Legal Study On Constitutional Protections (If Any) In National Security Prosecutions In China
1. Li Mingzhe (李明哲) – Subversion of State Power
Facts:
Li Mingzhe, a Taiwanese human rights activist, was detained in mainland China for allegedly organizing activities and online content deemed as subversion of the state.
He was accused of attempting to overthrow or undermine the socialist system.
Court Proceedings:
Tried in Hunan Province Intermediate Court.
Convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and 2 years deprivation of political rights.
Constitutional and Procedural Implications:
The court justified the conviction as defending the constitutional system (socialist order).
While the Criminal Procedure Law theoretically guarantees rights to legal counsel and fair trial, the politically sensitive nature of the case restricted Li’s effective access to defense, raising due process concerns.
This illustrates the pattern: the constitution is cited as a normative object to be defended, not as a source of individual rights.
2. Huang Xueqin (黄雪琴) – Activism and Subversion
Facts:
Huang, a MeToo and labor rights activist, was detained for alleged subversion due to her activism and social influence.
Authorities claimed her activities threatened state power.
Court Proceedings:
Trial limited in transparency; sentencing reportedly around 5 years.
Her lawyers faced restrictions on access to case files due to “state security” classification.
Constitutional Implications:
Highlights the tension between freedom of expression (formally guaranteed under the Constitution) and national security law.
Demonstrates the practical limitations of constitutional protections in politically sensitive prosecutions.
3. Espionage/Betrayal of the State (背叛国家罪)
Facts:
Individuals accused of passing state secrets to foreign entities.
Often prosecuted under Criminal Law Article 102.
Court Proceedings:
Trials often closed to the public.
Defendants may be denied full access to classified evidence.
Constitutional Implications:
Due process and right to a fair trial are formally protected but practically limited by secrecy rules.
Courts prioritize state security over individual rights, demonstrating the subordinate role of constitutional protections in espionage-related prosecutions.
4. In-Absentia Trials for National Security Crimes
Facts:
PRC allows trials in absentia if the defendant is overseas and accused of serious national security crimes.
Courts can convict and confiscate assets even without the defendant present.
Court Proceedings:
In-absentia trials are permitted under judicial interpretation of CPL.
Defendants may lack meaningful ability to defend themselves or confront evidence.
Constitutional Implications:
Denies the right to appear and challenge evidence, core elements of due process.
Shows how procedural protections are overridden in the interest of national security.
5. Case Justifying Constitutional System Protection
Facts:
Multiple cases (including Li Mingzhe’s) explicitly frame crimes of subversion as attacks on the constitutional system.
Court Reasoning:
The court declares that protecting the socialist system is a constitutional mandate.
Sentences are justified as preserving national security and the constitutional order.
Constitutional Implications:
The Constitution is applied instrumentally—to protect the state—not to safeguard individual rights.
Demonstrates a structural limitation: constitutional protections are subordinate to regime preservation.
Synthesis
In all five cases, constitutional protections exist formally (right to counsel, fair trial, equality before the law).
In practice, these rights are curtailed by political sensitivity, secrecy, and national security classification.
The Constitution is used more to justify state authority than to protect individual liberties.
Procedural safeguards are often weakened in trials involving subversion, espionage, or activism seen as threatening the state.
RELATED Blog
comments