The Asian Human Rights Court Simulation (AHRCS) in October issued its judgement in the case of Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順) v. Republic of China (Taiwan).
The AHRCS was sponsored by former Justice of the Constitutional Court of Taiwan Hsu Yu-hsiu (許玉秀) and coorganized by National Chiao Tung University’s Institute of Technology Law, along with several non-governmental organizations in Taiwan.
The judgement held that domestic courts failed to fulfill their obligation and responsibility to ensure Chiou’s right to a fair trial and basic human rights. The judgement called on the Supreme Court of Taiwan for proper judicial remedy and prompt rectification.
Chiou has been a death-row inmate for nearly three decades. In 1988, he was charged with murdering a female insurance agent named Ko Ho Yu-lan (柯洪玉蘭) and a six-year-old boy named Lu Cheng (陸正). In 2011, his verdict became final after 11 trials.
In 2007, the Legal Aid Foundation and attorneys Lin Yong-song (林永頌) and Yu Po-hsiang (尤伯祥) read Chiou’s case file and believed him to be innocent.
Subsequently, a legal team, hosted by Yu and organized by the Judicial Reform Foundation, was bolstered by many more volunteer lawyers passionate about the case.
Last year, the team applied for the AHRCS hearing.
The legal team is now calling for President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to grant Chiou amnesty.
The reason is simple: The AHRCS reflects the convergence of the nation’s old and contemporary judiciaries.
In the past, under the authoritarian regime of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), the criminal justice system systemically violated human rights and due process, while at present, it is progressing toward true rule of law.
Yet, Chiou’s case is a vestige of the old regime. As Yu concluded in his closing argument at the AHRCS: Chiou’s 4.52m2 prison cell is like a time capsule, in which the lifetime of an innocent man and the failure of the authoritarian judiciary is frozen forever.
As Saint Augustine is purported to have said: “In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?”
If President Tsai is proud of our shared values of democracy, freedom and respect for human rights, then she should grant amnesty.
We can demonstrate our strength, not weakness, in admitting our mistakes; we can show that the government not only wields a sword to punish, but also a mirror to reflect; we can prove that the government’s power can shield our citizens from the failures of the judiciary-of-old.
Regrettably, justice might at times be delayed, but justice should never be denied. Following the AHRCS, the time to act is now.
Huang Yu-zhe is an undergraduate in Soochow University’s Department of Political Science and a former executive secretary of Chiou Ho-shun’s Judicial Reform Foundation legal team.
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS