【作者】 王天林；

【导师】 周长军；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2011， 博士

【副题名】以侦查行为的可诉性为中心

【摘要】 “无救济则无权利”,是英国的一句法律格言,也是法治国家的一条基本经验。一个人的权利受到侵害后能否得到及时、有效的救济是衡量一个国家司法水准高低和法治实现程度的重要标尺。刑事诉讼法作为“宪法的适用法”和“动态的人权法”,向来都被看作是一个国家人权保障状况的“风向标”。在刑事诉讼中,刑事被追诉人处于被追究的诉讼地位,其权利极易受到代表国家行使权力的追诉机关的侵害,因而其权利救济也就显得更为艰难。从完善法制的角度而言,加强对刑事被追诉人在诉讼过程中的权利保护使其不受侵害固然重要,但权利受到侵害后能否得到及时救济却更为关键。问题恰恰在于,我国的刑事诉讼在对刑事被追诉人的权利保障方面,却缺乏有效的救济机制。尤其在侦查程序中体现更为突出。在侦查程序中既无程序性制裁制度,又缺乏相应的司法救济机制。而司法救济机制的缺位,则反映出我国的侦查程序不具有诉讼结构,侦查行为因此也就不具有可诉性,其结果必然导致犯罪嫌疑人的权利无从得到救济。这一状况已为刑事司法实践中冤案频发的事实所屡屡证明。正如有学者指出,在未建立基本的救济机制的情况下,继续扩大权利的外延和范围,最多只能达到在法律文本上列举更多“权利条款”的效果,而不会带来法治环境和法治效果的实质性改善。如今,随着中国特色社会主义法律体系的完成,中国法治的重心必然意味着从立法时代向司法时代的转变。法治发展下一个阶段的突出矛盾将是解决“有法不依、执法不严、违法不究”的问题。与此相应,法学研究的重心也必将从对静态的立法和宏观理论的研究转移到对动态的法律运行的理论和实践的研究。当前,我国的刑事诉讼法正面临着新的修正,与刑事司法体制改革紧密关联的侦查程序也在重塑之中,对于侦查程序中权利救济的研究,必将有力地促进我国刑事司法体制的改革和完善。权利保障以司法救济为重要途径,而司法救济则以行为的可诉性为必要前提。正因如此,笔者决定将“侦查行为侵权司法救济研究——以侦查行为的可诉性为中心”作为自己的博士论文选题。全文除导论外,共分为六章,现将全文要点总结如下：导论部分主要阐述了本文论题的提出、国内外对侦查行为侵权司法救济的研究状况以及本文的研究思路、研究方法与结构体系等内容。全文围绕“提出问题、分析问题和解决问题”的基本思路,在对概念、理论、制度和实践进行阐述、分析和论证的基础之上,围绕主题步步分解,层层推进,实现了由部分到整体的研究目标。在英美法系国家,以诉权为核心的权利救济一直是一门兼具实体法与程序法特点的专门课题,历来为法学界和实务界所高度关注并倾力研究,其历史较长,影响也大,因而积累了相当丰富的理论研究成果和司法实践经验。同英美法系国家相比,大陆法系国家则注重诉讼行为理论,往往从诉讼行为,尤其是侦查行为效果的角度来关注对刑事被追诉人的权利救济问题。而我国对于权利救济的理论还停留在权利证成方面,现有成果多是从“权利本位”角度所进行的一种证成式研究,即论证权利确立的必要性和合理性,而对法律运作中的救济问题所作的研究较少,因而难以为司法实践中权利救济制度的建构提供有效的理论指导。实践表明,建立在“权利设定”方面的法律规定,因其本身缺乏可操作性而难以在实践中真正得到落实,因而难以实现权利救济的功能。针对这一不足,本文在坚持权利证成的同时,力图实现从权利证成研究到权利运作研究的转换。第一章主要阐述了侦查行为侵权司法救济的内涵及其与侦查行为可诉性的关系。具体内容分为两节。第一节通过对侦查行为侵权及其司法救济概念的界定,对侦查行为侵权的性质进行了分析和论证。本文所谓的侦查行为侵权,专指侦查机关在侦查过程中,因违法实施侦查行为而对嫌疑人的人身、财产或其他权利所造成的侵犯。对于其司法救济,则有广义和狭义之分。广义的司法救济,是指国家为避免公民的合法权益受到侦查行为的侵害而对其实施所作的全面控制,包括事前的预防、事中的控制和事后的救济；狭义的司法救济仅指事后的救济,即指犯罪嫌疑人认为侦查机关的侦查行为侵犯其合法权益,而向国家司法机关提起诉讼,由司法机关受理并作出裁判的一种权利救济途径。由于涉及对侦查程序的全面控制,故本文使用其广义概念。至于侦查行为侵权的性质,笔者认为,侦查行为侵权是一种行政权性质的国家侵权,属于干预行政之一种。第二节从可诉性的概念出发,着重分析了侦查行为可诉性的涵义及其与侦查行为侵权司法救济的关系。本文所称的侦查行为的可诉性,包含广义和狭义两层含义。广义上的可诉性,是指侦查行为的可司法审查性；狭义上的可诉性,仅指犯罪嫌疑人有权对侦查行为向中立的司法机构提起诉讼,由司法机构受理并作出裁判的属性。侦查行为侵权的司法救济,只有建立在侦查行为可诉性的基础之上,方能实现对犯罪嫌疑人权利的保护。第二章主要阐述了侦查行为侵权司法救济的正当性根据。具体内容分为四节。第一节通过两大法系对权利与救济关系的不同认识,分析了救济制度背后的理论根基,即无论是“救济先于权利”还是“权利先于救济”,都意味着救济权的存在。但享有救济权并不意味着当事人可以直接请求国家司法机关对权利进行保护,其还要通过诉权的行使来启动国家的司法救济。由此也便引出了使权利能够获得司法救济的诉权。侦查程序中的诉权,是犯罪嫌疑人所享有的一项请求国家司法救济的权利。作为一种启动和制约裁判权的权利,诉权在侦查程序中是否存在,与侦查行为侵权司法救济有着不可或缺的直接联系,没有诉权,也就谈不上侦查行为侵权的司法救济。第二节从解决刑事纠纷和维护社会秩序的角度阐述了侦查行为侵权司法救济的必要性。侦查行为侵权本身是社会冲突的表现形式之一。认知冲突现象是寻求权利救济理论的基本线索,也是侦查行为侵权司法救济的现实根据。在纠纷解决方面,人类之所以最终选择诉讼的解决方式,本身便是基于法律所蕴含的对于秩序的预期追求,亦即法律不仅能够为人们提供“可靠的预期”,从而使人们的行为“有序地”进行,而且还能够在人们的行为发生冲突时为人们提供纠纷解决的机制。侦查纠纷是刑事纠纷在侦查阶段的表现,对于其解决也必须遵循刑事纠纷诉讼化解决的基本方式。第三节通过对刑事程序法定与正当程序原则的分析,指出刑事程序法定与正当程序原则,不仅对于侦查程序的法治化提出了明确要求,而且为侦查程序中的权利救济提供了法律依据。第四节通过对人权保障与司法审查原则的分析,阐述了法治国家的主要目标就是要保护公民的权利不受国家权力的侵害。既然国家必须尊重和保障人权,那么,就需要对侵犯人权的行为提供具有实效性的救济。综观世界各国的法治实践,无不通过司法审查制度来实现对人权的保护。“法治国完美的理想达到最高峰乃是国家生活达到普遍的司法性,是国家行为与争议都可以有类似司法的途径来解决。”第三章系对侦查行为侵权司法救济的功能分析。内容分为三节。第一节通过对刑事诉讼主体理论的阐述,从确保控辩平等,犯罪嫌疑人防御权的行使以及犯罪嫌疑人被侵犯的权利能够得到救济等方面,分析了侦查行为侵权司法救济对于犯罪嫌疑人人权保护的作用。第二节在分析程序公正内涵的基础上,分析了侦查行为侵权的司法救济由于能够提供第三方裁判的机制,使当事人参与到侦查程序中来,同时也使得侦查程序实现适度公开,因而能够实现侦查程序的公正。第三节分析了侦查行为侵权的司法救济对于侦查权的控制。侦查程序权利救济制度对于侦查权的控制,主要体现在三个方面：一是能够完善侦查构造,重塑侦查程序；二是能够使侦查权受到诉权的制约；三是能够使侦查权受到司法权的制约。第四章为侦查行为侵权司法救济的域外考察。内容分为两节。第一节主要介绍了现代法治国家对于侦查行为侵权司法救济的基本途径。综观西方法治国家,尽管其诉讼理念有所不同,侦查权的具体运作方式也有很大差异,但大都强调法官对侦查程序的介入,以使侦查权受到司法权的制约,防止其在运作过程中可能出现的偏差和失误；并通过赋予侦查行为以可诉性,提供各具特色的事后救济措施,建立起了对侦查行为实施的动态性司法控制。从国外的经验来看,对侦查行为的程序规制有事前、事中和事后等阶段的不同措施,但无论是事前的司法授权、事中的司法控制,还是事后的司法救济,无不体现了司法审查的根本原则,内含着司法救济的基本宗旨。第二节主要介绍了现代法治国家对于侦查行为侵权司法救济的特殊途径。西方法治国家和国际社会关于犯罪嫌疑人的权利救济主要是通过对侦查行为动态性的司法控制来实现的,除此常规途径以外,尚有一种特殊途径,即宪法诉讼。本文所称的宪法诉讼,是指公民在自己的宪法权利受到侵害时向专门机关寻求宪法救济的手段和途径,即仅为解决公权力与私权利之间纠纷的一种特殊途径。在现代法治国家三种不同的宪法诉讼模式之中,都有关于侦查行为侵犯公民宪法权利或直接或间接的救济途径。第五章是对我国侦查行为侵权司法救济的现状分析。内容分为两节。第一节分析了我国侦查行为侵权司法救济存在的问题。其主要体现为侦查程序中权利救济制度的缺位。这些制度的缺位,充分说明了我国的侦查程序不具有诉讼结构,侦查行为不具有可诉性。而侦查行为之不具可诉性,则直接导致违法侦查的受害人不能向法院提起诉讼,从而使其权利无法获得有效的救济。第二节分析了我国侦查行为侵权司法救济制度缺位的原因。其中最为突出的原因有五个方面：一是侦查行为可诉性制度的构建存在观念障碍；二是对于国外法治的先进经验吸收不足；三是侦查程序不具有诉讼结构,司法救济权(诉权)缺乏行使的空间；四是对于公检法关系的定位失当；五是刑事司法潜规则的盛行。由于这些因素的影响,在现代刑事诉讼的基本原则都还未确立的情况下,侦查行为之不具可诉性问题,无疑就显得太过具体,加之其直接关涉到国家刑事司法体制的一系列问题,牵一发而动全身,侦查行为侵权司法救济之难,也就可想而知了。第六章系侦查行为侵权司法救济制度在中国的建构。内容分为两节。第一节探讨了建构侦查行为侵权司法救济的观念定位。“观念既是制度构建的基础,又是制度运行的驱动力。”为了实现中国法制的现代化,必须实现中国法制建构宏观观念和刑事救济制度建构具体观念的重塑。笔者认为,对于原发型国家,制度是经验的产物,而对于后发型国家,制度则是理性建构的产物。中国法治的百年历程表明,只有破除制度只能自发演化而不能理性创设的思维定势,彻底摒弃“国情论”和“本土论”的错误观念,才能够以开放的心态实现对其他国家先进制度经验的虚心学习和借鉴。第二节阐述了建构侦查行为侵权司法救济的制度设想。从制度建构的角度出发,同时基于完善中国未来宪政体制的需要,笔者对于构建侦查行为侵权司法救济制度提出了近期、中期和远期三个目标的构想。近期目标是确立侦查行为的可诉性,即赋予嫌疑人能够就侦查行为提起诉讼的权利。中期目标是建立司法审查制度,就是在刑事司法程序中建立一种由司法权力对行政权力予以制约的程序控制机制,使国家的追诉权力在事先、事中或事后能够受到一个独立和中立司法机关的审查控制,以确保这些行为符合法律和宪法的要求,而不致在打击犯罪的名义下,变相地限制或侵害公民的合法权益。远期目标即建立宪法诉讼制度。中国宪法尽管确认了自身在法律体系中的最高法律效力,但由于宪法没有司法化,往往只具有宣示意义。为了有效保护公民的宪法权利,我国有必要在现有的民事诉讼、行政诉讼以及刑事诉讼制度的基础之上建立一种能对公民的司法救济权予以充分保障的宪法诉讼制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 "Remedy Precedes Rights" or "A right without remedy is not a right" is a British legal maxim, which is also a basic experience of rule of law in developed countries. It is an important symbol to measure the level of a country’s standard of justice and rule of law whether a person can get timely and effective relief after the violation of his rights. As the law of "application of constitution" and "dynamic human rights", the criminal procedure code has always been seen as a national "benchmark" of human rights protection situation in a country. In criminal proceedings, the accused is in a position to be held in the litigation, his rights are vulnerable to be encroached by the prosecution authorities, and the remedy is quite more difficult. From the perspective of improving the legal system, it is important to strengthen the accused’ s rights protection during the proceedings, while it is even more critical for the timely relief when his rights have been violated. Thus, a serious problem arises—There is no effective relief mechanism in China’s criminal proceedings, which is reflected prominent in the investigation process. There is neither procedural sanctions system nor appropriate judicial relief mechanisms in the investigation process.The absence of judicial relief mechanism reflects our investigation procedure does not have the structure of litigation, therefore, the investigation behaviors can not be judicial. Thus, the results will inevitably lead to the suspects cannot get relief for their violated rights. This situation has been confirmed frequently by the injustice cases in criminal practice. As some scholar has pointed out that it is no good to continue to expand the outreach and scope of rights before the establishment of basic judicial relief mechanisms, which can only make effect to add more "rights provisions" in the legal text list and will not bring the situation and the rule of law to substantial improvements. Now, with the accomplishment in building "the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics", the center of China’s rule of law necessarily means the turn from the legislative times to the judicial times. The next development phase of rule of law will be to resolve the outstanding contradictions in law enforcement. Corresponding to this turn, the focus of research must subsequently turn to the research on legal operation of the dynamic theory and practice from a static and macro theory of legislation research. At present, China is facing a new amendment for the criminal procedure code, the criminal justice system reform is also reshaping its investigation procedure. Thus, the research on judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement will greatly promote our criminal justice system reform and improvement. Judicial relief is an important way for rights protection, while the behaviors justiciablity is the necessary precondition for judicial relief. Just For this reason, I decided to choose the research on the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement as my doctoral dissertation topic.In addition to the introduction, the paper is consist of six chapters. The main points are summarized as follows:The introduction describes why the topic is chosen and what are the research statuses of judicial remedies both at home and abroad. It also introduces the research ideas, research methods and structural system and so on. The whole paper focuses on the basic idea "putting forward the problem, analyze the problem and solve the problem". Based on analyses and demonstrations of the concepts, theories, systems and practices, the paper breaks through each level to realize the overall research goal. In common law countries, the right of appeal as the core of the right to relief has always been a central issue for both the substantive law and the procedural law. Therefore, there are wealthy results both in theoretical research and in judicial practice experience. Compared with the common law countries, the civil law countries focus on the theory of legal behaviors, they often pay attention to the accused’s rights remedies in the perspective of the effect of investigation behaviors. While in China, the theory of rights remedies still remains in the situation of rights justification, which making it difficult to provide effective theoretical guidance for the construction of rights remedies. Practice shows that the law based on the "rights set" is difficult to truly implement in practice for its lack of maneuverability, therefore it is difficult to realize the function to remedy rights. For this deficiency, this paper tries to achieve the conversion breakthrough from the right justification to right operation.Chapter I focuses on the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement and its relationship with the justiciablity of investigation behaviors. The specific content is divided into two paragraphs. Paragraph I analysizes the connotation of investigation behaviors infringement and its judicial relief. The investigation behaviors infringement in this paper, specifically refers to the suspect’s person, property or other rights violations caused by the investigating authorities’illegal investigation behaviors in the investigation process. The judicial relief consists of broad and narrow meanings. The broad meaning refers to the full control to the investigation behaviors so as to avoid the infringement, including the prior prevention, the judicial involvement and the ex post facto judicial relief;the narrow meaning refers only to ex post facto judicial relief. Since this paper emphasise a comprehensive control to the investigation behaviors, so this paper uses the broad meaning. As for the nature of the investigation behaviors infringement, the author believe that it is an infringement of administrative power, which is a kind of administrative interventions. Paragraph II explains the connotation of the investigation behaviors justiciablity and the relationship between the investigation behaviors justiciablity and the investigation behaviors infringement judicial relief. The connotation of investigation behaviors justiciablity referred to in this article, containing broad and narrow meanings. The broad meaning is the judicial review of investigation behaviors. The narrow meaning refers only to criminal suspects have the right to appeal lawsuit against investigation behaviors to the court. The author believe that the investigation behaviors infringement judicial relief only lies on the basement of the investigation behaviors justiciablity, otherwise, it cannot achieve the protection to the criminal suspects rights.Chapter II analyzes the legitimacy basises of the investigation behaviors infringement judicial relief. The specific content is divided into four paragraphs. Paragraph I analyzes the different perceptions on the relationship between "remedy and rights" in both common law countries and civil law countries, whether it is "relief priors rights" or "right priors relief", the existence of the right to relief cannot be ignoured.While the right to relief does not mean that it can lead to the country’s judicial relief. It is still need a right of appeal to start the country’s judicial relief. As a start and restrict right to jurisdiction, the right of appeal is very important in the investigation process. There is a direct link between the right and judicial relief. ParagraphⅡanalyzes the necessity of the investigation behaviors infringement judicial relief from the perspective of resolving criminal disputes and maintaining social order.The investigation behaviors infringement itself is one of the manifestations of social conflict. The cognition of conflict phenomenon is a basic clue in seeking theoretical basises for right remedies, and it is also the reality foundation for the investigation behaviors infringement judicial relief. In dispute settlement, the reason why the lawsuit solution is chosen is because the law itself contains expectations for the order pursuit, which the law can not only provide people with "reliable expectations" so that people can get their behaviors orderly conducted, but also provide them the resolution mechanisms when they meet with disputes. The investigation disputes are performances of criminal disputes in investigation stage, so their solution must follow the basic litigation approach to resolve criminal disputes. ParagraphⅢanalyzes the legal principle of criminal procedure and due process, which not only set forth explicit requirements for the investigation procedures, but also provide a legal basis for judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement. Paragraph IV analyzes the principle of human rights protection and judicial review, and points out the main objective of the country ruled of law is to protect the citizens from the abuses of state power. As the state must respect and protect human rights, it must provide for human rights violations with effective remedies. From the overview of law practice in the world, the countries ruled of law all choose judicial review system to achieve the protection of human rights. "The perfect ideal of the country ruled of law reached its peak is the universal justiciablity, and all the state power behaviors and disputes can be resolved by quasi-judicial means. "Chapter III illustrates the functions of the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement. The specific content is divided into three paragraphs. ParagraphⅠillustrates the criminal subject theory, and analyzes the human rights protection function of judicial relief from the inspects of ensuring equality of prosecution and the defense, the suspect’s exercise of defense rights and the relief of rights violated. ParagraphⅢanalyzes the connotation of procedure justice, the judicial relief can provide a third-party referee mechanism, have the parties participate in the investigation process, and make the investigation process appropriate open, which enables investigative procedure justice. ParagraphⅢelaborates the function to control the investigation power. Since judicial relief realizes the investigation structure perfection, it can make the investigation power to be restricted both by the appeal right and the judicial right.Chapter IV is the outside research on the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement. The specific content is divided into two paragraphs. ParagraphⅠintroduces the general approaches of the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement in modern countries ruled of law. Althrough the litigation concept varies greatly, the specific investigation operation way has also its own characteristics, the vast majority of countries all have judges participating in the investigation process to make the investigation power restricted by the judicial power so as to prevent its deviation and errors from occurring in operation process. And by giving justiciablity to the investigation behaviors, they have established the dynamic judicial control over the implementation of investigation behaviors and provided special relief measures. Overview the experiences from the developed abroad countries ruled of law, the procedure regulations to the implementation of investigation behaviors consist of three manners, they are the prior judicial authorization:the writ system; the judicial participating in the process:the judges involving in the investigation and the ex post facto judicial control:the judicial remedies. No matter what kind of procedure regulation, they all have the fundamental principle of judicial review established with the basic purpose of judicial remedy embodied. Paragraph II elaborates the special approach of the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement in modern countries ruled of law. In addition to the general approaches above, there is still a special way to the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement, that is constitutional litigation. The constitutional litigation referred to in this article, only means a special way which the citizens have the right to appeal to the specialized agency for seeking constitutional relief after their constitutional rights have been violated. It is only a special way for the settlement of disputes between the public power and the private rights.Chapter V is the analysises on the domestic situation of the investigation behaviors infringement judicial relief. The specific content is divided into two paragraphs. Paragraph I analyzes the problems which exist in the domestic situation. The main problems lie in the absences of procedural sanctions system and relief systems. The absences of either procedural sanctions system or rights relief systems, fully illustrates that the investigation behaviors have no justiciablity, which lead inevitably to the direct result that the victims can not appeal the illegal investigation behaviors to the courts so that their rights access to ineffective relief in the course of criminal proceedings. Paragraph II analyzes the reasons of the domestic judicial relief system absence. The most prominent reasons lie in five respects. First, there are conceptual barriers for China in constructing the judicial relief system; Second, we are inadequate in absorption the foreign advanced experiences of rule of law; Third, The investigation procedure having no litigation structure, and the right of appeal lacking exercising space;fourth, the improper enactment relationship among the public security bureau, the procuratorate and the court; and fifth, the prevalence of criminal justice hidden rules. Due to the impacts of these factors, in the case of the basic principles of modern criminal procedure having not been established, the investigation behaviors justiciablity is no doubt too specific an issue. A slight move in one part may affect the situation as a whole with its concern directly to the whole national criminal justice systems. It is a natural thing for the absences of domestic judicial relief system.Chapter VI is the construction of the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement in China. The specific content is divided into two paragraphs. Paragraph I elaborates the concept position for the construction of judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement. "Concept is the basis for system construction, which is also the driving force for system operation. " In order to achieve the modernization of China’ s legal system, we must have the macro-ideas of Chinese legal system construction and the concrete ideas of criminal relief system remodelled. The author believes the system is a product of experience for the original countries while it is a product of rational construction for the undeveloped counteies. The history of more than a hundred years of ruling by law showed that we must get rid of the minset of spontaneous evolution of system but not the rational creation, and abandon completely the misconceptions of "our own national conditions theory" and "local resources of rule of law theory".Only in this way,We can humbly draw and learn from the experiences of advanced systems in other countries with an open mind. ParagraphⅡelaborates the Institutional Imagines for the system construction. From the perspective of system construction, in the needs of perfecting China’s future constitutional system, the author thinks there are three goals for the construction of the judicial relief of investigation behaviors infringement:Short-Term Goal; Medium-Term Goal and Long-Term Goal. Short-term goal is to give justiciablity to the investigation behaviors so as that the suspects have the right to appeal the investigation behaviors to the courts. Medium-term goal is to establish a system of judicial review, so as to make the investigation power restricted by the court. Long-term goal is to establish constitutional litigation. Although China’s constitution has recognized itself the highest legal force in the legal system, the constitution is only be seen as a symbol with its no application in justice. In order to protect effectively the citizens’constitutional rights, China is in great need of setting up the constitutional judicial relief system on the basis of existing judicial relief systems.更多还原