Anti-Torture Day Lecture Series｜Does Torture Still Exist in Taiwan? The Unfinished Path Against Torture

After being taken away by the police, his face was covered with a towel and water was poured until he could not breathe; after fainting, he was revived with electric shocks, and his genitals were shocked until they ulcerated. In the end, the court sentenced him to death. Time flew by outside the iron bars; his father ran about seeking his vindication until he passed away from overwork. Inside the iron bars, the only remaining space was filled with the fear of execution by firing squad.

This was Su Chien-ho's youth.

On February 4, 1995, the final third-instance judgments for Su Chien-ho, Liu Bing-lang, and Chuang Lin-xun were finalized, each sentencing them to two death penalties and deprivation of civil rights for life. On May 18, 2000, the High Court ruled to commence a retrial, after which the Supreme Court remanded the retrial case to the High Court three times. On August 31, 2012, in the third retrial remanding, the three men were finally acquitted. The period from being accused of the crime to the final acquittal lasted approximately 21 years.

Most of the public assumes this case has come to an end. However, the civil damages suit attached to the criminal proceedings filed by the victims' families in 1992 continued to be heard by the civil court after the criminal case was finalized. Both the first and second instances ruled that no damages liability should be borne. On August 26, 2020, the Supreme Court revoked the judgment and remanded the case to the High Court, meaning that more than 30 years have passed since the incident occurred, yet Su Chien-ho and the others must still continue to fight for their innocence within the judicial system.

Notably, in the reasoning of the Supreme Court's Civil Division for revoking and remanding the case to the High Court, Su Chien-ho and the three men were required to bear the burden of proof regarding the facts of torture, failing to exclude the use of such torture evidence in the civil court. This strongly conflicts with Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Comment No. 20, Article 15 of the Convention against Torture, and the authoritative report on the exclusionary rule mentioned by the Special Rapporteur on Torture in 2014 (A/HRC/25/60), which states that the exclusionary rule applies in all judicial proceedings. During the international review of the Two Covenants that concluded this May (2022), international experts also re-emphasized this point in their speeches.

Attorney Su Yu-ch'en, who has campaigned for the Su Chien-ho case for thirty years, has fought for the innocence of the three men since his youth and now has gray hair; Su Chien-ho himself, entering middle age, has dedicated himself to public welfare after his vindication, enrolled in Soochow University's Graduate Institute of Human Rights, and is still using his life to change the world. On International Anti-Torture Day, we have invited them to talk about their experiences in rescuing the Su Chien-ho case, from the perspective of the case defendants, regarding the "resurrection from defeat" of torture evidence in civil litigation, their thoughts on preventing judicial miscarriages and the National Preventive Mechanism against torture in Taiwan, to exchange ideas with everyone, and to call on the Legislative Yuan to swiftly pass the draft "Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol."

During the 2022 third review of the Two Covenants, international experts and scholars expressed surprise and disappointment that, more than a decade after the domestic incorporation of the Covenants, Taiwan is still shouting slogans about gradually abolishing the death penalty, gathering public opinion, and finding alternatives. After all, over these ten years, international experts have offered numerous recommendations and fostered various dialogues, attempting to propel Taiwan to stand with more than two-thirds of the countries in the world on the side free of the death penalty.

In the concluding observations formulated during this year's covenant review, the section on the death penalty once again reiterated its consistent stance, hoping that Taiwan will immediately abolish the death penalty or at least suspend executions. In particular, paragraph 70 explicitly points out that the death penalty constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.

A little over a month after the conclusion of the covenant review, today on June 26, International Anti-Torture Day, under the title "Death Penalty and Torture: Where Should Taiwan Go Next After Long Evading the Obligation and Responsibility to Abolish the Death Penalty?", we have invited TAEDP Executive Director Lin Hsin-yi to moderate the lecture, alongside Control Yuan Member Kao Yung-ch'eng and TAEDP Legal Affairs Director Lin Tzu-wei for a dialogue.

This year's World Day Against the Death Penalty theme is precisely related to torture: the death penalty is a road paved with torture. What ultimately is the unfinished path of abolishing the death penalty? Why has the Taiwanese government remained complacent for so many years, unwilling to move toward international human rights standards? And as Taiwanese citizens who recognize human rights as universal values, how can we view the death penalty and torture, and how should we understand the specific recommendations given to Taiwan in the concluding observations?

On World Human Rights Day (December 10) in 2020, the Executive Yuan Council passed the draft "Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol," submitting it together with the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation. However, after a year and a half, the draft remains at the first reading stage pending review in the Legislative Yuan. This is the second time the Executive Yuan has sent the draft CAT and OPCAT Enforcement Acts to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation; when first submitted in 2018, the legislative procedure could not be completed due to the rule of parliamentary discontinuity. Currently, the legislative path for the CAT and OPCAT Enforcement Acts still awaits advancement.

At the third lecture of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture series, we have invited Hsu Wei-chun, Associate Professor at the Department of Financial and Economic Law of Chung Yuan Christian University, Kao Yung-ch'eng, Human Rights Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission, and Huang Sung-li, Convener of Covenants Watch, for a dialogue. The discussion will explore how authoritarian regimes use torture as a means to achieve their political purposes. We will then discuss how the National Human Rights Commission, as a human rights promotion and protection institution, should investigate and remedy torture that has already occurred and actively carry out torture prevention. Finally, drawing on European Court of Human Rights judgments and experiences with torture prevention mechanisms in various countries, we will analyze the pros and cons of different mechanisms, and subsequently discuss and outline the institutional blueprint for Taiwan's National Preventive Mechanism against torture.

The UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture stated clearly in its 2021 statement for the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture that protecting civil society organizations and human rights defenders in carrying out their work is crucial to remedy and accountability for torture victims. How can civil society lay the foundation for torture prevention and carve out space for torture victims? How should we understand the state's use of torture to achieve its political purposes? As policy advocates and monitors, how should we urge the National Human Rights Commission to implement its investigation, remedy, and prevention work regarding torture? And how can we urge legislative units and the government through policy advocacy to formulate and implement a set of National Preventive Mechanisms against torture suited to Taiwan's circumstances? We invite you to participate in the lecture series and jointly deliberate on the path forward for Taiwan's torture prevention mechanism.