ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship Lack of Anti-SLAPP and Whistleblowers Protection: A Challenge for Freedom of Speech that they would be charged with committing crimes The national legal system does not provide any rights abuses and their families in Laos routinely definition of HRDs as the term is considered to be avoid seeking justice for fear of reprisals.107 This also “very broad and vague” and the Declaration on HRDs hints at the case of Anousa ‘Jack’ Luangsouphoum. is likewise “very open and all-encompassing.” 103 As of December 2023, there is no suspect list or any Therefore, there is no legal framework to protect HRDs. type of measures undertaken by the Lao authorities Statutory provisions on anti-SLAPP are non-existent to indicate that a proper investigation is currently and enforced disappearance is neither defined or underway. This lack of progress raises concerns criminalised. about his access to remedies for the harm he has 104 Equally absent is a comprehensive regime on witnesses and whistleblowers protection. 105 Somphone’s family was warned by the authorities against national security should they try to find the whereabouts of these activists. Victims of human experienced. For instance, in the case of Muay, she was denied The absence of specific provisions for appealing prompt access to and assistance by a legal counsel, against the abuse of power by public authorities in due process, the right to a fair trial, and an opportunity relevant cyber laws exacerbates the vulnerabilities to appeal. During her detention, she was denied faced by online users. Additionally, the lack of bail and forced to confess guilt without a lawyer or procedural safeguards and independent, effective judge present. As mentioned above, she was also oversight further undermines the legal framework. not given the option to choose her own counsel and As a result, individuals who experience incorrect the state appointed her a lawyer without explaining interpretation and application of cyber laws are less how the lawyer was appointed or prior consultation likely to have access to redress.108 with her. Her state-appointed legal counsel allegedly neither spoke with Muay regarding her case, nor advocated on her behalf. Instead, the counsel reportedly assisted the government in obtaining Non-Judicial Grievance Mechanisms, Existent but Not Independent a forced confession from her. She never received Despite receiving numerous UPR recommendations her case file, such as the court order pronouncing for its establishment during Lao PDR (Laos)’s her sentencing. Her parents specifically asked her third Universal Periodic Review in January 2020, counsel for such an order, but the Court refused to the country still lacks a National Human Rights provide it to them as well. Additionally, Muay was not Institution.109 Furthermore, national governmental given the opportunity to appeal against the decision bodies with mandates relating to human rights, of the court. She did not have access to remedy in including the National Steering Committee on Human light of these fundamental breaches of her rights. Rights, are not independent bodies compliant with 106 Similar issues were manifest in the prosecution of three pro-democracy activists: Lodkham Thammavong, Somphone Phimmasone, and Soukan Chaithad in 2016-2017. Their families were barred from accessing remedies. Soukan’s family lodged a complaint regarding his detention at the local police station but there were no reports of a response from the authorities. 140 international standards, as noted by the UN Human Rights Committee.110 The Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs serving as the secretariat of the National Steering Committee on Human Rights indicates a lack of independence, as it implies a subordinate relationship.111 Dawn of Digital Dictatorship: Weaponizing the Law Against Online Speech in Southeast Asia