BBC新闻

万维读者

东西南北

民主党谢

正义党网

民主党盟

人权观察

多维新闻网

返回首页

English

六四档案

关注中国

亚洲自由

独立评论

大纪元网

王炳章论坛


Statement by Xu Wenli, Huang Hua, and Wang Xizhe Concerning the Verdict of Xu Wanping

On December 21, 2005 the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court announced the verdict in the case of Chinese dissident Mr. Xu Wanping.

In the verdict, the Chinese Democratic Party, its overseas active members Xu Wenli and Huang Hua, and its consultant Wang Xizhe were repeatedly mentioned. The relationship of Mr. Xu Wanping to these people was the crucial evidence used to find Mr. Xu guilty. We are outraged and confused by this and issue the following statement to express our opinions and protest:

1. The case against Mr. Xu Wanping heard by the Chongqing No.1 Intermediate People's Court involved Xu Wenli, Huang Hua, and Wang Xizhe in many places. However, the court only used unreliable e-mail messages as evidence without ever summoning Xu, Huang, or Wang as witnesses to provide direct testimony or clarification. This is unfair to Mr. Xu Wanping and must have led to errors in the authentication of the evidence.

For example, Wang Xizhe never provided 5000 RMB to assist Mr. Xu Wanping to purchase computer equipment. The verdict stated, "In July 2003, Wang (Xizhe) asked Guangdong resident Li Shaobin to transfer
5000 RMB to the bank account of Xu Wanping's wife, Chen Xianying and paid Li a handling fee for this. . . . Li Shaobin did not know the relationship between the person transferring the funds and the recipient and was not acquainted with either party." Given this, without direct testimony from Wang Xizhe, how could the court verify that it was indeed Wang who requested Li Shaobin to transfer the funds? Relying only on a so-called "verification explanation issued by the Domestic Security Division of the Chongqing Public Security Bureau" is no doubt one-sided and is a case of "guilty until proven innocent" based on a priori speculation.

With respect to Huang Hua's money remittance, even the slightest analysis will show that the court made the wrongful determination utilizing erroneous materials.

The sections concerning Xu Wenli have similarly misleading information leading to a wrongful conviction.

We therefore request that the Chongqing Municipality Higher People's Court summon Xu Wenli, Huang Hua, and Wang Xizhe as witnesses for the trial of second instance to provide direct testimony regarding all
relevant evidence.

2. Most crucially, in the case against Mr. Xu Wanping as well as in nearly 100 cases against activists from the Chinese Democratic Party (CDP) over the past 10 years, the trials and verdicts by the Chinese courts were based on the assumption that the CDP is an "hostile organization" with intent to topple the current Chinese
political regime. Applying this assumption as the foundation for court judgments is totally wrong.

The CDP is political party that advocates political reforms in China through "open, rational, and peaceful non-violent" means. The CDP's basic program calls for "freedom of political association and establishment of a constitutional democracy with checks and balances." These have been the common ideals of countless patriots for more than a century, including the founders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The goals of the CDP do not go beyond the political platform set forth by the CCP during its struggle and sacrifice for the democratic liberation of the Chinese people. Having taken power, the CCP has failed to realize these objectives. This is a historical mistake by the CCP. The program of the CDP merely calls on the CCP to correct its mistakes, so how is it possible to label the CDP as a "hostile organization" with the intention of overthrowing the current
political regime?

We note that in the trial against Xu Wanping, the Chongqing No.1 Intermediate People's Court for the first time explicitly cites as evidence the PRC Ministry of Public Security's "Memorandum" establishing the nature of the Chinese Democracy Party and that this was listed as the first item of evidence in establishing Xu Wanping's
guilt:
"1. The PRC Ministry of Public Security's memorandum establishing the'Chinese Democracy Party' as a hostile organization verifies: The'Chinese Democracy Party' was established in June 1998 and has affiliated organizations in China and overseas. This organization is antagonistic toward our people's democratic regime and socialist system and organizes and carries out activities that threaten national security. According to Article 4 of the "PRC National Security Law" and Article 5 of the "Detailed Rules for Implementing the PRC National
Security Law," the Ministry of Public Security confirms the 'Chinese Democracy Party' to be a hostile organization."

We believe that the above "Memorandum" settling the nature of the CDP that the PRC Ministry of Public Security provided to the court is in error.

3. As we know, after June 1998, in accordance with the civil rights bestowed by the constitution, the CDP established organizing committees in the different provinces and applied for registration with the local civil affairs agencies. Afterwards, some of the local organizing committees became local CDP branches.

If after investigation, the Ministry of Public Security determined the CDP to be a 'hostile organization,' it should have, together with the Ministry of Civil Affairs, formally banned the CDP for "carrying out activities to organize a social organization or carrying out activities in the name of unregistered organization without authorization," in accordance with article 35 of the PRC's "Administrative Regulations for the Registration of Social Organizations." The fact is that even during the Cultural Revolution, when citizens' rights were trampled on the most, the Ministry of Public Security under Xie Fuzhi always made such public announcements when banning so-called "reactionary organizations," thereby enabling the members of these groups to comply or appeal. But after June 1998 the Ministry of Public Security never made any formal announcement of or explained the reasons for banning the CDP; instead it secretly provided the courts at all levels with its "Memorandum" establishing the nature of the CDP and used it internally-controlled official evidence for the trial and conviction of the CDP. This is completely illegal and not in accordance with the spirit of establishing a fair and open country that is ruled by law, because it secretly deprives the citizens who applied to organize the CDP of their rights to appeal the decision by the Ministry of Public Security to establish the CDP's nature. Looking at it this way, does it not seem that the Chinese Ministry of Public Security of today does not even have as much
respect for legal procedure and citizens' rights as the Cultural Revolution-era Ministry of Public Security under Xie Fuzhi?

4. We strongly request that the PRC Ministry of Public Security formally announce its judgment, with clear reasons, on the nature of the CDP. Members of the CDP are willing to file an administrative lawsuit against the judgment and reasoning of the Ministry of Public Security in a People's Court in Beijing and await the court's fair and public decision about the Ministry's decision, based on the constitution and laws of the PRC. The CDP will abide by the decision. If possible, Wang Xizhe, Xu Wenli, and Huang Hua would be willing to return to China for this suit and take all necessary responsibilities of such action.

We understand that, due to the political system, the present laws in the PRC are often biased toward limiting citizens' rights rather than protecting them and that the law will not necessarily be of use to a citizen suing to protect his or her own rights. Nevertheless, to take such action will, at least insofar as procedural fairness is
concerned, mark a step forward toward a truly civilized China ruled by laws.

We hereby solemnly request the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, the Supreme People's Court and people's courts of all levels, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Civil Affairs to consider and accept the contents of this statement.

Xu Wenli£¨signed£©

Huang Hua£¨signed£©

Wang Xizhe£¨signed£©

January 22, 2006
----------------------------------
Note:
Xu Wenli, Coordinator, Chinese Democratic Party Headquarters for Members in Exile Overseas. Currently living in Rhode Island, USA. Email:ccc3@hotmail.com

Huang Hua, Deputy General Secretary, Chinese Democratic Party Headquarters for Members in Exile Overseas. Currently living in London, UK. Email:huahuang55@hotmail.com

Wang Xizhe, Consultant, Chinese Democratic Party Headquarters for Members in Exile Overseas. Currently living in Oakland, CA, USA. Email:xz7793@hotmail.com


徐文立,黄华,王希哲关于许万平判决案的声明


2005年12月21日,重庆市第一中级人民法院对中国异议人士许万平先生作出了审理判决。该判决书里,对中国民主党及其海外工作人员徐文立、黄华及顾问王希哲三人有多方的涉及。并把许万平先生与三人的交往,作为判决许先生有罪的重要证据。我们为此十分的愤慨与不解。为表达我们的意见与抗议,特发表声明如下:

(一)重庆市第一中级人民法院对许万平先生的审理,多方涉及徐文立、黄华、王希哲三人,却片面地使用并不可靠的电子邮件信息作为证据,从未传招徐文立、黄华、王希哲三人到庭应讯,提供直接的证词和说明,这对许万平先生是不公平的。这必将发生证据认定上的错误。例如,王希哲从未向许万平先生提供5000元人民币买电脑的资助。判决书说:“2003年7月,王(希哲)委托广东人李少彬向许万平之妻陈贤英的账号汇去人民币5000元,并为此向李付了手续费。...李少彬不知道收款人与汇款人的关系,也不认识双方。”既然如此,没有王希哲的直接证词,法庭依据什么认定委托李少彬汇款给许先生的正是王希哲?仅依据所谓“重庆市公安局国内安全保安总队出具的情况说明证实”,是必定片面的,是出于先验猜测的有罪推定的。又例如,对黄华的汇款,只要稍微分辨就可以发现法庭使用了错误的材料进行了错误的认定。 涉及徐文立的部分,也有类似造就冤案的情形。因此,我们要求重庆市高级人民法院进入二审时,传招徐文立、黄华、王希哲三人到庭应讯,对一切有关证物作出直接的说明。

