中国司法的实质公开及其保障

The Substantive Openness of Judicature in China and Its Guarantee

基于不同的要求和所呈现出的不同状况,司法公开有全面公开、部分公开、过程公开、结果公开、形式公开、实质公开之分。尽管最高人民法院通过加大司法公开力度,基本实现了由单纯的庭审公开向司法活动的全方位公开的转变以及由以审判程序公开为主向审判程序公开和裁判结果公开并重的转变,使中国司法公开制度初步具有了统一性以及全面性的特点。但也应看到,包括裁判依据、合议庭以及审判委员会的少数不同意见在内的重要环节和内容依然不在公开之列。实质公开的不足必然会影响公开的效果,制约着司法公开终极目标的实现。实现司法公开尤其是实现司法的实质公开,既需要各级法院各类信息平台的建设与完善,更需要不断深化司法制度改革的保障以及不断创新司法工作机制的支撑。从当前来看,应当重点解决司法流程信息还未真正全面公开,裁判依据未能做到详尽公开,合议庭以及审判委员会的少数不同意见不允许公开等问题。

Based on different requirements and situations, open justice could be divided into comprehensive openness, partial openness, procedural openness, resultant openness, formal openness and substantive openness.By reinforcing open justice, the Supreme People’s Court has achieved the transformation from trial openness to comprehensive openness, from procedural openness to openness both on procedure and result, so we could say that the system of open justice in China has been unified and generalized tentatively.However, it should also be noted that the important links and contents, including the basis of adjudication, a few different opinions of the collegial panel and the judicial committee, are still not open.The lack of substantive openness will inevitably affect the effect of openness and restrict the realization of the ultimate goal of judicial openness.The realization of judicial openness, especially the realization of judicial substantive openness, requires not only the construction and improvement of various information platforms of courts at all levels, but also the guarantee of deepening the reform of the judicial system and the support of innovating the judicial working mechanism.From the current point of view, we should focus on solving the problems that the judicial process information is not really fully open, the basis of judgment is not fully open, and a few different opinions of the collegial panel and the judicial committee are not allowed to be open.