Taiwan’s courts have handed down not guilty verdicts in two notable cases this week. Former president Chen Shui-bian was found not guilty in the Supreme Court in the special diplomatic funds case. The verdict was only briefly reported by most media, however its significance should not be ignored.

The verdict further vindicates A-bian’s claims that he is innocent and a victim of political persecution. In November last year A-bian and his co-defendants were all found not guilty in the financial mergers case. However, just one week later the Supreme Court ruled that A-bian and his wife Wu Shu-jen were guilty in the Longtan land deal case.

In the period between these two verdicts there was a firestorm of rhetoric from KMT politicians urging voters to show their contempt for the not guilty verdict by voting for the KMT in the upcoming elections. This subsequently led some people to question the independence of the judiciary when it handed down a guilty verdict and long prison sentences to A-bian and his wife just one week later.

The other case involves Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬). Su was found not guilty of corruption charges by the District Court today. This case dates back to November 2008 which was around the same time that A-bian was first detained. Su went on an 11 day hunger strike to protest her detention before she was indicted and released. At the time of her detention Su claimed that she was a victim of “judicial persecution” and her claim is now vindicated.

Tsai Ing-wen posted the following comment on her Facebook page regarding the verdict in Su’s case. My translation in English follows.

今天下午，蘇治芬縣長在一審獲判無罪，在等待判決的這段期間，我相信雲林鄉親和我一樣，對蘇縣長個人能力、操守一直抱以高度的肯定和信任，現在司法還給蘇縣長清白，也還給所有的雲林鄉親一個公道，個人感到相當欣慰。

同時，檢察系統動輒政治辦案，濫刑起訴、濫權收押，侵害人民司法人權的嚴重狀況，已經到了不得不全面檢討、改革的地步，這也將是未來我們推動司法改革的重點。

[This afternoon Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen was found not guilty in the first hearing. During the period of waiting for the verdict I believe that the people of Yunlin County have always kept their trust in the ability and personal integrity of Su just like I have. The justice system has returned Su's state of innocence. It has also given the people of Yunlin County a sense of justice. Everybody can have a sense of feeling gratified.

At the same time, the prosecutors have easily politicised cases, indiscriminately filed charges and excessively used pre-trial detention. The situation of judicial rights is serious and infringes on everyone. It has reached the point where there is no choice but to make the promotion of a comprehensive review and reform of the justice system a key focus in the future.]

I was disappointed by Tsai’s weak response to my question about the death penalty at the meeting last Saturday. However, her comments about judicial reform in response to another question were much more impressive. I think these comments show that Tsai realises judicial reform is a task of the utmost importance if she is elected to the presidency. However, despite her legal background this is a task that Tsai cannot complete on her own. She needs strong support from the legal community and all those who support human rights and justice in Taiwan.

In June 2009 Professor Jerome Cohen expressed his dismay at the failure of legal scholars in Taiwan to speak out more about the problems in the judicial system. In the past couple of weeks we have seen the government’s fiery response to an open letter by a group of concerned Taiwan scholars. Most of the signatories to the letter are based overseas so it is not surprising scholars in Taiwan are reluctant to make similar petitions. However, as long they continue to be passive in the face of injustice it will only continue. And if it is allowed to continue then they may find themselves becoming victims. This is not a time for silence. It is time to speak out.

• A monkey in the mountains
• End of semester at Shi-Da
• Learning to read Chinese
• A road movie with a difference
• Learning Mandarin in Taiwan

Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) spoke to a group of foreign residents in Taipei yesterday morning. She first spent some time outlining her vision for Taiwan before taking questions from the floor.  Tsai is currently on leave from her position as chair of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as she competes in the party’s primary for the presidential nomination. The primary will be decided by opinion polls conducted in the next few days with the announcement of the result expected on 4 May.

In outlining her vision for Taiwan, Tsai focused mainly on relations with China and economic policy. She had some interesting ideas about Taiwan’s future economic development.

On the issue of jobs Tsai said, “We don’t have enough jobs and enough good jobs. Despite the fact you may be able to find a job, you may not be able to find a job with good pay. So the quality of jobs is important too.” Tsai then discussed how this was related to the structure of the economy. Since the 1990s as Taiwanese businesses and capital moved to China the restructuring of the economy was delayed.

This led to Tsai mentioning the effect of large numbers of Chinese tourists coming to Taiwan. “With the outward movement of industrial production to China we are exporting higher pay, better jobs to China. With the inflow of Chinese tourists we are actually importing lower pay service jobs,” Tsai said.

Tsai presented some of her ideas for creating better jobs in Taiwan. These revolved around promoting R&D industries and locating these in rural areas. She also mentioned encouraging artists to move to rural areas. Tsai also mentioned the importance of agriculture. She said Taiwan needs more professional farmers and that people from the cities need to move to the country to get involved in agriculture. These ideas are laudable but I would like to see some more concrete details of the policies.

After Tsai had talked about her vision for Taiwan there was a question and answer session. Letters from Taiwan has written about his question to Tsai on how she would deal with Beijing’s potential hostility and aggression towards the DPP.

During the question and answer session I asked Tsai, “If you are elected president will you impose a moratorium on the death penalty and will you take measures to permanently abolish the death penalty?”

Tsai replied, ”The [abolition of the] death penalty is a global trend, but before you move in that direction you have to make sure your people are prepared. If your people are not prepared you’re creating more obstacles for yourself to move towards that direction.”

“How do you make them prepared for that? You have to give them this sense of security. That is you have a good social system that protects people. And secondly you have a good judicial system which makes right decisions in cases brought to them. And then when people feel comfortable you start to tell them what we need to do in order to move forward to that goal,” she said.

Her reply only focused on the issue of abolition and she didn’t mention whether she had any intention of implementing a moratorium on the death penalty if elected to the presidency. A moratorium is a first step and doesn’t require the legal changes necessary for abolition. Taiwan had a moratorium from December 2005 to April 2010.

Unfortunately it seems that in the present political environment politicians from both the DPP or the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are unwilling to take a principled stand on the issue of the death penalty. However, it is only through politicians taking leadership on the issue that abolition will be achieved. I hope Tsai will be more willing to directly confront this issue if she gets elected.

In responding to another question Tsai made some more substantial comments about the importance of judicial reform. ”To strengthen the protection of human rights we need to carry out a comprehensive judicial reform here. I was a law professor for a long time. I know this judicial system is not serving as the protector of justice or the protector for the disadvantaged people here. So the judicial system is the most important thing to make sure that your democracy is functioning properly and your human rights are protected,” she said.

The current controversy over appointments to the Grand Council of Justices, the gross miscarriage of justice in the Hsichih Trio case as it goes to another retrail and concerns about politicisation of the judiciary show that this is a vital issue. A professional and independent judiciary is vital for a healthy democracy. Ma Ying-jeou’s KMT government has repeatedly failed to deliver on its promises of judicial reform. Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP deserve a chance to see if they can do better.

*Video of the entire event can by viewed on YouTube. I have collected the six videos in a playlist. Also see CNA’s report on the meeting.

• Possible DPP & KMT vice presidential candidates
• Who will be Tsai’s running mate?
• Time to speak out against injustice
• Thousands march for Tibet in Taipei
• Will Ma meet the Dalai Lama?

Members of the Atayal community of Hagay (哈凱部落) protested outside the Executive Yuan in Taipei today. They called on the government to provide permanent housing to replace the temporary housing they have been living in for ten years. They also called on the government to take responsibility for the impacts of the construction of the Baling Dam in the catchment of the Shimen Reservoir.

The Hagay community originally lived in a remote location in Fuxing Township of Taoyuan County (桃園縣復興鄉). About twenty years ago the community decided to move to a new location near the Baling Bridge (巴陵橋) on the Northern Cross Island Highway to make it easier for the children to get to school.

