# DeepSeek

### Professional Legal Analysis and Evaluation of [[the Kunming Intermediate People’s Court’s Final Ruling](/case/docus/Ruling/Ruling)]


#### **I. Procedural Compliance**  

1. **Lack of Oral Hearing**  

   • The court dismissed Chen’s appeal without holding a hearing, relying solely on a review of case files and written submissions.  

   • **Legal Issue**: Article 234 of China’s *Criminal Procedure Law (CPL)* mandates that second-instance courts *shall* conduct hearings if the defendant challenges the facts, evidence, or legal application of the first-instance judgment. Chen’s appeal explicitly contested factual and legal errors, yet the court procedurally violated this requirement.  


2. **Failure to Address Procedural Irregularities**  

   • The first-instance trial was closed to the public, excluded the defendant’s family, and restricted his right to defend himself.  

   • **Legal Issue**: Violates Article 11 (public trial) and Article 14 (right to defense) of the *CPL*. The second-instance court ignored these violations, undermining procedural justice.  

---

#### **II. Substantive Legal Issues in the Ruling**  


##### **A. Evidentiary Deficiencies**  


1. **Unproven "False Information"**  


   • The court accepted the prosecution’s claim that Chen’s retweeted content constituted "false information" without independently verifying its falsity.  

   • **Defense Counterargument**:  

     ◦ Most posts were academic opinions, subjective expressions, or content previously published on state-affiliated platforms (e.g., CCTV).  


     ◦ No official authority had labeled the posts as "false" prior to Chen’s prosecution.  


   • **Legal Gap**: The ruling conflated *non-factual opinions* with *criminalized falsehoods*, violating the principle of *nullum crimen sine lege* (no crime without law).  


2. **Lack of Causation Between Acts and "Serious Disorder"**  


   • The court asserted that Chen’s retweets caused "serious disorder in public order" but provided no empirical evidence (e.g., protests, riots, or measurable harm).  


   • **Defense Evidence**:  


     ◦ Chen’s account had fewer than 100 followers and minimal engagement (total retweets <100 over 20 years).  


     ◦ The *Judicial Interpretation on Online Defamation* (2013) sets a threshold of 500+ reposts for "serious disorder," which Chen’s case did not meet.  


   • **Legal Error**: The court ignored quantifiable standards, rendering its "serious disorder" determination arbitrary.  



##### **B. Misapplication of Subjective Intent**  


1. **Presumption of Knowledge**  


   • The court inferred Chen’s *knowledge of falsity* based on his education level ("highly educated, should distinguish right from wrong").  


   • **Legal Issue**: Subjective intent must be proven by objective evidence (e.g., admissions, corroborative messages). Presuming intent violates Article 53 of the *Criminal Law* and the principle of *presumption of innocence*.  



2. **Mischaracterization of Motive**  


   • The court labeled Chen’s retweets as "insulting and attacking the core leadership," conflating political criticism with criminal intent.  


   • **Legal Gap**: Chinese law does not criminalize ideological dissent unless it directly incites violence or subversion. The ruling overstretched the scope of PXQT.  



##### **C. Selective Enforcement**  


   • The prosecution targeted Chen while ignoring original authors and other users who shared the same content.  


   • **Legal Issue**: Violates Article 4 of the *Criminal Law* (equality before the law) and constitutes arbitrary enforcement.  


---

#### **III. Broader Legal and Systemic Concerns**  


1. **Abuse of "Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble" (PXQT)**  


   • The ruling exemplifies PXQT’s misuse as a "catch-all" charge to suppress dissent. The vague wording of Article 293 allows courts to criminalize ordinary online behavior, undermining legal predictability.  


2. **Judicial Independence and Political Influence**  


   • The court’s refusal to address procedural flaws and reliance on unverified claims (e.g., "special instructions from higher-level leaders") suggest external interference.  


   • **Implication**: Undermines public trust in judicial impartiality, a core principle of China’s *Socialist Rule of Law*.  



3. **Contradiction with International Standards**  


   • The ruling conflicts with Article 19 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)* (freedom of expression), which China has signed but not ratified.  


---

#### **IV. Conclusion**  


The Kunming Intermediate People’s Court’s final ruling suffered from **critical procedural and substantive flaws**:  


• **Procedural Violations**: Failure to hold a hearing, ignoring first-instance irregularities.  


• **Substantive Errors**: Unproven falsity, arbitrary "serious disorder" determination, and presumption of intent.  


• **Systemic Issues**: Abuse of PXQT, selective enforcement, and political influence over judiciary. 


The ruling reflects a broader pattern of using criminal law to suppress dissent, highlighting urgent needs for:  


1. Legal reforms to narrow PXQT’s scope.  


2. Strengthened judicial independence and adherence to due process.  


3. Alignment with international human rights standards on free expression.  



This case underscores the tension between China’s national security framework and the rule of law, demanding systemic accountability to prevent similar miscarriages of justice.


---------------------------------------------------

[[Chinese](/chats/answers/deepseek/Ruling_cn.md)]