| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 犯罪防治研究所 === 104 === While the convenience of globalization enhanced cross-border transactions, it also facilitates the development of modern crimes from domestic to transnational, as they often come with greater profit in return. Crimes are no longer bound by borders. The challenge of suppressing crimes, the ever increasing transnational crimes in particular, has become an emerging issue for the countries commonly and collectively. In response, certain assistance, cooperative mechanisms, and regional defense alliances are established throughout the globe under the consensus of countries to fight against transnational crimes.
The beginning of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Justice development may be dated back to the first emergence of the concept "extradition of political prisoners in continental" in Europe in the 18th century, and gradually turned into its various forms today. Accordingly, this article will start by introducing the principles of International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, and which will be followed by a further discussion on the mutual assistance in criminal matters between Taiwan and China, and in specific, the questions of acquisition, evaluation, and recognition of evidence in Criminal Procedure from such a mechanism. This will lead to the key focus of this article - Transnational evidence acquisition and its evaluation, which this article will provide two rulings of Taiwan Supreme Court as examples for the purpose of understanding the issue of procedural flaws and its effect to the evaluation of evidence in practice, as well as the progress of the position and interpretation from the Supreme Court on such matter.
This article will further adopt the research method of comparative law by providing the research results regarding the formulation and development of the Framework Decision of European Union (hereinafter "EU"), as well as its impact to the domestic legislation of the Member Nations, in order to deliver comments and suggestion to Taiwan by taking the EU experience as our reference.
Since International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter "ICCPR") has taken its transformation into a domestic law in Taiwan, this article will explore the issues arisen from the Covenant, particularly article 14, and its comparison of advantageous and disadvantageous with The European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter " ECHR") in terms of human rights protection. By doing so, this article will also be providing analysis to the domestic legislations of the EU Member Nations in the post European Investigation Order in criminal matters Directive (Directive 2014/41/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 3 April 2014) era.
|
|---|
