DH Top Menu.

dhf flash menu

Rules Concerning Questions About Examining and Judging Evidence in Death Penalty Cases (continued)

 

6. Records of On-Site Investigation and Inspection

Article 25 In examining records of on-site investigation and inspection, emphasis shall be placed on the following:
     (1) Whether the on-site investigation or inspection was conducted in accordance with the law; whether the record was produced in compliance with the requirements of the law and relevant regulations; whether the officers conducting the on-site investigation or inspection and witnesses signed the report or affixed their chops;
     (2) Whether the record of on-site investigation or inspection is complete, detailed, accurate, and standard in format; whether the subject, time, place, persons on the scene, scene location, and surrounding environment of an on-site investigation or inspection are recorded accurately; whether the location and characteristics of the scene, items, individuals, and corpses, as well as the process of on-site investigation or inspection are accurately recorded; whether the written description matches physical objects or drawings, video recordings, or photos; whether the manner and methods used to fix [the location] of evidence is scientific and standard; whether the crime scene, items, or traces were damaged or fabricated and whether the crime scene was in its original state; whether distinguishing features or injuries of individuals were disguised or altered;
     (3) When additional on-site investigation or inspection is carried out, whether there are contradictions with [earlier] investigations and whether reasons can be provided to explain the need for additional on-site investigation or inspection;
     (4) Whether the record of on-site investigation or inspection corroborates or contradicts other evidence, such as the defendantís declaration, the victimís statement, or the expert opinion.

Article 26 If a record of on-site investigation or inspection clearly does not comply with the law and relevant regulations and no reasonable explanation is provided, it may not be used as evidence.
     If a record of on-site investigation or inspection does not list any witnesses, if the investigating officer(s) or witnesses did not sign [the record] or affix a chop, or if the investigating officer(s) violated the regulations on recusal, [the court] should consider other evidence in the case in examining the authenticity and relevance [of the record in question].
 

7. Audiovisual Materials

Article 27 In examining audiovisual materials, emphasis shall be placed on the following:
     (1) Whether the source of the audiovisual materials is legal and whether threats, inducements, or other violations of the law and relevant regulations were used against the party in the course of production;
     (2) Whether the identity of the producer or the possessor and the time, place, and conditions of production are clearly stated;
     (3) Whether [the material] is the original or, if a reproduction, how many copies there are; if the audiovisual material obtained is a reproduction, whether an explanation is provided regarding the inability to obtain the original, the process of reproduction, and the location of the original; whether the signature or chop of the reproducer and the person in possession of the original audiovisual material [has been provided];
     (4) Whether the content and production process are authentic or whether [the material] has undergone rearrangement, addition, deletion, editing or other fabrication or alteration;
     (5) Whether the content is relevant to the facts of the case.
     If there are questions about audiovisual materials, an expert evaluation should be conducted.
     The authenticity and relevance of audiovisual materials should be examined in consideration of other case evidence.

Article 28 Audiovisual materials may not serve as a basis for conviction under the following circumstances:
     (1) The authenticity of the audiovisual materials cannot be established following examination or expert evaluation;
     (2) There is dispute about the production of the audiovisual materials or the time, place, and manner with which they were obtained and no reasonable explanation or requisite proof can be provided.

 

8. Other Provisions

Article 29 In examining electronic evidence such as electronic mail, electronic data exchange, online chat transcripts, blogs, mobile telephone text messages, or electronic signatures or domain names, emphasis shall be placed on the following:
     (1) Whether electronic evidence stored on a storage medium such as a computer disk or CD has been submitted together with the printed version;
     (2) Whether the time, place, target, producer, production process, and equipment for the electronic evidence is clearly stated;
     (3) Whether production, storage, transfer, access, collection, and presentation [of the electronic evidence] were carried out legally and whether individuals obtaining, producing, possessing, and witnessing the evidence affixed their signature or chop;
     (4) Whether the content is authentic or whether it has undergone cutting, combination, tampering, or augmentation or other fabrication or alteration;
     (5) Whether the electronic evidence is relevant to the facts of the case.
     If there are questions about electronic evidence, an expert evaluation should be conducted.
     The authenticity and relevance of electronic evidence should be examined in consideration of other case evidence.

Article 30 Under the following circumstances, identification [of evidence] arranged by the investigating organ shall be carefully examined and may not serve as a basis for conviction if their authenticity cannot be verified:
     (1) The identification was not conducted under the direction of the investigating officer(s);
     (2) The person doing the identification was shown the target of identification beforehand;
     (3) Persons doing the identification did not carry out the identification process individually;
     (4) Except specifically in the identification of corpses and locations, the identification target was not placed in the midst of other targets with similar distinguishing characteristics, or the number of targets provided for identification did not comply with regulations;
     (5) The person doing the identification was clearly given a hint or there is suspicion that he or she was instructed about what to identify.
     Identification results may be used as evidence under the following circumstances if the relevant officer rectifies [the error] or provides a reasonable explanation:
     (1) The identification was directed by fewer than two investigators;
     (2) The person doing the identification was not asked detailed questions about specific distinguishing characteristics of the identification target;
    (3) No standardized identification record was produced specifically to document the process and results of identification or the investigator(s), person doing the identification, or witness did not sign or affix a chop to the identification record;
     (4) The identification record is too simple, with only results and no [record of the] process;
     (5) The case file has only the identification record and no photos or video of the investigation target, so that there is no way to know whether the identification was authentic.

Article 31 In examining documents such as the investigating organís record of how a case was solved, it should be noted whether the explanatory document is signed by the officer(s) in charge and the chop of the organ in charge affixed.
     If there are questions about how a case was solved or there are questions about the basis by which suspicion of a defendant was determined to be major, additional explanation from the investigating organ shall be requested.

 

 

Print this document

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5


HOME    |    CONTACT US    |    SUPPORT DUI HUA    |    SEARCH    |    SITE MAP    |    PRIVACY STATEMENT          © 2011 THE DUI HUA FOUNDATION