How to identify the case-handling organ in the judicial interpretation of duty crimes by the Supreme Court

Handling organs refer to public security organs and procuratorial organs! The Commission for Discipline Inspection is not a case-handling organ. Party constitution is a system norm within the party, not a national law! The Commission for Discipline Inspection should not belong to the "case-handling organ" ―― Discussion with President Ren Beijing Yingke Law Firm's Opinions of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning Confirming Sentencing Circumstances of Surrender and Meritorious Service in Handling Duty Crime Cases (Fa Fa Fa Fa (2009)No. 13, hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions") mentioned the "case-handling organ" many times. Especially in the process of "identification and handling of surrender", whether a criminal constitutes surrender depends to a great extent on whether he voluntarily surrenders himself to the "case-handling organ" and truthfully confesses. What departments do the "case handling organs" here refer to? It is not clearly stated in the opinion. This has brought some troubles to our understanding. In practice, different places have different treatment methods. Due to the special situation in China, there is a pre-procedure for duty crimes in party member, that is, the Party's Commission for Discipline Inspection first intervened in the investigation and took "double regulations" measures against party member suspected of violating the law and discipline, urging him to take the initiative to explain the problem. Then, does the Party's Commission for Discipline Inspection belong to the "case-handling organ" referred to in the Opinions? If the answer is yes, then the Commission for Discipline Inspection will investigate and talk to criminals according to the criminal clues it has, and what criminals have done cannot be regarded as surrender. If the answer is no, then, according to the spirit of the Opinions, it should be considered as surrender. On March 24th, 2009, President Ren of the Second Court of the Supreme People's Court Criminal Trial visited China Xinhua Net, and thought that "the discipline inspection and supervision organs should also be the case-handling organs according to regulations. In other words, even if it is not a judicial organ or an investigation organ, its work is exactly the same as that of a judicial organ in terms of the connection of work. " I don't agree with President René Hua Wei. The author believes that the discipline inspection departments of party organizations at all levels should not belong to the "case handling organs". We can't find any relevant provisions in the Regulations that "discipline inspection and supervision organs are also case-handling organs according to regulations" mentioned by the former president. It is also unscientific to judge that the Commission for Discipline Inspection belongs to the "case-handling organ" from the perspective of work cohesion. Any organization or individual who finds illegal and criminal acts can report them to the judicial organs, or even directly hand over the criminals to the judicial organs for handling. The actions of these organizations and individuals are also related to the work of the judiciary. So, do they also "handle organs"? In this case, it is really "all the people are soldiers." So, is the work of the Commission for Discipline Inspection "exactly the same" as that of the judiciary? Let's look at the regulations in party constitution. Article 44 of party constitution, the production party of China, stipulates: "The main tasks of the party's discipline inspection committees at all levels are: to safeguard the party's articles of association and other internal party laws and regulations, to check the implementation of the party's line, principles, policies and resolutions, and to assist the party's committees in strengthening party style construction and organizing and coordinating anti-corruption work." There is no doubt that the work of the Commission for Discipline Inspection is fundamentally different from that of the judiciary. The author believes that the disciplinary committees of party organizations at all levels do not belong to "organs" but belong to the internal organs of party organizations. In the legal sense, "organ" refers to government departments, such as state organs, judicial organs and administrative organs. At the same time, party organizations at all levels have no legal authority to handle cases. In criminal cases, "handling a case" refers to the activities of investigation, prosecution, trial and execution of suspected criminal acts, and the law has made clear and specific provisions on the jurisdiction of criminal cases. President Ren said: "The investigation process of the Commission for Discipline Inspection is actually the process of investigating and handling criminal cases. That is, whether it is a judicial organ or not, as long as its functions and responsibilities and the cases it handles are connected with criminal proceedings, it is a case-handling organ. " Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulates that the investigation power of criminal cases shall be exercised by public security organs and procuratorial organs, and at the same time stipulates that "no other organ, organization or individual has the right to exercise these powers except those specially stipulated by law." Therefore, it is very inappropriate to say that the investigation process of the Commission for Discipline Inspection is actually a process of investigating and handling criminal cases. The party's discipline inspection department is not a statutory functional department. The Constitution and laws do not give the disciplinary inspection committees of party organizations at all levels the power of investigation and other handling. Party constitution, the producer party of China, is not a national law. The Commission for Discipline Inspection is not a judicial organ under any circumstances. Whether it is intentional or not, even within the party, the Commission for Discipline Inspection does not have the power of the judiciary. The disciplinary inspection committees of party organizations at all levels have limited powers, and only target at party member's disciplinary action. Its essence is an organizational behavior adopted by China * * * Production Party to purify the team and improve itself. Let's think about this problem from another angle. If the political work department of the unit finds that the staff member has committed illegal and criminal acts, the staff member voluntarily admits and confesses the facts of the crime during the investigation, and according to the spirit of the Opinions, he surrendered himself. The reason is very simple, that is, this unit does not belong to the "case handling organ". Then, why can't party member "turn himself in" when he confesses his criminal behavior to his own organization? This obviously violates the principle of "everyone is equal before the law". Dean Ren said: "Compared with the case-handling organs other than the judicial organs, the case-handling organs are compared with the non-case-handling organs, that is, all grass-roots organizations are compared. When a criminal surrenders and confesses the facts of the crime, its social function is exactly the same, and there is no essential difference. Under this circumstance, we should deal with all organizations that surrender themselves to the unit according to a standard. " Then, according to the standard of "identical social functions", when the political department of the unit and the Commission for Discipline Inspection have the same criminal facts, the social functions of "telling the truth to the political department of the unit" and "telling the truth to the Commission for Discipline Inspection" are identical. Why can't we treat it according to a standard and achieve the same effect? We analyze whether the discipline inspection departments of party organizations at all levels belong to the case-handling organs from the wording of the Opinions. It is stipulated in the Opinions: "If there is no plot of surrender, and criminals truthfully account for the clues and facts held by the case-handling organs during the process of investigation, interrogation, investigation or compulsory measures, it cannot be considered as surrender." Here, we talked about the power of "interrogation" and "taking coercive measures". We know that only the judiciary can take "interrogation" and "compulsory measures" against criminal suspects, and no other organization or individual has these two powers. At the same time, during the investigation by the party's discipline inspection department, the identity of the party concerned was not a criminal suspect. Since he is not a criminal suspect, then "interrogation" is not established at all. What needs to be explained here is that the "double regulations" measures taken against party member are not coercive measures. The Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulates the types of "compulsory measures", including summons, detention, arrest, bail pending trial and residential surveillance, and there is no such thing as "double regulations". The "double regulations" are only compulsory measures taken by party organizations at all levels against party member for violating discipline, which is different from the "compulsory measures" in the legal sense. Of course, in actual work, the party's discipline inspection department often works in the same office as the supervisory organ. The supervisory organ belongs to the "case-handling organ" authorized by the Administrative Supervision Law. The Constitution stipulates: "All state organs and armed forces, political parties, social organizations, enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and laws." The reason why our understanding of "handling organs" is so confusing is that the power of state organs and the power of the party are confused. It is understandable for the general public to have such a misunderstanding, but it is even more valuable for legal workers to keep a clear understanding, especially in the process of hearing cases, and insist on independent judgment. (The writer is a senior partner lawyer and director of duty crime department of Beijing Yingke Law Firm. )