Welcome
Welcome to Victim Support Taiwan (VST).
My name is I-Min Hsiao, founder of VST.
I established this platform to bridge Taiwan and the global community, creating a space to share knowledge and experience in victim support.
VST is guided by a simple belief:
To stand with victims is to stand with justice.
To truly stand on the side of victims, however, we must first clarify four fundamental questions:
- Who are the victims?
- What rights do they have?
- Who is responsible?
- What can victims actually do?
1. Definition
Those Whose Rights Have Been Violated
“Where there is a right, there is a remedy.”
(Ubi jus ibi remedium)
This principle is a cornerstone of any legal system. Rights protected by law only have meaning if those whose rights are violated can obtain a remedy.
Defining a victim should not rely on pity or moral gatekeeping. Instead, we must return to the foundation of human rights and define a victim simply as:
Persons whose rights have been violated, individually or collectively.
This definition is practical rather than abstract. Once a person can identify which right has been violated, they can claim the corresponding remedy.
A rights-based definition affirms the value of the rule of law and leads to VST’s first core concept:
To stand with victims is to stand with justice.
2. Rights
Remedial Rights That Protect Rights
From a jurisprudential perspective, victims’ rights arise after a primary right—such as the right to life or physical integrity—has been violated.
Victims’ rights are therefore not the primary rights themselves. They are remedial rights, triggered by a violation—essentially:
Rights that protect rights.
The most widely cited international standard in this area is the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (the Basic Principles).
The Basic Principles consolidate victims’ rights and identify five principal forms of reparation:
- Restitution
- Compensation
- Rehabilitation
- Satisfaction
- Guarantees of non-repetition
The Basic Principles affirm that all victims have the right to remedy and reparation, without discrimination based on the type of violation or the identity of the victim.
This leads to VST’s second core concept:
Victim rights are universal and inalienable.
3. Accountability
State Responsibility to Ensure Justice
The right to remedy is not limited to financial compensation. It must also encompass the realization of justice.
A full understanding of the right to remedy and reparation includes three interrelated dimensions:
- Holding perpetrators accountable
Perpetrators must be held responsible through criminal, civil, administrative, or disciplinary measures. Without accountability, justice remains unfulfilled. - Access to effective remedies
Victims must have access to effective procedures to hold perpetrators accountable, most critically through judicial remedies. - The right to reparation
Victims are entitled to full and substantial reparation that restores dignity and livelihood.
As early as 1957, criminal justice reformer Margery Fry argued:
When the state monopolizes punishment, it also assumes responsibility for the harms caused by crime.
This understanding of state responsibility has since become an international consensus. It is reflected in the UN’s Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (the Impunity Principles).
These principles identify four core victim-related rights:
- The right to know
The state must establish the truth and inform victims. - The right to justice
The state must ensure access to fair trials or other effective mechanisms. - The right to reparation
The state must ensure full and effective reparation. - Guarantees of non-recurrence
The state must implement institutional reforms to prevent future violations.
As stated in the preamble of the Impunity Principles:
“Aware that there can be no just and lasting reconciliation unless the need for justice is effectively satisfied.”
This leads to VST’s third core concept:
The state bears the responsibility to ensure justice.
4. Myths
Rethinking the “Ideal Victim”
For too long, societies—and even legal systems—have embraced a false stereotype: that only those who are weak, helpless, completely innocent, or who display specific tragic reactions are worthy of the title “victim.”
This is the “Ideal Victim Myth.” As early as 1986, criminologist Nils Christie pointed out:
“Ideal victims need—and create—ideal offenders.”
This is a double-edged myth. When someone does not fit this stereotype, they are often questioned, denied, or stripped of their victim status. Conversely, this myth protects those who do not fit the image of an “imagined offender,” allowing them to escape accountability and even seize the narrative advantage.
Rethinking this myth is essential so that victims are not required to construct a perfect image in order to receive protection, forced into silence or self-restraint to be believed, or driven into retreat by the lies and disguises of perpetrators.
More importantly, victims have the capacity to understand their situation, make choices, and speak out, becoming active agents who influence institutions and public discourse.
This leads to VST’s fourth core concept:
Victims have agency.
Conclusion
Building the Network
VST is dedicated to sharing knowledge and experience in victim support, and to building a network that connects Taiwan with the global community.
If you share these values, wherever you are, I warmly invite you to connect with me.
Let us research, discuss, and work together to realize justice and rights for all.
I-Min Hsiao
Founder, Victim Support Taiwan