Temporal limitations of transitional justice and of the possibility of submitting new evidence are against both conscience and international human rights covenants.
by Tsai Cheng-An*
*A paper presented at the conference “Looking at the Development of Human Rights in Taiwan from the February 28 Incident and the White Terror to the Tai Ji Men Case,” hosted by the National Memorial Hall of February 28 and the Taiwan Association for Financial Criminal Law Study, Taipei, ROC, March 5, 2023.
Taiwan’s political transition has undergone a lengthy process from authoritarianism to democracy, with the lifting of the Martial Law in 1987 being considered a significant milestone. However, even after the Martial Law was lifted, Taiwan remained in a post-authoritarian era until the Democratic Progressive Party’s second transition in 2016, when Taiwan was widely recognized by the international community as having officially entered a democratic political system.
Human rights protection is an extremely important issue in the process of political transition. The international community has established a series of human rights standards and norms, including the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which emphasize the importance of core human rights such as freedom of religion and have become the foundation of global human rights protection. Taiwan passed the Implementation Act of the Two Covenants in 2009, incorporating the provisions of the two covenants into its domestic legal system, indicating the Taiwanese government’s commitment to respecting and protecting human rights and its willingness to fulfill international human rights obligations, thereby upgrading Taiwan’s human rights protection level to international standards.
In the process of promoting human rights, Taiwan’s government passed the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice in 2017. However, the time frame was limited to the period of Kuomintang rule from 1945 to 1992, excluding the consideration of human rights violations that occurred after 1992. Such restrictions may lead to incompleteness in achieving justice and redress for certain victims, constituting a “temporal limitation of transitional justice” that does not respect the conscientious principle of rectifying all human rights violations.
The “conscience principle” is a deeply universal concept that reflects individuals’ intrinsic moral judgments and values, constituting one of humanity’s common moral principles. It guides individuals to seek goodness and justice in moral dilemmas and to make correct decisions. It embodies universal respect for justice, truth, and morality, providing an important foundation and guidance for the rule of law. In a democratic society, laws should reflect the collective conscience and values of the people, providing fair and reasonable standards for society. These universal principles are tested in Taiwan’s disputes over transitional justice, particularly in discussions about how to restore justice for citizens whose human rights were violated during the authoritarian and post-authoritarian periods, including their right to freedom of religion or belief.
According to the conscience principle, when new evidence emerges in transitional justice, the possibility of presenting such evidence should not be restricted by existing laws’ statutes of limitations. When new evidence emerges, it may reveal previously concealed truths and contribute to a better understanding of historical events. If there is a “temporal limitation of new evidence,” it will severely hinder the realization of transitional justice.
Although Taiwan’s political transition has undergone key events such as democratization and party alternation, the “temporal limitation of transitional justice” and the “temporal limitation of new evidence” are two major remnants of authoritarianism. Neglecting protection against the abuses that happened after 1992, Taiwan’s democracy and human rights in 2024 have not met the legislative purpose of the Implementation Act of the Two Covenants, failing to fulfill international standards of human rights protection.
The Tai Ji Men human rights case of 1996 is a typical example, since it occurred during Taiwan’s post-authoritarian period of transition, when the Taiwanese government unjustly persecuted religious and spiritual groups and denied their freedom of religion or belief. The Control Yuan of Taiwan listed this case as a significant human rights protection case in 2005.
Since its establishment in 1966, Tai Ji Men has remained unchanged in essence and has never had any tax issues. It has only been affected by religious crackdowns. However prosecutors have falsely accused Tai Ji Men of being a cram school and subjected it to unlawful taxation over the years. The National Tax Administration made different determinations regarding the nature of the respect-for-master monetary contributions without any legal basis. Finally, it maintained its tax bill for the year 1992 while correcting to zero the tax bills for the other years.
Tai Ji Men and its Shifu (Grand Master) were recognized innocent and free of tax liabilities by the Supreme Court in 2007, acknowledging the respect-for-master contributions as gifts. Furthermore, in judgment No. 422 of the Supreme Administrative Court in 2018, the belief essence of Tai Ji Men as a qigong and martial arts group was recognized. The freedom of religion or belief rights of Tai Ji Men are the focal points, protected under Articles 4 and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
After being unjustly judged for business tax and comprehensive income tax in 1992 and subjected to forced execution, Tai Ji Men disciples have continuously presented new facts and evidence to prove the illegality and errors in the tax dispositions by the National Tax Administration.
The Tai Ji Men human rights case has not only been listed by the Control Yuan as a significant human rights protection landmark case. Tai Ji Men has also received support from over 300 bipartisan legislators, hundreds of domestic and international experts and scholars, and even international non-governmental organizations that have submitted for nine times written reports to the United Nations Human Rights Council, condemning the Taiwanese government’s unfair treatment of Tai Ji Men.
Under the interaction of “the temporal limitation of transitional justice” and “the temporal limitation of new evidence,” the lingering remnants of authoritarianism in Taiwan’s political and economic system have become a key impediment to rectifying past wrongs. Many international human rights institutions and legal scholars emphasize that there should be no “time limitations” in the investigation and redress of human rights violations, and the use of new evidence should also adhere to the principle of conscience, without “time limitations.” There is a sincere call for the Taiwanese government to address the harm caused by these two remnants of authoritarianism to human rights protection, and to implement the rectification of the Tai Ji Men human rights case based on the universal values of human rights protection and on the conscience principle.