How to Proceed with the Fourth Amendment to the Chinese Criminal Procedure Law? --- Based on Observations of the Legislative History

• In Event: Further Reform of Chinese Criminal Justice--the New Amendment to Chinese Criminal Procedure Law

Abstract

Since the reform and opening-up, Chinese Criminal Procedure Law has undergone one "initial version" and three "amendments." After the 1979 Criminal Procedure Law achieved a breakthrough from "0" to "1," subsequent amendments have been gradual processes from "1" to "1.1," "1.2," and so on. Observing the legislative history, the legislative reform of Chinese criminal procedure follows an incremental and moderate amendment logic, consistently emphasizing the dominant role of the state while also valuing social participation and the achievement of reform consensus. This reform trend is likely to continue—how it was amended in the past will most likely influence how it is amended now and in the future. Against the backdrop of a stabilizing pace of overall reform, the Fourth Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law is unlikely to be a "major revision," and the codification corresponding to a major revision is also difficult to achieve in this Amendment.
However, reforms related to digital procedural law, foreign-related criminal procedures, and other areas where consensus has been reached or beneficial experience has been accumulated may be included in the Amendment. For instance, in areas such as compulsory measures, legal aid, digital procedural law, special procedures for foreign-related criminal litigation, and other fields where reform consensus has been reached, a considerable number of legislative reforms are expected to be adopted and advanced in this Amendment, thereby enriching the institutional norms of criminal procedure.
In the context of the modernization of Chinese-style criminal procedure, this Amendment will be a "minor revision" or "micro-revision" that aligns with the digital era and global competition, reflects national needs, and is based on scientific and democratic principles.

Author

• Weimin Zuo, Sichuan University School of Law