(Hohhot, Inner Mongolia autonomous region – November 22, 2023) November 21st was the second day of the trial for the case involving ten Christians, including Wang Honglan, who were accused of “illegal business operations” for selling the Holy Bible.
According to an unnamed attendee at the trial who declined to be identified, the court exhibited clear favoritism toward the prosecution. He believes that the court should take a position of judicial impartiality and not show bias towards either party.
Witnesses Prepared To Testify Barred From Attending
Although it was an open trial and the public are allowed to attend, the court prepared a witness list, and nobody on that list was allowed to attend the proceeding.
On the first day of the trial on the November 20, the defense lawyer Fang Xiangui pointed out to the panel that the witnesses prohibited from attending the trial were those prepared to testify in the court. As for individuals interrogated by police during the investigation phase, as long as the panel did not allow them to testify, they should be allowed to attend the trial.
Other lawyers later mentioned that surprisingly on the following day the presiding judge agreed to this request, allowing those who were not allowed to testify in court to attend. However, this led to a shortage of seats for attendees. To ensure that close relatives of the defendants could attend, some people had to leave the courtroom. Another defense lawyer, Song Hongtao, saw this situation and requested the judge to either provide more seats for attendees or allow them to stand in the courtroom. The presiding judge did not respond to this proposal.
Judge Claims Defense Attorneys have ‘Too Much Sympathy’ for defendants
On the afternoon of the November 21, the same situation occurred again. Lawyer Song Hongtao raised the request once again, but the presiding judge thought that lawyer Song Hongtao had too much sympathy for the defendants. Lawyer Song Hongtao immediately challenged the judge and asked why defense lawyers should not have sympathy for the defendants.
It is understandable for the prosecutor to dislike the accused due to the dislike of the crime. In such a situation, the sympathy of defense lawyers for the accused can balance the prosecutor’s dislike. In the confrontation between these two emotions, the panel should act as a fair arbitrator.
Now, the presiding judge expressing dissatisfaction with defense lawyers’ sympathy for the accused clearly indicates a loss of a neutral position, leaning towards the prosecutor.
Concerns about compromising the principal of an open trial
Refusing attendance due to a shortage of courtroom seats compromises the principle of open trial, succumbing to the idea that courtroom conditions take precedence over transparency. This directly results in many cases that should be openly tried being essentially treated as closed trials because seats are allocated to indifferent attendees.
On November 21, another more critical issue emerged during the trial. Without presenting any dispute over case files or jurisdiction, the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department made a decision to assign a designated jurisdiction.
This decision triggered the activation of the judicial system. The defense lawyer immediately pointed out in court that this activation was illegal. Out of respect for the law, the judicial body should disallow any illegal activation of the judicial system behind the scene. Because the law is meant to protect everyone, any destruction of the law undermines the power that protects.
Desire For lawyers to speak freely
The lawyers repeatedly urged the panel not to forget their original intention of working in the legal system. They mentioned that all of them chose a legal profession with the ideal of building a country and society of rule of law.
If they do not resist the illegal activation of the judicial system by other forces, the day our country is ruled by police, we all bear responsibility. An attendee expressed his gratitude that the panel did not interrupt or prohibit the lawyers’ speeches during the trial.
He believed that regardless of the verdict, allowing lawyers to speak freely in the court is a very positive phenomenon. However, he found it’s unacceptable that the judge’s showed complete indifference towards the defendants, and even expected defense lawyers to be indifferent to their clients. He argued that human beings have emotions. If the goal of the judiciary is to eliminate human emotions, then is the purpose of justice to make human beings better or to turn them into emotionless “human beings”?
He concluded that the wide use of extracting confessions through torture is fundamentally caused by the goal and inclination of the legal system. It is the result of this legal system that promotes inhumanity.
Ningmeng, ChinaAid special reporter.
