Protesting the Ministry of Justice's Unlawful Execution of Death Sentences! Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty
Last edited: 2026-07-27
Groups including the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, Amnesty International Taiwan, the Taiwan Labour Front, the Humanistic Education Foundation, and the Taipei Bar Association's Human Rights Protection Committee went to the Ministry of Justice on May 1 to submit a protest letter, condemning Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu for hastily signing execution warrants and absurdly carrying out death sentences. The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) also expressed condemnation, and Amnesty International (AI) immediately issued a press release condemning the Taiwan government for resuming executions, casting a shadow over Taiwan's human rights record.
From the Office of the President, the Executive Yuan, to the Ministry of Justice, all have claimed to the public that this execution of the death penalty was conducted in accordance with the law, appearing quite self-righteous. However, the manner of the execution and the timing of the announcement reveal that the Ministry of Justice only dared to carry out the executions stealthily and hastily, arbitrarily determining that these four death row inmates had no lawful procedures for petitioning for a constitutional interpretation without even confirming it with the Judicial Yuan beforehand. Furthermore, even if it were "in accordance with the law," it does not mean that the state can disregard humanity when carrying out executions; the families were not notified prior to the execution to have a final meeting. How can the people trust a state whose actions are so hasty and lacking in confidence?
Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu signed the execution warrants for four death row inmates—Chang Chun-hung, Chang Wen-wei, Hung Chen-yao, and Ko Shih-ming—on April 28, and hastily carried out the shooting of all four cases on the evening of yesterday (April 30). Their families were given no prior notice and were denied a final meeting with the inmates.
Regarding the Ministry of Justice's claim of "executing the death penalty in accordance with the law," we are shocked and angered. We hereby specifically clarify the reasons cited by the Ministry of Justice to let the public understand and judge for themselves:
Unlawful Execution of Chang Chun-hung
On March 29 and April 15, 2010, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty commissioned seven lawyers, including Li Nien-chu, Ku Li-hsiung, and Kao Yung-ch'eng, in the name of 44 death row inmates to petition the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan for a constitutional interpretation. Due to time constraints, four of them—Chang Chun-hung, Chang Wen-wei, Hung Chen-yao, and Ko Shih-ming—did not attach lawful authorization forms for the constitutional interpretation on the day the petition was filed. However, regarding the procedural matter of the missing authorization forms, the Secretariat of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan sent a letter to the seven lawyers on April 22, requesting them to make corrections within ten days of receiving the letter (i.e., by May 3, 2010). The Secretariat of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan also simultaneously understood the willingness of each finalized death row inmate to seek a constitutional interpretation through various detention centers.
Upon receiving the aforesaid letter, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty respectively contacted the four death row inmates who had not issued authorization forms. Chang Chun-hung mailed an authorization form bearing his personal signature on April 26, indicating his willingness to commission the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty to appoint lawyers to petition for a constitutional interpretation. Therefore, Chang Chun-hung's petition for a constitutional interpretation was completely lawful beyond any doubt.
According to Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Ministry of Justice's "Implementation Guidelines for Reviewing the Execution of Death Penalty Cases," the Supreme Prosecutors Office shall not submit cases undergoing lawful petitions for constitutional interpretation for the Minister of Justice to sign execution warrants. However, the Minister of Justice ignored Chang Chun-hung's lawful constitutional interpretation and unlawfully signed the execution warrant, yet still claimed to be acting in accordance with the law. This is the height of irony.
Ko Shih-ming Did Not Express Refusal of Constitutional Interpretation
Among the four death row inmates, aside from Chang Wen-wei and Hung Chen-yao who stated their refusal, Ko Shih-ming gave no response. The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty specially dispatched personnel to the Tainan Detention Center to arrange a visit, but the Tainan Detention Center replied that Ko Shih-ming was in solitary confinement. Detention center personnel gave vague answers regarding whether he received the letter from the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty and whether he was free to write letters. Therefore, it remains unclear whether Ko Shih-ming firmly refused a constitutional interpretation.
Lack of a Fair Trial
When the Supreme Court rendered final judgments for the three death row inmates, there were no defense counsels to represent them. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was ratified by President Ma Ying-jeou and possesses domestic legal effect, requirements regarding due process dictate that death row defendants must have defense counsel to represent them at any stage. Article 388 of our Code of Criminal Procedure violates this covenant. The Grand Justices should not have ignored this internationally recognized fundamental right and had the opportunity to declare the death penalty judgments unconstitutional. However, Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu rashly and even maliciously ignored this constitutional interpretation, usurping the power of the judiciary to determine that the petition for constitutional interpretation was unlawful before the Grand Justices made any decision. This administrative overreach into judicial affairs is not acting in accordance with the law; rather, it can be described as treating human life as grass. The Ministry of Justice's so-called prudent execution is entirely a lie, and the Minister of Justice must bear political responsibility for this.