The construction of a check dam to control sediment at Baling and the impacts of Typhoon Herb in 1996 and Typhoon Aere in 2004 washed away the community’s land. They were forced to move into temporary housing. In the photo above Dai Li-juan (戴禮娟) is talking about the difficulties families face in the temporary housing which they have had to live in for more than ten years.

The community presented a letter of appeal to a representative of the Executive Yuan. They called on the central government to provide them with permanent housing and to take responsibility for the damage to their land and the ecology of the river caused by the construction of the Baling Dam.

The experience of the Hagay community also raises broader concerns about the impacts of engineering works and construction of dams in the Shimen Reservoir catchment area. Eight major check dams have been constructed in the catchment of the Shimen Reservoir in an attempt to reduce sediment flows into the reservoir. The Baling Dam was destroyed by Typhoon Wipha in 2007.

The photo above shows the Yufeng Dam in July 2010 at Marqwang which is further upstream from Baling. The dam is already filled with sediment so it serves no useful function except to harm the ecology of the river. I have only been making observations in the area for about a year but residents of the area tell of how the stream was much deeper and full of fish before the dam was constructed.

The government spends billions of dollars on engineering works in an attempt to maintain the quality of water in the Shimen Reservoir, but the effectiveness of the works is questionable. The case of the Hagay community shows the direct effects of these works on people living in the catchment area. If the construction of the Gaotai and Bilin dams goes ahead then the impacts on the Atayal communities in the area will be of an even greater magnitude.

• The ancient trees of Lala Shan
• 314 Tibet protest in Taipei
• Visit to village relocation site in Alishan
• Close Songshan Airport
• New media in Taiwan

On the evening of 26 February a group of Taiwanese university students in Taipei went out to show their support for the Jasmine Revolution in China. While attempting to cross the road they were blocked from crossing by a group of plain-clothes people claiming to be police officers. The video embedded above shows the incident. The Taipei Times has also reported on the incident.

The students involved in the incident have established the “226 Students Self-Help Group” (226學生自救小組) and have created a blog, Facebook page and YouTube channel. I have translated the description of the event from the 226 students’ blog below.

On the evening of 26 February a group of students supporting the Jasmine Revolution in China headed to Taipei’s Xinyi District in the hope of sending a message supporting democratisation and political reform in China to the Chinese government representative Chen Yunlin. At around nine o’clock about 20 students from National Taiwan University, Tsing Hua University, National Chengchi University and Tunghai University encountered and were blocked by about 40 people, believed to plain-clothes police officers, who did not clearly identify themselves. Then a violent verbal and physical conflict occurred which resulted in one student suffering bruising to the head and arm. This group of unclearly identified police were clearly acting against the Police Duties Enforcement Act by not wearing a uniform and not producing identification. Furthermore they did not give the three warnings required under the Parade and Assembly Law and just encircled the students. They also made threats that all the students would be arrested. No matter whether they are police or not, why did the government engage in violent actions in the middle of the busy eastern district of Taipei?

The entire event was captured on video by the students and has been uploaded to the internet. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-vr0k0qWdo [video embedded above].

During this incident that occurred at the corner of Songshou and Songren roads, the students asked who are these people claiming to be police officers but not wearing uniforms? From the beginning to the end they resisted showing their identification badges or telling their police identification number. They also had no identifying marks or symbols on their clothing. Yet throughout the event they acted towards the students as if they were exercising police powers. If they really were police why didn’t they show their identification? Those plain-clothes people acted illegally. They also created a wall preventing the students’ free movement and they singled out students for intimidation. When the students tried to cross the zebra crossing the plain-clothes people violently attacked them and made verbal threats. What makes us most angry is that these plain-clothes people claiming to be police forcefully dragged and pulled the students crossing the road. One student was forcefully pushed down and injured. At the same time they unceasingly made threats such as “We’ll arrest all of you,” and “You don’t want to try it on too much.” They threatened, “You’ve made us start collecting evidence.” They demanded that the students show their ID card and said, “You’ve already broken the Parade and Assembly Law.” When the students asked why they hadn’t given a clear warning according to the Assembly Law, they gave no positive answer. At the same time pedestrians were coming and going. It was clear that the area wasn’t a controlled area as only the group of students was prevented from moving.

Due the plain-clothes people claiming to be police refusing to show identification from start to finish, the students at the scene said they couldn’t comprehend how this group of people had any legitimacy under the law. Even if they really were police they couldn’t act in this way towards the people which was against the law and infringing on human rights. They improperly blocked, interrogated, threatened and acted violently. They even prevented the students from simply crossing the road. When using the Assembly Law they didn’t follow the procedures or act in a reasonable manner. From early on they seriously violated the Police Duties Enforcement Act and exceeded the legal authority of the police.

On the night these events occured the students mentioned in this statement had no illegal intentions or actions. However, they met these group of people claiming to be police who didn’t clearly identify themselves. In the context of a free, democratic and open Taiwan this is a major public security and judicial incident. We hope that the relevant authorities can quickly open a special investigation. When the truth has been ascertained and announced the people who are responsible should apologise and accept punishment in order to give back a sense of fairness and justice to the students and the greater society.

It is now more than two years since Chen Yunlin first visited Taiwan. Chen’s first visit shone a spotlight on police abusing their powers and gave rise to the Wild Strawberry Movement. However, since that time there has been no reform of the Parade and Assembly Law nor have police been held accountable for human rights transgressions.

While the scale of protests against Chen Yunlin have diminished with each visit, the police have been unrelenting in restricting the rights of the people to protest and freely express their opinions. Another disturbing event occurred during Chen Yunlin’s just completed visit to Taiwan. In Yunlin County a group of men in black shirts, suspected to be gang members, were present when Chen Yunlin visited a university.

The KMT government of Ma Ying-jeou has been in office for almost three years now. It is clear that the more and more the government engages with China, the more and more it adopts China’s authoritarian methods. Some people naively hope that Taiwan can encourage democracy in China. However, on the present evidence it seems that China is encouraging authoritarianism in Taiwan.

• Police, the law and human rights
• Another 228 museum
• Once was a prison
• Four characters removed from Democracy Hall
• Links 10 December 2007

Several dozen members of Falun Gong (aka Falun Dafa) protested the arrival of Chen Zhenggao (陳政高), the governor of Liaoning Province, in Taichung this afternoon. The protesters shouted, “Chen Zhenggao, you’ve been accused, stop persecuting Falun Gong” (陳政高，你被告了，停止迫害法輪功). According to a Falun Gong website 409 Falun Gong practitioners have died as a result of persecution in Liaoning Province.

The protest was peaceful as police stood between the protesters and Chen’s entourage as he arrived at the Howard Prince Hotel.

Chen’s entourage was able to enter the hotel without incident. Chen is on the list of 11,000 ‘CCP villians’ compiled by the No CCP Villain International Alliance. The alliance says that those on the list should be barred from entering Taiwan for their role in human rights abuses. An article published in the Taipei Times on Thursday has more details about the alliance and its demands. The article reports:

The legislature passed a resolution in early December barring known CCP human rights abusers entry into Taiwan. The resolution, co-introduced by [DPP Legislator] Chen [Ting-fei] and adopted by parties on both sides of the aisle, requires government authorities — including the MAC and the NIA — to deny Chinese officials who are known to have been involved in human rights abuses entry into Taiwan.

Greater Kaohsiung and Chiayi, as well as Changhua, Hualien, Miaoli and Yunlin counties, have adopted similar, albeit separate, resolutions.

However, it seems that the efforts of city councils, the legislature and NGOs have not swayed the current KMT government to reconsider or reject the visits of Chinese officials to Taiwan.

• The day Chen Yunlin came to Taiwan
• Understanding Taiwanese religion
• Raining and rocking in Taichung
• HSR from Taichung to Taipei
• Election campaign posters in Taichung

Since new developments in the case that resulted in the wrongful execution resurfaced there have been apologies issued by the Ministry of National Defense (MND) and President Ma Ying-jeou. About 30 officials involved in the arrest, trial and execution of Chiang are now facing administrative and criminal investigation. Those being questioned include two former defense ministers. However, a statute of limitations may prevent those involved from being punished.

