Taiwan’s Central Election Commission on Friday rejected to put judicial caning to a referendum, with all seven members deciding unanimously that the referendum proposals were inconsistent with their international obligations.
The commission concluded that there is no criminal punishment similar to judicial caning on the island. According to the island Referendum lawCitizens cannot vote on matters that are outside the scope of legislative principles or major policies. Therefore, citizens must not vote for the creation of a new system of criminal sanctions. The commission added that judicial caning violates the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Indeed, the UN Human Rights Committee commented in 1992 that Article 7 prohibits corporal punishment. The international obligation requires governments to prevent and punish torture and cruel treatment on their territory.
Jonathan Lin, secretary of the opposition Kuomintang party committee, sentenced The commission said in a press release that it had taken away people’s right to a referendum. He called on the commission to release its full reasoning for public consideration.
A day before the commission’s deliberations, Amnesty International Taiwan Director E-Ling Chiu said, contradicted on the referendum proposal with the words:
This proposal is part of a broader pattern that has emerged in recent months. Human rights budgets were cut, the work of independent institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission was hampered, and the functioning of the Constitutional Court was undermined. Promoting a referendum to legitimize cruel, inhumane and degrading punishments further contributes to the erosion of the human rights protection framework that Taiwan has built over decades.
On August 14, the island’s legislature passed one The invoice to subject judicial caning to a referendum that covers crimes such as sexual assault, child abuse and aggravated fraud. Kuomintang lawmaker Hung Mong-kai, who proposed the bill, argued that criminal sanctions must be sufficient to prevent and protect victims and meet public expectations of criminal justice and public safety.
Along with Amnesty, four other human rights groups in Taiwan issued a joint statement that day opposing the referendum proposal on judicial caning. They argued that a referendum cannot create laws that violate international human rights standards and that there is no statistical evidence of its deterrent effect.
The only thing after the cancellation referendum November will focus on the government’s nuclear policy. The people of Taiwan will vote on whether to accept their “Nuclear weapons-free homeland policy.”
