(Minghui.org) Two women in Faku County, Liaoning Province were both sentenced to nine months and fined 5,000 yuan for their faith in Falun Gong, a mind-body practice that has been persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party since July 1999.
Ms. Meng Qingxia, 70, and Ms. Liu Chunjie, 58, have filed appeals with the Shenyang City Intermediate Court. Shenyang oversees Faku County.
Ms. Meng Qingxia
Ms. Liu Chunjie
Ms. Meng and Ms. Liu were arrested on April 21, 2023, after a local resident named Qiao Lihua reported them for distributing Falun Gong informational materials. The arresting officers from the Faku County Domestic Security Office and the Shiqiao Police Station raided the two practitioners’ homes. Gao Qiang was said to have witnessed the police raids. It’s unclear whether Gao was a police officer.
Ms. Liu was taken to the Shenyang City First Detention Center the next day, while Ms. Meng was released on house arrest. The police, however, deceived Ms. Meng into going to the Shiqiao Police Station three days later on April 25 and took her back into custody. It’s unclear where she is being held.
Officer Dong Junliang (+86-15998398699) of the Shiqiao Police Station submitted the two practitioners’ case to the Liaozhong District Procuratorate in Shenyang City. Prosecutor Li Panpan (+86-24-27880199) indicted them and forwarded the case to the Liaozhong District Court.
Ms. Meng and Ms. Liu made two court appearances, on September 11 and October 16, 2023. Judge Duan Xiaoguang (+86-24-27899819) presided over the trial. Judges Xia Lijie and Zhang Nan, assistant to judges, Jin Jian, and clerk Guo Shuang were also present.
During both court hearings, the two practitioners testified in their own defense and their respective non-lawyer defenders also refuted the allegations against them. Judge Duan, however, still convicted Ms. Meng and Ms. Liu.
Allegations Lack Legal Basis
Prosecutor Li charged both Ms. Meng and Ms. Liu with violating Article 300 of the Criminal Law, which states that anyone using a cult organization to undermine law enforcement must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Ms. Meng and Ms. Liu’s defenders argued that China’s law-making body, People’s Congress, has never enacted any law criminalizing Falun Gong or labeling it a cult. As such, there were no legal grounds for the sentencing.
Prosecutor Li then cited as legal basis a statutory interpretation of Article 300 of the Criminal Law issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate in November 1999. The interpretation required that anyone practicing or promoting Falun Gong be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.
The defenders pointed out that a new statutory interpretation that replaced the 1999 version took effect on February 1, 2017. The new interpretation made no mention of Falun Gong and emphasized that any indictment against anyone engaging in a cult must be based on solid legal grounds. Since no enacted law in China labels Falun Gong a cult, the allegations against Ms. Meng and Ms. Liu based on the statutory interpretation lacked legal basis.The defenders also argued that given the principle of the separation of church and state, no government, including the Chinese communist regime, is in a position to determine whether a belief system is a cult or not.
One can only be held criminally liable for their law-breaking actions, not their religious belief or thoughts. Ms. Meng and Ms. Liu’s distributing Falun Gong informational materials did not cause any harm to any individual or society at large. As a matter of fact, there was no victim listed in her case.
Qiao, the tipster who reported the two practitioners, was not in court to accept cross-examination.
Police Violate Law in Handling Cases
Ms. Meng and Ms. Liu, as well as their defenders, also testified against the police for violating legal procedures in handling their cases.
The police did not show any ID or search warrant before raiding the two practitioners’ homes. Gao, the person whom the police claimed to have witnessed the raids, was nowhere to be seen in the courtroom. The police never revealed Gao’s identity. Whatever Gao said regarding what items were confiscated from the practitioners’ homes could not be verified, yet they were used as prosecution evidence. The witness’ signatures on the lists of confiscated items appeared to be from two different people, contradicting the police claim that Gao was the sole witness present at the raids of both practitioners’ homes.
The defenders also noted that the police had crossed out the initial times of their raids and written over them new times on the same lists of confiscated items.
There were also inconsistencies regarding key information of the arrests in two of the required forms filed by the police, one being the case registration form and another supplemental information.
By law, only independent, third-party forensic agencies are authorized to examine and authenticate prosecution evidence. The arresting officers, however, submitted their evidence to their supervising police agency for verification. The supervising agency determined that the confiscated items were “cult items” but their report bore no signature and failed to detail the process followed to arrive at the conclusion. Prosecutor Li, however, accepted the verification result and included it in the indictments against the two practitioners.
All content published on this website is copyrighted by Minghui.org. Minghui will produce compilations of its online content regularly and on special occasions.
