Fa Shi [2002] No. 21
July 24, 2002
In order to reach accurate findings of facts and hear administrative cases in an impartial and timely manner, these Regulations are formulated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Procedure Law") and other relevant laws and in light of administrative trial practices.
Chapter I Allocation of Burden of Proof and Time Limit for the Production of Evidence
Article 1 As provided in articles 32 and 43 of the Administrative Procedure Law , the defendant to an administrative case shall bear the burden of proof for a specific administrative act that the defendant has carried out and shall, within ten days of the date on which the counterpart of the complaint in question is received, provide all evidence and normative documents on which such an act is based. Where the defendant fails to provide or provides the evidence beyond a specified period without proper reasons, it shall be deemed that appropriate evidence is absent for such an act.
Where the defendant cannot provide evidence within the period specified in the preceding paragraph due to force majeure or any other proper cause beyond the human control, the defendant shall, within ten days of the date on which the counterpart of the complaint in question is received, file a written application to the people's court concerned for a deferment in providing the evidence. Where the people's court consents to such a deferment, the defendant shall provide the evidence within ten days after the termination of the proper cause. Where the defendant provides the evidence beyond the specified period, it shall be deemed that appropriate evidence is absent for such an act.
Article 2 Where the plaintiff or a third party to an administrative case brings forth any reason for rebuttal or evidence that is not put forward during the administrative procedure in question, the defendant may, after the consent of the people's court concerned, provide proper supplementary evidence in the proceedings at first instance.
Article 3 As provided in Article 33 of the Administrative Procedure Law, in the course of proceedings, neither the defendant concerned nor the agent ad litem of the defendant shall by himself gather evidence from the plaintiff concerned and any witnesses.
Article 4 In filing an action with a people's court, a citizen, a legal person or any other organization shall provide appropriate evidential materials that meet the requirements for filing an action.
In a case involving any omission by the defendant concerned, the plaintiff concerned shall provide evidential materials proving that the plaintiff has submitted an application in the administrative procedure in question unless under any of the following circumstances:
1. Where the defendant shall fulfill voluntarily the statutory functions and duties in question in accordance with the authority of the defendant; or
2. Where the plaintiff is not able to provide relevant evidential materials due to any deficiency in the registration system of the defendant for the acceptance of applications or any other proper cause and makes an appropriate statement.
Where the defendant alleges that the plaintiff files the action beyond the statutory period, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof.
Article 5 In an action for administrative compensation, the plaintiff concerned shall provide evidence for the fact that the specific administrative act involved has harmed the plaintiff.
Article 6 The plaintiff to an administrative case may provide evidence that the specific administrative act involved violates any law. Where the evidence provided by the plaintiff has no merit, the defendant shall not be immune from the burden of proof for the legality of the specific administrative act involved.
Article 7 The plaintiff or any third party to an administrative case shall provide evidence before the first hearing session for the case or on a date specified by the people's court concerned on which evidence is to be exchanged. Where the plaintiff or any such third party files an application for a deferment in providing evidence due to any proper cause, the plaintiff or any such third party may, after the consent of the people's court, provide the evidence during the stage of court investigation. Where the plaintiff or any such third party provides evidence beyond the specified period, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff or any such third party has waived the right of to produce evidence.
Evidence which is not provided in proceedings at first instance by the plaintiff or any such third party without any proper cause and which is provided in proceedings at second instances shall not be upheld by the people's court.
Article 8 In serving a notice of acceptance or a notice to answer on the parties to an administrative case, the people's court shall inform the parties of the scope of evidence to be produced, the time limit for producing evidence and legal consequences for providing evidence beyond the specified period and that an application for a deferment in providing evidence shall be filed if the parties are not able to provide evidence within the specified period due to any proper cause.
Article 9 As provided in Paragraph 1 of Article 34 of the Administrative Procedure Law , a people's court shall have the authority to require the parties to an administrative case to provide or add evidence.
For any fact that is not questioned by the parties and which involves the interest of the State, the public interest or the legitimate interest of any other party, the people's court may order the parties to provide or add relevant evidence.
Chapter II Requirements for the Provision of Evidence
Article 10 As provided in Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law, where any party to an administrative case provides documentary evidence to the people's court concerned, the following requirements shall be satisfied:
1. The original of documentary evidence is provided which includes the original and duplicate of the documentary evidence. Where it is really difficult to provide the original of the documentary evidence, a certified accurate copy, picture, or extract of the documentary evidence may be provided;
2. Where a copy, photocopy or excerption of the original documentary evidence that is kept by the relevant department is provided, the source shall be indicated and the said department shall affix its seal thereon after verifying that there is no mistake;
3. Where statements, drawings, books of accounts, special technical information, scientific and technical literature and other documentary evidence are provided, explanatory materials shall be attached thereto; and
4. Records of inquiries, statements, and talks provided by the defendant concerned and on which the specific administrative act involved is based shall be signed or sealed by the law enforcement official in question, the party being inquired, the party making such statements and the parties engaged in such talks.
Where there are any other provisions in any law, regulations, judicial interpretations, and rules with respect to the form in which documentary evidence is prepared, such provisions shall prevail.
Article 11 As provided in Item (2) of Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law, where any party to an administrative case provides physical evidence to the people's court concerned, the following requirements shall be satisfied:
1. The original articles are provided. Where it is really difficult to provide the original articles, reproductions of the original articles that have been verified to be consistent with the original articles or any pictures, video recordings or other evidence that can prove the existence of the original articles may be provided; and
2. Where the original articles are large in number and fungible, part of the original articles is provided.
Article 12 As provided in Item (3) of Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law, where any party to an administrative case provides computer data or audio-visual materials such as sound recordings and video recordings to the people's court concerned, the following requirements shall be satisfied:
1. The original carrier of relevant materials is provided. Where it is really difficult to provide the original carrier, a reproduction of the original carrier may be provided;
2. The method by which and time at which such materials are prepared, persons who prepare such materials, and objectives for which such materials are provided are indicated; and
3. Audio materials shall have written records thereof attached thereto.
Article 13 As provided in Item (4) of Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law, where any party to an administrative case provides testimony of any witness to the people's court concerned, the following requirements shall be satisfied:
1. The basic information on the witness such as the name, age, gender, profession, and address of the witness;
2. The testimony is signed by the witness; where the witness is not able to do so, methods such as affixing a seal shall be employed to prove the consent of the witness at to the accuracy of the testimony;
3. The date on which the testimony is offered is indicated; and
4. Any document such as a copy of the resident identity card which proves the identity of the witness is attached thereto.
Article 14 As provided in Item (6) of Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law, any authentication conclusion provided by the defendant to an administrative case to the people's court concerned that is employed in the administrative procedure in question shall specify the principal, matters entrusted to be appraised, relevant materials provided to the authentication institution in question, basis on which and scientific and technical methods by which the authentication activities are conducted, and a statement on the qualification of the authentication institution and the experts concerned and shall be signed by the experts and sealed by the authentication institution. For any authentication conclusion that is reached through an analysis, a statement on such the process of such an analysis shall be made.
Article 15 As provided in Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law, any on-the-spot record that is provided by the defendant to an administrative case to the people's court concerned shall specify matters such the time, location, and event involved and shall be signed the law enforcement official and the party concerned. Where the party refuses to or is unable to sign on the record, reasons therefor shall be indicated. Where any other party is present, any such party may sign on the record. Where there are any other provisions in laws, regulations and rules with respect to the form in which on-the-spot records are made, such provisions shall prevail.
Article 16 Where any party to an administrative case provides to the people's court concerned evidence that is formed outside the People's Republic of China, the source of the evidence shall be indicated and the evidence shall be certified by a notary public office in the country from which the evidence is sourced and be authenticated by the embassy or consulate of the People's Republic of China in that country, or any such party shall go through the certification formalities specified in any relevant treaty entered into by the People's Republic of China with the country from which the evidence is sourced.
Where any such party provides evidence that is formed in Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR or Taiwan, any such party shall go through certification formalities in accordance with relevant provisions.
Article 17 where any party to an administrative case provides documentary evidence or audio-visual materials in any foreign language to the people's court concerned, a Chinese version of such documentary evidence or audio-visual materials translated by an eligible translation institution or any other Chinese version thereof that is accurately translated shall be attached thereto and shall be sealed by such a translation institution or signed by any translator who does the translation.
Article 18 For evidence that involves any state secret, business secret or private personal information, the provider of such evidence shall make an explicit note and state the matter to the people's court concerned and the court shall review such matter for confirmation.
Article 19 Any party to an administrative case shall classify and number evidential materials submitted by any such party, make a brief statement on the source of such evidential materials, facts to be proved by such evidential materials and the contents of such evidential materials, sign on or affix a seal on such evidential materials and specify the date of submission.
Article 20 After receiving evidential materials submitted by any party to an administrative case, the people's court concerned shall issue a receipt in which to specify names, number of copies, number of pages, number of pieces, types and other matters with respect to the evidential materials and the time at which such evidential materials are received and cause any person in charge to sign on or affix a seal on such a receipt.
Article 21 For any administrative case that is very complicated or involves a large number of evidence, the people's court may arrange for the parties concerned to produce evidence to each other or exchange evidence and shall keep particulars concerning the exchange of evidence on file.
Chapter III Investigation and Collection and Preservation of Evidence
Article 22 As provided in Paragraph 2 of Article 34 of the Administrative Procedure Law, a people's court shall have the authority to investigate and collect evidence from relevant administrative authorities, other organizations and citizens under any of the following circumstances:
1. Where the finding of any fact involves the State interest, the public interest or the legitimate interest of any other party; or
2. Where procedural matters such as the addition of any party thereto by the people's court in accordance with its authority, the discontinuance of the proceedings in question, the conclusion of the proceedings, and challenge issues are involved.
Article 23 Where the plaintiff or any third party to an administrative case is unable to gather the following evidential materials independently, the plaintiff or any such third party may apply to the people's court concerned to investigate and collect such evidential materials if the plaintiff or any such third party is able to provide a definite clue:
1. Evidential materials kept by the relevant state organ and can only be assessed on the basis of an order made by the people's court;
2. Evidential materials that involve the State interest, the public interest or the legitimate interest of any other party; and
3. Any other evidential materials that, on objective grounds, can not be independently gathered by the plaintiff or any such third party.
The people's court shall not investigate and collect evidence that is not gathered by the defendant concerned in carrying out the specific administrative act involved, so as to prove the legality of the specific administrative act involved.
Article 24 Any party to an administrative case that applies to the people's court to investigate and collect evidence shall submit an application for the investigation and collection of evidence within the time limit for producing evidence.
An application for the investigation and collection of evidence shall specify the following matters:
1. Basic information on any party in possession of the evidence such as the name or title and address of any such party;
2. The contents of the evidence to be investigated and collected; and
3. Any reason for applying for the investigation and collection evidence and any fact of case which the evidence is to prove.
Article 25 Where an application for the investigation and collection of evidence filed by any party to an administrative case is deemed after examination by the people's court to meet the criteria for the collection of evidence, the people's court shall make a timely decision on the collection of evidence; where such an application does not meet the criteria for the investigation and collection of evidence, the people's court shall serve a notice on any such party or an agent ad litem of any such party, stating the reason for rejecting the application for the investigation and collection of evidence. Any such party or the agent ad litem may, within three days of receipt of the notice, file a written application to the people's court for a review on such matter.
The people's court shall make a response within five days of receipt of the review application. Where the people's court, upon the request of any such party, is unable to collect the evidence in question after making efforts, the people's court shall so inform any such party and state any reason therefor.
Article 26 Where a people's court needs to investigate and collect evidence in another place, the people's court may authorize in writing a people's court at such place to investigate and collect the evidence. The authorized people's court shall, after receiving the written authorization, complete the collection of evidence in a timely manner as required by the authorization and deliver the evidence to the people's court granting the authorization. Where the authorized people's court is not able to complete matters contained in the authorization, such people's court shall so inform the people's court granting the authorization and state any reason therefor.
Article 27 Where any party to an administrative case seeks to applies in accordance with Article 36 of the Administrative Procedure Law to the people's court concerned for the preservation of evidence, any such party shall file a written application before the expiration of the time limit for producing evidence and specify the name of the evidence, the place where the evidence is kept, the contents and scope of the preservation, any reason for applying for such preservation, and other matters.
The people's court may require any such party to provide appropriate security for the preservation of evidence.
Where the preservation of evidence prior to a lawsuit is provided in any law or judicial interpretations, the provisions of any such law or judicial interpretations shall be complied with.
Article 28 Where a people's court preserves evidence in accordance with Article 36 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the people's court may, depending on specific circumstances, adopt preservation measures such as sealing up, seizing, taking a picture, making sound recordings, making video recordings , making a reproduction, authenticating, making on-site investigations, and preparing a record of inquiries.
In preserving evidence, the people's court may require the parties concerned and an agent ad litem of such parties to be present.
Article 29 Where the plaintiff or any third party to an administrative case has evidence or any proper reason to show that authentication conclusions on which the findings of facts in the case reached by the defendant concerned are based are possibly in error and files a written application for a new authentication within the time limit for producing evidence, the people's court concerned shall consent to such an application.
Article 30 Where any party to an administrative case that objects to any authentication conclusion reached by an authentication institution entrusted by the people's court concerned files an application for a new authentication and bring forth evidence that any of the following circumstances occurs, the people's court shall consent to such an application:
1. Where the authentication institution or the expert concerned does not have the appropriate authentication qualification;
2. Where the procedure of authentication seriously violates any law;
3. Where the basis for reaching the authentication conclusion is conspicuously not adequate; or
4. Other circumstances in which the authentication conclusion is not able to be employed as evidence after being cross-examined.
Any defective authentication conclusion may be remedied by an additional authentication, a new cross-examination, an additional cross-examination or any other means.
Article 31 Where any party to an administrative case that bears the burden of proof for matters that requires authentication fails to file an application for authentication or prepay authentication fees without any proper reason during the time limit for producing evidence or refuse to provide relevant materials, thereby leading to a failure to reach a finding of any fact under dispute in the case via any expert conclusion, any such party shall assume the legal consequences of the inability to produce evidence for any such fact.
Article 32 A people's court shall examine an authentication report issued by an entrusted or designated authentication institution to determine whether or not the following details are included:
1. The nature of authentication instructions;
2. Relevant materials provided for the authentication process;
3. Basis for the authentication process and scientific and technical methods employed;
4. The details of the authentication process;
5. A definite authentication conclusion;
6. A statement on the qualifications of the authentication institution and the experts concerned; and
7. The signatures of the experts and the official seal of the authentication institution.
Where any matter described in the preceding paragraph is lacked or the authentication conclusion is not clear, the people's court may require the authentication institution to make a statement, or conduct an additional or new authentication.
Article 33 A people's court may, upon the request of either party to an administrative case or in accordance with its authority, conduct on-site investigations.
In conducting on-site investigations, the investigators concerned must produce a paper of the people's court and invite any local organization at grass-root level or the entity in which the other party to the case works to assign any person to participate in such on-site investigations. Where the other party or any adult family member of such party who is required to be present refuses to be present, such on-site investigations shall continue and a statement shall be made for such matter in a record of on-site investigations.
Article 34 Judicial officers shall make a record of on-site investigations in which to set out the time and place of the on-site investigations, investigators, persons who are present, the process and results of the on-site investigations and such a record shall be signed the investigators, the party concerned and the persons present.
Any drawings made in conducting the on-site investigations shall specify the time at which such drawings are made, the position from which such drawings are made, the name and identity of the drawer, and other matters.
Where the party concerned objects to the conclusion of the on-site investigations, the party may file an application for new on-site investigations within the time limit for producing evidence and the people's court shall make a decision on whether or not to allow such investigations to be conducted.
Chapter IV Cross-examination and Verification of Evidence
Article 35 Evidence shall be produced and cross-examined in a court during a hearing session. Any piece of evidence that is not cross-examined during a hearing session shall not serve as the basis for reaching a finding of facts.
Any piece of evidence that is not questioned by the parties to an administrative case in the course of the exchange of evidence and kept on file may, after the judicial officers concerned make a statement on such matter, serve as the basis for reaching a finding of the facts of the case.
Article 36 Where the defendant to an administrative case, upon being lawfully summoned, refuses to appear in court without any proper reason and the judgment for the case needs to rendered in accordance with the law, with the defendant being in default, any piece of evidence provided by the defendant shall not serve as the basis for reaching a finding of the facts of the case, with the exception of evidence that is not questioned by both parties to the case in the course of the exchange of evidence.
Article 37 Any piece of evidence that involves any state secrets, business secrets, or private personal information or that is required by any law to be kept confidential shall not be publicly cross-examined in an open hearing session.
Article 38 Any piece of evidence that any party to an administrative case applies to the people's court concerned to investigate and collect shall be produced by the applicant party in the course of a hearing session and be cross-examined by both parties to the case.
The peoples' court shall produce any piece of evidence which is investigated and collected by the court in accordance with its authority, make a statement on particulars concerning the collection of any such evidence, and listen to the opinions of the parties.
Article 39 the parties to an administrative case shall cross-examine any piece of evidence with respect to the relevance, legitimacy, authenticity, weight and probative value of any such evidence.
Subject to consent of the court concerned, the parties or their respective agents ad litem may question each other on issues relating to any piece of evidence and also put questions to any witness, expert witness or investigator.
In questioning each other or any witness, expert witness or investigator, the parties or their respective agents ad litem shall ask questions related to the facts of the case and shall not use, among other things, misleading, menacing or insulting language or methods.
Article 40 Other than in either of the following circumstances, in the cross-examination of documentary evidence, physical evidence or audio-visual materials, the parties to an administrative case shall present the original document or article:
1. Where it would be onerous to require that the original document or article be presented and the people's court concerned has approved the presentation of a reproduction or photocopy thereof; or
2. Where the original document or article no longer exists but other evidence demonstrates that the reproduction or photocopy submitted is identical to the original document or article.
Audio-visual materials shall be played or displayed on the spot in a hearing session and be cross-examined.
Article 41 Any person who knows the facts of the administrative case in question shall be obliged to appear in court and give testimony. Under any of the following circumstances, the party concerned may, subject to the approval of the people's court concerned, submit written testimony:
1. Where the parties concerned raise no objection to testimony given by any witness in the course of the administrative procedure in question or the exchange of evidence prior to the first court session;
2. Where the witness is unable to appear in court due to old age, the condition of unhealthiness or an inability to travel ;
3. Where the witness is unable to appear in court due to the extremely long distance involved and inconvenient transportation;
4. Where the witness is unable to appear in court due to any force majeure event such as a natural disaster or any other expected incidents; or
5. Where the witness, on any other special grounds, is really unable to appear in court.
Article 42 Any person who is unable to express himself or herself accurately shall not act as a witness.
Upon request of any party to an administrative case, the people's court may examine or instruct any relevant institution to determine whether or not a witness is able to express himself or herself accurately.
Where it is necessary, the people's court may, pursuant to its own authority, instruct any relevant institution to do so.
Article 43 Any party to an administrative case who seeks to apply to call on a witness to appear in court and give testimony shall file an application before the expiration of the time limit for producing evidence and obtain the approval of the people's court concerned.
Where the people's court approves a witness to appear in court and give testimony, the witness shall be notified before the first hearing session.
Where any party thereto applies in the course of a hearing session to call on a witness to appear in court and give testimony, the people's court may, depending on specific circumstances in the hearing of the case, decide whether or not to grant an approval or adjournment.
Article 44 under any of the following circumstances, the plaintiff or any third party to an administrative case may request any relevant law enforcement official to appear in court and give testimony as a witness:
1. Where the legitimacy or authenticity of any on-the-spot record is questioned;
2. Where the type or quantity of any seized property is questioned;
3. Where the sampling or preservation process of any inspected articles is questioned;
4. Where the legitimacy of the identity of any other law enforcement official is questioned; or
5. Any other circumstances in which it is necessary for the relevant law enforcement official to appear in court and give testimony.
Article 45 In appearing in court and giving testimony, a witness shall produce a document that demonstrates his or her identity. The people's court concerned shall inform the witness of the legal obligation to give honest testimony and the legal liability for giving false testimony.
Any witness that appears in court and gives testimony shall not sit in on the hearing of the case in question. No witness shall be present when the people's court questions another witness, unless under circumstances in which the people's court arranges for the witnesses to cross-examine each other.
Article 46 A witness shall give testimony on any specific facts of which he or she has personal knowledge. Any estimation, inference, or comment made by a witness on the basis of his or her personal knowledge shall not serve as the basis for the findings of the facts of the case question.
Article 47 Where any party to an administrative case request that an expert witness appear in court and give testimony, the expert witness shall appear in court. Where the expert witness is unable to do so due to any proper cause, the expert witness may be absent after the approval of the people's court concerned and the parties to the case shall cross-examine the written authentication conclusion issued by the expert witness.
For any expert witness that appears in court to be questioned, the people's court shall verify his or her identity and ways in which he or she is related to any party thereto or the case in question and inform any such expert witness of the legal obligation to give an honest statement on the details of the authentication process and the legal liability to give a willfully false statement.
Article 48 For special issues involved in the specific administrative act in an administrative case, any party thereto may applies to the court concerned to call on any person with professional knowledge to appear in court and make a statement or the court may at its own discretion notify any such person to do so. Where it is necessary, the court may make arrangements for persons with professional knowledge to cross-examine each other. Any party thereto who has any doubt as to whether or not any person with special knowledge who appears in court has appropriate professional knowledge, educational background, experience and other professional qualifications may question any such person. The court shall make a decision on whether or not to allow any such person to appear in court as such.
A person with special knowledge may question any expert witness.
Article 49 In the course of cross-examination, the court in an administrative case shall exclude evidential materials which are not relevant to the case in question shall be excluded and state any reason therefor.
Where the court approves any party thereto to add evidence in the course of cross-examination, the added evidence shall be cross-examined.
The court shall not conduct new cross-examination with respect to any piece of evidence that has been cross-examined in a court session unless it is really necessary to do so.
Article 50 The court in administrative case shall conduct cross-examination with respect to any new piece of evidence that is provided in accordance with the law by any party thereto in the proceedings at second instance; where any dispute still exists between the parties thereto with respect to any piece of evidence recognized in the proceedings at first instance, the court shall also conduct cross-examination.
Article 51 In an administrative case heard in accordance with the procedure for trial supervision, the court concerned shall conduct cross-examination with respect to any new piece of evidence provided in accordance with the law by any party thereto; the court in a retrial case instituted as result of inadequate evidence for the findings of facts in the original judgment or ruling shall also conduct cross-examination with respect to any piece of major evidence involved in such a retrial case.
Article 52 The term "new piece of evidence" as referred to in Articles 50 and 51 hereof shall include the following evidence:
1. Evidence not gathered in the proceedings at first instance due to the disapproval of a presentation deferment in which should have been approved;
2. Evidence not gathered in the proceedings at first instance due to the disapproval of an application for the investigation and collection of such evidence submitted any part to an administrative case or a failure to collect such evidence upon the approval of such an application and which is investigated and collected in the proceedings at second instance by the people's court concerned; and
3. Evidence discovered after the expiration of the time limit for producing evidence and which is provided by the plaintiff or any third party to an administrative case.
Chapter V. Verification and Affirmation of Evidence
Article 53 A people's court shall base its judgment for an administrative case on the facts of the case that have been proved by the presented evidence.
Article 54 The court in an administrative case shall examine piece by piece evidence that has been cross-examined in a court session and evidence that is not needed to be cross-examined, have a comprehensive review of all evidence, adhere to the professional ethics of judges, use logic reasoning and daily-life experiences to make a holistic, objective and impartial analysis and judgment, determine the correlation between evidential materials and the facts of the case in question, exclude any evidential materials that is irrelevant and reach accurate findings of the facts of the case.
Article 55 The court in an administrative case shall, depending on specific circumstances of the case, examine the legitimacy of evidence on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Whether or not the evidence is in the statutory form;
2. Whether or not the evidence is obtained in a way that meets the requirements of any law, regulations, judicial interpretations and rules; and
3. Whether or not there are any other illegal circumstances which affect the probative value of the evidence.
Article 56 The court in an administrative case shall, depending on specific circumstances of the case, examine the authenticity of evidence on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Reasons for the formation of the evidence;
2. External circumstances in which the evidence is discovered;
3. Whether or not the evidence is the original document or article, or whether or not the reproduction or photocopy is identical to the original document or article;
4. Whether the provider of the evidence or the witness concerned has any interest connected to any party to the case; and
