The existence of “different judgments for the same or similar cases", which is a hindrance to the reform of judicial system, has affected judicial justice in China for a long time. Not only the unbalanced development across the country and intermingled working competence among judges lead to the consequence that the trial teams from different regions tend to make different judgements for the same or similar cases, but also the defects of the existing judicial system and operation process make it difficult to give ruling cases, normative documents, and typical cases full play to guiding the class-case judgment. In order to solve this problem, recently, the Supreme People's Court, as the highest judicial organ, issued the Implement Measures of the Supreme People's Court for Uniform Application of the Law (hereinafter referred to as the Implement Measures), making specific requests to ensure the further standardization and correct implement of uniform application of the law, and to safeguard judicial justice.

The Implement Measures comprises 20 articles, of which the contents involve drafting and formulating judicial interpretations or other normative documents, issuing cases, implementing the retrieval system for class-cases, organizing and convening professional council of judges to discuss cases, and other work related to the uniform application of the law. Among these, the ruling cases, the circumstances and scope of class-case retrieval, the scope of cases discussed by professional council of judges, the settlement mechanism for specific law application problems, and the construction of the platform for uniform application of the law and its database are specifically stipulated. The detailed contents can be seen here:

http://en.hengboip.com/news/laws/The-Implement-Measures-of-the-Supreme-People-s-Court-for-Uniform-Application-of-the-Law.html

The Implement Measures highlights the roles of ruling cases and retrieval system for class-cases in the work of uniform application of the law. Practically, judicial cases are embodiments of judicial practice, from which the judgment rules formed are the materialization of the abstract laws. That means these rules can overcome many difficulties in understanding statutory laws that are usually abstract and incomprehensible and summarize some rules that are of significance to the judgment of similar cases. In this way, the possibility of making the same or similar judgements for class-cases by different courts or judges will be increased and the work of uniform application of the law will be promoted.