The account that was certified as the “Sister Diao Aihua of the Nanda Diao Aiqing case” @ know how grateful Changhuai grateful sent an article stating that for various reasons, we decided to withdraw the lawsuit. As the family members of the victims of the Nanda corpse case, we have not waited for any response from Nanjing University.
Keywords: the sending of the complaint and the submission of the defense; the right of the victim’s family to know. Let me just say that the court did not decide whether to open the case, and the plaintiff did not need to regret that the defendant did not respond to his indictment. According to the procedure stipulated by the Civil Procedure Law, after the court decides to open the case, a copy of the bill of complaint will be sent to the defendant within five days, and the defendant will file a statement of defense within 15 days from the date of receipt. If the plaintiff feels “regret” that the defendant has not submitted a formal reply on the content of the complaint, I think it is unnecessary. Since we choose to go through litigation, we must consider legal procedures. According to the family’s Weibo statement, the current litigation process is still in the process of filing the case, and the court has not decided whether to open the case. The defendant may not receive a copy of the complaint served by the court at all, so how can it provide a formal response? However, in the Internet age, even if the defendant has not received the complaint, he must be aware of the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. Under this circumstance, what kind of response strategy the defendant should adopt and whether he should respond in the field of public opinion is a question of different opinions, and I do not want to discuss it here. When the news of the prosecution came out before, everyone was discussing what the family’s motive was for the prosecution after so many years. Judging from the Weibo sent by the family members after the withdrawal of the lawsuit, there are two main motives: First, the defendant is required to inform the family members of the victim’s experience at school before the incident. Second, urge the relevant departments to detect the case as soon as possible. Can these two motives be achieved through prosecution? In fact, everyone knows that litigation itself cannot solve these problems and fulfill these demands. Although the family members want to contribute to the investigation of the case, all they can do is to make the case not be forgotten through the power of public opinion. I believe that the relevant parties also hope that the case will be cleared up early. On this issue, the wishes of the police and the family members are the same. As for the family members wanting to know more details of the case, this is also human nature and should be fully understood. However, the case is still in the investigative stage, and whether the collected evidence materials are suitable for disclosure to family members is a question that must be considered. Nowadays, what is the scope of the “right to know the victim’s family” that many people often refer to? Does protecting its right to know means to inform the details of the case? The criminal procedure law stipulates that the victim and his family members’ right to know, or stated as “notifying the family members (and of course notifying the victim)”, mainly includes: the public security agency decides to dissect corpses of unknown cause and notify the family members to be present; the procuratorate accepts After the materials for review and prosecution are transferred, inform the victim, agent, and close relatives that they can appoint an agent ad litem; if there is a victim, decide not to prosecute and inform the victim; the investigative agency will inform the suspect and the defendant of the expert opinion used as evidence… …and so on. It can be seen that most of the right to know is in the procedural sense, and most of them are in the review and prosecution stage. The right to know during the investigation stage is mainly in the autopsy of the cause of death and expert opinions, and does not involve all the details of the case. Another analogy can be the lawyer’s scoring regulations. Article 40 of the Criminal Procedure Law states clearly that lawyers can only consult the case files until the day when the procuratorate examines and prosecutes the case. In other words, if the case is still in the investigative stage, the evidence collected by the investigative agency at this stage is not suitable for the parties to review. Regardless of the legal provisions, the current network communication channels are so developed, once the evidence flows out, what impact will it have on the detection of the case? No one can predict. Therefore, we should fully understand the feelings of family members who want to know the details of the case, but whether and to what extent the investigation details of the case can be made public must comply with the provisions of the law. If the majority of friends have questions, they should return to the criminal procedure law to find answers.