| 陈光诚的亲友 さんのプロフィール光诚快回家フォトブログリスト |  ツール  ヘルプ |
|
8月31日 律师会见陈光诚 商讨上诉受阻李劲松律师事务所网址：http://www.yt198.com/
自由亚洲报道： 律师近日前往山东临沂处理陈光诚上诉事宜，在沂南县官方不断阻挠下，直到星期三才得以会见陈光诚，李方平和 李劲松律师正式取得辩护人的委托。另外，国际上一百名各个领域的领袖，近日联署至胡锦涛公开信，谴责当局迫 害陈光诚。 李方平和李劲松律师星期三下午于沂南看守所会见了陈光诚，落实二人成为他二审的辩护人。李方平律师当天告诉 本台： “我们已经见到他，他健康状况良好,但对前段时间结束的审判过程表示非常愤慨。他坚决要求上诉,而且不同意指 定律师再来会见他代理他上诉，他要自己委托的律师。今天他已经确认了委托我们,中级法院也已经接受了我们的 手续。” 然而会面并不顺利，在官方骚扰下被迫中断，没有成功与当事人交换辩护意见，李方平说： “房间里有很多人，其中一个跑到陈光诚坐的地方去抓住陈光诚的手,在铁丝网里面跟他坐在一起，其他的人就围 着律师。跟他交流上诉的意见和看法因为后来受到一些阻挠没法进行下去。他们把李劲松律师叫出去,中间他们以 前的审判长也来到会客室跟李劲松律师争执起来. 审判长说：“你们的律师临阵脱逃,拒绝辩护。”但是李劲松对 陈光诚解释的时候,警察就把这些反馈给审判长,审判长就过来跟李劲松争执以来。” 为了处理陈光诚上诉的事宜，两位律师星期天已经前往临沂，期间不断受到当局阻挠，包括沂南县法院拒绝给家属 及律师陈光诚的一审判决书，而沂南县看守所也以要向上级申请为由两次拒绝律师会见陈光诚，这些问题在两位律 师不断的奔波下，才得以一一解决： “我们在各个法院、派出所和看守所之间来回穿梭，包括临沂和沂南县我们就来回六趟是为联系会见的事和上述的 事，但是真正的会见只给了我们四十来分钟。判决书是今天下午收到的，中院让我们让沂南县法院去拿,后来他们 的一个庭长打电话沂南法院才同意我们取一份。” 按照程序，临沂中级法院应于二审开庭时间，律师们星期三会见陈光诚完毕以后，便赶回北京，准备辩护工作，李 劲松律师表示他的辩护意见主要部分会包括反映当地官员对陈光诚以及律师们违法乱纪的行为： “我在辩护文件里面明确地提到了沂南那些当地的流氓恶势力包括相关部分的贪官污吏所做的违法乱纪的事情我都 一一例举出来了。” 然而，在星期三下午才拿到的陈光诚一审判决书中，官方竟然把软禁陈光诚，而且多次殴打村民及律师的人称为扶 贫工作组，以便把他们纳入证人的范围，用来为陈光诚治罪。律师对此感到气愤： “因为它首先要解决工作组的合法性，但是这种看守应该说是非法拘禁、是犯罪行为，他们为了避开这一点,就让 这些“证人”以扶贫工作组的名义去证明陈光诚毁坏财物和聚众扰乱交通秩序，这些我们看来觉得非常荒唐。” 另外，国际上释放陈光诚的呼声不减，星期二，100多名来自30多个国家的生物伦理学、宗教、人权、生殖健康等 领域的个体工作者和领导者，就山东盲人赤脚律师陈光诚案件，签名致信中华人民共和国主席胡锦涛。信中谴责临 沂及沂南当局非法迫害陈光诚及阻挠对他的法律援助。 8月30日 More than 100 leaders from more than 30 countries signed on a letter to Mr. Hu Jintao on Chen Guangcheng's case附英文信件翻译:
我们留意到贵国政府作了很多努力,贵国政府所采取的国家人口计划反映你们对联合国人口与发展行动纲领的承诺,推动非强制性的生育保健服务. 我们知道,在争取实现这些目标的过程中,有些违法法律的个体行为和地方政府的行为会发生.但我们遗憾的获知,于2004年至2005年年初山东省临沂市辖区的三区9县,在一些大规模的计划生育工作中,既违反了人口与计划生育法,又使用了包括强制的方式,例如监禁、殴打和非自愿绝育和堕胎.
更令人不安的是当局对陈光诚先生所采取的行动.2006年8月18日审判时,没有律师在场. 陈先生被控破坏财产和扰乱交通,虽然他当初被拘押的原因是他努力争取合法解决那些权利侵害行为. 2005年1月,陈律师和公民权利的捍卫者,和他的妻子袁伟静对临沂市非法当地计划生育行动展开调查,他们的努力使国家人口和计划生育委员会在2005年7月接续调查, 并且确认临沂的计划生育活动严重违反法律. 陈光诚先生,一些受害人和相关人员的共同努力,暴露了政府的非法行动,迫使一些地方当局补偿受害者.
让我们不安的是, 自2005年8月开始,临沂市和沂南县有关当局通过监视,威胁、限制人身自由等非法手段来镇压镇压陈光诚和其他维权人士. 陈先生受到的违反人权的待遇包括:
自2005年8月12日开始的非法软禁和拘留. 长达6个月的强迫失踪,直到2006年6月他被正式指控. 不准律师和家属接触的接触. 威胁、攻击和拘留陈光诚的律师.
2006年8月18日的审判在法律上是有很多问题的. 其中包括侵犯被告不受任意拘禁、酷刑和获取法律帮助的权利.例如,2006年8月17日的审判开始前一天,律师张立辉(音)李方平和法律学者许志永在被不明男子纠缠后,被警方拘押,理由是指责他们偷钱包.
虽然张律师和李律师很快获释, 而许志永却被拘押至当天下午.活跃在山东、北京的活动人士已受到国家的电话或者面对面的安全警告,严重威胁他们不要去临沂.许多人被软禁或监视. 此外,北京律师高智晟先生曾经在7月份去临沂支持陈先生,他在8月15日在山东被捕, 高先生亲属的联系方式被切断.
我们非常关注此案的审判,除非法院仔细研究这些指控并作出补救,此案审判的公正性将不可能,对于基本人权的尊重也是问题. 我们要求全国人大的常设委员会, 山东省人大常委会、最高人民检察院、山东人民检察院,监察部和山东监督厅立即组成事件调查委员会,按照中国宪法和法律,立即展开调查工作,对严重违反人权的陈光诚案件进行监督.
我们要求法院在调查完成前, 不发布裁决. 如果在调查开始之前裁决已经做出, 那么直到调查调查完成之前, 任何违反正当程序和人权侵害被纠正之前, 裁决规定的措施暂停实施.
长期非法限制陈光诚的个人的自由权利是严重违反中国宪法和国际人权公认的规则. 中国政府已经承认这些规则,并承诺对这种违反行为绝不姑息. 我们要求中国中央政府尽快履行宪法义务 尊重和保护人权,司法机构独立行使司法,公正地裁决当地法律执行机构非法逮捕陈诚的行为, 尽快恢复陈光诚,袁伟静和其他人的个人自由. 依法调查追求有关人员违反法律,侵犯人权的行为.
我们希望通过尊重适当程序并且吻合国际人权标准的呼吁将导致陈光诚先生尽快被释放. Page 1 of 5 Secretariat: c/o CFFC · 1436 U Street, NW, Suite 301 · Washington, D.C. 20009 · USA Tel: 1 (202) 986-6093 · Fax: 1 (202) 332-7995 29 August 2006 Mr. Hu Jintao President of the People’s Republic of China c/o Ministry of Justice 1 Huajiadija, Chaoyangqu Bejingshi People’s Republic of China Via Fax: + 86 10 647 298 63 Dear President Hu Jintao, As individuals and leaders in the fields of religion, bioethics, human rights and reproductive health who are deeply committed to ethical and justice-based policies that uphold the principles of informed choice and quality of care and that are voluntary and free from coercion, we write to express our deep concern about the case of Chen Guangcheng. We have followed favorably the many efforts made by your government to institute measures in your national population program that reflect your commitment to the UN ICPD Programme of Action and advance non-coercive reproductive health services in China. We know that along the road to achieving those goals, individual and local violations of your new laws will happen. But we were dismayed to learn that from late 2004 to early 2005, three districts and nine counties in Linyi city, Shandong province, engaged in a large-scale population planning campaign that both violated the Population and Family Planning Law of the People’s Republic of China and included coercive and forceful actions such as imprisonment, assault and non-voluntary sterilization and abortion. More disturbing has been the state’s actions against Chen Guangcheng, who was tried without the presence of his lawyers on Friday, 18 August 2006. Mr. Chen was charged with destruction of property and disrupting traffic, although he was originally detained after he sought to gain lawful redress for those whose rights under Chinese law were violated. In January 2005, Mr. Chen, a lawyer and civil rights defender, and his wife Yuan Weijing, launched an investigation into an illegal local population planning campaign in Linyi city. Their efforts led to the subsequent investigation and confirmation by the National Population and Family Planning Commission in July 2005 that Linyi’s population planning campaign included serious violations of law. The combined efforts of Mr. Chen, some victims and other concerned citizens exposed Linyi’s illegal actions and compelled local authorities to compensate to some of the victims. We were troubled to learn that beginning in August 2005, Linyi city and Yinan county authorities used surveillance, threats, restrictions on personal freedom and other illegal methods to suppress Chen Guangcheng and other rights advocates. Among the human rights violations suffered by Mr. Chen are: o Illegal house arrest and detention, beginning 12 August 2005; Page 2 of 5 Secretariat: c/o CFFC · 1436 U Street, NW, Suite 301 · Washington, D.C. 20009 · USA Tel: 1 (202) 986-6093 · Fax: 1 (202) 332-7995 o A 6-month forced disappearance, prior to his formal detention and charge in June 2006; o Denial of outside contacts and visits by lawyers and family during this detention; and o Threats, assaults upon and the detention of Mr. Chen’s lawyers. The proceedings leading up to his trial which began on 18 August 2006 are legally questionably and include violations of the defendant’s rights to freedom from arbitrary detention and torture and the right to legal council. For example, on 17 August 2006, the day before the trial began, lawyers Zhang Lihui, Li Fangping and legal scholar Xu Zhiyong were detained by Yinan police after unidentified men apprehended them, accusing them of “picking pockets” in the streets of Yinan County. While Mr. Zhang and Mr. Li were released, Mr. Xu remains in detention. Activists in Shandong and Beijing have been called on the phone or visited by state security, who warned them of severe consequences if they try to go to Linyi, and a number of them have been put under house arrest or surveillance. Additionally, the Beijing lawyer Gao Zhisheng who went to Linyi in July to show support to Mr. Chen was arrested on the 15 August in Shandong, and all contacts to Mr. Gao and his family members and relatives have been cut off. We are deeply concerned that this trial could not possibly respect the principle of fair trial and basic human rights unless the court looks into these accusations and make necessary remedies. We ask that the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the Standing Committee of the Shandong People’s Congress, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Shandong People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Supervision and the Shandong Supervision Bureau promptly form a “special issue” investigation committee, in accordance with the provisions of the Chinese Constitution and laws, to immediately begin investigative procedures into and launch legal supervision of the severe violations of the human rights of Chen Guangcheng. We ask that the court refrain from issuing a verdict until these investigations are completed and that if any verdict is rendered before such measures have been taken, its implementation be suspended until such investigation is completed and any violations of due process and human rights are corrected. Protracted illegal restrictions on the personal liberty of Chen Guangcheng and other local rights defenders constitute a severe violation of China’s Constitution and the international human rights standards that the Chinese government has already committed to and must not be tolerated. We ask that the central government expeditiously carry out its constitutional obligation of respecting and protecting human rights, and that judicial agencies exercise their right to judicial independence, as declared by law, to impartially consider the illegal actions of local law enforcement agencies' arbitrary detention of Chen Guangcheng, quickly restore the personal liberty of Mr. Chen, Yuan Weijing and associates, and in accordance with the law investigate the legal responsibility of those who violated people’s rights. We hope this resolution will include the release of Chen Guangcheng and associates as