【作者】 肖铃；

【导师】 孙长永；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本文共由引言和七章组成,每章内容除正文外,还有各章小结。引言的主要目的是明确论题的范围,即本文所谓国际刑事诉讼证据规则是指国际刑事诉讼中适用的证据规则,同时还交代了研究现状、研究意义和研究方法。第一章介绍了国际刑事诉讼证据规则的背景,包括历史背景、程序背景和影响国际刑事诉讼证据规则的基本因素。公认的国际刑事诉讼经历了二战后国际军事审判的萌芽时期,二十世纪九十年代开始至今的以特设刑庭审判活动为代表的快速发展时期,以及2002年国际刑事法院成立后的成熟时期。鉴于证据和诉讼程序的不可分性,有必要首先了解国际刑事程序的基本过程,尤其是特设刑庭和国际刑事法院的诉讼程序,二者在很多阶段具有一脉相承的一致性,但是也有一些重要差异如在调查和预审阶段的程序差异,这种差异会影响到证据规则的设置。在历史和程序背景之外,影响国际刑事诉讼证据规则的还有一些背景因素,它们或者导因于其国际性性质,或者源于其追诉罪行的特点,或者是证据本身面临的难题,甚至还有琐屑的独特现实问题。第二章到第六章共五章的篇幅是从各个角度对国际刑事诉讼证据规则的详细梳理和比较分析。第二章讨论了证据自由原则。证据自由原则是国际刑事诉讼从其肇始就一脉相承的原则,普通法系中繁琐精巧的各种技术性规则从未占有一席之地。证据自由原则意味着由法官自由采纳证据、自由评定证据的证明力。可见在证据的可采性上,国际刑事诉讼选择了类似大陆法系的方式,只要是有证明价值和相关性的证据都可以采纳。与此相适应的是,国际刑事诉讼中没有严格的证据排除规则,也不会因为证据是传闻就本身不可采纳,并且也不要求补强证据。但是为了保护性暴力案件的被害人,国际刑事审判中对性暴力案件中的证据采纳和评价问题做了特殊规定。第三章是分析口头证据和文件证据的相关问题。在特设刑庭,为了提高诉讼效率,口头原则已经基本被摒弃,将有更多的文件证据进入法庭,前提是不损害被告人的公正审判权。但是随着科技手段的普遍应用,且《罗马规约》确认通过电子会议作证提供的是直接证据,相信口头证据的地位会有所提升。国际刑事司法机构对证人的安全利益给予了极大关注,集中体现在为证人提供了各种保护性措施,前提是不能损害被告人的公正审判权为代价。国际刑事法庭有权责令证人作证,同时也承认证人享有不自证其罪特权和保密特权。但是证人的不自证其罪特权不是绝对的,法庭仍可责令其提供证据,只是该证据不得在以后的诉讼中用来不利于该证人,这是为了尽量在不损害证人利益的基础上仍能获得证言。特设刑庭和国际刑事法院都承认律师一当事人的保密特权,后者还设定了三步考量法允许法庭在个案中决定是否可认定其他的保密特权。被告人可选择保持沉默,也可选择经宣誓成为辩方证人,除此外,被告人还可作出未宣誓的陈述,对此不受交叉询问,这吸收了大陆法系的做法。文件证据对国际刑事审判非常重要,1998年开始,特设刑庭的规则修改见证了逐步放开文件证据采纳要求的过程,尤其是“替代口头证据的证人陈述”。后者在前南刑庭的规则中有三种形式:书面陈述、笔录和作证书,采纳条件各异,体现了特设刑庭在采纳文件证据上的谨慎态度。但是国际刑事法院没有遵循这种细致区分的方式,而是对“以前录取的证言”主要以是否保证了控辩双方对证人的询问机会为标准决定其可否采纳,显然,这是更宽松、更简单易行的方式。第四章讨论的是最独特的证据调查收集阶段。国际刑事诉讼中虽然肯定检察官作为承担证明责任的主体,负有调查收集证据的责任和享有相应的权力,但主要的调查工作必须依靠国家合作。因此,特设刑庭和国际刑事法院的规约和规则中并没有关于调查程序的详细规定,只一般性地规定了检察官的调查权力以及调查阶段的个人权利。值得注意的是,国家应国际刑事法庭的请求收集证据时也必须尊重上述个人权利,否则法庭可能排除收集来的证据。以《罗马规约》为标志,国际刑事诉讼中的两个变化会对证据调查造成较大影响:一是检察官诉讼角色的转变,从主要被视为“一方当事人”,转变为承担一定客观义务、具有一定公正性要求的“司法官员”;二是加强了对证据调查和预审阶段的司法审查和控制。国家合作作为获取证据的主要途径,对国际刑事法院来说,面临比特设刑庭更大的困难。这主要是因为特设刑庭是联合国的附属机构,可以借助安理会的权力要求各成员国合作;而国际刑事法院是独立于联合国的国际组织,不是对所有案件都有这种便利。在国家合作的具体问题上,国际刑事法院的规定更完善。总体上,《罗马规约》充分顾及国家的利益和关注,鼓励国家在协商基础上尽量与国际刑事法院合作。第五章探讨了证据披露制度。虽然二战后的国际军事审判中控辩双方的证据披露很不充分,甚至辩方比控方承担了更大的披露义务,但是在特设刑庭时期,证据披露制度得到了完善。特设刑庭对控辩双方的披露持谨慎平衡的态度,控方的披露分为几个阶段,并有披露无罪证据的义务;国际刑事法院对控方的披露没有作这么细致的区分,只是规定了一般披露义务和无罪证据的披露义务。但从范围上看,国际刑事法院的检察官承担披露义务的范围和特设刑庭时期基本一致。特设刑庭中辩方披露的范围经历了逐步扩大的过程,国际刑事法院的规定也要求辩方进行较大范围的披露。第六章是探讨证据在审判程序中的运用。特设刑庭证据规则的对抗式特征集中体现在庭审阶段的证据出示和质证规则上,控辩双方一般应严格遵守规则,但是审判庭也可在符合司法利益时对顺序或规则的要求作变通。值得注意的是,《罗马规约》没有明确规定证据出示和质证规则,只是规定诉讼的进行由庭长指示,《ICC规则》中也只是提出了对证人质证的四项基本要求,其他都由庭长指示或控辩双方协商,因此国际刑事法院的庭审将呈现何种面貌还有待在具体案件中观察。控辩双方都可以提出和量刑有关的证据,虽然特设刑庭最初是将定罪和量刑阶段分开,但是后来将二者融合,国际刑事法院也采用了这一方式。关于证明责任和证明标准,国际刑事审判并不具有明显的特殊之处。和国内刑事审判一样,证明责任由控方承担,特设刑庭只规定一个例外,即对于精神失常的辩护辩方有证明责任;而国际刑事法院则完全排除了由辩方承担证明责任的可能。特设刑庭规定的证明标准主要体现在三个时点:确认指控时、中间无罪裁决时、以及有罪判决阶段,各时点的证明标准有所不同。关于有罪判决要达到的证明标准,国际刑事审判中一直沿用了普通法系的表述方式——“排除合理怀疑”。特设刑庭和国际刑事法院都允许在上诉程序和再审程序中提出新证据或新事实,但是要受制于严格的条件限制。第七章旨在前文基础上,从宏观的角度分析国际刑事诉讼证据规则混合模式的形成及其基本特点和发展趋势,并且站在我国立场上,初步分析其对我国证据法的启示和借鉴。从具体规定中抽离出来,可以发现国际刑事诉讼证据规则和它所依存的诉讼程序一样,一直是“混合体”,但在不同的历史时期侧重点不同。混合的证据模式体现在两方面的各有侧重:一是在证据的收集、出示和质证上的对抗式模式为主;一是在证据的采纳和证明力评价上的自由原则,即类似大陆法系的证据模式。对于前者,特设刑庭的规则和实践并非一成不变,从1998年开始,主要是基于加速审判的需要,规则进行的一系列修改更多吸纳了大陆法系的因素,但基本上仍维持了对抗式模式为主导的样态;《罗马规约》和《ICC规则》的规定则将吸收大陆法系因素的步伐大大推进了一步。考虑到《罗马规约》和《ICC规则》的诸多模糊性规定,特别是在庭审时证据出示和质证规则上没有作出明确要求,这一趋势将如何发展还有待观察。对于后者,证据自由原则一直是国际刑事诉讼证据规则的重要特征,相比较二战后国际军事审判,特设刑庭的证据自由原则更加完善,此后国际刑事法院的规约和规则基本沿袭了这一传统,但是具有更大的灵活性。本文最后比较了国际刑事诉讼证据规则和我国证据法的异同,并提出国际刑事诉讼证据规则对我国证据立法的借鉴和启示是:证据法的发展方向是“混合的”证据模式,对对抗式因素和审问式因素兼收并蓄应当成为我国证据立法的基本方向;具体模式上,可以参考证据收集、出示和质证上的对抗式模式和证据自由原则;具体制度上可资借鉴的很多,但是并非简单照搬或“头痛医头”式的借鉴,还需深入分析各项因素。更多还原

【Abstract】 This Ph.D.dissertation has seven chapters besides an introduction,and each chapter consists of the main part and a conclusion.The Introduction aims at clarifying the scope of the dissertation,that is,the so-called rules of evidence in international criminal proceedings means the evidential rules applying in the international criminal justice.Besides,the Introduction also explains the current situation, the value of the research of the subject,and the researching methods using in this dissertation.Chapter One introduces the background of the rules of international criminal evidence, including the historical background,procedural background,and other general background that influencing the rules.International criminal justice has gone through the new-birth stage of international military trials after the World WarⅡ,the rapid growing stage of the trials of the ad hoc tribunals,and the mature stage since the setup of International Criminal Court in 2002.Because of the undeniable relation between the evidential rules and the proceedings,it is necessary to take a look at the basic procedure of international criminal justice,especially those of the ad hoc tribunals and the ICC,which in many respects are very similar,but still have some important differences such as the procedural difference in the investigation and the pre-trial stages,which will influence the rules of evidence.Besides the historical and procedural background,there are still other factors that influencing the rules of international criminal evidence,which originates from the international nature of the rules,or the nature of the crimes,or the evidential problems,or even unique trifle realistic problems.Chapter Two to Six,altogether five chapters,deplore in detail and comparatively analyze every important aspect of the rules of international criminal evidence.Chapter Two discusses the flexibility principle of evidence,which has been the basic principle from the very birth of international criminal proceedings until now,the various technical rules of common law system never applied in the international criminal trials.The flexibility principle of evidence means the judge has great discretion in admitting and evaluating evidence.As to the admissibility of evidence,the international criminal proceedings adopt the way similar to that of civil law,that is,evidence with probative value and relevance is admissible.Accordingly,there is no rigid exclusionary rule of evidence in international criminal trials,nor the evidence itself be excluded because it is hearsay,and the corroboration of evidence is unnecessary.In order to provide the victims of sexual violence with better safeguards,some special evidential regulations are adopted.Chapter Three is on the relevant questions of oral evidence and documentary evidence. In the ad hoc tribunals,the principle of orality is generally disregarded in order to speed up the proceedings,and thus more documentary evidence will enter the court provided that the fair trial right of the accused will not be impaired.As the technology being more and more extensively used in the proceedings,and the Rome Statute affirms that the evidence offered via video-conference links is direct and oral evidence,it is supposed that the status of oral evidence will be higher.International criminal tribunals pay much attention to the safety interests of witnesses,providing them with various protective measures,but in no way can the protective measures be taking at the price of the fair trial right of the accused.International criminal tribunals can compel the witnesses to testify,at the same time acknowledging the privilege against self-discrimination and the confidential privileges.The privilege against self-discrimination of the witness is never absolute,and the chamber can always compel the witness to testify,but the testimony thus acquired should not be used to against the witness, aiming at acquiring the testimony without prejudice to the interest of witnesses.Both the ad hoc tribunals and ICC acknowledge the lawyer-client privilege,and in ICC,other confidential privileges can be determined by the chambers through a three-step test in individual cases. The accused can choose remaining silent or testifying under oath,besides,he or she is permitted to make statement without oath,not subject to cross-examination,which is similar with the system of civil law.Documentary evidence plays an important part in international criminal trials,and from 1998,the revision of rules eyewitnesses the loosening of requirements of the admissibility of documentary evidence,especially the witness statements in lieu of oral evidence.The ad hoc tribunals acknowledge three forms of witness statements in lieu of oral evidence,that is,written statements,transcripts and dispositions,each with different requirements of admissibility,which explains the carefulness of the ad hoc tribunals on the admissibility of documentary evidence.But the ICC does not follow the same way,but adopts the test whether the parties are assured with opportunity to examine the witness,if not, the prior recorded statements can not be admitted.Obviously,the latter is more flexible and easy to handle with.Chapter Four discusses the most unique stage of investigation of evidence.Although as the party bearing burden of proof,the prosecution has responsibility of investigation and collecting evidence and has corresponding powers,most investigation must be taken relying on states cooperation.Thus,there is no detailed prescription about the procedure for investigation in the statutes and rules of the ad hoe tribunals and the ICC,and only the investigatory powers of the prosecutor and the individual’s right in investigation can generally be found.Notably,the individual rights should be respected even in the investigation by the states,otherwise the evidence gathered may be excluded.Two changes in the international criminal proceedings will affect the investigation of evidence:first,the change of the prosecutor’s role,from mainly a party to judicial organ bearing some degree of objectivity and impartialness;second,the strengthening of the judicial review and control of investigation and pre-trial stage.As to the state cooperation,the ICC will be faced with more obstacles than the ad hoe tribunals.While the ad hoe tribunals can demand the cooperation of states via the powers of Security Council as an affiliated organ of the UN,the same convenience is not available for the ICC in all the cases.But the ICC has more detailed prescription on various questions about state cooperation.Altogether the Rome Statute fully respect the interests of states,encouraging the states cooperate with the court in the basis of negotiation。Chapter Five is about the disclosure of evidence.The disclosure system in the international military trials after World WarⅡwas not so advanced:the parties did not disclose evidence fully,and the disclosure scope of the defence was even wider than that of the prosecution.The disclosure system has been developed in the experience of ad hoc tribunals,where the disclosure of the parties was delicately balanced,and the disclosure of the prosecution was divided into several stages,and the prosecution must disclose expultory evidence.Although the ICC has not follow the same way of delicate division,only prescribing the responsibility of general disclosure and disclosure of expultary evidence,the disclosure scope of the prosecution is basically the same with that of the ad hoc tribunals.The disclosure scope of the defence has been widen step by step in the experience of the ad hoc tribunals,and the disclosure scope of the defence is relatively wide according to the prescription of the ICC.Chapter Six discusses the operation of evidence in trial.The adversarial trait of the ad hoc tribunals mainly embodies rules of presentation and examination of evidence in trial stage, which should be obeyed generally by the parties,while the chamber has discretion to change according to the judicial interests.Notably,there are no detailed rules of presentation and examination of evidence in the Rome Statute,only prescribing that the procedure is under the direction of the presiding judge.Even the Rules just outline four basic requirements for the examination of witness,and the solving of other questions depends on the direction of the presiding judge or cooperation of the parties.Thus the rules of presentation and examination of evidence of the ICC should still be observed via cases.Both the parties can present evidence affecting the sentence,and though the conviction and sentence were originally separated in the ad hoc tribunals,the two were merged into one,which approach the ICC follows.As regards the burden of proof and the standard of proof,there is no special regulation in the international criminal justice.Just like domestic criminal justice,the burden of proof is on the prosecution,and there is only one exception in ad hoc tribunals,that is,the defence shall prove the special defense of mentally disorder;whereas in the ICC,there is no burden of proof with the defence.The standards of proof in the ad hoc tribunals are different in different stages.As to the standard for conviction,the beyond reasonable dount standard has always been the same with the international criminal trials.New evidence can be presented in the appeal and review or revise procedure both in the ad hoc tribunals and in the ICC, though under rigid requirements.Chapter Seven aims at analyze the traits and tendency of the hybrid model of international criminal evidence,and from the standpoint of China,discuss what we can learn from it.Beyond specific rules,the international criminal evidence has always been a hybrid, just like the international criminal procedure,though the emphasis has been adjusted in deferent periods.The hybrid model of evidence can be described as the guiding adversarial model in the collection and presentation and examination of evidence,and the model similar to civil law system in the free admissibility and evaluation of evidence.The adversary model of presentation and examination of ad hoc tribunals has not been the same from the beginning, in fact,in order to realize more efficient procedure,series amendments from 1998 have eyewitnessed more adoption of factors of civil law system,but it is still basically adversarial. The system of the ICC accelerates to adopt factors of civil law system.Considering the vague prescriptions in the Rome Statute and the Rules,especially no clear requirements with the presentation and examination of evidence,it is still under observed to this tendency.The flexibility principle of evidence has been the traditional principle of international criminal evidence,and the liberal tendency is strengthened in the system of the ICC than the ad hoc tribunals.Lastly,the rules of international criminal evidence are compared with the evidential rules of China,and it is supposed that what we can learn from it is that we should follow the hybrid model of evidence,particularly,the adversarial model of presentation and examination of evidence and the flexibility principle of evidence;besides,we can learn more from the specific systems of international criminal evidence,not simply borrowing,but after delicatly analyzing about the relevant factors.更多还原