Several things:

1. Could you (or others) please provide us with some more background on the parole system and in particular why it has failed in the past?

2. You claim that you oppose the article on parole because it has been revoked in the past under "farcical circumstances" but looking at both the judicial and criminal acts, parole appears to currently be the only way to have a ban for treason or a ban for conduct violations that was not successfully appealed lifted and is also the only method currently enshrined in law to otherwise deal with very long sentences.
Therefore, I would like clarification on what your intentions actually are - do you want to actually make it possible/easier for people to have their bans lifted or do you want to make it completely impossible (for certain violations)?

3. Have you considered reforming the Parole part? I think the idea is good but I agree that at least part of the implementation is not. I would be quite willing in helping with the design of a new scheme, though currently I lack some information about how the parole system failed precisely (even if the law text does give me some idea).

4. As for the part on prohibitions - I believe that it is a bit redundant currently, though it does specifically allow the banning of organisations from legislatorship only (which may perhaps be wanted in future cases) and also has the assembly vote on such measures - we should consider looking at keeping the option of banning organisations from legislatorship only. I propose looking at creating a unified proscription act which creates the option of banning organisations from legislatorship only and which allows some additional assembly oversight (while still putting the immediate power in the hands of the cabinet).

5. I propose separating the two sections into two separate bills because I believe that the parole one in particular requires further discussion.