Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act B.E. …. (People version) A case study of the criminal liability structure for torture

Abstract

This academic article aims at analyzing the structure of liability for torture under the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act B.E. .… (People version). The definition of "Public official" under the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. Section 4, paragraph two, despite the broad definition of government officials But the definition should consider the power that the law gives to government officials that Has the power to investigate or seek true facts in order to receive a confession Or any information or not in order to be consistent with the motive for torture Second, the said bill has the definition of "Torture" in accordance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) 1984 but does not give the definition of "inflict severe physical or mental pain " causing problems in determining the fact that it is considered Torture or not Because according to Thai norms Has been interpreted as "mental harm " only In addition, the provisions of Section 4, paragraph two and Section 9 have the special intent overlapping parts which Article 9 should not be repeated. Things that can determine the punishment of Article 45, paragraph three, imprisonment for life. Which is a punishment equivalent to the base of intentional murder under Section 288 of the Penal Code. The author considers that the penalty is too high, not suitable for the nature of the act and the seriousness of the offense. Finally, the author saw that The right to not be tortured is an urgent need to be protected. And the law must be clarified and set appropriate penalties