This case was brought to the Constitutional Court by two judges from the Yunlin District Court in Taiwan, along with four citizens including Lu En-pen, concerning the regulations stipulated in Article 91-1 of the Criminal Code enacted on July 1, 2006. The regulations mandate that if sexual offenders, upon completing their prison sentence and after undergoing counseling or treatment, are assessed and deemed to pose a recidivism risk, may be ordered to a suitable establishment for compulsory treatment until the risk significantly decreases. Furthermore, Article 22-1 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act, which was added on November 9, 2011, extended the application of post-conviction treatment to cases not covered by Article 91-1 of the Criminal Code. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of these regulations, arguing that they infringed on sexual offenders’ personal freedom. The NHRC was invited by the Judicial Yuan to participate in oral arguments on November 3, 2020, and commission representatives Chang Ju-fang and Chi Hui-jung attended as the friends of the court.
Chang Ju-fang, speaking on behalf of the NHRC, pointed out that according to the norms of international human rights treaties, imprisonment or treatment after sentencing should be a last resort, and should only be used when backed by compelling and justifiable reasons. However, according to a past investigative report released by the Control Yuan after on-site observations at compulsory treatment facilities such as Taichung Prison’s Pei Teh Hospital, the offender assessment procedures lacked predictability and were urgently in need of improvement. The NHRC hoped that the interpretation of this case would be an opportunity to review the post-conviction treatment system so as to establish a balance between the protection of human rights and public safety.
Accordingly, the Judicial Yuan issued Interpretation No. 799 on December 31, 2020.