Where can the letter of the prisoner be sent? After the release of the number 755, 756

Qiu Heshun's personal memoirs sent by the detention center failed to be sent out smoothly. This dispute concerning the communication rights of the prisoners' receptionists finally appealed to the Chief Justice to interpret the Constitution and also made the interpretations of 755 and 756 respectively in 2017. Why is the letter of the prisoner not sent? How can I relieve if I can't send it out? The Constitution guarantees the people's secret communication freedom, but what restrictions have arisen in the case of the inmates?

In the training of prison volunteers, Taiwan Power Association invited Zhou Yuxiu, a volunteer lawyer who assisted in the interpretation of the case, to share the impact, and further explored the impact of the judge's interpretation on other cases.

Why can't the prisoner provide relief to the court? Special power relations and their deconstruction

Before talking about the case and the position of the justices, I would like to start with special power relations because it involves the basic human rights of the inmates.

The Constitution guarantees that the people have basic human rights. However, under the special power relations, there are restrictions on the basic rights of some people with special identities. Such as the relationship between college students and schools, between civil servants and government agencies, and between inmates and prisons, in principle, these people are under the control of public power, based on public interest and management Sex, and thus cannot enjoy complete basic rights within a certain scope.

However, the traditional special power relations have been slowly deconstructed. The deprivation of above the above and the everyone should enjoy the basic rights began to pull, and the society began to reflect: the need to limit basic rights and management What is sex? For example, the right to relief of college students has been restricted to the treatment mechanism of each school and the right to bring relief to the court is not available. Under the successive interpretations of the Chief Justice, the current principle returns to the gist of Article 16 of the Constitution: There is a right to relief.

Then, from the perspective of safeguarding basic human rights, should the special power relationship between the prisoner and the prison (the state) be deconstructed or relaxed?

Why can't my letter be sent out?

Judging from the legislative purpose of the Prison Execution Law, the purpose of the letter examination is to based on the safety considerations of the guardianship . It is afraid that the articles or letters in the past will contain items that are harmful to the safety of the institution, or the contents of the text will be harmful to the discipline of the prison. Prison and other whispers).

Attorney Zhou Yuxiu said: If we consider it more carefully, the control power of parcel letters sent out from prison should be lower than the control power of send in. After all, the contents coming in from outside the prison are more likely to carry items that endanger the safety of the prison, but the possibility of being sent out of the prison is relatively low.

Furthermore, in accordance with the context of the special power relations mentioned above, Zhou Yuxiu specifically mentioned that the Taipei Higher Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court have made completely different modes of thinking.

(1) The Taipei Higher Administrative Court begins with a special power relationship:

It is believed that the inmate has the same personal freedom and freedom of communication as the average person, but because under the framework of the special power relationship, the rights of the prisoner should be restricted.

(2) The idea of the Supreme Administrative Court is:

The prisoner lost his personal freedom when he was sentenced to prison. According to the justice of the justices, personal freedom is a prerequisite for all basic human rights. Therefore, the control measures adopted by the prisoner for freedom of communication and expression are enforced by law. Personal freedom or the right to life is restricted and there are other restrictions on freedom attached to the class. In other words, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the prisoner has no secret communication and freedom from the beginning. However, such thinking logic should be contrary to the constitutional spirit of everyone enjoys basic rights. .

So what does the judge say? Interpretation 755, 756: Is there a right to relief?

(a) proceduralally

1. The complaints system shall not prejudice the right of the inmate to bring a lawsuit to the court:

In the past, if the prisoner believed that he had the right to be infringed, he could appeal to the warden according to law. However, the Prison Execution Law did not mention whether there could be other relief channels in case the complaint was denied.

In Interpretation No. 755, the Chief Justice stated that the appeal system makes the enforcement agency have the opportunity to self-examine, review and correct its decisions, and provide the inmates with timely rights relief. The design is subject to the freedom of legislation, but still This shall not deprive the inmate of the right to file a lawsuit for relief in the court .

2. Scope of application:

Although the judge affirmed the right of litigation of the inmate, the door opened in the scope of application was narrow. Only reach beyond recognition prison execution purposes necessary range, and unlawful infringement of its fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and is a non-significant when the slight relief was brought to the court. In fact, how to identify infringement is not minor is a problem.

Moreover, under the context of special power relations, the Chief Justice still believes that in principle, the decision of the organ should be respected. However, whether you want to go to court and the room for judgment of the organs should be two different things. It seems that the Chief Justice has linked them together in this section.

(2) Physically

1. The letter review is a two-level question:

(1) Inspection: Whether there is contraband in the content, there is a reasonable and legitimate relationship with the public welfare to maintain prison discipline.

(2) Reading: Reading the content of the review will inevitably involve the freedom of secret communication of the prisoner. The Chief Justice considered that if the prisoner's discipline is discouraged, the person who sent the sentence will send a letter, state the reasons, and then issue it. If the person is accused, the reason is stated, and the case is deleted and accepted. reasonable.

However, the content of delete should be limited to those necessary to maintain prison discipline, and the full text of the letter should be kept, and the prisoner should be released from prison.

2. Is the sentence of the sentenced person free to express his or her opinions?

In the interpretation of No. 756, the Chief Justice distinguishes between prison credibility and prison discipline. He believes that the former is not a major public interest and cannot restrict the meanings that endanger the credibility of the prison, but if it is to maintain prison discipline, the latter does There is legitimacy of the review.

It can be seen from the above that although the interpretation of the communication rights opened by the inmates is not large, the interpretation of the 755 and 756 is different from the past. The judge positively affirmed that the inmates are in a special power relationship. The possibility of rights relief should still be enjoyed. Therefore, after the release of the word, there have been various cases of bringing relief to the management of the institution. For example, the Taitung Green Island Prison was ordered by the criminals to sing military songs and answer the number. The Taitung District Court held that the military training and the purpose of the correction of the institution lacked relevance and did not have the legitimacy of management.

Through the whole speech and the Qiu Heshun case, we can recognize that although the judiciary has its limits, there are still many enlightened and courageous referees. While the social transport groups deal with the administration and legislation, don't forget that the court's door is always Weakness, a small number and opening. The right to have relief is not a bad check of the constitutional spirit, but the principle that we can actively strive for hard work.

Source: Taiwan Association for Human Rights