Amicus Curiae Brief to the Constitutional Court | Case on Insufficient Protection of Litigation Rights for Minor Victims of Sexual Offenses

Main Case Number: 112-Hsien-Min-Tzu-384
Amicus Curiae: Judicial Reform Foundation
Representative: Huang Hsu-T'ien (See power of attorney for details)
Counsel: Lü Cheng-Yen, Attorney-at-Law; Cheng Yü-Ting, Attorney-at-Law (See power of attorney for details)

---

This amicus curiae brief is submitted pursuant to Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and the Constitutional Court Ruling Hsien-Min-Tzu No. 384 of May 8, 2023 (ROC calendar), regarding the petition for normative constitutional review filed by individuals in Case No. 112-Hsien-Min-Tzu-384:

I. Disclosures Required for Submitting an Amicus Curiae Brief:

1. Pursuant to Article 20, Paragraph 3, mutatis mutandis applying Article 19, Paragraph 3 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, individuals or organizations other than parties, interested persons, or their counsel shall disclose whether they have any division of labor or cooperative relationship, or financial remuneration or sponsorship, along with the amount or value thereof, with the parties, interested persons, or their counsel.

2. This amicus curiae brief was co-authored by counsel Lü Cheng-Yen and Cheng Yü-Ting. The disclosures regarding the preparation and submission of this brief by our representative and counsel are as follows:

(1) They have no division of labor or cooperative relationship whatsoever with the petitioner, interested persons, counsel, or parties to the underlying case;
(2) They have not received any financial remuneration or sponsorship from the petitioner, interested persons, counsel, or parties to the underlying case;
(3) They have no legal interest or command-and-supervision relationship with the petitioner, interested persons, counsel, or parties to the underlying case; and
(4) There is no provision of any financial remuneration or sponsorship.

II. The Foundation's Opinions and Grounds in Support of the Petitioner

1. Article 80 of the Criminal Code uniformly calculates the statute of limitations for prosecution from the time the criminal offense is consummated and establishes varying limitation periods based solely on the severity of the statutory penalty, without taking into account the particularly vulnerable circumstances faced by minor victims of sexual offenses. This violates the litigation rights of minor victims guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution and should be declared unconstitutional:

(1) The right of a victim to file a criminal complaint and hold the perpetrator criminally accountable constitutes the core of the protection of litigation rights under Article 16 of the Constitution:

1. Regarding the intent of Article 16 of the Constitution in guaranteeing the people's litigation rights, reference may be made to the Reasoning of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 742:

According to the intent of the above Interpretation, when a crime victims' rights are infringed by a criminal offense, their right to file a complaint against the perpetrator undoubtedly falls under the protection of litigation rights guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution.

2. However, to avoid the excesses and inadequacies of self-help, contemporary criminal procedure systems provide that the state's public authority exclusively holds the punitive power, and in principle, the prosecution of perpetrators is initiated by the prosecutor's office rather than the crime victim. Moreover, considering that once the state penalizes individuals with crimes and punishments, their life, physical integrity, freedom, and property are deprived by state coercive power with extremely severe consequences. Therefore, criminal procedure has complex and detailed procedural regulations to achieve substantive justice. Under this understanding, the primary purpose of criminal proceedings does not seem to exist for the restoration of legal interests infringed upon by victims (refer to Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 569, Concurrent Opinion of Justice Lin Tzu-Yi).

3. This interpretive tendency is also evident in past constitutional interpretation practices, which largely focused on elucidating the content of a defendant's litigation rights and rarely discussed the protection of a crime victim's litigation rights, revealing inadequacies in the interpretation of crime victims' litigation rights. However, the aforementioned dissenting views pertain to how crime victims participate in criminal proceedings; solely regarding a crime victim's right to file a complaint, its significance is merely the right of a crime victim to report a crime to state authorities to "initiate" criminal prosecution, which does not yet involve issues affecting a criminal suspect's right to a fair trial. Since the state already monopolizes punitive power and in principle restricts crime victims from pursuing the criminal responsibility of suspects through self-help, it is only natural to recognize the right to file a complaint as part of the core protection of litigation rights under Article 16 of the Constitution.

4. Furthermore, pursuant to the Criminal Code amended and promulgated on January 8, 2020 (ROC calendar), crime victims have been officially incorporated as procedural subjects in criminal proceedings, and the legislative intent explicitly reveals their rights to participate in litigation:

(1) Legislative intent for the addition of Article 455-38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(2) Legislative intent for the addition of Article 455-40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(3) Legislative intent for the addition of Article 455-43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(4) Legislative intent for the addition of Article 455-44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(5) Legislative intent for the addition of Article 455-45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(6) Legislative intent for the addition of Article 455-46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

5. Meanwhile, the Crime Victim Rights Protection Act underwent a full amendment in 2023—its first in 25 years—which explicitly stipulates that crime victims have the right to be informed about criminal proceedings involving the defendant and the right to express opinions during parole reviews of sentenced offenders. The legislative reasons also consistently emphasize the subject status of crime victims:

Legislative reasons for Article 5 of the Crime Victim Rights Protection Act:

6. In summary, given the current flourishing development of crime victims' rights to participate in criminal proceedings, it is further proven that the right to file a complaint, which serves as its starting point, naturally falls within the core of the protection of litigation rights under Article 16 of the Constitution.

(2) Article 80 of the Criminal Code uniformly calculates the statute of limitations for prosecution from the time a perpetrator's offense is consummated, and establishes varying limitation periods based solely on the severity of the statutory penalty, without taking into account any circumstances of crime victimization:

1. The statute of limitations for the power of prosecution means that once the power of prosecution is extinguished by prescription, the state will no longer prosecute the criminal conduct, and the crime victim absolutely can no longer pursue criminal responsibility. Therefore, the legal effect of this system, while restricting the initiation of the state's punitive power, simultaneously restricts the people's right to file a complaint guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution.

2. According to the Ministry of Justice's legislative explanation of Article 80 of the Criminal Code dated February 2, 2005 (ROC calendar), the nature of the power of prosecution is the right of a prosecutor or crime victim to petition a court to ascertain the existence and scope of the state's punitive power. The statute of limitations system serves purposes such as restraining punitive power, urging investigative and adjudicative authorities to actively exercise the power of prosecution and preventing inaction, preventing the destruction of evidence to reduce the risk of miscarriage of justice, maintaining legal stability, and avoiding the prolonged expenditure of judicial resources (for further analysis, see Section "II, 2, (4), 1, (1)" and below of this brief).

3. However, the aforementioned purposes of the prosecution power system do not preclude a concrete consideration of the circumstances surrounding the exercise of punitive power and the right to file a complaint while simultaneously restricting the state's punitive power and the people's right to file a complaint, thereby balancing the reasonable protection of the people's litigation rights while achieving those purposes. Nevertheless, Article 80 of the Criminal Code merely prescribes varying lengths for the exercise of prosecution power based on the severity of statutory penalties, and uniformly calculates them from the "time the offense is consummated," without considering circumstances where the people's right to file a complaint is objectively difficult to exercise:

(i) The crime victim's capacity to file a criminal complaint

This factor should comprehensively consider elements such as the crime victim's age, intellect, upbringing, and psychological state. For instance, if a young crime victim lives in an environment isolated from society for a prolonged period, it is manifestly unreasonable to expect them to recognize their victimized situation and file a criminal complaint.

(ii) The relationship and status between the crime victim and the perpetrator

Considering that if the perpetrator occupies a dominant position of unilateral control, domination, or the ability to inflict unfavorable treatment upon the victim, it may be difficult to expect a complaint to be lodged at the time the offense occurs. If the perpetrator is the victim's statutory agent, the victim may encounter even more legal or factual obstacles when seeking relief.

