Large-scale violations of China’s Criminal Law and related laws
Professional Legal Analysis and Evaluation of Chen Jingyuan’s Criminal Accusations
Classification of Accusations and Legal Basis
Chen Jingyuan alleges that Kunming judicial authorities committed multiple criminal acts during his case, including judicial corruption, procedural violations, torture, and abuse of power. Below is an analysis of these claims under Chinese law:
Legal Analysis of Specific Accusations
Procedural Violations
• Allegations:
• Failure to present search or arrest warrants;
• Failure to notify family members of his arrest for days;
• Closed trial, denial of defense rights;
• Interception of complaint materials.
• Legal Basis and Evaluation:
• Lack of Search/Arrest Warrants:
◦ Violates Article 81 (arrests require prosecutorial approval) and Article 136 (searches require warrants) of China’s Criminal Procedure Law (CPL).
◦ If proven, this constitutes illegal detention (Article 238, Criminal Law) or abuse of power (Article 397, Criminal Law).
• Failure to Notify Family:
◦ Violates Article 85 of the CPL, which mandates family notification within 24 hours of arrest (unless impossible). This could trigger liability under Article 397 (abuse of power).
• Closed Trial and Denial of Defense:
◦ Violates Article 11 (public trials) and Article 14 (defense rights) of the CPL. If no lawful justification (e.g., state secrets) exists, this may constitute judicial misconduct (Article 399, Criminal Law).
• Interception of Complaints:
◦ Violates Article 41 of the Constitution (right to petition) and Article 49 of the CPL (freedom to complain). This may amount to abuse of power (Article 397) or retaliatory prosecution (Article 254, Criminal Law).
Torture and Coercion
• Allegations:
• Verbal abuse, threats, beatings, and physical punishment during interrogation;
• Extraction of confessions through torture.
• Legal Basis and Evaluation:
• Crime of Torture (Article 247, Criminal Law):
◦ If law enforcement used violence to extract confessions, responsible officers face criminal liability.
• Abuse of Detainees (Article 248, Criminal Law):
◦ If physical abuse occurred during detention, prison staff may be prosecuted.
• Exclusionary Rule (Article 56, CPL):
◦ Evidence obtained through torture must be excluded. If the court admitted such evidence, the trial is procedurally invalid.
Abuse of Power and Evidence Fabrication
• Allegations:
• Abuse of power, distortion of facts, fabrication of evidence;
• Defamation and perversion of law in adjudication.
• Legal Basis and Evaluation:
• Abuse of Power (Article 397, Criminal Law):
◦ If officials deliberately violated laws to harm Chen’s rights, this crime applies.
• Fabrication of Evidence (Article 307, Criminal Law):
◦ If evidence (e.g., electronic data, interrogation records) was forged, involved personnel may be charged.
• Judicial Misconduct (Article 399, Criminal Law):
◦ Judges who knowingly issued wrongful verdicts despite insufficient evidence may be prosecuted.
Judicial Corruption
• Allegations:
• Systemic corruption forming a “judicial mafia.”
• Legal Basis and Evaluation:
• Bribery (Article 385, Criminal Law):
◦ If officials accepted bribes to manipulate the case, they are liable.
• Harboring Criminal Organizations (Article 294, Criminal Law):
◦ If judicial authorities colluded in organized crime, this applies. However, concrete evidence (e.g., money trails, collusion records) is required.
Fact-Checking and Evidentiary Requirements
Credibility of Accusations
• Strongly Supported Claims:
• Procedural violations (e.g., failure to notify family, closed trial) can be verified through legal documents (arrest notices, trial records).
• Torture allegations require medical reports, surveillance footage, or witness testimony.
• Weakly Supported Claims:
• Judicial corruption demands direct evidence (e.g., bribery receipts, communication logs), which Chen has not provided.
Burden of Proof and Legal Remedies
• Burden of Proof:
• Chen must provide prima facie evidence (e.g., injury photos, family testimony) to shift the burden to the authorities.
• Legal Remedies:
• File motions to exclude illegal evidence (Article 58, CPL);
• Appeal to higher courts or request prosecutorial oversight (Article 252, CPL);
• Report judicial misconduct to disciplinary authorities (Article 11, Supervision Law).
Systemic Judicial Issues Exposed
Collapse of Procedural Justice:
• Widespread violations of the CPL reflect systemic disregard for due process, highlighting judicial politicization and power abuse.Pervasiveness of Torture:
• If true, this indicates failure to enforce the Supreme People’s Court’s exclusionary rules, contradicting China’s commitments to human rights.Failure to Curb Judicial Corruption:
• Allegations of systemic corruption suggest oversight mechanisms (e.g., prosecutorial supervision, internal Party reviews) are ineffective, necessitating external intervention (e.g., central anti-corruption bodies).
Conclusion and Recommendations
Legal Evaluation:
• Procedural Violations and Torture: If proven, responsible officials must face criminal charges, and the case should be retried.
• Judicial Corruption: Requires independent investigation by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) to avoid internal cover-ups.
Systemic Recommendations:
Strengthen Procedural Compliance:
• Mandate audiovisual recording of all interrogations and immediate delivery of legal documents to families/defense counsel.Establish Judicial Accountability Mechanisms:
• Implement lifelong accountability for judges/prosecutors involved in torture, evidence fabrication, or wrongful convictions.Introduce External Oversight:
• Empower cross-regional prosecutors or provincial legislatures to investigate high-profile miscarriages of justice, breaking local protectionism.
This case underscores the urgent need to reform China’s criminal justice system. Addressing procedural abuses, corruption, and torture is essential to restoring public trust in the rule of law and upholding the constitutional promise of “governing the country according to law.”
[Chinese]