驳“人权观察”对中国2012年《刑事诉讼法》的片面观察 | 朝文夕拾

 点上方蓝字，看更多精彩。

2012年1月22日，中国除夕，总部设在纽约的“人权观察”发布了《全球年度报告（2012）》，其中对中国的言论充满偏见，专门不让中国人过年啊。接到澄清任务后，我们奋战一个日夜，数易其稿，写就此文，发表于1月28日《人民日报》第2版。

因效果较好，国务院新闻办公室又组织翻译为英文，发表于1月29日的《China Daily》。1月31日，又于《人民日报·海外版》第4版发布。中央政法委《长安》杂志2012年第2期、天津市法学会《成果要报》也予转载。

真心觉得：2012年《刑事诉讼法》相较1996年《刑事诉讼法》进步巨大，也来之不易。即使风云变幻，英雄不在，也需在各项刑事追诉中对其倍加珍惜、高度尊重。

本文署名“沈辉”，本人为第二作者。这里予以推送。原题为：驳“人权观察”对中国司法改革的片面观察。文字和标点略有修改，原文可点击文末“原文链接”。

2012年1月22日，总部设在纽约的“人权观察”发表了《全球年度报告(2012)》(以下简称《报告》)，从所谓的维权人士、司法改革、言论自由、宗教自由等方面“观察”了中国2011年的人权状况。

该组织虽定名为“观察”，但其报告却缺少实证观察者应有的客观、公正精神，以致在报告中对中国人权状况歪曲严重，成了别有用心的“报告”。其中，对中国司法改革的“观察”尤为片面、失实。

 《报告》称，“公安机关支配的刑事司法体系过度依赖被告供述。薄弱的法院和被严厉限制的辩护权，意味着刑讯逼供仍为普遍现象，司法不公事件屡见不鲜。”这是严重的歪曲和攻击。

中国的刑事司法体系并不由公安机关支配。它由以公安机关为主的侦查机关、检察机关及人民法院组成。中国的《宪法》《刑事诉讼法》明确规定了三者是分工负责、互相配合、互相制约的关系：公安机关的移送审查起诉意见必须经过检察机关的审查，才有可能由后者向法院正式提出；检察机关的公诉意见必须经过法院公开、公正的审判，在听取辩方意见、调查核实各种证据的基础上，才有可能成为裁判结论的一部分。

在这一过程中，检察机关要求公安机关立案或不立案，检察机关不起诉与不批捕，以及人民法院判决无罪的情形，并不罕见。而且，中国的《宪法》《刑事诉讼法》还赋予了检察机关法律监督权，《刑事诉讼法》还赋予了人民法院专属的定罪判刑权，这些同样在有效地制约着公安机关的权力。

在司法实践中，检察机关提出的检察建议、立案监督要求，公安机关必须服从或回应。据2011年最高人民检察院向全国人民代表大会所作的工作报告，2010年全国检察机关对公安机关的侦查违法提出了纠正意见33863件次；对公安机关应当立案而不立案的，督促公安机关立案31203件；对公安机关不应当立案而立案的，督促撤案10702件。

同样，在实践中，检察机关不批捕、不起诉、撤诉，人民法院判决无罪的比例，正在逐年升高，这些都在有效地监督、制约着公安机关。

另外，依据2010年6月最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部等五部门发布的《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的规定》(以下简称《排除非法证据规定》)第七条，法院对被告人审判前供述取得的合法性有疑问的，有权要求讯问人员出庭作证。

这些都能证明中国刑事司法体系并不由公安机关支配，而是以《宪法》和《刑事诉讼法》规定的人民法院、人民检察院和公安机关分工负责、互相配合、互相制约的完整司法体系为基础，以人民法院专属的定罪量刑权为中心，有序地运作与实施。

同时，中国在刑事诉讼中“过度依赖被告供述”的情况正在显著减少；辩护律师的权利和作用在逐步增加；刑讯逼供得到了根本治理。上述2010年6月发布《排除非法证据规定》及《死刑案件证据规定》，2011年8月底公布《刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)》，就是中国刑事司法在人权保障上的重大进步。但《报告》却对这些视而不见，只是声称修正案草案存在所谓“秘密拘留条款”。

更重要的是，这一所谓“秘密拘留条款”在2011年年底提交全国人大常委会审议的新草案中已不复存在，而《报告》却依然对这一不复存在的“问题”大肆渲染。这难道不是有意地传播虚假信息、混淆视听？

事实上，即使2011年8月底发布征求意见的《刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)》关于拘留后通知的条款，也比1996年《刑事诉讼法》相关条款进步了很多：

草案第八十四条规定是：“公安机关拘留人的时候，必须出示拘留证。拘留后，应当立即将被拘留人送看守所羁押，至迟不得超过二十四小时。除无法通知或者涉嫌危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪等严重犯罪，通知可能有碍侦查的情形以外，应当把拘留的原因和羁押的处所，在拘留后二十四小时以内，通知被拘留人的家属。”

而1996年《刑事诉讼法》第六十四条的规定是：“公安机关拘留人的时候，必须出示拘留证。拘留后，除有碍侦查或者无法通知的情形以外，应当把拘留的原因和羁押的处所，在二十四小时以内，通知被拘留人的家属或者他的所在单位。”

显然，即使这一早先的草案，也已显著缩小了二十四小时后通知的范围，能进一步强化侦查人员拘留后的通知义务，有效保障嫌疑人家属的知情权。

更让人费解的是，名为“观察”的《报告》以偏概全，对2011年8月底发布后即赢得国内外法学专家及社会团体称赞的草案的其他诸多巨大进步只字不提，有意造成人们的重大误解。

其主要进步至少有：增加了不得强迫自证其罪的规定；增加了非法证据的排除及其程序；细化了刑事诉讼的证明标准；细化了“社会危险性”的含义；规范了被取保候审人的义务，以降低羁押率；明确了指定监视居住可以折抵刑期；对技术侦查进行了授权与规制；规定了拘留、逮捕后及时送看守所制度；强化了讯问时录音录像制度；确立和细化了侦查辩护制度；限制了发回重审的次数；明确了刑事和解的程序；规定了对未成年人的犯罪记录封存、暂缓起诉制度；规范了精神病人收治程序；强化了对执行的检察监督，等等。

这些才是中国2011年刑事诉讼法改革的主要方面。这一充满了改革精神、贯彻了人权保障宗旨的草案，相较1996年《刑事诉讼法》，增加了60多条，修改了90多条。

而《报告》对这些重大进展不予“观察”，却仅仅抓住草案中已不存在的问题百般“纠缠”。这已使其沦为不负责任的“恶炒”。

同样令人难以接受的是，《报告》对中国2011年司法改革上的多方、多项努力也熟视无睹。已有中国学者做了统计：“2008年底启动的新一轮司法改革确定60项改革任务，2009年完成17项，2010年基本完成30项，至2011年底60项改革任务绝大部分已经完成。”

其中，2011年法院方面的重大改革有：改革量刑程序、调解体制、审判管理、执行体制；完善、落实新国家赔偿法；推行案例指导制度等。检察院方面的重大改革有：强化检察监督；改革检察官管理、选拔机制等。

这些范围广泛、力度空前的司法改革，是该《报告》想抹煞也无法抹煞的。

  （责任编辑：苏楠）

Human rights report flawed by omissions and bias

Updated: 2012-01-29  07:59

 China Daily  2012年1月29日。

 By Shen Hui

The author is with the Law Schoolof Nankai University.

The New York-based NGO Human Rights Watch issued its World Report 2012 on Jan 22, observing China's human rights conditionsfrom angles of defendant rights, judicial reform, freedom of speech andreligious freedom. The report seriously lacks in objectivity and impartiality.Its conclusion intentionally distorts China's human rights conditions.Its observation of China'sjudicial reform is extremely inconsistent with facts and one-sided.

The report says the public security departments dominatethe criminal justice system and rely excessively on the defendant's confession.The weak courts and seriously limited rights of defense mean forced confessionis still universal and judicial partiality is common. This is seriousdistortion.

It is known that China's criminal justice system is not controlled by public security departments, but consists of investigationand procuratorial organs as well as people's courts. China's Criminal Procedural Law clearly stipulates the labor distribution among the three parties. They workwith and check against one another.

The proposal for prosecution by public security departments must be examined by procuratorial organs before it is recommended to the court to initiate a public prosecution. The public prosecution of the investigating organs must go through the court's open and fair trial, during which the defendant's opinions and all kinds of testimony must be verified,before becoming part of the court's decision.

In this process, it is common for the procuratorial organs to require public security departments to file a case (or not), the procuratorial organs decide to prosecute (or not), and the people's courts declare the accused guilty (or not). These possibilities all restrict the powerof public security departments.

In judicial practices, public security departments must follow or respond to the procuratorial organs' procuratorial proposals and supervision of filing a criminal case. According to the Supreme People's Procuratorate's work report to the National People's Congress in 2011, all procuratorial organs proposed 33,863 times and cases to correct the publicsecurity departments' illegal practices of investigation.

The number of cases in which the procuratorial organs do not ratify an arrest, do not prosecute, withdraw a lawsuit, and the people'scourts decide the accused innocent, is increasing proportionally year by year.All of these actions are restricting the public security departments' power effectively. 

Besides, according to the seventh article of the Regulation on Exclusion of Illegal Evidence issued in June 2011, if the courts are doubtful of the legitimacy of the defendants' confessions obtained before trial, the courts can insist that the questioners take the stand in courts. All these examples prove that China's criminal justice system is not controlled by the public security departments.It is an integral system made up of the three parties, each with clear duties, with the people's courts' rights of sentencing and measurement of penalty as the core.

Excessive dependence on defendants' confessions isdecreasing remarkably. The role and rights of defense counsels are increasing steadily. Forced confession is strictly forbidden. The regulations on the exclusion of illegal evidence and on evidence in death penalty cases issued inJune 2010, as well as the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law released in Aug 2011, all reflect important progress in the protection of humanrights. But the Human Rights Watch report fabricates and speculates on "anarticle of secret detention" of the draft amendment, which no longer exists. 

In fact the draft amendment issued in August 2011 includes an article about notice of detention. That is big progress compared with related articles of the law in 1996. According to the 84th article of the draft amendment, the public security departments must present detentionwarrants when detaining anyone, who should be sent to the detention centerwithin 24 hours after being detained. The detained person's family should benotified about the detention reason and the detention center location within 24hours after detention, except for serious crimes such as those endangering national security, terrorist crimes. There are exceptions, if it is impossibleto notify, or if the notice may obstruct investigation.

The 64th article of the Criminal Procedural Law of 1996 only stipulated that the public security departments must present detention warrants while detaining anyone. The detained person's family or work units should be noticed about the detention reason and detention center within 24hours after detention, except if it is impossible to notify, or the notice may obstruct investigation. This amendment of the 84th article is just to strengthen the public security departments' obligation to notify and protect the suspects' families' rights to know.

The report of Human Rights Watch does not mention progress in the draft amendment at all and only fabricates non-existentmisleading articles.

In the draft amendment, forced confession is prevented; exclusion of illegal evidence and its procedure are added, standard of proof ofcriminal procedure is clarified; the definition of "social danger" isclarified; the obligation of persons obtaining guarantor pending trial isregulated to lower detention rate; designated monitored residence can beconverted to prison term; technical investigation is authorized and regulated; the recording system in inquest is strengthened, investigation defense systemis formed and clarified, the number of remand for retrial is limited, the criminal reconciliation procedure is clarified; the system of sealing upcriminal record of juvenile crimes and deferred prosecution is regulated;mental illness treatment procedure is regulated, and inspection and supervision of implementation are strengthened.

These active changes reflect the main progress in China'sjudicial reform in 2011. Compared with the former one in 1996, more than 60 articlesare added and more than 90 articles are amended in the draft amendment.

Remarkable break throughs in judicial reform have been made in 2011 inmeasurement of penalty, State compensation, mediation, trial management and implementation procedure. It is a pity the report of Human Rights Watch turned a blind eye to all these positive steps and Chinese authorities' effort topromote judicial reforms, and only focuses on some non-existent articles.

朱桐辉，南开大学法学院副教授，硕士生导师，南开大学人权研究中心（国家人权教育培训基地）兼职研究员。

沈辉：“驳‘人权观察’对中国司法改革的片面观察”，载《人民日报》2012年1月28日第2版。

以下内容，点击可览：