How to Establish and Deepen an Independent External Inspection System for Correctional Institutions: General Commentary on the External Inspection Reports of the Second Term (Q4 2022 to Q3 2024)

I. Introduction

Following the comprehensive amendment and promulgation of the Enforcement Act of the Prison and the Enforcement Act of Detention in 2020, Taiwan mandated that all correctional institutions (hereinafter referred to as "institutions") establish an independent external inspection panel. The original intent of JRF and various civil society groups in advocating for this system was to establish an independent external inspection mechanism that enhances transparency in correctional institutions and protects the rights of inmates. Since the implementation of the system, JRF has continued to monitor its implementation, regularly leading volunteers and interns to review the external inspection reports issued by each institution's external inspection panel one by one, and offering observations and recommendations in hopes of promoting the sound operation of this mechanism.

Now that the term of office for the second-term external inspection panels concluded in the second half of 2024, JRF hereby proposes the [General Commentary on the External Inspection Reports of the Second-Term Correctional Institutions]. By examining the operations and efficacy of the second-term external inspection panels, we hope that the newly inaugurated third-term inspection panels will, based on legislative objectives and public expectations, establish and deepen an independent external inspection system for correctional institutions.

II. Examining the Operations of the Second-Term Institutional External Inspection Panels from Existing Public Expectations

JRF previously proposed the General Commentary on the First-Term External Inspection Reports in March 2023 (Appendix I) and also issued an anniversary general commentary on the external inspection reports of the second-term panels in December of the same year (Appendix II), hoping that the second-term external inspection panels would understand the key focuses and expectations of civil society groups regarding this system. Proceeding from these existing expectations and reviewing the external inspection reports of the second-term panels as a whole, although there have been many improvements compared to the first term, much room for improvement remains, as detailed below.

1. Drafting of Reports

We expect inspection reports to be drafted by inspection members, with the lead member clearly indicated. We believe that the external inspection panel of each institution is an independent external inspection organization, and draft reports should not be prepared by personnel of the inspected institution and then submitted through the panel; furthermore, signing the reports by name can strengthen members' sense of responsibility and let the outside world know that the report was genuinely written by the members. We observed that 9 institutional external inspection panels clearly indicated their lead members in the second-term inspection reports (compared to only 2 in the first term); while some inspection reports did not indicate a lead member, the subjectivity of the inspection panel was pronounced—a development worthy of affirmation.

However, when reading the reports, we still felt a lack of subjectivity from the inspection panels and questioned whether the draft reports were compiled by institutional personnel in the majority of cases. Some inspection reports that indicated a lead member were still suspected of having their drafts compiled by the institution and then co-signed by the inspection members after confirmation; some inspection panels claimed that their inspection reports were jointly written by all members, whereas the vast majority of the content consisted of copy-pasted meeting minutes produced by institutional personnel. As for inspection reports without a designated lead member, it was even more common for the entire report to be highly similar to the meeting minutes or merely contain minor textual revisions.

According to the Official Document Fa-Chiao-Shu-Tsung-Tzu No. 11202003920 issued by the Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice on April 11, 2023: "Regarding the boundaries of assistance provided by institutions to external inspection panels pursuant to Article 18 of the Implementation Measures, this Agency previously indicated in an official letter dated June 24, 2021 (Fa-Chiao-Shu-Tsung-Tzu No. 11001646950) that the scope of institutional assistance is limited to non-core operations such as document typing, meeting minutes production, institutional personnel sitting in for explanations, and administrative chores." The inspection report is a core operation of the inspection panel and should not be drafted in its initial form by institutional personnel and submitted after confirmation by the inspection members. It remains questionable whether certain institutions and inspection panels maintained the boundaries required by regulations.

It is worth mentioning that the Q3 2024 External Inspection Report of the Taipei Prison External Inspection Panel was entirely blank except for listing the "Status of Processing Previous Inspection Recommendations," which the institution provided solely at the request of the Agency of Corrections. This inspection report designated a lead member, clearly showing that the institution fulfilled its duty to assist the external inspection panel without overstepping boundaries by drafting the initial report on behalf of the members. This approach actually aligns more closely with regulatory requirements. In the third term, it is necessary to further strengthen members' responsibility to personally draft reports and enforce the boundary between the duties of institutions and inspection panels.