(iii) The possibility and circumstances of state public authorities proactively investigating and discovering crimes on their own

Depending on the nature of specific criminal acts, they may occur in non-public, private spaces. If the crime victim does not report the crime, third parties and state public authorities are almost incapable of knowing about it. Taking sexual offenses as an example, there is an objective difficulty in committing them in public places; therefore, most sexual offenses occur in isolated spaces.

4. Examining the regulatory approach of Article 80 of the Criminal Code, it undoubtedly fails to incorporate any circumstances relating to crime victimization.

(3) Victims of "sexual offenses against minors" simultaneously meet the three aforementioned objective circumstances where it is difficult for individuals to exercise the right to file a complaint. Article 80 of the Criminal Code omits this consideration and improperly restricts the right of minor victims of sexual offenses to file complaints, thereby violating the intent of Article 16 of the Constitution to guarantee people's litigation rights:

1. The Reasoning of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 664 and No. 805 sets forth the state's obligation to protect the physical and mental health of children and adolescents and their right to sound personality development:
Reasoning of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 664 (the same intent is expressed in the Reasoning of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 805):

2. According to the "Cross Statistics on Age of Victims of Sexual Assault and Relationship Between Parties" published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2022 (refer to Exhibit 1):

a. Among the 8,401 victims that year, 4,809 (57.24%) were minors under the age of 18. Among minors, 16 out of every 100 victims were children under the age of 12.

b. Among the 203 child victims under 6 years old that year, those whose relationship was "family member" accounted for 57%. Among them, "lineal blood relatives" accounted for the highest number, at approximately 37%. Among the 608 child victims aged 6 to 12, those whose relationship was "family member" accounted for 45%, with "lineal blood relatives" accounting for the highest number, at approximately 20%.

c. Among the 3,998 adolescent victims aged 12 to 18 that year, those whose relationship was "family member" also reached as high as 10.83%.

It is noteworthy that victims of incestuous sexual assault find themselves trapped in overlapping vulnerabilities. Thus, it should be understood that apart from reported cases, the dark figure of unreported crimes is far higher than the aforementioned statistics. According to the "Internet Survey on Seeking Help Attitudes for Sexual Violence Incidents" released by the Garden of Hope Foundation on April 17, 2023, as many as 90% of sexual violence victims dared not call the police, and 40% never sought help externally (refer to Exhibit 2).

3. The statistical data above demonstrate that "sexual offenses against minors" differ from ordinary crimes not only in terms of the covert nature of such crimes and the difficulty in gathering evidence, which makes prosecution hard:

a. Compared to adult victims of general sexual offenses, the proportion of sexual offenses against minors is extremely high; such crimes maliciously target victims whose physical and mental development is incomplete, exploiting their lack of self-protective awareness and cognitive circumstances.

b. Sexual offenses against children further exploit the victim's potential inability to comprehend the fact of sex, sexual behavior, or sexual assault. When victims are young minors, they rely entirely on the family as their support and care system. If the perpetrator is a relative, victims are easily constrained by family reputation or the feelings of other family members; or they are economically dependent on the perpetrator; or, pressured by the perpetrator's power and unequal authority, they abandon opportunities to seek external help or prosecute the crime, making it fundamentally impossible to expect them to seek help in a timely manner, initiate lawsuits, and prosecute the crime.

c. Even if the victim possesses the aforementioned cognition and awareness at the time, they are often burdened by severe physical and psychological trauma and negative impacts resulting from the sexual offense. How can a young, naive victim be expected to recover from the pain early and immediately defend their own rights and interests?

In this regard, it is objectively difficult to expect victims to have the capacity to seek help, file lawsuits, and prosecute crimes. Moreover, by the time their self-awareness and related knowledge gradually mature, the statute of limitations for prosecution has already expired, leaving behind lifelong regret.

