An Analysis of the Heavy Sentences Imposed by a Court in Beijing Against Ms. Chu Tong, Mr. Yu Chao and Mr. Wang Weiyu

The following is an analysis of the heavy sentences imposed by the Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing City against Ms. Chu Tong, Mr. Yu Chao and Mr. Wang Weiyu:

1. Background Information

Ms. Chu Tong, 33 years old, was a lecturer with a Master's degree at the Institute of Microelectronics of Tsinghua University. On October 27, 1999, she went to the Beijing Tiananmen Rostrum to appeal for justice for Falun Gong. For this, she was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment. After being released from jail, she made a "Solemn Declaration" on the Clearwisdom website expressing her determination to practise Falun Dafa. After doing that, she was forced to leave her home and become homeless to avoid being arrested and persecuted.

Mr. Yu Chao, 31 years old, is Ms. Chu Tong's husband. He graduated from the Department of Precision Instruments and Mechanical Engineering of Tsinghua University in 1990, and he later became a network engineer. In 2000, he was sentenced to one year of forced labour (to be carried out outside the forced labour camp) for going to Tiananmen Square in Beijing to display a banner reading, "Falun Dafa is a Righteous Practice." To avoid further persecution, Mr. Yu was forced to leave home and became homeless. On August 13, 2002, he and his wife were arrested by officials from the 610 Office (1) and the Ministry of State Security. They were taken to a so-called "Legal Training Centre" located in Tuanhe, Beijing.

Mr. Wang Weiyu, 30 years old, was a 1996 Ph.D. student in the Department of Precision Instruments and Mechanical Engineering of Tsinghua University, where he received an "Outstanding Student" award as well as several scholarships, including the "Outstanding Student Scholarship" and the "Philips Scholarship." In September and October of 1999, Mr. Wang was detained twice for attending Falun Dafa experience sharing conferences. In June 2000, he was suspended from school once again. On July 22 of that year, he was detained for one week when he was found talking to people in Tiananmen Square. After this incident, he was forced to leave home and became homeless to avoid being arrested again. On August 12, 2002, Mr. Wang was secretly arrested by State Security Ministry officers on his way to work.

2. A Brief Account of the Cases

Ms. Chu Tong and Mr. Yu Chao were arrested on August 13, 2002 in the street, and Mr. Wang Weiyu was arrested on August 12, 2002, on his way to work. They were all taken to the Beijing Legal Training Centre after their arrests. When their arrests were formally approved on February 21, 2003, they had already been detained in the Legal Training Centre for six months and eight days and six months and nine days respectively. On December 25, 2003, the Chaoyang District Procuratorate of Beijing instituted legal proceedings against the three in the Chaoyang District People's Court. From the approval of the arrest to instituting legal proceedings, it took ten months and four days. On January 9, 2004, the Chaoyang District People's Court made a decision and made public the venue and time for their hearing. Just one day before the hearing, however, the court suddenly changed the venue to Chaoyang District's Shuangqiao People's Court. On April 22, 2004, the Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing sentenced Ms. Chu Tong to eleven years of imprisonment, Mr. Yu Chao to nine years and Mr. Wang Weiyu to eight years (document number "2004 Chao Xing Chuzi Number 75"). All three of them refused to accept the ruling, and appealed to the Beijing Number Two Intermediate People's Court.

3. An Analysis of the Cases

a). Was it "living in a residence under surveillance" or simply detention?

Ms. Chu Tong and Mr. Yu Chao were arrested on August 13, 2002, and Mr. Wang Weiyu on August 12. They were held at the Beijing Legal Training Centre. At the time that their arrest was approved on February 21, 2003, they had been detained for six months and eight days and six months and nine days respectively. In the Bill of Indictment of the Chaoyang District Procuratorate, and in the ruling of the People's Court, this period of time was described as "living at a residence under surveillance." This term refers specifically to an institution that handles cases where people accused of crimes are ordered to stay at a designated residence. The accused is not allowed to leave the premises without consent, and has certain restrictions on his or her movements. The "Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases," issued by the Ministry of Public Security, describes this residence as a full-time place of residence. As for who is to be placed there, it is described as a residence designated by the institution that handles the case for those who have no permanent home. The regulation clearly states that it is not allowed to establish a residence for the purposes of surveillance in order to carry out detention of suspected criminals, and that the duration shall not exceed six months.

The Legal Training Centre where Ms. Chu Tong, Mr. Yu Chao and Mr. Wang Weiyu were held was neither their own homes nor a designated dwelling. The period of detention exceeded the six-month limit. Beyond this, the three of them also suffered various mental and physical tortures, including the "dead person's bed (2)," being handcuffed with both hands to a bed and being tied to the bed. The Beijing Legal Training Centre is a place specifically used for persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. It is an unacknowledged jail that has the explicit purpose of depriving practitioners of their personal freedom. It is not "living at a residence under surveillance," but an illegal detention centre where people are tortured.

b). Serious prolonged detention

The time between the approval of arrest for these three practitioners on February 21, 2003, and their public prosecution on December 15, 2003, was ten months and four days. This constituted a serious case of "Prolonged Detention."

"Prolonged detention" refers to violating the legal limits of detention allowed during the process of investigating, examining, prosecuting and trying cases by continually detaining suspected criminals. Article 124 of the "Criminal Law Procedure" stipulates, "The detention of suspected criminals for investigation after their arrest shall not exceed two months. In complicated cases, if at the end of this period the case still is not complete, the period of detention may be extended for one more month with the approval of the Higher People's Procuratorate." Article 126 stipulates that for major and complicated cases, or cases requiring collection of evidence in the remote areas, the period may be extended for another two months beyond the period allowed in Article 124. According to these articles, the maximum period of detention should not exceed seven months. It took the Chaoyang District People's Procuratorate more than ten months, however, between the approval of arrest and public prosecution. This constituted an act of serious and illegal prolonged detention.

c). On the issue of legal trial procedures and extending the time allowed to pronounce judgment

Article 151 of the "Criminal Law Procedure" stipulates: "After the people's court decides to hold a hearing it must do the following: (5) For an open trial case, it must make public three days before the hearing the name of the accused, the date and the venue of the hearing."

The Chaoyang District Court announced the open trial and published the date and the venue. By changing the venue one day before the hearing, however, it is evident that this court was perpetrating some sort of deception. The court began the trial on January 9, 2004, and pronounced its judgment on April 22. The duration was three months and thirteen days. Article 168 stipulates: "When the people's court tries a case, it should pronounce its verdict within one month, and at the latest within no more than one and a half months. If it fits one of the conditions stated in Article 126 [of the "Criminal Law Procedure"], the pronouncement of the verdict can be delayed for another month, but only with the approval or a decision by the provincial, municipal or autonomous region's High People's Court." Based on the two extensions of this article, the pronouncement should be made within two and a half months at most. It took the Chaoyang District People's Court, however, three and a half months from the beginning of the trial to the pronouncement of the verdict. This is a serious violation of legal trial procedures.

d). About the corroboration of the evidence on which the conviction was based, and the issue of legal basis

This is the key issue of these cases. The unlawful practices that the three people were accused of and charged with by the Chaoyang District People's Procuratorate during the trial by the People's Court were:

During the period from May 2001, to August 2002, while Chu Tong and Yu Chao were staying at Wang Weiyu's residence, Chu Tong wrote the following articles: "The Facts About the Persecution of Falun Gong Practitioners at the Beijing Municipal Management and Education House of Juvenile Delinquents," "The Impossibility of Group Suicide in Wanjia Forced Labour Camp: My Experiences in Jail," "A Letter to Prison Guards by a Falun Dafa Practitioner," "Tsinghua University Lecturer Chu Tong Recalls Her One-and-a-Half Year Imprisonment, and a Discussion on the 'Transformation' of Teng Chunyan," "A Letter from a Young Mother to Her Friends," "In Memory of Zhao Ming," "Outcry of the People from Tsinghua," "Celebration of Life," "The Beauty of the Spring," "Nothing Can Cover the Truth, and Justice Shines," "'Transformation' Is Cruel Mental Torture," as well as the article "Records of the Persecution of Tsinghua Students for Practising Falun Gong," which was co-authored with Wang Weiyu. Yu Chao and Wang Weiyu distributed these articles on the Internet. Based on the above-mentioned facts, the People's Court affirms that Chu Tong, Yu Chao and Wang Weiyu continued to use the Internet to spread information and be involved in the activities of the Falun Gong Cult despite the People's Congress Standing Committee's "Decision on Banning the Evil Cult Organization, Guarding Against and Punishing the Activities of the Evil Cult." The acts of these three people violated the criminal law, and they are guilty of using the evil cult organization to violate the enforcement of the law. In accordance with the Article No. 300 of the "Criminal Law" and its "Interpretation of Certain Problems in Implementing the Law in Dealing with Cases of Organizing or Utilizing Evil Cult Organizations to Commit Crimes, Article 2" (hereafter abbreviated as the "Interpretation"). The court sentences Chu Tong to eleven years imprisonment, Yu Chao to nine years and Wang Weiyu to eight years.

Based on the above verdict we have the following questions:

i). The facts of the "crimes" of these three people cannot even be established

To decide if someone has violated the law or committed crimes, the prerequisite is to check if his motivation and aim would endanger society or other people's interests, and to check his actual conduct. It is required to see if the true nature and contents of the conduct would be contrary to social ethics and collective or individual interests. This is the purpose of legislation, and the basic principle for the handling of a case by the judicial organs. The "facts of crime" of Chu Tong, Yu Chao and Wang Weiyu handed down by the Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing are nothing but a series of articles they wrote and distributed using the computer. Actually, as far as distributing their own articles is concerned, it is irreproachable. It is just like writing and spreading any other works of literature, or scientific and technological theses. No matter what area the articles touched upon, the most important issue is whether the content was objective and true. The above-mentioned articles were all based on their personal experiences and honest thoughts. They just wanted to voice their discontent and protest the injustice they had experienced, or to express their expectations. What's wrong with that? Why didn't the court investigate and examine the objectivity and truthfulness of the issues raised in these articles? By disregarding the facts, motives and aims of the three accused, the court, using the inference of external factors forced upon it, adopted the formula of thinking: "Making an appeal is violating the law; exposing the persecution of Falun Dafa is violating the law; and promoting Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance is violating the law." Using this twisted logic, anyone doing these things would be declared guilty. This is a reflection of the degenerate judiciary system of the Chinese Communist Party.

ii). In defining the nature of the "crimes" of the three people, the Chaoyang District Court made a mistake in applying the law.

The verdict reads: "The accused: Chu Tong, Yu Chao and Wang Weiyu have disregarded the country's laws. After the country had proscribed Falun Gong by formal decree to be a cult, they still used ... to continue to carry out Falun Gong xxx activities; ... after the People's Congress' Standing Committee made public its stance, they continued to use ... to carry out Falun Gong activities..." The question is, which decree formally proscribed Falun Gong as a cult? Why didn't the court explicitly point that out? As a matter of fact, the declared stance has never mentioned Falun Gong, and, up to this point in time, there are neither any legal procedures nor any legal documents affirming Falun Gong as a cult. The only thing concrete is the circular describing how to carry out the "interpretation" by the Standing Committee, as well as legal interpretations by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate, in which it instructed to "resolutely crack down on Falun Gong." This is illegally exceeding their powers, because these two bodies' internal documents do not constitute the law.

The entire process used by the Chaoyang District Court of Beijing to try and deliver heavy sentences against Chu Tong, Yu Chao and Wang Weiyu was seriously flawed. Their arrest, prolonged detention, public prosecution and trial were based on unlawful applications of the law. None of the definitions of the nature of the "crimes", the investigation, the evidence, and the application of the laws followed proper procedures. This is a typical example of the Chinese Communist Party illegally manipulating the legal system in the persecution Falun Gong.

Note:

(1) "The 610 office" is an agency specifically created to persecute Falun Gong, with absolute power over each level of administration in the Party and all other political and judiciary systems.

(2) Dead Person's Bed: The four limbs of the practitioner are stretched out and tied to the four corners of an icy-cold metal bed. The practitioner cannot move at all. Neither is he allowed to get up to eat, drink, or go to the toilet. This treatment would last from several hours up to more than a dozen days. This type of cruel torture causes severe damage to the practitioner both mentally and physically. See illustration on http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2004/12/15/55600.html

Chinese version available at http://www.minghui.ca/mh/articles/2005/4/15/99668.html