شهروند کانادایی علیرغم تأیید رسمی بی‌گناهی، همچنان توسط نظام قضایی تایوان مجازات می‌شود

感謝您的留言。然而，您所提出的觀點，無論是出於誤解還是有意曲解，皆嚴重扭曲了本案的事實核心及其涉及的國際人權法違反問題。

您引用函件中所提及的「三審制度」、「上訴機會」、以及「依照國內法辦理」等程序性描述，似乎試圖以程序之正當性取代實體之公正。然而，我們必須明確指出：程序的存在並不能掩蓋實質的不正義。如果一個司法程序反覆忽視有利於被告的證據、剝奪其翻譯權、無視國家級電視播放的無罪影片，最終在無任何惡意或實質損害情況下仍予以定罪與處罰，這並非「審判」；這是法律的偽裝，乃制度性的錯誤。

您所援引的台灣法務部函文，明確表示如下：

我的行為無惡意；
未造成任何實質損害；
案件已結案，但刑罰仍須執行。
正是這樣的邏輯矛盾，構成了教科書式的人權侵害案例：當一個政府一方面承認行為人無罪，卻另一方面仍堅持執行刑罰，並聲稱「雙方皆無錯」，這不是依法行政，而是壓迫的制度化表現。

若將此結果視為「正義實現」，不僅令人質疑其法律素養，更可能顯示其與該體制有直接利害關係。至於您提問「你是不是逃犯？」此問法本身即具誤導性與煽動性。若一人被迫在無罪前提下離開居住國，以逃避荒謬刑罰，其真正的法律問題應是：為何一個政府明知行為無害卻仍執意懲罰？

您的詭辯無法改變事實，反而進一步凸顯問題核心。

我亦必須指出，若同樣情況發生在本國國民身上，是否會有相同待遇？我們不禁合理懷疑。當一名外籍人士被不成比例地檢控，且反覆遭到基本審判權利之剝奪，便構成制度性偏見與選擇性執法——此類行為在國際人權法下，已屬種族歧視之範疇。

若您堅稱「程序正當」、「無罪證據」、「無犯意」皆無意義，且國家僅因其自稱無誤便永遠正確，那麼您所擁護的，絕非法治，而是極權統治。

Thank you for your comment, which — whether by ignorance or intention — grossly misrepresents both the facts of the case and the clear violations of international human rights law at its core.

You cite the procedural milestones in the letter — “three levels of judgment,” “opportunity for appeal,” and reference to domestic legal code — as if mere process equals justice. But let us be perfectly clear: procedural formality does not excuse substantive injustice. A multi-level process that repeatedly ignores exculpatory evidence, denies a defendant their right to an interpreter, overlooks national broadcast video evidence, and issues punishment without proven harm or intent, is not a fair trial — it’s a legal charade.

The final letter you reference — issued by Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice — expressly acknowledges that:

There was no malicious intent in my actions;
No harm was caused;
And the matter is now closed, yet the sentence remains.
This contradiction is precisely what defines a textbook human rights violation: when a government acknowledges innocence but upholds punishment, then claims both parties — the defendant and the judiciary — did “nothing wrong.”

That is not law. That is institutionalized oppression.

To suggest this outcome reflects justice is either intellectually dishonest or legally illiterate — or worse, indicative of someone who is part of, or defending, the very judicial establishment responsible for this abuse. Your question — “Are you a fugitive?” — is both inflammatory and telling. If a person is forced into exile under threat of incarceration for something the state itself agrees caused no harm and was done without intent, the real legal question is: What kind of government continues to demand punishment anyway?

Your rhetorical gymnastics do not change the facts. They only reinforce them.

I also note the unspoken but inescapable subtext: Would this have happened to a local Taiwanese citizen under the same conditions? I sincerely doubt it. When a foreign national is disproportionately prosecuted and systematically denied basic trial protections, yes, it raises serious questions of systemic bias and discriminatory enforcement — which, under international law, qualifies as racial discrimination.

If your position is that due process, exonerating evidence, and lack of intent mean nothing — and the state is always right simply because it says so — then you are not defending law. You are defending tyranny.

