In 2020, Taiwan amended and promulgated the Prison Act and the Detention Act, requiring all correctional institutions (hereinafter referred to as "institutions") to establish independent external inspection teams. The purpose for the Judicial Reform Foundation and several civil society organizations to advocate for the introduction of the system into the law was to create an independent external inspection mechanism that enhances transparency of the institutions and safeguards the rights of incarcerated individuals.
Since the implementation of the system, the Judicial Reform Foundation has been closely monitoring its execution. It regularly lead volunteers and interns to review the external inspection reports issued by each institution’s external inspection team, providing observations and suggestions to facilitate the effective operation of the system.
As the second term of the external inspection teams has ended in the second half of 2024, the Judicial Reform Foundation now presents the 【General Review of the External Inspection Reports of Institutions from the Second Term】. By examining the operations and effectiveness of the external inspection teams from the second term, we aim to assist the newly appointed inspection teams of the third term in establishing and strengthening the independent external inspection system of correctional institutions, in line with the legislative intent and public expectations.
In March 2023, the Judicial Reform Foundation released the General Review of the External Inspection Reports of Institutions from the First Term (Annex 1). Later, in December of the same year, it published the Annual Review of the Inspection Reports Issued by External Inspection Teams from the Second Term (Annex 2), aiming to highlight the key concerns and expectations from civil organizations regarding this system to the external inspection teams of the second term. These efforts sought to ensure that the external inspection teams of the second terms were aware of the priorities and expectations of civil organizations.
Based on the established expectations, we discovered notable improvements revealed in the external inspection reports from the second term compared to the first term. However, there remain several areas requiring further progress. The following sections outline these outstanding issues.
We expect inspection reports to be written by the inspection committee members themselves, with the lead author explicitly identified. As external inspection teams operate independently from the institutions they oversee, reports should not be drafted initially by personnel from the inspected institutions and submitted under external inspection teams’ names. Furthermore, attributing reports to specific authors enhances the accountability of committee members and assures the public that the reports were genuinely drafted by the committee members.
Our observations indicate that during the second term, nine external inspection teams included the name of the lead author in their reports, which was a notable improvement from only two in the first term. Although some reports failed to specify a lead author, we still observed a strong sense of autonomy within the inspection teams in those cases. This is a positive development that deserves recognition.
However, in most cases, we were unable to perceive a strong sense of autonomy of the inspection teams while reading the reports and had reason to doubt regarding whether the initial drafts were actually written by personnel from the institutions. Some reports that indicated a lead author still appeared to have been initially drafted by the institution, with the inspection committee members merely reviewing and endorsing them. Additionally, some inspection teams claimed that their reports were jointly written by all members, yet the majority of the content was actually a compilation of meeting minutes prepared by personnel from the institutions. For reports without a designated lead author, it was even more common to find them highly similar to meeting minutes, with only minor textual modifications, if any.
According to the Ministry of Justice Agency of Corrections’ official letter (No. 11202003920) issued April 11, 2023, “In accordance with Article 18 of the Implementation Regulations, the scope of assistance that institutions may provide to external inspection teams, as previously outlined in the Agency’s letter No. 11001646950 dated June 24, 2021, is limited to document transcription, meeting minute preparation, attendance of personnel from the institutions for explanations, and other administrative matters unrelated to core duties.” Since inspection reports constitute a core duty of the inspection teams, their initial drafts should not be written by personnel from the institutions and merely submitted for confirmation by the committee members. What raises concerns here is whether some institutions and inspection teams are maintaining the clear boundaries set by the regulations.
It is worth mentioning that the Q3 inspection report of 2024 issued by the external inspection team of Taipei Prison was completely blank, except for the "Status of Handling Recommendations Raised in Previous Inspections " provided by the institution required by the Agency of Corrections. The inspection report clearly indicates the lead author who drafted the report, demonstrating that the institution has fulfilled its duty in assisting the external inspection team without overstepping their role by drafting the report on behalf of the inspection committee members. This approach is, in fact, more aligned with regulatory requirements. In the third term, it is necessary to further reinforce the responsibility of committee members to draft the report by themselves and to clearly delineate the roles of the institution and the inspection team.
We believe that inspection committee members should prioritize the rights and interests of inmates and propose key inspection issues based on the areas they particularly focus on, rather than passively relying on the presentations on the current status of various administrative matters arranged by the institution. Compared to the first term, more inspection reports in the second term have identified the committee members who proposed or raised the relevant inspection issues. Even in cases where no specific names have been indicated, the reports themselves or relevant meeting minutes still reflect the committee members' attention to and awareness of the key inspection issues, which is considered a positive progress and development.
However, there are doubts as to whether some of the inspection issues proposed or endorsed by the named committee members were actually initiated by them. For instance, in the Q1 external inspection report of 2024 of Lih-Chih School, a committee member proposed key inspection issues including "Family Support – Shifting from Passive to Active: The Panda Bus Project" and "Appeals Cases of Former Teachers at the School." It is important to note that when committee members proactively propose key inspection issues, they would more likely focus on broader and more general topics, such as family support programs. More concrete and specific initiatives, like "Shifting from Passive to Active: The Panda Bus Project," generally would be part of the institution’s proposals regarding the family support programs. Furthermore, it is also difficult to imagine why a general committee member would proactively bring up an inspection issue such as "Appeals Cases of Former Teachers at the School."
Additionally, the meeting minutes from the Q1 external inspection report in 2024 of the Taipei Detention Center recorded a committee member questioning the inclusion of "an inspection of the facility’s food waste processing equipment" as a key inspection issue. The member stated, “…However, the construction of kitchen facilities does not seem to be directly related to the rights and interests of inmates, and it should not be a particular issue of discussion. As I understand, many institutions raised this issue last year…” However, upon reviewing the external inspection reports of various institutions in the second term, we found that food waste management was indeed a commonly highlighted inspection issue. Moreover, the Q1 external inspection report of year 2024 of Penghu Prison recorded a named committee member expressing concern over "food waste management in correctional institutions." The suggestion from that inspection team was: "The institution should continue its efforts in this area, supporting national environmental policies and black soldier fly food waste disposal." It is puzzling why the key inspection issues proposed or endorsed by these committee members were so closely aligned with those presented by the institutions.
We have also observed that encouraging the naming of the committee member proposing the key inspection issue could be distorted and misunderstood as the member endorsing an institution-proposed issue. This is never consistent with our original intent. After reassessment, we have shifted our expectations for key inspection issues to focusing on their relevance to inmate rights and interests.
A review of the external inspection reports of various institutions in the second term shows that the vast majority of key inspection issues are related to inmate rights, with only a few reports included points that were clearly unrelated, such as: The disposal of used cooking oil (Q2 external inspection report of year 2023 of Kaohsiung Second Prison); Preparatory work and experiences leading up to Yilan Prison’s participation in the Golden Archive Awards (initial archive management evaluation) (Q4 external inspection report of year 2023 of Yilan Prison); The facility’s property management operations (Q4 external inspection report of year 2022 of Keelung Detention Center); How institutions uphold the principle of ‘political neutrality’ during election periods (Q4 external inspection report of year 2023 of Taipei Juvenile Detention House and Q4 external inspection report of year 2023 of Dunpin High School); and Whether products sold after vocational training might infringe upon intellectual property rights (Q4 external inspection report of year 2022 of Lih-Chih High School), and so on.
Upon further examination of the key inspection issues related to inmate rights, we found that some inspection reports focus on regulatory summaries or general overviews of institution’s operations but failed to clearly reflect the committee members' specific expectations regarding the issues being inspected. For example, in multiple quarters, the committee members in the external inspection team of Keelung Detention Center raised no substantive questions or suggestions after hearing the institution’s briefings—only statements agreeing with the institution's handling of the matters. Similarly, committee members in the external inspection team of Pingtung Detention Center often raised questions due to a lack of understanding of procedural details, and their suggestions were vague, lacking concrete content or suggestions.
In the third term, how external inspection teams can establish concrete review checklists or indicators for key inspection issues will be a key challenge. This would help institutions clearly understand and work toward meeting the committee’s specific expectations.
We expect the external inspection teams of the institutions to adopt a variety of inspection approaches, rather than overly relying on the information provided by the institutions, as only in this way can independent assessment on a factual basis be ensured. Due to the pandemic, the external inspection teams of various institutions in the first term experienced heavy restrictions in conducting on-site visits or interviews in secure areas. These restrictions were lifted in the second term, and 35 external inspection teams conducted on-site visits. We observed that some committee members were able to identify on-site conditions and propose suggestions of improvement through these visits. However, more often than not, the on-site visits seemed more like casual tours rather than targeted observations.
As the core method of external inspections is to seek the opinions of the inmates, inmate interviews are critical in the inspection process. In the second term, 32 external inspection teams conducted inmate interviews. Besides, we found that two teams gathered inmate opinions through surveys. We observed that many teams ensured proper execution of interviews through preparing interview outlines in advance, using random sampling, and ensuring absence of institution’s staff during interviews. However, regarding surveys, it is unclear from the inspection reports how they were conducted. Furthermore, whether through interviews or surveys, whenever gathering inmates’ opinions in correctional facilities, it is crucial to ensure that the inmates are in a comfortable and safe environment when providing their statements and opinions.
In addition to common approaches like on-site visits or interviews, we also observed that some inspection teams used diverse approaches to figure out the actual on-site situations and circumstances, such as trying out the mobile visitation system with family members, reviewing relevant business records, attending meal meetings, and having institutions record temperature fluctuations in rooms and the operation of ventilation systems to see if any adjustments to on/off settings of the ventilation systems were needed. Adopting appropriate inspection approaches in response to the specific key inspection issues is expected to be an important challenge in the third term.
Lastly, what remains unsatisfying in the second term is that six external inspection teams—those for Yunlin Second Prison, Tainan Prison, Tainan Second Prison, Kaohsiung Prison, Chiayi Detention Center, and Ming Yang High School—conducted their inspections solely by hearing institution personnel's explanations and through Q&A sessions. Furthermore, the external inspection team for Changhua Detention Center, from Q4 of 2022 to Q2 of 2024, stated in every quarterly report that "in response to the key inspection issues for this term, our team conducted on-site visits in the institution, focusing on the administrative and inmate buildings. Additionally, the team interviewed inmates and staff on the same day to figure out the current implementation status." However, the content and measures presented in the reports were completely inconsistent. It seems that the information was repeatedly copied and pasted incorrectly, and was not corrected until Q3 of 2024, making it impossible to confirm what inspection approaches were actually adopted by the team in each quarter.
We have always been hoping that the external inspection teams of the institutions would clearly present the information obtained from their inspections. This not only aligns with the principle of transparency but also enhances the persuasiveness of their suggestions. This is particularly important when the target audience of the suggestions includes higher authorities, cross-departmental bodies, or when social support is needed.
Currently, most external inspection teams allow access to the meeting minutes, presentations, and other attachments. Some institutions produce highly detailed meeting minutes, rich presentation content, and attachments that include specific plans or detailed regulations related to the institution's operations. These are highly beneficial for the society to learn the information obtained from the inspection teams. Among all, Taichung Detention Center, Taitung Drug Rehabilitation Center, Hsinchu Detention Center, and Ming Yang High School are the ones prepared with complete descriptions of operations and meeting minutes.
In contrast, inspection reports themselves often tend to be overly brief, with decontextualized meeting minutes difficult to read, or fail to appropriately present the information obtained by the inspection teams through methods other than meetings (e.g., on-site visits or interviews). Moreover, it is also common to see the suggestions proposed by the inspection teams in the reports being considered lacking persuasive authority due to the failure to adequately identify relevant underlying facts in the reports.
For example, the inspection report from the External Inspection Team of Taichung Detention Center often contains issues mentioned above, and in some cases to some degree quite severe. For instance, in the second quarter of 2023, the key inspection issue was "individualized treatment," and the report mentioned, "Foreign inmates often face language barriers and, when arrested for illegal actions, are easily to be at a loss and are unable to properly defend themselves or protect their rights. Therefore, they often need assistance from their respective country's 'representative agency’s personnel in Taiwan. It is recommended that the detention center provide related information." However, the report and its attachments failed to explain how the suggestion was derived from the inspection process and lacked relevant specific facts to support it. In the third quarter of 2023, the inspection focus was "management and treatment of felony recidivist not eligible for parole and inmates who violate prison regulations," whereas the inspection was about the questions from the committee members, such as whether the television viewing time at night could be extended when the next day is weekend, holiday or non-detention day, or whether inmates in the medical ward could be allowed to smoke. These points were not only irrelevant to the focus but also lacked contextual explanation.
Currently, the external inspection team of Dun Pin High School is a prime example of appropriately presenting the information obtained during inspections, clearly identifying the sources, and proposing suggestions based thereon. In addition to Dun Pin High School, the external inspection teams of Taiyuan Prison and Taichung Women’s Prison have also adopted various inspection approaches, and their information obtained has generally been presented properly.
