The Asian Human Rights Court Simulation (AHRCS) in October issued its judgement in the case of Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順) v. Republic of China (Taiwan).
The AHRCS was sponsored by former Justice of the Constitutional Court of Taiwan Hsu Yu-hsiu (許玉秀) and coorganized by National Chiao Tung University’s Institute of Technology Law, along with several non-governmental organizations in Taiwan.
The judgement held that domestic courts failed to fulfill their obligation and responsibility to ensure Chiou’s right to a fair trial and basic human rights. The judgement called on the Supreme Court of Taiwan for proper judicial remedy and prompt rectification.
Chiou has been a death-row inmate for nearly three decades. In 1988, he was charged with murdering a female insurance agent named Ko Ho Yu-lan (柯洪玉蘭) and a six-year-old boy named Lu Cheng (陸正). In 2011, his verdict became final after 11 trials.
In 2007, the Legal Aid Foundation and attorneys Lin Yong-song (林永頌) and Yu Po-hsiang (尤伯祥) read Chiou’s case file and believed him to be innocent.
Subsequently, a legal team, hosted by Yu and organized by the Judicial Reform Foundation, was bolstered by many more volunteer lawyers passionate about the case.
Last year, the team applied for the AHRCS hearing.
The legal team is now calling for President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to grant Chiou amnesty.
The reason is simple: The AHRCS reflects the convergence of the nation’s old and contemporary judiciaries.
In the past, under the authoritarian regime of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), the criminal justice system systemically violated human rights and due process, while at present, it is progressing toward true rule of law.
Yet, Chiou’s case is a vestige of the old regime. As Yu concluded in his closing argument at the AHRCS: Chiou’s 4.52m2 prison cell is like a time capsule, in which the lifetime of an innocent man and the failure of the authoritarian judiciary is frozen forever.
As Saint Augustine is purported to have said: “In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?”
If President Tsai is proud of our shared values of democracy, freedom and respect for human rights, then she should grant amnesty.
We can demonstrate our strength, not weakness, in admitting our mistakes; we can show that the government not only wields a sword to punish, but also a mirror to reflect; we can prove that the government’s power can shield our citizens from the failures of the judiciary-of-old.
Regrettably, justice might at times be delayed, but justice should never be denied. Following the AHRCS, the time to act is now.
Huang Yu-zhe is an undergraduate in Soochow University’s Department of Political Science and a former executive secretary of Chiou Ho-shun’s Judicial Reform Foundation legal team.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS