论文部分内容阅读
马迪钦娜案的判决反映出欧洲人权法院在专家证据运用问题上的完整立场,即从《欧洲人权公约》第6条第1款的“公正审判权”入手,以“平等武装”和“对抗式诉讼”两大基本原则为评判基准,系统提出涵盖专家证据生成、展示和庭上质证等环节的程序检验标准,并最终回到程序整体来综合审查专家证据的运用是否违反公正审判。该立场是在注重程序公正的国际背景下,公正审判在专家证据运用领域的具体展现,对我国鉴定意见运用的完善具有十分重要的启示意义。我国鉴定意见的运用要以此为借鉴,在坚持职权主义鉴定制度的同时,增强鉴定意见运用过程中的程序对抗性:允许辩方参与控方的鉴定过程并提出不同意见;明确控方负有完整开示鉴定意见的义务;赋予被告人要求鉴定人出庭并接受对质询问的权利;同时承认专家辅助人的部分意见具有相应的证据效力。
The decision of Madinhenna reflects the complete position of the European Court of Human Rights on the use of expert evidence that “starting from the” right to just trial “of article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights and” equitable “ ”And“ adversarial lawsuit ”as the criterion of judgment, the system proposes a procedure test standard covering the aspects of expert evidence generation, exhibition and courtroom quality certification and finally returns to the procedure to comprehensively review the use of expert evidence Is it against fair trial? This position is a concrete manifestation of the application of fair trial in the field of application of expert evidence in the international context of procedural fairness. It is of great significance to the improvement of the application of the expert opinion in our country. The use of appraisal opinions in our country should be based on this. While adhering to the appraisal system of official power, the procedural confrontation in applying appraisal opinions should be enhanced: the defense should be allowed to participate in the accreditation process of the prosecution and put forward different opinions; Complete the obligation to appraise opinions; give the defendant the right to request the appraiser to appear in court and accept the question of interrogation; and at the same time admit that some opinions of expert assistants have the corresponding evidential effect.