Taiwan concluded its three-day Review Meeting on the Two International Human Rights Covenants on May 15, followed by a press conference. The death penalty emerged as a primary focus.
Taiwan’s Review Report on the Two International Human Rights Covenants is a governmental self-assessment of its compliance with UN international human rights standards—specifically the 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 provides an alternative way to strengthen the government’s commitment to human rights.
In regard to the death penalty, this year’s Review Report indicates a steady decline in its use in Taiwan. However, the review committee still expressed concern over the government’s reliance on public opinion polls to justify executions, and called for a moratorium on the death penalties.
Earlier on April 22, the Prosecutor General of Taiwan filed an extraordinary appeal after Ou-Yang Jung, a death row inmate convicted in 2011, passed away in prison this January. This noteworthy case represents a rare instance of an extraordinary appeal pursued for a deceased convict.
Ou-Yang was convicted of murder and abandonment of a corpse in 2011 after he killed a woman and dismembered and disposed of the body. After the milestone 2024 Constitutional Court Judgement No.8 established stricter criteria for the death penalty, case reviews have been initiated for the relevant 37 cases. Subsequently, the Prosecutor General filed extraordinary appeals for five death penalty convictions—including the Ou-Yang case—which contains flaws in its judgment.
Taiwan retains the death penalty in law for certain offences. These mainly include murder, kidnapping for ransom, insurrection in the Criminal Code, and drug-related offences in the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act. In 1990 and 1999, two Constitutional Judgements, No.263 and No.476, ruled this capital punishment to be constitutional. Despite the consensus in the court, the issue remains a highly controversial topic in Taiwanese society. While there are civil movements calling for the abolishment of the death penalty, the mainstream public opinion leans in favour of the punishment.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court Judgement No.8 in 2024 was a landmark ruling deciding the development of Taiwan’s criminal justice system. Contrary to the expectation of civil rights groups and the public, the Court did not rule in total favour or opposition to this capital punishment, but chose a middle ground. The Judgement reiterated that the death penalty is constitutional. However, it stressed the severity and the risks of the punishment, and established new thresholds for imposing a death sentence. It held that for a death penalty conviction to be constitutional, it must: (1) only apply to “the most serious offences”; (2) be restricted to only the most serious cases within the aforementioned offence; and (3) be imposed with the most stringent due process.
Under the new criteria, fixed death sentences in several criminal provisions violate the Constitution, as a death sentence without discretion of the level of severity in each case failed the second threshold. Regarding due process, the Judgement held that compulsory defence and oral debates shall be strictly mandatory in the final instance. Moreover, a death sentence should only be imposed through a unanimous decision by the panel of judges. Lastly, defendants with diminished criminal responsibility or unfit to stand trial due to mental disability must be rendered ineligible for a death sentence.
The Judgment therefore held that the 37 applicants to the Constitutional Court hearing are eligible for extraordinary appeals. Two cases were convicted of offenses with a fixed death sentence. Three applicants have defects in their fitness to stand trial. Ten cases involved flaws in the final instance of the judicial process. This has opened the opportunity for case reviews of these death penalty cases. The Prosecutor General has filed extraordinary appeals for 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 Judgement No.8 was regarded as a “disappointing” ruling for people on both sides of the issue. The tightening of the threshold disappoints those in favour of the death penalty, as the supporters of capital punishment deemed the new strict criteria as “abolishing the death penalty substantially”. On the other hand, the opponents of the death penalty argued that the endorsement of its constitutionality in the judgement fails the expectations and undermines the efforts of the abolishment activists.
In sum, the judgement has opened doors for the reconsideration of the five cases. The ruling leads Taiwan into the path of reform, steering away from total abolition or maintaining the status quo. In the meantime, the society closely watches the future evolution of Taiwan’s criminal justice landscape.
