The Taipei meeting of the Asian Human Rights Court Simulation (AHRCS) wrapped up over the weekend, with legal experts from Taiwan and abroad presenting workshops and discussions on civil liberties, and holding a trial hearing on the case of Taiwanese death row inmate Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順).
“The convening of the AHRCS served the purpose of acting as a real court, to examine cases in Asia and make decisions based on the precedent of international decisions and treaties pertaining to the protection of human rights,” AHRCS deputy secretary-general Karen Cheng (鄭凱榕) said.
“Details from cases involving the death penalty, torture or corruption were discussed at workshops and presentations given by experts,” Cheng said. “The trial hearing on Chiou’s case was also held. A written judgement on the case will be handed down within three months.”
Photo: Jason Pan, Taipei Times
The idea to create the court simulation was inspired by Taiwan’s experience with establishing a shadow court of the Taiwan Constitutional Court, which addressed issues such as same-sex marriage, the death penalty and transitional justice from 2014 to 2016, she said.
Participating jurists from Southeast Asia included former Malaysian Court of Appeals judge Dato’ Mah Weng-Kwai, National University of Singapore Law School professor Tan Hsien-li and Thai judge Pawat Satayanurug.
Conference participants also discussed setting up an Asian Human Rights Court, a supra-national mechanism composed of judges from participating nations that would try cases.
“It is a path that needs to be taken,” Dato’ Mah said. “The Court could be a standard-setting body for the whole region.”
“Each country has its own political system, but some basic standards on rights are the same,” he said, citing torture as an example.
“Although Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Malaysian law prohibits torture, in protecting the basic human rights of citizens,” he said.
“In Asia, there are authoritarian regimes where human rights are still abused, but the people there could fight for their rights and strive for democracy through a regional body such as a human rights court. Under such a mechanism, torturing suspects to extract a confession and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment would be prohibited,” Dato’ Mah said.
Some nations have set up a human rights commission at the national level thanks to years of activism and campaigning by civil groups, he said, adding that the Asian Human Rights Court is the same, as advocates have been pushing for its realization.
Hsu Yu-hsiu (許玉秀), a former Council of Grand Justices member and the main advocate in Taiwan for the plan, said that a regional human rights court would be authorized to deliberate on issues of fact and law, order the release of convicts and fine a government for violating the rights of its citizens.
“The model court could exert real influence on Asian courts, despite lacking the authority to issue legally binding verdicts,” she said.
The AHRCS conference judges presiding over Chiou’s hearing were experts in international human rights law from Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Bangladesh.
SEPARATE: The MAC rebutted Beijing’s claim that Taiwan is China’s province, asserting that UN Resolution 2758 neither mentions Taiwan nor grants the PRC authority over it The “status quo” of democratic Taiwan and autocratic China not belonging to each other has long been recognized by the international community, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said yesterday in its rebuttal of Beijing’s claim that Taiwan can only be represented in the UN as “Taiwan, Province of China.” Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) yesterday at a news conference of the third session at the 14th National People’s Congress said that Taiwan can only be referred to as “Taiwan, Province of China” at the UN. Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory, which is not only history but
NATIONAL SECURITY: The Chinese influencer shared multiple videos on social media in which she claimed Taiwan is a part of China and supported its annexation Freedom of speech does not allow comments by Chinese residents in Taiwan that compromise national security or social stability, the nation’s top officials said yesterday, after the National Immigration Agency (NIA) revoked the residency permit of a Chinese influencer who published videos advocating China annexing Taiwan by force. Taiwan welcomes all foreigners to settle here and make families so long as they “love the land and people of Taiwan,” Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) told lawmakers during a plenary session at the Legislative Yuan in Taipei. The public power of the government must be asserted when necessary and the Ministry of
CROSSED A LINE: While entertainers working in China have made pro-China statements before, this time it seriously affected the nation’s security and interests, a source said The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) late on Saturday night condemned the comments of Taiwanese entertainers who reposted Chinese statements denigrating Taiwan’s sovereignty. The nation’s cross-strait affairs authority issued the statement after several Taiwanese entertainers, including Patty Hou (侯佩岑), Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜) and Michelle Chen (陳妍希), on Friday and Saturday shared on their respective Sina Weibo (微博) accounts a post by state broadcaster China Central Television. The post showed an image of a map of Taiwan along with the five stars of the Chinese flag, and the message: “Taiwan is never a country. It never was and never will be.” The post followed remarks
Proposed amendments would forbid the use of all personal electronic devices during school hours in high schools and below, starting from the next school year in August, the Ministry of Education said on Monday. The Regulations on the Use of Mobile Devices at Educational Facilities up to High Schools (高級中等以下學校校園行動載具使用原則) state that mobile devices — defined as mobile phones, laptops, tablets, smartwatches or other wearables — should be turned off at school. The changes would stipulate that use of such devices during class is forbidden, and the devices should be handed to a teacher or the school for safekeeping. The amendments also say
RSS