大衛．麥塔斯 律師簡歷與講題摘要 (高雄場)

大衛．麥塔斯 律師
David Matas  

中文簡歷：
2006年被加拿大「多信仰兄弟會」社團評為「年度偉大人物」。2008年獲得加拿大總督頒發「加拿大勳章」（Order of Canada），表彰大衛‧麥塔斯在過去30年來不斷致力於捍衛社會最弱勢群體權利的努力。被公認在人權、移民和難民法律事務做出卓越貢獻及巨大影響力的人權專家。

2010年大衛‧麥塔斯與加拿大前亞太事務司司長大衛‧喬高(David Kilgour)，因調查中共活摘法輪功修煉者器官並在全世界範圍揭發和制止中共血腥器官摘取所做出的不懈努力，被提名諾貝爾和平獎候選人。2010年11月被加拿大政府任命為國際人權及民主發展中心董事會董事。

演講者摘要

Prevention and cure of Organ Transplant Abuse: New Development

(防治器官移植濫用之新發展) by David Matas

In July of 2005 Huang Jiefu, Chinese Deputy Minister of Health, indicated as high as 95% of organs derive from execution.   Speaking at a conference of surgeons in the southern city of Guangzhou in mid-November 2006, he said: "Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners".   In October 2008, he said "In China, more than 90% of transplanted organs are obtained from executed prisoners".  In March 2010, he stated that: "...over 90% of grafts from deceased donors are from executed prisoners". 

Vice President Zhang Jun of the Supreme People's Court in January 2011 stated that China's Supreme People's Court would overturn death sentences in cases where evidence was collected by illegal means. The judge said that the move was intended to limit the application of capital punishment and pressure local courts to check evidence more thoroughly.

 

The China National People's Congress Standing Committee amended the Criminal Law in February 2011 to decrease the number of death penalty offences from 68 to 55.  In a second change, the death penalty could no longer be imposed on those 75 years or older at the time of trial, except for a person who has committed a murder with "exceptional cruelty".  The new law came into effect May 1, 2011.

The Supreme People's Court (SPC) wrote, in its annual report released in May 2011, that the death penalty should only be applied to "a very small number" of criminals who have committed "extremely serious crimes."  Chinese courts were told to pronounce a two year suspension of execution for condemned criminals if an immediate execution is not deemed necessary; capital punishment reprieves should be granted as long as they are allowed by law.

This downward slide in the death penalty continues a previous trend.  The most significant prior development was the requirement, which took effect on January 1, 2007 that all death sentences had to be approved by the Supreme People's Court. That change alone led to a reduction of an estimated 30% to 40% in the imposition of the death penalty.

So the Government of China acknowledges that the overwhelming proportion of organs for transplants in China comes from prisoners but asserts that the prisoners who are the sources of organs are all sentenced to death.  Yet, the number of prisoners sentenced to death and then executed that would be necessary to supply the volume of transplants in China is far greater than even the most exaggerated death penalty statistics and estimates.  Moreover, in recent years, death penalty volumes have gone down, but transplant volumes, except for a short blip in 2007, remained constant.   Research in reports published in June 2006, January 2007, and in the book Bloody Harvest, November 2009 all of which I co‑authored with David Kilgour and in the book State Organs August 2012 I co‑edited with Torsten Trey concluded that the bulk of prisoners who are sources of organs are mostly practitioners of Falun Gong, sentenced to nothing.

In the abstract, from a human rights perspective, the reduction in the death penalty is good news.  The news ceases though to be good if the decrease in the death penalty leads to an increase in the killing of prisoners of conscience for their organs.  While the decrease in the death penalty has occurred at the same time as an increase of living donor transplants, the increase in living donor transplants has come nowhere near the estimated decrease in the death penalty.

This combination of a decrease of the death penalty with an increase of sourcing of prisoners of conscience for their organs raises questions about advocacy of the abolition of the death penalty in a Chinese context.  Would abolition of the death penalty end the sourcing of organs from prisoners?  Should we avoid advocating the end of the death penalty in China in order to avoid an increase of sourcing of organs from prisoners of conscience?  These are questions this paper would address. The conclusion would be that advocacy of abolition of the death penalty in China without also advocating the end to the sourcing of organs from prisoners is irresponsible.