A brief discussion on the system of lawyer intervention in the procedure of examination and arrest in China

Abstract: The current criminal procedure law has established the lawyer intervention system in the examination and arrest procedure, which indicates that the examination and arrest link in China has begun to set up a procedural detention decision procedure with the characteristics of a tripartite structure, which has played a positive role in promoting the implementation of the spirit of "respecting and protecting human rights". However, to examine the actual operation state of the system, it can be found that there are still deep-seated inherent defects such as the administrativeization of the procedural structure, the closure of decision-making, the asymmetry of the subject and the lack of relief, which to a large extent detract from the procedural value of the system to reduce the outstanding detention; in this regard, on the basis of clarifying its existing defects, based on China's practice and drawing on foreign experience, it is particularly important to establish the reform direction of China's review and arrest procedure lawyer intervention system.
Keywords: review arrest; lawyer intervention; path selection

The design of a country's pretrial detention system directly reflects the human rights protection status of the country's criminal justice field and the entire society, because "the more dangerous it is, the more it can show the level of human rights protection in a society."

[1] Undoubtedly, the current criminal procedure law gives defense lawyers the right to participate in the examination of arrest, "to some extent, it means that the confrontation system is gradually extending to the investigation stage" [2], which improves the institutional character of China's criminal procedure to protect human rights. However, it must be pointed out here that the actual participation of defense lawyers in the current review of arrest procedures is still far from the rule of law standard of "equal arms and equal confrontation. In other words, the system of lawyer intervention in our country's review and arrest procedure only reveals the embryonic form of litigation. Therefore, in order to make the review of arrest return to the nature of procedural adjudication activities, it is necessary to improve the system of lawyer intervention as the key to deepening reform. Therefore, in view of the shortcomings of the lawyer intervention system of the current examination and arrest procedure in China, the author will draw useful reference on the basis of the comparative analysis of the extraterritorial "judicial hearing mode" and "hearing opinions mode", and combine the current situation of China's justice, from the choice of development path and the construction of the key supporting security system, put forward the system structure of defense lawyers with Chinese characteristics to participate in the examination and arrest.
                         
The Legislative Evolution of Lawyer Intervention System in 1. Review of Arrest Procedure

(I) preliminary proposal
Combing the normative legal documents related to the review and arrest procedure lawyer intervention system, it can be found that the system was not involved in the 1979 Criminal Procedure Law and the 1996 Criminal Procedure Law. Before the legislation formally established the system, the relevant provisions were mainly scattered in the Supreme People's Procuratorate. In a series of regulations or notices. Among them, the 2003 "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Preventing and Correcting Extended Detention in Procuratorial Work" mentioned that "prosecutors should pay attention to listening to lawyers' opinions on the application of arrest measures"; In 2010, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the "Provisions on Interrogating Criminal Suspects at the Stage of Examination and Arrest", Article 13 of which stipulates that "when necessary, the opinions of entrusted lawyers may be heard face to face to face, for the opinions put forward by the lawyer and relevant evidence materials, the circumstances and reasons for whether to adopt them shall be stated in the examination of the arrest opinion". The "above-mentioned provisions" [3] reflect the legislative development of the system of lawyer intervention in the procedure of examination and arrest in China, indicating that the system has been initially established, but unfortunately these provisions have not attracted the attention of judicial practice departments and defense lawyers, and have played little role in the practice of examination and arrest. The reason is that, on the one hand, the status of defense lawyers in the investigation stage was not established; on the other hand, it was mostly principled and sworn clauses, lacking specific applicable procedures and operating norms.
(II) formally established
Article 86, paragraph 2, of the Criminal procedure Law revised on March 14, 2012 stipulates: "when the people's Procuratorate examines and approves an arrest, it may ask witnesses and other participants in the proceedings and listen to the opinions of defense lawyers; if the defense lawyer makes a request, it shall listen to the opinions of defense lawyers." This article formally gives defense lawyers the right to participate in the proceedings at the stage of examination and arrest, which can be said to establish a system of lawyer intervention in the examination and arrest procedure in the form of the basic law. In addition, the revised Criminal Procedure Law establishes the status of lawyers as defenders in the investigation stage, which provides a solid legislative basis for defense lawyers to participate in the review of arrest procedures.
(III) refinement and improvement
The revised Criminal Procedure Rules of the People's Procuratorate (for Trial Implementation), which came into effect on January 1, 2013, further refined and improved the procedures for listening to lawyers' opinions during the examination and arrest stage on the basis of Article 86 of the Criminal Procedure Law, mainly involving the reception department, how to listen to the opinions of the defender, the handling process after listening to the opinions and the relief procedures of the defender [4]], these provisions construct the specific procedural structure of the lawyer intervention system of the review and arrest procedure in our country at this stage, which is more operational than the previous principled provisions, and provides procedural guarantee for the defense lawyer to fully participate in the review and arrest.

The inherent defects of the lawyer's intervention system in the 2. review of the arrest procedure.

As mentioned above, my country's review and arrest procedure lawyer intervention system has undergone a development process that has been initially proposed, formally established, and refined. To a certain extent, it has broken the authority review model led by the investigation and supervision department of the procuratorate. The intervention of defense lawyers has made the "one-sidedness of the review content." Sex "and" the writing of the review process "have been improved to a certain extent. However, in most cases, "the intervention of defense lawyers cannot have a substantial impact on the decision to arrest" [5]. The reason is that in addition to the low proportion of lawyer intervention, the review and arrest based on the existing system The operating mechanism also has the following deep-seated inherent structural defects.
The Administrative Construction of (I) Procedures
It is undeniable that the introduction of the system design of listening to the opinions of lawyers and interrogating criminal suspects in the review and arrest procedure has weakened the existing written trial mode with strong powers to a certain extent. However, we also have to admit that under the influence of traditional investigative centralism, criminal suspects are regarded as sources of evidence and tools to discover the truth of the case in the investigation procedure. This passive status in the state of "objectification and instrumentalization" has not been fundamentally changed. Generally speaking, the operation of the examination and arrest procedure is generally carried out by the undertaker of the investigation and supervision department according to the arrest reporting materials provided by the investigation organ, and puts forward the opinions on approving the arrest or deciding on the arrest, disapproving the arrest or not. After being examined and approved by the head of the department, it shall be submitted to the chief procurator for approval or decision, and major cases shall be discussed and decided by the procuratorial committee. Obviously, this is still a typical internal administrative examination and approval procedure, and the defense opinions advocated by defense lawyers that do not meet the conditions for arrest will at best be reflected in written form in the examination and arrest opinions of the report, accepting the layers of written examination and approval of the undertaker, the head of the department, the chief procurator, and the procuratorial committee, which is far from the verbal trial procedure in the form of litigation.
Closure of (II) procedural decision-making
Under the existing framework of the review and arrest system, the participation of defense lawyers is limited to putting forward opinions, while under normal circumstances, based on the reality of "many cases, few people and tight time", the case undertakers responsible for the review and arrest also ask defense lawyers to put forward written opinions. In other words, the mode of interaction between the defense counsel and the undertaking prosecutor in the review of the arrest procedure is mainly in written form. It can be said that the entire decision-making process of reviewing arrests is actually a process of reviewing the arrest materials provided by the investigative agency and the written opinions of defense lawyers. In this process, once the defense lawyer has submitted his defense opinion, there is no other way to participate, and he can only passively wait for the final result. This limited participation has led to a lack of transparency, openness and closure of the decision-making process for the review of arrests.
Asymmetric (III) of the main body of the program
The examination and arrest is mainly based on the materials and opinions provided by the investigation organ, but the law does not give the defense lawyer the right to read the evidence materials for the arrest. Usually, the defense lawyer can only meet the criminal suspect to understand the facts of the case and then put forward the legal opinion of not approving the arrest. However, it is difficult for the case undertaker to pay enough attention to the criminal suspect's defense, because the undertaker has formed a prejudgment on the premise that the guilty confession has been fixed by the interrogation record of the investigation organ and submitted to the investigation and supervision department of the procuratorate. Therefore, the defense opinion based on the facts of the case that the defense lawyer understands through the interview is difficult to convince the case undertaker.
In addition, although the current Criminal Procedure Law affirms the identity of the defense lawyer as a defender at the investigation stage, the provisions on the duties of the defense lawyer at the investigation stage do not explicitly include investigation and evidence collection, and in judicial practice, the majority of criminal defense lawyers are cautious or even exclusive of the investigation and evidence collection work at the investigation stage. On the contrary, the investigation organ has strong and extensive investigation and evidence collection measures, and when the evidence material fails to meet the arrest standard, the investigation and supervision department of the procuratorate will require the investigation organ to continue to supplement the material. In short, the lack of corresponding reading rights and the right to investigate and collect evidence has led to the inability of defense lawyers to participate in the review and arrest procedures on an equal footing, let alone to form an equal confrontation with the investigative agency.
The Deficiency of (IV) Procedure Relief
The inherent defects of administrative, closed and asymmetric operation mechanism make it difficult for defense lawyers to fully, reciprocally and effectively participate in the review of arrest procedures, and it is difficult to have a substantial impact on the decision to make an arrest. In this case, the necessary relief channels are particularly important, but it is a pity that my country's Criminal Procedure Law only grants the public security organs the power to request reconsideration and apply for review when they believe that the People's Procuratorate's decision to disapprove the arrest is wrong, but it does not grant the suspect. And its defense lawyers have the right to relief when they are dissatisfied with the arrest decision.
It is important to note here that the lack of legislation on alternative arrest relief should not be examined on the basis of the necessity of detention. In fact, the judicial relief of arrest, that is, the criminal suspect and his defense lawyer believe that there is a situation that should not be arrested or does not need to be arrested, and the purpose of applying to the higher judicial organ for re-examination is to correct the mistake of arrest, which is the right relief of the accused against the legality of arrest; while the examination of the necessity of detention focuses on the need to continue detention according to the changed evidence and litigation situation, reducing detention in time is a supervisory and restrictive measure for the procuratorial organs. [6]]

Path Selection of Lawyer Intervention System in 3. Review and Arrest Procedure

As mentioned above, the current review and arrest procedures have deep-seated inherent structural defects. They are mainly based on written trials, supplemented by interrogating criminal suspects and listening to lawyers' opinions when necessary. On the one hand, defense lawyers cannot question the errors and loopholes in the arrest materials submitted by the investigation agency face to face; on the other hand, prosecutors cannot listen to the cross-examination and debate of the prosecution and the defense face to face, and it is difficult to listen to both. Therefore, especially in some controversial cases, the existing system design is difficult to prevent the occurrence of wrong arrest and indiscriminate arrest. To this end, it is necessary to examine the extraterritorial rule of law developed countries pre-trial detention procedure lawyer intervention model, on the basis of comparative analysis to draw useful reference, and combined with the current situation of Chinese justice, try to build a Chinese characteristics of lawyers to participate in the review of the arrest of the litigation structure.
(I) extraterritorial mode
To examine the issue of extraterritorial lawyers' involvement in the review of arrest procedures, it is necessary to approach the issue from the perspective of lawyers' involvement in pending or pretrial detention. [7] Through the comparative analysis of the operating mechanism of pretrial detention procedures in developed countries under the rule of law, the author summarizes two different operating modes, namely, "judicial hearing mode" and "hearing mode".
1. The "judicial hearing model" of lawyers involved in pre-trial detention procedures"
The "judicial hearing model" is mainly concentrated in common law countries, with the United Kingdom and the United States being the most typical. [8]]
In the United States, when police arrest a suspect, they must immediately bring him before the nearest federal magistrate or state magistrate. The judge must hold a hearing before ordering pre-trial detention. During the hearing, the defendant has the right to the help of a lawyer and is given the opportunity to testify, provide witnesses, counter-examine witnesses and submit documents. Both the prosecution and the defense can debate whether to detain or whether to release on bail. [9] In addition, in the area of judicial relief in pretrial detention, lawyers may apply for bail for the detainee and argue with the prosecution.
In the UK, if the judicial police believe that a criminal suspect should be detained before trial, they should be brought to the magistrate's court as soon as possible, and the magistrate should make a decision as soon as possible on whether the criminal suspect should be detained through a hearing in which both the prosecution and the defense participate. [10] In fact, after the British judicial police have arrested the suspect, the time of detention shall not exceed 36 hours at their discretion. If the detention is still necessary for more than 36 hours, a writ must be applied to the magistrate. In this regard, two judges are usually appointed by the Magistrate's Court to preside over the hearing proceedings, in which both the prosecution and the defense have the right to participate and to debate whether or not to continue in custody. In addition, similar to the United States, once a suspect has been ruled by a magistrate to remain in custody, defense counsel may appeal to the Court of Appeal or the High Court and make statements and arguments on behalf of the suspect during the appeal hearing.
From this point of view, the so-called judicial hearing model requires that "the judge must hold a verbal hearing procedure involving both the prosecution and the defense before making a decision on whether to detain the suspect, so as to ensure that the judge makes an accurate and fair arrest decision".
2. The "hearing mode" of lawyers involved in pre-trial detention procedures"
The "listening mode" is typical of Germany and Japan in the civil law system. In Germany, pretrial detention is referred to as "pretrial detention", and after arrest, a suspect should be brought immediately or at the latest the following day before a competent judge, who should immediately question the accused and then decide whether to issue a detention order. Although the German Criminal Procedure Law does not clearly stipulate that judges should listen to the opinions of defense lawyers when they are in custody pending trial, "criminal suspects have the right to obtain the help of lawyers at any stage of the proceedings" is a principled provision of German criminal proceedings. During detention, defense lawyers can express their defense opinions to the judge. Not only that, Germany also provides for the detention review system. [11]]
In Japan, the judge's review of the prosecutor's detention request is neither a complete written review nor a verbal debate procedure, but a combination of written review and interrogation of the suspect. Regarding the question of whether defense lawyers can express their defense opinions to the judge presiding over the detention review, Japanese scholars believe that "it is indispensable to apply for a face-to-face meeting with the judge to express their opinions; When it is learned that the police have decided to transfer them to the court for detention interrogation, they should immediately make an opinion, and they should go to the court as early as possible to request a face-to-face meeting with the judge and make an opinion, preferably before the custody interrogation." [12] and once the suspect is ruled in custody, his defense lawyer can also request the court to inform the reasons for detention, in order to further determine whether the detention is appropriate. In this regard, Article 83 of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: "Informing the reasons for detention shall be conducted in an open court, and no court session shall be held when the defendant and his defender are not present." [13] In other words, the procedure should be conducted in a procedure in which the prosecutor, the suspect and his defense participate and present their opinions.
Simply put, the so-called hearing mode does not require the prosecution to convene a verbal debate on whether to detain or not, and the decision to detain is mainly made by the judge after interrogating the suspect and listening to the defense lawyer.
3. Comparison of the two models
By comparison, it is not difficult to find that the two models have the following points in common in the provisions of lawyers involved in the detention review process: first, the role of defense lawyers in the detention review process is emphasized.
Of course, the difference between the two is also obvious, highlighted in the way and extent of lawyer intervention. Under the mode of judicial hearing, the participation of the defense party is inevitable, and the participation form of verbal debate enables the defense lawyer to fully and fully intervene in the decision-making process of detention, which maximally affects the inner conviction of the judge on whether to detain or not; while the mode of hearing opinions highlights the unilateral interrogation of the judge. Although the defense lawyer can express his opinions to the judge, this participation is contingent, it is difficult to form a real verbal confrontation with the prosecution, and the opinions of lawyers can only become the reference basis for the judge's detention review.
(II) the Construction of Lawyer Intervention System of Examination and Arrest Procedure with Chinese Characteristics
The lawyer intervention system of the review and arrest procedure established in our country at this stage is similar to the "hearing opinion model" of Germany and Japan, but it is clear that this model does not return the review and arrest to the essence of procedural adjudication activities. In this regard, the author will be based on China's judicial practice, learn from foreign experience, from the choice of development path and the construction of key supporting security system, outline the system structure of defense lawyers with Chinese characteristics to participate in the review of arrest.
1, review the arrest procedure lawyer intervention reform direction.
In essence, the review of arrest is a typical procedural adjudication activity, so its operating mechanism should also reflect the characteristics of litigation required by due process, such as neutrality, participation, equality and openness. In this regard, the judicial hearing model just caters to the nature of the procedural decision of the review of arrest, and certainly becomes the direction of reform of the review of arrest system in the future. However, this does not mean that we can simply transplant the extraterritorial model to the country, because the experience of legal transplantation tells us that any legal transplantation that ignores local practice will eventually end in failure. In this regard, it is necessary to localize the arrest review system of the hearing model.
Among them, the first to bear the brunt in the process of localization transformation should be "the choice of the main body of the referee". In this regard, the academic circles have pointed out that the court should adopt a unified review of the arrest model, and the court should exercise the power of arrest decision in a unified manner, so as to restrict the prosecution power exercised by the public security organs and procuratorial organs, and better realize the purpose of protecting personnel in criminal proceedings. [14] however, from the actual situation, this assumption is difficult to realize: on the one hand, it is contrary to the constitutional system and judicial system of our country at the present stage to entrust the decision power of examining arrest to the court; on the other hand, our country does not have the institutional conditions for unified judicial review by the court, the operation of the judicial review system requires the establishment of a pre-trial court or a magistrate's court, which is different from the criminal trial court, and there is only one trial system in our country. Under the reality that the contradiction between the large number of cases and the small number of people has become increasingly prominent, the court cannot undertake the heavy task of examining and arresting. Based on this, the author believes that in the absence of major changes in my country's judicial system, prosecutors should play the role of a neutral judicial judge and perform their duties as a middle judge in the hearing procedure of reviewing arrests.
In addition, in view of "the lack of system level, the current judicial system and the quality of personnel lead to the lack of neutrality and independence of prosecutors, the limited judicial resources, especially the limited resources of prosecutors and police, and the high judicial cost" [15], it is not realistic to carry out hearing reform on the examination and arrest procedures of all arrest cases. In this regard, the author agrees with the reform direction of the "split hearing procedure", that is, not all arrest cases are examined by hearings, but the focus of the hearing is on those cases where there are more disputes about the facts, evidence and the necessity of arrest.
2, improve the lawyer involved in the review of the arrest procedure related to the supporting security system.
Even in the future judicial reform, with regard to the review of the arrest procedure, a speech hearing model with the prosecutor as the referee and the participation of the investigative agency, the criminal suspect and his defender will be gradually established. In the absence of relevant supporting guarantee systems, The requirements of equal arms and equal confrontation necessary for verbal debate are also difficult to achieve. Among the many supporting guarantee systems, the author believes that the "right to read the arrest materials" and the "procedural relief system after arrest" are the most important.
Defense should be based on the facts and the law, so that the investigation phase of the right to defense can be truly implemented, at least in the arrest and related links to ensure that the defense lawyer access to the evidence on which the arrest is based. The principle of investigative secrecy does not constitute a reasonable reason for restricting the above-mentioned rights of defense lawyers, and the reading of defense lawyers in arrest and related links will play a great role in curbing the normalization of detention. [16] Simply put, only by giving the defense lawyer the right to read the papers in the arrest link, can the prosecution and the defense have a targeted debate on whether the conditions for arrest are met, can the prosecution and the defense be truly confronted on an equal footing, and only in line with the litigation nature of the judicial hearing model.
No remedy is no right. As mentioned above, both common law countries that adopt the judicial hearing model and civil law countries that apply the hearing model have set up relief procedures for not satisfied with the decision to detain. In this regard, in the review of the arrest link to build a separate hearing procedure at the same time, the arrest of the judicial relief should also be included in the review of the arrest procedure of the litigation reform. Specifically, the following provisions can be made: "when a criminal suspect and his defense lawyer believe that the reason for arrest is not established and the arrest is illegal, they have the right to appeal to the procuratorial organ at the next higher level, and the procuratorial organ at the next higher level that made the arrest decision shall re-examine it. The investigation and supervision department of the procuratorial organ at the next higher level shall promptly hear the suspect's complaint in words to examine whether there is any wrong arrest or unnecessary arrest, correct the error or reject the complainant in a timely manner." [17]]


Comments:
[1] Alan Dershowitz, The Best Defense, translated by Tang Jiaodong, Law Press, 1994, p. 259.
[2] Chen Weidong: "Understanding and Application of Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012", China Legal Publishing House, 2012, p. 26.
[3] What needs to be explained here is that some scholars advocate that the 2004 Provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the Protection of Lawyers' Practice in Criminal Proceedings by the People's Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions) and the 2006 Notice of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Further Strengthening the Protection of Lawyers' Practice Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Notice) are also included in the legislative evolution of the lawyer intervention system in the examination and arrest procedure, however, it should be pointed out that the "listening to the opinions of lawyers" emphasized in the "Regulations" and the "Notice" are only generally aimed at the investigation and review and prosecution process, and not specifically at the review and arrest link. Therefore, the author believes that it should not be included in the system. Among the legislative sources. See Ye Qing: "The Protection of Lawyers' Right to Intervene in the Review of Arrest Procedures", Law No. 2, 2014.
[4] For relevant provisions, please refer to Articles 54, 152, 304, 309, 364 and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People's Procuratorate (for Trial Implementation).
[5] Searching CNKI's relevant papers on "defense lawyer's intervention in review and arrest", the author found that most scholars and practitioners believe that the intervention of defense lawyer can not have a substantial impact on the review and arrest decision. In this regard, among the nearly 50 criminal cases handled by the author in the past three years, only 3 did not approve or decide to arrest, which also confirms the above conclusion. See Ye Qing: "Protection of Lawyers' Intervention Rights in Examination and Arrest Procedures", No. 2, 2014 of Law; See Wen Xin: "Lawyers' Participation in Examination and Arrest-An Empirical Study Based on HD District of G City", in "Sun Yat-sen University Law Review" Volume 13, Series 2; See Song Chunli: "Empirical Study on Lawyers' Participation in Examination and Arrest Stage", Master's Thesis of Southwest University of Political Science and Law.
[6] Min Chunlei, "On the Litigation of Examination and Arrest Procedures", in Legal System and Social Development, No. 3, 2016.
[7] In developed countries under the rule of law, arrest is separated from detention. The legal effect of arrest is limited to compulsory attendance and does not have the effect of long-term detention. The arrest of a suspect does not necessarily lead to detention. Therefore, the arrest abroad is very similar to the detention in our country, and the detention abroad is very similar to the arrest in our country.
[8] In fact, along with the integration of the two major legal systems, the traditional civil law system of Italy and France also have a judicial hearing system similar to the common law system in the pre-trial detention procedure. Article 145 of the current French Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates: "If the magistrate considers detaining the party in advance, he shall inform the party that the decision can only be made after the trial debate". See Luo Jiezhen's translation: French Criminal Procedure Law, China Legal Publishing House, 2006 edition, pp. 141-142. According to the current Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, the request for custody of a suspect who has been arrested or detained shall be made within 48 hours after the arrest or detention, and the judge shall make a decision within 48 hours after the verbal debate procedure involving the prosecutor, the suspect and the defender. See Sun Changyong, Exploring Due Process-A Monographic on Comparative Criminal Procedure Law, China Legal Publishing House, 2005, pp. 102-103.
[9] Fang Guobin, Pretrial Detention and Bail, Law Press, 2011, p. 139.
[10] Fang Guobin, Pretrial Detention and Bail, Law Press, 2011, p. 140.
[11] Article 117 of the German Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: "When the defendant is in custody, he may apply to the court at any time to review whether the detention order should be revoked or its execution should be stopped in accordance with Article 116." Article 118 states: "In the case of examination with custody, the trial shall be conducted in the manner of words, on the application of the defendant or at the discretion of the court's authority." Participating in Cai Dunming's translation: "German-Japanese Criminal Procedure Law", Wunan Book Publishing Co., Ltd., 1994 edition, p. 49.
[12] Great Conscience, Kawasaki Yingming, et al., Criminal Defense, translated by Taiwan-Japan Criminal Law Research Association, Yuan Zhao Publishing House, 2008, p. 24.
[13] Cai Dunming translated: "German-Japanese Criminal Procedure Law", Wunan Book Publishing Co., Ltd., 1994 edition, p. 22.
[14] See Plan Liu: "The Chinese Model of Arrest Review System and Its Reform", Legal Studies, No. 2, 2012.
[15] Guo Song, "On the Examination of Arrest by Challenge Hearing -- Also on the Reform of the Examination and Arrest Method", in the September 2008 issue of China Criminal Law Journal.
[16] See Sun Yuan, "On the Right of Defense Lawyers in the Investigation Phase", in Application of Law, No. 2, 2015. As for the right to give defense lawyers the right to know the case file materials related to the arrest, Sun Yuan made a detailed argument from the perspective of substantive interpretation in "On the Right of Defense Lawyers in the Investigation Stage.
[17] Min Chunlei: "On the Litigation of Examination and Arrest Procedures", in Legal System and Social Development, No. 3, 2016.