Treating the ICCPR as a Dead Letter
On March 29, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty also assisted 44 finalized death row inmates in petitioning the President for a pardon (commutation of sentence) in accordance with Article 6 of the ICCPR. President Ma did not express refusal, and the Office of the President forwarded this petition to the Ministry of Justice for study and deliberation. Yet the Ministry of Justice's press release "did not mention a single word" about this, treating the ICCPR as a dead letter and effectively overstepping its bounds to reject the petition on behalf of President Ma Ying-jeou. If the Ma administration truly wants to "act in accordance with the law," it must clearly and explicitly explain how it evaluates death row inmates' petitions for pardon!
What is "Outrageous to Both Gods and Men"?
The Minister of Justice claimed that he would exercise his authority prudently, and in addition to existing procedures, he would form a review committee to cautiously weigh with him whether a case is one that is outrageous to both gods and men. However, from the current perspective, the standard he relies on is simply "whether there is a stamped authorization," and even such reviews contained errors. The Minister of Justice should publish who the so-called review committee includes and the relevant deliberation data during the review for public appraisal.
The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty is heartbroken that the human rights record of four and a half years of zero executions has been destroyed overnight. We must also more firmly call on the general public to rethink: when doubts still exist regarding the abolition or retention of the death penalty system, the handling method adopted by our Ministry of Justice turns out to be "procedural haste and accelerated execution" rather than re-examining relevant laws and regulations. This is the embodiment of "signing a contract with the left hand while violating it with the right!"
The Ministry of Justice's press release stated that "As for the 40 defendants petitioning the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan for a constitutional interpretation, the Ministry of Justice will handle the matters appropriately in accordance with the law depending on the subsequent progress of the proceedings." Therefore, we call for immediate legislation to halt the execution of death sentences.
Press Contacts
Lin Hsin-yi, Executive Director, Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty
Wang Hsing-chung, Secretary General, Amnesty International Taiwan
Attorney Lin Feng-cheng, Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation
Amnesty International Press Release, April 30, 2010
Taiwan Executes Death Sentences for First Time in Five Years
Amnesty International condemns the Taiwan government's execution of four death row inmates. This is the first execution of the death penalty in Taiwan since December 2005.
Chang Chun-hung, Hung Chen-yao, Ko Shih-ming, and Chang Wen-wei were executed on the evening of April 30 at detention facilities in Taipei, Tainan, and Taichung respectively.
Just two weeks prior to the executions, newly appointed Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu had publicly stated that the abolition of the death penalty was the ultimate goal.
"Carrying out these executions has cast a shadow over the country's human rights record and blatantly contradicted the goal of abolishing the death penalty previously proclaimed by the Minister of Justice," said Catherine Baber, Deputy Director of Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific Programme.
Former Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng's resignation in March drew international attention to Taiwan's death penalty issue. Wang Ching-feng had refused to sign death execution warrants due to her personal opposition to the death penalty.
"The whole world had expected the Taiwan government to choose to uphold a human rights stance and lead the Asia-Pacific region toward the abolition of the death penalty. But today's executions have thoroughly disappointed the world," stated Catherine Baber.
The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty has questioned the legality of these executions.
While the relevant Taiwanese authorities stated today that they will consider alternatives to the death penalty, continuing to carry out executions will reduce this commitment to empty words.
139 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Amnesty International calls on the Taiwanese authorities to immediately halt executions of the death penalty and take all necessary steps to abolish the death penalty in the country.
Background Information
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception because it violates the right to life and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.
Amnesty International believes that the death penalty legalizes irreversible state violence. Research has shown that the application of the death penalty is often discriminatory, disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and members of racial, ethnic, or religious communities. The trial process for the death penalty is also frequently extremely unfair.
Even after a fair trial meeting international standards, the risk of executing an innocent person cannot be completely eliminated—facts have repeatedly proven that the death penalty inevitably results in the victimization of innocent lives. Scientific research has also consistently failed to find credible evidence proving that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted resolutions by overwhelming majorities in 2007 and 2008, calling on the whole world to establish a moratorium on executions with the goal of abolishing the death penalty.
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.