Detention, Torture of Anhui Teens Reflect Continuing Criminal Procedure Violations

The wrongful detentions and torture of four teenagers in 2005 in Chaohu city, Anhui province, reflect continuing criminal procedure violations and abuses by local police, as described in a September 12 Xinhua report (in Chinese) on the cases. The teenagers, who ranged in age from 16 to 18, were released in January 2006 after more than three months in police custody. According to the Xinhua account, the Anhui provincial-level Public Security Bureau (PSB) acknowledged that officials handled the teenagers' cases in error. In addition, public security officials have agreed to give each teenager 60,000 yuan (approximately US$7,600) in compensation for their wrongful detentions, pursuant to agreements signed with each individual teenager's guardians. Xinhua reports that authorities currently are investigating the three police officers who handled the cases for their suspected involvement in coercing confessions under torture.

Criminal Procedure Violations and Prospects for Reform

During a September 20, 2006, meeting before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, reaffirmed his finding that torture remains widespread in China, according to a UN press release on the same date. In a September 13 interview (in Chinese) with Radio Free Asia (RFA), Guangxi lawyer Yang Zaixin also commented that cases such as the Chaohu case and the wrongful conviction of She Xianglin, in Hubei province, are widespread. Yang noted that inadequate supervision and punishment of police forces in part are to blame for the continuing abuses.

In July 2006, the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued new standards for prosecuting official abuses of power, and clarified that police should be prosecuted for coercing confessions under torture, if those coerced confessions result in a case handled in error. Although Chinese news media report that three police officers are currently under investigation in the Chaohu case, a September 12 South China Morning Post article (subscription required) points out that reports do not indicate who the officers are, when they were arrested, or what punishments they might face. Yang commented that officials have no choice but to punish wrongdoing by police when their cases are exposed and elicit a strong reaction from the public. In 2006, Chinese news media highlighted several cases of human rights abuses and deaths while in police custody, but one legal scholar argued that the Chinese government has been too lenient in punishing officials who abuse their authority to coerce confessions under torture.

Yang also suggested that in addition to investigating police and compensating victims, the Chinese government should pass additional measures to prevent torture and abuse in police custody. Specifically, Yang argued that the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) should be amended to provide for the presence of criminal defense lawyers, as well as audio and video taping, at police interrogations. In his September 20 written statement to the CECC, Professor Jerome A. Cohen of New York University School of Law said that Chinese criminal justice experts have been discussing added protections to reduce the likelihood that suspects will be tortured. Cohen stated that efforts to develop a national consensus on several issues, including torture, may now be stalled "in what is plainly a very conservative climate for law reform," and that "[n]one of these issues, which have long cried out for legislative resolution, is likely to be dealt with by the [National People's Congress] in the near future." Moreover, at the CECC's September 20 hearing on Human Rights and Rule of Law in China, Cohen testified that prospects for revision of the CPL by the time of the Beijing Olympics in 2008 now appear to be "receding."

For additional information on torture and abuse in custody, see Section V(b), on the "Rights of Criminal Suspects and Defendants," in the CECC's 2006 Annual Report. The Report's Recommendations note that "abuse of power by local police forces remains a serious problem throughout China," and urge support for "reform efforts such as providing criminal defense lawyers with greater access to their clients and case files, audio and video taping law enforcement interrogations of criminal suspects, and excluding evidence at trial that was obtained through torture or other illegal means."

Case Background

According to Xinhua, Liu Zhihua, a shrimp farmer in Chaohu, died five days after being beaten on September 2, 2005. During the investigation, the Juchao district branch of the Chaohu PSB obtained statements from one witness who claimed that she saw four youths beating Liu, and two additional witnesses who claimed that they saw four youths in the neighborhood on the morning in question. Based on these statements and a complaint by a neighbor that brothers Zhang Hu and Zhang Feng were "no good," public security officials placed Zhang Hu, Zhang Feng, Jiao Hua, and Wang Hao in criminal detention on September 10. Authorities formally arrested them on October 21.

A September 12 Southern Metropolitan Daily report (in Chinese) notes that the Chaohu PSB submitted a proposal on October 8, 2005, to move forward with prosecution of the case. The Juchao district procuratorate rejected this proposal on October 17, citing the Chaohu PSB's insufficient and contradictory evidence. According to Southern Metropolitan Daily, each of the four teenagers provided statements to the police that both admitted and denied their guilt. Although the Chinese news media have carried extensive reports of the torture allegations made by the four after authorities released them, records of their interrogation omit such details as who conducted the interrogations, where they took place, and how long they lasted.

A September 11 China Youth Daily report (in Chinese, via the All China Lawyers Association Defense Lawyer Net) notes that after the Chaohu PSB received the procuratorate's rejection, it continued to pursue the case in disregard of procedural law. When the procuratorate and PSB disagree about a decision not to prosecute, Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Law requires the PSB to appeal for reconsideration under the Administrative Reconsideration Law and, failing this, to submit the matter to a procuratorate at the next higher level. The Chaohu PSB instead reported the matter to the Communist Party political-legal committees at the municipal and district levels, and asked them to intervene in the case. Four days later, on October 21, the procuratorate reversed its initial decision and approved the formal arrest of the four teenagers. On December 15, the teenagers were released on bail pending further investigation of the case. On January 23, 2006, the Chaohu PSB cleared them of all charges after further investigation led to the arrests of four other individuals.