Quantcast
Channel: Human Rights in China 中国人权 | HRIC - Lawyers
Viewing all 113 articles
Browse latest View live

Letter of Complaint Sent to The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China

$
0
0
Yu Wensheng
July 31, 2015
Posted in: 

[Translation by Human Rights in China]

See Chinese original.

To: Supreme People’s Procuratorate
Complainant: Yu Wensheng
July 31, 2015

Complainant: Yu Wensheng, Male, Born November 11, 1967, Lawyer, From Beijing, Phone: 13910033651, Address: Room 712, No. 2 CRD Yinzuo, Shijingshan District, Beijing.

Defendant: The Ministry of Public Security, Legal Representative: Guo Shengkun

The Complainant requests: In accordance with the law, investigate the defendant and its respective subordinate offices and bureaus and related personnel’s mass detention and intimidation of lawyers and citizens, “conviction before trial,” and other illegal acts, corrupt politics, and inhuman behavior.

Facts and Reasons:

Within days of July 9, 2015, when lawyer Wang Yu was taken away and disappeared by police, more than a dozen lawyers and dozens of citizens in different parts of the country were taken into custody, and more than a hundred other lawyers and hundreds of other citizens were interviewed, summonsed, intimidated, and warned by police. In a situation where family members and defense lawyers had no information on the whereabouts of the detained lawyers and citizens or the crimes they were suspected of, were not allowed to see them, and received no official notices of their detention, official media journalists were able to meet with the detained lawyers and citizens. CCTV and other official media outlets and the police wantonly attacked the lawyers and citizens in custody and made them “self-incriminate” and be “convicted without trial” in the media, creating an atmosphere of terror across the whole country with these inhuman, evil deeds, in flagrant violation of the Criminal Procedure Law.

In accordance with the constitutional rights of a citizen, Yu Wensheng, a victim of torture, brings this complaint to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate against the Ministry of Public Security, in the hope that the Supreme People’s Procuratorate will investigate the Ministry of Public Security and its respective subordinate offices and bureaus and related personnel’s illegal acts, corrupt politics, and inhuman behavior.

 


Urgent Appeal to Investigate Actions by Ministry of Public Security Police against More than 200 Lawyers and Citizens

$
0
0
Lawyers, legal workers, relatives, and others
August 4, 2015

On July 31, lawyers, relatives of targeted lawyers, and other citizens initiated a signature campaign for an appeal to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. The appeal requests that officers from the Ministry of Public Security be investigated and held criminally responsible for their suspected illegal actions—including abuse of authority, negligence, defamation, and nepotism—against more than 200 lawyers and citizens from across the country. As of 9:00 a.m. on August 4, the appeal had received 200 signatures. The appeal was sent that day by express mail to Wang Qishan, Secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, Cao Jianming, Procurator-General of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Zhang Dejiang, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and Li Keqiang, Premier of the State Council. The letter’s delivery was confirmed on the following day.


请求依法追究公安部数百警察对全国200多位律师和公民
    涉嫌严重滥用职权、玩忽职守、诽谤、徇私枉法罪刑事责任

    
    控告人  中国部分律师、被害律师亲属、公民,姓名等信息见正文尾页。

    被控告人(违法犯罪嫌疑人):

    1、对全国200多位律师和公民涉嫌上述违法犯罪的公安部,北京市和天津市公安局,福建、广东、湖南、河南、山东、黑龙江等省公安厅负责人;

    2、其他决定和实施对全国200多位律师公民强制谈话、违法传唤、非法拘禁的公安部和相关省市数百名警察;

    3、涉嫌诽谤罪的犯罪嫌疑人:黄庆畅(人民日报记者),邹伟(新华社记者),央视新闻主播欧阳夏丹、郑丽、顾国宁 ;记者杨绍功、朱国亮、齐雷杰、刘林、陈文广、李丽静;决定和提供新闻材料的公安人员。
    
    控告事项:

    1、依法监督公安部部长郭声琨、北京市公安局局长王小洪、天津市公安局局长赵飞、黑龙江公安厅厅长孙永波、福建省公安安厅长王惠敏、广东省公安厅厅长李锋、湖南省公安厅厅长黄关春、山东省公安厅厅长等,立即依法纠正所属公安机关人员涉嫌本文所述的违法犯罪行为,拒绝履责监督纠正的,追究其玩忽职守或共同犯罪刑事责任。

    2、依法监督责任公安侦查机关立即撤销对律师王宇、王全璋、谢燕益、李和平、黄力群、谢远东和李姝云(两实习律师)、刘四新,公民包龙军、高月、王芳、赵威等人的违法立案,予以释放。

    3、如有新证据证明上述被羁押人涉嫌违法犯罪的:

    1)监督依法立即向律师王宇、周世锋、王全璋、谢燕益、李和平、黄力群、谢远东和李姝云,公民包龙军、王芳、高月、赵威的亲属,送达实施强制措施通知书,明确告知涉嫌罪名和羁押场所;

    2)监督办案人员告知被羁押人有权聘请律师辩护、投诉控告的权利;

    3)上述被羁押人聘请的律师要求会见的,监督责任公安机关在48小时内依法安排会见(法律规定会见需要许可的,按照许可程序)。

    4、责令办案公安机关立即向以上被羁押人的亲属聘请的辩护律师要求后依法介绍涉嫌罪名、采取的强制措施、已经掌握的涉嫌犯罪事实。 

    5、分别追究以上被控告人滥用职权罪、玩忽职守罪、泄露国家秘密罪、徇私枉法罪和诽谤罪刑事责任。

    6、以上被控告人未构成犯罪构成违法的,依法追究政纪、党纪责任。
    
    被控告人涉嫌犯罪事实:

    据官方媒体报道和公开的信息,在公安部部署和指挥下,北京、天津、黑龙江、山东、福建等多地公安,从2015年7月9日凌晨开始,先后刑事拘留了北京律师王宇、周世锋、王全璋、周力群、谢远东和李姝云、刘四新(助理),谢燕益、李和平,还有公民包龙军、王芳、高月、赵威、胡石根,另广州律师隋牧青、湖南律师谢阳、广西兼职律师陈泰和分别被以煽动颠覆国家政权罪被当地公安监视居住或刑事拘留。之前北京律师刘建军、吴淦、翟岩民以寻衅滋事被刑事拘留。共20人,其中12名律师。7月11日和18日,中央电视台、新华社、人民日报等官媒,根据办案公安机关提供的侦查材料,大篇幅报道了周世锋担任主任的北京锋锐律师事务所为平台的,少数律师、推手、“访民”相互勾连、滋事扰序的涉嫌重大犯罪团伙,自2012年7月以来,周世锋等人先后组织策划炒作40余起案事件,严重干扰正常司法活动,严重扰乱社会秩序。

    2015年7月10日起几天内,全国各地公安警察数百人分别找全国234多人(名单附后,大部分是律师)强制谈话、违法传唤、非法限制人身自由,强制谈话的主要内容是威胁警告不要介入、支持王宇、周世锋案,不要发文和转帖、评论等。

    到2015年7月31日,仅被羁押人陈泰和被允许律师会见,其余被羁押人亲属均没有接到被采取刑事强制措施的通知书,王宇、李和平、刘四新、高月等被羁押人的辩护律师到北京、天津两地公安机关查找具体办案机关,依法要求会见和介绍案情,都推脱说不知道;刘书庆等辩护律师拟动身到天津、北京等地会见李和平,被警察阻拦。

    根据官方媒体报道的案件事实和已知办案程序,我们认为,此次由公安部指挥的大规模地抓捕律师和强制谈话的威胁警告行动,是对中国律师和公民合法权益的严重践踏,是对中国法治的巨大破坏,也是对中共十八届四中全会提出依法治国、依法治党要求的公然挑战,是有组织大规模的公安人员严重违法犯罪。

    为维护被害律师和公民的合法权益,维护法律尊严,推进国家法治,请求中央纪检监察机关、国家检察机关等有权机关履行职责,立即依法监督纠正被控告人的违法行为,严肃追究相关责任人员涉嫌犯罪责任。

    被控告人主要违法犯罪事实如下:

    一、在全国大规模对234人以上律师和公民强制谈话、违法传唤、非法限制人身自由,涉嫌滥用职权罪。

    按照法律规定,警察只有在公民涉嫌违法犯罪,可以在出示警察证和执法文件(如传唤证、询问通知)后对其讯问或询问,现场涉嫌违法犯罪的,可以出示警察证后盘问,除此之外无权强制找公民谈话。这次北京、天津等地数百甚至上千警察,强制找全国200多位律师和公民谈话,有些强制谈话以合法形式掩盖非法目的,如对广州律师葛文秀的强制谈话出具了治安传唤证(涉嫌寻衅滋事),但“询问”内容和寻衅滋事无关;警察开始对长沙律师文东海强制谈话,遭拒后转为强制传唤;北京律师余文生、重庆律师唐天昊等人还被多次以限制人身自由方式强谈;河南律师孟猛和常伯阳被强谈后还被要求写出保证书;重庆律师游飞翥被强制谈话6次······

    根据刑法第397条的规定,最高检察院关于渎职侵权犯罪立案标准规定:“滥用职权罪是指国家机关工作人员超越职权,违法决定、处理其无权决定、处理的事项,或者违反规定处理公务,致使公共财产、国家和人民利益遭受重大损失的行为。涉嫌下列情形之一的,应予立案······4、严重损害国家声誉,或者造成恶劣社会影响的”。

    根据以上事实和法律规定,决定和参与大规模找200多位律师和公民强制谈话的全国数百警察,超越法律授权,干涉律师和公民言论自由,甚至限制被强制谈话人人身自由,使人民利益遭受重大损失,引起国际广泛关注和谴责,严重损害国家声誉,造成极其恶劣的社会影响,涉嫌滥用职权罪。应当依法追究主要负责人的滥用职权罪刑事责任,其余人员应当给予滥用职权的行政处分和党纪处分。

    二、拒绝向大多数亲属送达被羁押人被采取强制措施通知书,侵犯亲属知情权,剥夺了被羁押人依法及时获得辩护权,涉嫌玩忽职守罪。

    据了解,上述被羁押人的亲属,除隋牧青、谢阳、陈泰和案外,均没有接到强制措施的通知书。律师去递办案手续,参与办案的天津、北京公安均称不知此案。隋牧青和谢阳律师亲属虽然接到了监视居住通知书,但公安办案人员拒绝依法向其辩护律师介绍已经查明的涉嫌犯罪事实。

    刑事诉讼法第三十三、三十六、三十七条以及六部委关于实施刑诉法若干规定等规定:犯罪嫌疑人自被侦查机关第一次讯问或者采取强制措施之日起,有权委托辩护人;侦查机关应当告知其有权委托辩护人;犯罪嫌疑人在押期间要求委托辩护人的,公安机关应当及时转达其要求;在押的,也可以由其监护人、近亲属代为委托辩护人;辩护律师在侦查期间可以为犯罪嫌疑人提供法律帮助,代理申诉、控告,申请变更强制措施;向侦查机关了解犯罪嫌疑人涉嫌的罪名、采取强制措施情况、已经查明的涉嫌犯罪事实,提出意见;辩护律师可以同在押的犯罪嫌疑人会见和通信;辩护律师依法要求会见的,看守所应当及时安排,至迟不得超过48小时。但危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪、特别重大贿赂犯罪案件辩护律师会见在押的犯罪嫌疑人,应当经侦查机关许可。

    刑诉法第八十三条规定,拘留后,“除无法通知或者涉嫌危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪通知可能有碍侦查的情形以外,应当在拘留后24小时以内,通知被拘留人的家属。有碍侦查的情形消失以后,应当立即通知被拘留人的家属”。而逮捕后应在24小时内通知家属。

    据官媒公布的案情,被羁押人王宇、周世锋、王全璋、周力群、谢远东、李姝云、刘四新,谢燕益、李和平,包龙军并不属于涉嫌危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪,应当在采取刑事拘留后24小时内通知家属,但家属至今未收到通知。

     我们认为,被羁押人大多数是律师,在被限制人身自由后,做出的第一个决定应当是聘请自己的辩护律师,但至今未见到办案机关向亲属转告被羁押人的要求。

    刑法第397条,最高检的立案标准是,“玩忽职守罪是指国家机关工作人员严重不负责任,不履行或者不认真履行职责,致使公共财产、国家和人民利益遭受重大损失的行为。涉嫌下列情形之一的,应予立案······8、严重损害国家声誉,或者造成恶劣社会影响的”。

    根据上述事实和法律,控告人认为,公安办案人员上述不通知亲属、不向辩护律师介绍查明被羁押人涉嫌犯罪事实的行为,剥夺亲属的知情权,剥夺被羁押人获得律师辩护的权利,破坏法律正确实施。被控告人中负有通知和告知义务的办案警察和决策人员,致使人民利益遭受重大损失,严重损害国家声誉,造成极其恶劣的社会影响的,涉嫌玩忽职守罪。

    三、决定和办理王宇、王全璋、谢燕益、李和平、包龙军、黄力群、谢远东、刘四新等人刑事责任的人员,涉嫌徇私枉法罪。

    2015年7月11日新华网和央视新闻《公安部揭开“维权”事件黑幕》、7月18日《北京锋锐律所案追踪》等报道,根据办案公安机关提供资料,报道了以上人员涉嫌犯罪的事实:警方查明,犯罪嫌疑人所称的“维权圈”大体分为三个层级:组织核心层,包括北京锋锐律师事务所主任周世锋、行政助理刘四新、律师黄力群等人;策划行动层,包括律师王宇、王全璋和推手吴淦、翟岩民、包龙军等人;跟风参与层,包括刘星、李某某等“访民”。具体涉嫌犯罪事实10起:1、庆安事件,谢燕益等6律师造谣“警察枪杀访民”在网上传播,以及在火车站举牌,吴淦10万元悬赏案发现场视频,翟岩民组织五批访民去声援,国内外网上炒作;2、今年1月周世锋派遣谢远东到云南大理代理一起案件,吴淦开车在法院院内来回转,并高喊着法院院长的名字;3、2015年4月沈阳市沈河区法院一起刑案开庭时,王宇大骂法警和法官流氓、禽兽,扰乱法庭秩序;4、2013年4月江苏靖江市法院一起案件开庭时,王全璋未经法庭许可擅自用“云录音”状态的手机录音、拍照,被司法拘留,一批人在法院聚集闹事;5、2014年周世锋代理了鄂尔多斯一起涉及商标犯罪的案件,为了能代理这个案件却提出做无罪辩护,抹黑主审法官、大闹法庭、网络炒作;6、刘建军代理徐某某贪污罪上诉案,策划下翟岩民联系了10多名“访民”前往潍坊市法院门口举牌、打横幅、喊口号,导致大量围观、交通严重堵塞;7、2010年8月王宇在天津火车站将18岁检票员张格非耳朵打聋重伤,被判处有期徒刑2年半、附带民事赔偿,辩护律师组织一批与案件不相干的人员,头戴白帽,在法院门口高呼口号、向法院施压;8、王宇在代理江苏范木根案时,在网上发帖故意歪曲案情,开庭时聚集了数百人“声援”、围观,庭审中,王宇大闹法庭,直至被当场带离,然后在庭外跟“访民”互动,一起打横幅、高喊口号,引来更多人围观;9、今年3月27日,原告代理律师不服许昌中院判决,联络了几十名职业访民要求法院道歉,并在法院办公区域扎帐篷过夜,严重扰乱了法院的秩序。现场有一个名叫刘星的人,外号“老道”,是一个职业访民的闹访组织者。10、周世锋与多名女子有不正当男女关系,涉嫌偷漏税、行贿涉嫌犯罪正在侦查。

    以上公布的“涉嫌犯罪事实”,绝大部分依法都不是犯罪事实和北京锋锐律师所、与周世锋无关。公安人员和官媒报道,把完全不相干的、根本不是犯罪的一些情节瞎乱拼凑在一起,假造出一个有组织、有计划的犯罪团伙和大案。

    1、关于庆安事件。经谢燕益等律师调查,5月2日乘客徐纯合买了两张火车票探亲,被检票人员以是访民为由阻拦不让进站,构成不法侵害,他以拦阻其他乘客不让上车的方式“防卫”,警察李乐斌控制住他,后用警棍殴打他身上多处出血,徐纯合“夺”过警棍还击,李乐斌拔枪将其击毙。谢燕益等律师接受死者徐纯合母亲委托后展开调查取证,多级公安机关拒绝依法接待。后代理依法提起行政复议要求确认打死徐纯合违法,并提出国家赔偿250万元,还有政府信息公开。复议机关要求申请人徐母权玉顺补正材料,案件真相的律师调查、依法追责法律行动正在进行中。

    虽然哈尔滨铁路公安部门自己调查说警察使用枪支合法,但车站人员拦阻公民上火车违法违约行为在先,在徐纯和赤手空拳、车站有很多警察和工作人员可帮助制服情况下,李乐斌当场击毙徐纯合完全没有必要。公安拒绝完整公布现场视频,不依法公开公正处理,公众会长久质疑,最终的处理结果将会对今后警察和公众行为产生重大影响。如果枪杀徐纯合的警察李乐斌不需要负法律责任,之后将会出现两种极端情况:警察执行职务时杀人行为会越来越多,而民众觉得法律无用,就会有更多的人效仿在上海警察局内杀死6名警察的杨佳采取私力报复,会有更多公民和警察死于非命。这种趋势我们不愿看到,但难以避免。

    谢燕益等5律师而非6律师并没有在火车站举牌,只是在不接待的省公安厅举牌抗议。这种行为是律师、公民的正常意思表达,不是犯罪。

    谢燕益等律师的上述行为,也和周世锋、与锋锐所没有任何关系;和之后的吴淦、翟岩民等几批访民去抗议也没有任何关联性,律师和访民没有接触。且吴淦、翟岩民等访民的抗议活动也是行使宪法法律所规定的公民监督权,虽然这种监督的方式可能会有一些争议,但不构成犯罪。

    2、吴淦开车在云南大理法院院内来回转并高喊着法院院长名字,是民事行为不是犯罪,除了可能与周世锋有关外,与其他人无关。

    3、王宇在沈阳沈河区法院法庭大骂法警流氓、禽兽,是因为之前有几个法警当庭用脚踢女被告人李东旭的腿扳脚腕并按打,其辩护人董前勇律师大声说,她在侦查阶段被警察扒去衣服威胁用电棍电击打阴部,要求追责你们不管,现在还当庭打她,要求审判长制止,审判长反把董前勇驱逐出法庭。王宇见此情形上前痛骂打人的几个法警流氓、禽兽,要书记员记录在案,这是常人愤怒时的正常反应,也是律师维护当事人合法权益的行为,她因此也被审判长驱逐出法庭。因辩护权受到严重侵害且无人身安全,其他三个律师王全璋、李中伟、兰志学愤然退庭去检察院投诉控告。法庭竟然在没有一位辩护人的情况下继续违法强制开庭审理,严重侵犯诉讼权。如果王宇是无理大骂法警,法院早就会对她进行司法处罚了,为什么没处罚,是法警和法官严重违法在先、理亏,实在是没理由对她进行处罚。虽然王宇大骂法警“流氓”的方式值得商榷,但绝不是犯罪。

    这次开庭和周世锋无关、和锋锐所无关,和其他涉案人员无关。

    4、2013年王全璋在靖江法院被司法拘留,是因为法院认为他未经许可在法庭上拍照、录音,他自己辩解是在法庭上拍照自己交法院的材料留底,被法官误认为是拍照庭审情况和录音。可以有庭审录像佐证。后王全璋申请复议和诉讼,有权机关拒绝。这事件是“扰乱法庭秩序”的行为,且已经被该法院司法处罚,不可能是犯罪。

    这是王全璋律师本人的单独的行动,和锋锐所、周世锋以及其他涉案人员无关,当时他还未调入锋锐所,近几个月前才调入。

    5、鄂尔多斯案,多个被告人的案情不同,周世锋和其他辩护人的意见不同做无罪辩护,符合辩护人应当依法对被告人做罪轻或无罪辩护的法律规定,律师法规定律师法庭辩论意见有豁免权,不受法律追究。对被告人做无罪辩护倒变成周世锋的涉嫌犯罪事实,办案人员和官媒人的此种观点太离奇,与文革无异。视频上的画面是休庭时间,审判长已经能够离开座位,他在和其他两个法官随意在阐述自己的观点,近似于聊天。难道休庭时和法官聊天、在法庭内走动和说话,也成了犯罪?如果周世锋的行为构成扰乱法庭秩序,法院完全可以对他进行司法处罚。法院没有处罚周世锋即认为他没违法,侦查机关倒认为是犯罪,不能成立。

    6、至于办理徐某某贪污案的二审,律师刘建军和翟岩民找来的访民在聚集在法院外的拉横幅、打标语,主要是因为法院违法剥夺了到场公民的旁听权,人群无奈聚集在法院外,肯定要表达对法院剥夺旁听权的愤怒和不满,至于在法院外打出内容有对判决结果期待无罪的标语,也是一种言论自由。如果把这看作是一种集会,最多也就是违反了治安管理的行为,决不是扰乱司法的犯罪行为。如果都被允许在法庭内旁听,庭外无人,还有人在法庭上打出这样的标语吗?

    本案和周世锋、和锋锐所,和其他涉案人员,都毫无关系。

    7、2010年王宇在被天津市的法院以过失伤害罪判处二年半有期徒刑。该案事实不清证据不足,王宇已经多次申诉。申诉理由主要是:自己是个瘦弱女子,怎可能和多个年轻力壮车站工作人员面对面对打,还把人高马大的检票员张格非耳朵打聋,控方没有出具案发前该检票员的体检证明,不能证明在此之前他的耳朵听力正常、其耳聋和王宇的过失伤害有直接的因果关系。但办案机关拒绝调取该检票员以前的体检证明以及案发时王宇打检票员的录像证据。王宇认为,判决依据的事实虚假,是自己投诉车站警察打人,惹恼了有些人,对方编造事实对自己陷害,所以“被害人”在判决生效后一直没有申请执行刑事判决附带民事赔偿部分。这次警方集中抓捕律师之前,在超过申请执行时效时后才申请执行,有理由认为这应当是被安排的。王宇的“前科”不可能作为本案她涉嫌犯罪事实。难道她被判过刑就终身是罪犯,就应当被官媒反复谴责吗?侦查机关和媒体还要再判决她一次?本案发生时王宇不是锋锐所的律师,她根本不认识周世锋,本案与锋锐所、与周世锋无关。

    8、范木根案,王宇等律师被赶出法庭,是因为之前法官违法拒绝纠正律师退庭去检察院控告,再次开庭时法官认为律师没有辩护权。把王宇赶出法庭恰恰证明是法院违法。法院有司法处罚权,为什么不对王宇“大闹法庭”扰乱法庭秩序的行为进行处罚,证明法院认为自己违法理亏在先,实在不好意思处罚律师。本案王宇违法都算不上的冲突,被公安追诉成涉嫌犯罪事实,贻笑大方。该案是王宇个人参与辩护,是独立正常的律师业务,与周世锋以及锋锐所没有什么关系。

    9、许昌案是因为法院取消原定知名人士贾灵敏起诉的行政案开庭,事先未通知辩护人也未向社会公示,三位辩护人和全国想参加旁听的人按原定开庭时间赶到法院,造成很大损失,要求许昌法院赔礼道歉。这本是法院自己过错造成他人的损失应当赔偿损失和赔礼道歉才对,但未做,辩护人和要旁听的公众的滞留要求法院道歉。僵持了一夜,法院方面最后答应正式开庭时一定提前通知和公布,大法庭开庭满足公众旁听需要。这怎么可能是犯罪?

    参与此案的袁裕来、朱孝顶、张维玉律师都不是锋锐所的律师,此案和锋锐所、周世锋没有任何关系,也被栽赃到锋锐所和周世锋身上。

    10、周世锋的与多名女子的“不正当关系”属于私权,他人无权干涉,公安和官媒把这作为涉嫌犯罪事实披露,涉嫌名誉侵权。周世锋偷漏税、行贿的涉嫌犯罪事实并没有查实,却违法提前披露。

    刑法第399条规定:“司法工作人员徇私枉法、徇情枉法,对明知是无罪的人而使他受追诉······或者在刑事审判活动中故意违背事实和法律作枉法裁判的”,构成徇私枉法罪。《最高人民检察院关于渎职侵权犯罪案件立案标准的规定》规定,“涉嫌下列情形之一的,应予立案:1、对明知是没有犯罪事实或者其他依法不应当追究刑事责任的人,采取伪造、隐匿、毁灭证据或者其他隐瞒事实、违反法律的手段,以追究刑事责任为目的立案、侦查、起诉、审判的”

    根据上述法律规定,以及警方通过官媒发布的案情,除周世锋涉嫌偷漏税、行贿,刘建军和翟岩民、吴淦涉嫌寻衅滋涉嫌犯罪的事实需要继续侦查外,其他涉案人员均没有任何犯罪事实,至今未见公布涉嫌罪名,也说明不涉嫌犯罪。明知被羁押人没有犯罪事实而追究刑事责任,决定和实施立案、侦查的公安人员,涉嫌徇私枉法罪。

    四、黄庆畅(人民日报记者)、邹伟(新华社记者)、央视新闻主播欧阳夏丹、郑丽、顾国宁,记者杨绍功、朱国亮、齐雷杰、刘林、陈文广、李丽静11个记者,以及决定报道的人,决定和提供新闻材料的公安人员,诽谤多名被羁押人,并造成恶劣的社会影响,涉嫌诽谤罪。

     报道的10起“涉嫌违法犯罪事实”,只有鄂尔多斯案、大理案和周世锋、锋锐所有关,其他涉案事件和涉案的大多数人员谢燕益、李和平、谢阳、隋牧青、包龙军、刘建军、高月、赵威等都不是锋锐所人员,办案人员和官媒人把这些毫不相干不是犯罪的事件和人员乱七八糟堆砌在一起,编造出虚假的律师团伙犯罪的大案要案。 

    刑法第二百四十六条规定,“以暴力或者其他方法公然侮辱他人或者捏造事实诽谤他人,情节严重的,处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制或者剥夺政治权利”。

    《最高人民法院最高人民检察院关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题解释》第二条规定,“利用信息网络诽谤他人,具有下列情形之一的,应当认定为刑法第二百四十六条第一款规定的“情节严重”:(一)同一诽谤信息实际被点击、浏览次数达到五千次以上,或者被转发次数达到五百次以上的······(四)其他情节严重的情形。

     “第三条 利用信息网络诽谤他人,具有下列情形之一的,应当认定为刑法第二百四十六条第二款规定的“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”······(四)诽谤多人,造成恶劣社会影响的······(六)造成恶劣国际影响的。

    根据上述规定和事实,控告人认为,在明知报道的被羁押人多数的“涉嫌犯罪事实”不是犯罪事实,被控告人言论属于“公然侮辱他人或者捏造事实诽谤他人,情节严重的”,达到了“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”的程度。因为,被告人诽谤言论文章和视频的信息网络阅读量大大超过5000次,仅仅凤凰资讯一家的阅读量就达到11万和3万多次,社会影响和国际影响极其恶劣,涉嫌诽谤罪。

    为维护被害律师和控告人的合法权益,促进媒体、记者、主持人以及互联网自由言论依法和规范,应当依法追究被控告人,官媒人诽谤罪的刑事责任。被害人及其亲属可自行对相关媒体提起名誉侵权诉讼和对记者、主播的诽谤罪刑事自诉。

    六、结束语 本案“涉嫌犯罪事实”的主体部分是律师和法官辩审冲突,主要原因是法官不能保持司法中立,

    媒体特别是官方媒体,报道案件立场应当客观、中立,在明知报道的涉嫌犯罪事实大部分不存在,却利用官媒的垄断地位,作为侦查机关单方信息的传播机器,大肆炒作,操纵舆论,意在混淆是非、欺骗公众,对检察院、法院施加强大舆论压力,形成媒体审判的的高压态势,真正地在干扰司法、破坏司法独立。

     在公安和官媒公布的10起“涉嫌犯罪事实”,有7起涉及到律师和法官的冲突。为什么应该在法庭上充分说理,希望自己的代理意见被法官采纳、应当非常尊重法官的律师,明知自己态度不好会“得罪”法官,可能导致对自己的当事人不利的裁判,却和法官激烈对抗?前面已经分析,这都是因为法官法院违法在先,阻止律师依法履行职务,律师为维护辩护权而导致对抗。常见的法官法院违法有:不让(全部)阅卷复制;在法庭上限制律师依法正常发言;律师提出的回避申请应当由法院院长决定的,合议庭越权直接驳回;在一些所谓敏感案件庭审时法官不准许律师谈法律、不允许做无罪辩护;被告人和辩护律师的诉讼权利被侵犯,辩护律师维权时反遭整治,对律师违法进行司法处罚、殴打、在法庭被抓走。如程海律师代理丁家喜律师因组织参与主张官员财产公开、教育公平的活动被以破坏公共场所秩序罪案审理过程中,海淀区检察院和法院有阻碍辩护权、秘密审判等多处违法拒绝纠正,程海律师退庭投诉控告维护辩护权,审判长范君竟然以扰乱法庭秩序无端警告两次,后还司法建议北京司法局行政处罚停止执业一年,报复陷害,“只许法官放火,不许律师点灯”。2015年初武汉律师张科科代理信仰案件,法官不允许做无罪辩护,他依法做了无罪辩护,庭长指挥公安警察把他从法庭上抓走。遇到法官违法,律师依法能做的无非是当面交涉,向该院纪检和院长、向检察院等机关投诉,但大多数投诉如石沉大海。在正常的法律救济无效的情况下,迫于无奈,有些律师转而采取网络曝光,举牌抗议等方式维权,以引起有权机关的关注,督促其监督纠正法官和法院的违法行为,这无可厚非。

     律师和法官冲突的主要原因,是部分法官丧失中立立场,违法偏向控方一边,直接与律师对抗,把辩护律师看做配合走过场的摆设。就刑事案件而言,律师的作用是增加犯罪嫌疑人被告人方面的辩护力量,找出控方错误,帮助法官查明事实、准确地适用法律,从而更公正地裁判案件。律师只是说出与控方不同的意见,但采纳与否完全由法官定夺,兼听则明、偏听则暗,绝大多数冤假错案的发生都是限制律师作用、或根本不理睬律师意见的结果。对于律师和法官冲突,北京市第一中级法院最近公开的调查报告分析的非常客观中肯,认为大量存在但不应当发生的辩审冲突,主要在于部分法官没有恪守司法中立,为了诉讼效率牺牲律师的辩护权,对律师的司法处罚有时草率失当,与律师的沟通不够等,解决辩审冲突,主要要由法院法官来解决。不重视律师辩护权利的庭审,并不能真正维护当事人权利,最高法院院长周强向各高院院长提出要求,“各地法院要切实解决‘庭审虚化’、走过场和摆形式的问题,只有解决这些问题才能实现公正司法”。

    公民有权旁听公开开庭案件,这是法治教育和社会监督的需要。一些法院对所谓敏感案件借口旁听座席少等理由,违法剥夺公民和记者的旁听权,是导致庭审时法院和旁听公民冲突和拉横幅喊口号的主要原因,责任也主要在法院,应当予以纠正。

     律师是一国法治最主要的社会监督和推进力量,限制律师的作用,就是破坏司法公平、破坏法治。公安机关和官媒,这次对中国律师和公民的大规模违法犯罪行动,将极大地破坏中国的法治,如果不依法制止和追究违法犯罪责任,依法治国就成了一句空话。

     司法部和律师协会应当按照律师法等规定,保障律师的依法执业权和合法权益,官媒报道后,司法部官员和律协官员不去认真调查维护被害律师的合法权益,反而发表不当言论帮助公安和官媒办案,严重违反律师法和公务员法的规定,应当依法给予政纪协纪处分。该案还远没有进入审判阶段,在明知官媒的报道不客观中立,中国法院报竟然对报道予以转载,变成前者的附庸或帮凶,共同违法,应当予以纠正。
    
     此致
    中央纪检委、最高检察院
    
    抄报:中共中央政治局、全国人大常委会、国务院
    
    控告人(律师、被害律师亲属、公民):
    名单附后
    
    2015年7月31日
    
    控告人(律师、被害律师亲属、其他公民):

    律师和法律工作者控告人(律师、被害律师亲属、其他公民(200人):

