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.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
RSS