法學(xué)專業(yè)畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯----死刑聽(tīng)證制問(wèn)題研究

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)論文外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　學(xué)院(系): </p><p>　　專 業(yè)： </p><p>　　姓名： XXX

2、 </p><p>　　學(xué) 號(hào)： </p><p>　　外文出處：1、《Frontiers of Law in China》2010,5</p><p>　　附件： 1.外文資料翻譯譯文；2.外文原文

3、 </p><p>　　附件1：外文資料翻譯譯文</p><p><b>　　死刑聽(tīng)證制問(wèn)題研究</b></p><p>　　YUguan yang</p><p><b>　　摘要：</b></p><p>　　死刑主要用于對(duì)最嚴(yán)重的罪犯的懲治。給這些案子舉行公眾聽(tīng)證

4、制似乎是保證司法公正性的最佳方式。死刑案的公眾聽(tīng)證制在維護(hù)司法公正性和保障人的權(quán)利有著重大的意義，并且早已獲得國(guó)內(nèi)外的關(guān)注。本文將解釋美國(guó)相關(guān)死刑聽(tīng)證制機(jī)構(gòu)的條件，從權(quán)利和義務(wù)角度定義公眾聽(tīng)證制的性質(zhì)，分析死刑公眾聽(tīng)證制的特殊內(nèi)涵，介紹外國(guó)的一些死刑聽(tīng)證制的案例，并且分析當(dāng)前中國(guó)對(duì)于死刑公眾聽(tīng)證制的實(shí)行，并通過(guò)一些建議實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)聽(tīng)證制的推進(jìn)。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：死刑案，公眾聽(tīng)證制，國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，中國(guó)的實(shí)踐<

5、;/p><p>　　死刑案聽(tīng)證制必須嚴(yán)格遵守犯罪公正性的國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，尤其是與美國(guó)相關(guān)的公眾聽(tīng)證制。公眾聽(tīng)證制包括公開(kāi)審判和公開(kāi)宣判，兩者都包括幾個(gè)方面。作者想分享一些與聯(lián)合國(guó)相關(guān)文件死刑案公開(kāi)審判和宣判的理解。</p><p>　　1,公眾聽(tīng)證制的意義和要求</p><p>　　1.1,公眾聽(tīng)證制在權(quán)利和義務(wù)方面的基本原理</p><p>　　公眾

6、聽(tīng)證制包括公開(kāi)審判和公開(kāi)宣判。公開(kāi)審判是指法庭上的一系列活動(dòng)，比如調(diào)查證人，調(diào)查案件事實(shí)，雙方證據(jù)交換等。公開(kāi)審判的核心是對(duì)審判活動(dòng)的處理，由當(dāng)場(chǎng)公開(kāi)起訴、辯護(hù)陳述、詢問(wèn)證人、核查證據(jù)和法庭最后陳詞組成。在形式上，公開(kāi)審判有兩個(gè)要求：首先，包括案件名稱、起訴罪名、被告人身份、法庭審判的時(shí)間地點(diǎn)和出庭人員在內(nèi)的信息必須提前公布；其次，必須為公眾的旁聽(tīng)提供足夠的便利，任何人都應(yīng)當(dāng)被允許參加旁聽(tīng)，而記者也應(yīng)被允許對(duì)審判進(jìn)行報(bào)道。公開(kāi)審判的參加

7、人員不能被限制于某一特定類型；但是法律法規(guī)指定的例外，比如法庭審議，任何想要參加旁聽(tīng)的人都不能被拒絕；所有的法庭活動(dòng)，尤其是詢問(wèn)證人和檢驗(yàn)證據(jù)都應(yīng)該公開(kāi)進(jìn)行。</p><p>　　至于宣判，除非法律明文規(guī)定，任何刑事案件的宣判都應(yīng)當(dāng)公開(kāi)進(jìn)行。被告人有權(quán)接到宣判文件，且被告人不能放棄或拒絕國(guó)家司法部門將案件結(jié)果公之于眾。如果被告人對(duì)宣判結(jié)果不服，他可以上訴，但是卻無(wú)權(quán)阻止司法機(jī)關(guān)公布宣判。公眾的判斷不僅能維護(hù)被告人

8、的權(quán)利，而且也反映了國(guó)家司法公正，實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)公眾了解案件情況的權(quán)利。因此，國(guó)家不能因被告人放棄權(quán)利而取消對(duì)案件結(jié)果的公布。</p><p>　　1.2，死刑公眾聽(tīng)證制的特殊含義</p><p>　　由于牽涉到被告人的生命，死刑案件與普通的刑事案件不同。在一些西方國(guó)家，普通刑事案件的被告可以放棄審判的權(quán)利，然而在死刑案件中，即使被告人有自證其罪的意愿，公開(kāi)審判仍是不可避免的。</p>

9、;<p>　　在死刑案件中，被告、其親朋好友和普通大眾會(huì)更關(guān)注審判，因此關(guān)于案件信息的揭露應(yīng)當(dāng)更加詳細(xì)，最好包括死者和被告人的信息，案件的具體情況，宣判的依據(jù)和原因。除了個(gè)案以外，國(guó)家或地區(qū)死刑案件的總數(shù)、減刑情況和執(zhí)行情況都應(yīng)當(dāng)揭露給公眾，以便于公眾能了解政府死刑政策和處理案件的原由。</p><p>　　現(xiàn)今世界上一些國(guó)家沒(méi)有公布死刑的相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)。例如，在日本，公眾并不知曉個(gè)案死刑執(zhí)行的信息，但是

10、合計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)還是公開(kāi)的。聯(lián)合國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)理事會(huì)已經(jīng)要求秘書長(zhǎng)視察成員國(guó)自1973年各國(guó)每隔5年的死刑執(zhí)行情況，但是并沒(méi)能得到各國(guó)多大的響應(yīng)。一項(xiàng)關(guān)于是否保留死刑的調(diào)查顯示，62個(gè)國(guó)家中，87%完全無(wú)視，只有4個(gè)國(guó)家反映認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)取決于對(duì)死刑的應(yīng)用和執(zhí)行總數(shù)。</p><p>　　一些國(guó)家理性地認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)保留死刑，因?yàn)樗佬谭蠂?guó)家當(dāng)前情形，包括人民意愿。當(dāng)然，這只是一種考慮，取決于公眾是否想要保留死刑。在此之前，我們必須想公

11、眾公布死刑的信息。如果死刑的數(shù)據(jù)沒(méi)有想公眾公開(kāi)，那么怎么能夠讓死刑執(zhí)行的必要建立在人民意愿只上呢？只有公開(kāi)死刑數(shù)據(jù)，公眾才能獲得理解死刑的權(quán)利；人們才能在知曉真相后完善他們的看法，從而政府才能知曉人民的意愿。當(dāng)政府一方面援引公眾意見(jiàn)，而另一方面卻故意向公眾隱瞞死刑作用的相關(guān)信息，這便自相矛盾了。如果民意對(duì)于一個(gè)國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)是很重要的考慮因素，那么政府就應(yīng)當(dāng)為形成民意而提供了解信息的渠道。如果一個(gè)國(guó)家希望將民意作為 保留死刑的重要原因，但卻拒

12、絕向人們揭露死刑的信息，這是不合理的。</p><p>　　宣判信息的公開(kāi)和死刑的執(zhí)行對(duì)于面對(duì)死刑的人及其家人都有著及其特殊和重要的意義。一個(gè)已經(jīng)被宣判死刑的人在執(zhí)行死刑前仍然享有其正當(dāng)權(quán)利和其他權(quán)益的保障。例如，依據(jù)法律，一個(gè)被判死刑的罪犯的罪行應(yīng)當(dāng)有更高一級(jí)的法庭進(jìn)行復(fù)核，或應(yīng)當(dāng)擁有尋求赦免或減刑的權(quán)利。沒(méi)有即使向罪犯及其家人提供案件信息可能會(huì)給他們行使權(quán)利帶來(lái)阻礙，因此而至程序正當(dāng)于危險(xiǎn)之中。</p&

13、gt;<p>　　死刑的執(zhí)行也應(yīng)當(dāng)公開(kāi)，以確保公眾的知悉權(quán)。對(duì)宣判和死刑執(zhí)行的公布使案件受害者及其家人好友知道司法的公正并且罪犯已經(jīng)唄懲治；使公眾了解個(gè)案的執(zhí)行和國(guó)家死刑政策的總體情況；并且向那些想要犯罪的人現(xiàn)實(shí)法律的力量，促使他們停止犯罪。</p><p>　　2.中國(guó)類似于死刑公眾聽(tīng)證制的探索</p><p>　　公眾聽(tīng)證制是中國(guó)刑事司法體系的基本原則。中華人民共和國(guó)憲法

14、第125條規(guī)定：“除法律規(guī)定的特別情況外，一律公開(kāi)進(jìn)行?！敝腥A人民共和國(guó)刑事訴訟法第11條規(guī)定：“人民法院審判案件，除本法另有規(guī)定的以外，一律公開(kāi)進(jìn)行?！?lt;/p><p>　　2.1死刑公眾聽(tīng)證制的準(zhǔn)備</p><p>　　中華人民共和國(guó)刑事訴訟法第151條規(guī)定：人民法院決定開(kāi)庭審判后，應(yīng)當(dāng)進(jìn)行下列工作： </p><p>　?。ㄒ唬┐_定合議庭的組成人員； <

15、/p><p>　?。ǘ⑷嗣駲z察院的起訴書副本至遲在開(kāi)庭十日以前送達(dá)被告人。對(duì)于被告人未委托辯護(hù)人的，告知被告人可以委托辯護(hù)人，或者在必要的時(shí)候指定承擔(dān)法律援助義務(wù)的律師為其提供辯護(hù)； </p><p>　?。ㄈ㈤_(kāi)庭的時(shí)間、地點(diǎn)在開(kāi)庭三日以前通知人民檢察院； </p><p>　?。ㄋ模﹤鲉井?dāng)事人，通知辯護(hù)人、訴訟代理人、證人、鑒定人和翻譯人員，傳票和通知書至遲在

16、開(kāi)庭三日以前送達(dá)； </p><p>　　（五）公開(kāi)審判的案件，在開(kāi)庭三日以前先期公布案由、被告人姓名、開(kāi)庭時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)。 </p><p>　　2.2，死刑案聽(tīng)證制的參加</p><p>　　公眾聽(tīng)證制最顯著的表現(xiàn)是允許公眾進(jìn)行旁聽(tīng)。在中國(guó)參加庭審是有限制的。例如，法庭容量是有限制的，也許人們?cè)谂月?tīng)死刑案件的時(shí)候只能沒(méi)有座位，這顯然會(huì)印象公眾聽(tīng)證制的效果。</

17、p><p>　　2.3，公開(kāi)法庭記錄和其他文件</p><p>　　畢竟，只有少數(shù)人能夠參加庭審，由于有些人還不能夠準(zhǔn)時(shí)到達(dá)法庭等原因，參加旁聽(tīng)的人甚至什么都聽(tīng)不到或者理解不了。那些有公眾聽(tīng)證會(huì)的案子，如果法院通過(guò)特定渠道公開(kāi)法庭記錄，將會(huì)提高聽(tīng)證會(huì)的作用。并非每個(gè)社會(huì)成員都需要閱讀個(gè)案完整的法庭記錄。只有那些對(duì)案子有監(jiān)督責(zé)任的人、機(jī)構(gòu)、辯護(hù)律師，與案子相關(guān)的人員，對(duì)案子有興趣的新聞機(jī)構(gòu)和研究

18、這些案子的學(xué)者才想要特定案子的完整庭審記錄。所以，庭審記錄的公開(kāi)取決于判斷，志向那些有需要的人員公開(kāi)。如果庭審記錄的公開(kāi)需要費(fèi)用，那么法庭可以向那些要獲得記錄的人索要。由于能夠參加和報(bào)道公眾聽(tīng)證，人們就知道庭審是否是公正的。</p><p>　　2.4，公開(kāi)宣判的模式</p><p>　　起訴議案和死刑案宣判的透明度，尤其是宣判依據(jù)和所應(yīng)用的法律，不僅反映了公眾對(duì)被告人的看法，對(duì)法律的傳播

19、和教育也起到了很大的作用。</p><p>　　傳統(tǒng)上而言，宣判會(huì)以在法院門口或公共場(chǎng)所貼公告，或?qū)⒉糠謨?nèi)容發(fā)表在新聞中，或者將所有案子做成冊(cè)子發(fā)表年鑒。這三種方法都存在于中國(guó)。然而，這種對(duì)死刑的公開(kāi)方式是有限制的。由于通過(guò)這種公告方式，能看到的人數(shù)是有限的，因此公開(kāi)宣告的作用也是有限的。在新聞上發(fā)表死刑案并不是一種正式的公開(kāi)方式，因?yàn)檫@通常是從新聞的角度選擇性的發(fā)表一些案子，而且是節(jié)選部分宣判；在中國(guó)，對(duì)于案子

20、的編輯并非是系統(tǒng)化的，沒(méi)有固定結(jié)構(gòu)，并不能完整地反映死刑案。隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)的普及，在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上發(fā)表死刑案能夠避免以上傳統(tǒng)模式的弊端。</p><p>　　2.5，公開(kāi)死刑案二審的聽(tīng)證</p><p>　　中國(guó)法庭二審與外國(guó)的二審有基本區(qū)別。國(guó)外死刑案件的二審?fù)ǔ２惶幚硎聦?shí)問(wèn)題，而是法律問(wèn)題，尤其是程序和證據(jù)的收集是否合法。而中國(guó)的二審更廣泛地回顧案件事實(shí)和法律，并沒(méi)有局限于上訴或抗訴所提出的問(wèn)題。因

21、此在庭審模式上二審與一審并沒(méi)有多大區(qū)別，甚至可以認(rèn)為是審判的延伸，所以也二審應(yīng)當(dāng)適用公眾聽(tīng)證制度。</p><p>　　2.6，死刑復(fù)核的透明度</p><p>　　從2007年1月開(kāi)始，死刑復(fù)核的權(quán)力被回收到中國(guó)人民最高法院，結(jié)束了26年國(guó)家對(duì)死刑復(fù)核權(quán)的部分放權(quán)。最高院集合死刑復(fù)核權(quán)在確保死刑案件處理、維護(hù)人權(quán)、展開(kāi)謹(jǐn)慎處理死刑案的政策、形成死刑的統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有著及其重大的意義。在回收死刑

22、復(fù)核權(quán)之后，最高院發(fā)布文件統(tǒng)一死刑復(fù)核程序。這些文件包括最高院對(duì)有關(guān)死刑案件問(wèn)題的規(guī)定，確立了對(duì)被告人的審問(wèn)程序、調(diào)查與核實(shí)證據(jù)、采取辯護(hù)律師的意見(jiàn)、完善死刑復(fù)核程序等，并且已經(jīng)去的了顯著成效。</p><p>　　根據(jù)中國(guó)現(xiàn)行刑事訴訟法，死刑復(fù)核程序在第三編，審判里。這意味著法律制定者認(rèn)為死刑復(fù)核程序是審判程序的一部分。因此，在最高院收回死刑復(fù)核權(quán)后，應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)法律進(jìn)一步完善死刑復(fù)核程序公眾聽(tīng)證制問(wèn)題的研究。因此

23、，在死刑復(fù)核程序中，必須遵守一系列關(guān)于公眾聽(tīng)證制的原則和刑事審訊方式，法院應(yīng)當(dāng)允許檢察官和辯護(hù)律師參加其中。只有這樣，雙方的權(quán)利，尤其是被告方的辯護(hù)權(quán)，才能得到保障，被告方才能在最后階段行使辯護(hù)權(quán)。根據(jù)既定程序的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，改變中國(guó)死刑復(fù)核程序的行政本質(zhì)將完善死刑案的每一步驟。</p><p><b>　　3，結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　各國(guó)應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)不同的國(guó)情來(lái)做不同

24、的決定。在那些保留死刑的國(guó)家，死刑案必須根據(jù)已定的國(guó)際法和國(guó)內(nèi)法中的公眾聽(tīng)證制原則來(lái)處理。如果國(guó)內(nèi)立法和有關(guān)聽(tīng)證的司法判例與國(guó)際人權(quán)法律、刑事公正不符，或者與死刑公眾聽(tīng)證制不一致，相關(guān)國(guó)家應(yīng)當(dāng)采取措施來(lái)改善國(guó)內(nèi)立法和判例。</p><p>　　為了公正和公開(kāi)審判，死刑公眾聽(tīng)證制的完善是必要的。公正公開(kāi)的的審判不僅有益于整個(gè)刑事訴訟程序，中國(guó)法律體制建設(shè)，也有益于維護(hù)中國(guó)憲法的人權(quán)、國(guó)際人權(quán)要求及刑事司法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。&l

25、t;/p><p><b>　　附件2：外文原文</b></p><p>　　Study of Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases</p><p><b>　　Abstract:</b></p><p>　　The death penalty

26、 is involved in the most severe criminal offenses. Holding public hearing in these cases seems to be the best way to guarantee judicial fairness. A public hearing in death penalty cases is of important significance in sa

27、feguarding judicial fairness and protecting human rights, which has attracted a high level of attention domestically and internationally. This paper interprets the requirements of the United Nations’ related agencies for

28、 the public hearing of death penalty cases,</p><p>　　Key words: </p><p>　　Death penalty cases, public hearing, international standard, China’s practice </p><p><b>　　·

29、3;·······</b></p><p>　　The hearing of death penalty cases shall strictly follow the international standards of criminal justice, especially relevant UN provisions reg

30、arding the public hearing. The public hearing includes public trial and public judgment, each of which consists of several aspects. The author intends to share some understandings of issues relating public trial and publ

31、ic judgment of death penalty cases in relation to the relevant UN documents. </p><p>　　1 Meanings and Requirements of Public Hearing </p><p>　　Rationale of Public Hearing in the Aspects of Right

32、s and Obligations. </p><p>　　The public hearing consists of a public trial and a public judgment. The public trial refers to a series of activities in court, i.e. examining the witnesses, processing the fact

33、s of the case, and admission of the evidence in the presence of the interested parties and other participants. The core of the public trial is the conducting of trial activities, which are comprised of presenting public

34、prosecution bill and defense statement, questioning witnesses, verifying evidence and making last stat</p><p><b>　　········</b></p><p>　　As fo

35、r judgment, unless otherwise specified by law, judgment of any criminal cases shall be made public. It is the right of the accused to receive document of judgment, the accused can not waive or reject the state judicial o

36、rgan’s pronouncement of the result of the case to the public. If the accused does not agree with the judgment, he can appeal or complain, but he can not stop the state judicial organ from making the judgment public. Publ

37、ic judgments not only safeguard the right of the accuse</p><p>　　1.2 The Special Nature of Public Hearing of Death Penalty Cases </p><p>　　Death penalty cases are different from ordinary crimina

38、l cases, because the life of the accused is involved. In some western countries, the accused of ordinary criminal cases can waive the right to trial. While in death penalty cases, even if the accused expresses his will t

39、o plea guilty, the public trial can not be exempted. </p><p><b>　　·········</b></p><p>　　In death penalty cases the accused, his relative

40、s and friends, and the general public pay more attention to the trial, hence the information disclosed shall be more detailed, including the basic information of the death row prisoner, the details of the case, and the g

41、rounds and reasons for the judgment. Except for individual cases, the total number, the commutation and the execution of death penalty cases of the nation and each local area shall be disclosed so that the public can und

42、erstand stat</p><p><b>　　······</b></p><p>　　Currently some countries in the world do not publish the relevant data on death penalty. For example, in Ja

43、pan the public is not provided with the information on individual executions, but detailed aggregated statistics are provided. The UN Economic and Social Council has requested that the Secretary-General survey member sta

44、tes on their use of capital punishment at five-year intervals since 1973,7 but the response rate has been very low. In a survey on 62 countries that retain the death penalty</p><p>　　executions.8 </p>

45、<p><b>　　·········</b></p><p>　　Some countries rational for retaining capital punishment is that capital punishment conforms to the national con

46、ditions, including the will of the people.12 It is of course a point of consideration whether the public are in favor of or want to retain death penalty or not. Before considering the will of the people, we should give t

47、he people information on death penalty. If the data of death penalty is not made known to the people, how can the necessity of death penalty be implemented based on it </p><p><b>　　···&#

48、183;····</b></p><p>　　The open information on the judgment and the execution of death penalty cases is of special and important significance to a person who faces the death penalty

49、and his family. A person who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to death still enjoys the due process rights and other safeguards on his rights before execution of the sentence. For example, the prisoner under d

50、eath sentence “shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law”1</p><p><b>　　·········</b><

51、;/p><p>　　The execution of death penalty cases shall also be made known to the public to protect the public’s right to know. The publishing of the judgment and execution of death penalty cases; allow victims of

52、 criminal cases and their relatives and friends to know that justice has been done and the criminals have been executed; allow the public to know the execution of specific cases and the overall situation of the state’s d

53、eath penalty policy; and show some people who are likely to commit crimes the po</p><p>　　2.Explorations of the Relevant Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases in China </p><p>　　Publ

54、ic hearing is the basic principle of China’s criminal justice system. Article 125 of China’s Constitution provides that “except in special circumstances as specified by law, all cases in the courts are heard in public.”

55、Article 11 of China’s Criminal Law provides that “cases in the courts shall be heard in public, unless otherwise provided by this Law”. </p><p>　　··········&

56、#183;··</p><p>　　2.1 Make Preparations for the Public Hearing of Death Penalty Cases </p><p>　　Article 151 of China’s Criminal Law provides that when a court has decided to open a cour

57、t session, it shall proceed with the following work: “(1) To determine the members of the collegial panel; (2) to deliver to the accused a copy of the bill of prosecution of the procuratorate no later than ten days befor

58、e the opening of the court session. If the accused has not retained a defender, he shall be informed that he may retain a defender or, when necessary, a legal aid lawyer may be appointed to s</p><p><b>

59、;　　······</b></p><p>　　2.2 Attend the Hearing of Death Penalty Cases </p><p>　　The most prominent manifestation of public hearings is to allow the public to v

60、isit the court of hearing. There are some constraints in attending court trials in China. </p><p>　　For example, the capacity of the court room is generally limited and it may be not large enough for the peo

61、ple to sit in on hearings of death penalty cases. As a result, some can not attend court hearings, which affects the effect of public hearings. </p><p><b>　　·······&#

62、183;·</b></p><p>　　2.3 Open Court Records and Other Documents </p><p>　　After all, only a limited number of people can attend court trials and some people can not arrive at the court

63、on time for various reasons, and the visitors may not hear everything nor understand it correctly. For cases that have public hearings, it will improve the effect of public hearings if the court can publicize court trial

64、 records (transcript) through certain channels. Not every member of the public needs to read the complete court record of a certain case. People or organs that are oblig</p><p>　　2.4 Modes of Public Judgment

65、 </p><p>　　The transparency of the bill of prosecution and the judgment of death penalty cases, especially the reasons for judgment and law applied, not only reflects the public handling of the accused, but

66、also plays the role of legal propagation and education. </p><p><b>　　·······</b></p><p>　　Traditionally the judgment is publicized through posting

67、a bulletin at the door of the court or public places, or publishing part of the content in the press, or publishing the collection of cases on the yearly basis. All three ways are used in China. However, there are limita

68、tions imposed by these types of posting in the time and place when publishing the judgment of death penalty. By posting bulletins, as only limited number of people can access the bulletins, hence the influence of publish

69、ing</p><p><b>　　········</b></p><p>　　2.5 Open Hearing of Second Instance of Death Penalty Cases </p><p>　　There is a fundamental

70、 difference between China’s court of second instance and that of foreign countries. The court of second instance in criminal cases of foreign countries normally does not deal with factual issues of the case but its legal

71、 issues, especially whether the procedure and evidence collection is legal. China’s second instance extensively reviews the issues of facts and law of the case and is not restricted to the issues raised in the appeal or

72、counter-appeal. Consequently there is </p><p>　　··········</p><p>　　2.6 Transparency of the Review of Death Penalty Cases </p><p>　

73、　Starting from January 1, 2007, the review and approval power of death penalty has been taken back by the Supreme Court of China. This puts an end to the history of 26 years of partial delegation of the power of death pe

74、nalty review. The Supreme Court’s centralized exercise of the review and approval of death penalty is of significance in guaranteeing the quality of death cases handling, safeguarding human rights, deploying the policy o

75、f less and more cautious death sentencing and unifying the ap</p><p><b>　　······</b></p><p>　　According to the structure of China’s present Criminal Pro

76、cedural Law, the review process of the death penalty is under “Part 3－Trial”. This implies that the law makers consider that the review process of the death penalty as a stage of the trial process. For this reason, after

77、 the Supreme Court took back the review and approval power of the death penalty, it shall further improve China’s review process of the Study of Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases death penalty according t

78、o </p><p>　　3 Conclusions</p><p>　　Various countries in the world have different opinions and practices with regards to retaining or abolishing death penalty. At present various countries shall

79、make their own decisions according to their own situations. In the countries where death penalty is retained, death penalty cases shall be handled according to the principle of public hearing, established by internationa

80、l laws and domestic laws. If the domestic legislation and judicial practice of public hearings do not conform to the crit</p><p><b>　　······</b></p><p>

81、　　The improvement of the public hearing of death penalty cases is necessary for the fair and public trial. A fair and public trial is conducive to the improvement of the overall criminal procedure system, to the further

82、improvement of China’s legal system construction, to the implementation of provisions on safeguarding human rights in China’s constitution, and to the implementation of the international human rights and criminal justice