General Review of the First Term Prison External Visitation Reports (Q4 2020 to Q3 2022)

1. Fundamental Issues: Delayed Publication of Reports and the Impact of the Pandemic on Visitations

   The most fundamental issue with the first-term prison external visitation reports was the delayed publication. According to the regulations of the Agency of Corrections, each prison external visitation panel should submit its visitation report to the Agency before the 10th of January, April, July, and October of each year. However, the publication of these visitation reports has often been severely delayed.

   The visitation report for the fourth quarter of 2020 was published relatively promptly. That quarter's report was submitted to the Agency before January 10, 2021, and officially published on February 8, 2021. After that, all subsequent reports experienced severe delays. The external visitation reports from the first to the third quarter of 2021 were delayed until December 2021, when they were all published at once; the report for the fourth quarter of 2021 was published around June 2022; and the reports for each quarter of 2022 were delayed until February 2023.

   The delayed publication of visitation reports has severely undermined the founding purpose of the external visitation panels: the principle of prison transparency.

   During the tenure of the first-term members, starting from the visitations in the first quarter of 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan escalated, severely impacting the execution of external visitations. Conducting on-site inspections within the security zone of correctional institutions or interviewing inmates became difficult, which also affected the content of the first-term visitation reports. The pandemic even caused visitations to be suspended; many external visitation panels suspended visitations in the second quarter of 2021 and gradually resumed them in the third quarter of 2021. By the fourth quarter of 2021, only the Penghu Prison external visitation panel remained suspended. No explanation has been provided to the public to this day as to why only this specific panel was unable to resume visitations.

2. Changes in Report Formatting

   The most significant change in the visitation reports of the first-term external visitation panels was the report format. The JRF initially participated in the discussions on amending the Implementation Measures for External Visitation Panels of Prisons and Detention Centers. At that time, because the system was newly implemented, we hoped to give flexibility to the external visitation panels of each correctional institution and did not specifically mandate a report format. However, after the measures took effect, the Agency of Corrections issued an administrative interpretation requiring visitation reports to be presented using "Agency-issued forms." The biggest impact on the visitation reports was that content unsuitable for tabular presentation had to be awkwardly crammed into the Agency-issued forms, while content that could not fit into the tables was not published, and even members of the external visitation panels were not allowed to sign their names on the reports. This led to a backlash from some external visitation panel members.

   In addition to some members believing that the Agency-issued forms failed to meet the needs for presenting visitation report contents, another problem was that they integrated the "visitation report" and the "response and handling by relevant competent authorities" into a single table. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Execution of Sentences Act and Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Detention Act, the visitation report is submitted by the external visitation panel, and the relevant competent authorities respond to and handle the visitation recommendations only after the visitation report is submitted. The originating subjects of the two are different: the visitation report is created by the external visitation panel, while the response and handling of visitation recommendations are carried out by the relevant competent authorities. Integrating the "visitation report" and the "response and handling by the relevant competent authorities" into a single table had the most direct impact: the entire table was filled out by the correctional institution, causing the visitation report to lose its meaning as a document submitted by the external visitation panel.

   Through the advocacy of some members and civil society organizations, the format of the external visitation reports underwent the following changes:

   1. Shifting from mandatory format requirements to soft reference format recommendations. External visitation panels could freely choose appropriate ways to present their reports.
   2. Separating the visitation report from the response and handling of the competent authorities. It is presupposed that the visitation report is written and submitted by the visitation panel, and contents not the responsibility of the visitation panel are no longer included in the format.
   3. Adding an "Overview of Visitation Operations" to the recommended format for visitation reports and allowing the publication of attachments, including meeting minutes, agency briefings, or other explanatory materials provided by the agency.
   4. Changing the listing of visitation members from anonymous to signed by name in the visitation reports.

   The aforementioned changes help increase the adaptability of the visitation panels' report presentations, clarify the responsibilities for writing visitation reports, and enhance the overall transparency of external visitations. We affirm these developments.

3. Review and Analysis of the Content of First-Term Prison External Visitation Panel Reports

   (I) Enhancement of Overall Report Transparency

   With the change in report format, starting from the first quarter of 2022, most visitation reports (including those with very brief main bodies) have allowed the outside world to grasp basic and important visitation information, including an overview of the execution of visitation operations and basic information obtained by visitation members through their visits.

