In the process of litigation, evidence is the basis and core of the whole litigation. As one of the legal forms of evidence, witness testimony is of great significance for finding out the facts of a case. Therefore, countries generally stipulate the obligation of forcing witnesses to testify in the evidence law. There is a lack of protection for the interests of witnesses in academic research and system design. There is almost room for review of the witness rights protection system. The witness's right to refuse to testify is an ancient and modern topic with universal significance in the litigation evidence system, which is related to the game of social values and the reconstruction of group interests. The witness's right to refuse to testify is an important part of constructing the witness's rights protection system. The domestic academic research on the witness's right to refuse to testify is relatively rough, so it is of practical significance and research value to study the witness's right to refuse to testify.
First, the legal basis of the witness's right to refuse to testify
(A) the semantic analysis of the witness's right to refuse to testify
The right of witness to refuse to testify is usually called witness privilege in theory, but the academic circles also use witness immunity to refer to this system. In fact, this is a misunderstanding of the witness's refusal to testify.
Witness immunity means that "in some major criminal cases, the judicial organ has made a promise to urge the witness to provide important evidence, and the judicial organ shall not pursue the criminal responsibility of the witness after testifying or take the evidence provided by him as the basis for pursuing the criminal responsibility of the witness." Witness immunity is a kind of litigation solution similar to the so-called plea bargaining system, and its institutional basis is "the privilege that a witness cannot testify against himself" in the witness's right to refuse to testify. The use of witness privilege is more theoretical in a sense. The connotation of the so-called witness's right to refuse to testify generally advocates that "the witness cannot state the facts related to the case he has, and refuses to be investigated and questioned by the court and provide relevant evidence materials". Some scholars believe that the connotation of witness's right to refuse to testify has a wider understanding. Some scholars believe that "the right of witness to refuse to testify is the right of a specific citizen to refuse to testify or wait until others testify under legal circumstances".
The author thinks that in the modern procedural law, the invoking rules of witness's right to refuse to testify are broad in a sense: that is, the subject invoking witness's privilege has duality, and as a witness, he can invoke this privilege to refuse to testify in court, such as the invocation of relatives' right to refuse to testify; As a party, you can also invoke the witness's right to refuse to testify to prevent the witness from making unfavorable remarks. For example, the client invokes the lawyer's professional right to refuse to testify to prevent the lawyer from testifying. At this time, the witness's right to refuse to testify is an obligation of the witness in the law class. Therefore, witness privilege is the basic feature of the combination of right and meaning in a sense. The witness's right to refuse to testify means that the witness still has the public law obligation to testify in court, but he can invoke the rule of the right to refuse to testify in court and refuse to answer the court's questions. In other words, the law does not exempt the witness from the procedural obligation to testify, but this procedural obligation is hindered by the rule of refusing to testify. The witness's right to refuse to testify only affects the obligation set by public law on his speech when testifying, but does not affect his position as a certificate holder in procedural law.
(B) Value analysis of witness's right to refuse to testify: interest game
In the traditional theory of litigation proof, the highest goal of litigation is to find the truth of the case. Witness is an important means to discover the truth, and witness testimony is of practical significance to find out the truth of a case. One of the basic value orientations of traditional litigation is the objectification of witnesses. This tendency to strengthen the witness's obligation to testify and the immoral status of the witness directly lead to the tense relationship between citizens and the state, and offset and weaken the procedural value of the witness system in litigation within the system. Modern witness system is the product of the development of procedural justice concept in the litigation field with the awakening of modern human rights concept. One of its basic signs is the awakening of procedural value and the protection of procedural rights of litigation participants. As far as the witness system is concerned, the procedural rights of witnesses have been paid more and more attention, and the ethical care and social care in witness litigation have gradually awakened.
The profound significance of the witness's right to refuse to testify in modern society lies in the right of defense in public law based on the mandatory provisions of law when the court asks the witness to provide testimony. The author thinks that defining the nature of the witness's right to refuse to testify as the right to defend in public law has three practical meanings: (1) The witness's right to refuse to testify is a legal right, and the witness can only invoke it if it meets the constitutive requirements stipulated by law. The principle of autonomy of the will has been effectively restricted, and the private rights of individuals have been extended to public rights. (2) Announce the scope of witness's right to refuse to testify, and prevent abuse of rights. (3) Witnesses have more public law obligations in litigation, such as the obligation to appear in court, the obligation to take an oath, and the obligation to truthfully state. As a right of defense in public law, the witness's right to refuse to testify can prevent public power from encroaching on the territory of private rights too much and realize the equality of rights and obligations.
In fact, finding the truth, resolving disputes and stabilizing social relations through litigation evidence is one of the goals based on the concept of universal social justice. In modern society, there is no natural gap between individuals and society, Keynesian response to laissez-faire economy has spread to other social fields, and humanism since the Renaissance has been greatly revised in modern society. Collectivism and communitarianism have penetrated into all fields of society. The value of social justice is more important than the value of individual rights. The law stipulates that all units and individuals who know the case have the obligation to testify, which seems to be a reasonable explanation in the modern context. However, when this reasonable explanation may ignore some personal values, even sacrifice some personal interests, or even cause serious damage to family and professional interests, the law forces witnesses to bear the obligation to testify in court, forcing their statements to obviously violate professional ethics or professional norms, or violate family ethics, resulting in family tension, which is difficult for most individuals to do. As Professor Zhang Weiping said, "such coercion will inevitably damage the freedom of witnesses, and sometimes even damage the social relationship between witnesses and others, which is the cornerstone of some social systems in society." "If a person with a certificate is forced to testify in court in pursuit of discovering the facts of the case, it is at the expense of damaging these social relations, which is often greater than the benefits brought by discovering the truth of the case."
In judicial practice, it is difficult for witnesses to appear in court, witnesses refuse to testify, witnesses commit perjury and so on. Therefore, the author believes that it is necessary for us to strike a balance between the two universal values-the value of finding truth and the value of harmonious social relations, and to give specific witnesses the right to refuse to testify in court in specific relations, so as to safeguard the family ethics and professional ethics of social individuals. At this level, the positive significance of establishing the rule of witness's right to refuse to testify is obvious: first, the rule itself "protects some important social interests or social relations" and maintains the interpersonal ethical basis; Secondly, the emphasis on this right is a self-adjustment of the social value system itself to the conflict value and a self-choice of new interests within the society.
Secondly, the mode comparison of witness's right to refuse to testify.
As far as its historical origin is concerned, the system of witness refusing to testify generally exists in the litigation evidence system of various countries. According to ancient Roman law, relatives were not allowed to report to each other, and they would lose their inheritance rights if they reported to each other. Parents have the right not to bring their illegal children to court. The author believes that the ancient law did not give the witness the right to refuse to testify, but set the obligation of inaction for him. Since modern times, the rules of western evidence law have developed the witness's right to refuse to testify, and gradually stepped out of the feudal "concealment" quagmire, and the witness's right to refuse to testify and the obligation to testify coexist. However, due to the differences in historical traditions inherited by different legal systems, different evidence system models have gradually formed in the long-term development process between the continental legal system and the Anglo-American legal system.
(A) the civil law model
In order to facilitate the research, we will choose German law and Japanese law as the research models when investigating the witness refusal to testify system in continental law system. Because German law represents the original tradition of civil law system, and Japanese law is a typical representative of inheriting the tradition of civil law system.
Article 383 1 of the German Civil Procedure Law stipulates: "Anyone who meets the following circumstances has the right to refuse to testify: (1) an unmarried spouse who is a party; (2) Being a spouse, including the marriage relationship, no longer exists; (3) Being or having been an immediate relative or in-laws of a party, collateral blood relatives within three generations and collateral in-laws within two generations; (4) The church staff were informed of the trust in the work of the church; (5) Personal information of persons engaged in editing, publishing and distributing periodical publications, or persons engaged in broadcasting work, authors, contributors or information providers of manuscripts and materials and inside information of their activities due to professional reasons, provided that these are all related to manuscripts, materials and reports in editing work; (6) A person who knows something that should be kept secret according to the nature of the matter or the law because of his position, identity or occupation. " In German law, except the above-mentioned six categories of people classified by law, all others should testify in court as long as they are qualified as witnesses. This obligation is undeniable. German law typifies the right of witnesses to refuse to testify, because the individual rights of specific subjects must be fully considered in certain circumstances. Article 384 of the German Civil Procedure Law clearly declares the intention of typed witnesses to refuse to testify-"A witness may refuse to testify under the following circumstances: (1) Answering some questions will directly harm the witness or the people who have various relationships with the witness listed in Article 383, paragraph 1-3; (2) Answering some questions will bring dishonour to the witnesses or their relatives listed in Article 383, paragraphs 1-3, or cause the danger of being prosecuted for crimes or police violations; (3) The witness cannot answer some questions unless his technical or professional secrets are made public. "
However, Japan's Civil Procedure Law has passed Article 19 1 Paragraph 1, which stipulates that when a civil servant or a person who has served as a civil servant is a witness, the court needs to obtain the approval of a supervisory body (the House of Representatives or the Senate or the Prime Minister of the cabinet of the person who has served in this position or the cabinet of the person who has served in this position). Confirmed the right of civil servants to refuse to testify. Through the provisions of article 196, when matters related to testimony may lead to criminal prosecution or guilty verdict of witnesses or people with the following relationships, witnesses may refuse to testify. The same applies to the case where the witness damages the reputation of the above-mentioned personnel. (1) spouse, blood relatives within the fourth degree or in-laws within the third degree or have been; (2) the relationship between the guardian and the ward. The right of relatives to refuse to testify is determined. According to article 197, a witness may refuse to testify under the following circumstances: (1) The circumstances specified in article 19 1 of this Law; (2) Having consulted doctors, dentists, pharmacists, drug dealers, midwives, lawyers (including lawyers from foreign law firms), agents, defenders, notaries, people engaged in religious, prayer or sacrificial work or those who have engaged in such work; (3) being asked about technical secrets or professional secrets. Determination of professional refusal to testify privilege.
On the whole, the author thinks that the provisions of Japanese civil procedure law on the right to refuse to testify are basically the same as those of German law. But technically speaking, the provisions of Japanese law are more specific than those of German law. Judging from the subject who has the right to refuse to testify, the witness's right to refuse to testify in Japanese law is more extensive than that in German law. In fact, German law is more cautious about the right of witnesses to refuse to testify. For example, the provisions of the current German law on the witness's right to refuse to testify for professional reasons were not added until the revision of the Civil Procedure Law of 1975, which became the fifth item of the first paragraph of Article 383 of the Law.
(B) Anglo-American legal system model
Compared with civil law countries, the common law system mainly adopts jury system in court organization. Compared with professional judges, juries have narrower professional knowledge and experience and lack the ability to examine and distinguish general evidence. Juries mainly get the basis for judging the truth from witness testimony, so in the courts of common law countries, witness testimony is an important means for the courts to form judgments. In order to ensure the fairness of the judgment, common law countries put more emphasis on the witness's obligation to testify, and the witness's obligation to testify is stricter. The subject and scope of witness's right to refuse to testify are relatively narrow.
In common law countries, the traditional theory divides the witness's right to refuse to testify into two kinds, namely, the privilege based on fair policy and the private privilege. The theoretical basis of the distinction lies in: (1) Private privileges can be waived by advocates, and only the government can waive privileges based on public policies; (2) The fact that private privilege can be claimed can be proved by second evidence, and the privilege based on public policy excludes all evidence. The right to refuse to testify. Most British scholars are used to defining the privilege in evidence law as private privilege, and discussing the privilege based on public policy as "public policy" and "rule excluding facts". What they have in common is that even if the witness is qualified and can be coerced, he can still refuse to answer a question for some reasons. Therefore, the author will not use the concept of witness refusing to testify.
The number of witnesses' rights to refuse to testify in British evidence rules is limited, and British courts are not inclined to create new privileges in precedents. 1968 civil evidence law limits the scope of the privilege of witnesses not to testify against themselves, and abolishes several important rights of witnesses to refuse to testify. At present, the right of British witnesses to refuse to testify actually only includes the privilege of legal profession, the privilege of not damaging (power) statement and the privilege of public policy.
American evidence system is deeply influenced by British tradition, but it abandons British evidence rules. The privilege principle of witness's right to refuse to testify in American evidence law is embodied in American federal evidence rules and legislation and precedents of various States. 1828, New York passed legislation, which confirmed the right of refusing to testify between doctors and patients, and stipulated that doctors should not disclose patients' secrets without their consent. Since then, state legislation has established the right of refusing to testify and the legal professional privilege between spouses. The Federal Rules of Evidence stipulates the right to refuse to testify between priests and believers, while the right to refuse to testify between doctors and patients only stipulates the right to refuse to testify between psychotherapists and patients. For journalists, information providers, litigants and accountants, the federal rules of evidence do not exist. In fact, the most important clause in the federal evidence rules, Article 50 1, stipulates the right of witnesses to refuse to testify in general, leaving room for state laws and federal courts to formulate this evidence rule.