While it is good to see action being taken to investigate those responsible for this gross miscarriage of justice, there is a need to do more. The problem is not limited to one case or just to the military justice system. The ongoing case of the Hsichih Trio highlights that the problem of confessions extracted under torture being used to convict people also exists in the civilian justice system. These cases underline the fact that there is a need for comprehensive judicial reform.

There is a need to reopen investigations on all cases which were based on confessions extracted under torture. When people convicted of crimes are found to be innocent then their names should be cleared and appropriate compensation paid. Officials responsible for wrongful prosecutions should take responsibility for their actions. As many of these cases occurred in the 1980s and 1990s then criminal prosecutions may not be possible. An independent Truth Commission could be formed to hold hearings on these cases. The findings of the commission could be used to inform the judicial reform process.

There is one simple way to prevent further wrongful executions. That is to declare an immediate moratorium on the capital punishment in Taiwan and take the necessary steps to make abolition effective in law. Yet at present in Taiwan there is no political will or leadership to abolish the death penalty or even declare a temporary moratorium. Taiwan had an unofficial moratorium on the death penalty from December 2005 until the government executed four men in April last year. In December last year the Minister for Justice said it was likely that Taiwan will carry out more executions of death row prisoners this year.

Unfortunately the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has remained fairly mute on the issue of the death penalty since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) returned to power in 2008. However, I am sure that if President Ma took the brave step of announcing his intention to abolish the death penalty it would be supported by the DPP. Ma’s biggest problem would be dealing with dissent within his own party.

A recent comment by Frank Hsieh in an interview in the Taipei Times mentions the death penalty. He said, “We also object to the death penalty in the Criminal Code, but this doesn’t mean that we don’t accept this law.” It is not clear who he is referring to as we. However, if this reflects a consensus among senior members of the DPP or the DPP’s Central Committee then it is time for them to stand up and speak out on the issue. Taiwan cannot allow anymore wrongful executions. It must abolish the death penalty now!

*The fact that a man surnamed Hsu confessed to the crime doesn’t necessarily mean he committed it. A thorough investigation needs to be conducted and Hsu should only be convicted if there is solid evidence. The innocence of Chiang Kuo-ching was already known and not proved by the confession of Hsu.

中文：為何台灣一定要廢除死刑

• Time to end the death penalty
• Letter about the death penalty in the Taipei Times
• World moving towards abolition of the death penalty: Hood
• Film festival to promote dialogue on death penalty issue
• Morning tea with Tsai Ing-wen

Freedom House released its Freedom in the World 2011 report yesterday. The report’s key finding was that freedom declined globally for the fifth consecutive year. Freedom House noted that authoritarian regimes like those in China, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela continued to step up repressive measures with little significant resistance from the democratic world.

Taiwan’s ranking was unchanged from last year. Taiwan scored one for political rights and two for civil liberties to retain its status as “free”. Taiwan’s scores were the same as South Korea and Japan. The Taipei Times has some comments about Taiwan from a researcher at Freedom House.

“Taiwan remained one of Asia’s strongest democracies,” Sarah Cook, Asia research analyst and assistant editor at Freedom House, told the Taipei Times by e-mail yesterday.

“Municipal elections held [on Nov. 27] were widely viewed as free and fair, despite a shooting at a rally the evening before the polls,” Cook said.

[...]

On the handling of the corruption charges against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Cook said: “Procedural irregularities evident in earlier stages of … [the] case did not appear to repeat as the case moved up the judiciary during the appeal’s process.”

In its 2010 report, which covered events in 2009, Freedom House had pointed to “flaws” in the handling of Chen’s case.

Freedom House also specifically noted concerns about press freedom in Taiwan. Again quoting from the Taipei Times:

“The early dismissal of the leadership of the Public Television Service following a series of disputes raised concerns over the independence of publicly funded media,” Cook said, continuing a trend observed in last year’s report, which said that “reforms and personnel changes at publicly owned media since 2008 have raised concerns about politicization.”

