From Foreign Policy, “Why Won’t Obama Speak Out About China’s Crackdown on Activists?”:
The NGO Human Rights in China has described the extent of this crackdown as “unprecedented in scale,” even surpassing the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) suppression of human rights defenders following the 2011 Jasmine Revolution.
See HRIC press work on Lawyers
From Radio Free Asia, “Chinese Activist's Body 'Covered' in Injuries After Death in Detention”:
The New York-based group Human Rights in China says the past year has been "a year of massive crackdowns on rights activists and lawyers" on the mainland.
See HRIC press work on Lawyers
From Radio Free Asia, “Police Summon Family of Activist Who Died in Detention in China”:
According to the Congressional Executive Committee on China (CECC), and the New York-based groups Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China, torture is widespread across China's judicial system, and Beijing's attempts to change the practice are merely cosmetic.
See HRIC press work on Lawyers
Zhang Lei, defense lawyer for Zhang Kai, filed the below complaint with the People's Procuratorate of Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, against Huang Baokun, Chief of Wenzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau and related officers handling Zhang Kai’s case. In the complaint Zhang alleges that Huang and other police officers violated the Criminal Procedure Law and unlawfully obstructed the defendant and defense representative’s ligation rights. Zhang demands those involved immediately correct their unlawful behavior and bear the corresponding legal responsibility for their unlawful acts, and that the procuratorate carry out legal supervision in accordance with the law.
关于温州市公安局局长黄宝坤及相关警员涉嫌阻碍当事人、辩护人依法行使通信权利的控告状
控告人：张磊，北京市同翎正函律师事务所律师，系张凯的辩护人
被控告人：黄宝坤，温州市公安局局长；以及温州市公安局办理张凯等人案件的相关警员
控告事项：被控告人涉嫌破坏《刑事诉讼法》的实施，非法阻碍当事人、辩护人依法行使诉讼权利（通信权利）。
事实与理由：
温州市公安局于2015年8月25日将正在履行律师职务的北京律师张凯从其工作的地方（温州下岭教会）带走，后以“聚众扰乱社会秩序、为境外窃取、刺探、收买、非法提供国家秘密、情报”罪名对张凯指定居所监视居住，并未通知张凯亲属张凯被监视居住的具体地点。
2015年10月14日，控告人作为张凯母亲为其委托的辩护人，到温州市公安局进行告知、提出会见、要求了解案情，并将一封信交给接待的陈姓警员，要求其依法转交张凯。此信是用Ａ4纸打印的两张纸，每张均有控告人签名，无信封，在交给接待警员时，我把信对折了一下，同时告知接待警员：《刑事诉讼法》第37条第四款规定“辩护律师会见犯罪嫌疑人、被告人时不被监听”，则辩护律师与当事人的通信内容自然也不得被检查，所以，办案单位除了可以对信的外在安全性进行形式检查之外（如是否有爆炸物、危险物质等），不得打开我的对折检查信的内文。接待警员接收了我致张凯的信，并表示会依法处理。
我在信中请张凯收到信后及时给我回复。但到今天为止，已经20天过去了，我未收到张凯的任何回复。而此前张凯的另外一位辩护律师李贵生曾先后三次请温州市公安局相关接待警员转交致张凯的信，但到目前为止，李贵生律师亦未收到张凯的任何回复。2015年11月4日我当面询问10月14日接收我致张凯信件的陈姓警员，其甚至都不回答我是否已经将信件交给了张凯，并直接回复我称张凯没有给我的回信。
《刑事诉讼法》第37条第一款规定“辩护律师可以同在押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人会见和通信”，第五款规定“辩护律师同被监视居住的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人会见、通信，适用第一款、第三款、第四款的规定”，第三款规定“危害国家安全犯罪……在侦查期间辩护律师会见在押的犯罪嫌疑人，应当经侦查机关许可。”根据以上规定，可以得出两个明显的结论：第一，此条文赋予了辩护律师同当事人会见、通信两项权利，这两项权利只要辩护律师和当事人行使，办案单位、羁押场所就有义务保障；第二，在“危害国家安全犯罪”案件的侦查过程中赋予了侦查机关对前述两项权利中的会见一权进行许可，但是并没有赋予侦查机关对通信进行许可的权力。因此，当辩护律师和当事人要求行使通信权利的时候，不管是不是“危害国家安全犯罪”的案件，办案单位和羁押场所，都有义务无条件保障。
因此，在本人和张凯的另外一位辩护人李贵生律师已经多次行使与张凯通信权利的情况下，我们至今没有收到张凯的回复，而张凯现在处于不知所踪的“指定居所监视居住”之中，根据常识、常理、常情，不难推知：如果张凯确有收到两位辩护律师信则其一定会回复，一定会行使自己与辩护律师通信的权利，除非温州市公安局根本没有将我们的信转交给张凯导致其根本就没有收到我们的信，或者其被剥夺了与辩护律师通信（回信）的权利。不管是前述哪种情形，温州市公安局均已涉嫌非法阻碍辩护人、当事人行使诉讼权利（通信权利）。
在此，有必要提前说明一下的是，《刑事诉讼法》第75条“被监视居住的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人应当遵守以下规定：（二）未经执行机关批准不得会见他人或者通信；”的规定显然不能成为温州市公安局剥夺辩护律师与张凯通信权利的“法律依据”，因为这一条规定是对所有监视居住（包括在本人居所和指定居所执行）的人都适用的一种监督管理规定，而在这一条规定所涵盖的非“国家安全”案件一般正常的监视居住情形下，辩护律师会见当事人根本就不需要执行机关批准，故前述规定中的“他人”显然不包括辩护律师。
综上，温州市公安局局长黄宝坤以及办理张凯等人案件的相关警员，已经涉嫌破坏《刑事诉讼法》的实施，非法阻碍当事人、辩护人依法行使诉讼权利（通信权利），其应当立即纠正违法行为，及时消除不良影响，并承担相应的法律责任。请法律监督机关人民检察院依法对之进行法律监督。
此致
浙江省温州市人民检察院
控告人：张磊
二Ｏ一五年十一月四日
附：
一、张磊律师联系方式：
二、张磊致张凯的信。
张磊律师致张凯律师的信
张凯：
你好！
我是张磊，你的朋友、同行。
你现在的健康状况如何？
你母亲委托我为你辩护，你是否同意？
此前，你母亲为你委托的另外一位辩护人李贵生律师在办案单位不许可会见你的情况下已经给你写过三封信，但是均没有收到你的回复。而办案单位也一直未依法告知你的家人和辩护律师你被关押在何处。
有鉴于此，我有理由认为，你的法定的与律师通信的权利极有可能被温州市公安局非法剥夺。所以，我写此信除了征询你是否同意我为你辩护之外，也是要确认一下温州市公安局是否依法保障了你的法定的包括但不限于与辩护律师通信的诉讼权利。我会在信后附上我的通讯地址和电话，如果我在二周之内没有收到你的回复——我相信如果你收到我的信后一定会给我回复——除非温州市公安局非法剥夺了你与辩护律师的通信权利，我将控告温州市公安局局长破坏《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》的实施。
我期待你的回复。
张磊律师
2015年10月14日
附我的联系方式：
（注：此信已经于2015年10月14日上午交浙江省温州市公安局相关警员）
After the families of Zhang Kai and Liu Peng received notices stating that the two had dismissed their defense lawyers, the lawyers, Zhang Lei and Li Boguang, requested that the Wenzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau arrange meetings with their clients, in order to confirm the dismissal in person. When the Wenzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau failed to arrange the meetings, Zhang and Li sent a joint letter to the People's Procuratorate of Wenzhou City, requesting 1) scrutiny of the Wenzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau in accordance with the law in order to correct any unlawful infringement on citizens’ rights to meet with a lawyer, and 2) that the People's Procuratorate of Wenzhou City press the Wenzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau to immediately arrange for the lawyers to meet with their clients.
Zhang Kai is a Chinese lawyer who has opposed the government’s campaign to tear down churches and crosses, and Liu Peng is his assistant.
