On Tuesday, a network of Thailand-based human rights and civil society groups held a panel discussion in response to a review of the country’s human rights situation by the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee and delivered its verdict on the state representatives’ response to the committee in Geneva.

While the state representatives tried to earn Thailand – as ruled by a non-democratic regime – credit for adhering to human rights principles, the panel in Bangkok said that the government had not done enough in this area and the state representatives had omitted concerning points.

For instance, regarding gender equality, the representatives had claimed on Monday that the country was mulling to pass laws that would foster and promote equality in the LGBT community, said Daranee Tongsiri, an LGBT activist working in southern Thailand. However, in reality the viability of the laws is still in question, she said.

“It should also be noted that these laws have been written by the state and we hardly have any part in it,” she said.

Daranee said that the state sometimes wrote laws so it could claim that it had already done its job but the application of those laws was unsatisfactory, she said.

Adisorn Kerdmongkol, a migrant worker and refugee rights activist, said that while the country’s statement to the UN indicated that it had friendly policies towards foreign workers, the implementation of the policies was still selective.

He said, for instance, that the free medical service for immigrant workers as promised by law could be used very strictly. Migrant workers who had not registered with the state are not covered by the scheme, Adisorn said.

The panel also heard that the junta’s move to send a large number of delegates to explain the country’s rights situation showed its insecurity in the eyes of the international community. As a result, the junta tended to “create an image” of being a watered down military-installed government.

Sunai Phasuk, senior researcher on Thailand at Human Rights Watch’s Asia division, said that the junta had made promises to the international community in response to its concerns, but those words yielded very little results.

For instance, Sunai said the junta responded to international concerns by saying it would suspend using the Military Court to try civilians. But in reality, many cases remain before the Military Court, he said.

To make the country’s attendance in Geneva truly meaningful, Sinai proposed that the junta stop using its absolute power under Article 44 of the interim charter and cancel or review its measures that resulted in violation of human rights.

Yaowalak Anupan, head of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, said that another image the junta liked to project is its respect of the law.

However, Yaowalak said that the laws the regime adheres to are only those it wrote under Article 44, such as the order to authorise officers to search or detain people deemed by the regime to be a threat to national security.

Yaowalak said that she hopes that after explaining the rights situation to the UN, the state will adhere to international law.