 |
February 2007: Setback for the Rule of Law - Lawyers Under Attack in China (Updated)
February 28, 2007
Note:
This Trends Bulletin is an updated version of the August 2006: Setback for the rule of law - Lawyers under attack in China
***
Recent HRIC trends bulletins have examined the deepening social unrest in China's countryside and the government's renewed efforts to tighten control over media coverage. Reports from China detailing tightening regulations, procedural obstacles, increasing harassment targeting lawyers, and the recent conviction of blind activist lawyer Chen Guangcheng and the harassment of his legal team, all demonstrate an increasingly severe crackdown on the legal profession.[1] This trends bulletin, Setback for the Rule of Law, examines several aspects of this attack on lawyers and its implications for the development of an independent, transparent, and accountable rule of law. Specifically, this bulletin will focus on:
- Institutionalized setbacks, including the misuse of Chinese criminal law and criminal procedure law provisions and restrictive regulations that undermine lawyers' defense work, especially in sensitive political or social unrest cases;
- Procedural obstacles that hinder a zealous defense of criminal defendants; and
- Personal assault and intimidation of lawyers, in addition to surveillance and harassment.
This alarming trend raises serious concerns about the Chinese government's commitment to its stated goal of establishing a rule of law. Through official efforts to use legal and extra-legal means to silence and control public dissent and unrest, this crackdown further calls into question the openness and fairness of the Chinese judicial system and the future of an independent bar in China.
INSTITUTIONALIZED SETBACKS
- Misuse of the Law
The major provision in Chinese criminal law that hinders lawyers' work in China is Article 306 of the Criminal Law.[2] Article 306, along with Article 38 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL),[3] and Article 45 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Lawyers (Lawyers Law),[4] allows prosecutors to arrest lawyers on grounds of "perjury" or "false testimony." According to these provisions, lawyers can be targeted as defendants themselves when they are accused of destroying or fabricating evidence, or forcing or inciting a witness to change testimony. These acts are punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years.
Article 306 of the PRC Criminal Law
A total of approximately 500 lawyers were detained between 1997 and 2002,[5] and more than 100 lawyers have been accused specifically of violating Article 306 by fabricating evidence. Of these Article 306 cases, more than 90 percent have been cleared.[6] This statistic implies that the statute is often invoked improperly or misused by officials attempting to silence defense lawyers. This has resulted in both imprisonment and the revocation of lawyers' licenses to practice. For example, Ma Guangjun (麻广军) was convicted of fabricating evidence in 2003 and detained for 210 days because the witnesses he produced changed their testimony, and admitted to fabricating evidence after being interrogated by the police.[7] Article 306 unnecessarily singles out lawyers in light of other Criminal Law provisions regarding fabrication of evidence.
Article 96 of the Criminal Procedure Law
In state secrets cases, lawyers are subjected to even greater limitations. Under Article 96 of the CPL, in state secrets cases, defendants who wish to obtain and meet with legal counsel must obtain approval from the investigative organ, typically public security authorities. In practice, the concept of "state secrets" is broadly and arbitrarily applied, leaving a wide margin of discretion over its interpretation. Both the Law on the Protection of State Secrets of the People's Republic of China 《中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法》 (Article 8, Item 6)[8] and the 1995 notice issued by the Ministry of Public Security and the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets, entitled Regulation on State Secrets and the Scope of Each Level of Classification in Public Security Work 《公安部、国家保密局关于印发《公安工作中国家秘密及其密级具体范围的规定》的通知》(Articles 2(3)–8),[9] consider details of any criminal case currently under investigation to be "state secrets." As a consequence, criminal defense lawyers are vulnerable to accusations of leaking state secrets.
- Restrictive Regulations
The All-China Lawyers Association's "Guiding Opinion on Lawyers Handling Collective Cases"
On March 20, 2006, the All-China Lawyers Association (ACLA) issued a Guiding Opinion on Lawyers Handling Collective Cases 《中华全国律师协会关于律师办理群体性案件指导意见》,[10] which aims to ensure that sensitive disputes do not threaten social stability. Lawyers who violate the rules will be punished by the Association or by judicial departments.
According to the rules, lawyers taking on "collective" cases—i.e. cases involving more than ten people—and "major sensitive cases" are required to immediately report to and accept the supervision and guidance of judicial administrative organs. The new rule also warns lawyers not to encourage their clients to participate, or participate themselves, in petitions of government offices, and not to contact foreign organizations and media. Only "politically qualified lawyers" are allowed to deal with "collective, major sensitive cases," and before accepting those cases, they need the approval of at least three law firm partners. Significantly, "collective cases" are increasingly connected with the rights defense (weiquan) movement in relation to "land requisitioning and levying of taxes, building demolitions, migrants' enclaves, enterprise transformation, environmental pollution, and rural laborers."[11]
Local Regulations Concerning Lawyers Handling Sensitive Cases
It is further cause for concern that the ACLA's Guiding Opinion is simply one set of restrictions among several local regulations that actually limit lawyers' involvement in "major, difficult and sensitive cases." A series of regulations have been issued since 2004, which seriously hinder lawyers' work in rights defense cases. For example:
- In February 2004, the Nantong City Bureau of Justice issued an Opinion on Further Strengthening the Guidance of Lawyers Handling Major Cases 《关于进一步加强对律师办理重大案件指导工作的意见》,[12] which first provided a definition of "major cases";
- In October 2004, the Guangdong Municipal Bureau of Justice issued a Guiding Supervisory Notice on Strengthening Lawyers' Work in Handling Major Sensitive and Collective Cases 《关于加强对律师代理重大群体性敏感案件监督指导的通知》;[13]
- In April 2006, the Henan Provincial Bureau of Justice issued a Guiding Supervisory Opinion on Strengthening Lawyers' Work in Handling Major, Sensitive and Collective Cases《关于加强对律师办理重大、敏感、群体性案件指导监督的意见》;[14]
- In April 2006, the Shenyang City Bureau of Justice issued, Specific Opinions on Reporting and Requesting Instructions by Lawyers When Handling Important, Difficult, or Sensitive Cases《沈阳市律师承办重大疑难敏感案件请示报告的若干意见》; and
- In July 2006, the Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Justice issued a Provisional Regulation on Lawyers' Work in Handling Sensitive and Collective Cases 《深圳市司法局关于律师代理群体性敏感案(事)件管理的暂行规定》.[15]
These regulations seriously restrict lawyers' freedom of expression and significantly hamper the independence of their work. For example, in Henan, lawyers are restricted from using the media to express their views or to influence domestic or international opinions of major, sensitive and collective cases. Because of the serious punishments they may incur when failing to follow the regulations, lawyers, once again, are discouraged from taking up cases that pit the protection of citizens' rights against the interests of certain government authorities. With the emergence of the rights defense movement, increasing numbers of citizens are using the legal system as a means of redress for violations of their rights, and lawyers are increasingly being attacked for defending them.
PROCEDURAL OBSTACLES – A NEW ROUND OF CONTROL
In a May 2005 report, the Shanghai Bar Association described numerous obstacles lawyers face as they perform their duties, especially in conducting investigations and gathering evidence.[16] Examples of government interference or indifference in sensitive cases include preventing lawyers from entering detention centers to meet with clients because they were not granted permission by the investigative organ, even in non-state secrets cases, and police restrictions on the photocopying and recording of case materials by defense lawyers.[17]
Lawyers also lack protection against official abuse. In practice, the Chinese criminal justice system is not only based on low evidentiary requirements for securing convictions of lawyers; it also lacks a system of immunity for lawyers and complementary measures that provide protection to them in the performance of their work.[18] Like all other criminal suspects, lawyers who are being investigated are often held in prolonged pre-trial detention and have difficulty meeting with their own lawyers, and when released they and their families are subject to harassment and intimidation by the authorities. Lawyers who take up other lawyers' defense cases are also perceived as challenging the authorities and are also harassed frequently. For example Li Jinsong (李劲松), Xu Zhiyong (许志永), Li Subin (李苏宾), Li Kechang (李克昌), Chen Hai (陈海), Meng Xianming (孟宪明), Zhang Lihui (张立辉), Yang Zaixin (杨在新) and Zhang Jiankang (张鉴康), lawyers for Chen Guangcheng (陈光诚) have been denied access to Chen, and have been physically assaulted and detained. (See list of recent cases.)
To a large extent, the judicial system continues to function on a system of guanxi, or network of relationships, as well as Party supervision at every level, making the enforcement of law vulnerable to a web of corruption and official impunity.[19] Judges maintain tight control on the courts and the cases that can be heard. For example, in March 2006, a Tianjin judge who beat and choked a Beijing lawyer trying to file a case proclaimed, "I am the court, the court is me. If I say the case will not be filed, the case will not be filed."[20] In order to carry on their work, lawyers reportedly often need to bribe officials and judges,[21] including paying "file retrieval fees," "service fees" and fees for referrals from judges,[22] euphemistically called "cash cases" or "friendship cases."[23]
The ACLA's degree of autonomy from the Ministry of Justice is increasing, but it is still very limited. Currently, the ACLA's Secretary-General and three deputy secretaries have strong connections to the Ministry of Justice. The Secretary General is also the deputy director of the division in charge of lawyers and notary publics in the Ministry of Justice. All three current deputy secretaries worked in the Ministry of Justice before they became ACLA members.[24] Such close connections cast doubts on an independent bar that is supposed to be working to protect the rights of lawyers.
