Chief Justice Xiao Yang putting forward requirements for administering justice for the people at the National Court President Conference in August 2003.

In March 2004, the Second Session of the 10th National People’s Congress made amendments to the country Constitution, writing the clause that “the state respects and protects human rights” into this fundamental law. This marked a new stage of development of human rights in China. President of the Supreme People’s Court and Chief Justice Xiao Yang granted an interview to our staff reporter, reviewing how China has in recent years protected human rights in the administration of justice.

On the codification of human rights protection at the second session of the 10th National People’s Congress, Xiao Yang described it as an “important milestone in human rights development in China,” adding that it marked a deeper understanding of how to protect human rights by the Constitution and law and it is of great significance in directing the work of the people’s courts.

The people’s courts undertake the important tasks of protecting the personal rights, democratic rights, property rights and other rights of Chinese citizens. By writing “human rights protection” into the Constitution, it has raised higher demand on the people’s courts with regard to case hearing. One is that it has demanded the people’s courts to further enhance their awareness of strengthening human rights protection and firmly implementing the rule-by-law principles that “all people are equals before law” to realize that “all people are equals in the court” so as to protect the litigation rights of all citizens; another is that it has demanded that the people’s courts follow more strictly the principles of “affixing crimes and punishments according to law” and “fitting punishments to crimes” and resolutely oppose the notion of “presumption of guilt.” If evidence fails to support accusation, a case should be declared “not guilty.” The third is that it has demanded people’s courts to resolutely implement the principle of parties concerned being equals in civil procedures and protect the lawful rights and interests of economic entities of different ownership, treating them equally no matter what ownership they belong to, public or private, no matter what territories they belong to, domestic or foreign, instead of treating them differently so as to prevent local protectionism in the administration of law. The fourth is that it has demanded the people’s courts to stick to the principle of protection by law in administrative procedures and resolutely oppose “officials shielding officials” and take the protection of the rights of citizens against unlawful encroachment of the rights of citizens by administrative organs as the fundamental purpose in the hearing of administrative cases so as to make administrative organs exercise their power according to law.

On what new measures the people’s courts have taken in recent years to protect human rights, the Chief Justice said that in 2003, the Supreme People’s Court applied the principle of “building up the Party and exercising political power in the interests of the people” upheld by the Communist Party of China to the administration of law and advocated for “administering justice for the common interests of the people,” demanding all the people’s courts in the country to adopt practicable measures to facilitate people to take legal actions and lower the litigation cost for parties concerned, solve the problem of some people finding it “difficult to take legal actions” in some cases and protect citizen right of action. The Supreme People’s Court took 23 specific measures and the people’s courts at all levels also adopt practicable measures, such as distant filing of cases, mobile courts, opening hearing by appointments, which have won widespread approval. In recent years, the people’s courts in the country have taken further steps to have the judicial assistance better implemented so that financially difficult special groups can take legal actions. Over the past two years, the people’s courts throughout the country have provided judicial assistance to more than 460,000 people and reducing, postponing the payment of and exempting litigation cost amounting to more than two billion yuan. Zeroing in on the problem of overdue detention of defendants of criminal cases due to the dragging in handling some criminal cases, the Supreme People’s Court demanded to “pass swift punishments on crimes fully evidenced and release those found not guilty,” thus unfolding a drive of clearing cases of overdue detention. The work was completed except cases that need extension of time for hearing due to statutory reasons. In hearing criminal cases, the people’s courts are very careful about facts and evidence, procedures and application of law to ensure that innocent persons are not convicted and punished. Since the beginning of 2003, the people’s courts in the country declared not guilty 3,800 defendants in cases of private prosecution and more than 4,000 defendants in public prosecution by people’s procuratorates. They have also carefully reviewed appeals and cases applying for re-hearing, correcting cases that were wrongly judged. Over the past two years, the people’s courts in the country have received more than 7.4 million complaint letters and visits and cases that should be corrected in judgment were corrected without delay.

On the problem of the people’s courts and judges respecting and protecting due human rights of defendants of criminal cases and criminals while respecting and protecting the interests of the majority of the people in the administration of justice, Xiao Yang stressed that we have always upheld human rights in all aspects and strive to turn natural human rights into legal human rights and practical human rights. All the lawful rights should be protected whether they are of the majority or the minority. While protecting the fundamental rights of the people, we should also heed the lawful rights of the minority of people. While protecting the lawful rights of the minority of the people, we should also heed the whole national situation of social stability and social order and protect the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people. In a word, the rights of all people should be protected according to law and strike a good balance between safeguarding social order and protecting the rights of individuals.

The lawful rights should also be brought under protection for people who have been deprived of personal freedom or people whose rights are restricted, such as suspects in detention, defendants of criminal cases and prisoners behind bars. These people have been deprived of their personal freedom due to violation of law, but their personal dignity remains to be respected. People who have not been deprived of their political rights still enjoy political rights; people who have not been deprived of their property rights still enjoy their rights to property. In a word, people who have not been deprived of their rights still need protection. We should say that China has set great store by doing so. In the area of the hearing of criminal cases, we have rejected the notion of presumption of guilt and put an end to the practice of extorting confession by torture. We have given defendants of criminal cases full rights of defense and appointed advocates for defendants likely to be sentenced to death. We have implemented the policy of “combining punishment with leniency” and oppose advocacy of “heavy penalty” and “severe punishments” and strictly control the application for death sentence and strictly follow the procedures of passing death sentence. For minor offenses, we have applied probation in most cases. In 2003 and 2004, the people’s courts in the country applied probation to more than 260,000 cases. With regard to criminal control, we have upheld the principle of “combining punishments with reform” and apply reduction of prison terms and release on parole to criminals that have shown real performance of repentance. In 2003 and 2004, the people’s courts in the country cut prison terms for and release on parole nearly 100,000 prison inmates.
　　　　　
Judges successful in getting back payments for migrant workers in Anhui.

In many of his speeches recently, the Chief Justice stressed that strictly observing the time limit for hearing cases provided by law is an important manifestation of the people’s courts in punishing crimes according to law and safeguarding human rights. “Justice coming late is injustice,” he said. A defendant has the right to get timely and fair judgment. The time limit for hearing has been set for criminal, civil and administrative cases, especially for criminal cases, all for the purpose of enabling defendants to know as soon as possible whether they should bear criminal responsibility so as to prevent them from being in a long state of uncertainty. According to our Criminal Procedure Law, the first hearing should take one month or one month and a half at most. In special circumstances, it may be extended for another month and that must have the approval of the higher people’s courts. The time limit for the second hearing is the same as the first. But in practice, due to various reasons, the hearing of some cases has been dragged and that is why there is still the problem of extended detention to varying degrees. To solve the problem, the Supreme People’s Court demanded all people’s courts in the country to clear up cases of overdue detention so that all criminal cases are cleared as soon as possible. From 2003 to the end of 2004, the courts have cleared 4,968 cases of overdue detention, involving 10,000 defendants. The people’s courts have established a report system to exchange information about the time limit for case hearing so as to prevent recurrence of the problem, reducing and even putting an end to cases of overdue detention.

Answering the question on how Chinese courts have protected the rights of defendants in administrative cases over the past two decades, Xiao Yang said that administrative hearing is a judicial review of particular administrative behavior and an important system for providing judicial assistance to citizens who have been harmed by administrative organs. In China, administrative procedure is popularly known as “common people suing government officials.” The institutionalization of “common people suing government officials” is a progress in the civilization of the Chinese society and indicates that China human rights protection has been brought onto the orbit of institutionalization and standardization.
　　　　　
People's courts issue advice on lawsuit risks during the outbreak of SARS.

Administrative hearing had long been in existence in China even before the country officially introduced the system in 1989, although there were no specific rules on such hearing. The hearing then followed the related provisions on civil procedure law. There were not so many administrative cases at that time. After the promulgation of the Administrative Procedure Law in 1989, China’s administrative case hearing has been standardized. This, plus the enhancement of the sense of rights on the part of the citizens, such cases have increased steadily. In 2003, the courts of the country handled more than 87,000 first hearing cases and in the January-November period of 2004, the courts throughout the country accepted more than 85,000 cases. Most of the cases involved municipal construction, land, forest and other resources and cases involving the administration of public security such as public order and education of offenders through labor.

In hearing such cases, Chinese judicial organs mainly follow the principle of defendants providing evidence in order to protect the lawful rights and interests of citizens, corporate persons and other organizations. By the principle, administrative organs that made administrative decisions are made liable to provide evidence. With the fundamental principle of protecting the citizens’ rights, the people’s courts review administrative behaviors in strict compliance with the law in their hearing. For administrative behaviors that have violated the law, the courts would rule to cancel or make new administrative decisions; for non-performance or delay in performing their legal responsibilities, the courts would rule that such administrative organs to perform their duties within a prescribed time limit; for unjust administrative punishments, the courts would rule to correct. More than 20% of the administrative organs lost their cases.
　　　　　
Court on mobile service in rural areas to facilitate mountainous people to take legal action.

January 1, 2005 marks the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the State Compensation Law and the Chief Justice reviewed the implementation of the law. He said that the state compensation system is a remedial system by which the state gives economic compensation to citizens, corporate persons and other organizations that have suffered personal or property damages due to law-violating administrative decisions and case handling by state organs and their functionaries. The introduction of the system is a specific move to respect and protect human rights and it is of great significance to make state organs and their functionaries to act upon the law and protect the lawful rights of citizens, corporate persons and other organizations.

Since the implementation of the State Compensation Law in January 1995, the people’s courts in the country have well performed their duties empowered by the Constitution and law and handle with great care all kinds of state compensation cases strictly according to law. Over the past ten years, the people’s courts have accepted more than 18,000 such cases. The cases mainly fall into two categories. One involves cases of applying for criminal compensation by detective organs, procuratorate organs, judgment organs and prison management organs according to the procedure of state compensation; the other involves cases of administrative compensation by administrative organs according to the civil procedures. The results of hearing show that more than one third of the cases accepted were ruled to be compensated for. In order to better carry out the state compensation case hearing and fully protect human rights, the people’s courts at all levels have adopted many effective measures, such as setting up special courts to hear such cases. The Supreme People’s Court set up a state compensation committee, which has an office with a notification system to declare defendants not guilty in the first, second and re-hearing instances or inform the parties concerned of the right to apply for state compensation in cases in which the compulsory measures adopted in violation of the law, property custody and implementation measures have been corrected. In filing and hearing state compensation cases, we have demanded that the basic facts must be clear and basic evidence must be furnished as part of the efforts to follow the principle of “taking it favorable for compensation applicants.” In hearing cases, we have held on to the principle of openness, fairness and justice and introduced the public hearing procedure in state compensation cases. We have reformed the evidence provision system to protect the rights of compensation applicants to know evidence. We have passed rulings in strict compliance with the State Compensation Law, paying attention to making organs liable to compensation perform their liabilities to protect the rights of compensation applicant entities. By hearing state compensation cases, we make sure that individuals, corporate persons and other organizations wronged get judicial assistance and administrative and other organs to do administration and handle cases according to law.

On the progress of specialization of judges in China and the relations between specialization of judges and judicial protection of human rights, Xiao Yang said that “justice and efficiency” are the main themes of the work of the people’s courts and a foundation on which to realize human protection in the area of administering justice. To make the administration of law just and efficient requires a contingent of specialized judges. Starting from 2002 when the Supreme People’s Court advanced the idea of building a contingent of professional judges, everything has been going on well. Specialization of judges means a high level of awareness, capabilities and ethics of judge as a profession. The objective is to build a professional contingent noted for their lofty morality, excellent proficiency, strict law consciousness and excellent training. At present, the conditions for building such a contingent are getting more and more mature. Starting from 2002, we have introduced nationally unified examination in law, which has provided guarantee for the building of a contingent of professional judges in terms of legal knowledge. With the development in education in the sciences of law, more and more people who have received regular training have been admitted to the people’s courts. This, plus the intensified training of the in-service judges, has greatly elevated the professional levels of judges. Most of the 180,000 judges working with the people’s courts in the country have received regular training in colleges and schools of law or in training classes. Besides, the Supreme People’s Court issued in 2002 Basic Norms for Professional Ethics of Judges to provide a guide to building a contingent of professional judges. In a word, the contingent of judges in China is developing healthily toward specialization.
　　　　　
Court establishing remote case filing system to facilitate mountainous farmers to take legal action.

Specialization of judges is of great significance not only in improving routine hearing but also in the protection of human rights in the administration of law. First of all, it represents progress in the awareness of law and the awareness and concept of the administration of law. Well-trained judges usually have a strong sense of law and rights and know the importance of protecting the human rights of citizens and can conscientiously protect the rights of parties concerned and people involved in lawsuits. Secondly, judges with a high level of specialization can correctly apply procedure law to scrutinize and admit evidence to ensure openness, fairness and justice in the process of hearing cases and that innocent people would be free from punishment by law. Lastly, judges with a high level of specialization can correctly get to the true essence of law and strictly apply the law and strictly follow the principle of fixing punishments according to law and suiting punishments to crimes, not to fix crimes or pass punishments if the law does not have clear provisions. In a word, the success in the building of the contingent of professional judges will greatly improve the level of human rights protection in the area of law administration.

On human rights dialogue and cooperation with foreign and international organizations, Xiao Yang said that China has over the years carried out extensive dialogue and cooperation with foreign and international organizations to exchange views on human rights, thus contributing to the development of human rights cause in the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs mainly undertakes the work, with the active participation of the Supreme People’s Court. The Supreme People’s Court mainly introduced the progress in human rights protection in the area of administration of law and exchange safeguard measures in the area. Besides, we have also carried out exchanges in human rights with foreign and international delegations to China. In 2004 alone, the Supreme People’s Court received high-ranking officials from the United States, Britain, Australia and Norway and UN human rights organization and told them about the tremendous progress China has made in the area of the administration of law and exchanged with them views on issues concerning the review of death sentences and hearing of related cases. These exchanges have enhanced foreign visitors’ understanding of China.