[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[China's Political Courts]
滕彪文集
·狱中致爱人
·奥运和乞丐不能并存?
·滕彪李苏滨关于青岛于建利涉嫌诽谤罪案的辩护意见
·纽约时报社评:中国的爱国小将们
·回网友四书
·我们都来关注滕彪博士/王天成
·暴力带不来和平,恐怖建不成和谐——就滕彪、李和平事件感言/王德邦
·让滕彪回家、追究国保撞车肇事的法律责任、还被监控公民自由/维权网
·刘晓波:黑暗权力的颠狂——有感于滕彪被绑架
·Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers
·Chinese lawyer missing after criticising human rights record
·Chinese Lawyer Says He Was Detained and Warned on Activism
·For Chinese activists, stakes are raised ahead of the Olympics
·To my wife, from jail/Teng Biao
·Beijing Suspends Licenses of 2 Lawyers Who Offered to Defend Tibetans in Court
·National Endowment for Democracy 2008 Democracy Awards
·获奖感言
·司法与民意——镜城突围
·Rewards and risks of a career in the legal system
·太离谱的现实感
·35个网评员对“这鸡蛋真难吃”的不同回答(转载加编辑加原创)
·Dissonance Strikes A Chord
·顺应历史潮流 实现律协直选——致全体北京律师、市司法局、市律协的呼吁
·但愿程序正义从杨佳案开始/滕彪 许志永
·维权的计算及其他
·我们对北京律协“严正声明”的回应
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(上)
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(下)
·Well-Known Human Rights Advocate Teng Biao Is Not Afraid
·法眼冷对三鹿门
·北京律师为自己维权风暴/亚洲周刊
·胡佳若获诺贝尔奖将推动中国人权/voa
·奥运后的中国人权
·Chinese Activist Wins Rights Prize
·我无法放弃——记一次“绑架”
·认真对待出国权
·毒奶粉:谁的危机?
·不要制造聂树斌——甘锦华抢劫案的当庭辩护词
·“独立知识分子”滕彪/刘溜
·经济观察报专访/滕彪:让我们不再恐惧
·人权:从理念到制度——纪念《世界人权宣言》60周年
·公民月刊:每一个人都可能是历史的转折点
·抵制央视、拒绝洗脑
·公民在行动
·Charter of Democracy
·阳光茅老
·中国“黑监狱”情况让人担忧/路透社
·《关于取缔黑监狱的建议》
·用法律武器保护家园——青岛市河西村民拆迁诉讼代理词
·关于改革看守所体制及审前羁押制度的公民建议书
·仅仅因为他们说了真话
·再审甘锦华 生死仍成谜
·邓玉娇是不是“女杨佳”?
·星星——为六四而作
·I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
·Political Legitimacy and Charter 08
·六四短信
·倡议“5•10”作为“公民正当防卫日”
·谁是敌人——回"新浪网友"
·为逯军喝彩
·赠晓波
·正义的运动场——邓玉娇案二人谈
·这六年,公盟做了什么?
·公盟不死
·我们不怕/Elena Milashina
·The Law On Trial In China
·自由有多重要,翻墙就有多重要
·你也会被警察带走吗
·Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement
·我来推推推
·许志永年表
·庄璐小妹妹快回家吧
·开江县法院随意剥夺公民的辩护权
·Summary Biography of Xu Zhiyong
·三著名行政法学家关于“公盟取缔事件”法律意见书
·公益诉讼“抑郁症”/《中国新闻周刊》
·在中石化上访
·《零八宪章》与政治正当性问题
·我来推推推(之二)
·我来推推推(之三)
·國慶有感
·我来推推推(之四)
·国庆的故事(系列之一)
·国庆的故事(系列之二)
·
·我来推推推(之五)
·我来推推推(之六)
·净空(小说)
·作为反抗的记忆——《不虚此行——北京劳教调遣处纪实》序
·twitter直播-承德冤案申诉行动
·我来推推推(之七)
·关于我的证言的证言
·我来推推推(之八)
·不只是问问而已
·甘锦华再判死刑 紧急公开信呼吁慎重
·就甘锦华案致最高人民法院死刑复核法官的紧急公开信
·我来推推推(之九)
·DON’T BE EVIL
·我来推推推(之十)
·景德镇监狱三名死刑犯绝食吁国际关注
·江西乐平死刑冤案-向最高人民检察院的申诉材料
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
China's Political Courts

