Analysis On Ciril Litigation Evidence System Of Our Country

Following the rapid development of the national social economy, many civil cases have been emergedin the different fields of daily life, which accelerate the undergoing innovation of the national civiladjudication system. Taking the principle of the civil evidence collecting institution as the point ofpenetration, Chapter one and two explore and present the definition; aim; subject and object of the civilevidence collecting institution, coupled with its historical evolution and theoretical foundation. The purposeis to make the reader understand the national civil procedural and evidence collecting institution hasalready formed the institution which is the burden of proof of clients as the primary, along with the burdenof proof of court as the security and supplementary.The national procedural law claims that two entities can exercise the authority of the investigation andevidence collection: one is clients themselves and another is court can based on its functional authority andclients’ application. Nevertheless, the situations in which these two types of subjective entity operate theauthority in the practical judicial implement process are not optimistic. In Chapter three, as the primaryentity, the status quos about the exercise of clients on the investigation and evidence collection is concerned.Under the uncompleted established law that regulate the process and measure of safeguard of the clients onthe investigation and the evidence collection, the clients have to adopt the diversified self-saving ways toget the victory of litigation, but result in some negative social phenomenon emerged. For example, theprivate detective industry acquires the personal information through wiretapping others’ handset or fixingthe Mini Camera in room illegally. Besides, the clients give the material reward to witness for gaining theevidence. The consequence is some mercenaries conduct the malicious witness for getting the recompense.To legally analyze these behaviors, the author thought if those evidences which gained from the stealthyrecord and the private detectives can prove the deed of the law cases during the inquisition process, theythus should be admitted in court. Whereas, for the evidence gained from the rewards, author thought itshould be caution on these evidences because of the difficulty on distinguishing either the clients collect theevidence from the rewards or seduce due to the real world’s complexity and uncertain.Next, author describes the status quos about the execution of power of court on the investigation and collection evidence: the amount of the cases which are based on the application on the investigation andevidence collection is far beyond the cases with the court’s functional authority. Besides, for the reason thecourt conducts the investigation and evidence collection based on the application,90%approximatelytransfer the archival data of the relative cases from some institutes. Therefore, the reader can find that thescope about the established law that regulate the investigation and evidence collection is larger than court’sinvestigation and evidence collection in the practical judicial process. If the judge executes theinvestigation and evidence collection, it will be difficult to guarantee issues about the justness of theprocedure and adjudication during the case justice.At the end of thesis, author has express personal point of view by aiming at issue that diversified ofentity execute authority on the investigation and evidence collection. The main suggestions are:establishing the completed law to change the situation that clients execute power on the investigation andevidence collection insufficiently; to complete the scope of the court on the investigation and evidencecollection; to ascertain clients’ instrument and methods on the investigation and evidence collection.