Article 10 Treatment of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty
Overview of Human Rights in Prison
Between 11 and 12 February 2015, an incident at the Daliao Prison (a prison for middle to long term imprisonment) occurred where six inmates took members of the prison staff, including the superintendent, as hostages. This was Taiwan’s first prison incident where prison officers were taken hostages, and it only ended with the inmates taking their own lives. These six inmates shared a number of commonalities: they are all subjects of the three-strikes law without hope of release, and almost certainly would have had to spend the middle and advanced years of their lives in prison. Their messages during the hostage situation highlighted the stringent conditions of compassionate release, the inability to be self-sufficient with labor income (200NTD per month), the miscarriage of justice during trials, the infinitely increasing threshold of release due to parole and nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto rules and the near impossibility of sentence reduction due to the three-strikes law, all of which rendered the inmates feeling hopeless within the prison and resulted in their suicides. Apart from the subsequent investigation of related negligence on the part of the staff, this incident did spark intense debates on prison conditions, but only briefly. Now, barely any mark of the incident is left in the public sphere.
Further into the past, Weishiao Lin, an Atayal young man serving his sentence in Taipei Prison, died in December 2014 due to the prison staff’s misuse of guard instruments. Another individual, the juvenile Hungkai Mai, were admitted into Taoyuan Reform School on 10 June 2011 for theft by the decision of New Taipei District Court, but died in the afternoon of 5 February 2013 after being sent to the hospital in emergency. In 2014, Changhua Reform School dealt with an incident, in which resident juveniles physically rattle their quarters in protest to the treatment they received, by handcuffing nearly twenty of the juveniles overnight at a courtyard used for drying clothes. Such practice, according to the investigation of the Control Yuan, is not the first of its kind at the School but a disciplinary measure frequently utilized.
The aforementioned incidents occurred after the first international review of Taiwan’s implementation of ICCPR and ICESCR in 2013. During the review, international experts have raised concerns with regard to overcrowding, torture, medicine and complaints in Taiwan’s prisons, to which both the government and civil groups have responded accordingly. However, two years afterward, Taiwan’s prison conditions remain grim today after 2013, as prison incidents continue to occur and are still not addressed appropriately. The issues highlighted in the 2013 report still exist today. Current challenges and issues facing the prisons may be, tentatively, divided into the following categories:
Health the hygiene (basic conditions to maintain the inmates’ health: air, sunlight, water and food).
Medicine (and its accessibility).
Mental health (psychiatric treatment).
Treatment of AIDS positives.
Complaints (including that against parole decisions).
Guard and control standard operating procedures (general guard and control within the prisons, use of guard instruments, compassionate releases and nighttime emergency guard and control measures), which also touches upon the issue of torture.
Differences in gender (e.g. transgender, sex drive), religion and physical and mental disabilities.
Work and labor income: voluntariness and work conditions.
Detention of the defendant (for detention centers).
Correction education of juveniles.
Inmate Complaints against Torture
Defendants of criminal cases may appoint defense attorney at any time to avoid being subject to torture. Victims of torture may file criminal cases against, inform on or raise complaints against the prosecutor, or claim to have been subject to torture to the prosecutors or judges. Inmates who are subject to torture may file complaints to the prisons or their supervisory agencies. However, correction facilities and police supervisory agencies have indicated that no such complaint was filed between 2012 and 2015.
The absence of complaints against torture may be attributed to the flawed mechanism for filing complaints: the fact that correction facilities and police supervisory agencies received no complaint does not mean the inexistence of torture. Possible causes for such silence are: 1) difficulty in filing complaints; 2) unsuccessful complaints may lead to further punishment; 3) complaints may be categorized as mere logistical matters, or addressed privately without being formally considered.
That inmates’ themselves are unaware of the kinds of treatment constitute torture, or are skeptic about the effectiveness of complaints against torture, may also be the possible causes for not filing complaints. For example, Weishiao Lin, an inmate at the Taipei Prison, was continuously kept in the ward for rule breakers, and was subject to illegal use of guard instruments 49 times. He eventually lost his life as a result of being illegally and inappropriately restrained52. Lin never filed any complaint against the torture to which he was subject.
This report suggests:
the establishment of an external monitoring mechanism;
ensuring complainants would not be subject to inappropriate treatment for their complaints or for subsequent investigations, and
enhancement of the awareness of torture.
Prison Staff’s Awareness of Torture
Paragraph 84 addresses the prison staff’s inadequate awareness of the ban on torture or inappropriate treatment: Weishiao Lin, an inmate at the Taipei Prison, died on 1 December, 2014 after being tied down for several hours on the walkway. The Control Yuan’s investigation reveals the illegal use of guard instruments and restraints by members of the prison staff, while the chief of the guard and control section, the secretary and the superintendent had neglected their duties in allowing such malpractice to occur.
This particular incident reveals the inadequate understanding of the danger and inhuman aspects of guard instruments and restraints on the part of prison facilities’ staff. While rules and regulations that govern the use of guard instruments and restraints do exist in Taiwan, effective implementation and monitoring mechanism remains lacking.
This report suggests the following: 1) If training of prison staff already includes the ban on torture or inappropriate treatment, the existing training regimen should be reviewed for shortcomings that had led to the illegal use of guard instruments and restraints. 2) The use of guard instruments and restraints should be supervised by medical personnel and reported to superior agencies. An order of discipline should be issued in writing to the inmate subject to the use of guard instruments and restraints for future possible complaints. Without violating inmates’ privacy, how guard instruments and restraints are used should be proactively made public for the purpose of public supervision.
The Group on Corrections Innovation
This section responds to Paragraph 140 of the State report regarding the Group on Corrections Innovation. The Group meets every six months to discuss their latest visit to a prison, which is a delay in terms of following up on the visit’s findings. In addition, the Group may only make suggestions on general issues and may not visit prisons at its own discretion, which makes it ineffective in achieving true external monitoring as it serves only to mark the directions of corrections innovation.
Reassignment of Military Prisons to the Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice
With regard to Paragraph 141 of the State report on military prisons, as the Agency of Corrections prioritized acquisition of the land, the two military prisons reassigned to the Agency were found in adverse conditions, and were not fit for use as regular prisons at the time of the reassignment.
Rehabilitation/Protection
This section responds to Paragraph 143 of the State report on the rehabilitation/protection system. This area falls under the responsibility of Taiwan After-care Association. Statistics from the Ministry of Justice indicate that 34,148 inmates were released from prison in 2015 (23,094 sentence fulfilled, 11,054 granted parole). However, judging by the 2015 end report in the Association’s 2016 budgets, various services provided by the Association remain inadequate: among this many rehabilitating inmates, only 1,073 received counseling, 708 participated in skill training and 1,575 received career development assistance, while only 3,906 were visited by rehabilitation counselors, 1,879 were subsidized for their homebound trip, and 23 were provided start-up loans. In addition, the quality and detailed content of such services were not publicly available. Although the Association has expanded its services to include families of the rehabilitated in the form of “Supportive Services Program for Families of the Rehabilitated”, a study commissioned by the Ministry of Justice has shown that the Program’s contents and standards vary when implemented by the Association’s different branches or commissioned institutions. Also, only a limited number of families received the Program’s aid, the total being 667 between 2010 and 2011. This indicates that while services for families of the rehabilitated are being developed, systemic planning for these services, as well as their level of proliferation, are still found wanting.
To sum up, the amount of services is obviously inadequate as opposed to the number of inmates released, while accessibility of these services also requires improvement. In addition, only overview of the “Supportive Services Program for Families of Rehabilitated” overview carried out by the Association’s various branches and commissioned institutions is publicly available. Apart from statistics, detailed information on the content and quality of services provided, along with the criteria to engage such services, is not available.
These available services fall drastically behind the demand and lack adequate accessibility for individual subjects. The content of such services also requires reconsideration, and their outsourced nature has fragmented the program and robbed it of consistent objectives.53
Treatment and Releases of Drug Addicts
This section responds to Paragraph 144 of the State Report on detoxification and compulsory detoxification treatments stipulated by Article 10 and Article 20 of the Narcotics Hazards Prevention Act. Detoxification treatments apply to first-time users of Category one or Category two narcotics, while compulsory detoxification apply to users of such narcotics who commit the same offense five years after being released from completion of treatment. Rehabilitation centers in this regard are only affiliates to the Agency of Corrections of the Ministry of Justice, not medical facilities. In addition, internal rules in rehabilitation centers are no different from that in regular prisons, and most centers have no designated doctors or nurses stationed. For example, Sindian Drug Abuser Treatment Center has no designated doctors, and Taichung Drug Abuser Treatment Center has only one, while the rest of these centers cooperate with nearby hospitals that serve as their medical resources. The Ministry of Health and Welfare’s functions are not utilized.
Treatments vary vastly in different Centers, and mainly surround various religious groups. An amalgamation of different forms counseling and therapies are observed. For example, Taichung Drug Abuser Treatment Center uses reality therapy, while Centers in Taitung and Kaohsiung employ horticultural therapy and reflective treatment, respectively. Many long-term residents are subject to identical courses over time, which makes it difficult to track the effectiveness of specific methods long-term.
According to the Agency of Corrections’ 2015 records on drug abusers’ admission to correction facilities and their repeated offenses, there have been high rates of repetition: 50.6% among inmates incarcerated for drug use, 43.7% among offenders subject to one year of compulsory detoxification and 34.5% among offenders subject to detoxification less than two months. The Agency has also noted in these records that adjustments are required for guard procedures and edification programs.
Tracking of residents upon release is primarily the responsibility of Drug Abuse Prevention Centers. However, in page 227 of Drug Addiction Prevention Strategy Forum published by National Health Research Institute in September 2014, it has been noted that the jurisdictions of respective Prevention Centers are too large to provide accessible services, and case managers, who are hired on short-term contracts, are turned over too frequently to effectively establish relations with individual subjects. In addition, there is a significant lack of community resources related to addictions, as the Ministry of Health and Welfare outsources these operations as one-year subsidy programs without an overall catalogue of available resources or the establishment of indexes to measure treatment effectiveness. Thus, social adaption of former detoxification center residents has been poor.
This report suggests:
The proactive involvement of the Ministry of Health and Welfare to provide due medical personnel; also, medical facilities should be considered he best setting for addiction treatment.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare should immediately review all current available resources for addiction treatment, including integrative resources such as ones that are of medical, social and labor in nature.
