Minister, Please Stay Your Hand! Immediately Establish Standard Operating Procedures for Capital Punishment Execution ~ Joint Press Conference on Human Rights Day

Minister Ch'en assumed office as the Minister of Justice, and within less than four months, is about to be promoted to Vice President of the Judicial Yuan. While civil judicial reform organizations should normally extend their congratulations, Minister Ch'en's departure without having made any notable achievements during his tenure as Minister of Justice is undeniably a matter of regret. Therefore, during the final period of his term as Minister of Justice, civil judicial reform groups sincerely hope that Minister Ch'en will have the courage to uphold human rights and establish standard operating procedures for the execution of the death penalty as a final parting gift to human rights before leaving office.

Recently, three organizations issued ten questions to Minister of Justice Ch'en regarding the execution procedures of capital punishment, demanding the Minister to respond to shortcomings in the current execution procedures. However, the Minister's response was evasive, consistently refusing to confirm necessary procedures between the finalization of a death sentence and its execution, and insisting that the procedures were "flawless." The three organizations have decided to collect further data on the circumstances of death penalty executions to make the Ministry of Justice understand that sloppy execution procedures are by no means merely isolated incidents. It is an indisputable fact that there is currently no standard procedure whatsoever for capital punishment proceedings, and the timing of executions is determined entirely at the absolute discretion of the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, the three organizations jointly raise the following questions:

Regarding the Chou case, the Ministry of Justice responded that "the Ministry of Justice's Department of Prosecutorial Affairs respectively inquired with the Supreme Prosecutors Office and the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office whether applications for extraordinary appeal and retrial had been filed. After confirming that no such applications existed, it conducted a detailed review of the relevant case files and evidence, and determined that there were no grounds for an extraordinary appeal or retrial, before submitting the matter to the Minister for final approval. The review process was careful and thorough... and so on." We ask:

1. From the time the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the Chou case and finalized the death sentence on the 13th, until the Ministry of Justice completed its review and approval on the 15th—a span of less than 48 hours—what was the detailed review process for the relevant case files and evidence of the Chou case? When did they arrive and where did they go? How were the case files and evidence able to travel at such high speed from the Supreme Court, to the High Prosecutors Office, to the Department of Prosecutorial Affairs of the Ministry of Justice for review within such a tight timeframe, and then—after making inquiries with the Supreme Prosecutors Office and the High Prosecutors Office—return to the Minister's hands for re-examination and final approval?

   Lost Case Files and Evidence Flow Chart

   

   Note: Case files and evidence refer to the relevant case dossiers and physical evidence. Because this case went through five remand trials (Geng-Wu), there are a total of an indictment, a district court judgment, six high court judgments, and six supreme court judgments—making a total of thirteen judgments plus the indictment, totaling fourteen sets of case files and evidence, which is a massive volume.

2. Regarding the units queried by the Ministry of Justice, who were the specific inquirers? Who were the executing prosecutors at the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office and the Supreme Prosecutors Office? How were they able to complete the review of the case files and evidence with such high administrative efficiency?

3. The Ministry of Justice stated that it made inquiries between the 14th and the 15th regarding whether applications for extraordinary appeal and retrial had been filed. However, the defendant only received the judgment on the 14th. How could any application for extraordinary appeal or retrial possibly have appeared at the prosecutors office by the 15th?

4. According to the response of the Ministry of Justice, regarding the application for extraordinary appeal filed by defense counsel on the 19th, the Supreme Prosecutors Office dismissed it on the very same day. The Supreme Prosecutors Office finished reading all case files and evidence and reached a decision within just a few hours—does this not border on being hasty and negligence?

5. Currently, there is a 20-day period for filing appeals in the first and second instances, and a 30-day period for filing retrials. Why is there no time regulation for extraordinary appeals, allowing "technical issues" to create the possibility of irrevocable loss of life?!

The Ministry of Justice claimed that the service of the judgment and the finalization of the case are the responsibility of the Supreme Court and have nothing to do with the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice clearly overlooks the fact that: the Ministry of Justice is the final executing agency that determines the life and death of the parties involved; how can it shrug off its irrevocable negligence in this case by claiming it has "nothing to do with it"? On the eve of Human Rights Day, three civil human rights organizations solemnly demand that the Ministry of Justice immediately formulate the "Directions for Implementing Capital Punishment Execution Procedures" to standardize the execution process of the death penalty, and prevent Taiwan's human rights situation from becoming a bizarre tale on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!