4. Regarding the limitation period for prosecution of such "sexual offenses against minors," if it is uniformly calculated from the time of the "perpetrator's" "consummation of the offense" without granting minor victims a buffer period of prosecution rules, it will create overly harsh circumstances in the application of the law. Article 80 of the Criminal Code is tantamount to demanding that young victims possess the same sound cognitive awareness of sexual autonomy and rights-protection consciousness as average adult victims. Furthermore, if the perpetrator is a relative of the victim, the victim must also overcome psychological and interpersonal pressures as well as economic destitution, and prosecute the perpetrator within the limitation period. Otherwise, once the limitation period expires, past sexual offenses can no longer be punished, disguisedly turning into an instrument for perpetrators to evade the law and subverting judicial justice.

5. In summary, Article 80 of the Criminal Code fails to consider the special circumstances of "sexual offenses against minors" and uniformly calculates the limitation period for prosecution from the "perpetrator's" "consummation of the offense." This evidently results in insufficient protection and obvious unfairness toward young minor victims, infringes upon the right of victims of "sexual offenses against minors" to file complaints, violates the intent of Article 16 of the Constitution to guarantee litigation rights, and should be unconstitutional.

(4) Conclusion

Based on the constitutional protection of people's litigation rights and the state's special obligation to protect the physical and mental health of children and adolescents and their sound personality development, Article 80 of the Criminal Code lacks special provisions for sexual offenses against minors without considering their particularly vulnerable circumstances as crime victims. This violates the intent of Article 16 of the Constitution to guarantee people's litigation rights and should be declared unconstitutional.

2. If Your Honorable Court, upon adjudicating this case, holds that criminal suspects in the underlying case or other sexual offenses against minors whose prosecution rights have already been extinguished may exceptionally be prosecuted anew, such a holding does not violate the principle of prohibition against retroactive criminal punishment, and constitutes an exception to the principle that laws are not retroactive:

(1) Referring to the petitioner's petition intent, it is contended that the statute of limitations for prosecution of sexual offenses against minors should be extended or appropriately assigned a new starting point. If the petitioner's argument is well-founded—namely, that Article 80 of the Criminal Code indeed violates the Constitution—then prosecuting criminal suspects of sexual offenses against minors whose limitation period has already expired may give rise to the controversy of whether the principle of prohibition against retroactive criminal punishment is violated. This requires clarification.

(2) Past amendments to Article 80 of the Criminal Code extending the statute of limitations for prosecution adopted the principle favoring the actor. However, for extremely serious cases resulting in death, cases where the prosecution right had not yet been extinguished were amended to provide for permanent prosecution:

1. When amending the provisions extending the limitation period for prosecution, similar issues regarding the application of old versus new laws were encountered. During the two amendments to Article 80 of the Criminal Code on January 7, 2005 and December 6, 2019 (ROC calendar) to extend the limitation period for prosecution, Article 8-1 of the Enforcement Act of the Criminal Code was simultaneously enacted to require the application of provisions most favorable to the actor.

2. However, in the amendment of December 6, 2019, when abolishing the statute of limitations for prosecution for "offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for not less than ten years which result in death," Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Act of the Criminal Code adopted a legislative approach where prosecution rights already extinguished by prescription remain extinguished, but unexpired periods are subject to the new provisions.

3. In other words, in principle, extended statutes of limitations do not apply to criminal cases where the limitation period has already begun to run or has been extinguished. However, for extremely serious crimes where the period has begun but not yet been extinguished, it is extended indefinitely.

(3) The extension of the statute of limitations for prosecution does not retroactively punish conduct lacking illicit content, and thus does not fall within the absolute prohibition of the principle against retroactive criminal punishment; rather, it is subject to the limitations of the principle that laws are not retroactive. In cases involving major public interest, the legislature may make discretionary amendments:

1. The principle of prohibition against retroactive criminal punishment is a sub-principle under the principle of legality, established to prevent the state from abusing criminal punishment and to protect individual fundamental rights. In matters involving the creation of offenses, changes to the constituent elements of criminal acts, or increases in statutory penalties, the legislature is prohibited from using subsequent legislation to retroactively punish conduct that was originally unpunishable or to increase statutory penalties, thereby preventing people from being incriminated when they could not foresee that their conduct would be subject to criminal punishment. The enforcement of this principle is a fundamental tenet of modern criminal law and has been articulated in our country's constitutional adjudication practice (refer to Judicial Yuan Interpretations No. 602 and No. 792).

