Beijing Court Sentences Hu Jia to 3 Years 6 Months' Imprisonment

May 5, 2008

The Beijing Number 1 Intermediate People's Court sentenced activist Hu Jia on April 3 to three and a half years' imprisonment and one year deprivation of political rights for "inciting subversion of state power," according to an April 3 Xinhua article (no longer available via Xinhua, but reprinted via Boxun; shorter English version available via China Daily).

The Beijing Number 1 Intermediate People's Court sentenced activist Hu Jia on April 3 to three and a half years' imprisonment and one year deprivation of political rights for "inciting subversion of state power," according to an April 3 Xinhua article (no longer available via Xinhua, but reprinted via Boxun; shorter English version available via China Daily). Article 105, Paragraph 2 of China's Criminal Law makes inciting others "by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system," a crime punishable by up to five years in prison, or no less than five years for "ringleaders and the others who commit major crimes." The Beijing court found that from August 2006 to October 2007, Hu had "incited subversion" through essays he posted on foreign Web sites and telephone interviews he gave to foreign news agencies, according to the Xinhua article. Li Jinsong, one of Hu's lawyers, said it was unlikely that Hu would appeal the ruling, according to an April 3 Reuters article.

The court said that Hu's essays, including "China's Political and Legal Systems Create a Widespread Atmosphere of Fear Ahead of the 17th CPC National Congress," and "One Country Doesn't Need Two Systems," and his comments to foreign journalists, amounted to "malicious rumors, slander, and incitement, in a vain attempt to achieve the goal of subverting China's state power and socialist system," according to the Xinhua article. (Links provided for the articles are from blogs, one of which appears to be Hu Jia's.) The court also pointed out that numerous foreign Web sites had linked to or reprinted Hu's essays and interviews. The two essays mentioned above are critical of the Chinese government and Communist Party's intensified harassment of rights defenders before the 17th Party Congress in October 2007, and their "one country, two systems" approach to governing Hong Kong and mainland China. Hu writes that the government and Party's approach leaves people in Hong Kong vulnerable to the same deprivation of rights that occurs on the mainland, such as the lack of meaningful freedom of speech and the press.

The Xinhua article made no mention of the specific content of the "rumors, slander, and incitement," the potential threat Hu's essays and interviews posed to China's national security, or whether the court considered Hu's right to free speech, as provided for under Article 35 of China's Constitution. Chinese officials have insisted that cases like Hu's are handled in accordance with Chinese laws, but the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and human rights groups have criticized laws such as Article 105 for failing to protect a citizen's right to free expression.

According to the Xinhua article, the court gave Hu a lighter sentence because he "showed penitence and was willing to be dealt with according to the law" (the English article in the China Daily reported that he confessed to the crime and accepted the punishment). While Chinese media reported that Hu "showed penitence" and may have confessed, Hu plead "not guilty" at his trial on March 18. After the verdict's announcement, Hu's lawyers said that Hu had acknowledged "excesses" and accepted that some of his statements "were contrary to the law as it stands," according to the Reuters article. Li Fangping, Hu's other lawyer, maintained that the sentence was unjust, according to the same article. "The law on inciting subversion of state power doesn't have a clear boundary, but the Constitution guarantees citizens freedom of speech," he said.

The Xinhua article reported that during the trial, the court fully protected Hu Jia's procedural rights. The article said Hu's lawyer was able to present an "ample" defense and that Hu's family and others were allowed to observe the trial and sentencing. Hu's lawyer Li Fangping has said, however, that he did not have enough time to advocate on Hu's behalf. Furthermore, only Hu's mother was allowed to attend the trial, even though it appears that under Chinese law the trial should have been open to the public and other people affiliated with Hu should have been allowed to attend. Instead, some were taken into police custody and beaten. Hu's mother and Hu's wife, Zeng Jinyan, were present when the sentence was announced, according to an April 3 Chinese Human Rights Defenders article.

Hu's case highlights how China has sought to counter a regulation giving foreign journalists greater freedom to report in China by in turn targeting citizens who speak to foreign journalists. Under a regulation China issued in order to comply with a commitment for the Olympics, foreign reporters may, at least on paper, more freely interview Chinese citizens. Foreign media and human rights organizations have reported, however, that authorities have warned citizens not to speak to journalists. Internet essayist Wang Dejia was reportedly released on bail in January only after agreeing not to speak to foreign journalists. Also in January, land rights activist Yu Changwu reportedly was sentenced to two years reeducation through labor in part for speaking to foreign reporters.

For more information see previous CECC analyses on Hu's trial, arrest, and detention, and the records of detention for Hu, Wang, and Yu, searchable through the CECC's Political Prisoner Database.