the result of proper due process and in conformation with international human rights standards. Respectfully yours, (organizational affiliations are provided for purposes of identification only) Members of Interfaith Delegation to China (Sept 2003): o Frances Kissling, Catholics for a Free Choice, Washington, DC Page 3 of 5 Secretariat: c/o CFFC · 1436 U Street, NW, Suite 301 · Washington, D.C. 20009 · USA Tel: 1 (202) 986-6093 · Fax: 1 (202) 332-7995 o Ronald M. Green, Dartmouth College, USA o Joke van Kampen, Malawi o Jim Martin-Schramm, Professor of Religion, Luther College, USA o Maureen Shea, The Episcopal Church, USA Additional Signatories: o Mrs. Tigest Alemu, Consortium of Reproductive Health Associations (CORHA), Ethiopia o Claudia Arroyo, Colectivo Juvenil “Decide” (Youth Group), Bolivia o Dr. Charles R. Ausherman, Institute For Development Training (retired), USA o Daniel Axelsson, The Swedish association for sexuality education, RFSU, Sweden o Henk Baars, the Netherlands o Hossam Bahgat, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Egypt o Frans Baneke, the Netherlands o Edie Beaujon, USA o Niall Behan, Irish Family Planning Association, Ireland o Marge Berer, Reproductive Health Matters, UK o Yvonne Bogaarts, World Population Foundation, the Netherlands o Jane K. Boorstein, Partnership for Sustainable Families & Communities, USA o Rev. Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, Faith Voices for the Common Good, USA o Heidi Bruggink, Feminist Caucus of the American Humanist Association, USA o Leo Bryant, Marie Stopes International, UK o Prof. Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University, USA o Patricia A. Clark, (formerly) Fellowship of Reconciliation, USA o Amy Coen, Population Action International, USA o Sharon Danner, Call to Action of Northern Virginia, USA o Mufuliat Dasola Fijabi, BAOBAB For Women's Human Rights, Nigeria o Nils Daulaire, MD, MPH, Global Health Council, USA o Charles N. Davis, Catholics Speak Out, USA o Misodi Johanes Diange, Afrika Initiative e.V. Germany, Germany o Silvia Diaz, Casa De La Mujer Luisa Gutierrez, Argentina o Verónica Diaz, Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir/Chile o Irene Donadio, Belgium o Farid Esack, Positive Muslims, South Africa o Prof. Susan A. Farrell, PhD, Kingsborough Community College, USA o Alice Frade, Portuguese Family Planning Assocation (APF), Portugal o Lynn Freedman, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, USA o Rosemary Ganley, Catholics for a Free Choice/Canada o Donna R. Gary, International Council of Jewish Women, USA o Jenny Goldie, Australian Reproductive Health Alliance, Australia o Ana Gomes, MEP (PSE, Portugal), Portugal o Prof. Paul H. Gundani, Catholic Voices – Zimbabwe o Elfriede Harth, Catholics for a Free Choice-Europe, Germany o Anissa Helie, Mount Holyoke College, USA o Harville Hendrix, PhD, Imago Productions, Inc., USA o Rea Howarth, Catholics Speak Out/Quixote Center, USA o Mary E. Hunt, Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER), USA o Prof. Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, Drew University, USA Page 4 of 5 Secretariat: c/o CFFC · 1436 U Street, NW, Suite 301 · Washington, D.C. 20009 · USA Tel: 1 (202) 986-6093 · Fax: 1 (202) 332-7995 o June Jacobs, UK o Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs, The Rabbi Steven B Jacobs Progressive Faith Foundation, USA o Jodi Jacobson, Center for Health and Gender Equity, USA o Nancy Keenan, NARAL Pro-Choice America, USA o Rabbi Douglas E. Krantz, Congregation B'nai Yisrael, USA o Chen Kuide, China Information Center, USA o Teresa Lanza M., Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir/Bolivia, Bolivia o Akinwale Lawal, Nigeria o Tienchi Liao, China Information Center, USA o Katarina Lindahl, RFSU Sweden o Janneth Lozano, Regina Soares & Teresa Lanza, Latin American Network of Catholics for the Right to Decide, Argentina o Carola La Rosa de Luque, APROPO, Peru o Elizabeth S. Maguire, Ipas, USA o John P. Maguire, Australia o Joanna Manning, Canada o Anna Marsiana, Asian Women Resource Centre (AWRC), Indonesia o Sandra Mazo, Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir/Colombia o Katherine McDonald, Action Canada for Population and Development, Canada o Dr. Dorothea McEwan, The Warburg Institute, University of London, UK o Bridget Mary Meehan, USA o Maria Consuelo Mejia, Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir, A.C. México o Kirsten Moore, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, USA o Eileen Moran, PSC-CUNY, local 2334, USA o Judy Norsigian, Our Bodies Ourselves, USA o Nancy Northup, Center for Reproductive Rights, USA o Frederick Nunes, Advocates for Safe Parenthood: Improving Reproductive Equity (ASPIRE), USA o Maria José Rosado Nunes, Catolicas pelo Direito de Decidir/Brasil o Jeanie Ollivierre, Network of HIV/AIDS, Women in Support of Equity, Educational and Economic Empowerment and Marion House, St. Vincent & the Grenadines o Brigid O’Reilly, Catholics for a Free Choice/Canada o Ayo Obe, Civil Liberties Organisation, Nigeria o Gladys Parentelli, Foro Permanente por la Igualdad de Género, Venezuela o Rev. Dr. Rebecca Parker, Starr King School for the Ministry, USA o Daniel Pellegrom, Pathfinder International, USA o Rev. Dr. Albert M. Pennybacker, Clergy and Laity Network of Kentucky and (formerly) The Interfaith Alliance, USA o Gordon W. Perkin, MD, Path Leadership Council, USA o Prof. Rosalind Petchesky, Hunter College & the Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA o Eva Pils, USA o Anika Rahman, Americans for UNFPA, USA o Rev. Dr. George F. Regas, The Regas Institute, USA o Chini Rueda Sabater, Spain o Ulla Sandbæk, former MEP, Denmark o Save Our Sacrament: Reform of Annulment and Respondent Support o Stirling Scruggs, USA Page 5 of 5 Secretariat: c/o CFFC · 1436 U Street, NW, Suite 301 · Washington, D.C. 20009 · USA Tel: 1 (202) 986-6093 · Fax: 1 (202) 332-7995 o John Seager, Population Connection, USA o Jacqueline Sharpe, IPPF - Family Planning Association of Trinidad and Tobago o Jill W. Sheffield, Family Care International, USA o Steve Sinding, UK o Lene Sjørup, PhD, Denmark o William H. Slavick, Pax Christi Maine, USA o Phyllis Snyder, National Council of Jewish Women, USA o Regina Soares Jurkewicz, Rede Latino-Americana De Católicas Pelo Direito De Decidir São Paulo – Brasil o Rev. Charles H. Straut, Jr., D.Min., Mission and Social Justice Ministry, USA o Valerie J Stroud, We Are Church, UK o Lend Sund, Belgium o Margaret Thomas, Davenport Unitarian Church, USA o Emilie M. Townes, Yale University Divinity School, USA o Coca Trillini, Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir/Buenos Aires-Argentina o Kim S. Wayne, A Critical Mass: Women Celebrating Eucharist, USA o Patricia Willis, Feminist Caucus of the American Humanist Association, USA o June Keener Wink, USA o Sara Winkowski, Uruguay o Dr. Mark Wise, Center for Cooperative Change, USA o Harry Wu, The Laogai Research Foundation, Washington, DC o Susan Wysocki, RNC, NP, FAANP, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, USA o Mr. Sylvestre K. Zounou, Human Rights Officer, Fondation Afrique Liberte (NGO), Togo CC: Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and Standing Committee of the Shandong People's Congress People's Republic of China Supreme People's Procuratorate and Shandong Province People's Procuratorate People's Republic of China Ministry of Supervision and Shandong Province Supervision Bureau Xiao Yang, President of the Supreme People's Court Minister Zhou Yongkang, Ministry of Public Security Minister Zhang Fusen, Ministry of Justice Yang Aihua, Director of the Municipal Population and Family Planning Committee, President of the Municipal Population Planning Association Li Qun, Party Secretary of Linyi city, Chairman of Linyi Local People's Congress Lian Chengmin, Mayor of Linyi city Li Honghai, Member of Linyi Municipal Party Committee Standing Committee, Secretary of the Politics and Law Commission Liu Jie, Deputy Mayor of Linyi city, Director of Linyi Public Security Bureau Ambassdor Zhou Wenzhong, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to the United States 8月28日 Chinese Activist Gets Jail Sentence洛杉矶时报Chen Guangcheng, who uncovered abuses of family planning policies, will be behind bars for more than four years. By Ching-Ching Ni, Times Staff Writer August 25, 2006 LA Times
BEIJING — A blind activist who drew international attention by exposing China's harsh family planning policies was sentenced by a court Thursday to four years and three months in prison, the official New China News Agency reported.
Chen Guangcheng was tried last week, without his own attorney present, on charges of damaging property and "organizing a mob to disturb traffic." He was represented at his two-hour trial by a pair of court-appointed lawyers he had never met.