2. According to the provisions of Article 80 of the Criminal Code, the completion of the statute of limitations for prosecution is deemed an "extinguishment"; therefore, the state's punitive power ceases to exist due to the completion of prescription. Consequently, prosecuting criminal suspects whose prosecution limitation period has already been completed pursuant to Article 80 of the Criminal Code conceptually involves creating a new punitive power anew and criminally prosecuting conduct that the state already "does not punish"

¹.

3. It is noteworthy that the "non-punishment" here should be distinguished from the typical situations absolutely prohibited by the principle of prohibition against retroactive criminal punishment. To elaborate, under this situation, the unlawfulness of the criminal suspect's past conduct has not been mitigated, and they could also foresee that their conduct would be subject to criminal punishment. Regarding this issue, mainstream academic opinion in Germany argues that the rationale behind the principle prohibiting the retroactive application of criminal law lies in the protection of legitimate expectations, and everyone should be able to know before acting whether their conduct is prohibited and what penalties might be imposed. Therefore, this principle applies only to elements in the criminal code concerning the evaluation of conduct, and not to prosecution requirements such as statutes of limitations. In other words, while an actor may trust that the legal evaluation of their conduct will not be altered ex post facto, the ability to foresee prior to acting how long the prosecution of their crime may last, or how long they must evade pursuit to escape criminal responsibility, does not constitute an interest worthy of protection².

4. Furthermore, as stated in "II, 1, (1)" above, the state's punitive power not only encompasses the aspect of state public authority forcibly depriving people's rights, but also embodies the normative foundation of the crime victim's right to file a complaint for their victimization. Thus, the state's self-limitation of punitive power must, in addition to considering the defendant's rights, simultaneously weigh the victim's need to restore justice. Past elucidations of the purpose of the statute of limitations system for prosecution have mostly used the limitation of state punitive power as their primary theoretical foundation, while rarely exploring the reasonable demands of victims for the restoration of justice. In this regard, the legislature's decisions regarding rules related to the statute of limitations for prosecution should balance the interests of both sides.

5. Opposing views, proceeding further from the perspective of the principle of separation of powers, argue that extending the statute of limitations for prosecution involves the legislature regulating concrete individual cases through ad hoc legislation, which violates the principle of separation of powers³. However, because the legal order has fully satisfied the reasonable predictability of the punitiveness of conduct at the time it was committed, this line of reasoning no longer stems from the perspective of the principle of legality or the prohibition against retroactive criminal punishment to prevent the abuse of state punitive power, but is instead based on the viewpoint of "the principle prohibiting ad hoc legislation." Accordingly, the retroactive extension or the setting of an appropriate starting point is not an absolute prohibition, but is subject to the limitations of the principle that laws are not retroactive.

(4) Sexual assault cases against minors are serious offenses specifically targeting individuals lacking self-protective capacity and immature physical and mental development. Apart from the covert nature of such crimes, victims face objective obstacles both in capacity and psychology that make it difficult to initiate criminal prosecution in a timely manner. To protect the fundamental rights of minor victims, they should qualify as an exception to the principle that laws are not retroactive:

1. To balance the "interests of criminal suspects protected by the statute of limitations system for prosecution" and the "rights of minor victims of sexual offenses requiring special protection," the purpose of the criminal prosecution statute of limitations system must first be clarified. The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution means that if a crime is not prosecuted within a certain period after its commission, state authorities may no longer penalize it with criminal punishment. The primary purpose of this is to urge investigative authorities to actively prosecute crimes and enable defendants to retain the ability to cross-examine witnesses and present persuasive evidence, thereby avoiding the injustice that prosecuting a case many years after its occurrence might bring to the defendant, and facilitating the discovery of the truth:

