比较法视野下的文书证据真实性认定规则

The Examination Rule for the Authenticity of Documentary Evidence in Comparative Law Perspective

无论在任何国家的法律体系中,文书证据都存在失真风险。如果在文书证据的审查判断过程中没有有效的方法及时查明上述失真风险,则很难从文书证据的表面特征判断其所记载内容是否与客观事实相符。我国在民事诉讼审判活动中长期采用的是文书证据真实性全面推定规则,由于该项规则过于强调文书证据形式真实的重要性,忽略了对文书证据失真风险的甄别,也缺乏对文书证据实质真实的考察,从而使得在我国民事审判活动中常常无法准确地认定文书证据的真实性,进而导致对案件事实的认定出现偏差。因此,有必要考虑完善我国的文书证据真实性认定规则,要求文书证据举证方承担敦促文书陈述人出庭作证的义务,以强化对文书证据实质真实的审查与认定。

The documentary evidence has the unauthentic risk in any legal system.If there is no effective method to find these risks in the process of evidence examination,it is difficult to determine whether the documentary evidence is authentic.The document evidence was presumed comprehensive authenticity in civil proceeding in China for a long time,if the document evidence is plausible.Because of the Chinese legal system overemphasized the extrinsic authenticity of the documentary evidence instead of examining its unauthentic risks and intrinsic authenticity.It is hard to accurately determine authenticity of documentary evidence in our civil trials,which leads to deviation of confirmation of case facts.To strengthen the examination of the intrinsic authenticity of the documentary evidence,this defective rule in China should be considered to revise by imposing burden of proof on the party who adduces the documentary evidence,which means the party has an obligation to prompt the producer of document to attest in court.