In 1997, the ACLA issued "Rules for the ACLA to Safeguard Lawyers' Legal Rights While Practicing Law" 《律师协会维护律师执业合法权益委员会会规》 and one year later formally established the Commission on Safeguarding Lawyers' Lawful Rights in Practice 《维护律师执业合法权益委员会》. However, despite the new enhanced power acquired by the ACLA, only a few cases have been reported to and dealt with by the Commission.[25]
PERSONAL ASSAULT AND INTIMIDATION
Recent news reports have also revealed a large number of cases involving physical attacks against lawyers. Rights defense (weiquan) lawyers have been the target of varying levels of surveillance and harassment because of their work. For example, Zheng Enchong's (郑恩宠) license was revoked and he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for "illegally providing state secrets abroad," because he assisted more than 500 cases of forced eviction stemming from urban redevelopment in Shanghai and sent information about public events and news articles to international organizations. Since his release in June 2006, he has been under house arrest and subjected to other restrictions of his personal freedom. He has been asked to suspend his travel plans abroad after the expiration of his deprivation of political rights, in return for a review of his case.[26] (See list of recent cases.)
According to the Shanghai Bar Association, Shanghai alone saw six cases of violence against lawyers in 2005.[27] Another high-profile case is the assault on lawyer Guo Li (郭立), who was "kicked and punched in the head and stomach by thugs apparently hired by the other side . . . in a property-leasing case."[28] Physical intimidation is used to encourage lawyers to drop cases, or to warn them against defending certain clients in criminal cases.
In January 2006, the Ministry of Public Security urged the public security agencies to "Strike Hard" against social unrest.[29] The Guangdong Public Security Bureau therefore issued a report blaming the unrest on "so-called rights' defense."[30] A hunger strike that began in February 2006, in which rights' activists and lawyers demanded justice for "laborers, farmers, intellectuals, free [religious] believers, who have been illegally persecuted or violently beaten,"[31] resulted in a more forceful crackdown by the authorities. Notwithstanding the peaceful nature of the protest, these lawyers and rights' activists have become an easy target of government repression.
THE OVERALL CHILLING EFFECT
The combination of these restrictions and controls over lawyers has had a chilling effect on the criminal bar, hindering the numbers and ability of lawyers handling sensitive cases, and undermining the overall independence, legitimacy, and accountability of the legal system. Although nearly 80 percent of the 500 lawyers detained, accused, or punished for any reason between 1997 and 2002 were eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing, the aggravation caused by these accusations and the general fear of harassment has led many individuals away from pursuing careers in criminal or civil law.[32] The result is that some defendants or litigants have been unable to find a lawyer willing to take their case because of the sensitive nature of the case, leaving them to either not pursue their grievance or to represent themselves.[33] One Beijing law professor stated that 70 percent of criminal defendants are not represented by a lawyer.[34] Despite the recent growth in the number of people joining the legal profession, the relative proportion of lawyers in China still lags far behind that of most developed countries.[35] This trend has implications for the general development of rule of law in China, access to justice, and the role of law in effectively and fairly adjudicating social problems.
RECENT CASES OF LAWYERS BEING PERSECUTED
Yang Maodong (杨茂东), also known as Guo Feixiong (郭飞雄), was detained on September 14, 2006, and formally arrested on September 30, 2006, on suspicion of "illegal business activity" for his work on a book on a political scandal published in Liaoning in 2001. On January 6, 2007, Yang's wife received a letter from him in prison, stating that on December 28, 2006, the procuratorate had informed him that it had received a "statement of investigation" from the Public Security Bureau (PSB), and that Yang could seek legal counsel On February 27, 2007, Yang's case was sent to the Guangzhou Procuratorate for prosecution after a few rounds of investigation by the Public Security Bureau.
Yang is currently detained in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, and has been denied applications for release on bail. Yang told his lawyer Hu Xiao (胡啸) that he had been subjected to physical abuse in detention, including being handcuffed and shackled to his bed for more than 40 hours and made to undergo round-the-clock interrogation. He has reportedly gone on hunger strike for a total of 40 days in protest against his treatment. Prior to his detention, Yang was the legal adviser during the Taishi Incident in Guangdong when villagers sought to remove a corrupt village leader from office in 2005. He had been repetitively detained by the police and beaten by unidentified thugs since then. In 2005, Yang was detained for about three months during the Taishi Incident.
On August 2, 2006, after four days of "disappearance" following his beating at the hands of the police, Yang was detained after starting a protest outside the Xinhuamen Gate to the central government residential compound in Beijing. He handed in a petition, and began a hunger strike that was meant to last for 48 hours. However, he was detained by local police just one hour after his arrival and taken to a local police station. On August 9, 2006, Yang Maodong was beaten up by train police on his way to Beijing and then taken to Shaoguan, Guangdong Province, where he was illegally detained overnight. On August 10, 2006, he was forcibly sent back to his home in Guangzhou. Police falsely accused Guo of holding a fake train ticket; no other reason was given for the beating or detention.[36]
Gao Zhisheng (高志晟), a lawyer known for his work defending underground Christians, dissidents and other lawyers detained for human rights work, was convicted of "inciting subversion" and was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment with a 5-year suspension and a 1-year deprivation of political rights on December 22, 2006. Gao was denied access to his family-appointed lawyers, reportedly refused to have other legal representation, but pleaded guilty, represented by two lawyers appointed by the government. Before he was detained on August 18, 2006, Gao was put under surveillance in March 2006 and was beaten by police in late July 2006 for complaining about living under constant police surveillance. Gao had his license to practice revoked in 2005 and was monitored by the police for organizing a hunger strike to call attention to the attack of activist-lawyer Yang Maodong. On August 18, 2006, police announced that Gao has been detained "for suspected involvement in criminal activities." In response, dozens of dissidents signed a petition for his release, calling his detention "a serious escalation in repression." Several of those who signed the petition have been put under house arrest, and his wife and two children have also been confined to their home.[37]
Chen Guangcheng (陈光诚), a blind self-taught lawyer who published an online report on the abuses of family planning officials in implementing family planning policy in Linyi, Shandong Province, and organized a class-action lawsuit against the local government over the practice of sterilization and forced late-term abortions in June 2005, is serving a four years and three months' prison term for "damaging public property" and "gathering people to block traffic." His family was barred from visiting Chen and was also not informed of his prison transfer. Prior to the arrest, Chen was continually assaulted by the police. In September 2005, a few days after Chen met with some Beijing lawyers and journalists, he was abducted by the authorities and returned to Linyi, where he was put under house arrest. He was again beaten up by local officials when he attempted to meet visiting lawyers in October 2005. For the three months between March and June 2006, he was detained without access to his lawyers. His trial took place on August 19, 2006, without the presence of his legal team. On August 24, 2006 Chen was sentenced to four years and three months in prison. While the appeal court has overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial on October 31, 2006, Chen lost the retrial on November 27, 2006. Prior to his retrial, his witnesses had been placed under criminal detention or abducted, and his verdict was upheld at the appeal based only on written documents on January 12, 2007.
Chen's legal team has also faced harassment: they have been beaten by unknown assailants, detained by the police or denied access to the court for the involvement in Chen's case. In addition to Li Jinsong (李劲松) and Xu Zhiyong (许志永) below, Li Subin (李苏宾) was stopped from visiting from Chen’s wife and beaten in a number of occasions in June 2006. In the same month, Li Kechang (李克昌), Chen Hai (陈海) and Meng Xianming (孟宪明) were followed and assaulted by ten unknown assailants in Linyi. Li Fangping (李方平), Zhang Lihui (张立辉) and Xu Zhiyong (许志永) were surrounded by the Linyi police the night before Chen's trial of first instance and were detained on charges of theft. Both Zhang and Li were released after two hours, but later barred from the trial. Two other rights defense (weiquan) lawyers, Yang Zaixin (杨在新) and Zhang Jiankang (张鉴康), have also been harassed and forcibly returned home. Another two lawyers Li Fangping (李方平) and Li Jinsong (李劲松) were assaulted by eight men on their way to Linyi to deal with Chen’s case on December 27, 2006.[38]
Zheng Enchong (郑恩宠) served a three-year jail sentence for "leaking state secrets abroad" after he contacted an overseas human rights group about property disputes while advising Shanghai residents on eviction disputes with the government. Released in June 2006, he has since been under virtual house arrest, and is constantly harassed and monitored by the police. His political rights have also been suspended for one year and his license to practice law was revoked in 2001. In an interview with Radio Free Asia on February 20, 2007, Zheng revealed that he was told that if he promises not to leave the country after his political rights suspension expires in June 2007, the central authority would expedite the process of reviewing his case on charges of "leaking state secrets abroad."[39]
Li Jinsong (李劲松) stepped down as Chen Guangcheng's chief counsel when he was attacked on June 27, 2006, by a group of 20 men who subsequently overturned his car while he was still inside. Throughout preparations for the case, he was repeatedly attacked and denied access to his client and denied the ability to collect evidence.[40]
Li Baiguang (李柏光) was physically assaulted in January of 2006 when police and security officers raided a prayer meeting he was attending. The Beijing lawyer was arrested and detained on December 14, 2004, after bringing legal action against the government on behalf of over 100,000 peasants seeking damages from forced land evictions. He has been detained and physically attacked many times since his release.[41]
Xu Zhiyong (许志永), the lawyer replacing Li Jinsong in defending Chen Guangcheng in court, was beaten on October 4, 2005, when attempting to visit Chen to prepare his defense. On August 18, 2006, the day before Chen's trial began, he was beaten by five unidentified men and then taken into police custody, only to be released 22 hours later, after Chen's trial had already finished.[42]
Ma Guangjun (麻广军) represented a rape suspect in 2003 and produced seven witnesses at the trial who testified in favor of the suspect. During the recess of the trial, some local police officers interrogated all seven witnesses, during which they recanted their testimony and accused Ma of enticing them to falsely testify. The rape suspect was found guilty and Ma was detained for "obstructing justice." At the retrial, the seven witnesses again changed their testimony and stated the suspect could not have committed the rape. They were again interrogated by local police, and once again recanted their testimony. The rape suspect was again found guilty and Ma was convicted of violating Article 306 of the Criminal Law for "fabricating evidence." Ma served 210 days of his sentence before the Inner Mongolia Lawyers Association launched an investigation and concluded that the police had violated the law in their handling of this case, and that there were severe problems with the government's evidence against Ma's original client. Consequently, Ma was declared innocent and released in March 2004.[43]
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Human Rights in China resources:
Human Rights in China. Empty Promises: Human Rights Protections and China’s Criminal Procedure Law, 2001, http://hrichina.org/public/contents/3435.
Human Rights in China. "The Wuhan Court Bribery Case." China Rights Forum 1 (2005): 30-32, http://www.hrichina.org/fs/view/downloadables/pdf/ downloadable-resources/1.2005TheWuhanCourt.pdf.
Human Rights in China. "A Legal Laoganbu Looks Back." China Rights Forum 2 (2003): 11-21, http://www.hrichina.org/fs/view/downloadables/pdf/ downloadable-resources/jcohen.pdf.
Kellogg, Tom. "A Case for the Defense." China Rights Forum 2 (2003): 31-34, http://www.hrichina.org/fs/view/downloadables/pdf/ downloadable-resources/kellogg.pdf.
Mosher, Stacy. "In Custody: Lawyers in Detention." China Rights Forum 2 (2005): 101-105, http://www.hrichina.org/fs/view/downloadables/pdf/ downloadable-resources/2.2005-RF-Custody.pdf.
Mosher, Stacy. "Resource List: Internet Resources on Chinese Law." China Rights Forum 2 (2003): 84-87, http://www.hrichina.org/fs/view/downloadables/pdf/ downloadable-resources/resourcelist2.2003.pdf.
Wang, Yi. "Human Rights Lawyers and the Rule-of-law Camp." China Rights Forum 3 (2006): 21-26, http://hrichina.org/public/PDFs/CRF.3.2006/CRF-2006-3_Rule-of-Law.pdf.
Other resources:
Congressional – Executive Commission on China. "Hong Kong Newspaper Highlights Government Repression of Lawyers." Congressional - Executive Commission on China Web site, June 2, 2006, http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=54315.
Human Rights Watch, "A Great Danger for Lawyers: New Regulatory Curbs on Lawyers Representing Protesters," December 2006.
纪硕鸣,王健民. "中国维权律师法治先锋."《亚洲周刊》, 2005年12月25日, 12-18页 [Ji, Suoming and Wang Jianming. "China Rights' Defense Lawyers and Rule of Law Pioneers." Yazhou Zhoukan, December 25, 2005, 12–18]. http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/Content_Archive.cfm? Channel=ae&Path=2179987442/52ae1a.cfm.
Jian, Fa. "Independence Called for Lawyers." Beijing Review 47, no. 42, October 21, 2004, http://www.bjreview.com.cn/200442/Cover-200442(B).htm.
Yi, Sheng. "A Promise Unfulfilled: The Impact of China’s 1996 Criminal Procedure Reform on China’s Criminal Defence Lawyers' Role at the Pretrial Stage." Perspectives 5, no. 1 (2004).
Young, Al. "The Continuing Lack of Independence of Chinese Lawyers." The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 18, no. 3 (2005): 1133-1149.
Zhu, Sanzhu. "Reforming State Institutions: Privatizing the Lawyers' System." In Governance in China, edited by Jude Howell, 58-76. Oxford and Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
//
SOURCES
[1] In this Trends Bulletin, "lawyers" refer to a wide spectrum of people who are entrusted to act as defenders according to Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Law, including lawyers who have a license to practice, persons recommended by a public organization or the unit the defendant belongs to, and their guardians, relatives and friends.
