Taiwan concluded its three-day event Review meeting on the two international human rights covenants on May 15, followed by a press conference. The death penalty was a focus.
Taiwan Verification report The two international human rights covenants include a state self-assessment of its compliance with the international human rights standards of the United Nations – in particular International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Since Taiwan is not a UN member, this mechanism offers an alternative way to strengthen the government’s commitment to human rights.
Regarding the death penalty, this year’s review report indicates a steady decline in its use in Taiwan. However, the Review Committee continued to raise concerns about the government’s reliance on opinion polls to justify executions and called for a moratorium on the death penalty.
Previously, on April 22, the Attorney General of Taiwan one submitted extraordinary attraction after Ou-Yang Jung, a death row inmate sentenced to death in 2011, died in prison in January this year. This remarkable case represents a rare instance of an extraordinary appeal for a deceased convict.
Ou-Yang was convicted of murder and abandonment of a corpse in 2011 after killing a woman and dismembering and disposing of the body. After the 2024 milestone Judgment No. 8 of the Constitutional Court As the country adopted stricter criteria for the death penalty, case reviews were initiated for the 37 cases in question. Subsequently, the Attorney General filed an extraordinary appeal against five death penalty convictions, including the Ou-Yang case, whose verdict was flawed.
Taiwan maintains the death penalty for certain crimes in law. These primarily include murder, kidnapping for ransom and uprisings in Turkey criminal codeand drug offenses in the Narcotics Danger Prevention Act. In 1990 and 1999 two constitutional judgments were issued, No.263 And No.476declared this death penalty to be constitutional. Despite the consensus in the court, the issue remains a highly controversial issue in Taiwanese society. While there are civil movements calling for the abolition of the death penalty, the majority of the public supports the punishment.
Hence the Judgment No. 8 of the Constitutional Court in 2024 was a landmark verdict that decided the development of Taiwan’s criminal justice system. Contrary to the expectations of civil rights groups and the public, the court did not rule entirely for or against this death penalty, but rather chose a middle ground. The verdict reaffirmed that the death penalty is constitutional. However, it emphasized the severity and risk of the punishment and established new thresholds for imposing a death sentence. It held that a death penalty sentence is constitutional only if it: (1) applies only to “the most serious crimes”; (2) be limited to the most serious cases of the above offense; and (3) be imposed with the strictest due process.
According to the new criteria, death sentences stipulated in several criminal laws violate the constitution because a death sentence without discretion based on the severity of the case in question does not reach the second threshold. With regard to due process, the ruling noted that mandatory defense and oral debates should be strictly necessary in the last instance. Furthermore, a death sentence should only be imposed by a unanimous decision of the panel of judges. Finally, defendants with reduced criminal responsibility or incapacity to stand trial due to a mental disability must be denied the death penalty.
The judgment therefore established that the 37 applicants for the hearing before the Constitutional Court can lodge extraordinary appeals. In two cases, crimes with a fixed death penalty were convicted. Three plaintiffs have deficiencies in their ability to stand trial. In ten cases there were deficiencies in the final court proceedings. This has opened the possibility for case reviews of these death penalty cases. The Attorney General has filed an extraordinary appeal Huang Chun-chi and Chen Yi-lung in November 2025 and for Wang Hung-wei and Kuo Chun-wei in March 2026.
The Constitutional Court’s Judgment No. 8 was viewed by both sides as a “disappointing” ruling. The tightening of the threshold disappoints those in favor of the death penalty, as death penalty advocates viewed the new strict criteria as “a major abolition of the death penalty.” On the other hand, opponents of the death penalty argued that the ruling’s confirmation of its constitutionality fell short of expectations and undermined the efforts of abolitionists.
In summary, the ruling has opened the door for a reconsideration of the five cases. The ruling sets Taiwan on a path of reform, moving away from outright abolition or maintaining the status quo. In the meantime, the Society is closely monitoring the future development of Taiwan’s criminal justice landscape.
The opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our local correspondents and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
