《监察法》实施中的证据衔接问题

Research on the Coherence of Evidence in the Implementation of the P.R.C.Supervision Law

从证据与程序的关系看,证据不仅需要与待证事实有关联,还是一种法律程序产品,是一系列法律行为后产生的某种结果。不同法律程序在程序目的、程序性质、程序保障、程序严格性等方面存在不同,上述差异影响和塑造了不同性质的证据,进而产生了证据衔接的问题。《监察法》构建了一个独立的法律程序,对公职人员职务违法、职务犯罪行为的调查适用《监察法》及相关规定,监察证据与刑事证据也面临着衔接的问题。监察调查程序与刑事侦查程序相比,在规范密度、权力行使、程序保障等方面存在一定差异。在当前的立法框架下,要求监察机关在收集、固定证据时参照刑事诉讼法的相关规定,有助于优化监察调查的程序环境,为监察证据与刑事证据有效衔接提供正当性。

From the relationship between evidence and procedure, not noly evidence needs to be related to the facts to be proved, but also it is a legal process product and a result of a series of legal actions.Different legal procedures differ in terms of procedural objectives, procedural nature, procedural safeguards, and procedural designs, etc., which influences and shapes different evidence and creates problems of different evidence’s coherence.Supervision Law constructs an independent law procedure, the investigation to the illegal and criminal behaviors of public officials should be regulated by Supervision Law and relevant regulations, the supervision evidence and criminal evidence also face the problem of evidence coherence.Compared with the criminal investigation procedures, the supervision investigation procedures established in the Supervision Law still have certain differences in terms of procedural designs, power exercise, and procedural guarantee.Under the current legislative framework, supervisory investigation is required to refer to criminal procedure law when collecting and fixing evidence.The significance is that it can optimize the procedural environment of supervision investigation and provides legitimacy for the coherence between supervision evidence and criminal evidence.