Attorney Wu Chenglian's Application for Administrative Reconsideration for pastor Gao Wendong persecution case in Linyi City Shandong province

China Aid Association
Attorney
Wu Chenglian’s Application for Administrative Reconsideration for pastor Gao
Wendong persecution case in Linyi City
Shandong province
Applicant: Gao
Wendong, a male born on December
15, 1968.
Address: Daguanzhuang Village, Zhengwang Township,
Hedong District, Linyi, Shandong Province.
Respondent:
Linyi Municipal Public Security Bureau, Shandong Province.
Address: 13,
Tongda Road, Linyi, Shandong
Province.
Requests in the Reconsideration
1.       Confirm
according to law that the seizure conducted by the respondent is a violation of
the law.
2.       Request that
the respondent be ordered to return all the seized items to the applicant.
Facts and Reasons
At about 7 a.m. on the morning of May 31, 2007,
employees from the Bureau of Religious Affairs, the Public Security Bureau, the
local police station and other state organs, holding police batons, broke into
the courtyard of the applicant.  They
claimed that the applicant and other Christians there had violated the law and
said that ours was an illegal gathering.  The respondent deployed guards around the
courtyard and ordered all the people not to move.  They wanted us to gather at one place and
then escorted us in groups.  In addition
to this, the respondent took away all the objects in the room where the
gathering occurred (including the air-conditioner, hanging fan and the Bibles,
etc.) After that, they searched the room of the applicant and turned over everything.  In spite of this, they didn’t show their
search warrant.  After that, the local
police station hauled away the applicant’s computer, burner, copier and other
personal objects. They didn’t even leave behind the personal check book and the
Ping Pong table. The respondent used such a large police force that it has
greatly damaged the reputation of the applicant.  When the respondent hauled away all these items,
they only let the applicant sign on the list, but did not give the applicant a
list of items seized until the applicant went to ask for it at the local police
station.  Moreover, it is said that some
valuables were also taken to the security bureau.  After repeated requests from the applicant,
the respondent finally gave the applicant a list of these seized valuables.
The applicant believes that
the illegal decision on the seizure conducted by the respondent resulted from
an erroneous interpretation of the law of the state and its seizure does not
have the legal basis, that its procedure violates the law and should therefore be
an invalid specific administrative conduct and should be repealed for the
following reasons:
(1)
The conduct of the applicant was legal and the seizure made by the respondent
to the applicant does not have a legal basis.
(a) The religious activity of the applicant was
legal and was not an “illegal gathering.” It is stipulated in Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution:
“Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the freedom of religious
belief.
No state organs, social organizations or individuals may compel citizens
to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate
against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.”  Article 3 in the white paper of “Current Status
of Freedom of Religious Belief in China” promulgated on October 16, 1997
by Information Office of the State Council of China stipulates that: “All
the normal religious activities held by believers in their own private homes
according to religious customs, such as Sunday services, prayers, Bible
lectures, sermons, Mass and baptism, etc. shall be handled by the religious
organizations and their believers themselves.
These activities are protected by the law and nobody may interfere with
… the religious activities held in their own private homes and mainly
attended by their relatives such as praying and Bible reading (habitually
referred to by Christians in China as ‘house meetings,’) are not required to
register.”
We can see from the above
stipulation that the applicant and other Christians can conduct their Sunday
services in their own homes without registration.  This is a normal religious activity and is
protected by the Chinese Constitution and laws.
Therefore, the respondent made a mistake in claiming that the applicant
was in an “illegal assembly” just because the applicant did not have
a registration.
(b) The
pre-conditions for the seizure conducted by the respondent do not exist.  The seizure of the applicant’s belongings by the
respondent does not have a legal basis.  Seizure
is a type of compulsory administrative measures which refers to an emergent and
instant action by an administrative organ to prevent or stop an illegal action
on people or properties that are endangering or will endanger the society.  However, the act of gathering by the
applicant and other Christians is a legal conduct protected by the law.  It is not illegal nor did endanger the
society.  Obviously, there were no
preconditions applicable for the compulsory administrative measure.
From the above, we can see
that the conduct of the applicant is legal and the seizure of the applicant’s
belongings by the respondent does not have a legal basis or the support of
evidence.  The specific administrative conduct of the respondent is not only
illegal, it is also suspected of being a tort defined by Article 251 of the
Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China which stipulates: Workers of state organs who
illegally deprive citizens’ right to religious beliefs …, if the case is
serious, are to be sentenced to two years or fewer in prison or put under
criminal detention.
(2) The specific administrative
conduct of the respondent violated the legal procedures.
(a) The respondent did not
show the applicant any law enforcement certificates or search warrants. It is
stipulated in Article 37 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on
Administrative Penalty that: When
administrative organs conduct investigations or inspections, there shall be not
less than two law-enforcing officers, who shall show their identification
papers to the party or other persons concerned.  At the same time, the law also stipulates
that when sealing or seizing properties, the administrative organ shall notify
the party concerned and interested parties to be present at the scene.  They should also show the seal and seizure
orders issued by the head of this administrative organ.  Law enforcement officers should meet
witnesses at the scene, check and get a clear idea of the items seized.  As for the sealed and seized properties, the administrative
organs must present a list with clear names, descriptions, attributes, quality,
quantity of the seized objects, the names, serial number, etc. of the
documents, the location where these objects and documents and the time of seizure.  The completed document should be signed and
stamped by the party concerned or interested parties and people who assist in
the sealing and seizure.  Moreover, the
law requires that when police conduct a search, they must present a search
warrant to the people to be searched.
The search operation should be written down and then signed or stamped
by the investigators, the people who are searched or their family members,
neighbors or other witnesses.
However, on May 31,
without presenting a law-enforcement certificate or seizure order to the
applicant, the respondent seized the properties of the applicant.  They also searched the applicant’s room and
personal objects without presenting a search warrant.  The conduct of the respondent obviously
violated the law.
(b) After repeated requests by the applicant, the
respondent finally gave the applicant the list of seized goods several days
after the seizure occurred.
To sum up, the seizure of
the respondent on the applicant does not have a legal basis and its conduct
violated the legal procedure.  Therefore,
it is a specific administrative conduct.
Pursuant to Articles 6 and 12 of Administrative Reconsideration Law of
The People’s Republic of China, the applicant hereby applies to Linyi Municipal
People’s Government, requesting that Linyi People’s Government confirm that the
seizure conducted by the respondent on the applicant on May 31, 2007 is illegal.  I also request that the respondent be ordered
to return all the seized objects to the applicant.
To:
Linyi Municipal People’
Government
Applicant: Gao
Wendong
Date of application: June
2007
Appendix:
1. One copy of this
application.
2. One photocopy of the list
of objects and documents seized by Linyi Municipal Public Security Bureau.