Chinese Evidence Law

Overview

Chinese evidence law is governed by the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (刑事诉讼法, CPL), the Civil Procedure Law (民事诉讼法), the Administrative Procedure Law (行政诉讼法), and a series of judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP). The Chinese evidentiary system reflects the civil law tradition with distinctive features shaped by the country’s legal history and institutional structure. The law requires that evidence be objective, relevant, and lawful — the three fundamental attributes of admissible evidence. Significant reforms in the 2010s, particularly in criminal procedure, have established more robust protections against illegally obtained evidence and elaborated standards of proof.

General Principles of Evidence

Chinese evidence law requires that all evidence must possess three characteristics: objectivity (客观性) — the evidence must reflect objective facts rather than subjective conjecture; relevance (关联性) — the evidence must have a logical connection to the facts to be proved; and lawfulness (合法性) — the evidence must be obtained and presented in accordance with legally prescribed procedures and forms. Evidence that fails to satisfy any of these requirements is inadmissible.

The principle of the burden of proof operates differently across the three major branches of litigation. In civil proceedings, the party asserting a claim bears the burden of proving the facts on which the claim is based, and the party asserting an objection bears the burden of proving the facts underlying the objection. The court may conduct supplementary investigations in cases where the parties cannot obtain evidence for good cause. In administrative litigation, the burden of proof is reversed: the administrative agency must prove the legality of its administrative act. This reversal reflects the structural inequality between the citizen and the state and forces the agency to justify its actions.

Standard of Proof

The standard of proof in civil cases is the “high degree of probability” (高度盖然性), formally articulated in the SPC’s Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law (2015). The court must be satisfied that the existence of a disputed fact is highly probable or overwhelmingly likely based on the evidence. This standard is lower than the criminal standard but higher than the common law’s preponderance standard in conceptual formulation. In practice, the court evaluates the evidence holistically, considering the consistency, completeness, and credibility of the evidence presented.

In criminal cases, the standard is that the evidence must be “clear and reliable” (证据确实充分), codified in Article 55 of the CPL. The standard requires that: (1) all facts relevant to conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence; (2) the evidence used to support the judgment has been verified through lawful procedures; and (3) the totality of the evidence eliminates reasonable doubt and leads to a comprehensive conclusion that the accused committed the crime. The SPC has emphasized that the standard must be strictly applied and that cases with insufficient evidence must result in acquittal.

Types of Evidence in Civil Procedure

Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Law prescribes eight categories of evidence. Documentary evidence (书证) includes any written material that contains information relevant to the case, such as contracts, certificates, and correspondence. Physical evidence (物证) comprises tangible objects whose physical properties are relevant to establishing facts. Audiovisual material (视听资料) includes audio recordings, video recordings, and films.

Electronic data (电子数据), added as a separate category, encompasses electronically stored information including emails, text messages, WeChat communications, electronic signatures, and digital transaction records. The 2018 SPC Provisions on the Adjudication of Electronic Data in Criminal Proceedings established detailed authentication rules for electronic evidence, requiring verification of the integrity and authenticity of the electronic data, the reliability of the collection and preservation process, and the identity of the persons involved in the electronic communication.

Witness testimony (证人证言) is evaluated according to the witness’s relationship to the parties, the consistency of the testimony, and the circumstances under which it was given. Expert opinions (鉴定意见) are provided by qualified expert bodies or individuals designated by the SPC’s administrative system. Inspection records (笔录) document the court’s or investigative authorities’ direct observation of relevant locations, objects, or circumstances. Statements of the parties (当事人陈述) are accorded evidentiary weight but are treated with caution as inherently self-interested.

Criminal Procedure Evidence Under the CPL

Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law defines evidence as anything that may be used to prove the facts of a case, enumerating eight categories including the testimony of witnesses, the statements and explanations of the victim, the statements and explanations of the suspect or accused, expert opinions, inspection records, physical evidence, documentary evidence, audiovisual materials, and electronic data.

The burden of proof in criminal proceedings rests on the prosecution. The People’s Procuratorate must present sufficient, admissible evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant has the right to present exculpatory evidence and to challenge the prosecution’s evidence through cross-examination and the submission of contrary evidence. The court has the authority to conduct its own investigation in limited circumstances, including the verification of evidence whose authenticity is in question.

The Exclusionary Rule for Illegally Obtained Evidence

China has developed an increasingly detailed exclusionary rule regime for criminal proceedings. The foundational documents are the 2010 Regulations on the Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence (jointly issued by the SPC, SPP, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Justice) and the 2017 Provisions on the Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, which expanded and refined the exclusionary framework.

The exclusionary rule operates through a tiered structure. Confessions obtained through torture or other illegal methods are absolutely excluded — they cannot be used as evidence under any circumstances. The 2017 Provisions clarify that “torture” includes physical torture and the threat of torture, as well as methods that cause severe pain or suffering to the body or mind. Testimony of witnesses and victims obtained through violence, threats, or other illegal methods is also absolutely excluded.

Physical evidence — including documentary evidence and physical exhibits — obtained in violation of legal procedures is subject to a curative or corrective standard. If the procedural violation can be remedied or explained, the evidence may be admitted. The court must examine whether the collection procedure complied with legal requirements, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the evidence was lawfully obtained. If the prosecution cannot provide a satisfactory explanation or correction, the evidence must be excluded.

The exclusionary rule applies through a pretrial procedure in which the defence may apply for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence before trial. The court must hold a hearing on the application, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the evidence was lawfully obtained. If the court determines that the evidence was obtained illegally and falls within the scope of exclusion, it must be excluded and cannot be read or otherwise referred to during trial.

The Expert Witness System

The Chinese expert witness (鉴定人) system operates through a state-administered framework. Expert bodies are designated by the judicial administrative authorities at the provincial level, and experts must be registered in a national database. In criminal proceedings, the investigative authorities may commission expert evaluations, and the defence has the right to apply for the commissioning of additional or supplementary expert evaluations. The 2012 CPL amendments introduced the right of the defence to retain experts to provide opinions, though the retained expert is classified as a “specialist” rather than a formal expert witness. The court evaluates expert opinions in conjunction with other evidence and may reject the opinion with reasoned justification.

Documentary and Electronic Evidence

The authentication of documentary and electronic evidence has received increasing attention in Chinese evidence law. The 2018 SPC Provisions on the Adjudication of Electronic Data in Criminal Proceedings establish comprehensive rules for the collection, preservation, and examination of electronic evidence. The provisions require that electronic data be collected in accordance with prescribed procedures, that the chain of custody be documented and verifiable, and that the authenticity and integrity of the data be confirmed through technical examination. The court must examine the original storage medium of the electronic data, and secondary copies are admissible only if the original cannot be obtained for legitimate reasons and the copy’s authenticity is verified.

Administrative Litigation and Burden of Proof

In administrative proceedings, the Administrative Procedure Law provides that the defendant administrative agency bears the burden of proving the legality of the administrative act. The agency must submit evidence and legal basis for the act within the statutory period for responding to the lawsuit. If the agency fails to submit evidence or if the evidence is insufficient to establish the legality of the act, the court must rule in favour of the plaintiff. This reversal of the ordinary burden of proof reflects the principle that administrative agencies must act within their legal authority and must be able to demonstrate that authority when challenged.