In practice, in addition to the inherent repetitiveness of the statements themselves, there may also be situations in which, during the course of coercive measures or evidence collection, sustained and intense psychological pressure is continuously exerted on the suspect or defendant (even if, at certain times, no torture or coercive interrogation techniques were employed or the pressure did not reach the level of torture or coercive interrogation), thereby severely restricting the individual’s freedom of will and compelling them to make statements against their true intentions. In such cases, the relevant statements should also be regarded as “substantially illegal” and excluded.

In the aforementioned “organized crime” case in Liaoning Province, most of the statements made by the defendant—whom I represented—during the period when he was placed under residential surveillance at a designated location were excluded. However, one statement was not excluded. Although no illegal practices such as beatings, unlawful use of restraints, or exhaustive interrogations—practices that had already led to the exclusion of other statements—occurred during the preparation of this particular statement, it was nonetheless prepared during the same time frame as the other excluded statements. Moreover, the interrogators involved in this statement were exactly the same as those who had prepared the previously excluded statements, and these same interrogators produced statements almost daily within a very short interval. All statements prepared before and after this particular statement had already been excluded, and the simultaneous audio-visual recording of the interrogation clearly showed that the interrogators had subjected the defendant to verbal threats while preparing the statement.

The author argues that, in fact, although the defendant did not suffer direct torture or coercive interrogation during the preparation of this statement, he was still compelled to make a confession against his own will precisely because of the severe fear that had been instilled—and persistently maintained—in him by the same interrogators who had previously subjected him to torture and coercive interrogation. Although the defendant’s statement was not simply “maintaining his original confession” but rather “making a new confession,” both were made in violation of his true intentions due to the psychological coercion that had already taken root and continued to exert its influence. Therefore, such statements should also be regarded as substantive illegal evidence and excluded from consideration.

 

The exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is a necessary safeguard for citizens’ fundamental rights—including their personal freedom, human dignity, right to privacy, and property rights—as well as for their moral and emotional well-being. It protects citizens from unlawful infringement by state authorities. By rejecting the “improper outcomes” (illegally obtained evidence) resulting from unlawful acts, we raise the cost of violating the law, thereby ensuring that evidentiary practices in criminal proceedings comply with legal procedures.

The core of the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence lies in determining whether such evidence is admissible—rather than verifying its specific content. Therefore, while the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence may sometimes hinder the discovery of the true facts in individual cases, its fundamental goal is to enhance the overall reliability of evidence and the legitimacy of the fact-finding process by standardizing evidentiary practices. In doing so, it better facilitates the more accurate determination of the facts in a case from a macroscopic perspective and within the context of historical development.

In China’s judicial tradition, the pursuit of substantive justice has deep historical roots. The exclusion of illegally obtained evidence often faces pressure from the goal of achieving “neither letting the guilty go free nor punishing the innocent.” Therefore, it remains crucial to more effectively instill among judicial personnel the principle of realizing substantive justice through due process.

In particular, the criteria—such as “causing the suspect or defendant to suffer unbearable pain against their will”—as stated in confessions, and the standard that physical and documentary evidence “may seriously undermine judicial fairness”—bestow considerable discretionary power on judicial personnel, leading to inconsistent application in practice. There is a need for more refined guidelines and guidance from exemplary cases. Moreover, issues such as the difficulty for the defense to present evidence, the formalistic nature of proof presented by the prosecution, inadequate implementation of the audio- and video-recording system, and low attendance rates of investigators in court all constrain the effective practical application of the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence.