A Primary Study Of Testimony Standard Of Administrative Litigation

Testimony standard and burden of proof of administrative litigation form the core of the evidence theory of administrative litigation. Study of testimony standard is an inevitable demand of deepening and reforming the system of administrative litigation. The research of the text to this topic goes on from several following respects mainly: firstly analyze the difference between testimony standard and relevant concepts in depth, and probe into the intension of testimony standard on this basis. Testimony standard is different from the burden of proof, but has close connections with it. Secondly, investigate the testimony standard of civil action and Criminal suit in two fundamental legal families, and draw its enlightenment to the testimony standard of administrative litigation: though the division way and division basis of testimony standard are different in two fundamental legal families, in both the two legal families the testimony standard of criminal suit is much stricter than that of civil action .There in no uniform testimony standard in various countries. To different targets which need to be proved, the testimony standards are different to some extent. The testimony standard of administrative legislation is seldom mentioned, in practice, most countries use the testimony standard of civil action. This practical thinking can offer some enlightenment to the testimony standard of administrative litigation that we are analyzing and probing into. Moreover, in the context of realistic cases, analyze the understanding difference of testimony standard between judges and scholars. Finally, on the basis of analyzing a great deal of influencing factors of it, expound the content of the testimony standard of administrative litigation. The analysis of testimony standard can go on from two aspects, first, the aspect of the macroscopic, can call it the legislative aspect, analyze to what extent the judges' cognizance to fact should reach, "objective truth" or "legal truth" ? Second, the aspect of the microcosmic, can call it the judicial aspect, analyze to what extent the judges' cognizance to fact should reach in idiographic cases, high probability, or elimination of reasonable suspicion? Drawing the lessons from the testimony standards of the two legal families, in the context of the fundamental property and characteristic ofadministrative litigation of our country, I think, the administrative litigation of our country should distinguish different objects to be proved, establish different testimony standards, namely the probability advantage, high probability and elimination of reasonable suspicion.