93. Currently, the potential remedies available to defense attorneys-at-law to resist restrictive orders or injunctions set by prosecutors during investigation remain uncertain. The Judicial Yuan should review the definitions on the scope of quasi-interlocutory appeals filed pursuant to Article 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to seek effective protection of the defendants’ right to defend themselves. 94. When inspecting the correspondence transmitted between inmates and defense attorneys (agents ad litem), with the purpose of checking for contraband, the prisons/detention centers should only “open but not read” the correspondence in question. If inmates need to deliver anything during visitation from their defense attorneys, and the item is confirmed free from any contraband upon inspection, the guard on duty should specify the inspection result and type and quantity of the articles in the “Inmate’s Defense Attorney Visitation Record” and allow delivery. However, they are prohibited from confiscating the inmates’ articles at their discretion, and should promptly transfer them to the defense attorney forthwith. 95. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, where a defense attorney is found to have destroyed, forged, or altered evidence, or conspired with a cooffender or witness, the judge may issue a restriction order to the defense attorney and prohibit him/her from visiting or communicating further with the defendant. Notwithstanding, restriction of free communication between defense attorney and defendant damages the integrity of the defendant’s right to defense. Therefore, it is still necessary to evaluate with care how to protect the defendant’s litigation rights and devise alternative measures for related sanctions, when the defense attorney is reasonably suspected of committing misconduct. Upon investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Judicial Yuan has proposed a draft of amendments to certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The draft adds the provision that when a defense attorney is believed to have accessed the recorded evidence and case files for improper purposes, the prosecutor may petition the presiding judge either verbally or in writing during the investigation and trial to prohibit the defense attorney from further participation in the case. The draft is still being deliberated. 96. Ever since the Legal Aid Act was amended, it has been alleged that legal aid resources have been abused, due to the absence of wealth-exclusion clauses, plus a lenient review mechanism. Clearly, the Judicial Yuan has failed to effectively communicate and promulgate that under the Legal Aid Act only “persons who are indigent” and “unable to receive proper legal protection” are to be aided by the Legal Aid Foundation. Currently, the Judicial Yuan’s policy goal in contracting public defenders appears to be ambiguous. Therefore, it is still necessary to discuss the entire criminal defense system and allocation of relevant resources. 42