In judicial practice, the
judges/courts ascertain the facts while each litigant has to lift
burden of proof. And in PRC the evidence disclosed by the litigants
will be verified in three aspects, i.e. authenti
city,
relevance and validity. It is worthwhile to note they have
reference to each other.

 

Sometimes, when you argue the
irrelevance or invalidity of a written evidence, the judge may ask
whether or not you admit the authenticity of it, and the question
may get you in trap when you do not challenge the truth of it only
because you could not prove it bearing a forged stamp or
signature,etc.. The court’s fact-finding is likely based on this
controversial evidence when the court consider it to be relevant
and valid.

 

Hence, as far as an irrelevant and/or
invalid evidence is concernced, its truth should be denied or
challenged without any doubt because the truth involves the facts
to be proved except the evidence itself.

 

In some countries with Christianity
tradition, witnesses have to swear on the bible before making a
testimony in the court. God as the holy agency insure to some
extent the truth of affidavit.

 

In PRC, we have no such a holy
agency, not only the witnesses concerned with one litigant but also
the expert or proffessional witnesses appointed by one litigant are
hard to be trusted sometimes.

 

Everything has an exception. Some guy
who used to be my colleague and speaks fluent English, had acted as
a temprory intepretor of opponent’s witness who did not know
English in a foreign court. Even the the opponent party appreciated
the objective and accuracy of his translation. He was often
contemptuous of lack of sophistication, which to some
extent make him to be very honest.   

 

 

 

 

本文由自动聚合程序取自网络,内容和观点不代表数字时代立场

墙外新闻实时更新 欢迎订阅数字时代