The Draft Constitution and Human Rights Protection in European Union

周大勇 (Zhou,Dayong)

1 the general introduction of the draft constitution in aspect of the human rights
2 short review of the human rights protection in European Union
3 the new points in aspect of human rights in the draft constitution
3.1 common values
3.2 incorporation of the Charter of fundamental rights
3.3 other changes could affect the human rights
4 arisen questions
4.1 the protection different from under the Convention
4.2 the two courts system and its application
5 conclusions in a historical view




1 general introduction of the draft constitution in aspect of the human rights

“Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilization; That its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason” Extract from the preamble to the draft Constitution

In past 16 years, the European Union (EU hereafter) has marked itself through a series of changes. From The Single European Act, in which the Union committed itself to create a single market and at the same time establish on its territory the freedom of movement of people, goods, services as well as capital, to Maastricht Treaty, which brought the Union into reality and led to common foreign policy and cooperation in the area of justice and internal affairs as a higher level cooperation among Member States. Then the following Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001) Treaties, strengthened cooperation in foreign and security policy and placed Justice and Home Affairs matters and established the frame for the Union as a legitimate institution, in which people from different nations integrated in a large region would have common historical direction and splendid future before them. Just before the door of enlargement of the Union, it was argued that the Union has to improve democracy and transparency as well as efficiency, in order to outlines the EU’s purpose and competence clearly and streamline structures so as to prevent paralysis, therefore a new constitution for the Union is determined to replace the EU's series of key treaties in passed over the last 50 years as a single document .

Under leading of former French President and master draftsman Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the European Convention set about its work of drafting the European Union's first ever full-fledged constitution. With the convention's work completed, the draft must now be finalized by an Intergovernmental Conference of European leaders that is expected to complete deliberations by the end of the 2003. As far as our topic is concerned, noticeably modifications come out in the constitution contract, first of all, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we will discuss later. In the beginning it is meaningful to consider the statues of the draft constitution in the progress course of the Union. The Union desires to bring peace and prosperity, to promote economic and social progress through continuously integrating market and expanding freedom under light of united institution and social systems . These goals, however, are the foundation of development and protection of human rights . That means, if we regard human rights as a series right which realized at first in peaceful and law-ruling society, then the Union has already kept on entrenching to appreciate these goal from beginning on, and now by means of perusing such goal in a larger region through enlargement, the EU’s influence extent to broader area and more people.

The draft constitution then in such context should be viewed as another historical phase in the process. Because the promoting of well-being and fortune of people depend not only on the development of economic situation and adding some single freedom clauses into the governmental documents, but also upon the entire politic system and background in which we live. Without governing based on democratic and effective institutional structure, and especially a ripe legislation and judiciary mechanism, the realization and protection of human rights could only be on the paper. This is also one of the motive caused the Declaration on the future of the European Union which committed the Union to becoming more democratic, more transparent and effective, in order to pave the way for a Constitution in response to the expectations of the people of Europe . In this perspective, one shall recognize the Constitution as a moving forward step of the whole EU institutionalization targeting its goal, so that to discuss the Constitution in connection with the human right protection, it is helpful to review the human rights protection in Europe and, especially in EU.

2 short review of the human rights protection in European Union

The protection of human rights has been internationally come to life in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (UDHR) with reorganization of disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and respect for inherent dignity as well as the equal rights of all members of the human. This declaration states explicitly that the rights and freedoms of humans have to be guaranteed without distinction and destruction by any group, state or person. These principles were broadly accepted by European countries, considering the origin of the EU (EC) and the historical separation in Europe after WWII, we denote only the contracting countries of European Community.

For the Member States of EC, the Council of Europe has been up to now the most important instrument, which established in 1949 as a result of the Congress of Europe in The Hague , and took for the basic of the human rights protection. The Council accepted the principles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and integrated it into The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (the Convention hereafter), which and its 12 Protocols turned out to be the significant resource for Human Rights protection in Europe. Because of the existence of the Convention, the other two organizations established in the same age aftermath of the Second World War, i.e. OEEC and the European Communities didn’t include relevant clauses for Human Rights protection into their founding treaties. Since it was agreed at that time, the Council of Europe would focus on the protection of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values, whereas the OECD and the European Communities were to be concerned with the economic restoration of Europe. The reason of separate organizations was based on a view to avoiding economic excuses for future inhumanity. Another reason came from the thought, which believed that the process of economic integration set forth in the Community Treaties could not lead to a violation of human rights. Furthermore, the original Member States in the Treaty of Rome feared, that the inclusion of a "bill of rights" in the Treaty might have brought about an undesirable expansion of Community powers, since it could lead Community institutions to interpret their powers as extending to anything not explicitly prohibited by the enumerated guarantees.

Under the regime of Council of Europe, a lots of achievement of human rights improvement has been reached , yet along with the development and expansion of EU, another mechanism on protection of human rights which does not totally rely on the Council of Europe has derived out on one hand, on the other hand being lack of provisions ruling human rights protection in the Treaty establishing EC did not prevent the EC and the later European Union from providing care for the protection against the violations on human rights. Naturally, how could a swelling supranational organization as EC, which has been continually strengthening its power in all social aspects, does not involve in human rights issues especially when the consciousness of human rights nowadays become more significant both in international and national stages? Regarding to EU, The protection system has been formed in three aspects.

First of all, the legislation in the Member States of EU. Since there were no Member States of EU (EC) which accedes to the Community without being a member of the Council of Europe, and according to the Convention, it impose obligations on the Member States that they should ensure that the internal laws and practices comply with the human rights standards set out in the instruments. Very member states in EU have recognize the principles derived from the Convention and incorporated them somehow into national laws, most importantly, provided constitutive protection as the basic legal resource for human rights protection. For example in Germany, Basic Law (Grundgesetz) Art 1 to 19 deliver explicit provisions even beyond the Convention; the same case as Part VIII (§71-85) in Constitution of Denmark ; in Britain the Act of Human Rights came into force on 2 October 2000 steers extending a ways, in which the Convention can be used before domestic courts. Certainly, according to the classic human rights lessons, the basic protection of human rights could only be afforded at the national level through national legislation and excise of authoritative power.

Secondly, the institutions and legislation at the EU level acts also with high respect to the human rights protection. The EU has showed its commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms and has explicitly confirmed the EU's attachment to fundamental social rights ever since its establishment.

The Amsterdam Treaty established procedures intended to secure their protection. It was ascertained, as a general principle, that the European Union should respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, upon which the Union is founded. For the first time a procedure is introduced, according to which severe and continuing violations of Fundamental Rights can lead to suspension of voting and other rights of a member state, if the Union determined the existence of a serious and persistent breach of these principles by that Member State. As to the Candidate countries, they should also respect these principles to join the Union. Furthermore, It has also given the European Court of Justice the power to ensure respect of fundamental rights and freedoms by the European institutions. In accordance with the inner requirement for the implementation of development cooperation operations, in order to reach objective of developing and consolidating democracy, EU also need its rule respecting for human rights. Such cases we have are for instance the EU Council’s regulation on human rights, Council Regulation (EC) No 975/199 and Council Regulation (EC) No 976/1999 for example, are aimed at providing technical and financial aid for operations to promote and protect of civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights etc.

Likewise, at their meeting in Cologne in June 1999, EU leaders declared that in respect to the current stage of progress of the European Union, the fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be pushed forward, namely be consolidated in a Charter and thereby made more evident. They argued, that the legal resources of human rights protection come from not only the European Convention of Human Right, but also from various international conventions drawn up by the Council of Europe as well as the United Nations and the International Labor Organization, they also include EU treaties themselves and from the case law of the European Court of Justice. As a result, a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter hereinafter) was sketch out, which highlighted the EU’s respect for human rights, for fundamental freedoms and for the principle of democracy through listing more rights a more precise definition of the common values comparing the early documents including the Convention. We will continue to concentrate on the Charter in point 3 since it has been integrated in the draft Constitution as an outstanding achievement.

Finally, the opinion and case-law of European Court of Justice (ECJ hereafter) also have immense impact on the establishment of the instrument of human rights protection within EU.

Although the jurisprudence developed by the ECJ recognizes the Convention as the standard-setter in cases in which the Court has to consider and decide a human rights issue, since there were no relevant legislation existed in the frame of the Community, the ECJ furnish itself power in this aspect by means of case-law. Earlier in 1974, the ECJ first made reference to the ECHR in the Nold judgment, in which the ECJ emphasized its commitment to fundamental human rights based on the constitutional traditions of the Member States’ fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law which the Court enforces. In assuring the protection of such rights, the Court is required to base itself on the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and therefore could not allow measures, which are incompatible with the fundamental rights recognized and guaranteed by the constitutions of such States. The ECJ declared, that the international treaties on the protection of human rights in which the Member States have cooperated or to which they have adhered could also supply indications which may be taken into account within the framework of Community law.

That implied, even without clear regulations in the treaties, the remedy against violation on human rights could also be provided within the framework of the Community in respect for the common traditions applied to the Member States, and in connection with we have mentioned about the Member States’ above, the principles and resource applied to the Member States derived from the Council of Europe. Thus a EU standard could be established by transform a rating comparison of the members’ legal systems to the case-law in ECJ in respect for human rights.
　　2012年3月14日第十一届全国人民代表大会第五次会议通过的《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法修正案》第188条首次在刑事诉讼法中确立强制证人出庭作证制度。这一举措的出台，不仅有利于解决“作证难、出庭难”的问题，而且也是建立完整的证人作证制度的必要措施。

　　笔者力图在应然层面和实然层面对“强制证人出庭作证”做全面的解析。文章以强制证人出庭作证的法理依据和必要性为入手点，分析其建立的正当性；探讨如何完善严谨、规范的证人保护制度，以保障证人在出庭时勇于出声、敢于出声；同时解析了现行法律对保障证人出庭作证效果的有关规定，以确保这一制度深入落实。

　　一、出庭有依据——强制证人出庭作证的正当性分析

　　（一）强制证人出庭作证的法理依据

　　在大陆法系和英美法系国家或地区，证人出庭作证并不象我国那么困难，有的甚至已成为公民的自觉行动，实际上是在深厚的法律传统下形成的法理依据决定了其外在的表现形式。

　　在大陆法系国家和地区，强制证人出庭作证是直接言词原则的内在要求。直接言词原则是直接原则和言词原则的总称。直接原则又称直接审理原则，是指判决只能由直接参加法庭调查、听取法庭辩论的审判人员亲自作出。如德国学者克劳思•罗科信就认为：“直接原则乃指法官以从对被告人之询问及证据调查中所得之结果、印象，才得作为其裁判之基础。”⑴此原则有三方面含义：第一，法院开庭时，法官、当事人以及其他诉讼参与人到庭参加庭审活动；第二，参加庭审的法官必须亲自参加法庭调查，认真听取法庭辩论，直接接触证据；第三，判决由直接参加庭审活动的法官作出，并以庭审中接触的证据作为认定案件事实的根据。

　　言词原则又称辩论原则，是指在庭审过程中，当事人、法院的诉讼行为特别是质证、辩论、证据调查都要求以言词方式进行。如台湾学者林山田认为：“言词原则乃谓审理程序之进行，原则上应采言词陈述方式。当事人之攻击与防御应以言词辩论之方式行之，唯有当事人在法庭以言词陈述所提供之诉讼资料，方能作为判决之依据，一切诉讼中的程序，即对刑事被告的讯问、证据的采集，当事人的攻击和防御以及判决的宣判等必须以言词陈述之方式实现之。”⑵按照直接言词原则，当事人必须在法庭上对证人进行“交叉询问”，法官必须在法庭上亲自听取证人的陈述，直接接触证人证言，从证人陈述的内容和陈述时的态度、表情、姿势、情绪等方面的情况来对证人陈述的真实性进行审查，辨别证人证言之真伪，以获得可靠的心证，这就必然要求证人出庭陈述作证，如证人无正当理由拒不出庭，那就有必要采取法律对策强制证人出庭。