(1) Regarding the purposes for the existence of this system, scholar Huang Shih-Hsuan has organized the following 5 points⁴:

(2) Regarding argument two above, Huang Shih-Hsuan opines that it should not be adopted⁵:

(3) Regarding argument five, Huang Shih-Hsuan also criticizes⁶:

(4) Especially in criminal cases of sexual offenses against minors, based on the nature of such incidents, arguments two and five possess almost no reasonable persuasive force.

a. In this regard, reference can be made to the discussion in U.S. law found in Fa Szu-Chi's article, "A Preliminary Exploration of Criminal Policies on Child Molesters in the United States in the Early 21st Century—Focusing on the Elimination of Statutes of Limitations for Prosecution and Capital Punishment Legislation in Louisiana" (refer to Exhibit 3, pages 17-19):

b. Fa Szu-Chi also points out in the same article (refer to Exhibit 3, page 19) that by the end of June 2023, 44 states plus the District of Columbia and the federal government in the United States had eliminated statutory limitations on criminal prosecution for all or most sexual offenses against minors. Regarding this legislative trend, reference may also be made to the Petitioner's Supplemental Petition (2), pages 5-13.

c. The problem of child sex offenders being difficult to rehabilitate and having high recidivism rates runs counter to the assumption of the prosecution statute of limitations system that persons who have not committed crimes for a long time have no need for special prevention. In criminal policy, this also leaves room for reconsideration.

(5) As for arguments three and four, they proceed from the recognition of reality status and the actor's interests, and belong to criminal prosecution policies that the legislature may weigh. Their underlying consideration is rather the reasonable allocation of investigative resources. In this regard, while they may be possible for lesser crimes, for serious crimes such as sexual offenses against minors, the maintenance of legal order and the victim's demand for the restoration of justice are clearly more important. This is also supported by the legislative trend of successively amending laws to extend the prosecution statute of limitations and strengthen the protection of crime victims.

(6) Viewed in this light, it can be seen that the procedural law interest perspective adopted in argument one should serve as the primary basis for justifying the statute of limitations system for prosecution. Other perspectives, at least in cases of sexual offenses against minors, possess no reasonable persuasive force.

2. In view of the particularly vulnerable circumstances of minor victims, and considering the covert and repetitive nature of sexual offenses, the maxim "the law does not protect those who sleep on their rights" clearly cannot apply to minor victims of sexual offenses; the procedural disadvantages cannot be attributed to minor victims of sexual offenses. Conversely, risks such as the loss of evidence can be reasonably controlled through criminal trial procedures.

3. Therefore, weighing the "interests of criminal suspects protected by the statute of limitations system for prosecution" and the "rights of minor victims of sexual offenses requiring special protection," it should still be considered that extending the statute of limitations for prosecution against suspects of sexual offenses against minors serves an urgent and significant public interest and is of greater importance, thus qualifying as an exception to the principle that laws are not retroactive.

(5) Regarding different forms of sexual offenses against minors, the degree of protection should vary depending on the category:

1. In view of the vulnerable circumstances of minors, criminal cases involving sexual offenses against them all possess the justification and necessity of extending the criminal prosecution period. Furthermore, depending on the victim's age and the power dynamics they find themselves in, varying degrees of protection should also be provided.

2. When the perpetrator exploits their position of authority or influence to commit sexual offenses, there is a necessity for special protection. Prior to reaching majority, a victim must legally be presumed incapable of filing a complaint independently, and their interests must be safeguarded by their statutory agent. When the perpetrator is their statutory agent, the victim's rights obviously cannot receive proper protection. In this regard, the state has an obligation to establish a reasonable support system to rescue them from the victimized state, and to strengthen criminal prosecution and accountability for the statutory agent's criminal conduct. Therefore, when the perpetrator is the victim's statutory agent, the intensity of protection for the victim should be further heightened. Moreover, power dynamics are not limited to statutory agents; foster parents, specific relatives, school teachers, or sports coaches should all be taken into account.

