《刑事诉讼法》第54条关于物证、书证补正与合理解释的规定,依文义解释,可能产生两种理解;但从法理来讲,该规定应解释为:只有属于瑕疵证据的物证、书证才可以补正或合理解释,除此以外的非法证据应当直接排除。故我们需探索其他解释方法。从法律解释角度,瑕疵证据与非法证据的界分标准有二:其一,取证是否严重违法而侵害公民基本权利;其二,取证是否严重违法导致证据失去客观真实性的保障。司法解释关于物证、书证以外其它种类证据之补正与合理解释的规定,在形式上,与《刑事诉讼法》第54条存有冲突;实际上则对该条的法律漏洞予以了填补,且符合该法的规范目的,因此是合理的。 Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may give rise to two kinds of understanding as to the interpretation of the material evidence, the documentary evidence, and the reasonable interpretation, according to the interpretation of the text. However, in terms of jurisprudence, the provision should be interpreted as that only the material evidence that belongs to the defective evidence, the documentary evidence It can be corrected or reasonable explanation, other than the illegal evidence should be directly ruled out. So we need to explore other ways to explain. From the perspective of legal interpretation, there are two criteria for demarcation between evidence of deception and illegal evidence: first, whether the evidence is a serious violation of the law and infringe upon the basic rights of citizens; and secondly, whether the evidence is seriously unlawful or not results in the loss of objective authenticity. Judicial Interpretation The provisions on the amendment and reasonable interpretation of material evidences and documentary evidence in other forms have clashes with Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in form. In fact, the legal loopholes in the article have been filled in and comply with The normative purpose of the law is therefore reasonable.