   However, even for reports after the first quarter of 2022, it remains difficult for outside readers to determine whether the author of the report is actually an external visitation member or the correctional institution; it is also difficult to discern whether the focus of the visitation was proposed by the members or arranged by the correctional institution. The former is a fundamental duty of the external visitation panel, while the latter is an important indicator of the panel's proactivity.

   From the perspective of the JRF, if a visitation report is not written by the members at all, and the focus of the visitation is not proposed by the members but left to the correctional institution to handle on their behalf, we would consider such a visitation report unqualified. Because when we read visitation reports, the focus is on evaluating the performance of the visitation panel. Even if a correctional institution helps the external visitation panel write the best possible report, it does not fulfill the purpose of the system.

   (II) Reports Worthy of Affirmation

   Most of the visitation information relied upon by the first-term prison external visitation panels was provided by the correctional institutions, including briefings by the institution's operational staff, explanations during visitation meetings, or written materials additionally produced by the institutions. We consider visitation reports worthy of affirmation to be those where, in addition to the information provided by the correctional institution, the visitation panel indeed complied with Article 12 of the Visitation Measures by adopting more diverse visitation actions to obtain information, cross-referencing information from different sources, and then presenting its own factual judgments and rationale.

   1. Emphasis on Interviews

      The JRF considers "interviews" to be a fundamental and important visitation action, especially interviewing inmates. Because one of the statutory missions of the external visitation panel is to "protect the rights and interests of inmates," listening to and understanding the conditions of inmates is naturally very important. Inmate interviews cannot represent the entire truth, but they provide a powerful foundation for examining whether the information provided by the correctional institution requires further verification. Few first-term external visitation panels conducted inmate interviews; therefore, whenever we see visitation reports mentioning that the panel executed such visitation actions, we should offer affirmation and encouragement.

   2. Execution of Visitation Actions Other Than Interviews

      In addition to interviews, some external visitation panels also conducted questionnaire surveys and reviewed written records. These are all excellent methods for gathering information and are worthy of affirmation.

      On-site inspections are also an important visitation action, and we affirm external visitation panels that conducted them. However, upon reading the visitation reports, most on-site inspections easily give the impression of sightseeing tours. On-site inspections actually require visitation members to use their five senses to understand the site with focus and acuity, which is not easily done well.

   3. Presentation of Visitation Facts Based on Diverse Visitation Actions

      After acquiring information through diverse visitation actions, it is still necessary to present it in the visitation report. Although some visitation panels executed interviews, on-site inspections, or other visitation actions, they failed to present the acquired information in the visitation reports, which is a pity. However, some external visitation panels organized and presented the information obtained from diverse visitation actions in their visitation reports, and even used this to compare and identify where the information provided by correctional institutions required further verification. Visitation reports that achieve this are undoubtedly high-quality visitation reports.

   (III) Reports Needing Improvement

   1. Visitation Reports That Are Overly Brief and Lacking Important Information

      Visitation reports that are overly brief and lack important information, making it difficult for outsiders to grasp basic visitation content, are a typical disappointing scenario. Such situations were relatively common in the early reports of the first-term external visitation panels; however, starting from the first quarter of 2022, as most prison external visitation panels adopted the new report format, there has been improvement. Nevertheless, some visitation reports remain overly brief and fail to provide relevant attachments, making it difficult for outsiders to understand the basic facts grasped by visitation members through their visits. The fact that visitation panels failed to do even such basic and simple things is disappointing.

   2. Visitation Focus Appearing Irrelevant to the Purpose of Establishing the Visitation Panel

      The primary purpose of establishing visitation panels is to implement the principle of transparency and protect the rights and interests of inmates. Some external visitation panels had only a single visitation focus throughout the entire quarter that appeared unrelated to protecting inmate rights and interests, such as: "Please clearly mark the warning signs prohibiting mobile phones in the visitation room so that visiting family members do not miss the signs, accidentally bring in mobile phones to take photos, and leak them, causing trouble for the institution" (Visitation Report of the Yilan Prison External Visitation Panel for Q4 2020), and "High frequency of electronic access control failures for doors inside the security zone" (Visitation Report of the Changhua Detention Center External Visitation Panel for Q2 2022).

      Visitation foci of this nature inevitably lead outsiders to suspect they were arranged by the correctional institution. What all sectors expect are proactive and active external visitation panels. If an external visitation panel has visitation foci for an entire quarter, or even multiple quarters, entirely arranged by the correctional institution without the members having any ideas of their own, it is deeply regrettable.

   3. Report Presentations That Are Difficult for Outsiders to Understand

      Starting from the first quarter of 2022, the Agency of Corrections relaxed the regulations on the format of visitation reports, no longer rigidly requiring the use of the old Agency-issued forms. Therefore, theoretically, there should no longer be situations where visitation reports were difficult to read due to being rigidly forced into old Agency-issued forms. However, some external visitation panels still used the old Agency-issued forms (Visitation Reports of the Ludao Prison External Visitation Panel for Q1 to Q3 2022), and their manner of filling them out violated ordinary readers' intuition, making them difficult to understand. Given that the Agency of Corrections has clearly instructed that report contents can be presented according to actual needs, it is truly necessary for certain external visitation panels to review why they insisted on forcing things into the old format.

Conclusion: Expectations for the Second-Term Prison External Visitation Panels

We expect the second-term prison external visitation panels to clearly recognize the commendable aspects and areas needing improvement in the visitation reports of the first-term panels. Below, we set out our expectations for the second-term prison external visitation panels:

1. Visitation Reports Should Be Written by Visitation Members, with the Principal Author Indicated

   According to the law, visitation reports are submitted by prison external visitation panels; thus, visitation reports should naturally be written by members rather than delegated to correctional institutions. While it is acceptable to organize or clip meeting minutes, briefings, or other written materials produced or provided by correctional institutions, having correctional institutions completely write the visitation report and then submitting it for adoption by the visitation meeting does not align with the original intent of "independent external visitation."

   We also recommend that visitation reports indicate the principal author, allowing outsiders to better understand individual members' level of engagement and holding members accountable for the reports they author. For example, the visitation report of the Taoyuan Women's Prison External Visitation Panel for Q2 2022 indicated the principal author, which is worthy of reference.

2. Members Should Proactively Propose Visitation Foci and Indicate Their Sources in the Visitation Reports

   We expect members to have their own ideas about visitations and to proactively propose visitation foci. Although visitation foci suggested by correctional institutions are also important, if the vast majority or an entire quarter's visitation foci are arranged by the correctional institution, it inevitably leads outsiders to perceive the members as passive and lacking proactivity. To allow the outside world to understand the members' proactivity, we also expect visitation reports to indicate the sources of the visitation foci.

   If members wish to understand the planning of visitation foci, they may refer to the "Checklist - Nelson Mandela Rules" placed by the Agency of Corrections in the external visitation reference materials section. This is a visitation checklist proposed based on the important international prison human rights document, the "Nelson Mandela Rules."

3. Diverse Visitation Actions

   We expect prison external visitation panels to execute diverse visitation actions to understand specific visitation focus items, rather than overly relying on information provided by correctional institutions. We consider interviews—especially interviewing inmates—to be an important and fundamental action. Other visitation actions, such as reviewing written records and issuing questionnaires, were also executed by the first-term prison external visitation panels and can be referenced when needed. We also look forward to seeing other visitation actions that were not executed in the first term but would help understand visitation foci.

   On-site inspection is an important visitation action, but it easily degenerates into a superficial sightseeing tour. We expect visitation members during on-site inspections to use their five senses with focus and acuity to understand the site, and to record these observations in the visitation report.

4. Clear Presentation of Information Obtained from Visitations

   After executing diverse visitation actions, we expect to see a clear presentation of the information obtained from the visitations in the report, rather than merely recording that the visitation panel conducted interviews and on-site inspections without any substantive descriptions. The authority of a visitation report does not stem from any coercive enforcement power, but from clear factual descriptions and the provision of rationale.

Appendix: JRF's Previous Commentaries on the First-Term Prison External Visitation Panel Reports

• Comments and Recommendations on the Q4 2020 Prison External Visitation Reports
• Key Reader Comments on External Visitation Reports: Reading Insights and Questions on the Q4 2020 Prison External Visitation Reports
• Anniversary Health Check | Comments on Q1 to Q3 2021 Prison External Visitation Reports and the Establishment of External Visitation Panels
• Evaluation and Commentary on the Q4 2021 External Visitation Reports
• Comments on the Q1 to Q3 2022 External Visitation Reports