刍议纪检监察证据与刑事证据衔接机制及其拓展

发布时间：2018-11-18 07:14

【摘要】：长期以来,法学界和实务界对纪检监察证据的证据资格和证明力问题众说纷纭,见解不一。主要观点可以归纳为绝对肯定说、彻底否定说和区别对待说三类。我国的刑事诉讼法是1979年制定的,经历了1996年和2012年两次在当时的时代背景下具有特殊重要意义的修订。距今最近一次修订的《刑事诉讼法》(2012年版)中,在第52条第2款明确规定:“行政机关在行政执法和查办案件过程中收集的物证、书证、视听资料、电子数据等证据材料,在刑事诉讼中可以作为证据使用。”这个修订后的规定,通过立法的形式,确立了行政证据与刑事证据的衔接适用机制。在肯定确立这一机制的必要性、正当性同时,需要清醒地认识到,该机制并未真正从法律上解决党的纪律检查机关所收集的证据在刑事诉讼程序中的合法性问题,也未明确党的纪律检查机关和行政监察机关因同属一套工作机构,合署办公,工作性质几近一致而在实践中共同适用该条款的问题。有鉴于此,本文通过规范、价值、实证和比较研究方法,对党的纪律检查机关、行政监察机关是什么,从哪里来;两个机关的职能、查办案件的依据、程序、收集证据的种类、方法和审查措施、调查工作的纪律规定是什么,实践中怎样操作执行;再将两个机关查办案件中收集证据的方法、程序、标准与《刑事诉讼法》对司法机关侦查工作中收集证据的方法、程序、标准进行对比,提出在当前中央深化纪检监察体制改革、日益完善党内法规制度建设的现状下,为避免现实中纪检证据进入刑事诉讼程序的混乱,建议对党的纪律检查机关在查办案件过程中,依据相关规定收集的具有客观性的实物证据,应该和行政监察机关收集到的客观性实物证据一样,在法律上被赋予同等的地位,应该被我国《刑事诉讼法》明确接纳和认可。同时,在对现存的纪检监察证据与刑事证据衔接机制分析、探索基础上,提出构建新形式的纪检监察机关和检察机关案件线索交流协同办理机制,构建纪检监察机关对违纪案件的调查和检察机关对涉嫌职务犯罪案件的侦查两类不同性质的工作并行开展机制,规范纪检监察证据与刑事证据的证据种类衔接及移送机制,同时避免可能造成的侦查活动前置、架空非法证据排除规则,切实加强对辩护方权利的保护等完善该项法律制度的意见和建议,以期通过这些对现有机制的创新和拓展,实现纪检监察证据与刑事证据真正意义上的衔接。
[Abstract]:For a long time, there are different opinions on the evidence qualification and proof power of discipline inspection and supervision evidence in the field of law and practice. The main viewpoints can be summed up into three categories: absolute affirmative theory, complete negation theory and differential treatment theory. The Criminal procedure Law of our country was formulated in 1979 and has undergone two revisions in 1996 and 2012 which have special significance in the background of the times at that time. In the most recent revision of the Code of Criminal procedure (2012 edition), article 52, paragraph 2, clearly states: "material evidence, documentary evidence, audio-visual materials, electronic data and other evidential materials collected by administrative organs in the course of administrative law enforcement and investigation of cases, May be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. " This revised regulation, through the form of legislation, establishes the application mechanism of administrative evidence and criminal evidence. While affirming the necessity and legitimacy of establishing this mechanism, it is necessary to be soberly aware that the mechanism does not really address the question of the legality of the evidence collected by the Party's disciplinary inspection organs in criminal proceedings, It is also not clear that the Party's disciplinary inspection organs and administrative supervisory organs jointly apply this provision in practice because they belong to the same set of working organizations and work together in almost the same nature. In view of this, this article through the standard, the value, the demonstration and the comparative research method, to the party's discipline inspection organ, the administrative supervision organ is what, where comes from; The functions of the two organs, the basis for investigating and handling cases, the procedures, the types, methods and examination measures of collecting evidence, what are the disciplinary provisions of the investigation work, and how to operate and implement them in practice; And then compare the methods, procedures and standards of collecting evidence in the investigation and handling of cases between the two organs and the methods, procedures, and standards of collecting evidence in the investigation work of the judicial organs with the Criminal procedure Law. Under the current situation of deepening the reform of discipline inspection and supervision system by the central authorities and improving the construction of laws and regulations within the Party, it is proposed that, in order to avoid the confusion of discipline inspection evidence entering into criminal proceedings in reality, it is suggested that the disciplinary inspection organs of the Party should be investigated and handled cases. The objective material evidence collected according to the relevant regulations should be given the same legal status as the objective material evidence collected by the administrative supervision organ and should be explicitly accepted and recognized by our country's Criminal procedure Law. At the same time, on the basis of the analysis and exploration of the existing linkage mechanism between the discipline inspection and supervision evidence and the criminal evidence, it is proposed to construct a new form of cooperative handling mechanism for the exchange of clues between the discipline inspection and supervision organs and the procuratorial organs. To establish a parallel mechanism for the investigation of disciplinary violation cases by discipline inspection and supervision organs and the investigation of suspected job-related crimes by procuratorial organs, and to standardize the connection and transfer mechanism of the types of evidence between discipline inspection and criminal evidence. At the same time avoiding possible pre-emption of investigative activities, setting aside rules for the exclusion of illegal evidence, and effectively strengthening the protection of the rights of the defence, etc., in order to improve the legal system, with a view to adopting these innovations and expanding existing mechanisms, To realize the real link between discipline inspection and supervision evidence and criminal evidence.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】