[2] Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China,《中华人民共和国刑法修正案（三）》amended by the National People's Congress on December 28, 2002.
[3] Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》, issued by the National People’s Congress on March 17, 1996.
[4] Law of the People's Republic of China on Lawyers 《中华人民共和国律师法》, amended by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on December 29, 2001.
[5] Bill Savadove, "Justice Remains Shanghaied in City's Law Courts; Intimidation and Physical Violence Against Lawyers Is on the Rise, and Getting a Fair Trial is Still Far from Guaranteed," South China Morning Post, February 7, 2006.
[6] "Chinese Article Claims That Research on the Difficulties Faced by Criminal Defense Lawyers Restricted After Revealing "Shocking" Initial Results," Congressional – Executive Commission on China Web site, January 13, 2005, http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=5472.
[7] Jian Fa, "Independence Called for Lawyers," Beijing Review 47, No. 42, October 21, 2004; Congressional – Executive Commission on China, "Chinese Article Claims That Research on the Difficulties Faced By Criminal Defense Lawyers Restricted After Revealing 'Shocking' Initial Results," January 13, 2005, http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=5472.
[8] The "Law on the Protection of State Secrets of the People's Republic of China" was adopted at the 3rd meeting of the Standing Committee of the 7th National People's Congress on September 5, 1988 and became effective as of May 1, 1989.
[9] The Ministry of Public Security and National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets issued the “Regulation on State Secrets and the Scope of Each Level of Classification in Public Security Work” on February 20, 1995; it became effective as of May 1, 1995. Available at: http://www.chinaacc.com/new/63/73/156/2006/2/gu647124418226002288-0.htm
[10] The All-China Lawyers Association's "Guiding Opinion on Lawyers Handling Collective Cases," approved by the Executive Council of the All China Lawyers Association on March 20, 2006. Available at:
http://www.chineselawyer.com.cn/pages/2006-5-15/s34852.html
[11] Ibid.
[12] The Nantong City Bureau of Justice issued the "Opinion on Further Strengthening the Guidance of Lawyers Handling Major Cases" on February 18, 2004. Available at: http://www.ntda.gov.cn/wjzxqw/W2580001035.htm
[13] The Guangdong Municipal Bureau of Justice and the Guangdong Lawyers Association issued the "Guiding Supervisory Notice on Strengthening Lawyers' Work in Handling Major Sensitive and Collective Cases" on September 10, 2004. Available at: http://www1.gdetime.com.cn/article/viewArticle.php?id=355
[14] The Henan Provincial Bureau of Justice issued the "Guiding Supervisory Opinion on Strengthening Lawyers' Work in Handling Major Sensitive and Collective Cases" on April 10, 2006. Available at: http://www.hnlawyer.org/show.aspx?id=2485
[15] The Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Justice issued the “Provisional Regulation on Lawyers’ Work in Handling Sensitive and Collective Cases” on June 29, 2006. Available at: http://www.szlawyers.com/ShowDetail.asp?ArticleId=2346
[16] "2005 Annual Report of the Commission on Safeguarding Lawyers' Lawful Rights in Practice" [维护律师执业权益委员会2005年工作总结], Shanghai Bar Association Web site, March 25, 2006, http://www.lawyers.com.cn/jsp/news/newsInfo.jsp?newsID2000020854.
[17] Savadove, op. cit.; "2005 Annual Report of the Commission on Safeguarding Lawyers' Lawful Rights," op. cit.
[18] Yi Sheng, "A Promise Unfulfilled: The Impact of China's 1996 Criminal Procedure Reform on China's Criminal Defence Lawyers' Role at the Pretrial Stage," Perspectives 5, no. 1 (2004): 23-25, http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Part_2.pdf#search=%22 Sheng%20Yi%20%20%E2%80%9CA%20Promise%20 Unfulfilled%3A%20The%20Impact%20of%22.
[19] Cho Young Nam, "Symbiotic Neighbor or Extra-Court Judge? The Supervision over Courts by Chinese Local People’s Congresses," The China Quarterly 176 (2003): 1068-1083; William P. Alford, "Tasseled Loafers for Barefoot Lawyers: Transformation and Tension in the World of Chinese Legal Workers," China Quarterly 141 (1995): 22-38.
[20] Cai Fanghua, "Lawyers Beaten up by a Judge Reveals Difficulties in the Judicial System" [法官打律师”揭示的司法困境], Beijing Qingnian Bao, April 12, 2006, http://www.ynet.com/view.jsp?oid=8450990.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Wang Chenguang and Gao Qicai, "A Survey on the Current State of the Legal Profession: A Summary of Interviews from Wuhan" [律师执业的现状调查：武汉律师访谈综述], Zhongguo Lushi (December 2000): 5-13.