尊敬的評論者，

感謝您的關注與評論。為釐清事實，特此說明：
1. 根據臺灣法務部於2025年4月出具的正式函文，檢察機關明確認定本人「並無惡意，亦無實質損害」，亦即本案並無實質犯罪行為。 此為官方文件所載，非個人主觀詮釋。
2. 儘管檢方已確認無犯罪事實，法院仍維持原判，要求本人服刑六個月或執行1,086小時的社會勞動，理由僅為「未表達悔意」。 然而，對於一項被官方認定為無罪的行為，要求表達悔意，實屬法律與邏輯上的矛盾。
3. 本人離開臺灣，並非逃避法律責任，而是在歷經四年的法律程序後，於法律顧問建議下所作出的決定。 在此期間，本人曾遭遇多次訴訟、缺乏適當法律協助，以及在關鍵程序中未獲提供翻譯服務，已嚴重影響基本人權。
4. 根據《公民與政治權利國際公約》第14條，任何人皆有權獲得公平審判。 本案中，檢方已確認無犯罪事實，卻仍要求服刑，顯然違反該公約所保障之權利。
5. 此外，根據《世界人權宣言》第9條，任何人不得遭受任意逮捕、拘禁或放逐。 在無犯罪事實的情況下，仍強制執行刑罰，亦違反該宣言之規定。

若您對上述事實有不同見解，歡迎提出具體法律依據進行討論。但請避免人身攻擊，並以理性、客觀的態度面對此事。

此致
敬禮

羅士克林（Ross Cline）
ross@rosscline.com
rosscline.com
加拿大新不倫瑞克省
+1 506-321-8659

Thank you for your comment. I welcome sincere scrutiny of the facts — which is precisely why I’ve shared the original judicial documents for public review.

However, to clarify:
1. The April 2025 letter from Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice explicitly acknowledges that I acted “without malicious intent” and caused “no actual harm.” That finding is not my interpretation — it is quoted directly from the document. The prosecution further acknowledges the case is “closed.”
2. Despite these admissions, the original sentence remains — six months imprisonment or 1,086 hours of community labor — not because of new or aggravating factors, but purely due to the claim that I have not shown “remorse.” It is legally and ethically contradictory to admit no crime occurred while still enforcing criminal penalties for lack of remorse for a non-crime.
3. The notion that I “fled” Taiwan is also misleading. On the advice of legal counsel, I left the country only after exhausting all reasonable legal remedies — having already been subjected to repeated prosecutions, denied proper counsel, and denied interpretation during key proceedings.
4. A person who leaves a jurisdiction after being denied fair trial standards and due process protections — and after being told by a lawyer to do so or risk incarceration — is not a fugitive. They are a victim of judicial abuse and seeking protection. That distinction matters greatly under international human rights law.
5. Lastly, the argument that this process “meets international human rights standards” is fundamentally flawed. A system that ignores exculpatory evidence, denies language access, admits no crime occurred, and yet upholds imprisonment, fails both Article 14 of the ICCPR (right to a fair trial) and Article 9 (protection from arbitrary detention) — two of the exact conventions Taiwan’s own government claims to uphold.

If anyone believes there is a different interpretation that withstands international legal scrutiny, I invite that discussion openly. But personal attacks or selective readings of cherry-picked lines from a four-page bureaucratic document do not change the full legal and ethical context — nor the deep, lasting damage done to my life by this system.

Respectfully,
Ross Cline (柯受恩)
rosscline.com
ross@rosscline.com
+1 (506) 321-8659

Which part did you read there’s violation of international conventions in the letter? This (end of page 1) says total opposite: 足認台端上開罪刑,係經檢察官證據調查後提起公訴,歷經三個審級、不同法官所為之公正裁判審理,並予以審級救濟機會,審理過程與我國刑事訴訟法、大法官解釋意旨規定無違,且合於前揭世界人權宣言、公民與政治權利國際公約之規定,台端空言指摘判決違法不當,應屬無據。
四、綜上,本署檢察官依合法確定判決據以執行,本件查無違法失當之處。