阅卷权是被追诉人有效参与程序并行使防御权的基础性权利，阅卷制度是刑事诉讼法实现其保障人权功能的重要依托。刑事诉讼同时具有打击犯罪的功能，在诉讼程序中过早准许被追诉方查阅证据材料，可能会对事实发现造成障碍。因此，各国对侦查阶段阅卷都加以一定限制。我国现行法对侦查阶段的辩方阅卷采取绝对否定立场，将被追诉方阅卷权的行使时间明文限定在审查起诉阶段开始后。然而，由于侦查实践中显著的侦查羁押现象和认罪认罚适用现象，被追诉人在一定程度上似乎也应获悉证据材料以保障其合法权益。在我国学家，现有研究未能将侦查阶段阅卷权的正当性嵌入到刑事诉讼法理框架中予以分析，对这项权利的限度没有形成统一认识。本文认为，传统认识下的侦查秘密原则不是法律原则而是工作原则，不具有规范意义，应当被修正为“狭义的侦查秘密原则”，其内涵是资讯维度的侦查利益优位，其价值取向是打击犯罪和职权调查。侦查阶段阅卷权的正当性根源于程序正义的立法原则，当被追诉人的程序期间即时处遇或案件实体处理结果面临侦查活动的较大影响时，应当准许被追诉方对相关卷证材料进行查阅，以权利有效防御权力。羁押是对犯罪嫌疑人人身自由即刻加以限制的基本权干预，当下的羁押听取意见规则、羁押听证规则虽意在通过对羁押决定进行诉讼化改造以落实“少捕慎诉慎押”，但被追诉方无法接触据以评估社会危险性的证据材料，导致前述规范的实际效果不彰，因此应当承认侦查羁押阅卷权。相比之下，侦查阶段认罪认罚对犯罪嫌疑人的实体、程序权利没有独立且显著的影响，认罪认罚的自愿性、明智性审查主要发生在审查起诉阶段，因此现阶段暂时无需建立侦查认罪阅卷制度。本文认为，我国刑事司法具有偏重实体真实、理想化公权力形象和以侦查阶段作为程序重心的特点，因此具有维持资讯优势、垄断侦查阶段事实发现的倾向，不愿将证据材料向犯罪嫌疑人及其辩护人开示。但是，“一刀切”式否定侦查阶段阅卷权并不能从根本上消解刑事诉讼的对抗性，单项职权调查造成的不平衡可能为刑事诉讼总体目标的实现埋下隐患。因此，建立侦查阶段的有限阅卷权是必要的。

The right of access to case files is a fundamental right for the defendant to effectively participate in proceedings and exercise their right to defense, and the system of this right is an important cornerstone for the criminal procedure law to fulfill its function of safeguarding human rights. Criminal proceedings simultaneously serve the function of combating crime, and premature allowance of the defendant to review evidence materials may impede the discovery of facts. Therefore, various countries impose certain restrictions on the review of case files during the investigation stage. The current laws in China take an absolute negative stance on defense’s access to case files during the investigation stage, explicitly prohibiting the exercise of the defendant’s right of access to case files before the initiation of the examination and prosecution stage. However, due to significant phenomena of investigative detention and the application of guilty pleas in practice, it seems necessary for defendants to have access to evidence materials to safeguard their legitimate interests. In Chinese academic circles, existing research has failed to analyze the legitimacy of the right of access to case files during pre-trial investigation within the framework of criminal procedural law and has not formed a unified understanding of the limitations of this right.This paper argues that the traditional understanding of the principle of investigative secrecy is not a legal principle but a working principle, lacking normative significance, and should be revised to the “narrow sense principle of investigative secrecy”. Its connotation lies in the informational dimension of investigative interest dominance, with its value orientation being the combatting of crime and the exercise of official authority. The legitimacy of the right of access to case files during pre-trial investigation is rooted in the legislative principle of procedural justice. When the defendant’s procedural rights or the substantive handling of the case are significantly influenced by investigative activities, the defendant should be allowed to review relevant case materials to effectively exercise their right to defense. Pretrial detention is a fundamental rights intervention that immediately restricts the personal freedom of suspects. Although the current rules regarding pretrial detention hearings aim to transform detention decisions into a more litigious process to implement the principles of “fewer arrests, cautious prosecutions, and prudential detentions”, defendants are unable to review evidence materials used to assess social dangerousness, resulting in the ineffectiveness of the aforementioned norms. Therefore, the right to review case files during pre-trial investigative detention should be acknowledged. In comparison, guilty pleas during the investigation stage do not have a significant and independent impact on the substantive and procedural rights of criminal suspects. The voluntariness and prudence review of guilty pleas mainly occur during the examination and prosecution stage, so there is currently no need to establish a system for reviewing case files related to guilty pleas during pre-trial investigation. This paper claims that China’s criminal justice system tends to prioritize substantive truth, idealize public authority, and focus on the investigative stage as the procedural center. Hence, it tends to maintain informational advantages, monopolize the discovery of facts during the investigative stage, and is reluctant to disclose evidence materials to criminal suspects and defense attorneys. However, the blanket denial of the right of access to case files during the investigation stage does not fundamentally mitigate the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings, and the imbalance caused by unilateral investigative practice may pose risks to the overall objectives of criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to establish limited right to review case files during pre-trial investigation.