【台灣】不顧承諾執行六名死刑

國際特赦組織新聞稿20121221

 

國際特赦組織表示，台灣於週五執行六人死刑，對當局廢除死刑的承諾而言，無疑是一種嘲諷。

 

曾思儒、洪明聰、黃賢正、陳金火、廣德強與戴德穎於今天稍早在台灣不同地點遭處決。

 

這次的槍決是今年該國首次行刑。  2011年曾有5人遭到處決，而目前還有55人已經窮盡上訴途徑等待處決。

 

「這是台灣當局的冷血殺戮，政府如何能夠一面信誓旦旦的說自己希望終結死刑，又一面繼續執行死刑？」國際特赦組織東亞區執行長Roseann Rife說。

 

台灣當局多次宣布他們希望跳脫使用死刑的手段，而使死刑議題能夠朝向公共辯論邁進。

 

法務部次長陳守煌於12月19日表示當局會依照自己的進度來執行死刑，並且不會受到國際專家的影響。

 

上個月，前聯合國「酷刑與其它殘酷、非人道、有辱人格對待與懲罰」的特別報告員Manfred Nowak與聯合國經濟社會文化權利委員會委員Eibe Riedel，皆呼籲馬英九總統促使台灣暫停執行死刑。  他們在明年計畫訪台審查政府落實兩個聯合國人權公約(《公民與政治權利公約》、《經濟社會文化權利公約》)報告前夕，對台灣政府提出呼籲。

 

「以監獄人數過於擁擠或所謂大眾支持死刑來合理化剝奪他人生命的行為是很可惡的，死刑從來都不是那個對的答案，而且死刑永遠不應該被用來作為犯罪防治、犯罪抑制或其他政策的工具。」Rife表示。

 

「與其以此作為軟弱的藉口，當局更應該落實他們尊重人權的承諾，並且朝停止使用死刑前進。」

 

台灣並未提供死刑犯任何管道，使他們得以尋求赦免或減刑，這是《公民與政治權利公約》所承認的權利，而台灣議會已經通過要落實這項公約。

 

死刑犯家屬並不會事先被告知預定的行刑計畫，他們只在被通知前往停屍間領取遺體時才會得知已經處決。

 

此外，台灣的死刑施行還有嚴重的公平審判問題。四月時，台灣高等法院撤銷三個人的死刑判決，他們原先被控於21年前殺害一對夫妻，撤銷的原因是：判決是根據不可靠的自白。

 

國際特赦組織對於所有案件皆反對死刑，不論犯罪的本質為何、嫌犯特質如何、或國家以什麼方式處決人犯，皆沒有例外。

 

若需更進一步資訊，請聯繫

Tom Mackey
Amnesty International Press Office
+44 207 413 55 66
tom.mackey@amnesty.org
@amnestypress amnesty.org/media-centre

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE

21 December 2012

 

Taiwan: Broken promises as six executed

 

Taiwan’s execution of six people on Friday makes a mockery of the authorities’ stated commitment to abolish the death penalty, Amnesty International said.

 

Zeng Si-ru, Hung Ming-tsung, Huang Hsien –cheng, Chen Chin-huo, Kuang Te-chiang and Tai Te-ying were executed earlier today at different locations across Taiwan.

 

The executions by shooting are the first in the country this year. Five people were executed in 2011 and 55 people are awaiting execution and have exhausted all appeals.

 

"This is cold-blooded killing by the Taiwanese authorities.  How can the government credibly claim it wants to see an end to the death penalty when it continues to conduct such actions?” said Roseann Rife, Head of East Asia at Amnesty International.

 

The authorities have repeatedly declared their intention to move away from using the death penalty and lead a public debate on the issue.

 

Deputy Justice Minister Chen Shou-huang said on 19 December that the authorities would carry out death sentences on its own schedule and will not be influenced by foreign experts.

 

Last month, Manfred Nowak, a former UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and Eibe Riedel, a member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, called on President Ma Ying-jeou urging that Taiwan implement a moratorium on executions.

 

This came ahead of their scheduled visit to Taiwan next year to review the government's report on implementation of the two UN Human Rights Treaties – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

 

"It is abhorrent to justify taking someone's life because prisons are overcrowded or the public's alleged support for the death penalty.  The death penalty is never the right answer and must never be used, including as a tool for crime prevention, repression or any other policies,” said Rife.

 

“Instead of offering feeble excuses the authorities should deliver on their commitments to respect everyone's human rights, and move to end the use of the death penalty."

 

Taiwan provides no procedure that would allow people on death row to seek a pardon or for the sentence to be commuted – a right recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Taiwanese parliament has voted to implement.

 

Family members are not informed about scheduled executions in advance. They only find out when they are invited to collect the body from the mortuary.

 

In addition, serious fair trial concerns have marked the imposition of the death penalty in Taiwan. In April, Taiwan's High Court quashed the convictions of three men sentenced to death over the murder of a couple 21 years ago, as it found that the convictions were based on unreliable confessions:

 

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to carry out the execution.