The Supreme People's Court Thursday released a judicial
interpretation on evidence in administrative cases to better
protect individuals' rights and ensure procedural fairness.
Grand Justice Li Guoguang said the interpretation enhances the
protection of plaintiffs so that they can enjoy a virtually equal
status with the defendants - administrative organizations in this
case.
"Judicial justice depends largely on the fairness of judicial
procedures," Li said.
He
added that a major part of the judicial interpretation is aimed at
procedural justice in administrative litigation.
The interpretation requires administrative bodies involved in a
court case to disclose all evidence and documents they have used to
make their decisions.
Only evidence that has been recognized by both parties in court can
be used as evidence for the final verdict, the interpretation
says.
The interpretation adds that judges should examine the evidence
piece by piece and make a comprehensive, objective and fair
examination of all the evidence, adhering to their professional
ethics and using logic and common sense to establish the relevance
of the evidence in any particular case.
Witness protection has also been strengthened for those testifying
against administrative bodies.
Li, who is also vice-president of the Supreme People's Court, said
it is the first time that the court has issued a systematic
judicial interpretation concerning the collection,
cross-examination and recognition of evidence in administrative
cases.
Administrative litigation centers on examining whether or not a
specific administrative action is legitimate under China's
Administrative Procedure Law.
The plaintiffs are usually in a relatively disadvantageous position
in administrative litigation, especially in the collection of
evidence.
The Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that the burden of
proof rests on the administrative bodies.
But Li said the provision has not been effective in practice.
He
said justice and the efficiency of administrative litigation have
been hampered by the refusal of administrative bodies to submit
evidence or delays in doing so, the illegal collection of evidence
and some judges' indulgence of administrative organizations.
The judicial interpretation is expected to have a far-reaching
impact on the trial of administrative cases, he added.
Xiao Yang, president of the Supreme People's Court, reported to
national legislators in March that Chinese courts had handled more
than 730,000 administrative cases since the Administrative
Procedure Law took effect in 1990.
Li
said the judicial interpretation will also help ensure that
administrative bodies act in accordance with the law and increase
administrative efficiency.
The provisions also reflect the requirements of the World Trade
Organization concerning evidence issues in international trade
cases, he added.
(China
Daily July 26, 2002)