Lastly, the external inspection team of Green Island Prison is worth mentioning. Initially, they relied heavily on information provided by the institution. However, in the second and third quarters of 2024, committee members conducted on-site inspections at Green Island Prison, and their reports clearly documented their observations and the information provided by the institution. This made it an inspection team showing the most progress in the second term.
In addition to reviewing the operations of the external inspection teams of the institutions in the second term based on the expectations of civil society organizations, we have also discovered several noteworthy new developments in their operations:
On April 11, 2023, the Ministry of Justice Agency of Corrections issued an official letter (Document No. 11202003920), aiming to enhance the efficiency of receiving petitions by external inspection teams. The letter instructed that each institution should set up a comment box specifically for the external inspection team, with the details regarding its opening and closing left to the discretion of the inspection team. As a result, beginning in the second quarter of 2023, many external inspection teams began discussing how to handle the petitions. In the second term, 33 external inspection teams received petitions. The question regarding which petitions should be handled by the inspection teams and how they should be handled is a topic worth exploration.
According to Article 16 of the "Implementation Regulations for Prison and Detention Center External Inspection Teams”, “external inspection teams may receive petitions related to Article 92 of the Prison Act and Article 84 of the Detention Act. Whether a petition shall be processed by the external inspection team or the institution itself depends on factors such as the specificity of the content, whether it falls within the team’s authority, its relevance to key inspection issues, and the team’s manpower capacity." This provision grants external inspection teams a considerable degree of discretion in handling petitions.
Upon reviewing how petitions were handled by the external inspection teams of institutions in the second term, we found that the vast majority of petitions were forwarded to the respective institutions for investigation, and the cases wee concluded after the institutions submitted explanations to the inspection teams. However, we also observed some effective practices in handling petitions, which can be broken down into three aspects:
Currently, most petitions handled by the external inspection teams reveal systemic issues. This means the problems reported by petitioners are not limited to individual rights but have broader implications. The Q1 external inspection team report of Taoyuan Prison in 2024 revealed that the team received a large number of petitions. Their approach to categorizing and handling those petitions is worth referencing: for individual disputes between inmates, the inspection team suggests petitioners address their concerns directly with the institution; if multiple inmates raise the same issue, the team requires the institution to provide a comprehensive explanation of the matter (e.g., handling of violations)l if the petition concerns a key focus of the inspection team (e.g., vocational training operations), it is treated as a key inspection issue; and If a petitioner submits repeated petitions or requests a meeting with the inspection committee member, an interview is arranged to decide how to proceed.
The external inspection team of Taoyuan Prison received a large volume of petitions; therefore, it could categorize them and identify common issues across different cases. However, if there are only a few petitions, identifying systemic issues can be more challenging and may require the sensitivity of the inspection committee members to associate with relevant topics. For example, the external inspection team of Taichung Prison received a petition in Q1 of 2024 from an inmate who reported that he was unable to cope with his work duties and believed that he had been harassed by another inmate, Qiu 【name】. He also claimed that during a family visit, his food prepared for the visit was taken by another inmate Qiu【name】.After reviewing the institution's explanation, the inspection team agreed with the institution's handling of the case (i.e. suggesting that the inmate leave his work group, “Yiqi Gong (義七工)”) and closed the case.
However, a closer reading of the meeting minutes reveals that the petitioner actually suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had difficulty keeping up with the work of other inmates. There also seemed to be a case where the inmate was moved to another unit due to noncompliance with work assignments. These raise the issue of whether reasonable adjustments could be made for inmates with mental health disorders. Medication taken by patients with paranoid schizophrenia can cause tremors and impair cognitive function, thus affecting their ability to work. Additionally, during episodes, they may need rest and be unable to continue working. If the inmate was falling behind due to this condition, adjustments to the work schedule or assignments should have been considered. The external inspection team of Taichung Prison failed to recognize the systemic issue involved in this case, possibly due to the complexity and disorganization of the petition. This highlights the challenge faced by inspection committee members in identifying systemic problems from disorganized petitions.
