should be considered unlawful, and cannot be considered unfavorable to the defendant thereof; moreover, no significant dispute over the legal opinion arose and no uniform law issue was involved. Therefore, there was no necessity for an extraordinary appeal, and it should be rejected accordingly. The Control Yuan considered that the ruling, having a binding effect as a substantive judgment, had the same effect as violating the law; in addition, the concerned party filed a complaint therefor, which, if sustained, would accordingly impair judicial credibility. Therefore, it submitted investigation opinions and other practical related opinions and reasons to the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors Office via the Ministry of Justice to request a retrial and consideration for correction. 82. Paragraph 1, Article 21 of the Enforcement Rules of the Statute of Progressive Execution of Penalties sets forth the procedural requirements to restrict personal freedom, although no authorization is expressly defined under its parent act. As a result, prisons under the Agency of Corrections set up their own rating standards, which deviate from the requirements provided under the parent act. This is contrary to the principle of legal reservation. The prisoners can only involuntarily accept the varying rating standards governing progressive execution of penalties depending on which prison they are placed under. This is clearly unfair and unjust. Protections for Return to Society 83. Currently, there are multiple laws and regulations restricting the employment of ex-offenders, and these involve multiple competent authorities. Statistics show that about 60% of ex-offenders are primarily engaged in labor or serve as technicians. Therefore, the current system which allows certain industries to exclude ex-offenders increases their difficulty in seeking employment. The Control Yuan proposed that the Ministry of Justice should continue soliciting opinions on this and collecting statistical data, and urge the said competent authorities to review the relevant regulations based on current societal conditions, to strike a balance between social safety and the protection of peoples’ right to work. Multinational Mutual Legal Assistance 84. As the competent authority in charge of foreign affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should, based on humanitarian considerations, respond to international calls for human rights, and demonstrate the government’s care for Taiwanese nationals who are serving sentences or are detained for trial abroad. This may be advanced by strengthing the exchange of intelligence and information and through multinational judicial cooperation. 85. The Ministry of Justice should be recognized and appreciated for enacting and amending laws and regulations governing multinational mutual legal assistance; it has convened meetings or conducted assessments where 38