   By TENG BIAO and ZHANG ZUHUA
   The Asian Wall Street Journal November 3, 2006
   http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116250813231811887-lMyQjAxMDE2NjAyMjUwMDI4Wj.html
   
   BEIJING -- In China, legal decisions in politically sensitive cases aren't subject to public accountability. The process, hidden behind closed doors, is steered by political -- not judicial -- authorities. This has been true for decades, and was proven true again this week in the appellate case of Chen Guangcheng, China's blind, "barefoot" lawyer.

   
   On Monday, the Linyi City Intermediate People's Court in Shangdong province overturned Mr. Chen's four-year prison sentence, and remanded his case for retrial at the local court in Yinan County, where Mr. Chen was originally convicted.
   
   That first trial, held in August, was a sham. Mr. Chen had angered local officials in 2005 by documenting forced abortions and sterilizations. After putting him under house arrest and then detaining him for a total of nine months, local Party officials arrested him on trumped-up charges of "intentional destruction of property" and "gathering crowds to obstruct traffic."
   
   Mr. Chen's initial, two-hour closed-door hearing was barred to all but his three brothers. His legal team, of which I was a member, was replaced by two government-appointed lawyers, against Mr. Chen's wishes. The two new lawyers never met Mr. Chen before the trial, read any of his case files, nor offered a credible defense. They only parroted the prosecution's case. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Chen was sentenced to four years and three months in prison.
   
   The appeals process was similarly secretive. This time, our defense team was armed with extensive supporting testimony from hundreds of eyewitnesses. But in mid-October, while awaiting notice of a court date, we suddenly learned that the court had already finalized a ruling without releasing its decision to the public. Mr. Chen's family had been kept in the dark, too.
   
   While we are relieved that this latest decision favored Mr. Chen, China's judicial process remains as opaque as ever. Reversals of verdict in politically charged cases are rare. Last year, when the Hunan Intermediate Court upheld a 10-year sentence against journalist Shi Tao, its decision was likewise shrouded in secrecy. In that case, as well, the decision was rendered without hearing arguments from Mr. Shi's lawyers. Countless other cases in China have followed a similar pattern.
   
   Why, then, was the decision in Mr. Chen's case different? One can only guess, as Linyi court officials have explained nothing. But it seems implausible that any professional legal review was involved.
   
   We know that local authorities in Yinan Country were angry at Mr. Chen for exposing their abusive birth-control methods. When the travesty of the subsequent arrest and conviction of Mr. Chen drew international attention, political considerations at higher levels -- most likely from Beijing -- may have come into play. The remanding of Mr. Chen's case thus seems to be the fruit of his courageous supporters inside China, as well as their friends in international human-rights groups.
   
   Cynics might object that only those who are individually noticed and championed seem to receive any justice in China. A vast, silent majority of victims languish without attention or justice. Indeed, it could be argued that a frightened and paranoid government might even double its abusive efforts to stifle this growing opposition.
   
   Still, the fight remains worthwhile. The Yinan County court now has, according to the law, six weeks within which to conduct a new trial based on the existing evidence, or to order an entirely new investigation. For Mr. Chen personally, it means a chance to avoid imprisonment in squalor. And for China as a whole, one can only hope that the continued pressure brought on by rights defenders against legal abuse might bring about long-term change.
   
   Vaclav Havel, during similar struggles in communist Czechoslovakia in the 1970s, wrote that "demanding that the laws be upheld is thus an act of 'living in truth,' which threatens the whole mendacious structure at its point of maximum mendacity." If China has an independent judiciary three decades from now, we might look back on the Chen Guangcheng case as having played a role.
   
   Mr. Teng is a lawyer for Mr. Chen. Mr. Zhang is a pro-democracy activist.

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场