The Verdict by the First Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing on May 28, 2003 (Excerpt)
Xu Wei, Yang Zili, Jin Haike and Zhang Honghai were detained on March 13, 2001 because of suspected crime of state subversion. On April, 2001, they were arrested and kept in the custody of the Beijing State Security Bureau.
On September 10, the First Branch of Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate submitted the public prosecution to this court.
In early May, 2000, defendants Xu Wei, Jin Haike and Zhang Honghai illegally founded the “New Youth Study Group”. The purpose of this organization, according to the charter they made, is to “actively explore the reform of society”. On August 19 the same year, Yang Zili became a member.
Since August 2000, Xu Wei, Yang Zili, Jin Haike and Zhang Honghai held secret meetings in Beijing University, China People’s University and other places, proposing ideas to change China’s present government, to make social reform and to reestablish a liberal social system.
They claimed they would set up branch organizations in the whole country, disseminate articles on the internet and make preparation to start new websites and e-journals in order to expand their organization and influence. During these months they published articles on the internet, alleging that “China’s present democracy is a fake one” and claiming “to terminate China’s old men politics and to build a new China of youth”. They attempted to overthrow the leadership of the CPC and subvert the people’s democratic dictatorship.
Zhang Honghai voiced his entire denial of the leadership of the CCP and his speeches at the group’s meetings implied the intention to overthrow the CCP.
Yang Zili maintained that China should adopt private-ownership and claimed that the
multi-party system is what China should establish instead of the CCP’s one-party
administration. Yang was also responsible for the application of the website for their
organization. Before the application is approved, Yang’s personal website was used as the main media of their society. Information found in Yang’s seized computer, such as “Articles by Yang Zili”, “Address Book of Yang Zili”, and “Papers for exchange”, is clear evidence that they had the intention to overthrow the present state system.
Jin Haike said China’s present government is a totalitarian government and the people are in lack of civil consciousness. Jin proposed to set up branch societies and every member should submit articles to him. As a chief editor of the “Collection of Papers for Exchange”, Jin proof-read all the articles before he gave them to Yang Zili for publishing on the internet.
From Jin’s house, the manuscript entitled “A Guide to China’s New Citizens” and other
articles were seized, which proved that Jin had deep resentment against the present social politics and people’s democracy.
Xu Wei, dissatisfied with the present situation, aimed to search for a new way to change
China. He wished to find political theories and principles as guidance for their action and to expand their organization by all kind of activities. He approved the means of violence and the peasants’ uprising to change China.
There were two main ideas in their group, both supporting the subverting of the CCP’s leadership and the change of the present situation. The charter of their society expressed their aim to change China’s present social, political and economic systems, to overthrow the CCP’s one-party leadership, to establish a new democratic system, to weaken the CCP’s dominance and to debase its authority. Articles such as “Be a new citizen, reform China” by Jin Haike, “To Follow the Way of Liberalism” by Yang Zili, and “What’s to be done” by Yu Wei (Jin Haike’s penname), all have the contents inciting social change, proposing social system liberalization, criticizing China’s present social system and denying the CCP’s leadership.
Xu Wei, Yang Zili, Jin Haike and Zhang Honghai illegally founded an organization despite of the law of the state, plotted and implemented measures to subvert the state power and the socialist system. What they did clearly proves that they had committed the crime of
subverting the state power, therefore the public prosecution of Xu Wei, Yang Zili, Jin Haike and Zhang Honghai submitted by the First Branch of Beijing Municipal People’s
Procuratorate to this court is very clear concerning the facts and has sound and sufficient
evidences and hence can be verified.
Xu Wei, convicted of subversion, is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, two years
deprivation of political rights.
Jin Haike, convicted of subversion, is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, two years
deprivation of political rights.
Yang Zili, convicted of subversion, is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, two years
deprivation of political rights.
Zhang Honghai, convicted of subversion, is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, two years deprivation of political rights.
(Abstracted and translated by the Laogai Research Foundation and the China Information Center)
The Beijing Municipal Higher People’s Court
Notice of Rejection of the Complaint filed by Lu Kun
Higher People’s Court Penal Supervision No. 601
Lu Kun,
You filed a complaint regarding this court’s criminal ruling (Higher Court Penal No. 350 in 2003) that your husband Yang Zili had committed a crime of subverting state power on grounds that the facts cannot be established.
