《刑事诉讼法》第四次修改背景下的证据制度完善研究

Research on the Evidence System in the Background of theFourth Amendment to Criminal Procedure Law

推进证据制度建设成为当前《刑事诉讼法》第四次修改所面临的一个紧迫任务。在司法推动主义的演进逻辑下,刑事证据规则整体存在“代行立法”与“司法博弈”特征,并由此形成规则重复冲突与过分重视证明力规则等特定结果。同时,随着案件专门性问题与国际司法协助请求的日益增多,刑事证据制度出现了“专门性证据”与“涉外证据”两个方向的规则演化,并具有自身的特征与挑战。对此,应从宏观与微观两种建构性进路来完善。在宏观层面,应整合证据规则,通过采用“法典+解释”的形式,构建贯穿刑事诉讼全流程的证据规则。在微观层面,对于专门性证据问题应增设专门性证据种类,将专门性报告和事故调查报告等具有专门知识要求的证据纳入其中;对于涉外证据应注重证据能力审查,按照“涉外取证依据被请求国法律,证据评价依据请求国法律”的原则,具体区分评价委托取得的证据、联合或单独取得的证据和委托移交已取得的证据的证据能力。

The construction of an evidence system has been identified as an urgent task in the fourth amendment to Criminal Procedure Law.Within the evolutionary logic of judicial activism,the criminal evidence rules are characterized by“substitutive legislation”and“judicial game”,which have resulted in specific outcomes such as rule repetition and conflicts,and an overemphasis on rules of probative force.Additionally,as the number of specialized issues in cases and international requests for judicial assistance has increased,the criminal evidence system has evolved in two directions:“specialized evidence”and“foreign-related evidence”,each with its own characteristics and challenges.In response to these developments,a macro and micro constructive approach is proposed.At the macro level,the integration of evidence rules is suggested,with the establishment of a comprehensive evidence rule system throughout the entire criminal litigation process,achieved through the form of“code+interpretation”.At the micro level,the resolution of specialized evidence issues is proposed by the addition of specialized evidence types,including evidence with specialized knowledge requirements,such as specialized reports and accident investigation reports,into the system.For foreign-related evidence,the focus should be on the examination of evidence capacity,adhering to the principle that“foreign evidence collection is based on the law of the requested country,while evidence evaluation relies on the law of the requesting country”,with a specific distinction in the evaluation of evidence obtained through commission,jointly or separately,and evidence transferred after being obtained.