Research On The Evaluation Of The Probative Force Of Official-document Evidence

Official-document evidence should be given a clear evidentiary status in civil procedural law.Official-document evidence also should be admitted with definite evaluation of probative force.At the legislative level,China had lacked clear regulations on the determination of the evaluation of probative power of Official-document evidence,until in 2015 the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law established for the first time the rules on the determination of the authenticity of official-document evidence.Academic circles have not reached a consensus on the evaluation of official-document evidence,and it is difficult to form a unified theoretical guidance.Therefore,judges are often at a loss when dealing with problems involving official-document evidence.There are some problems in practice,such as false identification of Official-document evidence,the disorder of judicial interference in administrative,absence of rules for evaluating the probative force,and so on.The legislative cases of foreign countries and regions have basically formed the evaluation mode of documentary proof and have played an important role in litigation.In order to improve the efficiency of litigation,maintain the credibility of administrative organs and the rights and interests of the parties,the relevant rules should be further improved,and its positive role in the determination of facts should be correctly applied and fully brought into play.Therefore,it is necessary to systematize the research on the concept,scope and rules of proof of official-document evidence in order to promote the development and construction of official-document evidence rules.This paper includes three parts: introduction,text and conclusion,in which the text consists of the following four parts:The first part: Basic theories of the evaluation of official-document evidence power.Official-document evidence refers to documents made by state organ,enterprise and institution which has authoritative determination in a specific field,social organizations and other organizations with social management functions according to law in accordance with legal procedures or industry standards within their areas of competence.According to the different contents of the records,the official documents which record the intention expression of issuing authority are called the authoritative document evidence,and the official documents that record the cognition of issuing authority are called declarative document evidence.The probative power of official documents is divided into formal proof and substantive proof.Distinguishing the type of official-document evidence is of great significance for studying the formal and substantive proof of the public document.The second part: The evaluation of probative force of official-document evidence in foreign country.The development of foreign official-document evidence has a long history and has formed a relatively perfect evaluation mode.The legal evidence mode represented by France,that is,the official-document evidence has full evidence validity,formal probative force and substantive probative force are all presumed to be true.Based on the statutory evidence principle,the free testimony is a supplementary evaluation mode which represented by German.German legislation allows the use of evidence to reverse the declarative official-document evidence,but does not allow the use of evidence to overturn a authoritative official-document evidence.The evaluation model of free evidence,represented by Japan,stipulates that official documents have the probative force in form,while the substantive probative force is judged by judges.The third part: The empirical analysis of probative force of official-document evidence.According to the evaluation mode of the probative force of the foreign official-document evidence,the judicial practice in our country can be divided into two types: legal evidence principle model and the judge's free test principle model.By retrieving typical cases and categorizing them,problems are extracted,such as the rules of formal proof are not perfect,the relief method is absent,the boundary between formal probative force and substantive probative force is blurred,and all the documentary evidences have substantial probative force.The fourth part: The establishment of probative force of official-document evidence.First of all,we should construct the presumption rule of formal proof,and stipulate that the judge may inquire ex officio,and at the same time make clear the standard of proof that the party put forward the official document as forgery.Secondly,the administrative act has the public power and the judicial decision has the "self-binding nature".Limiting the substative probative force.It is necessary to distinguish the substantive probative force of a declarative official-document evidence from that of substative probative force.Finally,we should establish the system of objection system which parties raising evidence as the dominant and court assistance.Meanwhile,by punishing the parties who abuse the right of dissent,evade the legal investigation and deliberately obstruct the settlement of disputes to restriced them.