2. Formulation of Inspection Focuses

We believe that inspection members should value inmate rights and formulate inspection focuses based on the issues they personally care about, rather than passively having institutions arrange and introduce the handling of various operations. Compared to the first term, more inspection reports in the second term indicated the proposing or concerned members, or—even without explicit indication—demonstrated members' attention to inspection focuses through the report itself or meeting minutes. This is a commendable development.

However, it remains questionable whether the inspection focuses proposed or highlighted by specific members were genuinely initiated by those members. In the Q1 2024 External Inspection Report of the Lichi School External Inspection Panel, a member proposed inspection focuses such as "Family Support - Transitioning from Passive to Active Totoro Bus Project" and "Appeal Cases of Resigned Teachers of this School." Under normal circumstances where general members proactively propose inspection focuses, they usually can only suggest broad directions, such as family support programs; more specific family support schemes like the "Transitioning from Passive to Active Totoro Bus Project" would typically be one of the family support programs explained by the institution. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine why a general member would proactively propose inspection focuses such as "Appeal Cases of Resigned Teachers of this School."

Additionally, the meeting minutes in the Q1 2024 External Inspection Report of the Taipei Detention Center External Inspection Panel recorded a member questioning whether "visiting the establishment of food waste equipment in the detention center's kitchen" should be listed as an inspection focus. The member stated, "... However, the establishment of kitchen-related facilities seems to have no direct relationship with inmate rights, and it probably does not need to be specially raised for discussion. As understood, many institutions raised this last year..." Comparing the inspection reports of the external inspection panels across all institutions in the second term, we indeed found that food waste disposal is a common inspection focus, and we also discovered that the Q1 2024 External Inspection Report of the Penghu Prison External Inspection Panel features a member by name paying attention to the "handling of food waste in correctional institutions," with the inspection panel's recommendation being: "Please have the institution continue handling this. Consistently respond to national environmental protection policies and refine the promotion of using black soldier flies to process food waste." It is puzzling why the ways in which these members proposed or focused on inspection focuses by name were so identical to those presented from the institution's perspective.

We also found that expecting the identification of which member proposed an inspection focus might be distorted into members nominally claiming institutional proposals as their own, which was not our original intent. Upon re-evaluation, our expectation for inspection focuses has shifted to focus on whether they concern inmate rights. Examining the institutional external inspection reports of the second term, we can find that the vast majority of inspection focuses are related to inmate rights, with only a few reports containing inspection focuses obviously unrelated to inmate rights. Examples include the disposal destination of waste cooking oil (Q2 2023 External Inspection Report of Kaohsiung Second Prison External Inspection Panel); the mental journey and preparatory work of Yilan Prison participating in the Golden Archives Award (Preliminary Archives Management Evaluation) (Q4 2023 External Inspection Report of Yilan Prison External Inspection Panel); the handling of property management operations in our center (Q4 2022 External Inspection Report of Keelung Detention Center External Inspection Panel); how the institution implements the principle of "administrative neutrality" during election periods (Q4 2023 External Inspection Reports of Taipei Juvenile Detention Center and Tunghpin School External Inspection Panels); and potential copyright infringement regarding the subsequent sale of products made by skill-training institute trainees (Q4 2022 External Inspection Report of Lichi School External Inspection Panel).

Upon closer examination of inspection focuses concerning inmate rights, we found that the content recorded in some inspection reports tends to be a brief introduction of regulations or institutional business overviews, while failing to show members' concrete expectations regarding the substance involved in the inspection focus. For instance, after listening to institutional briefings for multiple quarters, the Keelung Detention Center External Inspection Panel showed no substantive questions or suggestions from members, merely expressing agreement with the institution's operations. Another example is the Pingtung Detention Center External Inspection Panel, where members frequently asked questions due to a lack of understanding of execution details, and the inspection recommendations were also vacuous, lacking substantive content or recommendations. In the third term, how external inspection panels can form concrete checklists or indicators related to inspection focuses—so that institutions can clearly understand their specific expectations and move in that direction—is an important issue.

