Access to Justice

The following is a translation prepared by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China of an open letter from Zheng Enchong to the Chairman of the UN Human Rights Council, dated June 15, 2006. The Chinese text was retrieved from a June 18 Epoch Times posting.

The National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) will examine a draft Emergency Response Law in June, according to an April 17 Xinhua report. Government departments prepared the draft law, which was initially titled a “State of Emergency” law, to address the problems that plagued the government response to the 2003 SARS crisis. In addition, a March 2004 amendment to Article 67 of the Chinese Constitution replaced language allowing the NPCSC to "impose martial law" with a provision allowing it to "declare a state of emergency."

Zhou Wei, a Sichuan University law professor, has asked the Legislative Affairs Commission (LAC) of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) to review the constitutionality of a 2003 Supreme People's Court (SPC) judicial interpretation that discriminates between urban and rural residents on the basis of their household registration (hukou) status, according to a April 21 Sichuan Online article.

The All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) has issued a guiding opinion that restricts and subjects to punishment any lawyer who gets involved in a "mass" case, according to a May 17 Xinhua article (in Chinese). The ACLA Executive Council approved the Guiding Opinion of the All China Lawyers Association Regarding Lawyers Handling Cases of a Mass Nature, which went into effect on March 20. The Guiding Opinion defines "mass" cases as those that involve representative or joint litigation by 10 or more litigants, or those in which the matter is handled through a series of litigation and non-litigation efforts.

The Hong Kong newspaper Ming Pao published a series of articles on May 18 that highlight the Chinese government's repression of lawyers who engage in criminal and civil rights defense. An article entitled Rights Defense Lawyers Are Bound and Gagged; New Industry Regulations Restrict the Acceptance of Requisitioning and Eviction Cases criticizes the new guiding opinion from the All China Lawyers Association, which restricts lawyer involvement in "mass" cases.

The Henan Justice Bureau has issued an opinion that bans lawyers from using the media and engaging in various other activities when handling "major, sensitive, mass" cases, according to an April 10 Henan Daily report (in Chinese, via Xinhua). The opinion states that lawyers in Henan province cannot "use the media to stir things up or create a negative impact on domestic or international public opinion." It prohibits lawyers and law firms from publishing commentary to impact the outcome of a case or the mood of the public, and warns them not to establish contact with overseas organizations or media in violation of disciplinary rules. The Henan opinion comes at a time when other institutions, including the All China Lawyers Association (ACLA), have also issued guiding opinions to restrict lawyer involvement in sensitive or mass cases.

A group of 35 nationally-recognized lawyers and human rights defenders, including Gao Zhisheng and Guo Feixiong, announced they would sue a local election committee to challenge the results of a recent local people's congress (LPC) election in Dongyong township, Guangdong province, according to a March 30 South China Morning Post (SCMP)/AsiaNews article.

The Shaanxi High People's Court (HPC) announced March 27 in an Opinion on Implementing the Second Five Year Reform Program for the People's Courts (Opinion) that it would "gradually eliminate" the use of advisory opinions (qingshi) in individual cases. The Second Five Year Reform Program for the People's Courts, issued by the Supreme People's Court in 2005, identifies reform of advisory opinions as one of its long-term court reform goals. Chinese judges often seek internal advisory opinions from higher courts or court adjudication committees (the highest authority in a given court) about how to decide pending cases.