环球法律评论
環毬法律評論
배구법률평론
Global Law Review
2013年
4期
33~47
,共null页
技术侦查 批准手续 互相制约
技術偵查 批準手續 互相製約
기술정사 비준수속 호상제약
批准手续是控制技术侦查权、保障公民权利的关键所在。新《刑事诉讼法》尽管要求技术侦查经过严格的批准手续，但是对批准手续的内容、主体、程序均没有明确。历史上，技术侦查批准手续完全呈封闭状态，从批准权的设置、运行到批准文件的备案都由侦查部门自我决定，不受其他任何机关的监督和审查。这既不利于落实宪法中的法检公互相制约原则，又可能侵犯公民受宪法保护的通信权、住宅不受侵犯权、言论自由等基本权利。鉴于国内外在技术侦查领域的利弊得失，这个“批准手续”一定不能是只受侦查部门自我控制的、粗疏的、不受外部监督的批准手续，而应该是一个中立的、细化的、受到外部监督的批准手续。具体来看，批准主体宜由法院充任，而申请主体应当为侦查机关的高级主管人员或得到其授权的人员；申请时应提供具体的事实和理由，而在批准时应当落实“重罪原则”、“必要性原则”和“相关性原则”。
批準手續是控製技術偵查權、保障公民權利的關鍵所在。新《刑事訴訟法》儘管要求技術偵查經過嚴格的批準手續，但是對批準手續的內容、主體、程序均沒有明確。歷史上，技術偵查批準手續完全呈封閉狀態，從批準權的設置、運行到批準文件的備案都由偵查部門自我決定，不受其他任何機關的鑑督和審查。這既不利于落實憲法中的法檢公互相製約原則，又可能侵犯公民受憲法保護的通信權、住宅不受侵犯權、言論自由等基本權利。鑒于國內外在技術偵查領域的利弊得失，這箇“批準手續”一定不能是隻受偵查部門自我控製的、粗疏的、不受外部鑑督的批準手續，而應該是一箇中立的、細化的、受到外部鑑督的批準手續。具體來看，批準主體宜由法院充任，而申請主體應噹為偵查機關的高級主管人員或得到其授權的人員；申請時應提供具體的事實和理由，而在批準時應噹落實“重罪原則”、“必要性原則”和“相關性原則”。
비준수속시공제기술정사권、보장공민권리적관건소재。신《형사소송법》진관요구기술정사경과엄격적비준수속，단시대비준수속적내용、주체、정서균몰유명학。역사상，기술정사비준수속완전정봉폐상태，종비준권적설치、운행도비준문건적비안도유정사부문자아결정，불수기타임하궤관적감독화심사。저기불리우락실헌법중적법검공호상제약원칙，우가능침범공민수헌법보호적통신권、주택불수침범권、언론자유등기본권리。감우국내외재기술정사영역적리폐득실，저개“비준수속”일정불능시지수정사부문자아공제적、조소적、불수외부감독적비준수속，이응해시일개중립적、세화적、수도외부감독적비준수속。구체래간，비준주체의유법원충임，이신청주체응당위정사궤관적고급주관인원혹득도기수권적인원；신청시응제공구체적사실화이유，이재비준시응당락실“중죄원칙”、“필요성원칙”화“상관성원칙”。
Ratification serves as a key in controlling the state power in technical investigation and protecting civil rights. The Chinese Criminal Procedure Law requests strict ratification in technical investigation, but it does not precisely define the contents, subjects and procedures of the ratification. Previously, the ratification of a technical investigation was usually issued in secret, and the investigation department had complete discretion in deciding the operation and the filing procedure. This not only broke the balance of the internal justice system, but also infringed in basic civil liberties under the Constitution such as the right of communication, the inviolability of the residence, and the freedom of expression. In consideration of the advantages and the disadvantages in the technical investigation practices in China and abroad, the ratification could not be a slipshod procedure which is controlled by the investigation department itself and without any ex- ternal supervising system. The ratification should be neutral, delicate and monitored by an organi- zation outside the investigation department. Specifically speaking, courts are the most suitable institutions for ratification, and the applicants should be the supervisors of the investigation department or people who are authorized by supervisors. The applicants should provide concrete facts and reasons, and the subjects who is in charge of approval should follow the necessity principle, relevance principle and the principle against grievous crimes.
