-2appropriate. In addition, Clause 28 paragraph three of a ministerial regulation of the Ministry of Interior issued by virtue of Section 58 of the Correction Act B.E. 2479 [1936] and amendment sets out the conditions for determining application of confinement instruments to persons in custody when they are to be taken outside prisons [In case the confinement is required, use handcuffs. Unless a person who is in custody for serious offence, the use of fetters or leg chains or a set of leg chains and handcuffs may be applied.] Although the term "serious offence" is not defined by the said ministerial regulation, Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to its amendment (No. 15) B.E. 2527 [1984]; nevertheless, prescribed the requirement for the court to ask the defendant whether (s)he needs a lawyer. Under the said Section, the Police Department Regulation on Serious and Awful Incidents and Incidents that Require Urgent Reporting (No. 7) B.E. 2541 [1998], dated July 1, B.E. 2541 [1998], Clause 1.1 stipulates that serious and awful incidents are murder of others, robbery, stealth, arson and kidnapping people for ransom. A serious offence; therefore, refers to an awful crime committed against the public with a more severe punishment than any other offences. The case of the seven students in custody is related to a charge of violating the Order of the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order No. 3/2558 that prohibits political assembly consisting of five or more persons, a charge of causing disorder and preventing orderly voting. The charges are concerned with different opinions and a charge of failing to comply with an investigator's fingerprint order and to present cards or receipts or receipt substitutes upon an officer’s check. It is not characterized as a serious and awful crime against the public. Therefore, it cannot be considered a serious offence. Additionally, considering the general principle concerning the condition for the exercise of power by the government organization or officials in this case, the action of the officers responsible for controlling the persons in custody and the competent authority who ordered to use confinement instrument or leg chains to the seven students did not comply with the rule of law; that is, it shall be necessary or with legitimate and reasonable objective to achieve. Therefore, the act of Bangkok Remand Prison officers applying leg confinement instrument to seven students in custody was a violation of the right to person’s integrity without legal authority. Besides, taking the seven students from Bangkok Remand Prison to Bangkok Military Court on July 5, B.E. 2559 [2016] with confinement instrument in the open, which was publicised around the world, was the act degrading their human dignity. Both said issues were regarded the violation of human rights as per the provisions under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim) B.E. 2557 [2014] and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.