[ad_1]
March 24, 64. At the Civil Court, Ratchadaphisek Road, reported the journalist. Progress is being made in the case of Ms. Chan Jirachan, lawyer, human rights lawyer. As an authorized representative of the Prachatai News Agency The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Royal Thai Police (Police Police) and Major General Suwat Changed Yodsuk, the commander of the Royal Thai Police (Law Violation Act 2539 officers for being wounded by a rubber bullet After the confrontation of REDEM protesters with crowd control police officers on March 20.
The plaintiff requested an end to the action as follows: 1. Ask the court to issue a judgment or order prohibiting both defendants. And the police officer under the first defendant to block the public road or various places with the use of containers, accordion wire, cars, steel leaks or other similar materials. In places where there will be public gatherings and nearby areas, every time there is an assembly.
2. Ask the court to issue a ruling or order prohibiting the two defendants and the police from proceeding to disperse the assembly. Do not use tear gas or chemicals. It is forbidden to spray water and use rubber bullets to control protesters. Threats, threats and violence against plaintiffs and other means are prohibited. Do not restrict the area OR discourage the plaintiff and other media from the areas where the media is performing their duties. As well as prohibiting the freedom to present news or express opinions in accordance with the ethics of the media profession. Or the freedom to perform the tasks of the media as prescribed by the Constitution, whenever there is an assembly
AND 3. to both defendants to create an investigative committee Police officers involved in the performance of illegal duties Both at the supervisor level serving the command and at the operational level Punish disciplinary measures and prohibit violent police officers perform crowd control tasks until behavior improves. To prevent the threat of the media In addition to endangering the freedom of public assembly
More recently, the court considered See That for the final request to process Articles (1) and (2) that although the plaintiff filed a lawsuit describing the public meeting that took place on March 20, 2021, but the plaintiff’s request to both clauses (1) and (2)) Returns the request that the Court issue a judgment or order that prohibits both the Defendants and the policemen belonging to the 2nd Defendant from acting or ceasing to act in the event of a future public meeting each time be celebrated. Which is a different fact than the plaintiff’s speech against the public assembly on March 20, 2021.
In the event that it is a request to enforce all future events Therefore, the court could not enforce the request for both issues.
Regarding the final request for prosecution in point (3), it is of the opinion that an investigation of the police officers involved in the illegal performance of duties is prohibited for disciplinary measures to be taken and that they are prohibited from carrying out their duties until the improvement of the behaviour. It is a disciplinary process that is the administrative competence of persons within the functions of both the accused and the commander of the police officers in relation to the unlawful performance of their duties.
Therefore, the court cannot issue a sentence or an order to compel the two defendants to establish a commission of inquiry, the police officers who carry out their duties in accordance with the request of the plaintiff clause (3) to dismiss the case.
[ad_2]
