Severe Condemnation of the Investigation Bureau's Barbaric Lack of Human Rights and Rule of Law

Regarding the incident where Attorney Tseng Wen-ch'i was assaulted by investigation officers at the Investigation Bureau for attempting to review his client's interrogation record, the Judicial Reform Foundation, Taiwan Bar Association, and Taipei Bar Association, along with other civil society organizations, hereby sternly condemn the Ministry of Justice's Investigation Bureau. We call upon the Director-General of the Investigation Bureau to immediately make a public apology and order subordinates to refrain from restricting lawyers from reviewing interrogation records in the future. The reasons are as follows:

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulate that the interrogation record shall be read aloud to or reviewed by the "interrogated person," and they shall be asked whether there are any errors in the recording; if the "interrogated person" requests additions, deletions, or modifications to the record, their statements shall be appended to the record. Pursuant to the above provisions, the interrogated person has the right to sign the record only under the premise of fully understanding and confirming that the recorded content is consistent with their statements. Furthermore, pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a lawyer inherently possesses the right to be present and to state opinions. Therefore, as defense counsel, a lawyer naturally has the responsibility and function at the interrogation scene to assist the interrogated person in fully understanding the true meaning of the written record and confirming that the record is consistent with the interrogated person's statements. Accordingly, joint review of the record by the lawyer and the interrogated person is inherently at the core of the lawyer's right to be present.

Currently in practice, prosecutors and police officers allow defense counsel to review interrogation records during interrogations, further demonstrating that lawyer review of records is a matter of course. Only the Investigation Bureau consistently ignores this fundamental human right granted to interrogated persons by the Code of Criminal Procedure, continuing to use various internal regulations to restrict the right of interrogated persons to seek legal assistance during interrogations. Such practices are not only barbaric and devoid of human rights awareness; more gravely, using internal regulations to restrict or even deprive interrogated persons of their rights fully exposes the Investigation Bureau's complete lack of the rule of law.

Regarding the incident involving Attorney Tseng Wen-ch'i, the Investigation Bureau even claimed publicly after committing the assault that Attorney Tseng's request to review the record constituted obstruction of official duties. This repeatedly demonstrates that the aforementioned chronic deficiency in the rule of law and human rights concepts has indeed become commonplace and completely unperceived within the Investigation Bureau. Even more unforgivable is that, even assuming the investigation officers involved in this incident genuinely believed their legal interpretation prohibiting Attorney Tseng from reviewing the record was appropriate, what necessity could there be to resort to physical violence, forcibly dragging the lawyer away from the scene and causing him injury? If individual frontline investigation officers are condoned in arbitrarily misinterpreting the provisions of Article 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the restriction of a lawyer's presence, would not the right of an interrogated person to seek legal assistance be left entirely to the personal whims of individual investigation officers? We believe the Director-General of the Investigation Bureau must take the systemic flaws exposed by this incident seriously, come forward to issue a public apology, and order subordinates to henceforth cease restricting lawyers from reviewing interrogation records.

Declaring Organizations

Taiwan Bar Association
Taipei Bar Association
Judicial Reform Foundation