The majority of cases transferred to the procuratorate for review and prosecution after the investigation by the supervisory committee will go through a period of detention and arrest decision, with a maximum of 14 days available. Whether to meet and review papers during this period varies among procuratorial organs in different regions. Some can be reviewed and interviewed after being transferred by the supervisory committee, some are allowed to interview but not reviewed, and some must wait until the arrest is executed before being allowed. Why there are differences in different regions? Currently, there is no authoritative official statement, and each region fully adheres to its own understanding of the Criminal Procedure Law and the Supervision Law.

Article 70 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that: "With respect to a case that has been transferred for prosecution by a supervisory organ and for which retention measures have been taken, the People's Procuratorate shall first detain the suspect, and the retention measures shall be automatically lifted. The People's Procuratorate shall make a decision on whether to arrest, obtain a guarantor pending trial or place under residential surveillance within 10 days after the detention. Under special circumstances, the time limit for the decision may be extended by one to four days. The period during which the People's Procuratorate decides to take compulsory measures shall not be included in the period of review and prosecution Limit This regulation is the main basis for connecting the work procedures of the supervisory committee and the procuratorate. The root cause of ambiguity is the statement that "the period during which the People's Procuratorate decides to take compulsory measures is not included in the examination and prosecution period". Some procuratorates believe that since these more than ten days are not included in the examination and prosecution period, it indicates that it does not belong to the examination and prosecution period. According to the principle of being transferred for examination and prosecution according to the law, the examination papers cannot be marked naturally. However, some other procuratorates believe that after the investigation by the supervisory committee is completed and transferred to the procuratorate, it enters the stage of examination and prosecution. These more than ten days are not included in the period of examination and prosecution, only to ensure that the prosecutor's examination and prosecution time is not excessively delayed, and does not mean that this period does not belong to the stage of examination and prosecution.

The author agrees with the second opinion that both the interpretation of legal provisions, the principle of comprehensive review based on review and arrest, and the need to protect the defense rights of suspects and defenders should allow defenders to meet and review papers during detention.

1、 The legal nature of the detention period belongs to the stage of review and prosecution

Multiple provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and the Supervision Law indicate that after the investigation by the Supervision Commission, the case is transferred to the Procuratorate for "examination and prosecution". According to the purpose of the transfer by the supervisory committee and the functional attributes of the procuratorate, the case enters the stage of examination and prosecution from the moment the procuratorate receives the case. The period during which the People's Procuratorate decides to take compulsory measures shall not be included in the period for examination and prosecution. The legislative purpose of this sentence is to ensure that prosecutors have sufficient time limits for handling cases. If the detention period is included in the one month review period of the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor will lose nearly half of the case handling time, which will inevitably result in time constraints and the inability to complete the work with quality and quantity guaranteed. The detention period is not included in the review and prosecution period, which does not mean it does not belong to the review and prosecution stage. These are two issues that should not be confused. The author believes that precisely because the detention period belongs to the stage of examination and prosecution, the legal provisions should specifically state that it is not included in the period of examination and prosecution, otherwise this provision does not need to be made. For example, we all know that the period of psychiatric identification for suspect is not included in the case handling period, which is also to prevent excessive delay during the case handling period, but it cannot be said that the identification period is not the investigation stage. For example, if a case is suspended during the trial stage, the suspension period will not be counted within the case handling period, but it cannot be said that this period does not belong to the trial stage. In addition, if there are refunds or supplements during the review and prosecution stage, the review and prosecution period will also be recalculated after re reporting. The time for refund and compensation cannot be included in the review and prosecution period, but the case is still in the review and prosecution stage, rather than the investigation or trial stage. If a lawyer goes to the prosecutor's office to review the case during the refund period, will the prosecutor's office refuse to accept the case as in the investigation stage? Of course not! So although the detention period before arrest is not included in the review and prosecution period, its legal nature still belongs to the review and prosecution stage.

2、 The effective participation of the defense is a necessary guarantee for the accuracy of arrest measures

The review and arrest adhere to the principle of comprehensive review, and the participation of the defense is very necessary. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: "When the People's Procuratorate examines and approves an arrest, it may inquire with witnesses and other litigation participants, and listen to the opinions of defense lawyers. If defense lawyers make a request, they shall listen to the opinions of defense lawyers." The Criminal Procedure Rules of the People's Procuratorate stipulate: In the process of investigation, examination, arrest, and prosecution by the People's Procuratorate, if the defense requests to hear their opinions, the case handling department shall arrange in a timely manner. If the defense provides written opinions, the case handling department shall receive and register them. The law grants the defense the right to participate in the examination and arrest stage, indicating that the examination and arrest work is not an independent closed door work completed by the procuratorate itself, but requires the opposing opinions of the defense, and hearing them simultaneously is clear. During the detention period, if one cannot meet and review the documents, how can the defender provide valuable opinions? Everything has multifaceted aspects, and only by understanding and analyzing from multiple perspectives can we draw relatively accurate conclusions. Without the opposing opinions of the defense, the prosecutor can only rely entirely on the evidence materials of the investigation agency, inevitably falling into its constructed logic and facts, making it difficult to detect problems, and thus unable to conduct a comprehensive review and impartiality.

The investigation or investigation agency has the function of cracking down on crimes, and therefore has a strong and obvious prosecution purpose and motivation, which runs through the entire process of handling cases. If there is no restriction from legal supervision agencies, it will lead to many illegal evidence collection incidents. Therefore, in addition to deciding whether to take compulsory measures, the review of arrests also requires supervision of whether the investigation activities are illegal. Before the integration of arrest and prosecution, the name of the examination and arrest department was the Investigation and Supervision Department. To achieve supervision, the procuratorate must carefully listen to the opinions of the defense and discover illegal clues and evidence. If only relying on the case files of the investigation organs, the procuratorate cannot achieve its supervisory function. Especially based on special circumstances that have never been met during the investigation of duty crimes, defense lawyers should be allowed to meet and review papers after being transferred to the procuratorate, and submit legal opinions during the review and arrest process.

3、 Allowing interviews and examination papers during detention is necessary to safeguard the right to defense

Arrest is the strictest coercive measure and relates to the personal rights of suspects. Moreover, arrest is not only a coercive measure, but also has significant implications for subsequent sentencing. Generally speaking, the probability of a suspect on bail awaiting trial being sentenced to probation is high, and vice versa. After implementing the integration of arrest and prosecution, the standards for prosecutors to review arrest and prosecution basically overlap, and the views of prosecutors will be consistent in both stages. If a legal opinion cannot be submitted during the review and arrest period, it will be difficult for the defense counsel to influence the prosecutor's perception after the prosecutor takes the lead. In addition, according to the current assessment standards of the procuratorial organs, obtaining bail or being sentenced to probation after arrest is considered a deduction item. If there are no new circumstances, it will be even more difficult to obtain bail. Therefore, it is of great significance for the defense counsel to express legal opinions during the review and arrest period to fight for the suspect not to be arrested. However, if the defender does not meet and review the papers, it is obviously impossible to provide valuable legal opinions, and it is also difficult to achieve good defense results. Therefore, timely meeting and reviewing the case with the defender during detention is a necessary prerequisite for safeguarding the defender's right to defense.

Some people say that during the examination and arrest period of public security organs handling cases, lawyers are also unable to mark the papers, so it is normal for duty crime cases to not mark the papers during the examination and arrest period. But these two are completely incomparable. The handling of cases by public security organs involves reporting arrests during the investigation phase, and the confidential nature of the investigation work determines that lawyers cannot review papers. In the case of duty crimes, the decision to take arrest measures was only made after the investigation was completed and transferred for review and prosecution. At this time, the investigation work has ended, and all evidence has been fixed, without any confidentiality issues. Moreover, suspects in cases investigated by public security organs can meet with their defenders from the moment they are detained. Through the meeting, they can understand the case and submit targeted legal opinions, effectively exercising their right to defense. But the case investigated by the supervisory committee cannot meet the suspect and has no knowledge of the case. If the case is transferred to the procuratorate and cannot be reviewed, defense work cannot be carried out.

In summary, allowing interviews and examination papers during detention for duty crimes is a legal requirement, and it is also necessary for the procuratorate to handle cases fairly and safeguard the right to defense. So, why don't some procuratorates allow defenders to review and meet during detention? This mainly depends on the mentality of the prosecutor's office. If the prosecutor's office believes that the defender's opinion is causing trouble or adding trouble, it will naturally do everything possible to obstruct it; If we believe that the different opinions of the defense counsel are an effective way to ensure that the procuratorate hears both clearly and correctly in handling cases, of course, we should open the door and listen to different voices.