摘要
我国境外证据审查规则的特征可概括为:以“国内准据法”审查模式为主,并对来源不同的境外证据采用不同的审查规则。这些规则的创设尽管具有维护国家司法主权、有效打击跨境犯罪的价值考量,但是也存在法规内容过于抽象原则、难以有效满足跨境司法实践需要、不利于促进司法公正和保障当事人合法权益等局限性。通过比较分析世界范围内境外证据审查的不同准据法模式与可采性原则,基于维护我国司法主权独立、尊重他国法律、平衡打击犯罪与保障人权的关系等多重价值的考量,我国宜根据境外证据来源的不同,确立“差异化”的准据法审查模式:对境外执法机关提供的证据,宜采用“取证国准据法”模式,并附加“是否严重影响司法公正”的审查;对我国执法机关参与收集的境外证据,宜采用取证国与证据使用国“双重准据法”审查模式;对其他来源于境外的证据,宜采用“证据使用国准据法”审查模式。基于上述准据法审查模式,可构建具体的证据可采性原则及规则。
The admissibility test of the criminal evidence obtained abroad is gradually focusing on the legality of the evidence.China's regulations on the legality of evidence obtained abroad are abstract and hard to be implemented,and the pattern of following internal laws they apply is also difficult to meet the judicial demands.From the comparative law perspective,the United States,Canada and Britain generally apply a relatively less strict examination standard of admissibility for evidence from abroad than that for evidence collected at home.Moreover,each country usually,depending on its own judicial system and law enforcement practice,follows such principles as the diminished protection of the accused,neutrality,double admissibility.Based on China's laws and law enforcement practice,and by learning from international experience,it is appropriate to adopt a"differential"admissibility test standard,depending on whether there is participation of China's investigation organs in overseas evidence collection,namely,if the evidence is entirely collected by foreign investigation organs,the foreign laws shall be regarded as the applicable laws and the principle of"the diminished protection of the accused"be adopted;if there is participation of China's investigation organs in the evidence collection,both Chinese laws and foreign laws shall be regarded as the applicable laws and the principle of"double admissibility"be followed.
出处
《法商研究》
北大核心
2023年第3期187-200,共14页
Studies in Law and Business
基金
教育部人文社会科学研究资助项目(18YJC820003)
北京市社会科学基金资助项目(17FXB008)
关键词
境外证据
准据法
可采性
Cross-border evidence
applicable law
admissibility
