【正文】 orms to the national conditions, including the will of the It is of course a point of consideration whether the public are in favor of or want to retain death penalty or not. Before considering the will of the people, we should give the people information on death penalty. If the data of death penalty is not made known to the people, how can the necessity of death penalty be implemented based on it being the will of the people? Only by publishing the data of death penalty can the public possibly have the right understanding of death penalty。 As for judgment, unless otherwise specified by law, judgment of any criminal cases shall be made public. It is the right of the accused to receive document of judgment, the accused can not waive or reject the state judicial organ’s pronouncement of the result of the case to the public. If the accused does not agree with the judgment, he can appeal or plain, but he can not stop the state judicial organ from making the judgment public. Public judgments not only safeguard the right of the accused to the judgment, but also reflect the fairness of the state judicature and fulfill the society’s right to know about the situation of the case. For this reason, the state’s responsibility of making judgments public can not be released because the accused gives up the right. The Special Nature of Public Hearing of Death Penalty Cases Death penalty cases are different from ordinary criminal cases, because the life of the accused is involved. In some western countries, the accused of ordinary criminal cases can waive the right to trial. While in death penalty cases, even if the accused expresses his will to plea guilty, the public trial can not be exempted. all the trial activities, especially the process of examining witnesses and examining evidence shall be made public and allow access for people to attend. any individuals shall be allowed to visit the court on the hearing and journalists shall be allowed to report the hearing. Participation in the public trial shall not be limited to certain types of people。 The hearing of death penalty cases shall strictly follow the international standards of criminal justice, especially relevant UN provisions regarding the public hearing. The public hearing includes public trial and public judgment, each of which consists of several aspects. The author intends to share some understandings of issues relating public trial and public judgment of death penalty cases in relation to the relevant UN documents. 1 Meanings and Requirements of Public Hearing Rationale of Public Hearing in the Aspects of Rights and Obligations. The public hearing consists of a public trial and a public judgment. The public trial refers to a series of activities in court, . examining the witnesses, processing the facts of the case, and admission of the evidence in the presence of the interested parties and other participants. The core of the public trial is the conducting of trial activities, which are prised of presenting public prosecution bill and defense statement, questioning witnesses, verifying evidence and making last statement in courts. There are two requirements for the public trial in form: First, information shall be made public in advance including the name of the case, the criminal offense charged, the identity of the accused, the time and place of the court trial and the position of the court members。公正公開的的審判不僅有益于整個(gè)刑事訴訟程序，中國法律體制建設(shè)，也有益于維護(hù)中國憲法的人權(quán)、國際人權(quán)要求及刑事司法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。如果國內(nèi)立法和有關(guān)聽證的司法判例與國際人權(quán)法律、刑事公正不符，或者與死刑公眾聽證制不一致，相關(guān)國家應(yīng)當(dāng)采取措施來改善國內(nèi)立法和判例。 3，結(jié)論 各國應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)不同的國情來做不同的決定。只有這樣，雙方的權(quán)利，尤其是被告方的辯護(hù)權(quán)，才能得到保障，被告方才能在最后階段行使辯護(hù)權(quán)。因此，在最高院收回死刑復(fù)核權(quán)后，應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)法律進(jìn)一步完善死刑復(fù)核程序公眾聽證制問題的研究。 根據(jù)中國現(xiàn)行刑事訴訟法，死刑復(fù)核程序在第三編，審判里。在回收死刑復(fù)核權(quán)之后，最高院發(fā)布文件統(tǒng)一死刑復(fù)核程序。 ，死刑復(fù)核 的透明度 從 2020 年 1 月開始，死刑復(fù)核的權(quán)力被回收到中國人民最高法院，結(jié)束了26 年國家對(duì)死刑復(fù)核權(quán)的部分放權(quán)。而中國的二審更廣泛地回顧案件事實(shí)和法律，并沒有局限于上訴或抗訴所提出的問題。 ，公開死刑案二審的聽證 中國法庭二審與外國的二審有基本區(qū)別。在新聞上發(fā)表死刑案并不是一種正式的公開方式，因?yàn)檫@通常是從新聞的角度選擇性的發(fā)表一 些案子，而且是節(jié)選部分宣判；在中國，對(duì)于案子的編輯并非是系統(tǒng)化的，沒有固定結(jié)構(gòu)，并不能完整地反映死刑案。然而，這種對(duì)死刑的公開方式是有限制的。 傳統(tǒng)上而言，宣判會(huì)以在法院門口或公共場所貼公告，或?qū)⒉糠謨?nèi)容發(fā)表在新聞中，或者將所有案子做成冊子發(fā)表年鑒。由于能夠參加和報(bào)道公眾聽 證，人們就知道庭審是否是公正的。所以，庭審記錄的公開取決于判斷，志向那些有需要的人員公開。并非每個(gè)社會(huì)成員都需要閱讀個(gè)案完整的法庭記錄。 ，公開法庭記錄和其他文件 畢竟，只 有少數(shù)人能夠參加庭審，由于有些人還不能夠準(zhǔn)時(shí)到達(dá)法庭等原因，參加旁聽的人甚至什么都聽不到或者理解不了。在中國參加庭審是有限制的。對(duì)于被告人未委托辯護(hù)人的，告知被告人可以委托辯護(hù)人，或者在必要的時(shí)候指定承擔(dān)