论性侵害未成年人案件“排除合理怀疑”的司法适用，研究的主要内容包括：考察“排除合理怀疑”历史发展、司法适用的实际情况，在此基础上，系统性反思性侵害未成年人案件“排除合理怀疑”司法适用面临的困境，最终实现其司法适用的系统性优化。论文包括以下四部分：

第一部分，性侵害未成年人案件“排除合理怀疑”适用的溯源考察与具体界定。在该部分，通过对“排除合理怀疑”进行域外比较性考察，厘清“排除合理怀疑”的起源、衍变以及功能。同时对中国法语境下的“排除合理怀疑”标准进行阐释，明确我国语境下该标准的立法沿革、具体内涵、与“证据确实、充分”的关系、适用范围、主体与对象。

第二部分，性侵害未成年人案件“排除合理怀疑”适用的实践考察。在该部分，首先对性侵害未成年人案件“排除合理怀疑”司法适用的整体实践考察，通过参与观察、访谈与实地调研获取到的74个案件样本，实现性侵未成年人案件的特征总结。并立足于8份代表性的访谈记录，剖析此类案件中“排除合理怀疑”适用的基本特征、“合理怀疑”的具体形成原因及其排除逻辑。

第三部分，性侵害未成年人案件“排除合理怀疑”适用的系统性反思。立足于“主体”“程序”“机制”与“方法”的系统性反思范式，主体反思表现为，“排除合理怀疑”的模糊特征及其认知差异、主体职能差异影响“排除合理怀疑”适用效果以及主体所处环境制约“合理怀疑”的排除进程；程序反思表现为，非规范化的侦查取证程序、形式化的监督程序、虚置化的庭审程序；机制反思表现为性侵害未成年人检警合作机制的现实困境与审判内部沟通机制尚未充分发挥效能；方法反思表现为，侦查取证方法的不当使用与客观滞后现状、传统印证审查方法的形式化与客观化弊端以及间接证据定案方法的审判风险。

第四部分，性侵害未成年人案件“排除合理怀疑”适用的系统优化逻辑。针对现存的问题，遵循系统完善逻辑，在性侵害未成年人案件中，针对“排除合理怀疑”适用的主体认知差异以及冲突，探索认知差异的消弭路径与共识的生成逻辑，并摒弃形式化的程序，尝试建构实质化的取证、监督以及审判程序，以系统优化为理念，重塑“排除合理怀疑”的司法适用机制，同时凝聚司法智慧经验，探寻侦查取证、证据审查以及审判方法的综合适用路径。

The judicial application of “excluding reasonable doubt” in cases of sexual assault against minors is studied with the aim of comprehensively understanding its historical development, practical application, and the challenges it faces, ultimately striving for the overarching goal of effecting systematic optimization within the legal framework. The paper consists of four parts:

Chapter One traces the origin and evolution of the application of “excluding reasonable doubt” through comparative analysis across different legal systems, elucidating its functions. It also interprets the standard of “excluding reasonable doubt” within the context of Chinese law, clarifying its legislative history, specific connotations, relationship with “sufficient evidence,” scope of application, as well as subjects and objects.

Chapter Two conducts a practical examination of the application of “excluding reasonable doubt” in cases of sexual assault against minors. Through the analysis of 74 case samples obtained through participant observation, interviews, and field research, the characteristics of such cases are summarized. Based on transcripts of 8 representative interviews, the basic features of the application of “excluding reasonable doubt,” the specific reasons for forming “reasonable doubt,” and the logic of its exclusion are dissected.

Chapter Three engages in systematic reflection on the application of “excluding reasonable doubt” in cases of sexual assault against minors, focusing on the paradigms of subjects, procedures, mechanisms, and methods. Subject reflection reveals the fuzzy characteristics of “excluding reasonable doubt” and cognitive differences, the impact of differences in subject functions on the effectiveness of its application, and the environmental constraints on the exclusion process of “reasonable doubt.” Procedural reflection highlights non-standardized investigation and evidence collection procedures, formalized supervision procedures, and marginalized trial procedures. Reflection upon mechanism discusses the practical difficulties of the cooperation mechanism between prosecutors and juvenile victims of sexual abuse and the inadequate efficiency of communication mechanisms within the judiciary. Method reflection addresses inappropriate use of investigation and evidence collection methods, shortcomings of traditional confirmation examination methods, and the risks of trial decisions based on indirect evidence.

Chapter Four outlines the logic of systematic optimization for the application of “excluding reasonable doubt” in cases of sexual assault against minors. Addressing existing problems, it follows a logic of systematic improvement, exploring paths to eliminate cognitive differences and generate consensus regarding the application of “excluding reasonable doubt” in cases of sexual assault against minors. It advocates for the abandonment of formalized procedures and the construction of substantive evidence collection, supervision, and trial procedures. Guided by the principle of systematic optimization, it aims to reshape the judicial application mechanism of “excluding reasonable doubt” while consolidating judicial wisdom and exploring comprehensive methods for the application of investigation and evidence collection, as well as trial methods.