回首頁
回首頁
 

 

馬總統恩師孔傑榮探扁 擬組人權委員會

NOWnews

美國紐約大學法學院教授孔傑榮今(17)日前往台北榮總,探視前總統陳水扁。民進黨立委高志鵬轉述說,孔傑榮提到有個新的委員會,針對陳水扁議題進行討論,再決議是否聲援扁,而孔傑榮是委員會成員之一,明年2月孔傑榮會再來台灣,屆時委員會將做出適當決議。

孔傑榮是馬英九總統在哈佛大學的恩師,今赴北榮探扁,引起高度關注。原定上午10時會見,孔傑榮提早在9時50分抵達,直到11時45分左右離開,全程約2個小時。

孔傑榮受訪指出,他與陳水扁談了1個小時,也與陳水扁的主治醫師談過;陳水扁很會講話,雖然聲音不大,但很詳細地介紹自己的近況,他對今天的討論非常
滿意。

至於是否支持讓陳水扁保外就醫,孔傑榮表示,他尚未決定看法,問題很複雜,很多因素要考慮,他要繼續研究。

以陳水扁情況在美國是否會特別處置?孔傑榮表示,有幾個可能性,一個保外就醫、一個是回監獄、一種是和解讓他就醫,但去哪個醫院,是監獄外或監獄裡,而且陳水扁的家屬都在南部,這裡離南部比較遠,有很多因素都應該考慮。

對於孔傑榮提到的委員會,高志鵬指出,沒辦法拿槍指著馬英九,但可做成決議給馬英九一定的壓力,若委員會決議希望馬總統不要違反國際人權,就看馬總統願不願聽恩師的話。

2012-12-17

美國紐約大學法學院教授孔傑榮(Jerome Cohen)

According to NOWnews:
http://www.nownews.com/2012/12/17/301-2883112.htm

Prof. Jerome Cohen met President Chen today (12-17-2012). The overall visit took about 2 hours (9:50-11:45) and he talked to President Chen for over an hour. According to legislator Kao Chih-Pan, Prof. Cohen mentioned that a new human rights committee will be formed and he would be a member of the committee. Prof. Cohen indicated that he will visit Taiwan again in February next year when the committee reaches its resolution.

About the meeting with President Chen, Prof. Cohen described President Chen as articulate and able to describe his conditions in details. Prof. Cohen also discussed with his doctors. Prof. Cohen is satisfied with the visit.

Prof. Cohen indicated that he has not reached a decision if he would call for medical parole for President Chen. He called the problem highly complicated and he needs to research more.

When asked if the US government would take action to intervene, Prof. Cohen indicated that there are several potential outcomes, one is medical parole, one is returning him to the prison, and the third, as a possible compromise, is to allow him full medical care. However, it still remains to be decided on the location of the care, inside or outside of the prison, or which hospital. The fact that the family members of President Chen are in the south should be an important factor for the outcome.

According to Legislator Kao, the proposed human rights committee cannot "order" Ma to do what it wants. However, its resolution carries a certain weight to apply pressure to Ma. It would be Ma's decision if he wants to observe international human rights standards and to respect the advice of his thesis adviser.

2012-12-17

=======================================================

[ LETTERS ] Taipei Times 2012-12-21


Cohen misquoted

Please allow me to correct two erroneous impressions contained in your otherwise accurate report on Tuesday concerning my visit to the hospital room of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on Monday (“US rights advocate Cohen visits former president,” Dec. 18, page 1).

It is not accurate to state, as Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Gao Jyh-peng (高志鵬) reportedly said, that I am “planning to establish a committee to review Chen’s human rights.”

What I said was that I hoped to return in February of the coming year as a member of a committee established by the Ministry of Justice to evaluate the implementation of Taiwan’s new human rights legislation, and in that connection, I may see Chen again.

It is also not accurate to state, as Vice Minister of Justice Wu Chen-huan (吳陳鐶) reportedly said, that I believe Chen’s medical issue is a “domestic issue,” erroneously implying that I do not think it is also an international law issue.

Actually, my reference to “domestic issue” came after Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) raised a different question — the timing of any further executions in relation to the scheduled visit of the foreign experts invited to evaluate Taiwan’s human rights implementation. Plainly, execution of the death penalty in any country raises both international and domestic issues, and in the context of our useful discussion, my reference was clearly meant merely to indicate that the timing of any execution is obviously the responsibility of the minister of justice, ie, “the ball is in his court.”

Jerome Cohen

Taipei

 

Gao remarks misleading

I am sorry to see that the Taipei Times has repeated the misleading reports about remarks by DPP Legislator Gao Jyh-peng (高志鵬) regarding the recent visit of professor Jerome Cohen.

Cohen is a member of the international review committee (actually a pair of committees) of eminent international human rights experts that has been invited by the government and charged with conducting the review of Taiwan’s first state reports under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in lieu of the two UN committees in Geneva, to which Taiwan is denied access.

The committee members have already begun reviewing the state reports on paper, but the main, public review sessions will take place in late February, and that is what Cohen was referring to.

However, the article (following some of the Chinese-language reports) makes it seems that there is some new committee that is specifically going “to make a complete review of Chen’s human rights.”

The work of the committees is a bit more far-reaching than that. Indeed, they are considering the entire scope of human rights conditions in Taiwan, closely patterning their deliberations and their conclusions on the standard practices of the UN treaty bodies.

Thus, it is unlikely that, in addition to their official “concluding observations” on each covenant, the committees would issue any separate statement of support for Chen. What is quite possible is that the committee evaluating Taiwan’s compliance with the ICCPR will express concerns about aspects of Taiwan’s prison conditions in general, and at most, Chen’s situation might be cited as an illustrative example of that.

In the history of Taiwan’s human rights development, this international review process is a very important step, which has engaged considerable efforts from the government, a myriad of Taiwanese non-governmental organizations (which have been producing their own responses and critiques of the state reports to submit to the members of the committees) and now segments of the international human rights community. It would be a pity if incorrect reporting led to public misunderstanding of the process.

Bo Tedards

Taipei

台灣e新聞