对质诘问权的核心内容：与不利证人面对面、询问不利证人，在域外达成了一致。我国刑事诉讼法司法解释中规定了质证权，但其与国际通行的对质诘问权存在着较大差距，突出表现在权利的实践困境：证人不出庭、证人即使出庭被告人也无法有效询问、对质诘问权的限制较为随意且没有救济途径。对质诘问权的核心内容通常是保障对质诘问权、设定可容许例外的关键考量。欧洲人权法院、美国的保障路径通常被其他国家或地区借鉴，尤其是美国法中的传闻法则，以日本、我国台湾地区为例，但实践证明，传闻法则复杂、且并非权利保障法则，因而有消解对质诘问权的风险。因此，要保障权利，恰当的证据规则仅为权利保障的一环，更为关键的是肯定被告人的对质诘问权，设定国家公权力机关促成证人出庭、尽可能提供程序性保障的义务，为对质诘问权的实现提供程序性的保障。权利并非绝对，域外设定权利的可容许例外遵循了较为严格的标准，欧洲人权法院、美国事实上均遵循有证据证明的必要性、权利侵害最小化的手段，日本、我国台湾地区也分别设定了相对严格的标准。考察域外，能够为破解我国权利受阻的难题提供一定的思路。保障对质诘问权，可以保障其核心内容为路径，具体而言，以被告人异议为主、案情重大复杂且对案件定罪量刑有重要影响为辅的证人必须出庭，确立严格证明规则下的直接言词原则，以对质诘问权保障为核心，设定控方提请并协助证人出庭的义务具有必要性和可行性，审判方强制证人到庭的义务是对质诘问权程序保障的重要环节，如果未尽义务，则视为未有效保障对质诘问权；明确被告人作为对质诘问权的绝对主体地位，辩护律师不因证人改变证言被任意追诉、承担有效辩护的义务，承认合理的诱导性询问、法官承担照料义务、可补充询问的询问规则，明确未有效行使对质诘问权时证据法上的后果，保障庭审中被告人能有效行使询问证人；建议以严格的必要性、手段的利益侵害最小化为原则：设定对质诘问权的部分限制，承认设定一般限制的同时，必须针对个案中对质诘问权的限制证明存在充分、具体的理由，依据个案优先选择权利侵害更小的必要手段；设定以被告人“故意”为核心的对质诘问权的彻底限制，需由检察机关提供优势性且独立的证据加以证明，当被告人利用了证人的弱势时，则可适当调整证明标准；畅通不当限制的救济途径，保障对质诘问权不被任意减损。

The core content of the right to confrontation: face-to-face with unfavorable witnesses, questioning unfavorable witnesses, reached worldwide agreement. In our country's criminal proceedings, there is a big gap between the right to confrontation and the international right to confrontation. This gap is manifested in the lack of protection of rights and the lack of relief. In our legislation and judicial practice, the guarantee of the right to confrontation is blocked: the witness does not appear in court, the witness can not inquire effectively even if the defendant appears in court, and the restriction of the right to confrontation is more random and there is no way of relief. Learning foreign legislation and judicial practice, The core connotation of the right to confrontation is the key consideration that usually guarantees the right and sets permissible exceptions. The European Court of Human Rights and the United States are usually used for reference by other countries or regions, especially the hearsay law in American law. Taking Japan and Taiwan as examples, it is proved in practice that the hearsay law is complex, not the law of right guarantee after all, and has the risk of dispelling the right of questioning. Therefore, in order to guarantee the right, it is more necessary to give the defendant the right to confrontation, the department takes the public power of the state, the witness and so on, and provides the procedural guarantee as far as possible. Rights are not absolute, permissible exceptions are more stringent, the European Court of Human Rights recognized the necessity of proof, the means of least infringement of rights, the United States followed more stringent standards, Japan and Taiwan also set relatively strict standards.The guarantee path of right to confrontation and the establishment of permissible exceptions are worth thinking about and drawing lessons from.In order to improve the system of the right to confrontation, we should focus on the core connotation of the right to confrontation, from four aspects: the scope of witnesses who must appear, the realization of the right to confrontation, the strict exception of the right to confrontation and relief. Specifically, there is need to establish the necessary criteria for the judgment of witnesses, supplemented by the dissent of the accused and the important influence on the conviction and sentencing of the case, and to clarify the scope of the witnesses who must appear in court; there is need to implement the principle of direct words with the guarantee of rights as the core. The prosecution take the obligation to present witnesses and the trial party take the obligation to compel witnesses to appear in court, the performance of the court's obligations is an important part of the process of ensuring the right to confrontation, and if the obligation is not fulfilled, it is regarded as not effectively guarantee the accused's right to confrontation; it is necessary to give the defendant one party the right to know the evidence first and the rules of questioning witnesses, the defense lawyer should do the right, the judge should take care of the obligation, and clearly not effectively exercise the right to confrontation should produce the effect of evidence law, ensuring that the accused can effectively exercise the right to examine witnesses; with strict necessity and means to minimize the infringement of the interests of the means, through the general setting and case review method, strict, legal regulation of the right to confrontation of partial restrictions and complete restrictions, unimpeded improper restrictions of relief channels, in order to fully protect the right to confrontation.