Unerasable Images of State Violence, Undiscoverable Truths of State Violence ~ Press Conference on the 6th Anniversary of the March 24 Executive Yuan Eviction Incident

Six full years have passed since the March 24 Executive Yuan Eviction Incident. According to records in the Ministry of Health and Welfare's emergency medical system alone, major hospitals dispatched ambulances at least 61 times and treated over 200 people injured by police officers' unlawful and abusive violence that night—and this is merely the tip of the iceberg regarding the actual number of casualties. Afterward, because prosecutors failed to actively prosecute the police officers who committed violence that night, 48 victims—risking being prosecuted by the state in return—gained the courage to file private prosecutions with the Taipei District Court, accusing the violent police officers, then-Premier Chiang Yi-hua, then-National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun, then-Taipei City Police Department Chief Huang Sheng-yung, then-First Precinct Chief Fang Yang-ning, and others of offenses including attempted murder, attempted aggravated assault, assault, and coercion.

However, after six years of court trials, the public's prosecution of the "unidentified police officers" has been dismissed with finality, and the court also acquitted the then-Taipei City Police Department Chief Huang Sheng-yung. Under the government's inaction, six years after this incident, not a single police officer who exerted unlawful violence against the public nor any police commander who allowed the violence to occur has been held accountable.

State Violence Laid Bare in the Courtroom

Over the past six years, in private prosecution cases and state compensation cases related to March 24, the courts examined the police's evidence-gathering video footage from that night in open court. This reconstructed the fact that fully geared police officers (many without armbands) beat seated protesters with police batons, struck them with riot shields, punched and kicked them, or directed high-pressure water jets straight at their heads, torsos, and limbs. These acts of brutality clearly violated the Act Governing the Use of Police Weapons and other regulations and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Both the victims and members of the public attending the hearings witnessed that stark state violence indeed occurred that night.

The volunteer legal team has compiled selected clips examined in open court to recreate the scenes across various areas of the Executive Yuan compound that night through the "Executive Yuan Map," while also presenting the litigation experiences and sentiments of the victims over the past six years: https://324.jrf.org.tw/.

The Tragic History of "Having Victims, But No Perpetrators" is Repeating Itself

"Only victims, no perpetrators" is the norm for state-perpetrated violent crimes. Taiwan has witnessed violent crackdowns throughout its authoritarian rule era—such as the Chungli Incident, the Kaohsiung Incident, and the May 20 Farmers' Movement—yet no one has ever been held accountable for these acts of state violence. Following the end of the authoritarian rule era, such methods were not eradicated alongside democratic transition. From the Wild Strawberry Movement to March 24, police officers could still ignore the law to arbitrarily beat assembly and protest participants, and still no officials or police officers needed to bear corresponding responsibility for these violent acts and numerous victims.

Over the past six years, in the process of accompanying March 24 victims in petitioning the courts for accountability, we have once again understood why the responsibility for the violent suppression of assemblies and processions is so difficult to pursue: prosecutors, who hold the state's power to investigate crimes, turned a blind eye to such state violence and were unwilling to actively investigate. The police system investigated itself for six years, yet failed to uncover a single police officer who violently attacked the public. As for the high-ranking police officials who served as commanders that night, they had already successfully retired or stepped steadily upward. Under the bureaucratic system of segmented division of labor and mutual shrugging of responsibility, when faced with the court's investigations, agencies at all levels responded with a unified voice that no such person could be found, thereby achieving a perfect evasion of responsibility. Meanwhile, crucial evidentiary materials rested predominantly with the government, leaving citizens lacking public authority in a disadvantaged position regarding the burden of proof, forced to try to piece together the truth of that night from fragmented evidence, and often struggling even to prove the fact that they themselves suffered unlawful violence.

Amid this mutual shielding among high-ranking police officials and officers, Taiwan's decades-long lamentable song of state violence—characterized by "having victims, but no perpetrators"—has been performed once again, and the public remains unable to escape the fear of suffering unlawful violent injuries inflicted by police officers.

