It was 7 o’clock on November 17, 2001. Chen Qinglong, a hired driver in Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, was driving his vehicle to the checkpoint at Changping town of the city. A security guard of the town’s public security bureau blocked his way on the pretext that “his vehicle bumped into a security guard and injured him a few days ago.” Then, a policeman from a sub-police station in Changping Town took Chen and his vehicle to the sub-police station.

During the ten minutes of interrogation, Chen Qinglong denied the accusation. After that, Chen passed out twice, unable to control his bowel and urine. The policemen notified his brother-in-law Liu Jinhua to come to the sub-police station and demanded a payment of 200 yuan to cover the medical fee for allegedly injuring the security guard. Liu paid the money and pleaded many times before the policeman called “120” ambulance. By that time, Chen had been lying unconscious for nearly an hour. At 11:00 that night, Chen Qinglong failed to respond to emergency rescue and died.

The postmortem conducted by the People’s Procuratorate of Dongguan City and the Public Security Bureau of Dongguan concluded that Chen was suffering from liver trouble and a light external action caused excessive bleeding that led to coma and the death. The Zhongshan Medical University arrived at the same conclusion.

At the beginning of 2002, Chen Qinglong’s family sued the Changping Sub-Police Station and demanded the People’s Court of Donguan City to confirm: (1) The Changping sub-police station detained the man and vehicle illegally; (2) Chen Qinglong was beaten to near death at the Changping sub-police station and Changping sub-police station refused to rush him to the hospital and delayed the time of rescue. Chen’s family demanded compensation and other payment amounting to 500,000 yuan. The People’s Court of Dongguan City established: There is no evidence ascertaining the beating by police officers as there are no bruise on the body, and external force and liver trouble are the main causes accounting for the death. The Changping sub-police station should be responsible for preventing him from being hurt and from ill-management, but the behavior of the sub-police station is only the secondary cause to the death. Chen Qinglong should undertake 60% of the responsibility while the Changping sub-police station should undertake 40%. The Changping sub-police station charge of the 200 yuan for allegedly injuring the security guard lacks ground and should not be accepted.

On August 28, 2002, the People’s Court of Dongguan City passed the judgment: the Changping Sub-Police Station pays 134,978 yuan as remedy, alimony and support for Chen’s family, and returns the 200 yuan collected.

Chen’s family refused to accept the ruling and filed an appeal to the intermediate court of Dongguan.

The intermediate court of Dongguan holds: The Changping sub-police station violated the law by taking Chen Qinglong back for interrogation without any approval procedures and failing to provide any interrogation record; and it is illegal for the sub-police station to take back Chen on account of allegedly bumping into the security guard and to restrict his freedom of the person. It is also a law-violating act to detain the vehicle driven by Chen Qinglong. The death of Chen is caused by external force, and the liver trouble is not the direct cause of his death. The sub-police station should be obliged to protect the safety of the person starting from the time of restricting his freedom; but it encroached upon the right of life and health of Chen as it called “120” ambulance nearly an hour after he was in a critical condition. It is wrong for the court of the first hearing to pass the judgment that makes the Changping sub-police station undertake “administrative remedy.” According to related laws, the accused should undertake “administrative compensation” instead of “administrative remedy.”

Based on these facts, the intermediate court gave the final ruling: (1) the judgment of the first hearing should be nullified; (2) it is a law-violating act for the Changping Sub-Police Station to restrict the personal freedom of Chen Qinglong and to detain his vehicle; (3) the Changping Sub-Police Station should return the 200 yuan paid by Chen’s family and pay 336,678 yuan as compensation, living allowances and other expenses for his family.

This is a typical case in which the common people sued officials and won. Chen’s family knew and dared to employ the means of law to demand for justice, demonstrating the fact that the public has enhanced the sense of using law to protect themselves. This is a social progress.

China began to implement the Administrative Procedure Law on October 1, 1990 to protect the rights and interests of citizens, corporate persons and other organizations and to supervise and safeguard the administrative organs in performing their duties according to law. On January 1, 1995, the state began to implement the Law on State Compensation that provides for the right of citizens, corporate persons and other organizations to obtain compensation from the state. Although it is not long for the implementation of the two laws, the people are already quite familiar with them. The people’s courts in the country closed nearly 500,000 administrative cases from 1998 to 2002. The number of administrative cases increased from 27,125 in 1992 to 100,921 in 2001 and the winning cases rose from 64% to 71% and the number of losing cases on the part of the accused rose from 22% to 26%. Since 1998, the people’s courts in the whole country handled 11,321 state compensation cases and 4,013 cases or 35% received compensation.

On the other hand, it is rare in Guangdong and even in the whole country to get such huge amount of state compensation without confirming the fact that police beat the man. This demonstrates the judicial justice, the importance of life, liberty and personal security of citizens and the high attention paid by the state to these rights.

Article 37 of the Constitution provides: “Freedom of the person of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful detention or deprivation or restriction of citizens’ freedom of the person by other means is prohibited.”

Article 41 of the Constitution provides: “Citizens who have suffered losses as a result of infringement of their civic rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.”

Article 3 and Article 6 of the Law on State Compensation provide that people have the right to compensation if an administrative organ or its functionaries, in exercising their administrative functions and powers, commit acts that cause bodily injuries or death. In case of death of a victim, his heirs or other relatives in maintenance relationship with him shall have the right to demand compensation. Article 27 provides that if death results, compensation for death and funeral expenses shall be paid, the total amount shall be twenty times the State average yearly pay of staff and workers in the previous year. Living expenses shall too be paid to those who have no working capability and have been supported by the deceased in his lifetime.

The Changping Sub-Police Station lost the case because it violated these provisions and the “rights on paper” have become a reality.

The lesson of the case is grave. Although Chen’s family got the compensation, life is invaluable. The 330,000 yuan compensation cannot revive Chen nor can it alleviate the spiritual pains of the family.

The People’s Police Law promulgated in 1995 clearly provides that one of the tasks of the people’s police is to protect the personal safety, freedom and lawful property of the people. Police officers can interrogate suspects only after showing related permits. In some cases, they may take suspects to the police station for interrogation but they must get the approval from their superior and a record of interrogation must be kept. In the case when the personal safety or property of the people is encroached upon or in a critical state, they should immediately come to their rescue. It is not allowed to extort confession by beating or other forms of corporal punishment; nor is it allowed to restrict or deprive of personal freedom. It is not allowed to impose punishment or collect fees in violation of the law. The law-violating acts of police in Chen’s case merits deep thought on the part of law enforcement agents. The case indicates the absolute necessity for law enforcement personnel, including police officers, to enhance their sense of law and the sense of human rights.