⇥⇥⇥ Topic 1 ⇤⇤⇤
▶▶▶ A few days ago, in response to the netizen "Li Silai's younger brother" asked, "After the higher people's procuratorate receives his appeal materials, how long will it take to give a reply?" Does he have the right to request a written reply from a higher level People's Procuratorate? The two questions, with the article entitled "If you submit a complaint, accusation, or report to the procuratorate by letter, you must give a written reply", the question of netizen "Li Silai's younger brother" was publicly answered with personal views.
Based on the relevant content of the "Provisions on the Handling of Letters from the Masses by the People's Procuratorate", this article expounds on the "circumstances under which the People's Procuratorate should give a written reply" and "the circumstances under which a reply is not given".
After the article was published, after "netizen Li Silai's younger brother" saw the article, he raised the following new questions: After he appealed to the higher people's procuratorate, the higher people's procuratorate did not give him a reply, or did not give him a written reply, how should he respond?
⇥⇥⇥ Answer to Topic 1 ⇤⇤⇤
First, review the legal basis:
The people's procuratorate shall give a basis for a written response.
Article 19 of the "Provisions on the Work of the People's Procuratorate on Handling Letters from the Masses" stipulates that replies to letters from the masses may be done by text message, telephone, written, in person, or other appropriate means, and that records and archives are to be made and retained.
Where the address of the letter is clear, a written reply shall be given at the same time as the text message or phone call.
The basis for the people's procuratorate to have the right not to respond.
Article 17 of the "Provisions on the Work of the People's Procuratorate on Handling Letters from the Masses" stipulates that in any of the following circumstances, a reply may not be given:
(1) The contact information of the letter-writer is unknown;
(2) Where there are repeated letters for the same cause and a reply has already been made, except where new facts, evidence, and reasons are presented;
(3) The content is illegal;
(4) Others who do not have the capacity to respond.
Second, how should the people's procuratorate respond if it should give a reply but does not give a reply, or should give a written reply but does not give a written reply?
If the matter raised by the party meets the requirements of "the people's procuratorate should reply, or should give a written reply", but the people's procuratorate does not give a reply, then the procurator handling the case is considered to have violated the rules or had defects in "case-handling procedures, document production, judicial style, etc.".
The parties should first communicate with the procurators handling the case, ask them to correct the violations or defects, and give a reply or a written reply in accordance with law. If the relevant procurators handling the case cannot be contacted, the complainant may also report the relevant problems to the 12309 Procuratorial Service Center, and request that the procurators handling the case correct the violations or defects, and give a reply or a written reply in accordance with the law.
Legal and regulatory basis:
Article 12 of the "People's Procuratorate Regulations on the Pursuit of Judicial Responsibility" shows that where procurators do not conform to the law and relevant provisions in areas such as the determination of facts, the admission of evidence, the application of law, case-handling procedures, the drafting of documents, and judicial style, but do not affect the correctness and effectiveness of the case conclusions, they are judicial flaws and do not bear judicial responsibility, and may be reminded of conversations, criticized and educated, ordered to be inspected, circulated, or admonished in light of the circumstances.
Article 33 of the "Provisions on the Work of the People's Procuratorate on Handling Letters from the Masses" shows that the people's procuratorates shall include the handling of letters from the masses in the operational evaluation system, periodically report on the handling and response of letters from the masses, and commend units, departments, and procuratorial personnel with outstanding achievements in handling letters from the masses.
Article 34 shows that in any of the following circumstances, the responsible units, departments, and directly responsible personnel shall be held accountable, and where the circumstances are serious, they shall be given organizational disposition and disciplinary sanctions in accordance with the relevant provisions, until criminal responsibility is pursued:
(1) Prevarication or perfunctory without reason, and should be accepted but not accepted;
(2) Failure to complete the process within the prescribed time limit without unreasonable delay;
(3) Failure to support a request for a letter that is clear in the facts and complies with the provisions of law;
(4) Dereliction of duty, twisting the law for personal gain, retaliating against the letter-in-force, or leaking relevant information to the accused or reported person.
⇥⇥⇥ Topic 2 ⇤⇤⇤⇤
▶▶▶ After the publication of the article entitled "If you submit a complaint, accusation, or report to the procuratorate by letter, you must give a written reply", netizen "Lao A" said in the comment area: The procuratorate did reply to the appeal matters he raised, and it was a written reply.
Netizen "Lao A" asked: How should he respond to the procuratorate's conclusion?
⇥⇥⇥ Answer to topic 2 ⇤⇤⇤
▶▶▶ The questions raised by netizen "Lao A" in the comment area are very complex and even a little sensitive. This problem is a problem faced by many parties, and it is indeed very brain-burning.
Once a case enters the procuratorate's supervision procedure, the people's procuratorates at all levels will review the case in accordance with different "Supervision Rules" and make a supervision decision.
This raises a new question: how should the parties deal with the supervision decisions made by the procuratorates if they are not satisfied with them, or if they find that there are obvious errors in the supervision decisions made by the people's procuratorates?
First, taking civil litigation supervision as an example, if a party believes that the people's procuratorate's decision not to support the application for supervision made by the people's court at the same level is obviously in error in the decision not to support the application for supervision, it may apply to the people's procuratorate at the level above for a review within one year from the date of the decision not to support the application for supervision.
Legal and regulatory basis:
Article 126 of the "People's Procuratorate Rules for the Supervision of Civil Litigation" shows that if a party believes that there is a clear error in the people's procuratorate's decision not to support the application for supervision made by the people's procuratorate on a civil judgment, ruling, or mediation document of the people's court at the same level that has already taken legal effect, it may apply to the people's procuratorate at the level above for a review within one year from the date on which the decision not to support the application for supervision is made. Where, upon preliminary review, the department responsible for the prosecution of accusations and appeals discovers that there might be any of the following circumstances, it may transfer it to the department responsible for civil prosecution of that procuratorate for review and handling:
(1) There is new evidence sufficient to overturn the original judgment or ruling;
(2) There is evidence showing that the primary evidence of the facts ascertained in the original judgment or ruling was fabricated;
(3) The legal documents on which the original judgment or ruling was based have been revoked or modified;
(4) There is evidence showing that adjudicators engaged in acts such as corruption and bribery, twisting the law for personal gain, or perverting the law when trying the case;
(5) There is evidence showing that procurators engaged in acts such as embezzlement and bribery, twisting the law for personal gain, or abusing their authority when handling the case;
(6) Other situations where it is truly necessary to conduct a review.
Secondly, taking criminal proceedings and administrative litigation as examples, according to the relevant contents of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the People's Procuratorate and the Rules for the Supervision of Administrative Litigation of the People's Procuratorate, there is no provision that if a party is dissatisfied with the supervision decision made by the People's Procuratorate, he may apply for a review once.
In other words, the people's procuratorate supervises criminal litigation and administrative litigation only once.
This raises two new questions:
In the supervision of civil litigation cases, if the parties apply to the higher people's procuratorate for a review, they are still dissatisfied with the review decision of the higher people's procuratorate, how should they respond?
In the supervision of administrative litigation and criminal litigation, if the parties are dissatisfied with the supervision decisions made by the people's procuratorate, how should they respond?
The answer is very simple, the parties have the right to choose to continue to file a complaint with the people's procuratorate at the next higher level, on the following basis:
Legal and regulatory basis:
Article 24(1) of the Organic Law of the People's Procuratorate stipulates that if a higher-level People's Procuratorate finds that a lower-level People's Procuratorate's decision is wrong, it shall order the lower-level People's Procuratorate to correct it, or revoke or modify it in accordance with law.
Article 7 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the People's Procuratorate shows that in criminal proceedings, a higher level People's Procuratorate has the right to revoke or modify a decision made by a lower level People's Procuratorate; Where a lower level people's procuratorate discovers that there is an error in a case handled, it has the right to order the lower level people's procuratorate to make corrections.
Article 8 of the Rules for the Supervision of Civil Litigation of the People's Procuratorate shows that if a higher level People's Procuratorate finds that a lower level People's Procuratorate's decision is wrong, it has the right to order the lower level People's Procuratorate to correct it, or to revoke or modify it in accordance with law. The decision of the higher-level people's procuratorate shall be made in writing, and the lower-level people's procuratorate shall implement it. Where a lower level People's Procuratorate has a different opinion on a decision of a higher level People's Procuratorate, it may report to the higher level People's Procuratorate at the same time as it is enforced.
Article 10 of the Rules for the Supervision of Administrative Litigation of the People's Procuratorate shows that if a higher-level People's Procuratorate finds that a lower-level People's Procuratorate's decision is wrong, it has the right to order the lower-level People's Procuratorate to correct it, or to revoke or modify it in accordance with law. The decision of the higher-level people's procuratorate shall be made in writing, and the lower-level people's procuratorate shall implement it. Where a lower level People's Procuratorate has a different opinion on a decision of a higher level People's Procuratorate, it may report to the higher level People's Procuratorate at the same time as it is enforced.
The appeal at this stage is very complicated, because it has reached the end of the case review stage. If a higher-level people's procuratorate discovers that a lower-level people's procuratorate has indeed made a mistake, it will correct it in accordance with law. If, after review, it is found that the lower level people's procuratorate has no error, the higher level people's procuratorate has the right to terminate the case in accordance with the law, and the case cannot be left in an infinite loop. After all, judicial resources are not unlimited, and the supervision procedures of the people's procuratorates cannot be unlimited.
However, according to many cases, the mentality of the parties is that "no matter what level of judicial authority you make, as long as I am not satisfied, I will appeal to the end".
The fundamental reason for this situation is that the parties are not "convinced", or even let the parties find mistakes, which in turn leads to many parties being "justified".
Therefore, in order to completely and thoroughly solve the problem, the people's procuratorate at a higher level is required to be very cautious about the conclusion of the case. We must think about the problem from the perspective of the parties, and before making a decision to terminate the case, we must make an appointment with the parties and listen carefully to the opinions of the parties. The case cannot be closed on the basis of a report from a lower-level people's procuratorate, on the basis of just a few files, without the presence of a few people in the presence of the parties.
Once the mistake is ended, it will also be held accountable in accordance with the law, and even for life.
⇥⇥⇥ Conclusion ⇤⇤⇤
The conclusion of the case should be the result of a heated debate, with both sides based on the facts and the law as the criterion. Whoever wins will listen to whomever it is, and the final decision is the end? Or is it corrected?
A few words, a few people, and a piece of paper cannot determine the outcome of a case, and some cases may determine the life of a person or a family.
Note: In order to protect the privacy of netizens and ensure that this article does not have any pertinence, the "younger brother of netizen Li Silai" and "netizen Lao A" mentioned in this article are fictitious, and any similarities are purely coincidental.