    律师和法律工作者(48人)

    程 海 北京律师18910535236 吴魁明 广州律师 黄汉中 北京律师 文东海 湖南律师 
    余 丹 北京律师 王道刚 山东律师 李春富 北京律师 董前勇 北京律师 余文生 北京律师 
    李静林 北京律师 陈金华 湖南律师 王国芳 深圳律师 杨 阳 湖南律师 蔺其磊 北京律师 
    黎雄兵 北京律师 张建国 北京律师 葛文秀 广州律师 吕方芝 湖南律师 葛永喜 广州律师 
    张重实 重庆律师 成准强 广州律师 舒向新 山东律师 戴晓晨 长沙律师 张赞宁 江西律师 
    蒋援民 深圳律师 常伯阳 河南律师 游飞翥 重庆律师 唐天昊 重庆律师 夏 钧 广东律师 
    燕旺利 湖南律师 李威达 河北律师 宋玉生 北京律师 谢德平 四川律师 刘长中 湖南律师 
    付爱玲 广东律师 蒋永继 甘肃律师 何 伟 广东律师 冯延强 山东律师 刘正清 广东律师
    刘荣生 山东律师 石文好 湖南律师
    江天勇律师 吴旭明 广东律助 唐吉田 律师 刘微律师 冯岩 黑龙江法律 
    徐 秦 北京法务

    被害律师和公民的亲属(4人) 原珊珊 北京 王峭岭 北京 游明磊 赵凤侠 天津

    其他公民(148人)

    夏传艮 安徽企管 李 蔚 北京自职 王友志 河南工人 王 倩 河南工人 王奎林 河南工人
    王喜春 山东自职 刘诗民 广东医生 徐自民 湖北自职 周国淮 沪传教士 吴兆祯 江苏
    刁尚华 江苏工人 徐 武 湖北消防 李国伟 郑州 陈文忠 湖南教师 殷会龙 山东退伍
    野靖春 北京自职 李世维 北京司机 吴孔太 海南教师 钱 进 安徽 曾全民 湖北工人
    李启东 辽宁 林春芬 湖北 文 韬 广东自职 余建凤 广东 鲁 明
    王有栋 河南工人 宋再明 北京自职 吴 莉 四川 顾 剑 江苏 甄江华 广东社工
    任跃华 成都 邹定民 重庆下岗 陈兆志 北大退休 张有为 安徽 许桂英 辽宁
    王丽君 西安 罗琴美 上海 陈闯创 美国自职 江 琴 上海旅美 桑海峰 安徽 
    江和水 谢塘东 广东 路春山 天津 李英之 北京自职 马新立 北京自职
    梁阴权 广东 田发全 陕西汉中 杨勤恒 上海 杜聪波 长沙 戈觉平 江苏
    于艳华 江苏 郑建慧 天津 盧志强 山东 陈学梅 福建 刘 华 辽宁
    
    陆国英 就是 盛晓明 山东 高明明 山西个体 唐新波 天津 常洪艳 黑龙江 
    周广栋 山东 何观娇 福建 丁玉娥 山东 李延香 北京 李茂林 山西 
    郝淑娥 黑龙江 蔡通海 北京作家 黄 燕 广东 彭克芳 北京 顾义民 江苏
    尤克文 湖南自职 孙 涛 湖南厨师 廖 俊 福建下岗 罗 劲 长沙 姚 八 宁夏
    鞠 力 天津 吴金圣 河北作家 程彦龙 陕西物管 郑胜洪 福建自职 刘嘉青 江西工人
    杨燕勇 广西自职 王喜春 周玉花 福建 邱 蓓 上海 武华中 河南医生
    张耀华 河南 林 杉 江苏 高 双 黑龙江 胡 军 新疆义工 潘淑荣 黑龙江
    李晨阳 山东 黄伟明 福建自职 段水华 湖北下岗 刘海民 吉林 黄根宝 江苏建筑
    杜 彬 江西 刘峰华 山西国企 陈 艳 北京自职 毛善春 湖北 杨 毅 河南技师
    刘士春 广东自职 张玉祥 江苏 陈玉华 湖南下岗 胡龙霞 广州自职 张翼翔 河北建筑
    
    陈 娟 福建理疗 郭 明 江工人 侯欣 北京自职 董永权 河南兽医 黄 峰 安徽物流
    李卓熹 湖南保安 冯 军 湖南自职 黄迈华 广东农民 谢 飙 长沙自职 沈爱斌 江苏
    麻贵红 河北 谢守东 湖北农民 倪世忠 贵州 赵长福 就是无业 周再强 长沙自职
    吴 双 北京教育 张淑风 北京 张德利 北京 薛 丹 陕西 李冬梅 北京农民
    解春晖 辽宁车饰 陈宗瑶 福建 余洪明 福建 王婉平 苏州退休 刘海宽 江西个体
    郑胜洪 福建自职 张云忠 四川 萧迪孝 广东销售 钟 武 武汉企业 张宝成 北京
    成怀山 就是 罗亚玲 重庆退休 谢文凯 陕西工人 王 成 河南工人 李 康 河南工人
    王 怕 河南工人 孟 林 河南工人 于 夯 河南工人 王友田 河南工人 牛领釵 河北
    倪玉兰 北京 古 懿 四川留学 
     截止2015年8月4日9时
 

China: Open letter to States for joint action to address worsening crackdown on human rights defenders and lawyers

$
0
0
August 10, 2015
Posted in: 

To: Permanent Representatives of Member States
and Observer States of the UN Human Rights Council

 

Your Excellency,

We urge your delegation to make statements, both jointly and individually, to address the unprecedented crackdown on human rights defenders and lawyers in China – indeed on Chinese civil society in general - at the forthcoming 30th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Chinese government made commitments when joining the Council to uphold human rights and the integrity of the UN human rights system; the contradiction between these commitments and the domestic human rights situation in China has never been more evident.

In the first half of 2015, the human rights situation in China declined dramatically. Women’s rights activists were detained merely for seeking to raise awareness about sexual harassment on public transportation. A series of draft laws were presented for public comment that threaten to further restrict independent civil society and freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

The opening day of the 30th session of the Council marks the two-year anniversary of the detention of Cao Shunli for seeking to engage with UN human rights mechanisms. To date no progress has been made toward accountability for her death in custody; to the contrary, custodial deaths have continued. On 12 July, authorities confirmed the death of respected Tibetan monk Tenzin Delek Rinpoche who was serving a life sentence, handed down without a fair trial, for having exercised his right to peaceful assembly. Police opened fire on those supporters calling for his body to be released to his family for traditional burial.

High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid released a strong statement on 7 July calling on the Chinese government to consider the implications of the recently-adopted National Security Law. This law, in conjunction with other draft laws, severely constrains space for civil society and peaceful dissent. A proposed counter-terrorism law, for example, would permit the imposition of penalties for peaceful expression of religious belief or criticism of ethnic or religious policies. The High Commissioner encouraged careful attention to respect for these and other fundamental freedoms.

And yet, starting on 9 July the Chinese government embarked on a sweeping and systematic effort to harass, detain, and silence human rights defenders and lawyers, their supporters and colleagues, and even their families. Activists estimate that over 200 members of the Chinese human rights community were affected, with many detained, disappeared, or forced underground. As of 7 August, four weeks later, 28 activists were missing or in police custody; some of those detained have ‘confessed’ publicly on Chinese state media to being part of a ‘criminal gang’ or to ‘disrupting public order’; access to legal counsel, however, has been extremely limited.

The Human Rights Council should speak out strongly against such blatant backpedalling on human rights by a Member State. We call on all States to use the platform of the Council to urge China to cease its targeting of human rights defenders; immediately release all those arbitrarily detained; respect and enable the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly; and provide for transparent investigations and adequate remedies for those affected by this crackdown. In particular we urge you to use the following tools to raise these critical issues:

  • Joint statement(s)

    States should, with one voice, make clear to China that disregard for human rights cannot be justified by reference to imperatives of national security or countering terrorism; nor can legitimate concerns of the international community be dismissed by oft-repeated appeals for ‘non-interference in domestic affairs’. A strong joint statement could build on the various national-level statements made by governments in response to the July crackdown, and call for the unconditional release of all political prisoners. This includes but is not limited to: rights defence lawyers Pu Zhiqiang, Wang Yonghang, and Wang Yu; journalist Gao Yu; moderate Uighur scholar Ilham Tohti; grassroots democracy activist Liu Ping and human rights defender Mi Chongbiao; New Citizens’ Movement activists Xu Zhiyong and Guo Feixiong (Yang Maodong); Tibetan monk and community leader Khenpo Kartse (Karma Tsewang); and Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo and his wife Liu Xia

  • Item 4 Statements

    At the 29th session of the Council, a number of delegations, including the Czech Republic, the European Union, Germany, the United States, and Switzerland specifically mentioned China in their statements under Agenda Item 4. States should use this platform at the 30th session to highlight the serious structural barriers to human rights that exist in China, in particular those impacting Tibetan and Uyghur minorities, and to press for progress on and follow-up to specific cases. States should also urge China to agree to requests for country visits by key Special rapporteurs, including those on human rights defenders; freedom of assembly and association; freedom of expression; freedom of religion; and torture.

  • Interactive Dialogues with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD)

    These Working Groups have a long track record of engaging on issues related to their mandates in China, but have seen little in return. States should use this platform to press for more serious engagement by the Chinese government with these and other Special Procedures, and for robust and transparent follow-up on cases raised during the year but often lacking substantive response or action by China. These could include the detentions of Liu Xizhen, Ge Zhihui, and Ding Jiaxi, and of the ‘Guangzhou 3’ lawyers Tang Jingling, Wang Qingying, and Yuan Xinting.

    In 2013 when China ran as a candidate for the Human Rights Council, the WGAD issued 10 urgent appeals related to cases in China – more than any other country (see A/HRC/27/48). The last visit of the WGAD to the country was in 2005, and there has been no progress by the Chinese government in implementing relevant recommendations. These recommendations included, inter alia, to limit the power of the procuratorate; ensure due process requirements; safeguard against abuses in centres for mental health patients and drug users; and prohibit the use of ‘vague, imprecise, or sweeping elements’ of criminal code to punish peaceful exercise of fundamental freedoms (see E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4). The WGEID requested a visit to China on 19 February 2013 and to date has not received a response.

Through these opportunities for dialogue, and others, you as Council members and observers can fulfil your responsibility to bring attention to human rights violations occurring in China. The 30th session of the Council should be fully leveraged to improve the human rights situation in China, end the widespread harassment of human rights defenders and reverse efforts to further constrain freedom of association and assembly.

We are available to provide further information as required, and look forward to our continued engagement.

