Print

Mail

wiki links

Allegations of torture should be investigated

On June 30 the Taiwan High Court reinstated the death penalty for the three men known as the "Hsichih Trio," Liu Bing-lang (劉秉郎), Su Chien-ho (蘇建和) and Chuang Lin-hsun (莊林勳). Protesters, including legal experts, have argued that there are a mind-boggling number of flaws with this case.

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the 16-year-long Hsichih Trio case has not received enough attention. This concerns the allegations that Liu, Su and Chuang were tortured into making confessions.

Over 16 years and through numerous deliberations, one thing has remained consistent: The justice system has refused to investigate the claim that these men were tortured.

This is more than disturbing. It indicates that they were never treated as innocent defendants whose guilt the prosecutors had to try to prove. Their testimony regarding torture fell on deaf ears.

It is outrageous to even have to explain this: An independent judiciary should worry when allegations surface that police are extracting confessions through torture.

In the Hsichih case, the Taiwan High Court has condemned the men based on no physical evidence. The confessions are key. But the Criminal Procedure Law (刑事訴訟法) makes statements extracted through torture inadmissible as evidence. That article of the law is completely worthless if the judiciary refuses to listen when defendants say they have been tortured.

The testimony Liu, Su and Chuang gave concerning their torture was credible. They were not vague, but rather provided details that ring true with what is known about torture methods used by abusive authorities around the world, of which the average person on the street knows little or nothing.

For example, Liu said: "[Police] put a thick yellow book against my chest and hammered me on the chest."

It is common for abusive authorities to choose beating methods that do not rupture the skin. This is because of the internal physical damage it inflicts while minimizing lasting, outward evidence of torture. The fact that Liu named this detail is chilling.

Su and Chuang said police applied electric shocks to their genitals and, in Su's case, swabbed on a chemical to increase the pain.

There is every reason to investigate, and no reason not to.

The first ruling in the Hsichih Trio case was handed down when Taiwan had not yet achieved democracy. The shocking decision by the High Court to reinstate the death penalty can not be blamed on autocracy.

Want to celebrate 20 years since the end of the world's longest implementation of martial law? Start by proving the nation's justice system has changed. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) should commute the sentences of the Hsichih Trio immediately, based not only on the complete lack of physical evidence, but also on the fact that the torture allegations have been ignored.

Moreover, Taiwan cannot close this chapter without carrying out the investigation that should have started in 1991 into Liu, Su and Chuang's believable allegations of torture. Investigations into the possible use of torture are difficult, no less so when authorities let 16 years slip by without acting. But choosing not to investigate is not an option for a country that abides by the rule of law. It makes a mockery of the Criminal Procedure Law's ban on statements extracted through torture, violates laws directly banning torture and sends the message that Taiwan may not act in the future if other torture allegations arise.

Until an investigation takes place, Hsichih Trio defense lawyer Su You-chen's (蘇友辰) words are not an exaggeration: "The judicial system is stained. Judicial reform is bullshit."

Celia Llopis-Jepsen is a writer based in Taipei.
This story has been viewed 963 times.