22/10/2009 |
China's execution of Tibetans an outrage
Free
The executions were reported today in a statement by the Dharamsala-based Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) citing multiple sources. According to TCHRD the four executed Tibetans are: Lobsang Gyaltsen (1), Loyak (both males), a female named Penkyi and an unnamed Tibetan.
Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak were sentenced to death with no reprieve in April this year, according to an April 8 Xinhua report(2). They were sentenced to death by the Lhasa Intermediate People’s Court having been found guilty of alleged arson charges. Xinhua also reported on April 21(3) this year that two Tibetan females, both named Penkyi, had also been sentenced having been found guilty of arson. One Penkyi, from Sagya county, received a suspended death sentence, according to Xinhua. Xinhua stated that a second Penkyi, from Nyinmo county, received a sentence of life imprisonment. Free
TCHRD reported in its statement today that the body of Lobsang Gyaltsen had been handed to his family and was later immersed in the
No information is available to confirm if the death sentences were referred to the Supreme People’s Court before the executions took place. Under Chinese law all death sentences should be reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court. This reform is widely regarded as a human rights concession by
Reacting to news of the executions, Director of Free Tibet,
“The executions are an outrage. It is impossible to have any confidence that even the most basic legal norms were observed before the Chinese state sanctioned and carried out the killing of these four Tibetans.
The Chinese regime’s decision to execute these four Tibetans only weeks after the
For further information:
Matt Whitticase, External Communications: t +44 (0)20 7324 4605 / +44 (0)7515 788456 or email: matt@freetibet.org
Images
Image of Loyak during trial at the Lhasa Intermediate People’s Court on April 8 2009. (www.tibet.net)
BACKGROUND NOTES:
Unreliable evidence based upon confessions
Access to
On 8 April, official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, referring to a closely related case(2) reported:
“His [Tenzin Phuntsog] crime deserves the death penalty, but judges reached the verdict [death-sentence with a 2-year reprieve] while taking into consideration that he had been put up to the violence and showed a positive attitude in admitting his crime after he was arrested," the court spokesman said.
In November 2008, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT), in its fourth periodic review of China stated its deep concern “…of routine and widespread use of torture… especially to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings” and “Continued reliance on confessions as a common form of evidence for prosecution…” (4)
The problem of confessions obtained through torture in order to secure convictions in criminal cases in China is so serious that it has even been acknowledged by Deputy Procurator-General, Wang Zhenchuan, who told The South China Morning Post in 2006: “nearly every wrongful verdict in recent years relates to illegal interrogation” and that there were at least 30 cases every year of wrongful convictions attributable to confessions extracted through torture. (5)
Free Tibet believes that the UN CAT’s findings on the routine use of torture in Chinese courts to obtain confessions, together with Xinhua’s confirmed use of a confession of guilt as evidence in at least one of the arson cases, means that serious concerns must remain that the evidence presented against those executed on Tuesday 20 October was unreliable and that their convictions were consequently unsafe.
Lack of transparency: trials held in closed courts
detention and sentencing conducted in absence of due legal process
Beyond concerns relating to unreliable evidence there exist extremely serious concerns regarding the lack of transparency and absence of legal safeguards for the defendants in these cases.
Xinhua (2) quoted a court spokesman who stated that legal safeguards of the defendants were respected during the April 8 trial. However in the absence of any independent observers, including foreign media, it is impossible for this to be verified.
According to a press release (6) issued by the Tibetan government in exile on May 22, the family members of Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak, and those of two other Tibetans given suspended death sentences on April 8, were not informed that the trials were taking place. It was also stated that family members of the four sentenced to death on April 8 were denied the right to find legal representation for the defendants. Under Chinese criminal procedure law the relevant public security organ is obliged to “notify within 24 hours the relative of the detainee or his (or her) employer about the reasons of the detention or arrest and the locality of the confinement”. Similarly, prisons are obliged to “guarantee the rights of lawyers to meet their clients”. (7)
Official media reports on the
There are strong grounds for suspecting that such legal safeguards were ignored in the cases of Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak. Judgements in death penalty cases are routinely not made public and that there are no institutional avenues for legal experts and scholars to scrutinise the arguments made in court that have led to death penalty verdicts. (8)
Cases against Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak were highly politicised
All levels of courts in
The lack of an independent judiciary in
Free Tibet believes it is extremely likely that in the cases of Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak there was a high degree of political interference and that legal safeguards provided for in Chinese law were ignored to secure prosecutions. It is also likely that the convictions were designed to deliver an intimidatory message to Tibetans that further protests against Chinese rule will be dealt with severely. These executions further deepen the climate of fear in
The degree to which the convictions of Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak were driven by political directives was made explicit by the
"The two defendants given death penalties had committed extremely serious crimes and have to be executed to assuage the people's anger.”
Ends
For further information:
Matt Whitticase, External Communications: t +44 (0)20 7324 4605 / +44 (0)7515 788456 or email: matt@freetibet.org
Notes to Editor:
(1) Lobsang Gyaltsen is aged 27. Loyak (pictured above), aged 25, is from Tashigang village, Shol township,
(2): The Xinhua report is available at: http://news.Xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/08/content_11151158.htm
(3) The April 21 Xinhua article is available at: http://www.china.org.cn/china/news/2009-04/21/content_17643102.htm
(4) (Paragraph 11. CAT/C/CHN/CO/4 21 November 2008) is available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.CHN.CO.4.pdf
(5) The Deputy Procurator-General was quoted in an article by Bill Savadove in The South China Morning Post, November 21 2006.
(6) The Tibetan government in exile’s press release is available at: http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=935&articletype=flash
(7) These legal safeguards under Chinese law were set out by
(8) For further information Human Rights in