Each country has a different system of prosecution and this affects the discretion of prosecutors, that is to say, in Germany and Thailand, the prosecution system is based on the legality principle and the opportunity principle is an exception. This makes it the responsibility of public prosecutors to prosecute every case where there is enough evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. On the other hand, in the United States of America and Japan, the opportunity principle is the main system, which gives public prosecutors wide discretion in deciding whether to prosecute a person who has committed a crime, even with enough evidence if the public prosecutor believes that pursuing a case will not be beneficial to the state. These differences in each country's prosecution system may be attributed to their historical developments. Regardless of whether a country in the common law system, such as the United States of America, or a country in the civil law system, such as Japan, even though the public prosecutors have discretion in not bringing a case to trial, there is a system for reviewing the use of that discretion by public prosecutors from external organizations. For example, in the United States, checks and balances are maintained by the citizens because the majority of public prosecutors in the United States enter their positions through elections and have terms of office. Accordingly, if a public prosecutor makes a decision not to prosecute that is not favored, they will not be re-elected. Japan and Germany have established rules that allow victims to file an objection to the Chief Prosecutor and then submit a petition to the court for review of the prosecutor's non-prosecution order. Such criteria have been stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. Thailand has also established a system for reviewing the decisions of public prosecutors not to file criminal charges. Executive and police organizations are responsible for this review. Additionally, the rights of victims to file criminal charges are not restricted to cases where public prosecutors have decided not to file criminal charges. However, there is still no legal provision in the Criminal Procedure Code that enables the Court of Justice to assume responsibility for examining the prosecutors' non-prosecution order. The researcher proposes that criteria for compulsory prosecution proceedings be established in the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, similar to those in Germany and Japan. The proposal details are as follows:
1. Only the injured person, or a person authorized to act on their behalf, can submit a petition to the court requesting compulsory prosecution proceedings, if the public prosecutor declines to file charges. However, this principle does not apply in cases compoundable offense.
2. The injured person must file a written protest with the Attorney General within one month of being notified of their right to object, in the case where the non-prosecution order is not made by the Attorney General. The injured person must be notified of their right
to submit a further objection to the Attorney General, and if they are not notified, the one-month period will not commence.
3. The appellate court is responsible for determining whether the Attorney General's absolute non-prosecution order was made in accordance with the law. The injured person must file a written complaint with the appellate court within one month of being notified of the Attorney General's absolute non-prosecution order. They must be notified of their right to file a complaint and protest, and if they are not notified, the one-month period will not commence.
4. Submitting a petition to the court requesting compulsory prosecution proceedings must have an attorney, who signs together with the injured person. If the injured person does not have an attorney and needs one, the court will appoint one. The petition must provide a brief description of the facts of the case, including the evidence, and state the reasons why it is unjust for the public prosecutor to decline prosecution and why the public prosecutor should be required to file the lawsuit.
5. If the appellate court agrees with the Attorney General's order, it raises a petition. If the court does not agree, it must order the public prosecutor to file the lawsuit with the appropriate court of first instance, allowing the injured person to participate through a
prosecutor.
6. The injured person, upon submitting a petition to the court requesting compulsory prosecution proceedings, shall forfeit the right to initiate criminal proceedings in person as provided in section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code.