【作者】 周强；

【导师】 童之伟；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 人身自由权是公民宪法基本权利之一,被追诉人人身自由保护是一国法治建设的重要内容。在我国当前形势下,被追诉人人身自由保护领域存在很多问题,实践中冤案、错案屡有发生。虽经最高人民检察院、最高人民法院、公安部等部门历次整顿,但生效甚微。本文将采用模式归纳法、历史分析法、个案分析法、比较分析法等研究方法,对保护被追诉人人身自由的宪法条款之实施作一个检视,以期反思现有问题并寻找症结所在。本文认为:在保护被追诉人人身自由宪法条款实施过程中,我国采用了一种以权力制约权力的权力主导的人身自由保护模式。在实践中这一模式出现了部分失灵。根本原因在于在我国宪法民主集中制原则下,各权力之间较难真正做到有效制约。而通过加强权利对权力的制约,可以有效弥补现有模式之不足,完善对被追诉人人身自由的保护。我国《宪法》第37条规定了公民人身自由权,其中在第2款详细规定了逮捕的实施条件。从形式上来看,宪法人身自由保护条款属于我国宪法中较为少见的“完整法规范”,明确设定了义务、提出了要求,具备了直接适用的条件。从内容上来看,宪法人身自由条款的三款内容环环相扣、层层递进,共同构筑了我国人身自由保护的基本框架制度。在人身自由保护方面,我国宪法条文体现出了通过制约权力来保护人身自由权的自由观,并以逮捕措施为中心来构建人身自由保护制度。通过对宪法条文的分析我们发现,我国宪法采取了一种以权力制约权力的人身自由保护模式,寄希望于通过合理配置刑事追诉权并形成权力之间的相互制约来实现对被追诉人人身自由的保护。这是一种以权力为中心、权力主导下的模式,在这一模式中,公民和被追诉人权利被置于次要地位、被动地位。《刑事诉讼法》以立法的形式实施了保护被追诉人人身自由的宪法条款。《刑事诉讼法》以惩罚犯罪和保障人权为目的,人身自由保护作为基本人权属于《刑事诉讼法》的双重目的之一。人身自由不但是刑事被追诉人重要的诉讼权利,也是公民最重要的宪法基本权利之一。我们应从宪法的视角出发来正确处理这双重目的之间的关系,在二者发生冲突时作出正确的取舍。刑事诉讼法以公检法三机关分工负责、互相配合、互相制约为基本原则,在这一原则框架下,被追诉人的人身自由保护格局可以归纳为是:三机关分工负责和两节点的配合与制约,辅之以对被追诉人若干权利的配置。三机关的分工负责是制约的前提,也是被追诉人人身自由保护的基本环境。在这一前提下,刑事诉讼在公安机关与检察机关之间,以及检察机关与法院之间这样前后相衔接的两个机关和两个阶段上形成了配合与制约。而被追诉人人身自由的保护主要就在这两个节点、三个机关的制约中来实现。要正确理解配合与制约。配合和制约都要求是在制度和法律框架之内来完成,不能无限制的制约,也不能无原则的配合。这种配合应是宏观的而不是微观具体的,主要应从立法和权力配置方面来理解而不应过多纠缠于具体的执法层面,主要意指和表现为三机关共同的诉讼目的和任务,未必有意在具体制度中来一一落实。可见,我国刑事诉讼法实施宪法条款所规定的人身自由保护制度也是采取了以权力制约权力为主、以被追诉人的权利制约国家权力为辅的模式。我国立法所确立的人身自由保护模式在实践中取得了一定成就,但现实生活中不断出现的冤案、错案说明我国在被追诉人人身自由保护方面还存在着很多的问题和不足之处。实践中,侵犯被追诉人人身自由主要表现为以下几种形式:违法逮捕和拘留、超期羁押、错判羁押,以及非法搜查、刑讯逼供等。考察赵作海等典型案例我们发现两个重要的现象:在大多数的错案中都存在检察机关反复将案件退回公安机关补充侦查的情况,而且在很多错案中都出现了审判中案件被反复发回重审的情形。这些现象反映了公检法机关对于案件认定的不一致,体现了相互之间的制约。但在几乎所有这些案件中,我们又都能看到所谓“有关部门”的协调,而上述错案都是在反复胶着之后经过协调被定案的。反思错案的发生,究其原因,根本上来说还是我国现行人身自由保护的以权力制约权力的模式与宪法民主集中制原则存在一些不协调之处,导致其制约功能和效用很难真正发挥。而这一模式自身也存在一些缺陷,包括权利配置不足,以及权力分工不完善。我国刑事诉讼中公检法三机关权力平行配置,其结果是弱化了法院的司法权而使得诉讼的重心前移到侦查和审查起诉阶段,头重脚轻。现有制度和模式注重对逮捕等强制措施的决定权的制约,忽视了逮捕后的羁押问题上的制约。而本该负有监督权的检察机关对发生于其他国家机关尤其是公安机关权限范围内的强制措施和羁押的适用,既缺乏对监督权的配套制度的保障也缺乏足够的动力去主动监督。权利配置不足,导致权利的主动性无法发挥,权利主体只是“被”保护的对象,当权力之间无法形成有效制约甚至权力之间出现妥协和交易的时候,权利无法参与其中并发挥积极作用。在实践中,政法委等协调机构的存在使得刑事诉讼中的公检法三权事实上发生了融合,只重配合不重制约。而当制约失灵的时候,被追诉人人身自由自然也得不到保护。域外国家和地区在被追诉人人身自由保护方面均形成了自己的做法。通过对其制度的考察及对近期一些国家刑事司法改革动向的考察,我们能得出一些有益的启示:域外国家和地区在被追诉人人身自由保护方面往往是宪法与刑事诉讼法协同保护,权力制约权力模式与权利制约权力模式并举。而在权力制约权力的过程中往往较为注重司法权对其他权力的制约作用。为了确保保护被追诉人人身自由宪法条款的有效实施,有必要对现有的人身自由保护模式加以改造。我国现有被追诉人人身自由保护模式的特点在于强调权力的分配和制约,但囿于配套制度和现实环境的条件限制,其保护被追诉人人身自由的功能难以真正发挥。对于当前我国人身自由保护领域反映出来的问题,学者和实务人员作了详尽分析并提出了种种改进方案,但这些措施和方案多是针对局部性的特定问题提出的,没有对我国人身自由保护的模式进行整体上的反思,这大概就是被追诉人人身自由权难以落实的真实原因。模式的问题必须靠模式来解决。有鉴于此,可以考虑在现有模式下加大权利的内容和比例,通过扩张权利来实现对权力的制约,直接实现对权利的保护。权利与权力为法的基本要素。权利相对于权力具有本源性,这决定了权利与权力关系的基本方面应当是权力服从权利、权利控制权力。权利与权力之间具有相互转化和此消彼长的关系,权利的扩张必然会导致权力的限缩。权利与权力关系的上述基本内容决定了以权利制约权力的模式是可行的、有效的。当然,从总体上来看,权利与权力之间应当保持均衡。综上,本文认为,有必要从以下几个方面入手来确保我国保护被追诉人人身自由宪法条款的有效实施,实现被追诉人人身自由的全面直接保护:赋予公民以发动人身自由保护模式的权利,完善人身自由保护模式的启动机制;强化公民权利对人身自由保护模式的干预能力,规范人身自由保护模式的合理正常运作;建立和完善权利救济机制,尤其是宪法权利救济机制,以确保权利对权力的有效制约;进一步合理分配权力以形成权力间的有效制约。随着这一模式在运行机制和内容上的完善,随着被追诉人权利范围的扩大、权利保障的强化,其所带来的必然结果会是导致相对的国家追诉权力受到更多的限制,公检法机关所拥有的权力整体性收缩,权力被压缩,那么相应的政法委等相关部门可运作的空间也就随之缩小,权力滥用的危害自然也会减少。这一新模式对现实同样有其针对性和适用性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Personal freedom is a fundamental civic right in the Constitution. The protection of personal freedom of the accused is an important part of the rule of law in every country. Under the current circumstances of China, there are many problems in the protection of personal freedom of the accused, which often cause unjust and misjudged cases in practice. Although rectified for many times by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Supreme People’s Court and the Ministry of Public Security, it’s hardly effective. The dissertation tries to reconsider the existing problems and their causes through examining the execution of the protection of personal freedom of the accused. Various research methods are used here, such as the induction of models, historical analysis, case analysis and comparative analysis.The author believes that the current model of protection of personal freedom of the accused of our country is mainly restriction of power with power, which is power oriented. In practice this mode sometimes does not function properly. The main reason is that it is difficult to restrict effectively between different powers under the principle of democratic centralism. The current model can be improved through strengthening restriction of power with rights.Article 37 of the Constitution of China stipulates the rights of personal freedom of the citizens, and the conditions of arrest are clearly stipulated in Clause 2. In terms of form, the clauses of the Constitution provide a rare vollstandige Rechtsnormen in the protection of personal freedom, and stipulate obligations and requirements, which is capable of direct application. In terms of content, the three clauses under the Article of personal freedom in the Constitution are closely related to each other and construct the fundamental framework of protection of personal freedom. The terms in the Constitution try to protect personal freedom through restriction of power, and construct the protecting system of personal freedom through the practice of arrest. Through the analysis of the clauses of the Constitution, we can tell that the Constitution adopts a protection model of restriction of power with power, and hopes to protect the personal freedom of the accused by allocating the power of national prosecution reasonably and forming a mutual restriction within the powers. This is a model centered with power and oriented by power, within which the rights of the citizen and the accused are reduced to a secondary and passive status.Criminal Procedural Law put the clauses of protecting the personal freedom of the accused in the Constitution into effect through legislative form. Its main purposes are punishment of crime and assurance of human rights. Protection of personal freedom, a fundamental human right, belongs to one of the purposes of the Criminal Procedural Law. Personal freedom is not only a litigation right of the accused, but also one of the most fundamental rights in the Constitution. The relationship between the two purposes should be handled properly from the constitutional perspective, so that right choice can be made when there is a conflict between them. In this framework of this principle, the pattern of protection of personal freedom of the accused can be reduced to division of labor, coordination and restriction within the three institutions of the Public Security Bureau, the Procuratorate and the Court, supplemented by allocation of rights of the accused. The division of labor is the premise of restriction and the conditions of the protection of personal freedom of the accused. Under this premise, coordination and restriction can be achieved between the Public Security Bureau and the Procuratorate and between the Procuratorate and the Court. The protection of personal freedom of the accused is mainly carried out through the restriction of the three institutions. Allocation and restriction should be understood properly. They should be accomplished within the framework of the system and law, and