---------- 已转发邮件 ----------
发件人： CHRLCG <release@chrlcg-hk.org>
日期： 2010年4月21日 下午2:08
主题： �合�明：�名北京律�被�理吊��照 刑事���受侵犯
收件人：
发件人： CHRLCG <release@chrlcg-hk.org>
日期： 2010年4月21日 下午2:08
主题： �合�明：�名北京律�被�理吊��照 刑事���受侵犯
收件人：
http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=517
�合�明：�名北京律�被�理吊��照 刑事���受侵犯
背景�明：
北京��律�唐吉田��巍於2010年4月12日收到北京市司法局行政����通知�（http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/cpg/albums/userpics/听证通知书_tangjt.pdf）及���利告知�（http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/cpg/albums/userpics/权利告知书_tangjt.pdf ），��他��行行政��，吊�他�的����，指他�「��法庭秩序，干���活�正常�行」，�其�反《中�人民共和�律�法》第四十九�第一款第六�的�定，��於明天（2010年4月22日）�行���。�唐律�和�律�表示，他�於2009年4月27日在四川省�州市中�人民法院�一名被控「利用邪教��破��家法律�施罪 」的法�功��作刑事���，在宣�����被主�法官打�十�次，�位律�感到�法��其��，但�在�反被北京市司法局指其「��法庭秩序，干���活�正常�行」。
位於香港的中���律��注�、台北律�公�人�委��及位於美�的「中�律�之友」��（Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers）今天（2010年4月21日）�表�合�明�北京市司法局�吊�唐律�及�律�的����表示�烈�注，援引中�大��於保障律��益的《中�人民共和�律�法》及1990年通�、中�支持的�合�《�於律�作用的基本原�》指出北京司法局������律�的做法完全�反�些法律原�，�要求北京市司法局�查�何���位律�作出��的行政��。�是�2009年北京��律�江天勇的律�����被��，以及直至2010年4月至少�有六名北京��律�不能通�年度考核之後，又一次���律���的限制。
�按此��看英文�合�明全文（http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=516），有意加入�署的律�����，���info@chrlcg-hk.org
�考�料：
律师吊照门——唐吉田刘巍对北京市司法局吊销我律师执业证处罚的答辩
http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/phpbb//viewtopic.php?t=5127
英文�明全文：
http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=516
Statement: Two Beijing Lawyers’ Licenses Unreasonably Revoked; Rights to Criminal Defense Infringed in Court
21 April 2010
On 12 April 2010, Beijing lawyers Tang Jitian (唐吉田) and Liu Wei (刘巍) received a notice from the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau informing them that an administrative punishment to permanently revoke their legal practice licenses, on the grounds that they had disturbed the order of the court while defending a Falun Gong practitioner, will be imposed on them. We, the undersigned organizations and professional associations, fear that Mr. Tang and Ms. Liu have been targeted because of their representation of clients unpopular with the Chinese government. Targeting lawyers in retaliation for activities undertaken as part of their professional duties violates Chinese law and international standards.
Citing Article 49(1), Clause 6, of the PRC Law on Lawyers, the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau ordered the revocation of Tang's and Liu's licenses, accusing them of "disturbing the order of the court and interfering with normal litigation" during the trial of a case on 27 April 2009, in Luzhou City (泸州), Sichuan Province (四川省), involving a Falun Gong practitioner accused of "using a cult organisation to undermine the implementation of the laws of the state" (利用邪教组织破坏国家法律实施罪).
According to the two lawyers, the presiding judge interrupted them more than ten times during the presentation of their defense statements for the accused Falun Gong practitioner during the 27 April 2009, trial at the Luzhou City Intermediate Court. According to Tang and Liu, the presiding judge also ignored the lawyers' requests to stop a person sitting in the public gallery from video-recording the court proceedings. The two lawyers, therefore, felt unable to continue their defense for their clients, noting that the "Court Rules of the People's Courts of the People's Republic of China" (《人民法院法庭规则》) had been contravened. Article 9, Clause 1, of the Court Rules states "Members of the public sitting in the public gallery must respect the following requirements of discipline, they must not make audio-recordings or video-recordings or take pictures."
According to Article 36 of the PRC Law on Lawyers, "The defense statements of a lawyer appointed as a legal representative or criminal defense lawyer and his right to engage in criminal defense are safeguarded in accordance with the law." Article 37 (Clauses 1 and 2) continues "the personal rights of a lawyer engaged in practicing law shall not be infringed upon. The representation and defense statements presented in court by a lawyer shall not be subject to legal prosecution, except for statements that compromise national security, maliciously defame others, or seriously disrupt the court order." International principles similarly protect the rights of lawyers to discharge their professional responsibilities. Article 16 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) similarly requires "(g)overnments [to] ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; …and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics."
