China Aid Association
Application for Administrative Reconsideration
Applicant 1: Chen Xiqiong, a female born on July 3, 1960.
Address: 21, Unit 3, Building 1, Jiang-an Residential Complex, Panlong District, Kunming.
Applicant 2: Liang Guihua, a female born on August 4, 1954.
Address: 16, Unit 3, Building 1, South Kunming District, Anning (illegible).
Applicant 3: Xia Zhengyi, a male born in January, 1963.
Address: 39, Liancun (illegible), Biji Township, Xishan District, Kunming.
Respondent: Xishan Branch of Kunming Municipal Public Security Bureau
Requests in the Reconsideration
1. Confirm according to law that the seizure of properties and (illegible) by the respondent is a violation of the law.
2. Request that the respondent be ordered to return all the seized items and that the respondent compensate the applicants for all the loss due to its conduct in this case.
Facts and Reasons
On the afternoon of December 5, 2007, the applicants and other Christians sang hymns and prayed in Room 301, Unit 4, Building 27, Baimaxi Residential Complex, Xishan District of Kunming. At about 2 o’clock, people from Homeland Security Defense Brigade, Ethnic Bureau of Religion, policemen and other state employees broke into our site of gathering. They claimed that ours was an illegal site of gathering.  They restricted our entry and exit from the rooms and began to videotape us, took photos of us and registered us. After that, the respondent, without showing any documentations, or law enforcement warrant, began to search our bags by force and confiscate (illegible) our account books (The books have not been returned to date).  When this was complete, the respondent took the applicants to the local police station for interrogation and hauled away our belongings. They also called in a tricycle that hauled our books to Daguan Police Station. They burned some of our books in the courtyard of the police station. The IDs of three Christians were also burned. It was after midnight that the respondent released the applicants. After many requests by the applicants, the respondent finally gave the applicants a list of seized objects.  However, when the applicants requested a certificate for the burned books, the respondent said they could not present such a certificate and admitted there was no legal basis for them to burn the books.
The applicant believes that the illegal decision of seizure made by the respondent resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the law of the state and that its conduct of seizing the belongings has no legal basis. Moreover, its procedure is also a violation of the law and it should be an invalid specific administrative conduct and should be repealed for the following reasons:
1.  The conduct of the applicants is legal and the seizure by the respondent on the applicants has no legal basis to support it.
a. The religious activity of the applicants is legal and is not an “illegal assembly.”  It is stipulated in Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution that “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 of the white paper of “Status of Freedom of Religious Belief in China” published on October 16, 1997 by the State Council Information Office stipulates that “All the normal religious activities conducted by believers themselves at their own residences such as Sunday services, prayers, sermons, Mass, baptisms, etc. are taken care of by the religious organizations and the believers themselves. They are protected by the law and no one shall interfere with such activities€¦ 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 this that the applicant and other Christians can conduct their religious activities without having to register, as this is a normal religious activity and is protected by the laws and the Constitution of China. Therefore, the respondent’s claim that the applicants were engaged in an illegal assembly, simply because it was not registered, is wrong.
b. The precondition for the respondent’s conduct of seizing properties does not exist.  The respondent’s seizure of the applicants’ properties does not have a legal basis.  Seizure of properties is a type of compulsory administrative measure which refers to an emergent and momentary act on the people or properties that may endanger the society and the purpose of this is to prevent or stop an act of violation of the law.  However, the gathering of the applicants and other Christians is a legal conduct protected by the law. It is neither illegal nor has a nature of endangering the society.  Obviously, there was no precondition for a compulsory administrative measure.
c. The burning of the applicants’ books by the respondent is an obvious violation of citizens’ freedom of belief. The act has no basis in law or in facts.
We can see from the above two instances that the conduct of the applicants is legal.   The seizure of properties on the applicants by the respondent does not have a legal basis and the burning of books by the respondent all the more does not have a legal basis. The specific administrative conduct of the respondent is not only illegal, it is also suspected of being a case of abuse of rights as defined in Article (illegible 251?) of the “Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China:” “For serious deprivation of a citizen’s freedom of religious belief by employees of the state, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to imprisonment of one year or less or the perpetrator shall be detained.”
2. The specific administrative conduct of the respondent violated the legal procedure.
a. The respondent did not show the applicants their certificates of law enforcement or certification of inspection. It is stipulated in Article 37 of “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-enforcement officers, who shall show their identification papers to the party or other persons concerned.” At the same time, the law also requires that before sealing or seizing properties, the administrative organ should notify the party concerned or the people whose interest is involved in the case to be present at the scene and that they should also show the seal or seizure warrant signed by the chief of the administrative organ. The law enforcement officers should count clearly with the witnesses present at the scene and the party concerned whose belongings and documents are seized. As for the sealed or seized properties, the administrative organ must give a list with the name, specification, features, quality and amount of the seized properties, names and serial numbers of the seized documents, locations where the documents were found and time of seizure. The party concerned or people whose interest is involved in the case shall assist the people doing the seal and seizure in signature and seal. Moreover, according to the law, the public security bureau must show a search warrant to the people being searched and the process of the search should be recorded in writing which should be signed or stamped by the investigators, people being searched or their family members, neighbors or other witnesses.
However, on December 5, the respondent searched the belongings of the applicants without showing any identification papers. Moreover, the respondent seized the properties of the applicants without showing law enforcement documentations or order of seizure. We can see that the conduct of the respondent obviously violated the clear stipulations in the law.
b. After repeated requests by the applicants, the respondent gave the applicants a list of seized objects a few days after the seizing the properties.
In summary, the respondent’s conduct of seizing the properties has no legal basis and its conduct also violated the legal procedure. Therefore, it is an illegal specific administrative conduct. Pursuant to Article 6 and Article 12 of the “Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the applicant hereby files an application to Kunming Municipal People’s Government as provided by the law, requesting that Kunming Municipal People’s Government confirm according to law that the conduct of seizing properties by the respondent on the applicants on December 5, 2007 is illegal and that it order the respondent to return all the seized items to the applicants and compensate the applicants for the loss due to the illegal conduct of the respondent.
To:
Kunming Municipal People’s Government
Applicants: Chen Xiqiong, Liang Guihua, Xia Zhengyi
Date of application: January 11, 2008
Appendix:
1. One photocopy of this application.
2. One photocopy of the list of seized items and documents by Xishan Branch of Kunming Municipal Public Security Bureau