Letters:
请督促温州市公安局依法安排律师会见的律师意见
浙江省温州市人民检察院：
我们是北京市同翎正函律师事务所律师张磊、北京市共信律师事务所律师李柏光，是温州市公安局正在办理的张凯、刘鹏等人被涉嫌“聚众扰乱社会秩序、为境外窃取、刺探、收买、非法提供国家秘密、情报”案件张凯、刘鹏的辩护律师。
2015年11月13日，我们接到自称温州市公安局警员的人使用0577－89980392的电话通知我们称张凯、刘鹏二人分别解除了其亲属为他们委托的辩护律师（即我们二人），2015年11月16日，我们分别收到了使用温州市公安局制式信封收装邮寄的内容为张凯、刘鹏解除我二人为其辩护的委托的材料的复印件。
为了确认二人解除对我们的委托的真实性，核实解除委托是否为其本人真实意思表示，二人做出此明显有悖常理举动是否系因受到酷刑逼迫、欺骗引诱等非法对待所致，我们二人于2015年11月23日到温州市公安局，要求分别会见张凯、刘鹏。
但是温州市公安局未予安排。
最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部、司法部2015年9月16日印发的《关于依法保障律师执业权利的规定》第八条第一款规定“在押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人提出解除委托关系的，办案机关应当要求其出具或签署书面文件，并在三日以内转交受委托的律师或者律师事务所。辩护律师可以要求会见在押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人，当面向其确认解除委托关系，看守所应当安排会见；但犯罪嫌疑人、被告人书面拒绝会见的，看守所应当将有关书面材料转交辩护律师，不予安排会见。”第四十九条规定“本规定自发布之日起施行。”
以上规定明确具体，无任何歧义，任何一个正常的对法律稍有敬畏之心的执法者都明白其中之义，即当被羁押的人提出解除亲属为其委托的辩护律师时，辩护律师提出会见要求的，看守执行机构“应当安排会见”，规定条文用词既为“应当”则为执法机构之义务，执法机构不履行此法定义务，则构成违法。
人民检察院具有监督法律正确实施之权力和职责，《刑事诉讼法》、《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则（试行）》也明确规定了辩护律师如遇诉讼权利受到非法侵犯时可以向人民检察院申诉控告，故此，我们提出请依法监督温州市公安局纠正侵犯辩护律师会见权利的违法行为的律师意见，请依法督促温州市公安局立即安排辩护律师会见到张凯、刘鹏。
特此意见，请依法督促，并请依据《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部、司法部、全国人大常委会法制工作委员会关于实施刑事诉讼法若干问题的规定》第10条之规定书面回复。
张凯的辩护律师：张 磊
刘鹏的辩护律师：李柏光
二Ｏ一五年十一月二十三日
附：1､疑似张凯、刘鹏书写的解除亲属为其委托的辩护律师的材料
2､律师联系方式：
请安排会见刘鹏的律师函
浙江省温州市公安局：
2015年11月13日，北京市共信律师事务所律师李柏光接到自称温州市公安局警员使用0577－89980392的电话通知，称刘鹏本人解除了（刘鹏母亲委托的）本律师为他辩护的委托，并称刘鹏本人写有解除委托的材料，其将会把解除委托的材料邮寄给本律师。
2015年11月16日，本人收到了使用温州市公安局制式信封收装邮寄的一张纸条，全部内容为：“致母亲和北京市共信律师事务所：我是刘鹏，目前在温州这边一切都好，根据我的判断，请律师为时尚早，案件尚处侦查阶段，由于案情的缘故，请了律师也不能来会见，等侦查阶段之后再说。故不同意聘请北京市共信律师事务所指派的李柏光、刘培福二位律师担任我的辩护人。此致 刘鹏 2015.11.9.”该纸条为复印件，在“2015.11.9.”处有一枚黑白指纹捺印。
与此同时，刘鹏母亲也收到了此纸条。本律师将与刘鹏母亲交流，她也无法辩识此纸条内容的真实性，即第一不能确定此字迹是否为刘鹏本人所书写，第二不能确认此是否为刘鹏本人真实意思的表示。
最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部、司法部2015年9月16日印发的《关于依法保障律师执业权利的规定》第八条第一款规定“在押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人提出解除委托关系的，办案机关应当要求其出具或签署书面文件，并在三日以内转交受委托的律师或者律师事务所。辩护律师可以要求会见在押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人，当面向其确认解除委托关系，看守所应当安排会见；但犯罪嫌疑人、被告人书面拒绝会见的，看守所应当将有关书面材料转交辩护律师，不予安排会见。”第四十九条规定“本规定自发布之日起施行。”
因此，本律师现依据以上规定要求会见刘鹏，以当面向其核实以下问题：
一、此纸条是否为其本人所书写？
二、如果是其本人所书写，则是否是其真实意思的表示？其为何要在此时解聘本律师为其辩护？其是否系因受到酷刑逼迫、欺骗引诱等非法对待而做出此明显有悖常理的举动？
三、既然刘鹏认为侦查阶段“请律师为时尚早”，“等侦查阶段之后再说”，那么本律师希望当面问刘鹏：其作出这种判断的理由是什么？侦查阶段之后，其是否还愿意聘请本律师为其辩护人？在辩护律师与刘鹏的法定通信权利被温州市公安局非法剥夺的情况下，如果侦查阶段之后，如其要继续聘请本律师为其辩护人，他将采取何种方式通知本律师？
特此致函，请依法安排会见。
刘鹏的辩护律师： 李柏光
二Ｏ一五年十一月二十三日
附：制式律师事务所会见专用介绍信
请安排会见张凯的律师函
浙江省温州市公安局：
2015年11月13日，本律师接到自称温州市公安局潘姓警员（其在我多次询问其全名的情况下拒绝告知姓名全称）使用0577－89980392的电话通知本律师，称张凯本人解除了（张凯母亲委托的）我为他辩护的委托，并称张凯本人写有解除委托的材料，其将会把解除委托的材料邮寄给本律师。
2015年11月16日，本人收到了使用温州市公安局制式信封收装邮寄的一张纸条，全部内容为：“暂时解聘张磊律师。因个人考虑，暂时解聘张磊律师为我的辩护人。张凯 2015.11.12.”该纸条为复印件，在“张凯 2015.11.12.”处有一枚黑白指纹捺印。
本律师将此纸条交由我的委托人张凯的母亲辩识，张凯的母亲经过辩识称不能确认此纸条内容的真实性，即第一不能确定此字迹为张凯本人所书写，第二不能确认此为张凯本人的真实意思表示。
最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部、司法部2015年9月16日印发的《关于依法保障律师执业权利的规定》第八条第一款规定“在押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人提出解除委托关系的，办案机关应当要求其出具或签署书面文件，并在三日以内转交受委托的律师或者律师事务所。辩护律师可以要求会见在押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人，当面向其确认解除委托关系，看守所应当安排会见；但犯罪嫌疑人、被告人书面拒绝会见的，看守所应当将有关书面材料转交辩护律师，不予安排会见。”第四十九条规定“本规定自发布之日起施行。”
因此，本律师现依据以上规定要求会见张凯，当面向其确认以下问题：
一、此纸条是否为其本人所书写？
二、如果是其本人所书写，则是否是其真实意思表示？其为何要暂时解聘本律师为其辩护？其是否系因受到酷刑逼迫、欺骗引诱等非法对待而做出此明显有悖常理的举动？
三、如果暂时解聘本律师是其真实意思表示，则“暂时解聘”的“暂时”是指多长时间？是一天？还是十天？还是一个月？在辩护律师与张凯的法定通信权利被温州市公安局非法剥夺（已就此违法行为向温州市检察院提起控告）的情况下，张凯如何通知本律师其“暂时解聘”的“暂时”结束？或者其“暂时解聘”经过十天已然结束现在仍然已经委托了本律师继续为其辩护？
特此致函，请依法安排会见。
张凯的辩护律师：张磊
二Ｏ一五年十一月二十三日
附：制式律师事务所会见专用介绍信
Shenyang lawyer Li Yuhan, who practices in Beijing, published an update on March 15, 2016 in which she describes the events that unfolded when she went to the Tianjin Municipal Detention Center to request a meeting with Wang Yu on March 1. On that day, the detention center told her that Wang had already pleaded guilty and that she was going to work with public security officials to obtain leniency. Li was further told that Wang had actively cooperated with public security organs to terminate the lawyer hired by her family [meaning Li], had chosen a new lawyer based on the authorities’ instructions, and had already signed the agreement to retain the new lawyer. Lawyer Li requested to hear, from Wang herself, the decision to terminate her legal representation of Wang, and also to see the new lawyer’s contract signed by Wang. But these requests were refused. Since lawyer Li never received a notice of termination from Wang’s mother, she prepared to go to the detention center again to request another meeting with Wang. However, on March 15, she was “escorted” back to Shenyang in a police car by Shenyang government and public security authorities.
王宇律师的律师李昱函被带走，呼吁关注
2016年3月15日
3月1日去天津市看守所再次要求会见王宇，李斌这次不说要求家属关系证明了，而是说王宇现在已经认罪，希望好好配合公安争取得到宽大处理，所以她积极配合公安机关解除家属聘请的律师，按要求选择了律师。并且已经签订了委托合同。因此你和文东海的辩护律师身份已不再被确认。我提出要听到王宇亲口解除我们委托的决定。李斌说在侦查阶段绝对不允许见任何律师。我当即问他你不让见律师？那王宇是怎么与她委托的律师签署的委托？他说这不属于见了律师。我又提出要看王宇自己签的委托，李斌不给看。我斥责他们的做法既违背刑诉法的规定也不符合二院三部《关于依法保障律师执业权利的决定》。李斌说《决定》只是指导意见，不是法律可以不执行；刑事诉讼法是对一般而言，王宇的案子特殊。我怒斥他们执法犯法、依权滥法！既然王宇认罪了怎么还被从涉嫌寻衅滋事罪到涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权罪，又到颠覆国家政权罪三级跳？他说：你说什么也没有我们就这么决定了。最后我提出我是家属委托的一定要由王宇家属来解除委托。李斌答应会让王宇家属来通知对我委托。到今天已经半个月了，还没有王宇妈妈解除委托的消息。所以我想到所里开律所会见函。不巧主任司坤明去新疆出差不在北京。我昨晚又因被和平分局驻京办的高一鸣推倒身体不佳在医院度过一夜，原定今上午见该局薛岩副局长也没见上。因为之前我一再要求和平分局给我解决一台便携式制氧机始终未得解决。这次二会期间与其他维权困难者一起研究给我救助一万元。昨晚在医院花的医疗费我要求治安大队解决。上午治安大队的薛文磊副大队长说给我汇了3000元医疗费。我去外面银行取款时被警察查验身份证给送的久敬庄。现在被和平区政府及和平分局的截访人员用警车带往沈阳。
这架势非拘不可了！
请大家关注！
李昱函律师电话：
18640514029和
18600904580
Translation courtesy of Chinalawtranslate: http://chinalawtranslate.com/
The morning before the January 8 trial of Shu Xiangxin, a Jinan rights defense lawyer charged with "libel," his lawyers Cai Ying and Li Fangping visited him at the Jinan No.2 detention center. They observed Shu’s deteriorating health conditions following savage beatings that Shu reported suffering on January 4. The lawyers rushed to the Licheng District Procuratorate to submit an emergency report.
The report requested legal supervision, a change of the coercive measures being used, and medical treatment for Shu. They also rushed to the court to talk with the judge about Lawyer Shu’s physical condition.
[HRIC Post script: Shu was convicted of defamation by the Licheng District Court in Ji’nan and sentenced to six months in prison and revocation of his lawyer's licence.]
Attachment: A meeting with Shu Xiangxin, "a life worse than death": Lawyer Li Fangping’s account of the beating that Shu Xiangxin suffered on January 4.
舒向新案辩护律师8日工作简报
1、上午，辩护律师第五次会见舒律师，舒反映，近几日听力明显下降，与律师交谈在一米距离内也感觉困难，尤其是左耳，一直有嗡嗡声。因两次医院检查均未对耳朵进行检查，舒律担心耳膜穿孔。此外，舒律监室已换管教，之前殴打舒律的张世尧的干警不知去向，但是换干警后，牢头开始找茬，在背“监规”、干活等事上对舒律明显施压，态度也比较凶，舒担心遭遇暴力报复，希望换个监室。会见后我们立即找看守所正副所长、驻所检察官反映此事，但整个济南二看办公室全部大门紧闭，无人在岗；
2、之后，两位律师第二次赶往历城检察院提交法律监督、变更强制措施、保证治疗、检查耳朵听力的紧急报告，接待检察官称已经知道舒律之事引起了重大舆情，他们会慎重处理，态度虽比之前明显改善，但言语间仍有这事应以法院自行处理为主的意思。我们拿出全国各地检察院接收材料的收据复印件，要求该院学习并出具收材料清单，该院照办了。相信以后再有律师向历城区检察院索要材料签收回执不会有大障碍！
3、上午第三件事，赶到历城法院，准备在下午开庭前就舒律的身体必须立即接受治疗与法官王文燕再次交流意见，但王文燕不在办公室，不知是否去研究下午庭审预案了？
4、历城法院外，已经有多名律师到达，还有很多不知名的从全国各地来的朋友，应该是自发前来围观舒案的。律师们合影留念，感谢所有人对舒案的关注！
蔡瑛 李方平 律师
2016年1月8日
附：【会见舒向新，从“生不如死”中走来！】
会见舒向新，从“生不如死”中走来！
今天会见舒向新律师非常顺利。在会见室外，老远看到穿上大棉袄的舒律师被提出监所大门，我和蔡瑛律师一同向他挥手，他也举手示意。律师会见室内，巨大的摄像头就安装在隔离栏上，40厘米许正对着舒律师所坐位置，一举一动（不知是否有录音功能）尽在掌握之中。辩护律师也面对摄像头背面而坐，距离也是约40厘米。济南第二看守所这种统一设置的摄像头对在押人员和辩护律师来说，或许带来不小的心理压力。当我们告诉舒律师，大家都在关注你昨天被拷打冻饿的遭遇时，这个46岁的山东壮汉，突然流露出好像小孩子受了极大委屈的神情。他耷拉着头，咬着嘴唇，热泪脱眶而出，喃喃道：“谢谢，谢谢大家。”
舒律师脸部和手腕部还有明显的伤痕和铐痕，他用“生不如死”、“极尽羞辱”总结、回忆如坠深渊的苦难七小时。
1月4日早八时许，管教干警张仲伟以舒不干活（粘蒙牛、伊利牛奶礼品盒，胶水气味冲鼻，舒律师受不了）为由，用“操你妈”等污言秽语辱骂舒，舒一顶嘴。张警官雷霆大怒：“你他妈太嚣张了”。接下来舒被拖出监室，带上手铐挂在通风透凉的公共过道。张警官一阵暴打，舒除了明确感知脸肿头晕脑胀，地上出现一摊血外，后就迷迷糊糊了一段时间！7个小时的挂拷，最开始还在乎大庭广众，人来人往中的示众之辱，后来手铐巨痛、冻得发抖、饥肠辘辘、憋屎憋尿的痛楚接踵而至，一种痛不欲生、生不如死的感觉越来越强烈。人来人往，没有一个干警停下来看一眼，问一下，这种绝望就如同坠入深渊，觉得自己连条狗都不如。舒律师述说这种绝望时，不时闭目锁眉、不时仰天长叹，我闻之观之也极其伤感、惆怅不已。
李方平律师2016年1月5日于济南
Wang Quanxiu, elder sister of lawyer Wang Quanzhang, explains in the below account that Wang has been imprisoned for a full 11 months, on suspicion of “subversion of state power,” and that their mother spent her 70th birthday silently suffering and extremely worried about her son. Today, Wang Quanxiu’s sister-in-law, Li Wenzu, other family members of the victims of the “709 crackdown,” and their defense lawyers were taken away by officers from Guijiasi police substation. Wang Quanxiu couldn’t help but ask: is this what “ruling a country in accordance with the law” looks like? She further asks, “Totalitarian thugs, who’s telling you to be so audacious! To trample on the sanctity of the law this way!”
到底怎麼了？！——驚聞709家屬和律師們被警察控制！
上週四是母親七十歲生日。在我的家鄉，老人七十歲生日，兒女們是一定要去祝壽的，無論飯局大小。老人享受的是兒孫聚在一起，簡單地吃頓飯，說說家常，嘮嘮里短。而今，我的弟弟王全璋律師被“顛覆國家政權”，關押整整十一個月了，不用說陪母親過生日，我們連個電話也不能打，聽聽聲音也成為無法滿足的奢望。母親懷著對兒子無比的牽掛和苦痛，默默地度過了她的七十大壽，這對一個本應當享受天倫之樂的母親來說是何等的殘忍！
今天，驚聞弟妹李文足和其他709家屬、辯護律師被天津市河西區掛甲寺派出所警察帶走，至今沒有恢復自由，原因為何？幾個弱女子去尋找丈夫，何罪之有？她們還有三到六歲的孩子們在家等媽媽。十一個月不能見爸爸，難道連見媽媽的權利也要被剝奪？沒有任何法律手續就把人抓走，想抓誰就抓誰！到底還講不講法？！法治國家的依法治國就是這樣子嗎？極權流氓們，你們受了誰的指使，如此膽大妄為！如此踐踏法律的尊嚴！
誰能告訴我，這到底怎麼了？！我們還有沒有活路？！
709被捕律師王全璋姐姐王全秀
2016年6月6日
Eighty-two lawyers from 18 provinces and municipalities jointly issued a public complaint about the detention of the wives of four individuals who have been in custody since the “709” crackdown on rights defense lawyers of July 2015, along with four lawyers who took a group photo with the wives. Wang Qiaoling, wife of Li Heping; Li Wenzu, wife of Wang Quanzhang; Fan Lili, wife of rights activist Ge Ping; and Liu Ermin, wife of rights activist Zhai Yanmin, went to the gate of the No. 2 branch of the Tianjin Municipal People's Procuratorate on June 6, 2016 with red plastic water buckets displaying messages of support for their husbands. At around 11:45am, the four wives, their lawyers, and the photographer were taken away by police and sent to Guajiasi police substation, of the Hexi District branch of the Tianjin Public Security Bureau. They were detained for nearly 13 hours until their release on June 7 at approximately 3:00am. The signers of this joint complaint question the legal basis for the detention and call on the Tianjin Municipal Procuratorate, the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate, and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate to investigate the Tianjin police for abuse of power.
