Prohibition of Torture and Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence

PROHIBITION OF TORTURE AND EXCLUSION OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE

“A journey of a thousand miles began with a single step” (千里之行，始于足下).

1. Introduction

From the Western point of view China’s Criminal Justice System has a large number of deficiencies[1]. The case of prohibition of torture and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence was not exempt from those criticisms. On 2009, the Executive Director of the Asia Program at Human Rights Watch, says: “The criminal justice system remains plagued by forced confessions and torture…"[2] However, it must be recognized that since 1979, when the former criminal procedure law was adopted, until the 2010’ exclusionary rules of illegally obtained evidence, and even more recently the draft of the Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, China has been taking steps to major reforms[3]. As some scholars stated, China’s legal system is a work in progress, and the purpose of this paper is to see how that progress is taking place with respect of prohibition of torture.
In terms of law reforms, there have been major changes. For instance, in 1997 the "shelter and investigation” was abolished.[4] Later on, in 2010, the exclusionary rules were enacted prohibiting the use of torture. However, the issue at stake is whether or not those laws have actually been implemented. In 2010, in Henan province, Zhao Zuohai was released after spending eleven years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit; but was tortured and forced to self incriminate for. The guy he supposedly killed reappeared alive and the Government gave Zhao $96 000 as compensation.[5] Could that money compensate the torture he suffered and the fact that now his wife got remarried and his kids were adopted by the new husband?[6]

On June this year, a draft of the amendments of the Criminal Procedural Law was submitted to the 11th National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee. In relation with the prohibition of torture and the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, it states that: "evidences and confessions collected by torture, violence, and threats should not be accepted.[7]" "Procuratorial organs should investigate allegations of collecting evidence through illegal methods,[8]" “Interrogators suspected to have collected confessions or evidence through illegal methods should be criminally prosecuted.”[9] It also states that: “all interrogations of suspects should be conducted in detention houses and the entire interrogation should be videotaped for the most serious criminal cases, according to the draft amendment.”[10]

This essay analyzes the path that China is taking in order to prohibit torture and to exclude illegally obtained evidence. The first part will bring a definition of torture as well as a description of torture and punishment in imperial China. The second part will analyze the current law and the draft of the Amendments of the Criminal Procedural Law with respect of torture. Third part describes a case of torture took place in China. Finally, some conclusions and recommendations will be given.

1. Definition of torture
Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) defines torture as: “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”[11]
According to this definition torture enclosures not only acts of confessions, but also punishment and discrimination. According to the China Society for Human Rights Studies (CSHRS) torture is a serious violation of basic human rights and human being dignity which is intolerable under modern civilization and rule of law.[12] 2. Background: Brief historical analysis of how torture was developed in China before 1979
It can be said that the use of torture in recent times reflects in certain way the vision of the past times. On the other hand, the major changes shows an intention of depart from those imperial practices. [13] Mainly, two schools of thought have influenced today’s Chinese legal setting on punishment and torture: Confucianism and Legalism. Both of them, although with a different point of view came to the conclusion that punishment is an acceptable and in fact indispensable human institution.[14]
For Confucius, the ruler must govern with “li”(rites) (modes of behavior) rather than governing in accordance with positive law and the threat of punishment.[15] According to him, the effect of punishment on society is negative and people will try to elude the rules and deceive the ruler. However, Confucius stated that punishments can be applied as a last resort when extraordinary circumstances occur. He recognized that there are some “evildoers” who cannot be affected by moral instruction and the only way to induce such persons to observe ”li” is through punishment. So, punishment is appropriate for the correction of the incorrigible.[16] However, punishment has to be exactly right. Punishment can never be just, they can only be right. The greatest danger, according to him, lies in a ruler’s inclination to use punishment excessively. Then, the notion of right punishment is actually meant to restrict the ruler’s discretion in his use of punishment. [17]
On the other hand, legalist theory states that rules, the use of physical force, and a uniform administrative apparatus are necessary to govern a State. The standards in written law applied to everyone, irrespective of rank or relationship. The legalist conception of punishment recognized only one purpose of punishment: deterrence. Han Feizi defined punishment (xing) as the infliction of death or torture upon culprits.[18] The use of punishment serves to protect and defend the existing order as to keep people in check by threaten them. It is this fear that keeps the government’s subjects from transgressing public laws. The punishment may not fit the crime, instead it can be harder. However, the legalists always believe that the use of punishment was a temporary measure.
After the third century B.C., Xunzi in his essay Rectifying Theses recognized that a balanced punishment will generate order within the society. According to him punishment is capable of transmitting values to people. His attempt to reconcile Confucianism with legalism was very influential for later dynasties. For instance, the Tang Code, and the concept of the “ten greatest abominations” represent the behaviors that were against Confucianism.[19] In the cosmological view and the role of punishment in traditional Chinese law. Qin official attended to fine tuning of punishment of proper punishing for offenses helped maintain cosmic harmony.
Since ancient times China’s sources have mentioned the system of punishments called the WU XING five punishment. The five punishment were tattoing, amputation of the nose, amputation of one or both legs, castation and the death penalty. However, the implementation of the punishments were carefully controlled by the central authorities.[20]
CONFESSION
When there was lack of evidence in a case, a capital sanction was not imposed , but in state a lighter punishment. Therefore, it can be said that in imperial times a careful investigation of the criminal act was to be undertaken, to ensure that nobody was punished wrongfully. This was important to determinate not only whether the accused committed the crime but also whether there were mitigating circumstances that might justify a reduction of the sentence.[21] There was an elaborate procedure so to determine the appropriate not excessive punishment. There was great concern about guarantying that the government officers don’t use arbitrary violence that conduct to the miscarriage of justice. For instance, in the Qing period, the State in order to release the pressure on the criminal system, conceded amnesties, reduction of punishments, etc. The government knew that punishments might be abusive or arbitrary. To limit it, the government carries out detailed regulation on how punishment should be achieved. The law specifically stated how officials shall applied the law and punishment. The Qing code specified the number of crimes that involved the faulty imposition of criminal punishments. For instance Art 396 “Intentionally incarcerating law abiding persons and putting them to the question” (interrogation under torture) and Art 410: Exposing injustices and misapplication of the law.
In late imperial period, the administration of justice was in charge of an extensive and elaborate bureaucracy so to deal with criminal cases in specific time. The investigation process was inquisitorial. The magistrate had to ascertain the truth from the accused as well as from the witnesses and from the given evidence. [22]
Time limit on investigation was very important. Officials were punished for breaches of the standard procedure. In the Qing period, an important trait of the justice process in imperial China was the requirement that the accused person must confess his guilt. A confession serve two purposes: it was supposed to establish an objective truth, which the magistrate had to uncover in the course of his investigation, and it also demonstrated to officials that the offender had started to understand his crime and was on the way to repenting.[23] Therefore, before the case could be closed by the magistrate, there was a need of a confession by the accused, irrespective of the evidence or allegations of witnesses. The law stated that the magistrate cannot pronounce a sentence until the accused confessed. As it was mentioned before, the officials had strict time limits for each case. Therefore, the use of coercive means was allowed in cases where the accused refused to admit guiltiness. To extract a confession, torture was legally permitted, even for suspects or witnesses.
The magistrate was allowed to use the following treatments: twisting of ears, slapping or beating, pressing sticks (jiagun), which were applied to the shins, ankles or fingers, making the accused kneel on an iron chain, and head-squeezing bands. However, to prevent the uncontrolled application of legal torture and to keep it legal, torture could only be used after enough evidence had been gathered by the investigation. As it can be seen, the law was concern about the miscarriages of justice that the abuse of power can generate, therefore, officials were rigorously penalize for violating the regulation and the scale of punishment for those offence was high. Qing officials were well aware that the accused could make false confessions in order to shorten or avoid the tortuous treatment. The Qianling emperor warned his officials that confessions obtained by jiagun and cudgel are not necessarily entirely reliable. The elaborate and redundant procedures for adjudicating and sentencing for capital crimes shows a serious concern for justice, a diligent search for truth, and a sincere regard for both victim and offender.
Since the end of the imperial era in 1911, China has struggled to create a workable legal system. The nation’s legal institutions had very little opportunity to develop during much of the twentieth century amidst the chaos of civil wars, World War II, and disruptive political campaigns.[24]
The last and most chaotic of these political movements was the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which began in the mid-1960s and lasted through much of the 1970s. During the Cultural Revolution, virtually all legal institutions were abolished. There were no courts, no prosecutors, no lawyers, and no law schools. Since the reform era began in 1979 under Deng Xiaoping, legal institutions have slowly been reestablished. Law schools reopened and judicial and procuratorial institutions were recreated.

