刑事诉讼审前程序性决定救济问题研究
摘要
刑事审前程序程序性决定(如立案决定、强制措施决定和不起诉决定等)涉及到立案、侦查、起诉各个环节,这些决定通常是由国家公权力单方面作出,往往会影响到当事人的人身自由权或财产权等基本权利。“无救济则无权利”,因此,刑事审前程序性决定救济制度对保障当事人的诉讼权利、制约公权力以及刑事审前程序的合理构建都有着至关重要的影响。考察我国现行《刑事诉讼法》中的有关规定不难发现,复议、复核、申诉以及直接向人民法院起诉是当事人对审前程序性决定采取的主要救济方式。但由于立法上的先天缺陷导致司法实践中刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的运行,无法发挥其诉讼效果。同时,诉讼法学界兴趣的不足以及资料的匮乏,也在一定程度上阻碍我国刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的改革和完善。因此,对刑事审前程序性决定的救济制度进行全面的探讨,具有重要的理论和实践意义。
全文除引言和结语外,正文由三大部分组成。
第一部分简要介绍了我国刑事审前程序性决定的种类及其救济制度构成。我国目前的刑事审前程序性包括管辖、启动或终结刑事诉讼程序、限制或剥夺犯罪嫌疑人人身自由权利和财产权利、回避决定等。刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的制度构成主要体现在六个方面:其一,救济范围包括不立案、驳回申请回避、撤案、超过法定期限的强制措施、不批准逮捕以及不起诉决定;其二,救济权的分配,被害人、犯罪嫌疑人以及公安机关均可以对相应的审前程序性决定提出异议;其三,救济方式包括复议复核、申诉以及向人民法院起诉;其四,救济启动程序呈简单化特征;其五,救济审查主体不统一,原决定机关、原决定机关的上级机关以及人民法院均可以成为救济审查主体;其六,救济审查程序呈书面化、秘密化的特征。
第二部分对我国审前程序性决定救济制度的现状进行反思。我国现有的审前程序性决定救济制度主要存在五个方面的不足。第一,救济范围较狭窄。刑事审前程序性决定救济范围与复杂多样的审前程序性决定不相适应,无法满足当事人的权利诉求。第二,救济权的分配不均衡。虽然被害人和犯罪嫌疑人均能对审前程序性决定申请救济,但是在他们之间的权利分配却并不平等,法律的天平明显向被害人倾斜而相对忽视了犯罪嫌疑人的权利保障。第三,救济方式缺乏有效性。复议复核趋同于行政化救济,申诉方式又形同虚设,直接向人民法院起诉也无法在现有制度下满足被害人的权利救济需求。第四,救济启动程序简单化。现有法律缺乏对救济主体以何种方式、哪种途径、在什么期限内申请救济,救济主体在申请救济时是否应当说明救济理由和提供充分的证据等救济启动程序方面的详尽规定。第五,救济审查主体中立性不足。现有的救济审查主体未能完全脱离原决定机关,无法保障救济审查的独立性、中立性。第六,救济审查程序规则的缺失。现有的救济途径缺乏对救济审查方式、审查期限、审查范围等的明确规定,导致救济审查趋于书面化、秘密化,无法体现程序参与等程序公正的基本要素。
第三部分提出了矫正我国审前程序性决定救济制度的具体措施。针对我国刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的不足,我们应当从六个方面对我国审前程序性决定救济制度进行改革。第一,救济范围的改革。应当适当扩大救济范围,将可能影响当事人利益的审前程序性决定均纳入救济体系,主要包括管辖、立案与不立案、撤案、拒绝回避申请、强制措施和搜查、扣押、冻结的强制性侦查措施以及不起诉决定。第二,调整救济权的分配。应当明确救济权主体为诉讼权利受到审前程序性决定直接影响的诉讼参与人本人,即犯罪嫌疑人和被害人,同时应当平衡二者之间的救济权以体现平等原则。第三,救济方式的改革。应当将救济定位于由现在的行政性救济程序向诉讼化救济形态转变,整合当前过于分散和混乱的救济方式,形成一个系统的刑事审前程序性决定救济制度。第四,完善救济启动程序的。从诉讼效率和权利保障的角度,救济期限宜规定为权利主体收到决定书之日起七日内;发动救济的形式既可以是口头也可以是书面,而救济申请既可以直接向原决定机关提出也可以向救济审查机关提出;救济主体在申请救济之时,只需要说明程序性决定错误的理由即可,无需承担举证责任。第五,增强救济审查主体的中立性。在我国现有的司法体制下,对公安机关作出的刑事审前程序性决定宜由人民检察院进行救济审查;对检察院作出的刑事审前程序性决定宜由其上一级检察院进行救济审查。第六,构建救济程序规则。救济审查方式应当采取相对诉讼化的形式,应当在救济申请者与被申请者的参与下进行,允许双方提供证据;救济审查的内容应当既包括对决定本身违法的审查也包括对执行层次违法的审查;应当规定救济审查期限,确定救济审查机关的告知义务,以保障被害人和犯罪嫌疑人的合法权利。
Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for decisions (such as the decision of the investigation, decisions and measures of decision not to prosecute, etc.) related to the filing, investigation, prosecution of all aspects of these decisions are usually made unilaterally by the state power, often affect the person's personal liberty or property rights and other basic rights. "No relief no rights", therefore, the criminal pretrial procedural decisions relief system on the protection of the procedural rights of the parties, which restricts public power and criminal pretrial procedures have a reasonable construction of a crucial impact. Investigation of the existing "Code of Criminal Procedure" in the relevant provisions of the difficult to find, review, review, appeals and direct the parties to the people's court is a procedural decision on the pre-trial remedies taken by the major. However, due to congenital defects in the legislative practice of the criminal justice pre-trial procedural decisions relief system operation, can not play the action effect. Meanwhile, the lack of procedural law as well as academic interest in the lack of information, but also to some extent hindered the criminal trial procedural decisions before the reform and improve the relief system. Therefore, the criminal pretrial procedure determines the relief system to conduct a comprehensive study has important theoretical and practical significance.
This dissertation consists of parts besides an introduction and a conclusion.
The first part briefly describes the pre-trial of the criminal procedural decisions constitute the type of relief system. China's current criminal pretrial procedural types of decisions, including jurisdiction, criminal proceedings start or end, to limit or deprive suspects of personal freedom and property rights, to avoid a decision. Criminal Procedure before the system determines the form of relief system, mainly in six aspects, one of relief include not filing a case, dismissed the application for withdrawal, taken off the case, more than the statutory period of enforcement, not to approve the arrest and the decision not to prosecute; its Second, the distribution of relief to the right of the victim, suspect and public security organs can be of the appropriate pre-trial procedural challenge the decision; Third, the remedies include the reconsideration review, the complainant and to the people's court; Fourth, start the process of relief feature was simple; The fifth review of the main relief is not uniform, the original decision-making organ, the original decision to higher authorities and the authorities can be a relief to the people's court review of the main body; the sixth, relief was documented review process, the secret of the features.
The second part of our pre-trial procedural decisions reflect the current situation of the relief system. Pre-trial procedures of the existing relief system determines the existence of five major deficiencies. First, narrow the scope of relief. Pre-trial Criminal Procedure determines the scope and complexity and diversity of relief in pre-trial procedural decisions does not fit in the right of the parties can not meet demand. Second, the uneven distribution of the right to relief. Although per capita victims and suspects can apply for pre-trial procedural decisions relief, but in between them and the unequal distribution of power is the law of the balance was tilted to the victims and the relative neglect of protection of the rights of criminal suspects. Third, the lack of effective remedies. Review of administrative reconsideration of the convergence of relief, the complainant in a manner non-existent, the people's court directly under the existing system can not meet the relief needs of victims rights. Fourth, the benefits start the program simple. Lack of relief of the main existing legal ways, which means, in what period of time for relief, and relief of the main relief is in the application shall state the reasons and to provide adequate relief and other relief to start the procedure the evidence detailed requirements. Fifth, the review of the main neutral relief is insufficient. Review of the existing relief not completely out of the main organs of the original decision, relief can not guarantee the independence of the review, neutrality. Sixth, the lack of relief to review the rules of procedure. Remedy the lack of available means of relief review, the review period, review the scope of the clearly defined, tends to result in a written review of relief, the secret of, program participation can not reflect the basic elements of procedural fairness
The third section presents a correction procedure of pre-trial relief system determines the specific measures. Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for the sex determination system, the lack of relief, we should from the six aspects of the procedural decision of pre-trial relief system reform. First, the reform of the scope of relief. Should be appropriate to expand the scope of relief, the parties may affect the interests of both pre-trial proceedings into the relief system of the decision, including jurisdiction, filing and not filing, taken off the case, refused to apply for the withdrawal, mandatory measures and search, seizure, freezing of the mandatory investigation measures and the decision not to prosecute. Second, the right to adjust the distribution of relief. Should be clear right to relief for the procedural rights of the main procedural decisions by the pre-trial court proceedings who is directly affected me, that is, suspects and victims, and should the right balance between relief to reflect the principle of equality. Third, the remedies of the reform. Relief should be located in the administrative relief from the current program of relief to the proceedings of the change in shape, integrate the current fragmented and chaotic way of relief, forming a system of criminal trial procedural decisions before the relief system. Fourth, the benefits start a program of reform. Relief program should be clear to launch rights for the proceedings was the subject of pretrial procedural decisions directly affect themselves and their legal representatives who participated in the proceedings; from the litigation perspective of efficiency and protection of the rights, remedies should be provided time in right of receiving the written decision within seven days; launched either in the form of relief can also be written oral, and relief to the original decision to apply either directly to the relief agencies can also review the proposed authority; relief of the main application for relief, only need to explain procedural decisions the wrong reasons can be, without the burden of proof. Fifth, the relative neutrality of the main benefits of the review. In our existing judicial system, public security authorities to the criminal pretrial procedural decisions for relief should be reviewed by the People's Procuratorate; Procuratorate made of pre-trial criminal procedural decisions should be remedied by the review on a Procuratorate. Sixth, the reform of relief review of the decision process. Approach should be taken to remedy the review proceedings of the relative form of relief to the applicant and shall be carried out under the applicant's participation, allowing both parties to provide evidence; relief to review the content should be both a review of the decision per se but also on the executive level of illegal review; should provide relief to the review period, the review bodies to determine the obligations of relief to protect the victim and the legitimate rights of criminal suspects.
全文除引言和结语外,正文由三大部分组成。
第一部分简要介绍了我国刑事审前程序性决定的种类及其救济制度构成。我国目前的刑事审前程序性包括管辖、启动或终结刑事诉讼程序、限制或剥夺犯罪嫌疑人人身自由权利和财产权利、回避决定等。刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的制度构成主要体现在六个方面:其一,救济范围包括不立案、驳回申请回避、撤案、超过法定期限的强制措施、不批准逮捕以及不起诉决定;其二,救济权的分配,被害人、犯罪嫌疑人以及公安机关均可以对相应的审前程序性决定提出异议;其三,救济方式包括复议复核、申诉以及向人民法院起诉;其四,救济启动程序呈简单化特征;其五,救济审查主体不统一,原决定机关、原决定机关的上级机关以及人民法院均可以成为救济审查主体;其六,救济审查程序呈书面化、秘密化的特征。
第二部分对我国审前程序性决定救济制度的现状进行反思。我国现有的审前程序性决定救济制度主要存在五个方面的不足。第一,救济范围较狭窄。刑事审前程序性决定救济范围与复杂多样的审前程序性决定不相适应,无法满足当事人的权利诉求。第二,救济权的分配不均衡。虽然被害人和犯罪嫌疑人均能对审前程序性决定申请救济,但是在他们之间的权利分配却并不平等,法律的天平明显向被害人倾斜而相对忽视了犯罪嫌疑人的权利保障。第三,救济方式缺乏有效性。复议复核趋同于行政化救济,申诉方式又形同虚设,直接向人民法院起诉也无法在现有制度下满足被害人的权利救济需求。第四,救济启动程序简单化。现有法律缺乏对救济主体以何种方式、哪种途径、在什么期限内申请救济,救济主体在申请救济时是否应当说明救济理由和提供充分的证据等救济启动程序方面的详尽规定。第五,救济审查主体中立性不足。现有的救济审查主体未能完全脱离原决定机关,无法保障救济审查的独立性、中立性。第六,救济审查程序规则的缺失。现有的救济途径缺乏对救济审查方式、审查期限、审查范围等的明确规定,导致救济审查趋于书面化、秘密化,无法体现程序参与等程序公正的基本要素。
