论被告人的阅卷权

发布时间：2018-03-08 08:29

本文选题：被告人　切入点：阅卷权　出处：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：阅卷权是辩方获取充分信息实现有效辩护的重要制度设计,是保障被告人充分行使防御权的重要手段。在奉行被告人诉讼主体和控辩平衡理论的现代刑事诉讼体系下,被告人才是阅卷权的主体,而且其本人有权亲自行使该权利。目前,被告人阅卷权已经被众多国际公约所明确,其中依据《欧洲人权公约》设置的人权法院的实践极大地丰富了公约中有关被告人阅卷权的内容,为成员国完善阅卷制度提供了重要参考,在其判例的影响下确认被告人的阅卷权已经成为现代法治国家刑事诉讼法的调整方向。在这样的国际背景下,我国立法仍然坚守“阅卷权归属辩护人”的传统观念,阅卷制度的设置与完善始终围绕辩护人展开,却禁止被告人直接接触案卷。这样的权利设置始终没能解决无辩护人的被告人的阅卷问题,同时由于阅卷权归属辩护人而在权利位阶上无法实现同控方权利的对等,使得辩护人行使阅卷权受到颇多限制,产生了困扰已久的“阅卷难”问题,这样的立法和实践操作值得反思和检讨。基于人权法院做法的代表性和深远影响,本文通过判例分析,对人权法院操作下的阅卷制度进行了系统总结,并以此为参考重新审视阅卷权理论。通过对我国有关阅卷的法律规定和理论研究进行梳理,分析了被告人享有并行使阅卷权的必要性,为立法赋予被告人阅卷权扫清理论上的障碍,并结合我国现有的诉讼制度尝试构建我国的被告人阅卷制度。除引言外,本文主要内容有四个部分。第一部分是我国阅卷权的立法沿革。这一部分分成两个层次,一是阅卷制度的立法沿革,从主体、时间、范围、保障措施和新的突破五个方面对我国的阅卷制度进行了系统梳理,并由此总结出我国现行的阅卷制度是以辩护人特别是辩护律师为核心的,在这一制度下完全排除了被告人阅卷的可能性;二是对现行阅卷制度提出的置疑,本文从辩护率低、被告人与辩护人之间的信赖和辩护人职业风险等三个方面分析,认为现有的阅卷制度并不能满足辩方获取案卷信息的需要。第二部分是有关阅卷权权属之争。阅卷制度发展和改革具有局限性的原因之一是理论研究缺少对被告人阅卷权的关注,面对着司法实践中存在的问题,并受域外阅卷权发展的影响,理论界和实务界首先就阅卷权归属这一根本性问题掀起了一场大讨论。本文将其总结为三种学说:一元说主张阅卷权是辩护人的固有权利,反对赋予被告人阅卷权,持有该观点主要是出于三点考虑,一是法律未赋予,二是被告人言辞证据提供者的角色,三是被告人阅卷会带来一系列的消极后果。二元说认为被告人是阅卷权的权利主体,辩护人阅卷权是派生权利,该说从阅卷权权利价值、被告人的诉讼地位以及我国辩护率普遍偏低的司法现状几个方面论证了赋予被告人阅卷权的正当性。多元说支持二元说阅卷权归属被告人的观点,并在此基础上认为被告人的近亲属也应享有该权利,但基于各方利益的考量,可以对被告人近亲属的权利设置一定的限制。第三部分是欧洲人权法院的处理模式。这一部分是本文的重点内容,又分为了三个层次:第一,简要介绍《欧洲人权公约》与欧洲人权法院,对公约内相关联的条文内容做了必要解读,并对欧洲人权法院的设立和作用进行说明。第二,以诸多相关案例为依托整理出欧洲人权法院有关阅卷权的处理模式,在人权法院看来阅卷权的客体是国家已经取得或可能取得一切信息,并明确被告人是阅卷权的主体,也承认辩护人的阅卷权,将二者的权利视为一个整体。行使阅卷权的时间原则上同受控诉的时间一致,但对于人身可能受到拘束的被告人适当地放宽阅卷权的适用。人权法院认为阅卷权是可以受到限制的,可以为了特定利益的需要限制阅卷权的行使,但是限制属于阅卷权的例外,应当经合理程序予以明确。如果阅卷权受到侵犯,成员国应当为被告人提供救济途径。第三,对欧洲人权法院视野下的阅卷权的评述,在上一部分的基础上理出阅卷权的基本轮廓,分析了人权法院与成员国在被告人阅卷权的法理逻辑上的差异,并对其操作模式作出简要评价。第四部分是构建我国的被告人阅卷权。这一部分由两层次组成,首先是制度构建的整体思路,通过回应前文有关阅卷权权属的争论,提出了本文制度构建的整体思路,即以承认阅卷权归属被告人为前提的,被告人与辩护人共同行使阅卷权的二元主体的阅卷制度,并详尽阐述了赋予被告人阅卷权以及保留辩护人阅卷权的必要性,为整体思路提供理论上的支撑。其次就是制度的具体构建,在我国现有的诉讼制度下,融合域外的主要是人权法院的具体操作,尝试着从主体、范围、时间、地点与方式以及侵权救济五个方面构建符合我国司法现状的阅卷制度。
[Abstract]:Marking the right is an important system to obtain sufficient information to realize the design of effective defense, is an important means to protect defendants defense right fully. In pursuing the defendant's lawsuit and the theory of balance between the prosecution and the defense of modern criminal procedure system, the talent is the main marking right, and I have the right to make the right to kiss at present. The defendant, marking the right has been made clear in many international conventions, including the practice of human rights court according to < > settings of the European Convention on human rights has greatly enriched the content of marking the right convention, provides an important reference for improving reading members roll system, in effect the case of confirmed that the defendant's reading right adjust the direction of the criminal procedure law has become a modern country under the rule of law. In this international background, China's legislation still adhere to the traditional idea of "marking right defender", marking system With the perfect setting always focus on defense, but not in direct contact with the defendant files. Scoring issues such rights set has not been able to solve the defendant without counsel, at the same time as marking the right defender in the ownership of the rights order cannot be achieved with the equal rights, making the defenders by marking the right to exercise a lot of restrictions, produced has long been plagued by "marking difficult" problem, the legislation and practice of this operation is worthy of reflection and review. The representative and influence of human rights based on the practice court, through case analysis, the operation of Human Rights Law Institute under the evaluation system are summarized, and as a reference to re-examine the marking right theory. Through combing the law of our country about the marking and theoretical research, analyzes the necessity of the defendant parallel marking right, the legislation gives the defendant reading right sweep Clean up on the barriers of the defendant litigation system combined with our existing litigation system attempts to construct in China. Besides the introduction, the main content of this paper has four parts. The first part is the legislative history of marking the right of our country. This part is divided into two levels, one is the evaluation system of legislative history. From the subject, time, scope, systematically safeguard measures and new breakthroughs in five aspects to our scoring system, and summed up the current evaluation system is to defend people especially the lawyer as the core in this system completely ruled out the possibility of marking the defendant; two is that of current evaluation system, this article from the defence rate is low and the analysis of the three aspects between the defendant and the defendant's trust and defender occupation risk, that the existing scoring system cannot meet the needs of the defense acquisition case information. The two part is about marking the right of ownership dispute. One of the reasons for the development and reform of evaluation system has limitation is lack of theoretical research on the defendant marking the right attention, facing the problems in the judicial practice, and is affected by the extraterritorial marking the right of development, theory and practice first, marking the right attribution on the root nature of the problem raised a big discussion. This paper will summarize the three doctrines: Yuan claims marking the right inherent right to counsel, give the defendant against marking the right to hold the point of view, mainly because of three considerations, one is the law does not give, the two defendant verbal evidence provider three is accused of marking will bring a series of negative consequences. Two Yuan said that the accused is marking the right subject of rights, the defender is marking the right derivative rights, the value of scoring from right, the defendant's legal status and China's defense rate is generally low in the aspects of judicial status and demonstrated the legitimacy of marking the right. Give the defendant said multiple support two Yuan said the defendant's right of marking, and on this basis that the close relatives of the defendant should be entitled to the rights and interests of all parties, but based on the consideration of the defendant, can last the rights of relatives set a limit. The third part is the processing mode of the European Court of human rights. This part is the main content of this paper is divided into three levels: first, brief introduction of "the European Convention on human rights" and the European Court of human rights, in the provisions within the necessary explanation and interpretation. The establishment and function of the European Court of human rights. In second, many related cases based on sorting out the processing mode about marking the right of the European Court of human rights, the object appears in marking the right court of human rights is the state has taken Have or may obtain all information, and the defendant is the main marking right, admits that the defender marking the right of two party rights, will be regarded as a whole. The time of exercising the right of file with the same time by the accused, but for people who may be affected by the defendant at the appropriate relaxation reading right. Court of human rights that marking the right can be restricted, need to be in order to limit the interests of specific marking of the exercise of the right, but the restriction is marking the right of exception, shall be subject to reasonable procedures to be clear. If the marking right is infringed, Member States shall provide remedy for the defendant. Third, review of Europe court of human rights from the perspective of marking the right, a basic contour marking right on the basis of a part on the analysis of the differences between the court of human rights and members of legal logic in the defendant marking on the right, and its operation Make a brief evaluation mode. The fourth part is the construction of marking the right of our country. This part consists of two parts, the first is the whole idea of the system, the response to debate about marking the right ownership above, puts forward the overall idea of this paper is to build the system, marking the ownership of the defendant to admit the premise, two the main element of the defendant and counsel jointly exercising the right of file marking system, and expounds the necessity to give the defendant and defense counsel marking the right reserved marking right, to provide theoretical support for the whole idea. The second is the construction of the specific system, in our existing litigation system, extraterritorial main fusion is the specific operation of the court of human rights, try from the subject, scope, time, five aspects of building accords with the present situation of our country's judicial relief system, marking the location and ways of infringement.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】