TAIWAN NEWS EDITORIAL: Taiwan grand justices show deadly cowardice
2010/06/01
TAIWAN NEWS EDITORIAL
Taiwan grand justices show deadly cowardice
Taiwan News, Page 6, 2010-06-01 12:00 AM
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1273403&lang=eng_news&cate_img=46.jpg&cate_rss=news_Editorial
Taiwan's Council of Grand Justices shirked their duty to uphold the fundamental human rights mandated by our laws by refusing to review the constitutionality of issues related to the death sentence Friday.
In their role as Taiwan's Constitutional Court, the 15 grand judges decided not to accept three petitions filed by lawyers of the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) on behalf of 40 prisoners on death row only weeks after four persons convicted of murder were executed April 30, breaking Taiwan's five-year tacit moratorium on implementation of capital punishment.
Besides turning down the petition for a new review on the grounds that it is "difficult to believe that there were concerns over unconstitutionality," the Constitutional Court also refused to accept the TAEDP's demand to issue a requested injunction against additional implementation of death sentences by the Taiwan government despite controversy over the legality of the four executions.
The TAEDP petitions challenged the constitutionality of Article 388 of the Criminal Code on the grounds that the banning of verbal defence by defence lawyers in the final reviews by the Supreme Court on death sentences violated Article 14 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is now part of Taiwan's domestic legal code, that all persons subject to criminal prosecution "enjoy the right of legal defence throughout the entire process."
Secondly, the TAEDP challenged Articles 289 and 389 of the Criminal Code for not requiring the rigorous investigation of evidence or direct review by prosecutors and defence lawyers and thus potentially causing errors in sentencing, a special concern with relation to the imposition of death sentences.
The TAEDP maintained that these articles violated Article 6 of the ICCPR which bans the arbitrary revocation of the fundamental right to life.
Third, the TAEDP petition noted that after the ICCPR became promulgated as part of Taiwan's domestic law in March 2009, the government should respect the covenant's mandate that "anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence."
Fourth, the TAEDP noted that previous constitutional interpretations on the death penalty were now outdated by changes in Taiwan's legal framework, notably the ratification of the ICCPR, and therefore should be rigorously reviewed.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Court confirmed the urgent need for judicial officers to be educated on meaning of the ICCPR by declaring that Taiwan's continued use of capital punishment did not conflict with the covenant.
While in line with a similar misleading claim by President Ma Ying-jeou and other officials of his rightist Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) government, this position is actually untenable.
While Article Six of the ICCPR stated the death sentence should be used only for the most grave crimes, Clause Six of the same article declares that "nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant."
Beginning with the reality that many nations had the death penalty when approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, the ICCPR presupposes progress toward abolition.
As reflected by Clause Six, the ICCPR's lack of an absolute ban on capital punishment does permit a retrograde movement away from abolition.
The KMT government's resumption of executions and intent to hold even more executions in the near future places Taiwan in violation of the covenant which Ma just signed and thus deserves the international condemnation it has received.
It is difficult to disagree with the TAEDP's statement that the 15 grand justices have failed to fulfill their roles as the "defenders of human rights" and instead have bowed to political pressure and the intimidation through the media of demagogic appeals by death penalty advocates who refuse to face character of the death penalty as cruel and inhumane punishment that cannot be reversed in the event of all too frequent mistakes in the judicial system and which does not deter violent crime.
Besides virtually assuring the executions of 40 more convicts, the 15 grand justices will face the judgment of history as the ratification of the ICCPR and its sister International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights will be exposed to the world as a sham if Taiwan's courts, especially the Constitutional Court, refuse to even review archaic laws based on the new human rights standard we have now adopted as our own.
This outright hypocrisy will not go unnoticed by the international community, as the condemnation by the vice president of the European Union and global human rights organizations of the April 30 executions showed.
The only hope for a cessation of more state killings lies in political action by Ma, who should display leadership and restore the moratorium instead of cringing behind the excuse that he will follow what the Constitutional Court decides or, in this case, decided not to decide.
At the very least, Ma should reimpose a moratorium for two years until the completion of the review of our legal code in the light of ratification of these two international human rights covenants.D
Taiwan grand justices show deadly cowardice
Taiwan News, Page 6, 2010-06-01 12:00 AM
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1273403&lang=eng_news&cate_img=46.jpg&cate_rss=news_Editorial
Taiwan's Council of Grand Justices shirked their duty to uphold the fundamental human rights mandated by our laws by refusing to review the constitutionality of issues related to the death sentence Friday.
In their role as Taiwan's Constitutional Court, the 15 grand judges decided not to accept three petitions filed by lawyers of the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) on behalf of 40 prisoners on death row only weeks after four persons convicted of murder were executed April 30, breaking Taiwan's five-year tacit moratorium on implementation of capital punishment.
Besides turning down the petition for a new review on the grounds that it is "difficult to believe that there were concerns over unconstitutionality," the Constitutional Court also refused to accept the TAEDP's demand to issue a requested injunction against additional implementation of death sentences by the Taiwan government despite controversy over the legality of the four executions.
The TAEDP petitions challenged the constitutionality of Article 388 of the Criminal Code on the grounds that the banning of verbal defence by defence lawyers in the final reviews by the Supreme Court on death sentences violated Article 14 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is now part of Taiwan's domestic legal code, that all persons subject to criminal prosecution "enjoy the right of legal defence throughout the entire process."
Secondly, the TAEDP challenged Articles 289 and 389 of the Criminal Code for not requiring the rigorous investigation of evidence or direct review by prosecutors and defence lawyers and thus potentially causing errors in sentencing, a special concern with relation to the imposition of death sentences.
The TAEDP maintained that these articles violated Article 6 of the ICCPR which bans the arbitrary revocation of the fundamental right to life.
Third, the TAEDP petition noted that after the ICCPR became promulgated as part of Taiwan's domestic law in March 2009, the government should respect the covenant's mandate that "anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence."
Fourth, the TAEDP noted that previous constitutional interpretations on the death penalty were now outdated by changes in Taiwan's legal framework, notably the ratification of the ICCPR, and therefore should be rigorously reviewed.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Court confirmed the urgent need for judicial officers to be educated on meaning of the ICCPR by declaring that Taiwan's continued use of capital punishment did not conflict with the covenant.
While in line with a similar misleading claim by President Ma Ying-jeou and other officials of his rightist Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) government, this position is actually untenable.
While Article Six of the ICCPR stated the death sentence should be used only for the most grave crimes, Clause Six of the same article declares that "nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant."
Beginning with the reality that many nations had the death penalty when approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, the ICCPR presupposes progress toward abolition.
As reflected by Clause Six, the ICCPR's lack of an absolute ban on capital punishment does permit a retrograde movement away from abolition.
The KMT government's resumption of executions and intent to hold even more executions in the near future places Taiwan in violation of the covenant which Ma just signed and thus deserves the international condemnation it has received.
It is difficult to disagree with the TAEDP's statement that the 15 grand justices have failed to fulfill their roles as the "defenders of human rights" and instead have bowed to political pressure and the intimidation through the media of demagogic appeals by death penalty advocates who refuse to face character of the death penalty as cruel and inhumane punishment that cannot be reversed in the event of all too frequent mistakes in the judicial system and which does not deter violent crime.
Besides virtually assuring the executions of 40 more convicts, the 15 grand justices will face the judgment of history as the ratification of the ICCPR and its sister International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights will be exposed to the world as a sham if Taiwan's courts, especially the Constitutional Court, refuse to even review archaic laws based on the new human rights standard we have now adopted as our own.
This outright hypocrisy will not go unnoticed by the international community, as the condemnation by the vice president of the European Union and global human rights organizations of the April 30 executions showed.
The only hope for a cessation of more state killings lies in political action by Ma, who should display leadership and restore the moratorium instead of cringing behind the excuse that he will follow what the Constitutional Court decides or, in this case, decided not to decide.
At the very least, Ma should reimpose a moratorium for two years until the completion of the review of our legal code in the light of ratification of these two international human rights covenants.D