(3) Comparative study
Although both legal systems admit that witnesses have the right to refuse to testify, there are great differences in the determination of their subject and scope. From the above analysis, we can see that the subject and scope of witness's right to refuse to testify in common law countries, especially in Britain, are relatively narrow, while the provisions on witness's right to refuse to testify in civil law countries are obviously much broader. The author believes that there are two reasons for this difference:
1. The civil law system has a tradition of authoritarianism. Under this tradition, the courts in civil law countries pay more attention to the role of documentary evidence and physical evidence in discovering the truth. Therefore, the civil law system has a weak obligation to testify for witnesses and more provisions on the right of witnesses to refuse to testify. Anglo-American legal system has a partisan tradition, and witness testimony is of great significance. At the same time, the main organizational form of the court is the jury system, and jurors must obtain the basis for judging the truth from the testimony of witnesses. Its evidence rules pay more attention to witness testimony and emphasize the witness's obligation to testify, so there are more restrictions on the witness's refusal to testify.
2. The rule of refusing to testify in civil law system originated from statute law, and the judges have little influence on the formulation of this rule. Lawmakers pay more attention to the legitimacy value of litigation structure and procedure. The tradition of case law in common law system determines that the judge himself is the creator of evidence rules, and the value of evidence rules is to serve the court trial. In a sense, the witness's right to refuse to testify is a procedural obstacle for the court to find out the facts, so the judges in the common law system set many restrictions on the witness's right to refuse to testify when creating rules.
Thirdly, the typological analysis of witness's right to refuse to testify.
In the above discussion, the author investigates and compares two modes of witness's right to refuse to testify in civil law system and common law system. It can be found that the difference between different modes lies in the different scope of witness's right to refuse to testify. What is the basis of this difference? Therefore, it is necessary to make a typological analysis of the types of witnesses' right to refuse to testify.
(A) the professional model of the witness's right to refuse to testify
The professional mode of witness's right to refuse to testify means that a person who is engaged in a certain profession knows other people's secrets because of his business or identity and has the right to refuse to state the facts he knows in court. According to Professor Waltz's explanation, "society expects to promote a certain relationship by keeping secrets. Society attaches great importance to certain relationships and tends to defend the nature of keeping secrets, even at the expense of losing information that is crucial to the outcome of the case. " Under these social relations, the purpose of judicial discovery must make concessions. Otherwise, the overall value of society-such as adherence to professional ethics, which is necessary to realize specific social values-and the structural functions of the national judicial system, such as the lawyer system in the judicial system, may be weakened. The law has paid a high litigation cost to protect these specific conversation relationships, and this cost is not unacceptable to society.
1, legal professional privilege: lawyer's right to refuse to testify
The lawyer's right to refuse to testify is the lawyer's right to refuse to testify in court about the client's secrets he knows in his business activities. This is one of the most common professional privileges and is recognized by the laws of most countries. Traditionally, the subject of this privilege is a lawyer, but now "this privilege is generally considered from the perspective of the client and the trial ... no one denies that this privilege belongs to the parties." If the client has no objection, the lawyer must make it public. "
Professor Posner believes that the basic principle of establishing the rule of lawyer's right to refuse to testify in the evidence rules is that "if the parties can't fully trust the lawyer, then the adversary system will not play a good role." In other words, if the lawyer's right to refuse to testify is abolished, the parties will remain vigilant when stating the facts of the case to the lawyer and will not state evidence of great value to the lawyer. Under this assumption, the reasonable result may be that "the court cannot obtain much valuable evidence by summoning lawyers as witnesses against their clients through compulsory procedures." Efforts to abolish lawyers' right to refuse to testify will bring little benefit, potential litigants will have more investment to study law, and social costs will increase.
The lawyer's right to refuse to testify is the obligation of a lawyer as a specific professional to keep professional secrets. Lawyers are obliged to keep confidential the clients or other outsiders who have business relations with lawyers; For the judiciary, the duty of confidentiality is manifested in the lawyer's right to refuse to testify. This obligation is so important that Article 20 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, approved by the United Nations in document 1990, stipulates: "Governments should confirm and respect that all contacts and consultations between lawyers and their clients are confidential in their professional relations." It can be seen that the lawyer's right to refuse to testify is not only the objective need of the lawyer's professional ethics, social trust and the healthy development of the judicial system, but also the result of rational balance of interest conflicts. From this perspective, the lawyer's right to refuse to testify is even an important embodiment of litigation civilization.
2. The doctor's right to refuse to testify
The doctor's right to refuse to testify refers to the doctor's right to refuse to testify about other people's secret matters that he is entrusted to inform or know when performing his duties. These data are usually necessary for doctors' diagnosis and treatment, and some countries have affirmed the right of doctors to refuse to testify in the rules of evidence. It is generally believed that the theoretical basis of doctors' right to refuse to testify is to protect personal privacy, the interests of doctors' professional groups and effective treatment. However, not all doctors have the right to refuse to testify. It is generally believed that the doctor who has the right to refuse to testify must be a psychologist who can sign a prescription independently.
Professor Posner questioned the rational basis of this privilege. He believes that the law establishes the privilege of refusing to testify between psychologists and mental patients, but in practice, most people will not realize the existence of such a privilege. Even among those who are aware of this privilege, few people will decide to consult a psychologist regardless of the stigma that mental illness has always existed in our society. When they finally decide to consult a psychologist, they won't worry that the psychologist will be called as a witness against them one day. On this basis, Professor Posner believes that abolishing this privilege will only generate benefits, but will not generate any costs.
3. The right of clergy to refuse to testify
The right of clergy to refuse to testify refers to the personal privacy matters that clergy and religious figures such as priests are told by believers based on their trust in religious ceremonies, and they have the right to refuse to testify. Its theoretical basis is the freedom of religious belief and the protection of privacy stipulated in the Constitution. Article 60 1 of the Federal Rules of Evidence stipulates that evidence or a piece of evidence related to a witness's religious belief shall not be accepted to prove that the reliability of the witness is damaged or enhanced by the nature of the evidence. This is because religious life plays an important role in American social life, and citizens' confession to clergy has almost become an indispensable part of many believers' daily life. The legal protection of citizens' freedom of religious belief is based on the civil rights stipulated in the Constitution-freedom of religious belief, and also on the positive significance of religious repentance for building a harmonious and honest society.
4. The right to refuse to testify based on trade secrets.
The right to refuse to testify based on trade secrets means that the parties have the right to refuse to disclose or prevent others from disclosing their trade secrets, as long as the behavior itself does not involve fraud or cause obvious injustice. Its theoretical basis is fair market competition order and intellectual property protection.
However, the privilege of refusing to testify is not absolute. If the parties practise fraud or will cause unfair trial, the court has the right to rule that the privilege does not apply. The judge must make a ruling on the premise of safeguarding the commercial interests of the secret owner and the fairness of the judgment. If the judge thinks that business secrets must be made public, otherwise it will affect judicial justice, then invoking this rule will be rejected by the court. Since the core competition in modern commercial society lies in the economic interests of intellectual property rights, in cases involving intellectual property protection, especially when intellectual property rights exist in the form of trade secrets, the invocation of the rule of refusing to testify should attract enough attention from judges. Generally speaking, judges have greater discretion in applying this privilege.
5. The right of news media to refuse to testify.
The media is regarded as the "fourth force" in western society. In modern constitutional society, one of the important manifestations of freedom of speech is freedom of speech in the media. The space for free activities of the media is a barometer of modern democratic society to some extent. Therefore, giving the news media the right to refuse to testify can ensure the news media to obtain information to a certain extent. However, due to the poor self-discipline of news media, it is prudent for countries to give news media the right to refuse to testify in judicial proceedings. Under normal circumstances, the judge determines the right to refuse to testify through case review. For example, in the United States federal rules of evidence, the application of this privilege is decided by state legislation and courts on the basis of "reasons and experience".
(B) Relatives model of witness's right to refuse to testify
It is generally believed that the right to refuse to testify between relatives means that in order to protect marriage and family relations, witnesses have the right to refuse to testify on matters of communication during the existence of marriage and family relations and matters that are unfavorable to relatives. Its theoretical basis lies in: (1) protecting the stability and harmony of marriage and family life, and protecting the ties that maintain social emotions; (2) protecting the right to privacy arising from family relations; (3) The humanization of judicature and its ethical value. Generally speaking, when someone in the family is involved in a civil rights and obligations dispute case, other family members can hide the facts of the case against them from the court, so that they will not suffer adverse legal consequences. The establishment of the rule of refusing to testify based on kinship is a limited compromise of the basic social significance by law, which does not violate the litigation reason itself or the modern litigation spirit.
Looking at the provisions of this model in various countries, we can find that the rules of relatives' right to refuse to testify have the following basic characteristics:
1. The core of the right to refuse to testify between relatives is the right to refuse to testify between husband and wife. Generally speaking, either party to a legally confirmed or de facto marriage relationship has the privilege of refusing to testify about matters communicated between husband and wife, including the right to refuse to testify against the other party, unless a third person who can understand the content is present during the communication between husband and wife, and the other party in the marriage relationship has the right to ask the other party to refuse to testify. This privilege is not necessary for the existence of the relationship between husband and wife in litigation. Husband and wife enjoy this privilege during the marriage relationship. Even after the relationship is dissolved, the other party can invoke this rule to refuse to testify about the life secrets known during the relationship. However, the following legal situations will constitute obstacles to invoking the right to refuse to testify: (1) In a lawsuit in which both husband and wife are parties; (2) In the lawsuit, one spouse is accused of violating the other spouse and children.
2. The right to refuse to testify based on other relatives exists to some extent. Common law countries basically do not recognize the right to refuse to testify between relatives other than spouses, and the evidence laws of some States in the United States recognize the right to refuse to testify between parents and children to a limited extent. Although the civil law countries recognize the right to refuse to testify between relatives other than spouses in the evidence rules, they strictly limit the scope of the subject who enjoys this privilege. For example, Article 196 of Japan's Civil Procedure Law stipulates that "blood relatives within the fourth degree of kinship or in-laws within the third degree of kinship shall be given by the relationship; A person with guardianship or guardianship has the right to refuse to testify between relatives. Therefore, the privilege of refusing to testify between relatives is generally strictly limited to close relatives.
(3) A witness who refuses to testify shall not testify against himself.
If the testimony provided by a witness may cause adverse consequences to himself or his close relatives, the evidence rules exempt the witness from the burden of proof. This principle stems from the principle that "anyone can refuse testimony against himself" established in Magna Carta of Freedom 12 15. But it is the most sacred and questioned constitutional privilege among the privilege of evidence. Article 940, paragraph 2, of the California Evidence Law stipulates that anyone has the right to refuse to disclose the facts that may be attributed to him within the scope of privileges stipulated by the US Constitution or the California Constitution. This privilege is different from the defendant's refusal to testify in criminal cases.
Investigating the historical origin of the privilege of not testifying against oneself, the author believes that it is not so much the substantive rights enjoyed by witnesses in litigation as the concept of due process in the judicial process. The privilege that witnesses are not allowed to testify against themselves applies not only to the fact that witnesses can refuse to answer questions from the court when summoned by the court, but also to the fact that witnesses have the right to refuse to answer questions from the other side when they are induced to ask questions. As a procedural right, the invocation of this privilege rule must be sworn by the witness in court. If the witness chooses not to claim this privilege or is close to claiming this privilege for various reasons, the judge will usually remind the witness to claim this privilege, even though he has no obligation. This is because this privilege has special significance in protecting the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and confronting public power-it is related to the cultivation of a country's constitutional spirit.
(4) The official privilege mode of witness's right to refuse to testify.
In order to coordinate the conflict of public interests between finding out the truth of the case and maintaining public security order, people who know relevant state secrets or work secrets are given the right to refuse to testify according to law. The subjects who enjoy this right are extensive. As long as the state secrets known by the witness involve national security and national interests, the witness can claim to invoke this privilege to the court unless the higher authorities agree to this disclosure. The secret-related scope includes: (1) national defense, diplomacy and other secrets involving national security. (2) Discussion records of government agencies and internal communication materials of senior government agencies. This is mainly to ensure that the government fully discusses and makes decisions without interference from external factors. (3) police secret documents. Mainly to disclose matters that will hinder the investigation activities or cause danger to the personal safety of police and witnesses, as well as information about the identity of police intelligence personnel. (4) Secret matters related to judicial or quasi-judicial activities. Specifically, it includes the contents and records of the appraisal, matters involving the ideological process of judicial personnel, except those involving the crime of accepting bribes and obstructing justice by judicial personnel. (5) Matters that need to be kept secret for the public interest. This refers to anything that is legally recognized as an official secret.
In view of the contents covered by the above-mentioned confidentiality scope, public officials who are required to testify should actively advocate the right to refuse to testify. However, this does not mean that the right to refuse to testify can be established immediately after the request of the civil servant who is required to testify. Different countries have different ways to confirm this right. For example, in the judgment of Reynolds case 1953, the United States Supreme Court held that "