At 4:30 pm on July 29, 2015, 2008, when installing a bucket on the flat roof of the third floor of Xia’s house, the three-legged concrete pier on which the bucket was placed was too wide and could not be placed. Wu planned to move the pillars of the three-legged cement pier together. Due to excessive force, two pillars collapsed. Xia, who was standing aside, was pushed down by the cement pier and fell to the second floor platform, where he died. After the family members of the deceased reported the incident, the public security organs went to the scene to investigate and made seven interrogation records.
Disagreements
There are different views on the quality of the seven interrogation transcripts produced by the public security agencies.
The first opinion is that the seven interrogation transcripts were obtained by the public security organs in accordance with the law. The transcripts contain the signatures and fingerprints of witnesses and should be accepted. The interrogated persons do not need to appear in court to testify.
The second opinion is that the seven interrogation transcripts belong to witness testimony stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law, and the person under interrogation should appear in court to testify in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China".
Analysis
The author believes that interrogation transcripts cannot be equated with witness testimony.
In this case, the interrogation transcript is a written record of questions and answers produced by the public security organs during the handling of the case to ascertain the facts of the case and investigate the persons involved in the case other than the parties involved. It is a type of documentary evidence among the types of evidence. According to the relevant judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court, witness testimony in the Civil Procedure Law refers to the statement made by the witness to the People's Court based on the facts of the case. The "testimony" of the interrogated person recorded in the interrogation transcript is the information related to the case provided by the interrogated person to the public security organ, rather than the statement made by the interrogated person to the court on the relevant facts of the case. Therefore, the interrogated person's "testimony" in the interrogation transcript is Statements made about the case do not constitute "witness testimony" under the Civil Procedure Law. However, when dealing with the evidentiary capacity and probative power of interrogation transcripts, it cannot be accepted just because the plaintiff’s attorney believes that the transcripts contain the witness’s signature and fingerprints. In a civil trial, if the parties only provide interrogation transcripts without the support of handling opinions adopted by the public security organs, the probative value of the interrogation transcripts should be judged in conjunction with other evidence in the entire case.