通过保障对质询问权实现庭审实质化——欧美对质询问权判例的考察及启示

孙明泽

doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2018.2253

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

通过保障对质询问权实现庭审实质化——欧美对质询问权判例的考察及启示

孙明泽

文章导航 > bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版） > 2018 > (4): 140-150

孙明泽. 通过保障对质询问权实现庭审实质化——欧美对质询问权判例的考察及启示[J]. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2018, (4): 140-150. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2018.2253

引用本文:

SUN Mingze. Realizing the Substantive Effect of the Court Trial by Guaranteeing the Right of Inquiry—The Investigation and Revelation of the Case of the European and American Right of Inquiry[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2018, (4): 140-150. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2018.2253

Citation:

SUN Mingze. Realizing the Substantive Effect of the Court Trial by Guaranteeing the Right of Inquiry—The Investigation and Revelation of the Case of the European and American Right of Inquiry[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2018, (4): 140-150. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2018.2253

通过保障对质询问权实现庭审实质化——欧美对质询问权判例的考察及启示

doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2018.2253

孙明泽¹

1.
西南政法大学最高人民检察院应用法学研究基地, 重庆 401120

基金项目:

国家社会科学基金项目资助"刑事诉讼特别程序实施问题研究"（12XFX015）;西南政法大学学生科研创新项目博士生项目资助"通讯数据截取程序研究"（2016XZXS-002）;西南政法大学法学院2018年学生科研创新项目博士生项目资助"通过保障对质询问权实现庭审实质化";西南政法大学人权研究院2017年学生科研创新项目资助"通讯数据截取中的人权保护问题研究"（HRI2017B007）

Realizing the Substantive Effect of the Court Trial by Guaranteeing the Right of Inquiry—The Investigation and Revelation of the Case of the European and American Right of Inquiry

SUN Mingze¹

1.
Supreme People's Procuratorate Applied Law Research Base, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing 401120, China

摘要: 坚持以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革是中国当前刑事司法改革的方向，庭审实质化是坚持以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革的必要组成部分。《刑事诉讼法》对关键证人出庭作证制度做出了相应的规定，但是对被告人对质询问权保障的规定还需要进一步的细化。《欧洲人权公约》第6条第3款（d）项和美国宪法第6修正案都规定了对被告人对质询问权的保障，并且在这两个地区都产生了具有指导意义的判例。欧洲人权法院对质询问权的保障经历了从“唯一、决定性规则”向“三步检验规则”的转变，美国对质询问权的保障也经历了从“可靠性标准”向“证言性陈述标准”的转变，对被告人的对质询问权起到了重要的保障作用。中国对质询问权的保障应当在现有关键证人作证制度的基础上进行细化规定，坚持证人出庭作证为原则、不出庭作证为例外，并明确规定例外情形和救济措施，从时间和空间上实现对对质询问权的保障。
- 对质询问权 /
- 庭审实质化 /
- 唯一、决定性规则 /
- 三步检验规则 /
- 证言性陈述
Abstract: The reform of the litigation system which centers on trial is the direction of criminal justice reform in China,and the essential component of the reform of litigation system is to regard trial as the center. The "Criminal Procedure Law" has made corresponding provisions on the system of testifying on key witnesses,but the provisions on defendants' right of inquiry have to be further elaborated. Clause 3 of Article 6(d)European Convention on Human Rights and the sixth amendment of United State Constitution are set to protect the defendant's right of inquiry,and both of them do have the precedent of guiding significance. The European Court of Human Rights has experienced a change from "the only and decisive rule" to the "three-step test rule";the guarantee of America's right to inquiry also has undergone the transition from "reliability standard" to "testimony standard",which plays an important role in safeguarding the defendant's right. The guarantee of China's right of inquiry should be specified on the basis of the existing key witness system. The principle of the witness is required to testify in court,with an exception of testifying out of court,should be upheld, and exceptions and relief measures should be clearly stipulated to protect the right of inquiry from time and space.
- right of inquiry /
- the substantiation of trial /
- only and decisive rule /
- three-step test rules /
- statement of testimony

[1]	孙长永,胡波. 保障与限制:对质询问权在欧洲人权法院的实践及启示[J]. 现代法学,2016(3):109-123.
[2]	ROBERT K. Confrontation at a crossroads:crawford's seven-year itch[J]. Charleston L. Rev,2011(6):49-85.
[3]	CHADS. Confronting big data:applying the confrontation clause to government data collection[J]. Va. L. Rev. 2015(101):2011-2049.
[4]	ABIGAIL S. The military commissions act of 2006:an analysis of the treatment of hearsay evidence and witness confrontation[J]. IJPS. 2007(3):67-84.
[5]	ROBERT K K. Confrontation at a crossroads:crawford's seven-year itch[J]. Charleston L. Rev. 2011(6):49-85.
[6]	JEROLD H,YALE K,WAYNE R L,NANCY J. Criminal procedure and the constitution[M]. Canada:Thomson West,2007:770.
[7]	STEFAN T,SARAH J S. Human rights in criminal proceedings[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006:292.
[8]	ELLEN L Y. Forfeiture of the confrontation right in giles:justice scalia's faint-hearted fidelity to the common law[J]. J. Crim. L. & Criminology,2010(100):1495-1548.
[9]	龙宗智. 我国刑事庭审中认证调查的几个问题——以"交叉询问"问题为中心[J]. 政法论坛,2008(5):22-32.
[10]	孙长永,王彪. 论刑事庭审实质化的理念、制度和技术[J]. 现代法学,2017(2):123-145.
[11]	龙宗智. 庭审实质化的路径和方法[J]. 法学研究,2015(5):139-156.
[12]	熊秋红. 刑事庭审实质化与审判方式改革[J]. 比较法研究,2016(5):31-44.
[13]	徐仲伟. 对大数据、互联网的认识及其本质问题的思考[J]. 重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版),2017(1):83-88.
[14]	张吉喜. 论证人匿名作证制度[J]. 比较法研究,2014(4):113-127.

[1]	杨金慧. 表决权差异安排的类型化思考 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2022, 24(3): 127-138. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2022.0084
[2]	黄绍坤. 平台规则效力判定模式的重构 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2022, (): -.
[3]	吕江. 应对气候变化与生物多样性保护的国际规则协同：演进、挑战与中国选择 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2022, 24(2): 50-60. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2022.0194
[4]	黄丽君. 等同原则的限制性规则 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2021, 23(1): 162-170. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2021.3386
[5]	赵龙. 个人信息权法益确证及其场景化实践规则 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2021, 23(5): 169-178. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2021.1489
[6]	陈霞. 社会自主性的三种提升路径 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2018, (5): 166-172. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2018.2933
[7]	彭德雷. 多边服务贸易规则的重构及其应对 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2015, (5): 133-140. doi: 15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2015.0519
[8]	刘宇. TPP知识产权最大化国际保护新发展析论——以著作权若干规则为切入点 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2014, (4): 123-130.
[9]	朱媛. 论中国岩画的取象规则 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2013, (6): 152-156.
[10]	肖峰, 郑煜. 论欧盟航空排放交易规则下的管辖权冲突——从欧盟法院航空碳税案说起 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2013, (4): 106-111.
[11]	韩雪松. “传移模写”的思想实质 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2012, (5): 145-150.
[12]	夏春利. ITU空间频率轨道资源分配与协调规则研究 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2011, (6): 91-96.
[13]	孔昭君. 论进一步完善国防动员法律体系——关于内蒙古自治区能源动员试点的体会和思考 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2011, (1): 73-78,100.
[14]	孟国碧. 普惠制原产地规则研究——以欧盟为中心 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2010, (4): 84-91.
[15]	何桢, 吴杜. 面向感性设计的关联规则提炼方法的研究 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2010, (4): 38-42.
[16]	彭霞. 欧盟最新技术转让协议竞争规则研究 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2010, (6): 112-115,130.
[17]	肖百灵. 美国法信托变更规则问题研究 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2010, (2): 95-101.
[18]	孙鑫. 最后贷款人规则争议探讨 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2009, (6): 78-81.
[19]	王烽, 王秋玲. 知识交易及其规则与大学组织制度变迁 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2004, (5): 13-16.
[20]	赵秀梅. 证券市场虚假陈述民事责任研究 . bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2003, (4): 21-23.

点击查看大图

计量

文章访问数: 552
HTML全文浏览量: 2
PDF下载量: 396
被引次数: 0

通过保障对质询问权实现庭审实质化——欧美对质询问权判例的考察及启示

doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2018.2253

孙明泽¹

1. 西南政法大学最高人民检察院应用法学研究基地, 重庆 401120

基金项目:

收稿日期: 2017-11-21
刊出日期: 2018-06-09

关键词:

摘要: 坚持以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革是中国当前刑事司法改革的方向，庭审实质化是坚持以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革的必要组成部分。《刑事诉讼法》对关键证人出庭作证制度做出了相应的规定，但是对被告人对质询问权保障的规定还需要进一步的细化。《欧洲人权公约》第6条第3款（d）项和美国宪法第6修正案都规定了对被告人对质询问权的保障，并且在这两个地区都产生了具有指导意义的判例。欧洲人权法院对质询问权的保障经历了从“唯一、决定性规则”向“三步检验规则”的转变，美国对质询问权的保障也经历了从“可靠性标准”向“证言性陈述标准”的转变，对被告人的对质询问权起到了重要的保障作用。中国对质询问权的保障应当在现有关键证人作证制度的基础上进行细化规定，坚持证人出庭作证为原则、不出庭作证为例外，并明确规定例外情形和救济措施，从时间和空间上实现对对质询问权的保障。

English Abstract

Realizing the Substantive Effect of the Court Trial by Guaranteeing the Right of Inquiry—The Investigation and Revelation of the Case of the European and American Right of Inquiry

SUN Mingze¹

1. Supreme People's Procuratorate Applied Law Research Base, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing 401120, China

Received Date: 2017-11-21
Publish Date: 2018-06-09

Keywords:

Abstract: The reform of the litigation system which centers on trial is the direction of criminal justice reform in China,and the essential component of the reform of litigation system is to regard trial as the center. The "Criminal Procedure Law" has made corresponding provisions on the system of testifying on key witnesses,but the provisions on defendants' right of inquiry have to be further elaborated. Clause 3 of Article 6(d)European Convention on Human Rights and the sixth amendment of United State Constitution are set to protect the defendant's right of inquiry,and both of them do have the precedent of guiding significance. The European Court of Human Rights has experienced a change from "the only and decisive rule" to the "three-step test rule";the guarantee of America's right to inquiry also has undergone the transition from "reliability standard" to "testimony standard",which plays an important role in safeguarding the defendant's right. The guarantee of China's right of inquiry should be specified on the basis of the existing key witness system. The principle of the witness is required to testify in court,with an exception of testifying out of court,should be upheld, and exceptions and relief measures should be clearly stipulated to protect the right of inquiry from time and space.

引用本文:

Citation:

SUN Mingze. Realizing the Substantive Effect of the Court Trial by Guaranteeing the Right of Inquiry—The Investigation and Revelation of the Case of the European and American Right of Inquiry[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2018, (4): 140-150. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2018.2253