Statement | Frequent Abuses and Torture by Police While Prosecutors Turn a Blind Eye: Call for the Prompt Passage of the Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture

In February of this year, three police officers from the Wuling Precinct of the Taoyuan Police Department subjected a juvenile surnamed Huang to vigilante violence. Recently, the prosecutors decided not to indict one of the officers and requested the court to grant a lenient sentence to the other two. In response, the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Police Rights Association of Taiwan, and the Taiwan Association for Human Rights have jointly issued a statement and put forward three key appeals:

1. Public Authority Spirals Out of Control Once Again: Prosecutors Ask Court for Lenient Sentence for Police Officer Who Tortured a Juvenile under the Guise of Being "Impulsive," Disregarding the Harm of Torture

According to news reports, in February of this year, police officers at the Wuling Precinct tortured a 17-year-old juvenile surnamed Huang by using a stun gun, an ink pad, and police batons to beat him. This behavior not only violated the juvenile's physical and mental health, but also severely undermined public trust in the fair enforcement of the law by law enforcement officers.

After half a year of investigation, the prosecutor indicted two of the officers last week for injury and the crime of compulsion, while deciding not to indict a third. However, the prosecution requested the court to grant a lenient sentence and suspend sentences for the indicted officers. Regarding this investigative outcome, media reports attributed the reasoning to: "The entire case stemmed from the juvenile making a false police report and misleading the police. The officers were investigating a kidnapping for ransom case and acted impulsively and made a mistake out of concern for the victim's safety"; and "The police officers were investigating a major violent crime of kidnapping for ransom; worried about the victim's safety and eager to rescue the victim as soon as possible, they acted impulsively and committed the wrongful act. Having learned their lesson, they should now be alert and show no likelihood of reoffending."

Regarding the facts established by the prosecutor after investigation, outsiders naturally respect them. However, regarding the legal evaluation based on the aforementioned facts, we believe there are two points open to debate:

1. It is understandable that police officers face time pressure when investigating major violent crimes such as kidnapping for ransom in order to rescue the victim in time. However, the fundamental legal literacy of a law enforcement officer is to strictly adhere to norms and investigate in accordance with the law even under such circumstances; beating suspects and resorting to vigilante justice on one's own initiative constitute severe state violence and are the primary cause of wrongful convictions. If investigating a major violent crime is treated simply as a general mitigating factor for sentencing, it risks misleading officers into believing they can resort to any means to "achieve justice" against suspects, and plunges law-abiding officers who conduct investigations according to the law into a conflict of choice between unlawful and lawful justice.
2. This case is not an ordinary dispute involving injury or interference with personal freedom between private citizens. Rather, it is an incident of state violence in which three police officers abused their official authority to detain an underage suspect at a police precinct for an extended period and subjected him to collective violence. It exhibits a high degree of malice and may involve the crime of maltreatment of persons by public officials under Article 126 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, because the victim was trapped in a highly controlled, dominated, and closed-off violent environment, aside from recounting his personal experience of being beaten, insulted, and threatened, he naturally could not produce other evidence. Under this circumstance, the decision not to indict based on the excuse that one of the officers' "acts of injury were not forceful enough to cause injury" and that "the acts of intimidation lacked audio recordings and could not be proven" undoubtedly condones the grave wrongdoing of police torture and coerced confessions. An unfair investigation only serves to further undermine the fragile rule of law and human rights.

Taken as a whole, civil society organizations believe that the legal evaluation falls short in a case where police officers collectively subject a criminal suspect to prolonged violence, prosecuting them merely under the charges of ordinary actual bodily harm and the crime of compulsion. Moreover, the prosecutor's request for lenient sentencing from the court sends the wrong message to police agencies. What this case shakes is the public's basic trust in the law enforcement system. The public wants to ask: "Will I be tortured and subjected to coerced confessions after being arrested? Can prosecutors and the police be trusted?" and "How should illegal conduct by prosecutors and police during investigations be held accountable? Will officials protect their own?"

Civil society organizations believe that the prosecutor's handling of this case risks underestimating its severity and is insufficient to deter investigative agencies from illegal conduct during investigations. We deeply regret the portion of the case where the prosecutor decided not to indict, but we will continue to monitor the trial of the indicted portion and whether relevant social welfare resources are continuously provided to assist the underage victim.

2. Zero Tolerance for Torture: The Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture Should Be Domesticated as Soon as Possible

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention against Torture"), which entered into force in 1987, clearly stipulate: "the term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind..." and "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction." The actions of the Wuling Precinct police officers in subjecting an underage juvenile to violence to extract a confession clearly violated the commandments of the Convention against Torture.

In the past, Chiang Kuo-ch'ing (江國慶), Su Chien-ho (蘇建和), and Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順) were forced to confess to crimes they did not commit as a result of torture. Chiang Kuo-ch'ing even wrongfully lost his life as a result, while Su Chien-ho was ultimately acquitted and the state paid compensation. Yet, as recently as February of this year, police officers from the Hengchun Precinct of the Pingtung County Police Bureau beat a suspect to death during law enforcement; in 2022, Sanchong police also mistakenly identified a citizen as a wanted person and subjected him to violence, ultimately resulting in a criminal conviction (the violent police officers in this case are currently appealing). Law enforcement agencies clearly have not learned the lessons of the past regarding the miscarriages of justice and human rights violations that torture can cause.

Although the Convention against Torture has not yet been domesticated, over the past three years civil society organizations have repeatedly held joint press conferences, calling in unison for relevant authorities to promptly pass the Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture to implement the relevant provisions and state obligations under the Convention, and to reduce torture to zero. The Executive Yuan also twice submitted the draft Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture to the Legislative Yuan in 2017 and 2021, respectively. During the presidential and legislative elections in January 2024, the Judicial Reform Foundation also proposed the "Seven Questions for Judicial Reform" to all political parties. Regarding the elimination of torture and the establishment of a National Preventive Mechanism against torture, all political parties explicitly expressed their support, committing to supporting the passage of the Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture in the Legislative Yuan within one year of taking office. There is already a high degree of social consensus between the government, the ruling and opposition parties, and civil society regarding a "zero tolerance" attitude toward torture.

Civil Society Organizations Solemnly Put Forward the Following Three Appeals Once Again:

1. The National Police Agency of the Ministry of the Interior and relevant departments should attach great importance to this Taoyuan torture incident, ensuring that police agencies, as wielders of public authority, strictly adhere to due process and administer the law in accordance with the law. They must not knowingly violate the law or use torture to extract confessions, and they should care for the daily mental health and education of police officers. With reference to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention against Torture, they must ensure that education on the prohibition of torture is implemented into the daily duties, training, and operational regulations of the police.
2. Judicial authorities should recognize that law enforcement officers resorting to vigilante justice is a severe form of state violence and the primary cause of wrongful convictions. With reference to Article 15 of the Convention against Torture, any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings.
3. The legislative branch and political parties across the pan-green and pan-blue spectrum should face up to the importance and urgency of a "National Preventive Mechanism," swiftly promote the legislative work of the Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture, and ensure that all administrative agencies can genuinely implement the provisions of the Convention in order to truly protect the safety of every citizen's life.

Statement-Issuing Organizations

Judicial Reform Foundation
Police Rights Association of Taiwan
Taiwan Association for Human Rights

Press Contacts

Ch'en Kuan-chen, Legal Specialist, Case Action Department, Tel: 02-252311785#21
Chang Hua-che, Deputy Director, Case Action Department, Tel: 02-252311785#22