3. Legislation from 1979 to date and the draft of the amendments in reference to the prohibition of torture and the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence

As stated in the introduction the Criminal Justice System in China is relatively new. (poner prof. )In terms of law making, the prohibition of torture and the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence have passed through major reforms.
Art 37 of the Chinese Constitutional Law provides that the freedom of person of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people’s procuratorate or by decision of a people’s court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizen’s freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited: and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited. Art. 12 of Chinese Criminal Procedure Law establishes the principle that no person shall be found guilty without being judged as such by a People’s Court according to law. Art. 43 strictly forbid prosecution of crime by torture in the criminal procedure.
Art. 61 in the interpretation of the Supreme People’s court on some issues concerning the implementation of criminal procedure law of PRC and Art 265 in the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the People’s Procuratorate reaffirm the above provisions and further establish the illegal evidence exclusion rules.
Police Law Article 22 People's policemen may not commit any of the following acts: (4) to extort confession by torture or subject criminals to corporal punishment or maltreat them; (8) to illegally impose punishment or collect charges; , Judge Law, Article 30 No judges may commit any of the following acts:
(1) to spread statements damaging the prestige of the State; to join illegal organizations; to take part in such activities as assembly, procession and demonstration against the State; and to participate in strikes;
(2) to embezzle money or accept bribes;
(3) to bend law for personal gain;
(4) to extort confessions by torture; Public Procurators Law, Article 35 No public procurators may commit any of the following acts:

(1) to spread statements damaging the prestige of the State; to join illegal organizations; to take part in such activities as assembly, procession and demonstration against the State; and to participate in strikes;

(2) to embezzle money or receive bribes;

(3) to bend law for personal gain;

(4) to extort confessions by torture; State Security Law Article 32 Any State security functionary who neglects his duty or engages in malpractices for personal interests, if the offence constitutes a crime, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 187 or Article 188 of the Criminal Law; Any such person who practises unlawful detention or extorts a confession by torture, if the offence constitutes a crime, shall be punished respectively in accordance with the provisions of Article 143 or Article 136 of the Criminal Law., and Prison Law Article 14 The people's police of a prison shall not commit any of the

following acts:

(1) to demand, accept or seize money or goods from prisoners or their

relatives;

(2) to release a prisoner without authorization or through dereliction

of duty to cause a prisoner to flee from the prison;

(3) to use torture to coerce a confession, or to use corporal

punishment, or to maltreat a prisoner;

(4) to humiliate the human dignity of a prisoner;

(5) to beat or connive at others to beat a prisoner;

(6) to utilize a prisoner to provide labour services for personal gains;

(7) to privately deliver a letter or an article for a prisoner in

violation of regulations;

(8) to illegally surrender the functions and powers to supervise and

control prisoners to another person; or have all provisions regarding the prohibition of torture so as to safeguard the human rights of all citizens.
State compensation law makes provisions of the state compensation to the victims of torture.
Within the Chinese Criminal Law there are seven crimes related to torture: (1)the crime of unlawful detention, (2) the crime of illegal search, (3) the crime of retaliation and frame-ups, (4)the crime of extorting a confession by force, (5) the crime of extracting testimony from witness by violence, (6) the crime of abuse of inmates, and (7) the crime of abuse of subordinates.

INTERNATIONAL PROVISIONS
In the international sphere China has ratified several instruments that refer to the prohibition of torture, such as the CAT, the ICCPR, the Convention of the Rights of the Child. However, they cannot be quoted in decision of the courts.
International
Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries in the 21st century. It is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 147 countries.[1]
National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical.[2] Despite these international conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human rights (e.g. Amnesty International, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims) report widespread use condoned by states in many regions of the world.[3] Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.

What has china done?
China has taken gradual steps to address particular instances of torture. Last year, Beijing pledged to clamp down on inmate abuse, and nearly 1,800 policemen were suspended, according to a report released on the Ministry of Public Security website.
China has also released guidelines that identify specific acts of torture for which police can be prosecuted in an apparent attempt to reign in such abuses.

Most criminal offenses in China are investigated by the Public Security Bureau, which is part of the executive branch of government.7 However, Criminal offenses committed by government officials, employees, and agencies, are investigated directly by the Procuratorate.8 The procuratorate’s anti-corruption unit conducts investigations of bribery, embezzlement, and other public corruption. The procuratorate also has a Government employees’ misconduct unit, which investigates other criminal conduct committed by government workers in their official capacity. Cases of abuse of power, dereliction of duty, and police brutality are investigated directly by this unit of the procuratorate.

The draft
It incorporates changes that meet practical needs or solve problems in practice.
The draft incorporates the exclusionary rules of illegally obtained evidence that were adopted last year, and establishes privilege against self-incrimination, brought in the suppression hearing.
In order to prevent torture and coercive confession, Amendment 49 holds that audio or video recording of questioning sessions shall be compulsory for those suspected of crimes punishable with life sentence or the death penalty, and optional in all the other cases.
Amendment 36 and 39 provide for a prompt transfer of criminal suspects to detention centers after being taken away to avoid torture occurred prior to detention. Through Amendment 46, the draft proposes that interrogation should be conducted within the detention center once the suspect has been detained there These proposals are very pertinent because with the increasingly strict supervision over detention centers, it becomes more difficult to torture suspects within it. And many instances of torture actually occur in the period from the point when the suspect is taken away to the point when the suspect is formally checked in at a detention center, conducted by a police of the local police station or even by security guards. Upon approval, these measures may play a role in prevention predetention torture.

Since the exclusionary rules were passed, the scope of excludable evidence is becoming narrower, and this is not a sheer coincidence. According to Art. 43 of the 1996 CPL It shall be strictly forbidden to export confessions by torture and to collect evidence by threat, enticement, deceit or other unlawful means. However, the 2010 exclusionary rules provide that illegal oral testimonies include confessions obtained through illegal means such as extorting confessions through torture as well as witness testimony or victim statements obtained through illegal means such as use of violence or threats. The new draft, by incorporating the scope of illegal evidence stipulated by the 2010 exclusionary rules, has actually diminished the scope of illegally obtained evidence established in the 1996 CPL. This raises the question of whether or not confessions obtained thourgh threat, enticement and deceit fall under the scope of illegally obtained evidence and therefore should be suppressed.

INTERROGATION
The lawyer is still not entitled to be present when interrogation takes place.
The largest achievement of the amendments may be in this area. The draft grants suspects the right to retain a defense lawyer (who can act as a defender) as early as at the investigative stage. Under current law, a lawyer retained can only act in the capacity of a defender once the prosecution stage begins. At the investigative stage, a lawyer can only give “advice” but not question the suspect.[25]

Forced self-incrimination will be strictly prohibited. In fact, extorting confessions by torture is already prohibited but the changes made this time clearly state that a suspect's rights must be protected.

Criminal suspects are now protected from self-incrimination. This is one of the changes which appears in a draft amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law discussed by the country's top legislators.

Rules for the testimonies of the suspects' close relatives will also be amended. Soon, unless the case can endanger state security and public interest, the parents, children and spouses of the suspects can refuse to testify.[26]

4. Cases of torture in China Case 1 The People's Procuratorate of Wuzhong City v. Chen Lihong, Li Manlin, Xiong Zhaoqi, Xu Erxi, and He Yiqing (Case of Willful and Malicious Injury and Extorting Confessions by torture) Chen Lihong, Li Manlin, Xiong Zhaoqi, Xu Erxi, and He Yiqing, were suspected of being involved in the crime of willful and malicious injury and extorting confessions by torture.\

