protection as well as the principle of an impartial tribunal. They also evade the basic restraints imposed by the statutory principle for investigation and violate the principle of supremacy of the rule of law. Even if the related person or witness is raided, seized, subpoenaed, detained, or put under surveillance for a long period of time, the prosecutors are still allowed to close cases using their administrative power, rather than using statutory authority. The right to seek remedies is also controlled by the prosecutors office, which violates the concerned parties’ fundamental litigation rights. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice should, based on the intent of the ICCPR, further deliberate on improving the investigation system to better protect personal freedoms. 34. The prosecutor’s office, by virtue of its power to carry out investigations classified as “Others,” issues notifications to “related parties” that are not expressly defined in any laws, or even subpoenas the defendants or suspects as “witnesses,” in effect to deprive them of their right to silence and their right to counsel. Moreover, in order to search a third party (labelled as a “witness”), the prosecutors are allowed to issue an arrest warrant before the search. This is not only against the requirements for subpoena, but also against Article 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which stipulates that when a person is arrested or detained, the organ making the arrest or detention shall, within 24 hours, turn the person over to a competent court for trial. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice should, based on the intent of the ICCPR, deliberate on and formulate possible amendments to the said investigation system, amendments that can provide the protection of personal freedoms. 35. Personal freedom falls under the protection of Article 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Per the Judicial Yuan’s Interpretation No. 443, the circumstances that could justify affecting a person’s physical freedom should, at least, be stipulated and constrained by law. Whether a prisoner should or should not continue to enjoy parole is critical to the prisoner’s personal freedom and his right to parole, and it should be defined expressly by law, and not through ad hoc written explanations by any administrative or judicial authorities. Though a written explanation issued by the Ministry of Justice merely “cancels” a parole, it has the same effect in practice as a revocation and results in the sentenced person being imprisoned again. Such an action violates personal freedom, and is not based on any laws or by a fair and open trial. This is clearly in violation of Articles 8 and 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan). After investigation and continuing attention by the Control Yuan, the Ministry of Justice amended the Prison Act to expressly define the procedure for revocation of parole, as well as legal effects and remedies thereof. The amended Act was promulgated under the Presidential Order dated January 15, 2020. 18