[23] Cai, op cit.
[24] Zhu Sanzhu, "Reforming State Institutions: Privatizing the Lawyers’ System," in Governance in China, ed. Jude Howell (Oxford and Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004): 58-76.
[25] Wang Chunbo, "An Analysis of the Current Risks in the Legal Profession" [律师执业风险现况的分析], Qiushi 11 (2004): 82-83.
[26] “Shanghai Lawyer Zheng Enchong Under De Facto House Arrest,” Human Rights in China Press Release, June 28, 2006; "Zheng Enchong: Beijing Set Conditions for Expediting the Process of Reviewing My Case” [郑恩宠：北京为其加速平反提出条件], Radio Free Asia, February 20, 2007, http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/shenrubaodao/2007/02/20/zheng/.
[27] Savadove, op. cit.
[28] Ibid.
[29] "Public Security Bureau Demands Harsher Efforts to Crackdown down Terrorist and Criminal Acts in Order to Protect National Security" [公安部强调要严打恐怖犯罪活动维护国家安全], Xinhua News Agency, January 26, 2006, http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2006-01/26/content_4103005.htm.
[30] Congressional – Executive Commission on China, "Guangdong Public Security Bureau Blames Mass Incidents on Rights Defender Activities," http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=42751.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Savadove, op. cit.
[33] Ibid.
[34] "Beijing Review Examines Key Issues in China's Legal Profession, Among Them the Obstacles Faced by Defense Lawyers," January 13, 2005, http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=5450.
[35] "China Has 110,000 Lawyers," China.org.cn, November 18, 2000, http://www.china.org.cn/english/2000/Nov/4185.htm.
[36] Information came from the following sources: "China: Fear of Torture and Ill Treatment: Yang Maodong," Amnesty International, February 9, 2006, http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170082006?open&of=ENG-CHN; Kristine Kwok, "Activist Stopped from Returning to Beijing," South China Morning Post, March 16, 2006; "Yang Maodong," Human Rights In China Daily News Brief, August 10, 2006; "Chinese Lawyer Detained Outside Beijing Government Compound," Radio Free Asia, August 2, 2006, http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2006/02/08/china_guofeixiong/; "Rights Defender Guo Feixiong Beaten on Train to Beijing" [郭飞雄赴京火车上被警察殴打], Radio Free Asia, August 10, 2006; "China Detains Top Guangdong Rights Lawyer," Radio Free Asia, September 15, 2006, http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2006/09/15/china_guofeixiong/; "Case Moves Ahead Against Rights Defender Guo Feixiong," Human Rights in China press release, January 8, 2007, http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press?revision%5fid=32105&item%5fid=32102; "Guo Feixiong Tortured During Investigation" [郭飞雄预审期间受虐 细节显示经济案是欲加之罪], Radio Free Asia, January 11, 2007, http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/shenrubaodao/2007/01/11/guo_feixiong/; Human Rights in China, "Case Update: Guo Feixiong Tortured, Sister and Brother Harassed," Human Rights in China press release, January 16, 2007; Human Rights in China, "Guo Feixiong’s Case Delayed, Transferred," Human Rights in China press release, January 22, 2007; "Guangzhou Police Send Guo Feixiong to Detention Center in Liaoning" [广州公安将郭飞雄移送至辽宁省看守所关押], Radio Free Asia, January 23, 2007, http://www.rfa.org/cantonese/xinwen/2007/01/23/china_rights_guofeixiong/; "Guangzhou Public Security Bureau Refuses Guo Feixiong's Third Bail Application" [广州第三次拒绝郭飞雄取保候审], Radio Free Asia, January 31, 2007, http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/shenrubaodao/2007/01/31/guo/; "Guo Feixiong's Case Sent to Guangzhou Procuratorate Again" [郭飞雄案重新移送检察院 律师强调同案不应分案审], Radio Free Asia, February 27, 2007, http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/shenrubaodao/2007/02/27/guofeixiong/.
[37] Information came from the following sources: Jehangir Pocha, "Dozens of Dissidents Missing in China," The Boston Globe, March 5, 2006; "Police Beat China Dissident Lawyer After Complaint," China Post, August 1, 2006; "Gao Zhisheng," Human Rights In China Monthly Brief, August 2006; "China Dissidents Press for Lawyer's Release," Reuters via The New York Times, August 20, 2006; "Family of Detained Rights Lawyers Gao Zhisheng Under House Arrest, While Rights Activists Call for His Release" [高志晟妻儿被软禁 海外呼吁释放高], Radio Free Asia, August 21, 2006; "China Indicts Gao Zhisheng in Secret, Turns Away His Legal Team," Radio Free Asia, December 11, 2006; "China Gives Rights Lawyer Suspended Sentence," Reuters via Yahoo! News, December 22, 2006.
[38] Information came from the following sources: "Chen Guangcheng's Lawyers Detained and Another Three Beaten Up" [公安拘留陈光诚的律师 律师团三人被殴], Radio Free Asia, June 22, 2006; "Public Security Bureau Refused to Comment on the Abuse of Rights Defenders" [公安部拒绝响应维权者被殴], Ming Pao, July 12, 2006; "Scuffles at China Activist Trial," BBC News, July 20, 2006; Joseph Kahn, "Advocate for China's Weak Runs Afoul of the Powerful," The New York Times, July 20, 2006; Alexa Olesen, "Chinese Activist's Lawyers Boycott Trial," Associated Press, August 18, 2006; Chris Buckley, "China Detains Rights Advocates Before Activist Trial," Reuters, August 18, 2006; "Blind Chinese Activist to Go on Trial Amid Tight Security," Agence France-Presse, August 18, 2006; "Court Hearing for Blind Activist Chen Guangcheng Ended, but Crackdown on Rights Activists Continues" [陈光诚庭审结束 当局打压维权人士未停], Radio Free Asia, August 21, 2006; Josephine Ma, "Four Years in Jail for Blind Activist," South China Morning Post, August 25, 2006; "China Orders Surprise Retrial for Blind Activist," Reuters, November 1, 2006; "Conviction Upheld for Blind Rights Defender Chen Guangcheng" [盲人维权者陈光诚维持原判], Ming Pao, December 1, 2006; "Chen Guangcheng's Witness Placed Under Criminal Detention" [陈光诚案证人陈光和被当局刑拘], Radio Free Asia, December 4, 2006, http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/shenrubaodao/2006/12/04/chen/; "Lawyers for Jailed Activist Beaten Up," South China Morning Post, December 28, 2006; "Family Not Informed of Chen Guangcheng's Prison Transfer" [陈光诚被转监家人未获通知], Radio Free Asia, February 25, 2007, http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/shenrubaodao/2007/02/25/chenguanchengzhuaijian/.
[39] Information came from the following sources: Savadove, op. cit.; "Zheng Enchong Detained Again," Human Rights In China Press Release, July 12, 2006; "Zheng Enchong Released Amidst Crackdown on Petitioners," Human Rights in China Press Release, June 5, 2006; "Zheng Enchong: Beijing Set Conditions for Expediting the Process of Reviewing My Case" [郑恩宠：北京为其加速平反提出条件], op.cit.
[40] Information came from the following sources: Robert Marquand, "Chinese Rule-of-law Activist Becomes a Case in Point," Christian Science Monitor, July 28, 2006; "Chronology of Chen Guangcheng’s Case," Human Rights Watch, August 11, 2006; Jim Yardley, "China Detains Lawyers for Peasants' Advocate," The New York Times, August 17, 2006; "Lawyers for Jailed Activist Beaten Up," op. cit.
[41] Information came from the following sources: "The Situation of Li Baiguang, Rights Defender who Helped Farmers, was Detained by Police and Imprisoned" [被中国当局扣押的维权人士李柏光获释], Radio Free Asia, March 08, 2005, http://www.rfa.org/cantonese/xinwen/2005/03/08/ china_humanrights_Li_boguang/?simple=1;
"Rights Defender Li Baiguang Released After Being Held in Custody by Chinese Officials" [李柏光帮助农民维权而被警方拘禁及狱中近况], Yibao (2005): 182, http://www.chinaeweekly.com/big5/viewarticle_big5.aspx?vid=759.
[42] Information came from the following sources: Josephine Ma, "Trial of Blind Birth-control Activist Postponed," South China Morning Post, July 20, 2006; Jonathan Watts, "China's Rule of Law: Peasant Turned Legal Advocate is Punished for Revealing Dark Side of One-child Policy," The Guardian, February 3, 2006; "Chronology of Chen Guangcheng's Case," op.cit.; Alexa Olesen, "Chinese Activist's Lawyers Boycott Trial," Associated Press, August 18, 2006; Josephine Ma, "Police Hold Activist's Lawyer Until End of Trial," South China Morning Post, August 19, 2006.
[43] Jian, Fa "Independence called for Lawyers," Beijing Review, Vol. 47, No. 42, October 21, 2004; "Chinese Article Claims That Research on the Difficulties Faced By Criminal Defense Lawyers Restricted After Revealing 'Shocking' Initial Results," Congressional – Executive Commission on China, January 13, 2005. Available at: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=5472
|
|
