therefore impose a severe punishment on a person who commits such an offence as a ‘terrorist’ despite the minor offence they have committed. 3. The provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act denying the detainee the right to be released on bail and permitting a Ministerial order for detention at any time after arrest without any possibility of judicial review and merely on suspicion that a person may commit an offence, significantly contravene the relevant provisions of Article 9(2), (3), (4), and Article 14 of the ICCPR and customary international law to which all States are bound. They are also contrary to Principle 11 of the Body of Principles on Detention. Thailand The Advisory Council of Jurists observes and recommends that: 1. While national security concerns are important to the country, they need to be balanced with the human rights guarantees in the Thai Constitution and international treaties to which Thailand is a party, as well as customary rules of international law. 2. It is regrettable that the Criminal Code was amended by a government/executive initiated Decree. The more transparent method of amending the Criminal Code is through parliamentary legislation rather than government/executive-initiated Decree. Parliamentary legislation provides more space for participation from the public in influencing the scope and content of the law. 3. The application of the new law should uphold and not undermine the Rule of Law, in particular access to the courts and guarantees for human rights. 4. The new law should be subject to an independent review process so as to ensure that it is not applied in an unbalanced manner. 5. The new law should not be used to marginalise vulnerable groups such as those seeking asylum/refuge, and special protections are needed for children. 31