涉恐案件实质审查之困

Difficulties in Substantive Review of Terrorism-related Cases

行政机关在涉恐案件中出具的审读意见是司法机关实质审查的前提,但是由于对恐怖主义定义模糊、自身性质不清和审读标准缺失等原因,严重影响了司法机关的实质审查。基于审读意见具有行政认定的属性,明确司法机关实质审查的重点应落于行政机关是否合法合理地作出违法性判断。具体而言,通过统一对恐怖主义的认识,将数据比对和人工识别的方式相结合,完善数据库和清单名录,划分出宣扬性和非宣扬性两种审读类型并规范审读流程,为司法机关对行政机关违法性判断进行实质审查建立依据。

The review opinions issued by the administrative organs in terrorism-related cases are the premise of the substantive review of the judicial organs. However, the vague definition of terrorism, its unclear nature and the lack of review standards have seriously affected the substantive review of the judicial organs. Based on the nature of the administrative determination of the review comments, it is clarified that the substantive examination of the judicial organs focuses on whether the administrative organs make illegal judgments reasonable and legal. Specifically: by unifying the understanding of terrorism, combining data comparison and manual identification, improving the database and the list directory, dividing the two types of interrogation, declarative and non-declarative, and standardizing the interrogation process, it is possible to establish a basis for the judiciary’s substantive review of the administrative body’s judgment of illegality.