to be a method to monitor mental activities. Thus they may contravene the protection of personal rights and dignity claimed by a modern country ruled by law. Therefore, it is advisable to carefully consider the enactment of written laws to prohibit such examinations. Upon investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Judicial Yuan has proposed a draft of amendments to the current laws. The draft is still under review at the Legislative Yuan. 106. According to Article 160-1 of the Draft Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure proposed by the Judicial Yuan, since polygraph examination results cannot be admitted as physical evidence, they should not serve as conclusive evidence to determine the facts of criminal behavior. However, the existing practices adopted by the Supreme Court in Taiwan, and those applicable in the United States and Germany, all agree that the polygraph examination may be applied as a defensive means to prove the defendant’s innocence, subject to the defendant’s prior approval, and may be favorable to the defendant during the investigation. Therefore, the investigating agency should be allowed to conduct an investigation based on the polygraph examination results, in order to rule out wrongdoing or verify the direction of investigation, which in turn, helps with the investigation. The Executive Yuan should set forth consistent criteria for training, qualification and audit of polygraph examiners, and integrate all procedures into a consistent standard operating procedure for polygraph examinations. This is to ensure the accuracy of such examinations and maintain the concerned parties’ fair litigation rights. Right to Confront Witnesses 107. In order to protect the concerned parties’ right to confront expert witnesses, the expert witnesses should be subpoenaed in the process of a trial, and their qualifications, expertise and impartiality, as well as the assessment process and results thereof, be inspected rigorously through cross examination. The Executive Yuan and Judicial Yuan should protect the concerned parties’ rights of confrontation with the expert witnesses, insofar as the feasibility and practicality of such expert testimony is taken into account. Appeal 108. As provided in Paragraph 1 of Article 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where a defendant in a prison or detention center submits a written appeal to the officer in charge of the prison or detention center during the period of appeal, they will be deemed to have appealed within the period of appeal. In this regard, the Ministry of Justice should clarify the definition of the “officer in charge of the prison or detention center,” the officer’s rank, and whether the definition of “officer” includes any service worker other than the public servant (management personnel) working for the prison/detention center. It is 46