证据法定与法定证据——兼对我国《民诉法》第63条之检讨

在大陆法系民事诉讼中，为确保事实认定过程的客观及公正，法院进行证据调查应以法定的证据方法为对象，严格遵循直接原则并保障当事人的在场权，此即证据法定的要求或意义所在。与此相应，其民诉立法乃依证据调查方式之不同，确立了不同的证据类型。我国现行民诉法尽管在制度设计上贯彻了证据法定的要求，但关于法定证据类型的确立并不科学，突出表现为误将勘验笔录与视听资料作为独立的证据类型予以规范，亟待修正。

On Evidence-Legalism and Statutory Evidences:Also the Review of Art.63 of Civil Procedure Law of PRC

In the civil procedure of the Roman law system, to ensure the objectivity and the fairness of the course of fact--finding, the courts investigate the evidences should take the statutory means of evidence as the object, to abide by the principle of direct trial rigidly, to safeguard the right to be on the scene of the party concerned, which are what the evidence--legalism requires and the representation of its significance. Accordingly, the civil procedure law established different types of evidences, based on the different ways of evidence--investigation. The Civil Proce- dure Law of PRC implemented the requirements of the evidence--legalism in the institutional design, but the provisions about the types of evidences are not scientificand they are outstandingly characterized by that it wrongly stipulated the record of inquest and the audio--visual material as independent types of evidence, which shall be corrected urgently.