China Aid Associaton
An Administrative Bill of Complaint
Plaintiff: Qin Hongjun; male, born April 3, 1942; address: No. 2 group of Liumu, Zhaojing county, Guandian town, Jianshi city, Hubei province.
Defendant: Pubic Security Bureau of Jianshi city, Hubei province.
Claim of the Plaintiff
1. To confirm according to the law the specific administrative act and detention act undertaken by the defendant to the plaintiff on July 15, 2007 illegal.
2. To request the court to order the defendant to make compensation for the economic losses caused thereby to the plaintiff.
3. To pronounce the defendant to bear the litigation fee of the trial.
Facts and Reasons
On the afternoon of July 15, 2007, Qin Daomin (daughter of the plaintiff), Qin Daofang, and another dozen Christians were reading the Bible and praying at home. Around half past three, five members of the police station in Guandian town came to Qin Daomin’s house and announced that they would take away several friends of ours who came from other places. Qin Daomin asked them why. They answered, “You are holding an illegal gathering”. Qin Daomin then began to argue with them and explained that the religious activity held by her and other Christians was legal and protected by the Constitution of China. The personnel members not only ignored Qin Daomin’s argument and explanation, but also ordered some men to beat Qin Daomin. Seeing this, the plaintiff asked, “How could you members of the Public Security Bureau beat people?” In response Liu Huashan and Yang Nianyan along with several other policemen began to kick the plaintiff at his abdomen and chest, causing serious injury to the face, chest and abdomen of the plaintiff. After that, the defendant took the plaintiff and another dozen Christians away by force; in the process, the defendant also caused injury to the right leg of the plaintiff’s grandson. After the defendant brought the plaintiff to the police station, the defendant interrogated the plaintiff until 6:00 PM July 16. Furthermore, the defendant didn’t give any treatment to the bodily injury of the plaintiff caused by its unlawful act. In the end, the defendant made the administrative penalty decision to detain the plaintiff for 10 days for hindering its personnel from performing their duties.
The plaintiff holds that the specific administrative act undertaken by the defendant to the plaintiff has infringed upon the plaintiff’s rights of the person, and that the administrative penalty made by the defendant to the plaintiff has also violated the law. The reason is as follows:
1. The plaintiff and Christians’ act is lawful.
a. The religious activity held by the plaintiff and other Christians at home is a lawful act and under protection of the constitution and laws of our country.
In accordance with provisions of Article 36 of the Constitution of China and Article 2 of the Regulation on Religious Affairs decreed by the State Council which became effective as of March 1, 2005, “Citizens enjoy freedom of religious belief. No organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in any religion or citizens who do not believe in any religion.” Freedom of religious belief means that citizens have rights to hold normal religious activities at home without need of being approved by government bodies, for religious belief relates purely to one’s emotional and spiritual activities. The law can only regulate one’s external acts while it cannot look into one’s internal emotional and spiritual activities; otherwise, the acts undertaken by the pubic power-exercising bodies constitute unlawful acts which thus interfere with or discriminate against the freedom of religious belief.
Also in accordance with provisions of Article 3 of the white paper Freedom of Religious Belief in China released by the News Office of the State Council on Oct. 16, 1997, “all normal religious activities held in believers’ own homes in accordance with usual religious practices, such as going to church, praying, preaching, observing Mass, baptizing,€¦ are protected by law as the affairs of religious bodies and believers themselves and may not be interfered with€¦.There is no registration requirement for, to quote from Chinese Christians, “house services,” which are mainly attended by relatives and friends for religious activities such as praying and Bible reading.”
According to the provisions above, the religious activity held by the plaintiff and Christians in the believer’s home is a normal religious activity, and is a demonstration of excising one’s freedom of religious belief; the act doesn’t in any way violate the law, is protected by the constitution of China and completely lawful, and is not what the defendant called “an illegal gathering”.
b. The plaintiff’s act is a demonstration to protect his lawful rights and interests, and didn’t hinder the personnel of the State organ from performing their duties.
That the plaintiff and Christians held the normal religious activity in accordance with religious practices of Christianity on July 15, 2007 is protected by the law; the defendant has no right to interfere with normal religious activities. As a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, one has right to stop acts that interfere with lawful religious activities in violation of the law. Furthermore, that the plaintiff and Qin Daomin argued with the defendant to protect the lawful rights and interests of Christians is a demonstration to exercise one’s right to debate endowed with by the law; there is no illegality with this act, nor there exists any fact that the defendant alleged the plaintiff hindered the personnel of State organs from performing their duties. Therefore, the defendant cannot make the aforesaid administrative penalty to the plaintiff, nor could it beat the plaintiff for the act mentioned above.
2. The act of the defendant violated the Constitution and laws of our country.
a. The specific administrative act undertaken by the defendant to the plaintiff infringed upon the plaintiff’s right of the person in obvious violation of the law.
On the afternoon of July 15, 2007, the defendant beat Qin Daomin for the reason that it was an illegal gathering for the plaintiff and Christians to read the Bible and pray at home. Furthermore, because the plaintiff pointed out their act was unlawful, Liu Huashan, Yang Nianyan and several other policemen kicked the plaintiff at his abdomen and chest, causing serious injury in the face, chest and abdomen of the plaintiff in obvious violation of the law.
b. There is no factual basis for the administrative penalty imposed by the defendant upon the plaintiff. On July 15, when the defendant beat the plaintiff for no reason, according to provisions of the law, the plaintiff has rights to defend and protect himself; this act of defending and protecting himself is an lawful act with no illegality, there exists no fact which the defendant alleged the plaintiff hindered the personnel of State organs from performing their duties. There is no factual basis for the defendant to impose the aforesaid administrative penalty upon the plaintiff, which resulted from an erroneous application of the law by the defendant.
To sum up, the beating given by the defendant to the plaintiff on July 15 violated the law. There is no factual basis for the administrative penalty imposed by the defendant upon the plaintiff. The act of the defendant is illegal and invalid and should be rescinded in accordance with the law. According to the provisions of Article 2 and Article 17 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China as well as Article 3 of the Law on State Compensation, the plaintiff filed this suit to the People’s Court of Jianshi county in accordance with the law, requesting the People’s Court of Jianshi county to confirm that the specific administrative act undertaken by the defendant to the plaintiff is unlawful, that the administrative penalty imposed by the defendant upon the plaintiff is illegal and invalid, and to order the defendant to make compensation caused thereby to the plaintiff.
Evidence and sources of Evidence, Names and addresses of witnesses
1. Case history written by the Central Health Hospital of Guandian town, Jianshi county;
This suit is filed to the People’s Court of Jianshi county, Hubei province
Plaintiff: Qin Hongjun
Sept. 24. 2007
1. One copy of the bill of complaint;
2. One copy of the case history written by the Central Health Hospital of Guandian town, Jianshi county;
3. One copy of the Notification of Completion of Carrying Out Detention the Administrative Penalty for Public Security.
Jianshi County Public Security Bureau
Written Decision on Public Security Administrative Penalty
Jian Gong Xing Jue Zi  Di No. 00236
Person receiving the penalty: Qin Hongjun. Gender: Male. DOB: April 3, 1942. Category of identification card and number: 422822194204035054. Current residential address: Group 2, Liumu Village, Guandian Township, Jianshi County, Hubei Province. Work Unit: None.
It has been found through investigations that at about 3:00 PM on July 15, 2007, Yang Jian, Yang Nianyan, two policemen from Guandian Police Station, came to the house rented by Qin Daomin from Group 2 of Guandianji Township. As they were trying to investigate the illegal conduct of Qin Daomin, Wang Caizhang and other people of endangering the society in the name of religion, the policemen showed their identification documents and orally summoned Qin Daomin, Wang Caizhang and other people to by questioned at the Guandian Police Station. At this time, Qin Hongjun suddenly dashed over to the policemen, grabbed and dragged the emergency policemen. As a result of this, Qin Daomin and other people managed to flee from the scene. Qin Hongjun caused numerous bodily injuries to the emergency policemen.
The above facts are confirmed by Qin Hongjun’s statement, testimonies from witnesses, certificates of injury diagnosis and other pieces of evidence.
Pursuant to the provisions specified in Item 2, Clause 1 and Article 50 of Penalty Law of Public Security Management of People’s Republic of China, it is decided that Qin Hongjun be given the penalty of 10 days of administrative detention.
Manner of implementation:
Should the person receiving the penalty refuse to accept this decision, he or she may apply for an administrative reconsideration at a superior public security agency or the people’s government of the same level within sixty (60) days after receiving this written decision or submit an administrative proceedings according to law at a people’s court within three months.
Seal of the agency rendering the penalty.
July 16, 2007
This copy is to be delivered to the person receiving the penalty.
China Aid Contacts
Rachel Ritchie, English Media Director
Cell: (432) 553-1080 | Office: 1+ (888) 889-7757 | Other: (432) 689-6985
Email: [email protected]