第三部分提出了矫正我国审前程序性决定救济制度的具体措施。针对我国刑事审前程序性决定救济制度的不足,我们应当从六个方面对我国审前程序性决定救济制度进行改革。第一,救济范围的改革。应当适当扩大救济范围,将可能影响当事人利益的审前程序性决定均纳入救济体系,主要包括管辖、立案与不立案、撤案、拒绝回避申请、强制措施和搜查、扣押、冻结的强制性侦查措施以及不起诉决定。第二,调整救济权的分配。应当明确救济权主体为诉讼权利受到审前程序性决定直接影响的诉讼参与人本人,即犯罪嫌疑人和被害人,同时应当平衡二者之间的救济权以体现平等原则。第三,救济方式的改革。应当将救济定位于由现在的行政性救济程序向诉讼化救济形态转变,整合当前过于分散和混乱的救济方式,形成一个系统的刑事审前程序性决定救济制度。第四,完善救济启动程序的。从诉讼效率和权利保障的角度,救济期限宜规定为权利主体收到决定书之日起七日内;发动救济的形式既可以是口头也可以是书面,而救济申请既可以直接向原决定机关提出也可以向救济审查机关提出;救济主体在申请救济之时,只需要说明程序性决定错误的理由即可,无需承担举证责任。第五,增强救济审查主体的中立性。在我国现有的司法体制下,对公安机关作出的刑事审前程序性决定宜由人民检察院进行救济审查;对检察院作出的刑事审前程序性决定宜由其上一级检察院进行救济审查。第六,构建救济程序规则。救济审查方式应当采取相对诉讼化的形式,应当在救济申请者与被申请者的参与下进行,允许双方提供证据;救济审查的内容应当既包括对决定本身违法的审查也包括对执行层次违法的审查;应当规定救济审查期限,确定救济审查机关的告知义务,以保障被害人和犯罪嫌疑人的合法权利。
Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for decisions (such as the decision of the investigation, decisions and measures of decision not to prosecute, etc.) related to the filing, investigation, prosecution of all aspects of these decisions are usually made unilaterally by the state power, often affect the person's personal liberty or property rights and other basic rights. "No relief no rights", therefore, the criminal pretrial procedural decisions relief system on the protection of the procedural rights of the parties, which restricts public power and criminal pretrial procedures have a reasonable construction of a crucial impact. Investigation of the existing "Code of Criminal Procedure" in the relevant provisions of the difficult to find, review, review, appeals and direct the parties to the people's court is a procedural decision on the pre-trial remedies taken by the major. However, due to congenital defects in the legislative practice of the criminal justice pre-trial procedural decisions relief system operation, can not play the action effect. Meanwhile, the lack of procedural law as well as academic interest in the lack of information, but also to some extent hindered the criminal trial procedural decisions before the reform and improve the relief system. Therefore, the criminal pretrial procedure determines the relief system to conduct a comprehensive study has important theoretical and practical significance.
This dissertation consists of parts besides an introduction and a conclusion.
The first part briefly describes the pre-trial of the criminal procedural decisions constitute the type of relief system. China's current criminal pretrial procedural types of decisions, including jurisdiction, criminal proceedings start or end, to limit or deprive suspects of personal freedom and property rights, to avoid a decision. Criminal Procedure before the system determines the form of relief system, mainly in six aspects, one of relief include not filing a case, dismissed the application for withdrawal, taken off the case, more than the statutory period of enforcement, not to approve the arrest and the decision not to prosecute; its Second, the distribution of relief to the right of the victim, suspect and public security organs can be of the appropriate pre-trial procedural challenge the decision; Third, the remedies include the reconsideration review, the complainant and to the people's court; Fourth, start the process of relief feature was simple; The fifth review of the main relief is not uniform, the original decision-making organ, the original decision to higher authorities and the authorities can be a relief to the people's court review of the main body; the sixth, relief was documented review process, the secret of the features.
The second part of our pre-trial procedural decisions reflect the current situation of the relief system. Pre-trial procedures of the existing relief system determines the existence of five major deficiencies. First, narrow the scope of relief. Pre-trial Criminal Procedure determines the scope and complexity and diversity of relief in pre-trial procedural decisions does not fit in the right of the parties can not meet demand. Second, the uneven distribution of the right to relief. Although per capita victims and suspects can apply for pre-trial procedural decisions relief, but in between them and the unequal distribution of power is the law of the balance was tilted to the victims and the relative neglect of protection of the rights of criminal suspects. Third, the lack of effective remedies. Review of administrative reconsideration of the convergence of relief, the complainant in a manner non-existent, the people's court directly under the existing system can not meet the relief needs of victims rights. Fourth, the benefits start the program simple. Lack of relief of the main existing legal ways, which means, in what period of time for relief, and relief of the main relief is in the application shall state the reasons and to provide adequate relief and other relief to start the procedure the evidence detailed requirements. Fifth, the review of the main neutral relief is insufficient. Review of the existing relief not completely out of the main organs of the original decision, relief can not guarantee the independence of the review, neutrality. Sixth, the lack of relief to review the rules of procedure. Remedy the lack of available means of relief review, the review period, review the scope of the clearly defined, tends to result in a written review of relief, the secret of, program participation can not reflect the basic elements of procedural fairness
The third section presents a correction procedure of pre-trial relief system determines the specific measures. Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for the sex determination system, the lack of relief, we should from the six aspects of the procedural decision of pre-trial relief system reform. First, the reform of the scope of relief. Should be appropriate to expand the scope of relief, the parties may affect the interests of both pre-trial proceedings into the relief system of the decision, including jurisdiction, filing and not filing, taken off the case, refused to apply for the withdrawal, mandatory measures and search, seizure, freezing of the mandatory investigation measures and the decision not to prosecute. Second, the right to adjust the distribution of relief. Should be clear right to relief for the procedural rights of the main procedural decisions by the pre-trial court proceedings who is directly affected me, that is, suspects and victims, and should the right balance between relief to reflect the principle of equality. Third, the remedies of the reform. Relief should be located in the administrative relief from the current program of relief to the proceedings of the change in shape, integrate the current fragmented and chaotic way of relief, forming a system of criminal trial procedural decisions before the relief system. Fourth, the benefits start a program of reform. Relief program should be clear to launch rights for the proceedings was the subject of pretrial procedural decisions directly affect themselves and their legal representatives who participated in the proceedings; from the litigation perspective of efficiency and protection of the rights, remedies should be provided time in right of receiving the written decision within seven days; launched either in the form of relief can also be written oral, and relief to the original decision to apply either directly to the relief agencies can also review the proposed authority; relief of the main application for relief, only need to explain procedural decisions the wrong reasons can be, without the burden of proof. Fifth, the relative neutrality of the main benefits of the review. In our existing judicial system, public security authorities to the criminal pretrial procedural decisions for relief should be reviewed by the People's Procuratorate; Procuratorate made of pre-trial criminal procedural decisions should be remedied by the review on a Procuratorate. Sixth, the reform of relief review of the decision process. Approach should be taken to remedy the review proceedings of the relative form of relief to the applicant and shall be carried out under the applicant's participation, allowing both parties to provide evidence; relief to review the content should be both a review of the decision per se but also on the executive level of illegal review; should provide relief to the review period, the review bodies to determine the obligations of relief to protect the victim and the legitimate rights of criminal suspects.
引文
1陈光中主编:《刑事诉讼法》,北京:北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社,2005年版,第353页。
2 Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), West Publishing Group, 1999, p. 1163.
3王兆鹏:《刑事诉讼讲义(一)》,台北:元照出版有限公司,2003年版,第21页。
4孙连钟:《刑事强制措施研究》,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版,第125页。
5宋英辉、吴宏耀:《刑事审判前程序研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002年版,第363页。
6陈瑞华:《问题与主义之间——刑事诉讼基本问题研究》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003年版,第11页。
7刘勇:“检察机关刑事立案监督问题研究”,慕平主编:《检察改革的新探索》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版,第222页。
8陈永生:“侦查终结研究”,《湖南政法管理干部学院学报》,2000年第5期,第13页。
9彭海青:《刑事诉讼程序设置研究》,北京:中国法制出版社,2005年版,第140页。
10陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼的前沿问题》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000年版,第290页。
11陈卫东、李奋飞:“论侦查权的司法控制”,《政法论坛》,2000年第6期,第115页。
13孙长永:《侦查程序与人权:比较法考察》,北京:中国方正出版社,2000年版,第128页。
15殷啸虎、徐平:“我国司法回避制度存在的若干问题”,《法律适用》,2003年第4期,第59页。
17谢雁湖:“构筑以检察批捕权为主导的审前司法审查制度”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2004年第6期,第82页。
18叶青、周登谅:“刑事审前司法听证制度的透析与前瞻”,《法律科学》,2004年第4期,第77页。
19夏红:《无效刑事诉讼行为研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2009年版,第253页。
20陈朴生:《刑事诉讼法实务》(增订版),台北:海天印刷厂有限公司,1981年版,第128页。
21林钰雄:《刑事法理论与实践》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009年版,第259页。
22陈瑞华:“审前羁押的法律控制——比较法角度的分析”,《政法论坛》,2001年第4期,第109页。
23叶晓龙:“论检察机关自侦案件的侦查监督”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2003年第5期,第73--78页。
24陈卫东:“刑事诉讼再修改时机已经成熟”,《检察日报》,2003年第12月17日,第3版。
25林钰雄,前注[21],第232页。
26叶青、周登谅,前注[16],第78页。
27李心鉴:《刑事诉讼构造论》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第11页。
28陈卫东、李训虎:“检察一体与检察官独立”,《法学研究》,2006年第1期,第28页。
29陈瑞华:“程序正义论——从刑事审判角度的分析”,《中外法学》,1997年第2期,第71页。
30林钰雄,前注[21],第251页。
32林钰雄:“论告知义务”,《月旦法学》第60期,2000年5月,第99页。
[1] [美]爱伦·豪切斯泰勒·斯黛丽,南希·弗兰克:《美国刑事法院诉讼程序》,陈卫东,徐美君译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002年版。
[2] [美]博登海默:《法理学——法律哲学和法律方法》,上海:上海人民出版社,1992年版。
[3]陈瑞华:《刑事审判原理论》,北京:北京大学出版社,1997年版。
[4]陈瑞华:《问题与主义之间——刑事诉讼基本问题研究》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003年版。
[5]陈瑞华:《程序性制裁理论》,北京:中国法制出版社,2005年版。
[6]陈卫东:《程序正义之路》,北京:法律出版社,2005年版。
[7]樊崇义主编:《刑事审前程序改革与展望》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005年版。
[8] [法]卡斯东·斯特法尼:《法国刑事诉讼法精义》下,罗结珍译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
[9] [德]克劳斯·罗科信:《刑事诉讼法》,吴丽琪译,北京:法律出版社,2003年版。
[10]林钰雄:《刑事法理论与实践》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009年版。
[11]麦高伟、[英]杰弗里·威尔逊主编:《英国刑事司法程序》,姚永吉译,北京:法律出版社,2003年版。
[12]彭海青:《刑事诉讼程序设置研究》,北京:中国法制出版社,2005年版。
[13]孙长永:《侦查程序与人权:比较法考察》,北京:中国方正出版社,2000年版。
[14]孙长永:《探索正当程序——比较刑事诉讼法专论》,北京:中国法制出版社,2005年版。
[15]宋英辉、吴宏耀:《刑事审判前程序研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002年版。
[16]孙连钟:《刑事强制措施研究》,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版。
[17] [日]松尾浩也:《日本刑事诉讼法》,张凌译,北京:人民大学出版社,2005年版。
[18]王兆鹏:《刑事诉讼法讲义(一)》,台北:元照出版有限公司,2003年版。
[19]夏红:《无效刑事诉讼行为研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2009年版。