5. Any other factors that affect the authenticity of the evidence.
Article 57 None of the following evidential materials shall be used as the basis for confirming the facts of any administrative case:
1. Evidential materials gathered by seriously violating any statutory procedures;
2. Evidential materials obtained by way of stealthily taking photographs, stealthily making sound recordings, wiretapping and any other means and which damage the legitimate interest of any other party;
3. Evidential materials obtained by inducement, fraud, menace, violence or any other inappropriate means;
4. Evidential materials provided without any proper cause by any party to the case beyond the time limit for producing evidence;
5. Evidential materials that are formed outside the People's Republic of China or the Hong Kong SAR, the Macao SAR, or Taiwan and for which the statutory certification formalities fail to be completed;
6. Any reproduction or photocopy of evidential materials the original documents or articles of which either party to the case refuses to provide without any proper cause, which fail to be corroborated by other evidence and which the other party to the case refuses to recognize as evidence;
7. Evidential materials that is technically processed by either party to the case or any outside party and which it is impossible to make a distinction between true and false ;
8. Testimony given by a witness who is unable to express himself or herself accurately; and
9. Any other evidential materials that is illegitimate and inauthentic.
Article 58 No evidence obtained in breach of the lawful interests of any other person or by any means prohibited by law may be used as a basis for confirming the facts of any administrative case
Article 59 Evidence that the defendant to an administrative case requires the plaintiff concerned in accordance with any statutory procedure to provide in the administrative procedure in question, which the plaintiff shall provide in accordance with the law but refuses to provide and which is provided in the proceedings of the case shall not be accepted as a general rule.
Article 60 The following types of evidence shall not be used as a basis for recognizing as being legitimate the specific administrative act involved in an administrative case:
1. Evidence that gathered independently by the defendant to the case or the agent ad litem of the defendant after the specific administrative act is carried out or in the course of the proceedings of the case;
2. Evidence used by the defendant in the administrative procedure in question to illegally deprive any citizen, legal person or other organization of the right to make a statement, present an argument or participate in a hearing to which any such citizen, legal person or organization is entitled to in accordance with the law; and
3. Evidence provided by the plaintiff or any third party to the case and which the defendant does not use as a basis for carrying out the specific administrative act in the course of the administrative procedure.
Article 61 Evidence which is gathered and added by an administrative review organ in the administrative review proceedings or which is not provided to the administrative review organ by the administrative organ that carries out the initial specific administrative act in the administrative review proceedings shall not be used as a basis for recognizing as being legitimate the initial specific administrative act by a people's court.
Article 62 Where the plaintiff or any third party to an administrative case presents evidence demonstrating that any authentication conclusion accepted by the defendant concerned in the administrative procedure falls under any of the following circumstances, the people's court concerned shall not accept any such authentication conclusion:
1. Where the expert concerned does not hold the requisite qualifications;
2. Where the authentication process used involves a serious breach of law; or
3. Where the authentication conclusion is in error, indefinite or incomplete.
Article 63 The relative probative value of two or more pieces of evidence concerning the same fact may be determined respectively by the people's court generally in accordance with the following principles:
1. Documents formulated by state organs or other functional departments in accordance with their respective functions are more persuasive than other types of documentary evidence;
2. Authentication conclusions, on-the-spot records, records of investigations, archival files, documentary evidence that has been notarized or registered are more persuasive than other types of other documentary evidence, audio-visual materials and witness testimony;
3. Original documents or articles are more persuasive than any reproduction or photocopy thereof;
4. Authentication conclusions reached by a statutory authentication institution are more persuasive than those reached by any other authentication institution;
5. Records of investigations prepared under the direction of the court concerned are more persuasive than those prepared under the direction of any other departments;
6. Original evidence is more persuasive than secondary evidence;
7. The testimony of a witness that is favorable to any party to the case to whom he is related by blood or marriage or with whom the party concerned has any other close relationship is less persuasive than the testimony of any other witnesses;
8. The testimony of a witness that appears in court and gives testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of another witness that fails to do so; and
9. Several different types of evidence that are consistent with each other are more persuasive than a single type of evidence.
Article 64 Electronic data interexchange fixed or displayed on a tangible carrier, electronic mails, and other data the preparation details and authenticity of which have been confirmed by both parties to an administrative case or have been certified by notarization or any other valid means shall have a probative value equal to the original documents involved.
Article 65 Where, in the course of hearing, any party to an administrative case or any representative thereof within the authorized power explicitly admits any fact of the administrative case stated by the other party to the case, the people's court concerned may affirm any such fact unless the other party has sufficient evidence to disprove any such fact.
Article 66 In an case for administrative compensation, any statement of fact agreed to by any party to the case as part of a negotiated arrangement to allow a mediated settlement or agreement to be struck under the direction of the people's court concerned shall not be used as evidence against any such party in any subsequent proceedings.
