案例指导制度研究

【作者】 丁海湖；

【导师】 黄松有； 常怡；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民事诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 正在构建中的案例指导制度,其实质就是将集法官的经验与智慧于一体的案例系统化、规范化并上升为一种鲜明的制度,以充分发挥指导性案例对司法审判的作用,遵循司法审判的必然规律。本文以“案例指导制度”为研究视域,着力解决两个层面的问题:一是理论层面的必然性与可行性问题;二是实践层面的制度设计和操作规则问题。全文由六部分组成:即引论、案例指导制度内涵与定位、案例指导制度的价值分析、中西方语境中的相关制度比较、我国“案例公布制度”的实证考察、我国案例指导制度的构建与相关制度的完善。一、引论引论部分主要介绍了案例指导制度选题背景、研究案例指导制度的意义以及案例指导制度研究的思路与方法。第一,案例指导制度的选题背景。2005年10月26日,最高人民法院第一次以正式文件的方式向全社会公布“建立和完善案例指导制度”是未来五年司法改革的重要任务之一。自此这项司法改革措施提上了人民法院的议事日程。在此背景之下本文以“案例指导制度研究”为选题,以期阐明案例指导制度建立和完善的理论基础和制度建构的技术路径。第二,研究案例指导制度的意义。建立案例指导制度,一方面是为了统一法律适用标准,指导下级法院的审判工作;另一方面也是为了丰富和发展法学理论。因此,研究案例指导制度对于我国的法学理论研究和法制实践具有重要意义。第三,案例指导制度研究的思路与方法。本文拟从对构建案例指导制度的应然层面的研究出发,通过比较中外相关制度的内在机理与外部生成语境,以及对我国现行“案例公布”制度的实证考察,阐释我国案例指导制度构建的必要性和可行性。在此基础上,重点探讨我国案例指导制度微观层面的问题,包括案例指导制度的创建、适用和我国司法相关制度的改革与完善等问题。本文运用了价值分析方法、比较方法和实证研究方法来解读案例指导制度构建的价值、案例指导制度与西方相关制度的关系、案例公布制度的经验与教训以及案例指导制度的模型设计和技术性措施等问题,文中重点对我国案例指导制度的建立和完善进行探索性的研究。二、案例指导制度内涵与定位案例指导制度是在我国以制定法为主的法律框架下,通过发挥集司法审判经验与智慧于一体的指导性案例的指导作用,规范司法审判,统一司法审判标准的法律适用制度。从案例指导制度的性质来看,案例指导制度不属于法官“造法”的制度,而是一种适用法律的活动和制度。案例指导制度是通过案例来提示法官在法律规定不够清晰时,必须接受案例的“指导”,以对当前正在审理的案件做出更为恰当的法律适用,因而其作用在于正确解释和适用法律。从效力定位上看,指导性案例不具有正式的法律约束力,但是它具有审判实务方面指引、导向的实际影响和具体、明确的指导作用,即具有事实上的拘束力。三、案例指导制度的价值分析在我国建立案例指导制度具有本体和程序两方面的价值。案例指导制度所具有的本体价值包括:1.立法补救价值。案例指导制度对成文法的补救价值主要表现为弥补立法理性认识能力的缺陷、弥补成文法时滞与僵化性的缺陷和弥补成文法语言模糊性的缺陷等。2.法的安全价值。案例指导制度通过发挥指导性案例的指导作用,弥补成文法的不确定因素,统一法律适用标准,能够满足人们对法的一致性、连续性等法的安全性的期盼。3.司法效率价值。案例指导制度具有从制度层面实现合理配置司法资源,提高司法资源有效利用和审判工作效率的价值。4.司法公正价值。案例指导制度可以为司法提供统一法律适用尺度,实现同案同判的平等价值。5.法律体系和谐价值。案例指导制度具有寻求法律的静态与动态的协调即法律体系自身的和谐、法律体系与社会变迁的和谐的实质正义价值。案例指导制度具有重要的程序价值。案例指导制度是以类比推理为技术手段,以遵循先例为原则的法律适用制度。它要求一切审判过程都应当遵循司法特有的传统和惯性,以固有的法律标准和方式进行审判,而且还要平等对待所有诉讼当事人。正是这种特有的程序力量可以确保法律裁判一致性的程序性正义的实现。案例指导制度作为一种程序约束机制表现在:案例指导制度是限制法官自由裁量权的程序性机制;案例指导制度是提高法官职业威望的制度保障;案例指导制度是统合司法经验的制度基础;案例指导制度是统一法律适用标准的程序机制等方面。四、中西方语境中的相关制度比较本部分通过分析比较英美法系的判例法制度、大陆法系的判例制度和我国传统上的判例制度不同的内在机理和生成语境,反思我国案例指导制度构建中应当注意借鉴的问题。1.英美法系的判例法制度。英美法系判例法制度的独特内在机理在于以司法理性为中心,以司法过程为法律生长的依托,以遵循先例为原则,以判例适用技术为方法而构成的制度整体。判例法制度形成与发展是与英国特定的政治语境、经验主义的文化传统和独立而统一的司法体系等社会条件密切联系在一起的。2.大陆法系的判例制度。大陆法系判例制度生成于对成文法缺陷的补救,所以,判例制度的核心要旨是解释成文法,并保证成文法的统一适用。判例制度的制度性质是法官释法;判例制度具有事实上的约束力;大陆法系判例的适用条件是法律无明文规定;演绎推理是判例的主要适用技术。大陆法系判例制度生成主要取决于以下外部语境:即法典至上、崇尚制定法观念的动摇;成文法律制度本身的欠缺是催生判例制度形成的直接条件;上下级法院之间的关系潜在地推动了审判实践对先例的尊重。3.我国传统语境中的判例制度。我国古代历史上一直重视作为司法实践经验总结的判例,但判例的地位始终没有提高到一个足以和制定法相提并论的高度,它的出现只是为了更方便地保障制定法的实施而已。所以我国传统判例制度的内在机理表现为:判例是从属于成文法的一种制度;“因案生例”是判例形成的基本规则;判例不具有严格意义上的直接的法律约束力;律无明文规定是判例适用的必要条件。我国传统判例制度生成的外部语境是:人治思想是判例制度生成的思想基础;成文法的缺陷是传统判例生成的法律制度语境;传统判例依存的国家权力结构是司法与行政不分;判例的适用技术主要是运用演绎推理。通过对普通法系、大陆法系以及我国传统判例制度的考察,我们可以得出以下启示:不同语境中的制度模式具有多样性;案例指导制度的内核在于“案例的指导力”;案例指导制度软环境的建设是案例指导制度构建的任务之一。五、我国“案例公布制度”的实证考察本部分通过对“案例公布制度”的历史和“案例公布制度”实际运作状态的实证考察,分析“案例公布制度”存在的问题及所带来的启示。1.“案例公布制度”的历史。我国案例公布制度经历了“红头文件”下发案例和“公报发布案例”阶段。建国初期最高人民法院重视运用案例总结经验,指导全国法院的审判工作。特别是在1978年我国法制进入新的发展阶段以后,最高人民法院在调查研究的基础上,针对在审判工作中提出的适用法律的问题,下发案例指导全国法院的审判工作。1985年以后,最高人民法院在“公报”上定期发布案例,指导全国法院的审判工作。2.“案例公布制度”实际运作状态。“案例公布制度”实行的初衷是有效地指导全国各级人民法院的审判工作,统一法律适用标准。但是通过考察该制度运作的现实状况,我们看到其在实践中所发挥的作用是有限的。目前司法实践中存在的同案差异性审判、同案的重复性审判、案件的机械性裁判和地方法院各自统一法律适用标准的实践活动都是“案例公布制度”运作状况不够理想的有力说明。3.“案例公布制度”的制度性缺陷与启示。案例指导制度作为一种制度应当具有确定的约束机制、明确的案例筛选条件、严格的遴选、公布和清理程序等要素,这些要素是案例指导制度有效运行的前提和基础。而目前我国的“案例公布制度”所包含的制度要素不健全、不完善甚至是缺乏某些必要的要素。具体而言“案例公布制度”存在的制度缺陷有:已公布的案例缺乏明确的约束机制;选择案例的标准模糊、不准确;已公布的案例数量不能满足审判实践的需要;案例的遴选程序不完善;缺乏明确的清理与变更程序;缺乏相应的监督保障机制。“案例公布制度”给我们的启示之一是“案例公布制度”为案例指导制度提供了宝贵的经验:关于案例的制作与公布主体的双重性;关于案例的必要审核程序;关于公布案例的裁判要旨的编写;案例的定期、公开公布。“案例公布制度”的启示之二是为案例指导制度的构建提供了深刻的教训:必须确定指导性案例的构成要件;必须重视案例指导制度的程序性要素的构建;设立必要的监督保障机制。六、我国案例指导制度的构建与相关制度的完善本部分主要围绕着四个问题展开,即案例指导制度构建的现实基础、案例指导制度的创制、指导性案例的适用和与案例指导制度相关制度的完善。1.案例指导制度构建的现实基础。目前,我国已经具备了建立案例指导制度的社会观念基础、法律制度基础、案例指导制度的实践基础和法官素质基础。2.案例指导制度的创制。本部分主要分析了指导性案例的创制条件、创制程序和创制原则。(1)指导性案例创制的条件是:①有相关法律规则的规定,但是法律规则模糊,法官通过法律解释将模糊的规定具体化;②法律规则之间存在矛盾,法官通过冲突选择规则在冲突的规则之中作出选择性判断的案件③没有相关法律规则的规定,但是存在相关法律原则的规定,法官适用法定原则处理的案件;④既无法律规则也无法原则规定,法官依据推定的原则或法律精神处理的案件。前两种情况属于解释性的案例,后两种属于补充法律空缺性的案例。(2)指导性案例的创制程序,是指享有指导性案例创制权的司法机关在指导性案例的制作、报送、遴选、审核、公布与废除等活动中必须遵循的步骤和方法。(3)指导性案例创制原则主要包括:维护法制统一原则;渐进性建设原则;分类建设原则。3.案例指导制度的适用案例指导制度的适用,是指人民法院在审理案件的过程中,在缺乏制定法规则以及有效的弥补方式的前提下,适用指导性案例作出判决的司法活动,指导性案例的适用具有不同于一般法律规则适用的路径、技术与程序。(1)指导性案例适用阶段法官审理案件过程中的核心环节表现为确认事实、选择审理依据、分析论证和得出结论等几个阶段。法官依据指导性案例审理案件也主要体现为这几个阶段,所不同的是法官所选择的权威性依据不是来自成文的法律规则而是来自指导性案例,因而在程序方面有两个独特之处:一是法官在选择合适的指导案例的阶段,除了对待裁决案件事实部分和争议性质进行分析和界定外,还必须对权威性案例和待处理案件的事实进行比对才能做出选择。二是在分析论证阶段,要充分论证待裁判案件和指导案例之间的关系并提出充分理由。(2)指导性案例的适用技术指导性案例的适用技术主要表现为司法推理的方式或方法。本文认为我国案例指导制度适用推理的特征是弱意义上的形式性和强意义上的实质性。指导性案例适用推理的形式性。指导性案例的形式性依据,主要表现在指导性案例的权威性和指导力两个方面。指导性案例推理的实质性依据主要体现为两种形态:一种是新的指导性案例的创制之时,法官往往依据社会政策、道德等实质性依据来补救法律的漏洞,作出司法裁判;另一种是在指导性案例适用中,由于社会实质性依据发生了变化,适用指导性案例会导致一个“荒谬的或难易容忍”的结果时,即与支持指导性案例的实质性依据相抗衡的实质性依据更具有说服力时,就会背离指导性案例的形式性依据,而依道德、法律目的、社会效果等实质性依据进行推理。(3)适用保障制度指导性案例适用保障制度包括:监督制度、案例背离报告制度、法律职业教育、培训和考核机制以及案例指导制度的配套保障机制等。4.案例指导制度相关制度的完善案例指导制度作为一项新的法律适用制度,必然涉及与现有司法制度之间的关系问题,如何协调案例指导制度与其它制度之间的关系,是实践中亟需明确的问题。具体而言建立案例指导制度应当对审判委员会、案件请示制度、司法解释制度和案件管辖制度进行相应的改革。更多还原

【Abstract】 Case directing system under construction is essentially to systemize and standardize cases that integrate the experience and wisdom of judges, and ascend to a vivid system so as to bring directive cases into full play on justice adjudgement and follow the inevitable rules of justice adjudgement. This thesis takes "case directing system" as research domain and focuses to solve two aspects of issues: the first one is the issue of inevitability and flexibility in theoretical aspect; the second one is the issue of system design and operation rules in practice aspect.This thesis consists of six sections: i.e. introduction, meaning and positioning of case directing system, value analysis on case directing system, comparison of relevant systems between Chinese and western contexts, demonstration investigation on "case publishing system" in our country, establishment of case directing system and perfection of relevant systems in our country.Ⅰ.IntroductionThe introduction mainly introduces the selected topic background of case directing system, meaning of research on case directing system, thoughts and measures of research on case directing system. Firstly, the selected topic background of case directing system. On Oct. 26^th, 2005, the supreme people’s court publicized to the whole society in formal document for the first time that "establishment and perfection of case directing system" was one of the important tasks of justice reform in the next five years. From then on, this justice reform measure was listed in the schedule of people’s courts. On this background, this thesis chooses "research on case directing system" as its topic to elucidate the theoretical basis of the establishment and perfection of case directing system and the technical path of system construction. Secondly, meaning of research on case directing system. The establishment of case directing system is on one hand to unify law application standard and direct adjudgement of lower courts; and on the other hand to enrich and develop law theories. Therefore, research on case directing system plays an important part in law theoretical research and legal system practice in our country. Thirdly, thoughts and measures of research on case directing system. This thesis plans to start from the research on ought-to-be aspect of the establishment of case directing system to explain the necessity and flexibility of the establishment of case directing system in our country by means of comparing the inner mechanism and outer formation contexts, as well as demonstration investigation on the existing "case publishing" system in our country. On this basis, it focuses on discussing issues of case directing system of our country in microcosmic aspect, including establishment and application of case directing system, and reform and perfection of relevant systems of justice in our country, etc. This thesis adopts value analysis measure, comparison measure and demonstration measure to illustrate value of the establishment of case directing system, the relation between case directing system and relevant systems in the west, experience and lessons of case publishing system, and pattern design and technical measures of case directing system, etc. This thesis focuses on the explorative research on establishment and perfection of case directing system in our country.Ⅱ. Meaning and positioning of case directing systemCase directing system is a law application system under the legal framework of statute law as the majority in our country to standardize justice adjudgement and unify justice adjudgement standard by means of exerting the directing function of directive cases that integrate experience and wisdom of justice adjudgement.From the aspect of attribute of case directing system, case directing system is not a system of "enacting laws" by judges, but a law application activity and system. Case directing system is to remind judges through cases to accept case "direction" in case of indistinction of law provisions, so as to apply more proper laws to lawsuit being heard, therefore its function is to interpret and apply laws properly.From the angle of efficacy positioning, directive cases are not legally binding formally, but they take actual effect, and have specific and definite directing function on directing and guiding adjudgement practice, i.e. with actual binding effect.Ⅲ.Value analysis on case directing systemThe establishment of case directing system in our country has two values in the aspects of substance and procedure. The substance value of case directing system includes: 1. Legislation remedy value. The remedy value of case directing system to statute law mainly includes remedy for defect in legislation rational cognition, remedy for defect in time lag and ossification of statute law, and remedy for defect in language indistinction of statute law. 2. Security value of law. Case directing system remedies uncertain factors of statute law, unifies law application standard, meets people’s demands for consistency and continuity of law security through bringing the directing function of directive cases into play. 3. Efficiency value of justice. Case directing system has values of reasonably allocating justice resources, improving effective usage of justice resources and working efficiency of adjudgement from the aspect of system. 4. Equity value of justice. Case directing system can provide a unified yardstick of law application for justice and realize the equity value of same case same adjudgement. 5. Harmony value of law system. Case directing system has an essential justice value of searching for harmony between static law and dynamic law, i.e. self-harmony of law system and harmony between law system and social variance.Case directing system has important procedure value. Case directing system is a law application system with the technical measure of analogism and on the principle of following precedents. It requires that all adjudgement procedures shall follow unique justice tradition and inertia and make adjudgement with intrinsic law standard and measures. Moreover, all litigation parties shall be treated equally. It is this special procedure power that ensures realization of procedure justice of legal adjudgement consistency. As a procedure restricting mechanism, case directing system has functions as follows: case directing system is a procedure mechanism to restrict discretion of judges; Case directing system is a system guarantee to improve the vocational reputation of judges; Case directing system is a systematic basis of unifying justice experience; Case directing system is a procedure mechanism to unify law application standard, etc.Ⅳ.Comparison of relevant systems between Chinese and western contextsThis section reviews the issues in need of reference in the establishment of case directing system of our country by means of analyzing and comparing the inner mechanism and different contexts of case laws in Anglo-American legal system, continental legal system and the traditional legal system of our country.1. Case law system in Anglo-American legal system. The unique inner mechanism of case law system in Anglo-American legal system is that it is a system entirety that centers on justice rationality, depends on justice process for law development, takes following precedents as principle and case application technique as measure. The formation and development of case law system is closely related to social conditions in U. K. of the specific political conditions, the culture tradition of experientialism and dependent and unified justice system, etc.2. Case law system in continental legal system. Case law system in continental legal system originated from the remedy for the defect in statute law. Therefore, the core of case law system is to interpret statute law and ensure unified application of statute law. The systemic attribute of case law system is law interpretation by judges; Case law system is actually binding; there is no specific regulation in laws about the application conditions of precedents in continental legal system; Deduction reasoning is the main application technique of precedents. The formation of case law system in continental legal system largely depends on the following outer contexts: the variation of opinion that code is paramount and statute law is advocated; self-defect in statute law system is the direct condition to hasten the formation of case law system; the relation between the upper courts and the lower courts potentially promote respect to precedents in adjudgement practice.3. Case law system in the traditional context of our country. In Chinese history, precedents as justice practice experience and summary were attached great important from the ancient; however, the position of precedents has not ascended to the same level as statute law. Its appearance is just to guarantee the implementation of statute law more convenient. Therefore, the inner mechanism of traditional case law system in our country is presented as: case law system is a system affiliated to statute law; "Precedent originating from case" is the elementary principle of the formation of case laws; Case law is not directly binding in a strict meaning; The necessary condition of precedent application is no specific regulations in laws. The outer contexts of the formation of traditional case law system in our country are: the thought of rule by men is the ideology for the formation of case law system; Defect in statute law is the legal system context of the formation of traditional case law; State authority structure that the traditional case law depends on is the non-separation of justice and administration; The application technique of precedents is mainly deduction reasoning.Through review on case law systems in the common legal system, the continental legal system and the traditional legal system in our country, we can come to the following revelation: system pattern in different contexts has variety; The kernel of case directing system is "the directing power of case"; Construction of soft environment of case directing system is one of the tasks of the establishment of case directing system.Ⅴ. Demonstration investigation on "case publishing system" in our countryThis section analyzes the existing problems of "case publishing system" and the revelation brought in through demonstration investigation on history of "case publishing system" and its practical operation.1. History of "case publishing system". Case publishing system in our country went through stages of case publication by "red header documents" and "gazette case publication". In the early stage of the establishment of P.R.C., the supreme people’s court paid attention to summarize case experience to direct adjudgement operation of courts all over the country. Especially after the new development stage of legal system in our country in 1978, the supreme people’s court issued cases to direct adjudgement operation of courts all over the country according to law application issues put forward in adjudgement operation on the basis of investigation and research. After 1985, the supreme people’s court publishes cases in "gazette" periodically to direct adjudgement operation of courts all over the country.2. Actual operation condition of "case publishing system". The original intention of the implementation of "case publishing system" was to effectively direct adjudgement operation of people’s courts in different levels all over the country and unify law application standard. However, through investigation on the exiting condition of operation of this system, we find that the effect it takes on practice is limited. Problems are exiting in the present justice practice: different adjudgements in similar cases, repeating adjudgements in a case, mechanical adjudgement of cases, and different law application standard in different local courts, all of which are the powerful illustrations that the operating condition of "case publishing system" is not ideal enough.3. Systematic defects and revelation of "case publishing system". As a system, case directing system shall have such elements of definite restriction mechanism, definite case selection conditions, strict procedure of case selecting, publishing and cleaning, etc. These elements are the premise and basis of the effective operation of case directing system. While at present, "case publishing system" in our country has problems of incomplete systematic elements, imperfect elements and even shortage of certain necessary elements. Specifically speaking, systemic defects existing in "case publishing system" are: insufficiency in definite restriction mechanism of published cases; blur and incorrect case selection standard; quantity of published cases failing to meet the demands of adjudgement practice; imperfect case selection procedure; insufficiency in definite cleaning and changing procedure; insufficiency in relevant supervision and guarantee mechanisms. "One of the revelations offered by "case publishing system" to us is that "case publishing system" provides valuable experience for case directing system: about the dual functions of case establishment and publication subject; about the necessary inspection procedure of cases; about the compiling of adjudgement gist of cases published; periodical and open publication of cases. The second revelation of "case publishing system" is to provide profound lessons for the establishment of case directing system: we shall establish composing elements of directive cases; we shall pay attention to the establishment of procedure elements of case directing system; we shall set up necessary supervision and guarantee mechanism.Ⅵ. Establishment of case directing system and perfection of relevant systems in our countryThis section expatiates from the following four issues: i.e. realization basis of the establishment of case directing system, establishment of case directing system, application of directive cases and perfection of relevant systems of case directing system.1. Realization basis of case directing system establishment. At present, our country has already had a social opinion basis, legal system basis, practice basis and judge diathesis basis on establishing case directing system.2. Establishment of case directing system. This section mainly analyzes the establishing conditions, procedures and principles of directive cases.（1） The establishing conditions of directive cases are:①In case of existence of certain laws and rules, but with indistinct regulations, judges specify indistinct regulation by means of law interpretation;②In case of contradiction among laws, judges make selective adjudgement among conflicting rules by means of conflict selection rule;③In lack of regulations of relevant laws and rules, but with regulations of relevant legal principles, judges apply legal principles to settle case;④In lack of regulations of legal rules or legal principles, judges settle case according to putative principles or legal spirit. The former two conditions are interpretive cases and the latter two conditions are cases to remedy law vacancy.