[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
·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
·我来推推推(之十一)
·法律人的尊严在于独立
·我来推推推(之十二)
·听从正义和良知的呼唤——在北京市司法局关于吊销唐吉田、刘巍律师证的听证会上的代理意见
·一个思想实验:关于中国政治
·公民维权与社会转型(上)——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲
·公民维权与社会转型——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲(下)
·福州“7•4”奇遇记
·夏俊峰案二审辩护词(新版)
·摄录机打破官方垄断
·敦请最高人民检察院立即对重庆打黑运动中的刑讯逼供问题依法调查的公开信
·为政治文明及格线而奋斗——滕彪律师的维权之路
·“打死挖个坑埋了!”
·"A Hole to Bury You"
·谁来承担抵制恶法的责任——曹顺利被劳动教养案代理词
·国家尊重和保障人权从严禁酷刑开始
·分裂的真相——关于钱云会案的对话
·无国界记者:对刘晓波诽谤者的回应
·有些人在法律面前更平等(英文)
·法律人与法治国家——在《改革内参》座谈会上的演讲
·貪官、死刑與民意
·茉莉:友爱的滕彪和他的诗情
·萧瀚:致滕彪兄
·万延海:想起滕彪律师
·滕彪:被迫走上它途的文學小子/威廉姆斯
·中国两位律师获民主奖/美国之音
·独立知识分子——写给我的兄弟/许志永
·滕彪的叫真/林青
·2011年十大法治事件(公盟版)
·Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Under Assault
·《乱诗》/殷龙龙
·吴英的生命和你我有关
·和讯微访谈•滕彪谈吴英案
·吴英、司法与死刑
·努力走向公民社会(视频访谈)
·【蔡卓华案】胡锦云被诉窝藏赃物罪的二审辩护词
·23岁青年被非法拘禁致死 亲属六年申请赔偿无果
·5月2日与陈光诚的谈话记录
·华邮评论:支持中国说真话者的理由
·中国律师的阴与阳/金融时报
·陈光诚应该留还是走?/刘卫晟
·含泪劝猫莫吃鼠
[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