ADVERTISEMENT Chen's supporters say the case has made a mockery of the Chinese judicial system and serves as a graphic reminder of the government's strenuous efforts to silence its critics.
"This verdict is highly unfair," said Xu Zhiyong, Chen's lead lawyer, who had been detained for 22 hours on theft allegations and was released without charge only after his client's trial ended Aug. 18. "They've lost all reason. They have no respect for the law. We definitely plan to appeal."
The maximum sentence Chen faced was five years in prison, and his lawyers said they had expected him to receive less than three years, if not a reprieve. The chances of reversing the verdict are seen as slim.
Chen's supporters say he has become a target of retaliation by officials in the eastern Chinese city of Linyi for publicizing information about forced late-term abortions and sterilization campaigns involving tens of thousands of people.
China's one-child policy has become less coercive in recent years, and such draconian family planning measures are no longer common practice. But that hasn't stopped some local officials from continuing with the abuse in order to meet certain quotas.
The harsh treatment of the self-taught lawyer and a recent slew of incidents involving the arrest or intimidation of attorneys fighting against official abuse suggest that the Communist Party is worried about losing control over an increasingly vocal legal community.
The charges that Chen, 35, was convicted of stem from two events this year.
Chen was placed under house arrest last August, and in February of this year, a fight broke out between a villager and one of the many guards watching him. The tiff left the villager bleeding from a head wound. The villager called the police but was arrested, Chen's eldest brother, Chen Guangfu, said.
The villager's 80-year-old grandmother went to seek his release, but to no avail, Chen's brother said. She was so upset that she passed out. Villagers begged officials to take her to the hospital, but they refused. Another scuffle broke out, and another villager was hurt. Authorities refused once again to help the grandmother, and now the other villager, get medical aid.
At that point, angry villagers started smashing the windows of three official vehicles, Chen's brother said.
"All the villagers know what happened," the elder Chen said. "It has nothing to do with my brother. But the lawyers are not allowed to go to our village to gather any evidence."
The second incident took place about a month later.
During the February clash, Chen had slipped into the home of another villager and hidden there for about 20 days. Officials allegedly beat the villager after failing to get him to turn Chen in. In reaction, Chen and about five others attempted to walk to a village official's office. They were followed by up to 60 guards who tried to stop them.
"They charged my brother with blocking traffic, but most of the people doing the blocking were their own men," said Chen's brother, who was one of three family members allowed to attend the trial last week.
The brother said that no one was allowed to speak in Chen's behalf at the trial and that the two court-appointed lawyers didn't object to anything the prosecutors said. Chen, he said, repeatedly tried to protest the validity of the trial and threw up several times in court.
"Our lawyers have received death threats, we've been arrested and accused of theft," said Teng Biao, one of Chen's lawyers. "When we tried to visit the village in July, they turned our car over with two attorneys still inside. The entire village remains sealed off. The phone lines are cut off. They don't want us to meet or speak to any of the relatives. This verdict today has no legal basis whatsoever."
8月26日 Chen Guangcheng sentenced to four yearsJerry Cohen (formally Jerome A. Cohen), a New York lawyer, law
professor, and acknowledged dean of foreign experts on Chinese legal matters who has been in China for some time and has been closely following this and other cases, has made public his view: The extremely harsh sentence for Chen Guangcheng confirms not only the lawlessness and vindictiveness of the authorities of Linyi City but also the determination of the national Communist Party Political-Legal Committee to intimidate and suppress the country's rising generation of human rights activist-lawyers. There was no valid basis for the charges against Chen. That is why all legal procedures were thrown out the window in his"trial". Otherwise his lawyers, who were never allowed in the courtroom, would have exposed the process as the farce that it was. Moreover, even if this idealistic and peaceful blind man who has led an exemplary life had been genuinely guilty of the charges, as his wife pointed out, the sentence is wildly disproportionate to the alleged offenses. It is another shameful demonstration by the highest leaders in the country--not merely the Linyi authorities--that all those in China who take seriously the regime's policies and legislation trumpeting "a socialist rule of law" do so at their peril. Chen's is not an isolated case, of course, but is related to the current campaign against lawyers, journalists and others who stoke the fires of the nation's increasing rights consciousness. But Chen is a justifiably famous person whose case will become a worldwide symbol of injustice in China. I will take my Chen Guangcheng T-shirt to my opening class on "Law and Society in China". August 24, 2006Chen Guangcheng sentenced to four years
