More Effort Needed for Prosecutors', Police's, and Investigators' Interrogation Procedures!

This year, the JRF Action Committee launched a series of activities to eradicate improper interrogations by prosecutors, police, and investigators. Following press conferences and seminars on police performance evaluations to review improper interrogations, human rights violations, and the rationalization of performance metrics, the committee immediately began visiting relevant agencies. During this wave of visits, we joined forces with civil groups such as the Prosecutor Reform Association, bar associations, the Police Reform Association, and the Chinese Association of Criminology to jointly put forward several demands, including:

Major changes resulting from amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure—including the implementation of party-presentation principles, the adoption of strict rules of evidence, and the enhancement of regulations on criminal appraisal and police evidence collection—all highlight the importance of rationalizing interrogation processes by police and investigators. We demand that the entire interrogation process be audio and video recorded to ensure its authenticity.

Regarding interrogation procedures: We suggest that if police or investigators engage in improper interrogation or violations during identification procedures, such instances should be incorporated into performance evaluations. We also recommend that the Ministry of Justice forward relevant identification regulations to all prosecutors to effectively review whether police and investigative identification processes are flawed, and to enforce the principle prohibiting repeated identifications.

Demands regarding police performance evaluations: 1. Establish a system to award bonus points when police assist in court appearances. 2. Enhance the quality and quantity of criminal investigators and reasonably increase their compensation. 3. Recommend that the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Yuan, and the National Police Agency establish a cooperative model in the future, using whether evidence collected by the police is excluded by judges during preparatory proceedings as a benchmark to establish reward and punishment indicators for police investigative flaws.

Regarding these demands, the JRF and related groups have already visited the Ministry of Justice and the National Police Agency to exchange views. In response to the upcoming implementation of the new criminal procedure system, the Ministry of Justice provided several responses, including: 1. Improper identifications are currently used as a standard for returning cases. 2. Regarding lawyers copying audio and video tapes, prosecutors are concerned about the original copies being damaged and about unadjudicated cases being publicly disclosed by lawyers as a tool to attack prosecutors. 3. Regarding police and investigative performance: The Investigation Bureau has already based its performance scoring on whether prosecutors file indictments. As for the police, if a case is returned by prosecutors with a notification to the National Police Agency regarding severe disciplinary violations, the National Police Agency will deduct the corresponding points. 4. Furthermore, the National Police Agency will periodically list and tabulate the reasons for returned cases to provide as a reference for frontline personnel. Meanwhile, facing the implementation of the new law, the National Police Agency appears deeply concerned; regarding the shortage of criminal police personnel and the adaptation to future investigative methods, no comprehensive complementary measures have been observed yet.

We will continue to discuss these demands with units such as the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau, hoping to effectively improve interrogation procedures—including identification processes—by prosecutors, police, and investigators to safeguard fundamental human rights. Furthermore, we will review the actual operational situation of these demands two months after the new criminal procedure system takes effect.

The new criminal procedure system will take effect on September 1, and while it may not be entirely satisfactory, the realization of human rights protections must start from the new Code of Criminal Procedure. The pace of reform must never stall due to temporary setbacks. We expect that whether it is the National Police Agency, the Ministry of Justice, or the Judicial Yuan, only by steadfastly upholding the determination to implement reforms can they positively meet the challenges of the new system.