Equality between the parties in a criminal case in the event that the Attorney General certifies the Supreme Court’s decision of the public prosecutor in a human trafficking case: An analysis of the Constitutional Decision No. 7/2567

Abstract

The priciple of equality between persons and the principle against unjust discrimination based on differences in personal status are considered important elements of a fair trial in criminal cases. Article 45, paragraph 4 of the Act on the Procedure of Human Trafficking Cases B.E. 2559, grants the Attorney General, or the prosecutor authorized by the Attorney General, the power to certify - by affixing their signature to the prosecutor’s appeal - that there are reasonable grounds for the Supreme Court to consider the case. This certification deems the matter a significant legal question that the Supreme Court must accept for review. However, this provision is considered unfair to the accused who does not have the same right of appeal as the prosecutor. As a result, the case has been broght before  the Constitutional Court to determine whether this provision contradicts Section 27, paragraph 1 and 3 of the Constitution, which guarantee the priciple of equality and prohibit unjust discrimination based on personal status. This article aims to analyze the legal status of the parties in criminal proceedings - particularly that of the prosecutor - and to compare criminal procedures in Thailand and France. It seeks to determine whether, and how,  Constitutionsl Court Decision No. 7/2567 aligns with international legal principles and the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.