1/16(一)兩公約第二次國際報告審查第一天上午，由人權公約施行監督聯盟代表80個平行報告協作團體發表了共同聲明，全文如下：

感謝各位委員來台進行審查，您自願挑起這個重擔，協助台灣實現人權目標，對我們而言是極大的鼓勵。從2013年的審查之後有些進展，我們已經在影子報告中提出，在此不再重複。我(黃嵩立Song Lih Huang)與黃怡碧(Yibee Huang)謹代表參與人約盟影子報告的80個公民團體，對近來的發展進行簡要的回顧：

1. 蔡政府上台以來，並未公布任何的人權政策或人權行動方案。但蔡總統並非對人權沒有作為，政府著手進行司法改革、年金改革、同性婚姻、長期照顧政策、以及轉型正義等方面的努力，蔡總統也代表政府向原住民族正式道歉。這些都有重要的人權意涵。目前改革成效仍待觀察，但是我們表示關切，因為 :

(1) 議題設定：政府並未在過程中提出任何「基於權利」的論述，喪失了機會讓公眾對人權有更廣泛的認識，也無法運用人權架構來協助確認「落實基本權利」的優先性。

(2) 程序：政府對於公共參與和討論的過程，仍然未建立可信和公正的制度。公眾參與的啟動和進行都需要以更民主、更有制度的方式進行，目前聽證會、公聽會及說明會等的籌備和執行階段，在資訊揭露、理性辯論都不盡完善，導致機關閃躲問題、部分參與者情緒性發言，缺乏釐清爭點、政府回應、理性討論的元素，更無法達成決策透明之目的。

(3) 此外，蔡英文總統就任前後曾多次宣示對原住民族權利，特別是主權的實踐，要整體的回復和落實，也宣示推動原住民族歷史及轉型正義，但在前列所提及的「議題設定」和「公信、公正的程序」兩個面項，顯然都面臨極大的爭議和不足。中華民國在退出聯合國之前，就已經是ICERD的締約國，但是因為沒有施行法，ICERD反而沒有被落實。

2.人權保障機制：

(1) 國家人權委員會，雖已於2014年7月完成討論和初步規劃，至今仍未有進展，推測政府遲疑的原因是: (a) 擔心國家人權委員會和監察院的職權重疊，但是目前的監察院在多元性和職權的部分，並不符合巴黎原則。(b) 對於國家人權委員會調查權的不確定認知，因此會有「總統擴權」的疑慮；但此一疑慮大可透過對調查權的性質和範圍有進一步的理解和界定而釐清。

(2) 依據各人權公約施行法，應檢視法律/命令，是否符合公約，然此工作並未規律、系統性地進行。立法、司法、行政各部門在此一工作的責任與角色如何，並未在施行法中明確界定。

(3) 許多法官對公約在國內法的位階，並不清楚。最高行政法院庭長及法官會議2013年八月做出「除非公約有明文要求政府執行之規定，否則無法作為請求依據」的解釋，誤導了公約的法律適用性，更否定了經社文公約在法院的適用。此一解釋最大的為害，是我國憲法尚未保障的權利，例如適足生活水準、居住權，更是被法院忽視。該解釋誤解了可訴性和直接適用的差別，是經社文委員會第九號一般性意見特別提醒的。

(4) 在行政體系內，負責推動公政公約的是法務部。上週法務部為了此次國際審查召開記者會，政務次長陳明堂先生說，從2010年台灣施行兩公約，至2016年底，三審法院判決中，引用兩公約文字的各類判決有1095案，大法官解釋有22案引用兩公約。但他的結論卻是，「引用有沒有過度，值得思考」。他也說，「有些法官不想從重量刑，就引用兩公約，包括死刑爭議案件，常常在判決中出現兩公約的文字。事實上，兩公約不是不能判死刑，只有第二任擇議定書有廢除死刑的問題，但不在我國簽署範圍。」由此觀之，法務部似乎是在建議法官不要引用公約，其立場令人憂心。

(5) 行政院沒有專門負責人權的單位（例如人權處），使得各種人權委員會都在缺乏適當幕僚和幾乎零預算的情況下運作。政府並未指定專門的單位，有足夠的專業來執行：
(a) 追蹤/管考結論性意見的改進措施與落實進度；
(b) 發展有效的方法來評估、監測人權工作：例如人權影響評估、人權統計、人權指標。
(c) 協調/監督地方政府在人權保障的實際作為。

3 消除歧視的責任：政府應致力於消除各種歧視，但，

(1) 我國目前雖然有違反歧視的規定分散在各種法律之中，但尚未制訂一部整全的反歧視法，不但無法顧及公約禁止歧視的各種原因，更基本的問題是，目前國內法律缺乏對歧視的定義。哪些言論、作法構成各種直接或、間接歧視的作法，都需要進一步確認。在此之前，法院很難提供明確的保障和救濟。

(2) 事實上，中華民國在退出聯合國之前，就已經是ICERD的締約國，但是因為沒有施行法，ICERD反而沒有被落實、也未受重視。

(3) 我國法律並未明確地責成政府負有「積極的促成平等之責任」。例如英國平等法規定，政府有責任促成帶有某些可能被歧視之特性的人，與不帶此種特性的人，其間實質的機會平等。政府也有責任透過消弭偏見與促進瞭解，改善上述兩類人之間的關係。台灣政府對社會上對LGBT、身心障礙者、原住民族、新移民、移工、難民、無國籍人之偏見採取消極、容許的態度。過去幾個月當中，公共和社群媒體充斥著對同性婚姻的詆毀言論，有些幾近於仇恨言論的程度，但政府幾乎坐視不管。在缺乏積極作為的情況下，制度性的歧視仍難消除。

(4) 政府「積極作為」的責任，例如對身心障礙者提供合理調整，即使國會批准CRPD，仍然被政府漠視。

(5) 相關地，在正式教育中，對於何謂平等、公平、社會正義的討論極為缺乏且流於形式。此種教育完全不足以培養尊重社會多元的精神，或者培養能力去理解每個人的經濟社會表現都深受先天和環境因素影響。是以，我們的教育無法切入歧視和社會排除的核心。另一方面，對於公務員、教師、警察、檢察官、法官之人權教育仍然極為不足。

各位委員，此次審查仍有許多公民團體積極參與。社會的多元參與是人權能夠被提升的重要因素，但是，我要提醒，此次並非所有的團體都是人權的倡議者。有些團體想要說服，認為基於傳統或宗教的道德價值仍然應該被遵守。當然每個團體都有權利來發言，但我想要先提醒，並非所有的發言者都是基於對權利的尊重。

我在此向各委員報告，提醒您注重人權保障的程序和機制，因為這是人權保障與促進的基礎。我們也想提醒政府，在社會爭議的時候，不應保有「價值中立」的意圖，而應該以核心人權價值來領導社會的討論。
再次感謝委員們無私的付出。

– 1/16/2017 Morning Session for Legislators and NGOs by Covenant Watch:

Joint Statement by Covenants Watch representing 80 participating NGOs

Dear members of the review panels,

On behalf of the 80 NGOs which participated in the preparation of the parallel reports compiled by the Covenants Watch, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of you. Your willingness to take on this duty to help Taiwan realize its goals in human rights is an encouragement to us. The statement Ms. Yibee Huang and I are going to present is the opinion common to the NGOs and focuses on recent developments.

Since President Tsai’s administration took office in May, it has not made public a comprehensive human rights policy or an action plan. This is not to say that the Tsai administration neglected human rights altogether. In fact, the government boldly took on issues like judicial reform, pension reform, same sex marriage, long-term care policy, and transitional justice. President Tsai also officially apologized to indigenous peoples on behalf of the government. All of these actions have significant bearings on the protection and promotion of human rights. These reforms are underway, and the outcomes remain to be seen, but the NGOs have several concerns.

Issue framing: The Tsai administration did not present these issues in human rights terms. It thus missed the opportunity to broaden the views of the general public on human rights, and to guide public debate in the framework of realizing the rights of different parties. When there came the occasions for the government to insist on human rights values, the officials often retracted to a value-neutral position.

Procedure: Judged by the process of these reforms, the government has yet to establish a credible and lawful procedure in soliciting public opinion. The participation by the public needs to be initiated and managed in an open and organized manner. The current procedure of hearings is defective in its preparatory and execution stages, and the design failed to facilitate information disclosure and rational exchange of ideas. The current procedure allows officials to give ambiguous responses, and often attracts emotional declaration of pre-formed stances by participants. Lacking the mechanism to clarify the points of dispute, obtain decent replies from parties, and foster rational debate, the purpose of participation is defeated.

President Tsai has repeatedly declared, during election campaign and after she took office, the need to fully realize the rights and to restore the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. She also proclaimed to promote indigenous transitional justice, but the processes were not immune from the insufficiencies stated above.
The mechanisms to protect and promote human rights:

The National Human Rights Commission: The Presidential Office Human Rights Consultative Committee has made policy recommendations in July 2014 and again in July 2016, but the Tsai administration has not taken any definite step forward. Probable reasons include: (a) The concern about the potential redundancy of functions with the Control Yuan. Yet the current Control Yuan does not meet the criteria laid out in the Paris Principles regarding pluralism and functions to review laws and policies. (b) The uncertainty about the investigative power of the NHRI, and the worry over possible public perception of “power expansion” of the Presidential Office. This concern could have been addressed by careful understanding and delineation of the nature and scope of investigations to be undertaken by the NI.

“The Act to Implement the Covenants” requires the review of laws and regulations and to amend those which are incompatible with the Covenants, but this has not been carried out in a regular and systematic manner. The duties and roles of the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches in this regard have not been explicitly defined in the Implementation Act.

Many judges do not have a clear view on the status of international human rights treaties in the domestic legal order. The interpretation by the judges of the Supreme Administrative Court in August 2014, that the rights covered by the Covenants, unless explicitly instructing the state to take action, such as providing primary education, cannot serve as a basis for claims (Anspruchsgrundlage). This interpretation effectively ruled out the applicability of ICESCR in courts. Its effect is particularly harmful for those rights not yet protected by Taiwan’s Constitution, such as the right to adequate standard of living and the right to housing. The Administrative Court has confused the convention being “justiciable” with “self-executing”, as warned against in General Comment #9 of Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Ministry of Justice is the office overseeing the implementation of the covenants in the Executive Yuan. In fact, the MoJ held a press conference last week precisely for the current review. Deputy Minister Chen said that “Between 2010, the year following the enforcement of Implementation Act, and 2016, a total of 1095 judgements applied the two covenants in the three levels of courts.” Yet Mr. Chen concluded “we should be concerned whether the application of Covenants have been excessive”. He also commented with regard to death penalty that “Some judges applied the Covenants to avoid sentencing with the full rigor of the law. Some judgements for (potential) death penalty cases applied the Covenants and often caused disputes. In fact, death penalty is permissible with the Covenants. Taiwan has not ratified the second optional protocol (to ICCPR) which requires abolition of death penalty.” It seems that the MoJ is advising judges not to apply the Covenants in their judgements, a position that is deeply troublesome.

There is currently no human rights office in the Executive Yuan, and various human rights committees at the Executive Yuan and Ministry levels have been working with insufficient staff and almost zero budget. There is insufficient staff and expertise to coordinate and oversee the progress made according to the Concluding Observations and Recommendations in each Ministry; develop human rights education suitable for different target populations and purposes; develop tools to enhance the monitoring of human rights: such as human rights impact assessment, human rights statistics, and human rights indicators; coordinate and monitor the human rights practices of the local governments.

Anti-discrimination duties: The government has the obligation to eliminate all forms of discrimination on the prohibited grounds, yet:

There is currently not a comprehensive anti-discrimination law. Articles on discrimination are scattered in some laws, particularly on gender equality related to work and education, but they do not cover all the prohibited grounds of discrimination stipulated by the Covenants. An even more fundamental problem is that no clear definition of discrimination can be found in domestic law. Protection and remedies by law will be impossible when practices of direct and indirect discrimination remain unspecified in legal terms.

Although the Republic of China was a formal state party to the ICERD before it withdrew from the UN and ICERD remains effective today, the convention has been neglected.

One critical element missing in the domestic legal system is the positive duties on the government’s part. In the UK Equality Act, for example, the government has the duties to advance equality of opportunity between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not, and to foster good relations between them by tackling prejudice and promoting understanding. In contrast, the government is passive and ignores all forms of prejudice and discrimination against LGBT, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, recent immigrants, migrant workers, refugees, and people without nationality. Degrading comments towards gay marriage, some bordering on hate speech, in public and social media abounded in the past few months, with the government sitting almost silently. The lack of proactive measures will leave structural and systemic discrimination unchallenged.

Positive action duties, such as providing reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, is ignored by the government even when the Legislative Yuan has ratified the CRPD and passed the implementation act.
On a related note, courses and discussions on equality, fairness, and social justice in formal education (from K to 12) are very limited or become a mere formality. It is utterly insufficient to cultivate the spirit to appreciate diversities in society, or the ability to recognize that the socioeconomic outcome of each individual is shaped by inherent and environmental factors. Thus, our education is incapable of cutting to the core of discrimination and social exclusion.

Human rights education for teachers, civil servants, police, judges and prosecutors remains inadequate.

Dear members of the review panels, in the following days you will be hearing the representatives of the government and civil society. This forum thrives on the enthusiastic participation by all corners of the society. I must say, however, that not all groups are here to plea for the realization of rights. As you will hear, some groups are here to persuade that traditional and religious moral standards need to be observed, even when they infringe on some persons’ rights. I humbly remind you that not all groups are rights-based.

Dear members of the review panels, I call upon your attention to the procedures and mechanisms which are the foundation for the protection and promotion of human rights. With this long introduction, may I wish the best for each of you, and thank you again for your selfless contribution to Taiwan.

* 共同聲明團體 List of Signatories：
台灣原住民族政策協會 (Association for Taiwan Indigenous Peoples’ Policies)
婦女新知基金會 (Awakening Foundation)
社團法人臺灣兒童權益聯盟 (Children’s Rights Alliance Taiwan)
中國合作學社 (China Cooperation Cooperative societies)
公民參與媒體改造聯盟平台 (Citizen Media Watch)
民間公民與法治教育基金會 (Civic and Law-Related Education Foundation)
公民同志平權推動聯合會 (Civic LGBT Equal Rights Association)
人權公約施行監督聯盟 (Covenants Watch)
中華民國儲蓄互助協會 (Credit Union League of the Republic of China)
經濟民主連合 (Economic Democracy Union)
環境法律人協會 (Environmental Jurists Association)
萬國法律事務所 (Formosa Transnational)
校園同志甦醒日 (Gay & Lesbian Awakening Days)
好蟾蜍工作室 (Good Toad Studio)
龜山反大湖重劃自救會 (Guishan Self-help Association against Dahu Land Consolidation)
世新大學社會發展研究所遊民工作坊 (Homeless Workshop of Graduate Institute for Social Transformation Studies)
華光社區訪調小組 (Huaguang Community Concerned Group)
原住民族青年陣線 (Indigenous Youth Front)
台灣性別不明關懷協會 (Intersex, Transgender and Transsexual People Care Association)
靖娟基金會 (Jing Chuan Child Safety Foundation)
民間司法改革基金會 (Judicial Reform Foundation)
LIMA台灣原住民青年團 (LIMA Taiwan Indigenous Youth Working Group)
樂生保留自救會暨樂生青年聯盟 (Losheng Self-Help Association and Youth Alliance for Losheng)
中華心理衛生協會 (Mental Health Association in Taiwan)
南澳青年聯盟 (Mklesan Tayal Youth Union)
沒有名字的人 (Nameless Indigenous)
台灣婦女團體全國聯合會 (National Alliance of Taiwan Women’s Associations)
台北大學翻牆社 (NTPU CROSS)
臺大學生會性別工作坊 (NTU Gender Studio)
紹興學程 (NTU Student Activist Group Shaoxing Program)
中華民國愛滋感染者權益促進會 (Persons with HIV/AIDS Rights Advocacy Association of Taiwan)
監所關注小組 (Prison Watch)
RCA自救會 (RCA Self-Help Association)
撒烏瓦知部落 (Saowac Community)
社會住宅推動聯盟 (Social Housing Advocacy Consortium)
南鐵居住正義青年小組 (Southern Railway Youth)
台南市性別平等促進會 (Tainan Association for the Promotion of Gender Equality)
台北律師公會人權委員會 (Taipei Bar Association)
台北市婦女救援社會福利事業基金會 (Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation)
台灣少年權益與福利促進聯盟 (Taiwan Alliance for Advancement of Youth Rights and Welfare)
集遊惡法修法聯盟 (Taiwan Alliance for Rights of Assembly and Parade)
都市更新受害者聯盟 (Taiwan Alliance for Victims of Urban Renewal)
反迫遷連線 (Taiwan Alliance of Anti-Forced Eviction)
台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟 (Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty)
社團法人台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟 (Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights)
台灣障礙者權益促進會 (Taiwan Association for Disability Rights)
台灣人權促進會 (Taiwan Association for Human Rights)
冤獄平反協會 (Taiwan Association for Innocence)
台灣民間真相與和解促進會 (Taiwan Association for Truth and Reconciliation)
工作傷害受害人協會 (Taiwan Association for Victims of Occupational Injuries)
中華民國律師公會全國聯合會 (Taiwan Bar Association)
台灣防暴聯盟 (Taiwan Coalition Against Violence)
永社 (Taiwan Forever Association)
罕見疾病基金會 (Taiwan Foundation for Rare Disorder)
台灣性別平等教育協會 (Taiwan Gender Equity Education Association)
台灣酷兒權益推動聯盟 (Taiwan Gender Queer Rights Advocacy Alliance)
台灣健康人權行動協會 (Taiwan Health Right Initiative)
台灣國際醫學聯盟 (Taiwan International Medical Alliance)
台灣國際勞工協會 (Taiwan International Workers’ Association)
台灣勞動與社會政策研究協會 (Taiwan Labor and Social Policy Research Association)
台灣勞工陣線 (Taiwan Labor Front)
台灣職業安全健康連線 (Taiwan Occupational Safety and Health Link)
台灣警察工作權益推動協會 (Taiwan Police Union)
台灣農村陣線 (Taiwan Rural Front)
社團法人台灣同志諮詢熱線協會 (Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBT) Hotline Association)
台灣女人連線 (Taiwan Women’s Link)
淡海二期反徵收自救聯盟 (Tamhai Phase II Alliance of Self-Help Groups for Anti-Expropriation)
桃園航空城反迫遷聯盟 (Taoyuan Aeropolis Anti-Eviction Alliance)
機場捷運A7站自救會 (The Airport Metro A7 stop Self-help Association)
勵馨社會福利事業基金會 (The Garden of Hope Foundation)
中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (The League for Persons with Disabilities, R.O.C.)
全國教師工會聯合會 (The National Federation of Teachers Unions)
南洋台灣姊妹會 (TransAsia Sisters Association, Taiwan)
天主教會新竹教區越南外勞配偶辦公室 (Vietnamese Migrant Workers and Brides Office)
塭仔圳反迫遷連線 (Wen Zi Zhen Anti-Eviction Alliance)
台灣蠻野心足生態協會 (Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association, Taiwan)
工作貧窮與租稅政策研究室 (Working poor & Tax Policy Research Center)
當代漂泊協會 (Working Poor Unite)
苑裡反瘋車自救會 (Yuanli Self-Help Group)