On The Effectiveness And Examination System Of Supervisory Evidence In The Initial Nuclear Stage

After the reform of the supervisory system,the supervisory investigation procedures for suspected job crimes have essentially replaced the job crime investigation procedures previously implemented by procuratorial organs.The reform of the system of duty crime investigations has brought about a major issue of procedural convergence.Compared with other litigation procedures,a preliminary verification phase has been added to the monitoring procedures.However,the nature and content of the surveillance evidence at the initial verification stage are not exactly the same as the nature and content of the evidence collected during the investigation process by the Supervision Law.Therefore,there is some controversy as to the effectiveness of the evidence of the monitoring evidence at the initial nuclear stage.According to Article 33 of the Supervision Law,evidence materials such as physical evidence,documentary evidence,witness testimony,confession and defense of the investigator,audiovisual materials,and electronic data collected by the supervisory authority in accordance with the provisions of this law can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings.When collecting,fixing,reviewing,and using evidence,the supervisory authority shall be consistent with the requirements and standards for evidence in criminal trials.Evidence collected by illegal methods shall be excluded according to law and shall not be used as the basis for case disposal.It can be seen from the first sentence that the use of the word “ may ” is applicable to criminal proceedings for the application of supervisory evidence.Therefore,it is up to the prosecutor's office to determine whether the supervisory evidence is applicable to criminal proceedings,and the same should apply to the supervisory evidence at the initial verification stage.Judging from the second and third sentences,the main provisions are the standards of evidence and rules for the exclusion of illegal evidence.When collecting,fixing,examining,and using evidence,the supervisory authority should be consistent with the requirements and standards for evidence in criminaltrials.However,the initial review stage of the Supervisory Committee was before filing.For the criminal proceedings,the evidence collected before the filing of the case needs to be transformed through investigative procedures,and some are only used as clues for the initial investigation,not all of them are directly adopted.With regard to the review and use of evidence,from the perspective of legislative purposes,the monitoring evidence at the preliminary verification stage is a type of monitoring evidence and should not be invalidated due to the time of evidence collection.Moreover,the rules for the exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings refer to the confession of criminal suspects and defendants collected by illegal methods such as torture,and testimony and victim statements collected by illegal methods such as violence and threats,which should be excluded.If the collection of physical evidence or documentary evidence does not comply with legal procedures and may seriously affect judicial fairness,it shall be corrected or a reasonable explanation shall be provided;if it cannot be corrected or a reasonable explanation is provided,the evidence shall be excluded.In the process of collecting evidence during the initial verification stage,the Supervisory Committee did not require the provision of audio and video recordings,nor did it have other monitoring methods to ensure the legality of the evidence.As a result,the review system is not perfect enough to prove the legitimacy of the evidence collection process at the initial nuclear stage,and it cannot meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law for evidence.In the course of investigating official crimes,the investigation and characterization of many cases rely on the evidence collected during the initial verification stage.Therefore,clarifying the effectiveness of different types of surveillance evidence in the initial nuclear phase,and improving the review system for the evidence collected during the initial nuclear phase,so that the procuratorate can conduct a review of the evidence on the basis of the problems that the current supervisory law urgently needs to resolve.This article is mainly through the method of literature research,through other scholars' research on whether different types of evidence in the preliminary nuclear stage have evidence effectiveness,and consulting related literature.It was finally concluded that only the physical evidence of the initial verification stage collected without technical investigation and which could not be re-obtained during the investigation procedure in the monitoring procedure,and can be used as a conviction on the basis of improving the corresponding evidence review system Basis of sentencing.