3. Diversity of Inspection Actions

We expect institutional external inspection panels to adopt diverse inspection actions rather than overly relying on information provided by institutions, as this is the only way to establish a basis of primary facts for independent judgment. Due to the pandemic, external inspection panels across institutions faced severe restrictions on conducting on-site visits or interviews within custody areas during the first term; these restrictions were lifted in the second term, with a total of 35 institutional external inspection panels conducting on-site visits. We observed that some members observed on-site conditions through on-site visits and proposed improvement recommendations. However, it was more common to see members' on-site visits resemble superficial tours, failing to show purposeful observation.

The core method of external inspection lies in seeking the opinions of the inmates themselves; therefore, interviewing inmates is an important inspection action. In the second term, 32 institutional external inspection panels interviewed inmates. In addition, we also saw 2 institutional external inspection panels collect inmate opinions through questionnaires. We observed that multiple inspection panels formulated interview outlines in advance, adopted random sampling, and avoided the presence of institutional personnel to ensure the proper execution of interviews. However, regarding questionnaire surveys, execution methods are less discernible from the inspection reports. Furthermore, whether through interviews or questionnaire surveys, as long as it involves collecting inmate opinions within correctional institutions, how to ensure that inmates can express their opinions in a relaxed and secure environment is an important issue.

Aside from common inspection actions such as on-site visits or interviews, we also saw inspection panels adopt diverse inspection actions to understand actual conditions. These included family members personally testing video visitation systems, reviewing business-related ledgers, sitting in on dietary meetings, and asking institutions to record room temperature changes and the opening of ventilation equipment to confirm whether ventilation equipment activation required adjustment. How to adopt appropriate inspection methods in response to specific inspection focuses to understand actual conditions will be an important issue for the third term.

Finally, it is regrettable that 6 institutional external inspection panels in the second term—namely those of Yunlin Second Prison, Tainan Prison, Tainan Second Prison, Kaohsiung Prison, Chiayi Detention Center, and Mingyang High School—conducted inspections solely by listening to explanations from institutional personnel and engaging in Q&A sessions with them. Meanwhile, the Changhua Detention Center External Inspection Panel wrote in its inspection report every quarter from Q4 2022 to Q2 2024: "In response to this quarter's inspection focus, this panel conducted an on-site visit to the institution, covering the administrative and inmate buildings. In addition, this panel interviewed inmates and staff on the same day to understand current implementation status." Yet this completely failed to match the inspection content and processing status described in the reports, suggesting repeatedly erroneous copy-pasting, which was corrected only as late as Q3 2024. Consequently, it is entirely impossible to confirm what inspection actions that inspection panel actually took each quarter.

4. Clear Presentation of Information Obtained from Inspections

We have consistently expected institutional external inspection panels to clearly present the information obtained from inspections. This not only complies with the principle of transparency but also makes inspection recommendations more persuasive—especially when the targets of the recommendations include superior authorities, cross-ministerial bodies, or efforts requiring social support, where clarity becomes even more crucial.

At present, most institutional external inspection panels provide meeting minutes, briefings, and other attachments. The meeting minutes produced by some institutions are extremely detailed, briefing contents are rich, and attachments include concrete plans or detailed regulations for institutional business execution, which are very helpful for outsiders to understand the information obtained by the inspection panels. For instance, the Taichung Detention Center, Taitung Drug Abuse Treatment Center, Hsinchu Detention Center, and Mingyang High School are all institutions with complete business explanations and meeting minutes.

In contrast, the inspection reports themselves are frequently overly brief, consisting of decontextualized copy-pastes of meeting minutes that hinder readability, or failing to properly present information acquired by the inspection panels through non-meeting methods (such as on-site visits or interviews). Additionally, it is common for the inspection recommendations put forward by inspection panels to lack sufficient underlying facts presented in the reports, thereby rendering them unpersuasive.

