Abolition of the Death Penalty and a Nation Built on Human Rights

In two days, it will be July 11th. While July 11th may seem to many like just another weekend holiday, it holds immense significance in the history of international human rights: the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on July 11, 1991. At first glance, this international treaty under the United Nations framework concerning the abolition of the death penalty might seem unrelated to our country, especially since the Legislative Yuan has yet to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the President has not signed the aforementioned Second Optional Protocol. However, based on the following four reasons, the author still believes that President Ch'en Shui-bian should take action on this matter to truly realize his vision of building a nation founded on human rights.

First, both the "domestic incorporation of international human rights law" and the "gradual abolition of the death penalty" were human rights policies proposed by President Ch'en Shui-bian during his first term. Although progress over the past four years has been limited, since this is President Ch'en's political commitment, the ideal of "abolishing the death penalty" should not be shelved.

Second, although "living in a society without the death penalty" is not something that can be achieved overnight, before completing the relevant legislative work to abolish the death penalty, the government should still seek the institutional possibility of halting executions. Taking the high-profile Hsü Tzu-chiang case as an example, although the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan have accepted the petition for constitutional interpretation filed by death row inmate Hsü Tzu-chiang, the Ministry of Justice's current "Key Points for the Review and Implementation of Death Penalty Case Executions" does not list "death row inmates undergoing the Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation procedure" as a ground for suspending the execution of the death penalty. Furthermore, our country's "Act Governing the Adjudication of Cases by the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan" lacks provisions similar to provisional remedies or temporary protection of rights. This creates the absurd possibility that by the time the Grand Justices issue an interpretation favorable to the individual, the death row inmate may have already been executed by firing squad. Therefore, how to properly exercise the presidential power of pardon and urge the Ministry of Justice to amend the "Key Points for the Review and Implementation of Death Penalty Case Executions"—using the suspension of executions as a general transitional measure prior to the abolition of the death penalty—will be an inescapable responsibility for the government.

Furthermore, regarding the recent case where the Ministry of Justice, in order to conduct judicial mutual assistance with Switzerland, assured the Swiss Federal Department of Justice that Wang Ch'uan-p'u, who is wanted in connection with the Lafayette Frigate scandal, would have the right to a fair trial in our courts and would not be sentenced to death, the human rights issues involved are particularly worthy of reflection by our citizens. In fact, the reason the Swiss government made this request implies the international community's skepticism toward the death penalty and its disapproval of Taiwan's retention of the death penalty system. Here, we hope that the government's promise not to impose the death penalty is not merely targeted at a single individual or a single case. On the contrary, we should comprehensively review our country's death penalty system and use it as a basis to fully promote legislation for the abolition of the death penalty.

Finally, although the debate over the retention or abolition of the death penalty has persisted domestically without resolution, we must recognize that the majority of advanced democracies that value human rights have already abolished the death penalty. At the United Nations level, Article 6 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that the right to life shall be protected, that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life, and mandates that countries which have not abolished the death penalty should restrict its execution to the greatest extent possible. Moreover, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force on July 11, 1991, further states in its preamble that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights, and specifically requires state parties not to execute any person within their jurisdiction except for the most serious crimes of a military nature committed during wartime, while taking all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within their jurisdiction (refer to Article 1).

In short, the existence of the death penalty and the ideal of a nation built on human rights can hardly coexist! On the eve of this July 11th, we sincerely hope that President Ch'en, who once vowed to domesticate international human rights law, will urge the Legislative Yuan to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as soon as possible, while also signing the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, thus taking the first "action-oriented" step toward fulfilling his commitment to abolish the death penalty!

※ Published in: 2004-7-9 / China Times