The Empricial Research About The Effection Of The Application Of The Two Evidentiary Provisions

This paper is written for the practical departments on the application of two evidence"provisions",especially the illegal evidence exclusion rules". In2010the Supreme court,theSupreme People’s Procuratorate,The Ministry of Public Security,Department of Justice andThe Ministry Of State made the two evidences rules together and in July1st the same yearthe implementation of two evidence" provisions", which made up the relevant laws in ourcountry is not the exclusion rule of illegal evidence and blank, to regulate the police obtainevidence, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants, toplays an important role in preventing torture. However, evidence for a two" rules" in thejudicial practice also exposes some defects.The author worked in F city procuratorate last summer,so I have the opportunity toinvestigate the process of carrying out the two evidences rules. By understanding the processof the operation of the practical departments,I found some shortcomings in the two evidencesrules, and analysis of its causes, and finally give some suggestions about entity aspects andprocedure to improve.This paper is divided into four parts, the first part is introduction, briefly introduces thebackground and significance of the two evidences rules; secondly, briefly introduce thecondition before the rules was implemented and discussed the related basic theories; finallydiscribed the author’s writing ideas and deficiencys of this paper.The second part is empirical research. discuss that how the procuratorate and the courtand the police implement the rules by three cases and eight tables.The third part is the shortcomings of the" rules", which is mainly showed from theaspects of entity and procedure in the judicial practice. The entity aspect mainly: the exclusionrange; excluded subject is too many; some details were not refined, resulting in operability isnot strong; the legitimacy of testimony was not verified and investigators did not appear incourt; management system of the investigation organ and custody is unreasonable; proceduraldefects:the way of the program starts, the method of judgement and the standard of proof.The fourth part is to improve the two evidences rules. the author put forward thecorresponding improvement measures to solve the problems which were reflected in the thirdpart, to make two evidence" rules" in practice more operational. The author with the theoretical circles " the illegal evidence exclusion rules" into judicialpractice, the actual real work as the starting point, to examine and analysis the issues inthis paper, the observed phenomenon is entirely from the practice first-hand material, whichmade more convincing. The author combines the two evidences rules especially" the illegalevidence exclusion rules" which reflect the problems in judicial practice, and give somesuggestions which basised on the theory proposed by the academia to make the rules moreoperational. But there are some shortcomings in this paper, because the time of the authorstudy law is not long, theoretical knowledge is not deep, the author hade to based on theresearch investigated by academia to examine the applied effect, at the same time theoreticalinnovation is not very prominent, and the scope of examination is limited to F City, so it can’tcompletely reflect the application effect of the country.