For example, the inspection reports of the Taichung Prison External Inspection Panel frequently exhibited the aforementioned problems with great severity. Taking Q2 2023 as an example, the inspection focus for that quarter was "Individualized Treatment," and the inspection content and processing status stated: "Foreign inmates often face language barriers and, after being apprehended for violating the law, easily find themselves at a loss and unable to properly defend themselves or protect their rights. Therefore, they frequently require assistance from personnel of their country's 'stationed institution in Taiwan,' and we recommend that your prison provide relevant information." However, neither the report nor its attachments explained how this recommendation stemmed from the inspection process, lacking concrete facts for support. As another example, in Q3 2023, the inspection focus was "Management and Treatment of Felon Recidivists Ineligible for Parole and Rule-Breaking Inmates," while the inspection content and processing status recorded members asking whether TV viewing hours at night could be extended when the next day is a holiday or non-opening day, and whether inmates in the nursing ward could be allowed to smoke. The aforementioned content was not only completely unrelated to the quarter's inspection focus but also lacked contextual explanation.

Currently, the panel that best presents information and sources obtained from inspections and formulates recommendations based thereon is the Tunghpin School External Inspection Panel. Aside from the Tunghpin School External Inspection Panel, the Taiyuan Prison External Inspection Panel and the Taichung Women's Prison External Inspection Panel also belong to panels that adopt diverse inspection actions and properly present various types of inspection information. Finally, it is worth mentioning the Green Island Prison External Inspection Panel: starting from an initial over-reliance on information provided by the institution, members actually visited Green Island Prison in Q2 and Q3 2024, with the inspection reports clearly recording members' observations and properly presenting the information provided by the institution. It is the inspection panel with the most obvious progress in the second term.

III. New Developments in the Second-Term External Inspections

In addition to examining the operational status of the institutional external inspection panels from the existing expectations of civil society groups, we also discovered several noteworthy new developments during the second term.

1. Many Inspection Panels Started Receiving Grievances

The Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice issued an instruction on April 11, 2023 (Fa-Chiao-Shu-Tsung-Tzu No. 11202003920) stating that, in order to enhance the effectiveness of external inspection panels in receiving grievances, each institution should establish a dedicated suggestion box for the external inspection panel, while detailed matters such as opening the box shall be determined by the external inspection panel itself. Consequently, starting from Q2 2023, many institutional external inspection panels began discussing how to handle grievances. Among the second-term institutional external inspection panels, a total of 33 panels received grievance cases. Which grievances should be handled by the inspection panels and how they should be handled are issues worthy of exploration.

According to Article 16 of the Implementation Measures for External Inspection Panels of Prisons and Detention Centers: "Upon receiving grievances pursuant to Article 92, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Act of the Prison and Article 84, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Act of Detention, an external inspection panel may, based on factors such as whether the grievance content is specific, whether it falls within the external inspection panel's jurisdiction, the relevance of the grievance content to inspection focuses, and the workload of the external inspection panel, decide whether to handle it in accordance with external inspection procedures or hand it over to the institution for handling." This provision grants external inspection panels a high degree of discretionary space in handling grievances.

Observing the handling of grievances by second-term institutional external inspection panels, we found that the vast majority of grievances were handed over to institutions for investigation, after which the institutions submitted explanations to the inspection panels before the cases were closed. However, we also found some good grievance-handling practices, which are explained below from three perspectives:

(1) Uncovering Systemic Issues from Individual Cases:

Currently, among the grievances handled by external inspection panels, most involve the panels uncovering systemic issues—meaning the problems reflected by the grievants are not limited to affecting their personal rights. In the Q1 2024 External Inspection Report of the Taiyuan Prison External Inspection Panel, it can be seen that the panel received a large volume of grievances, and its attempt to triage grievances is worth referencing. For personal disputes among inmates, the inspection panel would advise grievants to lodge grievances directly with the institution; if multiple inmates reflected matters involving the same issue, the institution was asked to provide an overall explanation regarding that issue (such as disciplinary processing); if the grievance matter involved key issues of concern to the inspection panel (such as work and skill training), it was listed as an inspection focus; if a grievant submitted multiple grievances or requested an interview with inspection members, an interview was arranged to determine subsequent handling.

