论死刑复核案件中对被告人的法律援助——从《中华人民共和国法律援助法》第25条第1款第5项切入

On Legal Aid to Defendants in Death Penalty Review Cases:From Art. 25.1.5 of the Legal Aid Law

对死刑复核案件中的被告人是否实行强制辩护在理论界一直存在正反不同观点,《中华人民共和国法律援助法》确立了依申请提供法律援助的“中间路线”,立论之基为死刑复核引入法律援助确有必要,但死刑复核程序是不同于一审、二审普通审判的特别救济程序,可依被告人意愿对法律援助的引入方式作适度调整。该法第25条第1款第5项规定的死刑复核法律援助为“法定援助”,第24条规定的因经济困难等原因的法律援助为“酌定援助”,两者性质不同,申请机关、申请事由各异,不应混淆等同。死刑复核案件中的被告人依申请获得法律援助只是立法确立的最低要求。司法机关通过司法解释自增义务,严格自律,设定更高法律援助标准,规定高级人民法院复核死刑案件实行强制辩护有利于保障被告人合法权利。死刑复核是对被告人程序救济的最后一道防线,应细化完善告知权利、提出申请以及指派律师等程序设计,进一步保障辩护律师的阅卷权、提出意见权以及程序救济权。

Theoretically, there have been different views on whether to provide mandatory defense for defendants in death penalty review cases. The Legal Aid Law has established the middle course of providing legal aid on application, which based on a real need for legal aid to be introduced into the death penalty review process, but the death penalty review process is a special relief process different from the first and second trials. The introduction of legal aid can be adjusted appropriately according to the wishes of the defendants. The legal aid for death penalty review provided in Article 25. 1. 5 is statutory aid, which are different from the discretionary aid for defendants with financial difficulties in Article 24 in legal nature, application authorities and application reasons. Therefore, the two should not be confused.Ensuring that defendants in death penalty review cases receive legal aid on application is only the bottomline requirement under the law. The judicial authorities have set a higher standard of legal aid for themselves by issuing judicial interpretations, and this practice of providing for mandatory defense in capital cases reviewed by the High People’s Court outside of the legislation is consistent with the judicial autonomy. The death penalty review is the last line of defense for the defendant’s procedural relief. The defendant’s right to be informed, the right to apply, and the improvement of the procedure design of courtappointed lawyer should be ensured, and lawyers’ right to access case files, right to comment and right to procedural relief should be further protected.