目 录摘 要 IAbstract II引 言 11 监察程序下律师介入问题概述 31.1 监察程序的概念 31.2 监察程序下律师介入的概念 31.3 监察程序下律师介入的研究背景和意义 42 监察程序中律师介入的必要性 62.1 律师介入是监察程序有序运行的要求 62.2 律师介入是保障公民合法权利的需要 72.3 律师介入有助于加强当前对监察委员会的外部监督 93 监察程序中律师介入的合理性 123.1 律师介入有助于尊重和保障人权 123.2 律师介入有助于贯彻程序正当原则 123.3 律师介入有助于推动加强权力制约 124 监察程序下律师介入的域外比较 144.1 普通法系中监察程序律师介入制度实践 144.2 我国台湾地区监察制度律师介入制度实践 145 当下我国监察程序下律师介入制度的不足与完善 155.1 当前我国监察程序下律师介入的不足 155.2 我国监察程序下律师介入的完善 16结 论 18参考文献 19致 谢 21 摘 要2016年11月7日，中共中央办公厅印发《关于在北京市、山西省、浙江省开展国家监察体制改革试点方案》，部署在三省市设立各级监察委员会，自此，监察制度正式拉开序幕，2018年，通过对宪法的修改和监察法的制定，一个崭新的国家机构——监察委员会正式步入人们的视野之中，也标志着我国监察制度初步建立，监察委员会，作为专司监察的专责机关，接过了分散在各个国家机关的各个部门的反腐败任务，将分散在各处的权力集于一身，有助于集中力量打击职务违法犯罪，巩固反腐败斗争压倒性胜利态势。
但是，作为职务犯罪调查机关，全新成立的监察机关目前被排除在司法流程之外，监察法规定的各项职务犯罪监察措施有意在形式上区别于侦查机关的各项措施且拒绝律师介入为被调查人提供法律帮助，将职务犯罪刑事诉讼的起点由侦查阶段推迟到审查起诉阶段，在监察委员会调查阶段，对被调查人权利的保护完全依靠被调查人自己和监察委员会的自律，由于公权力具有天然的扩张性，缺乏约束的公权力必然导致对相对人权利的损害，且二者力量的绝对差距，也助推了侵害的出现，是故律师介入为被调查人提供法律帮助成为权利保障的重要举措，本文通过将《监察法》与《刑事诉讼法》两部法律进行对比，表明律师介入调查程序中具有显著合理性的结构，来论述律师介入调查程序的合理性首先，通过监察程序概述，大致介绍监察程序的内容，随后论述律师介入的合理性，再次部分还将《监察法》与《刑事诉讼法》对比表明二者无实质区别，甚至可以说《监察法》可作为特别刑事诉讼法或者二者在职务犯罪调查程序中无实质区别，随之说明监察程序律师介入的法理依据，此后介绍域外以及我国香港、台湾地区的制度实践，参考其制度构建，着眼长远，博采众长，立足中国国情的构建我国的监察体制下的律师介入制度关键词：监察委员会； 律师； 监察程序； 监察法AbstractOn November 7, 2016, the General Office of CCCPC issued the Pilot Program for the Reform of the National Supervision System in Beijing, Shanxi, and Zhejiang to set up supervision committees at all levels in these three places, which officially raised the curtain of the supervision system. In 2018, based on the amendment of the Constitution and the formulation of the Supervision Law, a new state organ, the Supervisory Committee, was officially founded, which also marked the preliminary establishment of the Chinese supervision system. As a specialized organ responsible for supervision, the Supervisory Committee takes over the anti-corruption tasks in various departments of state organs and centralize the power to concentrate on cracking down on duty-related crimes and consolidating the overwhelming victory of anti-corruption. However, as an investigatory organ of duty-related crimes, the newly established supervisory organ is currently excluded from the judicial process, so the supervision measures prescribed by the Supervision Law are intentionally differentiated from the measures of investigative organs in the form, and lawyers are rejected to provide legal aid to the investigated. In addition, the starting point of criminal prosecution of duty-related crimes is postponed from the investigation stage to the review and prosecution stage. In the investigation stage, the protection of the rights of the investigated is completely dependent on the self-discipline of the investigated and the supervisory committee. Due to its natural expansivity, the less bound public power will inevitably lead to damage to the rights of the relative person, and the absolute gap in their forces promotes the infringement as well, so it is an important measure of right guarantee that lawyers get involved to provide legal aid for the investigated. This research compares the Supervision Law with the Law of Criminal Procedure and the results show that there is a significant rational structure for the involvelment of lawyers into the investigation process. First, this research roughly introduces the contents of the supervisory procedure in the form of an overview. Second, the comparison with the Law of Criminal Procedure shows no substantial difference. In this regard, the Supervision Law can serve as a special law of criminal procedure, or the two laws have no substantial differences in the investigative procedure involving duty-related crimes. Third, this research discusses the rationality for lawyers to get involved and then introduces the system practice in other countries as well as in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Fourth, according to this research, China should learn from the experience of the foregoing countries and regions in system construction and start from the national conditions to proactively build the lawyer involvement system in line with the supervision system.Keywords: the Supervisory Commissions; lawyer; the Supervision Law 引 言2018年3月20日，《中华人民共和宪法修正案》表决通过，为监察委员会的成立提供了宪法上的支持，改变了我国现有的国家机构格局，由“一府两院”变为“一府一委两院”的结构，另外，在本届人大会议上同时表决通过了《中华人民共和国监察法》（以下简称《监察法》），有评论指“《监察法》开启了我国法治反腐的新时代”。
诚然，监察委员会的成立，整合了以往分散在行政机关，检察机关以及纪委的多头反腐败力量，结束了反腐败领域“九龙治水”的格局，对于全力打击和抑制腐败，巩固反腐败斗争压倒性胜利的态势具有重要意义也正因如此，在如此全方位，强压力的态势下，更要注重对于监察相对人的权利保障，使监察工作始终监察在“法治的轨道上”，历史上的严打时期所出现的冤假错案绝不能也不应在监察委员会重演，为此应加强对监察委员会的监督，严格规范监察案件办理程序，而律师介入为相对人提供法律帮助作为对被调查人权利最直接的保障，促进监察机关工作人员依法办案的重要措施不应在《监察法》中缺席，尽管《监察法》中将查明相对人的违法犯罪事实的行为称之为“调查”，用以与《刑事诉讼法》中规定的侦查相区别，但是在实质上，以及对相对人的实际效果上二者有着很大的相似之处，二者发挥着同样的功能根据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》（2012年修订）第三十三条以及第一百六十二条规定，人民检察院作为侦查机关自行侦查的案件（该部分案件现在由监察委员会受理）的犯罪嫌疑人自第一次讯问或者采取强制措施之日起即可委托辩护人，而在监察委员会的职务犯罪调查程序与侦查近似效果的情况下，相对人获得律师介入的时间点却延后到案件移交检察院之后，在整个调查阶段相对人无法获得法律帮助，此种状况对于相对人的权利保障是十。