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)
