The Study Of The Sanction Of Obstruction Of Evidence In The Civil Procedure

The spoliation of evidence become a common phenomenon in civil litigation, the behavior serious impact on the lawsuit fairness between the parties and the judicial order, so it is necessary to regulate the spoliation of evidence.In this paper, introduce the concept of the spoliation of evidence. discusses the definition of behavior, and discusses the various areas and scholars about the definition of its theory, draw their own views. In order to better understand the nature of the prove that interfere with the behavior, and to analyze it from the aspects of its constituent elements, including the subjective, subject, objective and object elements.After the basic attributes of clarity that hinder, then to regulate this behavior. The regulations of it is helpful to carry out the principle of good faith, on the other hand, it is helpful to achieve judicial justice. The article introduces the two major legal systems to prove hinder several theories of the actions.Such as the civil law of the burden of proof conversion, the free evaluation of evidence and prove standard to reduce, the group tried to give an indication of the negative presumption, in the common law system, eliminate the obstruction actor directly to the court of the use of the relevant evidence and make the final judgment. Because of the two legal systems of legal basis and legal system is different, so the regulation is different. There is a lot of enlightenment for the perfection of our country law.Although our country "the civil procedure law", "to check and revise regulations" and "the rules of evidence" proving that the interfere with the behavior from different angles to touch, but it’s more humble and not detailed, It cannot be a good guide for the judicial practice. Our country in terms of obstruction of behavior and its regulation has the following problems: First: the legislative content is simple, lacking the principle provisions impede behavior. Such as China’s "Civil Law" Article 111 of the obstructionist prove punitive measures may be taken to enforce the measures and criminal matters, But it only from the point of view of public law remedies, the facts of the case and operational issues identified are not defined in detail. For this prejudice is just setting out on a specific behavior, and lack of the provisions in principle. Second, the legal form is lower ranking. Third, its constituent elements is imperfect. Law and relevant judicial interpretation of our country is only limited to prove prejudice to the main parties, ignoring the matter outside third party. Fourth, the application of the legalconsequences is single. Five, prove obstructionist procedural safeguards are inadequate. To solve the above problem, in order to better improve our regulation prove prejudice, I made the following suggestions to improve:First, to establish the terms of the relevant principles. Second, to enhance its legal manifestation rank.For example, in the "law of evidence" in a special chapter to set the relation about the sanction of spoliation of evidence, but not limited to the judicial interpretation of low ranking. Third, to rich the constituent elements of spoliation of evidence, be expanded to improve their subject and subjective elements and to classify its legal consequences. Fourth, to distinguish hinder behavior and take the appropriate legal consequences by its legal remedies, and to give judges discretion related. Finally, we must pay attention to the subject of spoliation of evidence about the procedural safeguards were perfect.