萬國法律事務所

According to Article 8 and 16 of the ROC Constitution, personal freedom and the people’s right to litigation must be protected. In all cases, the personal freedom must not be deprived without due process.

The ROC Code of Criminal Procedure’s Article 33(1) states that a defense attorney may examine the case file and exhibits and make copies or photographs during the trial procedure and Article 101(3) stipulates that the accused and his defense attorney must be informed of the facts relied upon in support of a decision to detain the accused, and that the same must be stated in the record. The authorities have interpreted these Articles as meaning that the accused and his defense attorney are permitted only to know the facts on which the decision to detain him/her was based. The Court declared that this interpretation by the authorities violates Articles 8 and 16 of the ROC Constitution.

Nevertheless, if there are facts sufficient to justify an apprehension that an accused may destroy, forge, or alter evidence, or conspire with a co-offender or witness to commit acts that harm the investigation or threaten others’ lives and or personal injury, the right to know certain relevant evidence may be limited or prohibited.

The Court ordered the ROC Government to revise the Code of Criminal Procedure within one year from the date of publication of this Interpretation to reflect and include clarification of this interpretation and clarification. If the revision is not completed within one year from the issuance of this Interpretation, the detention review procedure of the Court shall comply with this Interpretation.