During the Luzhou trial, the presiding judge failed to protect Tang's and Liu's rights to provide a criminal defense by repeatedly interrupting them, and by neglecting to prevent a person recording the court proceedings, in violation of Court Rules. It was under this duress that Tang and Liu chose to leave the proceedings.
We, the undersigned organizations and professional associations are deeply concerned about the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau's intent to revoke Tang's and Liu's licenses to practice and call for an investigation into why this sanction is being imposed. The decision to revoke these lawyers' licenses in the context of a trial during which they were unable to do their jobs appears to be politically motivated. Targeting lawyers who take on politically unpopular cases not only violates the domestic legal standards but also international laws and principles.
We remain concerned about restrictions imposed on other lawyers in recent months. In 2009, Beijing lawyer Jiang Tianyong's (江天勇) legal practice license was suspended, and as of April 2010, at least six Beijing lawyers have still not had their licenses renewed following the annual inspection of lawyers' licenses in mid-2009. The threat to permanently revoke Tang Jitian's and Liu Wei's licenses to practice law and the passage in April 2010 of new rules providing for administrative punishment of lawyers and law firms that include broad and vague new provisions appears to represent further efforts to restrict the independence of the legal profession in China, and undermines China's commitment to the rule of law.
Co-signed by:
[Listed in alphabetical order]
China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group
Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers
The Committee for Human Rights Protection of Taipei Bar Association
…
We welcome the support of other professional associations and interested organizations representing lawyers. Please send an email to info@chrlcg-hk.org to add your organisation's name to this statement.
Or, please write your own letter to the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau: [Beijing City Xicheng District Houguangping Hutong no. 39, Postal code: 100035], and the PRC Ministry of Justice: [Minister Wu Aiying [吴爱英] , No. 10, Nandajie, Chaoyangmen, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Postal Code: 100020, Email: minister@legalinfo.gov.cn]
�合�明：�名北京律�被�理吊��照 刑事���受侵犯
背景�明：
北京��律�唐吉田��巍於2010年4月12日收到北京市司法局行政����通知�（http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/cpg/albums/userpics/听证通知书_tangjt.pdf）及���利告知�（http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/cpg/albums/userpics/权利告知书_tangjt.pdf ），��他��行行政��，吊�他�的����，指他�「��法庭秩序，干���活�正常�行」，�其�反《中�人民共和�律�法》第四十九�第一款第六�的�定，��於明天（2010年4月22日）�行���。�唐律�和�律�表示，他�於2009年4月27日在四川省�州市中�人民法院�一名被控「利用邪教��破��家法律�施罪 」的法�功��作刑事���，在宣�����被主�法官打�十�次，�位律�感到�法��其��，但�在�反被北京市司法局指其「��法庭秩序，干���活�正常�行」。
位於香港的中���律��注�、台北律�公�人�委��及位於美�的「中�律�之友」��（Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers）今天（2010年4月21日）�表�合�明�北京市司法局�吊�唐律�及�律�的����表示�烈�注，援引中�大��於保障律��益的《中�人民共和�律�法》及1990年通�、中�支持的�合�《�於律�作用的基本原�》指出北京司法局������律�的做法完全�反�些法律原�，�要求北京市司法局�查�何���位律�作出��的行政��。�是�2009年北京��律�江天勇的律�����被��，以及直至2010年4月至少�有六名北京��律�不能通�年度考核之後，又一次���律���的限制。
�按此��看英文�合�明全文（http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=516），有意加入�署的律�����，���info@chrlcg-hk.org
�考�料：
律师吊照门——唐吉田刘巍对北京市司法局吊销我律师执业证处罚的答辩
http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/phpbb//viewtopic.php?t=5127
英文�明全文：
http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=516
Statement: Two Beijing Lawyers’ Licenses Unreasonably Revoked; Rights to Criminal Defense Infringed in Court
21 April 2010
On 12 April 2010, Beijing lawyers Tang Jitian (唐吉田) and Liu Wei (刘巍) received a notice from the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau informing them that an administrative punishment to permanently revoke their legal practice licenses, on the grounds that they had disturbed the order of the court while defending a Falun Gong practitioner, will be imposed on them. We, the undersigned organizations and professional associations, fear that Mr. Tang and Ms. Liu have been targeted because of their representation of clients unpopular with the Chinese government. Targeting lawyers in retaliation for activities undertaken as part of their professional duties violates Chinese law and international standards.