Because the Taiyuan Prison External Inspection Panel received a high volume of grievance cases, it was able to categorize them and discover common themes involving different grievance cases. However, when the number of grievance cases is relatively small, uncovering systemic issues is not easy and may rely on inspection members' sensitivity to relevant issues. For example, the Taichung Prison External Inspection Panel in Q1 2024 received a grievance where the grievant stated that, due to being unable to cope with labor work, he felt inmate Chiu XX was giving him a hard time; during family visitations, his visiting food was forcibly taken by Chiu XX; and he requested a job transfer to leave Workshop Yi-7. After listening to the institution's explanation, the inspection panel agreed with the institution's handling and closed the case. However, a careful reading of the meeting minutes reveals that the grievant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, could not keep up with the work progress of other inmates during daily labor, and was allegedly disciplined and transferred to another housing unit due to refusing to work. This involves the issue of whether reasonable accommodations can be provided for persons with psychosocial disabilities working in prison. Medications taken by patients with paranoid schizophrenia can cause hand tremors and lower cognitive function, affecting work capacity; furthermore, during disease flare-ups, they may be unable to maintain continuous work and must rest. If the aforementioned grievant could not keep up with other inmates' work progress due to a disability, the arrangement of work methods or work volume needed to be adjusted according to his condition. The Taichung Prison External Inspection Panel failed to notice the potential systemic issues involved in this grievance case, which may also be because the grievance content was overly cluttered, highlighting the challenge for inspection members in discovering systemic issues from messy grievances.

(2) Valuing Actual Contact with Grievants:

Actually contacting grievants is a vital link in grievance handling because it helps build inmates' trust in the external inspection panels. We observed that after receiving grievances, some inspection panels had members interview grievants and listen to their opinions. Panels adopting this approach include those of Taipei Prison, Changhua Prison, Yunlin Prison, Chiayi Prison, Hualien Prison, Penghu Prison, Taiyuan Prison, and Hsintien Drug Abuse Treatment Center. Among them, the Yunlin Prison External Inspection Panel not only interviewed grievants but also placed great emphasis on explaining the results of grievance handling to grievants; relevant discussions can be seen in the inspection reports of Q2 2023 and Q3 2023, and their dedication is worthy of affirmation.

(3) Conducting Independent Verification:

Inmate grievances often involve complaints against institutions, making it particularly important for external inspection panels to conduct independent verification. In the Q4 2022 Report of the Chiayi Prison External Inspection Panel, inspection members clarified facts through on-site visits and random interviews; the Taipei Prison External Inspection Panel in Q4 2023 understood situations by interviewing staff and inmates and collecting written data. Additionally, independent verification on the regulatory front cannot be overlooked.

In the inspection reports of the Green Island Prison in Q4 2022 and the Taitung Prison External Inspection Panel in Q4 2023, grievances were seen from fourth-tier inmates whose letters addressed to non-family members (including human rights-related NGOs) were prohibited by the prison authorities. The prison authorities consistently emphasized that, pursuant to the Enforcement Rules of the Act of Imprisonment, the recipients of the letters were not family members, and sending letters lacked necessity regarding moral reformation and other causes, thus justifying the prohibition. However, the restrictive regulations on communication and visitation for fourth-tier inmates inherently required review for necessity pursuant to the Enforcement Act of the Two Covenants; moreover, the Agency of Corrections, Ministry of Justice had already issued Official Document Fa-Chiao-Shu-An-Tzu No. 11104004280 on November 8, 2022, relaxing interpretive grounds to permit fourth-tier inmates to communicate by correspondence (this official letter existed prior to the two inspection panels discussing the grievance cases). Relevant regulatory information was not provided by the prison authorities for reference to the institutional external inspection panels when explaining the grievance cases. If inspection panels lack regulatory verification capabilities, they are prone to endorsing institutions under conditions of incomplete information.

2. Issue of Conflicts of Interest Among Inspection Members

To ensure the impartiality and objectivity of external inspection panel members, checking whether inspection members' execution of inspection duties involves conflicts of interest and handling it appropriately is an important issue. "Conflict of interest" here is not limited to financial interests, but also includes various relationships or duties that may affect members' behavior or decision-making.

Currently, the Implementation Measures for External Inspection Panels of Prisons and Detention Centers do not completely exclude the possibility of persons with business dealings with an institution serving as external inspection panel members for that institution. We found that certain external inspection panel members inspected matters concerning themselves and lacked awareness of conflict-of-interest issues.