Edification Programs at Correction Institutions
This section responds to Paragraph 153 of the State report. Over the years, life education, character education and vocational training mentioned in the State report have been carried out by impartial figures, not trained professionals, to supplement the insufficient counseling resources. There have been multiple incidents where these persons revealed or even present fabricated individual information to the public, and carried out edification programs with customary methods: lecturing, or demanding self-denial or self-degradation, which are of no effect at all.
This report suggests:
diverse programs to be devised to provide inmates with approaches to reconnect and interact with the society in dignity; and
allowing programs that reflect a wide range of different values to enter the prison.
Prison Overcrowding
This section responds to Paragraph 154 of the State report on overcrowding. The key cause to this issue is the incarceration of those that do not need to be incarcerated. This is especially true in the case of drug users, for whom prison is not the most suitable destination. For these people, addiction treatment, both physical and mental, is more important.
Meanwhile, forms of discipline and punishment are unimaginative and limited, which fails to achieve the objectives of corrective measures. Furthermore, they exacerbate prison overcrowding, to the point where inmates’ physical, mental health and share of basic resources are severely affected. Even worse, insufficient guard personnel has also made high intensity control and guard operations difficult, which adversely affects medical treatment.
Solitary Confinement
Paragraph 157 of the State report stated that solitary confinement is not used as a means of punishment. In fact, the isolation itself constitutes torture. International experts’ review in 2013 has repeatedly mentioned that solitary confinement is not merely a form of punishment but one of the most extreme forms of torture.
Inmates Comprised of Different Genders
This section responds to Paragraph 158 of the State report on inmates comprised of different genders. Stereotypes against those of different genders are prevalent in prison. Visits by the Prison Watch revealed that prison staff often “determine” inmates’ sexual orientation with only gender qualities and assign quarters accordingly, which neglect the inmates’ own identity and will.
Masculine culture in prisons results in prison staff’s general stereotypes and stigmas against those of different genders, as well as negligence on inmates’ gender differences and sexual needs.
This report suggests that prisons implement gender mainstreaming and comprehensive gender equality education for staff and inmates, instead of solely concentrate on issues of sexual harassment and assault.
De Facto Punishments in Prison not Imposed by Law in the Name of Edification
This section responds to Paragraph 159 of the State report on making sure that inmates do not receive punishment in addition to what the laws have imposed upon them. According to Article 76 of the Prison Act, punishment given to inmates who violate prison regulations are limited to: reprimand, suspension of visits, compulsory labor, suspension of purchase of goods, reduce labor wages, and suspension of outdoor activities. In reality, however, prisons employ punishments such as confinement in the ward for rule breakers54, imposing more stringent regulations (e.g. long periods of upright sitting and military drills) and lowering living standards (e.g. wholesale ban on smoking and electrical appliances), all of which are not imposed by law but dealt out in the name of edification.
This report suggests an amendment of related criteria, and the deliberation on the necessity of, and alternatives to, wards for rule breakers and observation wards.
Determination of Violations in Prisons
This section responds to Paragraph 160 of the State report. The determination of violations of prison regulations can be easily abused, which makes it difficult for individual disciplinary staff members to show restraint. For “insubordination”, prescribed as item 3, category 7 of the Reference Standard for Inmate Violations and Punishment, inmates may receive reprimand, suspension of 3 visits, or suspension of outdoor activities for 7 days. However, the concept of “insubordination” is extremely vague, and any deviation from the staff’s instructions may constitute a violation.
The Prison Act has no provision that prescribes the forms of “violations”, but punishments for these violations have a profound effect on the inmates’ lives in prison. Such violations should be specified in the Act.
For “insubordination”, rules that inmates are to follow should be first specified and verified as necessary for order in prison. Violations should be counted only if inmates display insubordination after being instructed to follow the rules.
Use of Restraining Instruments
This section responds to Paragraph 161 of the State report. Use of restraining instruments is inconsistent with human rights standards. Paragraph 1, Article 22 of the Prison Act stipulates that “precautionary appliances or calm rooms are used for consideration when an inmate has possibilities of escaping, committing suicide, acting violently or other disturbing behaviors”, and Paragraph 2 of the same article stipulates that “precautionary appliance is limited to legcuffs, handcuffs, chains and rope restraints”. However, according to General Comment 21 of UN’s Human Rights Committee, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners apply to parties of ICCPR. Article 33 of the Rules prescribes that irons shall not be used as restraints, and that such instruments shall only be used as precaution against escape during a transfer, on medical grounds by direction of the medical officer, or by order of the director, if other methods of control fail, in order to prevent a prisoner from injuring himself or others or from damaging property, and in such instances the director shall at once consult the medical officer.
At present, legcuffs/irons are still listed as a precautionary appliance under the Prison Act, an inconsistency with Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. In addition, such instruments may be used without consulting medical personnel when inmates have “possibilities of…other disturbing behaviors”, which is both vague and inconsistent with the Rules. By this language, the use of these precautionary instruments could easily escape the purpose of preventing a prisoner from injuring himself or others or from damaging property, and become a de facto means of punishment.
This report suggests that Article 22 of the Prison Act should be amended in consistence with Article 33 of Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Before the amendment takes place, Ministry of Justice’s Agency of Correction should, as soon as possible, amend the guidelines governing the use of guard instruments for correction facilities in accordance with Article 33 of the Rules.
