Rules Governing the Conversion of Supervisory Evidence at the Interface between Supervisory Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Abstract

Following the reform of China's national supervision system, fact-finding in duty-related criminal cases is conducted primarily during supervisory investigation, while review for prosecution and criminal adjudication are undertaken by the criminal justice system. Whether evidence collected by supervisory organs can enter criminal proceedings in a regulated manner and withstand judicial scrutiny directly affects the legality, fairness, and efficiency of duty-related criminal case handling. Current law provides that evidence lawfully collected by supervisory organs may be used in criminal proceedings and requires evidence collection, preservation, examination, and use in supervisory investigations to conform to the requirements and standards of criminal adjudication. These provisions, however, remain largely principle-based. The specific standards governing cross-procedural admission and review have not been sufficiently developed. In practice, major difficulties include the conflation of evidentiary eligibility with admissibility, insufficient alignment between supervisory evidence-collection rules and criminal trial standards, uncertain rules for excluding illegally obtained evidence and curing procedural defects, and weak coordination among supervisory organs, procuratorates, and trial courts. This article argues for a tiered distinction among evidentiary eligibility, admissibility, and probative value; trial-oriented evidence collection; differentiated review by evidence type; strengthened exclusion and cure mechanisms; and an integrated process of early procuratorial involvement, prosecutorial review, supplementary investigation, trial testing, and institutional feedback. These reforms would move supervisory evidence from merely being capable of entering criminal proceedings to being legally capable of serving as a basis for conviction.