Freedom House have been compiling their reports for forty years now and have a well established methodology. It seems reasonable that there were no events that were sufficient enough to bring about a change in Taiwan’s ranking. However, I think it is worthwhile reviewing a few important human rights issues from 2010.

One of the most worrying events in 2010 was the return of the death penalty. The government executed four men on 30 April ending an unofficial moratorium on executions that had lasted more than four years. Any hopes that Taiwan may be moving towards another moratorium or eventual abolition of the death penalty seem faint. Last month the Minister for Justice said the government will carry out executions of death row inmates once all legal avenues are exhausted.

There was a brief triumph for supporters of the abolition of the death penalty when the High Court found the Hsichih Trio not guilty in November. However, this was short lived as the prosecutors filed another appeal. The three men have already been subjected to thirteen trials over almost twenty years. This prompted Amnesty International to release a statement calling on the government to address flaws in the judicial proceedings in the case and immediately implement a moratorium on the death penalty.

The Hsichih Trio case highlights systemic problems in Taiwan’s justice system. Problems with judicial rights in Taiwan were specifically noted by Freedom House in its report last year. The timing of trials involving Chen Shui-bian and decisions made by judges in the lead up to the five cities election this year raised important questions about the independence of the judiciary. I wrote last month that the government has so far failed to take any meaningful action to implement the judicial reforms that Taiwan really needs.

There was a notable case of judicial activism in September. The Taipei District Court suspended a case involving one of the initiators of the Wild Strawberry Movement until there was a constitutional interpretation of the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法). Freedom of assembly has been an important issue since it came into the spotlight during the visit of Chen Yunlin in 2008. However, the KMT has failed to use its majority in the legislature to abolish or amend the law.

Taiwan’s score for political rights in the Freedom House survey stands at one, the best possible score. Taiwan held elections in five special municipalities in November and Taiwan’s electoral system is widely  seen as free and fair. The shooting of Sean Lien (連勝文) on the eve of the five cities election caused considerable controversy. Although it is difficult to say whether the shooting influenced the election results, it certainly damaged the credibility of Taiwan’s democracy. It also showed that many members of the KMT still maintain close connections with organised crime. Furthermore some media organisations and politicians quickly took advantage of the shooting to manipulate voters.

While Taiwanese may be able to freely vote for their representatives, in 2010 they were repeatedly denied the right to vote in referendums. The TSU’s third application for a referendum on ECFA was rejected by the Referendum Review Committee for the third time earlier this month. I argued after the first rejection of a TSU-proposed referendum on ECFA that it was a clear denial of democratic rights. This also highlights concerns about the lack of transparency in negotiations between Taiwan and China over ECFA and other agreements.

There have also been multiple concerns about press freedom since President Ma Ying-jeou took up office 2008. Press freedom is often considered a barometer of human rights and democratic practice. Hence the continuing problems Taiwan is experiencing in this area should be of great concern.

Taiwan may have retained its human rights ranking in 2010 but there is still cause for concern. There is a need for vigilance and action to ensure that human rights in Taiwan don’t go backwards in 2011.

*More details about Freedom in the World 2011 are available on Freedom House’s website. An article by Yang Tsung-li, the deputy director of Amnesty International Taiwan, published in the Taipei Times last month also highlights some important issues.

• Taiwan press freedom declines: report
• Freedom House sounds a warning
• Taiwan still free but problems with judicial rights: Freedom House report
• Wild Berry House opening
• Freedom House reports declining media freedom

Text of statement:

My name is ______________ and I love this country, Taiwan.  I recognise that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent democratic country.  I do not recognise the existence of the 1992 Consensus and I do not accept any interpretation of the ‘One China Principle’ that includes Taiwan. I will not be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Republic of China. I support any party that wishes Taiwanese to solely determine their own future free of any form of coercion.

