A Year of Human Rights Covenants: Great Leap for Taiwan National Human Rights Commission, Taiwan stipulated in the Criminal Code Article 90, and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall Fence Criminals Article 3 paragraph 1 and competent, independent and impartial tribunal in the Rehabilitative Measures for Burglar and Article 5 paragraph 1; and the Organized Crime Prevention Act Article 3 paragraph 3, limit personal freedom as defined in Article 8 of the Constitution. Another question this case aims to answer is whether compulsory labor as a rehabilitative measure in addition to a sentence constitutes double jeopardy therefore violating the principle of not allowing two punishments for the same offence (ne bis in idem), and whether such labor constitutes an excessive infringement on personal freedom. Finally, the case aims to determine whether this practice is in line with the principles of due process of law and proportionality as defined in Articles 8 and 23 of the Constitution. On October 12, 2021, the NHRC attended the oral argument of the case as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) to express its opinion from the standpoint of international human rights norms. be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a established by law.” (Article 14, ICCPR) When a court sentences a person to compulsory labor, regardless of whether it subsequently annuls this or dispenses from its implementation, it has already injured the party’s right to be heard and violated the principle of “a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. Compulsory labor as a measure of general rehabilitation infringes upon an individual’s personal freedom. Hence, in order to comply with the principle of due process of law, a judge should be empowered to use discretion in determining the duration of compulsory labor under the Organized Crime Prevention Act in each particular case. Compulsory labor cannot actually attain the goals of preventing recidivism, fostering reform or enabling reintegration into society. Hence, it is necessary to provide appropriate support, such as rehabilitation education and protection, The reason given to justify the co-existence job opportunities, or social assistance, to help penalty in the dual litigation system whilst society. Imposing cruel, inhuman or degrading However, not only does compulsory labor fail to dignity, such as compulsory labor, violates imprisonment that extends the infringement of United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the of both rehabilitative measures and a criminal a person develop self-reliance and return to avoiding double jeopardy is to prevent crime. treatment or punishment which violates human either rehabilitate or reform, it constitutes a covert Articles 7, 8, and 10 of the ICCPR and the a person’s freedom and violates the principle of proportionality. In terms of protection of personal freedom, compulsory labor goes against Article 9 of the ICCPR. To fulfill the accused’s right to be heard, rehabilitative measures should comply with the following: “In the determination of any criminal charge against him (sic), or of his rights and Treatment of Prisoners (2015). The Taiwan Constitutional Court holds that a limitation on the personal freedom of a person liable to penalty as stipulated in Article 90, paragraph 1 and opening section of paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 5, opening section of paragraph 1 of the Rehabilitative Measures for Burglar National Human Rights Commission 2022 Annual Report 41