Ten Questions for the Minister of Justice: Examining Flaws in the Death Penalty Execution Procedure through the Ch'ou Hsun-shan Case

Since 1993, the Taipei Bar Association has provided pro bono defense for death penalty cases to safeguard human rights, ensure rigorous criminal procedure, and prevent wrongful judicial executions. After all, capital punishment deprives a person of irreplaceable life and cannot afford to be handled carelessly or result in a miscarriage of justice. However, numerous problems have been uncovered during these defenses, with the flaws in the execution procedure of the recent case being particularly severe. Following an unsuccessful petition to Minister of Justice Ch'eng Chung-mo, human rights and judicial reform groups held a press conference regarding the death penalty execution procedure, demanding that the Ministry of Justice squarely face this issue and prevent Taiwan's human rights record from becoming an international joke!

We demand that Minister of Justice Ch'eng answer the following questions within one week:

1. The Ministry received the High Prosecutors Office's inquiry on the 14th and completed approval on the 15th. Did the Minister actually verify whether the judgment service procedure had been completed?

2. In this case, judging from the timeline, why was the defendant executed before defense counsel had even received the judgment?

3. What are the standards used by the Minister in signing off on death penalty executions? Did the Minister re-examine the case file to ensure there were no grounds for an extraordinary appeal, or was it treated merely as a routine formality?

4. Even if this case was processed for execution with extraordinary efficiency, defense counsel had already filed a motion for extraordinary appeal before the execution. Why did the Minister fail to examine it thoroughly and still proceed directly with the execution?

5. Judging by the "administrative efficiency" of this case, the Ministry received and approved the official document between the 14th and 15th. Even if defense counsel had already received the judgment, how would it have been possible to file a motion for extraordinary appeal? Or does the Minister believe the defendant's right to file an extraordinary appeal should be stripped away entirely?

For various organizations, this case has been a profound shock. Although it began with an individual case, it revealed just how perfunctory the Ministry of Justice's death penalty execution procedures are and how extraordinary its "administrative efficiency" is, leading the defendant to face an irreversible outcome completely unprepared. Therefore, through this case, we are compelled once again to question what standards of due process the Minister applies when approving death penalty executions:

1. Before approving a death penalty case, does the Ministry of Justice have an obligation to confirm that defense counsel has been served the judgment?

2. Before approving a death penalty case, does the Ministry of Justice have an obligation to carefully check whether an extraordinary appeal has been filed?

3. Taking this case as an example, within a lightning-fast timeframe of less than 24 hours, what was the likelihood of defense counsel filing an extraordinary appeal? Or does the Minister consider extraordinary appeals meaningless and thus unnecessary to address?

4. If the Minister routinely signs off on death warrants even for cases with questionable aspects, what are the Minister's standards for approving the death penalty?

5. If there are substantive doubts in the case, why did the Minister not exercise official authority to request the Prosecutor-General to file an extraordinary appeal? In the future, when facing similar cases that even the Minister believes have questionable points requiring investigation, how does the Minister intend to handle them?

Civil society organizations approach this case with heavy hearts, as the defendant has long since been executed and nothing can reverse it. What is alarming, however, is whether the Ministry of Justice will repeat the same mistakes, treating human life as worthless and persistently brushing off such a grave, life-or-death oversight as a mere "technical issue" (as stated during the meeting with Minister Ch'eng on October 23). The Taipei Bar Association had originally established a special investigative team to look into this case and provide further assistance. However, because the defendant has already been executed, the team has decided to publicly invite all defense counsel in death penalty cases to report any flawed execution procedures so that they can be compiled and published in the future to urge the Ministry of Justice to reform its execution procedures.

Looking at the frequent disasters in Taiwan recently, which constantly claim multiple lives while government bureaucrats turn a blind eye to people's lives and deaths, the root cause is that everyone from top to bottom slights human rights, leading to the disregard of due process and an inability to earnestly review tragedies once they occur. The past is gone, but we hope the new Minister of Justice will live up to the expectations of civil society organizations, squarely face this issue, actively respond to public doubts, have the courage to review, and implement meaningful reforms!

Attendees and Speaking Order

Att. Lin Yung-sung / Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation
Att. Ku Li-hsiung / Representative, Taipei Bar Association (also Convener of the Special Investigative Team)
Att. Shen Shih-liang / Defense Counsel for the Ch'ou Case
President Huang Wen-hsiung / Chairperson, Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Att. Wei Ch'ien-feng / Special Investigative Team, Taipei Bar Association
Brian Kennedy / Member, Amnesty International
Wang Shih-hsiu / Deputy Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation