The Dilemma of Accountability of Unjust, False and Wrong Cases
China News Weekly reporter/Zhou Qunfeng
Published in the 962th issue of China News Weekly on August 21, 2020
On August 4, the Jiangxi Provincial Higher People's Court made a public sentence on the retrial of the original trial defendant Zhang Yuhuan's intentional homicide, revoked the original trial judgment and declared Zhang Yuhuan not guilty. After being detained for 9,778 days, Zhang Yuhuan returned to his family in Jinxian County, Nanchang City. He has also become the longest known detainee in the country.
Who caused this unjust case? Who should be responsible for the 27 years Zhang Yuhuan lost? Zhang Yuhuan’s defense lawyer, Wang Fei, told China News Weekly that, according to Zhang Yuhuan’s entrustment, the investigators and other judicial personnel who were tortured to extract confessions will be held accountable. Zhang Yuhuan also repeatedly said one sentence in recent interviews with the media: to investigate the responsibility of the torturer.
Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, local people’s courts have corrected dozens of major unjust, false and wrong cases, including the Hugejile pattern, the Nie Shubin case, the May 24 Leping rape and murder case, and the Zhang Yuhuan case. After these cases were corrected, the follow-up issue of accountability was generally difficult.
"China News Weekly" found through combing and return visits that most of these cases "stopped at state compensation." During the process of accountability, there were few cases that were investigated to the end: some policemen involved in the case committed suicide during the process of being accountable, leading to subsequent follow-ups. Responsibility can not be solved; some people who are being held accountable are too large, but they are questioned by the parties and their families as insufficient strength, and they are suspected of ignoring them. Others, due to various factors, voluntarily give up accountability.
The legal professionals interviewed said that for these parties, the road to accountability is even more tortuous and long than the road to redress. At present, there are no obstacles in terms of legal basis for accountability. The reason for the difficulties in practice is the difficulty of obtaining evidence and the dispersion of the responsible subjects. The key is the determination and attitude of the judicial organs to accountability.
Difficult to initiate accountability procedures
On October 24, 1993, two children were missing in Zhangjia Village, Huangling Township, Jinxian County, Nanchang City. The next day, their remains were found in a reservoir. A few days later, Zhang Yuhuan, a 26-year-old villager in the village, was identified by the police as a "suspected murderer." Zhang Yuhuan, who has been sentenced to death with a suspended death sentence three times, has recently been found not guilty, and has been interviewed by many media, stating that he had been tortured to extract a confession.
Zhang Yuhuan recalled how he was tortured for 6 days and 6 nights in the past. The investigators used methods such as hanging, squatting, electric shock, and releasing wolf dogs to force him to admit murder. In extreme fear, Zhang Yuhuan "confessed" to killing two children. Now, in the face of the media, Zhang Yuhuan reported the names of the torturers one by one. They were Fu Mowen, Wu Moucai, Zhou, Yuan Mohua, Zhou Mohua, Zhi Mohua, Fu Moxuan, Hu Mo. Fang.
A staff member of the Political Division of the Jinxian County Public Security Bureau told The Paper that related accountability matters are currently coordinated and deployed by the Political and Legal Committee of the Jinxian County Party Committee. Wang Yihua, deputy secretary of the Political and Legal Committee of the Jinxian County Party Committee, said, “This (responsibility) is not under my control. The Political and Legal Committee is mainly responsible for Zhang Yuhuan’s subsequent resettlement work.”
Wang Fei, Zhang Yuhuan's attorney, told China News Weekly that after some unjust, false and wrong cases were rehabilitated and the parties filed clear demands for accountability, the relevant judicial organs often delayed clear answers and handling decisions. "After this type of case occurs, some judicial organs will make a statement of accountability, but they often fail to do so. In many places, they do not even make a statement at all. This is a common phenomenon now faced in the accountability of unjust, false and wrong cases. This shows that, The relevant judicial organs did not pay enough attention to this issue or deliberately avoided it."
Wang Fei's worry is not without reason. In many past cases, after the parties were innocent, it was difficult to see substantive actions on the road to accountability. The Nie Shubin case and the Cao Hongbin case are examples of this kind.
On December 2, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court publicly sentenced Nie Shubin in the retrial case of deliberate homicide and rape of women, acquitting Nie Shubin. On March 30, 2017, the Hebei Provincial Higher People's Court made a national compensation decision of more than 2.68 million yuan for the case. Nie's mother Zhang Huanzhi expressed acceptance of this result and no longer appealed. Li Shuting, the attorney representing the Nie Shubin case, said in a return visit to China News Weekly that in August 2017, he accompanied Zhang Huanzhi to Beijing and sent copies to the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate by Ma Yunlong (the media person who first reported on the Nie case) Draft application for accountability. "But so far, for three full years, there has been no response."
Li Shuting said that so far, the only persons involved in the case of Li Jiuming have been sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment by the People's Court of Hejian City, Hebei Province. Li Jiuming was born in 1965. On July 12, 2002, due to a murder case, he was beaten into a confession by torture and sentenced by Tangshan Intermediate People's Court. It was not until 2004 that the real murderer Cai Mingxin pleaded guilty. On November 26, 2004, Li Jiuming was acquitted. In January 2005, the former head of the Criminal Police Brigade of the Nanbao Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Tangshan City, Lu Weidong, and the former instructor Huang Guopeng, including 7 case handlers who participated in the torture of the case, were prosecuted by law.
There has been no follow-up to the Cao Hongbin case. Cao Hongbin is a native of Pengdian Township, Yanling County, Xuchang City, Henan Province. He once ran a wholesale department there. One day in May 2002, his wife was assaulted while sleeping, and Cao Hongbin was later accused of assaulting his wife because of an extramarital divorce. He was arrested for intentional homicide, and in December of the same year, he was sentenced to death by the Xuchang Intermediate Court for intentional homicide. On August 4, 2004, the Xuchang City Intermediate People's Court changed the sentence to 15 years in prison after a retrial. While serving his sentence, he insisted on appealing and never pleaded guilty.
On May 13, 2019, Cao Hongbin received a verdict of not guilty. On the same day, he told China News Weekly that he would resolutely hold the case-handling personnel responsible. On December 12 of the same year, he received more than 2.33 million yuan in state compensation and 400,000 yuan in state judicial assistance.
On August 17, Cao Hongbin said in a return visit to China News Weekly that he has not given up on the accountability. Cao Hongbin said that on May 24 last year, he went to the Yanling County Public Security Bureau to request a re-investigation of the case of that year and to pursue the case handlers who had tortured him to extract confessions, but the police avoided him. “Later, CCTV’s Social and Law channel went to the Yanling County Public Security Bureau to conduct an interview. Soon after the channel reported on the program, two policemen from the Yanling County Public Security Bureau came to me and told me verbally that they would set up a task force. information."
Cao Hongbin believes that in recent days, Zhu Jianying, vice president of Xuchang Intermediate People's Court, voluntarily surrendered to the case may be related to his continuous demand for accountability. However, whether the reason for Zhu Jianying's voluntary surrender is related to Cao's case has not been confirmed by official sources. On May 21, the Case Supervision and Management Office of the Xuchang Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection and Supervision issued a message that Zhu Jianying was suspected of serious violations of discipline and law and had taken the initiative to submit the case. On July 18, 2006, the Xuchang Intermediate People's Court rejected Cao Hongbin's appeal and upheld the original sentence of 15 years. This criminal ruling shows that Zhu Jianying, who was then the deputy county judge of the Xuchang Intermediate Court, served as the presiding judge.
Some interviewees said that the smoothness of accountability is also affected by the firm's position of the parties involved in unjust, false and wrongly filed cases. "China News Weekly" understands that in this type of case, some judicial organs have delayed in launching the accountability procedure, causing many parties to voluntarily give up accountability.
On May 23, 2000, a robbery, rape, and corpse case occurred in Zhongdian Village, Leping City, Jiangxi Province. Two years later, five villagers, Cheng Lihe, Huang Zhiqiang, Fang Chunping, Cheng Fagen, and Wang Shenbing from Zhongdian Village, were identified as suspects by the police. After that, Wang Shenbing fled and the other four were arrested. The four were sentenced to death in the first instance and sentenced to death with a suspended death sentence in the final instance. After that, the four insisted on appealing. After being detained for 14 years, in December 2016, the Jiangxi Provincial Higher People's Court sentenced four people to not guilty, and they all expressed resolute accountability at the time.
The Leping case is the 34th major criminal unjust, false and wrongful case in China since 2013. In August 2017, four people received state compensation of more than 2.27 million yuan. However, the local judiciary has not yet stated whether to initiate the accountability procedure, nor has it publicly responded to the four people's accountability attitude.
On August 16, Cheng Fagen and several other parties said in a return visit to China News Weekly that they had long since given up the responsibility. "Psychologically we didn't want to give up, but then we felt that the case had been rehabilitated, and we also received state compensation. After some relatives and friends persuaded us, we felt that we should return to normal work and life as soon as possible, so we took the initiative to give up the responsibility. "Cheng Fagen said. In addition, several parties denied that they were under pressure from the local government and judicial organs and were forced to abandon the statement of accountability.
Yu Chao, a senior partner of Jingheng Lawyers Shanghai Office, told China News Weekly that he had handled a case in the detention center and the client vowed to say that if he could go out safely, he would surely sue to the end. "Later, the public prosecution agency withdrew the case. After this person came out, he didn't even ask for accountability, and he didn't even mention state compensation."
However, the change in the attitude of the parties to accountability cannot be a reason for judicial organs to stop accountability. Yu Chao said that for a long time in the past, some case-handling agencies "emphasized confession and neglected evidence," and many of the parties involved in unjust cases made guilty confessions because of torture. "After the case is rehabilitated, regardless of whether the party's accountability attitude changes, the relevant judicial organs should actively investigate whether the case-handling personnel have tortured to extract a confession. On this basis, the accountable party should overcome all obstacles and resolutely pursue responsibility."
Unrecognized "result of accountability"
Relevant cases in which the accountability procedure has been initiated are also quite controversial.
In some unjust cases, the victims and their lawyers claimed that they were not allowed to participate in the accountability process, and therefore believed that the accountability process was not open and transparent. The Liao Haijun case is a typical one.
On January 17, 1999, two girls were killed in Xinji Village, Qianxi County, Tangshan City, Hebei Province, and their bodies were found two days later. After the incident, Qianxi County police claimed that Liao Haijun, a 17-year-old villager in Xinji Village, was suspected. Soon, Liao Haijun was arrested. On July 9, 2003, the Tangshan Intermediate People's Court sentenced Liao Haijun to life imprisonment, and his parents were sentenced to five years in prison for being found guilty of sheltering. On August 9, 2018, the Tangshan City Intermediate Court pronounced Liao Haijun and his parents not guilty. On April 22, 2019, Liao Haijun received a national compensation decision from the Tangshan Intermediate Court. He and his parents received more than 3.4 million yuan in state compensation.
Liao Haijun told China News Weekly that in order to pursue accountability, on September 10, 2018, he submitted to the Tangshan Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection and Supervision a "Criminal Mistake Case Judicial Staff Accountability Complaint", in which the accused person Including: Zhang Baoxiang, former head of the Criminal Police Brigade of Qianxi County Public Security Bureau, former deputy prosecutor of Tangshan City People’s Procuratorate, and current deputy procurator of Kaiping District People’s Procuratorate Wang Mingsuo, Tangshan City Intermediate People’s Court former judges Li Tiejun, Li Wei, Li Xin, etc. , Involving 11 public, procuratorate and law case handlers that year. He requested that the original case-handling personnel be filed for investigation, the relevant personnel should be held criminally responsible for the wrongful cases, and the relevant personnel (including leading cadres) in the case should also be held accountable for their violations of party and political discipline.
Liao You, the father of Liao Haijun, once claimed that he was trampled on his face with leather shoes by the police handling the case, and several teeth were knocked out. "The leading policeman is called Zhang Baoxiang, who is also my classmate. They knocked me out in the middle of the night and then woke me up with cold water. Zhang Baoxiang asked me,'Do you know me? I am Zhang Baoxiang, and we are classmates.' I said it wasn't me who killed me. I didn’t transport the corpse either. Zhang Baoxiang started beating me again, using a rubber tube filled with sand, and I passed out again within a few shots."
On July 5, 2019, the website of the Tangshan Commission for Discipline Inspection reported that Zhang Baoxiang was investigated for serious violations of discipline and law. The local procuratorate once notified Liao Haijun that Zhang Baoxiang was investigated on suspicion of extracting a confession by torture. "So now, we can only make it clear that Zhang Baoxiang's investigation is related to the Liao Haijun case." Wang Fei, the attorney representing Liao Haijun’s mother Huang Yuxiu, told China News Weekly that there are two police officers on the list of complaints that have been investigated, but for reasons unknown.
According to Wang Fei's understanding, Zhang Baoxiang has been sentenced to probation by the Lunan District Court of Tangshan City. "We believe that Zhang Baoxiang is suspected of deliberately injuring and causing serious injuries. According to the law, he should be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. How can a suspended sentence be applied?"
Wang Fei said that at the beginning of the accountability, the local judicial organs allowed Liao Haijun and lawyers to participate, but at the trial stage, lawyer Jin Hongwei (lawyer Liao Haijun’s father Liao You) and Liao Haijun were not allowed to participate. The trial of Zhang Baoxiang's case. Even the verdict of Zhang Baoxiang's case has not been given to us yet. This kind of "self-punishment three-cup accountability" shows the general mentality of the current judicial organs-they tend to take it lightly. "Jin Hongwei told China News Weekly that Zhang Baoxiang's case directly affected the compensation of Liao Haijun's parents, and Liao Haijun's claims for compensation for the torture of his parents have also been stagnated.
Even if the "results" of many cases have been settled, they are not recognized by the victims or their families.
On February 1, 2016, Xinhua News Agency released the "Hugejile Pattern" accountability results: 27 people were held accountable. Among them, with the exception of Feng Zhiming, then deputy director of the Xincheng Branch of the Hohhot Public Security Bureau, who was dealt with separately in accordance with the law for suspected duty crimes, the other 26 were punished by serious warnings within the party and administrative demerits. Both Huge's parents said that the accountability results were unacceptable.
At that time, CCTV reported that after the accountability results were announced, Huge's parents were studying the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region's Measures for Investigating the Responsibility of Unjust, False, and Wrong Cases at home. This is a trial draft, which was published on July 1, 2014. Article 15 of the draft stipulates that the responsible personnel shall be given party and political sanctions based on their responsibilities. If a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be investigated in accordance with the law. Huge's parents also marked the important parts of this trial draft one by one. For example, the principle of accountability for wronged cases is "who handles the case, who is responsible", "who hears the case, who is responsible", and what kind of responsibilities should these personnel bear?
Huge’s mother, Shang Aiyun, said in an interview with CCTV: “(This case) was not caused by Feng Zhiming alone, but by a series of people. Whoever has had it, whoever is lighter must be separated." Huge Gille Tu’s father, Li Sanren, questioned: “What is the basis for this punishment? Has it been cancelled for the meritorious service in the past? They did not make it clear. Demotion and removal are the lightest, and it is impossible to say that only a warning is given.”
People in the legal profession generally stated that the accountability work of the Huge case reflects the progress made since the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in comprehensively promoting the rule of law and correcting errors. But at the same time, the investigation process and the specific basis for accountability were not publicly explained, and there was a gap between the investigation results and public expectations.
The statute of limitations
The "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" revised in 1996 has clearly stipulated that "there is no suspected crime."
Some public opinion believes that the accountability of relevant personnel and the basis for sanctions are still not clear enough, and the accountability mechanism for wrongful cases should be further improved. In this regard, Luo Xiang, a professor at the School of Criminal Justice of China University of Political Science and Law and director of the Institute of Criminal Law, told China News Weekly that the existing legal system is already very complete, and it is enough to make good use of the current law when seeking accountability.
Some opinions in the industry believe that these unjust, false and wrong cases occurred many years ago. At that time, there was still the principle of "suspicion of guilt", and many parties have made guilty confessions, which have adversely affected the follow-up accountability of unjust, false and wrong cases.
Wang Fei said that the concept of "the suspected crime must have" has been inconsistent with the law from beginning to end, and it can only show that people have this judicial concept in judicial practice for a certain period of time.
As early as 1998, the Supreme People's Court promulgated and implemented the "Measures for the Investigation of the Responsibility of the People's Court Judges for Illegal Trials", which clearly stipulated the scope of investigation and liability for wrongful cases. In August 2013, the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission issued the first guidance on effectively preventing unjust, false and wrong cases, clearly establishing and improving the accountability mechanism for unjust, false and wrong cases, and clarifying that judges, prosecutors, and people's police are responsible for the quality of case handling within the scope of their duties. In February 2015, the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued the "Opinions on Deepening the Procuratorial Reform (2013-2017 Work Plan)", which clearly stated that the prevention, correction, and accountability mechanisms for unjust, false and wrong cases will be improved.
Once the accountability is initiated, there is still a problem of the statute of limitations. According to Article 247 of the Criminal Law, the standard penalty for torture is fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention. However, if there are special circumstances that cause disability or death, the crime of intentional homicide and intentional injury should be severely punished. Under the premise of no special circumstances, the time limit for prosecution to extract a confession is five years. Article 88 of the Criminal Law stipulates the extension of the prosecution period, which includes two situations: first, the case is filed for investigation by the people’s procuratorate, public security agency, or national security agency, or the case is evaded from investigation or trial after the people’s court has accepted the case , Is not restricted by the time limit for prosecution; second, if the victim files a complaint within the time limit for prosecution, and the people’s court, people’s procuratorate, and public security organs should open the case instead of filing the case, the time limit for prosecution is not restricted.
It is worth noting that retrospective limitation is stipulated in the Criminal Law of 1997, and before the time of the Zhang Yuhuan and other cases, whether this clause is applicable to such cases is still a matter of dispute.
Luo Xiang believes that after the 1997 "Criminal Law" was revised, the Supreme Court passed the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Time Validity Provisions of the Criminal Law", and held that the prosecution statute of limitations extension has no retrospective effect on behavior before 1997. However, in 2014, the “Response Opinions on the Understanding and Application of the Relevant Provisions of the Criminal Prosecution Period System” issued by the Legal Work Committee of the National People’s Congress also clearly pointed out that for actions that occurred before 1997, the victim and his family members shall be within the statute of limitations provided by the Criminal Law after 1997 To file a complaint, the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 88 of the Criminal Law shall apply, and the time limit for prosecution shall not be restricted. Luo Xiang said, “The new interpretation should have been better than the old one, and the latter is an opinion issued by the legislature, so the latter is more appropriate.”
In his view, the second type of prosecution extension of the limitation period may apply to the torture in most appeal cases. Before the 1997 revision of the Criminal Law, the phenomenon of people having nowhere to file a complaint was very prominent. Therefore, the revised Criminal Law stipulates that the prosecution statute of limitations extension system was originally intended to protect the parties’ statute of limitations and to prosecute crimes that harm their own interests. .
Zhang Yuhuan’s attorney Wang Fei told China News Weekly that Zhang Yuhuan made it clear that he had been subjected to torture to extract a confession when the court opened in 1994. In 2001, the retrial was held and he still said that he had been subjected to torture to extract a confession. He told anyone who tried to provoke him that he had been tortured to extract a confession. This is actually a kind of accusation or report. The case should be filed, but the prosecutors did not file the case, and the judicial organs did not handle the case, so the parties should not bear the responsibility. . Therefore, he believes that this applies to the situation in Article 88, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law. "The limitation of prosecution in this case is not a problem, and there are no technical problems in the pursuit of liability. It is all in the position and attitude of the judicial organs."
Some interviewees said that even if the parties to such cases can break through the statute of limitations, it is difficult to verify and define the prosecution. Mao Lixin, director of Beijing Shangquan Law Firm and executive director of the Criminal Defense Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, served for many years in the Criminal Police Corps and Economic Investigation Corps of the Public Security Department of Anhui Province. In an interview with China News Weekly, Mao Lixin said that a reality to be considered is that many people had pleaded guilty at the time. Even if some people did not plead guilty or confessed first, they were only verbally in defense or appeal. It is said that he had been subjected to torture to extract a confession, and it is now difficult to verify whether the person concerned had filed an accusation against torture. It is difficult to define it.
Collective decision-making mechanism brings difficulty to accountability
In "She Xianglin's Wife Killing Case," a policeman who handled the case committed suicide during the investigation, which is believed to have affected the accountability of similar cases in the future.
On May 26, 2005, China News Agency reported that the policeman Pan Yujun in the "She Xianglin's Wife Killing Case" in Hubei Province hanged himself while being investigated by the Hubei Provincial Joint Investigation Team. Pan Yujun, 42, was the instructor of the Patrol Brigade of Jingshan County, Hubei Province. According to insiders, in 1994, Pan was in the Jingshan County Criminal Police Squad and was responsible for the peripheral investigation of the "She Xianglin's Wife Killing Case". After the case was handled, he was transferred to the Lvlin Town Police Station as the director.
The above report quoted an insider from the Jingshan County Public Security Bureau. On May 22, 2005, Pan Yujun was notified to go to the Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection for investigation. He arrived in Wuhan the next afternoon and left at noon on May 24, 2005. According to local rumors, before committing suicide, Pan Yujun called his wife and told his wife to "take care of your parents, take good care of your children, and take care of yourself." It is reported that the 27 case handlers involved in the "She Xianglin's Wife Killing Case" were investigated in three groups, and Pan Yu was the third group. One of Pan’s former colleague Zhang Jinyi once revealed that before hanging himself, Pan Yujun wrote the words "I am wronged" on a tombstone in blood.
A former official of the Hubei Provincial Political and Legal System told China News Weekly that at the time, Hubei Province really wanted to be held accountable for the case, but after the police committed suicide, the follow-up accountability issue was also interrupted. Moreover, the incident had an impact on the accountability of similar cases that occurred in many places across the country. "Many places worry that similar accidents will occur during the accountability process, and they are often unable to make up their minds when pursuing accountability."
Mao Lixin told China News Weekly that after most unjust, false and wrong cases were rehabilitated, there are subjective and objective reasons for follow-up censure. "Subjectively, some judicial organs do not pay much attention to accountability, believing that this is a case that occurred in a special period in history, and lacks enthusiasm for accountability; objectively speaking, some judicial organs have also expressed their attitude to accountability, but they are subject to evidence collection. Difficulties, even human interference, and other factors have led to the ultimate failure of accountability."
Mao Lixin used torture to extract evidence as an example. Although the parties often claimed to have encountered torture to extract a confession, from the final verdict, almost all appeared that "the possibility of torture or illegal evidence collection is not ruled out." The reason for not giving a clear determination is that the facts of torture to extract a confession are only the unilateral claims of the defendant in the original trial. Even if some informed witnesses were provided, the case-handling personnel would not take the initiative to provide objective evidence such as audio and video materials, medical appraisal, etc. Acknowledgment, therefore, it is difficult to verify the truth, and it is even more difficult to apply to specific individuals.
In addition, from the perspective of "people", the public security and judicial organs basically implement a collective responsibility system, especially for such major cases. For example, when handling such cases, the police has a special case team, and the procuratorate and the court often discuss and decide through the prosecution committee and the adjudication committee respectively. Therefore, it is difficult to only hold the host policeman, the chief prosecutor or the host judge accountable. This collective decision-making mechanism also brings difficulty to the ultimate accountability.
It has been suggested that in order to reduce the difficulty of accountability, a timeline should be drawn. This line shall prevail. The previous cases may not be held accountable, and the subsequent ones must be held accountable. Wang Fei said that as long as it is unjust, false or wrong, it should be rehabilitated and accountable. This is a question of the bottom line of justice. Since judicial personnel have made unjust, false and wrong cases, they must be held responsible for their actions. It should be judged in accordance with the laws of the time whether the conduct at that time was illegal or not. "Before the law, everyone is equal, and crossing the line leads to inequality."
Mao Lixin emphasized that with the advancement of investigative technology, the standardization of case handling requirements, and the improvement of the overall quality of case handling personnel, the probability of such unjust and wrong cases is now very low. Faced with such stock cases, rehabilitating as soon as possible is the first priority. He told China News Weekly that now an unjust, false and wrong case has been rehabilitated, and a lot of people behind it are in fear. "Faced with this situation, I once made a suggestion: If the relevant judicial officers have a positive attitude and have played a positive role in promoting the rehabilitation of the case, they can be exempted and reduced responsibility. Otherwise, they should be severely held accountable. This stipulation, It is to increase the enthusiasm of judicial personnel and to rectify the unjust, false and wrong cases that have been backlogged for many years as soon as possible."
"When Hugejiletu was 18 years old, he was wronged and died. Huge has a short life and a tragic life. However, those who hold judicial authority with life warnings should emphasize evidence and not make assumptions. Focus on human rights, not arrogant authority, and do nothing. Abandoning the rule of law and justice for the moment of political rights." Huge's epitaph was personally written by the famous jurist Jiang Ping. This epitaph also warns of the significance of redress and accountability for unjust, false and wrong cases.
China News Weekly, Issue 32, 2020
Statement: The publication of "China News Weekly" manuscript is authorized in writing