should not be extended to the extreme. The allocation should be done at the macro level instead of micro or specific level. In other words, the allocation should be done at the level of legislation and power instead of the level of law enforcement, driving at the mutual judicial purpose of the three institutions instead of being put into practice in specific systems. It is thus clear that the Criminal Procedural Law also adopts the model of restriction of power with power supplemented by restriction of the national power with the rights of the accused.In practice, the model of protection of personal freedom established by the legislation of our country has made certain achievements, but the constant occurrence of unjust and misjudged cases demonstrates the problems and insufficiency in the protection of personal freedom of the accused. In practice, violation of the rights of personal freedom of the accused is mainly show in the forms of illegal arrest and detention, detention beyond the legally prescribed limits, detention caused by erroneous judgement, illegal search and extorting confessions by torture. Two important features are found in cases like that of Zhao Zuohai. One is that most misjudged cases were repeatedly returned to the Public Security Bureau for supplementary investigation, and the other is that many misjudged cases were remanded for retrial. Both these features represent the discordance and restriction between the three institutions. However, in almost all these cases, the coordination of relevant departments is observable, and the above mentioned misjudged cases were all concluded through repeated coordination. The fundamental reason for the misjudged cases is that there is still some discordance between the model of restriction of power with power and the principle of democratic centralism of the Constitution, which influences the effectiveness of the restrictive function. On the other hand, the model per se also has some defects, including insufficient allocation of rights and imperfect distribution of power. In criminal procedure, the power allocation of the three institutions is parallel, resulting in an imbalance, weakening of the judicial power of the Court and putting emphasis on the previous phases of investigation and prosecution. The current model and system put emphasis on the restriction of power of decision on arrest and other coercive measures, while ignoring the restriction on detention after arrest. The Procuratorate, which should have taken the responsibility of supervision, lacks security of supporting system and sufficient motivation to supervise other national institutions, especially the application of coercive measures and detention within the power limits of the Public Security Bureau. Insufficiency of allocation of rights results in loss of initiative of rights, and the subject of rights becomes an object under protection. When there is no effective restriction between the powers, and even compromises and transactions begin to appear, it is difficult for rights to become a part of them and have positive influence. In practice, coordinating institutions such as the Politics and Law Committee attach importance to allocation instead of restriction, thus blending the power of the three institutions in criminal procedure. When the restriction does not function properly, the personal freedom of the accused of course can not be protected.Other countries and regions have formed their own practice in the protection of personal freedom of the accused. Through investigation of