（2） Establishing procedures of directive cases means the steps and measures that shall be followed in the activities of making, reporting, selecting, inspecting, publishing and abolishing directive cases by justice authorities with rights to establish directive cases.（3） The principles of establishing directive cases mainly include: the principle of maintaining unification of legal system; the principle of gradual establishment; the principle of classifying establishment.3. Application of case directing system -Application of case directing system means a justice activity of the people’s courts to apply directive cases to make adjudgement in the procedure of case settlement on the premise of lack of statute law and effective remedy. Application of directive cases is different from application path, technique and procedure of general laws and rules.（1） Application phase of directive casesThe core phases in case settlement procedure of judges are truth confirmation, selection of applied regulations, argumentation analysis and drawing conclusion, etc. Case settlement by judges in accordance with directive cases also consists of these several phases. The difference is that the authority basis selected by judges is not from regulations of statute law, but from directive cases. Therefore there are two specifics in procedure aspect: The first one is that in the phase of selecting proper directive cases, besides analysis and definition of the truth and disputes of case to be settled, judges must compare the truth of authority cases with the truth of cases to be settled, and then to make a choice. The second one is in the phase of analysis and argumentation; judges shall adequately demonstrate the relation between the case to be settled and directive cases, and put forward adequate reasons.（2） Application technique of directive casesApplication technique of directive cases is justice reasoning ways or methods. This thesis believes that the characteristics of reasoning application of case directing system in our country are formality in weak meaning and substantiality in strong meaning.The formality of reasoning application of directive cases. The formality basis of directive cases is mainly represented in two aspects: authority and directing power of directive cases. Substantial basis of directive case reasoning is mainly represented into two forms: One is that in the establishment of new directive cases, judges usually remedy legal loopholes according to substantial basis of social policies and moral, etc. and make justice adjudgement; The other is that in the application of directive cases, due to changes in social substantial basis, application of directive cases will lead to a "absurd and unbearable" result, i.e. when substantial basis opposite to the substantial basis of supporting directive cases is more persuasive, it will deviate the formality basis of directive cases, and make reasoning according to the substantial basis of moral, legal purposes and social effect, etc.（3） Application guarantee systemDirective case application guarantee system includes: supervision system, case deviation reporting system, legal vocational education, training and examination system and guarantee mechanism of case directive system, etc.4. Perfection of relevant systems of case directing systemAs a new law application system, case directive system inevitably involves in the relation with the existing legal system. How to harmonize the relation between case directive system and other systems is an issue requires clarifying in practice. Specifically speaking, in order to establish case directing system, it is necessary to carry out corresponding reforms on adjudgement committee, case requesting system, justice interpretation system and case jurisdiction system.更多还原