Statement by the Foundation Regarding Today's Media Report Entitled "Lawyer Serving as Transitional Justice Commissioner Amounts to Intimidation of the Judiciary"

Regarding today's media report entitled "Lawyer Serving as Transitional Justice Commissioner Amounts to Intimidation of the Judiciary," the Foundation issues the following statement:

Yesterday (December 25), the High Court heard the March 23 Executive Yuan Incident, in which prosecutors accused the defendants of offenses such as obstructing officers and inciting others to commit crimes. Because the panel of judges exhibited hostility and preconceived bias against the defendants throughout previous court sessions, and the presiding judge repeatedly violated the Code of Criminal Procedure in conducting the litigation—thus undermining the defendants' right to a fair trial—the pro bono defense team filed a motion for the recusal of the judges and held a press conference to explain.

Instances of judicial bias and unlawful litigation conduct by the judges presiding over this case include the following: Pursuant to Article 163, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge may investigate evidence ex officio in order to discover the truth, provided that the parties and defense counsel are given an opportunity to make statements prior to the investigation of evidence. Even upon commencing questioning, the judge must explain the relevance between the witness and the facts to be proved. However, during the court session on December 18, the judge ex officio summoned six police officers to testify without giving the defendants and defense counsel any opportunity to state their opinions prior to the summons, nor was this indicated in the court summons. When the lawyers inquired in court about the purpose of the summons and the facts to be proved, the presiding judge attempted to brush the inquiry aside with remarks such as, "I want to understand the overall facts of that night."

The aforementioned media report completely ignores the biased conduct of the judges during the court proceedings, choosing instead to emphasize only that police officers were injured. Putting aside the fact that hundreds of citizens were beaten and injured by police on the night of March 23—with the footage of state violence vividly recorded—and that this case does not involve the trial of assault charges, the media omitted any mention of the presiding judge's illegal statements and actions in court. Instead, it accused the courtroom observation campaign and falsely reported that the pro bono lawyers threatened to "fix" the judges, thereby completely abandoning the objective standpoint expected of the media in reasonably monitoring judicial impartiality.

Finally, the value of transitional justice is by no means political liquidation; rather, it encompasses all institutional transformations experienced as a country transitions from authoritarianism to democracy. The Executive Yuan occupation case did not occur during the authoritarian era and does not fall within the scope of transitional justice or the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice. The report's claim that attorney Yu Po-hsiang, convener of the pro bono defense team, simultaneously serves as a member of the Transitional Justice Commission constitutes playing both the player and the referee, which is likely a misunderstanding and unhelpful for clarifying the legal issues in this case.

A fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to the people by the Constitution. Anyone who genuinely respects the judiciary should step forward in a timely manner against illegality and impropriety to defend the value of the judiciary in a democratic society. Malicious smearing fosters an unjust judiciary, which is merely repeating past mistakes and failing to reflect upon the weakness of the judiciary during the White Terror era.