2018年我国对《刑事诉讼法》进行修改，增设缺席审判程序，借以完善反腐败域外追逃追赃制度，打击特定类型的严重犯罪，解决诉讼延期等问题。通过引入新的程序性手段、提高诉讼效率的方式，促进国家治理能力的现代化建设。首先，关于缺席审判程序的设立。针对该程序有违刑事诉讼原则和证据规则、不利于司法人权保障以及存在诉讼价值取向失衡等质疑，可以从该程序的性质与目的、功能和价值、诉讼规则契合性三个层面进行回应。缺席审判程序的设立具有必要性，有利于缺席判决获得国际司法协助，也有助于因身体因素无法出庭被告人及时得到审判。该程序实施具有正当性，诉讼原则也存在适用例外，价值权衡下的“客体程序”同样能够体现司法公正。通过程序内与诉讼原则和证据规则体系的契合，以及程序外公众参与和审判公开制度配合，这一程序将日益完善。其次，关于缺席审判程序的运行。缺席审判制度的完善应当兼顾程序设计和证据运用两方面。由于该程序立足于有效追逃追赃、及时解决刑事案件的不当拖延，加之其诉讼构造构成主体和证据形式的不同，决定了其适用证据规则、证明标准和证明方法的特殊性。可以探索采取“逻辑相关”的关联性标准以扩大证据来源，严格适用非法证据排除规则以促进控辩平等对抗，同时明确证据印证与补强的方式。细化证明规则，重点在于明确审前程序和审判程序的证明对象，分别采取“原子主义”和“整体主义”证明模式，使统一的证明标准分别针对各自证明对象而非单一的证据，再根据案件事实的性质分别对应严格证明和自由证明。最后，关于缺席判决的域外执行。缺席审判案件国际追逃追赃工作旨在获取存在于国外的相关犯罪证据、追缴涉案款物以及追捕潜逃被告人。实践中，由于面临其他国家基于属地管辖原则和司法主权原则而提出的抗议或阻挠，因此国际刑事司法协助就成为执行缺席判决的主要手段。同时，我国面临缔结的国际刑事司法协助条约或协定较少、国内外刑事证据规则存在较大差异以及不能充分调动其他国家参与合作的积极性等难题。因此，为了使缺席判决得到域外国家承认并且协助执行，需要在国际合作的制度层面本着平等互利、相对稳定、简化高效的合作原则，建立起双方沟通、认可和协助的刑事司法协助渠道。需要克服协助国之间因条约前置主义和本国人不引渡等原则为缺席判决执行合作造成的制度性障碍，探索建立简易引渡机制、涉案财物资产分享机制，协调相关案件审查标准。

In order to establish and improve the legal system related to anti-corruption, effectively combat crimes that endanger national security and terrorist activities, and solve problems such as the postponement of criminal proceedings，the newly amended criminal procedure law has added a chapter of default judgement in 2018. The modernization of national governance system and governance capacity is promoted by introducing new procedural means and improving litigation efficiency. First of all, regarding the establishment of a trial by default system. There are doubts that the procedure violates the principles of criminal procedure and evidential rules, not being conducive to the protection of judicial human rights and the imbalance of litigation value orientation. However, it can be justified from three aspects: the nature purpose, function as well as value of the procedure and the conformity of litigation rules. It is necessary to establish a trial in absentia procedure, which is conducive to obtaining international judicial assistance for a default judgment, and also helps the defendant who cannot appear in court due to physical factors to be tried in a timely manner. The implementation of the procedure is justified; the litigation principle also has exceptions in application; and justice can also be achieved through the "object procedure" balanced by values. Through the combination of the procedural principles as well as the evidence rules and the public participation and the open trial system outside the procedure, the trial procedures in absentia will be improved eventually.Secondly, regarding the operation of the trial procedure in absentia. The trial system of Default Judgement should be perfected from two aspects: procedural design and application of evidence, but we can not only study procedures but ignore the use of evidence. Because of the differences in the structure of litigation and the form of evidence, this procedural determines the rules of evidence, the standard of proof and the method of proof for which it can be properly adjusted in order to pursue recovery and resolve delays in criminal cases. The rules of evidence should be changed, and the “logically relevant” relevance criteria are adopted to expand the source of evidence, and the rules for the exclusion of illegal evidence are strictly applied to promote the equality of prosecution and defense, and at the same time, the way in which evidence is confirmed and strengthened is clarified. The definition of the rules should be refined, and the focus is on clarifying the probabilistic procedures of the pre-trial and trial procedures, and adopting the "atomistic" and "holistic" proof models, respectively, so that the unified proof standards are respectively directed to the respective proofs rather than a single evidence, and then corresponds to strict proof or free proof. Finally, regarding the extraterritorial enforcement of default judgments. Regarding the international enforcement cooperation in absentee trials, the main purpose is to complete three tasks, mainly including obtaining relevant criminal evidence existing abroad, recovering the money and property involved in the case, and hunting down criminals who absconded. In judicial practice, this task can be accomplished in two ways. One is to directly dispatch Chinese judicial personnel to foreign countries to engage in related escape and recovery work, and the other is to request other countries to provide judicial assistance through international conventions and bilateral treaties. Since the former may face protests or obstructions from other countries based on the principles of territorial jurisdiction and judicial sovereignty, international criminal judicial assistance has become the main means to implement default judgments. However, as far as criminal justice cooperation is concerned, my country is faced with the problems of fewer international criminal judicial assistance treaties or agreements that have participated in or concluded, large differences in criminal evidence rules at home and abroad, and inability to fully mobilize the enthusiasm of other countries to participate in cooperation. Therefore, in order for the results of the absent judgment to be recognized by foreign countries and assist in its execution, it is necessary to establish a criminal judicial assistance channel for communication, recognition and assistance between the two parties based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, relative stability, and simplified and efficient cooperation at the level of international cooperation. Overcome the systemic obstacles between assisting countries in the implementation of default judgments due to the principle of pre-treaty and non-extradition of nationals, establish a simplified extradition mechanism and a mechanism for sharing property and assets involved in the case, and coordinate the relevant standards for the review of default judgments in requesting countries.