Update: 聲明的中文版

我的名字是 ______, 我愛台灣這個國家. 我認同台灣是一個主權獨立的民主國家. 我不承認92共識的存在性, 而我也不接受任何包含台灣在內的”一個中國原則”的解釋. 我將不會慶祝中華民國的一百年國慶. 我支持任何一方同意台灣的未來應在不受任何脅迫的情況下, 由其人民獨自決定.

*Video can be viewed on YouTube and Vimeo.

• UN membership for Taiwan
• Xinzhuang temple parade video
• Links 2 June 2008
• 226 incident must be investigated
• A-yue live at the Living Mall

The prosecutors’ case is based on confessions extracted under torture. There is no physical evidence that the three accused were at the scene of the crime. Despite this the case has been the subject of 13 trials and retrials. The entire case highlights multiple problems in Taiwan’s justice system.

Since the KMT returned to power in 2008 President Ma Ying-jeou has on numerous occassions cited the importance of judicial reform. Yet, apart from the removal of a few corrupt judges, there seems to have been no progress and judicial rights have gone backwards. The cases involving former President Chen Shui-bian have also highlighted many procedural problems in the justice system. There is also concern that the verdicts may have been influenced by political pressure in the lead up to the five cities election. (See my letter to the Taipei Times raising questions about judicial independence.)

2010 has also seen the return of the death penalty in Taiwan with four men executed on 30 April ending a four and a half year unofficial moratorium. Unless more substantial action is taken on judicial reform and the abolition of the death penalty any claims that the Ma government makes about improvements in human rights will have no substance.

Amnesty International released a public statement on the Hsichih Trio case on 10 December 2010 which was also Human Rights Day. The full text of the statement is below.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT

AI Index: ASA 38/005/2010
10 December 2010

Taiwan: justice delayed in “Hsichih Trio” case

While the Supreme Court considers an appeal against the “not guilty verdict” in the cases of Liu Bing-lang, Su Chien-ho and Chuang Lin-hsun, collectively known as the “Hsichih Trio”, Amnesty International urges the Taiwanese authorities to promptly address flaws in this judicial proceeding, including allegations of torture and immediately establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty as a first step towards its abolition.

Amnesty International is deeply concerned with the prolonged death penalty trials of the “Hsichih Trio.” The defendants have been repeatedly tried at different levels of the Taiwanese court system for nearly two decades based primarily on the evidence of their alleged forced “confessions”.

Amnesty International urges the Supreme Court to investigate the defendants’ allegations that police tortured them to extract confessions, which were not thoroughly examined prior to the sentencing of the men by the Taiwanese High Court during the 11th retrial in June 2007. Taiwan’s own Criminal Procedure Law, revised in 2003, clearly states that confessions cannot serve as the sole basis of evidence of guilt and prohibits the use of evidence extracted through torture in courts. In fact, the Supreme Court had overruled an earlier sentence of death citing that the evidence presented was contradictory to the facts, and the High Court failed to carry out a thorough investigation.

On the 13th retrial held on 12 November 2010, the High Court ruled that Liu Bing-lang, Su Chien-ho and Chuang Lin-hsun were not guilty of the robbery and murder of a couple. In reaching the conclusion, the High Court adopted the opinions of forensic expert witness Henry Lee, who published a forensic examination report in July 2009 that questioned the physical evidence, which was apparently insufficient to prove that the defendants were guilty.

Amnesty International also urges the Taiwan government to immediately take concrete steps to fulfill its long stated goal of abolition of the death penalty. Amnesty International opposes the use of the death penalty in all cases as the ultimate cruel and inhuman punishment, and asks the Taiwanese authorities to commute all death sentences. The worldwide trend toward the abolition of the death penalty is unmistakable. As of today, more than two-thirds of the countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Although 58 countries retained the death penalty in 2009, most did not use it.

