The Detainee’s Right To Know

The criminal procedural of our country on the detainee’s right to know contentformulated less and less specific, resulting in operation of criminal judicial practice difficultyis greater, not helpful to achieve the purpose of setting up the detainee’s right to know. Inorder to improve this situation, the author from the meaning of the right to know, interpretatesthe detainee’s right to know, integrating various scholars understanding of the concept. Inorder to set the detainee’s right to know, according with our country’s actual needs, combinedwith China’s judicial practice, expanded the subject of the right to know, no longer confinedthe subject of detainee’s right to know personally, but extended to close relative person whohas a stake with each other, and strive to make right to know can really implement. In addition,the author also focus localization in the judicial process which is often criticized for custodyof criminal suspects, for the stage of prosecution and trial, the detainee’s right to know is notin the discussion.To explain the necessity of establishing the detainee’s right to know in our country, thearticle from the angle of guaranteeing the human right in criminal activities, reflecting thesubject position of suspect, realizing the balance between the prosecution and the defense,preventing the abuse of public power and establishing the judicial authority, analyses the basicof the detainee’s right to know, reflects the urgency of building the system in our country.As a result of our country on the system content and the judicial practice operation is less,to establish and perfect the system, the author introduces some rules form other countries.From the countries of the right to know in the set of the obligation of informing, the way torealize the right to know and the protection of the right to know, listed the main countries’provisions of the detainee’s right to know. Although each country in the system and ideas vary,but to the part of the content about the right to know is still relatively similar, according tosummarizing of their similarities, author analysis various initiatives in establishing the rightand studies the system of regulation.At the same time, the author also presents the relevant rule of the right, in view of ourcountry existing on the rule of the right to know, contrast rules of the right to know with othercountries, there is a gap between our country and other countries in establishing the system ofthe right to know. The gap is mainly reflecting in the obligation of disclosure, the way toexercising the right difficultly, and the channel to succor the detainee’s right to know. Researching the existent problem in the judicial practice of the right to know, andactively introducing the solution to the problem in other countries, to improve our system ofthe right of any obligation of content. The author has expanded to inform the content range,and to inform the way to carry out the provisions; in order to ensure legitimacy that thedetainees was taken custody, set up a pretrial hearing procedure; the detainee was difficulty infinding evidence, increased the procedure of the prosecution evidence for detainee, extendedthe lawyer marking the paper, formulate the scope of the prosecution evidence. In addition,formulating the detainees and the defense attorney’s communication and the succor way to thedetainee for violating the detainee’s right to know. Hope to establish the system of thedetainee’s right to know which accord with the condition of our country.