　　在英美法系国家，强制证人出庭作证是传闻证据排除规则的内在要求。传闻证据排除规则产生于17世纪的英国，它是指除法律另有规定之外，不得将传闻证据作为定案的根据。在普通法中，传闻证据是指证人在本案法庭审理之外作出的，被作为证据提出的用以证实其所包含的事实是否真实的一种口头或书面的意思表示。证人提交的书面证言即是传闻证据的一种。传闻证据之所以要被排除，是因为这类证据材料未经宣誓或确认，未经交叉询问的检验存在传闻的风险或危险，审判人员被剥夺了审查庭外陈述者或行为者的感知能力、记忆力、是否诚实以及语言表达能力的机会，而这些方面的可靠性正是法庭上证言的可靠性所依据的因素。我国台湾地区“刑事诉讼法”第159条规定：“证人于审判外之陈述，除法律有规定者，不得作为证据。”这一表达与英美法系的传闻规则在结构形式上完全相同，只能认定其就是传闻规则，不可能有其他不同的解释。⑶总之，人们对传闻证据的证据价值表示怀疑和担忧。因此，根据传闻证据排除规则，证人必须出庭作证。

　　（二）强制证人出庭作证的必要性

　　1、证人证言的特性决定了强制证人出庭作证的必要。

　　证人是指凭其亲身体验感知案件有关事实而向法院陈述作证的自然人。证人证言具有不可替代性，即不能由其他人员代替证人作证。证人证言的不可替代性要求证人必须亲自到庭作证。

　　如前所述，直接言词原则及传闻证据排除规则都必然要求证人当庭陈述，接受当事人的质证。证人不出庭作证，当事人双方不能对证人进行“交叉询问”，当事人的质证权、辩论权受到限制和削弱，法官也不能直接接触原始的证人，这不利于发现案件真实，同时，当事人也得不到充分的程序保障，有悖于程序公正之要求。因此，要落实直接言词原则，实现司法公正，必须采取有力措施，保证证人出庭作证。

　　此外，证人出庭作证也有利于审查证人及证人证言是否合法。证人必须具备一定的条件。《美国联邦证据规则》第602条规定：”除非有证据足以确定证人对待证事实具有亲自体验，否则其不能作证。”我国刑事诉讼法对证人资格作出了专门的规定。证人只有具备其中的条件，其证言才有可能作为定案依据。通过证人出庭便可以很好地当场审查证人是否具备这些法定条件，证人不出庭而只提交书面证言材料时，就无法有效地判断证人的生理状况及与案件事实的联系，证人资格审查问题无从谈起。证人证言的合法性主要指证言必须由法定人员依照法定程序收集、运用。

　　2、追求实体真实决定了强制证人出庭作证的必要。

　　“人民法院审理案件应以事实为依据，尤其是在刑事案件中，揭露和证实犯罪是一个对过去的事实作回溯证明的艰难过程。”⑷任何刑事案件都是在社上发生的，犯罪分子总是隐藏在广大人民群众中，犯罪事实和犯罪分子往往会被人民群众所感知，这就是证人提供证言的客观根据，也是公安司法人员借以查清案件事实的重要手段。证人陈述的情况多为证人亲自看到或者听到的，也有些是别人看到后转告于他的。在大多数情况下，证人以亲自看到或听到的情况作证据要比公安机关通过侦察、推理、判断形成的结论更容易接近于事实，特别是在证人出庭作证的情况下，法官和陪审团不仅可以听其言词而且可以观其表情、情绪、态度、姿势等，有利于判断证人证言的可信度。证人的证言经过公诉方、辩护方双方的当场询问质疑，就能去除证人证言中的不真实成分，更易于发现案件的本来面目。因此，建立证人强制出庭制度，使证人亲自到庭接受法官和控辩双方的询问，更有利于查明案件事实。

　　3、证人义务与权利契约论决定了强制证人出庭作证的必要。

　　社会契约论从柏拉图时代盛行至今，其所说明的是人与人之间、社会与其成员之间社会关系的基本理论依据。权利与义务关系存在的基础即是社会的契约性。根据洛克的理论，处在自然状态中的人们是自身的法官，是人们“甘愿放弃他们各自单独行使惩罚的权力”，交由他们中间被指定的人来专门加以行使，并且要按照社会所一致同意的或他们为此目的而授权的代表所一致同意的规定来行使。这样便达成了—个契约，社会公众从政府的保护那里获得了和平、安定、幸福及财产，他们所要做的便是限制自己的自由来回报受益的义务(如出庭作证是不经济的，那么证人要做的就是忽略这是种违背自愿的想法，接受这种义务，因为他受到了公权力带来的利益—— 尽快捉拿凶手，恢复社会秩序)，如果他们中的一些人按照一定的规则进行了这种契约合作的事业，并因此限制了自己的自由，那么这些在需要时会对自己做出限制的人，有权要求那些从他们的服从中受益的人做出类似的服从⑸。卢梭也认为，在社会契约中，每个人都放弃天然自由，而获取契约自由；在参与政治的过程中，只有每个人同等地放弃全部天然自由，转让给整个集体，人类才能得到平等的契约自由。

　　以社会契约论为基础，证人出庭作证实际上是其按照一定的规则履行了作证义务（即证人契约义务），那么在其需他人作证时，即有权要求他人做出类似行动——作证。人天然具有自私性，他虽然能够因一个强制性的权威来执行法律，但仍希望自己能够置身事外。只要有利可图，或者避免自身利益损失，他总是想违反法律，除非他预见到将因此而受到惩罚，否则不会放弃。证人出庭作证成为一种义务，与其享受安稳的社会环境权利相对应，从而成为一种必要。

　　二、出声有保护——完善证人出庭作证的人权保护

　　（一）建立证人出庭作证经济补偿制

　　证人出庭作证难免有经济损失，根据权利与义务相对应的原理，证人履行了出庭作证义务，当然享有其应当享有的权利。在英美法系、大陆法系国家和地区大多有证人出庭作证经济补偿的法律规定。如我国香港特别行政区的《香港高等法院条例》第34条规定，按察司受理的诉讼中，证人出庭作证按察司应依法下令核准费用，给予所有的出庭作证人作为他们失事费时之费用及补偿。

　　此前的中国诉讼法对证人出庭作证的费用补偿问题没有作出规定，在司法实践中，有的法院已规定给出庭证人予以经济补偿，如山东省高级人民法院于1995年7月10日印发的《关于改进民事审判方式的若干意见》第43条规定：证人在人民法院决定的出庭日期出庭的交通费、住宿费、生活费和误工的工资、奖金，先由举证人如实支付，胜诉的一方当事人支付给证人的费用，有权要求故意侵权或故意违约的对方当事人负担，人民法院可根据案件具体情况确定；从事承包经营或个体经营的证人的误工费应参照其当月日平均收入或者其他从事同行业的人同期实际收入的平均值计算。

　　修改后的《刑事诉讼法》采纳了上述意见精神，其第63条规定，“证人因履行作证义务而支出的交通、住宿、就餐等费用，应当给予补助。证人作证的补助列入司法机关业务经费，由同级政府财政予以保障。有工作单位的证人作证，所在单位不得克扣或者变相克扣其工资、奖金及其他福利待遇。”这个规定的出台有利于进一步解决证人出庭的后顾之忧，也是构建合理完善的证人保护制度的起点。但本项规定中未明确补偿金支付的方式，考虑到证人与个案的偶然性联系及可操作性，笔者建议以现金支付为宜。

　　（二）完善证人出庭作证基本方式

　　证人出庭作证，可以采取与其他当事人相同的方式即公开参与庭审、接受双方质询等，也可以根据不同案件、不同证人的具体情况采取特别的方式。例如我国香港地区的证人保护制度对特殊群体就有如下特别规定：儿童证人、弱智证人或者“处于恐惧中的证人”享有不被被告人看见的权利。在通常情况下，证人必须面对法庭作证，这意味着他将与被告人面对面接触。但是为了更好地保护特殊证人不受精神上的胁迫并且避免以后潜在的危险，香港法律采用了一种十分“人性化”的手段，来保护证人。其采用将证人放置于闭路电视证人室的做法，在此情形下，证人可以看见庭审，而被告人则看不见证人。与这些证人处于一室的，通常只有法庭传达员一人。在特殊情况下(比如弱智证人)，法庭可以准许为其提供特别帮助的人在场。但是不得作任何引导证人的发言。除此之外，这些证人作证过程还可以被制作成录像带当庭播放，从而免除这部分人的当庭露面的义务⑹。