英语论文网

to promote and safeguard the legitimate and fair criminal proceedings powerful tool . " it can effectively restrict state power to implement and guarantee the rights of individual citizens , safeguard the authority of the Criminal Procedure Law , to promote law and order form .

Country through the " Criminal Procedure " on page 191 , the Supreme Court " on the implementation of < Criminal Procedure Law > Interpretation of Several Issues " ( hereinafter referred to as "interpretation" ) No. 61 , the Supreme People 's Procuratorate , " rules of criminal procedure " on page 265 , legislative and judicial interpretation of these proceedings on the referee made a procedural requirement , initially established the Chinese criminal procedural referee mechanisms . But in terms of Act stipulates itself, or to reflect on the whole , no doubt there are still many defects . Mainly reflected in the following aspects:

Legislative provisions of the Criminal Procedural referee terms is very limited , it is clearly impossible to regulate all procedural illegal situation. Stipulated in Article 191 of the first instance court of second instance court found violation of legal proceedings should cassation , remand the case for example of several . In fact, all cases which are not listed may occur in the first instance stage . And may occur in the second trial , and the trial supervision procedure stages: some illegalities that breach avoidance system , unlawful deprivation or restriction of rights of parties to litigation , may not only occur at the trial stage , and may occur in the investigation, prosecution and even filing stage . In accordance with the existing provisions , the referee is only applicable procedural appear first instance the case of the offense . Obviously the referee was too narrow , so a lot of procedural violations lost in the legal regulation . Meanwhile, China's criminal legislation relating to procedural provisions of unlawful consequences . Only the first 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code " remand " and the Supreme People's Court "interpretation" of Article 61 of the " exclusionary rule " in two ways , but the provisions are too simple generalization. This is clearly unable to meet practical needs .

本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。