Lack of Rules Governing the Use of Electric Batons
This Paragraph responds to Paragraph 162 of the State report. In practice, prison facilities are issued electric batons. However, whether these count as “batons and firearms”, as prescribed in Article 24 of the Prison Act, is a matter of debate55. Because the Act does not explicitly mention electric batons, there are no rules governing their issuance and use, nor is there a supervisory mechanism against their abuses.
This report suggests the establishment of clear laws and regulations governing weapons issued to prisons. For these weapons to be used appropriately, and for such usage to be properly supervised, rules should to be made with regard to their issuance and use. Records should be kept on the use of weapons and should be submitted to superior agencies. Inmates subject to the use of weapons should be issued explanatory documents afterwards for future possible complaints. Without violating inmates’ privacy, how weapons are used should be proactively made public for the purpose of public supervision.
Intentional Obstacles against Same Sex Partners’ Visits
This section responds to Paragraph 163 of the State report. When Wang, a gay man, was incarcerated in 2015, his request to be visited by his same sex partner ran into intentional obstacles, and he was asked to present proof that the two were registered to the same household. This is an unfair and more stringent requirement than that for heterosexual married couples.56
The requirement to be registered to the same household, even prior to admittance to prison, is a requirement more stringent than that for regular spouses and almost entirely prohibits visits from same sex partners. This report suggest that Ministry of Justice impose of set of universal regulations which would allow all prisons to permit visit and communications applications from same sex partners with reasonable requirements (such as the proof of cohabitation required by Taipei Detention Center).
Prison Staff’s Lack of Awareness and Supervision to the Use of Restraints
This section responds to Paragraph 164 of the State report. Awareness and supervision to the application of restraints is lacking among prison staff, as evidenced in the case of Weishiao Lin. In this particular incident, Taipei Prison, without direction of medical personnel, illegally employed a tongue depressor, and rendered the inmate unmovable in an identical position over an extensive period of time, which eventually caused the inmate’s death. The occurrence of such lethal incident, even when there are in fact rules in place governing the use of restraints in prison, points to first line staff members’ lack of understanding on the use of restraints and its danger, as well as gross failure in the prison’s internal control mechanism.
Work within Prisons
This section responds to Paragraph 165 of the State report. Currently, work within prisons primarily consists of repetitive, non-skill processing commissions, such as folding paper bags, paper lotus flowers and processing hair clips. Such work only expend inmates’ time and energy and has no effect in terms of cultivating professional skills in preparation for inmates’ return to society.
Participation of such work is mandatory under current regulations, which excludes the possibility of inmates’ choice on whether to participate upon admission, or absence for appropriate reasons. The acceptable reasons, such as illness or edification, for exclusion from prison work are determined entirely by prison staff.
Income from prison work remains low and insufficient for basic monthly expenses. While a number of prisons have developed respective niches that may provide inmates with up to 10,000NTD per month, inmates’ monthly income at most prisons remains only about 200NTD. Such disparity should not be obscured by the use of average numbers.
In summary, Ministry of Justice’s Agency of Corrections has violated Paragraph 3(c), Article 8 of ICCPR on servitude, and Article 7(a) ii of ICESCR on remuneration that provides decent living for all workers.
This report suggests that:
Article 32 of the Prison Act on labor wages should be amended. Under current laws and regulations, equipment maintenance should be at the Agency of Corrections’ expense, and intended indemnity would not be paid to inmates in the case of victimless crimes. These should also go to inmates’ income, hence
Article 33 of the Act should be abolished, as the State should not require labor wages to be drawn for victim indemnity, especially when many inmates in Taiwan are convicted of victimless crimes (e.g. drug use). Labor wages should go wholly to inmates without being used by the State for any other purpose, while victim indemnity should come from other State budgets.
Chapter 5 of the Statute of Progressive Execution of Penalty should be abolished. Basic living requirements for inmates should not differ with the progression of penalties. The Chapter is both meaningless and unnecessarily restrictive for inmates and thus should be abolished.
Economic Situation for New Inmates
This section responds to Paragraph 170 of the State report. Since new inmates may not participate in prison work, they have no income. Essentials should be provided to new inmates based on time of admission, age and gender.
Review schedule of inmates’ economic situation should be specified, with at least one review every month. Essentials should be provided if an inmate’s money under custody falls below 1,000NTD upon review. Inmates’ requests for essentials should not be refused unless there is a significant difficulty.
Hot Water Supply in Prisons
The Agency of Correction states in Paragraph 171 of the State report that cold and hot water are provided in prison in predetermined periods based on seasonal conditions. This does not reflect the reality. In addition, Article 69 of the Enforcement Rules of the Prison Serving Act should be abolished.
Program to Improve Inmates’ Living Conditions and Treatments
This section responds to Paragraph 172 of the State report. The Ministry of Justice should specify the content of the program, and allocate budgets for its operation and maintenance, instead of drawing on operational funds.
Other suggestions not corresponding to items in the State report:
Article 67 of the Enforcement Rules of the Prison Serving Act listed “other living essentials” needed by prisoners’ accompanied children. Staple and non-staple foods should also be included.
A Paragraph that reads, “The visitation during holidays is twice per month.” should be added to Article 63 of the Prison Act, and the original Paragraph 2 moved to Paragraph 3.
Items and their prices in cooperative stores in prisons should be posted online for the sake of transparency; this report also suggests that the Agency of Correction should consolidate and assume responsibility of the tendering process of common essentials for all prisons.
Quality of Medicine for Inmates
This section responds to Paragraph 173 of the State report. The effectiveness of inmates being included in the National Health Insurance scheme, and the quality of medicine available to them under the scheme, should be reevaluated. Treatment variety and frequency do not fit inmates’ needs in a number of prisons (for instance, frequency of psychiatry treatment at Taoyuan Women’s Prison is significantly subpar), which would inevitably affect quality and accessibility of medicine.
In the case of an inmate medical emergency, no certified medical personnel is required to determine whether an inmate should seek external emergency treatment under guard. A set of simple rules were established by the Agency of Correction on the criteria for external medical treatments under guard, which is determined by prison staff without professional medical training according to the subject’s life signs (such as blood pressure, body temperature, etc.). However, individual life signs cannot represent inmates’ overall health and medical needs. The death of juvenile Mai at the Taoyuan Reform School was caused by the delay of external medical treatment.
Most prisons do not have doctors on site at night and during holidays, which makes these prisons incapable to deal with inmates’ medical emergencies with medical expertise in a timely manner and decide whether external medical treatment is required.
Taiwan Prison Watch has written to the Agency of Corrections highlighting the above issues of treatment frequency, external medical treatment under guard, medical treatment on bail and the ambiguity in relief mechanisms. The Agency’s only replied was that “inmates are not free to choose between medical treatments. The forms with which medical care is provided are under the jurisdiction of the correction institutions. Whether an inmate should receive treatment in the institution, seek external treatment under guard, be transferred to the sick ward, or seek treatment on bail, is the discretion of the institution having taken into consideration doctor’s diagnosis and suggestions.” This shows that individual correction institutions still tightly control medical treatment in prison without involvement from medical professionals or health authorities.
This report suggests:
Health authority should proactively participate in the supervisory of prison medicine to effectively evaluate its quality and accessibility.
Medicine in prisons should be the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s responsibility. A coordination mechanism should be devised from a medical perspective to provide treatment variety and frequency that fit inmates’ needs. Standard operating procedures of, and reliefs with regard to, external medical treatment under guard, transfer to sick ward, along with that of medical treatment on bail should be established.
Criteria for external medical treatment under guard should be leniently determined, where external treatment should be sought at once in an emergency, instead of delaying such treatment until the subject’s life signs have weakened. The flow of seeking such treatment should be reviewed, as a whole, since looking at individual items within without a comprehensive assessment would not produce a flow that serves the inmates’ needs. A nurse should be stationed at each prison to determine, instead of prison staff, the need for external medical treatment.
Each prison should employ at least one designated, onsite medical specialist (a doctor or a nurse) to make medical decisions and provide medical assistance.
Inmates’ Mental Health
This section responds to Paragraph 174 of the State report. Health evaluation is only performed at inmates’ admission to a prison, with no following up on their physical and mental health except for observations made by prison staff without psychology training. Incidents at Taipei Prison such as an inmate’s death at in April 2013, caused by physical abuse by a cellmate, and the suicide of another by a pair of scissors in June 2014, have indicated the prisons’ lack of capacity to assess mental health.
Most prisons employ no counseling psychologists or clinical psychologists, only the assistance of intermittent voluntary services or occasional counselor visits. At prisons that do employ designated counseling personnel, the ratios of such personnel to inmates are so low that effective evaluation of, and counseling to improve, inmates’ mental health are difficult.
Prisons have largely employ lectures by religious or self-help groups through edification personnel (of prison staff) without psychology training. These edification personnel are extremely few in number (for instance, in 2014, only six edification personnel were stationed at Kaohsiung Second Prison, which housed 2,800 inmates) and their main responsibility is to organize lectures. For this reason, they do not have enough time or expertise to effectively evaluate inmates’ mental health situation, or to make timely referrals to medical facilities or professional counseling providers.
This report suggests:
inmates with sentences longer than ten years, and those with less but are emotionally unstable thus are exposed to higher risks, should be subject to proactive mental health evaluation.
Prisons should offer regular counseling services for inmates to apply at their own discretion. Counseling services should also meet the following requirements: that counseling providers should possess adequate expertise; that case load for individual counselors should be kept at a reasonable level to ensure adequate time and quality for each case; that an inmate should be able to engage with the same counselor, and expect stable, trusting relations, and that counseling ethics such as confidentiality should be observed.
Medical Treatment on Bail
This section responds to Paragraph 178 of the State report. Although medical doctors may advise the correction institutions, final decisions of whether to approve medical treatments on bail are still made by prison superintendents. In addition, there is no corresponding remedies or procedures through which decisions may be overturned with adequate proof.
This report suggests that:
on whether to approve medical treatments on bail, Ministry of Justice should defer to professional medical expertise and consider doctors’ opinions with priority. The decision making process should also incorporate civil groups and (non-administrative) medical experts and accordingly make improvements, in order to establish a mechanism for professional analysis of such matters.
The Ministry should provide administrative relief for those refused medical treatments on bail, such as obtaining third party opinion through self-paid medical treatments as evidence for complaint.
Prevention of Infectious Diseases in Prisons
The section responds to Paragraph 179 of the State report. Given the level of overcrowding, it is difficult to appropriately segregate patients with infectious diseases in prisons. In addition, the general facility shortcomings have resulted in poor ventilation and hygienic conditions in prisons. Combined with the relatively low accessibility of medical resources, infectious diseases are difficult to prevent in prisons.
This report suggest that:
Ministry of Justice review the issue of prison overcrowding from the source, and allocate budgets to improve prison facilities and hygiene.
Correction institutions should have enough sick wards and isolation wards to provide necessary segregation and treatment following doctors’ assessment of patient conditions.
Inconsistent Parole Review Criteria
This section responds to Paragraph 181 of the State report. Parole review criteria have been inconsistent in practice, even after Ministry of Justice’s publication of specific rules. Former legislator Chingbiao Yen’s swiftly granted parole is a case in point57.
The cause of this issue is the prisons’ unspoken rules on parole decisions. In practice, such decisions are made in no small part based on the suggestions of edification personnel who report on individual inmates’ performance. Therefore, there is ample room for manipulation.
This report suggests that social adaptation programs should be tailored to each inmate’s situation through discussions between inmates, social workers and psychologists. These social workers and psychologists who have assisted the applying inmates on social adaptation programs should be the ones to assess parole requests, and on the grounds of the level of completion of these programs. Medical diagnoses should be sought for applicants with personality disorders to determine related risks. Finally, inmates who are denied parole should have a larger voice at the parole review committee, in order to lower the level at which parole review criteria could be manipulated by prison administrations.
Persistent Lack of Complaint Information for Inmates
This section responds to Paragraph 191 of the State report. Inmates are still provided with less than adequate information regarding possible complaints, as the manuals issued to them do not include code of conduct for prison staff. Without this information, it is difficult for inmates to realize if members of the prison staff are treating them in violation of specific rules and complaints could be filed against such inappropriate treatments. For example, in the case of Weishiao Lin, the inmate was illegally subject to guard instruments and restraints, but there is no record of complaint from him against such treatment.
In addition, provisions of International Bill of Human Rights that are related to prisons are not included in inmates’ manuals, not to mention their interpretations and case examples. For this reason, inmates have no way to realize that certain practices in prison have violated the Bill.
This report suggests that prison libraries should include the full catalogue of laws and regulations (such as compilations of Agency of Correction’s official letters and orders). In addition, the Agency should also articulate, approachable explanatory material and case examples of International Bill of Human Rights provisions related to prisons to be included in prison libraries. Code of conduct for prison staff concerning inmate’s rights, along with provisions of the Bill concerning prisons, should be included in inmates’ manuals with reference to further available library resources. The manual should also include contact information of human rights groups for potential correspondence and consultations.
Measures and Regimens for Inmates to Bring Lawsuits Remains Incomplete
This section responds of Paragraph 194 of the State Report. As of Judicial Yuan Interpretation number 691, inmates seeking relief against their treatments in prison are to file their cases to administrative courts instead of regular criminal courts.
Two issues with regard to trials at administrative courts: 1) Inadequate legal aid: court cost at the administrative courts for each case falls between 4,000 to 6,000 NTD, which many economically disadvantaged inmates cannot afford, let alone employing attorneys to help with their claims. Although the Administrative Litigation Act includes provisions on litigation in forma pauperis, inmates’, given their limited legal knowledge, often are not aware they may apply for resources, or how to make effective applications. 2) Administrative courts refuse to substantively examine whether treatments in prison constitute violations of inmates’ human rights: Hoshun Chiu, an inmate with death penalty, once mentioned prison staff’s drug dealing practices in his letter, which was withheld by Taipei Detention Center on the grounds of “obstruction of order in prison” and demanded that Chiu revise the letter. Chiu subsequently filed an administrative suit, in which the administrative court has recognized a broad scope of the prison’s mandate on correspondence inspection and approval58.
This report suggests that:
to assist inmates’ claims against treatments in prison in court, a special piece of legislation on legal aid to complaints against treatments in prison is required, which would enhance Legal Aid Foundation’s role of legal counsel on treatments in prison, its pro bono legal services, and subsidies to legal costs.
The Prison Act should be amended in accordance with the International Bill of Human Rights. Criteria for inmates’ various treatments in prison should be specified, so the courts would not refuse to substantively consider the cases on the grounds that prisons’ mandates is broadly defined under current laws.
Inmates in Juvenile Correction Institutions
The section responds to Paragraph 187 of the State report. Although accessibility spaces, medical equipment and related professional expertise remain inadequate in correction institutions, juvenile inmates with disabilities are not sufficiently referred to welfare or education institutions for children or juveniles. More comprehensive considerations should be given to referrals as described in Paragraph 189 of the State report, including the subjects’ physical and mental conditions after being admitted.
The incident surrounding Mai, a juvenile inmate at Taoyuan Reform School, is a case in point59. The School ignored Mai’s need for psychiatric treatment (for ADD and emotional disorders already diagnosed prior to admission), as his instructor deemed him “almost pathologically stubborn”. In addition, Mai was kept in isolation confinement for the convenience of overall class management despite his deteriorating health. As a result, Mai died during the course of his educational discipline.
Among all juvenile correction institutions’ inmates, about 150 are admitted under the juvenile delinquency system. However, are the reform schools capable of providing adequate protection as they are? Insititutions with smaller space that promotes sufficient interaction should be established to support these inmates’ reconstruction of interpersonal interaction and empathic capabilities.
