responsible prosecutor’s request for compulsory rehabilitation treatment, and should rule promptly and in a timely manner. 39. Under the current legal system, a compulsory drug rehabilitation treatment order is given in the form of a ruling. Thus, no trial procedure is necessary other than document review. Notwithstanding, this practice appears to be in contravention of the “principles of appropriate trial and hearings” referred to in Article 8 of the Constitution and Article 9 of the ICCPR. Taiwan adheres to the rule of law. The Judicial Yuan should strive to incrementally improve on this situation, and strike a balance between protecting personal freedom and guaranteeing sufficient judicial manpower and budget. Compulsory Labor as Judicial Punishment 40. Currently, the premises/offenses warranting punishment in the form of compulsory labor, as listed in Paragraph 1, Article 90 of the Criminal Code, items such as “habits of loitering or vagrancy,” are not adequately defined. The foreign precedents for the legislation of said provision in Taiwan, such as that of Germany, have already abolished their system of punishment with compulsory labor. Given the aspects that remain unknown in this punishment, and implementation practices having no difference from those in sentencing to imprisonment, most scholars believe that “it constitutes discrimination toward specific offenders,” and “not an arbitrary punishment in name, but an arbitrary punishment in reality.” The Ministry of Justice should proactively consider the abolition of the compulsory labor system as a step to ensure human rights. 41. According to the Agency of Corrections’ reply to Control Yuan’s inquiry, the current compulsory labor practices adopted by various skill training institutes for the offenders are no different from those applied for general prisoners. But such practices do not in nature constitute rehabilitative measures that serve as a kind of “protective” sentence. Instead, the compulsory labor sentence, in practice, becomes an extended sentence rendered against the person liable to penalty, which is likely to violate the proportionality of crime and punishment. The Ministry of Justice has failed to substantively distinguish the compulsory labor measures and general sentences, and perform its administrative duties pursuant to the law. 42. Currently, courts mostly proclaim compulsory labor sentences on the grounds of the defendant’s “habit of crime.” While a “habit of crime” will be determined with more detailed substance during trial, it is primarily decided based on the defendant’s criminal record; differing opinions are not uncommon. Some scholars have questioned the kind of evidence that the judgments of compulsory labor are based on, and it is clearly different from that which is defined in Article 3 of the Organized Crime Prevention Act; 20