{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014184397163120567, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.287128712871287, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Admissibility of indirect evidence in Chinese cases of torture

China’s criminal procedure law fails to prescribe legal requirements for admitting indirect evidence. This is against international standards and detrimental to justice. Most notably, a lack of remedies for violations of exclusionary rules is the primary form of abusing human rights. Prevention of such abuses may entail China’s gradual ideological shift to human rights protection in cases of torture. So far, the problems of admitting indirect evidence have been insufficiently explored in theory or in practice. Addressing this lack, this article gives a preliminary analysis of legislation concerning the admissibility of indirect evidence. The first part interprets the grounds for a lack of the admissibility of indirect evidence in China’s current legislation. The second part introduces the legal effect of international human rights law on China’s criminal procedural law, as the reasons for its bringing the admissibility in line with international human rights treaties. The third part shows that a primary form of the relevant human rights abuses is a lack of remedies for violations of exclusionary rules. The fourth part gives explanations for and suggestions on how to prevent such abuses.