Evidence Extraction From The Body Of The Accused An Analysis Of Section 131/1 Of The Criminal

Abstract

Background and Aims: The criminal justice process is fundamentally oriented toward discovering the truth, relying on evidentiary mechanisms to establish factual accuracy. Among the various forms of evidence, scientific evidence derived from the accused's body holds particular probative value due to its high precision and reliability. Such evidence includes chemical testing, DNA analysis, examination of bodily fluids, toxicological screening, and radiological imaging, all of which may decisively demonstrate an individual’s involvement in—or exclusion from—criminal conduct. This article aims to achieve three principal objectives. First, the findings of this study reveal that Section 131/1 was enacted with the intention of empowering the State to access the body of the accused for the purpose of obtaining scientific evidence—such as blood, saliva, DNA, narcotics, or physical injury traces—to determine whether the accused is connected to the alleged offense. However, the provision grants inquiry officials relatively broad discretionary authority and lacks explicit mechanisms for judicial oversight. In particular, the law does not clearly require prior court authorization for invasive or high-risk procedures, such as blood extraction, surgical intervention, or examinations that may endanger bodily integrity. Second, it undertakes a comparative analysis of legal principles and operational practices in jurisdictions that maintain robust protections for suspects’ rights, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Third, it proposes policy-oriented recommendations to reform Thai law, enhancing compliance with international human rights standards and promoting a balanced relationship between the State's investigative powers and the protection of individual rights and liberties. Comparative analysis demonstrates that jurisdictions with stringent safeguards for suspects’ rights recognize the legitimacy and evidentiary importance of bodily examinations but impose far more rigorous procedural controls than those found in Thai law. In the United States, such measures are governed by the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause and, in many instances, a judicial warrant. The United Kingdom applies the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which categorizes bodily examinations in detail and prescribes differentiated procedures based on the degree of intrusion. Germany mandates judicial authorization for most examinations that significantly interfere with personal rights and strictly applies the principle of proportionality. France places bodily examinations under the supervision of judicial authorities and medical professionals, with formalized procedures that allow the accused to raise objections. These systems collectively demonstrate transparent, accountable, and reviewable frameworks that effectively balance state interests with the protection of fundamental rights—frameworks that remain insufficiently developed under Thai law.

Methodology: The study adopts a documentary research method, drawing upon the Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 131/1, relevant judgments, legal commentaries, academic works, and comparative along with the Thai Criminal Procedure principle and comparative with the foreign law, legal articles and legislative recommendations for addressing the current ambiguities in the law.

Results: The study further indicates that reform of Section 131/1 should prioritize clarity, transparency, and accountability in the conduct of bodily examinations. Legislative amendments should clearly delineate the permissible types of examinations, establish explicit conditions for their conduct, and incorporate the principles of necessity and proportionality as binding legal standards. Judicial authorization should be mandated for highly intrusive procedures, consistent with comparative international practice. Moreover, operational standards should emphasize respect for human dignity, require examinations to be conducted by qualified medical personnel, ensure careful management and protection of biological data, and introduce effective sanctions or remedial mechanisms in cases of abuse of authority.

Conclusion: While the collection of scientific evidence from the accused's body is an indispensable tool in modern criminal justice, its use must remain strictly confined within a legal framework that guarantees the rights and freedoms of the accused. Although Section 131/1 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code formally recognizes such rights, its practical application remains unclear with respect to the scope of investigative authority and the adequacy of rights protections. This ambiguity has generated ongoing legal and ethical debates, particularly concerning potential human rights violations. Accordingly, this article advocates for comparative, rights-based reform to align Thai law with the rule of law and international human rights standards.