11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Trials involving capital offenses sometimes took place under circumstances involving severe lack of due process and with no meaningful appeal ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22757]

"Trials involving capital offenses sometimes took place under circumstances involving severe lack of due process and with no meaningful appeal. Some executions took place on the day of conviction or failed appeal. Executions of Uighurs whom authorities accused of separatism, but which some observers claimed were politically motivated, were reported. On February 8, authorities executed Ismail Semed, an ethnic Uighur from the XUAR, following 2005 convictions for "attempting to split the motherland" and other counts related to possession of firearms and explosives."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

During the year individuals were assigned to administrative detention without charge, trial, or judicial review ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22768]

"Administrative detention was frequently used to intimidate political activists and prevent public demonstrations. During the year individuals were assigned to administrative detention without charge, trial, or judicial review. Efforts to reform or abolish the reeducation-through-labor system remained stalled. In March 2006 the New Public Order Administrative Punishment Law went into effect, which provides for review of detention decisions but also creates 165 new offenses subject to administrative punishment. According to reports there were concerns that authorities were expanding the use of punitive administrative detention rather than reforming or abolishing it.
In May 2006 the SPP acknowledged that unlawful extended detentions remained a problem and that authorities misused legal provisions to hide this. A nationwide survey found that, between January 2003 and September, 33,643 persons were detained longer than provided by law at some stage of the investigation, prosecution, or trial process. A number of individuals in politically sensitive cases were held for periods longer than the time authorized by law. In some cases investigating security agents or prosecutors sought repeated extensions, resulting in pretrial detention of a year or longer.
Citizens who were reportedly detained with no or severely delayed notice included Pan Blue Alliance leader Sun Buer, who police in May took from his home and held incommunicado. On August 24, PSB officials arrested writer and rights activist Lu Gengsong following publication of articles critical of authorities. Lu was held in detention for more than a month, and on September 29 he was formally charged with "inciting subversion of state power." On August 21, activist Yue Ming was detained for two weeks without charge for posting online messages calling a meeting for people upset over high housing costs."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Administrative detention was used to intimidate political activists and prevent public demonstrations ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22769]

"The law permits nonjudicial panels, called labor reeducation panels, to sentence persons without trial to three years in reeducation-through-labor camps or other administrative detention programs. The labor reeducation committee is authorized to extend a sentence up to one year. Defendants could challenge reeducation-through-labor sentences under the administrative litigation law and appeal for a reduction in, or suspension of, their sentences. However, appeals rarely succeeded. Many other persons were detained in similar forms of administrative detention, known as "custody and education" (for prostitutes and those soliciting prostitutes) and "custody and training" (for minors who committed crimes). Administrative detention was used to intimidate political activists and prevent public demonstrations. Special reeducation centers were used to detain Falun Gong practitioners who had completed terms in reeducation-through-labor but whom authorities decided to continue detaining."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

The judiciary was not independent; it received policy guidance from both the government and the Communist Party ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22771]

"The law states that the courts shall exercise judicial power independently, without interference from administrative organs, social organizations, and individuals. However, in practice the judiciary was not independent. It received policy guidance from both the government and the CCP, whose leaders used a variety of means to direct courts on verdicts and sentences, particularly in politically sensitive cases. At both the central and local levels, the government and CCP frequently interfered in the judicial system and dictated court decisions. Trial judges decide individual cases under the direction of the adjudication committee in each court. In addition the CCP's law and politics committee, which includes representatives of the police, security services, procuratorate, and courts, had the authority to review and influence court operations at all levels of the judiciary; in some cases the committee altered decisions. People's congresses also had authority to alter court decisions, but this happened rarely."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

The law gives most suspects the right to seek legal counsel shortly after their initial detention and interrogation, although police frequently interfered with this right ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22831]

"Trials took place before a judge, who often was accompanied by "people's assessors," lay persons hired by the court to assist in decision making. According to statistics published during the year, there were 55,681 people's assessors. According to law, people's assessors had authority similar to judges, but in practice they deferred to judges and did not exercise an independent jury-like function.
The law gives most suspects the right to seek legal counsel shortly after their initial detention and interrogation, although police frequently interfered with this right. Individuals who faced administrative detention do not have the right to seek legal counsel.
The government expanded the scope of legal aid and required authorities to notify criminal defendants of their right to apply for legal aid. Both criminal and administrative cases remained eligible for legal aid, although 70 percent or more of criminal defendants still went to trial without a lawyer. According to the Ministry of Justice, during the first half of the year legal aid was granted in 124,800 cases. The number of government lawyers providing legal aid remained inadequate to meet demand. Nonattorney legal advisors and government employees provided the only legal aid options in many areas. According to government statistics, more than 12,155 employees provided legal aid at 3,171 legal aid centers. During 2006 courts waived more than $169.4 million (RMB 1.21 billion) in litigation costs."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Government-employed lawyers often refused to represent defendants in politically sensitive cases ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22832]

"Government-employed lawyers often refused to represent defendants in politically sensitive cases, and defendants frequently found it difficult to find an attorney. When defendants were able to retain counsel in politically sensitive cases, government officials sometimes prevented effective representation of counsel. Officials deployed a wide range of tactics to obstruct the work of lawyers representing sensitive clients, including unlawful detentions, disbarment, intimidation, refusal to allow a case to be tried before a court, and physical abuse. According to the law, defense attorneys can be held responsible if their client commits perjury, and prosecutors and judges have wide discretion to decide what constitutes perjury. In February 2006 lawyer Tang Jingling was beaten by thugs after visiting Guo Feixiong. Police refused to investigate the incident. In April 2006 Tang, who had begun practicing law at a second firm, was stripped of his license to practice law and dismissed from that law firm. In some sensitive cases, lawyers had no pretrial access to their clients, and defendants and lawyers were not allowed to speak during trials. In practice criminal defendants often were not assigned an attorney until a case was brought to court. For example, officials detained prominent rights attorney Gao Zhisheng in August 2006 on "suspicion of involvement in criminal activity" and subsequently deprived Gao of his right to counsel by obstructing efforts to formalize Gao's representation. Officials later claimed that Gao declined representation by counsel. Even in nonsensitive criminal trials, only one in seven defendants reportedly had legal representation."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

The mechanism that allows defendants to confront their accusers was inadequate ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22833]

"The mechanism that allows defendants to confront their accusers was inadequate; the percentage of witnesses who came to court in criminal cases was less than 10 percent and as low as 1 percent in some courts. According to one expert, only 1 to 5 percent of trials involved witnesses. In most criminal trials, prosecutors read witness statements, which neither the defendant nor his lawyer had an opportunity to question. Approximately 95 percent of witnesses in criminal cases did not appear in court to testify, in part due to hardship or fear of reprisals. Although the criminal procedure law says pretrial witness statements cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction, officials relied heavily on such statements to support their cases. Defense attorneys had no authority to compel witnesses to testify or to mandate discovery, although they could apply for access to government-held evidence relevant to their case. In practice pretrial access to information was minimal, and the defense often lacked adequate opportunity to prepare for trial."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

The criminal justice system was biased toward a presumption of guilt, especially in high-profile or politically sensitive cases ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22834]

"The criminal justice system was biased toward a presumption of guilt, especially in high-profile or politically sensitive cases. The conviction rate for first-instance criminal cases was above 99 percent in 2006. In many politically sensitive trials, which rarely lasted more than several hours, the courts handed down guilty verdicts immediately following proceedings. Courts often punished defendants who refused to acknowledge guilt with harsher sentences than those who confessed. There was an appeals process, but appeals rarely resulted in reversed verdicts. Appeals processes failed to provide sufficient avenue for review, and there were inadequate remedies for violations of defendants' rights. Nationwide, courts at all levels found 1,713 defendants not guilty, which represented 0.19 percent of criminal defendants at trial."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Authorities used the legal exception for cases involving state secrets to keep politically sensitive proceedings closed to the public ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22835]

"SPC regulations require all trials to be open to the public, with certain exceptions, such as cases involving state secrets, privacy, and minors. Authorities used the legal exception for cases involving state secrets to keep politically sensitive proceedings closed to the public and sometimes even to family members, and to improperly withhold access to defense counsel. Under the regulations, foreigners with valid identification are allowed the same access to trials as citizens, but in practice foreigners were permitted to attend court proceedings by invitation only. As in past years, foreign diplomats and journalists sought permission to attend a number of trials only to have court officials reclassify them as "state secret" cases, fill all available seats with security officials, or otherwise close them to the public. Between June and July in Guangzhou, representatives of a foreign consulate initially were granted permission to attend the trial of Guo Feixiong, but authorities postponed the trial date and subsequently denied access to the consulate. On November 14, Guo was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and fined over $5,600 (RMB 40,000) following a year in detention. Some trials were broadcast, and court proceedings were a regular television feature. A few courts published their verdicts on the Internet."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Police and prosecutorial officials often ignored the due process provisions of the law ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22836]

"There was no adversary system, no presumption of innocence, and judges and prosecutors typically used an inquisitorial style to question the defendant, who was often the only witness. The law affords no right to remain silent, no protection against double jeopardy, and no rules governing the type of evidence that may be introduced.
Police and prosecutorial officials often ignored the due process provisions of the law. Because of the lack of due process, the consequences were particularly egregious in death penalty cases. By law there are at least 68 capital offenses, including nonviolent financial crimes such as counterfeiting currency, embezzlement, and corruption. Following the SPC's reassumption of death penalty review power on January 1, executions were not to be carried out on the date of conviction, but only on the SPC's approval following review. Media reports stated that approximately 10 percent of executions were for economic crimes, especially corruption. However, SPC Vice President Jiang Xingchang stated the SPC handed down only "a very small number of death sentences for economic crimes now, just a few a year.""

Document(s): Open document

10.10.2007 - Source: Congressional-Executive Commission on China

Criminal justice system is strongly biased toward a presumption of guilt, particularly in cases that are high-profile or politically sensitive ("Annual Report 2007") [ID 21292]

see report for further details

"Over the past few years, Chinese courts have maintained a  consistent conviction rate above 99 percent, due in part  to the lack of fairness of criminal trials and the routine  failure to comply with standards set forth under Article 14(1)  of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  (ICCPR). China's criminal justice system is strongly  biased toward a presumption of guilt, particularly in cases  that are high-profile or politically sensitive. Trial  courts are required by law to conduct their proceedings in  public, but can also resort to the ``state secrets'' exception  and conduct politically charged trials as they see fit, behind closed doors and thus shielded from public scrutiny.  Court officials have in the past also denied requests by U.S.  embassy and consular officers to attend the criminal trials of  certain political, legal, and religious activists, including  the August 2003 trial of U.S. permanent resident Yang Jianli  and the November 2005 trial of Protestant house church leader  Cai Zhuohua. Yang was released on April 27, 2007, after serving  a five-year prison sentence for alleged espionage and illegal  border crossing. Cai was released on September 10, 2007,  upon the completion of his three-year prison sentence for  printing and giving away Bibles and other religious literature  without government permission. In June 2007, the Supreme  People's Court (SPC) issued several opinions aimed at improving  trial adjudication throughout China, and called on local courts  to carry out trial proceedings lawfully, promptly, and  transparently. Nonetheless, the opinions keep intact the  ``state secrets'' exception."

Document(s): Open document

06.2007 - Source: Freedom House

Many political prisoners and ordinary criminal defendants are deprived of trials ("Freedom in the World 2007") [ID 20406]

"The party controls the judiciary. The CCP directs verdicts and sentences, particularly in politically sensitive cases. Despite advances in criminal procedure reforms, trials—which are often mere sentencing hearings—are frequently closed; in practice, few criminal defendants have access to counsel. Although regulations issued in July 2006 were aimed at addressing the problem, the authorities continue to use torture to coerce confessions that are frequently admitted as evidence. Police conduct searches without warrants and at times monitor telephone conversations and other personal communications to use as evidence against suspected dissidents. Many political prisoners and ordinary criminal defendants are deprived of trials altogether, detained instead by bureaucratic fiat in “re-education through labor” camps. Endemic corruption further exacerbates the lack of due process in the judicial system. Judicial conditions are worst in capital punishment cases; 65 crimes carry the death penalty, and perpetrators are often executed immediately on conviction or failure of appeal. In October 2006, new legislation was announced requiring all death penalties handed down by lower courts be reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Executions ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 18957]

"Trials involving capital offenses sometimes took place under circumstances involving severe lack of due process and with no meaningful appeal. Some executions took place on the day of conviction or failed appeal. In past years executions of Uighurs whom authorities accused of separatism, but which some observers claimed were politically motivated, were reported (see sections 1.e. and 5). The government regarded the number of death sentences it carried out as a state secret. However, in March 2004 a National People's Congress (NPC) deputy asserted that nearly 10,000 cases per year "result in immediate execution," a figure SPC and Ministry of Justice officials stated was exaggerated. Foreign experts estimated that the country executed between 5,000 and 12,000 persons each year. Media reports stated that approximately 10 percent of executions were for economic crimes, especially corruption. The SPC began implementing new appellate procedures requiring it to review all death sentences, thus consolidating and reclaiming the death penalty review power from provincial courts. The SPC and SPP issued a joint interpretation to establish specific guidelines for how local courts and procuratorates should handle death penalty appeals. The SPC added three new tribunals to conduct reviews of death sentences and hired hundreds of personnel to staff the new tribunals, but at year's end it had not begun exercising its reclaimed review authority. The SPC has not issued a judicial interpretation to settle unresolved issues in the death penalty review process and to clarify its own procedures for final review."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Trial procedures ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19078]

"Trials took place before a judge, who often was accompanied by "people's assessors," lay persons hired by the court to assist in decision making. According to statistics published during the year, there were 48,211 people's assessors. According to law, people's assessors had authority similar to judges, but in practice they deferred to judges and did not exercise an independent jury-like function.

The law gives most suspects the right to seek legal counsel shortly after their initial detention and interrogation, although police often circumvented defendants' right to seek counsel. Individuals who faced administrative detention do not have the right to seek legal counsel.

The government expanded the scope of legal aid and required authorities to notify criminal defendants of their right to apply for legal aid. Both criminal and administrative cases remained eligible for legal aid, although 70 percent or more of criminal defendants still went to trial without a lawyer. According to the Ministry of Justice, during the first half of the year legal aid was granted in 124,800 cases. The number of government lawyers providing legal aid remained inadequate to meet demand. Nonattorney legal advisors and government employees provided the only legal aid options in many areas. According to government statistics, more than 10,000 employees provided legal aid at 3,155 legal aid centers. New regulations required law firms and private attorneys to provide some legal aid. During 2005 courts waived more than $158 million (RMB 1.27 billion) in litigation costs.

Government-employed lawyers often refused to represent defendants in politically sensitive cases and defendants frequently found it difficult to find an attorney. When defendants were able to retain counsel in politically sensitive cases, government officials sometimes prevented effective representation of counsel. [...]

The mechanism that allows defendants to confront their accusers was inadequate; according to one expert, only 1 to 5 percent of trials involved witnesses. In most criminal trials prosecutors read witness statements, which neither the defendant nor his lawyer have an opportunity to question. Approximately 95 percent of witnesses in criminal cases did not appear in court to testify, in part due to hardship or fear of reprisals. Although criminal procedure law says pretrial witness statements cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction, officials relied heavily on such statements to support their cases. Defense attorneys had no authority to compel witnesses to testify or to mandate discovery, although they could apply for access to government-held evidence relevant to their case. In practice, pretrial access to information was minimal, and the defense often lacked adequate opportunity to prepare for trial.

The criminal justice system was biased toward a presumption of guilt, especially in high-profile or politically sensitive cases. The conviction rate for first-instance criminal cases rose slightly and remained above 99 percent in 2005. In many politically sensitive trials, which rarely lasted more than several hours, the courts handed down guilty verdicts immediately following proceedings. Courts often punished defendants who refused to acknowledge guilt with harsher sentences than those who confessed. There was an appeals process, but appeals rarely resulted in reversed verdicts. Appeals processes failed to provide sufficient avenue for review, and there were inadequate remedies for violations of defendants' rights. Nationwide, appeals resulted in changed verdicts in only 0.36 percent of all cases, including capital cases.

SPC regulations require all trials to be open to the public, with certain exceptions, such as cases involving state secrets, privacy, and minors. Authorities used the legal exception for cases involving state secrets to keep politically sensitive proceedings closed to the public and sometimes even to family members, and to improperly withhold access to defense counsel. Under the regulations, foreigners with valid identification are allowed the same access to trials as citizens, but in practice foreigners were permitted to attend court proceedings by invitation only. As in past years, foreign diplomats and journalists sought permission to attend a number of trials only to have court officials reclassify them as "state secret" cases, fill all available seats with security officials, or otherwise close them to the public. Some trials were broadcast, and court proceedings were a regular television feature. A few courts published their verdicts on the Internet.

There was no adversary system, no presumption of innocence, and judges and prosecutors typically used an inquisitorial style to question the defendant, who was often the only witness. The law affords no right to remain silent, no protection against double jeopardy, and no rules governing the type of evidence that may be introduced.

Police and prosecutorial officials often ignored the due process provisions of the law. The lack of due process was particularly egregious in death penalty cases. There were at least 68 capital offenses, including nonviolent financial crimes such as counterfeiting currency, embezzlement, and corruption. Executions were often carried out on the date of conviction. In February the Guangdong High Court announced that the death penalty could be applied in bag-snatching cases. Previously, the maximum sentence was three years."

Document(s): Open document

20.09.2006 - Source: Congressional-Executive Commission on China

Fair trial ("Annual Report 2006") [ID 17376]

see report for further details - Chapter V(b)

"• Chinese authorities use reeducation through labor and other forms of administrative detention to circumvent the criminal process and imprison offenders for ‘‘minor crimes,’’ without judicial review and the procedural protections guaranteed by the Chinese Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded in 2004 that the Chinese government has made no significant progress in reforming the administrative detention system to ensure judicial review and to conform to international law. Although proposed reforms would provide some added procedural protections, they would still not provide an accused individual the opportunity to dispute the alleged misconduct and contest law enforcement accusations of guilt before an independent adjudicatory body.

• Although illegal in China, torture and abuse by law enforcement officers remain widespread. Factors that perpetuate or exacerbate the problem of torture include a lack of procedural safeguards to protect criminal suspects and defendants, over reliance on confessions of guilt, the absence of lawyers at interrogations, inadequate complaint mechanisms, the lack of an independent judiciary, and the abuse of administrative detention measures. The Chinese government emphasizes its ongoing efforts to pass new laws and administrative regulations preventing, punishing, and compensating cases of torture by law enforcement officers. Both the SPP and the Ministry of Public Security have announced their support for audio and video taping of interrogations of criminal suspects accused of a limited number of crimes. The Chinese government recognizes that problems of misconduct, including physical abuse, exist within Chinese prisons and reeducation through labor centers, and it is making progress toward increasing accountability for such behavior."

Document(s): Open document

23.05.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Fair trial ("Annual Report 2006") [ID 17362]

"A proposed new Law on the Rectification of Illegal Behaviour was reportedly being discussed by legislators as a replacement for Re-education through Labour — a system of administrative detention used to detain hundreds of thousands of people for up to four years without charge or trial. Officials indicated that the new law would probably reduce terms of detention. However, elements that contravene international fair trial standards potentially remain unchanged."

Document(s): Open document

22.05.2006 - Source: Reporters Sans Frontières

Public Security Bureau still formally refuses to allow detained blogger and documentary filmmaker Hao Wu access to lawyer on national security grounds after 4 months of detention ("Blogger still denied lawyer as he enters fourth month in detention") [ID 17130]

Document(s): Open document

30.03.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

5 Tibetans held in custody without trial for more than 6 months; they reportedly have no access to relatives or defense counsels and are suspected to be in bad physical condition ("Fears for Tibetan Slaughterhouse Detainees") [#47844],  [ID 17046]

Document(s): Open document

03.02.2006 - Source: Guardian

Chen Guangcheng, a blind civil rights activist, kept under house arrest by police and communist cadres without charge and trial because he attempted to expose the dark side the one-child policy ("Under house arrest: blind activist who exposed forced abortions") [#43397],  [ID 17166]

Document(s): Open document

11.10.2005 - Source: Congressional-Executive Commission on China

Rights of Criminal Suspects and Defendants ("Annual Report 2005") [#37506],  [ID 3755]

see report for further details (e.g. on the "Strike Hard"-campaign, reforms, arbitrary detention, administrative detention, access to counsel, etc)

"China’s criminal justice system experienced continued upheaval over the past year. After several wrongful conviction scandals, the central government permitted a broad public critique of the criminal justice system. This discourse confirmed the extent to which coerced confessions, police incompetence, pervasive presumptions of guilt, extrajudicial influences on the courts, restrictions on defense attorneys, and other problems undermine the fairness of the criminal process.

The Chinese government continues to use administrative procedures and vaguely worded criminal laws to detain Chinese citizens arbitrarily for exercising their rights to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted in December 2004 that the Chinese government has not adequately reformed these practices.

Many Chinese scholars and officials continue to push for reforms within the boundaries set by the Communist Party and Chinese legal culture and to engage foreign counterparts in this process. Domestic reaction to recent wrongful conviction scandals has created new momentum for some criminal justice reforms."

Document(s): Open document

11.10.2005 - Source: Congressional-Executive Commission on China

Fairness of Criminal Trials and Appeals ("Annual Report 2005") [#37506],  [ID 3761]

see report for further details

"Trials in China nearly always result in convictions. The conviction rate for first-instance criminal cases was over 99 percent in 2004. Chinese defendants exercised their right to appeal convictions in only about 15 percent of criminal cases, and those who did appeal faced limited prospects for reversal.In total, appeals courts changed judgments in about 13.2 percent of cases they reviewed (roughly 2.1 percent of all criminal cases adjudicated in 2004).Because many changed judgments probably involve sentence reductions, the percentage of convictions actually overturned on appeal is likely even lower.In addition, under Chinese law prosecutors have the right to appeal acquittals or request ‘‘adjudication supervision’’ from higher courts until they obtain a guilty verdict. In practice, prosecutors have an incentive to do so, since acquittals may result in official liability for wrongful detention. Prosecutors may request such ‘‘adjudication supervision’’ as a matter of right. Defendants may only do so with the consent of the court, however, as imprisoned American businessman Jude Shao found when the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) denied a petition for review of new evidence in his case."

Document(s): Open document

05.10.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Deputy Director of Supreme People’s Court (SPC) announced re-instatement of SPC review of death sentences ("Re-instatement of Supreme Court review of death sentences – a step towards abolition?") [#37323],  [ID 3756]

Document(s): Open document

09.02.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Significant rise in executions in the past few months, reported; there are concerns that a number of those executed may have been innocent ("Horrific New Year") [#28863],  [ID 3762]

""Moreover, there is the very real concern that a number of those executed may have been innocent: China’s justice system is simply not sound enough to guarantee a fair trial."
[...]
Recent intense debate within China on excessive use of the death penalty has focused on a proposed reform to allow the Supreme People’s Court to review all death sentences, rather than the current system where different courts apply different standards.
However, this reform, and a suggestion that in some cases longer prison sentences should be passed instead of the death penalty, will still not address 'confessions' extorted through torture, limited access to and political interference in the judicial process.
[...]
This interference includes the so-called 'strike hard' anti-crime campaigns, when defendants are routinely given significantly heavier sentences than at other times."

Document(s): Open document

30.11.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Woman, who was facing the death penalty on drugs charges and who was given a forced abortion in police custody so she could be "legally" executed, has instead been sentenced to life in prison at her retrial ("People`s Republic of China - Further Information on UA 256/04") [#27412],  [ID 3763]

Document(s): Open document

20.10.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Death sentence of Nepalese man confirmed; if the appeal hearing fails he is likely to be executed shortly afterwards ("People`s republic of China - Further Information on UA 216/04") [#26559],  [ID 3764]

Document(s): Open document

15.10.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Religious leader sentenced to death; either he will be executed, or his sentence will be commuted to life imprisonment, depending on a report on his behaviour in prison, submitted to provincial prosecutors by the prison authorities ("China - UA 290/04") [#26553],  [ID 3765]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

06.10.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Mao Hengfeng was forced to have an abortion, and dismissed from her job; she has been protesting through official channels ever since, and has reportedly now been imprisoned and tortured because of her persistence ("China - UA 280/04") [#26204],  [ID 3766]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

20.09.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

2 Nepalese citizens sentenced to death by a Chinese court in a trial believed to have fallen far short of international standards; they could be executed at any time ("China - UA 269/04") [#25677],  [ID 3767]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

20.08.2004 - Source: BBC News

Beijing: 6 Chinese women have threatened suicide during demonstration against corruption and trickery in China's courts ("China protesters threaten suicide") [#24868],  [ID 3768]

Document(s): Open document

15.06.2004 - Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

Guangdong Province: 2 editors from the Guangzhou-based Nanfang Dushi Bao (Southern Metropolis Daily), received reduced prison sentences on appeal at the Intermediate People's Court in Guangzhou ("Journalists' sentences reduced") [#23320],  [ID 3757]

Document(s): Open document

19.01.2004 - Source: BBC News

BBC: There was a torrent of angry comment on the internet after the woman was found guilty of no more than a minor traffic offence and got away with a suspended sentence ("China clamps down on online justice") [#18831],  [ID 3758]

"The case of a woman BMW driver who ran over and killed a peasant farmer she had accused of scratching her luxury car has taken China by storm.
There was a torrent of angry comment on the internet after the woman was found guilty of no more than a minor traffic offence and got away with a suspended sentence.
Alarmed by the public reaction, Communist Party leaders have ordered the case reopened - but have also clamped down on further debate by telling the official media to drop the subject and closing down internet chat rooms.
The case has provided a graphic illustration not just of the extent of popular feelings about corruption and inequality but also of the internet's ability to affect the workings of a weak legal system in a country where there is no other outlet for public dissent.
It all started on the morning of 16 October last year when a tractor pulling a load of green onions scraped the side of Su Xiuwen's metallic-silver BMW in a crowded market in the northern city of Harbin.
Ms Su reportedly swore and hit out at the poor farmer and his wife who had got down from their tractor to apologise, then drove her luxury car straight into the growing crowd on the roadside, killing the farmer's wife and injuring 12 others.
Ms Su's suspended sentence for what the judge ruled was an "accidental traffic disturbance" touched off rumours that her wealthy businessman husband was related to senior provincial officials.
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

06.01.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Information response: Procedures at the chinese military court ("Stellungnahme vom 6.1.2004 an VG Potsdam - 2 K 1029/02.A -") [#18611],  [ID 3759]

"Frage 1: Handelt es sich bei den Militärgerichten Chinas um förmliche Gerichte, vor denen durch gesetzliche Bestimmungen vorgeschriebene Gerichtsverhandlungen stattfinden? [...]
Frage 2: Ist es wahrscheinlich, dass der Kläger seinerseits in einem Militärgerichtsverfahren wegen der Taten des von ihm freigelassenen Vorgesetzten bestraft wird und dessen Schuld übertragen bekommt? [...]
Frage 3: Welche Strafe würde dem Kläger dann drohen? Käme eine Bestrafung wegen Hochverrats in Betracht? [...]
Frage 4: Welche Strafe droht dem Kläger wegen der Freilassung seines Vorgesetzten und wegen des Verlassens seiner Einheit ins Ausland? [...]"

Document(s): Open document

19.12.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Uighurs imprisoned and tortured after unfair trials ("China: International community must oppose attempt to brand peaceful political activists as "terrorists"") [#18296],  [ID 3769]

"Several hundred Uighurs accused of involvement in such activities have been executed since the mid-1990s, thousands of others have been detained, imprisoned after unfair trials and tortured, and growing restrictions have been placed on the Islamic clergy and the practice of Islam in the region.
[...]
In October, it was reported in the official Chinese media that Shaheer Ali, a Uighur pro-independence activist who was forcibly returned to China from Nepal last year, had been executed after being convicted in an apparently unfair trial of various offences including "separatism" and "organizing and leading a terrorist organization." He had been recognized as a refugee by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Nepal and was awaiting resettlement to a third country before his arrest and deportation.
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

05.08.2003 - Source: World Organisation Against Torture

OMCT: Dissident Zhao Changqing, charged with inciting subversion of state power for drafting of am open letter calling for political reformas, sentenced to five years in prison/ the trial was held in secret to "protect state secrets", though the reason for the trial was an open letter written by Mr. Changqing ("China: dissident Zhao Changqing sentenced to five years in prison [Case CHN 090103.6, Follow-up of Case CHN 090103]") [#14840],  [ID 3770]

"According to the information received, Zhao Changqing, a dissident charged with inciting subversion of state power on June 25th, 2003, was sentenced on August 4th to five years in prison. Mr. Changqing was tried by the Xi'an Intermediate People's Court on July 10th, 2003 in a secret trial.

Mr. Changqing's arrest, detention, and sentencing are the result of his drafting of an open letter to China's 16th Party Congress, which was later signed by 192 opposition activists, calling for political reform.

The majority of the other dissidents detained in connection to the open letter, including Ouyang Yi, Dai Xuezhong, Han Lifa, Sang Jiancheng, He Depu, and Jiang Lijun, remain detained.

Human Rights in China’s President, Liu Qing, drew attention to the question of due process and fair trial stating, "it is especially objectionable that a trial over an open letter was held in secret on the pretext of protecting state secrets. This trail was just another form of intimidation through an unfair legal process, from Zhao's illegal and extended detention to the lack of notice given to his family. Any country with a genuine rule of law would reject this judgement as null and void.""

Document(s): Open document

24.07.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Arbitrary detention and unfair trials ("People`s republic of China - UA 259/02") [#14661],  [ID 3760]

"[...]
In an opinion adopted on 7 May, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) concluded that Yang Jianli's arrest and detention are arbitrary, and infringe his right to a fair trial. This judgement was based on evidence that the Chinese authorities had detained Yang Jianli for more than two months without an arrest warrant or charge. They also failed to formally acknowledge Yang Jianli's arrest or to give him access to a lawyer throughout this time.
[...]
Wang Bingzhang continues to serve a life sentence after being convicted of spying and terrorism in a separate case. His trial was held in secret and failed to meet international standards for fair trial."

Document(s): Open document

15.07.2003 - Source: Human Rights Watch

HRW: Tibetans Lost in Chinese Legal System ("Tibetans Lost in Chinese Legal System") [#14302],  [ID 3771]

""Tibetans continue to fall into the black hole of the Chinese legal system," said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch. "Secret trials and secret sentences make a mockery of China's pretense that its legal system acts according to the rule of law."
[...]
For Tibetans in detention, little is known about the charges against them, where they are held, the length of their sentences, the conditions of their confinement, or their health.

Even after Tserang Dondrup's reported release, there was no official confirmation of the charges against him or Tashi Phuntsog. No reference to either of the men has appeared in official public documents or the Chinese media since their arrests in 2002. However, credible unofficial accounts reported their secret trials and sentences."

Document(s): Open document

19.05.2003 - Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

CPJ: Journalist sentenced to five years in prison in unfair trial ("China: Journalist sentenced to five years in prison") [#12822],  [ID 3772]

"CPJ is extremely concerned that Huang has been denied his most basic due process rights. In violation of China's Criminal Procedure Law, Huang was held for more than a year before being tried. Subsequently, the court waited almost two years after his trial to announce a sentence, although Chinese law stipulates that a verdict must be handed down within one month of a court accepting a case. Furthermore, Huang's wife and young son have not been able to visit or communicate with Huang since his arrest, although the Prison Law mandates family visits. Fan Jun, Huang's lawyer, told journalists after the sentencing that there were "definitely problems" with the legal process and that "the verdict was unjust.""

Document(s): Open document

13.05.2003 - Source: Human Rights Watch

HRW: Health of 2 Tibetan prisoners in jeopardy/ there is reason to fear that their current medical state is largely the result of prison conditions and of torture ("China: Tibetan Prisoners' Health in Jeopardy") [#12658],  [ID 3773]

"Chinese authorities have admitted that the ill-treatment of prisoners persists throughout China. Official secrecy surrounding arrests, incommunicado detention, closed trials, and the use of evidence obtained through forced confessions contributes to the use of torture and arbitrary legal proceedings."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: Trials involving capital offenses often lack due process or meaningful appeal ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11835],  [ID 3775]

"Trials involving capital offenses often took place under circumstances where the lack of due process or a meaningful appeal bordered on extrajudicial killing. For example, according to domestic press reports, 23 suspects in Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, were sentenced to death in front of 5,000 spectators in April 2001. Seven of the condemned were immediately taken to an execution ground where they were shot."

Document(s): Open document
text with hyperlinks

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: Denial of Fair Public Trial ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11836],  [ID 3776]

"Police and prosecutorial officials often ignored the due process provisions of the law and of the Constitution. For example, police and prosecutors subjected many prisoners to severe psychological pressure to confess, and coerced confessions frequently were introduced as evidence. The Criminal Procedure Law forbids the use of torture to obtain confessions but does not expressly bar the introduction of coerced confessions as evidence. Defendants who failed to show the correct attitude by confessing their crimes received harsher sentences. During the year, the conviction rate in criminal cases remained at approximately 90 percent, and trials generally were little more than sentencing hearings. In practice criminal defendants only were assigned an attorney once a case was brought to court; some observers noted that at this point, it was too late for an attorney to assist a client in a meaningful way, since the verdict often had already been decided. The best that a defense attorney generally could do for a client was to get a sentence mitigated. In many politically sensitive trials that rarely lasted more than several hours, the courts handed down guilty verdicts immediately following proceedings. There was an appeals process, but in practice appeals rarely resulted in reversed verdicts."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: Political interference, corruption and conflicts of interest affect judicial decisionmaking ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11836],  [ID 3777]

"The Constitution states that the courts shall, in accordance with the law, exercise judicial power independently, without interference from administrative organs, social organizations, and individuals. However, in practice the judiciary received policy guidance from both the Government and the Party, whose leaders used a variety of means to direct courts on verdicts and sentences, particularly in politically sensitive cases. At both the central and local levels, the Government and the CCP frequently interfered in the judicial system and dictated court decisions. Corruption and conflicts of interest also affected judicial decisionmaking. Judges were appointed by the people's congresses at the corresponding level of the judicial structure, which sometimes resulted in local politicians exerting undue influence over the judges they appointed. [...]

Corruption and inefficiency in the judicial system were serious problems. Safeguards against corruption were vague and poorly enforced. According to Zhu Mingshan, Vice President of the SPC, in 2001 114 presidents of local courts had to make self-criticisms for "errors" ranging from nepotism to a lack of due diligence in supervising corrupt subordinates. In 2001 the SPC punished 1,292 judges for violating party or administrative regulations, while 46 were prosecuted for violating the law.

In recent years, the Government has taken steps to correct systemic weaknesses in the judicial system and to make the system more transparent and accountable to public scrutiny. In 1999 the Supreme People's Court issued regulations requiring all trials to be open to the public, except for those involving state secrets, personal privacy, or minors; divorce cases in which both parties request a closed trial; and cases involving commercial secrets. In practice, many trials were not open. Several courts reportedly did open their proceedings to the public as required by law. The legal exception for cases involving state secrets, privacy, and minors was used to keep politically sensitive proceedings closed to the public and closed even to family members in some cases. Under the new regulations, "foreigners with valid identification" are to be allowed the same access to trials as citizens. As in past years, foreign diplomats and journalists sought permission to attend a number of trials only to have court officials reclassify them as "state secrets" cases, thus rendering them closed to the public. Since 1998 trials have been broadcast, and court proceedings have become a regular television feature. In 2000 courts in Shanghai became the first to publish verdicts on the Internet."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: The Criminal Procedure law falls short of international standards ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11836],  [ID 3778]

"The revised Criminal Procedure Law, which took effect in 1997, gives most suspects the right to seek legal counsel shortly after their initial detention and interrogation. However, police often used loopholes in the law to circumvent a defendant's right to seek counsel, and political activists in particular rarely succeeded in obtaining competent legal representation of their own choosing. In some cases, defendants and lawyers in politically sensitive cases were not allowed to speak during trials. Even in nonsensitive trials, criminal defense lawyers frequently had little access to their clients or to evidence to be presented during the trial.

The Criminal Procedure Law also falls short of international standards in many other respects. For example, it has insufficient safeguards against the use of evidence gathered through illegal means, such as torture. Its appeals process failed to provide sufficient avenue for review, and there were inadequate remedies for violations of defendants' rights. In some cases, police could detain unilaterally a person for up to 37 days before releasing him or formally placing him under arrest. Once a suspect was arrested, the law allowed police and prosecutors to detain him for months before trial while a case was "further investigated." Detained criminal suspects, defendants, their legal representatives, and close relatives were entitled to apply for a guarantor to enable the suspect or defendant to await trial out of custody; however, in practice few suspects were released on bail pending trial. Also, in state secrets cases, the Criminal Procedure Law authorizes officials to deny suspects access to a lawyer while their cases are being investigated. The definition of state secrets is broad, vague, and subject to independent interpretation by police, prosecutors, and judges, throughout the various stages in a criminal case.

Furthermore, under the law, there is no right to remain silent, no right against double jeopardy, and no law governing the type of evidence that may be introduced. The mechanism that allows defendants to confront their accusers was inadequate; according to one expert, only 1 to 5 percent of trials involved witnesses. Accordingly, most criminal "trials" consisted of the procurator reading statements of witnesses whom neither the defendant nor his lawyer ever had an opportunity to question. Defense attorneys have no authority to compel witnesses to testify.

Anecdotal evidence indicated that implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law remained uneven and far from complete, especially in politically sensitive cases. Differing interpretations of the law taken by different judicial and police departments and various implementing regulations contributed to contradictory as well as incomplete implementation. The SPC, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, the Ministry of Justice, and the Legal Work Committee of the NPC issued supplementary implementing regulations to address some of these weaknesses."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: Defendants in sensitive political cases find it difficult to find an attorney ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11836],  [ID 3779]

"Defendants in sensitive political cases frequently found it difficult to find an attorney. Defendants in only one of every seven criminal cases had legal representation, according to credible reports citing internal government statistics. government-employed lawyers still depended on official work units for employment, housing, and other benefits, and therefore many were reluctant to represent politically sensitive defendants. The percentage of lawyers in the criminal bar reportedly declined from 3 percent in 1997 to 1 percent in 2001. However, there were no new reports of the Government revoking the licenses of lawyers representing political defendants, as it sometimes had done in the past."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: Lawyers who defend their clients aggressively face serious intimidation by police and prosecutors; defense attorneys can be held responsible if their clients commit perjury ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11836],  [ID 3780]

"Lawyers who tried to defend their clients aggressively continued to face serious intimidation and abuse by police and prosecutors. For example, according to Article 306 of the Criminal Law, defense attorneys could be held responsible if their clients commit perjury, and prosecutors and judges in such cases have wide discretion in determining what constitutes perjury. On May 3, Zhang Jianzhong, head of the lawyers' rights committee of the Beijing Lawyers' Association, was detained on such charges and denied the right to counsel. Chinese legal scholars almost uniformly criticized Zhang's detention and claimed he was singled out for being too effective at representing criminal defendants. According to sources at the All-China Lawyers Association, since 1997 more than 400 defense attorneys have been detained on similar perjury charges. Ma Wenlin, a legal advisor in Zizhou County, Shaanxi, continued to serve a 5-year sentence for "disturbing the social order" for having represented peasants in a legal action to reduce taxes. During the year, state secrets arrests and prosecutions were used by officials to suppress political dissent and social advocacy and to intimidate criminal defense lawyers. Lawyers' professional associations called for better protection of lawyers and their legitimate role in the legal process."

Document(s): Open document

13.03.2003 - Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

CPJ: Journalists often face unfair trials ("China: CPJ calls on Chinese government to release imprisoned journalists") [#11393],  [ID 3781]

"Most imprisoned journalists in China have been denied even the most basic due process rights, with prosecutions blatantly violating domestic law. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that a court must pronounce judgment within six weeks after accepting a case. However, five journalists who were tried in 2001 are still awaiting sentencing."

Document(s): Open document

27.01.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Secret trials and no adequate legal representation ("People's Republic of China: Amnesty International condemns execution of Tibetan, following unfair trial") [#10498],  [ID 3782]

"Amnesty International today expressed dismay at reports that Lobsang Dhondup was executed yesterday following his conviction in a secret trial for involvement in a series of bombings in Sichuan province.

[...], he was not given full and adequate legal representation and his trial was held in secret. According to official sources, this was because the case involved "state secrets", but the authorities have not explained how this related to charges against the defendants."

Document(s): Open document

10.01.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Death penalty: AI is questioning the speed and fairness of trials ("People's Republic of China: China begins 2003 with seven executions") [#10237],  [ID 3784]

"[...]
Amnesty International also expressed its concerns about the way in which the death penalty is applied in China, the speed and fairness of trials and the wide range of offences punishable by the death penalty."

Document(s): Open document

22.03.2002 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Unfair trials in the XUAR ("China: Extensive crackdown on Uighurs to counter "terrorism" must stop") [#6044],  [ID 3786]

"In the continuous political crackdown in the XUAR over the past ten years, the authorities have detained tens of thousands of people, held many of them in complete secrecy, preventing all independent investigation into the cases, while periodically releasing selective information about a few of those who have been prosecuted. Many of those prosecuted have been held incommunicado for months on end, subjected to torture, and sentenced after grossly unfair trials, most of these either held in secret or in front of large crowds during "mass sentencing rallies". In this context, there are reasons to doubt the credibility of the government's information about those it accuses of involvement in "terrorist" activity."

Document(s): Open document

06.07.2001 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Curtailed procedures and pressure on police and judicial authorities lead to miscarriages of justice ("China: 'Striking harder' than ever before") [#2384],  [ID 3789]

"[...]
At meetings to prepare for "Strike Hard", lawyers were reportedly called on to coordinate with the police and prosecution, and not to hold up the judicial process. Courts have also boasted of their speed and "special procedures" during "Strike Hard".
[...]
"Curtailed procedures plus great pressure on police and judicial authorities mean that the potential for miscarriages of justice, arbitrary sentencing and the execution of innocent people is immense," Amnesty International said.
[...]"

Document(s): 01322chi.htm
Open document