Sincerely,

China Labour Bulletin
Chinese Human Rights Defenders
Fédération Internationale des Droits de l’Homme (FIDH)
Human Rights in China
Human Rights Watch
International Campaign for Tibet
International Service for Human Rights

Yu Wensheng’s Letter of Complaint

$
0
0
Yu Wensheng
August 11, 2015
Posted in: 

[Translation by Human Rights in China]

On August 11, 2015, Yu Wensheng filed a letter of complaint with the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau, Shijingshan District’s government, Supervisory Bureau, and the Procuratorate, demanding an investigation into the actions and responsibility of the Shijingshan Branch of the Beijing Public Security Bureau for the abuse and disguised acts of torture inflicted on the complainant.


Letter of Complaint

To: The Beijing Public Security Bureau
Complainant: Yu Wensheng
August 11, 2015

Defendant:  Shijingshan Branch of the Beijing Public Security Bureau.

Demand: An investigation into the behavior and responsibility of the Beijing Public Security Bureau’s Shijingshan Branch for the abuse and disguised acts of torture inflicted on Yu Wensheng.

Facts and reasons:

On August 6, 2015, after 23:00, more than ten people (two were in police uniforms) from the Bajiao Substation of the Beijing Public Security Bureau’s Shijingshan Branch picked the lock, forced open the door, and broke into Yu Wensheng’s home to criminally detain Yu Wensheng for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” They searched his entire house without a search warrant, and confiscated items such as laptops (items have been returned).

For the 24 hours Yu Wensheng was detained, he was in handcuffs (during the first 10 hours, his hands were cuffed behind his back), and had to sit in a fixed position on a metal chair up until ten minutes before his release. Yu Wensheng had no way to sleep during his detention and was restricted in urinating. His basic physiological needs were violated. The actions of the Bajiao substation constituted abuse and disguised acts of tortured inflicted on Yu Wensheng. Because the Bajiao substation is not a legal person, Yu Wensheng is asking for an investigation to be carried out in accordance with the law into the actions and responsibility of the Beijing Public Security Bureau’s Shijingshan Branch for the abuse and disguised acts of torture inflicted on Yu Wensheng.

Citizen Activist Liu Yuandong Hasn’t Been Let outside since First Detained in March 2013

$
0
0
Liu Zhengqing
August 22, 2015
Posted in: 

Liu Yuangdong was among the first activists of the Southern Street Movement to be detained. He was tried in January 2014 in the Tianhe District People's Court, Guangzhou, Guandong, and the court has not yet issued a ruling and he remains in detention. Liu Yuandong said to his lawyer, Liu Zhengqing, in a meeting on August 21, 2015:

I was detained on March 10, 2013. In the two and a half years since, I have never been allowed outside or seen the sun. I’ve been in a narrow space bursting with people—especially this year [2015], it has been packed with people. In the B213 cell where I’m held—a space smaller than 40 square meters—there are 35, sometimes 40 people. I hear that other cells are the same.

The legal system under this autocratic rule is the equivalent of extreme despotism: people who should not be detained are here. In here, your health will get worse by the day. No one gets better. China's drug problem is also proliferating. I guess that 70% of those in here are drug addicts. In these two years, frequently if I don’t have diarrhea then I have constipation; and my gastrointestinal problems are very bad. I eat poorly, and endlessly suffer from skin diseases. I have serious insomnia and often feel anxious and fearful. The food is so bad, even beggars would not want to eat it. Previously, they detained a homeless man, and even he would rather drift about outside than stay here. Often times, detainees become weak in all four limbs, and cannot even stand. Two people died last year. In more than two years, I haven’t received one single letter, or been able to send out those I wrote. Now, my memory, attention, and cognitive function are all greatly reduced, and my reaction has also slowed.

Lawyer Wang Quanzhang Suspected of “Picking Quarrels” and “Inciting Subversion”

$
0
0
Lawyer Li Zhongwei
August 10, 2015
Posted in: 

In these notes, lawyer Li Zhongwei recounts his efforts to meet with his client Lawyer Wang Quanzhang, who was disappeared on July 10. On August 10, Li went with Wang’s wife to the Hexi District Detention Center for the third time to look for him. After repeated requests, they were finally told that Wang Quanzhang was criminally detained on August 8, on suspicion of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” and “inciting subversion of state power.” But their request to meet with Wang was denied. 


王全璋律师被控涉嫌寻衅和煽颠
——8月10日约见王全璋案办案人员碎记

王全璋,一个在北京执业的山东籍律师,多次跟我讲:做人权案件的律师,不能有任何不良嗜好,不能抽烟,不能喝酒,不能去娱乐场所。我虽认为有道理,但因抽烟没戒掉,表面上我还是不以为然,但他这话我记在心里了。

7.10后,王全璋失踪,为了找他,我曾两次到天津公安局河西分局和河西看守所,但都无音信。

2015年8月9日上午8点10分,我第三次来到天津河西区看守所门口,十分钟后,看到王全璋妻子抱着熟睡的两岁小儿子从计程车上下来。

可能出于对丈夫的思念,也可能看到梦中出现过多少次的看守所的高墙与铁丝网,她眼睛湿润,虽尽力掩饰,泪水还是奔出…此时,我正在手机上阅读她昨天回京路上写的《我的爱人全璋,你在哪里?》--我故意装看手机,等她自己将泪水擦拭…

8点30分,我们一块到了河西预审支队一楼接待室。值班电话联系后,答覆说都开会去了。问什么时间回来?不知道。问主办民警是谁?不知道。要求开门我们自己上去找,答他们只负责通知。最后一句话:等着吧!

(长期以来,我总结应对这种〝人不在〞的招数通常有三招:一是软磨硬泡,一直催他跟上级联系;二是向纪监等部门投诉;三是闹点动静出来。)

采用第一招:从法律规定、律师责任、家属担心等三个角度轮番游说,无奈两值班始终无动于衷,只得第二招:撂下去投诉的〝狠话〞准备去区局。

刚走到大门口就被喊了回去,说指导员有请。

期间全璋的儿子醒来,挣眼第一句:〝爸爸在哪?我要找爸爸!〞稚嫩的童音,最一般的语言,在我刚刚看了全璋妻子思念全璋的文章后,竟感到撕心裂肺--全璋妻子赶紧:〝爸爸在上班,宝宝听话!〞--我不再敢看这母子,怕自己忍不住…

9点30分,河西分局预审支队会议室,终于见到分管的赵支队。

赵支队经电话询问办案人员,答覆:王全璋涉嫌寻釁滋事和闪电两个罪名,8月4日被刑事拘留(不是指定监视居住),通知书已经寄往他身份证上的地址;案情不便透露,目前不允许会见,如果书面要求会见,他们会给书面不允许会见的决定书。问不让会见的真实原因是不是王全璋遭受了刑讯?答曰绝对不可能。要求按刑事诉讼法规定告知主要事实,答覆他也不是具体经办人员,也不了解情况。要求告知办案人员姓名,说跟他联系就可以。

临走问他们会不会因为我交了律师手续,就会通过地方国保和司法局加压,答曰有可能。

到一楼,看到李和平妻子陪李春富的律师也来找办案单位,经受巨大压力的李和平妻子确一直在安慰全璋妻。我鼓励她跟李春富的律师:既然来了,就一定要坚持!

其实我们都在坚持!但受伤害最大的家属们,坚持的难度可能是最大的。

李仲伟于8月10日晚7时

Bao Longjun under Residential Surveillance on Suspicion of "Incitement" and "Picking Quarrels,” Family Yet to Be Notified

$
0
0
August 24, 2015
Posted in: 

Forty-four days after Bao Longjun dropped out of contact while at the Beijing airport, his lawyers, after several inquiries, finally obtained the following information at the pre-trial division at the Hexi District Public Security Bureau in Tianjin: Bao has been put under residential surveillance “at a specific location” on suspicion of "inciting subversion of state power" and "picking quarrels and provoking troubles.” But the receiving officer there refused to provide any facts relating to Bao’s suspected crimes. The lawyers point out that, in violation of the law, the authorities handling the case had not informed Bao’s family for more than 40 days. The officer, after inquiring with the relevant department, said that a notice had been sent to the families on July 13. But Bao’s parents told the lawyers on the same day that they never received a notice.

包龙军被以涉嫌“煽动颠覆国家政权”和“寻衅滋事”罪监视居住  家属未收到通知

8月24日,距包龙军在首都机场与家人朋友失联第44天,黄汉中、陈永福律师赶赴天津。

此前,从媒体报道得知,多省市公安部门在公安部的统一部署下,对北京锋锐律师事务所多名律师和包龙军等人采取了强制措施,但包龙军家人并没有收到公安机关的任何通知,办案机关的行为严重违反现行《刑事诉讼法》第83条的规定。为此,律师7月下旬向天津市检察院发出法律监督申请书,要求检察院对公安机关的违法行为立案进行法律监督,责今办案机关纠正违法行为,追究案件承办单位负责人和办案人员责任,但二十天过去了,一直没有收到天津市检察院的任何回复。

当天律师在天津市检察院控申接待处经查询获知,检察院于8月19日将律师提交的法律监督申请书函转天津市公安局办理,接谈检察员向律师出具了书面答复函,律师当即向接谈检察员提出,检察院将律师的法律监督申请交被监督机关办理违反法律规定,但该检察员请示领导后,仍以申请法律监督事项不属于市级检察院管辖为由推逶,建议律师向天津市检察分院或区检察院提出监督申请。

随后,律师来到天津市河西区公安分局预审支队提请查询包龙军下落,要求会见。该预审支队警官赵旭着便装接待律师,回复称包龙军因涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权罪和寻衅滋事罪两个罪名已被指定地点监视居住,但推诿其本人不是包龙军案承办人且不能透露承办人信息,拒绝向律师介绍包龙军涉案犯罪事实。谈话中,律师严正指出办案机关在长达40多天时间里,没有依法通知包龙军家属,严重违反法律规定,赵旭警官经向有关部门询问回复,已于7月13日向包龙军家属包玺寄送通知。就有关通知寄送细节,仍以不了解具体情况为由,拒绝向律师披露。

当天,律师顺道拜见了目前居在天津市区的包龙军父母,确认包龙军家属到目前为止,仍没有收到公安办案机关任何书面通知。

在目前确定包龙军案侦办机关为天津河西公案分局后,律师下一步将继续跟进案件进展,向侦办机关提出包龙军不构成犯罪的法律意见,持续要求安排律师会见,并继续推进检察机关对公安机关办案中违反诉讼法规定的行为立案进行法律监督。

Beijing Xinqiao Law Firm: Solemn Statement on Zhang Kai and Liu Peng being Taken Away

$
0
0
Lawyer Yang Xingquan
September 2, 2015
Posted in: 

[Translation by Human Rights in China]

See Chinese original.

Shocked by news that Xinqiao law firm lawyer Zhang Kai and assistant Liu Peng were taken away in the wee hours of the morning on August 25, 2015 in Wenzhou City, I, as the head of Zhang Kai’s law firm, issue the following statement:

  1. Zhang Kai works as a lawfully licensed lawyer at my law firm, whose professional conduct in Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, is protected by the law. At our law firm, he handled cases in complete compliance with procedures.
  2. Liu Peng is a lawyer in training in my law firm. His trainee procedures are lawful and valid, and his conduct is legally protected by China’s Lawyers Law and other legislation.
  3. We strongly protest the actions of the Wenzhou authorities taking into custody Zhang Kai and his assistant and strongly call on the Wenzhou authorities to immediately and unconditionally release lawyer Zhang Kai and his assistant.
  4. We are closely following lawyer Zhang Kai’s movements and are prepared to go to Wenzhou at any time to defend his rights and to call on the whole society to pay attention to his situation!

Lawyer Yang Xingquan, Head of Beijing Xinqiao Law Firm

August 26, 2015


Lawyers Request Meeting with Bao Longjun, Detention Center Says They Have "No Such Person"

$
0
0
August 24, 2015
Posted in: 

Bao Longjun, husband of human rights lawyer Wang Yu, was taken away by Tianjin police from the airport on July 9, where he was sending off his son to study abroad in Australia. And he has not been heard from since. This is a description of lawyers Chen Yongfu and Huang Hanzhong’s attempt to meet with Bao  on August 24 at the Hexi District Detention Center, where they were asked by the receiving officer how they knew that Bao was being held there, and then were told that no such person was there.


律师要求会见包龙军,看守所称“查无此人”

今天(2015.08.24)上午陈永福和黄汉中两位律师,从北京赶赴天津前往天津市河西区看守所会见包龙军,天津郑建慧大姐和河南一位大姐到车站接站并陪同。

在抵达看守所后,两位律师直接到看守所接待窗口递交手续,提出要求会见包龙军。

接待警官查询后先问律师怎么知道人关在这里,然后答复说查无此人,同时亦查询王宇也告知没在此处,律师询问有无可能会有代码代号关押存在情况,答复说无论什么名字电脑系统均可查询。

随后两位律师找到预审支队,要求面见承包人询问案情,随后接待美女电话询问后,答复律师说警官上午开会下午过来。

随后两位律师来到天津市检察院控告申诉科,要求检察院进行监督答复,检察院查询了上次法律文书处理情况,最后确认检察院已经转交天津市公安局处理,并告知律师下午过来书面答复。

Authorities Widen Crackdown on Lawyers to Include Their Children

$
0
0
October 16, 2015
Posted in: 

Liu Xiaoyuan (刘晓原), a lawyer with the Fengrui Law Firm—which is a chief target of the large-scale government crackdown on rights defense lawyers since July of this year—discloses that public security authorities have refused to process his son’s application for a passport to go abroad for graduate studies.

In an October 15 WeChat post that was also released on a Chinese language website, Liu describes what his son encountered recently, and says that his son is the third among children of Fengrui lawyers who have been prevented from leaving China. The first two are Bao Zhuoxuan (包卓轩), the son of lawyer Wang Yu (王宇), who was detained on July 9 this year, and lawyer Yu Hejin's son.

(In an article today, the state-controlled Xinhua News Agency claims that Wang Yu’s son was being coerced to go abroad by foreign anti-China forces and that the authorities are protecting him from them.)

Below is HRIC’s translation of Liu’s post. (See Chinese

WeChat Post by Liu Xiaoyuan

October 15, 2015

[Translation by Human Rights in China]

My child also could not get a passport to study abroad. My son is a fourth-year student at Nanchang University, and has planned to go abroad for graduate school after graduating next year. In mid-September, he formally applied to study abroad through a domestic study-abroad agency. According to the agency’s requirements, he needed to apply for a passport before November of this year, so that in December he could submit his application materials to foreign universities. His household registration had already been transferred to Nanchang while he was studying there.

On October 8, my son went to apply for his passport. The adjudication department said that the photo affixed to the household registration file from the Public Security Bureau was a little blurry, and that he should come back in one week. This afternoon, October 15, my son went to his scheduled appointment at the Nanchang Public Security Bureau’s Exit and Entry Administration Office. After looking on the computer, the adjudicating officer told him he could not apply for a passport. My son started to ask, for what reason?

The officer did not say. As my son continued to ask, the officer said it was the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau who had blocked him, for being part of a “reactionary organization.” My son said he was just a college student, and had never participated in any organization. The officer told my son to give the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau a call. My son asked which department he should call. The officer said he should call the “No. 1 General Unit” of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau, but did not give him the phone number.

My son is the third among children of lawyers of the Fengrui Law Firm to be prevented from leaving the country.

The first was lawyer Wang Yu’s son, Bao Zhuoxuan, and the second was lawyer Yu Hejin's son. Yu’s son is studying for his bachelor’s degree at Shanghai Jiaotong University, and is in his second year. Per the university’s arrangement, after two years at Jiaotong University, he will be an exchange student at a U.S. university for the last two years. On August 1 of this year, Yu’s son planned to go to Oxford University with one of his teachers for a one-month student exchange program. While at the Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport for his departure, he was stopped by border security agents and told that the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau had restricted him from leaving the country, on the grounds that going abroad might endanger national security.

Lawyer Lin Qilei's Account of Being Prevented From Leaving China

$
0
0
November 10, 2015
Posted in: 

Lin Qilei was told by police at the Beijing Airport that the Beijing Public Security Bureau believes Lin "exiting Chinese territory would endanger state security."


蔺其磊律师自己发在“709”营救群的贴文,他将会采用法律手段,谴责公权的违法,捍卫一个公民的尊严!

蔺其磊律师:2015年11月10日8:40分,我在北京首都机场T2航站楼办理边防检查时,被北京市出入境边防检查智总队下属的边检站以护照有问题拦下,一名叫韩飞的警察(别人叫他队长)告诉我说“你等下我请示看什么情况尽快告知你”。我催问了两次,9:03分,该警察告知我:“我告诉你是谁因为什么不让你出境,是北京市公安局因为你出境会危害国家安全拒绝你出境的”。我向他要书面的决定,他说没有!我说:你是代表一个执法机关的,口头一句话就不让我出境了,你们有什么见不得光的啊。到底是谁在危害国家安全!他只是说我已经告知你了,不要影响我们的工作。至此堂堂一个直属公安部的行政执法机构(还是一个所谓窗口单位),没有任何一份书面材料说明理由,就拒绝一个本国公民出境,其肆意违法、公然侵权之行为,实属罕见!我将采取法律手段维护自己的合法权益(虽然在目前环境下结果不会乐观),谴责公权的违法,捍卫一个公民的尊严!

Open Letter by 17 Lawyers Forbidden from Leaving China

$
0
0
China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group
November 11, 2015
Posted in: 

Lawyers who have been prevented from leaving China issued a statement to the Beijing Public Security Bureau asking for “prompt correction” of the decision to stop them from overseas travel.

Signatories:

Cai Ying (蔡瑛)
Chen Jiangang (陈建刚)
Ge Wenxiu (葛文秀)
Ge Yongxi (葛永喜)
Huang Simin (黄思敏)
Li Guobei (李国蓓)
Liang Xiaojun (梁小军)
Li Jinxing (李金星)
Li Fangping (李方平)
Lin Qilei (蔺其磊)
Liu Zhengqing (刘正清)
Pang Kun (庞琨)
Yan Xin (燕薪)
You Feizhu (游飞翥)
Zhang Lei (张磊)
Zhang Qingfang (张庆方)
Zhang Keke (张科科)


部分中国律师就被禁止出境事宜
致北京市公安局联合公开信

北京市公安局、王小洪局长:

促使我们联合致信的原因是:近期,我们这些律师在欲出境旅行、学习时,均被各地边检机构拦截,边检机构称是北京市公安局认为我们“出境可能危害国家安全”,进而做出禁止我们出境的决定,由他们执行。虽然拦截时各地边检机构均没有向任何被他们拦截的人出具过任何书面档,但我们姑且相信他们的说法,即我们被禁止出境的原因是你局做出决定并通知边检机构执行。

首先,需要特别强调的是,根据《中华人民共和国出境入境管理法》第十二条第(五)项之规定,以“出境可能危害国家安全和利益”为由禁止公民出境的,其决定权在“国务院有关主管部门”,而你局显然不是“国务院有关主管部门”,故你局无权以此为由决定禁止任何公民出境,而边检部门执行你局的通知,亦为非法。

其次,你局做出禁止公民出境的决定,是涉及公民人身自由的重大决定,但是你局并没有向我们任何一个人有过任何方式的告知,我们均是被边检机构以非常不正式、极端不严肃、也很不负责任的“口头告知”和直接的拦截才知道自己被你局剥夺了自由旅行的权利。

第三,我们是中国执业律师,我们的所有行为均是在中国法律不禁止的范围,我们没有违反任何中国法律,你局也没有告知过我们有涉及任何案件,我们所言所行,均是在履行法律所赋予律师的“维护当事人合法权益,维护法律正确实施,维护社会公平正义”之职责。当然,我们也依法享有和履行着中国公民应当享有的公民权利和政治权利。如果因为我们履行律师职责和公民及政治权利而认为我们“出境可能危害国家安全”,那是你局对“依法治国”的错误理解,对中国法律的歪曲执行。

第四,对中国政府有国际公约约束力的《联合国关于律师作用的基本原则》第16条规定:“各国政府应确保律师(a)能够履行其所有职责而不受恫吓、妨碍或不适当干涉;(b)能够在国内以及国外旅行并自由地同其委托人进行磋商;(c)不会由于其接照公认的专业职责、准则和道德规范所采取的任何行动而受到或者被威胁会受到起诉或行政、经济或其他制裁。”你局禁止我们出境,是对上述国际公约的直接严重违反,影响了我国的国家形象。

最后,我们希望你局及时纠正错误,撤销禁止我们出境的决定,并通知边检机构。作为知法守法、无权无势的普通公民,我们深知要求改变傲慢与偏见的艰辛,但是,我们又是一群不畏强权、不怕困难的执着律师,我们将以各种方式坚决捍卫自身合法权益,直到你局撤销错误决定为止,为维护我们自由旅行的公民及律师权利,我们会将维权进行到底。

 

特此致信。

湖南湘军律师事务所律师 蔡瑛
北京搴旗律师事务所律师 陈建刚
广东律成定邦律师事务所律师 葛文秀
广东安国律师事务所律师 葛永喜
湖北典恒律师事务所律师 黄思敏
北京搴旗律师事务所律师 李国蓓
北京道衡律师事务所律师 梁小军
山东成思律师事务所律师 李金星
北京瑞风律师事务所律师 李方平
北京瑞凯律师事务所律师 蔺其磊
广东安仁律师事务所律师 刘正清
广东翰泰律师事务所律师 庞 琨
北京来硕律师事务所律师 燕 薪
重庆者羽律师事务所律师 游飞翥
北京同翎正函律师事务所律师 张磊
北京汉鼎联合律师事务所律师 张庆方
湖北朋来律师事务所律师 张科科

二O一五年十一月十二日

China Claims It Has Always Encouraged And Supported Lawyers

$
0
0
November 13, 2015
Posted in: 

Next Tuesday and Wednesday, November 17 and 18, in Geneva, the UN Committee Against Torture will review China on its implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which it ratified in 1988.

This review is taking place in a year of massive crackdowns on rights lawyers and activists—considered by most to be the worst since 1989—which has affected more than 300 individuals thus far. Of the 28 still detained, 25 are being held incommunicado, many since early July. Only two have been allowed to meet with lawyers. (All figures are from the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group.)

In this chilling climate, it is startling to see China’s recent claims regarding its respect and support for the country’s lawyers, and its denial of the deprivation of detainees’ rights and the practice of torture.

China made these claims in its responses, dated October, to a host of issues raised by the Committee earlier this year in advance of the review.

We urge the international community to monitor this critical timely review, which is scheduled to be webcast live (check HRIC homepage for session times and link to the webcast).

Below are examples of what China said (full text, excerpts):

On “holders of different political views”

“Reports” that some so-called “holders of different political views” have been forbidden from having contact with the outside world and detained for periods exceeding three months and have been “tortured” are untrue.

On lawyers

Chinese lawyers are an important force in implementing the basic strategy of ruling the country by law and in the construction of a rule-of-law state. The Chinese government has always attached great importance to this role of lawyers, continuously strengthening and improving the system for lawyers.

China has always encouraged and supported lawyers in performing their duties . . . and engaging in professional practice in accordance with law, and does not permit what is called “retaliation” against lawyers who are engaged in normal professional practice.

On detention and detainees’ rights

China has not found any problems of relevant departments depriving detainees of their right to timely and adequate medical treatment as a form of retaliation.

Chinese citizens will not be detained because they disagree with official policies, and related accusations are untrue.

On arbitrary detention and torture

[S]o-called “arbitrary arrest and detention of relevant persons,” “opening fire indiscriminately resulting in death,” “excessive use of force in the course of suppressing marches and demonstrations,” “relevant detainees being subjected to torture,” and other remarks are distortions of the facts.

The lawful rights and interests of Chinese citizens are safeguarded by law. Government acts of intimidation and reprisals against citizens do not exist in China.

On Gao Zhisheng

Gao Zhisheng (高智晟) was released in August 2014 after serving his full prison term . . . . All judicial organs, including public security organs, ensure the aforementioned person['s] right to medical treatment in accordance with the law and guarantee that their health condition is not unlawfully harmed.

On Gao Zhisheng, the rights lawyer who was kept in solitary confinement for all three years of his imprisonment (2011-2014) and who had suffered many episodes of torture since 2007, we know that a few days ago, the authorities did not even allow him, now supposedly a free man, to travel from his hometown in Shaanxi Province to Xi’an for treatment of his remaining teeth (many had fallen out due to torture and malnutrition when he was in custody).

Record of My Request to Meet Tu Fu

$
0
0
Lawyer Li Fangping
October 23, 2015
Posted in: 

Following the official arrest of Fujian activist Tu Fu (aka Wu Gan) on charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble" and "inciting subversion of state power" in late June 2015, officials handling his case did not allow him to meet his lawyer, Yan Xin, on the grounds that his case involves crimes of "endangering state security." Three months later, lawyer Li Fangping went to the Yongtai County Detention Center in Fujian Province to request a meeting with Tu Fu but was similarly rejected. Currently, Tu Fu’s whereabouts are still unknown.


922日要求会见屠夫吴淦小记

李方平律师

自六月下旬厦门思明公安通知吴淦被以“寻衅滋事罪、煽动颠覆国家政权罪”批捕后,办案单位以“危害国家安全犯罪”为由不同意燕薪律师会见。逮捕后又已侦查三个月之久,2015年9月22日我到福建省永泰县看守所要求会见。只有一位长者在门卫室值班,看见我过来有些惊讶,赶紧向所长报告。所长通过门卫告知没有接到办案单位通知,律师不能进来。门卫以此为由拒绝我进门,僵持中我趁他人办事也进了大门。门卫非常惊慌,我安抚他说先在门卫室等等。质疑中,门卫略表歉意的解释:”我也搞不清楚,事情为什么会搞成这样”。我说你继续跟负责人联系,我再等半小时,没有回复的话,我还是要上去。门卫脸露难色,我说这不是为难你,我是履行律师职责。我多次与所长通电但无人接听,大约半小时后所长回电坚持说没有接到办案单位通知,不能接待我。我告知律师是通过看守所窗口要求会见并递交手续,办案单位同不同意会见是另外的问题。你们怎不能把律师拒之门外吧?所长考虑了一下说,那你进来窗口递交手续吧!

进到接待窗口,没有警察,公勤人员也是松松垮垮的,以前那种明显紧张已悄然消失。寸步不离目盯跟踪的警察没有了,佩戴微型摄像机过来接收手续的警官也没有了。我随便问问吴淦身体情况怎么样?立秋了,想送长袖衣服怎么办?一个工作人员说:这么年轻,应该没什么问题吧?衣服?我不清楚。给人的感觉好像支支吾吾。正好所长进来,我又问送衣服的事,所长略有所思,说还是等通知了再送吧!考虑到吴淦是寄押在永泰看守所,我追问所长,是不是办案单位又提走了?所长好像跟没听到一样不置可否,径直离去。

递交完会见手续,我到驻所检察官跟踪上次情况反映的回复问题。同时向检察官了解厦门思明公安是不是不在永泰异地寄押了?检察官说家属没有收到手续吗?我说没有通知家属,请他核实一下。我们也会同时向厦门思明检察院核实。检察官非常认真负责,初步核实吴淦被以煽动颠覆国家政权罪批捕不久后就已被带走。但去向不明,请我们向办案单位和检察院进一步核实。

17时许接到永泰县看守所电话,告知办案单位不同意律师会见吴淦。我要求代为转告请办案单位把书面决定邮寄我所。

仰天长叹,屠夫何在?脑子里突然像快门一样弹出好多关键词:厦门?福州?天津?看守所?指定监居?

 

Request by Wang Yu’s defense lawyers for administrative review of police leaking case details to the media but refusing to brief lawyers

$
0
0
Wen Donghai, Li Yuhan
November 2, 2015
Posted in: 

Wang Yu’s defense lawyers, Wen Donghai and Li Yuhan, went to Tianjin Municipal Public Security Bureau to request an administrative review. They demanded an investigation, in accordance with the law, into the illegal behavior of the Hexi branch of Tianjin Public Security Bureau in the handling of Wang Yu’s case of “suspected inciting subversion of state power,” to pursue the criminal and administrative liabilities of relevant responsible personnel, and to order the Hexi branch bureau to provide them with apologies and compensations.


行政复议申请书

申请人:文东海,男,汉族,1974年2月生,湖南湘和律师事务所律师,系王宇辩护律师,通讯地址:长沙市芙蓉中路二段111号华菱大厦十五楼D座

申请人:李昱函,女,汉族,1957年10月生,北京市敦信律师事务所律师,系王宇辩护律师,通讯地址:北京市朝阳区北苑路170号凯旋城五号楼401室

被申请人:天津市公安局河西分局(以下简称河西分局),住所天津市河西区黄埔南路5号
法定代表人:赵年伏 局长

要求复议机关依职权追加王宇、中国中央电视台、新华网、环球时报为本案第三人。

申请事项:
1、请求确认被申请人河西分局将被该局以煽动颠覆国家政权为由指定监视居住的王宇在侦查期间的相关案件信息在中国中央电视台、新华网、环球时报公开播放和报道,同时却拒绝将有关案件情况信息拒绝向辩护律师公开的行政行为违法。
2、请求责令被申请人立即纠正不安排律师会见、不向律师介绍案件相关情况、不安排律师和王宇通信的违法行为。
3、请求责令被申请人向申请人赔礼道歉并赔偿申请人精神损失费1元。
4、请求责令被申请人赔偿申请人往来天津办案交通费、住宿费10000元。
5、请求依法追究相关责任人的行政和刑事责任。

事实和理由:

申请人文东海和李昱函是王宇的辩护律师,被申请人河西分局在办理王宇涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权一案中,无任何理由拒绝申请人会见王宇,并拒绝申请人依法要求了解涉案相关情况及要求与王宇通信的执业权利。
  
但另一方面,被申请人却违反中国保密法的规定,先后多次将王宇案侦查期间的案件情况在中国中央电视台和新华网公开播放和报道。

2015年7月12日中国中央电视台公开播放了王宇案情况,王宇案专案组警员通过掐头去尾的方式截取王宇执业过程中的开庭片段对王宇公开抹黑,将王宇正常的执业维权行为诬陷为犯罪行为,随后被申请人河西分局又于2015年7月18日将相关案件信息透露给新华网,同样对王宇及其他被抓捕律师和维权人士进行了文革式抹黑报道。

2015年10月17日,河西分局将王宇在侦查期间的视频讯息和相关案件情况分别提供给中国中央电视台和环球时报,在王宇被非法隔绝三个月之后,申请人相信她从警方获取的关于其儿子包卓轩的信息必定是片面的,河西分局将王宇因获取警方有选择性提供的信息而发自肺腑的担心和不合适的评论提供给媒体公开播放和报道,试图对王宇进一步抹黑。
  
《中华人民共和国律师法》第三条第四款规定:律师依法执业受法律保护,任何组织和个人不得侵害律师的合法权益。
 
《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第三十六条、三十七条及《公安机关办理刑事案件程序规定》第四十条、四十七条、四十八条、四十九条明确规定了辩护律师会见、了解办案机关和具体侦查人员及案件相关情况的权利、和当事人通信的权利。即使是因涉嫌三类犯罪(危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪、重大贿赂犯罪)被指定监视居住的当事人,除了辩护律师要求会见需要侦查机关批准外,辩护律师也有权不需要任何理由向办案机关和具体经办人员了解案件相关情况、和当事人无任何障碍通信的权利。本案中,申请人既无法从被申请人河西分局知道谁是具体经办人员,也无法从被申请人河西分局了解到王宇任何涉案信息、对申请人多次口头和书面提出的通信要求也是置若罔闻,申请人多次书面提出要求会见,无任何理由予以拒绝,既不说明有碍侦查的理由,也未明确告知有碍侦查情形何时会消失。
  
《中华人民共和国保密法》第九条第(六)项明确规定:维护国家安全活动和追查刑事犯罪中的秘密事项属于国家秘密。保密法第六条规定,国家机关和涉及国家秘密的单位管理本机关和本单位的保密工作。虽然追查刑事犯罪属于刑事司法活动,但对于侦查机关在追查刑事犯罪中所掌握的秘密信息的管理和处置则是一种行政管理行为,如违法行使这种行政管理职权涉及到对第三人权利的侵犯,依法应当承担相应的行政和赔偿责任,严重的还应该承担刑事责任。
  
