examinations, namely the Investigation Bureau, Criminal Investigation Bureau, and the Military Police Command. But these agencies do not have uniform standard operating procedures for polygraph examinations, and there is no mechanism to review the results. As a result, many of their polygraph examination results have varied widely. The Executive Yuan should set forth consistent criteria for the training, qualification and the audit of polygraph examiners to ensure and improve the accuracy of polygraph examinations. Upon investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the three major agencies have coordinated to set forth standard operating procedures. 104. In criminal cases, the results of polygraph examinations requested by the defendant or those of a key witness to prove innocence are decided by a judge or prosecutor ex officio. For this, no specific judgment criteria is currently applicable. Under the circumstances that the defendant is allowed to request such an examination and the polygraph examination agency is allowed to reject the request, the decision regarding whether the polygraph examination results should serve as evidence appears at the same time to be both discretionary and contradictory. If there is a lack of direct evidence, such as physical evidence and exhibits, the authorities in Taiwan generally adopt the polygraph examination (in which results are often disputable) as evidence to determine criminal facts. This appears to be contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure for the discovery of truth and protection of human rights. Upon investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Judicial Yuan proposed a draft of amendments to the laws. Presently, the draft is still under review at the Legislative Yuan. 105. The polygraph examination adopted in criminal procedures is can be defined as an examination on what is known, thought, or believed in one’s mind, and so the examination can be considered, in nature, to be a psychological examination, and as such it infringes upon an individual’s inner freedom and intentions and violates the individual’s personal rights even more so than the violation of the defendant’s right to silence. In a criminal procedure, the defendant is the party subject to the compulsory participation in the polygraph examination. When facing search, detention and pursuit of criminal liability by force of government power, the defendant under the huge pressure derived therefrom is likely to agree to the judge or prosecutor’s demand for a polygraph examination. Therefore, the examination result may not be entirely genuine. If a prosecutor or judge asks a defendant to agree to take the polygraph examination during investigation or trial, that would appear to violate subparagraph 7, Paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the ICCPR, which provides the minimum guarantee that the defendant is entitled to under the Code of Criminal Procedure (that the defendant will not be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt) and Article 16 of the Constitution about citizens’ litigation rights. In addition, polygraph examinations are considered 45