A/HRC/19/2 undermined its compliance with international human rights law, including the restriction of freedom of expression through the use of the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crimes Act, as well as the draconian special security laws. It regretted Thailand’s rejection of recommendations on the abolition of the death penalty, despite the reference of the second national human rights plan of action to parliamentary debate of capital crimes and the replacement of the death penalty with life imprisonment. Thailand should devote adequate resources to the planned study on the possibility of abolition, which should benefit from broad consultations. It urged Thailand to set target dates for the conclusion of its consideration of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol thereto. 528. Amnesty International expressed its disappointment that Thailand had rejected the recommendations to abolish the death penalty and had resumed executions in 2009 after a hiatus of six years. It was concerned that all death row prisoners continued to be shackled, despite a court decision in 2009 declaring the practice illegal, and that over half of all death sentences were passed for drug-related offences, in contravention of international law. Amnesty International stated that Muslim insurgents had committed acts constituting war crimes, while security forces had used torture and other ill-treatment in their counterinsurgency efforts. No official or member of the security forces had been prosecuted for human rights violations since the conflict resumed in 2004. It urged Thailand to suspend application of the lèse majesté law and the Computer-related Crime Act until they were brought into compliance with international standards, and to release prisoners of conscience detained under these laws. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under review 529. The delegation of Thailand indicated that it would not be able to respond to all the concerns raised, but wished to clarify some key concerns. 530. With regard to past political violence, Thailand intended to make every effort to further national reconciliation by providing justice for all the victims and ensuring an inclusive process of political dialogue. 531. Thailand attached the highest priority to the rights of all vulnerable groups and intended to do more. 532. Concerning the security laws, Thailand reiterated its policy of progressively ending their use as the situation improved. Regarding section 17 of the Emergency Decree, this provision did not grant immunity to State officials. It did not preclude the right of persons to seek compensation for wrongdoing. While Thailand was not in a position to accept recommendations to repeal this provision or to review its security laws, it accepted recommendations to increase its efforts to put an end to impunity. This reflected its determination to address this challenge, including through awareness-raising on the rule of law and human rights principles for law enforcement officers, while ensuring justice for all affected persons. 533. Although Thailand was not a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol thereto, it had always lived up to its humanitarian obligations. Thailand’s unique location required that it consider the security implications of these instruments. Nevertheless, a mechanism was in place to review Thailand’s position, and further consideration of this matter would be made. 534. Given the large number of migrants, Thailand had to handle the matter of migration carefully. It had made progress on the protection of migrant workers, but more needed to be done. Thailand would study the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, though its final position would 212 GE.13-14768