For example, in case X, officer A is the military judge, and officer B is the prosecutor. At the same time, however, in case Y, officer B could be the judge while A is the prosecutor. On 3 October 1997, the No. 436 Interpretation of the Grand Justice ruled that some provisions of the Military Trial Law are unconstitutional or do not satisfy the due process requirement. The No. 436 Interpretation is an earthquake to the present military tribunal system, and the system has been ordered by the Grand Justice to be amended in accordance with the No. 436 Interpretation. The No. 436 Interpretation makes the points below.
Military personnel are citizens in uniforms.
They, in principle, enjoy the same human rights with other citizens. Therefore, their freedom of body and right of litigation shall be protected as others. Institution of the military tribunal system shall meet the due process requirement and shall not be in conflict with the basis of the Constitution, that is, the judicial power of the State is delegated to the Judicial Yuan. Therefore, defendants who are sentenced to imprisonment or a capital penalty shall be given the right to appeal directly to common judicial courts on the basis that the judgements by military tribunals do not apply the law properly. The military tribunal system shall be scrutinised and improved in the aspects pertaining to impartial and independent trials, the separation of judges and prosecutors, qualifications and criteria for military legal personnel and the protection of their official positions.