| As one of the legal types of evidence,witness testimony is widely used in civil litigation.It is of great theoretical and practical significance for the judges to confirm the truth of the case.Because of its strong subjectivity,instability and other characteristics,the identification of witness testimony has always been a big problem in the trial practice.In 2019,the Supreme People’s Court issued article 96 of Several Provisions on evidence in civil litigation,which inherits the original norms,makes basic provisions on the identification of witness testimony,and clearly lists the factors that need to be considered when the witness testimony is accepted.However,according to the investigation,the judicial practice did not strictly follow the clause to judge whether the testimony of the witness is accepted or not.In the application of law,the judge’s determination of the testimony of the witness is actually "based on something else".In fact,the testimony of the witness has not attracted enough attention of the judges,the acceptance rate is generally low,and the testimony of the witness has not played its due function.Therefore,how to respond to the problem of witness testimony identification in judicial practice and legal norms,and to give full play to the litigation value of witness testimony,especially in the context of revision of the provisions on civil litigation evidence,is particularly worthy of attention.This paper takes the system case of article 96 of the provisions on civil litigation evidence applied on the Chinese judicial documents as a model,understands the basis of witness testimony identification in trial practice,investigates the standard basis and judicial practice that witness testimony cognizance should follow,and analyzes the problems in the practice of the standard basis of witness testimony identification.This paper makes a theoretical analysis of the causes of this phenomenon,and finally puts forward some suggestions to improve the system and norms of witness testimony identification. |
