We often say that no matter what happens, there must be evidence. In the process of hearing criminal cases in our country, evidence plays a dominant role. Often only the evidence provided can help the court to find out the truth of the facts as soon as possible and give the criminal suspects due sanctions. What are the rules for correcting defective evidence? I will answer them one by one for you below. I hope it will be helpful to you.

1. Rules for correction of defective evidence The two "Evidence Regulations" stipulate two ways to cure defective evidence, namely correction and reasonable explanation, but there is no clear method for correction. I think , the flaws in the evidence can be corrected through the following methods: (1) Obtaining the subsequent approval of the criminal suspect or defendant. The principle of subsequent ratification by a criminal suspect or defendant is similar to the "victim's commitment" in criminal law, that is, the illegal evidence collection behavior of the investigative agency has gained legitimacy due to the consent of the criminal suspect or defendant. Flaws in the evidence often mean that the rights of the criminal suspect or defendant have been damaged to a certain extent during the evidence collection process. However, if the criminal suspect or defendant does not mind the damage to his or her rights, but instead acknowledges it through subsequent ratification or other methods. If the evidence is valid, the defective evidence can be "regenerated" accordingly. The method of "criminal suspect or defendant's approval" is generally applicable to certain procedural links in which the criminal suspect or defendant participates. For example, in the case of "the first interrogation transcript does not record the contents of the litigation rights of the interrogated person", if the defendant is obtained The interrogator's approval clearly indicates that the investigators have completed their reporting obligations through different methods during the interrogation, and the defective evidence can be corrected. (2) Correct errors. The so-called "correction of errors" mainly applies to situations where important content is omitted in the transcript or the signature of the relevant person is omitted. For example, the interrogator does not have a signature, the interrogation time filled in the transcript is incorrect, etc. The error must be corrected through certain methods. Case handlers try to make up for the original procedural flaws by making necessary modifications, additions or deletions to the evidence transcripts. (3) Re-implement the investigation and re-make the records. It is mainly applicable to situations where there are major errors in evidence records or obvious flaws in investigation activities. There are major errors in the evidence transcripts, which mainly means that the errors in the transcripts cannot be made up by formal means such as modification. For example, the investigators did not record the rights and obligations of the person being interrogated in the interrogation transcripts. This procedural flaw may affect the interrogation process. The voluntariness and authenticity of the interrogator's confession cannot be corrected by the investigators modifying the transcript at this time, but the interrogation should be re-interrogated and the transcript should be re-produced. Obvious flaws in the investigation activities cannot be remedied through corrections in the form of transcripts. If the number of investigators identified by the organization is less than two, the flaws should be corrected by reorganizing the identification. (4) Make reasonable explanations or explanations. Providing reasonable explanations or explanations means that the case handlers make written or oral "reasonable explanations" when they are unable to correct the flaws in the evidence. There are two main situations. One is to provide necessary explanations for the corrections that have been made; The second is to explain the defective evidence that cannot be corrected and supplemented, mainly to explain the situation of the defective evidence that cannot be corrected due to the passage of time. Relative to correction, reasonable explanation is an easier method, and the investigating agency or prosecutorial agency will definitely be willing to give priority to reasonable explanation. Therefore, necessary restrictions should be placed on reasonable explanations. When corrections can be made, reasonable explanations should not be made "for convenience". If the interrogation transcript omits to record the link of informing the witness of the relevant legal liability, under normal circumstances, the defendant should be re-interrogated. Only when the witness has died, left the country, or has other force majeure unexpected circumstances and cannot re-interview, can the method of correction using reasonable explanations be allowed. In addition, when making a reasonable explanation, you cannot simply give an oral or written explanation, but should submit relevant evidence to support it, such as providing audio and video recordings or investigators appearing in court to accept questioning.

2. What do the three properties of evidence refer to? The three properties of evidence refer to the three characteristics of legality, objectivity and relevance of evidence. (1) Legality of evidence, focusing on form, mainly solving the problem of evidence qualification, that is, ability to prove; (2) Authenticity of evidence, that is, the facts or content expressed in the evidence are real, not conjecture or fiction; (3) Relevance of evidence means that the evidence must be closely related to the facts to be proved and have the attributes to prove the facts to be proved.

3. Several provisions of the rules of evidence (1) Evidence includes: 1. Statements of the parties; 2. Documentary evidence; 3. Physical evidence; 4. Audio-visual materials; 5. Electronic data; 6. Witness testimony; 7 , appraisal opinions; 8. Inspection records. (2) Burden of proof and discovery of authority: The parties concerned have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims. The People's Court shall investigate and collect evidence that the parties and their agents ad litem cannot collect on their own due to objective reasons, or that the People's Court deems necessary to hear the case. The People's Court shall comprehensively and objectively examine and verify evidence in accordance with legal procedures. (3) Time limit for producing evidence The parties concerned shall provide evidence in a timely manner for their claims. The people's court shall determine the evidence that the parties should provide and the time limit based on the claims of the parties and the trial status of the case. If a party has difficulty in providing evidence within the time limit, it may apply to the People's Court for an extension of the time limit, and the People's Court will extend the time limit appropriately based on the party's application. If a party fails to provide evidence within the time limit, the people's court shall order it to explain the reasons; if it refuses to explain the reasons or the reasons are unfounded, the people's court may not accept the evidence according to different circumstances, or may accept the evidence but impose a reprimand or fine.