【新唐人2013年11月23日訊】中共三中全會後，繼所謂的《中共中央關於全面深化改革若干重大問題的決定》後，11月21號，中共最高法院又發佈了《關於建立健全防範刑事冤假錯案工作機制的意見》。專家指出，司法本來就應該獨立於政黨之外，這種響應黨的會議指導，發出的「決定」和「意見」本身就沒有法律效力，也只不過是一紙空文。
11月21號，中共最高法院發佈《關於建立健全防範刑事冤假錯案工作機制的意見》，這項《意見》共分27條，除了前五條提出了一些抽像原則外，還提出22點具體要求。
《意見》重申在司法審判中應當放棄刑訊逼供的做法，並在有限程度上對法院上下級關係做出調整，要求下級法院不得就事實和證據問題請示上級法院。
《意見》說是為了依法準確懲治犯罪，尊重和保障人權，實現司法公正，對法院建立健全防範刑事冤假錯案的工作機制提出的意見。
北京憲政學者陳永苗：「最高法在政治上它是個跟屁蟲，中央要它說甚麼，他就說甚麼，需要它維穩，它也把擾亂公共秩序擴大到網絡上，廢除了勞教，它也想在政治上表現一下，所以發一個空頭文件，其實它說甚麼都沒有用。」
大陸律師楊學林：「我們國家《意見》多如牛毛，但是，是不是下面能執行？不准刑訊逼供，那法律上都說得非常明確，刑事法上都明文規定。」
《意見》聲稱：只有被告人供述，沒有其他證據，不能認定被告人有罪。包括要求採用刑訊逼供。或者凍、餓、曬、烤、疲勞審訊等非法方法收集的被告人供述，應當排除。
陳永苗：「中共它本身把好話說得更好的同時，然後把壞事做的更壞的，社會矛盾恐怕嚴重得不得了的時候，它才做一下，發這樣的文件一定是冤假錯案多的不得了了。」
事實上，中共所謂重審不准刑訊逼供的決定已經出臺過很多次，但刑訊逼供卻依然猖獗，因刑訊逼供造成一案兩兇的現象也屢見不鮮。
2010年5月30號，中共最高法院、最高檢察院、公安部等部門聯合發佈所謂的規定聲稱，刑訊逼供等非法手段取得的證據，不能作為定案根據。第二天，媒體還發表「禁止刑訊逼供是國家的人權承諾」的社評。
不過，去年4月，江西樂平謀殺案真兇方林崽，在大庭廣眾面前大聲承認自己是謀殺案的真兇，卻立即被警察摀住嘴帶走，而已被刑訊逼供冤判死緩的四名被告，他們的家屬卻上訪無門。今年10月30號，方林崽在法庭上坦承謀殺案是他幹的，並質問司法機關「為甚麼不查？」可是，那幾名被冤判者照舊還在服刑。
《意見》中，還要求各級法院不能以上訪、鬧訪和地方「維穩」等壓力，作出違反法律的裁判。
楊學林：「如果你審判是公平的誰還去上訪，正因為我們的法院有的時候不能獨立審判，才導致公民沒有辦法了才去上訪。」
大陸網絡作家荊楚：「當局為了維穩判了很多冤案，或者判了很多假案，對這個穩定壓倒一切，有所反思吧，但是它強調在所謂的黨領導下，永遠沒有司法的獨立可言，沒有公正辦案的社會條件。」
早在2011年，刑事訴訟法再次大修改，禁止刑訊逼供，討論「排除刑訊逼供證據」，「不強迫自證其罪」時，就有人提出對貪官不能手下留情。評論質疑，中共高院的這個《意見》，是否可能成為貪腐高官可利用的保護傘。
美國「紐約城市大學」政治學教授夏明指出，中共三中全會的一切所謂改革，都是在中共最高層的核心成員黑箱操作下完成，所謂受益的廣大民眾並沒有參與，一切考慮的都是出於保黨，以及他們自己的利益，對於大眾而言只能是畫餅充飢。
採訪編輯/劉惠 後製/舒燦
Supreme Court Follows Third Plenary Reforms, Issues Opinions on Judiciary
On November 21, the Supreme Court issued
a reform opinion to establish sound working
mechanisms to prevent miscarriages of justice.
This follows the Third Plenary announcements
on comprehensively deepening reforms.
Experts point out that the judiciary is supposed
to be independent from political parties.
Decisions and opinions in response to party meetings
have no legal standing, and become a empty words.
On November 21, the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) Supreme Court issued a reform opinion.
It suggests establishing sound working mechanisms to
prevent miscarriages of justice, and contains 27 entries.
In addition to the first five abstract principles,
it also raises 22 specific requirements.
It reaffirmed the need to abolish use of
confession under torture in judicial trials.
It requests the need to adjust and limit relationships
in terms of ranking, so that the lower court can’t consult
superior courts on any facts and evidence issues.
It calls for the accurate punishment of crimes,
and of respecting and protecting human rights,
as well as ensuring fairness in judicial processes.
Chen Yongmiao, Beijing constitutional scholar:
“The Supreme Court is just a copycat of CCP politics.
It will say whatever the CCP wants it to say.
The CCP needs it to safeguard stability, and it also
expanded stabilizing public order on the internet.
After the CCP’s abolition of re-education
through forced labor, it also wanted to show
it’s reform actions, issuing a vain document."
In fact, it says everything in vain.
Yang Xuelin, Mainland lawyer: “There’s countless opinions
in our country. However, can they really be accomplished?
Criminal law already made it very
clear that torture isn’t allowed."
The reform opinion states that an accused
man is not guilty if there is only his confession
used, without any other evidence present.
Confessions attained by interrogation, torture, exposure,
starvation, or other illegal methods should be excluded.
Chen Yongmiao: “At the same time that the CCP
continues to improve how it expresses good things,
it continues to commit ever worsening acts.
The CCP has to do something when
there is a very serious social conflict.
There is an incredible amount of injustice, as well as false
and erroneous cases, making them issue such a document."
In fact, banning torture during trial processes
has been introduced many times by the CCP.
But torture is still rampant, to the extent that a case becomes
that of two murders, of the first victim, and then the defendant.
On May 30, 2010, the Supreme Court, Supreme
People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security
and other departments jointly issued regulations.
It claimed that the final decision can’t be made by
evidence obtained under torture or other illegal means.
The next day, media also published an editorial about
it’s human rights promise on forbidding torture.
Fang Linzai publicly admitted that he was the real
criminal in the Jiangxi Leping murder case last April.
Fang was immediately taken away
by the police, who covered his mouth.
However the relatives of four defendants who
were charged had nowhere to appeal and petition.
On October 30, Fang Linzai admitted that he
had committed the murder, and so questioned
the judiciary why they did not investigate this?
However, several persons were sentenced,
and injustice was still served as per usual.
The reform opinion also requested that all levels of court
should avoid making illegal judgements under the excuse
of pressure from petitioners, or maintaining stability.
Yang Xuelin: “Who will petition if the judgment is fair.
Citizens have no solution other than petitioning,
when the court can’t make an independent judgment."
Jing Chu, indepednent web-writer: The authorities made a
lot of illegal decisions or false cases, to maintain stability.
When re-thinking is obsessed with stability,
we have no independent and impartial judiciary
under the so-called leadership of the party.
Back in 2011, the Criminal Procedure Code
was revised, and it prohibited torture.
At the time, the point was raised not to hide corrupt
officials when discussing banning evidence obtained
under torture and not using forced self-incrimination.
It was questioned whether the reform opinions of the
Supreme Court will become an umbrella for corrupt officials.
Politics expert Xia Ming points out that all the
so-called reforms from the Third Plenary Session
are completely black-box operated by core members.
The public, the so-called beneficiary, didn’t participate.
It’s seems more to feed an illusion for the public, because
the protection of the party, as well as protecting core
members’ own interests, are only what is considered.
Interview & Edit/LiuHui Post-Production/ShuCan