论文部分内容阅读
1993年12月29日,北京市海淀区人民法院一纸裁定书判决原告灭鼠王邱满屯胜诉,而其对手被告人中国预防医学科学院流行病学微生物学研究所副所长汪诚信等5位专家败诉,后者须向原告赔礼道赚并赔偿1万元。被告不服,向北京市中级人民法院上诉。数月后,几百名政协委员联名声援汪诚信等5位科学家,要求检查邱氏鼠药案中存在的法律程序问题。问题的核心是怎样认定邱氏鼠药中有无已
December 29, 1993, Beijing Haidian District People’s Court a verdict of the verdict of the plaintiff rodent Wang Qiu Man Tun wins the defendant, the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology Wang Chengxin 5 Some experts lost the case, the latter must make and compensate the plaintiff 10,000 yuan compensation. The defendant refused to accept the appeal to the Beijing Intermediate People’s Court. Several months later, several members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), including members of the CPPCC National Committee, jointly announced their support to five scientists, including Wang Chengxin, for examining the legal procedures in the case of Khoo’s rat. The core of the problem is how to determine whether there is Qiu rat poison has been