Referring to Article 25 & 26 regarding the Indigenous People’s rights, consent must be gained from any Indigenous Peoples before carrying out any human subject researches.
Several issues were observed during the trial and the investigation of Hung’s case45. Before the death of Hung, the Republic of China army had been utilizing training as a disciplinary measure; the “corrective training” imposed by officers-in-charge was specifically intended to “make the disciplined soldiers physically suffer.” However, the “trainers” implementing such measures lacked sufficient knowledge of professional physical training; therefore, they were neither able to determine the appropriate intensity and the limit of the disciplined soldiers during the process, nor to identify any possible physical crisis and provide necessary relief. In addition, the physical facilities of the detention facilities where such punishment was carried out were inadequate. For example, the cells used for resting and sleeping were too small (soldiers had to curl themselves to lie down, and when 2 soldiers were confined together, they had to lean closely with each other) and lacked sufficient ventilation. The cells were also illuminated brightly 24 hours a day for surveillance purposes. Furthermore, although Hung had filed a complaint, expressed his issue of claustrophobia, and had been psychologically assessed as high-risk, he was still directly sent to the detention institute. Thus, there was a lack of professional determination, whether on health or procedural grounds.
In Hung Chung-chiu’s case, the experience that the victim had undergone in the disciplinary confinement should fall into the range of torture defined by ICCPR Article 7. Many soldiers had experienced such disciplinary confinement in the R.O.C. Army before Hung’s death; although all of them have possibly been tortured, there has been no explicit investigation. Besides, there are gaps in the laws of Republic of China regarding torture. For example, the concept of “abuse” in Article 44 of Criminal Code of the Armed Forces which was applied in Hung’s case only refers to whether the officers directly abused the “trainees,” but it doesn’t inquire into the question whether the inadequate arrangement of resting space by officers in authority constituted torture or not. The restrictive explanation of torture by the court may have been violated Paragraph 7 of General Comment No. 7.
After the case of Hung, another soldier, Chien Chih-lung, passed away in 201546. It’s obvious that the commanders in the military should bear greater responsibility for the welfare of citizens under their command, whose liberty of person is constrained by military discipline, to make sure they are not physically ill-treated. However, all too often they ignore calls for help, even when their health has already begun deteriorating. According to Paragraph 7 of General Comment No. 7, the denial of medical assistance in such circumstances should be considered a form of torture or inhuman treatment.
There are certain human rights issues in the Republic of China military which violate the ICCPR is not accurately implemented. First, the soldiers conducting physical training lack professional knowledge of physical training, health science, or emergency rescue; they often impose the physical punishment in the name of “training”, claiming that they aim to strengthen soldiers’ “willpower.” Soldiers have no means to request either giving up or suspending the training. Such situations happened frequently before Hung’s death, and continue to exist even after the tragedy. The large number of victims and their families is the main reason why the protest against the light indictments handed down by the military prosecutors in Hung’s case drew 250,000 people to demonstrate in front of the Presidential Office. Second, officers usually consider soldiers who report health conditions as fraudulent. This assumption causes patients deprived of their liberty to be unable to seek medical assistance, which is a form of torture as well. Third, officers often lack the concept of rule of law, and they have a very limited understanding regarding others’ rights and the legal procedures under which they may be limited. Even the supposed professionals within the military (e.g. the former military judicial officials) failed to understand the laws under the area under their jurisdiction. Such conditions have prevented implementation of the ICCPR in the military.
There are significant omissions in Paragraphs79 & 80 and the section regarding torture of the State Report on ICCPR and ICESCR. Notably, the Report fails to mention the cases of police’s overuse of armed force to the peacefully assembling public during the violent dispersals at the Executive Yuan on March 24th, 2014 and at Zhongxiao W. Rd. on April 28th 2014.
The violent dispersal at the Executive Yuan occurred from late on the night of March 23rd to the morning of March 24th. It was started by the order given by Premier Jiang Yi-huah to the police, commanding that all members of the public inside Executive Yuan should be cleared away before 7 am on the 24th. Therefore, Wang Cho-Chiun, then Director-General of the National Police Agency (NPA), commanded the police to “fully eliminate” the protesters. During the action, the anti-riot police used shields, batons, fists, and feet to attack the peacefully protesting public, and fired high-pressure water cannons directly at people; some of the police even abused people by directly attacking their fragile body parts such as the head. Although the police successfully dispersed all the protesters before the deadline on the morning of March 24th, their brutal methods resulted in over a hundred people being injured, including then Legislator Chou Ni-an.
