论监察证据与审判证据相统一的困境——以《监察法》相关条款而展开

The Dilemma of the Unification of Supervision Evidence and Judicial Evidence——Under the Relevant Provisions of The Supervision Law

国家监察体制改革之后,监察证据独立出来,可直接使用。监察证据是监察机关依据监察程序所收集的证据,而刑事审判证据是检察机关依照刑事诉讼程序所收集的证据。监察证据和审判证据在证据种类、使用规则、法律依据等方面都有较大不同。《监察法》规定监察证据应与刑事审判证据标准相统一,但依不同程序收集的证据如何实现标准一致面临着理论上的诸多困境,包括证据收集和审查标准难以一致、司法权提前介入之嫌疑、监察权性质的反思、《监察法》的独立价值等。这些困境干扰了《监察法》的良好运转,不利于监察体制改革的稳步推进,有必要对此予以思考。

After the reform of the national supervisory system, the monitoring evidence become independent and can be used directly. The evidence of supervision is collected by the supervisory authority in accordance with the monitoring procedure. The evidence of criminal trial is collected by the procuratorate in accordance with the criminal procedure. Monitoring evidence and trial evidence are quite different in terms of the type of evidence, rules of using and the legal basis. The Supervision Law stipulates that the monitoring evidence should be consistent with the criminal trial evidential standard. But how can the different evidences collected on the basis of different procedures achieve the consistent standard is faced with many theoretical difficulties, including the difficulty in evidence collection and examination of consistent standard, and the suspicion of judicial power intervention in advance. These dilemmas interfere with the good operation of The Supervision Law and are not conducive to the steady advancement of the supervision system reform, which is necessary to be considered.