【作者】 胡婷；

【导师】 李昌林；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑事诉讼法学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 刑事审前程序程序性决定(如立案决定、强制措施决定和不起诉决定等)涉及到立案、侦查、起诉各个环节,这些决定通常是由国家公权力单方面作出,往往会影响到当事人的人身自由权或财产权等基本权利。“无救济则无权利”,因此,刑事审前程序性决定救济制度对保障当事人的诉讼权利、制约公权力以及刑事审前程序的合理构建都有着至关重要的影响。考察我国现行《刑事诉讼法》中的有关规定不难发现,复议、复核、申诉以及直接向人民法院起诉是当事人对审前程序性决定采取的主要救济方式。但由于立法上的先天缺陷导致司法实践中刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的运行,无法发挥其诉讼效果。同时,诉讼法学界兴趣的不足以及资料的匮乏,也在一定程度上阻碍我国刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的改革和完善。因此,对刑事审前程序性决定的救济制度进行全面的探讨,具有重要的理论和实践意义。全文除引言和结语外,正文由三大部分组成。第一部分简要介绍了我国刑事审前程序性决定的种类及其救济制度构成。我国目前的刑事审前程序性包括管辖、启动或终结刑事诉讼程序、限制或剥夺犯罪嫌疑人人身自由权利和财产权利、回避决定等。刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的制度构成主要体现在六个方面:其一,救济范围包括不立案、驳回申请回避、撤案、超过法定期限的强制措施、不批准逮捕以及不起诉决定;其二,救济权的分配,被害人、犯罪嫌疑人以及公安机关均可以对相应的审前程序性决定提出异议;其三,救济方式包括复议复核、申诉以及向人民法院起诉;其四,救济启动程序呈简单化特征;其五,救济审查主体不统一,原决定机关、原决定机关的上级机关以及人民法院均可以成为救济审查主体;其六,救济审查程序呈书面化、秘密化的特征。第二部分对我国审前程序性决定救济制度的现状进行反思。我国现有的审前程序性决定救济制度主要存在五个方面的不足。第一,救济范围较狭窄。刑事审前程序性决定救济范围与复杂多样的审前程序性决定不相适应,无法满足当事人的权利诉求。第二,救济权的分配不均衡。虽然被害人和犯罪嫌疑人均能对审前程序性决定申请救济,但是在他们之间的权利分配却并不平等,法律的天平明显向被害人倾斜而相对忽视了犯罪嫌疑人的权利保障。第三,救济方式缺乏有效性。复议复核趋同于行政化救济,申诉方式又形同虚设,直接向人民法院起诉也无法在现有制度下满足被害人的权利救济需求。第四,救济启动程序简单化。现有法律缺乏对救济主体以何种方式、哪种途径、在什么期限内申请救济,救济主体在申请救济时是否应当说明救济理由和提供充分的证据等救济启动程序方面的详尽规定。第五,救济审查主体中立性不足。现有的救济审查主体未能完全脱离原决定机关,无法保障救济审查的独立性、中立性。第六,救济审查程序规则的缺失。现有的救济途径缺乏对救济审查方式、审查期限、审查范围等的明确规定,导致救济审查趋于书面化、秘密化,无法体现程序参与等程序公正的基本要素。第三部分提出了矫正我国审前程序性决定救济制度的具体措施。针对我国刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的不足,我们应当从六个方面对我国审前程序性决定救济制度进行改革。第一,救济范围的改革。应当适当扩大救济范围,将可能影响当事人利益的审前程序性决定均纳入救济体系,主要包括管辖、立案与不立案、撤案、拒绝回避申请、强制措施和搜查、扣押、冻结的强制性侦查措施以及不起诉决定。第二,调整救济权的分配。应当明确救济权主体为诉讼权利受到审前程序性决定直接影响的诉讼参与人本人,即犯罪嫌疑人和被害人,同时应当平衡二者之间的救济权以体现平等原则。第三,救济方式的改革。应当将救济定位于由现在的行政性救济程序向诉讼化救济形态转变,整合当前过于分散和混乱的救济方式,形成一个系统的刑事审前程序性决定救济制度。第四,完善救济启动程序的。从诉讼效率和权利保障的角度,救济期限宜规定为权利主体收到决定书之日起七日内;发动救济的形式既可以是口头也可以是书面,而救济申请既可以直接向原决定机关提出也可以向救济审查机关提出;救济主体在申请救济之时,只需要说明程序性决定错误的理由即可,无需承担举证责任。第五,增强救济审查主体的中立性。在我国现有的司法体制下,对公安机关作出的刑事审前程序性决定宜由人民检察院进行救济审查;对检察院作出的刑事审前程序性决定宜由其上一级检察院进行救济审查。第六,构建救济程序规则。救济审查方式应当采取相对诉讼化的形式,应当在救济申请者与被申请者的参与下进行,允许双方提供证据;救济审查的内容应当既包括对决定本身违法的审查也包括对执行层次违法的审查;应当规定救济审查期限,确定救济审查机关的告知义务,以保障被害人和犯罪嫌疑人的合法权利。更多还原

【Abstract】 Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for decisions (such as the decision of the investigation, decisions and measures of decision not to prosecute, etc.) related to the filing, investigation, prosecution of all aspects of these decisions are usually made unilaterally by the state power, often affect the person’s personal liberty or property rights and other basic rights. "No relief no rights", therefore, the criminal pretrial procedural decisions relief system on the protection of the procedural rights of the parties, which restricts public power and criminal pretrial procedures have a reasonable construction of a crucial impact. Investigation of the existing "Code of Criminal Procedure" in the relevant provisions of the difficult to find, review, review, appeals and direct the parties to the people’s court is a procedural decision on the pre-trial remedies taken by the major. However, due to congenital defects in the legislative practice of the criminal justice pre-trial procedural decisions relief system operation, can not play the action effect. Meanwhile, the lack of procedural law as well as academic interest in the lack of information, but also to some extent hindered the criminal trial procedural decisions before the reform and improve the relief system. Therefore, the criminal pretrial procedure determines the relief system to conduct a comprehensive study has important theoretical and practical significance.This dissertation consists of parts besides an introduction and a conclusion.The first part briefly describes the pre-trial of the criminal procedural decisions constitute the type of relief system. China’s current criminal pretrial procedural types of decisions, including jurisdiction, criminal proceedings start or end, to limit or deprive suspects of personal freedom and property rights, to avoid a decision. Criminal Procedure before the system determines the form of relief system, mainly in six aspects, one of relief include not filing a case, dismissed the application for withdrawal, taken off the case, more than the statutory period of enforcement, not to approve the arrest and the decision not to prosecute; its Second, the distribution of relief to the right of the victim, suspect and public security organs can be of the appropriate pre-trial procedural challenge the decision; Third, the remedies include the reconsideration review, the complainant and to the people’s court; Fourth, start the process of relief feature was simple; The fifth review of the main relief is not uniform, the original decision-making organ, the original decision to higher authorities and the authorities can be a relief to the people’s court review of the main body; the sixth, relief was documented review process, the secret of the features.The second part of our pre-trial procedural decisions reflect the current situation of the relief system. Pre-trial procedures of the existing relief system determines the existence of five major deficiencies. First, narrow the scope of relief. Pre-trial Criminal Procedure determines the scope and complexity and diversity of relief in pre-trial procedural decisions does not fit in the right of the parties can not meet demand. Second, the uneven distribution of the right to relief. Although per capita victims and suspects can apply for pre-trial procedural decisions relief, but in between them and the unequal distribution of power is the law of the balance was tilted to the victims and the relative neglect of protection of the rights of criminal suspects. Third, the lack of effective remedies. Review of administrative reconsideration of the convergence of relief, the complainant in a manner non-existent, the people’s court directly under the existing system can not meet the relief needs of victims rights. Fourth, the benefits start the program simple. Lack of relief of the main existing legal ways, which means, in what period of time for relief, and relief of the main relief is in the application shall state the reasons and to provide adequate relief and other relief to start the procedure the evidence detailed requirements. Fifth, the review of the main neutral relief is insufficient. Review of the existing relief not completely out of the main organs of the original decision, relief can not guarantee the independence of the review, neutrality. Sixth, the lack of relief to review the rules of procedure. Remedy the lack of available means of relief review, the review period, review the scope of the clearly defined, tends to result in a written review of relief, the secret of, program participation can not reflect the basic elements of procedural fairnessThe third section presents a correction procedure of pre-trial relief system determines the specific measures. Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for the sex determination system, the lack of relief, we should from the six aspects of the procedural decision of pre-trial relief system reform. First, the reform of the scope of relief. Should be appropriate to expand the scope of relief, the parties may affect the interests of both pre-trial proceedings into the relief system of the decision, including jurisdiction, filing and not filing, taken off the case, refused to apply for the withdrawal, mandatory measures and search, seizure, freezing of the mandatory investigation measures and the decision not to prosecute. Second, the right to adjust the distribution of relief. Should be clear right to relief for the procedural rights of the main procedural decisions by the pre-trial court proceedings who is directly affected me, that is, suspects and victims, and should the right balance between relief to reflect the principle of equality. Third, the remedies of the reform. Relief should be located in the administrative relief from the current program of relief to the proceedings of the change in shape, integrate the current fragmented and chaotic way of relief, forming a system of criminal trial procedural decisions before the relief system. Fourth, the benefits start a program of reform. Relief program should be clear to launch rights for the proceedings was the subject of pretrial procedural decisions directly affect themselves and their legal representatives who participated in the proceedings; from the litigation perspective of efficiency and protection of the rights, remedies should be provided time in right of receiving the written decision within seven days; launched either in the form of relief can also be written oral, and relief to the original decision to apply either directly to the relief agencies can also review the proposed authority; relief of the main application for relief, only need to explain procedural decisions the wrong reasons can be, without the burden of proof. Fifth, the relative neutrality of the main benefits of the review. In our existing judicial system, public security authorities to the criminal pretrial procedural decisions for relief should be reviewed by the People’s Procuratorate; Procuratorate made of pre-trial criminal procedural decisions should be remedied by the review on a Procuratorate. Sixth, the reform of relief review of the decision process. Approach should be taken to remedy the review proceedings of the relative form of relief to the applicant and shall be carried out under the applicant’s participation, allowing both parties to provide evidence; relief to review the content should be both a review of the decision per se but also on the executive level of illegal review; should provide relief to the review period, the review bodies to determine the obligations of relief to protect the victim and the legitimate rights of criminal suspects.更多还原