Direct engagement with petitioners is a crucial aspect of petition handling, as it helps build trust between inmates and the external inspection teams. We observed that some inspection committee members conducted interviews with petitioners, listening to their concerns, after receiving petitions. Examples of such practices can be seen in the external inspection teams of Taipei Prison, Changhua Prison, Yunlin Prison, Chiayi Prison, Hualien Prison, Penghu Prison, Taiyuan Prison, and Xindian Rehabilitation Center. Notably, the external inspection team of Yunlin Prison not only conducted interviews with petitioners but also placed great emphasis on explaining the outcomes of petition reviews to them. Discussions regarding this matter were documented in the inspection reports for Q2 and Q3 of 2023, demonstrating a commendable level of dedication.
Petitions from inmates often involve complaints against the institution, making independent investigations by external inspection teams particularly important. In the Q4 report issued by the external inspection team of Chiayi Prison in 2022, inspection committee members conducted on-site visits and random interviews to clarify the facts. Similarly, in the Q4 report issued by the external inspection team of Taipei Prison in 2023, inspection committee members investigated the situation by interviewing staff and inmates and reviewing written materials. Additionally, independent verification from a legal perspective should not be overlooked.
Both the Q4 report issued by the external inspection team of Green Island Prison in 2022 and the Q4 report issued by the external inspection team of Taitung Prison in 2023 documented cases where Level 4 inmates attempted tom initiate petitions by sending letters to non-family recipients, including human rights NGOs, but were prohibited from doing so by the prison. The institution justified these restrictions by referring to the Statute of Progressive Execution of Penalty, stating that since the recipients were not family members and the communication was deemed unnecessary for rehabilitation or other reasons, the letters were not permitted.
However, restrictions on Level 4 inmates' correspondence and visitation rights must actually be reviewed in accordance with the Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, on November 8, 2022, the Ministry of Justice Agency of Corrections had also issued a letter (No. 11104004280), which had already been in effect before the inspection teams reviewed the petition cases, providing a more lenient interpretation that allowed Level 4 inmates to communicate through correspondence under specific conditions.
Despite the above, the institutions did not provide relevant legal information to the external inspection teams when explaining their review of the petition cases. If inspection teams lack the capacity to verify laws and regulations independently, they risk endorsing the institution’s stance based on incomplete information.
To ensure the impartiality and objectivity of the committee members in external inspection teams, it is crucial to identify and appropriately address any potential conflicts of interest among the committee members when performing their inspection duties. "Conflict of interest" here is not limited to financial benefits but also includes any relationships or responsibilities that may influence a committee member's behavior or decisions.
Currently, the Regulations for External Inspection Teams of Prisons and Detention Centers do not fully exclude the possibility of individuals with business relationships with the institution from serving as members of its external inspection team. In fact, we have found instances where members of the external inspection team have been involved in inspecting matters related to business they had participated in, which demonstrated a lack of awareness of conflict-of-interest issues.
For example, in the Q4 report issued by the external inspection team of the Nantou Detention Center in 2022, one of the key inspection issues was the Family Support Program. However, from the meeting minutes, it is apparent that one of the expert members not only served as a committee member of the inspection team but also collaborated with the institution to promote the Family Support Program. The member even shared the results of the program during the inspection meeting. Despite the fact that this situation clearly involves the member's own business interests, the member did not recuse himself, and the other members in the team failed to recognize the issue.
Additionally, in the Q2 report issued by the external inspection team of the DongCheng Prison in 2023, the key inspection issue was the "Review and Extension Process and Challenges of Medical Parole." One of the expert members raised concerns, who was both a member of the inspection team and an attending physician in the prison, and served as the physician attending the particular inmate discussed during the inspection. The inmate had been granted medical parole due to health issues but had his parole revoked after testing positive for heroin (which the inmate claimed was used to alleviate pain). The expert member, based on medical assessment, determined that the inmate's condition was not life-threatening and that the inmate should first reflect on his behavior after committing a crime during the medical parole period. This situation represents a typical conflict of interest involving own business interests and raises concerns about the potential conflict between the committee member’s medical duties and their role as an inspection team member.
