January 2017

Ten international human rights experts participated in the Review Meeting of the ROC’s 2nd Report under the ICCPR & ICESCR at the Evergreen International Convention Center on Jan. 16-20, 2017. The review focused on how the government has improved based on the 81 points of comments and suggestions as mentioned in the conclusion of the first review in 2013, and its implementation of the two Covenants since. The meeting was unprecedentedly streamed live online. On Jan. 16, after the government reported on current human rights education and the implementation of the two Covenants, the human rights experts commented on the lack of knowledge to both of the Covenants in the government, while the affected people could not find a way to get judicial relief. NGOs which have suffered human rights violations also pointed out the inadequacies of human rights education in government departments and questioned President Tsai’s commitment to implementing the two Covenants.

Human rights education is an important basis for the implementation of the two Covenants. Ming-Tang Chen, Administrative Deputy Minister of Justice, recalled President Tsai Ing-wen’s words on December 29, 2016 in the first meeting of the Presidential Office Human Rights Consultative Committee with the new members, that every one of us should reflect on ourselves so that we won’t repeat the same mistakes. Human rights education could be successful only when various human rights issues are to be integrated into the instruction of different subjects in schools, the rights of others are respected, and the people could stand up for justice.

According to a government official at the meeting, judges are supposed to have 40 hours of on-the-job training each year with the inclusion of human rights education as regulated in the Judges Act. The Ministry of Education established the Lifelong Program of Human Rights and Civic Education in 2012-2016 in order to create friendly school campuses that respect human rights and welcome civic participation. There will be a five-year plan to carry out the program starting in 2017. In 2015, the Department of Gender Equality of the Executive Yuan set up a performance appraisal implementation plan.

An NGO was wondering why the subjects of civil and tax laws and regulations have been deleted from the examination for recruiting finance and tax officers by the Ministry of Examination. How can tax officers protect civilians’ rights and interests if they don’t understand the law? Miloon Kothari, a human rights commissioner from India, pointed out that the representative of the government said that most of the amendments were related to civil rights to adequate housing, land and urban redevelopment and seemed only within the scope of the ICCPR and not so relevant to the spirit of the ICESCR. According to Kothari, it’s an indication that the governing departments are still not familiar with the two Covenants; hence, the people whose rights have been infringed cannot find a way to get judicial relief. In response, the Ministry of the Interior said it will reinforce its officers' understanding of the two Covenants in their on-the-job training.

The two Covenants are legally binding, and the government is obligated to carry them out. Miloon Kothari was surprised to hear that more than a thousand Taiwanese judgments were invoked from the two Covenants with the majority from the ICCPR. He wondered how many court judgments were entirely based on the Covenants? Did the courts make the judgments first, and only used the two covenants as a supplement later on? Or were they based entirely on the Covenants? The NGOs did not believe that the government had done their job to the full capacity. In response, Ci-ling Lin, Administrative Deputy Minister of the Interior, said that rare citation of the ICESCR might be because no one believed that such rights had been violated.

Peer Lorenzen, a Danish commissioner, brought up five questions,

1. The Covenants Watch quoted Administrative Deputy Minister of Justice Ming-Tang Chen’s comments on the 1,095 judgements citing the two Covenants in 2010-2016 as “too many.” It looks like the Ministry of Justice was suggesting the judges not to invoke the two Covenants. Ci-ling Lin, Administrative Deputy Minister of the Interior, responded that the Covenants Watch misunderstood Chen’s comments;

2. The focus shouldn’t be on the number of cases citing the two Covenants but rather on the final judgements. There were 263 cases ruled as simple violations of the two Covenants. One would question exactly how many out of the 1,095 cases were related to the violation of the two Covenants! Which articles of the Covenants were cited? These numbers are important in that it would help the understanding of the systematic problem: was every case involved with the same violation, or the nature of the violation was case by case?

3. There are more than 100 judges in the Supreme Court of Taiwan, which is very unusual. Are these judges’ interpretations of the Covenants contradicting with one another’s? If yes, is there a mechanism that can help resolve the inconsistencies?

4. In Denmark, the judge initiates a review when there’s a concern of possible violation of the Covenants in criminal cases. Who is responsible for bringing up such an issue in Taiwan?

5. How many judges have received training and education on human rights? How profound was the training and education given? Could these data be reflected in numbers? Do judges have regular access to the most current update on the Covenants? Have the court precedents and related information been provided to judges on a regular basis? In response, the Criminal Department of the Judicial Yuan made a statement that all relevant information was not handy and had been stored in the College of Judges.

In the course of the meeting, several NGOs were protesting outside the conference room with the catchphrase, "Nonsense! Nonsense! Hypocrites try to fool the experts!" Even though the regime has changed, the new government continues the old habit of no introspection, always dodging the questions, with no intention for positive changes or reforms. The government always responds uniformly, “All is in compliance with the two Covenants.”

An NGO representative said that a prosecutor is supposed to act on behalf of the public authority of the government; however, the prosecutor in the Tai Ji Men case used criminal means to manipulate the media into making false reports on the cultural group of qigong, martial arts, and self-cultivation. Such persecution and stigmatization is in violation of the 2nd, 12th, and 15th articles of the ICESCR. In the Tai Ji Men tax case, the taxation authorities arbitrarily deprive the people of the freedom of inheritance of culture, belief and association, which severely violates human rights as indicated in Article 18 of the ICCPR. According to the Taiwanese government, the two Covenants had been quoted on more than one thousand judgments. Why hasn’t the Covenants been quoted on the Tai Ji Men tax case since Tai Ji Men’s name has long been cleared by the criminal court in 2007. At the end of 2016, the protest of "Conscience-driven Fundamental Reform of Judicial and Tax Systems to Help Taiwan!” initiated by the Federation of Legal and Tax Reform and Tai Ji Men. The appeal was brought to the Presidential Office later. The government did not respond to either the protest or the appeal. The NGO pointed out the inadequacies of human rights education in government departments and questioned President Tsai’s commitment to implementing the two Covenants.

Photo: Ming-Tang Chen, Administrative Deputy Minister of Justice, gives a speech on behalf of the government.