【正文】 The improvement of the public hearing of death penalty cases is necessary for the fair and public trial. A fair and public trial is conducive to the improvement of the overall criminal procedure system, to the further improvement of China’s legal system construction, to the implementation of provisions on safeguarding human rights in China’s constitution, and to the implementation of the international human rights and criminal justice standard. 。 According to the structure of China’s present Criminal Procedural Law, the review process of the death penalty is under “Part 3－ Trial”. This implies that the law makers consider that the review process of the death penalty as a stage of the trial process. For this reason, after the Supreme Court took back the review and approval power of the death penalty, it shall further improve China’s review process of the Study of Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases death penalty according to the law. Therefore, a series of principles of public hearing requirement and method for criminal trial should be observed in the death penalty review process, and the court should allow the prosecutors and defense lawyers participate the process. Thus, both parties’ procedural rights, especially that of the accused, can guarantee and the defendants may exercise the right to defense at the final stage of criminal procedure. Changing the administrative nature of China’s death penalty review process, according to the standards of due process, would improve every stage of the death penalty case. 3 Conclusions Various countries in the world have different opinions and practices with regards to retaining or abolishing death penalty. At present various countries shall make their own decisions according to their own situations. In the countries where death penalty is retained, death penalty cases shall be handled according to the principle of public hearing, established by international laws and domestic laws. If the domestic legislation and judicial practice of public hearings do not conform to the criteria of international human rights law and criminal justice or are not patible to the public hearings of death penalty cases, relevant countries shall take measures to reform domestic legislation and practice. Transparency of the Review of Death Penalty Cases Starting from January 1, 2020, the review and approval power of death penalty has been taken back by the Supreme Court of China. This puts an end to the history of 26 years of partial delegation of the power of death penalty review. The Supreme Court’s centralized exercise of the review and approval of death penalty is of significance in guaranteeing the quality of death cases handling, safeguarding human rights, deploying the policy of less and more cautious death sentencing and unifying the applicable standards for the death penalty. After taking back the review and approval power of the death penalty, the Supreme Court promulgated some documents standardizing the review process of the death penalty. These documents included Provisions of the Supreme Court on Several Issues Concerning the Review of Death Penalty Cases, which establishes the procedures of interrogating the accused, investigating and verifying evidence and adopting the opinions of the defense lawyer, and improves the review process of death penalty. Remarkable achievements have been made in the review work of the death penalty. Open Hearing of Second Instance of Death Penalty Cases There is a fundamental difference between China’s court of second instance and that of foreign countries. The court of second instance in criminal cases of foreign countries normally does not deal with factual issues of the case but its legal issues, especially whether the procedure and evidence collection is legal. China’s second instance extensively reviews the issues of facts and law of the case and is not restricted to the issues raised in the appeal or counterappeal. Consequently there is not much difference in the trial mode of the second instance paring to the trial, which can be considered as the extension of the trial, and various stipulations of public hearings applicable to the trial shall also be applicable to the appeal session (second instanc