PUBLIC INFORMATION ON THE COMPLIANCE OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE NHRCT ON THE USE OF CONFINEMENT INSTRUMENTS APPLIED TO STUDENTS OF “FREE YOUTH MOVEMENT” IN CUSTODY 1. Background It was widely appeared in public and media that the Department of Corrections applied leg confinement instrument to seven “Free Youth Movement” students in custody when they were brought from Bangkok Remand Prison for the Military Court proceedings on 5 July B.E. 2559 [2016]. The student detainees whose legs were confined on travel to the Court since investigators of Bang Sao Thong Police Station in Samut Prakan Province requested the Court’s order to continue detention of the accused for further investigation for the second time. The leg confinement was reported in media as the use of leg shackles and raised a question of possible violation of human dignity and the right to person’s integrity. Upon consideration, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) at the 25th meeting of B.E. 2559 [2016] on the protection and standards of human rights on 9 August 9 B.E. 2559 [2016] deemed that the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim) B.E. 2557 [2014] guaranteed and protected human dignity, rights, liberty and equality of the Thai people in accordance with the tradition of democratic rule with the King as Head of State as well as with Thailand’s existing international human rights obligations. The use of power by government organizations or government officials shall take into account human dignity, rights and liberty of a person. Rights and liberty may, however, be limited by virtue of provisions of the law as deemed necessary. Government officials shall strictly exercise their authority within that scope and not beyond conditions required by law. In the above-mentioned case, the use of tool to confine the students’ legs for the Court’s procedure to permit the request for further detention for interrogation inevitably lessened their freedom of movement, affecting their right to body, and probably caused humiliation which affected their dignity. Despite the provision of the law allows the restriction of movement of persons in custody by using confinement instruments under Section 14 of the Correction Act B.E. 2479 [1936], there are exceptions upon significant grounds under Sections 14 (4) and paragraph two. In cases when persons in custody are taken outside prisons, authorized officers have the authority to order application of confinement instruments, and to revoke the order as deemed