English

Condemn The Ministry of Justice’s Hasty Executions

Condemn The Ministry of Justice’s Hasty Executions



The Minster of Justice, Tseng Yung-Fu, signed the orders of the executions, killing the four death row inmates, Chang Chun-Hong, Chang,Wen-Wei, Hong Chen Yeow, and Ke Shi-Ming at a heat on April 30th. The families of them weren’t informed and were not able to meet the four people for the last time before they died.



Without the confirmation with the Judicial Yuan and other consultations, the Ministry of Justice presumed to take the claims to the constitution interpretation as illegal. More, “administration according to law” doesn’t mean that the government could execute inhumanly without informing the family for the last meeting. This move of the state was so reckless that people would lose faith in this country.



We are shocked and enraged at the so called “executions according to law” and list our responses to the reasons for the executions raised by the Ministry of Justice for clarification and public scrutiny:



Illegal Execution of Chang Chun-Hong



On behalf of the 44 death row inmates, TAEDP mandated 7 lawyers, including Nigel N. T. Li, Ku Li-Hsiung, Gao Yong-Cheng to demand a constitutional interpretations from the Grand Justices of Judicial Yuan. But due to time constraints, Chang Chun-Hong, Chang,Wen-Wei, Hong Chen Yeow, and Ke Shi-Ming didn’t provide legal letters of authorization on the day for the demand. Nevertheless, about the procedural items, the Department of Clerks for the Justices of the Constitutional Court sent letters to the 7 lawyers to require resending in the ten days (up to May, 3rd, 2010) after the demand. Besides, at the same time, it also tried to reach the four death row inmates in different prisons to know their wills for constitutional interpretation.



TAEDP contacted the four death row inmates after receiving the letter. Chang Chun-Hong then sent the letter of authorization with his signature on April, 26th.. He showed his willingness to mandate TAEDP’s lawyers to demand a constitutional interpretation. Therefore, Chang’s demand was no doubt, totally legal.



In accordance with the Ministry of Justice’s “Implementation Guidelines of The Review of Death Penalty Cases,” the first rule of the first item of the second article states that, for the cases waiting for the demand of constitutional interpretation, the highest court could not send the orders of executions to the Minister of Justice. It is a shame that the Minister, however, ignored the demand, signing the orders of executions illegally and called it administration according to law.



Unknown Will of Ke



Except for Chang Wen-Wei and Hong Chen Yeow who directly refused the need for the demand for constitutional interpretations, one of the death row inmates Ke Shi-Ming didn’t actually replied. TAEDP sent representatives to the Tainan prison for meeting Ke in person, but the staff replied that Ke was banned from meeting anyone. They could not tell the representatives of TAEDP if Ke got the mail of TAEDP and if he was able to write letters freely. Thus, we had no idea whether Ke refused the demand for constitutional interpretations.



No Fair Trial



Three of the death row inmates executed didn’t have any defense lawyers when receiving final ruling of death penalty from the highest court. According to the International Covenant of the Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ratified by President Ma, any death row inmates should have defense lawyers in any stage of the trial as legitimate legal procedures. However, Article 388 of the Criminal Procedure Law in Taiwan violates the ICCPR. While The Grand Justices might have a chance to respect this basic right recognized by the international society and might claim death penalty unconstitutional. The Minster of Justice Tseng, nonetheless, intentionally and recklessly ignored this and took the demand as illegal before the decisions of the Grand Justices. The Ministry of Justice exceeded its powers over the mandates of the Judicial Yuan, stating its move as “administration according to law,” treating human life as if it were not worth a straw. It proves that the Ministry of Justice’s promises on cautious execution were nothing but lies. Therefore, the Minister of Justice needs to shoulder the political responsibility.



Blindness to the ICCPR



On March, 29th, TAEDP also helped the 44 death row inmates demand pardon (the deduction of the penalty) to the President. President Ma didn’t refuse and stated that he had received the demand and asked the Ministry of Justice for further discussions. Nothing about this was mentioned in the press release of the Ministry of Justice. It could be seen as blindness to the ICCPR and again overstepped its authority. If the government really wants to “administrate according to law,” it should make it clear how they processed the demand for pardon of the dearth penalty.



The Indignation of Men and Gods?



The Minister of Justice claimed that he would exercise his power carefully. Beside original procedures, together with Tseng, other consultative groups should be formed for circumspect consideration over the cases “arousing the indignation of men and gods.” But now the only standard we could see was “the right to seal and authorize.” After the mistake of missing one’s letter of authorization in this case, the Minister of Justice should announce the members of consultative groups and related information in the meeting for public scrutiny.



The TAEDP feels deeply distressed for the 4 year and half moratorium destroyed in one day and firmly appeals to the general public for rethinking the death penalty. While there is still controversy over the death penalty, without careful procedures, the Ministry of Justice speeded up the executions instead of reexamination of related laws and rules. It is again another manifestation of how the government signed the ICCPR with one hand and broke it with the other.



In the press release of the Ministry of Justice, it was said that “as for the 40 people demanding for constitutional interpretations, the Ministry of Justice would see how it develops and administrate according to law.” Consequently, we request the legislation concerning pardon and the immediate stop of execution.



Taiwan Alliance for The End of the Death Penalty (TAEDP)


Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF)


Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)


Amnesty International Taiwan (AI Taiwan)


Taiwan Labor Front


Human Rights Committee of the Taipei Bar Association


Taiwan Green Party


Regional Tibetan Youth Congress Taiwan


Humanistic Education Foundation