Chiranuch Premchaiporn: Director of Prachatai

Prosecution Witness Hearings

4 February 2011 witness examination , Prosecution Witness No. 1
Mr. Aree Jiworarak, Director of Bureau of Oversight on the Use of Information Technology, Office of the Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT)

Mr. Aree Jiworarak stated that he had been working for the government since 2003 until present and become a competent officer as per the CCA since 2008. His jobs are to monitor websites featuring inappropriate information, through information submitted by public and self exploration.

After identifying indecent websites, particularly those deemed lèse-majesté, he would have the screenshot captured (including offensive texts) and have voices recorded (including offensive video clips) and then notify the internet service providers (ISPs) seeking their help to interrupt the dissemination of such information, Then, evidence shall be compiled and submitted to the MICT’s Permanent Secretary and the Minister to apply for court warrants and to ask the service providers to block access to the materials. Then another request shall be made to the National Police Chief asking him to bring the perpetrators to justice.

In many instances, service providers and webmasters have been invited to meetings to seek their cooperation. It has been agreed among the attending ISPs that any lèse-majesté information shall be blocked.

Mr. Aree stated that as for Prachatai, MICT has been conducting the monitoring based on tipoff made by public and various agencies including the police, military, and intelligence units, and the process had taken place even before he became CCA competent officer.

Prachatai website can be divided into two sections including news and webboard for people to express themselves and posting their topics. Access to Prachatai website can be made through several ways including inputting the URL prachatai.com, or inputting in google, the phrase ”Prachatai” and then click on the links.

As for Prachatai webboard, it can be accessed by any person, but the posters have to first apply for memberships before being allowed to post any message.

Mr. Aree went on to describe from counts 1-10;

When any illegal posts are identified, similar approaches are applied including compiling actionable materials, screenshot capture, submitting the URLs to ISP and seeking cooperation from Prachatai to block access to such materials, and then submitting the case to the Minister to seek court warrant for the blockade of access.

Mr. Aree described every count filed as follows;
 
Count 1 On page 12 of the Exhibit, it was noted that two posts were blocked and a remark is shown as "the posts are removed by Prachatai".
Count 2 According to Mr. Aree, there were a lot of lèse-majesté phrases here.
Count 3 Read with a sense of being Thai, one shall find the message lèse-majesté.
Count 4 It could not be interpreted otherwise but that the King is accused of being anti-democratic, and thus, it is an insult to the current monarch and the previous ones.
Count 5 The message is an attempt to say that what the xxx said was not clear and was not understood. And from checking out the website, the statement had already been removed by Prachatai.
Count 6 There was a statement goes that the relationship between elites and the coup.
Count 7 According to the post, someone was complicit with the coup, and thus it was an insult on him.
Count 8 (link to audio clip containing Da Torpedo’s speech), it upsets him to hear this and it refers to the killing of King Rama VIII, and thus an insult to HM the King.
Count 9 After reading it, one shall take it as an insult.
Count 10 An offensive statement against HM the Queen about her presiding over a funeral service (organized for a PAD demonstrator who died during the clash with the security officers), and Prachatai decided to remove the post the same day. The prosecutor failed to ask when each of the offensive statement was removed.

Mr. Aree further testified that he was unaware if posters of posts found actionable in Counts 1-9 had been arrested, but the poster of message described in Count 10 had been prosecuted and Ms. Chiranuch stood as  a witness in the case. Then, he stated that Prachatai webboard was put under the charge of Ms. Chiranuch.

Mr. Aree opined that should there have been a good intention; the post could have been blocked before it appeared on website. Settings could have been made in order that any post shall be subject to verification before being uploaded. Webmasters are obliged to monitor and prevent lèse-majesté postings and ensure that any such posts be deleted. For example, Prachatai had a system to block any posts and to prevent it from appearing on the website.

Previously, the accused had been asked for cooperation many a time to block any inappropriate posts, particularly the lèse-majesté posts, and the accused had promised to help. And despite being notified, the posts deemed lèse-majesté had still appeared on the website as per Counts 1-10 as already described.

Mr. Aree also showed a table to the Court indicating dates, case no., URLs, posters’ IP addresses, posting dates and attached files. He also stated that he had not known the accused before and had not been in any personal dispute with her. He got to know her only when he asked for her help to block posts.

Defence lawyer’s cross examination, inquiries made by Lawyer Saengchai Rattanaseriwong

Mr. Aree stated that he had obtained two undergraduate degrees, one on computer, another on geology. His master degree is on computer and he had trained in cyber investigation and criminal record as required for a competent officer. The training took place at the Royal Thai Police with speakers from the American Embassy. He has attended cyber investigation many times, sometimes for one or two weeks.

He also stated that he neither had internet related business nor operated his own internet services. He was neither involved with the drafting of CCA nor the drafting of Guidelines for Business Entrepreneurs.

Mr. Aree stated that internet is a two way or multiple way communication. The communication can be done either personally or publicly via the website. Personal communication can be made via emailing, and emailing is solely subject to the control of the communicators; as one can choose to receive or not receive from another.

Then the lawyer asked if in internet browsing, a user may choose to check out the whole website or part of the website. Mr. Aree replied that it depends on the browsers.

And he further stated that the message can spread throughout the internet realm.

Mr. Aree further testified that owners or business entrepreneurs may block any user by using the software called “username”. Also, more programming can be made via C, PHP, JAVA, HTML protocol. Or a code can be set in the server in order that when that user logs in, an SMS shall be sent to alert the webmasters.

Mr. Aree further testified that websites can be different. They can be about biography, trade, communication, public services, etc. The accused’s website can be divided into two sections including news and webboard. He had no idea if it intends to disseminate information to public, and if its implementation served the interest of any particular groups.

He further stated that he was aware that Prachatai does not personally belong to the accused and is a project under the Foundation for Community Educational Media. It is a legal and registered entity and guided by its statute and objectives.

Mr. Aree has been monitoring Prachatai for many years since 2008 until the blockade instruction was sent. Before, he did not carefully monitor the website, but since 2008, he has given much more attention to detail.

Then Mr. Aree stated that Prachatai website features social news including activities mobilized by civic groups and various organizations working on the livelihood of people in various places, but had no idea exactly which groups. It contains political news, activities, performances, entertainment, and exhibitions, good and bad. He could not recall that the website also features information about new laws or regulations. In addition, there are academic papers by both known and unknown academics, including the anti-monarchist academics.

Mr. Aree said that the webmaster’s name is mentioned in the website. He is not sure if other websites show the number of page view. He paid his attention to the webboard section, which could be accessed from a direct URL without having to click any link in the homepage. But there is also a link on the homepage and he is not sure where exactly it is located.

Mr. Aree stated that his agency is not interested in collecting the number of page views, but any posts which are deemed lèse-majesté. The monitoring covers websites which feature inappropriate materials including pornography and any offensive materials against celebrities. His mandate covers any obscene materials, gambling, drugs, and lèse-majesté. There are no written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to adhere to, apart those described in Section 20 of the CCA.

The discretion can be made by the Committee on Illegal Information and News composed of government officers from various agencies. The Committee members are appointed by the PM.

Mr. Aree further testified that he was not aware of any SOPs had been drafted by the Committee. For him, if he finds anything obviously lèse-majesté, he just ordered the blockade, but anything that is not entirely lèse-majesté, the matters shall be sent to the Committee.

There is a five man subcommittee on lèse-majesté under the Committee. Notifications can be made to the Committee via email, phone and direct contact to its office. If it is clearly lèse-majesté, an action shall be taken immediately. Initial discretion is made by the five subcommittee members, and the matter shall then be referred to legal officers for further review. There have been very few conflicting views among the five members, and anything that could not be decided shall be referred to the Committee.

Mr. Aree stated that apart from postings in the webboard, there were also statements made by academics and columnists which are deemed lèse-majesté including the publishing of censored documents such as about “The King Never Smiles”, documents concerning King Rama VIII’s death.

As a complainant in this case, Mr. Aree accused Prachatai of committing an offence per one URL and the lèse-majesté offences were committed at different levels. It needed to be verified if such materials are an offence against Section 20 of the CCA, if so, the Court is pleased to mete out appropriate sanctions. As an officer reviewing lèse-majesté and non-lèse-majesté materials, he relies on general impression of public. The use of royal terms or not is not as important as the intention of the posters. They cannot be reviewed just word by word. Any postings done with a malicious intent are inappropriate and the Committee also shared the view.  

After opinions are made on the ten topics, the five subcommittee members shall meet and issue a letter stating that the topics could be actionable as far as Section 20 was concerned. No conclusion shall be made on materials which were clearly lèse-majesté. In addition to Prachatai, other websites were also monitored and the information was sent to the Committee.

Mr. Aree cited examples of phrases referred to the Committee, some which are like spoonerisms. The lawyer asked him if the phrases could be induced to any hostile expression against either HM the King or the Queen, and were there any criteria to decide which phrases are illegal or not. Mr. Areee replied that if the matters were small, the posters would have just kept it to themselves. The lawyer asked then what are the criteria to judge if a person expresses hostility to either HM the King or the Queen? Mr. Aree replied that Thai people are loyal subjects and our Kings have fought for our sovereignty. We owe a lot to them. Some inappropriate issues should not be mentioned, and if anyone makes any such statements, he or she can be held legally responsible.

The lawyer then referred to a topic included in the plaint which mentions the appointment of Gen. Surayud Chualanond as Prime Minister and the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court. In the topic, it was proposed that two of them were involved with the Coup and any actions carried out by the military earlier. Mr. Aree replied that such a remark is inappropriate. The lawyer asked further was that because the two persons were involved with the coup? Mr. Areee said yes, as far as he followed the news.

The lawyer asked further about how many other posters have been held liable (while handing him a topic included in the plaint)? Mr. Aree said that he simply performed his duty as per Section 20 of the CCA. Some of the posters had been followed for five months before getting busted. The lawyers asked have you press charges against those arrested? Mr. Aree said yes, a legal action has been launched against Khun Piren Thorarat (not from his postings in Prachatai).

The lawyer asked him to point out any phrases in the topic (handed to him), if any of them are actionable as per Section 112. Mr. Aree pointed to a few phrases in the plaint and said the posts showed clearly the IP addresses of the posters and from the IP addressed, it is feasible to trace the computers from which the posts have been made. But there has been no attempt to verify the fact.

Witness examination on 4 February 2012 was adjourned around 18.00, Mr. Aree would come for the next examination.

8 February 2011 Witness examination , Prosecution Witness No. 1
Mr. Aree Jiworarak, Director of Bureau of Oversight on the Use of Information Technology, Office of the Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT), continued from 4 February 2010: Cross examination by defence lawyer

Defence lawyer’s cross examination by Lawyer Saengchai Rattanaseriwong

The lawyer asked for an opinion from Mr. Aree concerning a topic posted about the appointment of the Auditor General and the cabinet after the coup. To this, Mr. Aree said he had not enough knowledge about regulations concerning the appointment and the royal assent. And that a criticism regarding the different amounts of time HM the King used in signing off the appointments could be deemed an insult.

In the re-examination, the prosecutor asked Mr. Aree to clarify his statement. And according to him, he was saying that from the topic posted in the website, it implied that it took HM the King a little amount of time to sign off the appointment of the cabinet, different from the signing off of the appointment of Auditor General, which took quite a long time.

The lawyer asked about incriminating evidence including a link on Prachatai webboard to an audio clip hosted in mediafire.com and anyone clicking on the link can download the clip and listen to the speech by Ms. Daranee Chancerngsilpakul.

According to Mr. Aree, that the accused allowed the link to be posted in Prachatai website means the media file has belonged to Prachatai website. It could not be construed otherwise, but that Prachatai wanted to disseminate the audio clip. In addition, Mr. Aree admitted that MICT staff members helped to transcribe the audio clip downloaded from the URL to support investigation by the inquiry officers. But the lawyer argued that the signature appeared on a copy of the transcription belongs to a police officer, not MICT staff members. According to the prosecutor, Mr. Aree confirmed of having signed the transcription.

Mr. Aree described how evidence was compiled. Screenshots were kept in either PDF or MS Word files, and audio and video clips were kept in his office desktop. The files he gave to the inquiry officer had already been converted into another format, not the original files, but he made sure they matched each other.

The lawyer further asked among the ten incriminating topics, apart from Bento case, which had been dismissed, has Mr. Aree made any attempt to trace the IP addresses in order to know telephone numbers of the posters? Mr. Aree gave a rather confusing account. In the end, he simply admitted to not have the posters’ phone numbers.