This case is just what it appears to be and hardly requires further commentary by me. I will just point out that Chen received substantially less due process than is typically available for murderers and other violent criminals. Even the Gang of Four got more due process than this. Central government leaders, who allowed this to happen, probably have better information on the state of Chinese society than I do. If they believe that the failure to crush a single individual who was, after all, exposing violations of state law will lead to a collapse of their authority, one can only conclude that the current state of social peace (such as it is) is fragile indeed. I will conclude with a comment from Prof. Jerome Cohen of NYU Law School, who is closely acquainted with the details of the case:
8月25日 昝爱宗：温家宝亲眼目睹山东政府强奸陈光诚
请看博讯热点：临沂计生维权 (博讯2006年8月25日) 昝爱宗更多文章请看昝爱宗专栏 陈光诚的出现，是用来见证温家宝满脸笑容背后的真面目。 陈光诚有幸和温家宝共同列入影响世界100人，但并非让温家宝也觉得"有幸"。可在此之外，温家宝与陈光诚再无任何关系，尤其明显的是，陈光诚今天成为"罪犯"，而温家宝照样是"人民的总理"。在这个世上，总理能够保护一个罪犯吗？我们何时才能不再亲眼目睹赵高指鹿为马的游戏重演？ (博讯 boxun.com)
中国严酷的法律，是用来让陈光诚们害怕的，而不是用来保护陈光诚们的。事实证明，在今天的中国，在政府卑鄙手段控制下，帮助村民维权的陈光诚根本无法得到法律的保护，他只能得到法律的惩处。 这样的结果，到底是法律有问题，还是整个体制都有问题？ 8月24日，山东省沂南县法院判处盲人陈光诚有期徒刑四年零三个月，罪名是"故意损坏财物、聚众扰乱交通秩序"。另三个村民陈庚江等曾被刑讯逼供17天，并在8月18日上午被秘密审判，判刑七个月，缓刑一年。 这是本年度一个多么值得令全世界关注的最大的中国侵犯人权案件。 我是很难张开嘴说沂南这个法院是"人民法院"，以及它有什么合法性，有什么资格被称为法院。我甚至怀疑中国所有冠名"人民"的机构的合法性，以及它的资格。合法性决定了它的权力，如果它没有合法性，它的权力就是乱来的，就是抢来的。 陈光诚，一个盲人，被判处重刑，却是编造的理由："故意损坏财物、聚众扰乱交通秩序"。当然，今天我毫不怀疑山东政府在对待陈光诚上面的"良苦用心"，这心是"黄鼠狼给鸡拜年，没安好心"。当法律可以当成镇压陈光诚这些"罪犯们"的工具，当领导们可以安然目睹这一切的发生，中国怎么了？是不是进入了一个魔鬼控制的邪恶家园？ 贪官可以缓刑，不用坐牢；首长可以永远伟大光荣正确，不用承担责任；他们都不能例外，惟有老百姓，可以例外。所以说，中国的老百姓可以永远强权受欺压，不用抱怨，死了也不值得可怜。 是的，我们每个人都是陈光诚，下一个被抓的就是我们。 是的，我们每一个人都是陈光诚，温家宝们从来就不能保护我们，反而是伤害我们。 8月11日至18日，我说真话呼吁真相而被公安部门行政拘留7天，违法的名头就是"散布谣言，故意扰乱公共秩序"。 在中国，什么不是故意？什么不是谣言？不管有没有发生，也不管发生了有没有造成后果，什么都不用管，政府指责你故意散布谣言你就故意散布谣言了，因为谣言在中国没有标准，中国的百姓最容易故意散布谣言，最容易不明真相。而那些冠名"人民"的单位，从来没有散布过一句谣言，从来都明白真相。 陈光诚先生的罪名是"故意损坏财物、聚众扰乱交通秩序"。在中国，只有百姓才敢"故意"扰乱秩序，而政府，从来都是秩序的守护神和正义的化身，即使中国的秩序一团糟，交通那么拥挤，冤案那么普遍，贪污腐败那么层出不穷，政府也没有责任，因为政府是用来享用秩序的，不是被秩序所规范的。谁扰乱制度，政府就给谁过不去，毫不手软。陈光诚虽然与温家宝在"影响世界的程度"上"平级"，但扰乱秩序的罪名只能加在陈光诚头上，而万万不能加在温家宝头上。 所以我说，一个有良知的陈光诚被山东政府强奸了，被法律强奸了，而这个负责任大国的总理，也得以亲眼目睹了山东政府强奸陈光诚的全过程，却没有任何公开说法。 十七年前的"六四"，我们熟悉的一张照片就是天安门广场上，温家宝站在当时的总书记赵紫阳身旁，满脸的严肃。可今天，十七年后，温家宝成为大国总理，却是处处让新闻媒体宣传满脸温情，帮助农民工讨工资，帮助地方政府"揩屁股"，帮助农民进城卖桃少受刁难……几乎都是以人为本，领袖本色。可是他对大名鼎鼎的陈光诚做了什么？他对高智晟和喻华峰做了什么？他又对制定新闻法、废除暂住证和实现迁徙自由、废除劳教制度、司法独立、民选地方自治政府、多党制等做了什么呢？ 陈光诚被强权强奸了，那些强奸犯们得逞了，那些亲眼目睹而无动于衷的人也在参与，只是他们得逞的时间越长，参与的越深入，他们所得到的就是最坏最坏的结果。 对强权强奸弱者而无动于衷，并不是什么沉默，也不是回避，而是助长强奸者的嚣张气焰，"上帝让谁灭亡，必先让其疯狂。" 所以今天的陈光诚有福了，上帝不会让他灭亡，所以也不至于使他疯狂。那些疯狂的，早已是尚活着的行尸走肉了。 非法判决，不是判决，不能生效，只能是流氓行为，是乱来，是犯罪。 今天，让我们为陈光诚的明天而祈祷，让我们离那些臭肉远些，让我们心怀良知，满怀向善的心，分别为圣，以善胜恶。 (博讯记者：蔡楚) [博讯首发,欢迎转载，请注明出处]- 支持此文作者/记者(博讯 boxun.com) 陈光诚案辩护词审判长、审判员： 我们受陈光诚及其家人的委托，今天在法庭之外发表这份辩护词。首先我们必须声明，2006年8月18日沂南县法院对陈光诚的审判违反了法律程序。李劲松律师、张立辉律师在8月18日开庭之前已经给沂南县法院发去律师函，以非法阻挠律师取证、不准律师会见当事人、非法限制辩护人的人身自由等正当理由要求延期审理，但沂南县法院继续开庭审理，并给陈光诚临时指定了两名辩护律师。陈光诚当庭拒绝了法院指定的辩护人。按照最高法院关于刑事诉讼法的相关解释，当事人当庭拒绝辩护人的，法庭应当休庭，延期审理，但沂南县法院违法继续进行审判，因此，这次审判违反了法定程序。 不合法的审判并不妨碍我们发表辩护意见。通过阅卷、会见当事人以及艰难的调查取证，我们认为，陈光诚无罪，指控他的两项罪名根本不能成立。陈光诚是一个优秀的中国公民，仅仅因为坚守良知和正义，揭露地方政府的野蛮违法行为，竟然遭到长达一年多的迫害，违法犯罪的不是陈光诚，而是那些以流氓的手段或法律的名义迫害他的贪官污吏们。
一 指控陈光诚的两个罪名不能成立。
1、关于故意毁坏财物罪。 控方指控陈光诚“指使”、“煽动”陈光余等人故意砸坏了政府车辆的玻璃。但事实上，砸车玻璃是愤怒的村民自发行为，与陈光诚无关。 控方指控陈光诚“指使”、“煽动”砸车的主要“证据”是陈光东、陈庚江、陈光和、陈光余等人的证言。 陈光东在警方的讯问笔录中说，他在陈光余家里听陈光诚说“弄车都砸它，砸的干净的，给掀沟底里！”然后，他出了陈光余的家门，然后发生了陈华的奶奶休克在雪地里村民群情激愤的情形，然后走到村民陈纪运家东面的胡同里，迎面碰到了村民支付金，“支付金对我和陈光利说：‘你们怎么不把车给砸它？’俺说：‘还没开始砸’。”“过了一霎霎，袁伟静吆喝去砸车，陈更江也吆喝去砸车，俺也跟着吆喝砸车去，陈光和、陈更江、我、袁伟静等七八个人就去庄东头砸车。” 陈更江在警方的讯问笔录中说，他在陈光余家听到陈光诚说“去把车掀他，事闹得越大越好，出了事我负责。”后来他们出了陈光余的家门，然后发生了陈华的奶奶休克村民群情激愤，然后和袁伟静他们一起去找“当官的”，碰着的所有的干部都说自己不是当官的，然后，袁伟静说，“去把车给砸他。”我们其他人也吆喝“把车给砸她”，然后去砸车。 陈光和在询问笔录中说，“陈光诚和俺这几个人，从大队院里拐弯出来往北走的，边走，陈光诚边大喊：‘他们没管事的，把车给砸它’。”然后发生陈华的奶奶休克，袁伟静从陈光余家里出来说，“去把车砸他”，然后很多村民和“当官的”争吵，要他们救人，“光听着吵闹厮打的声音，持续得有二十多分钟。……过了大约半个小时，陈纪运从西边过来了，吆喝着：‘没管的吗？没管的去把车给掀沟去。’我随后也从东面走过去了，看见‘在桑塔纳旁边有一辆浅色的面包车，已经被掀翻了’。” 陈光余在警方的询问笔录中说，“陈光诚打完这几个电话回了炉子跟的小椅子上坐着，袁伟静这时候就出去了。陈更江、陈光东、陈可贵围坐在炉子跟前烤着火。陈光诚说：‘你们出去闹，看着有车，把车给砸他，掀他’。后来，袁伟静又来了一次。” 首先，这四个人的证言不可信。陈更江、陈光和至今仍被关押，他们的辩护律师申请会见他们，有关部门违法拒绝律师会见。我们作为陈光诚的辩护人申请他们出庭质证，法院不许可。本来他们和陈光诚是同一个案件，应该一起审理，但法院却把故意他们分开。陈光余及其家人受到警方恐吓，不敢出来作证。 其次，这四个人的证言相互矛盾。陈光东、陈更江、陈光余说陈光诚是在陈光余家让大家去砸车，陈光和说陈光诚是大队院里出来的时候说“把车给砸它”。陈光和在笔录中的意思是，袁伟静从陈光余家受到陈光诚煽动然后号召大家去砸车，但陈光余的供述说陈光诚说让大家去砸车的时候，袁伟静已经离开陈光余家，没听到陈光诚讲让大家去砸车。 第三，即使法庭采信了他们的证言，这四个人的证言不能证明砸车和陈光诚的“指使”、“煽动”有直接因果关系。四个人都曾供述陈光诚说过要大家去砸车，但是，陈光东供述说他是在陈华的奶奶休克，村民支付金和陈光利说“怎么不把车给砸它”以后才吆喝着去砸车。即使陈光东的供述是真实的，直接煽动指使他砸车的不是陈光诚，而是村民支付金和陈光利。陈更江是在袁伟静说“去把车给砸它”之后才去砸车。陈光和听到村民陈纪运说“没管的去把车给掀沟去”的时候看见车已经被掀翻了。陈光余说陈光诚让大家砸车掀车，但事实上他们几个并没有立即出去砸车掀车，而是在发生陈华的奶奶休克在雪地里，政府那么多车那么多人却不过问，村民自发去砸的车。 总之，控方现有的证据完全不能证明是陈光诚指使煽动村民故意毁坏财物。 相反，大量村民的证言表明，砸车玻璃是村民群情激愤情况下的自发行为。村民魏xx作证，“2月5日晚上，陈华家人去找政府要人，村民越聚越多，大家很气愤。陈华的奶奶休克了，躺在雪地上，村民有的跪下求政府的人用车救人，但他们不理，大家把老太太抬到屋里。这时，我听到有人说，咱们去砸车吧。当时陈光诚不在现场，在陈光余家。后来政府的人把杜德海砸伤了。”村民徐xx也证实，“有人求政府的人用车救人，但他们不理。”村民刘xx作证，“老太太说着说着晕过去了，老太太的儿子更着急，叫公安的人送，好几个公安人员都说不。”还有更多的村民私下里敢说出真相，但不敢向法庭提供证言，因为他们害怕打击报复。 经过调查取证，我们认为，2月5日所谓陈光诚故意毁坏财物的真相是：政府方面非法拘禁陈光诚的人员在春节期间殴打并拘捕了陈光诚的邻居陈华，陈华的家人以及村民向政府要人，陈华的奶奶因情绪激动而休克躺在雪地里，村民央求政府的人派车救人，他们不理，群情激愤之下有人去砸了车玻璃。这起群体性事件的背景是当地政府的非法行为，事件的起因也是因为政府见危不救，村民虽然砸车是错误的，但主要责任应该在于当地政府。
2、关于“311”聚众扰乱交通秩序罪。 控方指控陈光诚聚众扰乱交通秩序，主要证据是陈光余、陈光军的讯问笔录，王庆玉等出警警察的询问笔录，非法软禁陈光诚的政府雇用人员刘元成等人的询问笔录。 陈光余在讯问笔录中说，他和陈光诚一行人在营后村没有找到领导，只好回东师古村，路过205国道的时候，“陈光诚站在公路上喊：‘把车都截住，上县里找领导去’，喊了几声截车。我见陈光诚和袁伟静先站在公路东侧，这时候来了一辆到蒙阴方向的大头货车，陈光诚站在车前边把车给拦住了。” 陈光军在讯问笔录中说，“我们上了205国道后时间不长，我看见从南边临沂方向来了一辆大货车，到了陈光诚南边两三米远的时候，我们四个人都上去堵到了这辆车前边，司机看到有人挡着路没法走就停下了。” 警官王庆玉在询问笔录中说，陈光诚站在公路上，这时从南边来了一辆大货车，陈光诚听到有车来了，赶紧张开两手，不让那辆车走了，开车的司机被迫把车停下了。 警官李洪星在询问笔录中说，陈光诚在公路上吆喝着“上县委，上市委”。“一辆从南边来的拖挂货车准备从路的东边空里穿过，陈光诚吆喝‘堵住车’，一边叫陈光余领着上了那个大货车前头，大货车无路可走，停下了。” 沂南县双堠镇双堠村刘元成（政府雇用的非法限制陈光诚人身自由的人员）在询问笔录中说，“陈光诚等人上了营后村大队办公室，没有找到工作组的人，陈光诚就说：‘走，上公路截车去！’接着他就领着陈光余这几个人上了205国道。这几个人横排在公路上拦截过往车辆，车越堵越多，交通就完全堵塞了。” 这些证人中，陈光军已经提供了新的证言，推翻了在警方刑讯逼供下的证言，他作证说事实真相是公安局的工会主席孙学农拦下了第一辆大货车。陈光余受到警察威胁已经离家出走不敢作证。其余的证人都是长期参与围困陈光诚的人。 但是大量的村民作证说，拦下的第一辆车不是大货车，而是小汽车，最先拦下车的不是陈光诚，而是公安人员。 袁伟静在证言里讲述了事情的经过：“我们准备搭乘一辆去沂南县城的车准备找县领导说理，这时从北面过来一辆由北向南行驶的带有出租二字的出租车，出租车在距我们还有四五十米远的时候，我们正准备招手搭乘，这时，站在人群中的一位站岗的公安人员喊‘别让他们跑了’，刹那间，一个身材高大比较奥魁梧的方脸的公安人员孙学农（音）快步冲上前，举起右手并和左手配合做了一个停车的姿势，那辆出租车就被拦下了。接着后面又来了一辆小车就自动停下了。这时孙学农见车被拦下后又返回来向南走，被拦的出租车见状就向东掉头然后转向北面走了。这时我们继续站在路上等待由北向南行驶的去往沂南县成的车，但此时已经有近20位公安人员和三四十站岗人员都围在我们周围，况且还有一些东师古村村民和营后村村民远观，这样一看，路上都是人了。这时，由南向北驶来了一辆大货车，公安人员和站岗的连同我们一起在路上，但没有人冲上前作停车姿势，但由于人太多，车还是自动停下了。”村民巩xx提供证言说：“陈光诚等人一起去营后办公室，但是没有找到人，便有人提议去县城找县政府，可是他们被镇上的人围住，不让离去。这时一个很黑方脸的人拦下一辆小车，后来人越来越多，交通阻塞。”村民刘xx等也证实“有一个长得很黑很胖的人拦下了一辆小车”。 在这起“聚众扰乱交通秩序”行为中，有这么几个关键疑点：第一，陈光诚最初拦车的动机是什么？为什么他没有拦到车去县委市委？第二，到底是谁拦了第一辆车？第三，当时站在公路上的是只有陈光诚等几个人，还是有大批的看守人员和警察都在？第四，陈光诚长时间一直被限制人身自由，现场有那么多警察和看守在，为什么那一天他能够自由上公路并且没有被及时带离公路？ 从现有证据看，“311聚众扰乱交通秩序”的真相是，陈光诚他们打算拦车去县里，但遭到大批政府工作人员的非法阻拦，这是交通堵塞的起源。陈光诚他们无法搭乘车辆去县里，便在公路上等待领导过来解决问题，这时，政府工作人员上百人完全有能力把陈光诚、陈光余等人带走，但他们却一直站在公路上给陈光诚他们拍录像，以制造陈光诚拦车阻塞交通的假象。所以说，交通阻塞的主要责任在于政府工作人员。
二，本案在程序方面存在大量严重违法现象。
1、侦查机关存在重大违法行为。 第一，2006年3月11日至6月10日，侦查机关沂南县公安局对陈光诚进行了长达三个月的非法拘禁。陈光诚在3月11日被带走，陈光诚的妻子在3月12日收到“继续盘问通知书”，而之后陈光诚一直处在失踪的状态，直到6月12 日，陈光诚的妻子收到沂南县公安局的对陈光诚进行刑事拘留的通知。这期间，沂南县公安局对陈光诚的家属和律师拒绝承认陈光诚被他们关押。据陈光诚回忆，今年3月12日至4月2日他被非法拘禁在沂南县维多利亚度假村，4月2日至6月10日被送进沂南县看守所之前，他被非法拘禁在民警培训中心。 这不仅仅是程序违法的问题，而是一个犯罪的问题，沂南县公安局有关人员已经构成非法拘禁罪！任何公民非经法定程序不得关押，公安机关没有超越于法律之外的特权。 侦查机关虽然在2006年6月10日出具了“刑拘通知书”，但刑拘本身是在非法状态下进行的，而且三个月的非法拘禁就是针对本案实施的，侦查机关已经无法做到刑拘后的侦察行为客观公正。 第二，在沂南县看守所，侦察机关办案人员对陈光诚实施了漫骂、侮辱和死亡威胁。我国刑诉法规定，因程序违法所取得的证据为非法证据，不得使用。
2、 沂南县检察院将共同犯罪案件分案起诉违反了《刑事诉讼法》第137条、《人 民检察院刑事诉讼规则》第280条规定：人民检察院在办理公安机关移送起诉的案件中，发现遗漏依法应当移送审查起诉同案犯罪嫌疑人的，应当建议公安机关移送审查起诉。 本案涉嫌共同犯罪而且所有犯罪嫌疑人均被采取了强制措施，没有分案处理的任何理由。因此，根据《最高院关于审理刑事案件程序的具体规定》第89条、91条的规定，人民法院应依法退回本案，不予审理。
3、有关部门非法阻挠律师调查取证及会见当事人。 2005年6月22日下午，正在沂南县依法办案的陈光诚律师李劲松先生被当地警方带走，罪名是“涉嫌扰乱正常生活”。起因是陈光诚母亲被强制绑架带回后又遭非法软禁，病倒在床无法出门看病。李律师出于人道关怀，在6月21日晚给当地四位公安发了一条短信，希望他们允许陈光诚的母亲到医院就诊，因为陈光诚的母亲已经开始发高烧。就这样涉嫌扰乱了警察的正常生活。
6月22日下午，第二批抵达山东临沂的李克昌、程海等三位律师，在山东临沂被一辆无牌照车跟踪，并被不明身份的暴徒当街公开殴打。当时律师拨打了110和120，警察把律师带到公安局问讯，用各种理由把这三名被殴打的律师羁留在派出所，不让离开派出所。22日晚上21点41分，几十名暴徒冲进公安局内，公然抢劫了律师们的照相器材，并当着警察的面强行摔碎。之后，又冲到律师所在房间谩骂骚扰，直到凌晨一点多才撤走。 6月23日下午2点10分，按计划前去陈光诚家进行调查采证的李劲松、李苏宾律师到达陈光诚家村口，刚刚下车，便遭到20多名不明身份者的围殴，最后将二人推搡进车内。 6月27日，李劲松、李苏滨等律师去东师古村调查取证。在村口，李劲松、李苏滨在车里时，不明身份的非法拘禁陈光诚的人把他们的车辆掀翻。四个警察到来之后，在李劲松向警员现场指证仍滞留在场的数十个堵门掀车暴徒时，其中几人当着四个警察的面抢走李劲松律师的摄像机。 8月17日和18日两天，张立辉律师、李劲松律师要求会见陈光诚，为开庭做必要的准备，但遭到无理拒绝。
4、本案审判程序违法 本案开庭之前陈光诚已经委托辩护人，但辩护人被诬告为盗窃并被非法限制人身自由以至于不能出庭辩护，陈光诚当庭拒绝了法院为其指定的辩护人。根据最高法院关于执行《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》若干问题的解释第165条规定，“被告人当庭拒绝辩护人为其辩护，要求另行委托辩护人的，应当同意，并宣布延期审理。”但沂南县法院不顾陈光诚的一再抗议，继续审理，严重侵害了被告人的辩护权利，违反了法律，是一场非法审判。
三、陈光诚案真相——犯罪的不是陈光诚，而是地方政府某些官员。 从2005年8月陈光诚被非法软禁到2006年8月辩护人被诬告盗窃，临沂市某些官员的犯罪行为包括： 1、非法拘禁罪。2005年8月20日到2006年6月10之间，除3月11被传唤之外，陈光诚一直处于被软禁或者拘禁状态，其间没有履行任何法律手续。其中，3月12日到6月10日之间，陈光诚被警方带走后处于“失踪”状态，这更是典型的非法拘禁行为。从2005年8月20日到2006年8月21日，在长达一年多的时间里，陈光诚的妻子、分别三岁和一岁多的两个孩子被非法软禁，至今仍在继续。我们认为，沂南县公安局以及政府有关部门在没有任何法律手续的情况下长期拘禁具有合法身份的公民、妇女以及儿童，给陈光诚及其家人造成了严重的身心伤害，根据中华人民共和国刑法第238条之规定，已经构成了非法拘禁罪。 2、寻衅滋事罪。2005年2月3日，政府雇用的非法拘禁陈光诚的人员殴打东师古村村民陈华，直接导致了2月5日村民愤怒砸坏政府车辆玻璃的行为。2006年3月11日，这群政府雇员又殴打了东师古村村民陈光余。这群政府雇员还多次阻拦、殴打陈光诚的朋友探望其家人。根据中华人民共和国刑法第293条之规定，沂南县政府有关人员构成寻衅滋事罪。 3、故意毁坏财物罪。2006年6月22日晚上21点41分，几十名不明身份的人冲进沂南县公安局办公楼内，公然抢劫了律师们的照相器材，并当着警察的面强行摔碎。2006年6月27日，李劲松、李苏滨等律师去东师古村调查取证。在村口，李劲松、李苏滨在车里时，不明身份的非法拘禁陈光诚的人把他们乘坐的汽车掀翻，造成玻璃及车身严重毁损。根据中华人民共和国刑法第275条之规定，有关人员构成故意毁坏财物罪。 4、聚众扰乱交通秩序罪。2006年3月11日，陈光诚等人准备在205国道拦出租车去县里找领导说理，受到政府有关人员非法阻挠。他们数十人在公路上把陈光诚围在中间，造成205国道严重阻塞，如果该阻塞交通的行为构成聚众扰乱交通秩序罪的话，犯罪的是沂南县政府现场指挥的有关领导。根据中华人民共和国刑法第291条之规定，有关指挥人员构成聚众扰乱交通秩序罪。 5、抢夺罪。2006年6月27日，李劲松律师向110警员现场指证仍滞留在场的数十个堵门掀车暴徒时，其中几人当着四个警察的面抢走李劲松律师的摄像机。根据中华人民共和国刑法第267条之规定，该暴徒构成抢夺罪，指示其行为的有关政府官员构成共同犯罪。 6、诬告罪。2006年8月17日晚，许志永博士、张立辉律师、李方平律师被沂南县公安联防队员王义山（音）诬告盗窃，两位律师被非法传唤两个多小时，许志永博士被非法限制人身自由22个小时。根据中华人民共和国刑法第243条之规定，捏造事实，故意试图使他人受到刑事追究，构成诬告罪，指示王义山的有关政府官员构成共同犯罪。
陈光诚案的真相是，临沂地方政府在推行计划生育工作过程中大量存在违法现象，陈光诚揭露了违法事实，遭到地方政府某些官员的忌恨和报复，为了掩盖他们的非法行为，他们非法限制陈光诚的人身自由，并且在限制陈光诚人身自由的过程中寻衅滋事，导致村民和非法拘禁陈光诚的政府人员发生冲突，而临沂地方政府又以这些冲突为借口给陈光诚定罪。 一个盲人，仅仅为了维护当地村民的合法权利和尊严，却遭到了长达一年多的打击报复，他已经为良知和真相付出了惨重的代价，如果法院还以法律的名义把他投入监狱，这将是法律的耻辱，中国人的耻辱。我们恳请法院以事实为根据，依法宣告陈光诚无罪。
李劲松律师 张立辉律师 李方平律师 滕彪律师 许志永博士
2006年8月18日 China: Chen Guangcheng is prisoner of conscienceAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE News Flash AI Index: ASA 17/048/2006 (Public) News Service No: 222 24 August 2006 China: Chen Guangcheng is prisoner of conscience Human rights activist Chen Guangcheng was today sentenced to four years and three months in prison. In reaction, Catherine Baber, Deputy Asia Pacific Director at Amnesty International said: "We condemn utterly the sentence imposed on Chen Guangcheng and consider him a prisoner of conscience. Chen has been imprisoned solely because of his peaceful defence of human rights and he should be released immediately." "The charges against Chen were politically motivated and the trial was grossly unfair from start to finish. Chen's lawyers were obstructed at every step of the way, from collecting evidence to representing him in court. By some accounts the trial lasted only two hours; and the courtroom was filled with official representatives preventing members of the public and most of Chen's relatives attending." Chen was charged with "damaging public property and gathering people to block traffic" in June 2006, after he had been detained incommunicado for three months. He had been arbitrarily confined to his home since September 2005. Before his detention Chen had been helping local villagers in their attempt to sue the local authorities in Linyi City, Shandong province, for carrying out an illegal policy of forced abortions and sterilizations which reportedly affected thousands of local women. 8月24日 陈光诚被判4年3个月19：23更新：袁伟静见到一位同村涉案村民的家属获知：那三位同时被抓捕的村民在当地刑警大队被刑讯逼供17天， 并于8月18日上午秘密开庭审判，三位村民被判刑7个月，缓刑1年。三位村民因无法忍受酷刑，认罪，并"承认是在陈光诚和袁伟静指使下砸车"（判决书上的文字）。我意识到，袁伟静处于非常大的风险中，很可能会被进一步迫害。JINAN, Aug. 24 (Xinhua)-- The People's Court of Yinan County,
in east China's Shandong Province, Thursday sentenced Chen
Guangcheng to four years and three months in prison on charges of
willfully damaging property and organizing a mob to disturb
traffic.
The sentence was passed in a public court session. Enditem
翻译：济南，8月24日（新华）——中国东部山东省沂南县人民法院，星期四判决陈光诚坐牢4年3个月，罪名是故意破坏财产和聚众扰乱交通。
公开开庭做了此宣判。
这条新闻是在新华社的有偿新闻稿里发布的。和高智晟律师被抓捕的信息一样。新华社的网站上没有任何链接。光诚指定的律师（李劲松、许志永、张立辉）被绕开，对审判不知情。在光诚和其辩护律师的抗议下，法院为陈光诚指定当地司法局的律师，配合公诉人把光诚送去监狱。
另外根据陈光诚妻子袁伟静通过手机沟通的信息，当地所有和陈光诚一起所谓"涉案"的村民被无罪释放。
陈光诚的妻子袁伟静仍然处于当局的软禁中。 8月20日 让法律、正义和全体中国人蒙羞的审判"维权网 " 网站：http://crd-net.org 信箱: admin@chinese-rights-defenders.net " 人人享有所有人权 " ( 联合国) 2006 年8 月19 日发布
让法律、正义和全体中国人蒙羞的审判 - 维权网就沂南法院开庭审理陈光诚一案的的声明
8 月18日，山东临沂沂南法院在国内外舆论的强烈质疑和反对下，开庭审理著名盲人维权人士陈光诚。这是一个必将写进历史的日子，因为，这个庭审以及围绕它的官方及地方势力的所作所为使法律、正义、全中国人蒙羞。在实现法治、保障人权被写进中国宪法的今天，事实再次提醒我们：现实和法治及正义相差是多么遥远。
陈光诚一案，不仅从始至终违背基本的法律程序正义，即使是就现行的中国法律而言，也是公然违法的，不能成立。陈光诚被指控犯有故意破坏财物罪和聚众扰乱交通两项罪名，但对一个被软禁长达 189天的盲人来讲，他如何能够犯下这种正常人也要具有相当"能力"才能犯下的罪呢？事实上，法院从来就没有、也根本不想在此案上保持基本的程序正义。例如，在没有对"被煽动者"进行定罪前，怎么可以对"煽动者"先行审判？陈光诚 3月 11日被警方带走，到6 月12日其家人才收到他被刑事拘留的通知，这三个月的失踪符合哪条法律？连续三天不准睡觉的惩罚又是哪条国家法律的规定？重要的证人被拒绝出庭或被限制人身自由，而该回避的沂南公安检查等部门的人员却不回避；律师取证不断地被当地官方指派的人员、包括当地警方的威胁、骚扰甚至殴打，车辆、器材被任意毁坏，取证无法正常进行，证人受到恐吓……这又要怎样才能解释的司法公正？这一切都说明，这是一场蓄意的诬陷，是一场人为的赤裸裸的迫害。
当然，人们也都清楚陈光诚为何遭此牢狱之灾，因为从他勇敢地揭露临沂地区导致几十万人受到迫害的所谓计划生育工作那一日起，这个灾难可能就注定要降临到这位善良正直的盲人身上。但是，尽管知其不现实，许多关心此案的善良的人们仍然心存侥幸：毕竟这是二十一世纪了，毕竟中国的官方还是签署了一些有关国际人权的公约，毕竟已经宣布要依法治国了……，希望官方，特别是中央政府能够抓住这样一个机会，为中国的法治结建设立下一个良好的范例，为中国社会怎样去达成真正的和谐树立一个榜样，为中国这样一个大国确立一个文明、进步和理性的国际形象作一次努力。而几次开庭的延后，也曾给这种侥幸心理浇灌了些希望。不过， 8月 18日的开庭又一次提醒我们，这个政权依然如故，而争取自由的路必然艰难曲折。
这是一场闹剧，流氓的行止却要打着正义的旗帜，违法的举措偏要冠以法律的名义：辩护律师许志勇未到法庭前先被诬为小偷，被当事人信任的律师朋友不能进入法庭，官方指派的律师与法官闭门上演罗织罪名的双簧，从北京到山东，重要的证人被警方强行禁闭在家中……；但，这更是一场悲剧，中华民族的悲剧，法律和正义的悲剧。当陈光诚这样一位善良、正直、无辜的盲人被带上法庭接受审判的那一刻，中国人迈向现代文明的努力又一次遭受重挫。
所幸的是，在那些恐吓和殴打面前无所畏惧、一批批奔赴山东的维权律师身上，我们看到了中国真正的希望，是他们在这个法律和正义蒙羞的时刻，拯救了真正的法律和正义精神，是他们让蒙羞的中国人能够在世人面前挽回些尊严，这里，我们向他们表示最崇高的敬意。我们不应幻想庭审能够公正，但我们我们有"权"要求庭审公正，这种要求跟那些维权律师的努力、人们的抗议一样，都是为历史留证：留证陈光诚受到的迫害和他作出的牺牲，留证中国的法治和人权事业的艰难和所需要做出的努力，留证人的良知。我们相信，这样的牺牲、努力不会全然没有结果，这样一种庭审最终是要被正义和历史审判的。
"维权网" 2006 年8月 19日
____________________________________________ " 维权网" 是维权人士和民间团体的开放联网，旨在协助民间维权、发展公民社会，通过民主手段和法制改革、本着普世人权标准和中国宪法保障的公民权利、监督政府落实其人权承偌，追究侵权责任 ,为受害者寻求司法和社会救助。"维权网"提供热线咨询、信息发布、国际交流、小型资助、研究助理等服务项目。 China: Release “Barefoot Lawyer”Defendant’s Lawyers Barred from Mounting a Defense(New York, July 19, 2006) – Chinese authorities should immediately release Chen Guangcheng, a blind lawyer persecuted for exposing official abuses, Human Rights Watch said today. Since his arbitrary detention in August 2005, Chen has been subject to physical abuse by police, and local officials have repeatedly interfered with attempts by Chen’s legal team to interview witnesses and gather evidence. Chen is due to be tried on July 20 for intent to damage public property and inciting others to join him to disrupt traffic.
In March 2005, Chen learned from villagers that officials in Linyi, a city in Shandong province, had subjected thousands of people trying to evade restrictive population control laws to late-term forced abortions, midnight raids, beatings and compulsory sterilization. Chen then began his own investigation into the allegations. In June 2005, he filed a class-action lawsuit, and then traveled to Beijing to discuss the case with legal scholars, lawyers and foreign journalists. Soon after, the lawsuit was rejected. On August 12, 2005, local officials imprisoned Chen and his immediate family in their home and shut off all outside communication. They were detained there for seven months. Chen did manage to escape in September, but was apprehended in Beijing and returned to Linyi. When he tried again to escape in October, local authorities failed to protect him against beatings by civilians apparently working in connection with the police to help enforce his isolation. On March 11, 2006, Yinan county police officers “disappeared” Chen for three months. It was not until June 11, 2006, that officials acknowledged he had been formally detained in the Yinan County Detention Center. On June 21, the Yinan County People’s Procuratorate approved Chen’s arrest. That same day, Chen’s lawyers, Li Jinsong and Zhang Lihui, were able to visit him, but from then on, authorities escalated the pressure to deny access to defense witnesses and materials for all the lawyers and activists involved. On June 22, police officers took lawyer Li in for questioning. Unknown assailants beat three other lawyers defending villagers jailed for supporting Chen. Police officers first looked on as the cameras of the villagers’ lawyers were smashed, then took them in for questioning. When Li Jinsong and Li Subin, another member of Chen’s legal team, tried to visit Chen’s wife on June 23, they were stopped and beaten by guards. The following day, all the lawyers involved returned to Beijing. Li Jinsong and Li Subin tried returning to Shandong on June 27, only to be harassed again while the police again stood by. Some 20 men overturned the lawyers’ car and police took Li Jinsong in for questioning once again. “Chen’s story – his disappearance, letting unknown assailants beat him and his legal team, and holding him for months without any judicial process – spotlights the failings of the Chinese judiciary,” said Richardson. “China should free Chen and welcome his exposure of official abuses, instead of continuing to persecute him.” Chronology of Chen Guangcheng's CaseMarch 2005: Chen learns of family planning abuses in Linyi city, Shandong province and begins his own investigation. June 2005: After Chen organizes a class-action lawsuit, he travels to Beijing to consult with legal scholars and lawyers and to meet with the press. The suit was filed, only to be rejected. Chen抯 findings are revealed on the Internet and through the foreign press. August 12, 2005: Chen and family are imprisoned in their own home. Twenty to 300 officials and civilians who appear to work in concert with the police maintain round the clock watch. September 6, 2005: Chen manages to escape to Beijing, where he is apprehended by Linyi city officials and threatened with a long prison term if he does not stop his activism. When he refuses, he is returned to effective house arrest in Dongshigu, his home village. September 2005: Lawyers and legal experts who had earlier posted Chen抯 findings on the Internet organize to defend him. September 19, 2005: The National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC), responding to the concerns raised about Linyi, reports that 搃llegal family planning practices that violate people抯 legal rights and interests do exist. Those who are responsible have been dismissed from duty. Some are under investigation, some are in detention.? October 4, 2005: Lawyers Li Fangping and Li Subin and law lecturer Xu Zhiyong attempt to visit Chen and to negotiate with local officials for an end to the enforced isolation. After two of the three were beaten, police interrogate all three, then escort them back to Beijing the following day. October 24, 2005: Local officials beat Chen to prevent him from leaving his house to meet with two Beijing scholars, then refuse to permit him to seek medical assistance. March 11, 2006: Chen is 揹isappeared?from his home. His family is told nothing about his whereabouts for three months. June 11, 2006: Yinan county officials acknowledge that they have Chen in custody; his formal detention is dated June 10. June 18, 2006: An interrogator warns Chen that there is nothing abnormal 搃f someone dies in the detention center.? June 19, 2006: Family, lawyers, legal experts and activist friends cancel a press conference in Beijing after security officers prevent would-be participants from leaving their homes. On the same day, some 10 men, who did not identify themselves, use force to remove Chen抯 70-year-old mother, his 3-year old son, and his older brother from legal expert Teng Biao抯 Beijing home, and return them to their homes in Dongshigu village, Shandong. University officials tell two Beijing law professors ?Teng Biao from the Chinese University of Politics and Law and Xu Zhiyong from Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications ?to stay away from the case. June 21, 2006: The Yinan County People抯 Procuratorate approves Chen抯 arrest. Chen抯 lawyers, Li Jinsong and Zhang Lihui, are able to visit him, but prison officials interfere with their ability to interview Chen. For example, they refuse to allow him to respond to certain questions. June 22, 2006: Local police officers take lawyer Li Jinsong in for questioning. Local assailants beat three lawyers defending villagers jailed for supporting Chen. Police officers look on as the lawyers?cameras are smashed, then take the three in for questioning. June 23, 2006: Lawyers Li Jinsong and Li Subin try to visit Chen抯 wife, but are stopped and beaten by guards. June 24, 2006: All lawyers return to Beijing. An unidentified caller warns lawyer Li Jinsong that he is 搒eeking death.? June 27, 2006: Li Jinsong and Li Subin return to Shandong on June 27, only to be harassed by assailants while the police again stand by. Some 20 men overturn the lawyers?car and smash their cameras. Police take Li Jinsong in for questioning again. July 7, 2006: Li Jinsong announces Chen抯 trial is scheduled for July 17, 2006. The trial is subsequently postponed until July 20. 8月19日 18日开庭的媒体报道及其他To clarify: This blog http://chenyuanweijing.spaces.live.com/ is run by Chen Guangcheng's friends. Chen's wife Yuanweijing has been under illegal house arrest for more than one year. She has no access to internet, telephone. Even the signal of her mobile phone is screened by local government so that frequently she could not receive phone calls. Her relatives, villagers, friends and supporters try many means to keep communicating. This blog is the output. For more information, please contact us at: zengjinyan@gmail.com or against.teng@gmail.com.本博客由陈光诚的朋友维护。陈光诚的妻子袁伟静被非法软禁已经超过一年。她不能够上网，没有固定电话。她的手机信号被当地政府屏蔽，因此许多时候她连电话也接不了。袁伟静的亲戚、村民、朋友和支持者想尽各种办法保持联络沟通。 更多的信息，请联系 zengjinyan@gmail.com 或 against.teng@gmail.com。 Media Reports On Chen Guangcheng (UPDATED): Thanks to http://voyage.typepad.com/china. 8月18日 今日庭审汇报：政府害怕光与诚金燕2006年8月18日下午2：30，盲人律师陈光诚案在山东临沂沂南法院开庭。陈光诚的三个哥哥是唯独进入法庭现场的人，其他人包括陈光诚的妻子被禁止进入法庭旁听，陈光诚的辩护律师张立辉也不被允许进入法庭为陈光诚提供法律辩护。而另一替补辩护律师许志永博士昨晚被指控盗窃钱包，被抓入派出所后和外界失去了所有联系，当庭审结束，许志永博士被放出来了。
今天上午法院和拘留所千方百计地阻止辩护律师会见陈光诚以及延期开庭的申请。中午开庭前一个小时，在律师和陈光诚强烈抗议的情况下，法院为陈光诚指定了当地司法局2名所谓的“辩护律师”。法庭上，那2名所谓的“辩护律师”对公诉人所有宣读的文件都一再重复一种回答：“没有异议”。这两名被指定的律师充当着陷害的同谋，要和法院共同把陈光诚推向牢狱。法院尚未对陈光诚进行宣判。这个世界之于光诚的黑暗，不仅仅是因为眼盲。
今天下午2：30前，山东省沂南县法院门前两旁的道路一百米以内拉起了警戒线，几百名便衣警察控制了两旁的路口，进行交通管制，即使居住在警戒线范围内的当地居民，也不能进入自己的家。滕彪和李方平等律师在法院外东边一百米处等候，西边一百米外也有许多本地赶来旁听的公民，现场大约有20名警察在巡逻。
同时在中国首都北京东部的一个名叫BOBO自由城的小区里，也拉起了警戒线。便衣警察突然布满了整个小区。被软禁在家32天的胡佳，身穿“盲人·陈光诚·自由”的T恤，焦急地张望着。楼下软禁他的便衣警察数量也增加了。小区里人来人往，并没有被拉警戒线的便衣警察阻拦。当一位外籍女士乘坐出租车抵达小区时，被“不明身份者”（实际为便衣警察）阻拦，被告知正在发生“公安事件”，禁止进入。该女士是唯一被禁止进入的人员。当她离开不久，小区的警戒线被便衣警察撤除了。那位女士是英国大使馆的工作人员，她计划今天下午2：30到BOBO自由城小区探望胡佳。
今天是个不同寻常的日子，今天新华社发了简短的英文稿（国际新闻机构订阅，我等凡人竟然不能在新华社的网站上看到此信息），报道北京市公安局声称高·智·晟律师涉嫌犯罪被拘留问话。这是8月15日高律师被套上黑头套失踪后，第一次被表明去向。
黑头套与谎言，政府害怕光与诚。凡是美好的，必定为黑暗所恐惧的。一个纯洁善良的盲人尚被如此迫害，我等不免有唇亡齿寒之冷颤。光诚的妻子不能亲自在法庭看着自己的丈夫被公正地审判，她心急如焚。开庭前半小时，当她抱着刚满1岁的小女儿往外冲时，被便衣警察阻止了。山东省临沂市沂南县东狮古村已经如临大敌，能被看见的便衣已达四五十人，警车4辆。当我的丈夫胡佳告诉我，大嫂袁伟静说太黑暗了、太悲愤了，说她真想大哭一场。我的眼睛里长含泪水。
回家的路上，发现跟踪我的车略有调整，两现代车一辆黑色京G24758，一辆灰白无牌照。我看着身后紧跟的一黑一白，如同传说中阴曹地府的夺命恶鬼黑白无常。我对自己说：做好准备吧，也许就在明天，他们就把你送到监狱，人人都坐牢，冤狱最终消亡。也许结局正如电影《V字仇杀队（V FOR VENDERTTA）》，V死了，人人都成为V了，烟花在黑暗中璀璨，音乐在沉默中响起，国家在毁灭中重建。 关于要求立即解除对许志永博士羁押的声明盲人陈光诚案于8月18日下午2：30在沂南县法院开庭。我们得知陈光诚的辩护律师李劲松律师因为有要事不能前往沂南县，需要变更辩护人。许志永博士和李方平律师均是得到陈光诚本人认可的人选。为了尽快办完变更手续，不影响案件审理，许志永博士提前在8月16日赶到了沂南县。我们得知，经过合乎相关程序的努力，沂南法院却拒绝变更许志永博士为陈光诚的辩护人。
我们得知，8月17日晚7：30左右，正在山东沂南县办理陈光诚案出庭辩护手续的许志永博士被当地不名身份的人指控为偷其钱包，与许志永同行的张立辉律师及李方平律师也被指控为偷包贼的同伙。现许志永博士被沂南县公安局界湖派出所羁押。
我们认为，今天发生的事情，是有关部门蓄意想通过野蛮恐怖手段打击辩护人，从而阻扰明天庭审的公正进行。陈光成案开庭在即，我们严正要求当地有关部门认真贯彻落实党中央依法治国的精神，我们严正要求当地有关部门依法行政。我们严正要求当地有关部门立即解除对许志永博士的羁押，还许志永清白和自由。我们严正要求陈光成案件能够得到公平的审理，我们认为，如果这种荒谬的行经持续发生，只会加深对中国法治进程的伤害。 应供稿者要求，删除名单。 2006年8月17日 晚 另：经过两小时的询问笔录，22：00张立辉和李方平获释，在两辆不明身份车辆的尾随下回到宾馆。但截至17日子夜时分，许志永仍然羁押在沂南县的界湖派出所。按照之前的规律和目击者证实，这些车辆和人员应当是沂南县刑警大队的便衣。 18日傍晚5点多，许志永获得自由。
Attorneys for blind China activist detained - lawyerBy Chris Buckley BEIJING (Reuters) - Attorneys for a blind rights activist facing trial in eastern China appear to have been detained by police, another lawyer said on Thursday, the day before the scheduled start of the trial. Chen Guangcheng is due to face trial in Shandong province on Friday on charges of disrupting traffic and destroying property following a protest in his home village in February. Chen, a blind, self-taught legal activist in his 30s, drew international attention last year after accusing local officials of enforcing late-term abortions in a population control drive. His family and supporters say the charges against him are trumped up and he is being persecuted for his activism. His scheduled trial after almost a year in virtual house arrest and then police detention has become a lightning rod of contention between rights activists and security-wary officials. Police in Shandong's Yinan county, where Chen lives, held three attorneys preparing to defend him, accused them of stealing a purse and took them away on Thursday, another of Chen's lawyers, Li Jinsong, told Reuters by telephone. Li said he received a call from one of the attorneys, Zhang Lihui, telling him of the police action. "He couldn't say much before the phone call suddenly ended," Li said. Repeated calls by Reuters to the mobile phones of two other attorneys said to be held -- Xu Zhiyong and Li Fangping -- were not answered late into Thursday night. The police station where Li Jinsong said they had been taken could not be contacted. "We don't know what's happening, but it fits a pattern," said Hu Jia, a Beijing-based rights campaigner in contact with the defence team. "Yinan County wants to prevent any effective defence for Chen Guangcheng." Hu said the three attorneys were seeking to prepare Chen's defence but court officials "made their work very difficult". In June, Li Jinsong and other lawyers were roughed up when they went to visit Chen. In July, dozens of Chen's supporters scuffled with people they described as thugs and plainclothes police when they gathered at a court for a cancelled hearing. On Thursday, police in another part of Shandong detained an outspoken human rights lawyer who was present at that clash. Gao Zhisheng was taken away by more than 10 plainclothes police from his sister's home in Shandong's Dongying city, activist Hu Jia told Reuters, adding he received the news from the sister. It was unclear whether Gao was intending to go to Chen's trial again. Chen's case has also drawn warnings from Washington. Last week, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey said she raised it with officials while in Beijing, the Washington Post reported. "We believe that there has been a certain violation of normal standards and are urging China to release him from imprisonment," said Sauerbrey. © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. U.S. Envoy Asks China To Release ActivistBy Maureen FanWashington Post Foreign ServiceFriday, August 11, 2006; Page A09
BEIJING, Aug. 10 -- A top U.S. diplomat said Thursday that she had urged Chinese officials to release a blind rural lawyer who was detained after exposing forced abortions and sterilizations in eastern China. Assistant Secretary of State Ellen R. Sauerbrey told reporters that she raised the case of Chen Guangcheng on the sidelines of the China-U.S. Global Issues Forum, being held in Beijing. "We believe that there has been a certain violation of normal standards and are urging China to release him from imprisonment," said Sauerbrey, who is in charge of the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. Chen is a self-taught lawyer whose work drew unwelcome attention to the government's family planning policies, embarrassing officials in eastern China. He has been charged with destroying public property and disrupting traffic in what rights activists say is a politically motivated case. He was arrested and charged in June but has been under house arrest or in detention since last September. "For China's own reputation," Sauerbrey said, "our hope is just that if we keep a focus on the issue, that China will recognize that it is in their best interest to release this gentleman from jail." Sauerbrey said the United States and China were both members of the U.N. Commission on Population and Development, which maintains that families have the right to make their own decisions about the number of children they will have. "We encourage China at every opportunity to live up to that commitment and to not involve itself in coercive measures, abortion, sterilization," she said. 8月17日 CRD Calls for Justice for the Advocate for Rights of Family Planning Victims and People with DisabilityFor immediate release,
The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CRD)
August 17, 2006
Chen Guangcheng Trial Opens Tomorrow: CRD Calls for Justice for the Advocate for Rights of Family Planning Victims and People with Disability
As the trial of Chen Guangcheng opens tomorrow, CRD calls for international monitoring, urging a fair trial, and asking the Chinese court to look into accusations of illegal detention, obstruction of lawyers carrying out their work, and harassment of citizens trying to attend the trial.
