Thursday, December 7, 2006
As of a few days ago, this blog is once again blocked in China (as are all blogs in the Law Professor Blogs network). Interestingly, I can still post to it from China. I'm not going to speculate about why the blocking has been imposed - I'm not going to start down the road of figuring out what I've done wrong. ("Why did we arrest you? Why don't you tell us why you think we arrested you?") It's those imposing the block who should have to explain themselves (but I'm not holding my breath).
Here's an interesting news story on a recent parade of prostitutes and some of their customers through the streets of Shenzhen staged by the local police. What's interesting about it, among other things, is the controversy it has stirred up. According to the article, "[t]he All-China Women's Federation filed a formal protest to the ministry of public security, saying the parade was 'old-fashioned', 'damaging to social harmony', and 'an insult to all the women in China'."
Here's a longer article from the China Digital Times with many web links to Chinese press commentary.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
I last reported here on the re-trial of Chen Guangcheng (陈光诚), the blind barefoot lawyer in Shandong. We now have a verdict: guilty, and the sentence is exactly the same as it was the first time. (Thanks to Chinalaw list member David Cowhig, here is the defense statement of Chen's lawyer Li Jinsong in two versions: (1) Chinese text, manual translation of first two pages, and summary of key parts of defense (in English); and (2) partially cleaned-up machine translation of the first third of the statement.)
Chen's lawyers will presumably appeal, and if the intermediate court that heard the first appeal didn't like the first trial, there's no reason to expect it to like this one any better.
Can the intermediate court remand back for re-trial again, perhaps pingponging Chen back and forth forever? That's what happened for ten years in the Chen Guoqing case (discussed below). But it's not possible any more: Johnson Zhang on the Chinalaw list points out there are two notices issued or co-issued by the Supreme People's Court providing that an appeals court may vacate a judgment and send it back for re-trial only once. The second time around, presumably, it must either uphold or reverse.
- Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuracy, and Ministry of Public Security: Notice Concerning Strictly Enforcing the Criminal Procedural Law and Ensuring the Correction and Prevention of Overtime Detention （关于严格执行刑事诉讼法，切实纠防超期羁押的通知), November 12, 2003
- Supreme People's Court: Notice on Carrying out the Ten Rules to Prevent New Prolonged Detentions from Reoccurring (关于推行十项制度切实防止产生新的超期羁押的通知), December 1, 2003
The first Notice states: "In cases where the court of second instance finds after adjudication that the facts are not clear or the evidence is insufficient, the judgment may be vacated and the case sent back to the court of the original trial for re-trial only once" (第二审人民法院经过审理，对于事实不清或者证据不足的案件，只能一次裁定撤销原判、发回原审人民法院重新审判). The second Notice cites the first Notice and restates its rule, adding that it is "strictly forbidden to send a case back for re-trial multiple times" (严格禁止多次发回重审).
Interestingly, these two Notices both came out in 2003. Their issuance may have been connected with a case that came to media attention in 2004: the Chen Guoqing (陈国清) murder case. Chen and others were convicted in 1996 in a high-profile murder case: in 1993 and 1994, Chengde had been plagued by a series of robberies of taxi drivers, and in the summer of 1994 two drivers were brutally murdered. Chen was arrested and questioned according to what were apparently rather extreme methods. He and the others were convicted in August of 1996, but two months later the Hebei Provincial (Higher-Level) Court overturned the conviction on the grounds of unclear facts and remanded the case for retrial.
The case went back and forth several times; the higher court was unwilling simply to declare the defendants innocent and the lower court was unwilling to admit a mistake. By 2000, the original court (the Chengde Intermediate Court) was trying it for the fourth time. Each judgment was pretty much the same and apparently did not address 20 doubtful points that the provincial court asked to be clarified. Finally, in March of 2004 on what was apparently the fifth round, the Hebei Provincial (Higher-Level) Court upheld the convictions, but stated that "in view of the concrete circumstances" (an oblique reference to the lack of convincing evidence) the death sentences would be subject to a two-year suspension.
As of March, 2005, the defendants were apparently still alive and Chen Guoqing's lawyer was trying to get the Supreme People's Court to review the case. From the second trial onward, there had been evidence that the murders were in fact committed by others, but those others had already been executed on other charges.
- News Weekly (新闻周刊), April 1, 2004 (basic facts)
- News Weekly (新闻周刊), April 1, 2004 (commentary)
- Legal System Morning Post (法制早报), March 31, 2005 (follow-up)