The 'Decision of the Supreme People's Court on Amending the Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Decision'), promulgated on December 25, 2019, is the first comprehensive revision in the 18 years since the promulgation and implementation of the 'Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Civil Evidence Provisions') in 2001. Based on the revised Civil Procedure Law and the 'Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Civil Procedure Law Interpretation') in 2015, the 'Amendment Decision' comprehensively reviewed the judicial interpretations and documents related to civil procedure evidence since the implementation of the 2001 'Civil Evidence Provisions,' comprehensively summarized the experience accumulated in trial practice, and responded to the problems exposed in practice in a targeted manner. The 'Amendment Decision' is not only a revision of the 'Civil Evidence Provisions' but also a supplement and improvement to the 'Civil Procedure Law Interpretation.' It is a further explanation of how the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law regarding the evidence system should be applied in trial practice, which is of great significance and far-reaching impact on civil trial practice.

　　Since the re-released 'Civil Evidence Provisions' only retain 11 of the original articles, and the remaining 89 articles are revised or newly added, in order to facilitate the understanding and application of the new judicial interpretation content in trial practice, we have sorted out and summarized the key issues for reference.

In civil litigation, a party who asserts a fact that is beneficial to himself shall provide evidence to prove it, which is the proper meaning of 'whoever asserts, whoever bears the burden of proof'; and a party who asserts a fact that is detrimental to himself constitutes an admission, which has the effect of exempting the other party from the burden of proof. Admission is not evidence, but an exception to the burden of proof. It is the result of the party's exercise of the right of disposition, and it is also a method for the people's court to determine the facts of the case, which is of great significance for protecting the parties' litigation rights and saving litigation costs.

  Article 8 of the 2001 'Civil Evidence Provisions' made provisions for admission, and Article 92 of the 2015 'Civil Procedure Law Interpretation' stipulated the basic content of admission and its exceptions. The 'Amendment Decision' revised and supplemented Article 8 of the 2001 'Civil Evidence Provisions' on the basis of Article 92 of the 'Civil Procedure Law Interpretation'. The main manifestations are in the following aspects:

1. Revised the rule of admission by entrusted litigation agents. The 2001 'Civil Evidence Provisions' distinguished different consequences of admission by entrusted litigation agents according to the scope of authorization. The admission of facts by an entrusted litigation agent without special authorization directly leading to the admission of the other party's litigation claims does not constitute admission. In trial practice, it is very common for parties not to appear in court but to be represented by entrusted litigation agents. Some parties and entrusted litigation agents use the aforementioned provisions to go back on their words and arbitrarily deny the statements made by the agents in court, which seriously interferes with the normal progress of litigation and damages the legitimate rights and interests of the other party. In fact, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law on special authorization of entrusted litigation agents are aimed at the disposition of litigation claims by litigation agents, while admission is an admission of facts, which is not directly related to litigation claims; in trial practice, the situation of 'admission of facts directly leading to the admission of the other party's litigation claims' occurs in the case of general admission of facts and litigation claims, in which case it can be directly identified as recognition of litigation claims, and there is no need to distinguish between admission of facts and recognition of litigation claims. Therefore, the 'Amendment Decision' stipulates that, except for matters explicitly excluded in the power of attorney, the admission of a litigation agent shall be deemed as the admission of the party.

2. Added provisions on admission by joint litigants. The 2001 'Civil Evidence Provisions' did not stipulate the admission of joint litigants. Since joint litigation is a common form of litigation in practice, the 'Amendment Decision' added provisions on the rule of admission of joint litigants. Since joint litigants in ordinary joint litigation are independent of each other, the admission of one or several persons is only effective for the party making the admission. However, because the joint litigants in necessary joint litigation must 'uniformly determine' the subject matter of the litigation, only the admission made jointly by all joint litigants can have the effect of admission, and the admission made by some joint litigants but denied by other joint litigants cannot have the effect of admission. At the same time, in order to prevent some necessary joint litigants from obstructing the litigation with a passive attitude, the rule of deemed admission can be applied to necessary joint litigants who passively respond to facts that are unfavorable to themselves.

3. Added provisions on restricted admission or conditional admission. Admission generally refers to complete admission, that is, admission does not attach conditions or restrictions. Restricted admission or conditional admission is a situation opposite to complete admission, which means that one party admits part of the facts asserted by the other party that are unfavorable to himself and denies other parts, or attaches independent attack or defense methods when admitting. Restricted admission or conditional admission was not involved in the 2001 'Civil Evidence Provisions', but this situation exists in large numbers in trial practice. Different courts and different judges have inconsistent understandings of restricted admission or conditional admission, which affects the effect of fact-finding and law application, and it is necessary to make provisions. The 'Amendment Decision' did not follow the view in the German Civil Procedure Law that restricted admission also constitutes admission, and the party making the admission bears the burden of proof for the attached restrictions, but adopted the position of the 'Civil Procedure Law' in Taiwan, China, and the judge should determine whether it constitutes admission based on the specific circumstances of the case. In other words, for the situation of simply admitting part of the facts and denying other facts, that is, partial admission without additional conditions, it should be recognized that the act of admitting part of the facts constitutes admission, and the denied part does not constitute admission. For conditional admission, it should be examined whether the attached conditions are inseparable from the admitted facts. If the party admits the facts stated by the other party that are unfavorable to himself, and also attaches independent attack or defense methods to deny the other party's claims, then the admitted facts and the attached facts should be examined as a whole. If the two facts are separated and the part that is unfavorable to the party is identified as admission, because this part of the admission cannot reflect the party's entire expression of intent, it is likely to lead to unfair results due to taking things out of context. If one party admits the facts stated by the other party that are unfavorable to himself, and also conducts independent attacks or defenses with another fact that is not legally related to the facts asserted by the other party, since the two facts express their respective independent contents and are separable, the party's admission of facts that are unfavorable to himself constitutes admission.

4. Revised the conditions for revoking admission. According to the "Provisions on Civil Evidence" in 2001, a party may withdraw an admission before the conclusion of the court debate under two circumstances: first, with the consent of the other party; second, if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the admission was made under duress or a major misunderstanding and is inconsistent with the facts. This provision, especially the second circumstance, sets relatively strict conditions for withdrawing an admission. In fact, if the content of the admission is inconsistent with the facts, the effect of the admission does not occur regardless of whether the party made the admission under duress or a major misunderstanding. Therefore, the "Amendment Decision" reorganizes Article 8 of the 2001 "Provisions on Civil Evidence" regarding the withdrawal of admission, modifies the second circumstance, and no longer requires the party making the admission to prove that the content of the admission is inconsistent with the facts. As long as the admission is made under duress or a major misunderstanding, the admission can be withdrawn, which substantially relaxes the conditions for withdrawing the admission.

Article 93 of the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law" amended Article 9 of the 2001 "Provisions on Civil Evidence" regarding facts exempt from proof, and the "Amendment Decision" further amended and improved the content of Article 93 of the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law." This is mainly reflected in two aspects:

1. The standard of counter-evidence for "facts confirmed by the effective ruling of the arbitration institution" is revised. Regarding whether the facts confirmed by the effective ruling of the arbitration institution can be used as facts exempt from proof, there was a great dispute in the process of revising the "Provisions on Civil Evidence." The views against using it as a fact exempt from proof are: first, the court's judgment is bound by the facts recognized by the arbitration tribunal, which has no theoretical basis and violates the principle of free conviction; second, the arbitration tribunal does not need to follow strict evidence rules in determining the facts, and has great freedom and space in determining the facts, and its fact-finding reliability is insufficient; third, the arbitration tribunal's determination of facts is not bound by the effective judgment of the court, and the court's judgment is subject to the arbitration tribunal, which is logically untenable; fourth, in judicial practice, the parties use the arbitration procedure to confirm the facts, and then conduct related litigation, which brings great trouble to the court's trial activities. Therefore, the facts confirmed by the effective ruling of the arbitration institution should not be retained as facts exempt from proof. The view supporting it as a fact exempt from proof is that arbitration, as a dispute resolution method chosen by the parties through agreement, is of positive significance for resolving disputes in a timely manner and reducing litigation cases; deleting the facts confirmed by the arbitration award from the facts exempt from proof is not conducive to the development of arbitration and is contrary to the state's policy of actively advocating and strongly supporting the development of arbitration. We have compromised on these two opinions, and while retaining the effective arbitration award as a fact exempt from proof, we have lowered the standard of its counter-evidence. We believe that since the arbitration institution is not an organization with social management functions, the arbitration award itself does not belong to official documentary evidence, so the counter-evidence for the arbitration award does not need to be based on the standard of official documentary evidence, reaching the degree that there is contrary evidence sufficient to overturn it, but should be based on the counter-evidence standard of private documentary evidence, with "contrary evidence sufficient to refute" as its counter-evidence standard.

2. Limit "facts confirmed by the judgment of the people's court that has legal effect" to "basic facts." In the process of revising the "Provisions on Civil Evidence," some scholars proposed that the provision that "facts confirmed by the judgment of the people's court that has legal effect" exempts the parties from the burden of proof violates the principle of free conviction and should be deleted. After research, we believe that the provision that "facts confirmed by the judgment of the people's court that has legal effect" exempts the parties from the burden of proof does have certain contradictions with the principle of free conviction. However, since the facts confirmed by the effective judgment are closely related to the judgment result, if this provision is deleted from the facts exempt from proof, it is easy to cause conflicts in the effectiveness of the judgment in the absence of established res judicata rules in my country at this stage, and the inconsistency of related judgment results caused by inconsistent fact-finding is not easily accepted by the public, so it is still necessary to retain this provision at this stage. Considering that the basic facts tried and recognized by the effective judgment are the facts that the people's court has focused on investigating after trial, and have undergone strict cross-examination and review procedures, the scope of this fact exempt from proof is limited to "basic facts confirmed by the judgment of the people's court that has legal effect."

The "Amendment Decision" made major revisions to Article 11 of the 2001 "Provisions on Civil Evidence" regarding evidence formed outside the country, stipulating different requirements for different natures of evidence, and limiting the scope that needs to be certified by the notary office of the country where it is located and authenticated by the embassy and consulate of our country in that country. According to the "Amendment Decision," if the evidence formed outside the country is an official document, it must be certified by the notary office of the country where it is located; and the evidence formed outside the country involving identity relationship must be certified by the notary office of the country where it is located and authenticated by the embassy and consulate of our country in that country; for other circumstances, there are no requirements for notarization and authentication procedures. The above revisions are mainly based on the following considerations: first, the evidence of ordinary civil legal relations generally only involves the rights and obligations between the parties, and its authenticity can be verified through cross-examination. It is not necessary to require certification by the notary office of the country where it is located or authentication by the embassy and consulate of our country in that country, which also increases the litigation costs of the parties and the workload of our embassies and consulates abroad; second, since the rules of presumed authenticity apply to official documents, and the people's court cannot take methods such as inquiry by virtue of its authority to verify whether official documents formed outside the country are authentic, it is necessary to be certified by the notary office of the country where it is located; third, since the facts of identity relationship involve basic social ethics, values and order, stricter requirements should be imposed on evidence formed outside the country. It is necessary and reasonable for evidence involving identity relationship to be certified by the notary office of the country where it is located and authenticated by the embassy and consulate of our country in that country in accordance with the requirements of Article 264 of the Civil Procedure Law for foreign-related power of attorney.

"Order to Submit Documents" is not stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law. It is a system created by the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law" and is an important measure taken by the Supreme People's Court to improve the parties' ability to provide evidence and expand the parties' means of collecting evidence. In the process of investigating the implementation of the 2001 "Provisions on Evidence," we found that due to insufficient legal protection of the parties' right to investigate and collect evidence, and the lawyer's right to investigate as stipulated by law has not been fully implemented, the parties' means of investigating and collecting evidence are very limited, which leads to insufficient ability of the parties to provide evidence, especially in cases where evidence is biased. This situation seriously affects the accuracy of fact-finding, affects the protection of the parties' litigation rights and the realization of substantive rights, and is a very prominent and urgent problem to be solved in civil litigation practice. To this end, the "Amendment Decision" has made further improvements on the basis of the principled provisions of Article 112 of the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law" on "Order to Submit Documents."

　　 1. Conditions for applying for "Order to Submit Documents." Article 47 of the "Amendment Decision" clarifies the conditions for a party bearing the burden of proof for the facts to be proven to apply to the people's court to control the other party's documentary evidence by stipulating the content of the application, including: First, the documentary evidence as the object of the proposal should be specific, that is, the applicant should clearly state the name or title or main content of the documentary evidence that the other party needs to present; Second, it should be clear what facts need to be proved by the object documentary evidence and the importance of the facts, that is, the people's court only needs to make a "documentary evidence presentation order" if the object documentary evidence has a positive effect on the proof of the facts to be proven, and the facts to be proven are themselves of great significance to the judgment; Third, it should be proved that the documentary evidence exists and that the other party controls the object documentary evidence; Fourth, the legal reasons or grounds for the other party controlling the documentary evidence to present the documentary evidence, that is, the obligation of the party controlling the documentary evidence to present the documentary evidence as stipulated in Article 49 of the "Amendment Decision".

2. The scope of the obligation of the party controlling the documentary evidence to present the documentary evidence. That is, the scope of the object of the "documentary evidence presentation order" includes: First, the documentary evidence that the party controlling the documentary evidence has cited in the litigation. The party controlling the documentary evidence has cited the documentary evidence in the litigation, which means that it is willing to disclose the documentary evidence, and the party bearing the burden of proof has the right to require the controller to submit the documentary evidence; Second, the documentary evidence made for the benefit of the other party, the benefit here refers not only to the benefit of the party bearing the burden of proof, but also to the situation where the party bearing the burden of proof and other people have common interests, that is, as long as it includes the benefit of the party bearing the burden of proof; Third, the documentary evidence that the other party has the right to consult and obtain in accordance with the law, this kind of right instrument as the scope of the obligation to present documentary evidence, originates from the reasons of substantive law, which can be judged based on the provisions of substantive law, such as the provisions of the Company Law on shareholders' right to know, or can occur based on the right of claim in substantive law, such as the client requiring the trustee to deliver the documents in its custody; Fourth,

3. Consequences of not complying with the "documentary evidence presentation order". Failure to comply with the order to produce documentary evidence shall be subject to the doctrine of proof obstruction to determine the legal consequences of the act. For the general situation of not complying with the "documentary evidence presentation order", the people's court may determine that the content of the documentary evidence claimed by the applicant of the "documentary evidence presentation order" is true, and through this indirect compulsory method, impose legal consequences on the documentary evidence controller in litigation law, so as to urge it to present the documentary evidence as much as possible. For the situation of maliciously destroying documentary evidence or implementing other acts that make the documentary evidence unusable, since its act itself has constituted an obstruction to civil litigation, while imposing compulsory measures such as fines and detention, it should also be ordered to bear more serious consequences in evidence law, and the people's court may determine that the facts claimed by the other party to be proved by the documentary evidence are true.

Appraisal is an important means to find out the facts when civil litigation involves professional issues, and appraisal opinions are also a very important form of evidence in civil litigation, and have an important position in civil litigation. However, in judicial practice, the problems existing in appraisal are more prominent. The insufficient participation of adjudicators in the appraisal procedure, the lack of effective management and supervision of appraisers' participation in litigation by the people's courts, and other situations are generally prevalent to a certain extent, and these are all problems that need to be solved urgently in civil litigation. The "Amendment Decision" mainly improves and supplements the relevant contents of the 2001 "Provisions on Civil Evidence" from the following aspects:

1. Strengthen the participation of adjudicators in the appraisal procedure. In judicial practice, some adjudicators lack necessary review of the parties' appraisal applications, and let the applications go, "no trial without appraisal"; some courts' entrusted appraisal matters are not clear and specific, and they do not ask or supervise the appraisal process and time limit after entrusting the appraisal, resulting in a lengthy appraisal procedure and a lack of pertinence of the appraisal opinions. In response to these problems, the "Amendment Decision" strengthens the participation and management of adjudicators in the appraisal procedure. First, Article 32 stipulates the requirements of the people's court for the explanation of appraisal and the application period of the parties, so as to urge the parties to submit appraisal applications in a timely and appropriate manner. Second, according to the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 34, the appraisal matters, the scope of appraisal, the purpose of appraisal and the time limit for appraisal are necessary items to be recorded in the letter of entrustment, and these four items generally need to be clarified on the basis of full communication with the appraiser. Through the provisions on the content of the letter of entrustment, the active participation of adjudicators in the appraisal process is promoted.

2. Strengthen the litigation management of appraisers. The administrative management of appraisers belongs to the administrative department or industry organization, but the management of appraisers' participation in civil litigation activities is the power of the people's court. In view of the non-standard situation of appraisers' participation in litigation activities in judicial practice, the "Amendment Decision" strengthens the litigation management of appraisers from the following aspects: First, it stipulates the appraiser's commitment system and the punishment for deliberately making false appraisals, requiring the appraiser to sign a commitment letter before engaging in appraisal activities to ensure that the appraisal is objective, fair and honest, etc., increasing its inner restraint and urging it to perform its duties prudently and diligently; If the appraiser violates the commitment and deliberately makes a false appraisal, in addition to refunding the appraisal fee, since its act constitutes an obstruction to civil litigation, the people's court shall punish it in accordance with the provisions of Article 111 of the Civil Procedure Law. Second, it stipulates the obligation of the appraiser to submit the appraisal report on time, and if it is not submitted on time and there is no legitimate reason, the party may re-apply for appraisal, and the appraisal fee charged by the original appraiser shall be refunded. Third, it stipulates the punishment measures for the appraiser's unauthorized revocation of the appraisal opinion after the people's court adopts the appraisal opinion. For the appraiser's revocation of the appraisal opinion without legitimate reasons, not only shall the appraisal fee be refunded, but the people's court shall punish this act of obstructing civil litigation, and support the party's claim that the appraiser shall bear reasonable expenses.

The "Amendment Decision" further clarifies the scope of electronic data and the rules for review and judgment on the basis of the principled provisions of Article 116 of the 2015 "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law" on the meaning of electronic data.

1. Clarify the scope of electronic data. In order to enhance the operability of electronic data in judicial practice, the "Amendment Decision" categorizes and organizes electronic data according to its forms and characteristics. For effective analysis, electronic data content is typically divided into the following four categories: first, content data, referring to electronic data such as documents, pictures, and images related to the case; second, derivative data, referring to data about operational behaviors automatically generated by the computer when content data is manipulated; third, environmental data, referring to the hardware and software environment on which the generation, addition, deletion, modification, and transmission of data depend; and fourth, communication data, referring to data about communication generated when using the network to transmit data. Based on this, we consulted with network and computer professionals and defined the scope of electronic data as: information published on network platforms, communication information of network application services, trace information such as registration information and transaction records, and electronic files such as documents, audio, and video. At the same time, we stipulated a catch-all clause of "other information stored, processed, and transmitted in digital form that can prove the facts of the case," providing clues to guide the parties in distinguishing and collecting relevant evidence.

2. Clarify the rules for reviewing and judging electronic data. Firstly, the integrity and reliability of electronic data need to follow the principles of non-destructiveness, professionalism, and completeness. Therefore, when determining the authenticity of electronic data, the people's court should consider whether the hardware and software environment of the computer system on which the generation, storage, and transmission of the electronic data rely is complete and reliable, whether it is in normal operation, the degree of impact if it is in an abnormal state, whether there are effective monitoring and verification methods to prevent errors, whether it has been completely saved, transmitted, and extracted, whether the relevant collection methods are reliable, and whether the relevant collection subject is appropriate, among other factors. When necessary, the judge can be assisted in forming a conviction through methods such as appraisal and inspection. Secondly, the rule of presumed authenticity of electronic data is clarified. By summarizing the situations in trial practice where the authenticity and reliability of electronic data are relatively high, and combining the general methods of formation, preservation, transmission, and extraction of electronic data, we believe that the following electronic data, unless there is sufficient contrary evidence to rebut it, the people's court may presume it to be authentic: (1) electronic data submitted and kept by the party that is unfavorable to itself; (2) electronic data provided or confirmed by a neutral third-party platform that records and saves electronic data; (3) electronic data formed in normal business activities; (4) electronic data kept in archival management; (5) electronic data saved, transmitted, and extracted in the manner agreed upon by the parties.

In order to better leverage the role of the parties' statements as an independent form of evidence in proving facts in civil litigation, the "Amendment Decision" refines and supplements the parties' statements on the basis of the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law."

1. Clarify the obligation of the parties to make truthful statements. The parties are both the direct witnesses to the facts involved in the case and the direct stakeholders in the case. This determines that the parties' statements can better reflect the facts of the case on the one hand, but also have the characteristics of subjectivity and instability on the other hand. In order to enable the parties' statements to better play the role of proving facts, the "Amendment Decision" starts from the principle of good faith stipulated in Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Law and clearly stipulates that the parties "shall make truthful and complete statements on the facts of the case," as well as the punishment for the parties' intentional false statements, in order to urge the parties to state the facts carefully and honestly.

2. Improved the way the parties make affirmations when questioned by the people's court. Article 111 of the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law" stipulates that the parties shall sign a guarantee when questioned by the people's court. Through research on the implementation of the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law," we found that the method of signing a guarantee alone cannot create sufficient internal deterrence for the parties. Trial practice experience shows that having the parties and witnesses read out the contents of the guarantee in a loud voice can better achieve the effect of affirmation. To this end, the "Amendment Decision" stipulates that when questioning, the people's court shall not only sign a guarantee, but also read out the contents of the guarantee, thereby constituting a complete affirmation; if the party refuses to make an affirmation, or refuses to make a complete affirmation, if there is no other evidence to prove the facts to be proved, the people's court shall make a determination unfavorable to the party.

In civil trial practice, the nature of the legal relationship claimed by the parties or the validity of civil acts often differs from the determination made by the people's court. Traditionally, the people's court either rejects the party's claim or conducts a trial and makes a substantive judgment based on its own understanding. However, no matter which method is used, there is a risk that the parties' litigation rights are not fully protected and a judgment surprise occurs, and the second method may also lead to the people's court's trial and judgment exceeding the parties' claims and violating the principle of debate. Therefore, Article 35 of the "Provisions on Civil Evidence" in 2001 stipulates that in this case, "the people's court shall inform the parties that they can change their claims." This provision on clarification has positive significance for protecting the parties' litigation rights, preventing judgment surprise, and saving litigation costs. However, in the process of application, there are major differences in how to grasp the method and degree of clarification on the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of civil acts, especially when higher and lower courts have different understandings of the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of civil acts, which often puts the trial personnel of the lower courts in a dilemma.

In the process of revising the "Provisions on Civil Evidence," we conducted a careful study of this issue. We believe that clarifying the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of civil acts is necessary to protect the parties' litigation rights, prevent judgment surprise, and regulate the trial activities of the people's court, and should be adhered to. However, starting from the purpose of clarification, the method of clarification can be adjusted. Therefore, the "Amendment Decision" stipulates that if the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of civil acts claimed by the parties is inconsistent with the determination made by the people's court based on the facts of the case, the people's court shall try the issue as a focus issue, that is, by trying the focus issue, the parties have the opportunity to fully express their opinions and debate the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of civil acts, so as to achieve the purpose of clarification. When summarizing the focus issues, it is also necessary to appropriately prompt the views on the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of civil acts that the parties have not claimed, so as to promote the parties to fully, completely, and comprehensively express their opinions on the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of civil acts. Of course, if the nature of the legal relationship has no impact on the reasons and results of the judgment, or the content that the people's court needs to clarify is itself a focus of dispute and has been fully debated by the parties, the people's court may no longer need to clarify.

The provisions of the "Provisions on Civil Evidence" in 2001 on the consequences of providing evidence overdue take the loss of the right to evidence as the principle, and new evidence does not belong to the situation of providing evidence overdue, that is, only if the conditions of new evidence are met, the consequence of loss of the right to evidence will not occur. Therefore, it is very necessary to make clear provisions on the connotation and extension of new evidence. This is also the reason why the "Provisions on Civil Evidence" in 2001 made detailed provisions on the scope, judgment criteria, and consequences of new evidence in Articles 41 to 44.

Based on the implementation of the provisions on the time limit for producing evidence in the 2001 Civil Evidence Rules, the 2012 Civil Procedure Law established the system of time limit for producing evidence in Article 65, adopting a method of distinguishing different circumstances of providing evidence overdue and corresponding different consequences. That is, the 2012 Civil Procedure Law does not take the loss of the right to evidence as a general principle for providing evidence overdue, but corresponds to the consequences of admonition, fines, and even rejection depending on whether the reasons for providing evidence overdue are valid. Since the 2012 Civil Procedure Law has substantially changed the position of taking the loss of the right to evidence as a general principle for the consequences of providing evidence overdue, under this premise, the provisions on new evidence in the 2001 Civil Evidence Rules have no value and necessity. Therefore, the Amendment Decision deleted the content related to new evidence in the 2001 Civil Evidence Rules. In civil trial practice, unless otherwise specified by laws and judicial interpretations, new evidence no longer has a special meaning, and evidence that has not appeared in previous litigation processes is in principle considered new evidence.

A basic idea of the Amendment Decision is that the contents already stipulated in the 2015 Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law will not be repeated unless it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the revised Civil Evidence Rules have deleted some contents that have already been stipulated in the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law compared with the previous revision. Among them, the provisions on the burden of proof are more important.

Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the 2001 Civil Evidence Rules are all provisions on the burden of proof and distribution rules. Among these provisions, the content of Article 2 has been absorbed by Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law; the provisions of Article 4 on the reversal of the burden of proof, and the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 on the distribution of the burden of proof in contract disputes and labor dispute cases, can all be resolved by applying the provisions of Article 91 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law on the rules for the distribution of the burden of proof, and there is no need to repeat the provisions. Article 7 of the 2001 Civil Evidence Rules is a provision on the judge's allocation of the burden of proof. The Amendment Decision does not retain it, mainly considering that the allocation of the burden of proof is statutory, and the substantive legal norms themselves contain the content of the law on the allocation of the burden of proof. In principle, the burden of proof is allocated by law rather than by the judge. Only in extremely special circumstances, when the burden of proof allocated according to law leads to obviously unfair results, the judge is allowed to allocate the burden of proof according to the principle of good faith, the principle of fairness, and other factors. This is also the original intention of Article 7 of the 2001 Civil Evidence Rules. However, in the survey on the implementation of the 2001 Civil Evidence Rules, we found that the situation of arbitrarily applying Article 7 in trial practice is relatively common, and there is a risk of abuse of the provisions on the judge's allocation of the burden of proof, which should only be applied in extremely special circumstances. For this reason, the Amendment Decision no longer retains the content of this article. In practice, if the determination of the allocation of the burden of proof according to the provisions of substantive law may lead to obviously unfair circumstances, since it involves the application of Article 91 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, it can be resolved by requesting instructions from the Supreme People's Court or by the Supreme People's Court's reply, but the rules for the allocation of the burden of proof determined by law cannot be arbitrarily changed in individual cases.