The Linnan County People's Court in Shandong Province has told lawyers that the trial is rescheduled for August 18, 2006, after having been postponed twice. His lawyers Li Jingsong, Zhang Lihui, Xu Zhiyong, and Teng Biao have arrived or are on their way to Linyi. Mr. Li and Mr. Zhang will make a no-guilt defense in court. The lawyers have been under a great deal of pressure from authorities, directly or indirectly, to drop this case.
Chen Guangcheng, 35, is one of Time magazine's « 100 most influential people » for 2005, Asian Weekly's 2005 « person of the year», a blind, self-taught legal advisor to people with disability and an outspoken critic of forced abortion and sterilization in Shandong's zealous family planning campaigns.
Since August 2005, Mr. Chen had been under illegal house arrest and detention, including a 6-month forced disappearance, prior to his formal detention and charge in June 2006. Until then, he had been denied outside contacts and visits by lawyers and family. His lawyers were threatened and assaulted when they tried to visit him in detention, interview family and eyewitnesses to collect evidence. His wife and other family members have been harassed. Three other villagers are also detained and charged. Their lawyers suspect that they have been tortured to give testimony against Mr. Chen, which could not be confirmed because the lawyers have been denied visits to their clients.
The proceedings leading up to the Friday trial have been tainted with accusations of illegality - violation of defendant's rights to freedom from arbitrary detention and torture, right to legal council, and the independence of lawyers doing their job. The trial could not possibly respect the principle of fair trial and basic human rights unless the court looks into these accusations and make necessary remedies.
Around July 17, 2006, the original court date, several dozens of activists and supporters including a group of local people with disability arrived at Linyi, trying to attend the trial. Police questioned them, turned some of them back, and eventually put several of them including the AIDS activist Hu Jia under house arrest when they returned to Beijing. The trial was postponed to July 20 and then further postponed until now. Public trial is a key to justice in tomorrow's trial. Though authorities have managed to keep most activists and supporters pinned at home, in violation of their freedom of movement and right to due process, family members and friends who request to attend tomorrow's trial, must be granted entry. The trial of Mr. Chen on suspicion of "destroying property" and "obstructing traffic" involves no "state secret," a reason frequently cited by Chinese courts conducting closed-door trials in highly profiled cases. In tomorrow's trial, however, procedural obstacles are likely to be erected to keep the courtroom shut to media and the public, an increasingly favored tactic by Chinese courts.
The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CRD)
August 17, 2006
Contact us for this statement at admin@chinese-rights-defenders.net For more information on the case of Chen Guangcheng, visit http://crd-net.org/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=1361 辩护律师被指控盗窃20：17李劲松律师紧急通报!!!我于19:56分接到了陈光诚的出庭辩护律师张立辉的紧急求助电话.惊悉:正在山东沂南县办理陈光诚案出庭辩护手续的许志永博士,约十分钟前,竟被当地流氓诬赖指控为偷了其钱包的窃贼!与许志永同行的张立辉律师及李方平律师亦被其指控为偷包贼的同伙!现许志永博士和张立辉律师及李方平律师三人均巳被沂南县警员带至沂南县公安局界湖派出所控制起来了! 8月16日 律师今日工作报告今天下午到法院提交辩护手续，内容是陈光诚和袁伟静决定变更辩护人，由李劲松变为许志永。依据相关法律，陈光诚有权随时变更辩护人，但法官说，变更委托的手续不是陈光诚的亲笔字，我说一个盲人难道不可以找人代笔吗？法官又说，陈光诚的指印可能是假的，我说你们有义务去核实，法官又说，李劲松应该亲自过来说明已经辞去委托，我说按照法律陈光诚单方面的意思就够了。最后我说那就让李劲松亲自给你说明一下，我把电话拨通，于洋法官拒绝接电话，交涉近两个小时，法院还是公然耍无赖，不让我参加辩护。六点钟我从法院出来，一辆无牌照的车跟踪到我住的东方宾馆，现在门外有不明身份的跟踪者游荡。
许志永 2006年8月16日晚20：10 外界关注陈光诚案件能否公正审理
陈光诚案８月１８日下午２点半开庭
(博讯2006年8月15日) 贺伟华更多文章请看贺伟华专栏 作者：贺伟华 (博讯 boxun.com) 从刚刚得知，盲人维权勇士陈光诚兄弟于2006年8月18日将面对中共政府当局的非法审判。已经表示过不问政治的我还是忍不住呼吁大家紧急救援。以往为救陈光诚先生于危难，国际社会做出了巨大的努力，国内民主人士、正直良心律师们更是在艰苦卓绝的环境中前赴后继、奋不顾身的舍命相救。高智晟、赵昕、孙文广等等一大批正直的法学家、教授、律师、记者及民主人士在努力做出司法救济与援助的同时，却遭遇到中共当局的黑社会暴力围殴。在陈光诚即将面对审判的今天，我们要问，通过正常的司法程序与法庭律师辩护能否救陈光诚兄弟于危难？当局是否按正常的司法程序来审理此案而给予我们为之辩护的机会？以前前去山东营救陈光诚的法律界维权勇士是否还有机会成行而不受阻于当局的严密监控？这些都已经成了很大的问题！ 既然法律营救行动受阻，既然战斗在一线的维权战士遭遇监控。这时，我们需要的就是全社会的广泛联动声援；需要的是全国乃至全世界的抗议浪潮；需要维权二线成员、体制内外良心知识分子、中国泛蓝联盟、全国大专院校的广大师生、与野蛮堕胎节制生育国家政策息息相关的广大妇女及群众的积极声援与救助！ 光诚及其家人的苦难太深重；光诚可能面对的冤狱更可怕而深重；光诚为中国人民的人性化生存境遇及人权事业所做出的巨大努力太可贵。他的高尚人格与人性光辉已经光耀全球，其人道精神与情怀已经渗透到每一个国人的心田而感人至深！我们又如何忍心在未来坐享其成如今却对其苦难熟视无睹？我们又如何面对光诚历经沧桑、饱含深情的眼睛于片刻之间闪烁出哪怕是一丁点的质疑之光？我们又如何面对一个勇敢而悲壮的人权战士于法庭上那钢铁般一样刚强伟岸的身影？ 背过身躯是残酷，转过身来是热泪、是亲情、是生的希望与曙光，是对受难耶稣感恩得虔诚之心。在现代基督耶稣的苦难面前，我们无需为自身的原罪而忏悔，因为他已用自身的苦难来承付人世间的种种不堪与罪恶；因为他已用上帝的博爱情怀感召众生。我们只需回馈、报答这位负荷苦难与冤屈的再世耶稣盛情恩典，勇敢身体力行的救之于危难。 光诚早已失明的眼睛虽然不能看透世态炎凉、人间冷暖，而他的灵魂却以超凡的感召力在人间播撒着无尽的深情厚谊、净化着我们的灵魂，我们看到的是一个盲人残疾者时刻闪烁人性光芒的赤子之心、人道之心、仁爱之情。身残志坚、愈挫愈勇，誓为被残害的黎民百姓讨回公道；誓把黑幕下的人间疾苦与灾难暴露于光天化日，我们为光诚的精神所感化，我们为光诚的苦难而愤怒、而觉醒、而抗争！我们还将为即将面对的冤狱而呐喊、呼号，而奔走相告。 行动起来，朋友们！深感压抑而倍受痛苦的国人！陈光诚在中国人民的人权事业上已经做出了艰苦卓绝的努力与至死不渝的抗争。他的努力是卓有成效的，他的贡献是举世瞩目，他的事迹与行为是中山先生“天下为公”精神的光辉典范；他是践行三民主义的勇敢道德实践者；他是首位打破神州大陆死一般沉寂，为解脱中国人民的非人境遇；为中国人民的民生民权事业；为中国人民的人权与自由事业勇敢的呐喊、呼号乃至于身体力行的人性楷模，对之遭遇的苦难及即将面临的冤狱我们又怎能视而不见、熟视无睹？ 对他的苦难我们感同身受；对他的未来我们深表忧虑；对他的精神我们深感敬佩与叹服！对这位勇敢践行公民权利与公民义务的道德实践者；对这位抗拒国家体制性外在威权暴虐而勇敢捍卫女权、为妇女解放事业声嘶力竭奔走相告的先知先觉者；对这位勇于打破举世沉寂而质疑当局野蛮堕胎政策、揭露事实真相的孤胆战士；对这一对人民饱含深情厚谊并为之奋不顾身的伟大道德存在，我们又怎能麻木不仁、见死不救？我们又怎能高高挂起而作壁上观？ 行动吧！我们的朋友，您的勇敢声援就是给光诚以生的希望，就是救之于水火、挽之于救危难！您的救恩有如上帝的恩典，给黑夜里苦苦挣扎的生灵注入一道道希望的曙光。 行动吧！光诚深爱的同胞，光诚的灵魂、光诚的热泪、光诚的痛苦乃至于他的片刻欢娱与幸福都饱含着对同胞的深情厚谊、赤子之心。我们又如何忍心让英雄落泪、志士寒心。 如今许志勇等正值良心律师一马当先，已经准备奔赴临沂，为陈光诚作无罪辩护。望大家踊跃参与并声援，时不我待、只争朝夕，让我们谱写全民声援救济人权英雄、抗拒强权的新篇章；让我们国际国内、体制内外，人同此心、力挽狂澜，救光诚于水深火热之中。 在我从赵昕处得到消息到本文成稿，已经十二个小时，来时不多，望大家只争朝夕，谱写我们全民声援救济人权英雄、抗拒强权的新篇章。营救的手段、途径、方式可以多样，我们国际国内、体制内外人同此心，就一定能够力挽狂澜，救光诚于水深火热之中。 |
When Chen tried to make proper use of China’s legal system, the response wasn’t due process. It was house arrest, physical abuse, and then ‘disappearance’ by local authorities. His case is a textbook example of how little the rule of law really means in China. 
|
|
