The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that the right to life is the most basic of human rights. However, in its decision to reject a request for constitutional interpretation on May 28 last year, the Council of Grand Justices said that following the spirit of Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the covenant, there is currently nothing to prevent the death penalty from being carried out in any country where it remains legal in cases of major crimes, providing the laws in effect at the time the crime was committed do not conflict with ICCPR regulations or the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Based on Paragraph 4 of the same article, the question of whether those who have received the death penalty have the right to ask for a pardon or a reduction in sentence as laid out in the Amnesty Act (赦免法) depends on how the legislature implements Article 8 of the Act to Implement the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法).
Under the current legal system, anyone in Taiwan who receives the death sentence and meets the conditions detailed in the Amnesty Act automatically has the right to request a general amnesty, a pardon or a sentence reduction.
Taiwan’s current implementation of the death penalty is not a violation of the regulations of the aforementioned covenants, nor is it just ink on paper, nor are such actions “against international human rights norms.”
The abolition of the death penalty hinges on the development of social ideas about the rule of law and a supporting consensus in wider society.
As many as 70 to 80 percent of Taiwanese currently oppose the abolition of capital punishment. The Ministry of Justice is therefore relying on legal amendments and other methods to gradually decrease the use of the death penalty and increase public support for the long-term goal of abolition.
However, “reducing the use of the death penalty” refers to both the decreased use of capital punishment in the legal system and being more careful when such sentences are passed.
This does not mean that death sentences confirmed in all three court instances will not be carried out in accordance with the law.
There is no conflict between President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) declaration that the use of the death penalty will decrease and the ministry carrying out death sentences, nor is this in any way contradictory or hypocritical.
The cases of the five death row inmates recently executed in accordance with the law had all been subject to careful and detailed investigation. They were provided with a forceful defense by their lawyers and the death penalty was only carried out after their cases were heard and reviewed in three instances.
Two of the men, Chung Teh-shu (鍾德樹) and Kuan Chung-yen (管鐘演), had their cases remanded by the court six times, and while on death row all five asked for retrials and extraordinary appeals on several occasions.
When all the appeals in a death sentence have been exhausted, the ministry appoints dedicated personnel to carefully examine all information in the case based on the aforementioned points, to ensure the prisoner’s right to appeal is protected. This is very different from what happened to Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), who was wrongfully executed in 1997. I really do not see how people are now connecting the two cases and saying more and more people are likely to be wrongfully put to death.
Wu Chen-huan is Deputy Minister of Justice.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations