浅议讯问录音录像的性质——以李某涉黑案为例  

Discussion on the Nature of the Audio and Video Recordings of Interrogations—Taking Li’s Involvement in the Crime Case as an Example

作　　者：彭杰 

机构地区：[1]贵州大学法学院,贵州 贵阳

出　　处：《法学（汉斯）》2023年第6期6633-6637,共5页Open Journal of Legal Science

摘　　要：我国的侦察讯问录音录像制度起始于2005年《最高人民检察院讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人实行全程同步录音录像的规定(试行)》。讯问录音录像通常在排除非法证据的程序中出现,作为证明侦察机关讯问手段合法的证据,也即作为一种程序性证据。随着刑事司法实践的推进,理论界及实务界对录音录像性质认识的深入,将讯问录音录像作为言词证据的载体的呼声也越来越高。按照《刑事诉讼法》第50条的规定,讯问录音录像具备作为案件事实存在与否的证据,是案件的事实性证据。China’s video recording system of investigation and interrogation began in 2005 with the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on the Implementation of Synchronous Audio and Video Recording of the Interrogation of Suspects of Job-related Crimes (for Trial Implementation). Audio and video recordings of interrogations usually appear in the procedure of excluding illegal evidence, as evidence to prove the legality of the interrogation methods of investigation organs, that is, as a kind of procedural evidence. With the advancement of criminal justice practice, theoretical and practical circles have deepened their understanding of the nature of audio and video recordings, and the voice of audio and video recordings of interrogations as a carrier of verbal evidence has also become higher and higher. According to article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law, audio and video recordings of interrogations have evidence as evidence of the existence or non-existence of the facts of the case, and are factual evidence of the case.

关 键 词：讯问录音录像 程序性证据 事实性证据 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]