On the night of 23-24 March 1991, Yeh In-lan and her husband, Wu Ming-han, were stabbed to death at their home in the town of Hsichih. Five months later, on 13 August 1991, police traced a fingerprint left at the scene of the crime to a marine named Wang Wen-hsiao. Wang Wen-hsiao was taken into custody on 13 August 1991, and confessed to the police immediately. More than 36 hours after he had been taken into custody, Wang Wen-hsiao added new information to his confession, implicating his brother, Wang Wen-chung, and three of his brother’s classmates, whom he could not name.

Wang Wen-chung was detained soon after, by police without an arrest warrant, and was allegedly tortured. He named his three classmates as Liu Bing-lang, Su Chien-ho and Chuang Lin-hsun. Wang Wen-chung served two years in prison for his alleged role as an accomplice in the crime. After his release, he retracted his evidence and stated publicly that the police had forced him to implicate his classmates. Wang Wen-hsiao was executed for his part in the murders on 11 January 1992.

The three defendants have gone through 13 trials and retrials and three extraordinary appeals in the past 20 years. The first death sentence was handed down by the District Court in February 1992 and the High Court upheld it. However, the Supreme Court later ruled that the case needed to be retried because physical evidence used by the High Court was insufficient, unclear or contradictory. The High Court sentenced the three men to death once again during the second trial, but the death sentences were again rejected by the Supreme Court and the case returned for retrial. In October 1994 the High Court imposed death sentences against the “Hsichih Trio” for the third time, which were upheld by the Supreme Court in February 1995.

The defendants, however, lodged appeals against the death sentences as they had been primarily based on their alleged forced “confessions without further investigations by the courts. High Court judges began to consider physical evidence in the retrials held after 2000. In 2008, the High Court asked a forensic expert, Henry Lee, to do a crime scene reconstruction. Dr. Lee’s report, released in 2009, suggested that no more than one person could have committed the murders.

The “Hsichih Trio” have described their alleged torture in great detail. “(Police) put a thick yellow book against my chest and hammered me on the chest,” Liu Bing-Lan has said, “and they then hung me upside down and started pouring water and urine into my mouth.” Liu Bing-lan, Su Chien-ho and Chuang Lin-hsun all describe being beaten and having water or urine forced into their mouths. Su Chien-ho and Chuan Lin-hsun also claim to have been subjected to electric shocks to their genitals, and in Su Chien-ho’s case police allegedly smeared a concentrated chemical on the wounds on his genitals caused by the electric shocks.

ENDS/

Public Document
International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org

• Links 21 April 2008
• Letter about the death penalty in the Taipei Times
• High Court delivers not guilty verdict in Smangus case
• What is justice? 正義系啥米
• Time to speak out against injustice

The Walk for Tibet begins in Taipei tomorrow. It will cover 400 kilometres over 13 days before finishing in Kaohsiung. The walk aims to share a message of world peace, human rights, and the Tibetan struggle for independence.

The walk is led by Jigme Norbu, son of the late Takster Rinpoche and nephew of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Jigme Norbu has led peace walks and bike rides in North America to promote the issue of Tibetan independence. Jigme’s father also led similar walks in the United States. Tenzin Jamyang, former president of the Tibet Alliance of Chicago, will also join the walk.

The start of the walk coincides with Human Rights Day. There will be a press conference at Longshan Temple in Taipei at 9am on Friday 10 December before the walkers start on the first day. There will also be evening talks in some of the cities the walk passes through. The walk finishes in Kaohsiung on 22 December. There will also be a candlelight vigil in Taipei on 23 December. A schedule with the daily starting and finishing points and details of the evening talks is here.

More information and updates about the walk can be found at  walk4tibet.blogspot.com and www.ambassadorsforworldpeace.org. You can also follow @fightfortibet on Twitter for updates.

Also on Human Rights Day, President Ma Ying-jeou will present the Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award in Taipei. This annual prize is awarded by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. In 2010 the award goes to the Rescue Foundation, an Indian NGO that works to rescue teenage victims of human trafficking.

• Don’t forget Tibet
• 310 Tibet action in Taipei
• Tibetans not celebrating New Year
• 49 hour hunger strike for Tibet
• Thousands march for Tibet in Taipei