论文部分内容阅读
在大陆法系民事诉讼中,为确保事实认定过程的客观及公正,法院进行证据调查应以法定的证据方法为对象,严格遵循直接原则并保障当事人的在场权,此即证据法定的要求或意义所在。与此相应,其民诉立法乃依证据调查方式之不同,确立了不同的证据类型。我国现行民诉法尽管在制度设计上贯彻了证据法定的要求,但关于法定证据类型的确立并不科学,突出表现为误将勘验笔录与视听资料作为独立的证据类型予以规范,亟待修正。
In the civil lawsuit of the civil law system, in order to ensure the objective and fair process of fact-finding, the court should take the legal evidence as the object of investigation, strictly follow the direct principles and protect the parties’ right to present, which is the requirement or significance of the statutory evidence Where you are. Correspondingly, the Civil Procedure Legislation establishes different types of evidence according to the different methods of evidence investigation. Although the Civil Procedure Law of our country carries out the legal requirement of evidence in the system design, it is unscientific to establish the type of statutory evidence. It highlights the fact that it is wrong to standardize the exposition transcripts and audiovisual materials as independent evidence types.