《中华人民共和国保密法》第三条第二、三款规定:一切国家机关、武装力量、政党、社会团体、企业事业单位和公民都有保守国家秘密的义务;任何危害国家秘密安全的行为,都必须受到法律追究。保密法第四条第二款规定:法律、行政法规规定公开的事项,应当依法公开。《中华人民共和国保密法实施条例》第五条规定:机关、单位不得将依法应当公开的事项确定为国家秘密,不得将涉及国家秘密的信息公开。
  
申请人认为,申请人依照《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》及《公安机关办理刑事案件程序规定》享有如下权利:了解申请人的当事人的具体办案机关和经办人员;向具体经办人员了解涉案相关情况;要求和当事人通信;要求会见当事人,在涉三类犯罪侦查机关不批准会见的情况下,有权要求侦查机关说明有碍侦查的理由及有碍侦查情形消失的大概时间。上述权利既是申请人的法定权利,同时也是被申请人河西分局依法应当将其掌握的信息在申请人的权利范围内向申请人公开的法定义务,这种公开的对象是特定的,即只能够是辩护律师,而不能够是其它任何个人或单位。但实际的情况是被申请人不仅不依法向申请人公开上述信息,反而将上述信息向不应当向其公开的媒体(中国中央电视台、新华网、环球时报)公开。其行为已经严重违反了《中华人民共和国保密法》第三条、第四条及《中华人民共和国保密法实施条例》第五条之规定,将依法不应当公开的信息向媒体公开,将依法应当向辩护律师公开的信息拒绝向辩护律师公开。严重侵犯了辩护律师的会见权、知情权和通信权,造成辩护律师多次往返天津行使辩护权利却无任何进展。
  
律师的辩护权利来源于当事人本人的辩护权,律师无法履行辩护权利不仅是对律师权利的侵犯,更是对当事人辩护权利的严重侵犯。因此,应当追加王宇作为本案的第三人。
  
中国中央电视台、新华网、环球时报等应当知道追查刑事司法过程中产生的信息是属于国家秘密,在侦查阶段其没有权利予以扩散,并充当舆论法官的角色,进行事实上的媒体审判,它们是与被申请人共同违法的帮凶,理应被追加为本案的第三人。
  
综上,根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第六条第(十一)项之规定,申请人依法向你局提起行政复议,要求你局依法审查,尽快作出复议决定。

此致

天津市公安局

                              申请人:文东海  李昱函
                                      2015年11月2日


When Will Liu Sixin and Zhao Wei’s Right to Meet Their Lawyers Be Realized?!

$
0
0
Wang Lei and Ren Quanniu
September 17, 2015
Posted in: 

Dr. Liu Sixin and Madam Zhao Wei were two of the individuals detained in the massive “709 crackdown” on lawyers and defenders that began in China on July 9 of this year. On September 17, Wang Lei and Ren Quanniu, the defense lawyers for Liu and Zhao, went to the pre-trial division of Hexi branch of the Tianjian Public Security Bureau to request meetings with their clients, but the police there claimed not to know anything about the case or the person handling it.


刘四新赵威会见律师权利何时实现?!

今天是2015年9月17日上午,七九抓捕事件之刘四新博士的辩护人王磊律师和赵威女士的辩护人任全牛律师一起到天津河西公安分局预审支队(河西区看守所院内)要求见“办案人”赵旭副队长。在楼下大厅登记通报后,说赵队长在忙要我们等着。在等待过程中赵威辩护律师去了趟近旁看守所办理会见手续窗口又去询问查找“赵威”这一被关押人员的信息,要求会见,话刚落地里面警察就明确告知:“里面没这个人!”律师追问为何记忆如此清楚,里面答复说刚有个邮寄包裹就是赵威的被退了!

两位律师在一直等到上午十点左右,才被传达室通过两道栅栏安全门领进预审三楼第一次面谈时的那间会议室。见到赵旭副队长后我们直接说明来意,提交完善的书面手续及会见申请。赵队长说会见需要上交领导决定,但也基本明确是不会批准会见的!也同意了书面答复并邮寄。

律师了解到目前对刘四新赵威的强制措施是指定监视居住。第一次来答复是刑事拘留,看来是刑拘转指定监视居住。不予批准会见的原因还是刘赵涉嫌寻衅滋事和煽动颠覆国家政权。具体了解案情,答复是不清楚要向专案组了解。如何联系专案组,说无法联系可以到河西分局询问。

律师书面提出申请及法律意见:

一、会见,二、变更强制措施取保候审,三、保障通信权利,四、向家属送达强制措施通知书,五、杜绝刑讯逼供、疲劳审讯,保障饮食休息权利,六、律师依法了解案情,七、家属要求递送衣服物品书籍。

赵旭接收并答应转达。

赵旭队长说法有所变化的是,预审支队没有参与专案组办案!“你们既然来了应该接待你们”意思好像没有第一次接待职责那么明确。

下午两点多一上班两位律师便来到河西区公安分局,被指引要去信访接待处找人联系传达。

到了信访接待说明案件,要求面见案件承办人,一位警号290797的李姓警察听后,说知道本案说去联系传达,过了十分钟后回来说,你们有事就去分局二号院即看守所预审支队处找赵旭队长,两位律师说明上午去过这位警察又说,这个案件他们整个分局都不知道办案人是谁!河西分局只是负责以单位名义对外出手续文书,其他不便多说也确实不知道!并说,这些话代表河西区公安分局,别不多说,有事继续找赵旭联系,需要时办案人会通知律师!

王磊、任全牛
2015年9月17日

Lawyer Yu Wensheng Files Complaint About Police Torture

$
0
0
Yu Wensheng
November 22, 2015
Posted in: 

In his complaint to the Daxing District People’s Court, Beijing, Lawyer Yu Wensheng recounts his torture by two police officers during his 99-day detention. One of his torturers said to him: “I won’t let you die, but I will make you feel you’d rather be dead.” Yu was taken into custody on October 13, 2014, in connection with his support for “Occupy Central” in Hong Kong. Yu demands that the court investigate the criminal liability of his torturers.

See Chinese original.


Yu Wensheng’s Complaint about the Vicious Police Officers Who Carried out Torture

[Translation by Human Rights in China]

November 22, 2015

To: The Daxing District People’s Court, Beijing
From: Yu Wensheng, Plaintiff

Private criminal prosecution complaint

Plaintiff: Yu Wensheng, 48 years old, from Beijing, lawyer at Beijing Dao Heng Law Firm. Resides at Room 107, Door 6, Building 24, Bajiao North Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing. Phone number: 13910033651.

Authorized representative: Liang Xiaojun, lawyer at Beijing Dao Heng Law Firm

Defendant 1: Feng Shengming, police officer at the Daxing Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau

Defendant 2: Han Chao, police officer at the Daxing Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau

Claim: Investigate Feng Shengming and Han Chao for their criminal liability, in accordance with the law, for “extracting confessions under torture”

Facts and reasoning:

I was taken away by the Daxing Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau on October 13, 2014, on suspicion of supporting “Hong Kong Occupy Central,” and was detained for a total of 99 days. During the detention period, I suffered torture, my residence and law firm were searched, and my belongings confiscated. I was detained in the death cell for 61 days, interrogated almost 200 times, frequently for 16-17 hours each day, deprived of sleep, and denied access to a lawyer.

Around November 1, 2014, the Daxing branch set up a special investigation team for my case and intensified interrogation of me. The team’s ten members took turns interrogating me in three shifts. They started out cursing, then chained my hands behind my back to an iron chair, and later tortured me.

Torture was used three times, from the evening of November 2 to the early morning of November 5, at the Beijing Municipal Daxing District Detention Center. The torturers were police officers Feng Shengming and Han Chao of the Daxing Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau. The torture took the form of forcing my arms to wrap around the back of the iron chair. Since I am a short person, and my arms were not along enough to wrap around the back of the chair, the vicious police officers forcibly pulled my arms back and cuffed them [around the back of the chair], and tightened the cuffs. The chair was wide and tall, and the corners pointed. The edges of the handcuffs were sharp.

As my flesh and bones were stretched taut, my arms became swollen immediately, and I felt that I wished I were dead. The vicious police officers Feng Shengming and Han Chao kept pulling on the handcuffs, causing me to cry out in pain each time.

Han Chao said to me: “I won’t let you die, but I will make you feel you’d rather be dead.” Feng Shengming said to me: “Don’t blame us. You’re the one forcing me to do this. What you did was of no importance. Our boss just wanted you to admit you were wrong.” In all the 70 some days afterwards, both Feng Shengming and Han Chao had a part in interrogating me, frequently threatening to torture me. Even when I was suffering from an intestinal hernia, I was made to sit on the iron chair for long stretches of time being interrogated. Under threats, I was made to sign a pledge that I would not hire a lawyer, before I was able to leave the detention center.

Around November 15, I discovered that I had developed the symptoms of an intestinal hernia. When I entered the Daxing Detention Center, my physical examination showed that I did not have that condition. Previously, in a lawyers’ association physical examination done in December 2013, there had been no indication of the condition either. On November 20, [2014], when I was transferred to the Beijing No. 1 Detention Center, the physical examination there confirmed that I had an intestinal hernia. As a result of torture, ill-treatment, food deprivation, and other forms of torment, I was admitted to the hospital for intestinal hernia surgery less than six months after I was released on bail pending further investigation. Prior to being taken into custody, I did not have an intestinal hernia.

On October 13, 2015, I submitted a complaint against Feng Shengming, Han Chao, and others to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Beijing Municipal Procuratorate, Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau, No. 2 Branch of the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate, and the Daxing District Procuratorate, and have not received any responses to date.

For fairness and justice, in order to expose atrocities against humanity and punish the vicious police officers who carried out torture, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 247 and Article 234, para 1 of the Criminal Law, I hereby request the court to investigate the criminal liability of Feng Shengming and Han Chao.


Attachments:


Image 1: Photocopy of the receipt of express parcel containing the private criminal prosecution complaint and enclosures sent to the court


Image 2: Private criminal prosecution complaint


Image 3: List of evidence


Image 4: Recommendations for the length of sentence


Image 5: Application to obtain evidence

Lawyers in the “709 Case” Go to Hexi District Procuratorate in Tianjin to Submit a Legal Supervision Application

$
0
0
Lawyers Li Yuhan, Ma Lianshun, Lu Zhoubin and Liu Rongsheng
January 4, 2016
Posted in: 

On January 4, four lawyers and families of Li Heping, Wang Yu, Bao Longjun, and Xie Yuandong—suspected of “inciting subversion of state power” in the “709 case”—went together to Hexi District Procuratorate in Tianjin to submit a “Legal Supervision Application,” and to Hexi Public Security Bureau in Tianjin to submit a  “Legal Opinion.” The lawyers, pointing out the serious procedural violations by the public security organs, demand the immediate withdrawal of the case, the release of all of the lawyers and citizens held in secret detention, and that the public security organs involved be supervised by the procuratorate.

Official Notice of Arrest of Lawyer Li Heping on Suspicion of “Subversion of State Power”

Ruling on Appeals by Guo Feixiong and Sun Desheng

Viewing all 113 articles
Browse latest View live