Just when Attorney Zhou Ze and Attorney Shen Yachuan were defending Lin Xiaonan in Fujian, he was told by the Beijing Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau that he was going to be fined a year’s suspension for the case of Lv Xian San.
In the case of Anhui lawyer Mr. Lv, the Hefei Public Security Bureau, as the case organ, cannot be wrong, and the Hefei Procuratorate, as the public prosecution organ, cannot be even more wrong.
Then who is wrong? Although Lv Xian San was sentenced to 12 years in the first trial for fraud, and the second trial was changed to 3 years, the current result proves that it can only be Mr. Lv’s fault, after all, the court has not yet ruled that he is not guilty.
Then add the fact that Mr. Lv’s second trial defender, Mr. Zhou Ze, was also wrong, as he should not have “improperly influenced the illegal conduct of the case according to the law”, which led the Anhui High Court to change the sentence to Mr. Lv.
In other words, the Beijing Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau, which decided to punish Zhou Ze, argued that Zhou Ze should not have revealed on Weibo that the Hefei Public Security Bureau had taken some illegal measures against Lv Xian San and other people during the investigation process.
The “Notice of Administrative Punishment Hearing of Beijing Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau” shows that, after investigation and verification, on January 17, 2020, the Sina Weibo account “Zhou Ze patted the case” published an article with the theme “Hefei Public Security Bureau’s handling of Lv Xian San’s lawyers”, which was equipped with The article is equipped with a screenshot of the video of the interrogation of the three rooms in the case area of the Hefei Visual Investigation Branch, with the text “Police: we now have to get them in place, the leadership instructions in accordance with the Shanghai set to get him in place! The article was accompanied by a photo of the suspect Mei Quan “standing for 37 minutes” and a “transcript of Mei Quan” marked with the watermark “Procuratorate”; March 20, 2020 On March 20, 2020, the Sina Weibo account “Zhou Ze patted the case” published an article with the theme “Zhou Ze: Lv Xian San case, the public prosecutor has a big problem! On August 22, 2020, the Sina microblog account “Zhou Ze filmed the case” published an article with the subject “Zhou Ze: A dozen lawyers in Hefei On August 22, 2020, the Sina Weibo account “Zhou Ze filmed the case” published an article titled “Zhou Ze: A Dozen Lawyers in Hefei” with a photo labeled “The 9th time to press the handcuffs for 23 seconds” and disclosed the contents of the transcript in the case file of the Hefei Municipal People’s Procuratorate in the article.
I personally observed the case of Lv Xian San, and there was also an incident in the second trial of Lv Xian San’s case: an investigator showed the HS video to the defendant during the arraignment of one of the defendants.
As a spectator, I believe that some of the case officers in the Lv Xian San case is indeed very excessive, their behavior has been suspected of torture to obtain confessions, violence to obtain evidence.
In the second trial of Lv Xian San case, as Lv Xian San defense lawyer Zhou Ze, has been maintaining an objective, calm posture and the court seriously reasoning, law.
img
If Zhou Ze is punished, at least my heart is cold and cold drop
According to the provisions of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, the act of violence to force witnesses to testify is absolutely suspected of torture to obtain confessions, violence to obtain evidence of crime, according to the law must be severely punished.
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate “on the people’s procuratorate directly accept the investigation of the case file standard (for trial implementation)” is a clear provision: the use of physical torture or disguised physical torture of criminal suspects, defendants to extract confessions “caused by unjust, false, wrongful cases,” as well as to be severely punished.
Why the law provides that no torture to extract confessions? Because a large number of bloody cases tell us that torture to obtain a confession is the source of unjust and false cases.
Lv Xiansan was sentenced to 12 years in the first trial, but the Anhui High Court commuted his sentence to 3 years in the second trial after two veteran lawyers, Zhou Ze and Si Weijiang, joined forces to defend him.
According to the logic of Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau, the second trial of Lv Xiansan case was changed because of Zhou Ze’s tweet? Can the Anhui High Court not independently exercise its trial power according to the law?
If the Hefei Public Security Bureau in the investigation of Lv Xian’s case, all the evidence can stand up to scrutiny, all the confessions can convince the defendant, the Anhui High Court can change the sentence?
From the central government to the Ministry of Public Security, from the law to our common sense, all tell us that it is really wrong to extort confessions by torture, and that torture can really lead to unjust and false cases.
Zhou Ze as a lawyer, how come he can’t tweet about the illegal behavior of the case officer in the investigation process? The actual law states that he can’t post a microblog?
Although Lv Xiansan’s second trial was changed, the Hefei Public Security Bureau, the unit handling the case, was determined not to agree, so they filed a complaint against Zhou Ze’s lawyer.
We are a country under the rule of law, and we have repeatedly emphasized the need to follow the rule of law. The Hefei Public Security Bureau is a judicial administrative organ, so why can’t it firmly stop the so-called “illegal handling of cases” according to the law?
The fact that you have filed a complaint against Zhou Ze’s lawyer only shows that you are not only not correcting your mistakes and not severely punishing those who are handling the case illegally, but also openly fighting against the “rule of law” that the central government has repeatedly proposed.
What’s even more shocking is that the Beijing Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau accepted the case and then proposed to suspend Zhou Ze’s business for one year.
With all due respect, if the head of the Hefei Public Security Bureau or the head of the Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau had been treated like the defendants in the Lv Xian case, would you want Zhou Ze to tweet or not to tweet?
Fuller said that human beings are subject to the law and the law is subject to reason. Antiguo Pinch also said that within the law, there should be natural justice and human feelings in.
The torture of confessions in any case is a preparation for the creation of wrongdoing, that is not called handling the case, that is in the crime.
Under a government governed by the rule of law, people should both strictly obey the law and freely criticize those who abuse their power in violation of the law.
How come the Hefei Public Security Bureau’s method of handling cases can’t be tweeted? The law needs to be believed, otherwise it is a sham. As a case-handling unit, the Hefei Public Security Bureau has to abide by the law.
As for the Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau, whether to punish Zhou Ze or not, in my opinion, it is not about the law, but a matter of “conscience”.
The fact that Zhou Ze was right or wrong to send out a microblog, as long as there is some common sense, people who know the words, should not think that Zhou Ze did anything wrong.
On October 18, 2017, the report of the 19th National Congress proposed the establishment of a central leading group for the comprehensive rule of law to strengthen the unified leadership of the construction of the rule of law in China.
In March 2018, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) issued the Program for Deepening the Reform of the Party and State Institutions, forming the Central Committee for the Comprehensive Rule of Law, with the office of the Central Committee for the Comprehensive Rule of Law located in the Ministry of Justice.
If the Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau punished Zhou Ze this time, how can you make the Ministry of Justice feel ashamed? How can you practice “rule by law”?
As a lawyer, Zhou Ze’s defense of Lv Xian San’s second trial was successful, at least the second trial allowed Lv Xian San to receive a substantial reduction in sentence, and his defense was highly recognized by the Anhui High Court.
If Lv’s sentence is commuted from 12 years to 18 years after Zhou’s defense in the second trial, I have no comment on how the Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau will punish Zhou.
In this case of national concern, Zhou Ze’s lawyer should be honored. The Hefei Public Security Bureau can file a complaint against Zhou Ze, but the Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau should inform and commend Zhou Ze, which is what you should do.
The Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau, as the administrative unit of Zhou Ze’s lawyer, has its own lawyer successfully defended his client and also received high praise from the society, so what reason do you have to punish Zhou Ze?
A poem by my late mentor comes to mind: If public servants have many good deeds, where in the world are the unruly people? Please ask the Hefei Public Security Bureau and the Chaoyang District Judicial Bureau to study this poem.
Recent Comments