Court, attended the hearings on a schedule of rotation, instead of specifically attending the case hearings for which they had done investigations. Such practices are similar to those adopted by the public prosecutorial court system. However, the public prosecutorial court is based on the “prosecutors as one identity” principle, which is completely different from the those referred to in Paragraph 1, Article 39 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which provides that “a juvenile investigation officer should appear before the court on the hearing date to express opinions regarding the investigation and the rulings,” and in Paragraph 1, Article 19 of the same Act, which provides for “…investigation into the delinquency-related behavior, character, experience, mental and physical conditions...” It also differs from the factors used as justification by the juvenile investigation officers in charge of pre-trial investigations when attending hearings to present reports and suggestions, as if the latter have independently created another “investigators as one identity” principle with no legal basis. The Control Yuan investigation shows that these customary practices have already made the requirements referred to in Paragraph 1, Article 39 of the Juvenile Justice Act, requirements which call for an investigation of the particular juvenile, a mere formality. The juvenile investigation officer on rotation does not read the related court files, and he/she would only state “all details are shown in the juvenile investigation report” at the hearing. Besides this, no adequate handover mechanism is available after hearings are concluded. In practice, if a judge disagrees with the ruling suggested by a juvenile investigation officer, he/she would discuss altering the suggested ruling with the officer before the hearing. In such cases, a written ruling is frequently replaced by the arbitration record. But without the appearance of the particular officer who did the investigation, it is very likely that judgment through arbitration actually would become a trial by interrogation instead. As the supervisory power over judicial administration, the Judicial Yuan should supervise all subsidiary courts to review and improve themselves promptly. If it is difficult for the courts to do so, the Judicial Yuan should help provide additional resources. When the Control Yuan put forward its investigation report in February 2019, it received attention from the legislators. This prompted the Legislative Yuan to amend Paragraph 3, Article 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act in June 2019 by adding a paragraph stating that “Where a juvenile investigation officer is summoned to appear before the court to give evidence on the results of an investigation or suggestions for handling a matter, the juvenile investigation officer that conducted the investigation referred to in paragraph 1 should appear before the court in person to present the findings, unless the officer provides a justifiable reason for absence.” Such amendments to the Act have changed the practice at some district courts, such that the juvenile investigation officer in charge of the pre-trial investigation is no longer absent from the hearing. 22