Sat, Apr 30, 2022 page8

• Disproportional quarantine policy

  • By Pavel Doubek
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  I have written earlier in the Taipei Times (“Rights must be preserved even during a pandemic,” April 18, page 8) that rights must be preserved even during a pandemic. In principle, authorities are entitled to subject people to restrictions such as mandatory quarantine. However, they must never forget the fundamental democratic principles of proportionality, necessity and human rights concerns.

  Since the beginning of the pandemic, numerous international and regional organizations have issued valuable statements and advice to states on how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic while remaining a democratic state respecting the rule of law. They encouraged states to adopt human rights sensitive approaches and avoid cases of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the implementation of public health emergency measures.

  In particular, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has emphasized in the context of COVID-19 that mandatory quarantine must be used as a last resort. Moreover, living conditions and treatment in quarantine places must respect human dignity and the principle of normality.

  The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has implemented a stringent quarantine policy to tackle the risk of COVID-19 transmission. For several months, all arrivals had to be detained in quarantine hotels or government quarantine centers. Even those who could be effectively isolated at home were not allowed to do so. They were subjected to surveillance by the authorities, must comply with mandatory testing, had no social contact and even had to bear the expenses of quarantine. Even a minor violation of quarantine rules was severely punished by heavy fines.

  While I could agree that the quarantine policy toward travelers from high-risk countries and travelers at the time of the outbreak of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 seems to be a legitimate measure, maintaining the same policy once the virus slows down and mutates to the less severe Omicron variant is highly problematic.

  Although quarantine could be viewed as a suitable tool, it has not been used (on most occasions) as a measure of last resort. For example, people were not allowed to isolate at home and were forced to stay in and pay for hotel quarantine. No exceptions were made for families with little children, fully vaccinated people, and even vulnerable people such as pregnant women or the elderly. Such a policy can hardly be seen as proportional and compliant with the principles of the rule of law.

  Besides the disproportional quarantine policy, one must not overlook a fundamental right to be treated in a human way as stipulated by the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a binding document in Taiwan. Furthermore, the best interest of children must always be taken into account. Detention of a child for 14 or more days would also be very problematic under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is also binding in Taiwan.

  There are plenty of allegations of arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in news and social media that illustrate the above concerns. Following are a few examples (information used with the consent of these people):

  One person wrote that while she tested positive, but had no symptoms, she was taken into hospital quarantine. She was allowed to take only one piece of clothing and was separated from her luggage. Even though she tested negative twice after the positive test, she had to stay in quarantine for 10 additional days. She emphasized the poor equipment and living conditions in the hospital room. As it was such a stressful experience, she had to start psychological therapy after her release from quarantine. “It was an ordeal,” she said.

  Another person shared her experience in a government quarantine facility, where it was cold (she was quarantined in winter), but was not allowed to bring a heater. To warm herself, she sometimes had to stay in the bathroom with the hot water running and often had to fill a bucket with hot water to soak her feet.

  These gloomy conditions may affect both adults and children, as another person pointed out. She said she had to stay with her children for 14 days in a room with no windows to get natural light and fresh air (only one small window to the elevator lobby). Lack of direct access to fresh air and natural light is a condition below human rights standards, especially when it concerns children. On a side note, daily access to fresh air and natural light is routinely recommended as a basic human right for prisoners.

  Taiwanese authorities must be aware of these allegations, as many quarantined people have filed complaints with the CDC. However, it appears that no effective redress was provided. Moreover, these are not isolated incidents, as it would take only minutes to reveal tens of similar stories on social media; hence, it relates more to a systematic failure to safeguard human rights in quarantine places.

  As one quarantined person aptly noted: “You’re still dealing with human beings, not rats in cages.”

  Taiwanese authorities should be encouraged to promptly start an inquiry into these abusive practices.

  International law speaks clearly that all persons who were subjected to mandatory quarantine which did not respect the above criteria have a right to ask the government for financial compensation. The CDC should promptly introduce a policy which recognizes this right in practice.

  Although some restrictions have been relaxed recently, mandatory quarantine has not yet been completely lifted. I believe that besides situations where detention of a person is strictly necessary, no blanket quarantine rule is today legitimately justified in Taiwan.

  Pavel Doubek is a Czech human rights lawyer and postdoctoral researcher at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Inter edge Atalanta to stay top

  • 2

    Flight disruption was deliberate ploy, experts say

  • 3

    Missile mass production to commence in Q2: official

  • 4

    Taiwan prepares to ring in 2026: Watch here

  • 5

    Crowds brave rain for fireworks in Taipei, Auckland