Analysis and Evaluation

Analysis and Evaluation of Chen Jingyuan’s Allegations Against the Kunming Judicial Authorities for Constitutional Violations

Overview of Chen Jingyuan’s Allegations

In his letter Self-Defense and Accusation from Prison, Chen Jingyuan, a Chinese independent scholar, alleges that the law enforcement personnel of the Kunming judicial system violated the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) during the handling of his case. Chen was convicted of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” under Article 293 of the PRC Criminal Law for forwarding Twitter posts, including one from the account of (the U.S. Mission to China). He claims that the personnel’s actions infringed upon his constitutional rights. His allegations include:

  1. Disregard for Fundamental Citizen Rights: The personnel allegedly ignored and trampled upon citizens’ fundamental rights, including the right to life, personal dignity, survival and development, equality, supervision, lawful property, and various political rights.

  2. Severe Infringement on Freedom of Speech, Thought, and Belief: Chen particularly emphasizes that the personnel, under the pretext of “combating rumors,” grossly interfered with and violated his freedom of speech, thought, and belief, effectively depriving him of these fundamental rights.

  3. Misinterpretation of Legal Principles: The personnel allegedly misinterpreted legal principles by labeling emotional expressions, artistic creations, and intellectual exchanges as “rumors,” thereby violating the Constitution and failing to use the law to protect citizens’ rights.

  4. Negation of Human Civilization: Chen claims that the personnel’s actions not only stripped him of his rights but also constituted a “thorough negation and subversion” of thousands of years of human civilization.

  5. Harm to National and Human Interests: The personnel’s actions allegedly harmed the legitimate rights of citizens, endangered the interests of the nation, the Chinese people, and humanity as a whole, and pushed the personnel themselves toward a “criminal abyss.”

This analysis evaluates Chen’s allegations in the context of the Constitution, the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as the CPL), and relevant background information.

Analytical Framework: Constitutional and Legal Basis

1. Constitutional Provisions

  • Fundamental Rights of Citizens: Article 33 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Article 35 protects citizens’ freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, procession, and demonstration. Article 36 safeguards freedom of religious belief. Article 37 protects personal freedom from unlawful infringement. Article 38 protects personal dignity. Article 39 prohibits illegal searches of citizens’ residences. Article 40 protects the freedom and privacy of correspondence. Article 41 guarantees the right to criticize, make suggestions, lodge complaints, or report unlawful acts.

  • Restrictions on Rights: Article 51 of the Constitution stipulates that the exercise of citizens’ rights must not harm the interests of the state, society, collectives, or the lawful rights of other citizens, meaning that rights may be restricted for reasons of public interest or national security.

  • Constitutional Oath: Article 27 of the Constitution requires public officials to uphold the Constitution and perform their duties. The 2015 Decision on Establishing a Constitutional Oath System by the National People’s Congress mandates that public officials swear allegiance to the Constitution upon taking office.

2. Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law

  • Crime of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble: Article 293 of the Criminal Law defines the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” as including the dissemination of false information that disrupts public order, provided the consequences are severe. The 2013 Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Defamation and Other Acts via Information Networks (hereinafter referred to as the Two Highs Interpretation) specifies that disseminating false information must cause significant consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views) to constitute a crime.

  • Exclusion of Illegal Evidence: Article 54 of the CPL prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture, violence, or other illegal means, and such evidence must be excluded.

  • Procedural Justice: Article 2 of the CPL states that the purpose of criminal procedure is to ensure the correct implementation of the law and protect citizens’ legitimate rights.

3. Case Background

Chen Jingyuan was convicted of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” for forwarding Twitter posts, including one from the U.S. Mission to China and others by U.S. officials like Mike Pompeo, which the Kunming authorities deemed as spreading false information and disrupting public order. Chen argues that the law enforcement personnel’s actions during his case violated the Constitution and infringed upon his fundamental rights.

Analysis of Chen Jingyuan’s Allegations

1. Disregard for Fundamental Citizen Rights

Chen alleges that the law enforcement personnel disregarded and trampled upon citizens’ fundamental rights, including the right to life, personal dignity, survival and development, equality, supervision, lawful property, and political rights.

Evaluation:

  • Constitutionally Protected Rights: Articles 33 to 41 of the Constitution explicitly protect citizens’ rights to equality, personal freedom, dignity, property, supervision (e.g., the right to criticize and lodge complaints), and political rights (e.g., the right to vote). If the personnel violated these rights through actions such as violence, illegal detention, or restricting Chen’s right to defense, their conduct would constitute a constitutional violation.

  • Basis for the Allegation: Chen does not provide specific evidence (e.g., medical records, witness statements) to substantiate claims of violations of his right to life or property. However, in other parts of his allegations, he mentions acts such as insults, threats, beatings, and restrictions on his right to defense (see procedural violation allegations). If true, these actions could infringe upon his personal dignity (Article 38), right to supervision (Article 41), and political rights (e.g., by limiting his ability to participate in judicial proceedings through restrictions on defense).

  • Likelihood Analysis: Violations of fundamental rights in China’s judicial system are not uncommon (web ID: 2). For example, Amnesty International reports highlight issues such as restricted access to legal defense and secret detentions. If Chen’s allegations are true, the personnel’s actions may violate multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Assessment: Chen’s allegation of disregard for fundamental citizen rights, if substantiated, could constitute a constitutional violation under Articles 33 to 41 of the Constitution. However, due to the lack of specific evidence, the validity of this claim requires further verification.

2. Severe Infringement on Freedom of Speech, Thought, and Belief

Chen particularly emphasizes that the personnel, under the pretext of “combating rumors,” grossly interfered with and violated his freedom of speech, thought, and belief, effectively depriving him of these fundamental rights.

Evaluation:

  • Constitutional Protections: Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which includes the right to express thoughts, emotions, and opinions through various means. Article 36 protects freedom of religious belief, which extends to freedom of thought and personal spiritual pursuits.

  • Restrictions by Law Enforcement: The personnel charged Chen with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” alleging that his forwarded Twitter posts (including Pompeo’s speech) disseminated false information and disrupted public order. Chen argues that Pompeo’s speech is a political expression, not a fabricated “rumor,” and that labeling it as such and suppressing it restricted his freedom of speech.

  • Legal Basis and Misinterpretation: Article 293 of the Criminal Law and the Two Highs Interpretation define the dissemination of false information as a crime only if it causes severe consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views). If the personnel failed to provide evidence of such consequences in Chen’s case, the conviction may lack a legal basis. Additionally, Article 51 of the Constitution allows restrictions on speech for public order, but such restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Labeling political speech as a “rumor” may exceed reasonable limits, constituting an infringement on freedom of speech.

  • Freedom of Thought and Belief: Chen emphasizes his pursuit of “personal intellectual growth and spiritual freedom,” which falls under the scope of freedom of thought and belief. If the personnel suppressed him for forwarding posts, this could indirectly restrict his ability to express and pursue his thoughts, violating Article 36 of the Constitution.

Assessment: Chen’s allegation of infringement on freedom of speech, thought, and belief has some merit. If the personnel labeled political speech as a “rumor” and suppressed it without sufficient evidence of severe consequences, their actions may violate Articles 35 and 36 of the Constitution. However, Article 51 allows for reasonable restrictions, and the personnel may argue their actions were aimed at maintaining public order.

3. Misinterpretation of Legal Principles

Chen alleges that the personnel misinterpreted legal principles by using the pretext of “combating rumors” to label emotional expressions, artistic creations, and intellectual exchanges as “rumors,” thereby violating the Constitution and failing to use the law to protect citizens’ rights.

Evaluation:

  • Legal Principles: Article 293 of the Criminal Law and the Two Highs Interpretation define “disseminating false information” as typically involving fabricated facts (e.g., false disaster reports), not political opinions or emotional expressions. Chen’s forwarded posts, such as Pompeo’s speech, are public political statements, not fabricated facts, and labeling them as “rumors” may reflect a misinterpretation of the law.

  • Protective Function of the Law: Chen argues that laws like the Criminal Law are intended to prevent the abuse of public power and protect citizens’ rights. If the personnel convicted him based on subjective judgment rather than legal facts, this may violate Article 2 of the CPL (ensuring the correct implementation of the law and protecting citizens’ rights).

  • Procedural Issues: If the personnel failed to provide evidence of the impact of Chen’s actions (e.g., retweet or view counts), the conviction may violate Article 53 of the CPL (requiring clear and sufficient evidence) and the Two Highs Interpretation, constituting a procedural violation.

Assessment: Chen’s allegation of misinterpretation of legal principles has some basis. If the personnel labeled political speech as a “rumor” and convicted him without evidence, they may have misinterpreted the Criminal Law and the Two Highs Interpretation, failing to use the law to protect citizens’ rights.

4. Negation of Human Civilization

Chen alleges that the personnel’s actions not only deprived him of his rights but also constituted a “thorough negation and subversion” of thousands of years of human civilization.

Evaluation:

  • Speech and Civilization: Freedom of speech, thought, and belief are integral to human civilization, as emphasized by thinkers like Marx and Einstein. Chen argues that by suppressing his freedom of speech, the personnel effectively negated the diversity and intellectual exchange that define human civilization.

  • Exaggeration of the Claim: Chen’s claim is hyperbolic. The personnel’s actions may have restricted his individual freedom of speech, but elevating this to a “thorough negation and subversion” of human civilization lacks direct evidence. While the suppression of speech can impact intellectual exchange, it does not necessarily lead to the “negation” of civilization.

Assessment: Chen’s allegation of negating human civilization is exaggerated. The personnel’s actions may have restricted his freedom of speech, indirectly affecting intellectual exchange, but they do not constitute a “thorough negation” of human civilization.

5. Harm to National and Human Interests

Chen alleges that the personnel’s actions harmed citizens’ legitimate rights, endangered the interests of the nation, the Chinese people, and humanity as a whole, and pushed the personnel toward a “criminal abyss.”

Evaluation:

  • Harm to Citizens’ Rights: If the personnel’s actions (e.g., restricting defense rights, using violence) are true, they may have harmed Chen’s legitimate rights, violating the Constitution and the CPL.

  • Harm to National and Human Interests: Chen argues that the personnel’s unconstitutional actions could damage China’s rule-of-law image and international reputation (e.g., affecting initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative), indirectly harming national and human interests. However, this impact is speculative and lacks direct evidence.

  • Criminal Abyss: If the personnel engaged in acts like torture or abuse of power, they may have committed crimes under the Criminal Law (e.g., Article 247 for torture, Article 397 for abuse of power), but this requires evidence.

Assessment: Chen’s allegation of harm to national and human interests has some speculative basis but lacks direct evidence. If true, the personnel’s actions may have harmed citizens’ rights and affected China’s image, but the claim of “harming the interests of all humanity” is exaggerated.

Overall Evaluation

Chen Jingyuan’s allegations highlight potential constitutional violations by the law enforcement personnel in his case. Key findings include:

  • Disregard for Fundamental Rights: If true, the personnel’s actions may violate Articles 33 to 41 of the Constitution, but further evidence is needed.

  • Infringement on Freedom of Speech, Thought, and Belief: Labeling political speech as a “rumor” and suppressing it may violate Articles 35 and 36 of the Constitution, though Article 51 allows for reasonable restrictions.

  • Misinterpretation of Legal Principles: The personnel may have misinterpreted the Criminal Law and the Two Highs Interpretation, failing to protect citizens’ rights.

  • Negation of Human Civilization: This claim is exaggerated; the personnel’s actions may restrict speech but do not negate human civilization.

  • Harm to National and Human Interests: If true, the actions may harm citizens’ rights and China’s image, but the claim of harming all humanity lacks evidence.

Conclusion: Chen’s allegations have some merit, particularly regarding freedom of speech and procedural justice. If the personnel labeled political speech as a “rumor” and suppressed it without evidence, their actions may violate Articles 35 and 36 of the Constitution, infringing upon fundamental rights. However, some claims (e.g., “negation of human civilization,” “harming all humanity”) are exaggerated and lack direct evidence. The personnel may argue their actions were aimed at maintaining public order, reflecting a tension between constitutional rights and public power in China’s judicial practice.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.

[Chinese]