Research On Exclusion Rules Of Illegal Evidence In Supervisory Organs

After entering a new era,in order to achieve the goal of anti-corruption and governing the country according to law.The government decided to reform the supervisory system by integrating the powers of the aid prosecutor’s office and the administrative supervisory authority,and installing a supervisory authority dedicated to the exercise of supervisory authority.As the main agency for reforming the supervisory system in our country,the supervisory authority mainly exercises its powers from the Supervision Law of China.Because the supervisory law is a new law,there are certain differences between supervisory law and criminal action law,and the connection is not perfect,Especially in terms of the exclusionary rule.For example,there is unclear legislation in the application of illegal evidence in supervision cases,and the two laws are not smoothly connected.Worth noting that illegal evidence in the investigation stage of the supervisory authority of the exclusionary rule fuzzy,is exercised investigate human rights of the defense time is not clear,and audio and video recording "full of" ambiguous problems,leading to the supervisory authority exclusion applicable illegal evidence hard on rules Effective.Therefore,this article will analyze and improve the above matters,proceeding from the principles of protecting the defendant’s right to defend and procedural justice.With this in mind,this article will be divided into five parts for study the new issues of the rules of exclusion of illegal evidence by supervisory authorities.The first chapter mainly expounds the background and the meaning of this research,and then summarizes the similar literature on the recent situation of the illegal evidence research by the supervisory agency.The second chapter is about the related concepts of illegal evidence and the relationship between supervisory and investigative agencies.First,explaining the concept of illegal evidence and the development history of this regulations in China,then explain in detail the current situation of our country’s illegal evidence exclusion law legislation.Secondly,Comparing the relationship between the supervisory agency and the investigative agency,it can be seen that it is a Chinese anti-corruption professional agency with some degree of independence,and the investigation procedure has changed since its establishment.The oversight body,which sets the stage for the subsequent restriction mechanism,and the oversight body and the investigating body have a brief comparison to highlight the characteristics of the oversight body,and finally the oversight body is compared and separated.We analyze the evidence and invest igation evidence and the existing laws and regulations on the exclusion of illegal evidence rules,thereby laying the groundwork for the development of follow-up issues.The third chapter is the supervisory authority to adapt the exclusionary rule discussed the need to respect,including its supervisory system and building the rule of law is requirements of the time,it is good for protect the basic rights of people and it is also the inevitable requirements of procedural justice.In addition,it is emphasized that also plays a guiding role in supervision as a defensive rights,should run t hrough the whole process of the proceedings,including the investigation stage of the supervisory authority.As a follow-up question for theoretical support.Secondly,the rules governing the exclusion of illegal evidence by supervisory bodies are incompl ete at the process of investigation.The fourth chapter Start with four typical cases,discusses the current situation in the practice of the illegal evidence exclusion rules of the supervisory agency,is the main problems existing regulatory process exclusionary rule exists.First,the link between supervisory law and criminal procedure law are still imperfect,especially the connection of the exclusion of illegal evidence.For example,the provisions on "consistent" are relatively general.The main reason this issue is imperfect legislation and lack.The second reason is that the rules of illegal evidence exclusion of oversight bodies are incomplete at the investigation stage.Most importantly,it is not clear that the supervisory authority has rules for exclusion of liens against the person concerned.The location of the investigation and lien is not clear,so illegality can incr ease.It limits the risk of an individual’s freedom to obtain evidence,and the third is that it is hard for the people of investigation to get evidence and clues of illegal evidence,It is hard to apply for the exclusion of illegal evidence.Fourth,it is hard for the them to exercise their rights,and the time is also unclear,and the bar meeting and the norms of lack of communication prevent the subject to find illegal evidence in time.Finally,it concerns an unclear interpretation of the "whole process" of interrogation under investigation,which easily creates blind spots in audio and video recordings,making it impossible to guarantee the integrity and reliability of audio and video recordings.The fifth chapter is to propose a perfect suggestion for the problem mentioned above.First,it is necessary to continuously promote the fusion of illegal evidence exclusion norms in supervisory law and criminal litigation.Secondly,the exclusivity procedure of the supervisory organ in the investigation stage should be made clear,especially the location of the lien.Third,about the time,the improvement of the rules for the right of lawyers to meet and communication,the introduction of the lawyer’s job system for timely discovery of illegal evidence.Fourth,which is the regulatory oversight mechanism,the mechanism of the supervisory authority to approve the illegal evidence.Finally,identify the "whole process" of audio and video recording.