【正文】 it must look beyond matters of ?law?, ?order? and ?criminality? to consider the historically and culturally specific conditions under which violence is produced. Thus, Harawira?s concern was not merely with what was in the report, but with what its approach toward violence passes over and leaves unaddressed: systematised, institutionalised racism i。 Traditionally the judgment is publicized through posting a bulletin at the door of the court or public places, or publishing part of the content in the press, or publishing the collection of cases on the yearly basis. All three ways are used in China. However, there are limitations imposed by these types of posting in the time and place when publishing the judgment of death penalty. By posting bulletins, as only limited number of people can access the bulletins, hence the influence of publishing the judgment is limited. Reporting on death penalty cases in the press is not a formal way of publicity, which normally selectively publishes some cases from the angle of news reporting and does not include the plete judgment。 Attend the Hearing of Death Penalty Cases The most prominent manifestation of public hearings is to allow the public to visit the court of hearing. There are some constraints in attending court trials in China. For example, the capacity of the court room is generally limited and it may be not large enough for the people to sit in on hearings of death penalty cases. As a result, some can not attend court hearings, which affects the effect of public hearings. and (5) to announce, three days before the opening of the session, the subject matter of the case to be heard in public, the name of the accused and the time and place of the court session.” (3) to notify the procuratorate of the time and place of the court session three days before the opening of the session。 Make Preparations for the Public Hearing of Death Penalty Cases Article 151 of China?s Criminal Law provides that when a court has decided to open a court session, it shall proceed with the following work: “(1) To determine the members of the collegial panel。 allow the public to know the execution of specific cases and the overall situation of the state?s death penalty policy。 The execution of death penalty cases shall also be made known to the public to protect the public?s right to know. The publishing of the judgment and execution of death penalty cases。 people can only put forward their opinions after knowing about the truth, and then can the government know the true will of the people. There is an obvious inconsistency when a state invokes the public opinions on one hand。 Currently some countries in the world do not publish the relevant data on death penalty. For example, in Japan the public is not provided with the information on individual executions, but detailed aggregated statistics are provided. The UN Economic and Social Council has requested that the SecretaryGeneral survey member states on their use of capital punishment at fiveyear intervals since 1973,7 but the response rate has been very low. In a survey on 62 countries that retain the death penalty, 87% did not respond at all, and only 4 countries reported on the offences upon which the death penalty may be imposed and on the total number of In death penalty cases the accused, his relatives and friends, and the general public pay more attention to the trial, hence the information disclosed shall be more detailed, including the basic information of the death row prisoner, the details of the case, and the grounds and reasons for the judgment. Except for individual cases, the total number, the mutation and the execution of death penalty cases of the nation and each local area shall be disclosed so that the public can understand state death penalty policy and various reasons for the fair management of cases. with some exceptions prescribed by laws and regulations such as court deliberation, anyone that wishes to attend the hearing shall not be rejected。 and second, sufficient convenience shall be provided for the public to attend the hearing。 附件 2：外文原文 一 Study of Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases Abstract: The death penalty is involved in the most severe criminal offenses. Holding public hearing in these cases seems to be the best way to guarantee judicial fairness. A public hearing in death penalty cases is of important significance in safeguarding judicial fairness and protecting human rights, which has attracted a high level of attention domestically and internationally. This paper interprets the requirements of the United Nations? related agencies for the public hearing of death penalty cases, defines the nature of public hearing in the aspects of rights and obligations, analyzes the special nature of the requirements for the public hearing of death penalty cases, introduces some practices and issues of the public hearing of death penalty cases in foreign countries, analyzes China?s present practice of the pubic hearing of death penalty cases and puts forward some suggestions and channels to realize it. Key words: Death penalty cases, public hearing, international standard, China?s practice 這一法律之間的使用和法律已在當(dāng)前系統(tǒng)運(yùn)行方式的重要的區(qū)別是，相信判決永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)是最終的或普遍的，但總是局部的，個(gè)別的和不完整的。然而，在努力這樣做，特別是當(dāng)遇到挫折或挑戰(zhàn)時(shí)，它必須小心地不可過度反應(yīng)或激烈。過去的人物用這種方式來思考法律，沒有返回到野蠻，而是天真地被壓迫和迫害。如果被認(rèn)為是行使或應(yīng)用過度或不公平的，是因?yàn)榉墒チ怂暮戏ㄐ?。行為威脅到現(xiàn)存系統(tǒng)。留下一個(gè)死人和一個(gè)自由的人“通過這樣來呼吁另外一套秩序，他們通過使賦予法律權(quán)威的鎮(zhèn)壓和排外透明化，讓這些 39。暴力 39。而家譜，只要他們通過“恢復(fù)當(dāng)?shù)氐闹R(shí)”來尋求反抗單一的和絕對(duì)的話語。通過對(duì)一個(gè)類似的不公正現(xiàn)象喚起歷史上不公正的排斥，這種行為可以被認(rèn)為既是考古，又是家譜。如果像?？轮赋?，“政治權(quán)力是通過潛作戰(zhàn)的形式永遠(yuǎn)重復(fù)地記載不平衡 。這個(gè)概念的犯罪動(dòng)機(jī)。因?yàn)榉ü賯冏约呵宄?，這里的威脅與其說是作為一個(gè)犯罪組織，不如說是反對(duì) 39。 6. 暴力威脅 至于“哈卡黨”的案例，它不能簡(jiǎn)單地認(rèn)為是毛利人威脅了法律的權(quán)威，而是它并沒有包含規(guī)則，邊緣和自身違反的束縛。 對(duì)取消抵押品贖回權(quán)的操作中引用的默認(rèn)實(shí)例中，我們要問：什么是為了繼續(xù)行使他們的權(quán)力而必須對(duì)當(dāng)代政權(quán)的言論保持沉默的？如何在“主體”之前通過其他可能的闡明，在法律范圍 內(nèi)排除網(wǎng)站產(chǎn)生的法律？在某種程度