Source:

Research Guides on Chinese Law Resources ("ICLRC - Chinese Law Resources on the Internet (05.04.2005)") [ID 3591]

Links and descriptions to Chinese law resources on the internet (ICLRC & LLRX) and in print (LLRX ).

Document(s): ICLRC - Chinese Law Resources on the Internet (05.04.2005)

Source:

Research Guides on Chinese Law Resources ("LLRX - A Complete Research Guide to the Laws of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (15.01.2003)") [ID 3591]

Links and descriptions to Chinese law resources on the internet (ICLRC & LLRX) and in print (LLRX ).

Document(s): LLRX - A Complete Research Guide to the Laws of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (15.01.2003)

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Public order administrative punishment law ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 18964]

"The government was reforming its administrative punishment system, but reforms seek to codify rather than abolish it. In March the new public order administrative punishment law went into effect. The law provides for administrative review of detention decisions, bans administrative detention of minors, the elderly, pregnant women, and nursing mothers, places limits on interrogation, and limits the maximum period for public order detentions to 20 days. However, the law also establishes more severe punishments and creates 165 new offences subject to administrative punishment, including illegal demonstrations, disturbing social order in the name of religion, invasion of privacy, and publication that incites ethnic or national hostility or discrimination."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Courts lack the independence and authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19080]

"Courts lacked the independence and authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws. The law permits organizations or individuals to question laws and regulations they believe contradict the constitution, but a constitutional challenge first requires consultation with the body drafting the questioned regulation and can only be appealed to the NPC. Accordingly, lawyers had little or no opportunity to use the constitution in litigation."

Document(s): Open document

01.2007 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Legal reforms stalled in 2006 ("World Report 2007") [ID 18560]

"Despite expectations of major new legislative initiatives and vigorous legal debates in academic and professional circles, legal reforms stalled in 2006. The Criminal Procedure Law has not been amended. The scheduled adoption of a property law, which would have secured private ownership and bolstered the legal rights of common citizens, was unexpectedly shelved.

[...]

The government took initial steps to reform the death penalty system by requiring the review of all cases by the Supreme People’s Court, which is likely to limit the approximately 10,000 executions carried out every year. New regulations governing organ procurement enacted on August 1, 2006, failed to address the fact that judicial executions are the major source of organs used in transplant surgery in China."

Document(s): Open document

01.2007 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Law on the Handling of Sudden Incidents ("World Report 2007") [ID 18565]

"China has also impeded circulation of several kinds of news events. A proposed new “Law on the Handling of Sudden Incidents” would require that journalists obtain permission before reporting news of disasters such as floods, public health emergencies, mining accidents, and public order disturbances. In September 2006, new measures mandated that foreign news agencies not sell stories directly to Chinese outlets but submit them first to Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, for clearance and subsequent distribution."

Document(s): Open document

06.10.2006 - Source: Human Rights in China

Draft law could further restrict media and human rights defenders ("Draft Emergency Response Law Bodes Ill for Civil Society") [ID 17892]

Document(s): Open document

15.09.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Religious practice restricted to government-sanctioned organisations ("International Religious Freedom Report 2006") [ID 18173]

"The constitution provides for freedom of religious belief and the freedom not to believe; however, the Government seeks to manage religious affairs by restricting religious practice to government-sanctioned organizations and registered places of worship and to control the growth and scope of activities of religious groups to prevent the rise of possible competing sources of authority outside of the control of the Government.

The criminal law states that government officials who deprive citizens of religious freedom may, in serious cases, be sentenced to up to two years in prison; however, there were no known cases of persons being punished under this statute.

The state reserves itself the right to register and thus to allow particular religious groups and spiritual movements to operate. For each of the five main religions, there is a government-affiliated association that monitors and supervises its activities and with which religious groups must affiliate. SARA is responsible for monitoring and judging the legitimacy of religious activity. SARA and the CCP United Front Work Department (UFWD) provide policy "guidance and supervision" on the implementation of government regulations regarding religious activity, including the role of foreigners in religious activity. Employees of SARA and the UFWD are rarely religious adherents and often are party members. Communist Party members are directed by party doctrine to be atheists and their family members are discouraged from public participation in religious ceremonies.
"

Document(s): Open document

15.09.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Regulations on religious affairs (RRA) enacted ("International Religious Freedom Report 2006") [ID 18175]

"In March 2005 the Government enacted the RRA, replacing previous 1994 regulations governing religious sites. The regulations regularize management of religious affairs within a legal framework and codify pre-existing administrative practice and regulation. Unlike the 1994 regulations, the RRA protect the rights of registered religious groups, under certain conditions, to possess property, publish literature, train and approve clergy, and collect donations. Comprehensive implementing regulations had not been issued by the end of the period covered by this report. There was little evidence that the new regulations improved religious freedom.

Like the 1994 law, the RRA require religious groups to register places of worship. Spiritual activities in places of worship that have not registered may be considered illegal, and participants can be punished. There are five requirements for the registration of "sites for religious activities:" First, establishment of the site must be consistent with the overall purpose of the RRA and must not be used to "disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens, or interfere with the educational system of the state" and must not be "subject to any foreign domination." Second, local religious citizens must have a need to carry out collective religious activities frequently. Third, there must be religious personnel qualified to preside over the activities. Fourth, the site must have "necessary funds." Fifth, the site must be "rationally located" so as not to interfere with normal production and neighboring residents. Government officials claim that registration requirements are simple and places of worship are not required to affiliate with one of the five official "patriotic" religious organizations that correspond to the five main faiths. However, according to the Government's April 2005 policy statement Measures for the Approval of Religious Activities, only pre-existing local, provincial or national-level religious organizations are authorized to apply for approval of a new religious venue and approval is granted only after an inspection by the local Religious Affairs Bureau.

Under the RRA, clergy need not be approved by the Government but must be reported to the Government after being selected pursuant to the rules of the relevant religious association.
"

Document(s): Open document

15.09.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Public Security Administrative Punishment Law takes effect ("International Religious Freedom Report 2006") [ID 18179]

"After the revised criminal law came into effect in 1997, offenses related to membership in unapproved cults and religious groups were classified as crimes of disturbing the social order. A ban on cults, including the Falun Gong spiritual movement, was enacted in 1999. Under Article 300 of the criminal law, "cult" members who "disrupt public order" or distribute publications may be sentenced to three to seven years in prison, while "cult" leaders and recruiters may be sentenced to seven years or more in prison. Under the new Public Security Administrative Punishment Law, which took effect March 1, 2006. Falun Gong adherents could face five to fifteen days of administrative detention and fines of up to $125 (1,000 RMB) for using superstitious cults or qigong activities to disrupt public order or harm public health. Public security officials said the law would be used against Falun Gong."

Document(s): Open document

11.09.2006 - Source: Forum 18

Analysis of the advantages of a national religion law that would help end arbitrary treatment of religious believers and restrictions on their rights by allowing them to appeal to an objective law; however, authorities avoided adopting a religion law and instead passed updated religion regulations in late 2004 ("Would a religion law help promote religious freedom?") [ID 17894]

Document(s): Open document

26.06.2006 - Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

Draft law currently under review by country’s legislature would subject news outlets to fines for reporting on natural disasters, riots, and other emergencies without official approval ("China plans restrictions on reporting of disasters") [ID 17126]

Document(s): Open document

09.03.2006 - Source: Guardian

Proposed legislation offering equal protection for state-owned and private property blocked by leftwing critics ("China's leftwing scuppers property reform legislation") [#46193],  [ID 17171]

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2006 - Source: Standard

Torture of inmates to gain confession, as well as use of these confessions in court, prohibited by law ("Peking will unter Folter erpresste Geständnisse verbieten") [#45308],  [ID 17176]

Document(s): Open document

01.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Legal System ("World Report 2006") [#42330],  [ID 17329]

"New laws and regulations in 2005 detailing the parameters of permitted religious activities and limiting the formation of news organizations are the latest manifestations of China’s ongoing attempt to position itself as a society ruled by law. Although improvements in some areas, particularly in commercial law, are noticeable, judicial processes are still compromised by political interference, reliance on coerced confessions, legal procedures weighted in favor of the state, closed trials, and administrative sentencing.  
 
Convictions on charges of “subversion” and of “leaking state secrets” continue to result from vaguely-worded state security and state secrets laws. Shi Tao, an established journalist, was sentenced to a ten-year prison term in April 2005 for “leaking state secrets abroad.” The secret was a directive banning journalists from reporting on the presence of overseas dissidents seeking to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. In September, Zheng Yichun was sentenced to a seven-year prison term for “incitement to subversion.” Evidence included articles he had written for foreign publications and websites and for his association with the Epoch Times, a publication allied with Falungong, a spiritual group banned in China as a cult.  
 
Plans to revise China’s Criminal Procedure Law proceeded slowly in 2005. Long-discussed proposals to add a judicial component to reeducation through labor regulations appear to have stalled."

Document(s): Open document

01.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Petitioners – The Xinfang System ("World Report 2006") [#42330],  [ID 17333]

"Under China’s unique petitioning system, citizens dissatisfied with decisions by local officials or courts may write letters of complaint or appear in person at petition bureaus, and they may appeal to petition offices in regional capitals and even in Beijing. Repression of petitioners has increased as the number of petitions has grown.  
 
Aggrieved parties have learned that public pressure forces officials to pay attention to issues such as corruption, forced evictions, and police abuse, and millions have taken to filing petitions. Local and regional officials whose careers and income could be jeopardized by popular expressions of discontent have, in turn, relied on ever harsher measures to disperse petitioners, frequently employing “retrievers,” who use force to break up protests and forcibly return home petitioners congregating in Beijing or in provincial capitals.  
 
Although petitions are rarely effective, the growth in number and increased presence of petitioners in major urban areas has forced central authorities to confront systemic problems. New amendments to petitioning regulations, in effect since May 1, 2005, mandate punishment for those who retaliate against petitioners and for officials who fail to carry out their duties. The same regulations, however, restrict petitioner activism."

Document(s): Open document

08.12.2005 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Report on treatment of Chinese citizens who travel to Beijing to demand approval of or answers to their complaints of mistreatment by officials (petitioning system, abuses against petitioners, list of detained petitioners) (""We Could Disappear At Any Time": Retaliation and Abuses Against Chinese Petitioners") [#40389],  [ID 3592]

Document(s): Open document
Pressemitteilung zum Bericht

11.2005 - Source: UK Home Office

Double Jeopardy ("Country Report - October 2005 (revised November 2005)") [#39234],  [ID 3593]

"5.33 Articles 8 to 12 of the Criminal Law covers the circumstances in which an individual who commits crimes outside the PRC can be retried upon return to China.
Article 8:
“This law may be applicable to foreigners, who outside PRC territory, commit crimes against the PRC state or against its citizens, provided that this law stipulates a minimum sentence of not less than a three-year fixed term of imprisonment for such crimes; but an exception is to be made if a crime is not punishable according [to] the law of the place where it was committed.” [5i] (p3)
Article 9:
“This law is applicable to the crimes specified in international treaties to which the PRC is a signatory state or with which it is a member and the PRC exercises criminal jurisdiction over such crimes within its treaty obligations.” [5i] (p3)
Article 10:
“Any person who commits a crime outside PRC territory and according to this law bear criminal responsibility may still be dealt with according to this law even if he has been tried in a foreign country; however, a person who has already received criminal punishment in a foreign country may be exempted from punishment or given a mitigated punishment.” [5i] (p3)
Article 11:
“The problem of criminal responsibility of foreigners who enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunity is to be resolved through diplomatic channels.” [5i] (p3)
Article 12:
“If an act committed after the founding of the PRC and before the implementation of this law was not deemed a crime under the laws at that time, the laws at that time are to be applicable. If the act was deemed a crime under the laws at that time, and if under the provisions of Chapter IV, Section 8 of the general provisions of this law it should be prosecuted, criminal responsibility is to be investigated according to the laws at that time. However, if this law does not deem it a crime or imposes a lesser punishment, this law is to be applicable.
The effective judgments that were made according to the laws at that time before the implementation of this law will continue to be in force.” [5i] (p3)

5.34 As reported by the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (Canadian IRB) in a report dated 9 March 2001:
“A Professor of Law at the University of Washington who specializes in Chinese criminal law was unaware of any cases in which the government of China has retried individuals for crimes committed outside China and for which sentences had already been served (8 Mar. 2001). Additional and/or corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.” [3ag]

5.35 In a letter dated 15 July 2005, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) stated the following:
“The circumstances under which an individual would be punished in China for a crime committed in a foreign country for which he had already been punished in that country, are unstipulated. The Chinese authorities are most likely to take this action if the crime had received a lot of publicity in China, if the victims were well-connected in China, if there were a political angle to the original crime or if the crimes were of a particular type that the authorities wanted to make an example of. Our Embassy in Beijing is unaware of such instances. The specific inclusion in the Criminal Law of `exemptions’ from second punishment in China for crimes committed abroad suggests that the authorities would not take further action against ordinary criminal offences.” [31g]"

Document(s): Open document

11.10.2005 - Source: Congressional-Executive Commission on China

Legal restraints on state power ("Annual Report 2005") [#37506],  [ID 3594]

see report for further details - Chapter V(b)

"The Chinese government has affirmed the right of citizens to petition the National People’s Congress Standing Committee for review of regulations that violate the Constitution or national law. The effect of this right remains limited, however, since Chinese citizens have no right to compel such review or to challenge the constitutionality of government actions.
Constitutional enforcement remains a politically sensitive topic in China, and the near-term prospects for the establishment of a more robust constitutional enforcement mechanism are remote. The Chinese government has ruled out establishing a constitutional court or giving people’s courts the power to review the constitutionality of laws and regulations.
The Chinese government has enacted laws to curb administrative abuses, but Chinese officials retain significant administrative discretion. Existing legal mechanisms provide only limited checks on arbitrary or unlawful government actions."

Document(s): Open document

11.10.2005 - Source: Congressional-Executive Commission on China

Legal Framework For Minority Rights ("Annual Report 2005") [#37506],  [ID 3595]

see report for further details - chapter III(a)

"Minority rights protected under Chinese law may be roughly divided into seven categories: self-governance and representation, economic autonomy, educational autonomy, religious freedom, cultural expression, language use, and freedom from discrimination. Although the laws themselves contain provisions ensuring central control over minority areas,28 much of the discontent among minorities with central authority stems from uneven and incomplete implementation of the law rather than flaws in the legal framework itself. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

07.10.2005 - Source: Congressional-Executive Commission on China

Report on household registration system (hukou) imposing strict limits on ordinary citizens changing their permanent place of residence (origins of the system from 1950s to 1970s, changes from 1970s to 1990s, recent reforms, discrimination) ("China's Household Registration System: Sustained Reform Needed to Protect China's Rural Migrants") [#37587],  [ID 3596]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

05.2005 - Source:

Frank Münzel: Commented German translations of Laws of China [ID 3597]

German full-text translations of chinese laws, mainly from the economic sector

Document(s): Open document

20.12.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Information response: Attatchment: Extracts from the Chinese criminal code: Estimated probability of persecution of citizens who are suspected for subversion of state ("Stellungnahme vom 20.12.2004 an VGH Hessen - 8 UE 1219/04.A -") [#30518],  [ID 3601]

"Auszüge aus dem Strafgesetzbuch der VR China[5]

§ 7

Das vorliegende Gesetz findet Anwendung auf Straftaten, die von Bürgern der Volksrepublik China außerhalb des Hoheitsgebietes der Volksrepublik China begangen werden, ist jedoch nach den Bestimmungen dieses Gesetzes [eine derartige Straftat] mit der Höchststrafe von drei Jahren Freiheitsentzug bedroht, kann von Strafverfolgung abgesehen werden.

...

§ 103
Wer die Spaltung des Staates oder die Zerstörung der Einheit des Staates organisiert, plant oder betreibt, wird mit lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe oder mit zeitiger Freiheitsstrafe von mindestens zehn Jahren bestraft, wenn er Rädelsführer ist oder wenn die strafbare Handlung gravierend ist; gegen aktiv Beteiligte wird zeitige Freiheitsstrafe von drei Jahren bis zu zehn Jahren verhängt; gegen andere Beteiligte wird zeitige Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren, Gewahrsam, Überwachung oder Entzug politischer Rechte verhängt.

Wer zur Spaltung des Staates oder zur Zerstörung der Einheit des Staates aufhetzt, wird mit zeitiger Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren, Gewahrsam, Überwachung oder Entzug politischer Rechte bestraft; wenn er Rädelsführer ist oder wenn die strafbare Handlung gravierend ist, wird er mit zeitiger Freiheitsstrafe von mindestens fünf Jahren bestraft.

§ 105
Wer die Subversion der Staatsmacht oder den Umsturz des sozialistischen Systems organisiert, plant oder betreibt, wird mit lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe oder mit zeitiger Freiheitsstrafe von mindestens zehn Jahren bestraft, wenn er Rädelsführer ist oder wenn die strafbare Handlung gravierend ist; gegen aktiv Beteiligte wird zeitige Freiheitsstrafe von drei Jahren bis zu zehn Jahren verhängt; gegen andere Beteiligte wird zeitige Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren, Gewahrsam, Überwachung oder Entzug politischer Rechte verhängt.

Wer durch Verbreiten von Gerüchten und Verleumdungen oder in sonstiger Weise zur Subversion der Staatsmacht oder zum Umsturz des sozialistischen Systems aufhetzt, wird mit zeitiger Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren Gewahrsam, Überwachung oder Entzug politischer Rechte bestraft; wenn er Rädelsführer ist oder wenn die strafbare Handlung gravierend ist, wird er mit zeitiger Freiheitsstrafe von mindestens fünf Jahren bestraft.

§ 106
Wird eine der in § 103, § 104 oder § 105 des vorliegenden Kapitels bestimmten Straftaten im geheimen Zusammenwirken mit einer ausländischen Institution, Organisation oder Einzelperson verübt, ergeht nach Maßgabe der Bestimmungen in den jeweils einschlägigen Paragraphen Strafe schwereren Grades.

§ 107
Wenn eine inländische oder ausländische Institution, Organisation oder Einzelperson einer inländischen Organisation oder Einzelperson zur Verübung einer der in § 102, § 103, § 104 oder § 105 des vorliegenden Kapitels bestimmten Straftaten finanzielle Hilfe leistet, werden die unmittelbar verantwortlichen Personen mit zeitiger Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren, Gewahrsam, Überwachung oder Entzug politischer Rechte bestraft; sind die Tatumstände ernst und schwer wiegend, ergeht zeitige Freiheitsstrafe von mindestens fünf Jahren.

§ 111
Wer für ausländische Institutionen, Organisationen oder Personalangehörige Staatsgeheimnisse oder Nachrichten stiehlt oder raubt, auskundschaftet, ankauft oder rechtswidrig liefert, wird mit zeitiger Freiheitsstrafe von fünf Jahren bis zu zehn Jahren bestraft; sind die Tatumstände besonders ernst und schwer wiegend, ergeht zeitige Freiheitsstrafe von mindestens zehn Jahren oder lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe; sind die Tatumstände von verhältnismäßig leichtem Gewicht, ergeht zeitige Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren, Gewahrsam, Überwachung oder Entzug politischer Rechte.

§ 113
Ist bei Vorliegen einer der oben genannten, die Sicherheit des Staates gefährdenden Straftaten des vorliegenden Kapitels, mit Ausnahme des § 103 Absatz 2, des § 105, des § 107 und des § 109, die gegen Staat und Volk gerichtete Gefährdung besonders ernst und schwer wiegend, oder sind die Tatumstände besonders verwerflich, kann auf Todesstrafe erkannt werden.
Wer eine Straftat des vorliegenden Kapitels begeht, kann zusätzlich mit der Einziehung seines Vermögens belegt werden."

Document(s): Open document

10.2003 - Source: UK Home Office

Country Assessment - October 2003: Legal Rights ("Country Report - October 2003") [#49232],  [ID 3598]

"Legal Rights / Detention

5.21. The Criminal Law of the PRC was amended in March 1997. Article 13 defines as crimes "all acts that endanger the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security of the state; split the state; subvert the political power of the people's democratic dictatorship and overthrow the socialist system; undermine social and economic order; ... and other acts that endanger society." Article 13 also states that "if the circumstances are clearly minor and the harm is not great, [such acts] are not to be deemed crimes."

5.22. Of note in the PRC Criminal Code, article 277 covers the penalty for hitting an official and articles 322, and 52, 53 cover illegal emigration and penalties on return (see below, Returns).

5.23. The Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), adopted in 1979, was revised in March 1996. The revisions came into force in January 1997. The revised CPL increased the protections for people detained under the criminal justice system, including guaranteed access to legal counsel after interrogation or detention by the police. The revised law also adjusts the balance of the "verdict first, trial second" provisions of the 1979 law, under which a verdict and sentence were usually decided by an adjudication committee and rubber-stamped by the trial court. It is now the trial court rather than the court president who can decide to refer difficult cases to the adjudication committee and only where the trial court finds it difficult to reach a decision having heard and deliberated the evidence. [2b][6b] During 1998, the government increased its efforts to educate lawyers, judges, prosecutors and the public on the provisions of the new law, implementation of, which remains uneven, and far from complete.

5.24. Despite its revisions, the CPL permits long periods of detention without charge or trial, and grants wide powers to the police to restrict or detain people on their own authority, without judicial review. The police can issue "summons" (juchuan); "taking a guarantee and awaiting trial" (qubao houshen); "supervised residence" (jianshi juzhu) and "detention" (juliu). All can be issued without any other body looking over the authorising document. Arrest (daibu) marks the time at which a suspect is formally charged with a crime, and an arrest warrant is issued, counter-authorised by the procuracy. Arrest is followed by a period of "investigation", usually by the police. This ends when the police file a request for prosecution with the procuracy. The procuracy then reviews the case in order to decide whether or not to initiate a "public prosecution". If it proceeds with prosecution, the procuracy writes an indictment and transmits the case to court for examination and trial. After reviewing the case the court decides whether or not to proceed with the trial. Throughout this process, detainees have right of access to a judge to challenge the grounds of their detention only when the length of detention has exceeded the time limits prescribed by law.

5.25. The revised CPL provides exemptions in "state secrets" cases; for example, the denial of access to lawyers while a case is being investigated. The definition of "state secrets" is broad and vague and subject to independent interpretation by police, prosecutors and judges, at different stages in a criminal case.

5.26. Customs officers in the PRC have wide powers and are given great discretion in what they seize and when, both on items coming into the PRC and items leaving the PRC. Prohibited material is promptly destroyed."

Document(s): Open document

10.2003 - Source: UK Home Office

Country Assessment - October 2003: Land Law ("Country Report - October 2003") [#49232],  [ID 3599]

"Land Law

5.32. All land in China is owned by the State, represented in rural areas by collectives. The Land Administration Law, amended in 1988, states that "When the state requisitions land for construction, the units whose land is requisitioned should subordinate their wishes to the needs of the state and shall not obstruct the requisition." Decisions on what plots should be requisitioned are generally made at local (county) level. County level officials are also responsible for rates of compensation, and the administrative sanctions to be imposed on those who make unlawful land transfers, constructions and excavations. Disputes over land use and ownership are also resolved at or above county level. A report in the Times newspaper on 9 September 2003 alleges that in the last decade the government confiscated 70 per cent of newly urbanised land and that in many cases compensation was not paid due to the involvement of corrupt local officials."

Document(s): Open document

15.01.2003 - Source: Law Library Resource Xchange

Research Guide to the Laws of the People's Republic of China (by Wei Luo and Joan Liu) ("A Complete Research Guide to the Laws of the People's Republic of China (PRC) - By Wei Luo and Joan Liu") [#17629],  [ID 3600]

Document(s): Open document