谴责天津警方滥用职权书
82名中国律师
709案件当事人被抓捕已满11个月，但却一直处于事实上的被失踪状态，音讯全无。律师不被允许会见，通信，警方也拒不向辩护人介绍案情，甚至越俎代庖为当事人指定当事人和家属均不认识的律师，解除对由其家属委托的律师。这是极其严重的对程序正义的践踏，是动摇法律根基的违法行为。
作为合法有效的辩护人，为维护自己的辩护权，为维护法律的正确实施，蔡瑛、文东海、王磊、纪中久四名律师去天津市第二检察院进行控告，是辩护律师再正当不过的行为。其作为当事人家属委托的律师，在检察院门口拍照，与家属合影留念没有任何违法之处。
至于当事人家属，提着红色水桶在检察院门口合影，作为律师我们不知她们违反了中华人民共和国哪条法律，她们所携的水桶上“和平我支持你”、“全璋我爱你我等你”、“老翟我爱你”等内容。这些内容没有对官方的批评和讽刺，更没有挑衅。表达的不过是一个妻子对丈夫的信任，一种相守终生的信念。本质就是一个爱字。这是合法而高洁的人伦情感，是值得鼓励的行为。何况即便家属用行为艺术的方式表达了对官方违法的批评和讽刺，只要没有造成公共场所秩序的混乱，没有影响路人的通行。也仍然没有违法之处，是公民践行宪法保障的言论权利。
然而天津警方却以涉嫌扰乱社会秩序为由对律师和家属进行了抓捕。他们被带至天津市公安局河西分局挂甲寺派出所限制人身自由。直至7日凌晨三时许，四位律师和家属及摄影师才陆续获得人身自由。而据被抓捕的律师获释后发布的信息，警方企图让律师帮助警方指控当事人家属有扰乱社会秩序的故意，而且对没有任何违法之处的律师搜包，扣检手机，还威胁律师要求退出709辩护。其中翟岩民夫人刘二敏女士昨天早晨被警方带到门头沟永定镇派出所，遭到4男一女的野蛮殴打，其暴行令人发指！
这是典型的非法拘禁、侮辱和妨碍诉讼行为。
我们要求天津市检察院，北京市检察院，最高检立即着手调查天津警方滥用职权非法剥夺当事人诉权，辩护人辩护权的行为，立即着手调查本次滥用职权对律师和公民非法拘禁的行为。
中国律师
高承才—河南律师
葛文秀—广东律师
蔡瑛—湖南律师
余文生—北京律师
王清鹏—河北律师
刘荣生—山东律师
卢廷阁—河北律师
刘士辉—广东律师
张重实—湖南律师
钟锦化—上海律师
任全牛—河南律师
常伯阳—河南律师
邓林华—湖南律师
覃臣寿—广西律师
蔺其磊—北京律师
王秋实—黑龙江律师
梁小军—北京律师
陈建刚—北京律师
刘书庆—山东律师
吕方芝—湖南律师
陈进学—广东律师
张磊—北京律师
文东海—湖南律师
李威达—河北律师
吴魁明—广东律师
瞿远—四川律师
李方平—北京律师
童朝平—北京律师
陈以轩—湖南律师
于全—四川律师
李永恒—山东律师
马连顺—河南律师
邹丽惠—福建律师
陈金华—湖南律师
罗茜—湖南法律人
李金星—北京律师
张海—山东律师
曾义—云南律师
孟猛—河南律师
徐红卫—山东律师
刘正清—广东律师
覃永沛—广西律师
王振江—山东律师
温海波—北京律师
滕彪—北京律师
刘巍—北京律师
蒋援民—北京律师
王全平—广东律师
许桂娟—山东律师
郑恩宠—上海律师
江天勇—北京律师
唐吉田—北京律师
何伟—重庆律师
郑湘—山东律师.
郭莲辉—江西律师
李玉真—山东律师
王俊岩—湖南律师
张丕穆—湖南律师
纪中久—浙江律师
李昱函—北京律师
陈南石—湖南律师
王磊—河南律师
李如玉—法学博士
黄志强—浙江律师
浦浚源—云南律师
李明—山东律师
刘彦— 山东律师
王宗跃—贵州律师
黄汉中—北京律师
杨在新—广西律师
何伟民—广东律师
程海—北京律师
李大伟—甘肃法律人
姬来松—河南律师
吕洲宾—浙江律师
杨德君—北京律师
尚满庆—湖北律师
张金武—山东律师
韩保龙—山西律师
胡林政—湖南律师
冉彤—四川律师
聂奇—湖南律师
2016.6.8.
Today, outside the entrance of the No. 2 branch of the Tianjin People’s Procuratorate, the wives of a number of lawyers who were arrested and disappeared in the “709 crackdown” nearly a year ago, used a “bucket show” to protest the authorities’ trampling on the law and express support for their husbands. They were taken to the Guajiasi police substation of the Hexi District branch of the Tianjin Public Security Bureau.
In addition, four defense lawyers for some of the lawyers in custody went to the Tianjin No.2 Procuratorate to find out about the progress of their clients’ cases. After they submitted written materials for the defense and for bringing suit against Tianjin Public Security Bureau for its unlawful handling of their clients’ cases, they were reprimanded and threatened by the police. As they were leaving, they were told by policemen: “If you don’t cooperate with our inquiries, we’ll initiate procedures to interrogate you.”
709被捕律师妻子们进行“今夏最潮水桶秀”被带走，辩护律师遭警察强制口头传唤
6月6号，几位律师家属们在天津市人民检察院第二分院门口用“今夏最潮水桶秀”抗议，现场正被大量国保包围，之后，几位家属被警方带到天津市公安局河西分局挂甲寺派出所，目前几位家属手机被停机状态。下面是律师们和部分家属介绍的情况。
709被抓捕被失踪近一年的律师家属今日在天津市人民检察院第二分院门口用水桶秀抗议，红色的水桶上书“和平我支持你”“全璋我爱你我等你”，三位女性神态平和眼神坚定，衣着艳丽高举水桶，令看者内心悸动。
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
从前至后：王全璋的妻子李文足、翟岩民的妻子刘二敏、李和平的妻子王峭岭
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
从左至右：李和平的妻子王峭岭、翟岩民的妻子刘二敏、王全璋的妻子李文足
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
前排从左至右：李和平妻子王峭岭、翟岩民妻子刘二敏、王全璋妻子李文足、戈平妻子樊丽丽的代表
在天津市河西看守所现场，翟岩民妻子、王全章妻子及一位记者曾追赶一个国宝，并把车堵住了，记者还录像了。截至6月6日上午11时45分，王峭岭（李和平妻子），樊丽丽（戈平妻子），李文足（王全璋妻子），刘二敏（翟岩民妻子）均被口头传唤，并被警方抓走。
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
李和平妻子王峭岭被带走
在现场的文东海律师已证实了这个消息，他说：几位家属和律师都被天津市公安局带走，家属被口头传唤，律师被强制盘查，我和王磊、蔡瑛、纪中久被带到河西区公安分局挂甲寺派出所，家属情况不明。
天津市公安局河西分局挂甲寺派出所，电话：022-28333992，地址：中国天津市河西区利民道麦格理晨星园3号楼1。
王磊律师说： 2016年6月6日上午，四位律师是去天津检察院二分院了解案件是否移送起诉，递交辩护手续，并控告天津市公安局违法办案，剥夺律师辩护权、会见权以及了解案情权等问题。律师在天津二分院了解了案件进展，递交了书面控告材料，走出来后遭警察强制口头传唤。
在二分院控告接待处，律师反映情况期间，有便装挎包男从接待台内侧的半掩的门口偷偷对着律师拍照，被发现后律师提出抗议，便衣男从后院溜走。杨姓检察官说是他们的工作人员。
自称杨姓暴姓两位检察官负责接待，接待室墙上悬挂最高检察院颁发的文明检察院匾额。
律师正当履行职务，当事人家属正当反映诉求，走出检察院却遭强制口头传唤。现在一人一个房间由一个警察看守。
——王磊
2016年6月6日于天津挂甲寺派出所
蔡瑛、文东海律师被隔离询问
709辩护律师蔡瑛、文东海、王磊、纪中久等人今日中午十二时左右被天津警方从检察院第二分院门口强行带至挂甲寺看守所隔离关押，直至下午两时左右才安排午餐盒饭，后又被要求接受询问。询问蔡瑛律师的赫姓和郑姓警员恐吓称“不配合询问就要开手续进行讯问”。询问内容主要是要求律师承认和指控709家属扰乱公共秩序。蔡瑛律师拒绝配合，双方僵持近三小时，警察出门休息，打开门后，蔡瑛听到隔壁传来文东海律师义正言辞的斥责声。
You Minglei is the husband of Zhao Wei. The content of this message is from Weiquan Wang.
Statement from You Minglei:
I received news tonight that Mr. Ren Quanniu, the lawyer I appointed to represent Zhao Wei, was criminally detained on July 8 by public security authorities in Zhengzhou for “creating and spreading false information on the Internet that Zhao Wei was molested.” The police authorities claimed that “the relevant information [from Ren], having been shared and reported numerous times, has had a harmful effect on society and seriously damaged Zhao Wei’s reputation. The actions constitutes a suspected crime.”
During the 709 Crackdown last year, the authorities arrested my wife Zhao Wei and have held her in the Tianjin Detention Center. I appointed Mr. Ren Quanniu as her defense counsel. During this period, spanning nearly one year, Mr. Ren meticulously fulfilled his duties. He communicated with the authorities many times, and traveled to Tianjin many times to request meetings with Zhao Wei. After the Tianjin police refused his requests, he brought the case to the procuratorial authorities. In a situation in which there was no way to tell whether Zhao Wei was even alive, Ren sought to verify some online rumors through Weibo. He went to Tianjin with lawyer Yan Huafeng to discuss the information with the police, but did not receive any definite answers. And to this day he has not been able to meet with Zhao Wei.
Under this circumstance, it is an outright absurdity for the Zhengzhou police to accuse him of “spreading fake rumors.” I strongly condemn the shameless conduct of the authorities. I demand the immediate and unconditional release of lawyer Ren Quanniu.
游明磊是赵威的丈夫。维权圈来自此内容
游明磊声明:今天晚上得知我为赵威委托的任全牛律师因为“编造并在互联网上散布当事人人身受辱的虚假信息，相关信息被大量转发报道，造成恶劣社会影响，也给当事人赵威名誉造成严重损害，涉嫌犯罪”已于7月8日被郑州公安机关依法刑事拘留。因去年“709事件”中妻子赵威被当局逮捕并关押于天津看守所，本人于去年7月份委托任全牛律师为赵威辩护，在这将近一年的时间里，任律师矜矜业业尽职尽责，几次三番和当局沟通，多次到天津要求会见赵威，因被天津警方拒绝并向检查机关提出控告，在这种生不见人死不见尸的情况下，因网上的一些传言而在微博上求证，并和严华丰律师到天津向警方核实情况，但是都没有得到确切的答案，更是至今没有会见到赵威本人。在这种情况下，郑州警方以任律师编造散布当事人受人身侮辱的消息，并造成恶劣影响的理由简直荒谬至极！本人强烈谴责当局的这种无耻行径！并要求郑州当局尽快无罪释放任全牛律师！
See more: Crackdown on Chinese Lawyers
Professional Associations
UN & Governments
NGOs
In this statements, eight family members of lawyers detained in the “709” crackdown express strong concern about Wang Yu being threatened and pressured into doing a video “interview” in which she criticized her former colleague, Zhou Shifeng, as not being a “proper” lawyer. The statement also provides an account of four individuals, including Liu Ermin, wife of Zhai Yanmin, and Fan Lili, wife of Gou Hongguo, who were interrogated and harassed by the police when they went to the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court to inquire about the trial of Zhou Shifeng, Hu Shigen, Zhai Yanmin, and Gou Hongguo, which they had heard about but had never received official notification.
See also: Mass Crackdown on Chinese Lawyers, Defenders and International Reactions: A Brief Chronology
我们是“709大抓捕”当事人的家属，看到东网发布的王宇专访视频，我们感到担忧和愤慨。视频中王宇律师面部浮肿，东网文章又透露其刚做过乳腺手术，这让我们十分担心她的身体状况。王宇自去年7月9日被捕以来，其家人聘请的律师从未被允许会见，关于她的消息我们仅能通过央视和东网看到，我们强烈怀疑王宇是在压力和威胁下通过媒体做此表达。
然而，王宇专访透露出该案8月2日开庭的信息，引起了我们的高度关注。
此前网站“博闻社”称胡石根、周世锋、翟岩民、勾洪国四人将在8月1日开庭，包括勾洪国妻子樊丽丽和翟岩民妻子刘二敏在内的四名“709”家属遂前往天津市第二中级法院核实消息。她们不仅询问无果，还被传唤至派出所短暂羁押，随后四人受到严密的跟踪骚扰，其他欲前往声援的家属亦遭阻拦。李和平妻子王峭岭和翟岩民妻子刘二敏更于昨晚发出求救消息后失踪。
我们书写此声明的当下，王全璋妻子李文足的住所门外出现十多名警察，正要将她带走，我们其他人亦可能随时被带走。
当局千方百计阻挠家属出席庭审，媒体却在王宇访问中突然披露开庭日期，此事为“709案”的不公、荒谬甚至险恶，又添加了令人激愤的一笔。我们怀疑此举旨在转移焦点、分化同仁，也为起诉其他人埋下伏笔。
我们“709家属”郑重呼吁，所有关心人权问题的中国公民和国际友人，请将关注和谴责投向即将到来的8月2日天津第二中级法院庭审，以各种方式表达对被捕维权人士的支持。我们将无限感激！
对于中国官方，我们要求：
1. 立刻释放王峭岭、刘二敏、李文足，停止对“709”家属的抓捕、监控和骚扰；
2. 公开审理“709案”，开放家属、媒体、和其他人权关注者旁听；
3. 由家属聘请的律师代理案件并出庭辩护。
恳请所有关心“709”的人士转发此声明。
风雨同路，正义不孤！
“709”家属：
李文足 王全璋妻子（被带走前声明联名）
樊丽丽 勾洪国妻子
原珊珊 谢燕益妻子
陈桂秋 谢阳妻子
胡水根 胡石根弟弟
王全秀 王全璋姐姐
李 英 王峭岭大嫂
黄 仪 谢阳大嫂
2016年8月1日
（作者惠寄）
《中国人权双周刊》第188期 2016年7月22日—8月4日
This week, Chinese authorities put on trial and convicted one rights lawyer and three activists on charges of “subversion of state power”: Zhai Yanmin (翟岩民), a law firm employee; Hu Shigen (胡石根), a democracy and religious freedom activist; Zhou Shifeng (周世锋), a lawyer and law firm director; and Gou Hongguo (勾洪国), a rights activist. According to available official trial transcripts and media reports, all four defendants admitted guilt, expressed remorse, and accepted their trial verdicts. In addition, on August 1, Chinese authorities released a video of Wang Yu (王宇), another lawyer charged with “subversion” but recently released on bail, in which she referred to her former colleague Zhou Shifeng as not being a “qualified” lawyer,” and expressed remorse about her own “inappropriate” remarks and speaking with foreign media.
These five individuals are among the more than 300 lawyers and activists targeted in a nationwide crackdown that began in July 2015. To date, 18 others remain in police custody and have been formally arrested, five of whom are also facing “subversion” charges.
What do these events mean for Chinese civil society? How should the international community respond?
The targeting of those who are at the forefront of defending fundamental rights and promoting the growth of civil society underscores the true aim of the Communist Party of China’s policy of “ruling the country by law”—to maintain the supremacy of the CPC. Instead of safeguarding the people's rights, the current regime uses the legal system as a political instrument to undermine the very forces needed to sustain a rule of law: an independent judiciary, an independent bar, and a robust civil society.
“Instead of ‘putting power into the cage of law,’ as Xi Jinping proclaimed he would do when he first came to office, the Chinese regime is putting the people who lawfully challenge unchecked power into a cage,” said Sharon Hom, Executive Director of Human Rights in China. “And instead of solving social and political problems at their roots, the regime is attempting to root out the people who are trying to help solve these problems.”
Marking a further deterioration of the human rights situation in China, the persecution of rights lawyers and defenders over the past year, widely known as the “709 crackdown,” has spread a reign of terror throughout the rights defense community in China. It has not only subjected dozens of individuals to prolonged detention in isolation from any communication with their families, denied them access to legal counsel of their own choosing, and used defendants’ family members as bargaining chips, but has also brought back the tactics of the Cultural Revolution: enforced and publicized “confessions” and acceptance of punishment.
The persecution has also revealed a new model of control and punishment that aims at the wholesale deprivation of political rights and personal freedom. It is a model designed to destroy personal and professional reputations through the use of official smear campaigns, to create tension and division within the rights defense community by forcing individuals to denounce one another publicly, and to sever any “undesirable” ties between Chinese civil society groups and the international community by characterizing foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as hostile forces and by criminalizing cooperation with these NGOs.
These public attacks on foreign NGOs, which have in recent decades provided much needed support for the growing civil society in China, have become part of the regime’s official “anti-foreign” narrative. It is a narrative that claims Chinese exceptionalism and aims at undermining internationally-accepted principles, norms, and standards, as well as universal values enshrined in international law. The international community should not accept these relativist arguments invoked to justify violations of international human rights by the Chinese authorities.
We urge governments, NGOs, legal professionals, and academic communities to send independent observers to monitor the upcoming trials of lawyers and activists in China and to call out any procedural due process irregularities and rights violations. The international community can no longer afford to accept China’s version of “rule by law.” We must stand firm in the face of the erosion of core international principles and values that protect fundamental rights and human dignity of all people.
Subversion of state power
Inciting subversion of state power
Gathering a crowd to disturb public order
Picking quarrels and provoking trouble
Organizing people to secretly cross national borders
Hu Shigen
Zhai Yanmin
Gou Hongguo (勾洪国)
Rights Activist
Gou (a.k.a Ge Ping (戈平)) was born in Tianjin in November 1961. He is a former military officer and a businessman. In recent years, he actively participated in rights defense activities and focused in particular on vulnerable groups.
Gou was taken away from his Beijing residence by Tianjin police on July 10, 2015. His home and office were also raided, all bank cards and cash seized, and his phone’s WeChat “Moments” were deleted. The next day, he was put under house arrest at a designated location by Tianjin Hexi District police on suspicion of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” On January 8, 2016, Gou was formally arrested by Tianjin police and charged with “subversion of state power.” He was indicted on July 15. Throughout his detention, he was denied the right to see his family and access to the defense lawyer appointed by his family.
On August 5, 2016, the Tianjin No.2 Intermediate People’s Court convicted him of “subversion of state power” and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, and three years’ deprivation of political rights. Gou pled guilty and said he will not appeal.
He is currently detained in Tianjin Municipal No.1 Detention Center.
Hu Shigen (胡石根)
Democracy and Religious Freedom Activist
Born in 1954, in Nanchang, Jiangxi province. In 1986, he obtained a master’s degree from Peking University, and was subsequently assigned a teaching position at Beijing Language and Culture University (previously Beijing Language College). In 1989, due to his participation in the Democracy Movement that year, he was suspended from his post for self-examination and given administrative disciplinary punishment. In 1991, he secretly established the Chinese Free Democratic Party (中国自由民主党), with WangGuoqi (王国齐), and assisted Kang Yuchun (康玉春) and others in establishing the Chinese Progressive Alliance (中华进步同盟). He also set up the China Free Trade Union Preparatory Committee (中国自由工会筹备委员会), along with Liu Jingsheng (刘京生), Gao Yuxiang (高玉祥), and others. He was detained on May 27, 1992, due to preparing protest and remembrance activities to mark the third anniversary of the June Fourth massacre. In December 1994, he was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and five years’ deprivation of political rights for “organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary group" and “carrying out counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement.” After having his sentence reduced twice, he was released on August 26, 2008. In 2010, he was baptized as a Christian, and in 2012 became an elder in a family church to preach the gospel.
After he was released from prison, Hu Shigen continued to participate in activities to promote democracy, rule of law, human rights, and religious freedom, and as a result he suffered constant surveillance by the authorities and was also summonsed, secretly detained, and subjected to other forms of persecution. On May 3, 2014, he participated in a seminar to mark the 25th anniversary of June Fourth, and as a result was detained by Beijing police on May 6 for “picking quarrels and provoking troubles.” He was released on bail pending further investigation on June 5.
On July 10, 2015, Hu Shigen was summonsed by Beijing police and his home was raided. At the end of October, it became known that Tianjin police were holding him under residential surveillance “at a designated location” since August 7 that year, on suspicion of “inciting subversion of state power” and “picking quarrels and provoking troubles.”
On August 3, 2016 the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court convicted Hu of “subversion of state power” and sentenced him to seven and a half years’ imprisonment and five years’ deprivation of political rights. Hu pled guilty in court and said he will not appeal. He is currently being held at Tianjin Municipal No.1 Detention Center.
Zhai Yanmin (翟岩民)
Beijing Rights Defender and Law Firm Employee
Zhai was born in May 1961 in Beijing. He was an employee at the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm before his arrest in 2015.
Beginning in 2014, Zhai organized and participated in many rights defense solidarity activities, including in support of Hong Kong’s Occupy Central and the “Ten Gentlemen of Zhengzhou.” He also organized petitioners from different regions to go to Qing’an Railway Station in Heilongjiang to protest the shooting death of civilian Xu Chunhe in May 2015. He received many warnings from Beijing police because of his organizing and protest activities.
Zhai was arrested in June 2015, one month before the mass crackdown on lawyers and rights defenders that started on July 9, 2015. In more than 400 days of detention, he was denied communication with his family and access to the defense lawyer appointed by his family. On August 2, 2016, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court convicted him of “subversion of state power” and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, suspended for four years, and four years’ deprivation of political rights. Zhai said he will not appeal. He is currently being detained in Tianjin Municipal No.2 Detention Center.
Zhou Shifeng (周世锋)
Beijing Rights Defense Lawyer, Director of Beijing Fengrui Law Firm
Born in 1964, in Anyang County, Henan province. Zhou obtained a master’s degree in law from Peking University and a doctorate in law from Macau University of Science and Technology.
He began to practice law in 1995. He established Fengrui Law Firm in Beijing in 2007 to advocate for freedom, democracy, and constitutionalism. He has worked on a number of rights defense cases, including the case against the Sanlu Company brought by families of victims of tainted Sanlu milk powder, and in defense of Zhang Miao, a Beijing based journalist’s assistant for the German weekly, Die Zeit, who was detained for participating in activities in support of the Occupy protests in Hong Kong. In 2015, Zhou Shifeng, along with lawyers Yang Jinzhu (杨金柱) and Yang Xuelin (杨学林), established the Independent Lawyers Monitoring Group of the case of Nie Shubin (聂树斌案律师独立观察组), a 20-year-old man wrongfully executed in 1995. In June 2016, the Supreme People’s Court called the conviction "problematic and deficient" and ordered the case to be retried. That year, Zhou publicly announced that he would invest RMB 8 million to establish the China Lawyers Rights Defense Fund (中国律师维权基金) in order to provide financial support to families of persecuted Chinese lawyers.
Under Zhou, Fengrui Law Firm took on many high-profile cases and those in defense of underprivileged people. Fengrui’s clients included Ai Weiwei (艾未未), Ji Zhongxing (冀中星), Ilham Tohti (伊力哈木), Zhang Lin (张林), Cao Shunli (曹顺利),Yue Yue (悦悦), Fan Mugen (范木根), and Yao Baohua (姚宝华). Fengrui lawyers included Wang Yu (王宇), Liu Xiaoyuan (刘晓原), and Wang Quanzhang (王全璋).
Zhou Shifeng was recognized as a top lawyer by his peers. In January 2010, he was recognized as a “Progressive in Providing Social Welfare Legal Services (社会公益法律服务先进个人).” From July 2010 to July 2011, he was sent by the China Legal Aid Foundation (中国法律援助基金会) to participate in legal aid activities, and was called an outstanding aid lawyer. In January 2011, Zhou was also named a “Progressive in Providing Public Welfare Legal Services in Chaoyang District of Beijing (北京市朝阳区公益法律服务先进个人).” In April 2012, he was awarded the title of “Beijing Outstanding Lawyer 2009-2011 (2009—2011年度北京优秀律师).”
On the morning of July 10, 2015, Zhou Shifeng was forcefully taken away from his hotel room by three people. On January 8, 2016, he was arrested on suspicion of “subversion of state power” and detained in Tianjin Municipal No.1 Detention Center. On July 15, 2016, he was indicted by the No.2 branch of the Tianjin Municipal People’s Procuratorate on the same charge.
On August 4, 2016, Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court sentenced Zhou to seven years’ imprisonment and five years’ deprivation of political rights for “subversion of state power.” He pled guilty in court and will not appeal.
[Translation by Human Rights in China]
Guo Feixiong will soon be transferred to a prison again. His sister, after visiting him, conveyed his wishes: “I demand that in prison, [I] will have books to read, won’t have to kneel down, won’t be forced to perform labor, and won’t be beaten.” He also said that if he is subjected to torture and torment again, he will go on a hunger strike and ask that his wife “take their son and daughter to go on a hunger strike in front of the United Nations.” Guo’s sister also said, “Back in 2007, when Guo Feixiong was first admitted to the Meizhou Prison, a prison guard ordered him to squat with his hands behind his head, but Guo refused. The prison guard then directed another detainee to beat Guo Feixiong up, kicking him down the staircase and sending him rolling on the floor. The prison management personnel didn’t intervene until the 200-plus inmates present began hooting. The attacker stopped only after being warned that he might actually kill someone.”
Throwing a guiltless intellectual brimming with positive outlook and good wishes for his country and people into prison in this age of darkness—this alone is an assault on conscience and justice. Let alone forcing him to kneel down and perform labor, and savagely beating him up.
Feixiong experienced prison and torture before. And the bitter past experience forms the psychological basis for his demands. For a legitimate government with any sense of morality and responsibility, demands such as not kneeling down, not being forced to perform labor, and not being beaten would mortify the people who make up this government, would make many responsible citizens feel that their sense of justice has been barbarously offended, and would set in motion a series of corresponding internal inquiries and remedial efforts. However, this is happening in a Communist Party of China-ruled China, where people have long regarded atrocious human rights violations as everyday occurrences. In post-1949 China, these incidents often fall into complete silence and obscurity just like arrows shot into the ocean. Chronic helplessness breeds a terrifying capacity among the populace—to remain indifferent to any sort of brutalities that others suffer. And it forms a tacit pact among all to tolerate the crimes committed by an evil dictatorship, thus intensifying and nourishing the dictatorship’s impunity. Friedrich von Hayek believed that authoritarian regimes “were established by groups of blackguards and thugs.” Psychologically, I thought I was fully prepared for the barbarity and evil of CPC prisons. But after having actually spent time behind bars, I couldn’t help but lament how limited my imagination was.
The prisons are lands of desolation devoid of humanity and the human concept of rule of law. Structurally speaking, this is an inevitable result of exercising absolute power under absolutely no supervision. On the other hand, the prisons are an institution designed by the anti-human, terrorist CPC regime for the systematic, specialized, and large-scale cleansing away of humanity and the deliberate cultivation of collective fear. The prison system’s key technical core is the success rate of forced reform, a yardstick against which the performances of all prison institutions and their personnel are evaluated. Every year, a fixed quota of successful cases of reform is assigned to every institution and individual employee, and that quota is used to determine an individual employee or institution’s capability, promotional prospect, and size of rewards. Results are the only things that matter, and there are practically no restraints as to what means are used to achieve those results. Over time, bloody violence becomes the only means to reach the goal. Everyone becomes a component of this bloody mechanism and is required to play a functional role, with no possibility of keeping oneself unsullied.
The deepest impressions that CPC prisons left on me include those of the ancient, primitive-looking leg irons (I was unable to move at all the entire day; at the end of the first day, the pain in my ankles was unbearable); the cruel electric shock torture administered to prisoners; the extreme exhaustion from being deprived of rest time even on Sundays; the endless servings of boiled cabbages; and the feeling of suffocation from the lack of oxygen and gloom in the solitary confinement cell. Most unforgettable were the electric shock torture and arbitrary beating the prisoners had to endure when being forcefully reformed. (I must stress here that these are not issues unique to Shayar Prison—they are simply systemic.) The arbitrariness of whom they would beat up was clear: they just picked the names [of the targets] randomly from the roster.
At the rapid blasts of whistles and a sharp yell of “Stand in line,” a nerve-wracking din of footsteps would echo throughout the entire building. Next up, those whose names were called were berated and then pulled out from the line-up for brutal beating. This would repeat several times a day. I was never called on, but it was frightening enough to just listen as the cruelty descended on others. But in time, I finally got used to it and my feelings grew numb.
All barbarous regimes in history have one characteristic in common: they are completely oblivious to the differences and complexities among individual human beings. Instead, they treat people as machinery that can be standardized, and use mechanical means to achieve standardization. This subsequently leads to situations of unnecessary conflict and, ultimately, the outright reliance on cruel, anti-human measures.
In a certain sense, inmates in a CPC prison are all political prisoners. It has refined prisoner reform into nearly 100 concrete benchmarks, the first of which is that the prisoners must embrace the “Four Basic Principles,“ and embrace the eternal leadership status of the CPC. Nothing else matters if a prisoner does not meet this first condition. Political prisoners and “evil cult” inmates, etc., have greatly suffered because of this requirement. Another nonnegotiable is that they must admit their crimes and submit themselves to the law. This is the gateway to hell for the wrongfully convicted, as everyone knows that this reactionary justice system produces numerous wrongful convictions every year. And the prison is a wrongfully-convicted person’s worst nightmare. The first order of business during the first three months of imprisonment is admitting guilt. Who knows how many times wrongfully convicted prisoners have died in the process.
When I first entered prison, in order to minimize conflicts, I promised to comply with the supervision and management regulations on the condition that I wouldn’t admit guilt. But on January 4, 2012, during a mandatory sitting session, I stood up and starting pacing rapidly inside the solitary confinement cell. It was because they were using electric shocks on people again. As a victim of the same thing previously, I knew it the instant I heard it. This was the fourth time I had heard this in just a little over half a month after arriving in the prison. In protest, I stopped complying with the supervision and management regulations. They realized what was going on. Ma Bing asked me the moment he entered the solitary confinement cell, “You heard something. Didn’t you?” “This is the fourth time that I heard it,” I answered. We had a clash of words, and very quickly someone called him away.
Among all the prison officers to whom I protested and raised the issue of the routine use of electric shocks on prisoners, Mr. Enwer, the Chief of the Sixteenth Prison District, was the only one to adamantly deny the existence of such practice. All the other officers—including Deputy Prison Chief Mr. Ma, Education Division Chief Mr. Kang, Prison Politics Division Chief Mr. Xu, and Criminal Law Implementation Division Chief Mr. Li—would remain stone-faced and silent to my protests or reports. (Only Deputy Prison Chief Ma, biting his lower lip while listening to me, said after a pause, “As a matter of reason, we should handle things in accordance with the law.” But it was Officer Gao Jianjun’s question for me later that revealed how little control grassroots-level administrators really have. He said, “Old Gao, the superiors gave us a quota for prisoner reform success. There’s definitely no way to achieve that without getting tough. What do you think we should do?” Those may not have been his exact words, but that was basically what he said.)
In a conversation I had with Division Chief Mr. Kang prior to my release, he asked about my impression of the prison. I replied, “Compared with being detained by the military, this is a nice hell.” The prison management personnel didn’t give me a hard time on things that they had control over. There was only one time—on December 21, 2011, when I refused to squat as they ordered—when they put a black hood over my head. Someone came over and pressed my shoulders down but failed to make me squat. He stopped after someone nearby said something in Uyghur to him. For others, squatting with their hands behind their heads was part of the daily routine there.
As for being forced to kneel down, I experienced it several times in the black jails run by the CPC terrorist organization. To get me to kneel down, they would spend hours working on me every single time. It often ended up with me falling to the floor after being severely beaten and then getting held up by two officers to assume a kneeling position. All of this was just to give the officers some despicable satisfaction of final “victory.”
The CPC is still “honest” in certain respects. For example, it has not ratified the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, does not formulate concrete laws on freedom of press, and shies away from setting up a judicial review system to examine violations of the Constitution. The CPC has a clear understanding of its true nature—just like applying the same temperature to an egg and a rock would produce different results, the government’s ratifying of the ICCPR doesn’t mean that it will allow Chinese citizens expanded civil and political rights. If the CPC can scorn a constitution it itself has formulated, as if it were worn out shoes, what’s the use in ratifying an international covenant? But does not ratifying relevant covenants mean that the CPC can just trample on fundamental human rights and dignity with no regard for the law? As the world’s largest rogue regime, even if you don’t ratify the relevant covenants on political and human rights, you, as a member state of the United Nations, can never escape your responsibilities regarding your citizens’ political and human rights.
The Charter of the United Nations lists the following as among the goals of the United Nations:
If a group of people would rather risk their own demise than acknowledge the rights human beings uniquely enjoy, then they don’t even deserve to be human beings themselves, let alone leaders of a country. As someone completely disillusioned with the authorities, I don’t really agree with Feixiong’s declaration to go on a hunger strike should he be tortured and tormented again in prison. Protest is something that takes place in human society and therefore has nothing to do with animals. I oppose even more the idea of making his wife “take their son and daughter to go on a hunger strike in front of the United Nations.” First, this is detrimental to the children’s physical and psychological development. Second, nowadays, certain Western politicians and business groups, typically those in the United Kingdom and the United States, have long come to share the spoils of the CPC terrorists’ brutal human rights abuses. Protesting in front of them is like casting pearls before swine.
On the premise of faithfully relying on God, the realistic hope of changing China lies within us, and only us. This is something we must be clear about. The number one priority now is protecting our children and ourselves and finding the connections between our hearts and the love of God.
I hereby give another solemn warning to those CPC terrorists who, unlike Xi Jinping and his followers, may still understand human speech: You should think about your future and the future of your family. Failure to heed my repeated advice will bring you futile regrets in the future!
When I was detained in a secret spot ordered by Zhou Yongkang, I made a prediction to someone dispatched by Zhou and said, “He (meaning Zhou) will die in a prison.” He scolded me, “Old Gao, have you lost your mind from being locked up? Zhou is dubbed the Ninth Iron-Cap Prince. Do you know what that means? Can you even believe what you are saying?” We all know what happened next. When I was in Shayar Prision, I predicted that Xie Hui, then Director of Xinjiang’s Department of Justice and Prison Management Bureau Chief, would definitely go to jail. One of the deputy division chiefs ridiculed and angrily rebuked me, “Old Gao, the things you say will only make others despise you.” But as it turned out, “leading comrade” Xi Hui was indeed imprisoned in 2015.
On May 26, 2012, I went ahead and submitted a letter to the prison authorities, predicting that in the end of 2017, Hu Jintao and other criminals in the terrorist organization called the CPC will all be tried at a special tribunal of China set up at that time. I had this prediction in writing as proof. It was intended as a reminder to those who still have some humanity left in them to be cautious about their future. One day, when they finally wake up to the truth of these words, the fools will be left to endless regrets!
February 4, 2016 at my hometown village
(See Chinese original published in Shuangzhoukan.)
On May 9, 2016, imprisoned and ailing rights activist Guo Feixiong (郭飞雄) (penname of Yang Maodong, (杨茂东)) began a hunger strike to protest degrading treatment in prison that included the video recording of a forced physical exam, which prison authorities threatened to post online. Guo’s repeated requests for transfer out of Yangchun Prison to a facility where he could receive appropriate medical treatment have been ignored.
Over the past three months—during which he has been subjected to forced feeding—his deteriorating health condition has received increasing international attention, including that of five UN experts who issued an appeal on August 4 urging the Chinese authorities to stop all forms of ill-treatment of Guo.
In his essay, “The Hellish Scene Behind Guo Feixiong’s Wishes,” lawyer Gao Zhisheng (高智晟)—who himself had suffered years of torture and abuses for legal defense of vulnerable groups— begins with Guo Feixiong’s wishes when he was being transferred to prison after being convicted in November 2015:
[Guo’s] sister, after visiting him, conveyed his wishes: “I demand that in prison, [I] will have books to read, won’t have to kneel down, won’t be forced to perform labor, and won’t be beaten.”
Gao Zhisheng observes:
For a legitimate government with any sense of morality and responsibility, demands such as not kneeling down, not being forced to perform labor, and not being beaten would mortify the people who make up this government . . . and would set in motion a series of corresponding internal inquiries and remedial efforts. However, this is happening in a Communist Party of China-ruled China, where people have long regarded atrocious human rights violations as everyday occurrences. In post-1949 China, these incidents often fall into complete silence and obscurity just like arrows shot into the ocean. Chronic helplessness breeds a terrifying capacity among the populace—to remain indifferent to any sort of brutalities that others suffer. And it forms a tacit pact among all to tolerate the crimes committed by an evil dictatorship, thus intensifying and nourishing the dictatorship’s impunity.
Gao also shares his own experience in prison in this piercing view of a system that he calls “a wrongfully-convicted person’s worst nightmare.”
During the first few days of August 2016, Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court tried defense lawyers and rights defenders involved in the “709” crackdown. However, the defendants’ family members were under strict surveillance and forbidden from observing the trials. In light of this, Wang Qiaoling, wife of rights defense lawyer Li Heping—who has been detained for more than a year, denied access to his lawyers, and denied any communication with his family—submitted the below application to the court for permission to observe Li Heping’s trial. She believes that from an “educational” point of view, the court should allow her to observe, and that an outstanding criminal defense lawyer like Li Heping would not obstruct his wife from doing so. She requests that, if Li Heping really strongly demands that his wife not observe the trial, the court should ask him to write a personal letter to her to explain.
[Translation by Human Rights in China]
Wang Qiaoling: “Application to Observe a Trial”
The honorable Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court:
Over the past few days, I’ve seen news about the trials of the “709” cases, and was really shocked. In the verdicts released on three consecutive days, I saw a name I had not seen for a long time, that of Li Heping, my husband.
I’m filled with anxiety and cannot calm down. Ever since Li Heping was taken away from our home by Tianjin police on July 10, 2015, I have had no news of him—it has been 13 months. At first, he was “disappeared” for six months. And, later, it was with great difficulty that I found his arrest notice. Yet still, Li Heping has not been able to see any lawyers, or receive any letters. I couldn’t even find the government appointed lawyer—and the Tianjin police refused to tell me who that lawyer is.
I luckily heard the news about the court trials [of the week beginning August 1] and immediately rushed to Tianjin. But I did not expect that the bailiffs would drag me out of the court house, that the police would drag me to the police station, or that the Domestic Security officers would drag me back to Beijing.
Between August 2 and August 5, even though my husband wasn’t on trial, I, as a family member of someone affected in the “709” crackdown, was still under strict surveillance at home and was not allowed to leave—the door was guarded by three or four people.
I thought back and forth, from the perspective of educating Li Heping and his family—not to mention from a legal perspective (is there any rule of law at all?)—please let me observe the trials!
Although I have always firmly believed that my husband is innocent and has been framed, just in case the prosecutor’s evidence is conclusive and my husband is convicted, if I as his wife, could be there with him when he accepts the trial’s outcome—wouldn’t that be the best “educative warning” for our family?
Furthermore, is it not my basic responsibility, as his wife, to stand by him to share all burdens no matter the hardship?
At the same time I also believe that Li Heping, being the excellent criminal lawyer that he is, wouldn’t obstruct his wife from observing the trial. If Li Heping himself strongly requests that I not observe, I kindly request that the court tell him to write a personal letter to me to explain.
Additionally, I saw that some family members of those affected in the “709” crackdown requested the confirmation of trial dates and were smeared by the Communist Youth League on weibo as carrying out espionage activities. I hereby declare that, from July 31, 2016, I have already been illegally detained in my residence by Beijing police for five days. I called the police on 110 but no police ever came. My current request to meet with Li Heping, along with being interviewed by the media, do not constitute espionage activities.
Based on the above reasons, I kindly request the honorable court to allow me to observe Li Heping’s trial. No matter how bad the result will be, I can accept it.
Thank you very much. I will be most grateful if my request is approved.
Applicant: Wang Qiaoling
August 4, 2016
Human rights defender Ye Yin, after participating in a hunger strike relay in support of Guo Feixiong, published his reflections, saying: “It is very difficult for this type of protest to have any effect on a ruthless ruling machine. However, we still eagerly participate in this type of protest, if only to tell Mr. Guo Feixiong that he is not alone in his pursuit of freedom.” Ye also says, “Rampant evil comes from the silence and indifference of the majority,” and urges even more friends to join the hunger strike relay in order to attract more domestic and international attention and support, so that he may receive timely and effective treatment.
接力绝食声援郭飞雄感言
郭飞雄（杨茂东）先生从世纪初矢志维护公民权益、推进自由民主，因其具有系统的政治转型理论、清晰的实践路径和策略，以及他十余年艰苦卓绝的践行，而成为维权抗争和政治反对界的领军人物之一，在国内国际享有崇高的道义声望。
郭飞雄曾四次被捕，两次被判入狱，共获刑11年（2006-2011；2013.8-2019.8）。在狱中备受肉体折磨和精神摧残，九死一生。第一次出狱后，初心不改，更加坚定而积极的践行自由事业。2013年元旦，因为在南方日报集团门口发表捍卫新闻言论自由的演讲，及策划推进人大批准《公民国际权利公约》的八城快闪行动，于2013年8月8日第四次被捕，超期羁押两年多后，获刑六年。由于在看守所和监狱，生活条件极其恶劣（在看守所800多天从未放风），营养不良，疾病得不到及时治疗，郭飞雄的健康持续恶化，随时都有生命危险。
郭飞雄先生的健康状况恶化、命悬一线的消息披露后，引起了国内国际的广泛关注、呼吁和声援。本人响应谭作人、隋牧青、黎学文、杜延林、欧彪峰、哎乌等同道前辈、朋友发起的接力绝食声援号召。绝食时间为5月3日16:00-5月4日16:00（实际未进食时间为30小时），现在绝食结束，发表如下感言：
绝食是文明社会的抗争法则，它以自我伤害健康的方式，和平表达对某种诉求或理念的坚持，试图唤醒统治者的基本人道主义共识，而达成对话和妥协。这种抗议方式，对一个冷酷统治机器很难产生感召力。然而，我们仍然踊跃参与，只为以这种方式，告诉郭飞雄先生，在追求自由的道路上，他并不孤单。即使他被高墙和铁丝网隔绝，仍然有无数人，以各种各样的方式，表达对民主自由法治人权的认同，和对他的奉献和牺牲精神的敬仰。我们参与绝食接力，就是以力所能及的方式，感受他所受的苦难，和向他致敬。虽然24小时的绝食，比起狱中长期的饥饿、疾病得不到医治的痛苦，和人性扭曲的暴戾氛围的压抑，体验的深度和长度都微不足道，但仍然不失为一种恰当的向他致敬、表达与他同在的信念的方式。
联合国网站有一句名言：“如果你在不公正的情形下保持中立，那你其实已经选择站在压迫者的一边”。邪恶得以横行，源于大多数人的沉默和冷漠。在追求自由的道路上，即使坚韧卓绝如郭飞雄、唐荆陵，他们也毕竟是肉体凡胎，以先行者数人数百人之力，对抗狰狞冷酷的权力巨兽，肉体常濒临不可承受的极限。无论英雄还是凡人，个人之力都是微弱的。唯有更多的人，加入到追求自由的队伍中，众志成城，守望相助，才是对他们孜孜以求、生死以之的自由事业的最真诚的致敬。欢迎更多朋友，了解郭飞雄的追求，关注郭飞雄日趋恶化的健康，加入到接力绝食声援的行动中，以唤起国内国际更多的关注和声援，使郭飞雄先生能够得到及时有效的治疗。谢谢！
叶隐
2016年5月4日
In the first week of August 2016, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court tried and convicted one rights lawyer and three activists of “subversion of state power.” They were Zhai Yanmin (翟岩民), a law firm employee; Hu Shigen (胡石根), a democracy and religious freedom activist; Zhou Shifeng (周世鋒), a lawyer and law firm director; and Gou Hongguo (勾洪国), a rights activist.
Although Chinese law specifies punishment for the crime of “subversion of state power” (颠覆国家政权罪), it does not define the acts that constitute the crime:
Among those who organize, plot or carry out the scheme of subverting the State power or overthrowing the socialist system, the ringleaders and the others who commit major crimes shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years . . . . (Criminal Law, art 105(1))
But as these trials unfolded, “edited transcripts” released by the official Xinhua News Agency provided a glimpse of what the prosecution and the court considered to be acts of “subversion”: these acts can be no more than a dinner party discussion about social change and about how lawyers can help defend the rights of workers.
(From the trial transcript of Hu Shigen)
Prosecutor:
2) On February 1, 2015, defendant Hu Shigen went to a lunch gathering attended by 15 people, including Zhou Shifeng, Li Heping, and Zhai Yanmin at Qiweishao restaurant in Chaoyang District, Beijing, at which they discussed topics revolved around “how lawyers might get involved in the labor movement” and “how lawyers can get involved in sensitive case incidents,” etc. Hu Shigen put forward three major elements for the transformation of the state: “a strengthened citizenry, a split within the ruling party, and the intervention of international society,” along with the five major programs for the construction of a future state: “transformation, nation-building, people’s livelihoods, remuneration, and punishment,” and actively planned for the subversion of state power.
. . .
This court holds that defendant Hu Shigen organized, planned, and carried out subversion of state power and overthrowing of the socialist system, and his actions violated article 105(1) of the Criminal Law . . . .
HRIC has selected, annotated, and translated excerpts from the official “edited transcripts” in order to provide English readers with a closer view of an episode in a judicial process where the exercise of fundamental rights of citizens, protected by the Chinese Constitution and international law, may be judged to be serious crimes. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China states that citizens of the PRC “enjoy freedom of speech, . . . of assembly, of association” (art. 35), rights that are enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a signatory to the Covenant, China has the obligation to act in good faith and not defeat the purpose of the ICCPR by undermining such rights.
Subversion of state power
Inciting subversion of state power
Gathering a crowd to disturb public order
Picking quarrels and provoking trouble
Organizing people to secretly cross national borders