Correction Schools
This section responds to Paragraph 188 of the State report. At present, juvenile correction institutions are divided into two correction schools and two reform schools, which are managed under different administrative branches with different personnel allocation and curriculum. However, only one correction school out of four institutions (Ming Yang High School) specifies juvenile inmates as their target subjects. Therefore, juveniles subject to educational discipline may be admitted unequally to different correction schools or reform schools by court decisions. (Reform schools are managed similar to prisons, while conditions are better at correction schools, which are preferred by most juveniles.) In addition, courts responsible for such decisions are not closely integrated with correction institutions, and the former have no clear understanding of the actual situations in the latter. There are also no standards governing the decisions on whether to admit juveniles to reform schools or correction schools, hence treatments that fit individual subjects are difficult to administer.
Illegal corporal punishments still exist in juvenile correction facilities, and inmates are not allowed to file complaints to improve the situation, lest risking to be regarded as insubordinate. The torture incident at Changhua Reform School is a case in point, where inmates were inappropriately subjects of guard instruments and drills, which were employed frequently as a means of punishment. In addition, the School also punished students who violated regulations with excessive physical training and confinement in observation ward (individual subjects were confined as long as 17 months), and inmates under such confinement were not able to attend education sessions. These practices constituted torture and violation against the inmates’ health and fundamental human rights.
Regular visits of juvenile courts to these correction facilities are ineffective in terms of understanding inmates’ lives inside. It is also difficult for inmates to file complaints in order to stop inappropriate treatments. In the case of Mai, who informed the visiting juvenile probation officer of the corporal punishment he was subject to, the juvenile court did not perform any subsequent investigation. Mai’s accusation was thus deemed false, and he was demanded to provide a confession.
This report suggests that:
a review of the curriculum of correction schools and reforms schools should be performed in the short-term, in order to provide inmates with adequate adaptive education, which include academic and vocational skill training that may connect with regular schools.
In the mid-term, correction schools and reforms schools should be consolidated. Juvenile inmates should not be treated differently because the two types of schools are under different administrative branches.
In the long-term, an overall review of juvenile correction institutions should be performed, in order to, instead of simply addressing current shortcomings, develop a new education system that may be implemented on juvenile inmates effectively.
Connective Education in Correction Institutions
This section responds to Paragraph 189 of the State report. Variety and transferability remain insufficient for vocational skill training courses in reform schools, nor are the courses adaptive to the inmates’ needs.
As course assignment are not made in full accordance with inmates’ aspirations, sexual differentiation is also apparent in vocational training in addition to that in the assignment of classes and quarters. Females are to receive beautician or stylist training, while males are subject to technical training such that of plumbers, electricians or auto mechanics.
In terms of academic training, proper teaching personnel for adaptive education remain insufficient. Courses may even be interrupted by parents’ visits and labor sessions, which results in most inmates’ inferior academic performance in comparison to their outside peers of the same age.
This report suggests that Ministry of Education shoulders a larger responsibility in terms of juvenile inmates’ connective education in correction institutions and their subsequent education in regular schools. Teaching personnel in correction institutions should be treated equally in terms of wages and benefits. More professionally trained teachers and education resources should be introduced, instead of relying heavily on volunteers of religious groups.
Discriminatory Treatments of Female Juvenile Inmates
This section responds to Paragraph 190 of the State report. Female juvenile inmates subject to educational disciple cannot enter correction schools, can only advance to eleventh grade in reform schools, and may not be able to receive vocational training according to their aspirations. This is a severe violation to these juvenile inmates’ right to education.
Although there are remedy-teaching courses mandated by Ministry of Education, they are not implemented in practice, a negligence already impeached by Control Yuan.
This report suggests a review on the current inappropriate differentiation between correction schools and reform schools, in order to provide female juvenile inmates with equitable treatment.
Inmates’ Suffrage
Suffrage is the preparation for inmates’ return to society by maintaining their basic awareness and expectations as social humans, which is key to lowering the obstacles and increasing the incentives for the eventual return.
This report suggests that the Referendum Act should be amended so that provisions on absence voting apply to all incarcerated inmates, in order to restore their civic rights.
Overall Suggestions on the Inmates’ Rights Chapter
Hygiene in Prisons:
Hygiene improvements: Most prisons refuse to provide water at night on environmental grounds. Only water kept in buckets and drinking water in tea buckets are available, which creates a great deal of inconvenience to inmates who need water in their cells. Taipei prison even refused to install toilet tanks in the cells on the grounds of management and prevention of contrabands, hence toilets need to be flushed with water by hand, which is worrisome in terms of public hygiene. In general, improvements are needed for cell ventilation, inappropriate water restrictions at night should cease, and in-cell toilet tanks need to be installed.
Many prisons also desperately require improvements for their ventilation and lighting conditions.
The Agency of Correction should allocate budgets to improve the above facilities as soon as possible. Water and electricity allocation should prioritize inmates’ health.
Medicine and Health in Prisons’:
Outdoor Activities: at least on hour of outdoor activities should be ensured in accordance with the suggestion of International Bill of Human Rights.
Access to Medicine: A reevaluation on the effectiveness of 2nd Generation NHI and whether frequency of treatments fits the inmates’ needs (for instance, frequency of psychiatry treatment at Taoyuan Women’s Prison is significantly subpar). An evaluation mechanism should also be established where health authorities may proactively intervene. Criteria for reviewing applications of medical treatment on bail should involve civil groups and (non-administrative) medical expertise and accordingly make improvements, in order to establish a mechanism for professional analysis of such matters. Administrative relief should be provided to those refused medical treatments on bail.
Counseling: Prisons should offer a counseling system where inmates may employ counseling services and engage with the same counselors. Counseling ethics such as confidentiality should also be observed.
Complaints and Guard and Control Measures in Prison:
Administrative rules concerning inmates’ rights such as parole review criteria and rules governing progressive measures should be included in inmates’ manuals. Any amendments should be timely announced at wards and workshops.
Administrative and judicial relief for measures on insubordination should be specified and their procedures made clear to inmates.
External inspectors should be able to inspect prisons and interview inmates, and inmates’ complaints filed to inspectors should be exempt from prisons’ own inspections.
Work in Prison and Treatment for Individual Inmates:
Review of survey items and implementation should be performed. For inmates with long-term sentences, priority should be given to the formulation of their overall treatment programs, which should include regular evaluation and monitoring of physical and mental health and future social adaptability.
Labor income and its allocation in prison should be made public.
Prison staff’s awareness on AIDS should be improved upon.
Prisons’ accessibility facilities should be reviewed, and any insufficiency and errors should be amended in accordance with People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act.
A talent pool of translators should be established in order to contact, when necessary, neighboring resources.
Prison staff’s awareness on sexual orientation and sexual identity should be improved upon.
Human Rights of Detained Defendants and Inmates on Death Penalties:
Defendants’ privacy is not protected, as spaces for attorney meeting are different in each prison, and in some prisons there are no partitions between defendants. Legal material that defendants receive from attorneys should not be inspected.
301. Defendants detained and prohibited visits should not be deprived of their fundamental rights to medicine and time for outdoor activities.
302. Inmates who have received verdicts of death penalty should only participate in workshop operations by their own choosing.
303. Relief results for individual death penalties, such as pardons, retrials and constitutional interpretations should be ensured by prison administrations.
More Transparency Required for Prison Rules and Regulations:
There are “internal” and “external” versions of Ministry of Justice’s laws and regulations database (http://mojlaw.moj.gov.tw/). Access to the former is restricted to the Ministry’s staff, while the latter is open to the public. However, many prison rules and regulations are not included in the external version, for the Ministry and its affiliate agencies often deem these to be administrative rules that do not need to be proactively made public. The public is thus unaware of many rules and regulations that concern inmates’ rights and conduct of prison staff, such as “Guidelines Governing Use of Guard Instruments for Correction Institutions Affiliated with Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice”, guidelines governing the use of restraints, guidelines for determination of inmate violations, and guidelines governing the progressive corrective measures at each prison.
This report suggests that the laws and regulations database should not continue to be divided into two versions, which creates an information gap. All compilations of official letters, orders and administrative interpretations related to prisons should be available on the Internet.
Prison Edification should Prioritize Restoration of Inmates’ Capacity to Return to Society, Especially the Restoration of Citizenship:
Suffrage is the preparation for inmates’ return to society by maintaining their basic awareness and expectations as social humans, which is key to lowering the obstacles and increasing the incentives for the eventual return.
The core of edification programs should be to maintain interactions with the outside world. Only then could prisons effectively provide inmates with the necessary skills, including interpersonal interactions, judgment and knowledge of self.
- The Control Yuan’s report on Lin’s case can be downloaded at http://ppt.cc/78XKH
- Ministry of Justice’s statistics on correctional measures; 2016 budget of Taiwan After-care Association; Final report of Ministry of Justice’s study on the establishment of a supportive services system for families of the rehabilitated
- Criteria for evaluation of inmate violations exist in prisons, but are currently categorized as internal administrative rules, which are not mandatorily published and hence not available on the Internet. Information on the realities in the ward for rule breakers can be found at PNN’s PTS News Network commentary: A Dark Forest within the Dark Forest: Realities in Taipei Prison’s Ward for Rule Breakers (Article in Chinese.)
- See commentary by Ful-Dien Li at Storm Media: Can the Death Remonstration Wake the Ministry of Justice from Stupor? (Article in Chinese.)
- Wang was incarcerated on two occasions, from January to April 2015 and from December 2015 to February 2016. Before his first incarceration, Wang had written to the Ministry of Justice to request his boyfriend be allowed to visit as Wang’s same sex partner. One week before his release, Taipei Detention Center’s officer informed him that the Ministry had sent an official letter stating that with proof of cohabitation, applications for visits and communications would be permitted, though Wang did not file an application since he was soon to be released. Before his second incarceration, Wang and his boyfriend had acquired a proof of cohabitation, which his boyfriend sent to the prison along with the Ministry’s official letter immediately after Wang’s admission to prison. However, it turned out that Taipei Prison would only permit applications for visits from a partner registered to the same household as the inmate. As a result, Wang was still not able to see his boyfriend during his incarceration. After his release, Wang shared his experience on the Internet and was contacted by a lesbian woman, who was not able to see her girlfriend even after she had registered both of them to the same household because her girlfriend was serving at Kaohsiung Prison, which only permits applications for visits from a partner registered to the same household as the inmate before the inmate’s admission.
- See Yen’s Parole was Manipulation of Justice by Jienjung Chien, Apple Daily (article in Chinese).
- More information can be found at PNN’s PTS News Network commentary: An Inmate in Silence? Comments on the Verdict of Chiu’s Memoir (Article in Chinese)
- Control Yuan’s correction on Taoyuan Reform School regarding the Mai incident