(二)最关键的是,许万平先生案的审理定案,以及近十年来,中国法院对中国民主党活动家近百人次的审理定案,都是建立在认定中国民主党是一个意图颠覆现存中国国家政权的“敌对组织”的基础上的。这个定案的基础,就是完全错误的。

中国民主党是一个主张以“公开、理性、和平即非暴力”的方式在中国实行政治改革的党。她的基本纲领要求“开放党禁,建立分权制衡的民主宪政”。这是近代一百多年来包括先行的中国共产党人在内的无数志士仁人们,共同主张的建国理想。中国民主党的基本主张没有超出中国共产党当年为了中国人民的自由民主解放而奋斗牺牲的主张。执政了的中国共产党没能实现这个理想,是他们的历史失误。中国民主党的纲领,仅仅要求纠正共产党的这个失误,有什么理由能够把她视为意图颠覆现存国家政权的“敌对组织”?

我们注意到,这次重庆市第一中级人民法院对许万平的审理,第一次明确引证了中华人民共和国公安部对中国民主党性质确认的《说明》,并把它列为认定许万平有罪的第一证据:

“1、中华人民共和国公安部确认‘中国民主党’ 为敌对组织的说明证实:‘ 中国民主党’于1998年6月成立,在国内外设有分支机构,该组织敌视我国人民民主政权和社会主义制度,组织策划实施危害国家安全的活动,根据《中华人民共和国国家安全法》第四条,及《中华人民共和国家安全法实施细则》第五条的规定,公安部认定‘中国民主党’为敌对组织。”我们认为,中华人民共和国公安部向法院提供的上述对中国民主党性质确认的《说明》是错误的。

(三)我们知道,1998年6月以后,依据宪法赋予的公民权利,中国民主党于各省先期发起成立的筹委组织,都在各所在地向当地民政部门提出了注册申请,以后部分地区筹委才改建为党部。若经审查,公安部认定中国民主党为“敌对组织”,它就应该依据中华人民共和国《社会团体登记管理条例》第三十五条,会同民政部对“擅自开展社会团体筹备活动,或者未经登记,擅自以社会团体名义进行活动”的中国民主党正式宣布“予以取缔”。事实上,即使在中国公民权利最受践踏的文化大革命时期,谢富治领导的公安部在取缔所谓“反动组织”时,都是公开这样作出宣布的,使被取缔组织成员知所遵守和申诉。但1998年6月以后的中国公安部从未对中国民主党说明理由作出正式的宣布取缔,却把它对中国民主党性质确认的《说明》,秘密提供给各级法院,作为对中国民主党审理定罪的内部掌握的官方基础证词。这是完全不合法的,是不符合建立一个公正的公开的法治国家的精神的,因为它事实秘密剥夺了中国民主党被中国公安部认定性质后,申请组织它的公民们的申诉权利。从这点看,难道今天的中国公安部在对法律程序和公民权利的尊重上比文革时期的谢富治公安部更加退步?

(四)我们强烈要求中华人民共和国公安部正式公布它对中国民主党性质的认定,并说明理由。对公安部提出的认定理由,中国民主党成员愿意依法向北京市的人民法院提起行政诉讼,等待人民法院依据中国宪法和法律,对中华人民共和国公安部的认定本身,作出公正公开的裁决。中国民主党将服从这个裁决。如果可能,王希哲、徐文立、黄华愿意回到中国参与这一诉讼,并承担自己应予承担的一切责任。

我们深知,由于政治体制的原因,现行中华人民共和国法律的规定往往偏于对公民权利的限制而不是保障,因此,未必有利于公民对自己权利保障的诉讼,但即便这样,走出上述一步,起码在程序的公正上,也将标志了中国向真正文明的法治国家,跨进了一步。

特此郑重声明,亟请中华人民共和国全国人大常委会、最高人民法院及各级人民法院、公安部、民政部研议采纳。

徐文立(签字)
黄华(签字)
王希哲(签字)
2006年元月22日
----------------------------------
附注:

徐文立,中国民主党海外流亡总部召集人。现居美国罗德岛州。
Email:ccc3@hotmail.com
黄华,中国民主党海外流亡总部副秘书长。现居英国伦敦。
Email:huahuang55@hotmail.com
王希哲,中国民主党海外流亡总部顾问。现居美国加州奥克兰。
Email: xz7793@hotmail.com