论中国法上的证明妨碍规则 - 以民事诉讼为视角 -

China’s “Civil Procedure Law” for the destruction of important evidence penalties, from the legal effect of sanctions on the judicial, the compulsory sanctions and criminal sanctions on the implementation that impede the behavior of people, hoping to stop the occurrence of such behavior by the law on the punishment. However, only from the aspect of public law is not enough to regulate the conduct of the spoliation of evidence, and it should be from the private level to relieve those affected by prejudice. Supreme People’s Court “Several provisions on evidence in civil procedure” article 75 states: “There is evidence that one party refuses to provide the evidence without justified reasons, if the other party claims that the content of the evidence is not conducive to the evidence holder, it can be presumed that the claim was established.” Thus, in Chinese civil procedure once the parties or other participants have been involved in the implementation of the spoliation of evidence, the court may adopt both aspects of the public law sanctions and aspects of private law sanctions to make the conductors bear on the no interests. Thus, Chinese regulation of spoliation of evidence can be initially established. However, in the whole view, Chinese regulation of spoliation of evidence is very shallow, which not only made the non-unified understanding between practitioners and theoretical circles not yet formed, but also raised a lot of discussions and explorations on the issue of the spoliation of evidence. Therefore building the regulation of spoliation of evidence in line with Chinese national conditions has become an urgent problem. Firstly, China’s “Civil Procedure Law” should provide general terms of the spoliation of evidence, as a principle to deal with the spoliation of evidence conduct, in order to provide general guidance for constructing the regulation of spoliation of evidence and to make up for the shortcomings of individual system. Secondly, China’s “Civil Procedure Law” should establish and improve the order for production of evidence, the identification of assistance system and the party inquiry system, thus forming “general terms of the spoliation of evidence, the order for production of evidence, the identification of assistance system and the party inquiry system” the four-in-one spoliation of evidence system.