CHIOU HO-SHUN AND THE NEED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS SCRUTINY IN ASIA

ANNIE CHOu

April 23rd, 2020

Annie Chou, First Year JD student and External Relations Co-opt, reflects on her time spent at the Judicial Reform Foundation in Taiwan, and the need for greater human rights protection in Asia.

Celebrated as Asia’s most vibrant and progressive democracy for being the first in the region to legalise same sex marriage, Taiwan has made a conscious effort to be a beacon for human rights.[1] Most recently, despite their diplomatic isolation, Taiwan donated millions of face masks to countries hit hardest by the coronavirus pandemic, receiving approval from the European Union for their ‘gesture of solidarity’.[2] Given this, it comes as a shocking surprise to many that, within hours of receiving global praise, Taiwan administered the execution of a 53-year-old death row inmate, Weng Jen-hsien. 

Recognising the moral inconsistency that the death penalty poses for Taiwan’s liberal image, the Government has consistently pledged to eventually abolish the practice. However, while the number of listed capital crimes has slowly reduced, executions still continue.[3] The death penalty has been seen as an effective tool to direct political dissatisfaction with the Government towards a death row inmate.[4] Through the death penalty, the Government is able to demonstrate a firm stance on crime and social justice which is well received by the public. The National Development Council of Taiwan found that 82 per cent of the Taiwanese community believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for crimes, while 90 per cent oppose the abolition of the death penalty.[5] This is all despite the global denunciation of the death penalty as a cruel punishment that fails to serve as a deterrent to crime.[6]   

 One local human rights group that has been seeking to abolish the death penalty in Taiwan is the Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF), which has been operating since 1995. The JRF is well-known for their persistent advocacy. Indeed, it led to the exoneration of Hsu Tzu-Chiang, who was on death row for 21 years before he was found innocent and acquitted in 2016. Last year, I was able to see the JRF’s operations first-hand during my internship, whilst assisting with the preparation of Taiwan’s most controversial death penalty case, that of Chiou Ho-Shun, for the Asian Human Rights Court Simulation (AHRCS).

AHRCS – What is it?
Asia is the only region in the world without a regional mechanism for the protection of human rights.[7] As the International Criminal Court (ICC) oversees the most serious instances of international crime, human rights violations that do not fall within that category are managed by each nation’s respective domestic system.[8] However, there is no Asian equivalent to: the European Commission on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ); the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR); or the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR).[9] This has been attributed to the fact that the Asia-Pacific is an incoherent region with divisive political institutions[10] and polarising opinions regarding human rights practices.[11]      

Prompted by the continued occurrence of human rights violations, including torture and extra-judicial executions, the Asian Human Rights Court Simulation (AHRCS) was established on the 8th of October in 2018.[12] The AHRCS serves the purpose of acting as a real court to test the possibility of establishing a regional ‘Human Rights Court’. The AHRCS examines the most pressing cases in Asia based on international law and treaties pertaining to the protection of human rights. Given the grave human rights violations involved in the case of Chiou Ho-Shun, who had been on death row in Taiwan since 1989, it was chosen as the first case examined by the AHRCS. 

Image: The trial for Chiou Ho-Shun at the first AHRCS in July 2019.

 Chiou Ho-Shun V. Taiwan Government

Image: Chiou Ho Shun

In 1988, Chiou Ho-Shun was accused of the murder and mutilation of Ke Hong Yu-Lang, and of the kidnapping and ransom case of Lu Zheng, a 10-year-old boy. Despite the proven existence of police misconduct and torture, Chiou’s conviction was affirmed, after 23 years of repeated trials and hearings, on 28 July 2011. He had been awaiting his execution since that day.[13]

During Chiou’s four-month detention in police custody he was subjected to unjustifiable torture during the processes of investigation and interrogation. He was stripped down, blindfolded, suspended from the ceiling and electrocuted. These interrogations lasted up to 10 hours at a time, with five or six people viciously beating him, while he was handcuffed to imprint his thumbprint onto the written confessions. To this day, his body still bears the scars from his torture. A recording of a conversation between two police officers reveal their use of torture as a tactic to force his confession.[14] Despite the undisputable evidence of police misconduct, the Taiwanese Court refused to conduct a meaningful investigation into his allegations of torture. Even when police officers were convicted for torturing a co-defendant within the same case, the court failed to acknowledge the possibility that his confession was extracted through cruel and inhumane means. The 288 confessions procured from these interrogations, along with an unreliable voice recording of a ransom call, ultimately sealed Chiou’s fate.

After months of preparation and four days in court, it was unsurprising that the AHRCS concluded Taiwan was in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - specifically, of the right not to be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, under Article 7 of the Covenant. The AHRCS firmly concluded that, given the failures of the trial process, Taiwan was under an obligation to do what is just and necessary to remedy and rectify these abhorrent breaches of human rights.

The implication of Chiou’s case for the future of Human Rights in Asia

Whilst preparing for Chiou’s trial, it became evident that, in Taiwan, the public media pressure placed upon the police to solve a case often results in a trial by media. Consequently, the ‘presumption of innocence’ is ignored and potential offenders are given little chance to prove their case. Perhaps if it weren’t for the social panic and pressure from the public, the police would not have been so desperate to solve the case. Choiu’s case is an exemplary illustration of this. The blatant violation of Chiou’s rights reveals a systematic flaw entrenched within Taiwan’s criminal justice system.

Given the abhorrent violation of his basic human rights, Chiou’s case highlights the need for vigilant external rights scrutiny. Especially for the right to not be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment. In Asia, it is well known that the police tortures suspects as part of their interrogation techniques for procuring confessions.[15] Whilst torture is a prosecutable offence in most parts of Asia, the reality is that only few will be prosecuted as it is an entrenched practice of police investigation.[16] This is blatantly an inconsistent commitment to human rights obligations. Despite displaying strong rhetoric against human rights abuses, police misconduct still remains prevalent, and unaccounted for in many Asian countries.[17]

Whilst it is highly contested as to whether establishing a ‘Human Rights Court’ is pivotal in enhancing human rights protections,[18] nations can demonstrate that they have a certain level of commitment and accountability in upholding human rights standards.[19] It is of paramount importance to institutionalise a human rights mechanism – a regional ‘Human Rights Court’ – to ensure that human rights principles and values are safeguarded in Asia.

It may be too late for Chiou, who has been isolated for 31 years – longer than what most of us have lived. The arbitrary deprivation of his life cannot be made up for in any material way. However, we can only hope that Chiou’s case will initiate necessary conversations surrounding the need for a human rights body in Asia to prevent these abhorrent violations of basic human rights from occurring again. 

Image: The JRF display outside the AHRCS during the mock trial.

[1] Channel News Asia, ‘Rights Groups Lament Latest Taiwan Execution’
<https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/rights-groups-lament-latest-taiwan-execution-12606560>.

[2] European Commission, ‘Coronavirus: Taiwan’s aid to the EU delivered to Spain and Italy’ <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_643>.

[3] Amnesty International, ‘Taiwan Confirms Death Sentence in 23 Year-old Case, says Amnesty International’
<https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/taiwan-confirms-death-sentence-in-23-year-old-case-says-amnesty-international/>.

[4] Huang Yu-Zhe, ‘Find path to ending death penalty’, Taipei Times <https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2020/04/18/2003734822>.

[5] Ibid.

[6] United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, ‘Death Penalty’ <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DeathPenalty/Pages/DPIndex.aspx>.

[7] Sidney Jones, ‘Regional Institutions for Protecting Human Rights in Asia’ (1995) 89 Structures of World Order 475.

[8] Chang-ho Chung, ‘The Emerging Asian-Pacific Court of Human Rights in the Context of State and Non-State Liability’, Harvard International Law Journal
<https://harvardilj.org/2016/07/the-emerging-asian-pacific-court-of-human-rights-in-the-context-of-state-and-non-state-liability/>.

[9] Sidney Jones, ‘Regional Institutions for Protecting Human Rights in Asia’.

[10] Chang-ho Chung, ‘The Emerging Asian-Pacific Court of Human Rights in the Context of State and Non-State liability’.

[11] Jason Pan, ‘Testing of Human Rights Court hears Capital Case’, Taipei Times, <http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2019/07/31/2003719647?utm_source=d>.

[12] Asian Human Rights Court Simulation  - <https://ahrc.legal>.

[13] Judicial Reform Foundation ‘邱和順案 (the case of Chiou Ho-Shun)’ - <https://www.jrf.org.tw/>.

[14] Asian Human Rights Court simulation case documents, ‘ Conversation between Police Officers’, <https://www.dropbox.com/s/tefrgvjweeq483a/Annex%202%EF%BC%9Aconversation%20between%20polices.mp4?dl=0>

[15] Phil Robertson, ‘Torture is an Expanding Scourage in Asia’, Human Rights Watch
<https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/26/hrw-torture-expanding-scourge-asia>.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Huang Yu-Zhe, ‘Find path to ending death penalty’ <https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2020/04/18/2003734822>.

[18] Chang-ho Chung, ‘The Emerging Asian-Pacific Court of Human Rights in the Context of State and Non-State liability’.

[19] Sidney Jones, ‘Regional Institutions for Protecting Human Rights in Asia’.