On The Evidence Of Capacity - Perspective Of Civil Procedure

The competence or admissibility of the evidence is the most important part in evidence law field. It is the criterion that must be satisfied before the evidence comes to the court and demonstrates the judicial nature of evidence in litigation, which makes it become the core of evidence law. Therefore, the research in the field has much theoretical and judicial significance.The admissibility system of the Anglo-American evidence law is brimmed over with hundreds of complicated rules which are mainly arranged in a special enactment. In most of continental countries, there is no such evidence enactment, they deal with the same problem in civil procedural law. The employment of jury, the adversary fact-finding system and the concentrated proceedings contribute to the differences of two legal systems. "The nature of evidence" is the center of evidence theory in our country and the essential functions of the admissibility rules of evidence are not developed well. Because of the disadvantages in logic, explanation and ideology, the nature of evidence system can not works well in judicial practice. On the other hand, the competence of evidence rules has many advantages in act field, flexibility and ideology, which make the substitution of the former possible.But the integrity of evidence law cannot be acquired only by introduce a conception. Justice, efficiency and harmonization are the vital factors to be account in the construction of the system of admissibility rules. Our country's civil procedure law shares some analogues with continental counties'. Although the Anglo-American admissibility rules of evidence also have their own plausibility, the global tendency in this field is relax the limitation of judicial discretion. Forasmuch, we should make reference to continental country' mode and draw lessons from Anglo-American experience properly in devising our system of admissibility rules.Generally, our system of admissibility rules can be divided into rules of evidence itself and rules coming from procedural demands. Both of them complement each other and depend on each other. Relevance is the heart of the former that includes relevance rules, explanation and restriction rules of relevance. The latter rely on the procedural regulations and is the main part of the system of admissibility rules which stipulate the admissibility of evidence from the aspects such as qualification, the mode and the occasion of the production of evidence.The application of admissibility rules includes the stage and the method to identify the admissible evidence. While the admissibility is appreciated as "admissible qualification" for evidence to be advanced in litigation, the inadmissible evidence should be excluded in the early stage of proceedings as soon as possible. The Anglo-American countries respond to the challenge with the assertion that the inadmissible evidence should be excluded before it comes to the court. Conversely, the continental countries insist on exclude inadmissible evidence gradually through the going-on of the proceedings. Both of the methods have their own advantages. The former develop the "admissible role " better than the latter, but is depend on the division of the admission of the evidence stage and the fact-establishing stage, that makes the method costly. The continental mode has advantages in economy and efficiency that fit the practical situations in our country and should be followed.