[20]谢佑平、万毅、王永杰等:《刑事司法权力的配置与运行研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006年版。
[21]杨宇冠:《人权法——<公民权利和政治权利国际公约>研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003年版。
[22]左卫民等:《中国刑事诉讼运行机制实证研究》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版。
[1]陈卫东、李奋飞:“论侦查权的司法控制”,《政法论坛》,2000年第6期。
[2]陈永生:“侦查终结研究”,《湖南政法管理干部学院学报》,2000年第5期。
[3]陈瑞华:“审前羁押的司法控制——比较法角度的分析”,《政法论坛》,2001年第4期。
[4]侯智、黄鲁滨:“刑事不起诉制度探析”,《法学杂志》,2009年第10期。
[5]孔璋、纪贵超:“我国刑事审前程序中检法关系之初探”,《中国检察官》,2007年第2期。
[6]李昌林:“论检察官的客观义务”,《中国司法》,2004年第8期。
[7]林钰雄:“论告知义务”,《月旦法学》第60期,2000年5月。
[8]刘菊根:“关于公诉案件被害人权利保障问题”,《法学研究》,1997年第2期。
[9]彭志刚、王贞会、黄河:“刑事立案监督中的法律问题研究”,《江西社会科学》,2009年第12期。
[10]孙长永:“通过中立的司法权力制约侦查权力——建立侦查行为司法审查制度之管见”,《环球法律评论》,2006年第5期。
[11]孙洪坤、汪振林:“西方国家审前司法审查制度比较研究——兼论建立我国审前司法审查制度”,《国家检察官学院学报》,2003年第1期。
[12]谢雁湖:“构筑以检察批捕权为主导的审前司法审查制度”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2004年第6期。
[13]徐静村:“论我国刑事诉讼法的再修正”,《现代法学》,2003年第3期。
[14]叶林华、周建中:“检察机关司法审查职能研究”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2009年第1期。
[15]叶青、陈海锋:“论刑事审前程序控制的再思考”,樊崇义主编:《刑事审前程序:上编》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005年版。
[16]叶青、周登谅:“刑事审前司法听证制度的透析与前瞻”,《法律科学》,2004年第4期。
[17]叶晓龙:“论检察机关自侦案件的侦查监督”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2003年第5期。
[18]殷啸虎、徐平:“我国司法回避制度存在的若干问题”,《法律适用》,2003年第4期。
2 Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), West Publishing Group, 1999, p. 1163.
3王兆鹏:《刑事诉讼讲义(一)》,台北:元照出版有限公司,2003年版,第21页。
4孙连钟:《刑事强制措施研究》,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版,第125页。
5宋英辉、吴宏耀:《刑事审判前程序研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002年版,第363页。
6陈瑞华:《问题与主义之间——刑事诉讼基本问题研究》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003年版,第11页。
7刘勇:“检察机关刑事立案监督问题研究”,慕平主编:《检察改革的新探索》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版,第222页。
8陈永生:“侦查终结研究”,《湖南政法管理干部学院学报》,2000年第5期,第13页。
9彭海青:《刑事诉讼程序设置研究》,北京:中国法制出版社,2005年版,第140页。
10陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼的前沿问题》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000年版,第290页。
11陈卫东、李奋飞:“论侦查权的司法控制”,《政法论坛》,2000年第6期,第115页。
13孙长永:《侦查程序与人权:比较法考察》,北京:中国方正出版社,2000年版,第128页。
15殷啸虎、徐平:“我国司法回避制度存在的若干问题”,《法律适用》,2003年第4期,第59页。
17谢雁湖:“构筑以检察批捕权为主导的审前司法审查制度”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2004年第6期,第82页。
18叶青、周登谅:“刑事审前司法听证制度的透析与前瞻”,《法律科学》,2004年第4期,第77页。
19夏红:《无效刑事诉讼行为研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2009年版,第253页。
20陈朴生:《刑事诉讼法实务》(增订版),台北:海天印刷厂有限公司,1981年版,第128页。
21林钰雄:《刑事法理论与实践》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009年版,第259页。
22陈瑞华:“审前羁押的法律控制——比较法角度的分析”,《政法论坛》,2001年第4期,第109页。
23叶晓龙:“论检察机关自侦案件的侦查监督”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2003年第5期,第73--78页。
24陈卫东:“刑事诉讼再修改时机已经成熟”,《检察日报》,2003年第12月17日,第3版。
