In its report dated September 30, 2025, the NHRC found that the documents presented during the parliamentary debate contained sufficient valid grounds to be considered authentic, as it outlined the structure of the Special Security Working Group, defined its strategy, and detailed the IO plans449. These elements describe the specific tactics and methods employed by security agencies, leading to the conclusion that the material was produced internally450. The NHRC also stated that creating a target list of persons or organizations for surveillance constitutes the collection and use of personal data for hostile purposes, amounting to a violation of human rights451. According to the NHRC’s report, the Royal Thai Army maintained that the documents presented during the parliamentary debate are not Special Security Working Group documents and were not produced by the army452. The army explained that the Special Security Working Group was established to address complex security challenges involving multiple security agencies, ensure alignment with government policy, and monitor security situations that could affect the army’s operations and the nation’s core institutions453. It also stated that it does not compile targeted lists intended to create social division, and instead focuses on promoting accurate information454. The Ministry of Defence, the Royal Thai Navy, and the Royal Thai Air Force all stated that they have no policies or practices that infringe on citizens’ rights and freedoms, and that they were not involved with any documents used in the parliamentary debate455. They further emphasized that their public relations activities do not constitute IO; instead, they aim to promote knowledge, understanding, good relations, and resilience against disinformation, without targeting any specific group456. The Royal Thai Police also stated that there is no Special Security Working Group or joint military-police operations center, and that no target lists have been compiled 457. However, they acknowledged that they monitor activities that can threaten national security in accordance with the law458. “Report 232/2568 – Privacy & Free-Speech Complaint: State Security Agency’s Watchlist Targeting Individuals and Organizations.” National Human Rights Commission, 27 Oct. 2025, www.nhrc.or.th/th/Examination-reports/16196. 450. Ibid. 451. Ibid. 452. Ibid. 453. Ibid. 454. Ibid. 455. Ibid. 456. Ibid. 457. Ibid. 458. Ibid. 449. 90