摘要
如何理解特殊侦查措施,学界存在多种不同的观点。将特殊侦查措施视为秘密侦查的等同物,是符合《办理死刑案件证据规定》第35条立法精神与宗旨的理解。特殊侦查措施所获证据材料长期以来在我国不具备证据能力,必须经"转化"以后才能使用,由此导致诸多执法困境。《办理死刑案件证据规定》第35条虽然力图突破这一长期困扰审判实务的难题,但由于在立法依据、制度设计、制度配套等方面存在着诸多问题,并不能切实解决这一难题,相反可能会滋生出更多的混乱与无序。要解决特殊侦查措施所获证据材料的证据能力问题,应当对《办理死刑案件证据规定》第35实施"休克疗法",最大限度地暂停该条的实施,而维持过去的传统做法,如因证明案情的需要确实要使用特殊侦查措施所获证据材料以指控犯罪,则必须做好配套措施,并切实保障被告人的对质诘问权。
How to understand the special investigative measures？ There are many different perspectives in the current academic circles of jurisprudence. From the legislative purpose of the article 35 of ＂the Regulations on the Issues of Evidence Rules in Capital Cases＂, we tend to consider special investigative measures as the equivalent of secret investigation. Compared with the normal investigative measures, the evidence coming from special investigative measures has no competency of proof for a long time, and it can be used only after convertion. Therefore, it leds to a number of enforcement difficulties. The article 35 tries to break through the practical prob- lems harassing the trial practitioner. But there are many problems in the legislative basis, the system design and, the supporting system, etc. which can not effectively solved by the article 35. Furthermor, on the contrary, it may bring about more confusion and disorder. We have a proposal as followed： Giving the article 35 of shock therapy, suspending the implementation of the article 35 to the fullest extent, and at the same time maintaining the tradition of the past practices. If the case really needs the evidence obtained from special investigative measures to prove criminal facts, we must also do very well in the supporting measures and effectively protect the defendant＇ right to c
出处
《证据科学》
2011年第6期686-701,共16页
Evidence Science
关键词
特殊侦查措施
证据能力
质证
证据材料
Special investigative measures, Competency of proof, Cross-examination, R Evidence materials
