(Hohhot, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region – November 27, 2023) Saturday, November 25 was the 5th day of the trial of the case against Hohhot Christians. Wang Honglan, Ji Heying (Wang Honglan’s husband), Ji Guolong (Wang Honglan’s son), Wang Jiale (Wang Honglan’s nephew), Liu Minna, Liu Wei (Liu Minna’s husband), Zhang Wang, Yang Zhijun, Li Chao, and Ban Yanhong, a total of 10 people, were charged with “illegal business operations”.
They were criminally detained by Hohhot Huimin District Public Security Sub-bureau on April 15, 2021. Li Chao was released on bail after one year. The other nine have been detained for two years and seven months, significantly exceeding the statutory period. On November 22, 2021, Huimin District Procuratorate transferred the case to the court for prosecution. After two pre-trial meetings (the first one declared invalid due to the prosecutor’s legal capacity), Huimin District Court officially opened the trial on November 20, 2023 (Monday).
It was confirmed that the court had sent two indictments to the 10 defendants. After receiving the first indictment, all copies were inexplicably taken away shortly thereafter. Without changing the charges, the court illegally delivered a second indictment, changing the “subsidy” for purchasing the Holy Bible into “business incentives.” Before the trial, the prosecutor and defense lawyers communicated on the issue of pleading guilty. The prosecutor recommended a sentence of more than five years, while most defendants firmly believed they had not committed any crime, and no agreement was reached between the two sides. Compared to the pre-trial meeting, the trial chose a smaller courtroom, which was very crowded, making it difficult for many family members to attend. Initially, some individuals who were interrogated were not allowed to observe the trial, but the lawyers cited legal provisions, emphasizing that only personnel testifying in court should be prohibited from observing the trial, and those not testifying should not be prohibited. The collegial panel accepted this appeal. The lawyers also found that the internet signal was blocked and protested again. Lawyer Fang cited relevant legal provisions, pointing out that such behavior is on suspicion of committing a criminal offense, turning the courtroom into a crime scene. The next day, the lawyers found that the internet had been restored.
On the first day of the trial, a prosecutor Mrs. Yang read the indictment. Then, the collegial panel quickly read the pre-trial meeting report, rejecting all appeals made by the defense, such as objection to jurisdiction, excluding illegal evidence, requesting investigators, appraisers, and witnesses to appear in court, and requesting to retrieve audio and video recordings. Defense lawyers expressed strong opposition. One defense lawyer used several words to express his position: “As expected, deeply disappointed, totally opposed!” One lawyer said that according to legal provisions, major cases and cases that may plead not guilty require that the interrogation process must have video and audio recordings, otherwise the interrogation transcripts should be excluded as illegal evidence. The collegial panel neither agreed to exclude illegal evidence nor agreed to retrieve the video and audio recordings, which did not comply with legal provisions.
How can the transcript of an interrogation under such conditions of fatigue interrogation, where defendants were not allowed to eat or sleep for 24 hours, and was repeatedly verbally insulted by the police, not be excluded? Regarding the decision not to retrieve audio and video recordings, Prosecutor Yang Yan said that this case is not a major case. Lawyers countered: If it is not a major case, why did the pre-trial meeting notify judiciary authorities of defendants’ home town to send representatives to observe the trial in Hohhot? In the case files, when extending the detention period, the Public Security Bureau clearly stated on the paperwork with red seals that this case is a major case. As a state organ, how can they contradict themselves? The prosecutor herself said that cases that may be sentenced to more than 10 years are major cases, and before that, for Wang Honglan, a nearly 70-year-old woman, her sentencing recommendation was as high as 15 years.
Defense lawyers also strongly objected to the prosecutor’s use of the judicial appraisal opinion as evidence, arguing that this does not comply with legal provisions and lowers the standard for evidence examination. One lawyer said that this is turning a blind eye to the law and facts, and the collegial panel actually agreed the prosecutor to do so. A lawyer responded that the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department has no right to designate jurisdiction for this case: First, the premise of designating jurisdiction is that at least two public security agencies have jurisdictional disputes and submit an application to the higher authorities for designation. Inner Mongolia Public Security Department designated jurisdiction without reporting case materials and applying for jurisdictional disputes from lower public security agencies, which is unfounded; second, the publications involved in the case involve Shandong province, Fujian province, and other provinces. If there are disputes over jurisdiction, the National Ministry of Public Security should designate jurisdiction, and Inner Mongolia Public Security Department has no right to designate jurisdiction.
The collegial panel only recorded the lawyers’ opinions and continued the trial. During the trial, several lawyers requested the head of the Procuratorate, the prosecutor, head of the court, all members of the trial committee, and the entire collegial panel to recuse themselves.
Therefore, the collegial panel announced an adjournment. The trial continued the next day.
On Wednesday afternoon, the trial continued. Presiding Judge Mr. Duan announced the rejection of the lawyers’ request, and it could not be reconsidered. Subsequently, during the trial, the lawyers raised their hands several times to request to speak, opposing the forced trial, but the collegial panel did not respond, and the clerk did not record it either.
During the question and answer phase, Wang Honglan, the elderly Christian with white hair, entered the courtroom in handcuffs. Wang Honglan stated that as long as other brothers and sisters could be released after the trial, she was willing to accept any result for herself. She was insulted during the investigation, but she truthfully told the police that she had helped many children continue their education, even studying abroad. The police did not believe her and accused her of being a religious scammer. During the trial, many parents who benefited from her help observed the whole trial process. Wang Honglan described being beaten and bullied in the detention center. She was forced to massage for others for a year, and her hands still hurt. As she spoke, many people cried. She was prohibited from speaking for a long time in the detention center, and others were also prohibited from talking to her. After getting along with her for a while, other people began to recognize her as a good person.
Wang Honglan is in poor health condition, suffering from anaphylactoid purpura. With the injustice, insults, and inhumane treatment her family has suffered in the past three years, she expressed that it’s better to die. When asked about her religious belief, she loudly recited the Apostle’s Creed, ignoring the court’s restraint.
For her, the meaning of enduring these hardships is to live as a testimony for Christ.
Wang Honglan said that the police threatened her, saying that if she didn’t sign the signature, they would detain her daughter-in-law and her nephew’s wife. So she signed everything. This also indirectly explains why the public security organs and the procuratorate dare not provide the full audio and video recordings.
When asked about the past, she bravely admitted that she had committed corruption in the past, but later confessed and repented, wanting to dedicate everything to God and live for God. Moreover, she had the foresight to establish education, bringing the next generation to God. How desolate are the next generations of many churches!
She did not acknowledge any of the charges and accusations in the indictment, claiming that she did not profit a single penny from it and even continuously donated the money her family gave her for decades. The printed Gospel flyers were also for spreading the Gospel, not for business purpose. She pleaded with the collegial panel, if you think I’m guilty, then sentence me and release my family!
When the prosecutor questioned Wang Honglan, he repeatedly tried to induce her, which were strongly opposed by the lawyers. The lawyers raised their hands several times, and the collegial panel pretended they did not see it. Then the trial ended for the third day.
On Thursday, the questioning of Wang Honglan continued. Wang Honglan said that her emotions were a bit agitated yesterday and apologized to everyone, but hoped that everyone could understand because she had not been allowed to speak for a long time. During the break, the lawyers learned that the believers who were detained could only eat two steamed bread at noon every day. The lawyers requested the collegial panel to show some compassion and improve the diet, as many of them are elderly and in poor health. The collegial panel said that the detention center provided food with proper standard. The lawyers said that this shows that Hohhot Detention Center violated legal provisions and lowered the standard of meals for detainees, and it was very bad.
Next was the questioning of Wang Jiale. The lawyers asked, “You are accused of illegal business operations. Did the investigators inform you which law or regulation you violated?” Wang said he didn’t know and hoped that the prosecutor would explain it in court. The prosecutor said it would be discussed in the debate stage.
A lawyer expressed opposition, saying that if the prosecutors could not explain the law, the charges should be withdrawn because it is an unqualified prosecution. The collegial panel has the obligation to review the case. The presiding judge said that it is now the question and answer phase, and whether you want to continue to ask questions. If there are no questions, the process moves to the next person.
In the afternoon, the lawyer brought relevant articles from the Criminal Procedure Law and judicial interpretations and again requested the withdrawal of charges if the prosecutor could not clarify the law. Another lawyer said, without understanding the law and regulation, how can we ask questions?
The presiding judge said, it’s not for you to ask me questions now, it’s time to ask the defendant questions. Do you want to continue asking questions?
The lawyer said, “Okay, I’ll ask questions. Wang Jiale, have you ever illegally bought or sold foreign exchange?”
“No.”
“Have you ever illegally bought or sold fireworks and firecrackers?”
The presiding judge said, “Lawyer, why did you ask about fireworks and firecrackers?”
The lawyer said, “You asked me to ask questions, I don’t know which specific law or regulation the defendant violated, so I have to ask all the matters related to illegal business operations covered by the judicial interpretations, otherwise, if I miss something, I will not fulfill my duty.”
The collegial bench couldn’t help laughing: The indictment charges the defendants with selling illegal publications, but the lawyer can’t distinguish between fireworks, firecrackers, and illegal publications?
The lawyer replied, “Respected presiding judge, fireworks and firecrackers also have packages with texts and trademarks printed on them, don’t you know that? Don’t worry, these judicial interpretations are only a few dozen.”
The collegial panel was embarrassed, asking the prosecutor whether he wanted to explain which specific law or regulation was violated. The prosecutor didn’t respond, and the court adjourned again.
The lawyers approached the judges for negotiations. Finally, the collegial panel agreed to continue the trial. If the defense side did not was not fully prepared with questions for the trial due to the late notification by the prosecution, the court would need to initiate the trial investigation procedure.
The lawyers then criticized the prosecutor’s approach. One lawyer said, “The openness of the legal provisions on the charges to defendants and defense lawyers, should run through the entire trial process. Keeping legal provisions private at certain stages is the drawbacks and shortcomings of the former Soviet criminal justice system. Our Chinese judiciary should not learn from this wrong way.”
Next, the prosecutor asked Liu Minna questions. After an obvious inducing question, the collegial panel reminded the prosecutor to change the way of asking questions. This was the end of the fourth day of the trial.
On November 24, the trial continued for the fifth day, and the lawyers continued to ask Liu Minna questions. All the Christian lawyer would address her as “Sister Liu Minna,” hoping to bring her a little comfort. Her condition was obviously not good, suffering from heart disease, although not life-threatening, she often felt pain. Moreover, in the detention center, she was treated very badly. She was once forced to stand on 60 bricks for one month as punishment. Then she was punished together for one and a half months because others had a fight. The lawyers noticed that since she was detained, her face looked paler and paler. When she and her husband were arrested, their son had just graduated from elementary school, and now he is about to enter high school. His grades have plummeted. During the trial, she seemed absent-minded and slow to react.
In the afternoon, the prosecutor asked Ban Yanhong questions. Ban Yanhong surprisingly admitted guilty. What was even more suspicious was that he denied his identity as a Christian, claiming he was not a Christian, but he had always referred to himself as Brother Ban in the past with Wang Honglan and others. Ban Yanhong also said that all matters were done according to the instructions of Wang Honglan and others. Currently it’s unknown whether Ban Yanhong was coerced and threatened by the police during his detention or was bribed to frame the other nine Christians by becoming a tainted witness, and this needs further clarification.
The fifth day of the trial ended, and the outcome of the case is still under review, awaiting further developments.