their systems and the Criminal judicial reforms of some countries, we may get some enlightenment. Other countries and regions often carry out the protection of personal freedom of the accused through combination of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedural Law, and adoption of the model of restriction of power with power and the model of restriction of power with rights. In the procedure of restriction of power with power, they pay more attention to the restriction of judicial power on others.To ensure effective enforcement of the Constitution clauses on protection of personal freedom of the accused, the current model of protection of personal freedom should be improved. The feature of the current model of the protection of personal freedom of the accused of our country is its emphasis of allocation and restriction of power, but due to the limit of the supporting system and the environmental conditions, the protection of personal freedom of the accused is difficult to function effectively. Regarding the problems reflected in the protection of personal freedom in our country, the scholars and practitioners have given detailed analysis and proposed many schemes for improvement, but most of them are directed at localized specific problems, and there is still no profound consideration on the whole about the model of protection of personal freedom, which is probably the real reasons why the personal freedom of the accused is difficult to get enforcement. The problem of model should be solved by another model. On this account, we can consider increasing the content and percentage of rights in the current model, and achieve protection of rights through restriction of power by extension of rights. Rights and power are the fundamental elements of law. Rights are the ultimate source of power, which determines the basic relationship between rights and power to be that power should submit to and controlled by rights. Rights and power are mutually transformable and when one grows, the other would reduce. The above mentioned relationship between rights and power shows that the model of restriction of power with rights is feasible and effective. Of course, on the whole there should be a balance between rights and power.To sum up, the author believes that the enforcement of the protection of the accused in our country should be improved from the following several aspects: give the Citizen the right to initiate the protection model of personal freedom and improve the initiative mechanism of the protection model; consolidate the intervention capacity of the civic rights on the protection model of personal freedom and guarantee the proper operation of the protection model of personal freedom; establish and improve the remedy mechanism of constitutional rights, especially the remedy mechanism of the rights of the Constitution, to ensure effective restriction of rights on power; improve the allocation of power to form effective restrictions between powers, etc. With the perfection of the operating mechanism and content of the model, enlargement of the scope of rights of the accused and consolidation of security of the rights, the power of national prosecution will be given more restriction, and the power of the three institutions will also reduce on the whole. When power is reduced, the relative departments such as the Politics and Law Committee will have less operational space accordingly, and the harm of power abusiveness will also reduce naturally. The new model has its pertinence and applicability in reality.更多还原