The Legislative Yuan Committee of Interior Affairs formed a taskforce and requesting the related administrative offices to provide the related documents within a week after the incident. However, the NPA refused to provide the key documents, and the truth remains unknown. As of today, only one police officer has been disciplined (Officer Hu, who was the commander with administrative responsibility over the police who injured Lin Ming-hui).No one else has borne either administrative or criminal responsibility, and no office has announced the full investigation report. According to a 3-page internal investigation report of the NPA provided to the office of Legislator Wellington Koo, the NPA only reported 3 officers to be investigated by the Taipei Prosecutors Office, but that office has not yet announced any result of their investigation.
Among the victims of the dispersal, 48 of them filed lawsuits of assault against Premier Jiang Yi-huah, NPA Director-general Wang Cho-chiun, the commissioner of the Taipei City Police Department, the chief of the Zhongzheng First Precinct (Fang Yang-ning), and several police officers who attacked people during the incident. However, when the dispersal was implemented, the police had intentionally covered their name badges and identity numbers; therefore, the victims were not able to identify the direct attackers. Plus, the administration passively avoided opening an investigation – even by intentionally hiding the overall list of the personnel who carried out the dispersal. Most of these lawsuits has been delayed until now, so that the judicial investigation has also failed to yield any concrete result. In only one case, the Taipei District Court ruled that the Taipei City Government should compensate one of the victims (surnamed Lin) for excessive violence by the Taipei City Police Department. With both administrative and judicial investigations ineffective, civil society has requested the new Legislative Yuan which took office after the 2016 election to establish a committee to investigate the facts and assess the responsibility for the events of March 24th, 2014.
From the afternoon of April 27th to the morning of April 28th 2014, anti-nuclear protesters held a sit-in protest which occupied a stretch of Zhongxiao W. Rd near the intersection of Zhongshan S. Rd. As these roads are major traffic arteries of the city, then Taipei City Mayor Hau Lung-pin announced that the government would clear them , “at any cost.” The police started to forcefully disperse the public on Zhongxiao W. Rd. in the early hours of April 28th. A huge number of police was sent to the scene to disperse the people by attacking them with shields, batons, fists and feet. Water cannons were also fired on the protestors at a short distance dozens of times in a short period. Many were injured and sent to hospital. For instance, Mr. Liu was hospitalized due to the massive amount of bruises and contusion on his back and hip and hematuria.
17 of the injured citizens have filed the lawsuit against Premier Jiang Yi-huah, NPA Director-general Wang, the commissioner of the Taipei City Police Department, the chief of the Zhongzheng First Precinct (Fang Yang-ning), and several police who attacked people during this incident. The case is still ongoing in the Taipei District Court.
As in the case of the dispersal at the Executive Yuan, the police also intentionally covered their name badges and identity numbers. Therefore, the victims were not able to identify the attackers, and no personnel have been disciplined. No victim in this case has received compensation from the state. In both cases of dispersal, the police have violated the rule of showing their identity as provided for in the Police Power Exercise Act, as well as the rule regarding the necessity of using weapons in Act Governing the Use of Police Weapons. Moreover, according to the evidence provided by the pro bono lawyers, the police do not have any standard operating procedures for the use of water cannons. Furthermore, the lack of education in human rights protection leads to the police arresting the assembling people and charging them with the crime of “interference with public function.” Flaws in the Code of Criminal Procedure hinder the achievement of remedies through the justice system.
The police administration should establish a neutral, independent investigation mechanism to look into all accusations of police personnel who either command or execute torture or excessive force and issue reports. The mechanism should include external, impartial persons, rather than the police themselves. Such reports should then be the basis of determinations of disciplinary measures by the Control Yuan and other agencies.
