國內新聞

（央廣： 2009/05/13  撰稿‧編輯：林朝億）

台灣即將批准兩項國際人權公約，來自東亞的人權團體13日除了表示肯定，也呼籲台灣政府進一步公布落實計畫書與時間表，任 何違背兩公約精神的國內法，都應做出修正；其中，集遊法的修正，尤其具有指標性的意義。 馬英九總統將於14日批准「公民與政治權利國際公約」及「經濟、社會與文化權利國際公約」，20多位來自東亞的人權工作者13日上午在與馬總統會晤前提出 呼籲。台灣人權促進會會長林佳範提出四項共同聲明，要求政府公布落實的計畫書與時間表，接受公民社會檢驗與監督；任何與兩公約精神相抵觸的國內法，都應做 出修正；不應在批准兩公約同時，又提出與其精神相抵觸的集遊法修正案；以及成立符合聯合國巴黎原則的國家人權委員會。

2009-04-09 Amnesty International

Taiwan’s legislature has ratified two of the most important international conventions for the development of human rights. On 31 March, the Legislative Yuan debated and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 31 March.

"Amnesty International welcomes Taiwan’s ratification of these two covenants, which form the basis of the international human rights framework together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International Asia-Pacific Director.

"Taiwan’s actions present a strong model for the region that economic growth and prosperity can go along hand in hand with increasing respect for human rights."

2009-04-05 Taipei Times

Defendants living with mental illnesses are being let down by a court system that critics say is fundamentally flawed

By Celia Llopis-Jepsen
STAFF REPORTER

IN the early hours of June 5, 2007, a gasoline bomb was thrown into Hua Xin Cleaners (華新洗衣店) in Kaohsiung City’s Zuoying District (左營). Four people in the building died in the ensuing blaze.

Within a week, police had named university lecturer Chen Pei-yuan (陳培元) as a suspect. A month later, Chen was charged with murder and on June 25 last year convicted in his first trial and sentenced to life in prison. The case is now at the Kaohsiung branch of the High Court, where, if found guilty again, he could be sentenced to death.

But prejudice and a flawed judicial system may have resulted in an unfair first conviction, in a case that highlights how the system fails defendants with mental disorders, Chen’s lawyer and anti-death penalty advocates say.

Chen’s attorney, Thomas S.K. Chan (詹順貴), says his client should never have been convicted. He calls the evidence against Chen “far-fetched” and believes he was convicted because he has a history of mental illness and was in the wrong place at the wrong time.