Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Karamay City Intermediate People’s Court Notice of Rejection of Appeal (2017) Xinjiang 02 Criminal Appeal No. 1 Li Fankung: You were not satisfied with our court’s “(2016) Xinjiang 02 Criminal-Case Final-Instance No. 23” criminal verdict and have filed an appeal to our court based on the following specific reasons: (1) the proceedings of the original trial were unlawful, with Zhao Shuyuan being deprived of her legal litigation rights when the court did not notify the defense attorney of the hearing; in the first and second instances, the court requested that the lawyer only take extracts of the dossier; the reason for not holding the second- instance hearing had no legal basis, thereby making it necessary to deem the first- and second-instance hearing proceedings unlawful. (2) The facts of the original verdict were not clear, and the evidence insufficient. There was no punishment issued to the principal offender, while a severe punishment was issued to the coerced accomplice; the fact that there were Falun Gong related objects in Zhao Shuyuan’s home cannot be considered as criminal evidence. (3) The original ruling incorrectly applied the law; these errors directly led to Zhao Shuyuan’s death. The court was thereby asked to rectify this mistake and retry the case. The court has re-evaluated this case and believes: to facilitate the appearance of the appellant’s, Zhao Shuyuan’s, counsel, the first hearing was delayed, with Zhao Shuyuan’s counsel being contacted several times and a hearing notice being mailed, with Li Fangkun also being informed about the situation. On February 5, 2016, the Chongqing Municipality Jiangbei District Judicial Bureau sent a letter to the first- instance court, thoroughly explaining how the bureau asked Zhao Shuyuan’s defense attorney Tang Tianhao about the potential substitution of attorney and notified him of the upcoming court appearance. This bureau confirms: Tang Tianhao stated that he had already consulted with Zhao Shuyuan and her family, with Zhao Shuyuan and her family agreeing that Tang Tianhao would not appear at the first hearing, and Tang Tianhao stating that he would not appear and act as a defense attorney at the first hearing. The above information fully proves the fact that the first-hearing court protected Zhao Shuyuan’s litigation rights, and the case was strictly handled according to the legal procedures. According to Article 47 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the application of the ‘Criminal Procedure Law of the People Republic of China’”, the defense attorney may consult, extract, and copy case materials. ...”. During the first- and second-instance hearings, Tang Tianhao had already read the case file, with the court agreeing to his extracting of the relevant case materials, all of which completely complied with circumstances and state of the law. According to Article 223, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, “if the People’s Court decides to not hold a second hearing, it should interrogate the defendant, and consider the opinions of other relevant parties, defense attorneys, and litigation agents.” This paragraph clearly explains the situation of a court not holding a hearing. After the first-instance sentencing, the second-instance court fully reviewed Zhao Shuyuan’s appeal, the opinions of the defense counsel, and all other materials, therefore meeting all legal stipulations. As was found during the first- and second-instance hearings, Zhao Shuyuan had on March 26, 2003 been given a five-year prison sentence by the XUAR Karamay City Baijiantan District People’s Court for using heterodox groups to undermine law enforcement. Later, she would also be subjected to administrative detention twice for engaging in heterodox activities. Despite clearly knowing about Falun Gong having been outlawed, she continued practicing Falun Gong and possessed a large number of Falun Gong printed materials, hand-copied manuscripts, audio-video recordings, and other heterodox propaganda materials. In July 2015, Zhao Shuyuan transferred a copy of the criminal indictment, which included heterodox propaganda content about the Falun Gong, the “persecution” of Falun Gong practitioners, and the like, to another Falun Gong practitioner, Shang Xiuzhen, sending the materials by post. This fact was verified by the testimony of Shang Xiuzhen and corroborated by the testimonies of two witnesses, surnamed Han and Zhao. On multiple occasions, Zhao Shuyuan visited Karamay’s National Development and Reform Commission’s work team (formerly the Bayi Management Committee “visit- benefit-unite” work team), the Karamay District Bayi Xincun Neighborhood Administration, and the staff of the Jerenbulaq District Political and Legal Affairs Commission to propagate such heterodox ideas as “Falun Gong is good”, “the Chinese Communist Party is heterodoxy”, “leave the Party, Communist Youth League, and Young Pioneers to maintain peace and stability”, “the Chinese Communist Party persecutes the Falun Gong”, and “the Communist Party has killed 80 million people”. In accordance with the relevant stipulations found in the Supreme People’s Court’s “Interpretation on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Cases Concerning the Organization and Use of Heterodox Groups” and in “Interpretation (Two)”, the court of original jurisdiction determined that Zhao Shuyuan’s actions were criminal and that the facts and application of the law were correct. Additionally, in what concerns whether or not there has been a crime committed by other actors, this is a matter to be determined based on such fundamental facts as the actors’ concrete actions, the actions’ duration, and their harmfulness, and not relatively to one given fact. Zhao Shuyuan’s death from illness while serving her sentence was closely related to her physical condition; the complainant’s statements concerning the trial and verdict are not based on factual or legal grounds. In summary, the judgement of the first and second instances was correct in its determination of the facts and in its application of the law. The complainant’s grounds for appeal could not be established. As such, by the provisions of Article 375, Paragraph 2 of the “Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”, the appeal of Zhao Shuyuan’s son, Li Fangkun, is dismissed. Thus it is hereby stated. August 3, 2017