Keywords: court, investigate, evidence collection, trial, litigation, judge, legal procedures, survey

First of all contractor personnel by the parties or the court to request the court to investigate and collect evidence, and this application should be at the trial before the end of the debate. "Who advocates, who the burden of proof," the principle of the burden of proof so that the burden of proof as evidence of the survey period, the parties, rather the Court's investigation and evidence collection is conditional, based on respect for the rights litigation, and do not interfere with the Court's judicial functions, require a person to apply for court investigations evidence. The Court did not rule out that under certain conditions on their own decided to investigate the evidence. In this case, this procedure does not apply. In accordance with the spirit of the Reform of the trial and the right to examine the rights of persons, the court to decide ex officio investigation and evidence collection should be abolished. 

Secondly, the contractor's personnel or the courts decide whether to accept the application. The contractor or the Court held that the parties comply with the statutory conditions for the application; it shall accept the application and report to the court president appointed investigators. Do not meet statutory requirements, and decided not to accept applications. Court to decide investigation and evidence collection should also be reported to the court president appointed investigators. 

Once again, the President designated non-court personnel, judges hearing the case as investigators. The parties to the investigating officers may propose to avoid the application. 

Finally, the investigating officers on behalf of the Court according to legal procedures of evidence collected in the survey.

                                                                                                                                                       Source: http://eng.hi138.com/?i155920