在监检衔接视野下,监检证据标准衔接是学界与实务界共同面临的难题。不同于监察证明标准,监察证据标准仅适用于庭审之前,被用于规范监察机关收集、固定、审查、运用的证据达到“证据确实、充分”、足以提起公诉的程度,并不涉及关于证明...在监检衔接视野下,监检证据标准衔接是学界与实务界共同面临的难题。不同于监察证明标准,监察证据标准仅适用于庭审之前,被用于规范监察机关收集、固定、审查、运用的证据达到“证据确实、充分”、足以提起公诉的程度,并不涉及关于证明力、证明标准的问题,且同时兼具双合法性与独立性之二元属性。通过分析相关法规条文,发现监检证据标准衔接的现存问题主要有:监察证据规范空白与模糊问题,监察调查程序的高度封闭性。针对空白与模糊问题,未来应不断完善立法,并采取以“明确化”和“开放化”为中心的优化路径:即明确适用监察证据标准动态递进逻辑,使监察证据标准由抽象转为具体;通过完善律师帮助权、减少口供依赖和推动监察人员出庭作证,降低监察调查程序“不公开”色彩,打破监察调查程序封闭性。In the context of the convergence of the Law on Supervision and the Law on Criminal Procedure, convergence of evidentiary standards between supervisory and prosecutorial authorities is a problem faced by both academics and practitioners. Unlike the supervision standards of proof, the supervision evidentiary standards only apply before the trial, do not involve the issue of the power of proof and the standard of proof, is to regulate the supervision organs to collect, fix, examine and apply the evidence to reach the degree of “evidence is true, sufficient”, to bring a public prosecution. At the same time, the supervision evidentiary standards combine the dual attributes of legality and independence. By analyzing the relevant legal provisions, the existing problems of convergence of evidentiary standards between supervisory and prosecutorial authorities are found to be: the monitoring of the normative gaps in the evidence and ambiguous issues, the supervision of the high degree of closure of the investigative process. To address the gaps and ambiguities, the legislature should continue to improve the legislation in the future, and take the optimization path centered on “clarity” and “openness”: clarifying the application of the dynamic progressive logic of the supervision evidence standard, so that the supervision evidence standard can be transformed from abstract to concrete;improving the right to counsel, reducing the reliance on confessions, and promoting supervisors to testify in court, in order to make the inspection and investigation process more open.展开更多
文摘在监检衔接视野下,监检证据标准衔接是学界与实务界共同面临的难题。不同于监察证明标准,监察证据标准仅适用于庭审之前,被用于规范监察机关收集、固定、审查、运用的证据达到“证据确实、充分”、足以提起公诉的程度,并不涉及关于证明力、证明标准的问题,且同时兼具双合法性与独立性之二元属性。通过分析相关法规条文,发现监检证据标准衔接的现存问题主要有:监察证据规范空白与模糊问题,监察调查程序的高度封闭性。针对空白与模糊问题,未来应不断完善立法,并采取以“明确化”和“开放化”为中心的优化路径:即明确适用监察证据标准动态递进逻辑,使监察证据标准由抽象转为具体;通过完善律师帮助权、减少口供依赖和推动监察人员出庭作证,降低监察调查程序“不公开”色彩,打破监察调查程序封闭性。In the context of the convergence of the Law on Supervision and the Law on Criminal Procedure, convergence of evidentiary standards between supervisory and prosecutorial authorities is a problem faced by both academics and practitioners. Unlike the supervision standards of proof, the supervision evidentiary standards only apply before the trial, do not involve the issue of the power of proof and the standard of proof, is to regulate the supervision organs to collect, fix, examine and apply the evidence to reach the degree of “evidence is true, sufficient”, to bring a public prosecution. At the same time, the supervision evidentiary standards combine the dual attributes of legality and independence. By analyzing the relevant legal provisions, the existing problems of convergence of evidentiary standards between supervisory and prosecutorial authorities are found to be: the monitoring of the normative gaps in the evidence and ambiguous issues, the supervision of the high degree of closure of the investigative process. To address the gaps and ambiguities, the legislature should continue to improve the legislation in the future, and take the optimization path centered on “clarity” and “openness”: clarifying the application of the dynamic progressive logic of the supervision evidence standard, so that the supervision evidence standard can be transformed from abstract to concrete;improving the right to counsel, reducing the reliance on confessions, and promoting supervisors to testify in court, in order to make the inspection and investigation process more open.