Lastly, in the Q1 report issued by external inspection team of the Taipei Juvenile Detention House in 2023, the team pointed out that the limited number of interview spaces in the facility forced counselors and probation officers to share spaces. Even though there were glass partitions, interference during interviews was still possible, which could impact the quality of conversations. The team suggested, "Please coordinate with the court's probation officers. As the interview rooms and counseling spaces in the facility are limited, to avoid competition for space and potential interference during interviews, it is advised that probation officers conduct interviews via phone or schedule appointments via tax." This suggestion clearly favors the counselors, urging the detention house to coordinate with other public service personnel to ensure smooth counseling operations. However, some of the committee members were actually involved in the counseling-related activities, which raised questions about whether the suggestion was made from an objective, independent perspective or was driven by vested interests. Since the team emphasized that, "All committee members unanimously agreed on the proposal without identifying individual members," it remains unclear whether this suggestion came from members with ties to the counseling work or what their specific roles were during the discussion. Nonetheless, this approach has seriously affected the credibility of external inspection teams.
Overall, while the second term of external inspection teams showed improvements over the first term, there is still significant room for enhancement. The gap between the operation of the inspection teams and public expectations primarily stems from difference in the understandings of the role of inspection teams.
During external inspection workshop of the second term held on August 2, 2023, a committee member raised the question, "Is external inspection a form of inspection or supervision?" The response from the Agency of Corrections was: "The external inspection teams work in close collaboration with the institutions. Through quarterly inspections and drafting of inspection reports, we aim to jointly improve the overall operational efficiency of correctional institutions. Supervision, on the other hand, is more akin to external monitoring and assessment of the institutions, which is not the primary purpose designed to be achieved by the external inspection system."
Additionally, referring to the meeting minutes of Q2 of 2023 of Taitung Prison (later restructured into Taitung Rehabilitation Center), we found that during the discussion on setting up and opening petition boxes, one committee member remarked: "The role of the team is to provide consultation and suggestions, not to replace the functions of the prison staff. As Dr. Zhuang mentioned, each field has its area of expertise. If, as the secretary said, there are urgent matters that the prison can address first, I have no objections to opening the boxes weekly. I believe most cases can be handled by the prison, and the prison can represent the committee in addressing them. From a practical perspective, the prison staff are more familiar with these issues. If there is a need to consult the committee, the information can be shared in a public group for feedback from committee members.” From these perspectives, it is clear that the Agency of Corrections and some members of the external inspection teams perceive the external inspection teams as advisory committees that do not serve a supervisory function. If this is the intended role, then there is no need to emphasize the independence of the teams or the distinction between them and the agencies. The teams would simply review the consultation points arranged by the institution, with the institution providing current status updates and requesting feedback from the committee members. The institution would then produce the meeting minutes accordingly. Besides, petitions would be submitted only when the institution deems it necessary to consult the committee, and there would be no need to be concerned about whether any conflict of interest in the committee members’ duties would affect their credibility.
However, the Control Yuan’s Investigation Report No.0002 in 2024 clearly states: "The main purpose of the amendments to Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Prison Act and Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Detention Act is to ensure compliance with the principle of transparency in order to protect the rights of inmates. Therefore, assisting correctional institutions in identifying and solving problems, working collaboratively to enhance the overall efficiency of the institutions, and strengthening communication between the institutions and the society should not overshadow, but rather serve as secondary objectives and tasks for the external inspection teams." In that report, the investigation committee members suggested that the Ministry of Justice review and revise the function and role of the external inspection teams to encompass both external monitoring and social communication. At that time, Deputy Minister of Justice Chen Ming-tang also indicated that this could be achieved and implemented through amendments to the implementation regulations.
If the role of the inspection teams is to include external monitoring, collaboration with the institutions to improve their efficiency, strengthening communication with society, the teams should be required to maintain their independence and ensure a clear boundary from the institutions. The inspection teams must have the ability to independently identify inspection priorities related to inmates’ rights, make independent judgments of the facts without over-relying on information provided by the institutions, and draft inspection reports based on their own focus and gathered information. At the same time, we should also clarify that the purpose of inspection is not to assign blame but to foster constructive dialogue that drives institutional improvements. Under this model, while the external inspection teams function as external oversight bodies, they should collaborate with—rather than confront—the institutions.
Based on the observations above, we have the following expectations for the external inspection teams of the third term:
The core of realization of the above expectations lies in strengthening and supporting the inspection committee members' capacities through shared learning. The accumulation and development of knowledge and skills related to external inspection should be promoted in Taiwan in a more systemic way, alongside the establishment of an effective peer support network, in order for committee members to professionally and proactively fulfill their inspection duties. We hope that the external inspection teams of the third term will build upon these foundations and take a solid step forward in enhancing the transparency and effectiveness of Taiwan's correctional institutions.
