【聯合發言稿】2022 CRPD 審查委員會與非政府組織會議(二)

【聯合發言稿】2022 CRPD 審查委員會與非政府組織會議(二)
▋場次:CRPD 第二次國家報告國際審查會議:委員會與非政府組織會議(二)​
▋時間:2022 年 8 月 2 日 09:00​
▋地點:南港展覽館二館 7 樓 701 AB​
▋發言:黃怡碧|人權公約施行監督聯盟執行長​
▋聯合團體:人權公約施行監督聯盟、台灣國際醫學聯盟​
我是黃怡碧,代表人約盟和台灣國際醫學聯盟。​
針對12與13 條,我們有一些建議供IRC考慮:​
1. 我們建議政府開始準備一個支持架構 (support framework),以確保障礙者充分享有法律行為能力,包括支持決策法 (supported/assisted decision- making law)。​
政府對2017年關於第12條的結論性意見和建議幾乎沒有採取任何行動。剝奪身心障礙者法律行為能力的監護宣告,被認為是對障礙者的利益保護。​
由於廢除監護宣告仍然是最大的挑戰之一,政府應該首先向社會介紹支持框架的各個方面:人們需要瞭解如何進行支持決策,什麼樣的支援是有幫助的,需要制定哪些法律,以及需要發展哪些專業知識。其他國家已經有良好做法,如獨立倡導人、個人監察員或支持決策法。如果沒有這些準備步驟,監護宣告將一直存在。​
2. 我們敦促司法院認真考慮2020年《障礙者近用司法的國際原則和指引》中所列的建議,對相關國內法,尤其是《刑事訴訟法》進行必要的修改,制定法院合理調整和程序調整的規定。​
例如,有必要全面評估是否引入協助有溝通障礙的稚齡、脆弱當事人、證人溝通的司法中介人服務系統,並就使用者的溝通需求向法院提出建議。 同時,司法院應為各級法院制定提供合理調整和程序調整的規定。司法院應通過行政手段與提供教育訓練,協助法官進行在司法程序中提供各種調整。 ​
3. 司法院、法務部、律師公會和警政署應制定全面的訓練方案,使所有相關專業人員和工作人員具備障礙意識。​
對於參與從調查/偵查、起訴、審判到矯正執行的每一步的人來說,瞭解障礙者的特殊需求至關重要。例如,檢察官必須明白,輕度智力障礙者可能太容易承認對他們的指控,或者他們傾向於在員警審訊期間輕易放棄辯護律師陪同的選擇。​
對於刑事法院來說,確認、釐清障礙對訴訟程序每一步的影響尤為重要,因為從明年開始,國民法官將在涉及重大刑事案件中與專業法官並肩開庭。由於受害人和被告都比一般人有更高的機率為障礙者,因此刑事法院必須充分瞭解《身心障礙者權利公約》的不同方面,並與國民法官分享這些知識。

For an English Joint Statement, please see below.


Covenants Watch & Taiwan International Medical Alliance

 

I am Yibee Huang representing Covenants Watch and Taiwan International Medical Alliance.

We have some recommendations for the IRC to consider regarding Articles 12 and 13:

1. We recommend the government start to prepare for a support framework to ensure the full enjoyment of legal capacity of persons with disabilities, including a supported decision-making law.

The government has done almost nothing regarding the 2017 concluding observations and recommendations on Article 12. The guardianship is still resorted to as a protection of the interest of persons with disabilities.

As the abolition of guardianship remains one of the biggest challenges, the government should start by introducing to society various aspects of a support framework: people need to understand how supported decision making can be done, what kinds of support are helpful, what laws need to be made, and what expertise needs to be developed. There are already good practices in other countries, such as independent advocate, personal ombudsperson, or assisted decision-making laws. Without these preparational steps the guardianship will be here to stay.

2. We urge the Judicial Yuan to seriously consider the recommendations listed in the “International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities” of 2020, and make necessary amendments to relevant domestic laws, most importantly the Criminal Procedure Code, and make regulations for reasonable accommodation and procedural accommodation in courts.

For example, it is necessary to have a full assessment whether to introduce the system of intermediary services for vulnerable parties and witnesses, to make recommendations to the court on users’ communication needs. At the meantime, the Judicial Yuan should draft regulations for all levels of court on the provision of reasonable accommodations and procedural accommodations, which lies in the discretion of the presiding judge. The Judicial Yuan should, through administrative means, support judges in making these accommodations.

3. The Judicial Yuan, the Ministry of Justice, bar associations and National Police Agency should develop comprehensive training programs and sensitize all the relevant professional and staff about disabilities.

It is important for everyone involved in every step from investigation, prosecution, trial, to correction, to understand the special needs of persons with disabilities.

For example, it is critical for prosecutors to understand that persons with mild intellectual disabilities may admit too easily allegations against them, or that they tend to dismiss the option of accompaniment of a defense lawyer during police interrogation.

It’s especially important for the Criminal courts to critically review the effects of disabilities on each step of the proceedings because starting next year the Citizen Judges are going to sit alongside professional judges in cases involving homicide. As victims and suspects are both more likely than the general population to be persons with disabilities, it is important that the criminal court has adequate understanding of different aspects of CRPD and share that knowledge with citizen judges.