Holding Officials Accountable and Establishing Guidelines to Prevent State Violence from Recurring

The volunteer legal team, March 24 victims, and the elected representatives present today to care about this issue hereby call upon the administrative agencies, the Control Yuan, and the Legislative Yuan not to forget the painful lessons of the March 24 state violence. Because this incident signifies that the fundamental causes of the violent suppression of assemblies and processions during the authoritarian era have not yet been eliminated, and even if criminal prosecution yields no results or some parts are still ongoing, the police officers and police commanders who carried out the violence must still be held administratively accountable. Meanwhile, police units should also review police education and training, the use of police weapons, and SOPs for handling assemblies and processions, and make every effort to implement the provisions of the Act Governing the Use of Police Weapons and the Police-Citizenship Power Exercise Act into the process of police officers executing their duties. They must discard a law enforcement culture that cares only about results and disregards the process, avoid making frontline police officers scapegoats for state violence, practice true "administration in accordance with the law," thoroughly bid farewell to the shadow of violent suppression of assemblies and processions from the authoritarian era, and prevent the same state violence from happening again and again.

Appendix

No.	Private Prosecutor	Defendant
		Unidentified Violent Police Officers	Huang Sheng-yung (Then-Chief of Taipei City Police Department)	Ma Ying-jeou (Then-President) Chiang Yi-hua (Then-Premier) Wang Cho-chiun (Then-Director-General of National Police Agency) Fang Yang-ning (Then-Chief of Zhongzheng First Precinct)	Hsueh Wen-jung (Then-Chief of Da'an Precinct) Yang Hung-cheng (Then-Chief of Nangang Precinct)
1	Chou OO	Private prosecutor did not file charges	Court dismissed (The legal team attempted to consolidate this case into the Chou Ni-an case, but was rejected; they could only express opinions in the capacity of victims)	Chou OO passed away on 2015/3/31; 37 victims assumed this lawsuit. Later, after the court ruled to dismiss the private prosecution, 23 people filed interlocutory appeals, which are currently being remanded to the High Court for retrial.	Private prosecutor did not file charges
2	Wang OO	Judgment of dismissal finalized, constitutional interpretation application pending (The legal team attempted to consolidate this case into the Chou Ni-an case, but was rejected; they could only express opinions in the capacity of victims)			Private prosecutor did not file charges
3	Chou Ni-an	Court dismissed	Both the first and second instances ruled Huang Sheng-yung not guilty		Private prosecutor did not file charges
4	Hsiao OO	Private prosecutor did not file charges	Court dismissed (The legal team attempted to consolidate this case into the Chou Ni-an case, but was rejected; they could only express opinions in the capacity of victims)		Private prosecutor did not file charges
5	Lin OO and 18 others	Dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2020/1/31.			Among them, two filed private prosecutions against Hsueh Wen-jung; one case was dismissed by the court, while the other resulted in a finalized not-guilty verdict for Hsueh Wen-jung in the first instance. Additionally, 3 people filed private prosecutions against Yang Hung-cheng; Yang Hung-cheng was found not guilty in the first instance, and the second instance is currently pending.
6	Huang OO and 22 others	Lost the lawsuit with finality			Private prosecutor did not file charges
7	Hsu OO	Court dismissed			Private prosecutor did not file charges
8	Chou OO	Court dismissed			Private prosecutor did not file charges
9	Chiang OO	Court dismissed			Private prosecutor did not file charges
10	Liao OO	Private prosecutor did not file charges			Private prosecutor did not file charges

Attending Representatives

Volunteer Legal Team Against the Black Box Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement
Yū Po-hsiang / Attorney
Kuo Hao-jen / Attorney
Lin Chien-hung / Attorney
Hung Wei-sheng / Attorney
Wang Ch'en / Attorney
Hsiao Yü-hsin / Attorney
Hsueh Ch'in-feng / Attorney
Ho Chao-tung / Attorney

Chou Ni-an / Former Legislator
Freddy Lim / Legislator
Lai Pin-yü / Legislator
Hung Sun-han / Legislator
Huang Yü-fen / Councilor
Chang Chih-hao / Councilor
Wu Pei-yi / Councilor
Huang Shou-ta / Councilor

Press Contact

Lee Ming-ju, Staff Attorney, Judicial Reform Foundation