decide whether one is a criminal or not, or whether they deceive the death sentence. They are not ‘judge, jury and executioner’ – the police is NOT ‘a person or group who has unchecked power to make decisions, impose punishments, and carry out those punishments without due process or oversight.’

Therefore, we call

Call for the criminalization of extrajudicial killing, making it a crime with a deterrent penalty;

Call on Malaysia to adopt the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, as rrecommended by the United Nation’s Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989, which, amongst others, state that ‘Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions and shall ensure that any such executions are recognized as offences under their criminal laws, and are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the seriousness of such offences…’

Call on the Home Minister to disclose findings of the Coroner in all cases of extra-judicial killings in Malaysia, and explain why the said police officers or law enforcement personnel have NOT been charged and tried in Court for the said killings.

Call on Malaysia to end the ‘defamation’ of the dead, as an attempt to ‘justify’ the killings by law enforcement.

Call for the police officers responsible for the death of suspects and others be charged and tried in Court, for it is Court only that determines guilt, and whether any defence for the said crime including self-defence is accepted.

Charles Hector
Ng Yap Hwa

For and on behalf of the 16 groups listed below

• ALIRAN
• MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
• Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
• WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
• Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
• Association Of Home And Maquila Workers (ATRAHDOM), Guatemala
• Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India
• Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (CAGED)
• Democratic Commission for Human Development, Lahore, Pakistan
• Global Women’s Strike, United Kingdom
• Legal Action for Women, United Kingdom
• Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India
• Redemption, Pakistan
• Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU)
• Union of Domestic, Maquila, Nexas and Related Workers (SITRADOM), Guatemala
• Yaung Chi Oo Workers’ Association (YCOWA)

Indian authorities have arbitrarily detained Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez for over 1,000 days.  Khurram remains incarcerated in a maximum-security prison in Delhi, India, in reprisal for his vital and commendable human rights work.  We, the undersigned organisations, call once again for his immediate and unconditional release. We further demand an end to the Indian authorities’ relentless repression targeting Kashmiri human rights defenders, journalists, scholars and dissidents.

Khurram is the Program Coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), a civil society organisation in Indian-administered Kashmir that has, due to repression, ceased to operate.  He is also the Deputy Secretary-General of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Chairperson of the Asian Federation against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD). His longstanding human rights work has earned him widespread international recognition, including the Martin Ennals Award (2023) and the Reebok Human Rights Award (2006).  

Khurram was arrested on November 22, 2021, by India’s counter-terrorism authority, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), on politically-motivated charges including “waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the government of India” as an act of reprisal for his human rights work.  While imprisoned, Indian authorities arrested him again in March 2023 in a separate case on false charges of “terror financing” along with journalist and human rights defender Irfan Mehraj (who also remains arbitrarily detained in a maximum-security  prison, now for over 500 days).  Khurram had been imprisoned by Indian authorities previously and also been harassed and targeted by Indian authorities for years.  In September 2016, he was prevented from attending the United Nations Human Rights Council and arbitrarily detained for 76 days.  

Khurram’s continued arbitrary detention is emblematic of the Indian authorities’ escalating crackdown on human rights and civic space in Indian-administered Kashmir, including on the rights to freedom of expression and association. The ongoing crackdown by the Indian authorities is part of a wider pattern of human rights violations, often committed with impunity. The specific escalation targeting Kashmiri human rights defenders and journalists illustrated by Khurram’s and Irfan’s cases has shown that Indian authorities continue to commit grave and systematic violations with minimal scrutiny.  

There has been widespread condemnation of the Indian authorities’ persecution of Khurram and Irfan, including by United Nations human rights experts and international civil society. The Indian government, however, has continued to respond with further violations and repression, labelling and prosecuting human rights defenders and journalists as terrorists. We demand that Indian authorities immediately and unconditionally release Khurram and Irfan, drop all charges against them and end the pattern of targeting of Kashmiri human rights defenders, journalists, scholars and dissidents. Indian authorities must immediately comply with their international legal obligations, including by allowing civil society to freely operate in Indian-administered Kashmir, and cease their longstanding obstruction of international civil society and inter-governmental organisations, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), UN Special Procedures and other human rights mechanisms, which should have unfettered access to Indian-administered Kashmir and Kashmiri detainees. The Indian government must halt its continuous crackdown and repression, while also guaranteeing transparent, independent and full accountability for human rights violations.   The international community, especially the Member States of the UN, should urge the Indian government, both bilaterally and publicly, to stop criminalizing the defense of human rights in Indian-administered Kashmir.

—————

Signed:  

• Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
• Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)
• Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
• CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
• FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
• Kashmir Law and Justice Project
• World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders