▋場次：CRPD 第二次國家報告國際審查會議：非政府組織代表發表聲明

▋時間：2022 年 8 月 1 日 10:00

▋地點：南港展覽館二館 7 樓 701 AB

 

發言人：人權公約施行監督聯盟 黃怡碧

台灣仍採取慈善與醫療模式

CRPD所主張的社會模式和人權模式，理應帶來典範轉移，遠離慈善模式和醫療模式。然而，自2014年《身心障礙者權利公約施行法》生效以來，我們障礙者組織和非政府組織並沒有觀察到政府對障礙政策有太大轉變。

首先，面對《身心障礙者權利公約》與國內法在障礙者定義上的差異，政府將自己定位為資源守門人的角色，負責將有限的資源當作慈善分配給障礙者，而不是身心障礙者權利的保護者。在確定誰受到CRPD保護時，幾乎完全依賴對器官結構和器官功能的評估，這與CRPD第1條完全不相容，而且對某些障礙類別更為不利。

政策難以改變的另一個原因是許多官員對身心障礙的生物醫學模式有堅定的信念。例如，負責精神健康的政府官員仍然堅持和宣揚精神疾病是由神經傳導物質失衡引起的，人們所能期待的最好狀況就是長期持續用藥。社區治療則淪為定期到家進行抗精神病藥物的注射。政府並未提出向社會心理障礙者或其照顧者提供支助的整體戰略。目前對《精神衛生法》的修訂是基於醫療模式，完全忽視了社區支持方案以及為危機提供支援和喘息的替代方法。

當然，此種心態上的問題不僅限於社會心理障礙，自上次審查以來的過去五年中，我們沒有看到衛生福利部或行政院「身心障礙權益推動小組」發揮主導作用，推動CRPD的實施。例如，在改善可及性方面的進展非常有限，政府尚未發佈任何計畫，說明他們就可及性訂定的目標或時程表。身心障礙者往往不得不就其個案與政府機構或私人機構進行據理力爭。

未履行提供合理調整的義務

同樣的，衛生福利部並沒有提倡合理調整的理念。它只出現在最近送交立法院的《身心障礙者權利保障法》修訂草案的一條中。然而，政府似乎忽略了，即根據《身心障礙者權利公約施行法》第10條，在法律修正前，應優先適用公約之規定。因此，衛生福利部有責任確保每個身心障礙者都知道要求合理調整是他/她的合法權利，雇主和其他責任承擔者有義務提供合理調整。我們在這方面沒有看到任何努力。事實上，在涉及基於障礙的歧視訴訟中，往往是身心障礙者和他們的律師們承擔了向法院證明要求合理調整是一項權利，而由於政府保持沉默，他們只好孤軍奮戰。

障礙參與不足且淪為象徵性意義

關於障礙者的參與，我們認為政府目前的作法遠遠不足。當然，在中央和地方政府機關成立身心障礙者權利保障推動小組，並邀請身心障礙者參與是必要的，但我們認為這樣的參與模式成效不彰。首先，參加這些會議的人當中，障礙者頂多僅佔三分之一，在會議中沒有決定權；其次，這些會議的議程通常不是由障礙者決定，很多牽涉障礙者權利的議題並未納入討論；第三，會議的安排經常沒有考慮障礙者的特殊需求。我們認為，凡是涉及障礙者權利的立法和政策形成過程，都需要廣泛地徵詢障礙者的意見。中央及政府機關應該努力理解並設法降低障礙者近用政府資訊和參與決策的阻礙，並嘗試以更多元的方式收集意見，而不僅限於這些小組有限的成員。

國家人權委員會的角色定位不明

最後，關於國家人權委員會的幾句話。自從兩年前的這一天國家人權委員會開始運作以來，我們尚未理解國家人權委員會想要如何履行其職權。大多數國家人權委員會委員似乎對擔任監察委員更感興趣。我們尚未瞭解NHRC將如何根據CRPD第33條，以促進、保護和監測《身心障礙者權利公約》的執行情況。它沒有發佈任何文件來解釋如何監督身心障礙者享有權利的狀況，我們無法得知它將採用什麼方法來收集資料，也不知道它已經或將向政府和立法機構提出什麼建議。我們敦促國家人類委員會成員花更多心力讓台灣改正法律和政策，使其更符合CRPD。

 

發言人：臺灣精神受苦者群聚會 李昀

我是一個心理社會障礙者，今天代表發表關於心理社會障礙者的聲明。在台灣，作為一個心理社會障礙者是羞恥的，連活著都是一種羞恥，更別肖想出來說話會有人聽。

1. 醫院暴力

在台灣心理社會障礙者被稱為精神病人，因為除了生物精神醫學，政府幾乎沒有投注心理社會的資源給與需要者。關於瘋狂的成因都往個人去，所有被標定為瘋狂的個人都需要被送入醫院解決，但進了醫院就進入一個無法可管的狀態。

多達數天的約束時間並未有任何規範可以限制，何況許多約束的理由僅是用來處罰障礙者。約束並非醫療行為，但在台灣卻有相應的醫囑。而約束的手段與安全性則未有法律明確規定。而事後醫療端掌握資訊權，且相關申訴管道沒有用處。障礙者需要為自己因社會所造成的的障礙受到暴力威脅，包含不能下床如廁等羞辱政策，使障礙者在體系中感到活著是抱歉與羞恥。

我們拒絕任何源自於醫療方的暴力行為，希望政府正視並立法規範醫院等機構的處理及救濟原則。

2. 精神衛生法

在台灣，仍有專門規範「精神病人」的精神衛生法，但政府近日在未經任何障礙者、障礙團體及其他相關人的參與下，寫出了一個往機構化、醫療化走去，高度管理主義且不符合CRPD原則的修法草案。不但在沒有其他替代方式的情況下，維持強制住院的惡行，甚至將未經審查扣留障礙者的時間拉長近三倍以上。

民間團體努力遊說，但政府仍已一己之私不願改善以上問題，以及增加社區資源、聆聽照顧者與障礙者的需求與建議。我們希望政府可以在這次修法，以及未來對障礙者有關的修法中，障礙團體的意見可以優先被採納與討論。

3. 司法相關

台灣政府在2022年2月18日對於涉犯刑事犯罪時因法定精神障礙而無行為責任能力者提出新的修法。其一，在尚未判決定讞前，增設與羈押程序相近但僅適用於心理社會障礙者的暫行安置，但此人身自由拘束期間卻不能折抵刑期或適用刑事補償法，又無轉向社區處遇的可能。其二，在判決定讞後，可以不斷延長對於心理社會障礙者人身自由拘束的監護處分制度，並且考慮的因素主要是再犯風險而非罪行輕重。我們認為台灣政府應儘速修法，調整暫行安置的法律適用，並限制監護處分於重罪且不得無限制延長。同時，也應確保心理社會障礙者不得被判處死刑並防免死囚在監死亡之情形發生。

我們希望政府不要再以任何理由，剝奪障礙者的權利並加以暴力對待，讓障礙者需要為自己的障礙抱歉，並心驚膽戰的活著。

 

發言人：台灣身心障礙者自立生活聯盟 陳龍愛

大家好，我是台灣身心障礙者自立生活聯盟的陳龍愛，因為大會給我的發言時間不足，所以以下內容我用語音軟體代替我發言：

從上一次國際審查這相隔五年的時間，政府進步的速度十分緩慢，障礙者的生活不斷在原地打轉，甚至倒退。其中，最大的問題在於政府不認為障礙者是權利的主體，甚至帶頭違法，侵害障礙者的人權。我們的國家至今為止仍然不斷興建補助機構發展， 剝奪了障礙者的自由以及社區融合的權利，近年來機構虐死障礙者案件更是頻傳。

社區資源投入不足，平均每2~3個月就發生家庭照顧者因壓力過大，而殺害被照顧者或自殺的悲劇。過去幾年，常因自立生活支持服務預算嚴重不足，而中斷或限制服務發展，加上個人助理或輔具申請限制重重，服務昂貴難以負擔，讓障礙者根本無法好好生活在社區。社區中也十分缺乏心理社會障礙者的支持，政府將預算大部分花在醫療體系上，嚴重地忽視了其他的需求。

因此，我們希望政府擴編公務預算，盡速擬定具體計劃，將機構資源逐步移轉至社區，以人為本提供個別化服務，實踐個人現金給付，並且讓障礙者低負擔地取得服務，開啟多元服務的發展，特別是過渡到社區的支持計畫、同儕支持服務、支持性決策、非強制性危機支持服務…等。政府應在最少限制環境下，協助障礙者生活於社區中，並且確保社區服務預算不低於醫院治療之預算。另外，社區生活需要完整的無障礙為基礎，無論交通、住宅、日常生活的商店餐旅、休憩與遊戲、資訊與各種服務，進步緩慢，面對私部門的無障礙提升，政府毫無對策，社會住宅比例過低，應提高供給量，並且急速擬定完整的無障礙推動計劃並訂定法令，有效保障我們的行動與居住自由。

再來，特別需要提到的是，擁有身分交織的障礙者處境更是被忽視，如：兒童、女性、原住民，跨性別……等所需要的多元社區服務以及輔具提供或育兒支持，都沒有個別化地被考慮到，偏遠地區或者是部落的障礙者該如何自立生活的議題也沒有被真正重視。障礙婦女沒有獲得足夠的社區支持服務，讓其充分擁有生育及性的自主權，甚至遠離家庭暴力的機會。社區服務不足之外，目前台灣醫療環境障礙重重，也普遍沒有考慮到障礙女性的需求，而危害了健康權。障礙兒童的遊戲權、教育權、自主表意權也常受到漠視。障礙兒童有不同年齡的遊戲需求，藉由遊戲促進身心發展及社會化能力，但目前國家無任何政策保障，導致共融遊戲空間的不足及設計不良。政府應擬定法令保障，以免障礙者自兒童時期就被社會排除。

不和社會隔絕地生活在社區中，穩定的收入是非常重要的議題，但是障礙者通常鮮少有工作機會，且無法獲得充分就業支持，加上政府提供經濟安全的措施不足且申請門檻過高，許多障礙者仍舊處於生活匱乏，有的障礙者必須每天日曬雨淋的上街叫賣，都還不一定能夠維持基本生存收入。政府應該有計劃地協助障礙者脫離貧困，維護基本的生存權利與尊嚴。

以上種種問題，隨著新冠疫情爆發，障礙者的處境更是危急。身心障礙者權利公約既然在台灣已經生效，政府應該要下定決心有效改革，停止侵害障礙者的人權，訂定國家計劃，將障礙者視為國民，傾聽聲音，共同推動。請務必記住，沒有障礙者的參與，不要為障礙者作決定！

▋ #共同聲明團體 (按筆順)：

人權公約施行監督聯盟、台灣人權促進會、台灣身心障礙者自立生活聯盟、台灣國際醫學聯盟、台灣障礙女性平權連線、台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟、社團法人台北市新活力自立生活協會、社團法人台灣身心障礙兒童權利促進會、社團法人高雄市向陽自立生活協會、社團法人嘉義市新世界自立生活協會、社團法人臺南市夢城自立生活協會、財團法人民間司法改革基金會、臺灣失序者聯盟、臺灣精神受苦者群聚會、臺灣精神健康改革聯盟

 

▋ 本次審查平行報告、平行回覆 #共同參與團體 (按筆順)：

LIMA 台灣原住民青年團、人本教育基金會、人權公約施行監督聯盟、手天使、台北市行無礙資源推廣協會、台北市新活力自立生活協會、台北律師公會、台灣人權促進會、台灣身心障礙兒童權利促進會、台灣身心障礙者自立生活聯盟、台灣原住民族政策協會、台灣國際醫學聯盟、台灣獄政工會、台灣精神受苦者群聚會、台灣障礙女性平權連線、台灣障礙者權益促進會、台灣廢除死刑推動聯盟、台灣聾人聯盟、同心圓社區復健中心、社區入家工作者專業促進聯盟、社團法人中華民國康復之友聯盟、社團法人中華民國聽障人協會、社團法人台灣酷兒權益推動聯盟、社團法人嘉義市心康復之友協會、財團法人天主教會新竹教區越南移工移民辦公室、財團法人民間司法改革基金會、高雄市向陽自立生活協會、國際愛地芽協會台灣分會、新北市康復之友協會、新竹市原住民身心障礙者協會、嘉義市新世界自立生活協會、精神醫療與心理健康服務使用者聯盟、臺北市康復之友協會、臺灣失序者聯盟、臺灣社區居住與獨立生活聯盟、臺灣家連家精神健康教育協會、臺灣教育協會、臺灣精神健康改革聯盟、臺灣精神康復者社區服務行動聯盟、臺灣精神康復者聯盟

 

▋圖片來源：民間司法改革基金會 Mido

 

For an English Joint Statement, please see below.

 

Joint Statement on 2022 CRPD Review｜2022 CRPD 審查聯合聲明

 

▋Session：Review Meeting of ROC’s Second Report under the CRPD: NGO Declaration

▋Time：2022, August, 1st 10:00 (GMT+8)

▋Location：Room 701 AB, Taipei Nangang Exhibition Center, Hall 2

 

Speaker：Yibee HUANG, Covenants Watch

First and foremost, Charity and medical models still prevail in Taiwan

The CRPD, with the social and human rights models of disability, is supposed to bring about a paradigm change, moving away from the charity model and medical model. However, since 2014 when the Act to Implement CRPD came into force, we DPOs and NGOs have not observed much change in government’s policies on disabilities.

Facing the difference in the definition of disability between the CRPD and domestic laws, the government positions itself more as a gatekeeper for limited resources to be distributed as charity to persons with impairments, rather than a protector of the rights of persons with disabilities. The almost complete reliance on assessment of organ structure and organ functions in determining who is protected by the CRPD is grossly incompatible with Article 1.

Another reason why a change in policy is difficult lies in the firm belief by many officials in the biomedical model of disabilities. For example, government officials responsible for mental health still insist and preach that mental illness is caused by an imbalance of neurotransmitters, and the best that people can hope for is to benefit from continual medication on a long-term basis. The community treatment means having someone visit the patient at home and give antipsychotic injections. The government has not offered any strategy to provide support to persons with psychosocial disabilities or their caregivers. The current revision draft of the Mental Health Act is based on a medical model, totally neglecting community support programs and alternative ways of providing support and respite during crisis.

Of course, this restricted understanding of disability extends to other aspects, so in the past five years since the previous review, we have not seen the Ministry of Health and Welfare, or the Executive Yuan “Committee for the Promotion of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” taking a leading role to promote the implementation of the CRPD.

For instance, there is very limited progress on improving accessibility, and the government has not released any document explicating any target or timeline. Persons with disabilities often have to struggle with each governmental agency or private actor on a case-by-case basis.

A failed obligation to provide reasonable accommodation

Along the same line of argument, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has not been promoting the idea of reasonable accommodation. It only appears in an article in the draft revision of the Persons with Disabilities Rights Protection Act recently submitted to the Legislative Yuan. The government seems to have ignored the fact that, according to Article 10 of the Act to Implement the CRPD, the provision of the Convention can be applied before the amendment of domestic legislation. Therefore, it is the duty of the Ministry of Health and Welfare to make sure that every person with disability knows that it is his/her legal right to request reasonable accommodation, and that employers and other duty bearers are bound by the obligation to provide it. We haven’t seen any effort on this front. In fact, in litigations involving discrimination on the basis of disability, it is often the persons with disabilities and their lawyers that bear the burden of proving to the court that it is a right to claim reasonable accommodation, and they are lonely in this struggle because the government has been silent. We argue that a comprehensive anti-discrimination and equality act that covers all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation is preferrable. Meanwhile, a major revision of the Persons with Disabilities Rights Protection Act is urgently needed

Insufficient and tokenistic participation of persons with disabilities

With regard to the participation of persons with disabilities, we believe that current practices of the government are far from sufficient. It is of course necessary to establish a committee for the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities in central and local government organs and to invite people with disabilities to participate (Article 10, People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act), but we believe that such a model of participation has not been effective. First, persons with disabilities constitute at most one third of the participants in these committees, so they don’t have the final say in the meetings; Second, the agenda of these meetings is usually not decided by the person with disabilities, and many topics related to the rights of persons with disabilities are not included in the discussion; Thirdly, meetings are often organized without taking into account the special needs of persons with disabilities. We believe that any legislative and policy formation process dealing with the rights of persons with disabilities requires a broad consultation of persons with disabilities. Central and local government agencies should strive to understand and find ways to reduce barriers to accessing government information and participating in decision-making, and try to collect inputs in a more diverse way, rather than restricted to the limited membership of these groups. Children with disabilities should be engaged in this regard

Unclear role of the NHRC in monitoring the CRPD enforcement

Finally, a few words about the National Human Rights Commission. Since the NHRC started functioning on this same day two years ago, we have yet to learn how the NHRC plans to carry out its functions. It seems that most NHRC members are much more interested in functioning as ombudsman. We have not learned how it is to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the CRPD, in compliance with its article 33. It has not released any document explaining how it is to go monitor the rights enjoyed by persons with disabilities, we don’t know what methodology it will adopt to collect information, and we don’t know what recommendations it has given or will give to the government and to the Legislature. We urge the NHRC members to put in more effort in helping correct laws and policies so that it is more in line with the CRPD.

 

Speaker：Yun LEE, Taiwan Spiritual Suffering People’s Association

I am a person with psychosocial disabilities, and today I am making a statement on behalf of people with psychosocial disabilities. In Taiwan, being, or existing as a person with psychosocial disabilities was regarded as a shame. With our mere existence shamed, it is hard to imagine that our voices can be heard.

1. Violence in health institutions

With no psychosocial resources for those in need apart from biomedical psychiatry, persons with psychosocial disabilities are referred to as “the mentally illed” in Taiwan. The cause of mental sufferings were individualistically rendered, thus marking all individuals who experience psychosocial disabilities as needed to be sent to hospitals, which are in a state of uncontrollability.

There are no statutory limitations to restraint time of up to several days, and many reasons for restraint are only used to punish the person with disabilities. While restraints are not a medical act in itself, corresponding medical order nevertheless exists. The means and safety of restraint are not clearly stipulated by provisions. The right to information was monopolized by the medical institutions, and relevant complaint channels are mere formalities. Persons with disabilities were subjected to threats and violence for the societal obstacles, including degrading policies such as forbidding to get out of bed and go to the toilet. Persons with disabilities often feel beholdened or ashamed of themselves.

We reject any forms of violent behavior of medical institutions, and hope that the government will undertake the obligation to legislate and regulate the treatment rubrics and relief mechanisms of hospitals and other institutions.

2. Mental Health Act

In Taiwan, there is still the Mental Health Act which specifically regulates the “mentally ill”. The government has recently written a plan to move towards institutionalization and medicalization without the participation of any person with disabilities and/or their groups. The draft amendments are highly managerial and are not in line with principles of the CRPD. Not only does it maintain the vicious practice of compulsory hospitalization in the absence of other alternatives, it even nearly triples the time of unreviewed detention of persons with disabilities.

Civil society groups have lobbied intensely, with the government nevertheless reluctant to address the aforementioned issues, to include the opinion of caretakers and persons with disabilities, or to increase community-based resources. We hope that the government can prioritize the opinions of persons with disabilities and their groups to be adopted and discussed in this amendment and future amendments related to persons with disabilities.

3. Issues regarding the judiciary

On February 18, 2022, the Taiwanese government proposed a new amendment for persons who are incapacitated due to statutory mental disorders when committing a criminal offense.

First, before a verdict was concluded, a temporary resettlement similar to the detention procedure but only applicable to persons with psychosocial disabilities was included in the amendment, with the period of personal liberty restraint ineligible to be deducted from the sentence or the Criminal Compensation Act, and the impossibility to transfer to community-based treatment. Second, after the verdict is finalized, the guardianship sanction system, which restricts the personal liberties of persons with psychosocial disabilities, can be continuously extended, regardless of the severity of the crime. We believe that the Taiwanese government should revise the law as soon as possible, adjust the application of the Act for temporary placement, and limit the interval of guardianship to felonies. At the same time, it should also ensured that persons with psychosocial disabilities are not sentenced to death and preventive measures against incidents of death in prison shall be imposed.

We hope that the government will no longer deprive persons with disabilities of their rights and treat them violently for any reason, so that persons with disabilities will no longer have to live apologetically and fearfully.

 

Speaker：Lung-Ai CHEN, Independent Living Taiwan

Hi everyone, I am Chen, Lung-Ai from Independent Living Taiwan. As I was not given sufficient time to speak during the plenary session, I now wish to give my full statement via the read-out-loud software.

During the five years in between the State Report Review this year and the previous one, the government has been progressing at snail’s pace. Lives of Persons with disabilities have been going in circles on the same spot, even going backwards. The biggest problem is that the government still does not recognize persons with disabilities as the subject of rights. Instead, they breached the law themselves and violated the rights of persons with disabilities. The state continues to build and fund the expansion of institutions, depriving persons with disabilities of their freedom and their rights to be included in the community. Even worse, in recent years, there have been multiple reported cases where persons with disabilities maltreated to death during their stay at the institution.

Resources invested in community-based support have been inadequate. The pressure hence fallen on family caregivers was so immense that tragedies involving the killing of the cared or caregivers occurred every two to three months.  In the past few years, termination / suspension of services has been common due to the utterly insufficient budget allocated to independent living support services. The development of services was limited for the same reason. Added to that the high bars in the application for personal assistance or assistive devices, and the exorbitant cost of services, persons with disabilities simply are not able to live their lives within the community. Besides, support services for persons with psychosocial disabilities are entirely lacking. The government spent most funding on the medical system, seriously neglecting other needs.

Therefore, we urge the government to expand the budget and make a concrete plan, as soon as possible, to redirect resources currently allocated to institutions to establishing community-based, person-centered, and individualized services. Further, the government should implement personalized cash benefits, ensure that services are provided at low cost, and develop diversified services, including but not limited to, support programs facilitating transition to living in community, peer support services, supported decision-making, and non-compulsory crisis services. The government should provide sufficient support so that persons with disabilities can live their lives within the community in a least restrictive environment. It should also ensure that medical treatment receives no more funding than community-based services. Apart from that, full accessibility is necessitated if persons with disabilities are to truly live their lives within the community. However, progress in services of all kinds, be it transportation, housing, stores and restaurants in everyday lives, recreation and play, or information, has been slow. The government has not come up with any solution to improve accessibility in the private sector. In terms of social housing, the current low proportion suggests a need in increased supply. The state should make a comprehensive accessibility improvement plan and pass relevant legislations to effectively ensure our personal mobility and rights to adequate housing.

Another issue worth highlighting is that the intersectional difficulties faced by persons with disabilities with multiple identities, including disabled children, women, indigenous people, or transgender persons, have been neglected. The state has failed to consider the respective needs of these groups of persons, which might include a more diversified community services, provision of assistive devices, or childcare support. Neither did the state truly pay attention to the needs of persons with disabilities in remote or tribal areas for them to live independently. Women with disabilities did not receive sufficient community-based support services to enable their full enjoyment and exercise of sexual and reproductive autonomy, or even a chance to get away from domestic violence. Besides the lack of community-based services, the manifold barriers existing in the medical environment in Taiwan have largely failed to consider the needs of women with disabilities, posing a great threat to their right to health. The right to play, to education, and to be heard of children with disabilities are also often overlooked. Depending on their age, children with disabilities might have different needs related to playing, which promotes their physical and mental development as well as socialization. However, the state currently has no policy regulating inclusive playgrounds, leading to its inadequacy in number and ill-design. The government should enact legislation to ensure the aforementioned right, so that persons with disabilities would not experience social exclusion as early as childhood.

Stable income is a key issue for persons with disabilities to live in the community. However, they seldom have the opportunity to work, and are not able to receive sufficient support for employment-related matters. Compounded by the inadequacy in financial security supporting measures and the restrictive eligibility requirement, many persons with disabilities are still living in poverty. Some are forced to peddle on the street every day, which still does not guarantee sufficient earnings to meet their basic needs. The government should make plans to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty, upholding their fundamental right to adequate standard of living and their dignity.

The above mentioned issues have been exacerbated by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Persons with disabilities are on dangerous ground more than ever. Given the legal bindingness of CRPD in Taiwan, the government should commit to an effective reform and stop violating the rights of persons with disabilities. Make national plan(s), see persons with disabilities as citizens, listen to our voices, and work with us. Please remember, nothing about us, without us!

 

▋ Jointly Stating NGOs (in alphabetical order): 

Covenants Watch, Disabled Children’s Rights and Advocacy Association in Taiwan (DCRAAT), Independent Living Taiwan, Judicial Reform Foundation, lndependent Living Association Tainan, New Vitality Independent Living Association Taipei, New World Independent Living Association Chiayi, Sunny Independent Living Association Kaohsiung, Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, Taiwan Association for Human Rights, Taiwan Disabled Women’s Alliance for Equal Rights, Taiwan International Medical Alliance (TIMA), Taiwan Mad Alliance, Taiwan Mental Health Recovery Alliance (TMHRA), Taiwan Spiritual Suffering People’s Association

 

▋ NGOs Participating in the Parallel Reports and Parallel Responses (in alphabetical order):

Association for Taiwan Indigenous Peoples’ Policies, Chiayi City Mental Health and Recovery Association, Chinese National Association of the Deaf, Coalition for Mental Health Reform, Community-based Mental Health Worker Professional Advocacy Alliance, Concentric Circles Community Recovery and Wellness Center, Covenants Watch, Disabled Children’s Rights and Advocacy Association in Taiwan (DCRAAT), HandAngel, Hsinchu City Association of Indigenous People with Disabilities, Humanistic Education Foundation, Independent Living Taiwan, International Association for Integration Dignity and Economics Advancement Taiwan (IDEA), Judicial Reform Foundation, LIMA Taiwan Indigenous Youth Working Group, New Taipei City Association of Mental Illness (NTC-AMI), New Vitality Independent Living Association Taipei, New World Independent Living Association Chiayi, Sunny Independent Living Association Kaohsiung, Taipei Bar Association, Taipei Mental Rehabilitation Association, Taiwan Access For All Association, Taiwan Alliance for Community Mental Health Action (TACMHA), Taiwan Alliance of Mental Health and Psycho Therapy Users, Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, Taiwan Association for Disability Rights, Taiwan Association for Human Rights, Taiwan Community Living Consortium, Taiwan Corrections Organization, Taiwan Disabled Women’s Alliance for Equal Rights, Taiwan Education Association, Taiwan Familylink Mental Health Education Association, Taiwan Gender Queer Rights Advocacy Alliance, Taiwan International Medical Alliance (TIMA), Taiwan Mad Alliance, Taiwan Mental Health Recovery Alliance (TMHRA), Taiwan Spiritual Suffering People’s Association, Taiwanese Deaf Alliance, The Alliance for the Mentally ill of R.O.C. Taiwan, Vietnamese Migrant and Immigrant Office

 

▋Photo Credit: Mido from Judicial Reform Foundation