(6) Conclusion

1. The extension of the statute of limitations for prosecution does not constitute an absolute prohibition under the principle of prohibition against retroactive criminal punishment, but is subject to the limitations of the principle that laws are not retroactive. Considering that the interest of criminal suspects protected by the prosecution statute of limitations system is lower, and in light of the significant interest that minor victims deserve special protection, it should be deemed that extending the statute of limitations for prosecution of suspects of sexual offenses against minors constitutes an urgent and major public interest, and should be an exception to the principle that laws are not retroactive. Given the circumstances in which minor victims find themselves, it is necessary to deliberate appropriate ways to protect them.

2. In summary, if Your Honorable Court, upon adjudicating this case, holds that criminal suspects in the underlying case or other sexual offenses against minors whose prosecution rights have already been extinguished may exceptionally be prosecuted anew, such a holding does not violate the principle of prohibition against retroactive criminal punishment, and constitutes an exception to the principle that laws are not retroactive.

3. Although our country's criminal procedure system has not established special designs within the statute of limitations system for prosecution regarding sexual offenses against minors, based on the stance of protecting the physical and mental health of children and adolescents and their sound personality development, separate designs have been formulated under the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act and the Gender Equity Education Act, which may serve as references:

(1) For minor victims filing complaints in sexual harassment cases, an exception rule where "the limitation period is calculated from the time of reaching majority" is established:
Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act: "Where the victim of a sexual harassment incident is a minor at the time of the incident, a complaint may be filed within three years after reaching majority. However, if a longer complaint period is provided under each subparagraph of the preceding paragraph, such provisions shall govern."

(2) For applications for investigation and whistleblowing regarding campus gender-related incidents (sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual bullying, etc.) involving minor victims, an exception rule of "no prosecution time limit" is established:
Article 31, Paragraph 1 of the Gender Equity Education Act: "The victim of a campus gender-related incident, their statutory agent, or actual caregiver may apply in writing for an investigation to the school to which the perpetrator belongs. However, if the perpetrator is currently or was formerly the school principal, the application for investigation shall be submitted to the competent authority of the school." Paragraph 2: "Anyone who knows of an incident referred to in the preceding paragraph may report it to the school or the competent authority in accordance with prescribed procedures."

(3) It can be seen from this that in our country's law, there is no lack of special provisions regarding sexual offenses against minors; rather, the statute of limitations system under Article 80 of the Criminal Code has simply not yet been reviewed. For the same reason, rights such as compensation sought by minor victims of sexual offenses under the Civil Code should be reviewed in tandem, so as to avoid the contradictory phenomenon where a crime victim is able to accuse a criminal suspect of criminal responsibility, but is unable to claim damages when that responsibility is established. In this regard, when Your Honorable Court issues a declaration that Article 80 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional, it is necessary to concurrently point out the legislative direction thereof.

To
Constitutional Court
May 27, 2024

List of Exhibits

• Exhibit 1: Ministry of Health and Welfare, Cross Statistics on Age of Victims of Sexual Assault and Relationship Between Parties, 2022 (Last visited: May 26, 2024).
• Exhibit 2: Garden of Hope Foundation, "90% of Sexual Violence Victims in Taiwan Dare Not Call the Police, and 40% Never Sought Help Externally", April 18, 2023 (Last visited: May 26, 2024).
• Exhibit 3: Fa Szu-Chi, "A Preliminary Exploration of Criminal Policies on Child Molesters in the United States in the Early 21st Century—Focusing on the Elimination of Statutes of Limitations for Prosecution and Capital Punishment Legislation in Louisiana," *Military Law Journal*, Vol. 69, No. 5.