Detention and Custody 36. In a case when the defendant is not detained by the prosecutor during investigation, but by the judge when tried, if the judge making the detention ruling allows a public prosecutor other than the original prosecutor in charge to state an opinion, the defendant’s rights may not be fully protected. It is likewise questionable whether the opinion stated by the public prosecutor is indeed based on a comprehensive understanding of the case. In addition, if the investigation and trial are both based on the same criminal facts, it is not enough to convince the defendant to accept the ruling merely on the opinion given by the public prosecutor. Therefore, when dealing with compulsory measures that are in conflict with personal freedoms, the Ministry of Justice should establish specific mechanisms to allow the prosecutor in charge of the investigation to state his/her opinion. If so, conflict between the concerned party and the prosecutor may be mitigated. Rehabilitation Treatment Under Observation 37. With respect to the continued detention for drug rehabilitation under observation, as referred to in Paragraph 2, Article 8 of the Act of Implementation of Rehabilitation Treatment, since neither the Judicial Yuan nor Ministry of Justice has expressly defined the deadline by which a court should render a ruling on whether compulsory drug rehabilitation treatment should be extended, it is possible that the court could render such a ruling after expiration of the rehabilitation treatment (usually 6-8 weeks). Such circumstances can be considered a legal loophole, making the said provision deviate from the requirements regarding the revocation of detention referred to in Paragraph 2, Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and significantly infringing upon fundamental rights. Therefore, the relevant laws and measures should be further reviewed in response to the protection of personal freedom under Article 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Article 9 of the ICCPR. After investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Judicial Yuan and Ministry of Justice have amended the Act, which was passed by the Legislative Yuan on June 13, 2018. 38. As none of the existing laws expressly define the deadline by which a court should render a ruling on compulsory rehabilitation treatment ordered for any person engaged in continued drug abuse, in practice, the person may be still confined under rehabilitation treatment even if the order has already expired; the person thus fails to obtain the court’s protection in a timely manner. There are a great number of such cases. This clearly results from inadequate judicial and administrative management in the practice of rehabilitation treatment. After investigation and follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Judicial Yuan, on April 14, 2017, officially informed the courts that they should take note of the completion date of the rehabilitation treatment when processing the 19