IN A DECISION that surprised even the most hopeful China watchers, on October 30 an appeals court in the eastern province of Shandong overturned a guilty verdict against human rights activist Chen Guangcheng, and remanded the case to the county court for a retrial.
The visually impaired, 35-year-old defendant, known affectionately as the “barefoot lawyer,” is a self-taught jurist who had angered local officials by spearheading a historic class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of victims of forced abortion and sterilization. On August 24 of this year, Chen was sentenced by the Yinan County People’s Court to four years and three months in prison for “willfully damaging property and organizing a mob to disturb traffic.” Retaliation was widely believed to be the real motive behind the charges.
Six days prior to his sentencing, Chen was tried in a proceeding that his lawyers characterized as “utterly absurd,” and which prompted worldwide criticism and condemnation. With one member of Chen’s defense team in police custody on charges of having stolen a wallet the night before the trial, Chen’s lawyers requested a temporary postponement. The Court rejected this request, and instead assigned Chen two defense lawyers whom he had never before met. After protesting adamantly but to no avail, Chen kept silent throughout the two-hour proceeding while the prosecutor read out his alleged offenses. Chen’s silence, according to the judge, was tantamount to an admission of guilt. And as for the two court-appointed defense attorneys, they were asked by the judge if they had any objections to the evidence presented by the state and they voiced none.
In a November 1 interview with Radio Free Asia, an appeals court judge stated that procedural irregularities were the basis for the decision to overturn the initial verdict. According to the judge, “The procedure by the lower court to assign Chen court-appointed defense attorneys was not consistent with the requirement of the law and therefore had an impact on the trial.”
THE IMPLICATIONS OF this decision, and in particular the basis given for reaching it, are potentially quite significant. This is the first time in the long-running and highly public case against Chen that there was any admission at all of possible wrongdoing (or “irregularity”) by any Chinese authority. Chen’s supporters attribute this sudden turn of events mainly to the considerable attention the case has drawn from the international media. Chen’s defense attorney Li Jingsong, who had insisted that the August 18 trial was illegal under Chinese law, observed in an October 31 interview with Radio Free Asia that “an appeals court will never order a retrial lightly, without a very good reason, especially not in a case that has the sort of international impact that this one has.”
Following this unexpected turn of events, Chen’s defense attorney was optimistic, and seemed to hold out some hope for a real reform of the Chinese judicial system. It remains unclear, however, that this recent development signals a more just and transparent legal system for the Chinese people. The nearly unprecedented attention Chen’s case garnered from the international media doubtless played a major role in the appeals court decision, and, unfortunately, that sort of attention is rare.
A recent search on Google for the name Chen Guangcheng produced more than 122,000 results, among them a great many articles, editorials, and reports. The case has attracted the interest of prominent pro-life groups as well as human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (which has formally named Chen a “prisoner of conscience”). And the major news outlets have followed the case as well, with the BBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times all helping to keep up the pressure. Time magazine even named Chen one of 2006’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World.”
In short, a myriad of rights organizations, civic groups, and media outlets have applauded his cause and crusaded for his release. Indeed, Chen’s case was on the agenda of Assistant Secretary of State Ellen R. Sauerbrey during her recent visit to Beijing. Just as the trial itself was more a political than a judicial event, so may the remanding of Chen’s case turn out to be more a political response to criticism than anything resembling a fundamental change in the Chinese legal system.
Since 2005, when Chen began drawing international attention to the draconian population-control practices in Shandong, he, his family, his lawyers, and his supporters have all been repeatedly harassed, intimidated, and on several occasions physically assaulted. Keenly aware of the nature of the system she lives in, Chen’s wife, Yuan Weijing, expressed doubt that the retrial would be conducted fairly. Although living under constant surveillance, she spoke with Radio Free Asia on October 31 and said that she was not certain whether the key witnesses for the defense would even be willing to testify at the retrial for fear of retribution.
This is why the international community must continue to show its concern for a man whose treatment has been unjust even by the sorry standards of China’s politicized legal system. And while no date has been set for the retrial, Chen Guangcheng remains behind bars.
A former Chinese political prisoner now residing in the United States once told me that international attention carries more weight than most people could ever imagine, even when it comes to the Chinese government. He recounted how, when serving a lengthy jail term, he could always tell when his name had crossed the lips of some foreign dignitary visiting Beijing or appeared in a foreign press report–the prison guards and warden would speak to him in a softer tone of voice and he would be given more meat with his meals.
Chen Guangcheng’s is just one case. There are many others. Without the benefit of such enormous international publicity, Chen would probably have fallen into oblivion along with the hundreds, if not thousands, of other human rights advocates who are jailed in Chinese prisons.
As Beijing gears up for the 2008 Olympic Games, the Chinese government has intensified its crackdown on the civil liberties and political rights ostensibly guaranteed in its own constitution. The run-up to the Olympics has also put China, and its policies, under the microscope of international attention. China may be finding itself especially sensitive these days to concentrated international attention and criticism.
Maybe China’s legal system is changing for the better. Perhaps the recent developments in Chen’s case signal an improvement in how, going forward, China’s judiciary will treat those accused of crimes under its laws. Maybe. But probably not. Given China’s history under communism, it seems wise to hope for the best but expect the worst.
Jennifer Chou is the director of Radio Free Asia’s Mandarin Service.