Article 67 For any piece of evidence provided by any party to an administrative case which is definitely admitted by the other party to the case without being affected by external powers, the probative value of such evidence may be affirmed; where the other party denies such evidence but is not able to provide adequate evidence to rebut, the probative value of such evidence may be determined on the basis of a comprehensive examination of the details of the case.
Article 68 A court may direct confirm the following facts:
1. facts that are known to all;
2. natural laws and theories;
3. any fact that can be inferred in accordance with legal provisions;
4. any fact that has been proved in accordance with legal provisions; or
5. any fact that can be inferred in accordance with daily experience.
Where any party produces evidence refuting any fact described in item 1, 3, 4, or 5 of the preceding paragraph, the relevant fact shall be provable.
Article 69 Where a plaintiff has the evidence to prove that the evidence held by the defendant is of benefit to the plaintiff and the defendant refuses to provide the evidence without justifiable reasons, the court may deem that the plaintiff's claim is valid.
Article 70 Any fact confirmed in an legally effective judgment made by a court or an arbitral award made by an arbitration committee may be deemed to be the basis for comfirming the facts of a case. Where a court finds that there are major defects in the facts confirmed in a judgment or arbitral award, the litigation shall be suspended and be resumed after being corrected in accordance with statutory procedures.
Article 71 None of the following types of evidence shall be used independently as a basis for confirming the facts of any case:
1. the testimony of any minor that is not appropriate to his age or level of intelligence;
2. the testimony of a witness that has relative or any other close relationship with a party, which is of benefit to the party; or the testimony of a witness that has adverse relationship with a party, which is adverse to the party;
3. the testimony of a witness who shall appear in court to give evedence but fails to do so;
4. any audio-visual materials that is difficult to verify their aucthenticity;
5. any photocopy or reproduction that cannot be verified against the original document or item; or
6. any evidential materials that have been changed by one party or others and are not recognized by the other party; or
7. other evidential materials that cannot be used independently as a basis for confirming the facts of any case.
Article 72 With regard to evidence which has been cross-examined in the court, where it can be confirmed in the court, the court shall make confirmation in the court; where it cannot be confirmed in the court, the evidence shall be confirmed in a collegiate panel.
Article 73 When finding errors in the evidence confirmed in the court, the court may make corrections in the following ways:
1. Where the error is found prior to the end of a hearing, the confirmation shall be made anew;
2. Where the error is found after the hearing and before the announcement of the judgment, the correction may be made in the judgment with explanations or be made in the next session; or
3. Where there are new evidence that is able to overrule the confirmed evidence, the court shall make confirmation in a new session.
Chapter VI Supplementary Provisions
Article 74 The lawful rights and interests of witnesses, expert witnesses and their close relatives shall be protected.
A people's court shall keep confidential the address and contact information of a witness and expert witness.
Article 75 The reasonable fees paid by witnesses or expert witnesses for appearing in court to give evidence or accepting questioning shall be prepaid by the party employing the witnesses or expert witnesses before the party losing the case bears the fees.
Article 76 A witness or expert witness who provide false evidence shall bear legal liabilities in accordance with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 49 in the Administrative Litigation Law.
Article 77 Any party to a case or any other participant therein that threatens, insults, attacks, harasses or takes revenge against any witness, expert witness, investigator or their close relatives shall bear legal liabilities in accordance with Item 3, 5 or 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 49 in the Administrative Litigation Law.
Article 78 Any unit or individual that has the obligation to assist in collection of evidence but refuses to assest without justifiable reasons shall bear legal liabilities in accordance with Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 49 in the Administrative Litigation Law.
Article 79 Where any judicial interpretation on administrative litigation previously issued by this court conflicts with any of the present Provisions, the present Provisions shall prevail.
Article 80 These Provisions shall come into effect on October 1, 2002. These Provisions shall not apply to any case of first or second instance or retrial that has not been completed by October 1, 2002.
In any administrative case heard prior to the effective date of these Provisions, where any party seeks a retrial on the ground that the case was not heard in accordance with these Provisions, any such request shall be denied by the people's court.
These provisions shall apply to administrative cases retried in accordance with the trial supervision procedure subsequent to the effective date of these Provisions.
首页 > Data > Chinese Laws > 正文