In both the two dispersal cases mentioned above, police also used force to disperse journalists and obstruct their reporting at the scenes. This was done even after journalists had already revealed their identities. In addition, the police took steps to segregate the journalists from the protesters to prevent them from directly observing the violent dispersal of protesters.
In the State Report on ICCPR and ICESCR, the government stated that it has made the “regulations of using high-pressure water cannons for police personnel” in accordance with the prohibition of torture. However, the regulations only reaffirm the importance of following the existed laws and proportionality, and they lack both specific standards or limits as well as any investigation or reporting procedures. Therefore, such apparent regulations have failed to decrease the abuses in the use of water cannons. In the cases on March 24th and April 28th, 2014, the two cases of severe abuse both involved overwhelming police forces using high-pressure water cannons on unarmed, peaceful assembling people47. Beside the direct physical harm of the water cannons, also in at least one case of police intentionally flushing away the clothes of women, which humiliated the victims. However, the State Report has no examination or investigation on this matter.
Apart from water cannons, there are plenty of types of police equipment which can harm the public during dispersals, such as barricades, batons and shields. Using these in an excessive manner while dealing with assemblies should also be considered as a violation of Article 7 of ICCPR. For example, since 2014, there have been barricades and razor-wire set around central governmental buildings48. Also, in the dispersal on March 24th, 2014 dozens or hundreds of people were beaten with batons and shields; there was even a person whose epileptic seizure was triggered when he was beaten on his head by a baton. There was no investigation, statistics or discussion in State Report; the necessary operational procedures for the usage of the police equipment in order to avoid the abusing of them were not followed — which amounts to a form of torture.
We request the Taiwanese government to establish a concrete standard operational procedure for use of all police equipment in accordance with international covenants and human rights standards. This should include the specific conditions when to use police equipment, the operational regulations for all methods, and explicit reporting and investigation procedures after each use. When cases of excessive force, such as beatings or firing of water cannons towards peaceful assembly, there must be an overall investigation and remedial measures.
According to the “Principles in Compiling State Report” of ICCPR, the government should clearly address the methods that the State will take to assure no one will be extradited, repatriated or expelled to any place that will cause non-recoverable harm. However, the State Report only mentions in Paragraph 88 in State Report that, if any such situation exists, the person can “refuse to be extradited.” After the national review of ICCPR and ICESCR in 2013, the Legislative Yuan has not passed the Refugee Law, and there are no other legal provision censuring the principle of non-refoulement, which protects the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees, in the Immigration Law or any other laws. Since the last review, the National Immigration Agency has already repatriated at least 4 asylum-seekers from People’s Republic of China, and 3 Kurdish refugees who attempted to seek political asylum in Europe. There are still 4 Chinese asylum-seekers currently on trial for illegal entry. There is also a Ugandan asylum-seeker who had been attacked by homophobes; however, because there’s still no Refugee Law in Taiwan, he is currently in a situation of overstaying his visa.
We again appeal to the Taiwanese government to pass the Refugee Law and establish a refugee protection mechanism as soon as possible.
- The case happened on the evening of July 3rd, 2013. The director of Research Center of Sports Medicine and Health diagnosed that Hung’s death was caused by multiple organ failure due to athletic heat stroke and hyponatremia brain disease. Hence, Taiwan High Court determined that, the cause of death was “athletic heat stroke due to over-training in humid and heated circumstance, which led to multiple complications,” “highly correlated with BMI of the victim, the amount of training, the resting time, and the circumstances of the confinement cell” and “heat stroke which happened on June 28th, 2013, caused by the heat damage accumulated during the training in confinement cell, ultimately leading to death.”
- Mr. Chien Chih-lung just enrolled in the army and joined the processional training in the gendarmerie school. Although he had expressed physical discomfort which was confirmed by medical professionals, because of the limitation of the freedom of person in the military, his unit still put him in solitary confinement and turned down his request to seek medical assistance until his health irreversibly deteriorated.
- “Sexual harassment on April 28th”, 2014/05/12, Storm Media; “The 7 hours of terror in the violent dispersal at the Executive Yuan”, 2014/03/25, Apple Daily.
- “The barricades and gabions are finally removed after 2 years of the student movement,” 2016/03/16, United Daily.