Figure 3: "Education Classes" documented on CHRD's website
 

• Imprisonment

In China, the judiciary lacks independence, and the government routinely uses the judiciary to control and punish petitioners. 

Petitioner, Cao Fulin ((曹福林), was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for “hindering official business” (Appendix III: Cases of petitioners arbitrarily detained).  Petitioner, Li Yufeng (李玉凤), was sentenced to one and a half years’ for the same crime (See Case Study 3: Li Yufeng and Appendix IV: Cases of petitioners sent to RTL or sentenced).  There is little evidence to suggest that Cao or Li committed any crime. It is suspected that the two are being punished for complaining about the government. 

See Appendix IV: Cases of petitioners sent to RTL or sentenced for more cases of imprisoned petitioners.

Case Study 3: Li Yufeng

Li Yufeng, 49, is a petitioner from Jiaozuo City, Henan Province. Li began petitioning in 2002 after her home was forcibly demolished without proper compensation. For her petitioning activities, she has been repeatedly detained, beaten and imprisoned. 

 

On March 9, 2007, Li was petitioning in Beijing while two important state meetings were being held. She happened to pass through an area not far from the meeting venues and without showing her petitioning materials, was identified by a plainclothes officer as a petitioner.  Shortly after the encounter, unidentified men accosted her, confiscated documents Li was carrying that were associated with her petition, photographed her, and brought her to Beijing PSB Xihu District sub-division, where they accused her of openly waving her petitioning materials and shouting slogans in front of a government office. Li refused to sign papers confessing to the men’s accusations.

 

The next day, Li was administratively detained (a form of “administrative” sanction that can be imposed by public security officials) for 7 days by the Beijing PSB Xihu District sub-division for “disrupting social and public order.” Immediately after her detention, she was sent to Jiaozuo City by Jiaozuo City PSB and criminally detained on suspicion of “hindering official business.” On March 23, she was arrested, and on May 16, she was sentenced to one and a half year’s imprisonment for the same crime.

Human rights violated in the interception of petitioners

Freedom of expression

The interception of petitioners is first and foremost a violation of the right to freedom of expression. Petitioners are punished for peacefully expressing their grievances and opinions. 

Petitioners’ right to freedom of expression and of opinion are guaranteed by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution. Article 41 of the Chinese Constitution protects the right of citizens to criticize the government:  

“Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary.”

Torture

Although the relevant U.N. conventions (and to some extent, China’s Criminal Law) clearly prohibit government officials from torturing and ill-treating people, in practice, officials torture and mistreat petitioners with impunity. Petitioners are often subjected to beating and deprivation of food or medication by interceptors, who are either public officials or hired thugs acting on behalf of public officials.  

China ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) in 1988. China’s own Criminal Law (Articles 247 and 248)³² similarly prohibits the use of torture and other physical punishment in law enforcement. However, the PRC Criminal Law’s prohibition of torture is too narrowly defined as noted by the U.N. Committee Against Torture.³³ Only when torture occurs within the criminal justice system and in defined areas—“prisons, detention centers, and other guard houses”— is it recognized as such. Furthermore, under Chinese law, acts of torture can only be committed by certain types of officials, while in the CAT, the prohibition applies to anyone acting in an official capacity. The Criminal Law is too restrictive to fulfill China’s obligations under CAT. Its narrow definitions exclude much of the torture experienced by petitioners.

Arbitrary detention

There are many forms of arbitrary detention related to the interception of petitioners: Kidnapping, detention in RTL camps, psychiatric institutions, “black jails” or “education classes,” and sentencing by a judiciary that lacks independence all constitute arbitrary detention.  

According to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, detention, arrest or any other form of deprivation of liberty is “arbitrary” if it falls into one of three categories: 

1. When the deprivation of liberty is the result of the exercise of rights including but not limited to freedom of expression, assembly, association, movement, and political participation;

2. If there is no legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty;

3. When international norms related to the right to a fair trial are not observed, whether partially or at all. ³⁴ 

In the case of petitioners, the deprivation of liberty is the direct result of petitioners exercising their right to freedom of expression. In cases where petitioners are detained for collective petitioning, their detention is also arbitrary because it is the result of the exercise of their rights to freedom of assembly and association.  

Secondly, a number of Chinese scholars as well as international human rights organizations have pointed out that the legal basis of Re-education Through Labor is unclear and questionable.³⁵ There are no laws that govern “black jails” or “education classes”. They exist entirely outside of the law.³⁶ 

Interceptors have no legal authorization to detain individuals. According to Article 3 of the Chinese Criminal Procedure Law and Article 16 of the Chinese Law on Administrative Penalties, public security organs are the only government organs authorized to detain individuals on suspicion of violating the law. Even in cases in which the interceptors are public security officers, they do not follow the procedures concerning the treatment of detainees described in Article 64, 65 and 69 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Petitioners are held without a detention warrant, incommunicado and without charge or trial.

Moreover, interceptors simply have no legal authority to set up jails or classes. According to Article 11 of the Prison Law, the establishment of prisons is subject to the approval of the judicial administration under the State Council. There is no evidence to suggest that these jails or classes have ever been approved by the State Council.

Finally, when sent to an RTL camp, “black jail”, “education class” or psychiatric institution, petitioners are deprived of their liberty without any legal procedures such as a fair trial. The police alone have the power to send individuals to detention facilities without going through the Procuratorate or the Court. Deprivation of liberty without legal procedure violates Article 9 of the ICCPR, which states that the lawfulness of any deprivation of liberty needs to be decided upon by the judiciary. It also violates Article 37 of the Chinese Constitution, which states:   

“The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited…”

Causes of the violations

Why do petitioners suffer such extensive violations of rights when they are not only clearly exercising a constitutional right but also expressing their grievances through means and channels both sanctioned and set up by the state? There are a number of answers to this question, but four main causes can be identified:  

1. the general lack of effective mechanisms to hold the state and its agents accountable, including through public disclosure of official malfeasance in the media;
2. the ways in which the political careers of individual officials are linked to their ability to guarantee “stability” in the areas under their control, with petitioning being seen by higher authorities as indicative of disorder;
3. the use of petitioners as a means of exchange for bribes; and
4. the vagueness of relevant regulations that allows for their interpretation in ways that restrict or abuse rights and freedoms.

Lack of constraints on government and Party power

The extent of petitioning and the persecution of petitioners are not simply the result of isolated wrongdoings by certain government departments or officials, but the result of systemic violations of citizens’ rights and freedoms in China. Almost 30 years after Deng Xiaoping committed the PRC to observing “socialist legality,” constraints on the power of state and Party organs and individual officials remain largely ineffective. Insofar as specific legal constraints are in place, they apply mainly to minor acts of government and the lowest levels of officials. Thus, the Chinese government and its agents can continue to violate citizens’ rights at will. Petitioning is a response to such violations.  It is an attempt by citizens to protect their rights and hold the power that violates them accountable in the absence of other means of resolving their complaints, such as an independent judiciary. The attempt frequently elicits hostile reactions from authorities who wish to suppress those seeking to constrain their power.  

Unconstrained government and Party power extends into the media. The Chinese government’s censorship of domestic media means exposing human rights violations remains very difficult, and the situation of petitioners cannot be adequately covered in the media. By blocking significant news about the plight of petitioners from reaching the populace, the government ensures that petitioners appear in a bad light in the press.  They are blamed for a rising crime rate and for tarnishing the image of cities. As a result, among city dwellers, there is a general fear of and lack of concern about petitioners.  The lack of public scrutiny contributes to the climate of impunity in which the authorities are free to violate the rights of petitioners.  

The low social status of many petitioners and the fact that they are generally far from their social networks increases their vulnerability to unrestrained government and Party power. Many travel great distances to Beijing, arriving in an enormous and unfamiliar metropolis without relatives or friends to support them. Although petitioners often attempt to organize themselves for purposes of mutual assistance, rarely can they organize themselves effectively without official intimidation and retaliation. In addition, some lack knowledge of their rights and access to the legal system.³⁷ Although Article 13 of the Regulations on Letters and Visits encourages Letters and Visits offices to work with legal aid groups to assist petitioners, this aid is often insufficient and open to political influence. Lawyers and other Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) sometimes are discouraged from providing petitioners with legal aid for fear of intimidation by interceptors. Interceptors make use of this unique combination of circumstances—that is, that nobody will know and perhaps few will care if anything happens to them—to persecute petitioners. Some simply vanish. As mentioned above, Heilongjiang petitioner Liu Jie was nearly killed by staff from the Letters and Visits Office at the Supreme Procuratorate. Liu was spared in the end because a friend of hers learned about her situation just in time, causing those who abused her to fear exposure.

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 下一页