(An English version of the statement is provided at the end.)

民進黨政府在2025年3月24日預告《執行死刑規則》（下稱本規則）草案，大幅度放寬執行死刑的限制。本規則並於昨日（4月16日）傍晚公告，並將火速於本週五（4月18日）施行。依此規則，在當事人提出救濟，並由再審法院或憲法法庭審理的過程中，只要沒有裁定停止執行，法務部都可以槍決死刑犯。

比起國民黨提出的「反廢死公投」，民進黨政府似乎是想祭出「速審速槍決」來加以比拚。對此，民間團體聯合發表聲明如下：

借屍還魂速審速槍決的歷史，罔顧憲法判決正當程序要求

《執行死刑規則》的出現，是1999年的「周峋山事件」所換來。若非這三十年來《執行死刑規則》設有嚴格的限制，聲請再審、憲法訴訟或請求非上，就要停止執行，現今已平反的徐自強、謝志宏、鄭性澤這些死刑冤案，都沒有活著平反的可能性。

在准許非常救濟之前，冤案都是歷經多年、多次請求及努力才能平反。修改成非常救濟未經准許就能執行，形同回到沒有《執行死刑規則》的年代，是假修正之名，行廢除之實。如今民間團體仍在救援的邱和順、王信福等冤案，都是還活著、被關押在監獄裡面的活生生的人。政府拒絕看見他們長期關押對身體及精神造成的酷刑，現在更要透過這樣的政治意志，傳達出亟欲斷送生路的訊息，極其殘忍不人道。

更何況，我們想問法務部，在憲法法庭113年憲判字第8號判決建立了「死刑受刑能力」的初步標準後，法務部有無在檢討？為何沒有反映在本次的修訂中？民進黨政府是想要審慎執行死刑？還是想搶快執行？113年憲判字第8號的意旨，是要求死刑的適用更謹慎，而不是更迅速，法務部修改規則，以求迅速執行的作爲，實為扭曲並違反113憲判8的意旨。

民進黨現在的政治意志，究竟是跟哪個國際體系接軌？

根據國際特赦組織才剛發佈的2024年全球死刑報告，即便全世界已有 113 個國家完全廢除死刑，總共有 145 個國家在法律或實務上廢除死刑，中國仍然是世界上執行死刑最多的國家；北韓和越南等國家，也被認為廣泛使用死刑。這些領導人以錯假的理由，將死刑作為武器，並聲稱死刑會改善公共安全，甚或利用死刑在民眾中灌輸恐懼。

明年即將進行「兩公約」（《公民與政治權利國際公約》與《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》）的國際審查。2009年我國將「兩公約」內國法化，正是為了提升我國人權保障，進而與國際人權體系接軌，法務部還設有「人權大步走」網站處理相關公約事務。

然而，民進黨政府此刻想要速審速槍決的政治意志，擺明就是想跟國際上支持人權的大多數國家們唱反調，罔顧人權價值，以換取政治上利益。我們想問，民進黨政府心中的國際體系，是哪些國家？民進黨政府及法務部，明年將如何面對兩公約國際審查？要如何說自己還有資格作為「人權大步走」兩公約事務的主管機關？

民間團體嚴正譴責民進黨政府對本規則的修訂，並強烈呼籲法務部懸崖勒馬改回規則。且千萬切勿隨在野黨起舞，貪圖一時政治輿論紅利，輕忽長遠國際政治失分的可能。

聲明團體

台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟
台灣人權促進會
台灣勞工陣線
台灣冤獄平反協會
民間司法改革基金會
人權公約施行監督聯盟

－－－－－－－－英文版聲明（English Version）－－－－－－－－

Condemns Taiwan’s New Execution Rule as Regressive and Inhuman

17 April 2025, Taipei — On March 24, 2025, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government announced a draft amendment to the Regulations for Executing the Death Penalty, marking a severe regression in Taiwan's commitment to constitutional due process and human rights.

The amended Regulations, officially promulgated on April 16 following a brief public consultation period beginning March 24, are set to take effect on April 18. They drastically reduce the bar and eliminate protections that have blocked the wrongful execution of those requesting exceptional legal remedies like a retrial or a constitutional review for decades. Under the revised Regulations, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is permitted to carry out executions even while retrial or constitutional review procedures are ongoing, as long as the court has not explicitly ordered a stay of execution.

Compared to the Kuomintang (KMT) Party’s proposed referendum against the abolition of the death penalty, the DPP appears to be advancing its own agenda of “swift trials and swift executions” in a show of political one-upmanship. In response, civil society groups issue the following joint statement:

Reviving a Dark Past: Disregarding Due Process and the Constitutional Court’s Mandates

Following the 1999 wrongful execution of Chou Xun Shan, the first execution restrictions were put into place with the intention of averting such catastrophes by delaying executions while cases were being reviewed. The current amendments dismantle these crucial protections and place individuals like Chiou Ho-Shun and Wang Xin-Fu—both of whom maintain their innocence—at immediate risk. They are not just case files, but living people whose suffering from prolonged detention already amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment. Now, the government appears intent on extinguishing even their last hope for justice.

We further question the MOJ’s failure to reflect Constitutional Court Judgment No. 8 (2024), which established preliminary criteria for evaluating whether individuals on death row are legally and mentally fit for execution. Does the DPP government intend to carry out the death penalty with increased caution—or simply with greater speed? The 2024 ruling called for more deliberate and careful application of capital punishment, not for accelerated executions. The MOJ’s attempt to distort the intent of the judgment to justify hasty executions is both unacceptable and unconstitutional.

Which Global Norms Does the DPP Government Aspire To?

International Misalignment

The new policy stands in stark contrast to global human rights trends. According to Amnesty International’s most recent study in 2024, 113 countries have fully abolished the death penalty, and a total of 145 have abolished it in law or practice. Meanwhile, countries like China, North Korea, and Vietnam remain the world’s top executioners—states widely condemned for their disregard of fair trial guarantees.

Taiwan is due for its next international review in 2026 under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). When Taiwan incorporated these Covenants into domestic law in 2009, it did so with the intention of aligning with international human rights norms. The MOJ even established the “Human Rights For All” platform to coordinate treaty implementation.

Nevertheless, the DPP government's present insistence on "swift executions" contradicts these pledges. It represents a conscious break from the international human rights community in favor of immediate political advantage. Which countries are now seen as worldwide peers by the DPP government, we ask? How will it defend its actions in the review the following year? Is it still able to legitimately act as the principal agency for Taiwan's human rights responsibilities?

Call to Action

We demand for the immediate repeal of the amended Regulations and urge the Ministry to engage in constructive engagement with legal experts, human rights advocates, and the broader public. We urge the government to reverse course and not sacrifice Taiwan’s long-term international standing for short-term political gain.

Signed:

• Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty
• Taiwan Association for Human Rights
• Taiwan Innocence Project
• Taiwan Labour Front
• Covenants Watch
• Judicial Reform Foundation