“罗马规约”程序与证据规则研究

【作者】 苏敏华；

【导师】 陈浩然；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 国际法， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 1998年开放签署的《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(下称“罗马规约”),创造了一系列新的刑事司法国际准则,较为妥善地将国际刑事诉讼范围内的实体法规范与程序法规则融合成一个有机的整体。从结构上说,“罗马规约”由一项主文和两项附件构成。两项附件分别是《犯罪要件》和《程序与证据规则》(下称“程序规则”)。“罗马规约”有关程序的规定及“程序规则”构成国际刑事法院程序规则的内容。全文分为七章：第一章通过阐述大陆法和英美法两大法系诉讼制度相互排斥和相互融合的历史规律,分析国际刑事诉讼程序的发展历史,说明了“罗马规约”融合两大法系程序规则的必要性。日耳曼法和罗马法是两大法系共同的源头,这说明两大法系在诉讼制度建立的层面上是同源的。同出一源的事实,既是人类诉讼制度在解决社会基本矛盾上的一致表示,也为“罗马规约”融合两大法系诉讼程序规定提供了历史基础。“一战”结束后,莱比锡审判和伊斯坦布尔审判的失败证明,基于国际犯罪的复杂性以及同政治制度保持不可分割联系的特殊性,单纯通过国内法院来审理国际犯罪是行不通的。“二战”后进行的纽伦堡审判和东京审判,摆脱了国内审判的羁绊,开创了个人承担国际刑事责任的先河,为建立稳定的国际刑事审判体系奠定了基础。20世纪90年代,联合国先后设立了“前南国际法庭”和“卢旺达国际法庭”,这两个特设法庭在耗费了联合国大量资源的同时,也积累了相当丰富的经验。国际社会正是在借鉴成功经验和总结失败教训的基础上,形成了建立国际刑事法院的共同设想。“罗马规约”要调和两大法系诉讼程序的诸多矛盾和冲突,创造一套符合公正审判国际标准,确保国际刑事法院正常运转的基本法律规定,绝非易事。国际刑事法院审判的案件本身特别复杂,又在很大程度上受国际政治的影响,决定了“罗马规约”必须在融合的基础上适当创新。因而,国际刑事法院的程序规则既是妥协与融合的结果,又是独特的。第二章着重分析国际刑事法院检察官的职权配置及其实际运行。国际刑事法院实行的是最为彻底的检警一体,犯罪的调查、起诉,有关国际合作事宜均由检察官办公室负责。“罗马规约”缔约国以及安理会可以向国际法院提交情势,国际刑事法院检察官也可以自行调查案件。检察官对于是否启动调查具有一定的自由裁量权,但决定权在于预审法庭。在具体的侦查职权上,国际刑事法院强调检察官的客观义务。国际刑事法院主要的证据来源之一是国家及国际组织,出于种种因素的考虑,这些国家、国际组织往往以保密作为向检察官提供材料的前提。但检察官又有向辩方开示其所掌握的证据及材料的义务,因而产生保密与披露义务的冲突。这一冲突一度导致国际刑事法院第一案诉讼中止。国际刑事法院是“没有手脚的巨人”,诉讼的顺利进行完全依赖于国际合作与司法协助。检察官必须在国际合作与司法协助的框架内开展工作,只在特殊的情况下,经预审法庭批准,可以自行前往犯罪现场调查。如不能取得有效的合作与协助,检察官就只能在“外围”调查取证,诉讼程序将无法顺利进行。第三章分析了国际刑事法院犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的权利,被害人诉讼地位及经济赔偿与补偿程序。“罗马规约”赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人全面的公正审判权。本章只探讨最为核心的辩护权问题。犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在调查、起诉、审判的全程都可以获得辩护律师的帮助,对于无力支付律师费用的,则由国际刑事法院免费提供。辩护律师的作用与抗辩式程序中辩护律师的作用相近,可以主动提出证人、调查收集证据。但是,从历史的经验上看,“罗马规约”对辩护权的全程保障制度可能面临经费短缺问题。并且,辩护律师的特权与豁免范围远远小于国际刑事法院法官和检察官,将对其有效开展工作形成制约。国际刑事法院的大部分被告人曾经是政治领袖、高官,具有良好的口才与辩护能力,他们坚持自我辩护,试图将法庭审判作为宣扬反动观点的场所,但这样将可能导致诉讼久拖不决。基于自我辩护是被告人的基本权利,“罗马规约”最终还是赋予了被告人自我辩护权,而未采纳强制辩护的立场。“罗马规约”非常重视被害人的权利及保护问题,赋予其准当事人的地位。只要提出申请并获得法庭许可,被害人就可以参诉,并且可以聘请诉讼代理人参与诉讼。国际刑事法院允许被害人广泛参与不无问题,将造成诉讼结构紊乱,影响诉讼效率。应通过适当限制被害人参诉的范围,要求被害人均通过诉讼代理人参与,以及排除被害人在情势调查阶段的参与来解决。国际刑事法院诉讼程序中对被害人的赔偿既包括物质损失还涵盖精神损失。此外,还专门设立了被害人信托基金负责赔偿与补偿事宜。信托基金独立运行,既根据法庭的命令处理赔偿事宜,也可以向国际社会募捐,向所有的情势被害人,而非仅仅参与诉讼程序的被害人提供帮助。第四章分析了国际刑事法院预审分庭的职权。预审分庭除负责签发令状、处理动议外,还制衡检察官职权的行使,确保控辩平等,确认指控。为了确保辩方利益,在非常特殊的情况下,预审分庭也参与调查收集、保全证据。从国际刑事法院第一案的诉讼进展来看,诉讼效率过低是国际刑事法院面临的最为突出的问题,而审前羁押的常态化更强化了对迅速审判的要求,预审分庭务必采取切实措施加快审前程序进程。借鉴前南法庭的经验,预审分庭通过加强程序监督等,督促检察官加快调查进程。第五章分析了国际刑事法院的庭审构架以及法庭的职权配置。诉讼目标制约审判模式选择。国际社会为国际刑事审判所设定的目标包括记录历史、促进和平、抚慰被害人、结束“有罪不罚”的局面等等,但过多的目标将使国际刑事法院“不堪重负”,同事也会加剧诉讼效率过低的问题。国际刑事法院应当回归本位,将目标设定为在坚持正当程序的基础上审判核心国际犯罪案件。具体的庭审程序设计应充分考虑国际刑事审判的特点,兼采抗辩式与审问式模式之所长。国际刑事法院的庭审构架是抗辩式的,但没有陪审团参与,法官也非处于消极的地位,而是积极发挥能动作用,表现在：对是否认可控辩认罪协商有决定权；法庭可以酌情传唤证人到庭作证,并有权要求当事人提供一切必要的证据；国际刑事法院的庭审中采纳了英美法中的交叉询问程序,同时法官在交叉询问之前、之后又可以提问。第六章分析了“罗马规约”证据制度的主要内容。“罗马规约”的证据规则具有一定的混合性,但总体上更接近于大陆法的自由心证制度。证人原则上应当出庭作证,但也有例外情形,其中最为典型的就是允许采纳书面证言,改变了“当庭”、“口头”、“表述”的证人准则。“第二法庭”有利于解决证人无法到法院出庭作证的难题,有助于加快诉讼进程,提高审判效率。但借助音像转播技术作证、传输证据也不无问题,应当严格限制适用范围。第七章分析了“罗马规约”程序规则对我国的借鉴意义。从宏观层面来看,“罗马规约”高度重视程序公正的理念和实体法、程序法、证据法“三位一体”的立法模式,值得我国借鉴；从微观层面来看,“罗马规约”具体程序规定对完善我国刑事诉讼程序亦不无启发：辩护权的切实保障、允许控辩协商、对被害人提供全面赔偿和补偿等,都具有一定的借鉴价值。本文最终认为,“罗马规则”的某项具体程序规则,都可以从当事人主义或职权主义模式中找到踪迹,但其最终的规定又是独特的。从审前程序来说,“罗马规约”赋予控辩双方平行的调查权,同时强调检察官的客观义务,预审分庭监督检察官的活动,确保平等武装原则实现。从审判程序来说,“控方案件”与“辩方案件”在法庭上对抗。同时,法官又积极掌控庭审进程。从证据制度上来说,在证据原理上,更接近于大陆法的自由心证；但在证明规则上,又典型地体现出两大法系融合的特征。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Roman Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Statue) which opened for ratification in 1998, creates a series of new international criminal justice standards, and appropriately combines the substantial and procedural rules as an integrated whole in the field of international criminal justice.The Statute consists of the main body and another two attachments named separately the Elements of Crime and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the Procedure). The Statue is currently the most complete international criminal code. Though it regulates only genocide, the crimes against humanity, the crimes of war and the crimes of aggression, which are all the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, but the international criminal justice principles, the function and status of the permanent criminal court and the special jurisdiction principles it creates, will pay a large role in the development of future criminal system.This dissertation consists of 7 chapters:In chapter I, the author discusses the historical rule of mutual conflicts and combination between civil law and common law systems, explains the necessity for the Statue and the Procedure to combine the procedural and evidential rules of civil law tradition and common law tradition by exploring the history of the international criminal justice. Germanen law and Roman law are the common origin of the two major legal systems, which provides historical basis for the Statute to combine the procedural and evidential rules of the two legal systems. The failure of the Leipzig trial and the Istanbul trial proved that the trial of international crime by domestic court was not workable for its complexity and the close relation with the international politics. The Nuremberg trial and the Tokyo trial held after the World War II got rid of the restriction of domestic trial, made history for individual international criminal liability, and laid the foundation for establishing a stable international criminal trail system. In 1990’s UN established the ICTY and the ICTR, which accumulated rich experiences while consumed a lot of sources of the UN. The international community got the idea of establishing an international court by learning successful experiences as well as failures. The Statute is the result of extensive participation and discussion. The combination is necessary to win the support of most of the countries and also the experience of ICTY and ICTR. However, there are a lot of differences for procedural rules between the civil law and common law tradition. It’s surely not easy for the Statue to combines them and adjusts the conflicts among them. The international criminal trial itself is especially complex and affects greatly by the international politics, which decides that the Roman Statute must innovate as well as interaction.In chapterⅡthe author focuses on the function and operation of the prosecutor. In the International Criminal Court (the Court), there is a through integration of the police and prosecutor, as there is no police organ or police, and the prosecutor in charge of the investigation, prosecution and international cooperation. The state party and the Security Council may submit situations to the Court and at the same time the prosecutor can initiate an investigation proprio motu. The prosecutor enjoys discretion when performing its duty, but the pre-trial court has the final say. The Court emphasizes the prosecutor’s objectiveness to establish the truth, as the prosecutor must investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally. The prosecutor has the obligation not to disclose documents or information provided by countries of international organizations on the condition of confidentiality; however the prosecutor also has the obligation to discovery material to the defense, which caused conflicts in the first case-the Lubange case. The Court is a giant without hands or feet, international cooperation and judicial assistance is very important. If the prosecutor couldn’t get effective cooperation and assistance, his job will be greatly hampered.In chapter III the author analyzes the rights of the person and accused and the rights and compensation of victims. The Statue endows full rights of a just trial for the person and the accused. In this chapter the author focuses only on the right of defense. The person and the accused enjoy the help of attorney from the start of the investigation, and for those who couldn’t afford an attorney, the Court will provide them attorneys for free. The attorney can conduct investigation, submit witness and establish the defense case. However the privileges and immunities of the attorney are much limited comparing with the prosecutor, which will hinder the attorney to investigation effectively. The accused could defense by himself according to the Statue.The victim enjoys full protection from the Statue, who enjoys the rights of a quasi-party. The victims could participate in the procedure as long as he submit an application to the court and win admission from the judges, and he can also hire an attorney to represent him. In practice, the court allows the victim to participate in the investigation of the situation. There are also problems for participation of the victim, causing chaos of litigation structure and delay the procedure. The Court may restrict properly on the participation of the victim and require the representation of attorneys to resolve the above problems. The victim enjoys a broad compensation pact, including material and mental damages. The Statue specially set up the Victim Trust Fund (The Fund) to hand the compensation and restitution for the victim. The Fund gets fund both from confiscation and compensation from the criminals, and from donation of the international community. They provide help not only for victim who participates in the procedure but also those who don’t.In Chapter IV the author discusses the functions and powers of the pre-trial chamber. In addition to issue orders and warrants, the main functions of the pre-trial chamber are to check the power of the prosecutor, ensure the equality of arms and confirm the charges. In order to protect the right of the defense, the pre-trial might also take measures to collect or preserve evidence. When we examine the first case handling by the Court, we will find that efficiency is the most disturbing problems, and pre-trial detention especially calls for a fast trial, so the pre-trial must take measures to expedite the procedure. By learning the experiences of ICTY, the pre-trial chamber might strengthen procedural control, especially by supervising the investigation, and properly resist the interlocutory appeals.In chapter V the author explores the structure of courtroom trials and the functions and powers of the trial chambers. The goals of litigation confine trial mode. There are too many goals for ICC which includes recording history, promoting and reestablishing peace, comforting the victim and stopping the impunity and so on. Those goals will exacerbate the problem of low efficiency. The author purposes that the goal should be stopping impunity by just procedure, and so we needn’t hesitate on whether to take the adversarial or inquisitorial mode. We must fully take into account of the features of international criminal trials and borrow the best from both modes. The structure of trial in the Court is adversarial, but there isn’t a jury, or negative judges. The judges are both positive and negative in the trials, as the negotiation between the prosecutor and accused is not bounding to the court, and the court may call witnesses and require the parties to provide all necessary evidences, there are cross-examination and the judges may ask question before or after the cross-examination.In chapterⅥthe author inquires into the evidence rules of the Statue. The Statue integrates the evidence rules of common law as well as the free principle of evidence of civil law, but it doesn’t adopt the complex evidence rules of the common law tradition for there is no jury trial in ICC. There is no foundation for the international trial to adopt the complex jury system. The author then focuses on the regulation on witness, especially the condition for adopting written statements, and the evidential theory connected with the giving of viva voce (oral) or recorded testimony of a witness by means of video or audio technology, as well as the introduction of documents or written transcripts.In chapterⅦthe author explores what China can learn from the Statue. Broadly speaking, the Statue highly emphasis the idea of due process and combines the substantial, procedural and evidential rules in one code, which are of borrowing significance for China. The safeguard for the right of defense, and the full protection to victim provided by the Statue are all of borrowing values for China’s criminal procedure.As a conclusion, the particular procedural regulation of the Statue might find its trace from common law or civil law, however, the procedures of the Statue are unique. From the prospective of pre-trial procedure, the prosecutor and the defense enjoy parallel investigation, while the prosecutor has the obligation of objectiveness to truth. The pre-trial chamber supervises the activities of the prosecutor and ensures the equality of arms. From the perspective of trial procedures, the prosecutor case and the defense case fight before the judge, and at the same time, the judges positively control the progress of the trials. From the perspective of evidence rules, the Statue emphasis the free rules of evidence. It’s appropriate for Chinese government keeps prudent attitude on whether to accede to the Statute, by observing and examining the operation and practice of the Court.更多还原