disadvantaged. Prosecutors who insist on conviction and raise the case to an appeal court at all cost should not be allowed in litigation in a modern country under the rule of law. The Judicial Yuan should consider the legislative intent of Articles 8 and 9 of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act to “restrict the appeal against a not-guilty judgment” in order to protect the defendant’s right to seek a fair, valid and speedy trial under Article 16 of the Constitution. The Principle of Lawful Designation of Judges 91. As related criminal cases may be indicted successively, assigned to different judges for trial, and then combined for a joint trial, there can be a change of the presiding judge, and this affects the parties’ litigation right that is protected under Article 16 of the Constitution. Since the court’s procedure for a combined trial is not disclosed to the public and no remedy mechanism is available, some may speculate that these cases are very likely under the influence of a specific person and assigned intentionally to a specific judge for ruling. This situation casts a doubt as to whether there has been violation of the principle of lawful and unprejudiced designation of judge (gesetzlicher Richter). Based on the requirements for combining cases referred to in Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not allowed for a concerned party to state an opinion before the decision to combine cases is rendered. After the cases are combined, there is no interlocutory appeal for remedy available either, according to Article 404 of the same Code. Therefore, the Judicial Yuan should thoroughly discuss amendments to the laws and regulations involving combining related cases for trial, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to protect the people’s constitutional litigation rights and to ensure the constitutional basis by which judges should conduct trials independently, as referred to in Article 80 of the Constitution. Defense Attorneys 92. Currently, no relevant requirements or procedures are expressly defined to allow prosecutors to restrict or prohibit any attorney-at-law for the defense from being present onsite or recording notes during an investigation. Nonetheless, there is a need for the Ministry of Justice to further clarify these requirements and procedures so that when prosecutors issue restrictions or injunction orders, they record in the statement precisely what facts cannot be made public. This will provide express specifications helping both prosecutors and attorneys-at-law perform their duties. Upon investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Ministry of Justice amended and promulgated Point 28 of the Cautions for Prosecutors in Bringing Criminal Actions, on March 20, 2019, which in principle allows defense attorneys to be present, state opinions, and record the questioning, and expressly provides that the record should not be seized, unless otherwise provided in the law. 41