Taking the Q4 2022 Inspection Report of the Nantou Detention Center External Inspection Panel as an example, the report listed family support programs as one of the inspection focuses. However, as seen from the meeting minutes, a certain expert/scholar served simultaneously as an inspection member of the center and co-promoted related business for the family support program with the center, while sharing results during that inspection meeting. This situation constituted a classic case of inspecting one's own business, yet the expert/scholar did not recuse themselves, nor did other members of the panel realize the problem with this approach.

Additionally, in the Q2 2024 Inspection Report of the Tungcheng Prison External Inspection Panel, the inspection focus for that quarter was "Review and Extension Procedures and Dilemmas for Medical Parole." A certain expert/scholar serving as an inspection member for the prison was concurrently a practicing physician at the prison and also the attending physician for an inmate discussed under this inspection focus. The inmate had once been granted medical parole due to health conditions, but his medical parole qualification was revoked because he used heroin (which the inmate stated was to alleviate pain). The inmate argued that his health condition still required medical treatment outside the prison, but the member—based on their consultation results—deemed that the inmate's condition had not reached a level threatening life safety, and since the inmate committed a crime during medical parole, he should examine himself first. This situation constitutes a classic case of self-dealing business and raises concerns about a conflict between medical duties as a physician and functions as an inspection member.

Finally, in the Q1 2024 Inspection Report of the Taipei Juvenile Detention Center External Inspection Panel, the panel pointed out that meeting space within the juvenile detention center was limited, and counselors and probation officers had to share interview spaces; even with glass partitions, they might still interfere with each other, affecting the conduct of interviews. The panel recommended: "Please have the center coordinate with court probation officers; since public visiting rooms and counseling rooms within the center are limited, to avoid scrambling for interview rooms and mutual interference during interviews, it is recommended that probation officers conduct interviews via communication methods or reserve times by fax." This recommendation clearly leaned toward the perspective of counselors, asking the juvenile detention center to coordinate with other public officials to ensure the smooth execution of counseling operations. However, certain members of the panel were related to incoming counseling operations; whether this recommendation was based on the objective perspective of an external independent entity or proposed out of vested interests is questionable. Because the panel emphasized: "Members of this panel unanimously agreed that this constitutes a proposal report and there is no need to indicate members' names," we cannot confirm whether this recommendation was made by members connected to counseling operations or what their specific role in the discussion was, but this practice has severely impacted the public credibility of the external inspection panel.

IV. Expectations for the Third-Term External Inspection Panels

Overall, although the second-term external inspection panels across institutions have made progress compared to the first term, considerable room for improvement remains. The gap between the operations of the inspection panels and public expectations stems primarily from differing understandings of the panel's positioning.

At the second-term external inspection workshop held on August 2, 2023, a member asked, "Are external inspection panels in the nature of inspection or supervision?" The Agency of Corrections responded: "External inspection panels work in concert with institutions to jointly enhance the overall operational efficiency of correctional institutions through quarterly inspections and drafting inspection reports. As for the nature of supervision, it is more akin to external monitoring and appraisal of institutions, which is not the objective the external inspection system aims to achieve." Furthermore, referring to the meeting minutes of the Taitung Prison (later reorganized as the Taitung Drug Abuse Treatment Center) for Q2 2023, when discussing the setup and opening of grievance mailboxes, a panel member stated: "The function of the panel is to provide consultation and suggestions, not to replace the functions of prison personnel. As Dr. Chuang said, there is a specialization in every trade. If, as the secretary said, some more urgent matters can be handled by the prison first, I have no objection to opening [the box] weekly. Most matters should be capable of being handled by the prison, so let the prison handle them on behalf of the committee. Moreover, practically speaking, the prison is also more familiar with things than we are. If there is truly a need to consult members, it can be placed in the official group to poll members' opinions on the group." From the above viewpoints, it can be seen that the Agency of Corrections and certain external inspection members likely position external inspection panels as non-supervisory committees providing consultative opinions to institutions. Under this positioning, there is fundamentally no need to emphasize the independence of the inspection panels and the boundaries between them and institutions. External inspection panels would simply have consultation focuses arranged by institutions, current status explanations presented by institutions, and provide opinions for members, with institutions producing meeting minutes. Grievances would be raised only when institutions deem it necessary to consult members, without needing to care whether members' execution of duties involves conflicts of interest that affect public credibility.