The lawyer asked if for all ten incriminating topics, did Mr. Aree attempt to verify the information himself? He said yes. The lawyer further asked if Mr. Aree used to stand as a witness in the case against Bento, who posted one of the ten incriminating topics, Mr. Aree said he could not remember that. Then after reading documents given to him by the lawyer, he admitted to not notifying the accused to remove Bento’s topic since he was not the person to have investigated the case

The lawyer showed Mr. Aree another incriminating topic in which the name of the Crown Prince and praises for him were mentioned. Mr. Aree said it was a satire. In fact, the poster wanted to insult the Crown Prince.

The next topic is an insult to HM the King, the Queen and the Heir Apparent.

The lawyer further asked if the accused had been cooperating after being notified by Mr. Aree. Initially, he replied yes. Later, he explained that he informed the ISP and the accused, and since the ISP had already blocked the access, he could not tell if the accused had also cooperated.

Mr. Aree stated that there are many websites deemed a threat to national security in the world. He was not sure if there are “ten thousands” of them. He used to call meetings of webmasters asking them to monitor the matter and less than ten of them had attended the meetings. He had no idea if the websites had installed any mechanisms to verify the posts before having them uploaded to their websites. He gave an example of MICT’s website installed with a system to verify any postings prior to their being uploaded. MICT used to open a web page for people to write to wish His Majesty well on his birthday, but some posters had posted inappropriate messages. He also claimed that in advanced nations, a system is always installed to verify the messages prior to their being uploaded including in China and Muslim nations. He had no idea if UK, USA, Japan or Europe employ such a mechanism.

The lawyer asked if MICT or any agencies Mr. Aree work for have laid down any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) regarding the treatment of the webmasters. Mr. Aree replied that there are many things to deal with. Letting anyone post may make it likely to violate the law. It is impossible to simply rely on his agency’s oversight. For webmasters, it is very easy. They can set up warning system or block certain users and can set up auto-notification system linked up with their mobile phones. They can even call the webboarders directly warning them against posting any lèse-majesté statements. The accused had cooperated with him about 70%.

Mr. Aree admitted that of the ten incriminating topics, several of them had been removed by the accused prior to his applying for blockade orders from the Court. It has been done based on mutual agreement between ISP and webmasters and the MICT.

The lawyer then asked if the monitoring of Prachatai website stemmed from his belief that the website was part of a movement working against the monarchy. Mr. Aree replied that the inquiry was made upon receiving complaints. The Court told him to answer the question. Mr. Aree said then that since he is a government officer, he does not want to answer the question.

The lawyer asked for Mr. Aree’s opinion if he thinks postings in Prachatai website were a malicious attempt or related to movements of those with ill intention or those wanting to overthrow the monarchy. Mr. Aree replied that Prachatai website had allowed lèse-majesté information to be posted thus far and it was known to everyone that such postings could be found in this website.

The lawyer asked if he also monitored topics on other issues such as on social issue, Mr. Aree said yes, but by his duty, he was supposed to monitor lèse-majesté topics and sometimes he relied on google search engine.

Mr. Aree explained more during the re-examination by prosecutor that Prachatai website used to run an advertisement to sell a banned book, “The King Never Smiles”. The lawyer cross-examined that once you found that out, have you reported the case to your superior officers that the accussed’s website was selling a banned book?  Mr. Aree said no, since he was not supposed to do the job.

The prosecutor asked that there was a change of Treasurer of the accused’s Foundation. Who was the previous Treasurer?  Mr. Aree said it was the accused who was in that position, and after the case had been filed against her, she was removed from the post.

The lawyer asked if he could see that there was a system for removing certain postings in the accused’s website.  Mr. Aree said yes, but during that time, there was not such a system. And though a link was put there for users to click for removal of a posting, but after you click it, the posting would not be removed right away. It was simply a method of notifying the webmasters.

There were about 40 people in the Courtroom. Toward the end of the session, the defence lawyer spotted that a driver of a prosecution witness for tomorrow was seated in the room. He informed the Court so, and the Court told the prosecutor not to let any persons close to the next prosecution witness to be present during the witness examination.

9 February 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 2, Mr. Thanit Prabhatnan, Legal Officer, MICT

– No trial observation note taken

10 February 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 3, Mr. Somsak Suppajirawat, Legal Officer, MIC and CCA competent officer since 2007 until present

Mr. Somsak stated that he was asked by the inquiry officers at the Crime Suppression Division to make a copy of computer data.  Mr. Somsak Suppajirawat’s help was sought since he was a CCA competent officer.

Mr. Somsak said he sought a warrant from the Criminal Court to make a copy of the data with complaint prepared by the inquiry officer. The request was sent to the Court at 14.30. For detail of the issuance of the warrants, it would be better that the Court asked from the inquiry officers since he had not been involved since the beginning. In the complaint, he was aware that 409 was the no. of address at which Prachatai’s office was located with the accused as webmaster. He was aware that there were six desktop computers and the accused’s notebook computer, and they were part of the evidence in the commission of the offence. The Court granted the permission for the copying of data.

Since the postings were done from a computer system, it was assumed that they might have been saved in one of the computers and the data needs to be verified technically. During the arrest, the officers were split into two teams. The first team stood by at the CSD including Mr. Somsak, and another group went to invite the accused to the CSD. Thus, he had no idea how the arrest was conducted.

At the CSD, he met with accused and about 20 other people from her team and Fujitsu notebook, serial no. YK8 C032771.

The cloning of HDD was conducted by officers from the Hi-tech Related Crime Inspection and Analysis Division, Royal Thai Police with their equipment and team. It was done in the presence of the accused, inquiry officers and Mr. Somsak. It took place for around four hours, and the whole process was videotaped.

After The cloning of HDD is done, the cloning device shall generate a serial number (called MD5, as explained later by Freedom of Expression Documentation Center) of the original HDD and the serial number of the cloned HDD has to match the number. The identical serial numbers help to verify that contents in both HDDs are identical. Should the serial no. of any of the two HDDs got changed; it means some alteration has been made to data of either one of the HDDs. The MICT officers also took photo of the serial nos. on the HDDs to ensure that both serial nos. match.

After the cloning was done, five witnesses were asked to sign to certify that the process of cloning had been done transparently and accurately.

Then the police officers shall write a report about the case and the case prepared by CSD in which Mr. Somsak signed to certify.  The cloned HDD was well packed and wrapped, and signed by both Mr. Somsak and the accused, and kept at CSD and then transferred to the Royal Thai Police. To whom the inquiry officers may transfer the evidence is up to them. No cloned HDD was given to the accused. Two copies were made and verify that they matched each other.

Mr. Somsak further testified that his duty was then completed. He had not been involved with the case before and had not known the accused, though he recognized her. He could not remember the name of the expert (the accused said he was not present in the room).

Answering questions during the Defence lawyer’s cross examination

According to Mr. Somsak, his regular duty is not involved with inspecting webboards. Evidence in the case includes messages in various URLs that he had not seen before. Mr. Somsak was aware that as part of the prosecution, search and arrest warrants had been requested, and a court order for blocking the website had been requested, but was not part of those requesting team.

In applying for the court order to copy the data, the police contacted Mr. Somsak personally with no written letters or assignments from their superior officers. In submitting his request, Mr. Somsak did not submit to the Court any documents from his office.

Mr. Somsak was not aware if how many computer desktops or notebooks were there in the accused’s office. He was not aware of the six desktop and one notebook computers had been used to run web services regularly. It was the inquiry officer’s duty to find out.

The lawyer further asked Mr. Somsak to view Exhibits J23-32, evidence supporting the alleged violation of Section 14(3) and asked him if it was the document he submitted to the Court the day he sought an order to copy the HDDs. Mr. Somsak said he did not look into it. It was the police’s duty.

Mr. Somsak further testified that he failed to bring an electronic copy to compare with the documentary evidence during the trial. But he was sure that his office had in possession incriminating information against the accused.

The lawyer further asked why he failed to bring with him the incriminating evidence, was that because he was requested to do so by his office? Mr. Somsak replied that once an offence was identified and website blocked, he referred the matter to the Royal Thai Police. And according to the regulation, the inquiry officers are obliged to coordinate with CCA competent officer as per Section 18 when an attempt to copy information or to seize any equipment.

The lawyer further asked Mr. Somsak that MICT still had no working procedure concerning (1) the copying of computer data from service providers, (2) guidelines on how to verify the copies, (3) how to store electronic evidence, (4) how to compile documents to supply to the Court and ask for blockade, (5) guidelines concerning necessary documents to be submitted to the Court to ask for copying computer data. Was it true that MICT had no such guidelines? Mr. Somsak said no, and explained that since there were no expert on the matter and the MICT still rely on officers from the Royal Thai Police and the copying has to be done with the presence of various witnesses. Some regulations are so trivial and not necessary.

Mr. Somsak also said that apart from appointing MICT officers as CCA competent officers, police officers, officers from DSI and CSD are also appointed as competent officers as well. But in this case and according to the Court’s order, it was Mr. Somsak alone who was authorized to copy data in the six desktop and one notebook computers. But during the actual operation, he had to coordinate with stakeholders.

In executing the Court order, and as a competent officer, he did not write up any report and did not write any letter to authorize by other police officers to carry out the copying of the computer data.

The lawyer further asked after the copying, have the police informed the Court about the accomplishment of duty? Mr. Somsak replied that the police did as required by Section 19 to report to the superior officers. But he himself did not write any report, though he was required to make the report to his superior officers, too. As a person authorized by the Court, Mr. Somsak had to ensure that the data copied be kept at the CSD, but no copies were kept at MICT and not with him personally.

On 6 March 09, Mr. Somsak was present with the team that had applied for the Court order and had no idea as to how the arresting team performed their duty. No MICT officers went with the police during the raid. The lawyer asked if he was aware as to how many computer systems were copied by the arresting team, and whether or not data of all six desktop computers was copied? Mr. Somsak said he did not know, but thought they would not have done that. The arresting officers did not mention anything to him. As for the copying method, Mr. Somsak said he never used any software.

The lawyer then asked that Mr. Somsak mentioned about the serial numbers, it means he did not have knowledge about it? Mr. Somsak replied that from asking the technical team, he only knew that if the data has been altered, the serial numbers will also change. To become a technical officer, one has to have formal training and certification.

The lawyer asked during the time the officers were about to store the cloned HDD, did they show the packs to the alleged offender again to verify that they were authentic? Mr. Somsak said no. The lawyer asked Mr. Somsak if he had even turned on the notebook computer containing the original copy of data? He said no. He was standing there as a witness and did not check or count the number of files stored in the computer.

The lawyer asked if he has verified if the two sets of data match each other? He said no, no need for comparison.

The lawyer asked Mr. Somsak, during the copying of data, if he could confirm that the accused had committed an offence as per Section 14-15 of CCA. He said he could not confirm that. It still needed to be verified. Should there be any offences committed, the incriminating evidence should have been stored in the computer.

Prosecutor’s re-examination
As described by Mr. Somsak that no instruction has been made by his superior officers to carry out the duty, and no written guidelines have been made, in fact, the process needed to be done promptly invoking power provided for by the CCA and then the officers can inform their superior later. Then, the prosecutor handed over a copy of the guidelines on how to avoid committing cyber crime which outlines procedure concerning the arrest, holding in custody, searching, inquiry report writing and taking legal action against the offenders of the CCA to Mr. Somsak. The prosecutor pointed to Regulation 5 on page 122 that states that upon receiving a complaint or accusation as per (4), the inquiry officer shall coordinate with the competent officer in order to acquire supporting proof of the offence. And the CCA competent officer is able to coordinate directly with the police. Mr. Somsak said it is correct as said.

The prosecutor then asked Mr. Somsak that he said that he had no idea how the computers were related to the commission of the offence. When did he not know about the connection? Mr. Somsak said it was prior to his applying for court orders. He had no idea if the computers had been used to make possible the commission of the offence. Then, he only knew that he was supposed to ask for the court order for cloning data from six computers. Then the prosecutor asked him that he said he had not seen the documents submitted to the Court along with the request, whey did he not get tor read the documents? Mr. Somsak said it was the duty of the inquiry officer to compile all documents. His duty was simply to deliver them to the Court. The police cannot submit the documents directly as they are not authorized to do so. But during the trial, the Court shall ask from the inquiry officers themselves.

The prosecutor asked on the day of copying the data, were the inquiry officers and Mr. Somsak present in the room or not? He said he was there, but could only recall detail when the Court order was requested to make the copying of data. (Then he was shown some document by the prosecutor).  Mr. Somsak said further that he was not interested in any detail, but he was listening and was aware that the requesting for court order was related to an offence committed as per Section 14(3) regarding national security and Section 15, and more evidence was needed, and it should have been stored in the HDDs. The prosecutor asked that he said that there have been no written guidelines for operation? Mr. Somsak said they were not necessary.

The prosecutor asked that he said police officers can be appointed as CCA competent officers by the order of the PM, have all police officers been appointed so? He replied that only certain police officers. The prosecutor then asked that you said you have not written your report, what did it mean? Mr. Somsak said it was not necessary since the inquiry officers are already required to write up a report as per Section 19.  The prosecutor asked in requesting for a permission to make copy computer data, how did the police forces and Mr. Somsak divide up their duties? Mr. Somsak said he had submitted the request to the Court, and the police themselves have to report to the Court.

The prosecutor asked that he said the officers of the arresting team failed to inform him if there were six computers and he did not ask them, and did the accused inform him or not that the copying was made on six computers?  Mr. Somsak said no, she did not tell him and there was no complaint about this matter. The prosecutor asked what did he use to make the copying? He said it was a copying software (sic). The copiers have to be officers with formal training and have to have certificate that meets international standard. That was why Mr. Somsak did not carry out the copying himself, and he had never done it.

The prosecutor asked during the course of four hours of copying, did he get to see if the computers were turned on? Mr. Somsak said the process was conducted transparently in a small and open room. Whether or not the computers were turned on, he could not remember. He had no idea about it since it required technical knowledge. The prosecutor asked if the HDDs had to be turned on when making the comparison? He said no, it was not necessary. Two copied HDDs were made for analysis at the Royal Thai Police. The prosecutor asked how to verify that the two HDDs match each other. Mr. Somsak said why is there any need to verify them?

The prosecutor asked if he had any knowledge about the computer? He said no. The prosecutor asked this morning he said the technician informed him that a photograph was taken as per Exhibit J7, when was the photo taken? Mr. Somsak said he think it was taken at the completion of the copying. The prosecutor asked why could he not confirm that the accused had committed the crime? Mr. Somsak said it is because his duty was simply to copy the data.

During the Defence lawyer’s cross examination regarding the document “Regulation Concerning the Arrest, Detention, and Search to Prepare an Inquiry Report and to Prosecute an Offender as per the 2007 Computer Crime Act” enforced since 30 November 2007, on pages 122-123, it only stipulates that cooperation with the inquiry officer has to be made, and from no. 4-8, according to Mr. Somsak, the Regulation does not provide for any guidelines. In reality, the work is divided up among the officers and thus far, there have been no new regulations issued.

During the prosecutor’s re-examination, Mr. Somsak was asked by the virtue of which law the regulation has been issued?  Mr. Somsak replied that it is issued invoking Section 29 of CCA. The prosecutor asked how to execute all the duties described in the Regulation? Mr. Somsak replied that he could not carry out all duties and cooperation was needed. The police had resources necessary for making the arrest. And the police are authorized by the Regulation to do so. And Mr. Somsak was also part of the complainants, and the arresting had to be executed based on cooperation and division of labour.

Witness examination of Mr. Somsak Suppajirawat was adjourned, recess for lunch.
 

10 February 2011 (Resumption in the afternoon)
Examination of prosecution witness no. 4,  Mr. Pairat Yawong, attorney, 38 years, attorney of Law Home 999, Co., Ltd., has been a attorney since 1998

Regarding the case, around March 2009, Mr. Pairat Yawong was having some business with one of his clients at the CSD and he was asked for help by an inquiry officer. He was given some postings in Prachatai website to read and asked to give his opinion as a lawyer if the postings can be deemed an offence as per Section 112. After reading the posts, he concurred that they are deemed illegal as far as Section 112 is concerned.

In the topic “Truth Today” posted by “Bento”, the topic and its contents refer to HM the Queen and the Crown Prince. Though their names are not mentioned directly, but other descriptive names were used. Reading the whole topic, one came to a conclusion that the two Majesties have become involved with politics and unrest in the city.

After giving his opinion to the inquiry officer as such, he also testified in the Court in the case against Nopphawan  (prosecutor whispered the name “Nopphawan” to him). He could not remember her last name, but it took place in 2010.

(iLaw – In this case, the accused, Nopphawan, used log in name “Bento” to post a message on Prachatai webboard, and the message is used as the tenth incriminating statement to prosecute Chiranuch. Later on, Nopphawan was acquitted by the Court since the prosecutors failed to prove her guilt beyond doubt. For more detail, please see here.)

He learned from TV news that the case was dismissed by the Court as the Court was not convinced that the accused was the offender. He did not know much detail beyond those reported by the press and according to the media, the Court did not rule if the post was lèse-majesté.

In Nopphawan’s case and this case, he had not known the accused personally before.

Defence lawyer’s cross examination

It is heard that Mr. Pairat founded a company and is one of the board members. He has had no direct experience dealing with cyber crime. A consultant company, his company also offers consultancy on internet business. But since CCA is a new law and the company has had no experience dealing with Section 112 cases. Also, Mr. Pairat has never been invited to speak on the offence as per Section 112.

In addition, he has never attended any training on cyber crime, and is only an ordinary internet user. He has had no training on Section 112, but has only studied the issue during his time in university including reading the Supreme Court’s verdicts.

Mr. Pairat said that he went to CSD on 12 March 2009 on a business about one of his clients. It was a case concerning damage to body and properties. His client was a CSD police officer.

His client was a Lt. Col. police officer, but Mr. Pairat refused to disclose information on his position since the case he was handling is still pending in the Appeals Court and his client is still an active officer. The lawyer asked if his client is a police officer implicated in the enforced disappearance case of Lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit, or not. Mr. Pairat refused to answer the question citing the proper etiquette. The lawyer then asked how familiar he was with his client? He said he had known his client since 2006, though he did not get to meet him very often.

Mr. Pairat’s client was an inquiry officer in the case against S. Nopphawan, though Mr. Pairat admitted that he had no idea if the inquiry officers in Chiranuch case and Nopphawan case had known or were colleagues with his client. When he went to CSD to meet with his client and was asked for help, he did not get to meet with his client yet. He was there before the time, and since the inquiry officer (in Chiranuch case) knew that he was an attorney, so he was asked to help and give opinion to help the police write case report.

Mr. Pairat also replied to a question that he was not aware if Pol. Maj. Rian Buala was an inquiry officer in both cases. Only after he was asked to give comment, he learned that it was a case against Ms. Nopphawan.

Mr. Pairat stated that when he was giving his opinion, he was unaware of the identity of the alleged offender in the case. The police simply showed him the post and asked for his opinion. And he gave his opinion prior to knowing who the alleged offender was. And he did not care to ask who the person was. The opinion he gave and the reading of the post took place on the same day.

Mr. Pairat further stated that he was happy to help when being sought for cooperation by a government agency. As an attorney, he found it important to help and he gave his opinion at his own discretion, and the judgment shall rest with the Court. He was willing to help as a witness without caring to know who the alleged offender was.

Mr. Pairat stated that it was not his duty to support any sanctions against anyone. He agreed to be a witness in the case since he believed that a perpetrator should be brought to justice and he was unaware if the two accused in these two cases were involved with any anti-monarchist movements.

Normally in a criminal suit, no permission shall be given for outsiders to have a view of major incriminating evidence. And those not involved with the case have no access to such materials. Mr. Pirat said he had not got to see Exhibit J32 "Truth Today" before. He used to check out Prachatai website, but not its webboard yet, though he had been expressing in opinions in other websites or webboards, but not in political websites, only in thaijustice website.

In that webboard of lawyers, there was also no notification that any posts shall be subject to verification before being uploaded. For example, in thaijustice webboard, the only condition for a poster was the person had to have accessed the webboard for more than 30 days.

Regarding the evidence he was asked to comment and whether or not he thought all of the statements he saw could be deemed a violation of Section 112, Mr. Pairat said he was only asked to give his opinion exclusively on the posts made by “Bento”. And as a Thai citizen, he did not believe in what he read. For him, it was an unfounded allegation and anyone with good discretion shall not believe in such statements. But if the reader clings on to certain political ideologies, he or she might treat the information differently. It is subject to each individual’s discretion. The poster had an intention to defame HM the Queen and the Crown Prince, but after reading her post, he did not share with her opinion. If he shared with her opinion, that would have brought down the reputation of the two royalties.

The lawyer asked supposing that the posts were given to an ordinary person to read, would the person lose her or his faith in the monarchy instantly?  Mr. Pairat replied that since people have different levels of maturity, some people could be misled by core leaders, heads of families, or their supervisors, and false information could be treated as true. And if there are a lot of such postings, damage to reputation may occur and people may believe and lose their faith (in the monarchy). Mr. Pairat then said that he could only recall giving his opinions in these two cases.

Prosecutor’s re-examination
Mr. Pairat stated that he had not trained and not represented anyone being held liable on Section 112. He only had knowledge about such a provision since his time studying in university and his personal study of verdicts made by the Supreme Court. He is an attorney and accepts to work on any cases, and does not just work for clients who are police officers or fellow lawyers. Asked by the prosecutor about how and why he was willing to help as a witness, Mr. Pairat said as a lawyer, when he was asked for help, he was willing to help. And after reading the posts, and giving his opinion, the inquiry officer asked for his permission to use his opinion in the cases.

12 February 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 5, Lt. Col. Dr. Wiwat Sitthisoradet, Science Office (SB3),  Forensic Chemistry and Physics Document Examinations, Criminal Record Division

– No trial observation note taken

1 September 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 6, Capt Khirirak Maraksa

The witness examinations have been rescheduled to September 2011, there was a change in the judges and the prosecutor.

Judge Kamphon Rungrat arrived at 9.30 am, just be himself. The Courtroom was crowded by Thai and international media and observers from Thai and international organizations.

Four defence lawyers included Mr. Saengchai Rattanaseriwong, Mr. Theeraphan Phunkhiri, Mr. Ratsada Manuratsada and Mr. Anond Nampha, and the Prosecutor was Mr. Sahachai Raksasap

Capt Khirirak Marak stated that he was serving as a police inspector of the High Tech Crime Center, Region 4 Police Station, Khon Kaen

He received a letter from Crime Suppression Division and was asked to investigate postings made in prachatai.com as to where it was located, under whose charge, since inappropriate posts were spotted as per Exhibit J32 (the document contains the alleged lèse-majesté statements). After investigation, he found the server of the website was based in Bangkok and the accused was the webmaster (naming the name of the accused).

Capt Khirirak stated that he and the accused had not known each other personally.

Before, officers from the Royal Thai Police had accessed the posts and informed him by letter asking him to carry out investigation as to where the server of the website www.prachatai.com was located. Such an investigation against the website had never been launched before.

Defence lawyer’s cross examination
Capt Khirirak stated that he was not aware if previously there have been any statements being used to incriminate anyone.

Prior to pressing charges against Ms. Nopphawan and the accused, his agency took the lead to organize a meeting to clarify appropriate procedure, but was not sure if the accused had attended the meeting. As for the website’s blockade, his agency has never sent any instruction asking the accused to block access to the URL.

He further stated that he was not a prosecution witness in the case against Ms. Nopphawan and was not part of the investigation team in the case.
 

1 September 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 7, Lt. Col. Suraphong Thammapitak, Investigating Officer in this case

After the completion of examination of Capt Khirirak Marak, Judge Kamphon Rungrat instantly asked Lt. Col. Suraphong Thammapitak to testify.

Lt. Col. Suraphong Thammapitak stated that he was serving as a police inspector in Operations Division 2, Royal Thai Police and was an investigating officer in lèse-majesté cases. During the investigation, he found lèse-majesté postings made in prachatai.com on 15 October 2008, then he and his team had the posts printed out and read them carefully again. After that, they concluded that the posts were inappropriate.

After that, he traced the IP address by asking from the Internet Service Provider. After obtaining the IP address, he asked the webmaster and found that the poster using the username “bento”.

After making an inquiry to Jasmine Internet Co., he found that owner of the username used telephone number 034 84X XXX (information cannot be disclosed) and her name was Ms. Nopphawan (information cannot be disclosed), and the application for internet service came with a copy of her ID card. He found that she used two usernames, one was bento, but he did not about another username.

Lt. Col. Suraphong stated that after that he sent a letter to ask the TT&T Co. as to who the owner of the telephone number was and found out that it was registered in the name of Ms. Nopphawan. Then, he applied for warrants from the Court and made a search at the residence of Ms. Nopphawan and decided to press lèse-majesté charges against her.

Defence lawyer’s cross examination
Lt. Col. Suraphong, when his agency organized a consultation meeting, he was not aware if the accused or the webmaster of Prachatai had got invited to come to discuss how to monitor lèse-majesté postings. In addition, he was not aware if the IP address was generated automatically by the computer.

Lt. Col. Suraphong further stated that he had no idea as to how many days Ms. Nopphawan’s post was shown on the webboard. He only knew that it was posted on 15 October 2008.

2 September 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 8, Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon Thuanthong, Deputy Inspector General (Commissioned Officer 7), Central Investigation Bereau Royal Thai Police, and Investigating Officer and part of the Committee overseeing the interpretation of statements as per Exhibit J32

Judge Kamphon Rungrat arrived around 10.00 am, followed by Judge Nittaya Yaemsri. The defence lawyers included Mr. Saengchai Rattanaseriwong, Mr. Theeraphan Phunkhiri, Mr. Ratsada Manuratsada and Mr. Anond Nampha, and the Prosecutor was Mr. Sahachai Raksasap
 
Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon Thuanthong stated that he was assigned to carry out the investigation in cases, particularly those concerning lèse-majesté statements.

He was assigned to review if the statements in the Exhibit could be deemed lèse-majesté. He did not get to see the posts in the website, but from the printout prepared by the team. After reading them, he found the statements could be deemed lèse-majesté as they described events and personalities in a way that could be construed as a statement that defames, insults, or threatens the King, and other royalties. The characters and contents of the post could be interpreted as such. Some of the words used could be interpreted as referring to the Chitralada Royal Villa including “Wang Buppha”. Then the code no. “04” could be interpreted as referring to a radio code “904” of the Crown Prince. And his Committee decided to press charges against any persons making such lèse-majesté statements.

Defence lawyer’s cross examination
Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon replied that he was not sure about the sources of the documents given to him to review. That he said the statements were deemed lèse-majesté was his personal view; there was no resolution made by the Committee on this matter.

Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon stated also that other investigating officers found that the poster of the statements in Prachatai website was Ms. Nopphawan (last name withheld). He could not recall if there was any agreement between the accused and Ms. Nopphawan.

Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon stated that apart from Prachatai website, other websites also feature political opinions during that time and Ms. Nopphawan was simply a user. The webmaster is obliged to monitor and censor statements that are inappropriate. He had no idea if the MICT officers had notified Prachatai asking them to remove the posts.

Pol. Maj. Gen Suraphon further testified that reading the statements alone may not make an ordinary person to make any interpretation. They have to be read together with other information and the readers shall be able to link it with various events and personalities and will find it lèse-majesté. An Internet user can be a person interested in following news and information, and therefore has the right to know.

Regarding how in the meetings of the Committee, decisions are made as to which statements are found to be insulting the monarchy, the police officer said they rely on legal provisions. Internet users are also obliged to heed to the law. He had no idea if the website has a setting in place for other users to remove any posts and he was not aware about the number of posts posted daily in Prachatai website and he had not known the accused personally.

The witness examination was adjourned at 11.30 am, and many observers from Thailand and abroad were there to give a lot of support to the accused.

2 September 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 9, Pol. Lt. Gen. Winai Wongbuppha, Secretary of the Committee to Review Lèse-majesté Cases, not present during the trial, but has submitted a written testimony

6 September 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 10, Lt. Col. Nitipat Wutboonyasit (formerly known as “Damrong”), an inquiry officer in charge of the case and arresting officer

Judge Kamphon Rungrat arrived in the courtroom around 10.00 am.

Lt. Col. Nitipat Wutboonyasit, 44 years, beginning from 10.15 am stated that while working on the case, he was serving in the Operations Division 1, Crime Suppression Division, as an inquiry officer. He was asked to carry out the search of the accused’s notebook computer. At present, he is an inquiry officer of the Crime Suppression Division in charge of offenses concerning consumer protection law.

Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that in November 2008, not sure about the date, he was informed about the case. An MICT officer has sent him a copy of complaint prepared by Mr. Aree Jiworarak who accused the accused of allowing posters to post lèse-majesté statements in the computer system. Then he started to compile documentary evidence and report to the National Police Chief and a committee has been set up to work on the case.

The Committee reviewed each of the posts to identify if they were offensive to the monarchy. He was not sure if all statements reviewed were considered an insult to the monarchy (statements mentioned in Exhibits J23-32).

Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that from tracing the URL, it could be derived that the posts had been made on Prachatai website, and then the accused was serving as webmaster. From further investigation, it was found that the office of the accused was located in Huay Kwang (current address), and then court warrants  were applied for on charges that the service provider deliberately encourage or consent to the inputting into a computer system any information deemed a threat to national security and being false information.  Then, a search warrant was applied prior to the raid at Prachatai’s office.  

The arrest warrant and search warrant were issued on 3 and 5 March 2009, respectively.

Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he carried out the search on 6 March 2009 by first producing the warrant. Upon encountering the accused, he produced the arrest warrant and made the arrest of the accused and seized her notebook computer for investigation. The accused was then taken to Operations Division 5, CSD, and signed to acknowledge the charges. Then, she was taken to Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra, the inquiry officer, and he then relinquished his duty.

In addition, he also stated that he could not identify the posters as per Exhibits J1-9 and he was not the interrogator of the accused during the investigation. Other officers covered up the duty including Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra. He had not known the accused before.

Defence lawyer’s cross examination: Lt. Col. Nitipat used to attend a meeting with MICT and was aware that webmasters had been invited to attend. The meeting took place on 1 November 2007 and in the letter of invitation, Pol. Lt. Gen. Theeradet Phothong, was the Chairperson of the meeting. That’s all he could remember.

He further testified that he could not recall if the accused had attended the meeting aimed at seeking cooperation to quell the dissemination of statements deemed lèse-majesté. He was not aware that Pol. Lt. Gen. Theeradet Phothong concluded the meeting by praising Prachatai as a model website in an attempt to remove inappropriate statements. He was also not aware if Pol. Lt. Gen. Theeradet also said during the conclusion that such removal system was not popular in other websites.

Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he could not recall of the MICT officers notified Prachatai asking them to remove the posts.

When Mr. Aree Jiworarak came to lodge complaint to him, Mr. Aree told him to take action on all cases, but he did not inform the police officer as to whom to be pressed with charges. It was subject to further investigation of the inquiry officers.

Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he had summoned the accused to ask questions and asked her to read the posts found in Prachatai. When the accused was invited for interrogation, the posts had already been spotted by the MICT officers and a court order to block access to the posts had already been requested.

He described that the materials he received from Mr. Aree was a printout from computer. He could not remember if  Mr. Aree had already sent a letter asking the website to remove the posts.

Regarding the case against Ms. Nopphawan, Lt. Col. Nitipat said the accused was then invited to testify as a witness. Then, she was not pressed with any charges yet. During the interrogation of the accused, he failed to remind her of her rights and that any information she was to give as a witness in this case could be used as incriminating evidence against her later.

Lt. Col. Nitipat further stated that apart from the accused, there was another person who should be aware of the posts, and he did summon the person to ask questions, but he could recall who the person was.

The defence lawyer gave him Exhibit J43, a inquiry report of the case against Ms. Nopphawan prepared by the inquiry officer, and asked him about the connection between the case against Ms. Nopphawan and the case against the accused.

Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he was actually not the officer who prepared the report on the case against the accused. He simply signed the report since he was part of the investigating team. But he confirmed that he had read the report before and did signed the report, but could not recall which case it was and how. The Exhibit shown to him contained documents that had been rearranged after the case was transferred from the police to the prosecutor. As for documentary evidence, the two inquiry reports could be used in tandem with each other. Maybe all the documents were included, he had no idea, since all the supporting documents were rearranged by Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra.

Lt. Col. Nitipat stated that he could remember if he had informed the accused that the documentary evidence the accused gave him as a witness in the case against Ms. Nopphawan was being used as documentary evidence in the case against the accused herself, too.

Lt. Col. Nitipat could not remember if all the statements in Exhibit J30, pages 2-8, appeared in the webboard. Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra should know this well. In addition, he could not recall if the testimony made by Mr. Aree was being used as part of the inquiry report against the accused, when she was an alleged offender or not.

He also had no idea why charges had not been filed together between the accused and Ms. Nopphawan, maybe because there was no evidence, or whatever reasons. When asked with this question, Lt. Col. Nitipat looked very hesitant. Eventually, the Court asked the same question more succinctly and punctually, and the witness replied that he did not know anything about it.

The witness examination was adjourned at 12.15 am.

9 September 2011
Examination of prosecution witness no. 11, Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra, an inquiry officer in charge of the case, Crime Suppression Division, Royal Thai Police.

Judge Nittaya Yaemsri arrived in the courtroom around 9.45 am, followed by Judge Kamphon Rungrat who was about five minutes late, nevertheless, he was the person who record testimonies made by all witnesses.

The witness is part of the investigating team at the Crime Suppression Division, Royal Thai Police.

Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra, 49 years, beginning at 9.45 am, stated that he received a complaint from ML Panadda Diskul, incumbent Governor of Chiang Mai, on 24 October 2008. In a formal letter to the Royal Thai Police, the Governor asked for investigation regarding the posting of lèse-majesté statements in Prachatai. He could not recall if all statements in Exhibit J32, coupled with the complaint made by ML Panadda, had been supplied by ML Panadda himself, or had been obtained by MICT officers later.

After receiving the complaint and documents on 5 November 2008, Mr. Aree Jiworarak, MICT officer, complained to the Royal Thai Police asking them to take action against the perpetrators. Of hundreds of URLs listed in the complaint, he found nine which could be deemed an insult to the monarchy. All the nine URLs were all posts made in Prachatai website and Mr. Aree also supplied him evidence regarding how the statements had been inputted into the website.

Then, he invited the accused to ask her questions as a “witness”. Initially, the accused admitted that the poster of the statements was “bento” and she admitted that she was Prachatai’s webmaster. In addition, he also interrogated Mr. Aree as a witness in this case, too, and found from him that the statements as per Exhibit J32 were put online for up to 20 days.

After ascertaining the facts, the Investigating Team applied for court warrants deeming that the accused could be held liable as per Section 15 of the 2007 Computer Crime Act.

Then, a search warrant was also applied for as per Exhibit J5.

Lt. Col. Boonlert further testified that the MICT officers were asked to apply for an order from the Court to copy data from the accused’s computer (Exhibit J6). In addition, the accused was invited to the Crime Suppression Division and a record was made in the police’s daily journal and charges were pressed against the accused (Exhibit J9). The accused was then informed of detail of the charges including the URLs (Exhibit J10).

After copying data from the accused’s computer, the data was transferred to the Criminal Record Division for further verification. After receiving results from the Criminal Record Division, he started to interrogate concerned witnesses including Mr. Chakaraphan Charoenphon, staff member of Jasmine Internet, Co., the ISP. He was asked as to who was the owner of the telephone line used for connecting to internet service used by “buffalo boy” to post a link to another webboard on Prachatai webboard?

In addition, Lt. Col. Boonlert also stated that he got to ask question to the founder of Prachatai website or the accused, too, though she plead not guilty to all charges.

Defence lawyer’s cross examination
Lt. Col. Boonlert replied that he could remember if there were just nine URLs in the complaint submitted to him by Mr. Aree regarding the charges against Prachatai website. He could not remember at all how many of the URLs.

Lt. Col. Boonlert stated that legal actions have also been initiated against other URLs, but they are at the investigation level.

As for the printout received from Mr. Aree, the police officer said he had never compared it with the original pages in the website.

Asked if he ever noted that in the documentary evidence, the printouts, on certain pages, the URL address appeared on the left, some on the right. Was it possible that the URL addresses were typed up by the officers, and were not originally shown on the actual website? Lt. Col. Boonlert replied that he had no idea about this, since he was not an expert in technology and did not have in-depth information.

When he received documents with a list of URLs from Mr. Aree, the blockade of access to the URLs had been put in place. But Lt. Col. Boonlert denied having any roles in applying for the Court order to block the access. He was aware of the blockade, but not for how long.

Lt. Col. Boonlert stated that he failed to inform the accused of her rights when inviting her to give information as a witness, since he still treated her as a witness then.  In addition, he could not remember if Mr. Jon Ungphakorn was also a witness in the case against Ms. Nopphawan, since he did not interrogate Mr. Jon himself. The job was given to other officers.

Lt. Col. Boonlert stated that the accused was asked to acknowledge the charges and she was given explanations of each count filed against her. Detail as to when the posts were found online was given and the accused was pointed to various statements, though the accused was not informed of the URLs of the allegedly lèse-majesté posts.

As for the computer evidence obtained from the accused, they were well kept and sealed to prevent any doctoring of information, prior to sending it to the Criminal Record Division.

The witness examination was adjourned at 12.15 pm. Throughout the examination, Lt. Col. Boonlert failed to speak in the clear and often had to look at documents before giving any replies. One of the defence lawyers, Mr. Ratsada Manuratsada made a protest, but the Court said it was ok since it helped to save time.  The atmosphere during the witness examination was rather tense, and then the defence lawyers had to give concessions. While, the atmosphere was tense, Mr. Sahachai Raksasap, the prosecutor, remained calm.

Defence Witness Hearings

20 September 2011
Examination of witness no.1,  Mr. Jon Ungphakorn, co-founder of Prachatai website and currently  member of the Subcommittee on Civil and Political Rights, National Human Rights Commission

Mr. Jon Ungphakorn, 64 years, beginning 9.40 am, stated that he was an independent academic. He is a graduate from the Faculty of Electronics Engineering, Sussex University, England. During 2008-2010, he was a member of the Policy Committee of the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (Thai PBS) and was a Senator-elect from 2000-2006. Currently, he is a member of the Subcommittee on Civil and Political Rights, National Human Rights Commission, working to receive and investigate complaints concerning human rights and political rights.

Mr. Jon stated that he was one of the founders of Prachatai website in 2004, while he was a Senator. It stemmed from his impression that mainstream media in Thailand were not independent, failed to feature truths and ugly aspects such as the case of unrest in the Deep South, issues regarding land and labour, etc. He therefore thought there should be independent media space where viewpoints of the vulnerable and marginalized groups can be aired. And Prachatai website aspires to be such an alternative medium, basically free from the influence of the state and capitals. It was founded by individuals in the first place and then got registered as a Foundation with Mr. Kasem Sirisamphan as the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. The Foundation is called “Foundation for Community Educational Media”.

It aims to promote democracy, emphasizes public participation and features demands of people’s sector. People from grassroots level are encouraged to write up news and get it published via the website, for example, news about more than 80 deaths during the suppression of demonstration in Tak Bai, etc. A not-for-profit organization, the Foundation works chiefly for public interest with financial support from inside and outside the country. Examples of domestic funders include the Thai Health Foundation, Community Organization Development Institute (CODI), etc.

Mr. Jon further testified that issues concerning the posting of inappropriate messages in Prachatai website occurred, particularly in the aftermath of the 19 September 2006 coup. Prachatai stood for freedom of expression, and after the coup, a lot of readers of Prachatai wanted to voice their opposition to the coup. As a result, Prachatai became a channel through which more and more people used to express their political opinions. Meanwhile, mainstream media failed to provide such opportunities. Prachatai website commands about 10,000 page views per day. Its news and article section is fine. Problems happen with its webboard where the audiences are allowed to express their opinions.

Prachatai can be divided into main sections. The first section is similar to ordinary newspaper featuring news and articles. The second section is akin to other webboards such as Pantip, and this is a space where people are supposed to express their views, and they do not have to share the same views. There is a lot of freedom of expression here. In addition, Prachatai never declares the directions of views that should be allowed to express.

Mr. Jon stated that its objective is to “provide for freedom of expression”, since it helps to promote democratization and people can debate and exchange their opinions. Such a feature is generally upheld in various webboards around the world, and every poster is required to subscribe first. Prachatai follows a similar pattern. Initially,  Prachatai webboard allowed anyone to post any comments. When there were problems, it was required that a person needed to get registered first prior to posting any comments. After subscribing, a user has to wait for an email response to confirm the subscription and a password shall be sent to the user’s email address. Upon receiving the email response from Prachatai, the user has to reply to the email to verify the existence of such an email address.

Concerning an effort to quell inappropriate statements, Mr. Jon said that initially, measures were laid out clearly. If any abusive, any message deemed offensive to the monarchy and an individual are found, they shall be blocked. A team has been set up to monitor and remove inappropriate statements. In addition, users are allowed to notify the webmaster, should they spot any inappropriate posts.

As more problems happened, more measures have been installed to allow readers to remove inappropriate statements temporarily and the final call shall rest with the webmaster. In addition, part of the IP addresses of any posters shall be shown on the website in order to let any readers know where the posters are based.

Mr. Jon further testified that In terms of cooperation with government agencies, both the MICT and the police, should there be any formal letter asking for cooperation, or should the MICT notify Prachatai of any inappropriate posts, Prachatai shall take immediate actions.

In addition, Mr. Jon reiterated that despite a small team, Prachatai initially was able to cope with the problems. But as there was a huge increase of users after the Coup, the supervision could be lax since there was only one staff member assigned to monitor the posts and it was the accused who is also Director of Prachatai website. As a result, volunteers among the readers have been recruited to help notify us. Anyway, given the amount of 100-1,000 posts per day, the staff members and volunteers might still find it difficult to cope with them effective. And instant removal was not that easy.

Mr. Jon explained the job description of the accused to cover;
1. Oversight of the webboard
2. Organizational management including human resources, financial resources, reporting of the Foundation for Community Educational Media and other events by the Foundation

Mr. Jon said that he had known the accused since 1991 or 1992, when he was still Director of AIDS ACCESS Foundation. Then the accused came to help to educate public about the prevention of HIV/AIDS, and later became the Head of AIDS ACCESS Foundation in the North. He finds the accused a very dedicated person despite her low remuneration. He finds her a highly responsible person and thus persuaded her to join the Foundation for Community Educational Media.

Mr. Jon stated that the duties of webmaster differ from those of news editors. For the latter, all contents are subject exclusively to the oversight of the Editor and the editorial team guided by their policy. Every single article sent in is subject to screening and verification, and thus the process of featuring news and articles in this kind of media is slow, though it makes it easy to control the contents.

As for electronics media and the roles of webmaster, since there is no censorship of any contents or posts before they got shown in the web pages, the communication can become instantaneous and interactive. If any censorship is put in place, it shall compromise the website’s objectives. Therefore, instant and interactive exchange is encouraged and monitoring comes in as a secondary priority.

Nevertheless, when any inappropriate posts are spotted, they shall be removed. Anyone who keeps posting such a message shall be permanently blocked, or have their memberships revoked.

Mr. Jon further stated that during the time he was a member of Policy Committee of Thai PBS, police officers also asked him questions about Prachatai, but did not inform him that they were going to press charges against anyone.  He used to give information to an inquiry officer, but was aware as to who the accused was in the case he was asked about. Then, the accused was not pressed with charges yet.

Mr. Jon said that Prachatai website mainly features critiques on political and social issues and as a member of the Subcommittee on Civil and Political Rights, National Human Rights Commission, he found Prachatai webboard very useful for democratization.

Prachatai is a space to feature violations of people’s rights including land rights dispute, labour dispute, the environment, community, etc. Thus, it gives voices to people and most mainstream media fail to deliver such a role.

As for inappropriate posts, Mr. Jon stated that he has been upset by any messages concerning the monarchy. And in many instances of consultation, he and the accused concurred that such a statement can damage the website. He had no idea about the intention of such posters, and maybe it was an attempt to destroy the Foundation.

Cross-examination by the prosecutor
Mr. Jon said that Prachatai has a policy to remove posts deemed lèse-majesté upon receiving any notification and in 2008, the accused was in charge of the duty.

Mr. Jon said that, during the meetings of the Foundation, it has been discussed and agreed that if any inappropriate posts are found, they shall subject to immediate removal.

The prosecutor asked why the posts were found to have been shown in the website for as long as 20 days. Mr. Jon replied that such an incidence was abnormal. Maybe, there were so many posts made during the time, and some had not been spotted. In addition, the removal of any posts shall be done after reviewing the contents. Some posts may be ambiguous enough and made it difficult to decide.

Nevertheless, he has never been in any meeting to review the removal of any posts. It was not his duty and the accused has never brought up any posts to ask for his opinions. Lastly, Mr. Jon said the accused was in charge of reviewing the posts.

The witness examination was adjourned at 11.10 am, and many of the observers in the Courtroom are from media and international organizations. It took about one and a half hours for this witness examination.

20 September 2011
Examination of witness no. 2, Dr. Nirand Pithakwachara, co-founder of Foundation for Community Educational Media and incumbent National Human Rights Commissioner

Dr. Nirand Pithakwachara, beginning from 13.30, stated that he is currently a Commissioner in the National Human Rights Commission, from 20 June until present. Prior to this, he was an MP of Ubon Ratchathani from 2000-2003 and was Chairperson of the Committee of the Minister of Social Development and Human Security and was also a member of the Media Reform Subcommittee. One of his colleagues in the Subcommittee was Mr. Jon Ungphakorn.

Dr. Nirand stated that as he felt media were subject to control, he helped to found the Foundation for Community Educational Media under which Prachatai website is a project. He wanted to see concrete model of media reform to promote freedom of expression through internet.

For the website, a webmaster was also appointed and a Board of Directors to monitor and supervise the operations. The website features two main sections including news and articles and web blogs (it was recorded as webboard by the Court, since it was understood that the reference was made to the section in which readers were allowed to share their views). In the blogs, Prachatai allowed their readers to post their opinions without having to subscribe as a member. No specific guidelines have been laid down concerning the proper comments, only on criterion that is the comments shall be offensive.

Regarding measures to cope with inappropriate posts, Prachatai assigned a person to monitor the webboard and Dr. Nirand was aware that it was the accused.

In the aftermath of the 19 September 2006 coup, politics became highly polarized and it affected Prachatai. A lot of inappropriate comments had been posted since Prachatai was an alternative media and wanted to make it a channel for people who found it not possible to air their views via mainstream media. The Board had met with the staff (including the accused) to set out ways to cooperate with MICT and he was aware that MICT used to propose ways to deal with the inappropriate posts. He used to ask the accused if she had been approached by officers from MICT, and the accused said yes and promised to remove any inappropriate comments upon receiving any request.

Dr. Nirand said he stood as a witness in the case against Ms. Nopphawan in Ubon Ratchathani.

Dr. Nirand said the Foundation was responsible for the policy; and Prachatai Director (the accused) for its administration.

The defence lawyer handed him Exhibit J46, an inquiry report prepared by the police. In the document, name of the accused in the case was crossed out, and the name was changed from Nopphawan to Chiranuch. After reading it, Dr. Nirand said when he asked to questions of the inquiry officers in Ubon Ratchathani, name of the accused in the case was still Nopphawan and he confirmed to have signed the report when name of the accused was Ms. Nopphawan.

Dr. Nirand further stated that upon identifying any lèse-majesté comments, Prachatai would have them removed immediately. In addition, a measure was put in place in order that members could help in monitoring. Contents-wise, Prachatai does not feature just political news, but it touches on social, cultural and environmental issues as well, though at a time, there was so intense exchange on political issues.

Prachatai promotes freedom of expression and media in Thailand generally enjoy very low level of such freedom. The emergence of Prachatai was hoped to bring about greater freedom of expression and democratization. As a NHRC member, he was pleased with the role played by Prachatai and found their operation served well the objectives of the Foundation.

The accused understood well code of conduct and he did not find her harboring any movements against the monarchy or concurring with those wanting to insult the monarchy. The accused shall never let such posts appear in the website.

In reply to a question from the lawyer, Dr. Nirand said as a NHRC member, he felt Section 112 should not have been used to destroy each other, should not have been used to justify a political cause, and there should be clear criteria as to which comments are deemed lèse-majesté in order to prevent any ramification on the monarchy and to protect the institution.

No re-examination from the prosecutor.

The witness examination was adjourned after around one hour.

21 September 2011  
Defence witness no.3, Mr. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the accused in this case  
 
Judge Nittaya Yaemsri arrived in the courtroom around 10.00, and replaced Judge Kamphon Rungrat in recording the session, as Judge Kamphon came in after the witness examination had commenced for ten minutes.  
 
Chiranuch stated that she is a professional media person and graduated from the Faculty of Journalism and Communication, Thammasat University in 1990. After that she joined the editorial team of “Khon Krung” and then worked with AIDS ACCESS Foundation from 1991-2004. She started to work with Prachatai, a project under the Foundation in January 2006 serving as Director of the Foundation for Community Educational Media and Director of Prachatai website, and is a staff member of the Foundation.  
 
Concerning her job description, she included;  
1. General administration including education and development of website contents
2. Human resource  
3. Fund raising
4. Reporting to funders and government agencies  
5. Coordinating with domestic and international organizations  
6. Capacity building on media skills for various groups of participants  
7. Organizing meetings and public speeches  
 
Chiranuch further testified that Prachatai is a project under the Foundation for Community Educational Media which mainly aims to present truthful news, promote exchange of ideas, and democratization. It can be divided into two main sections including;  
 
1. News and articles under the charge of the editorial team  
2. Webboard, an open space for people to debate and exchange  
 
The editorial team is composed of around ten members, and only one webboard administrator, Chiranuch herself.  
 
News featured covers a range of issues including labour, society, the environment, economy, politics, etc.  
 
Monitoring of contents in the two sections is done differently. The news and article section, an emphasis is placed on editing the text to make it readable. As for the webboard section, any reader could post anything and it would be shown on the web pages instantly. There was initially no screening from the webmaster. Such an approach was widely adopted in webboards and it aimed to encourage spontaneous and lively exchange.  
 
Regarding supervision, Chiranuch explained that in the beginning, there were not many users in her webboard, and the posters were informally asked to express their views creatively and the situation had been fine. Initially, the posters exchanged their views very richly and listened to each other.  
 
As for guidelines, they were laid down in general including;  
1. No trampling down on differing views  
2. Degrading comments not encouraged  
3. No offensive or rude comments  
4. Complicity with the law  
 
Chiranuch stated that a turning point occurred at around the 19 September 2006 coup, which saw a sharp rise of webboard users in more than tenfold. The highly charged debate reflected well the tense political atmosphere during the time and controversial events including dissolutions of political party, the drafting of the new Constitution, etc. The debate has thus become very animated. Regarding the posting of lèse-majesté comments, after consultations with the Foundation’s Board of Directors, measures have been put in place including;  
 
1. Now, every poster was required to get registered prior to being allowed to post any comment  
2. The postings were subject to screening by Prachatai staff, and if any inappropriate posts are found, they shall be removed immediately.  
 
More measures have been installed later including drawing on voluntary help from its members to remove any inappropriate posts. The volunteers included users from all walks of life including lawyers, medical doctors, business persons, academics, etc. and they were allowed to remove any comments directly.  
 
Chiranuch stated that the page view in 2007-2008 was around 20,000-30,000 per day, and everyday, there were around 300 new topics posted with about 2,800-2,900 comments altogether.  
 
As per Exhibit J23, the topic ID numbers were generated in order and each topic was generated with an ID no. based on the order of time the comments were posted. The topics were listed in order based on the most updated comments of each of the topic, not based on the sequence of the ID numbers.  
 
The ID no. as appeared in the plaint (Exhibit J32) is 1193245 meaning there were more than 1 million postings just for the topic.  
 
Chiranuch further testified that MICT officers including Mr. Aree, called to ask her to remove comments. Emails have also been sent from MICT, particularly after the consultation to set out guidelines of operation. During the meeting, it was discussed as to ways to manage websites and further mutual cooperation, and it was agreed initially that coordination could be done either via phone or email. Then, she started to receive emails containing many URLs, apart from those belonging to Prachatai. For a time, such an email had been sent to her almost everyday.  
 
Upon receiving the emails, she would check if the URLs belonged to Prachatai, if so, she would access the posts and remove them immediately. After that, the banned URLs shall be added to a blacklist of Prachatai website making it impossible for them to reappear in Prachatai web pages.  
 
Chiranuch further stated that she had submitted the URLs to Prachatai’s technical staff to review and find that of 3,000 URLs received from the MICT officers, 25 belonged to Prachatai, and several posts based on the URLs had been removed prior to receiving the notifications from the authority.  
 
She was called to stand as a witness in the case against Ms. Nopphawan, and then was shown by the inquiry officer Exhibits J23-31, Pol. Lt. Col. Yutthapong Thawinwiboon, was an inquiry officer in charge of the case and the testimony was given in March 2009. During that time, she was not informed that any charges were being mulled against her. During the inquiry, she was not at all informed that charges were pressed against her. She got to see the URLs from the webboard and found they belonged to Prachatai. Nevertheless, those URLs were outdated, and it was impossible to cross check from existing database in order to identify IP addresses of the posters.
 
Chiranuch stated that on 3 November 2008, she received an envelope. After opening the envelope she found a paper indicating ID no. of the poster as per Exhibit J32. Immediately, she had access to the post blocked.  
 
In the testimony prepared by Lt. Col. Boonlert Kalayanamitra, she signed as a witness and in it, no indication was made as to who the alleged offender was in the case. Later, she learned that the case against Ms. Nopphawan was dismissed since it was not possible to verify if Ms. Nopphawan was the real poster.  
 
Chiranuch further testified that on 6 March 2009, she was arrested on just one count stemming from the post by “bento”, and by then, she was already aware that “bento” was Ms. Nopphawan. Both arrest and search warrants were established during the raid at her office. Her notebook computer was seized by the offices as evidence and later the MICT officers have conducted the copying of the data invoking the court order.  
 
Chiranuch stated that during the investigation, she denied all the charges. Later on 7 April 2009, Lt. Col. Boonlert, through her attorney, asked for an appointment with her. During the meeting, she was told that nine more counts had been added against her.  
 
She was aware that in his testimony to the inquiry officers in the case against Ms. Nopphawan, Mr. Aree concurred that Prachatai’s Director had given cooperation to block the access and the poster.  
 
Chiranuch further explained that if a topic is blocked, the whole topic shall be removed. But if a comment is blocked, a remark shall appear that “comment no….is blocked by Prachatai.”
 
She continued with the meeting organized by MICT by saying that two of such meetings were held after the enforcement of CCA. Service providers from various websites have been invited to the meetings and she could not recall all of them. Participants also included police officers and MICT officers. The meetings were held since the Royal Thai Police deemed that there were many lèse-majesté posts, and cooperation was being sought.  
 
Guidelines were laid down after the meeting including;  
1. Identifying problems faced by each service provider
2. Identifying measures  
3. Since no clear guidelines were laid down, it was left to the discretion of each service provider  
 
Chiranuch said that the officers are also supposed to inform the service providers as well, should they spot any inappropriate posts. And if no action has been taken, more notification can be further made, and maybe legal action afterwards.  
 
It is an issue for webmasters to consider which posts should be censored or not in order to comply with CCA. Also, there were no clear guidelines as to which contents should be deemed an insult to the monarchy. 

Chiranuch said that measures have been improved at Prachatai since late 2006; each member was required to fill out a form of registration and to identify her or his email address. Verification to confirm the existence of the email addresses would be done, too. Screening of contents was then conducted by both the staff members and volunteers. Initially, it was set that if thee members clicked on removal button in a post, that post shall be automatically removed. Later on, it was made more stringent and one click could result in the removal of such a post.  
 
Chiranuch stated that some posts remained online as during the highly charged political period, many of such posts have been made and thus it was possible that some of them have not been spotted and removed. As for the post in Exhibit J32, she had not received any notification about the post from MICT before.  
 
Chiranuch further said that “bento” posted the message on 15 October 2008, and one hour later, three comments were made. No more comments were made afterwards and as a result, the post did not show up on the first page of the webboard.  
 
Limited online duration was also imposed. After a post was made for ten days, no more comments could be made, and such a post shall remain online for up to three months only.  
 
As for links to inappropriate clips, Chiranuch said that her notebook computer was installed with Thunderbird, an email client, which can receive any emails automatically and some attached filed can be downloaded automatically, too, once the computer got connected online. The data remains there, unless the whole computer data is wiped.  
 
Chiranuch said that she knew none of the posters personally, except Ms. Nopphawan with whom she met when she stood as a prosecution witness in the case against her.  
 
Prachatai webboard has been terminated since the end of July 2010 due to problems in management.  
 
Cross-examination by prosecutor  
After the first couple of questions, the Judge criticized the prosecutor for making redundant and unsubstantial questions since the questions asked dealt with issues already testified by the accused. The prosecutor decided to stop the examination.  
 
Re-examination by defence lawyer  
Chiranuch stated that when more charges were filed against her, no documents were given to her to read. On 7 April 2009, she was asked to acknowledge the addition of nine more counts stemming from nine URLs and was given no change to verify if the nine URLs really existed then. Only in Feb 2010, she was informed of their contents.  
 
In comparison, there were many of messages detected and deleted by Prachatai itself than those notified by MICT.  
 
The witness examination was completed in around two hours. There were many trial observers from national and international media and NGOs.  
 
11 October 2011  
Examination of witness no.4, Mr. Danny O’Brien, expert on internet law from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), USA, former IT consultant to Virgin.net, The Guardian, Wired and Channel 4
 
The accused arrived at the Court with Lawyer Ratsada Manuratsada and Lawyer Theeraphan Phankhiri. About 15-20 trial observers, Thai and foreign, attended the witness examination today.  
 
It was quite confusing prior to the commencement of the witness examination after the court clerk announced the postponement of defence witness examinations from 11 – 14 October 2011, as the residence of the Presiding Judge was located in flood risk zone and he was not able to come and carry out witness examinations. Meanwhile, the defence lawyers insisted that the witness examinations should go on as scheduled including Mr. Danny O’Brien since he came afar from USA, just for this witness examination, and it was the second time he has made trip for the purpose. Before, when he came here, the witness examination had also been rescheduled. Thus, the Court allowed witness examination to commence.  
 
Around 9.50 am, Judge Kamphon Rungrat and another judge arrived. Judge Kamphon was clad in a polo shirt with pink collar and with his rope on top. The Judge informed the accused and her lawyers that his house was located in flood risk zone and deemed it necessary to rush to return home to look after his built-in furnished house which could be damaged by the floods. But since the accused insisted on continuing with the witness examination, it could be done so with another Judge to preside over. The accused insisted that witness examination of Mr. O’Brien should continue as scheduled, while other examinations can be rescheduled.  
 
Mr. O’Brien, beginning at 10.00 am, testified in English through the interpretation by Mr. Saman Panklib, a court interpreter. The accused’s team also prepared their own interpreter.  
 
Mr. O’Brien started by introducing himself and explained his working experience. At present, he is working with the CPJ and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Before, he was a consultant to the US House of Senate giving them advice on internet law.  
 
The interpretation went by very disruptively. As a result, Judge Kamphon Rungrat proposed to adjourn today’s witness examination and asked Mr. O’Brien to submit his written affidavit instead, since he deemed that given the problems in the interpretation, there was no use to continue the witness examination and it would not work in favour of the accused.
 
The accused insisted that the witness examination should continue since the witness had come from afar. But the Judge insisted also that it would not make it different between verbal or written testimonies. After their consultation, both the defence lawyers and the accused agreed to have Mr. O’Brien give his written testimony, since the documents had been prepared in both Thai and English already. The defence lawyer handed over the article written by Mr. O’Brien himself about an overview of internet system, principles concerning liability of intermediaries, and credibility of electronics evidence, and Mr. O’Brien acknowledged its authenticity and then submitted them to the Court.  
 
And since during the time, Bangkok and its vicinity was greatly affected by the floods, and given difficulties in getting witnesses to testify, the remaining witness examination of three defence witnesses from 12-14 October 2011 have been rescheduled to 14 – 16 February 2012.  
 
14 February 2012
Examination of witness no. 5, Ms. Sawatree Suksri, lecturer, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University and expert on computer crime law  
 
Criminal Court, Ratchadapisek Rd., Courtroom no. 910
 
The accused and lawyers including Lawyer Theeraphan Phankhiri and Lawyer Anond Nampha arrived at the Court and Judge Kamphon Rungrat arrived in the courtroom around 9.50 am with another Judge. While the Judges arrived, the prosecutor was not in the Courtroom yet.  
 
The Judge consulted with the defence lawyers concerning the order of witness examinations and issues to be adduced. Lawyer Theeraphan told the Court that there would be two witnesses in the morning session, the first of whom would be Ms. Sawatree Suksri, a law expert from Thammasat University, and two issues shall be adduced including her research on the content oversight of service providers and Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, during the Human Rights Council, Seventeenth session, Agenda item 3 presented on 16 May 2011.  
 
The Judge further asked if the issues shall be related to international standards, one of the defence witnesses, Mr. O’Brien, had given his written testimony on the issues. The Judge then proposed that the accused could submit an affidavit instead of having an oral witness examination if there was no objection from the prosecutor, and that would work in favour of the accused.
 
Lawyer Anond insisted that oral witness examination should continue fearing that some points could have been missed out on in the record of the Judge. The Judge then said “whatever you wanted me to record, you could just tell me. But if you speak too much and there is only one important point, then it will be useless.” The defence lawyers, the accused and Ms. Sawatree had to turn to consult with each other again.
 
At 9.58 am, another Judge has arrived.  
 
Judge Kamphon reiterated that written testimony shall work more in favour of the accused, Lawyer Theeraphan and Ms. Sawatree then approached the Judges at the bench to explain that issues to be adduced were concerned with standards in USA and Europe and submitted one pager to the judges. The Judge did not get to read the paper, but asked if it shall affirm criminality of expressions in general? The witness said no. The idea to be adduced was intermediaries should not be held liable. Their liability shall depend on circumstances, i.e., that they should have been notified and asked to remove any messages (prior to any other legal action against them). Then Lawyer Theeraphan explained about Exhibit L8, a research report on the impact of the enforcement of CCA, the iLAW Project.  
 
As Ms. Sawatree was explaining about the intent of Section 15 of CCA, the Judge just cut it short saying that documentary evidence would be sufficient, should the prosecutor did not object and acknowledge it. It would work in favour of the accused this way and then the examination of the next witness could commence.  
 
The accused insisted that the witness should be given a chance to explain the issues, while the witness had not begun her explanation, the Judge simply ordered the next witness be brought in for examination. Lawyer Anond told the Court that the next witness shall testify on measures to remove certain posts in Prachatai website and the Judge granted permission for the examination.  
 
14 February 2012
Examination of witness no.6, Dr. Kittibhum Juthasamith, Director of Phusing Hospital, Sri Saket and Prachatai webboard user  
 
The witness examination commenced around 10.05 am, Dr. Kittibhum Juthasamith, 48 years, was a specialized medical doctor and was working as Director of Phusing Hospital, Sri Saket. By then, the prosecutor was not in the Courtroom yet. The whole witness examination including the questions asked by the lawyers and the recording of the Judge, was conducted in haste.  
 
Dr. Kittibhum stated that he began using Prachatai webboard since 2004 and has since then been checking out Prachatai website. The reason he chose to use Prachatai webboard was it was different from other webboards. It allowed readers with different political opinions to express themselves freely (the point was not recorded by the Court). Prachatai website also featured news different from other sources including news about justice, marginalized groups, cultural, social and political issues, not to be found in mainstream media.  
 
Regarding requirements for webboard use, Dr. Kittibhum said that prior to 2006, users were not required to subscribe. But after the coup, a requirement was put in place for subscription and obtaining a password from the website. Prachatai webboard also had a special feature to have illegal posts removed including allowing webboard users to click on removal button (recorded by the Court as allowing the readers to notify the webmaster) in order to notify the webmaster about the presence of inappropriate statements. The readers who wanted any posts removed were allowed to explain their reasons to the webmaster, too. After 2006, readers were encouraged to help look after the Prachatai webboard and they could help to remove illegal posts directly. And he was one of the volunteers recruited to do the job.  
 
Dr. Kittibhum helped to remove several articles and posts relying on his own discretion and no advice from the state.  
 
Dr. Kittibhum further testified that prior to the 2006 coup, there were not many users in Prachatai webboard. But after that, the number of topic per day has risen sharply to 300. The Judge asked him how many comments were made per day then? Dr. Kittibhum remained silent. The Judge said the prosecutor did not object, and you could just say it. Dr. Kittibhum replied that there should be no less than 15,000 comments made per day making it impossible for the webmaster to screen every post.  
 
At this moment, the Judge asked the witness directly that “it made the screening of comments….” And Dr. Kittibhum replied that “it was impossible”. Then the Judge added ”very difficult”, and the Judge recorded his own word.  
 
Dr. Kittibhum further testified that in terms of the monitoring of illegal comments, if any of them are found to be “precarious” (to national security and personal safety, added by the Judge), they shall be immediately removed. On this issue, the Judge continued asking that the removal of comments rested on whose discretion? Dr. Kittibhum reiterated that it was up to his own discretion and the rules of the webboard.
 
At this point, the Judge simply stopped the witness examination to replace the recording machine with a new one. Presumably, the old one was broken. After the replacement, the Judge resumed the session by asking the witness to state his first name, last name, age, address, position again for the sake of recording. And then the Judge went on to ask questions to the witness and asked the witness to repeat what he had said since the beginning. But for some part that the Judge remembered, he just spoke it into the microphone without waiting for the witness to repeat himself, particularly about how Prachatai website was operated and regarding the removal button. It was recorded by the Judge himself and the contents seemed to be consistent with the testimonies given by the witness in the first place.  
 
Then, at the same point where he paused, the Judge allowed the lawyer to ask the question and to continue the examination. As for a question regarding users of webboard, Dr. Kittibhum said that it was composed of both those pro and anti coup.  
 
As for the screening of contents in the webboard, Dr. Kittibhum said he was not assigned to look out on any particular issues. He was aware that several members had been recruited by the webboard to help to look after it, but had no idea how many of them. He did not know any members personally, except their log in names used for posting their comments. Their role was to notify the webmaster about the removal of inappropriate posts and they were later called “voluntary webboard caretakers”.
 
The lawyer asked how better Prachatai compared to other webboards? The Court did not permit the question. The lawyer asked further about his use of the webboard. Dr. Kittibhum said that he had been using it from 2004 – 2010, until it was terminated with unknown reasons. But the website featuring news still remains. His involving in monitoring postings in the webboard was done outside working hours, from 21.00 to midnight.  
 
Around 10.30 am, the prosecutor got into the Courtroom asking the Court to conduct his re-examination, but since he had no idea about what had been testified, the Judge told him so in brief including the volunteer system to help monitor postings in the webboard.
 
Re-examination by the prosecutor  
 
The prosecutor asked who had the right to remove any inappropriate posts in the webboard. Dr. Kittibhum said it was not just the webmaster, but users were also allowed to request for removal of any posts, but the final say rested with the webmaster. But normally, for obviously inappropriate posts, the webmaster shall have them removed immediately. The prosecutor further asked that in this case, there were certain posts that appeared online for 11 days, and why was that so? Dr. Kittibhum said he had no idea about that.  
 
The prosecutor had no more questions to ask.  
 
14 February 2012
Examination of witness no.5, Ms. Sawatree Suksri (second round)
 
Around 10.32 am, the Judge invited Ms. Sawatree back in to testify again, and was consulting with the defence lawyers concerning the last witness in the afternoon. The Judge explained about the issues to be adduced by Ms. Sawatree and asked if the prosecutor had any objection. The prosecutor said that "we could just go by the facts. Thai laws should be subjected to interpretation by the Thai authorities.

Lawyer Theeraphan asked for the Judge’s permission to have the witness explain another issue. The Judge said “ormally, he would not allow a witness to express opinions since it was like having them to teach law to the Court. “If you want to guide the Court’s opinion, you’d better write it in the closing argument. Witness examination should just concern facts. There is no use in simply stating opinions, since they are not facts concerning the case” said the Judge.  
 
The accused tried to explain that the witness was supposed to expound on facts concerning procedure in the drafting of the CCA. Ms. Sawatree asked the Court what to do since no grace period of time for removing any illegal posts is specified in the Act? The Judge said it is subject to the discretion of the Court. “The Court does not have to believe in what you say. The Court may consider what to consider by themselves. You’ve got to understand the Court, too. You’ve got to be fair with the Court. And the Court has tried to look for things in favour of you”.  
 
Around 10.35 am, Lawyer Saengchai Rattanaseriwong, leading defence lawyer arrived in the Courtroom.
 
The accused asked the Court if it is possible to bring into the trial documents concerning the drafting of the Act? The Court said yes, but also said that “conducting examination like this would be too abstract. The Court tried to help. And legally, a closing argument could be submitted and it is a chance to convince the Court. There is no attempt to derail the examination. But these are all about opinions, not facts”. The lawyer tried to explain to the Judge to ask him to allow the continuation of the examination of the current witness.  
 
The Judge then explained to the lawyers, the accused and trial observers that it’s not that the Court had to be convinced by what the witness had to say. After completing the witness examination, the Judge still had to do his own research and to decide for how many days he would allow the examination to take place. “If you want to testify about what had been discussed in the Parliament (during the drafting of CCA), you’d better submit a written statement, and then I can decide. If you do it orally, the prosecutor may express objection. It’d be easier if you simply submit a written statement to the plaintiff”.  
 
Then the Judge explained to the prosecutor regarding what issues the witness was supposed to testify and asked if he would accept that. The prosecutor simply said, “it was up to Your Honor to adduce, I am fine with anything”.  
 
Then, the Judge asked the witness to stand under his bench, not in the witness dock, and started to ask her name, background, position and the issues to testify. Ms. Sawatree said that she wanted to speak on issues concerning the right to freedom of expression of the people and liability of the intermediaries. General principle holds that intermediaries or webmasters should not be held liable, if the commission of the offence has been done by a third party, except that the intermediaries are aware of the commission in the first place. And when the commission of an offence takes place, the intermediaries should be first notified by the officers who spot the illegal posts. Practically in USA, Canada, and some countries in Europe, intermediaries are allowed to cope with the illegal contents for up to 10-14 days since the day they are first informed. But reviewing Section 15 of CCA, one may find that there is no such a system of notification and no regulations concerning the liability of webmasters. (All detail was recorded in the docket, but not in witness examination report.)
 
Then, Ms. Sawatree stated her certification of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, during the Human Rights Council, Seventeenth session, Agenda item 3 presented on 16 May 2011, which stipulates that intermediaries and webmasters should not be held liable for the offence committed by webboard users.  
 
The prosecutor acknowledged the facts and then the Court asked for brining in the witness supposed to appear in the afternoon session to be immediately examined in the morning. Then, the Judge ordered adjournment of the session while waiting for the remaining witness.  
 
14 February 2012
Examination of witness no. 7, Assist. Prof. Jittat Fakcharoenphol, lecturer, Department of Computer Engineering, Kasetsart University and ICT expert  
 
Dr. Jittat Fakcharoenphol arrived at the Court around 11.15 and commenced on his testimony at around 11.30. His examination has been rescheduled to the morning at the instruction of the Court after Ms. Sawatree stated her certification of documentary evidence instead of being allowed to continue with witness examination. As a result, Dr. Jittat had to rush from Kasetart University, his office, to the Courtroom.
 
Dr. Jittat, 34 years, is working as an Assist. Prof. in Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University. He graduated with honor in computer engineering from Kasetsart University and got his master and doctorate degrees from the Department of Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley.  
 
Dr. Jittat stated that he got involved with Prachatai website since he was interested in internet and social media. In 2006, he wrote an article concerning the management of opinions in online community, published in Open Online. And the webmaster team of Prachatai spotted his article and invited him to attend a seminar on how to manage opinions in webboards in 2008. And since the term of the Board of Directors terminated, and no other remaining members were a computer expert, he got invited to be part of the Board of Directors and Treasurer, later. He has been giving advice on Prachatai webboard , how to manage the opinions posted and general computer system.  
 
The lawyer asked if there were any particular problems faced by Prachatai webboard then? Dr. Jittat said Prachatai webboard was run with a good system and based on help from volunteers recruited from the users. The volunteers had more power in the administration of the webboard than normal users and were able to hide any inappropriate posts. Then, the webmaster shall make another decision whether to continue hiding the posts or not. However, the webmaster also monitored other unhidden posts as well. Volunteers were recruited to make the monitoring more prompt and effective. There were around 300-400 topics posted everyday, each of which might carry up to 5 or 30-40 comments, should they be popular.  
 
In terms of how stringent the measures to manage the posts by the accused as Prachatai webmaster, the lawyer asked if the accused had ever sought the witness’s advice on how the administration of the webboard should be? Dr. Jittat said that Prachatai was concerned about a sharp increase in topics posted and that monitoring might not be sufficient. So they came ask for his opinion to develop a system of administration. He suggested a “machine based learning system and processing with natural language” which functions just like spam mail filter. Certain words shall be screened and the system learned how to screen out inappropriate words and showed those filtered out terms to the webmaster. This would help to make the screening faster. Nevertheless, Prachatai webboard was closed down prior to the introduction of such a system.  
 
The lawyer asked if Prachatai ever mentioned about an attempt to hire a staff member just to monitor the webboard 24 hours? Dr. Jittat said yes. But given the forbidden expenses, it was impossible. In addition, the number of topics posted seemed to have increase incessantly. There would still be a chance of error.  
 
Then Dr. Jittat was handed over with Exhibit J23-32 to view and testified that he had never seen these statements before. As an ordinary user of the webboard, he found most of the posts in there were related to political debate. Then, the lawyer asked about how a website differs from a webboard? The Judge did not permit the question since it dealt with issues which have already been examined.  
 
On technical issues, Dr. Jittat said that a hyperlink posted on the webboard can fetch contents from the server on the other end. Nevertheless, the data could be altered along the way and the same hyperlink accessed at different times may yield different contents. There is no guarantee that data on the server on the other end has not been altered. The Judge helped to summarize that the data (fetched by hyperlinks) is not stored in Prachatai webboard.  
 
Regarding Thunderbird, Dr. Jittat explained that it is an email client developed by Mozilla Trust. It operates by accessing email boxes in the service providers and brings the emails over to the users’ computer. The Judge asked how could the connection between Thunderbird and email service providers be established? Dr. Jittat replied that the software shall connect to the email system and download all emails available to the users’ computers. It does not matter how the data had been transferred in the first place. This makes it possible for Thunderbird users to read their emails offline or may set the email client to download data automatically to make it available during the offline period. The lawyer asked if it is possible that some files could have been downloaded unintentionally to the users’ computers? Dr. Jittat said normally, our computers shall store either image or data files from the websites we have browsed to save time when we check the same websites out next time. But the cache files are stored temporarily. When it reaches a certain limit, the cache shall be deleted automatically. Still, the files deleted cab be restored using some Recovery Program.
 
Dr. Jittat was given an image in Exhibit J17 to view and was asked by the lawyer if the image could have been downloaded intentionally and stored in computer, or could it have been saved from a website? Dr. Jittat said the image appeared to be an image file attached and forwarded via email and it can be automatically saved into a computer. Since the file name was saved based on the topic of the email, i.e., “Fwd” and it was saved in folder “Thunderbird”. Then, the lawyer gave a highlighting pen to the witness to highlight important phrases.  
 
Re-examination by the prosecutor  
The prosecutor asked Dr. Jittat if he has become a member of the Foundation’s Board of Directors early or later in 2008? Dr. Jittat said he could not remember that. The prosecutor asked further if during that time the accused was the webmaster of the webboard or not? Dr. Jittat said yes.  
 
The prosecutor asked, though during the time, there were many posts made, was the accused supposed to manage to have all inappropriate statements removed all the time? Dr. Jittat said, in principle, yes. The prosecutor asked if there were any inappropriate posts, should they be deleted? Dr. Jittat said if they were found inappropriate, they should be either hidden or removed. The prosecutor asked did such a duty have to be performed everyday and every time? Dr. Jittat said in principle, it should be done so.  
 
The prosecutor handed over Exhibit J32 to Dr. Jittat and asked him if he had come across those statements? Dr. Jittat said no. The prosecutor asked as a member of Prachatai website’s Board of Directors, has he ever got to read a post in the webboard? Dr. Jittat said yes, he read it as a webboard user.
 
Eventually, the prosecutor asked criteria concerning the hiding of inappropriate statements, will they be subject to consent from Prachatai? Dr. Jittat said no. Any posts could be hidden by any volunteers recruited by the webmaster.  
 
Re-examination by defence lawyer  
The defence lawyer gave a document cited as incriminating evidence for Dr. Jittat to view, and asked from viewing the printout, is it possible to tell if the document has been printed out directly from the web page, or from other sources? After viewing the document for a moment, Dr. Jittat said normally, a printout can be derived from data downloaded to a computer and it could be subject to editing. In addition, the print screen option can be stored as an image file and such an image file can be subject to alteration, as well.  
 
The witness examination was adjourned around 12.25 am. The Court read the docket for 14 February witness examination that two witnesses have been examined, and one witness examination is pending.  
 
15 February 2012
Examination of witness no.8, Mr. Wanchat Padungrat, founder of Pantip.com
 
Mr. Wanchat Padungrat, 48 years, a business entrepreneur, took his oath and started to testify at 10.00 am.
 
Mr. Wanchat stated that he is owner of Internet Marketing Co, Ltd., which operates Pantip.com, Pantipmarket.com, Bloggang.com and Pantown.com. In addition, he is an advisor to Thai Webmaster Association, composed of webmasters who want to monitor internet ethics.  
 
The lawyer asked what kind of services Pantip.com offer? While Mr. Wanchat was replying, the Judge intervened and said from his experience, Pantip.com features webboards allowing exchange on various topics on entertainment, science, etc. They are divided into 24 webboards containing topics posted by users. In one day, there can be as many as 1,000-2,000 topics posted generating several thousands or tens of thousands of comments a day.  
 
In terms of popularity, Mr. Wanchat said Pantip.com is one among the top ten websites in Thailand (recorded as “topnotch” by the Court). It boasts the highest number of users and main income is derived from advertisement.  
 
As for rule and etiquette, Pantip.com sets out ten rules, for example, (1) should a person post any comment to criticize or refer to the King and other royalties, the poster shall be banned from making any further posts.  
 
In terms of management, the lawyer asked if Pantip.com hires staff members to screen any information before having them disseminating in the webboard? Mr. Wanchat said the monitoring took place after the posting. There are staff members at different levels assigned to monitor the matter. Prescreening cannot be done due to two different reasons. First, owing to the quantity, since there are many users, it is impossible to screen all postings. Second, owing to the contents, though the webmaster gets to read all posts, but the discretion made by the webmaster may differ from the state officers. So it is impossible to check all the posts. As an advisor to the Thai Webmaster Association, he found that various webboards employ different methods in monitoring. The higher the number of users, the more stringent the regulations. But in general, there are no webboards with prescreening. They simply offer a feature for removal notification.  
 
The lawyer asked what would happen if webboards are required by the ISPs to prescreen every post before? Mr. Wanchat said that personally, there could be two impacts. First, it would create a lot of burden and require a lot of money for the service providers. Second, Thailand’s websites will become less competitive and may stand to lose income since users would shift to using webbaords in other countries since they can be accessed faster. And once the websites are hosted abroad, they may not be subject to Thailand’s jurisdiction.  
 
Apart from having a system to remove any inappropriate posts, Pantip.com also has a system to monitor offensive and abusive word using computer software. Once such a term is spotted, it shall be recognized and then removed from the webboard. Such a system had been employed since before CCA came into force. Still, it has at least two major constraints/drawbacks. First is the software cannot filter out inappropriate posts written with hidden meaning, or using symbols or metaphors.  
 
The lawyer asked about hiring staff members to look after webboards, but the Judge asked the lawyer to ask more precisely. The lawyer revised his question and asked if Pantip.com is able to monitor its webboards in all aspects? Mr. Wanchat said that given a massive number of posts and comments, it is not possible to fully monitor the webboards. The lawyer further asked after the enforcement of CCA, have his webboards been subject to any legal action? Mr. Wanchat said no. But certain users have been held liable.  
 
Cross examination by the prosecutor  
That Mr. Wanchat said Pantip.com has never been subject to any legal action, is that because Pantip.com employs an “excellent” monitoring system? Mr. Wanchat said it is possible. Whereas in the record of the Court, it was written that that Pantip.com has never been held liable, it could be because of its “good” monitoring system.  
 
The prosecutor asked Mr. Wanchat if it is possible for Pantip.com to monitor every post and comment? Mr. Wanchat paused, then the prosecutor intervened asking him to “please answer the question. You must have the best (monitoring system), right?” Mr. Wanchat said that in principle, we try to do the best. But it is impossible given the massive amount of posts and comments.  
 
The prosecutor asked further about the quantity of posts and comments and asked if any posts with the word “The King” shall draw a lot of views from users, is that correct? Mr. Wanchat said sometimes. It depends on if the readers get to read and understand the topic or not. The prosecutor protested that he did not ask about the perception of the readers. And he added to his previous question that, a topic gains many views, will the service providers get to see the topic more visbly? Mr. Wanchat said Pantip.com has no system to check the number of views per topic. But it has a system of notification when any inappropriate posts are spotted. The prosecutor said he did not mean to ask that question.  
 
The Judge repeated the question and Mr. Wanchat said that his staff members only know where very popular topics are located in which webboard.
 
The prosecutor further asked how does the measure mentioned above fit the monitoring system? Mr. Wanchat said that the webboard is designed with a button to report/a phone number to notify when any inappropriate posts are spotted. In addition, staff members are also hired to monitor and have certain posts removed immediately. The prosecutor repeated the question that since there is no prescreening, but when a poster posts something inappropriate and once it is spotted, it shall be subject to removal immediately or not? Mr. Wanchat said yes.  
 
The prosecutor gave him Exhibit J23 to view and asked once he gets to read the statements, how does he feel? Mr. Wanchat said he could not understand the meaning. Superficially, they seem to refer to different actors and are concerned with politics. Then the prosecutor gave him Exhibit J32 to view and Mr. Wanchat said that one needs to have some background to approach it as a lèse-majesté statement (recorded by the Court as it can be construed as a lèse-majesté statement, but more background information needs to be supplied). Then the prosecutor gave him more Exhibits to view, the Judge said just one should be enough. Despite that, the prosecutor asked for the Court’s permission for Mr. Wanchat to view Exhibit J31 which contain lèse-majesté statements. Mr. Wanchat said in light of Pantip.com’s regulations, such statements are deemed inappropriate, but he was not sure if they would be illegal. The prosecutor asked in light of Pantip.com’s regulation, will such a post be removed? Mr. Wanchat said all of them have to be removed. The prosecutor asked further that if any inappropriate posts are found (in a website), will the service providers be held responsible? Mr. Wanchat saud yes. But Pantip.com has a notification system.  
 
Re-examination by defence lawyer
The lawyer asked in order to post something in reference to the King, how could one manage to do so? Mr. Wanchat said the poster may use some metaphors or aliases. But those outside the circle or have never read any lèse-majesté message, may not find them an insult to the monarchy.  
 
The witness examination on 15 February 2012 was adjourned at 10.37 am. The Judge asked about the witness for tomorrow and when learned that it was going to be Assist. Prof. Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, he proposed that a research paper could be submitted instead of witness examination, similar to the case of Ms. Sawatree Suksri. The witness can also come to testify further in the Court. He asked and the prosecutor had no objection and the lawyers also concurred.  
 
16 February 2012
Examination of witness no. 9, Assist. Prof. Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, Ph.D., Vice Dean on Graduates’ Affairs, Department of Journalism, Chulalongkorn University, as mass media expert and researcher on internet content oversight  
 
On the last day of defence witness examination, there were representatives from embassies, OHCHR, international human rights organizations, academics and general public, about 30 of them, during the trial.  
 
Around 13.45, Assist. Prof. Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, Ph.D., Vice Dean on Graduates’ Affairs, Department of Journalism, verbally certified the document submitted to the Court. Asked about her educational background, the witness answered the Court that she obtained her doctorate from Simon Fraser University in Canada and has conducted a comprehensive research in the supervision of internet contents to comply with its technology and international possibilities. The research was commissioned by Thailand Research Fund. The research report proposes regulation to stem illegal contents in the internet and how notifications can be made and how they can be removed.  
 
Assut. Prof. Pirongrong further testified that she is also adviser to master degree thesis on the supervision and intervention of political webboard after the 19 September 2006 coup using Prachatai website as a case study. It was found that after the coup, webmasters of four webboards including Prachatai have set out regulations to screen out contents concerning the monarchy and false information.  
 
In addition to academic works, Assut. Prof. Pirongrong also servers in the Ad-hoc Committee to review the National Broadcast and Television Control Act 2008 and the Act on the Organization to Assign Radio Frequency Spectrum and Regulate the Sound Broadcasting, Television Broadcasting and Telecom Services 2010. (The information was recorded in the docket rather than in the witness examination report.)
 
The examination was adjourned at 13.58, and consultation was made regarding the day to read out the verdict with the prosecutor and the lawyers. Since the accused is supposed to have a business trip in April, the Court scheduled to read the verdict on 30 April 2012 at 10.00 am.  
 
It should be note that the Judge told both parties along with trial observers that he will review the case based on the rule of law and facts and place importance on business interest. All should be informed that the legal defence shall not end at this level of court. The accused can also defend herself in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. The Court of Lower Instance shall manage to collect information as most accurate as possible and it shall benefit the defence in higher courts. Please be confident that personnel with sufficient knowledge in the internet system have been recruited to review the case.