Statement | Reports and commentaries alleging that "the Constitutional Court has selected amicus curiae leaning toward the abolition of the death penalty" do not accord with facts

Today (April 23), our Constitutional Court held oral arguments regarding the "constitutionality of the death penalty." However, recent media reports and public figures have made factual inaccuracies and commentaries questioning whether the "amicus curiae selected by the Constitutional Court" are mostly biased toward the "abolition" stance.

To prevent the dissemination of misinformation, our Foundation provides the following explanations to facilitate rational discussion on the "debate over the unconstitutionality of the death penalty":

On January 25 of this year, the Constitutional Court publicly announced that members of society could voluntarily apply to act as "amicus curiae" by February 16, submitting professional opinions regarding the "unconstitutionality of the death penalty." If permitted, brief submissions were required by April 9.

Accordingly, members of the public, whether in favor of or against the death penalty, could apply to act as "amicus curiae" in accordance with the law; they were not designated by the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, based on the purpose of widely gathering counsel, the Constitutional Court neither "selected" nor exclusively permitted those who "support abolition" to act as "amicus curiae." Therefore, related reports or commentaries claiming based on this that "the Justices have already formed their mental impressions" are evidently mistaken.

Conversely, among the 6 experts and scholars as well as the 2 expert institutions "designated" by the Constitutional Court ex officio this time, a balanced proportion of half supporting and half opposing is precisely presented. Therefore, among the experts and expert witnesses designated by the Constitutional Court to provide opinions this time, there is also no issue of bias toward a specific stance.