On The Underlying Apprehension Of Supervisory Evidence And Its Optimal Path

Supervisory evidence refers to the materials collected by the State's supervisory organs(National Supervisory Committee and Local Supervisory Committee at different levels)according to the Supervision Law in the process of exercising the power of supervision,investigation and disposal in a manner prescribed by law in order to prove whether the person under investigation has committed duty infraction or duty crime.Supervisory evidence is different from administrative executive evidence,disciplinary inspection evidence and criminal procedure evidence.Supervisory evidence has the same property with administrative executive evidence when used to take administrative disposition against law-breaking public officials;while it is used in case transferred for examination before prosecution,and prosecution of duty crime,supervisory evidence has the essence of criminal procedural evidence.The Party's Discipline Inspection Organs work together with the State Supervisory Organs as one office to implement "two sets of organization,one set of people ".For those who have dual identities of Party members and public officials,both disciplinary review and illegal investigation are carried out simultaneously,which can easily lead to confusion between supervisory evidence and disciplinary inspection evidence.With the existence of these circumstances,it is necessary to further study on the supervisory evidence as an independent and brand-new type of evidence.At present,the research on supervisory evidence is mostly from the perspective of the connection of the Supervision Law and the Criminal Procedure Law.It conducted many discussions on how to connect supervisory evidence with criminal procedure evidence,while only a small part of supervisory evidence applied in the field of criminal procedure in practice.Therefore,the research on supervisory evidence should be in broader perspective to include the acquisition and use of it in supervising and investigating the violations of duty by supervisory organs.From this perspective,many problems can be found.The inadequate regulation of the types of evidence and measures for obtaining evidence in the Supervision Law makes the acquisition and use of supervisory evidence face the predicament of insufficient basis.The potential conflict between the political orientation of supervisory organs and the legal function itself makes the risk of selective collection and use of supervisory evidence.The personnel of the supervisory organs are diverse,and there are great differences in legal literacy and human rights concepts.The leading mode of the Disciplinary Commission after the organs worked together in one office makes the political position superfluous and the human rights protection insufficient,which may lead to the insufficiency of the legality of the supervisory evidence.The strong position of supervisory organs results in the imbalance of coordination and mutual restriction between supervisory organs and other organs.Supervisory covers everyone who exercises public power may result in psychological coercion of judicial personnel.The pre-supervisory procedure may result in the weakness of follow-up judicial review.All these factors may lead to the falsification of judicial review of supervisory evidence.Based on the analysis and research on above mentioned underlying apprehension of supervisory evidence through the method of value analysis,method of semantic differential and method of comparative study,this paper puts forward the path of optimizing supervisory evidence: To improve the Supervision Law and related supporting law.Properly handle the relationship between the political attributes and legal functions of the supervision organs,ensure the objectiveness and fairness of the supervision and investigation to comply with the due process requirement.Comprehensively improve the personnel quality in supervisory organs,strengthen judicial reform centered on trial and build a balanced,scientific and rational power system.