Regulations Governing Prevention of Gender-Related Incidents on Campuses Article 32
When the educational institution or competent authority with jurisdiction sends a written notification of the outcome of the handling of the case to the applicant, the victim, and the offender, it shall also provide the investigation report and inform them of the time limit for requesting a reconsideration, and the educational institution or competent authority which will accept a request for reconsideration.The outcome of the handling of the case referred to in the preceding paragraph will include the established facts, measures to be taken, and the outcome of disciplinary action.If an applicant, victim, or offender is dissatisfied with the outcome of the handling of the case by the educational institution or competent authority with jurisdiction, they may submit a written request for reconsideration to the educational institution or competent authority with jurisdiction, specifying the grounds for reconsideration, within thirty days from the day following the day that they received the written notification. If a person makes such a request orally, the educational institution or the competent authority that accepts the request shall create a printed transcript of the request for the applicant, the victim, or the offender to sign or affix their personal seal to, after the transcript has been read aloud to them or they have personally read it and they have confirmed that it contains no errors.After receiving a request for reconsideration, the educational institution or competent authority will handle it in accordance with the procedure below:1. After the responsible unit designated by the educational institution or the competent authority receives the request, it shall set up a review panel and within thirty days make a decision and affix the reasons for the decision, and the educational institution or the competent authority shall give the person who requested a reconsideration a written notification of the outcome of their request.2. The review panel referred to in the preceding subparagraph shall comprise three or five people who include at least one gender equity education expert or scholar and at least one legal professional. At least half of the members of the team shall be female. At least one third of the team at an educational institution shall be experts or scholars with professional expertise and experience in the investigation of campus gender-related incidents and such experts or scholars shall comprise at least half of the team at a competent authority.3. Members of the gender committee or the investigation team are not permitted to serve as members of the review panel.4. When the review panel conducts a meeting, the members of the panel will select a convener who will also chair its meetings.5. When the review panel is holding its meeting(s), if it is considered necessary, it may give the person making the request for reconsideration an opportunity to make a statement, and it may invite members of the gender committee or investigation team to attend in a non-voting capacity and provide explanations.6. When there are grounds for a request for reconsideration, communicate the decision that grounds exist to the associated responsible unit which will re-handle the case. When there was any significant flaw in the investigation procedure as defined in Paragraph 3 of Article 37 of the Act, or if there is some new fact or new evidence that is sufficient to affect the conclusion of the original investigation, it may ask the gender committee to reinvestigate the incident.7. Before the decision made on the request for reconsideration referred to in the preceding subparagraph is sent to the person who made the request, that person may withdraw their request mutatis mutandis in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.The significant procedural flaws in the investigation procedure referred to in Paragraph 3 of Article 37 of the Act, and in Paragraph 3 of Article 30 of these Regulations refers to one of the following circumstances:1. The composition of the gender committee or the investigation team is unlawful.2. Failure to provide any one of the parties involved with the opportunity to make a statement.3. Failure to recuse when recusal is mandatory.4. Failure to investigate evidence that warrants mandatory investigation.5. Flawed acceptance or rejection of evidence which affected the determination of the facts.6. Other significant procedural flaws sufficient to affect the determination of the facts.
中文原文 校園性侵害性騷擾或性霸凌防治準則第32條
事件管轄學校或機關將處理結果，以書面通知申請人、被害人及行為人時，應一併提供調查報告，並告知申復之期限及受理之學校或機關。
前項處理結果，內容包括事實認定、處置措施及議處結果。
申請人、被害人或行為人對事件管轄學校或機關處理之結果不服者，得於收到書面通知次日起三十日內，以書面具明理由向事件管轄學校或機關申復；其以言詞為之者，受理之學校或機關應作成紀錄，經向申請人、被害人或行為人朗讀或使閱覽，確認其內容無誤後，由其簽名或蓋章。
學校或主管機關接獲申復後，依下列程序處理：
一、由學校或主管機關指定之專責單位收件後，應即組成審議小組，並於三十日內作成附理由之決定，以書面通知申復人申復結果。
二、前款審議小組應包括性別平等教育相關專家學者、法律專業人員三人或五人，其小組成員中，女性人數比例應占成員總數二分之一以上，具校園性別事件調查專業素養之專家學者人數比例於學校應占成員總數三分之一以上，於主管機關應占成員總數二分之一以上。
三、原性平會委員及原調查小組成員不得擔任審議小組成員。
四、審議小組召開會議時由小組成員推舉召集人，並主持會議。
五、審議會議進行時，得視需要給予申復人陳述意見之機會，並得邀所設性平會相關委員或調查小組成員列席說明。
六、申復有理由時，將申復決定通知相關權責單位，由其重為決定。
有本法第三十七條第三項所定調查程序有重大瑕疵或有足以影響原調查認定之新事實、新證據時，得要求性平會重新調查。
七、前款申復決定送達申復人前，申復人得準用前項規定撤回申復。
本法第三十七條第三項及本準則第三十條第三項所定調查程序有重大瑕疵，指有下列情形之一者：
一、性平會或調查小組組織不適法。
二、未給予當事人任一方陳述意見之機會。
三、有應迴避而未迴避之情形。
四、有應調查之證據而未調查。
五、有證據取捨瑕疵而影響事實認定。
六、其他足以影響事實認定之重大瑕疵。
前項處理結果，內容包括事實認定、處置措施及議處結果。
申請人、被害人或行為人對事件管轄學校或機關處理之結果不服者，得於收到書面通知次日起三十日內，以書面具明理由向事件管轄學校或機關申復；其以言詞為之者，受理之學校或機關應作成紀錄，經向申請人、被害人或行為人朗讀或使閱覽，確認其內容無誤後，由其簽名或蓋章。
學校或主管機關接獲申復後，依下列程序處理：
一、由學校或主管機關指定之專責單位收件後，應即組成審議小組，並於三十日內作成附理由之決定，以書面通知申復人申復結果。
二、前款審議小組應包括性別平等教育相關專家學者、法律專業人員三人或五人，其小組成員中，女性人數比例應占成員總數二分之一以上，具校園性別事件調查專業素養之專家學者人數比例於學校應占成員總數三分之一以上，於主管機關應占成員總數二分之一以上。
三、原性平會委員及原調查小組成員不得擔任審議小組成員。
四、審議小組召開會議時由小組成員推舉召集人，並主持會議。
五、審議會議進行時，得視需要給予申復人陳述意見之機會，並得邀所設性平會相關委員或調查小組成員列席說明。
六、申復有理由時，將申復決定通知相關權責單位，由其重為決定。
有本法第三十七條第三項所定調查程序有重大瑕疵或有足以影響原調查認定之新事實、新證據時，得要求性平會重新調查。
七、前款申復決定送達申復人前，申復人得準用前項規定撤回申復。
本法第三十七條第三項及本準則第三十條第三項所定調查程序有重大瑕疵，指有下列情形之一者：
一、性平會或調查小組組織不適法。
二、未給予當事人任一方陳述意見之機會。
三、有應迴避而未迴避之情形。
四、有應調查之證據而未調查。
五、有證據取捨瑕疵而影響事實認定。
六、其他足以影響事實認定之重大瑕疵。