However, Control Yuan Investigation Report 113-Ssu-Tiao-0002 clearly pointed out: Since the "primary purpose" of the amendments to Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Act of the Prison and Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Act of Detention is to "implement the principle of transparency and protect the rights of inmates," assisting correctional institutions in discovering and solving problems, working in concert with institutions to enhance overall institutional efficiency, and strengthening communication between correctional institutions and society should not be relegated to a secondary role; they can only serve as the "secondary purpose" and "secondary mission" of external inspection panels. In this investigation report, the investigating member suggested that regarding the functions and positioning of external inspection panels, the Ministry of Justice could study and revise them in the direction of concurrently possessing external monitoring and social communication, and the then-Political Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Justice, Ch'en Ming-t'ang, also stated that this could be perfected by revising the implementation measures.

If inspection panels are positioned as organizations possessing external monitoring, cooperating with institutions to enhance institutional efficiency, and strengthening social communication, then inspection panels must possess independence and pay attention to boundaries with institutions. Inspection panels must be capable of proactively proposing inspection focuses concerning inmate rights, independently judging facts without overly relying on information provided by institutions, and drafting inspection reports based on their own focus and information collection. Meanwhile, inspections conducted by panels are not for the purpose of apportioning blame, but for conducting constructive dialogues aimed at prompting institutional improvement. Under this model, although external inspection panels possess the nature of external supervision, they are not in opposition to institutions, but in cooperation.

In summary of the above observations, we propose the following expectations for the third-term external inspection panels:

1. Inspection members should fully recognize that their roles encompass both supervisory and cooperative natures, strictly observe boundaries with institutions, avoid over-relying on institutions to execute inspection operations, and ensure the independence and public credibility of inspection work.

2. External inspection reports should be personally drafted by inspection members. Draft reports should not be prepared by institutions on behalf of members and submitted in the name of the panel after confirmation by the external inspection panel. If members are unable to draft reports due to busy schedules, institutions should adopt the approach of the Taipei Prison in Q3 2024, leaving the portion to be written by members blank rather than ghostwriting.

3. Proposed inspection focuses should be relevant to inmate rights—something most inspection panels achieved in most situations during the second term. We further expect that inspection panel members should be capable of proposing concrete checklists or indicators related to those inspection focuses to examine whether the institution's conditions meet expectations. A similar approach can be referenced in the "Mandela Rules Checklist.":

4. Inspection panels should be capable of adopting appropriate inspection actions to collect information in order to examine whether institutional conditions meet expectations. In the second term, on-site visits and interviews became common practices, and some inspection panels also developed creative inspection methods; we look forward to seeing more vigorous and meticulous development in this area during the third term.

5. External panels should be able to clearly present information obtained from inspections based on their own standpoint. Although the meeting minutes or institutional briefings attached to second-term external inspection reports were relatively complete, the inspection reports themselves were frequently overly brief, consisting of decontextualized copy-pastes of meeting minutes that hindered readability, or failing to properly present information acquired by inspection panels through non-meeting methods (such as on-site visits or interviews). We expect that in the third-term inspection reports, the subjectivity of inspection panels will be more visible, information acquired from different sources will be properly presented, and persuasive inspection recommendations will be formulated based on such information.

6. Place emphasis on actually contacting grievants, and develop the ability to uncover systemic issues and conduct independent verification from individual case grievances.

7. Exhibit greater sensitivity to conflict-of-interest issues and adopt appropriate measures for disclosure and recusal.

The realization of the aforementioned expectations centers on the empowerment and mutual learning of inspection members. The accumulation and development of knowledge and skills related to external inspections should be promoted more systematically in Taiwan, and effective peer support networks should be established so that members can professionally and actively fulfill their inspection duties. We hope that third-term external inspection panels can take a firmer step forward in enhancing the transparency and efficiency of Taiwan's correctional institutions based on these foundations.