Today is International Human Rights Day, commemorating the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Thirty years ago, the UN General Assembly also chose this day to adopt the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The result of advocacy by Amnesty International and other international non-governmental organizations, the convention is also a major milestone in the development of international human rights law. It clearly establishes that the prohibition of torture is absolute and non-derogable (a special type of international law called jus cogens). It requires all governments to enact laws to effectively eliminate torture and to prosecute people who commit torture, even if committed elsewhere.
As of today, 156 countries have ratified the convention. However, over the past five years, Amnesty International has documented cases of torture in at least 141 countries. This shows that the implementation of the prohibition is not being properly done in many countries. As a result, in 2002, the Optional Protocol to the convention was enacted, mandating the creation of “national preventative mechanisms.”
Amnesty International’s current global “Stop Torture” campaign focuses on countries that have laws in place, but where torture is still “epidemic,” such as Mexico and the Philippines. For example, the Philippines ratified the convention and adopted a landmark anti-torture law five years ago, but not a single person has been prosecuted so far. After the launch of Amnesty International’s research report last week, the Philippine Senate promised to start a formal inquiry.
In Taiwan, there is a call for the government to ratify the convention and the Optional Protocol as soon as possible. Although significant progress has been made since the end of Martial Law to reduce the incidence of torture, the sad fact is that Taiwan is also one of those countries where torture continues to persist.
Many people do not fully understand the extent of torture. This is partly a result of the lack of attention to the full name of the treaty. The absolute prohibition applies to all types of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Under the convention, torture has the following legal characteristics: one, it involves severe pain, either physical or psychological; two, it is done by a public official, or with the knowledge of a public official; three, it is intentional. Therefore, in addition to the traditional type of police interrogation of suspects to force confessions, it includes ill-treatment in prisons, the military, mental hospitals and other institutions where people are confined.
The death of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘), the systematic abuse of children at a special education school and the exposure of poor prison conditions highlighted by the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) are all recent cases that show why Taiwan needs to have one high standard that applies to all public agencies.
Research by Amnesty International around the world indicates that a major reason why torture continues to exist is the fact that perpetrators are so rarely brought to justice, or are given punishments that are far too light for such grave crimes.
In Taiwan, even in high-profile cases where torture was officially confirmed by the courts — as in the case of the Hsichih Trio — no police officers have been prosecuted. In the special education school case, only administrative punishments were given, but no criminal prosecutions have been launched. In the Hung case, at least the officers have been prosecuted, but in the first trial they were given only very light sentences.
Ideally, in addition to properly punishing perpetrators, torture should be prevented from occurring in the first place. That is purpose of the preventative mechanism envisaged by the Optional Protocol. It would have the power to make unannounced visits to any place where people are being held to inspect the conditions and interview any people involved. By doing so, it can ensure that the other safeguards (e.g. videorecording) function properly.
Therefore, the adoption of the convention and its Optional Protocol would be a major step forward in Taiwan’s human rights development and becoming a more civilized country.
Bo Tedards is director of Amnesty International Taiwan. Yao Meng-chang is an assistant professor at the department of postgraduate legal studies at Fu Jen Catholic University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with