Investigation report on the implementation of the trial open system

Investigation report on the implementation of the trial open system

The trial of the trial is an important international judicial norm recognized by the international community. It is also an important litigation principle stipulated in the Constitution of China and the three major procedural laws. In order to implement the trial open system and enhance the openness and transparency of the people's court trial, the Supreme Court regards it as one of the century's themes of judicial reform. Our institute changed its concept, vigorously promoted various open systems of trials, and consciously accepted the supervision of the parties and the public.
First, the main achievements are "to fully implement the open trial system and promote openness by the public". Our institute attaches great importance to the trial and open work, and has adopted a series of measures to improve the conditions for handling cases and implement the trial open system, except for the law. In addition to the special circumstances, the cases in the vast majority of cases were publicly heard in strict accordance with the law. There are:
Open before the trial. In order to facilitate the litigation of the parties, our hospital has set up notices for filing notices and operation procedures in the filing hall; specially installed electronic screens to disseminate daily trial information; and set up special bulletin boards outside the courtroom to announce the case, the defendant's name, and the court time. And the location; at the same time set up a violation of the law and discipline report box, announce the report phone, widely accept the supervision of the people.
The trial process is open. The court's trial of the case, including the presentation of evidence, investigation and determination, etc., in addition to the special circumstances stipulated by the law, will be conducted in an open court, allowing the public to listen and allowing the media to interview and report. According to statistics, since 2003, the public hearing rate of cases that should be publicly heard according to law has reached 100%.
The conclusion of the trial is open, that is, public judgment. The judgment conclusions are announced in an open form, allowing the public to allow interviews with journalists and accepting social supervision. Cases that are pronounced on a regular basis, the time and place of the judgment shall be announced in advance; if the judgment is pronounced in court, the judgment shall be served in time within the statutory time.
Second, the scope of the existing problems is not large enough. In practice, the trial of commutation and parole cases is generally carried out in written form, that is, according to the commutation and parole proposal proposed by the penal enforcement agency. Such cases are not actually included in the scope of public hearings.
The degree of disclosure is not enough and the method of disclosure is limited. Due to the limitations of the objective material conditions in our hospital, some cases that should be publicly heard are difficult to openly hear, and those that have been publicly heard have also affected the social openness of the trial because of the simplistic conditions of the court. At present, the publicity of the case in our hospital is mainly limited to public hearings and public judgments in the courtroom. Due to material conditions and other reasons, it has not been actively disclosed to the public through the media or the Internet. Citizens' access to the case can only be obtained by borrowing files.
The substantive meaning of the disclosure is not obvious enough. The public trial requires the court to conduct substantive trial activities on the case, that is, the adoption of the evidence of the case, the determination of the facts, and the judgment of the non-responsibility of the parties shall be conducted in an open court. The judge can only form an understanding of the case through the court hearing. , make a referee. In our current judicial practice, there is still a formal tendency in public hearing. The judges have entered the lawsuit too much before the trial. Through the investigation of the evidence and the inquiry of the parties, the substantive hearing of the case has actually begun, and the judgment opinions have also been formed, making it possible to pre-determine the post-trial. In addition, due to the current system of the CRIC and the examination and approval system of the court and the president, the trial and judgment are separated.
The legal provisions are not perfect. Although China’s procedural law confirms the principle of open trials and also stipulates violations of public trials, it should decide to reinstate the original judgment and send it back for retrial. However, in the case of violating the principle of trial disclosure in practice and conducting a public hearing on a case that should not be heard in public, there is no further stipulation. For example, cases concerning personal privacy, juvenile delinquency, trade secrets, etc., should not be heard in public. Because the judges are seriously irresponsible for work or other reasons, the public hearing of these cases actually caused the rights and interests of the parties. Damage, some are spiritual, some are material, how should we remedy such problems? The two "Measures" issued by the Supreme People's Court also have no provisions for taking responsibility for violation of the principle of trial disclosure.
Third, it is recommended to further explore new forms and expand the scope of public trials. At present, our disclosure of the judgment documents is mainly limited to the form of audition. Not only is the audience limited, but it is not enough to read the judgment documents only when the judgment is pronounced. In the future, we should use the power of modern science and technology to disclose the judgment documents to the public through the media and the Internet, and disclose the facts and evidences of the judgment documents, the reasons for the judgment, the legal basis and the results of the judgment to the public, and allow citizens to freely consult and accept social supervision. Although the law does not clearly stipulate, in fact, the open judgment document is a general rule of the modern national judicial system. The First Intermediate People's Court has established a special website to open the judgment documents to the public through the Internet. This initiative truly reflects the spiritual connotation of the principle of open trial and is worth learning. In addition, the scope of cases for public trials should be expanded. Cases of commutation and parole should be open to the public as much as possible, and the methods of disclosure can be varied. Many courts have adopted this approach, which not only enhances the transparency of trial cases, but also improves the efficiency and quality of case handling, and has also played a positive role in promoting the prisoners to receive education reform.
Flexibly grasp the extent to which the case is open. In cases where the law stipulates that a public trial should be conducted, in addition to the adjournment review, other aspects of the trial process should be handled flexibly according to the individual case. Which link should be made public, which link should not be made public, or what is publicly disclosed. Although there is no provision in the legal and judicial interpretations, in the specific operation, the judge can completely follow the legal procedures. The specific circumstances of the case are flexible. For example, when the privacy of an individual is involved, or when a witness is present in court, the court may declare a temporary ban on public attendance, and then resume the disclosure after the trial is completed. Similarly, in the process of hearing some cases that are not open to the public, if the parties request to disclose a certain link or the court believes that a certain link is open to the interests of the parties, it can also open the trial of this link.
Improve legislative provisions. The above mentioned the lack of comprehensive provisions on the legal consequences and accountability of the current law for violating the principle of open trials. Therefore, we suggest that the legislature should adopt a "method" or other means to stipulate that the specific responsible personnel who violate the principle of open trial should Negative legal responsibility. In this way, it not only further enhances the status of the principle of trial openness in litigation, but also has a very important significance for effectively enhancing the sense of responsibility of the judges, establishing a new concept of formula justice, and ensuring the full implementation of the principle of trial openness.