The review of this court shows that Yang Zili, Xu Wei, Jin Haike and Zhang Honghai were accused by the First Branch of the Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate of committing the crime of subverting state power and on May 28, 2003 the First Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing made the final ruling (Primary Penal No. 2045 of 2001, the First Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing). It is written in the Third Entry of the verdict: defendant Yang Zili is guilty of the crime of subverting state power and is therefore sentenced to eight years in prison with a deprivation of political rights for two years. After the verdict was issued, Yang Zili and the three other defendants filed an appeal to this court. On November 6, 2003, this court made the penal conviction (Higher People’s Court Final Penal No. 350 in 2003), rejected the appeal by Yang and others, and upheld the original verdict.
After reviewing the case, this court maintains that the original verdict was correct in the application of the law and the confirmation of facts. The original trial court’s sentence was made strictly based on the facts, and the evidence that lead to Yang’s punishment is real, sufficient and clearly determined. The law was correctly applied, the punishment appropriate, and the trial procedures legitimate.
On consideration of the above-mentioned facts, this court maintains that your reasons for requesting a reexamination of the case could not be substantiated and your complaint is not in conformity with the 204th Article of “The PRC Criminal Procedure Law.” Therefore the original sentence should be maintained.
The Beijing Municipal Higher People’s Court (chop)
September 20, 2006
Appeal for the re-examination of Yang Zili’s Case of Subversion of State Power
Complaint: Lu Kun, wife of Yang Zili
My husband Yang Zili was found guilty of the crime of subverting state power and was sentenced to eight years in prison on November 6, 2003 (See Criminal Order by the Beijing Higher People’s Court, Final Penal No. 350 of 2003). The verdict has taken effect. The complainant refused to accept the decision and in April 2006 filed an appeal to the Beijing Higher People’s Court. On September 20, 2006, the Beijing Higher People’s Court issued the Notices of Rejection of the Complaint filed by Lu Kun (Higher People’s Court Penal Supervision No. 601). Pursuant to Article 203 of the “Criminal Procedure Law” and Article 298 of “The Interpretations of a Number of Issues Concerning the Implementation the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China,” by the People’s Supreme Court, the complaint makes this appeal again. See below:
Reasons for this appeal:
I. During the trial, the court refused without justification to let important witnesses, Huang Haixia, Fan Erjun, Zhang Yanhua and He Zhongzhou to testify. As a result the court did not fully understand the nature of the “New Youth Study Group” case, and consequently the verdict based on incomplete facts is wrong.
II. The case of Yang Zili and others’ “subversion of state power” was falsified by the State Security Bureau (SSB) in order to build bolster their reputation of cracking “major” and “important” cases. In doing so, they employed a spy to collect information, to lure, incite and create traps. Hence, an informal study group became labeled an “illegal organization” that aimed to subvert state power, and the members are falsely charged as criminals. SSB agent Li Yuzhou who fled to Thailand even testified this to be the truth. I have asked my lawyers to submit to the court the written testimony by Li Yuzhou.
III. Yang Zili’s conduct did not constitute the crime of subverting state power. This point has been fully demonstrated by the defense counsels at the first and second sessions. I urge the judges of the appeals court to seriously scrutinize the facts and take into consideration the counsels’ opinions.
IV. To illustrate the point of the complainant, the following new evidence is submitted to the Beijing Higher People’s Court:
1. Written testimony of Fan Erjun
2. Written testimony of Huang Haixia
3. Written testimony of Zhang Yanhua
4. Written testimony of He Zhongzhou
5. Written testimony of Li Yuzhou
In the above listed items, 1- 4 are from the witnesses and the original documents are in the complainant lawyers’ possession. The 5th item was mailed by Li Yuzhou directly to the complainant, who holds the original document.
If there is any doubt about the authenticity of Li’s testimony, his handwriting can be verified by the State Security Bureau.
V. The complainant believes that the Beijing Higher People’s Court did not review the new evidence submitted and in the court’s Notices of Rejection of the Complaint filed by Lu Kun it makes no comment of the new evidence. Therefore, the complainant insists on filing another appeal. Please review my complaint and prepare for a retrial in order to correct the unjust case.
Complainant Lu Kun
November 22, 2006
