Sun, Sep 02, 2018 - Page 6 News List

Victim relief falls short of UN level

By Hsiao I-min 蕭逸民

Taiwan held its first international review meeting on the Republic of China’s (ROC) Initial Report Under the UN Convention Against Corruption last week. Among the various issues discussed, judicial corruption and accountability attracted the most attention. The reason is that anti-corruption regulations would exist in name only if the judicial system cannot enforce them.

An example of how the judiciary is malfunctioning is the case of former High Court prosecutor Chen Yu-chen (陳玉珍), who has been called “the greediest prosecutor in Taiwan’s history” for taking bribes of more than NT$23 million (US$748,430 at the current exchange rate) from gaming arcade operators.

After Chen was in 2014 sentenced to 12 years in prison in the court of first instance, the collegiate bench in the court of second instance allowed her to repeatedly take leave from court sessions, and she appeared only three times in the past three years.

This case is not an exception. If the judicial system is allowed to gloss over such corruption, the public will never believe in the government’s determination to crack down on corruption.

“Judicial accountability” is a core principle of the UN Convention Against Corruption, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is also an important mechanism in international law, which has established international standards for it.

In the end, the implementation of the concept under these covenants depends on whether an independent, effective and impartial judicial system can be established.

At the same time as judges, prosecutors and lawyers are protected by judicial independence, they should take responsibility for their own actions, and not use judicial independence to protect rampant corruption.

Hence, judicial independence and judicial accountability are two codependent elements. They are part of the judiciary’s obligations to the nation, and the executive or legislative branches cannot intervene.

People generally think that judicial accountability means punishing judicial personnel who neglect their duties.

However, international norms attach greater importance to providing effective relief to victims, such as compensation, restitution and satisfaction via apologies or commemoration in public, as well as avoiding recidivism and reviewing related laws and customs.

Only by providing concrete relief to innocent judicial victims is it possible to force the judiciary to engage in sincere reflection and correct its mistakes.

Thanks to the efforts of civil groups, such as the Taiwan Innocence Project and the Judicial Reform Foundation, more miscarriages of justice have been reversed in the past few years.

This is an indication of judicial progress, but also brings the issue of reparations to the forefront.

The National Conference on Judicial Reform last year issued a resolution demanding that the Judicial Yuan work harder to protect judicial victims.

However, the Judicial Yuan’s proposed draft amendments to the Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions Act (刑事補償法) have fallen short of societal expectations and are not in line with UN standards.

According to international norms, judicial accountability not only extends to wrongful imprisonment, but also to judicial misconduct, such as misjudgments, delayed trials, discrimination or abuse of power, and judicial relief.

This story has been viewed 2963 times.

Comments will be moderated. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned.

TOP top