[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]
·CCP party has an exaggerated fear of a color revolution
·Toast at the Stateless Breakfast
·"China é responsável por 90% das execuções mundiais"
·China's international relations at a time of rising rule of law challe
·Seven Chinese activists wrote to the Dutch King
·Dictatorship is a Decapitator, Whether it Tortures You or Treats You W
·Innocence project movement in China rises to aid the wrongfully convic
·Book Debate Raises Questions of Self-Censorship by Foreign Groups in C
·Leaked Email: ABA Cancels Book for Fear of ‘Upsetting the Chinese Gov
·Is the ABA Afraid of the Chinese Government?
·Middle way should not be the only voice: Chinese activist to Tibetans
·Middle way not the only way for Tibet, says Chinese rights lawyer
·美律协违约拒为滕彪出书 国会要求解释
·Lawmakers Pounce After ABA Scraps Book by China Rights Lawyer
·American Self-Censorship Association/WSJ
·An interview with China’s foremost rights lawyer Dr Teng Biao
·Is China Returning to the Madness of Mao’s Cultural Revolution?
·The Conundrum of Compromise/Robert Precht
·Congress Still Calling Out ABA Over Canceled Book Deal
·No country for academics: Chinese crackdown forces intellectuals abroa
·'China wacht een revolutie, ik hoop een vreedzame'
·Arrestatiegolf China toont angst van regime
·Le Parti communiste chinois est confronté à une série de crises
·英媒:遭受打击 中国知识分子被迫出国
·709 Crackdown/ Front Line Defenders
·Cataloging the Torture of Lawyers in China
·the Comfort of Self-Censorship
·Chinese dissidents urge Obama to press Xi Jinping on human rights at G
·China blocks major civil society groups from monitoring G20 summit
·Open Letter to G20 Leaders attending the 2016 G20 Summit
·Rights lawyers publicly shamed by China's national bar association
·中共“长臂”施压 维权律师滕彪妻子被迫离职
·最高法维护狼牙山五壮士名誉 学者批司法为文宣服务
·滕彪和杨建利投书彭博社 批评美国大选不谈中国人权议题
·专访滕彪、杨建利:美国新法案 不给人权侵害者发签证
·A Joint Statement Upon the Establishment of ‘China Human Rights Accou
·Group to Probe China's Human Rights Violations Under U.S. Law
·The Long Reach of China to Silence Its Critics
·Trump has the power to fight China on human rights. Will he use it?
·「吊照门」事件 引发法界震盪
·Harassed Chinese rights lawyer still speaking out on Tibetans’ plight
·Beijing Suspends Licenses of 2 Lawyers Who Offered to Defend Tibetans
·Announcement of the Establishment of the China Anti-Torture Alliance
·Chinese Court Upends 13-Year-Old Rape, Murder, Robbery Convictions
·Scholars Return to YLS to Discuss Human Rights Advocacy in China
·Abducted Activists
·Conversation on China’s human rights: Professor provides first hand a
·Exiled Chinese lawyer says the country is moving toward a new totalita
·Chinese human rights lawyer stresses the duty to resist
·Street Vendor’s Execution Stokes Anger in China
·[video]Academic freedom in the East and Southeast
China's Political Courts

   The Asian Wall Street Journal November 3, 2006
   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.