Citing Article 49(1), Clause 6, of the PRC Law on Lawyers, the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau ordered the revocation of Tang's and Liu's licenses, accusing them of "disturbing the order of the court and interfering with normal litigation" during the trial of a case on 27 April 2009, in Luzhou City (泸州), Sichuan Province (四川省), involving a Falun Gong practitioner accused of "using a cult organisation to undermine the implementation of the laws of the state" (利用邪教组织破坏国家法律实施罪).
According to the two lawyers, the presiding judge interrupted them more than ten times during the presentation of their defense statements for the accused Falun Gong practitioner during the 27 April 2009, trial at the Luzhou City Intermediate Court. According to Tang and Liu, the presiding judge also ignored the lawyers' requests to stop a person sitting in the public gallery from video-recording the court proceedings. The two lawyers, therefore, felt unable to continue their defense for their clients, noting that the "Court Rules of the People's Courts of the People's Republic of China" (《人民法院法庭规则》) had been contravened. Article 9, Clause 1, of the Court Rules states "Members of the public sitting in the public gallery must respect the following requirements of discipline, they must not make audio-recordings or video-recordings or take pictures."
According to Article 36 of the PRC Law on Lawyers, "The defense statements of a lawyer appointed as a legal representative or criminal defense lawyer and his right to engage in criminal defense are safeguarded in accordance with the law." Article 37 (Clauses 1 and 2) continues "the personal rights of a lawyer engaged in practicing law shall not be infringed upon. The representation and defense statements presented in court by a lawyer shall not be subject to legal prosecution, except for statements that compromise national security, maliciously defame others, or seriously disrupt the court order." International principles similarly protect the rights of lawyers to discharge their professional responsibilities. Article 16 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) similarly requires "(g)overnments [to] ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; …and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics."
During the Luzhou trial, the presiding judge failed to protect Tang's and Liu's rights to provide a criminal defense by repeatedly interrupting them, and by neglecting to prevent a person recording the court proceedings, in violation of Court Rules. It was under this duress that Tang and Liu chose to leave the proceedings.
We, the undersigned organizations and professional associations are deeply concerned about the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau's intent to revoke Tang's and Liu's licenses to practice and call for an investigation into why this sanction is being imposed. The decision to revoke these lawyers' licenses in the context of a trial during which they were unable to do their jobs appears to be politically motivated. Targeting lawyers who take on politically unpopular cases not only violates the domestic legal standards but also international laws and principles.
We remain concerned about restrictions imposed on other lawyers in recent months. In 2009, Beijing lawyer Jiang Tianyong's (江天勇) legal practice license was suspended, and as of April 2010, at least six Beijing lawyers have still not had their licenses renewed following the annual inspection of lawyers' licenses in mid-2009. The threat to permanently revoke Tang Jitian's and Liu Wei's licenses to practice law and the passage in April 2010 of new rules providing for administrative punishment of lawyers and law firms that include broad and vague new provisions appears to represent further efforts to restrict the independence of the legal profession in China, and undermines China's commitment to the rule of law.
Co-signed by:
[Listed in alphabetical order]
China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group
Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers
The Committee for Human Rights Protection of Taipei Bar Association
…
We welcome the support of other professional associations and interested organizations representing lawyers. Please send an email to info@chrlcg-hk.org to add your organisation's name to this statement.
Or, please write your own letter to the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau: [Beijing City Xicheng District Houguangping Hutong no. 39, Postal code: 100035], and the PRC Ministry of Justice: [Minister Wu Aiying [吴爱英] , No. 10, Nandajie, Chaoyangmen, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Postal Code: 100020, Email: minister@legalinfo.gov.cn]
--
★★《权利》电子邮件网络非常鼓励具有行动力的文章供大家分享和引起支持！
1，所有帖子没有注明"不可转载"的，一律可以转载；转发本邮件成员文章，请注明：转自《权利》https://groups.google.com/group/ChinaRights
2，《权利》公共发言，请发电子邮件到 ChinaRights@googlegroups.com
3，要退订此论坛，请发邮件至 ChinaRights-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
4，群发邮件，慎重发言，文明用语，切忌只言片语不明不确！
5，备份查询：http://chinarights2.blogspot.com
6，联系：gongchangbeijing@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment