Skip to content

All posts by LLD - 214. page

A Joint Statement on the “Organ Harvesting Investigation” Report

On July 6, 2006, international human rights lawyer Mr. David Matas and former Member of Parliament Mr. David Kilgour released their investigative report on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) harvesting of organs from living Falun Gong practitioners. Although we had been aware of the CCP’s crimes in this area beforehand and had mentally braced ourselves for the extent of the bloodiness and brutality that might be touched upon in this report, we were still deeply shocked and grieved when we were faced with this report. In order to express our concern and support for our fellow Chinese who have suffered such an atrocity and to protest the CCP’s crimes against humanity as mentioned in this report, we, Lin Mu, Sun Wenguang, Gao Zhisheng, Jiao Guobiao, Zhang Jiankang, and Yang Zaixin, hereby make the following statement:

1. This is the first investigative report on the CCP’s illegal persecution of Falun Gong done outside of China since the persecution started in 1999. This is also the first independent investigation on record into the CCP’s long-term crimes against humanity.

2. The two investigators’ independent status, consistent good reputations, and professional specialties guarantee the objectiveness and justness of this investigative report.

3. In its "Conclusions," the report states, "Each portion of the evidence we have considered is, in itself, verifiable and, in most cases, incontestable. Put together, they paint a damning whole picture. It is their combination that has convinced us." Such meticulousness and prudence in the investigative procedure ensure the objectiveness and justness of the results.

4. We support the two investigators’ conclusion that "the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centers and ‘people’s courts,’ since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas, were seized virtually simultaneously and quite involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners."

5. Therefore, we again urge the international community to recognize and correct as soon as possible the current state of indifference and lack of sympathy regarding the CCP’s continuing atrocities against humanity. Such unconscionable lack of concern and unresponsiveness is shameful to all of humanity. The report reveals the CCP’s ongoing horrible crimes, crimes that arbitrarily trample on human rights, human ethics, and human lives. Every fact revealed in this report is an indictment of the CCP for its crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. The investigation and the report reflect the value of having laws govern nations and the importance of safeguarding justice for all of humankind. We therefore call upon the international community to set up an international court similar to the one for trying the Yugoslavian war criminals and to launch a special criminal investigation into the CCP’s crimes against humanity and its crime of genocide. We also place our hopes in these two investigators to continue to carry on their irreplaceable roles in this cause. Actions should be taken immediately. As the report indicates, such crimes are escalating each day, so any excuse or tactic that delays the investigation and trial would be another crime against humanity.{mospagebreak}

6. We urgently call upon those individuals inside the CCP’s leadership who still have a conscience and who have not been involved in this crime to use everything in their power to help end the misery China is now suffering. We call upon these people either to bravely step forward to testify or to play a positive role in private to help the investigation. At the very least, do not become an accomplice to the criminals by helping to cover up their crimes. Please use every means possible to protect the evidence and do what a responsible Chinese should do.

Mr. David Matas pointed out that the CCP is committing "a form of evil we have yet to see on this planet." But the evil Mr. Matas has seen is only the tip of the iceberg. Humans have to stand up to the CCP regime right here, right now, or else such evil "we have yet to see" will never cease. We also appeal to the two investigators, who have already discovered some of the truths, to bravely take the lead in further spreading these truths to the international community, so as to wash clean this shameful episode in human history.

We, along with all the Chinese people and the rest of the people of the world, present and future, will forever remember the names of these two investigators.

July 7, 2006, in Beijing

Lin Mu, Personal Secretary of former Chinese leader Hu aobang. Now retired in Shaanxi Province.

Sun Wenguang, retired professor from Shangdong University

Gao Zhisheng, human rights lawyer from Beijing. His license was suspended for one year due to publicly appealing to top leaders to stop the persecution of Falun Gong.

Jiao Guobiao, former associate professor of journalism at
Beijing University. He was demoted from his post after publishing his article criticizing the Chinese Propaganda Ministry.

Zhang Jiankang, human rights lawyer from Shaanxi Province.

Yang Zaixin, human rights lawyer from Guangdong Province. His
license was suspended for defending Falun Gong practitioners.

Translated by CHINASCOPE from The Epoch Times http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/6/7/9/n1379467.htm

Transcript of Telephone Investigations

Appendix 14 of the Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China

[Editor’s note: Below are excerpts of telephone conversations between Canadian and U.S. investigators (M and N) and officials in detention centers and hospitals in China. The recorded conversation was listened to and certified by a certified Madarin-English interpreter with the Government of Ontario.]

(1) Mijiang City Detention Center, Heilongjiang Province (June 8, 2006):

M: Do you have Falun Gong [organ] suppliers? …

Mr. Li: We used to have, yes.

M: … what about now?

Mr. Li: … Yes.

……

M: Can we come to select, or you provide directly to us?

Mr. Li: We provide them to you.

M: What about the price?

Mr. Li: We discuss after you come.

……

M: How many [Falun Gong suppliers] under age 40 do you have?

Mr. Li: Quite a few.

……

M: Are they male or female?{mospagebreak}

Mr. Li: Male

……

M: Now, for … the male Falun Gong [prisoners], how many of them do you have?

Mr. Li: Seven, eight, we have [at least] five, six now.

M: Are they from countryside or from the city?

Mr. Li: Countryside.

(2) Shanghai’s Zhongshan Hospital Organ Transplant Clinic (March 16, 2006):

M: Hi. Are you a doctor?

Doctor: Yes, I am…

……

M: … So how long do I have to wait [for organ transplant surgery]?

Doctor: About a week after you come…

M: Is there the kind of organs that come from Falun Gong? I heard that they are very good.

Doctor: All of ours are those types.

(3) Qianfoshan City Liver Transplant Hospital, Shandong Province
(March 16, 2006):

Receptionist: Hold a second. I’ll get a doctor for you.
Doctor: Hello. How are you?

M: … How long have you been doing [these operations]?…{mospagebreak}

Doctor: … Over four years.

M: The supply of livers… the ones from Falun Gong, I want to ask if you have those types?

Doctor: It is ok if you come here.

M: So that means you have them?

Doctor: … In April, there will be more of these kinds of suppliers… now, gradually, we have more and more."

M: Why will there be more in April?

Doctor: This I can’t explain to you…

(4) Nanning City Minzu Hospital in Guangxi Autonomous Region
(May 22, 2006):

M: Could you find organs from Falun Gong practitioners?

Dr. Lu: Let me tell you, we have no way to get [them]. It’s rather difficult to get it now in Guangxi. If you cannot wait, I suggest you go to Guangzhou because it’s very easy for them to get the organs. They are able to look for them nationwide. As they are performing the liver transplant, they can get the kidney for you at the same time, so it’s very easy for them to do. Many places where supplies are short go to them for help.

……

M: Why is it easy for them to get?…

Lu: Because they are an important institution. They contact the judicial system in the name of the whole university.

M: Then they use organs from Falun Gong practitioners?{mospagebreak}

Lu: Correct…

……

M: … What you used before [organs from Falun Gong practitioners], were they from detention center(s) or prison(s)?"

Lu: From prisons.

M: … And it was from healthy Falun Gong practitioners…?

Lu: Correct. We would choose the good ones because we assure the quality in our operation.

M: That means you choose the organs yourself.

Lu: Correct…

……

M: Usually, how old is the organ supplier?

Lu: Usually in their thirties.

M: … Then you will go to the prison to select yourself?

Lu: Correct. We must select it.

M: What if the chosen one doesn’t want to have blood drawn?

Lu: He will for sure let us do it.

M: How?

Lu: They will for sure find a way. What do you worry about? These kinds of things should not be of any concern to you. They have their procedures.{mospagebreak}

M: Does the person know that his organ will be removed?

Lu: No, he doesn’t.

(5) Shanghai Jiaotong University Hospital’s Liver Transplant Center
(March 16, 2006):

M: I want to know how long [the patients] have to wait [for a liver transplant].

Dr. Dai: The supply of organs we have, we have every day. We do them every day.

M: We want fresh, alive ones.

Dr. Dai: They are all alive, all alive…

M: How many [liver transplants] have you done?

Dr. Dai: We have done 400 to 500 cases… Your major job is to come, prepare the money, enough money, and come.

M: How much is it?

Dr. Dai: If everything goes smoothly, it’s about RMB 150,000… RMB 200,000.

M: How long do I have to wait?

Dr. Dai: I need to check your blood type… If you come today, I may do it for you within one week.

M: I heard some come from those who practice Falun Gong, those who are very healthy.

Dr. Dai: Yes, we have. I can’t talk clearly to you over the phone.

M: If you can find me this type, I am coming very soon.

Dr. Dai: It’s ok. Please come.{mospagebreak}

M: … What is your last name?…

Dr. Dai: I’m Doctor Dai.

(6) Zhengzhou Medical University Organ Transplant Center in Henan Province (March 14, 2006):

Dr. Wang: … For sure, [the organ] is healthy… If it’s not healthy, we won’t take it.

M: I’ve heard that those kidneys from Falun Gong practitioners are better. Do you have them?

Wang: Yes, yes, we pick all young and healthy kidneys…

M: That is the kind that practices this type of [Falun] Gong.

Wang: For this, you could rest assured. Sorry I can’t tell you much on the phone.

M: Do you get [them] out of town?

Wang: … We have local ones and out-of-town ones.

……

M: What is your last name?

Wang: Wang.

(7) Oriental Organ Transplant Center (also called Tianjin City No. 1 Central Hospital), Tianjin City (March 15, 2006):

N: Is this Chief Physician Song?

Song: Yes, please speak.

……{mospagebreak}

N: Her doctor told her that the kidney is quite good because he [the supplier] practices … Falun Gong.

Song: Of course. We have all those who breathe and with heartbeat… Up until now, for this year, we have more than ten kidneys, more than ten such kidneys.

N: More than ten of this kind of kidneys? You mean live bodies?
Song: Yes, it is so.

(8) Tongji Hospital in Wuhan City, Wuhan City, Hubei Province (March 30, 2006):

N: How many [kidney transplants] can you do in a year?

Official: … Our department is the one that does the most in the whole Hubei province. We do a lot if the organ suppliers are ample.

N: … We hope the kidney suppliers are alive. [We’re] looking for live organ transplants from prisoners, for example, using living bodies from prisoners who practice Falun Gong. Is it possible?

Official: It’s not a problem.

(9) General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Region, Guangdong Province (April 12, 2006):

N: Is this Dr. Zhu…?

Zhu: Yes, that’s me.

N: I’m from hospital 304. … I have two relatives in hospital 304. We don’t have enough kidney supply right now. We did a lot of [kidney transplants] in 2001, 2002, and 2003…

Zhu: Right…

N: We found that kidneys from young people and Falun Gong [practitioners] are better. How about your hospital, such as kidneys from Falun Gong?

Zhu: We have very few kidneys from Falun Gong.{mospagebreak}

N: But you still have some?

Zhu: It is not hard for [blood] type B. If you come here, we can arrange it quickly, definitely before May 1.

N: There will be a batch before May 1?

Zhu: Several batches.

N: Will you have some after May 1?

Zhu: After May 1, you may need to wait until May 20 or later.

……

(10) First Detention Center of Qinhuangdao City, Hebei Province (May 18, 2006):

N: Is this the First Detention Center of Qinhuangdao City?

Official: What’s up?

N: We are doing kidney transplantations and we don’t have enough organs.

Official: You don’t need to call here. You just call the court.

N: Which court?

Official: It is the Intermediate People’s Court. You need to tell them about such thing.

N: In 2001, you provided live organs from young and healthy people who practiced Falun Gong…

Official: You don’t need to talk about that time. It has been so many years. Right now it is with the court. You just call them.

(11) The Second Detention Center of Qinhuangdao City, Shangdong Province (May 18, 2006):{mospagebreak}

……

N: … I wonder whether you still have live organ supplies from people such as those practicing Falun Gong?

Official: No, we don’t have Falun Gong [organs] right now. There are very few people-almost none. During earlier 2000s there [were] many Falun Gong [organs].

……

(12) The Qinhuangdao Intermediate People’s Court, Shangdong Province (May 18, 2006):

……

N: … Can your court provide us with some live kidneys from young and healthy people?

Official: No matter good or bad, we have none. There is no execution after the Spring festival…

N: … I mean live kidneys from young and healthy people who practice Falun Gong. You had a lot in 2001…

Official: We had before…

N: … Not just the executed prisoners-such live organs as Falun Gong…?
Official: No, what you said is in 2001. We have to face reality now…

……

(13) The First Criminal Bureau of the Jinzhou Intermediate People’s Court (May 23, 2006):

N: Starting from 2001, we always [got] kidneys from young and healthy people who practice Falun Gong from detention centers and courts… I wonder if you still have such organs in your court right now?

Official: That depends on your qualifications… If you have good qualifications, we may still provide some…

N: Are we supposed to get them, or will you prepare for them?"
Official: According to past experience, it is you that will come here to get them.
{mospagebreak}

Official: According to past experience, it is you that will come here to get them.

N: … What are the qualifications that we must have?

Official: … Let’s say for now this year is very different from previous years. This year the situation is very tough… The policy is very strict. Several years ago we had a good relationship with Beijing, but recently it is very tense… It’s all about mutual benefits…

(14) Kunming Higher People’s Court (May 31, 2006):

N: … We contacted your court several times in 2001. Your court can provide us with those live kidney organs from those young and healthy Falun Gong practitioners…?

Official: I am not sure about that. Such things are related to national secrets. I don’t think this is something that we can talk about on the phone. If you want to know more information about these things, you’d better contact us in a formal way, okay? 

200607_F1.png

Reprint with permission from http://investigation.go.saveinter.net/report0701/report20070131.htm#_Toc158023107

Interview with Ex-Wife of a Chinese Surgeon Who Removed Corneas of Falun Gong Practitioners

Appendix 13 of the Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China

On May 20, 2006, Mr. David Kilgour conducted an interview in the United States with the ex-wife of a Chinese surgeon who removed corneas of Falun Gong prisoners. The following transcript was abridged and edited to protect those who would otherwise be in danger due to publication of this interview.

W – Ex-wife of a Chinese surgeon who removed corneas of Falun Gong practitioners.

A – Another person who was also present at the interview and raised two questions.

Kilgour: … The closest person who saw this happen is "W." … In 2001, when did the procurement of food supplies for [Sujiatun Hospital] go up?

W: About July, in the summer.

Kilgour: July 2001. You were in the accounting department?

W: Statistics and Logistics Department.

Kilgour: Statistics and Logistics Department. What happened? The procurement of food went up first and then the surgical equipment?

W: In July 2001, there were many people working in the Statistics and Logistics Department. Some of them from procurement brought the receipts to me for signature after they made the purchase. On the receipts I noted sharp increases in the food supplies. Also, the people in charge of the logistics were delivering meals to the facilities where Falun Gong practitioners were detained. Other medical staff came to our department to report the purchase of the medical equipment. From the receipts, the medical equipment supplies also sharply increased.

Kilgour: By the way, the facilities to detain Falun Gong practitioners, was it the underground facilities?

W: In the backyard of the hospital, there were some one-story houses typically built for construction workers. After several months, the consumption of food and other supplies gradually decreased. At that time people guessed that maybe the detainees were sent to an underground facility.

Kilgour: When did the supply decrease? September? October?{mospagebreak}

W: After about 4 or 5 months.

Kilgour: End of 2001?

W: Yes.

Kilgour: How much of an increase did you estimate was from the food [receipts you saw]? How many people you estimated were there?

W: The person in charge of getting the food and in charge of sending food to Falun Gong practitioners detained told me that there were about 5,000 to 6,000 practitioners. At the time, a lot of public security bureaus and hospitals in many areas were detaining many Falun Gong practitioners. A lot of people working at the hospital, including me, were not Falun Gong practitioners. So we didn’t pay attention. If it were not for what happened in 2003, when I found my ex-husband was directly involved in it, I probably wouldn’t be interested in this at all. A lot of the staffers working in our department are family members of the officials in the government healthcare system. For some matters, we knew it in our hearts but none of us would discuss these things.

Kilgour: When they decreased the procurement, where did you think the practitioners went?

W: We thought they were released.

Kilgour: At the end of 2001, you thought they were released?

W: Yes.

Kilgour: All 5,000 had been released?

W: No, there were still Falun Gong practitioners detained in the hospital, but the number was gradually decreasing. Later, in 2003, I learned that Falun Gong practitioners had been transferred to the underground complex and other hospitals, because our hospital couldn’t hold so many people.

Kilgour: They left the houses or cabins in the backyard to go to underground?

W: Yes, I later got to know this in 2002.{mospagebreak}

Kilgour: Did you say that you were not the person to send food to them when practitioners were detained in the houses or cabins in the backyard?

W: No, I was not.

Kilgour: Did you know who supplied their meals after they left your jurisdiction?

W: I didn’t know.

Kilgour: I heard a lot of these people were killed for their organs. 2001 and 2002. Was it the correct understanding?

W: During the years of 2001-2002, I didn’t know anything about organ harvesting. I only knew the detention of these people.

Kilgour: So you didn’t discover this until you husband told you in 2003.

W: Right.

Kilgour: Did he tell you that in 2001-2002 he had already started doing these operations?

W: Yes, he started in 2002.

Kilgour: Your former husband began in 2002?

W: Yes.

Kilgour: Did you roughly know if there were [organ removal] operations since 2001?

W: The operations started in 2001. Some were done in our hospital, and some were done at other hospitals in the region. I found out in 2003.

At the beginning he also did the operations, but he did not know they were Falun Gong practitioners. He was a neurosurgeon. He removed corneas. Starting from 2002 he got to know those he operated on were Falun Gong practitioners. Because our hospital was not an organ transplant hospital-it was only in charge of removal-how these organs were transplanted, he didn’t know.{mospagebreak}

Kilgour: Your ex-husband started to take organs from Falun Gong practitioners starting from when?

W: At the end of 2001, he started to operate, but he didn’t know these live bodies were Falun Gong practitioners. He got to know that in 2002.

Kilgour: What kind of organs did he take out?

W: Corneas.

Kilgour: Just corneas?

W: Yes.

Kilgour: Were these people alive or dead?

W: Usually these Falun Gong practitioners were injected with a shot to cause heart failure. During the process these people would be pushed into operation rooms to have their organs removed. On the surface the heart stopped beating, but the brain was still functioning, because of that shot.

Kilgour: What was the injection called?

W: I don’t know the name of it but it caused heart failure. I was not a nurse or a doctor. I don’t know the names of the injections.

Kilgour: Causing heart failure, most, or all, or some cases?

W: For most people.

Kilgour: So he would take corneas of these people, then what happened to these people?

W: These people were pushed to other operation rooms for removals of heart, liver, kidneys, etc. During one operation when he collaborated with other doctors, he learned they were Falun Gong practitioners, that their organs were removed while alive, and that it was not just cornea removal-they were removing many organs.

Kilgour: They did it in different rooms, didn’t they?{mospagebreak}

W: In the later period of time, when these doctors cooperated together, they started doing the operations together. At the beginning, fearing information could leak out, different organs were removed by different doctors in different rooms. Later on, when they got money, they were no longer afraid anymore. They started to remove the organs together.

For other practitioners who were operated on in other hospitals, my ex-husband didn’t know what happened to them afterward. For the practitioners in our hospital, after their kidneys, liver, etc., and skin were removed, there were only bones and flesh, etc., left. The bodies were thrown into the boiler room at the hospital.

In the beginning, I did not fully believe this had happened. For some doctors who had operation accidents, they may form some illusions. So I checked with other doctors and other officials from the government healthcare system.

Kilgour: In 2003 or 2002?

W: 2003.

Kilgour: Your husband only did corneas?

W: Yes.

Kilgour: How many cornea operations did your ex-husband perform?

W: He said about 2,000.

Kilgour: Corneas of 2,000 people, or 2,000 corneas?

W: Corneas of around 2,000 people.

Kilgour: This is from 2001 to 2003?

W: From the end of 2001 to October 2003.

Kilgour: That was when he left?

W: It was the time that I got to know this and he stopped doing it.{mospagebreak}

Kilgour: Where did these corneas go?

W: They were usually collected by other hospitals. There was an existing system handling such business of the removal and sales of the organs to other hospitals or other areas.

Kilgour: Nearby or far away?

W: I don’t know.

Kilgour: All the hearts, livers, kidneys, and corneas go off to other hospitals?

W: Yes.

Kilgour: Did you know what prices they sold them for?

W: I don’t know at the time. However, in the year 2002, a neighbor had a liver transplant. It cost 200,000 yuan [US$25,000]. The hospital charged a little bit less for Chinese than foreigners.

Kilgour: Which year, 2001 or 2002?

W: 2002.

Kilgour: What was your husband told? How did they justify? These were perfectly healthy people…

W: In the beginning, he wasn’t told anything. He was asked to help out in other hospitals. However, every time when he did such a favor, or provided this kind of help, he got lots of money, and cash awards-several dozen times his normal salary.

Kilgour: What was the total amount of money he got out of the 2,000 cornea removals?

W: Hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars.

Kilgour: Were they paid in U.S. dollars?

W: Paid in Chinese yuan. Equivalent to hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars.{mospagebreak}

Kilgour: How many doctors were working on these organ removals in the hospital, and in which area? Are we talking about 100 doctors, or dozens, or 10?

W: I don’t know how many people were doing it specifically. But I know that about four or five doctors who were acquaintances of us at our hospital were doing it. And in other hospitals, doctors of general practice were also doing this.

Kilgour: Are there any records in the statistics department regarding how many people were operated upon?

W: There was no proper procedure or paperwork for this kind of operation. So there was no way to count the number of operations in the normal way.

Kilgour: After practitioners transferred underground at the end of 2001, did you know where their food supplies were from?

W: Food still came from our department; just the amount gradually decreased.

At the end of 2001 we thought they were released. In 2003, I learned that they were not released but were transferred underground or to other hospitals.

Kilgour: Was the underground facility run by the military army or by the hospital? You said food was still from the hospital.

W: We weren’t responsible for the procurement of the food for the people detained and kept underground. That is why there was so much difference in the procurement of food when people were transferred to the underground complex. But the food of some of the detainees was provided by the hospital, and for others it was not. The decrease in food was not proportional to the decrease in the number of detainees.

Kilgour: What did your husband tell you about the underground facility? 5,000 people killed, or more than 5,000?

W: He didn’t know how many people were detained underground. He only heard from some others that people were detained underground. If three operations were done every day, after several years of operation, for the 5,000-6,000 people, not many people would be left. This whole scheme and the trading of organs were organized by the government healthcare system. The doctors’ responsibility was simply to do what they were told to do.{mospagebreak}

Kilgour: He didn’t go down to the underground facility himself?

W: He didn’t.

Kilgour: Rudimentary operation in the underground facility?

W: He had never been there.

Kilgour: All of those people, were they dead when they were operated on? Or their hearts stopped? Did he know that they were killed afterwards? They weren’t yet dead.

W: At the beginning, he didn’t know these were Falun Gong practitioners. As time went by, he knew they were Falun Gong practitioners. When they did more of these removals of organs and became bold, these doctors started to do the removals together; this doctor extracted the cornea, another doctor removed the kidney, the third doctor took out the liver. At that time, this patient, or this Falun Gong practitioner, he knew what was the next step to treat the body. (Translator added the translation of the two missed sentences: Yes, the heart stopped beating, but they were still living.) If the victim’s skin was not peeled off and only internal organs were removed, the openings of the bodies would be sealed and an agent would sign the paperwork. The bodies would be sent to the crematorium near the Sujiatun area.

Kilgour: Only if the skin was removed, they would be sent to the boiler room?

W: Yes.

Kilgour: Usually what was the "supposed" cause of death given?

W: Usually no specific reason when the bodies were sent to the crematorium. Usually the reasons were "The heart stopped beating," "heart failure." When these people were rounded up and detained, nobody knew their names or where they were from. So when they were sent to the crematorium, nobody could claim their bodies.

Kilgour: Who administered the drug to cause the heart to stop beating?

W: Nurse.

Kilgour: Nurse working for the hospital? {mospagebreak}

W: Nurses brought over by these doctors. Doctors, including my ex-husband, came to this hospital in 1999 or 2000. He brought his nurse over. When organ harvesting first started, nurses were assigned to the doctors. Wherever the doctors go, their nurses go with them as far as the organ removal operations were concerned. These nurses were not like personal secretaries.

In the year 2003, government health authorities sent many doctors involved in organ removal operations to an area sealed by the government because of SARS. These doctors believed they were sent there to let them live or die over there. I mean the government already wanted to put to death secretively the first group involved in organ removal. So they sent them to a SARS-affected area in Beijing.

From that point on my husband realized that there was danger in doing this and that at any time, he could be killed and done away with as an accomplice. Later, when he wanted to quit, someone did try to kill him.

Kilgour: In the hospital?

W: Outside the hospital.

Kilgour: Can you give us more details?

W: At the end of 2003, after I learned about the issue, he came back from Beijing. He could no longer live a normal life. After I knew about it, he listened to my advice and decided to quit doing it. He submitted his resignation letter. It was around the new year of 2004.

In February 2004, after his resignation was granted, the last month of working in the hospital, he was tying up loose ends at his work. During that time we received phone threats at home. Someone said to him, "You watch out for your life."

One day we got off work in the afternoon. There were two people walking toward us trying to assassinate him. If you were a woman, I would show you my scar, because I pushed him aside and took the stab. Men do not have very good sixth senses, so he kept walking. When I realized the two people were going to pull the knife to stab him, I pushed him aside and took the stab for him. Many people came over and I was sent to the hospital. These two men ran away.

Kilgour: Which side? (Location of the scar)

W: Right side.{mospagebreak}

Kilgour: Do you know who these two people were?

W: I didn’t know in the beginning. Later I knew.

Kilgour: Who were they?

W: I learned that they were thugs hired by the government health authorities.

Kilgour: How did you find that out about these two?

W: Because my family was part of the government healthcare system. My mother used to be a doctor.

After these things happened, our friends suggested we get a divorce so it would separate our children and me from my husband. After all, our children and I didn’t participate in any of these things. So we divorced at the end of 2003, very close to the new year of 2004.

Kilgour: How many did you think were still alive?

W: Initially I estimated there were about 2,000 people left at the time I left China in 2004. But I cannot give a figure anymore, because China is still arresting Falun Gong practitioners and there have been people coming in and going out. So I cannot give a figure now anymore.

Kilgour: How did you come to this number 2,000 in 2004?

W: According to how many my ex-husband did and how many other doctors did. And how many sent to other hospitals. Good doctors are well connected within the healthcare system. Many of them used to be classmates in medical schools. The number was estimated by the few doctors involved. When we were together in private, they discussed how many people in total. At that time, these doctors did not want to continue. They wanted to go to other countries or transfer to other fields. So the total number of deaths was calculated and derived by these doctors involved.

Kilgour: What is their estimate of how many people were killed?

W: They estimated 3,000-4,000 people.

Kilgour: This is the estimate by all of the doctors?{mospagebreak}

W: No. By three doctors we were familiar with.

Kilgour: Do you have anything else you want to say?

W: Chinese or non-Chinese, they think it is impossible Sujiatun detained so many Falun Gong practitioners. They focused on just this Sujiatun hospital. Because most people do not know there are underground facilities. I want to say, even if things were over for Sujiatun, in other hospitals this issue continues. Because I worked in Sujiatun, I know about Sujiatun. Other hospitals and detention centers¡­ inspecting and putting control on these facilities will help reduce the deaths.

For Chinese people, one person comes out, there are still family members in China. They still dare not come out to speak the truth. They are afraid it could put their family members in danger. It doesn’t mean that they don’t know about it.

A: Does your mother know about what you are doing?

W: Yes.

A: Does she still work in the government healthcare system?

W: No. She retired a long time ago. She is almost 70 years old.

Reprint with permission from http://investigation.go.saveinter.net/report0701/report20070131.htm#_Toc158023111

Canadian Report Confirms Organ Seizure from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China

On July 6, 2006, in Ottawa, Canada, international human rights lawyer David Matas and former Member of Parliament David Kilgour released an independent report following their two-month inquiry into allegations that vital organs are being harvested from live Falun Gong practitioners across China.

Mr. Matas has been the attorney for many cases heard before the Canadian Supreme Court, and a member of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly. He has played a leading role in key human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the International Commission of Jurists, and has received many outstanding achievement awards. The list of books and manuscripts he has written is no less impressive. Mr. Kilgour has served in the Canadian House of Commons, and was Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa from 1997 to 2002, and for Asia-Pacific from 2002 to 2003.

The report concludes:

"­the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centers and ‘people’s courts,’ since 1999, have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas, were virtually simultaneously seized for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries."

During the two-month investigation, witnesses were interviewed in Canada, Australia, France and the United States.

Among the most significant incriminating evidence, however, were certified translations of recorded conversations in Mandarin with doctors and other officials at hospitals and detention centers located in various parts of China.

Another piece of significant evidence is the transcript of an interview during which the former wife of a Chinese surgeon recounted the admission of her husband who operated on and removed corneas from over 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners. One doctor gave the Falun Gong practitioners an injection that caused heart failure, then their corneas were removed, and then they were passed on to different doctors who removed other organs.

We have reprinted these transcripts in the following pages with permission of the authors of the report.

Other critical evidence included in the report:{mospagebreak}

  • Translations of recent and continuing postings on numbers of websites of transplantation centers within China, which also played an important role in convincing the inquiry that the only fair conclusion was that the organ harvesting is widespread and ongoing.
  • Testimony from Ms. Yuzhi Wang, now living in the Vancouver area, who stated she spent most of 2000 and 2001 in labor camps because of being a Falun Gong practitioner. She suffered internal damage from beatings, and is convinced that these injuries were the only reason she did not end up an unwilling "donor" and was able to leave China.
  • Testimony from Xiaohua Wang, now living in Montreal, who reported that in 2002, because he practiced Falun Gong, he spent two years in a forced-labor camp working 16 hours a day with chemicals. During his incarceration, he and every other Falun Gong practitioner received a comprehensive forced medical exam, including electrocardiograms, whole-body X-rays, liver and kidney checks, and blood tests—none of which were administered to non-practitioners in the camp. Later, he was able to emigrate to Canada.
  • Testimony from Ms. Na Gan, now living in Toronto, who stated that the police beat her when she unfurled a Falun Gong "Truthfulness-Compassion-Tolerance" banner in Tiananmen Square. As a result, her Chinese Communist Party membership and salary as a customs employee at the Beijing airport were revoked and she was sent to the local women’s labor camp. In mid-2001, she reported that only the Falun Gong members of the group had their blood, urine, and eyes examined at a nearby hospital. She too managed to leave China for Canada.

The following are some key recommendations made in the report:

1. As organ harvesting is a crime against humanity, the authorities in China should conduct a criminal investigation for possible prosecution.

2. Organizations—intergovernmental, governmental and voluntary—should take the allegations seriously and make their own determinations as to whether or not they are true.

3. As the United Nations Protocol to prevent trafficking in persons bans the removal of organs, the U.N. should investigate whether China is in violation.

4. Foreign governments should ban the entry of Chinese doctors seeking training in organ transplantation. Any doctor there, known to be engaged in such work, should be permanently barred from visiting foreign countries.{mospagebreak}

5. All countries should tighten their laws against organ trafficking and doctors should, for example, be required to report to their respective authorities any evidence that a patient has received an organ from a trafficked person abroad.

6. Governments should deny or revoke the passports of nationals who are traveling to China for organ transplants.

7. No governments should participate in any China-sponsored meeting or research on organ transplantation. No private company should provide goods or services to any Chinese transplant program.

Right after the release of the report on July 6, 2006, the Chinese communist government—through the website of the Chinese Embassy in Canada—issued a statement denying the findings of the report.

A full copy of the report can be obtained at: http://investigation.redirectme.net/

Xiao Tian is a correspondent for Chinascope.

Lawyer Vows to Bring the “Shanghai Cluster” to Light Despite Serving Time

Mr. Zheng Enchong was released on June 5, 2006, after having served three years in prison. Before his arrest, Mr. Zheng, a lawyer in Shanghai, had defended the economic and social rights of people who were displaced by Shanghai redevelopment projects. While working on those civil cases, he uncovered huge corruption scandals involving the Shanghai authorities and the most senior Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders in Shanghai. He was arrested and put into prison in an apparent effort by regime authorities to silence him.

"I am innocent," he told the Associated Press in a telephone interview the day after his release. "I am also going to report the corruption, irregularities in land-use approval, and violations of human rights in Shanghai redevelopment projects to the central government."

Mr. Zheng’s arrest and his recent release highlight not only the communist government’s corruption but also the struggle for power among the Party factions.

Three years ago, Attorney Zheng assisted displaced families in more than 500 cases, all of them relating to Shanghai’s urban redevelopment projects. On May 28, 2003, Mr. Zheng represented six displaced families in a lawsuit against the alleged corrupt collusion between Shanghai regime government officials and a wealthy property developer, Mr. Zhou Zhengyi. The case alleged that Mr. Zhou was able to obtain a 70-year land lease from the Jingan District Property Development Bureau only because the district government had given instructions for the Bureau to agree to the deal. The Shanghai authorities improperly allowed Zhou’s company to redevelop the 43,429-square-meter (52,000 square yd.) property without paying a land lease fee valued at about 300 million yuan (US$36.3 million). Under the conditions of that illegal land lease, Mr. Zhou was able to force 2,159 residents and original property owners on West Beijing Road to relocate to a fringe district.

After filing the civil lawsuit, Mr. Zheng wrote to CCP leader Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, bringing the corruption case to light. In his letter, Mr. Zheng revealed the involvement of the so-called "Shanghai Cluster," a group of officials with a close relationship to the previous CCP leader, Jiang Zemin. He particularly criticized former Shanghai Mayor Huang Ju, who is now a politburo standing member.

At that time, property tycoon Zhou Zhengyi was also being sought after in the Hong Kong courts for his business dealings involving massive illegal loans from the Bank of China. The litigation dealing with Zhou’s illegal loans was reportedly the biggest case of financial fraud since the founding of the P.R.C. Facing mounting public pressure, the Shanghai authorities sentenced Zhou to three years in prison for falsely reporting his company’s holdings as well as manipulating stock prices. As for the civil case filed by the displaced families against Zhou, it hit a political wall and cost them their representing attorney.{mospagebreak}

Shanghai authorities arrested the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Zheng Enchong, and charged him with "illegally providing state secrets to entities outside of China." On October 28, 2003, the authorities sentenced him to three years in prison and deprived him of his political rights for one year.

By putting both Zhou (the defendant) and Zheng (the plaintiffs’ lawyer) in prison, the Shanghai authorities put a lid on the case and minimized the political damage to the Shanghai Cluster. Three years later, both Zhou and Zheng have been released after serving their terms. They may add new fuel to the Shanghai corruption scandal. Seeing that Huang Ju, the leading figure in the Shanghai Cluster, is also one of the nine standing members in the most powerful CCP politburo, repercussions from the Shanghai corruption scandal could be far reaching in China.

Mr. Zheng is well aware of who directed his arrest. "My case is related to Huang Ju," he told reporters recently. Mr. Zheng is also confident in his pursuit of the criminals: "I have direct evidence," he said. In his 500-plus civil cases since 1994, Mr. Zheng has documented more than 200 non-natural deaths and more than 2,000 physical injuries that occurred to Shanghai residents who fell victim to forced evictions.

The corruption case against Zhou Zhengyi involved over 300 million yuan (US$36.3 million) in an unpaid land lease, but that is only a small portion of all the land deals that the Shanghai government has engaged in. Their overall stake in the Shanghai corruption scandal is likely to be much larger.

For his legal work in representing the displaced Shanghai families, Mr. Zheng was seen as a threat to the Shanghai Cluster. He lost his freedom for three years and is currently under the watchful eye of State Security. Yet Mr. Zheng is determined to stand up for his clients and for his own rights and dignity.

After his release from prison, Mr. Zheng wrote letters to the United Nations, to the German government that had granted him a Human Rights Award, and to Chinese leader Hu Jiantao to expose the crimes of the Shanghai Cluster members. While the Shanghai Police have warned him several times not to accept interviews from foreign media, he publicly states, "I am organizing my documents, and I will continue to lodge accusations against them until I see justice is being done."

To achieve justice for all the displaced Shanghai families, Mr. Zheng declares, "It is time to bring to light the Shanghai Cluster."

Chinese Foreign Exchange Reserve Surpasses One Trillion U.S. Dollars

Chinese authorities recently disclosed that China’s current foreign reserve has exceeded US$1 trillion in late October 2006. Not long ago, China had already replaced Japan as the country with the world’s largest foreign currency reserves. The news has once again shown a spotlight on China’s currency, with many of China’s trade partners believing that the yuan is seriously undervalued.

One trillion U.S. dollars is equivalent to one-fourth of the total market value of stocks listed on the Dow Jones Index—enough to buy Microsoft, Citibank, and Exxon Mobil combined, with the remaining enough for General Motors and Ford Motor Company. Although experts have suggested that the funds be appropriated to health, rural education, environmental protection, and other social security projects, Wu Xiaoling, the deputy governor of China’s Central Bank, recently made an explicit statement that the foreign currency reserve should not replenish the social security fund accounts. He reiterated that agencies that wished to use foreign currency reserves ought to pay an equivalent amount of Chinese currency in exchange.

While Chinese people may find it difficult to benefit from the huge reserves, they may have to suffer from the potential consequences. On September 12, 2006, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issued a warning to several emerging market economies, including China, that the huge reserves may present a dilemma, necessitating either raising their exchange rates or bearing the aggravated risk of inflation.

China’s foreign currency reserves come from exports and foreign investment. The Central Bank has been using the Chinese yuan to purchase U.S. dollars and other foreign currencies from enterprises and individuals. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reported that, in order to maintain the unreasonably low Chinese RMB exchange rate, China’s Central Bank has to purchase about US$20 billion every month. In order to raise the money to buy dollars, the Central Bank either needs to issue more bonds or to put more cash into circulation. Infusing cash into the market will lead to inflation. On the other side, if the government distributes bonds, it will accumulate debt and the government will have to pay the dividend.

In the United States and China, many economic experts have already pointed out that the huge foreign currency reserve is not only a serious waste of resources but also a detriment to the interests of China. Chinese officials, who have thus far avoided facing the issue, have just begun to recognize this as a serious problem.

When Jiang Dingzi, vice chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, was interviewed by the Study Times, the Communist Central Party School newspaper, he described China’s huge foreign currency reserves as one of the biggest economic problems. He added that China’s foreign exchange reserves are invested mostly in U.S. bonds. Although the liquidity of such assets is not a problem, the rate of return is not high. Because the value of the U.S. dollar has exhibited a long-term trend of decline, China is facing the risk that the U.S. bonds that China holds will depreciate.{mospagebreak}

With China’s rapid export growth, it is estimated that its foreign currency reserves will add another US$200 billion by early 2007. Mao Yushi, chief economist of Beijing Tianze Economic Research Center, a private economic research institute, said that, because Chinese officials are only now realizing that this is a serious problem now, it might already be too late. He added, If we had adjusted the exchange rate three years ago, when our foreign exchange reserves were only more than US$200 billion, we would not have today’s problems.

Economists worry that if China starts to sell U.S. dollars, it will cause the exchange rate of the dollar to plummet. As a result, the value of dollar-based Chinese investment will be greatly reduced. At the same time, the U.S. Central Bank will have to increase its interest rates. The U.S. economy will then stagnate or even enter a recession. The demand for imported products will drop dramatically, causing more damage to both China and the United States.

In today’s global economy, any move by either China or the United States will affect the entire world. Economists and politicians in both countries are painstakingly looking for ways out of this currency predicament.

Serene Lee is the hostess for NTDTV’s Economy Program.

The Chinese “Judicial System:” A Fairy Tale of Beijing

INTRODUCTION

The myth of Chinese legal reform, with accompanying claims that the Beijing regime is committed to implementing the "Rule of Law", constitutes one of the most assiduously cultivated scams in recent political memory. The governments of both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were deeply committed to portraying the Beijing regime in the most glowing terms and the Chinese "legal" system, or more correctly the lack of a legal system, was initially an impediment.

During China’s "Warring States" period, centuries Before Christ, a philosopher of the day was known for the aphorism, "A White Horse is not a Horse." We shall not explore the reasoning behind that statement here; the expression is significant for our purposes only because it is still familiar to every literate Chinese. Today, if the topic is the Chinese "judiciary," we might alter this ancient sentence to "A Chinese ‘Court’ is not a Court." The truth of this statement is fundamental to any real understanding of how the Chinese "judiciary" functions, whether the Beijing regime is in¬deed committed to implementing the "Rule of Law," whether a Canadian investor could successfully sue a Chinese party in a Chinese "court" (or defend against a Chinese lawsuit), or whether a Chinese fugitive deported to China from Canada could receive a fair trial.

The nature and quality of Chinese "courts" was back on stage recently when it became the focus in a Judicial Review of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") finding in the case of Chinese fugitive Lai Changxing. Lai’s lawyer argued in the Federal Court of Canada what is simply "trite law" to every lawyer or legal scholar having even the most minimal knowledge of the Chinese "judicial" system: that there is no semblance of due process, that there is no such thing as a fair trial in any Chinese criminal "court" (or for that matter any "court" hearing a lawsuit pitting a foreign party against a Chinese party), and that Mr. Lai would be unable to obtain counsel or mount a meaningful defense.

Esta Resnick, a trial lawyer from the Department of Justice who has represented Citizenship and Immigration Canada ("CIC") throughout its seven year crusade to help the Chinese Gestapo take Mr. Lai into custody, continued her long-standing efforts to clothe the farcical and fraudulent Chinese "judicial" system with respectability, asserting that defendants have the right to legal counsel and to present evidence, that trials are public, and that the "courts," rather than the Chinese Communist Party, decide cases.

With the single exception of the fact that Chinese defendants do technically have the right to defense counsel, a right which in reality is of little benefit, [1] each and every one of Ms. Resnick’s statements is demonstrably and patently false. Only Ms. Resnick, of course, knows for certain whether those statements flow from a failure on her part to read as widely as does the general public, or whether they are simply necessary because the reality of the Chinese "judicial" system is not conducive to her goal of delivering Mr. Lai into the hands of the Chinese Gestapo.
{mospagebreak}
Under the sub-headline "Defense of Chinese justice is pure fantasy", Rod Mickleburgh commented in the Toronto Globe and Mail of January 18, 2007 that:

"At times, it felt like Alice in Wonderland in Federal Court this week, as government lawyer Esta Resnick argued the merits of China’s criminal justice system…. Defendants who are tortured merely have to complain to the authorities and action will be taken, according to Ms. Resnick…. The reality, of course is quite different."

Mickleburgh spent four years as the Globe correspondent in China and has a much deeper understanding of Chinese realities than does the gullible Ms. Resnick. Mickelburgh quotes at length from testimony of Jerome Cohen before the US Congress in 2005, substantially the same evidence he gave before the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB") when Ms. Resnick called him in 2001, ostensibly to make CIC’s case that the Chinese "judicial" system is a model for the world! [2] Cohen said in part:

""The protections afforded by the Criminal Procedure Law are too few, ineffectual, and riddled with exceptions to permit meaningful defense… reticent suspects are frequently subjected to torture…. The outstanding feature of [China’s] criminal investigation is the inability of the suspect, his lawyer, family or friends to challenge the legality of any official actions before an independent tribunal…. Political realities preclude this."

Ms. Resnick has, in the course of past court appearances in the Lai case, actually implied that the Chinese "judicial" system is superior to Canada’s. When Lai counsel David Matas cited expert evidence previously given before the IRB that there is a 100 percent conviction rate in the Chinese criminal "courts", Resnick replied that this is because the Chinese police and prosecutors are so careful and thorough that they just don’t make mistakes! Obviously, in the Chinese system According To Resnick, there could be no Donald Marshalls, David Milgaards, or Guy-Paul Morins. [3]

We have to this point largely focused on what the Chinese "judicial" system is not. Essentially, it is not a "judicial" system at all. A Chinese "court" is simply a very low level administrative organ of the Chinese Communist Party. That said, I turn now to a discussion of what the system is in reality, how the "courts" are structured and organized, what happens in a Chinese "court," and what faces Chinese trial lawyers when they attempt against all odds to achieve results based on some semblance of the Rule of Law.

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHINESE "COURTS"

National hierarchy
{mospagebreak}
Throughout the country, the "courts" are organized to precisely parallel the hierarchical structure of the government and the Chinese Communist Party. The governmental structure is composed of "People’s Congresses" at each level. The local People’s Congress is "elected" at the local level; it in turn elects the members of the Provincial People’s Congress and the Provincial Congresses elect delegates to the National People’s Congress, which passes for the national parliament, but has no power and sits only when the Communist Party summons it to rubber stamp Party decisions.

This structure precisely parallels the structure of the Party, and at every level it is the Party official who holds real power, while the state functionary defers to him. For example, the "mayor" of Shanghai, who is not elected but is appointed by the Chinese Communist Party at the central level, is not really the power holder in Shanghai politics. He must always defer to the Secretary-General of the Shanghai Communist Party.

Theoretically, "judges" are appointed by the People’s Congresses at each level. This means that the local People’s Congresses appoint district "judges," the Provincial governments appoint the "judges" to the Higher People’s "Courts," and the "judges" of the Supreme People’s "Court" in Beijing are appointed by the National People’s Congress. In practice, however, the Chinese Communist Party exercises total control over all the People’s Congresses at every level and in reality it is therefore the Party which ap¬points all "judges" to all Chinese "courts." Moreover, with extremely rare exceptions, all "judges" are required to be Communist Party members. They may be removed immediately by the Party at whichever level they were appointed. And those who resist Party directives are indeed removed quickly.

At the top of the "court" system, of course, is the Supreme People’s "Court" in Beijing. It is comprised of more than six hundred "judges", the majority of whom live together in two large dormitory style residences in the capital city. This huge number reflects the fact that these "judges" do not really "hear" cases; rather they "handle" them in an administrative fashion, according to Party instructions.

Directly under the Supreme "Court" are the Higher People’s "Courts" of each province. Under the provincial "courts" come the Intermediate People’s "Courts," and under them the District People’s "Courts." Directly under the Provincial "Courts" also, and having status equal to that of the Intermediate "Courts" are the specialized "Courts:" the Maritime "Courts," Railway "Courts," Military "Courts," and the Forestry "Courts."
{mospagebreak}
One appeal is allowed and that appeal is to the next level above that of the "court" of first instance. The single exception to this rule is that in theory, no death sentence may be carried out until it has been reviewed and approved by the Supreme "Court." In practice, executions are often carried out immediately after sentence. This is because in 1983 the Supreme "Court" delegated its review powers to the provincial level and allowed the provincial "courts" to review their own death sentences. It has for this reason been commonplace in China over many years to have a death sentence read out by the provincial Higher People’s "Court," and then to immediately have the review and approval read out by the same "court," with execution following immediately thereafter. (In response to embarrassing publicity, the government and Supreme Court recently announced new regulations to correct this, but for reasons which will not be canvassed here, there is little ground for expecting any change to flow from these regulations)

In the Lai case, one of the uncounted mistakes and misstatements to be found in the Reasons of the IRB panel was the conclusion that the criminal "courts" are distinct from other Chinese "courts" and assumptions should not be made about standards in the criminal "courts," based on what happens in the civil and economic "courts." In fact, the procedures, practices and characteristics to which I shall now turn apply across the board to all China’s so-called "courts."

One of the most immediately noticeable aspects of the Chinese "bench" is the youth of its "judges." Just a few years ago, many were retired army officers who had never had a day of legal training in their lives. Today, all new "judges" are required to have a law degree and they are very young, some as young as 23. The average age of a Chinese "judge" today is some¬where between 30 and 35.

We shall shortly see that as a matter of practice, the ranking Communist Party official within each "court" is the ultimate decision maker. But even as a matter of statutory theory, aside from the apochryphal promise of judicial independence found in Article 126 of the Chinese Constitution it is manifestly clear that the "courts" have no independence whatever. The Organic Law of the People’s Procuratorate (the prosecution arm of government) states clearly that the "courts" are under the supervision of the prosecutors. So to apply that to the Lai case and the claims that Mr. Lai could receive a fair trial, Mr. Lai’s "judges" would be subject to the supervision and correction of the prosecutors who would be presenting the case against him. Moreover, the same Constitution which purports to guarantee judicial independence also states that the "courts" are under the "leadership" of the Chinese Communist Party.
{mospagebreak}
The "trial" process and the participating actors

In June of 2000, at the invitation of Canada’s ambassador to China, I and three other Canadian lawyers gave an evaluation of the progress of the Chinese legal system, or lack of same, to Madame Justice Beverley MacLachlin and several of her colleagues on the Supreme Court of Canada. The other presenters’ practices had exclusively involved the drafting and negotiation of investment contracts and they had had no contact with the Chinese "courts". Their presentations therefore focused on the development of statute law and regulations. My focus was on how my clients were routinely fleeced and extorted by Chinese "courts" acting in concert (and usually for a percentage of the "judgment" proceeds [4] ) with Chinese claimants. I stated, truthfully and accurately, that there was no due process whatsoever in the Chinese "judicial" system, that it was fraudulent and corrupt from top to bottom, and most importantly that the trend was in the wrong direction. That is to say that the "courts" were markedly worse than they had been 10 or 15 years earlier, despite the claims of huge progress flowing from Jean Chrétien at the time.

