作者：龙宗智
作者介绍：四川大学法学院教授
出版日期：2021年8月9日
内容提要 最高人民法院2021年关于适用刑事诉讼法的解释，遵循立法原意，回应实 践需求，解释成效显著，应充分肯定。在法律和实践的矛盾中，需体谅解释者的难处，慎重判 断是否违反立法原意。但就回避程序的相关解释突破法律规定，且可能妨碍程序公正和法 庭中立，执行时应注意防止弊端且应进一步完善程序规范；确认有专门知识的人出具的报告 以及事故调查报告的证据资格有现实意义，但与立法不协调，且解释 自身有矛盾，考虑实践 需要应区别情况处理；以三项新规确认 “证据未移送根据在案证据认定事实”规则，是重要 创新，但就其中第73条规定的未移送，不应仅看在案证据，也应根据证据未移送的情况作出 认定；对质新规未能反映 《法庭调查规程》对该程序的完善，而分案审理被告人到庭接受调 查不应当仅理解为到庭对质。
关键词 司法解释 立法原意 回避 对质
Abstract: The jurisdictional interpretation issued by the Supreme People's Court in 2021 on the application of the Criminal Procedure Law follows the legislative intent and responds to practical demands, and has achieved remarkable results. Considering the conflicts between the law and practice, we should be cautious in judging whether a jurisdictional interpretation ‘violates the legislative intent'. However, with regard to challenging issues, reviewing and objecting challenge applications against prosecutors by the tribunal violate the legislative intent and impair the neutrality of the tribunal. Restrictions on the causes of challenge by the jurisdictional interpretation also violate the legislative intent. Allowing reports provided by people with specialized knowledge to be admitted as evidence is a breakthrough in law, which can meet the demand of judicial practice, but there are no proper rules on the appearance of such experts at court. Using accident investigation reports as the evidence does not comply with the law, and infringes the self-consistency of jurisdictional interpretation. The three new rules on‘ finding facts only by evidence transferred to court' is an innovation of fact-finding rules. When the prosecution does not transfer certain evidence as required by the court, the court should not only decide facts according to evidence available, but also make proper presumptions or decisions according to the adequacy of transference. The new rules on evidence examination show no improvement to the Court Investigation Rules, and in the situation of divided trials, the investigation of a defendant appearing at court should be more than oral examination.