刑事缺席审判异议权的行使限制

Restrictions on the Exercise of the Right to Object to a Trial Conducted in Absentia

摘要: 刑事缺席审判中的异议权，对于缺席被告人的程序补偿具有重要意义。由于我国现行立法及司法解释并未对异议权的适用条件作限制，异议权作为一项无条件启动的程序救济性权利，在司法实践中存在制度风险。本文旨在厘清异议权应否设置条件限制的基础上，结合2026年两高有关刑事缺席审判的司法解释最新规定，通过比较德、法等域外国家有关缺席审判中权利救济的制度经验，对我国异议权的行使边界、规则限制等进行系统分析。本文认为，异议权应从无条件转向有条件，具体路径包括：第一，在异议启动环节设置前置审查，将异议理由限定为程序错误、实体错误与客观原因三类；第二，参照法国模式，对境内与境外被告人分别设置10日与1个月的行使期限；第三，明确异议权仅能行使一次，被驳回后应转向再审程序寻求救济。

Abstract: The right to raise objections in criminal trials conducted in absentia holds significant importance for procedural compensation of defendants and the promotion of human rights protection. However, as China’s current legislation and judicial interpretations impose no restrictions on the conditions for exercising this right, it remains an unconditionally exercisable procedural remedy that carries institutional risks in judicial practice. This paper aims to clarify whether the right to object should be subject to limitations, drawing on the latest judicial interpretations issued by China’s Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate in 2026 regarding such trials, and comparing institutional experiences from countries like Germany and France in rights remedies during absentia proceedings. A systematic analysis is conducted on the scope and regulatory constraints of exercising this right in China. The study argues that the right to object should transition from unconditional to conditional exercise, with specific measures including: first, establishing a preliminary review stage at the objection initiation phase, limiting grounds for objection to three categories—procedural errors, substantive errors, and objective reasons; second, adopting the French model by setting distinct deadlines of 10 days for domestic defendants and one month for foreign defendants; third, specifying that the right to object may only be exercised once, with rejected objections requiring recourse through retrial procedures.