【作者】 于平；

【导师】 李洁；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 羁押是刑事强制措施体系的重要内容,它关涉对公民基本权利的剥夺。因而域外一般都将司法审查作为羁押制度的一项重要原则,并建立完备的羁押审查程序,从羁押审查主体、审查程序、实质要件等方面对羁押的适用加以严格限制,同时给予充分的司法救济,实现羁押制度保障刑事诉讼顺利进行和保障人权的双重作用。在我国,羁押司法审查制度缺失,审查主体、审查内容、审查程序以及救济方式等方面都存在很大问题,是造成超期羁押、刑讯逼供等违法羁押问题屡禁不止和羁押率高、羁押时间长等滥用羁押措施现象普遍存在的重要原因。随着法治进程的深入,特别是人权保障和程序正义理念的贯彻,要求确立我国羁押司法审查原则,并构建科学的羁押审查程序的呼声日渐高涨。本文针对我国羁押存在的立法与实务问题,借鉴域外羁押制度的合理因素,通过对羁押审查程序构成要素进行系统研究,为完善我国的羁押审查制度进行一些理论上的思考。本文共分六章。第一章羁押审查程序概述。在我国,羁押不是一种法定的强制措施,而是指刑事拘留或逮捕后较长时间剥夺人身自由的状态。而域外大都实行逮捕与羁押分离,羁押通常是指独立于逮捕的一种强制措施。笔者认为,我国应当实现羁押与逮捕分离。理由是:逮捕与羁押本是两种不同的刑事强制措施,不仅适用条件、目的、期限不同,而且审查程序甚至审查主体也有区别。二者分离可以确保安全与自由、侦查效率与程序正义得到合理的平衡,保证羁押这种严重剥夺公民人身自由的强制措施能够受到司法权的控制,免于追诉权的恣意行使,有助于减少审前程序违法现象的发生,防止羁押沦为追诉机关“以押取供”的侦查手段。羁押具有目的上的程序保障性、处分上的强制性和后果上的惩罚性。羁押后果上的惩罚性,是为实现程序保障目的所带来的附随后果,不同于刑罚的制裁性。羁押的目的主要表现为:保全犯罪嫌疑人、被告人;保全证据;保全刑事执行。对于审前羁押是否具有预防的目的,无论是在英美法系还是大陆法系都存在争议。笔者认为,羁押客观上剥夺了被羁押人的人身自由,消除了犯罪嫌疑人继续作案的可能性,因而具有预防犯罪的功能,但这只是辅助性的功能。羁押的本质在于对公民基本权利的干预,如果适用羁押措施不当,将对被羁押人的基本权利造成重大侵害。在生效的有罪判决确定之前长时间地拘禁犯罪嫌疑人或被告人,无疑是对无罪推定原则的否定。因此,必须恪守羁押的法定原则、例外原则、比例原则和司法审查原则,确保羁押刑事诉讼保障和人权保障目的之兼顾。羁押审查程序是一种司法程序,按照司法程序的内在要求,应当具备以下要素:羁押审查主体、羁押审查程序的启动主体和其他参与人;羁押审查事项;羁押审查程式,即“程序的程序”;羁押审查的证明机制以及司法救济机制。羁押审查是一种司法审查。“司法审查”并非违宪审查的另一种指称,也可以在行政法意义上使用,还可以指二者的统称。司法审查与违宪审查既有联系又有区别,二者互有交叉,司法审查是违宪审查的一种具体模式;违宪审查是司法审查的内容之一。我国不存在违宪意义上的司法审查制度。1989年颁布的行政诉讼法,将审查对象仅限于一般的具体行政行为,刑事诉讼中的侦查、起诉等特殊的具体行政行为,并未纳入行政诉讼的受案范围。笔者认为,应当将羁押纳入司法审查范畴,这是法治原则、人权保障原则、权力制约原则和“司法最终裁决”原则的必然要求。第二章羁押审查主体。国际刑事司法准则及“西方国家几乎无一例外地将(羁押审查)这一权力赋予了法官,”其机理在于,法官的独立性和中立性。域外行使羁押审查权的法院(法官)与审判法院(法官)是相互独立的。对羁押的事先审查与事后审查在主体上的要求也不同。我国宪法和法律将刑事拘留的决定权赋予公安机关,将逮捕的决定权赋予检察院和法院。实务中,绝大多数案件的逮捕都是由检察院审查批准或者决定的。承担公诉任务的检察机关负责审查批准或决定逮捕及延长羁押期限,公正性令人质疑。笔者认为,我国应当实现逮捕、刑事拘留与羁押分离,将刑事拘留或逮捕后较长时间剥夺人身自由的状态从逮捕、刑事拘留中剥离出来,在立法上增设为羁押措施,交由法院决定。具体而言,应当在我国法院设立羁押审查庭,配置羁押审查法官,负责整个刑事诉讼过程中的羁押审查职能,这是最理想的模式,但需要司法体制改革相配套。如果从现实出发,也可以采取折中的做法,由刑事审判庭的法官轮流负责羁押审查事宜,在审判阶段也可以由合议庭一名法官负责羁押审查事宜。采取刑事法官轮值模式,必须实行回避制度,防止审判法官先入为主,形成预断。第三章羁押审查内容。两大法系对于羁押实质要件的规定差异很大,但均包含一些共性因素:一是犯罪嫌疑重大;二是一般性羁押理由,包括:犯罪嫌疑人或被告人有逃亡或有相当理由足以怀疑有逃亡可能,或者有相当理由足以怀疑被告会毁灭、伪造、变造证据,或者与共犯、证人串通;三是特殊性羁押理由,即预防性羁押原因。四是重罪条件,即涉嫌犯罪的罪行应达到判处一定刑罚之上。在有些法域,如我国台湾地区,还将羁押的必要性作为一项羁押要件单独列出。我国的逮捕必须同时具备证据、刑罚和必要性三个条件。但从立法和实务看,证据条件过于原则,刑罚条件不够科学,必要性条件也不够明确。笔者认为,完善我国羁押实质要件,前提是实现逮捕与羁押分离。在此基础上,一是将证据条件修改为“有充分的证据足以怀疑”某一犯罪已经发生和犯罪嫌疑人或被告人实施了该犯罪;二是提高羁押的刑罚要件;三是将犯罪嫌疑人逃避诉讼、毁灭证据或者串供等因素纳入必要性要件之中。还要进一步明确重罪条件可以作为惟一羁押理由的情形,明确限制轻罪适用羁押的范围,严格限制以预防性原因作为适用羁押的惟一理由。此外,还应当缩短羁押期限;区分羁押期限与办案期限;限定最高羁押期限;严控延长羁押期限的不计算和重新计算情形等。第四章羁押审查程式。域外的羁押审查主要有书面、言词两种方式。其中,言词审查方式又分为:“三方构造式”的听证模式、“两方构造式”的讯问模式和“书面+讯问”审查模式。我国的羁押审查,在审前阶段由检察官负责,采取何种方式审查,法律没有明确规定。2003年最高人民检察院要求审查批准或决定逮捕中,应当讯问犯罪嫌疑人。法院的羁押审查仅限于审判阶段,没有专门的审查程序,实务中,也很少对羁押合法性问题进行审查。笔者认为,我国的羁押审查应当采取不公开的听审方式进行。这种审查方式介于公开的听证与封闭的讯问之间,兼采两者之长处。具体而言,第一,羁押审查时申请机关应当派员到场,陈述意见并提出必要的证据或说明。第二,羁押审查时辩护人应有在场及发表意见等权利,包括:羁押审查的程序参与权、对羁押申请理由及依据的知情权、对是否符合羁押条件的调查取证权以及申请取保候审的程序启动权。未来我国刑事诉讼法修改时,还应当明确羁押审查的庭外调查范围及限制;明确告知的内容、程度及程序等。第五章羁押审查中的证明。羁押审查中的证明,是一种程序性证明。羁押审查是否完全适用自由证明,观点不尽一致。笔者认为,应当根据羁押审查的具体事项,分别采取严格证明、自由证明和适当证明的方式。羁押申请机关和犯罪嫌疑人、被告人是羁押证明主体,法官不承担证明责任,侦查人员是侦查中羁押审查的证明主体。我国的羁押证明应当建立独立的程序体系,并贯穿于整个刑事诉讼过程之中。目前,我国刑事诉讼法对证明责任的分配并无明确、直接的规定。在最高人民法院、最高人民检察院等“两高三部委”的规定中,明确规定了控诉方承担证明责任以及辩护方承担提供证据的义务。笔者认为,羁押审查应当实行“谁主张、谁举证”与证明责任倒置相结合的原则。即原则上应按照“谁主张、谁举证”的原则进行分配;但对重大程序性争议事项的证明,实行证明责任倒置的原则,由追诉机关承担证明非法行为不存在的责任。具体而言,对于程序性争议,控诉方不仅要提供证据,还要承担说服责任,证明方式为严格证明。对于控诉方提出的程序性请求,应由控诉方承担证明责任,证明方式为适当证明。辩护方对于己方提出的程序性请求,应当承担一定的证明责任。无论是对程序性争议,还是程序性请求,辩护方只承担提出证据的责任,证明方式为自由证明。我国刑事诉讼法没有关于证明标准的明确规定。一般认为,我国刑事诉讼只有“案件事实清楚,证据确实充分”一个证明标准。将这一标准适用于程序法事实,在实务中很难实现。域外大都根据不同的诉讼阶段、证明对象、证明主体等,采用不同的证明标准。笔者认为,应借鉴域外证明标准的合理因素,完善我国的羁押证明标准。一是在控诉方承担证明责任的情况下,对于排除非法证据、违法羁押等程序性争议,应当要求控诉方证明到“排除合理怀疑”的程度;对于控诉方提出申请羁押等程序性请求,应证明到“清楚可信”的程度。二是在辩护方提出因怀孕、患病或哺乳而申请取保候审等程序性请求时,达到“优势证据”的标准即可。第六章羁押司法救济。大陆法系的羁押救济方式主要有:司法复查、抗告(准抗告)、再抗告(特别抗告)、排除非法证据、上诉或申诉。甚至提交宪法法院审查。英美法系主要有:申请保释、申请“人身保护令”、排除非法证据、上诉等。我国刑事诉讼法虽然规定了羁押的救济方式,但存在着羁押救济行政化、控辩救济不平等、救济程序缺少可操作性等问题。笔者认为,羁押作为剥夺人身自由严厉的强制措施,除了对其适用条件和程序加以严格限定外,还必须建立针对违法羁押和滥用羁押措施的司法救济机制。应当将现有非法证据排除规则上升到立法层面,进一步作出具体明确的规定;完善违法羁押的程序性制裁制度;设立“中间上诉”程序;明令禁止驳回羁押申请后继续拘束人身自由;严格限制基于同一案件的再次羁押。更多还原

【Abstract】 The detention is the important issues of the criminal enforcement measure system, which drawing on the deprivation of the basic civil rights. Therefore, Extraterritorial judicial review generally will be detained as an important principle of the system, and establishment of a comprehensive review of detention procedures, from the main detention review, the review process, substantial elements and other aspects of the application to be severely restricted in detention, while providing adequate judicial relief, detention system to protect the criminal proceedings to achieve the smooth and the dual role of protecting human rights.The detention is not a compulsory measure in the criminal legislation of our country, which is included in the arrest and criminal in detention, is to take measures to arrest and criminal detention of arrested persons deprived of their longer period of time, was detained in a state of personal freedom . The lack of judicial review of detention, the review body to review the content, review procedures and remedies and so there are big problems. This is caused by extended detention, torture and other illegal detention issues often found newspapers, continues to be sustained, so that our Constitution, Civil Rights in Criminal Procedure Law provisions on the shelf, not in the detention of effective and efficient implementation in practice. With the deepening of the process of the rule of law, in particular the protection of human rights and the implementation of the concept of procedural justice, requires the establishment of the principle of judicial review of detention and the detention review process for building science are growing.In this paper, the existence of detention legislation and practical issues, drawing on reasonable factors extraterritorial detention system, detention review process through the systematic study of the elements, in order to improve the system of detention review some theoretical thinking. This article is divided into six chapters.Detention review procedures outlined in the first chapter. The chapter in three parts, the first part of the detention of the concept, nature, purpose, detention and arrest, criminal detention, and other basic areas of the relationship are discussed. Detained in different countries and regions, although different titles, usually refers to the entry into force of conviction in the court a long time before the deprivation of the suspect, defendant or state measure of personal freedom. The purpose of procedural safeguards in detention as follows: prevention of crime suspects and defendants to flee, hide or destroy evidence, to ensure smooth and effective criminal convictions to be implemented. Detention is the essence of the fundamental rights of citizens of the intervention, but also the negation of the principle of presumption of innocence, if properly applied, will have the basic rights of detainees to cause significant damage. Therefore, we must abide by the legal principle in detention, with the exception principle, the principle of proportionality and the principle of judicial review.In the second part of this chapter, the meaning of the detention review process and elements of the brief. Detention review process is a judicial review process, according to the inherent requirements of the judicial process, detention review process should at least have the following elements: the main detention review, the start of the main detention review process and other participants; detention review matters; detention review, including writing, hearing and trial or hearing mode; proof of detention review mechanism; detention of judicial relief mechanisms.In the third part of this chapter, the meaning of judicial review was discussed. "Judicial review" in either sense in the judicial review can also be used in Administrative Law; you can also refer to both collectively. Judicial review and judicial review have established contact, the two cross each other, judicial review is judicial review of a specific model; judicial review is one of judicial review. There is no sense of our constitutional system of judicial review. Administrative Procedure Law enacted in 1989, will review are limited to the specific administrative acts in general, criminal proceedings in the investigation, prosecution and other special specific administrative act, not included in the scope of administrative litigation cases. Detention and other compulsory measures will be included in scope of judicial review, is the rule of law, protection of human rights principles, the principle of power constraints and the "final decision of justice" principle of the necessary requirement.The second part reviews the main body of the detention. This chapter begins the two legal systems, international criminal justice standards and review of the main detention legislation and practice analysis, which Points out that given the right to extraterritorial review of the detention of judges, and the mechanism is that the independence and neutrality of judges. Our decision will be given criminal detention, public security organs, the decision to arrest the mandate given to undertake the prosecution indictment, impartiality is questioned, also sparked heated debate.Judges review the exercise of the right of detention, must prevent the formation of pre-broken. Therefore, the establishment of detention in court reviews of court, the configuration of detention review the judge responsible for the detention of criminal proceedings in the review function is an ideal model. Can also take a compromise approach, the full court review of a judge is responsible for matters relating to detention or in detention review the judge’s challenge system, but also prevent effective way to prejudge. This chapter also determines the start of the main theoretical basis for detention and the start of the main types of issues are briefly analyzed.Chapter III reviewed the contents of detention. This chapter first detained the two legal systems and our substantive elements of the legislation and practice were analyzed. Two Legal provisions for the substantial conditions of detention vary widely, but all contain some common factors: First, the suspect material; the second is the general grounds for detention, including: criminal suspects have fled or have substantial reasons to suspect may flee, substantial reasons to suspect or defendant will be destroyed, forged, altered evidence, or with an accomplice, the witness collusion; third special grounds for detention, the reasons for preventive detention. Fourth, a felony condition is suspected of a crime punishable offense should reach above a certain penalty. In some jurisdictions, such as China, Taiwan, also detained in detention as an element of the need for separately. China must also have evidence of arrest, penalties and the need for three conditions. Legislation and practice the main problems: First, the principle of evidence are too, the lack of maneuverability; Second, conditions for scientific sentence; three necessary conditions is not clear, this condition is rarely considered in practice; Fourth, the detention period designed to detect for the purpose. Improvement of the substantial conditions of detention, arrest and detention premise is to achieve separation, the provisions of the arrest and detention under different conditions.The second part of this chapter discusses the scope of the review of detention. Scope of the review of the detention in detention is the strength of substantial elements of the review. Terms of civil law countries have adopted models of litigation, detention review is stronger than the common law system, but the two legal systems for the scope of the review of detention are stringent restrictions. Scope of the review of the detention of the Criminal Procedure Law does not specify, but allows for "leakage catch" to "hunt." The fourth chapter is the review of detention methods. Extraterritorial detention review are written, words in two ways. Among them, the words of the review method are divided into: "tripartite structure of these" words of the review, "both construction" type of words written examination of the review and the review model. Way of writing and the words advantages and disadvantages, Germany, Japan and a written examination review of the strengths of both absorption modes. China’s detention review by the prosecutor in charge of pre-trial stage, in what manner the review, the law does not clearly defined, which generally considered being a written examination. Supreme People’s Procuratorate in 2003 requested a review of the decision, approved the arrest, whish should be questioning the suspect. Accordingly, can be understood as adopting a "interrogation mode." Detention of the court review is limited to the trial stage, in addition to changes in detention or release, as well as exclusionary rule to revoke the verdict, review of remand and other indirect methods. No specific procedures for such review, practice, courts review the legality of detention. China’s detention review hearing should be taken between the open and closed questioning the non-public hearing between the way applications for authorities and detained suspects and their counsel attended the two sides presented their views.Chapter five is about the detention review proof. Proof of detention review is a procedural proof. Detention review the full freedom of proof applicable, views is not consistent. The "major suspects" of the judge, can not help determine the merits of the case involved, the situation should be different from the proof of the appropriate manner. Hearsay evidence can be used as evidence to determine detention. Confessions of the investigation of arbitrary detention should review the application of the principle, but as long as the illegal collection of physical evidence is true, can be used as a basis to determine detention. Application for authority and the detention of criminal suspects and defendants is the main proof of detention review, the judge does not assume the burden of proof, investigators are in the detention investigation proved that the review body. In civil law countries, the proof of the criminal proceedings were divided into substantive law and procedural law the fact that fact. Procedural law procedural dispute the facts can be divided into requests and procedural matters. Proof procedure should be present in the entire criminal process. At this stage, the procedure of proof procedures based on solid proof. Construction of the procedure should be independent proof system.Burden of Proof and certification standards are the focus of discussion in this chapter. Although the difference between two legal systems legislation, however, most of the major provisions of the criminal proceedings the burden of proof borne by the prosecution, the defense behavior in exceptional circumstances take responsibility. Theory of the prosecution bear the burden of proof is based on the presumption of innocence, which reversed burden of proof burden of proving the defense theory of liability basis. Factors that affect the allocation of the burden of proof include: litigation model; proof of ability to participants in the proceedings; process the ownership interests. China’s Criminal Procedure Law of the allocation of the burden of proof not clearly defined. Perfect proof of detention review mechanism must be based on proof of the main body to prove the different objects, scientific distribution of the burden of proof.Standard of proof is to prove that the main use of evidence to prove their claims to the extent that should be. Most of the cases depending on the extraterritorial nature of the litigation stage, proof objects, such as proof of the main body, set a different standard of proof to prove the formation of multi-level standards. China’s Criminal Procedure Law does not expressly provided on the standard of proof should distinguish between different stages of the proceedings, evidence for different objects to prove the main body, set a different standard of proof.Chapter VI is the detention relief program. Civil law remedies in detention are: judicial review, by former leader (quasi former leader), and then former leader (especially former leader), exclusion of illegal evidence, appeal or complaint. Even before the Constitutional Court for review. Common law are: to apply for bail, appeal, application for "habeas corpus" to exclude illegal evidence. China’s Criminal Procedure Law provides for a remedy in detention, but there are many problems: First, administration of pre-trial relief; second prosecution and the defense of relief inequality; third phase of the trial courts of non-judicial remedies; Fourth, the lack of operational relief program sex. Should establish the liability of the illegal detention system; improve the relief system of detention.更多还原