Do Not Sacrifice Human Rights Protection for Legal Certainty: A Statement on Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 592

The Judicial Yuan Grand Justices rendered Interpretation No. 592 today regarding the application of Interpretation No. 582. Except for the case petitioned by the petitioner which may apply the interpretation from the date of its announcement, other criminal cases are limited to those that were already pending before courts at all levels prior to the announcement of Interpretation No. 582, and where the individual facts of the case involve the statements of a co-defendant used as evidence to convict another co-defendant. The Judicial Reform Foundation expresses disappointment with this interpretation result, believing that it overly restricts the application of Interpretation No. 582 and will undermine its original intent to uphold human rights protection by safeguarding the right of cross-examination against co-defendants.

The Judicial Reform Foundation maintains that cases where a co-defendant's statements were used as evidence to convict another co-defendant, and which were already pending before courts at all levels prior to the announcement of Interpretation No. 582, inherently fall within the scope of Interpretation No. 582; thus, Interpretation No. 592's reiteration of this point is clearly redundant. However, it is problematic that cases where a final judgment has already been rendered and a co-defendant's confession served as the sole evidence are excluded from the scope of application due to Interpretation No. 592. Under the intent of Interpretation No. 592, other cases similar to the Hsu Tzu-chiang case will be unable to obtain relief pursuant to Interpretation No. 582 simply because they have already reached final judgment. This contradicts the intent of the interpretation to protect the constitutional right to access to court and the principle of due process. The most concrete example can be seen in the Su Ping-kun case. Whether it is appropriate to sacrifice human rights protection for the sake of legal certainty is indeed a matter that requires deep reflection.

Press Contacts

Kao Yung-cheng, Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation
Chien Tzu-ch'ao, Executive Secretary, Judicial Reform Foundation