The next day I found myself at a luncheon in Shanghai, sitting next to one of the Canadian Supreme Court Justices to whom I had presented in Beijing the previous day. He informed me that the Chinese had that morning taken the group to witness a criminal trial. He referred to my description of the process the previous day and remarked that he had been quite surprised at what he had witnessed during the morning’s trial. He said, "Of course none of us knows Chinese, so we couldn’t really follow what was being said, but it certainly seemed that everyone was taking the proceedings very seriously. The accused had a defense counsel and the counsel was questioning witnesses. Certainly, the judges appeared very serious and involved." (I wish he had had a chance to observe Chinese "judges" in a trial not attended by foreign dignitaries.)

I told him that the "trial" he had witnessed would almost certainly have been staged, complete with professional actors playing the parts of judges, accused, prosecutor, and defense counsel. Moreover, they would have rehearsed for days before the arrival of the Canadian jurists. This is something Beijing routinely arranges for the benefit of foreign lawyers, judges, and legal scholars.

But more importantly, even a real "trial" in China is in fact nothing more than theatre. A foreign observer, videotaping the process, could be forgiven for looking around and concluding that the proceedings were genuine. Gone are the days when Chinese "courts" were just dirty rented rooms in crumbling tenement buildings. Today, a Chinese "courtroom" looks exactly like a real courtroom in countries with real judicial systems. They are bright, shiny, well furnished; they have counsel table for each party, witness stands and a raised and impressive "bench" for the three presiding "judges". Beijing has also become sufficiently sophisticated to realize that blue military style uniforms with visored caps do not really project a sense of judicial majesty. Therefore, for some years now, Chinese "judges" have been clad in black judicial robes and they look for all the world like real judges.
{mospagebreak}
The three robed "judges" sit above the court¬room behind the raised bench looking suitably solemn (when foreign visitors or the media are present, but looking bored otherwise and in fact absenting themselves from time to time as the evidence unfolds in cases which do not attract public scrutiny). Witnesses are called for each side in civil cases; no witnesses for the accused are ever called in a criminal "trial." Lawyers for each side cross examine the other party’s witnesses.

Documents are from time to time passed up to the "judges," who appear to gravely consider them. However, there is no Discovery at any point in the Chinese "judicial" process. It is common for one party to produce at "trial" a huge written opinion from a purported expert, which opinion has not previously been provided to the other side. It may run to a couple of hundred pages. At this point the "judges" may ask the other side for a response to this thick document. The document then goes into evidence. The author is not in court and the other party has no time to examine the contents of the document. If those contents support the "judgment" the Party Secretary within the "court" has determined should issue in the case, then they may be cited in the Reasons; but not otherwise. In any event, in a civil case involving a dispute between a Chinese and foreign party, any expert report put forward by the Chinese party will be accepted and any such report proffered on behalf of the foreign party will be rejected as a matter of course. [5]

But when the hearing is concluded, the role of the "judges" is effectively over. It is at this point that anyone with knowledge of what happens next fully appreciates the validity of the statement that the hearing itself is strictly theater.

I turn now to the single most important factor in demonstrating the fraudulent nature of the Chinese "courts," and the one which limits them to the role of theater. There is a current saying amongst Chinese lawyers and judges who truly believe in the Rule of Law and this saying, familiar throughout all legal circles in China, vividly illustrates the futility of Canadian attempts to "assist China in improving its legal system" by training judges. It is "Those who hear the case do not make the judgment; those who make the judgment have not heard the case."

This saying reflects the function of the "Judicial Committee," the most important body within each "court." The "Judicial Committee" is a standing committee composed of between five and seven "judges," depending on the size of the "court." It meets regularly, usually once a week. It is here, behind closed doors, completely away from public view and scrutiny, that most cases are decided. Nothing which has transpired in the "courtroom" has any impact on the "judgment." In one afternoon, a Judicial Committee may decree the "judgments" in up to 25 pending cases. In virtually all instances, the Judicial Committee rules on these "judgments" without having heard any of the witnesses or, indeed, having attended the hearing. Moreover, I have often been informed by personal friends who sit on judicial committees that the members have not even consulted the file on the case, before ruling on the "judgments." The key to disposition by the Judicial Committee is the input of the Communist Party spokesman on the committee.
{mospagebreak}
In a case involving a substantial claim by a Chinese party against a foreign party, or, for that matter, a substantial claim by a Shanghai party against a Chinese party from elsewhere, the discussion within the committee usually centers on the economic health of the Plaintiff and on how quickly the plaintiff needs the money.

In a criminal case, the verdict will have been decided before the trial and the deliberations of the Judicial Committee are largely limited to the content of the Reasons to be drafted.

Whether the case be civil or criminal, the circle of fraud is closed by the fact that the Judicial Committee does not sign the "judgment" it has decreed. Ensuring that the committee remains faceless and invisible, it instructs the "judge" who presided over the hearing to draft the Reasons and the Reasons then are issued over the signatures of all three "judges" on the tribunal which heard the case. So the public has no clue that the "judgment" was decided behind closed doors by individuals with no knowledge of the facts and no interest in the law.

One would think that the Judicial Committee’s function would be sufficient to ensure that all "judgments" of Chinese "courts" would be politically driven, rather than judicially driven. Not so. As a final precaution, the architects of the "judicial system" have ensured that the most powerful person at any level of the hierarchy is not the Chief Justice of the "court" at that level. Indeed, the most powerful person is not a "judge" at all, and has no legal training. He is the Chairman of the Political Legal Committee in the People’s Congress at every level. In the almost unimaginable event that a "court" at any level were to render a "judgment" in defiance of the Communist Party, the Chairman of the Political Legal Committee has the power to simply overturn the decision of the "court" and substitute his own.

Throughout my years in China, one of my closest friends was a Judge and first rate legal scholar who eventually was elevated to the Supreme "Court" as head of the Transportation Division. He divulged to me many of the inner workings of that "court", but for many years I could not cite him as a source. His untimely death in 1997 released me from this constraint. CIC argues that Lai Changxing would receive a fair trial if sent back to China, notwithstanding that the former Chinese Premier had publicly opined that Lai should be executed "10 times over." But my friend on the Supreme Court related to me on several occasions how President Jiang Zemin would regularly call up the Chief Justice of China, inform him that a given case would soon come before the Supreme Court, and then give instructions concerning the "Judgment" which would be required. The Chief Justice would then appoint a group of "judges" to handle the case according to the presidential instructions.
{mospagebreak}
In closing, I turn to a final peculiar aspect of the Chinese criminal "justice" system which speaks to the Lai case, but also to the system in general. Anyone researching the disposition of criminal cases in China will be struck by two curious facts. First, the vast majority of Chinese criminal cases result in confessions by the accused. The "trial," therefore usually is about mitigation and sentencing. The second curiosity flows directly from the first. Most Chinese defense lawyers have seldom ever had a client enter a plea of "Not Guilty."

It is literally true that a "Not Guilty" plea is considered a gross insult to the "court," the police, and the prosecutors. It necessarily implies that they are wrong, and/or negligent and they jealously guard the fiction espoused by Esta Resnick in the Lai case that "they are so thorough and careful that they just do not make mistakes." So unusual is a guilty plea that most local "Justice" bureaux have issued standing instructions to all members of the defense bar on what to do in the unfortunate event that a client insists on pleading "not guilty." The three most important of these require the lawyer to first notify the "Justice" Bureau of this unexpected turn of events, and then to notify the senior partner in the lawyer’s law firm; thereafter the matter must be handled by the senior partner and an outline of the defense must be presented to the "Justice" Bureau before trial.

A slogan appearing on the wall of all police interrogation rooms reads "Confess and receive leniency; deny your guilt and be punished harshly."

For these reasons, defense counsels are almost always limited at "trial" to speaking to sentence, in hopes that a mitigation argument might save their client from execution and result in mere imprisonment. This was driven home to me in discussion with one noted defense lawyer. I interviewed a number of criminal defense lawyers during my time in China and until this particular occasion all reported that they had never won a case. Now, when I asked the same question, the lawyer responded that he had been successful in approximately 40 percent of his cases. I was astounded. But when I pressed for details, I found that this lawyer measured "success" in terms of sentence reduction; he had in fact never obtained an acquittal for a client.

I shall close this article with a brief discussion about the current deplorable plight of Chinese defense counsel. CIC, in the Lai case, assures the Federal Court of Canada that Lai would enjoy the right to counsel. The fact is that it would be very difficult to find counsel who would take this case, given the media crusade against him over a seven year period by the Chinese Government and the Chinese Communist Party. Indeed, Chinese lawyers are forbidden by "Justice" Bureau edicts to accept "sensitive" cases, without Bureau approval. And often this approval is withheld; the Bureau appoints its own defense counsel in place of counsel chosen by the accused.
{mospagebreak}
Second, any lawyer with the courage to take on the case would, judging by recent precedent, have his license to practice law suspended at best, and face imprisonment at worst. Some years ago, the Chinese government decreed that Falun Gong practitioners did not enjoy the right to defense counsel; it prohibited all Chinese lawyers from defending practitioners and it prohibited all Chinese "courts" from accepting lawsuits brought by practitioners. Over the last three years, scores of Chinese lawyers have been disbarred, imprisoned and tortured for bravely insisting on defending Falun Gong practitioners and political dissidents. Moreover, more than two hundred defense lawyers have been sentenced to prison terms under Article 306 of the Chinese Criminal Code.

Article 306 appears totally innocuous on its face. Essentially, it makes it a criminal offence for defense lawyers (though apparently not prosecutors) to suborn perjury or otherwise facilitate the introduction of false evidence to the "court." The problem is not with the wording, but with the way in which the "courts" have been instructed to interpret that wording. Defense lawyers run afoul of Article 306 in two ways, each of which leads directly to prison. Both involve those difficult clients who refuse to plead guilty.

The first involves an interesting "logical" analysis by the "court." The reasoning is: The accused says he did not commit the crime (perhaps offering an alibi); but the "court" has found him guilty (as is inevitably the case); therefore, by definition the accused was lying; since the accused was lying, it must have been his counsel who put him up to it. Hence counsel and client are sent off to prison hand in hand.

The second scenario is not entirely dissimilar. Under Chinese law, not only police practice, defense counsel may not meet with the accused until the police and prosecutors have completed their investigation. By this time the accused has confessed, normally encouraged by torture. Then when client and counsel eventually meet, client tells counsel a story which differs in material aspects from what he has told his police interrogators. But since defense counsel is given no access to the prosecution file, he will not know the details of his client’s confession. If he argues a theory which differs from what the prosecution has in its file, then the lawyer is found to be lying to the "court" and is sentenced to prison.

The second scenario occurs much less frequently than the first. This is because normal procedure requires a police officer to be present during all conversations between client and defense lawyer and the lawyer is forbidden to ask his client any particulars about the incident which resulted in the client’s arrest. He is restricted to explaining the section of the Criminal Code under which his client is charged, his client’s health and state of mind and presumably the weather. These restrictions conflict with provisions of the CPL, but unfortunately neither police, nor prosecutors nor "courts" normally evince any discernible interest in the subject of law.
{mospagebreak}
In future articles, I shall discuss the Rule of Law in China, the actual trial process (with examples drawn from my own cases), the political rationale underlying the court system, and the determined efforts by previous Canadian governments to "whitewash" the Chinese "judicial" system.

The article was previously published in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia’s quarterly journal, the Verdict, Issue 112, March 2007. Reprinted with permission.

Footnotes: 

1. This issue will be the subject of a future article. Suffice it to say here that the Chinese defense bar is a demoralized, intimidated, and threatened group. Defense lawyers are in practice, though not according to the provisions of the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure ("CPL"), denied access to the prosecution’s file on their client. The case, though again this is forbidden by the CPL, is in practice usually prepared by the judges, prosecutors, and police acting in concert. There is no meaningful discovery of any sort. Defense counsel who insist too vigorously on their legal right to visit clients in the lockup frequently experience serious beatings at the hands of the police. And finally, many lawyers end a criminal trial by being sent to prison along with their clients, sentenced under a provision of the Criminal Code which applies exclusively to defense lawyers. We estimate that there are between two and three hundred defense lawyers now serving prison sentences for simply attempting to represent their clients as they are ethically bound to do. Moreover, at this very moment there is a full-scale campaign in China to intimidate and emasculate Chinese human rights lawyers. Lawyers Rights’ Watch Canada lists close to a hundred human rights lawyers and other human rights advocates who are now in prison, or who face "criminal" charges, or who have had their practice licenses illegally confiscated.

2. This bizarre event will also be the subject of a future article. Cohen did not give conflicting evidence on these two occasions. He is an eminent and highly respected scholar. Ms. Resnick and CIC apparently called him as a witness, not for what he would actually say, but for the weight his very presence would lend CIe. Cohen’s evidence largely supported Mr. Lai’s case that he could not receive a fair trial. But the IRB panel facilitated CIe’s strategy and, in its Reasons, set Cohen up against other defense witnesses, stating that they "preferred the evidence of Cohen" to that of Lai’s witnesses. That of course appears perfectly reasonable on its face, to anyone who reads the Reasons without having read the transcripts of evidence. The problem is that there is virtually no significant contradiction between the opinions of Lai’s expert witnesses and the opinion of Cohen, who was called by CIC against Lai. The result is a kind of sleight of hand which allowed CIC and the IRB to convey the impression that Cohen had given his "Certificate of Good Housekeeping" to the Chinese "judicial" system, which he most assuredly had not.
{mospagebreak}
3 Other fascinating open court observations by Ms. Resnick include the statement that the Chinese courts are independent because Article 126 of the Chinese Constitution says so. We would note that Articles 35 and 36 of that same Constitution guarantee Chinese citizens freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. The savage beatings by Chinese police of those who seek to exercise these constitutional freedoms have thus far apparently escaped Ms. Resnick’s notice.

Faced with evidence that one witness had been interrogated without interruption for 56 straight hours, Ms. Resnick stated that it was against Chinese law to interrogate anyone for longer than twelve hours at a stretch and "this man should have pointed out to the police that they had gone overtime, and asked to go home!"

While these statements may afford some comic relief to the trier of fact, they sometimes have tragic overtones. CI C representatives and their legal counsel gave formal legal undertakings in the Lai case that witnesses in China giving affidavit evidence in support of Lai would be Protected Witnesses and under no circumstances would their identities ever be made known to any Chinese authorities. Tao Mi was one of these witnesses. She had originally given Chinese police a statement implicating Lai in criminal activities, which had been introduced against Lai by CI C before the IRB. But months later she attended at my office in Shanghai and repudiated that statement, saying she had made it after two months of torture at the hands of the Chinese police. She stated repeatedly that "If the police find out I talked to you, I am dead!" CIC apparently thought this statement should be tested, so they turned over her statement, and apparently the statements of all the other Protected Witnesses as well, to the Chinese police. CI C arranged with the Chinese police to have Tao Mi picked up, brought to the Canadian Consulate-General, and interrogated on videotape by an RCMP officer, in the presence of a Chinese Gestapo officer. We have been unable to contact her since, which unfortunately lends credence to her statement that she would be dead if the Chinese police found out. On videotape, she denied having met with a Canadian lawyer in Shanghai, to the surprise of no on the planet except for CIC and the IRB, who accepted the statement at face value. At the Judicial Review of the IRB finding, David Matas observed that it was absolutely outrageous and indefensible to interrogate Tao Mi in the presence of the very people who she said had already tortured her. Not so, said the agile Ms. Resnick. "Torture is against the law in China. If Tao Mi had been tortured, she could have complained to that Chinese police officer in the room and the police would have investigated. " Alice in Wonderland, indeed!

4. One of the many problems with the Chinese "courts" is that "judges," in reflection of the low social esteem in which they are held as very low level civil servants, are very poorly paid. When I was handling litigation in China, the average salary of a "judge" was about US$250; but his income was often well over US$100,000 per annum.

5. In one very major case I handled in the Shanghai Maritime Court, the "judgment" was at least partially based on "evidence" in the form of an oral statement made to the "judges" by an engineer they had met by accident. The "judges" could remember neither the kind of engineer they had encountered, nor his name. And of course, he was not available at "trial." But they nevertheless incorporated his opinion into their Reasons.