Thailand: Joint Amicus Curiae Challenging the Use of Shackles in Court Hearings

Drawing on international standards and empirical research, the brief highlights that the use of physical restraints in courtrooms often constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the European Court of Human Rights have consistently emphasized that shackling must be strictly necessary, proportionate, and based on individualized risk assessments. Restraints should only be employed when there is clear, concrete evidence of a security risk, and never as a routine or punitive measure. Public exposure to shackles not only humiliates but also erodes the dignity of the accused, with potentially prejudicial effects on the fairness of the trial.

Leg restraints severely restrict movement and pose significant health risks, including injuries from falls, abrasions, deep vein thrombosis, and necrosis. This risk intensifies with prolonged use during transport or court appearances. Weighted leg cuffs, in particular, are highly intrusive and degrading, prompting calls from the UN Special Rapporteur on torture for their outright prohibition.

Beyond physical harm, shackling inflicts profound psychological damage, causing feelings of shame, loss of control, and increased anxiety, especially for those with prior trauma. When used unnecessarily in court, shackles stigmatize individuals as dangerous or guilty, undermining the fundamental presumption of innocence enshrined in international law. Such visible restraints risk biasing judges, juries, and the public, threatening the integrity and legitimacy of judicial proceedings.

For human rights defenders, who play a vital role in safeguarding democratic values and civic space, these concerns are even more urgent. The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders mandates States to protect defenders from violence, intimidation, and arbitrary judicial actions. Shackling defenders in court not only symbolically criminalizes their legitimate work but also chills wider civil society engagement by eroding public trust in judicial impartiality. Courts must therefore exercise heightened scrutiny before authorizing any restraints on human rights defenders, recognizing the broader implications for democracy and the right to defend rights.

On 21 July 2025, the court acknowledged that shackling can affect a person’s dignity and psychological well-being, but ruled that its use in Arnon Nampa’s case complied with domestic law and did not constitute treatment contrary to the Torture Prevention Act. This decision can still be appealed.