25林钰雄,前注[21],第232页。
26叶青、周登谅,前注[16],第78页。
27李心鉴:《刑事诉讼构造论》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第11页。
28陈卫东、李训虎:“检察一体与检察官独立”,《法学研究》,2006年第1期,第28页。
29陈瑞华:“程序正义论——从刑事审判角度的分析”,《中外法学》,1997年第2期,第71页。
30林钰雄,前注[21],第251页。
32林钰雄:“论告知义务”,《月旦法学》第60期,2000年5月,第99页。
[1] [美]爱伦·豪切斯泰勒·斯黛丽,南希·弗兰克:《美国刑事法院诉讼程序》,陈卫东,徐美君译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002年版。
[2] [美]博登海默:《法理学——法律哲学和法律方法》,上海:上海人民出版社,1992年版。
[3]陈瑞华:《刑事审判原理论》,北京:北京大学出版社,1997年版。
[4]陈瑞华:《问题与主义之间——刑事诉讼基本问题研究》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003年版。
[5]陈瑞华:《程序性制裁理论》,北京:中国法制出版社,2005年版。
[6]陈卫东:《程序正义之路》,北京:法律出版社,2005年版。
[7]樊崇义主编:《刑事审前程序改革与展望》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005年版。
[8] [法]卡斯东·斯特法尼:《法国刑事诉讼法精义》下,罗结珍译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
[9] [德]克劳斯·罗科信:《刑事诉讼法》,吴丽琪译,北京:法律出版社,2003年版。
[10]林钰雄:《刑事法理论与实践》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009年版。
[11]麦高伟、[英]杰弗里·威尔逊主编:《英国刑事司法程序》,姚永吉译,北京:法律出版社,2003年版。
[12]彭海青:《刑事诉讼程序设置研究》,北京:中国法制出版社,2005年版。
[13]孙长永:《侦查程序与人权:比较法考察》,北京:中国方正出版社,2000年版。
[14]孙长永:《探索正当程序——比较刑事诉讼法专论》,北京:中国法制出版社,2005年版。
[15]宋英辉、吴宏耀:《刑事审判前程序研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002年版。
[16]孙连钟:《刑事强制措施研究》,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版。
[17] [日]松尾浩也:《日本刑事诉讼法》,张凌译,北京:人民大学出版社,2005年版。
[18]王兆鹏:《刑事诉讼法讲义(一)》,台北:元照出版有限公司,2003年版。
[19]夏红:《无效刑事诉讼行为研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2009年版。
[20]谢佑平、万毅、王永杰等:《刑事司法权力的配置与运行研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006年版。
[21]杨宇冠:《人权法——<公民权利和政治权利国际公约>研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003年版。
[22]左卫民等:《中国刑事诉讼运行机制实证研究》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版。
[1]陈卫东、李奋飞:“论侦查权的司法控制”,《政法论坛》,2000年第6期。
[2]陈永生:“侦查终结研究”,《湖南政法管理干部学院学报》,2000年第5期。
[3]陈瑞华:“审前羁押的司法控制——比较法角度的分析”,《政法论坛》,2001年第4期。
[4]侯智、黄鲁滨:“刑事不起诉制度探析”,《法学杂志》,2009年第10期。
[5]孔璋、纪贵超:“我国刑事审前程序中检法关系之初探”,《中国检察官》,2007年第2期。
[6]李昌林:“论检察官的客观义务”,《中国司法》,2004年第8期。
[7]林钰雄:“论告知义务”,《月旦法学》第60期,2000年5月。
[8]刘菊根:“关于公诉案件被害人权利保障问题”,《法学研究》,1997年第2期。
[9]彭志刚、王贞会、黄河:“刑事立案监督中的法律问题研究”,《江西社会科学》,2009年第12期。
[10]孙长永:“通过中立的司法权力制约侦查权力——建立侦查行为司法审查制度之管见”,《环球法律评论》,2006年第5期。
[11]孙洪坤、汪振林:“西方国家审前司法审查制度比较研究——兼论建立我国审前司法审查制度”,《国家检察官学院学报》,2003年第1期。
[12]谢雁湖:“构筑以检察批捕权为主导的审前司法审查制度”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2004年第6期。
[13]徐静村:“论我国刑事诉讼法的再修正”,《现代法学》,2003年第3期。
[14]叶林华、周建中:“检察机关司法审查职能研究”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2009年第1期。
[15]叶青、陈海锋:“论刑事审前程序控制的再思考”,樊崇义主编:《刑事审前程序:上编》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005年版。
[16]叶青、周登谅:“刑事审前司法听证制度的透析与前瞻”,《法律科学》,2004年第4期。
[17]叶晓龙:“论检察机关自侦案件的侦查监督”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2003年第5期。
[18]殷啸虎、徐平:“我国司法回避制度存在的若干问题”,《法律适用》,2003年第4期。