Procedure Of Criminal Appealing Review

With the growing legal awareness among people, the circumstances of appealing against the criminal ruling and verdicts of People’s Court are rising, so with the calling for procedural justice. As one of the prerequisite for initiating reviewing procedure, reviewing of criminal appeal conducted by procuratorial organs possesses the function of distinguishing the facts. Whereas, the current procuratorial organs are revealing their defects in the processing procedures, to cite a few, the problems of difficulties for the registration and acceptance and error-correction in reviewing cases are severe and awaits for reform. Through studying on the current running of procuratorial organs of China in their criminal reviewing procedures, this paper puts forward problem-focused concrete vision for restructuring the reviewing procedure of our country’s criminal appeals, thus to carry out the legal supervision, legal justice and human right protection functions of judicial activities by procuratorial organs.Apart from the introduction, this paper consists of four parts with a total of more than thirty thousand words in the main body.The first part has mainly expounded on the relative concepts and nature of procedure of criminal appealing reviewing(PCAR). To begin with, to study the general concepts and to summarize the three characters of the procedure, i.e., absence of relevant provision, the objective existence in judicial practices, and the dual nature for terminating reviewing and initiating retrial; Secondly, to conduct the property analysis which consists of two parts: the definition of the lawsuit rights for “appealing” as well as the concrete analysis of PCAR property combined with trial supervision procedure. At last, to definite the importance of PCAR in criminal lawsuits by studying its value.The second part investigates on the operational mode and effects of PCAR carried out by procuratorial organs. In this part, with a view to legislation, the paper has introduced four phases of PCAR respectively, namely, the acceptance phase, registration phase, reviewing phase and conclusion phase by focusing on processing of reviewing works. After that, the paper analyzed the current running status of PCAR through data analysis.The third part has concluded the fundamental defects of PCAR, to be exact, the procedure doesn’t reveal the characters of appealing, instead, it is completely an administrative process to go through. The paper has made a comprehensive analysis on the existing problems of PCAR from three aspects of concept, legislation and operation. Firstly, the hypercorrection in the guiding principle of “mistakes must be corrected” and the conservatism in executing procurators’ protest rights; Secondly, from the legislative aspect, there are missing authorities for the procurators’ in their investigation and evidence-collection, same as the irrational settings of case review and protest standards. At last, from the operational aspect, the reviewing methods adopted by procuratorial organs are mainly paper review and are easily led to non-participation problems due to closure to the plaintiff.In the forth part, the paper has put forward suggestions for completing PCAR in China. The author made comments on the existing problems of PCAR as mentioned in the third part, as well as the reform ideas for PCAR in China in the following aspects: firstly, we should put the principle of "assuming disputed crimes innocence" into practice by reforming notions to highlight the error-correction awareness; Secondly, to make reference from exterritorial laws to propose solutions for completing procuratorial organs in their authorities for investigation and evidence-collection; On the one hand, to construct the case review registration and appealing standard to open channels for case review by lowering the bar, on the other hand, to prominent human right protection for defendant by differentiating between the favorable/unfavorable protest reasons in the legislative process. Finally, to establish appealing review hearing system to realize the notion of “openness for fairness”.