Statement｜Implementing CEDAW and Building a Gender-Friendly Judiciary: Statement on the Second-Instance Judgment of the Disciplinary Court in the Case of Woman Y

Today, the Disciplinary Court delivered its judgment in the Case of Woman Y (Disciplinary Respondent: Ting Yun-kung) under the 110-Year-Du-Shang-Tzu No. 3 ruling. It held that the respondent's uploading of a photograph together with the victim on Facebook was related to "sex or gender" and constituted sexual harassment under the "reasonable victim" standard. Consequently, the original judgment was set aside, and a heavier disciplinary sanction of "removal from office along with a three-year suspension from appointment" was rendered.

In response, the Judicial Reform Foundation, Taiwan Association for Victims Support, National Alliance of Taiwan Women's Associations, Taiwan Digital V-Day, Taipei Women's Rescue Foundation, and other organizations (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Society Organizations) jointly issue the following two-point statement:
 

I. The Disciplinary Court's commissioning of experts to conduct an appraisal on the issue of sexual harassment is commendable.

As indicated in the press release of the Judicial Yuan, during the investigation proceedings, the panel of judges of the Disciplinary Court commissioned three legal scholars specializing in gender equality issues—Chiao Hsing-k'ai, Wu Chih-kuang, and Kuo Ling-hui—to produce an expert appraisal report on "whether the case constitutes sexual harassment" for the Court's reference.

On November 10, 2021, based on the standpoint of public interest, the Civil Society Organizations jointly issued an "Amicus Curiae Brief" which cited General Recommendation No. 33, Paragraph 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (hereinafter referred to as CEDAW): "Enhancing the sensitivity of the judicial system to gender equality issues." The object of sensitivity for "gender sensitivity" refers to male experiences or value judgment standards that are deemed conventional and normal. If the judiciary continues to apply such standards, it is tantamount to causing secondary victimization to those seeking help.

The approach adopted in this judgment—seeking expert opinions and exercising prudent determination in this regard—is worthy of emulation. The Civil Society Organizations also call upon judicial organs to recognize the necessity of consulting expert opinions when adjudicating cases related to gender equality.

II. We look forward to the courts actively citing CEDAW to jointly build a gender-friendly judiciary.

In the national report released in March of this year, although the government mentioned that by 2020, 852 judges had participated in gender equality-related courses offered by the Judges Academy, achieving a coverage rate of approximately 40%, and while the Judicial Yuan has also published a list of case numbers for judgments citing the CEDAW Convention on the Judicial Yuan Global Information Network's Judiciary Human Rights Section for judges, academia, and the general public to consult and utilize,

it is nevertheless evident from the information on the website that, compared to other conventions (2,522 rulings for the Two Covenants, 4,136 rulings for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and 288 rulings for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), CEDAW—as a convention that has been domesticated for over 10 years—has only been cited in 76 judgments, which is a relatively low number.

The Civil Society Organizations call upon judicial organs to place greater emphasis on gender awareness education and to establish a judiciary that effectively safeguards gender equality. The Civil Society Organizations will also continue to monitor and focus on issues concerning judicial gender equality.

 

[Jointly Stating Organizations] (Ordered by stroke count)

Taiwan Association for Victims Support

National Alliance of Taiwan Women's Associations


Taiwan Digital V-Day


Taipei Women's Rescue Foundation


Judicial Reform Foundation

 

[Press Contact]

Li Ming-ju, Attorney-at-Law, Deputy Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation