论非典型鉴定意见的法律效力——“鉴定咨询意见”、“鉴定检验报告”、“技术证据审核意见”的证据能力问题亟需依法统一认识

“两种意见”和“两种检验报告”的性质和作用问题，在司法鉴定和司法活动中是经常引起争议的理论和实践问题。本文针对当前的争议．对每个问题提出了自己的观点和解决争议的主张。认为“鉴定专家咨询委员会”出具的“鉴定咨询意见”不是鉴定意见．不能作为定案的根据，只能作为侦查、审查起诉、审判的参考。并论证了其中的多方面原因;主张“鉴定检验报告”应当区分法定与法外两种性质，分别属于法定鉴定意见证据和仅供审判部门参考的非法定证据．并提出了对两种不同性质“检验报告”的使用评断原则;认为人民检察院、人民法院的“科技证据审核活动”．属于司法机关对鉴定意见的内部咨询活动，审查的范围仅限于四个方面．技审人员和机构无权对司法鉴定意见进行否定或肯定．只能对四方面的问题提出“审查建议”,“技术审查意见”只能作为检察、审判机关审查起诉和审判的内部参考．不能栽入起诉书和裁判文书。

On the Effect of the Atypical Authentication Opinions.

The nature and effect of the ＂two opinions＂ and ＂two review reports＂ are the frequently-disputed issues in theories and practice of the forensic authentication and judicial activities, therefore, the author in this paper delivers his point of views and attempts to propose the solutions to the dispute, including： rendering the reasons why ＂expert auxiliary opinions＂ presented by the expert advisory committee cannot be treated as authenti- cation opinions, and neither can they be used as the causes of the conclusion of cases, but references in the pro- cesses of investigation, prosecution and trial; making the advocacy for a distinction of natures of ＂expert review reports＂ between types ＂within scope of law＂ and ＂out of law＂, which fall within the respective categories of statutory authentication evidence and non-statutory evidence, and proposing the principles of using the two types of reports; holding that the reviews of the scientific evidence conducted by people＂ s procuratorates and people＂ s courts are the consultation within the organs, restricting to only four aspects, and mentioning that the reviewers and relevant organs do not have the authority to affirm or reject the judicial authentications, but only can put for- ward ＂review opinions＂ on the four aspects. The author believes that the technical review opinions can only be used as references by the prosecuting authority and the courts to make the decisions to prosecute and conduct the trials, instead of writing into the indictments and judgments.