View previous stories
	Lawyers call for end of hated re-education labour camps by Amnesty International & news agencies China   Mar 2013   Chinese legal officials and Chinese media agencies are caling on the new party leadership to abolish the country"s much hated re-education-through-labour prison camps.   The system involves extra-judicial detention in which dissidents, underground Christians and minor criminals are sent away to remote labour camps for many years at a time, often without their families even being notified.   In freezing and remote parts of China there are about 350 labour camps holding about 160,000 prisoners who did not step into a courtroom before their detention.   They have been judged by the local police or other officials to be in need of re-education through labour - often for being labelled troublemakers or dissidents - and face up to four years of deprivation, arduous work and physical abuse, working 15 hours a day, 7 days a week. The practice is used by corrupt officals to silence whisteleblowers or those seeking justice from a haphazard legal system.   Even members of the offical legal fraternity has been increasingly critical of the system, with some calling the practice unconstitutional.   But the security authorities have until now guarded their power to lock away whoever they want without the necessity of going to court.   The potential for the system to be abused is clearly enormous and even the Communist Party"s mouthpiece, The People"s Daily, has described re-education through labour as having become a "tool of retaliation" for unscrupulous local officials.   Some delegates to the National People"s Congress have called for its immediate end and now several senior legal officials have called for it to end.   Pu Zhiqiang is a lawyer whose clients include those who have been sent to the labour camps.   He says "within China there are a lot of people who want to abandon Laojiao and build a society built on the rule of law."   If China does abolish Laojiao, the fear is that the administration may axe re-education through labour program but retain some other form of similar extra-judicial detention.   China: New law legalises human rights violations. (Amnesty)   Set-backs to China’s new criminal procedure law, which came into effect in January, are legalising violations of human rights, and the limited improvements to the law are not being respected, Amnesty International said in a new briefing.   “It is frustrating that after so many years in the making, the legal changes that took place in the beginning of the year are now legalising some of the worst practices on the part of police and local authorities,” said Corinna-Barbara Francis, Amnesty International’s China Researcher.   Under the new law the police are allowed to detain individuals, and to hold some in secret locations for up to six months, without telling family members why or where they are being held.   On 1 June, Du Bin, whose recent film uncovered torture and other ill-treatment in Masanjia, one of China’s most notorious re-education through labour camps, was detained by Beijing police.   He was held in custody for more than two weeks. After his release on bail on 8 July, he confirmed that despite providing the police with all relevant contact information, his family had not been told where he was being held or even that he had been detained   The new law also continues to make it easy for police to use vaguely defined “serious crimes”, such as “endangering state security” or “terrorism”, to deprive criminal suspects of their rights, including the right to timely access to one’s lawyer.   In practice, these crimes continue to be used to punish individuals simply for exercising their freedom of expression and other rights.   One example is women"s rights defender Liu Ping who was detained by police in Xinyu (Jiangxi province) on 27 April on suspicion of “inciting subversion of state power” in connection with her human rights activities.   Despite her impending trial due to begin on 18 July police have continued to refuse her access to her lawyer, with the excuse that her case allegedly involves “state security”.   While the new law allows suspects access to lawyers earlier in proceedings than before, and strengthens the ban on the use of illegally obtained evidence, authorities have ignored outright the existing and improved safeguards in the law.   “Since 1 January, we have yet to see enforcers of the law respect these positive measures, especially when it comes to politically “sensitive” human rights defenders and other activists,” said Francis.   “The improvements in the law are meaningless if police and local courts fail to implement them in practice. Unfortunately, the will to do this seems lacking.”   The last six months have seen too many examples of police keeping detainees in custody longer than allowed by law and refusing them access to their lawyers and their families.   Even one of the most positive aspects of the law – the strengthening of the ban on the use of illegally obtained evidence, including forced confessions, in court – seems to have been largely ignored.   Lawyers, who are now permitted by the law to raise the problem of illegal evidence, have even been punished for trying to do so.   On 4 April 2013, Lawyer Wang Quanzhang questioned the legality of evidence which he alleged had been obtained through torture during the trial of a practitioner of the spiritual discipline of Falungong in the Jingjiang City People’s court, Jiangsu province.   The court judge, however, not only refused Wang’s application to exclude the evidence, but ordered him be detained, claiming he had disturbed the order of the court.   “Rather than allow Wang to apply to exclude the evidence, as is his right under the new law, he was instead given 10 days of administrative detention as punishment in a complete travesty of justice,” said Francis.   “It appears it was only widespread protests within China’s growing online community that resulted in Wang Quanzhang’s release, after only 48 hours of detention.”   These are just some examples of the ways that setbacks to the law, as detailed in Amnesty International’s Briefing on China’s 2013 Criminal Procedure Law: In line with international standards?, have facilitated human rights violations in the everyday application of the law.   “There is much Chinese authorities can and must do to bring domestic law in line with international human rights standards. Unfortunately, they need to go back to the drawing board to further amend the law, trying to get it right the next time,” said Francis.   http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/about/Briefing_on_Chinas_2013_Criminal_Procedure_Law.pdf http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/25/china-legal-reform-efforts-stalled   June 2011   Crackdown on China’s human rights lawyers   Imagine being harassed, detained, imprisoned or beaten to the point your bones shattered simply for doing your job of defending human rights through the law.   That’s what Chinese authorities are doing with some lawyers, unleashing an uncompromising series of measures intended to rein in the legal profession and suppress the few lawyers who dare to pursue human rights cases.   State efforts to control lawyers have intensified over the last two years, particularly in recent months among Government fears of a “Jasmine Revolution” inspired by the Arab Spring. New regulations introduced in 2009-2010 have prohibited lawyers from defending certain clients, commenting on their work to the media or challenging court malpractice.   Our new report Against the law: Crackdown on China’s human rights lawyers deepens highlights a handful of shocking cases where human rights lawyers have had their licences revoked, have been ‘disappeared’, harassed, or even tortured for pursuing human rights cases.   Lawyers now undergo an ‘Annual Assessment’ - which many believe has no legal basis under Chinese law. Those who dare take up ‘sensitive‘ cases, such as those relating to human rights or forced evictions, often fail this assessment. As a result, their licence is suspended or revoked.   For example Lin Hongnan’s licence was taken away for one year as punishment for "leaking state secrets". This happened five days before he was due to represent three Internet activists, who had posted material online exposing an alledged police cover-up of a woman who was gang-raped and murdered.   For human rights lawyers who refuse to give up their work, police surveillance and intimidation becomes an everyday reality.   Lawyer Zhang Kai recalls how his car was followed by three vehicles without number plates after leaving a friend’s home in Beijing one night in December 2010. Suddenly, the cars blocked their way forward and 15 to 20 men got out and began attacking the lawyers car, he eventually managed to flee, .   Torture and punishment   The few lawyers that continue to pursue ‘sensitive’ cases after harassment and surveillance often face unfair trials. While serving sentences, some have been tortured and subjected to brutal attacks.   Ni Yulan was arrested and tortured several times since she began representing people forcibly evicted from their homes in the lead up to the 2008 Olympics. She lost her licence, and her own home was demolished by authorities. While in custody, she was beaten until her bones broke.   Today, she’s wheelchair bound and unable to walk unaided. When she recalled the experience in June 2010, she said "I heard my bones crack. It was so painful my mind went blank."   There are more than 204,000 lawyers in China, but only a handful dare risk taking on cases that deal with human rights.   Lawyers who take up human rights cases should be able to do so free from harassment and the risk of being barred from practicing law, arbitrary detention, torture and imprisonment.   The government must restore licences to practice lawyers suspended of disbarred for defending human rights cases. Governance of lawyers must be left to genuinely independent lawyers.   * The Chinese government, which is currently seeking a seat at the United Nations Human Rights Council, should ratify without further delay an important international human rights treaty on civil and political rights it signed 15 years ago, says Human Rights Watch:   http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/08/china-ratify-key-international-human-rights-treaty
	Ensuring witness safety central to rule of law by Aruna Kashyap Human Rights Watch   A group of street children recently told the Verma Committee, which was set up to recommend reforms to India’s sexual assault laws, that they had witnessed police in Delhi gang-rape a girl in a police van. The committee decided not to refer the case to the police for investigation. “We wanted to protect their identity as we feared that police might launch some kind of vendetta against them,” committee member Gopal Subramaniam told The Hindu. “We want to save them from the system.”   Subramaniam’s statement is a damning indictment of India’s criminal justice system.   Across the country, victims of violent crimes, including sexual assault, as well as those who witness it, frequently do not file criminal complaints, cooperate with investigators, or testify truthfully in courts because they fear retaliation. In many rape cases, survivors are threatened or intimidated into settling with the perpetrator.   Currently there are few safeguards in place to prevent harassment or worse outside courtrooms during criminal investigations. The consequences of the lack of protection can be devastating. In a case that dragged on for nearly two decades, in 1990, a teenager named Ruchika Girhotra accused a powerful police officer in Haryana state of sexually abusing her. When Ruchika pressed the case, her entire family was harassed and she committed suicide in 1993.   Leading lawyers and rights activists have long argued that victims and witnesses are pressured to change their testimony during criminal proceedings. This leads to acquittals, including in trials for murder, rape, caste-based atrocities, and sectarian crimes. They say a comprehensive witness protection program is needed to address the problem.   The few witness protection procedures currently available to safeguard victims and witnesses include transferring criminal trials to safer venues, preventing the accused from confronting a witness in court; allowing courts to use screens to separate the accused and survivor in rape trials, allowing police to withhold witness identity, prohibiting intimidating questions during cross-examination; and allowing witnesses to testify remotely by video. But the authorities are often unaware or reluctant to use these procedures.   In some cases the response to victim protection can be callous or deadly. For example, a judge trying the Kandhamal communal riot cases in Orissa responded to a victim’s plea for protection by saying, “I am not your bodyguard. If you do not want to depose, why did you file a complaint in the first place?”   Lawyers who have assisted witnesses to secure police protection through individual petitions to authorities say the witnesses sometimes had to pay for such protection.   But most victims and witnesses cannot afford these payments — nor should they have to. The lack of government-funded protection mechanisms puts even existing ad hoc police protection out of reach for the vast majority of those who need it.   Many rights groups reiterated the need for witness protection in their written submissions to the Verma Committee and the parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs.   Verma Committee member Subramaniam confirmed that the committee included the interview with the children who witnessed rape in their final report “to show the deeper malaise in the system,” and hoped that the government would take the necessary steps. But recent history shows little government inclination to address the need for witness protection:   In 2005 the Standing Committee on Home Affairs raised concerns about the lack of witness protection and recommended law reform. Nearly a decade ago the Indian Supreme Court underscored the need for victim and witness protection in the context of the Gujarat riots, and even ordered protection for many victims and witnesses. High courts in different parts of the country have bemoaned the absence of witness protection and its impact on criminal investigation and trials, ordering witness protection in individual cases.   In 2006 the Law Commission of India produced a 500-page report on witness protection, recommending procedural changes to protect witnesses inside and outside courtrooms. The report provided comparative information about witness protection regimes in other countries, included a draft law on witness protection, and called for the government to fund the program. The government could use this report as a starting point for discussions around this important issue.   The issue of witness protection is complex but clearly overdue for reform. Parliamentarians can take first steps to remedy the gaps immediately as they debate the new sexual assault ordinance and bill. They should examine some provisions introduced in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, including that a child and family should have access to a “support person,” who should be in contact with the child about his or her safety during investigation and trial and report it to authorities. While this does not fully address the concerns around witness protection, but it is a step in the right direction.   At this critical moment of law reform in India, parliamentarians and policymakers should utilize the momentum and demand that victim and witness protection be given high priority. Doing so will help ensure that future witnesses to crimes like Ruchika Girhotra are safe as they seek justice.   * Published in: The Hindu Visit the related web page
	View more stories