Rights Of Defendants Under Chinese Criminal Law
⚖️ I. Overview of Defendants’ Rights Under Chinese Criminal Law
Defendants (被告人 beigaoren) in China are protected by several key legal guarantees during criminal proceedings. These protections arise from both statutory law and judicial interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP).
1. Right to Defense and Legal Counsel
Legal Basis: Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) Articles 32–39.
Defendants have the right to appoint defense counsel at any stage after being interrogated for the first time or from the day of compulsory measures (like detention).
If the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the state must assign one in serious cases (Article 34).
2. Right Against Self-Incrimination and Forced Confession
Legal Basis: CPL Articles 50 and 54.
Forced confessions obtained through torture, threat, or deception must be excluded.
“No person shall be forced to prove his own guilt.”
3. Right to a Fair and Public Trial
Legal Basis: CPL Articles 11 and 183.
Trials must be public except where state secrets, privacy, or minors are involved.
Courts must ensure equality between the prosecution and defense.
4. Right to Appeal
Legal Basis: CPL Articles 236–237.
Defendants have the right to appeal judgments or rulings of first-instance courts to higher courts.
5. Right to Humane Treatment and Due Process
Legal Basis: Constitution Article 37 and CPL Article 58.
No one may be unlawfully detained, searched, or deprived of personal freedom.
Interrogations must be recorded and monitored to prevent abuse.
🧑⚖️ II. Detailed Case Analyses
Below are five landmark or illustrative cases that demonstrate how defendants’ rights are exercised and sometimes violated under Chinese criminal justice practice.
Case 1: Nie Shubin Case (河北聂树斌案, Hebei, 1995–2016)
Key Right: Protection against wrongful conviction and forced confession.
Facts:
Nie Shubin, a 20-year-old from Hebei Province, was convicted of rape and murder in 1995 based largely on a confession he allegedly made under police pressure. He was executed the same year.
Development:
Years later, another man, Wang Shujin, confessed to the same crime. A long review process followed, and in 2016 the Supreme People’s Court overturned Nie’s conviction, officially recognizing the wrongful execution.
Legal Significance:
Reinforced the exclusionary rule for confessions obtained through coercion.
Strengthened calls for “strict evidence review” in death penalty cases.
Led to reforms emphasizing video-recording of interrogations.
Case 2: Hugjiltu Case (呼格吉勒图案, Inner Mongolia, 1996–2014)
Key Right: Right to fair trial and prohibition of torture.
Facts:
Hugjiltu, an 18-year-old ethnic Mongolian, was convicted and executed for rape and murder within 62 days of arrest. Years later, a serial killer confessed to the same crime.
Outcome:
In 2014, the case was retried, and Hugjiltu was posthumously acquitted. Officials involved in the wrongful conviction were later punished.
Legal Significance:
Exposed systemic problems of “confession-centered” investigations.
Highlighted importance of judicial independence and procedural safeguards.
Cited in judicial training materials as a model for wrongful conviction review.
Case 3: Chen Man Case (陈满案, Hainan, 1992–2016)
Key Right: Right to appeal and retrial; right to be protected from prolonged unjust imprisonment.
Facts:
Chen Man was convicted of arson and murder in 1992 and sentenced to death with reprieve. He maintained his innocence for 23 years.
In 2016, new evidence and inconsistencies in confessions led the Supreme People’s Court to order a retrial, which resulted in his acquittal.
Legal Significance:
Affirmed defendants’ right to appeal and judicial review of old cases.
Clarified that coerced confessions have no evidentiary value.
Influenced reforms to strengthen post-conviction review mechanisms.
Case 4: Zhang Yuhuan Case (张玉环案, Jiangxi, 1993–2020)
Key Right: Protection from torture and right to fair trial.
Facts:
Zhang Yuhuan was arrested in 1993 for allegedly murdering two children. He was held in custody for 27 years, during which he claimed he was tortured into confessing.
Outcome:
In 2020, the Jiangxi High People’s Court found insufficient evidence and overturned his conviction, recognizing the confession as forced. Zhang was declared innocent and later received state compensation.
Legal Significance:
The longest wrongful imprisonment case in Chinese history.
Reinforced the CPL Article 54 exclusion rule against torture-based evidence.
Showed gradual improvement in judicial willingness to correct errors.
Case 5: Sun Zhigang Case (孙志刚案, Guangdong, 2003)
Key Right: Right to personal liberty and protection from unlawful detention.
Facts:
Sun Zhigang, a university graduate, was detained in Guangzhou for not carrying his temporary residence permit under the old “Custody and Repatriation” system. He died in police custody, allegedly from abuse.
Outcome:
The public outcry led to abolition of the Custody and Repatriation system and major administrative reforms. Several officials were convicted of abuse of power and negligence.
Legal Significance:
Although not a standard criminal defendant’s case, it greatly influenced human rights protection in detention.
Strengthened emphasis on due process and humane treatment.
Inspired nationwide calls for transparency in law enforcement.
🏛️ III. Broader Impact and Reform Trends
These cases collectively reflect China’s gradual but significant shift toward recognizing and enforcing defendants’ rights:
| Area of Reform | Legal or Institutional Change |
|---|---|
| Confession Evidence | Mandatory video recording of interrogations (SPC & SPP 2017 directive). |
| Wrongful Convictions | Establishment of special review committees for miscarriage cases. |
| Legal Representation | Broader access to duty lawyers in detention centers. |
| Judicial Transparency | Public trial transcripts and online verdict databases. |
| Compensation | State Compensation Law (2010, amended 2019) ensures restitution for wrongful imprisonment. |
🧾 IV. Conclusion
Defendants’ rights in China have evolved from being formal guarantees to practically enforceable protections, largely due to landmark cases that exposed procedural flaws.
While challenges remain—particularly around judicial independence and the influence of law enforcement—the cases of Nie Shubin, Hugjiltu, Chen Man, Zhang Yuhuan, and Sun Zhigang mark pivotal moments in the advancement of rule of law and human rights in the Chinese criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments