JRF Statement on Today's Media Report Headlined "Lawyer Serving as Transitional Justice Commissioner Amounts to Intimidation of the Judiciary"

Regarding today's media report headlined "Lawyer Serving as Transitional Justice Commissioner Amounts to Intimidation of the Judiciary," JRF issues the following statement:

Yesterday (December 25), the High Court heard the March 23 Executive Yuan Occupation Case, in which prosecutors charged the defendants with offenses including obstructing public officials and instigating others to commit offenses. Because the collegial panel had shown hostility and bias against the defendants throughout previous hearings, and the presiding judge had repeatedly violated the Code of Criminal Procedure in directing the proceedings—undermining the defendants' right to a fair trial—the pro bono defense team moved to disqualify the judges and held a press conference to explain.

The judges' bias and unlawful direction of the proceedings in this case include the following. Under Article 163, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge may investigate evidence ex officio in order to discover the truth, but must give the parties and defense counsel an opportunity to state their views before doing so. Even once questioning begins, the judge must explain how the witness relates to the facts to be proved. However, during the court session on December 18, the judge ex officio summoned six police officers to testify without giving the defendants and defense counsel any opportunity to state their opinions prior to the summons, nor was this indicated in the court summons. When the lawyers inquired in court about the purpose of the summons and the facts to be proved, the presiding judge tried to brush them off with remarks such as "I want to understand the overall facts of that night."

The aforementioned media report completely ignores the biased conduct of the judges during the court proceedings, choosing instead to emphasize only that police officers were injured. Putting aside the fact that hundreds of citizens were beaten and injured by police on the night of March 23—with the footage of state violence vividly recorded—and that this case does not involve the trial of assault charges, the media omitted any mention of the presiding judge's illegal statements and actions in court. Instead, it attacked the courtroom observation campaign and falsely reported that the pro bono lawyers had threatened to "teach the judges a lesson," completely abandoning the objectivity expected of the media in reasonably monitoring judicial impartiality.

Finally, the value of transitional justice is by no means political liquidation; rather, it encompasses all institutional transformations experienced as a country transitions from authoritarianism to democracy. The Executive Yuan occupation case did not occur during the authoritarian era and does not fall within the scope of transitional justice or the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice. The report's claim that attorney Yu Po-hsiang, convener of the pro bono defense team, is "both player and referee" because he also serves on the Transitional Justice Commission is likely a misunderstanding, and does nothing to clarify the legal issues in this case.

A fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to the people by the Constitution. Anyone who genuinely respects the judiciary should speak up promptly against unlawful and improper conduct to defend the value of the judiciary in a democratic society. It is malicious smearing, which fosters an unjust judiciary, that truly repeats past mistakes and fails to reflect on the weakness of the judiciary during the White Terror era.