From 10 p.m. January 28, 2007 to 2 a.m. in the next day, Shao Qingqing, Bie Jianning and Wang Fei, the suspects involved in the crime of forcible seizure and pillage were arrested by the patrol police brigade of Yuanzhou District Sub-bureau, Public Security Bureau of Guyuan City and then were delivered to Zhongshan Street Police Station for interrogation. During the interrogation of Shao Qingqing, the defendants Chen Lihong and Li Manlin extorted confessions through violent means such as tying him up by rope, kicking his chest by foot and beating his chest and back by baton, etc. for four hours. During the period, the defendants Xiong Zhaoqi and Xu Erxi also participated in extorting confessions from Shao Qingqing by torture, such as tying him by rope, kicking him by foot and beating him by baton, etc. When interrogating Bie Jianning, the defendant He Yiqing extorted confessions through beating his legs by baton. Shao Qingqing and Bie Jianning were sent to be detained in the detention house of Guyuan City in the afternoon of January 29. Shao Qingqing had the symptoms of leg ache and ache all over the body, etc. on February 1, 2007 and the doctor in the detention house offered him medical treatment. However, at 18:15 February 2, Shao Qingqing's situation deteriorated and he died after being sent to the hospital for rescue. Upon medicolegal identification, Shao Qingqing died from respiratory and circulatory failure due to pulmonary contusion, secondary pulmonary abscess and multiple organ infection all over the body, since his chest and back suffered from blunt external strikes.

The Intermediate People's Court of Wuzhong City formed a collegiate bench pursuant to law and publicly tried this case on May 12, 2008. Upon trial, the court held that:

The defendants Chen Lihong, Li Manlin, Xiong Zhaoqi, Xu Erxi and He Yiqing, as public security officers, extorted confessions from suspects of the crime of forcible seizure by torture, which led to the death of Shao Qingqing, the victim, due to respiratory and circulatory failure. The defendants Chen Lihong, Li Manlin, Xiong Zhaoqi and Xu Erxi jointly extorted confessions by torture, which led to the victim's death. Their behaviors have constituted the crime of willful and malicious injury (causing death) and shall be imposed on heavier punishments pursuant to law. The behaviors of the defendant, He Yiqing, have constituted the crime of extorting confessions by torture. The criminal facts of all defendants charged by the public prosecution organ were clear and the evidence was true and sufficient. The accusation was well founded and would be adopted. In the joint offence, the two defendants Chen Lihong and Li Manlin played a major role, so they were principals; the two defendants Xiong Zhaoqi and Xu Erxi played a secondary role, so they were accomplices and should be imposed on lighter punishments pursuant to law. As the defendant, Xu Erxi, showed a good attitude in confession and repentance and the defendant, He Yiqing, committed the crime with relatively minor circumstances, they may be given lighter punishments.

In accordance with provisions of Article 247, Article 234, Paragraph 1 of Article 25, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 4 of Article 26, Article 27, Article 72 and Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3 of Article 73 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuzhong City made the following judgment on May 27, 2008:

(1) The defendant, Chen Lihong, who committed the crime of willful and malicious injury, shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of fifteen years. (2) The defendant, Li Manlin, who committed the crime of willful and malicious injury, shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of thirteen years. (3) The defendant, Xiong Zhaoqi, who committed the crime of willful and malicious injury, shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of eight years. (4) The defendant, Xu Erxi, who committed the crime of willful and malicious injury, shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of three years with five-year probation. (5) The defendant, He Yiqing, who committed the crime of extorting confessions by torture, shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of two years with three-year probation.

The defendants, Chen Lihong, Li Manlin, Xiong Zhaoqi, Xu Erxi and He Yiqing did not accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.

The Higher People's Court of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region formed a collegiate bench pursuant to law to review this case. Upon review, the court held that:

The appellants Chen Lihong, Li Manlin, Xiong Zhaoqi, Xu Erxi, as public security officers, violated the law in law enforcement during their performance of official functions, extorted confessions from Shao Qingqing, the victim, through tying, kicking, illegal use of baton and other means, which finally led to his death due to respiratory and circulatory failure. Their behaviors have constituted the crime of willful and malicious injury (causing death). When interrogating Bie Jianming, the criminal suspect, the appellant, He Yiqing, as a law enforcement officer, illegally used police equipment to beat him up and extorted confessions and his behaviors have constituted the crime of extorting confessions by torture. The judgment of the first instance was clear in fact-finding, sufficient in evidence, correct in conviction, proper in sentencing, legal in procedure and correct in the application of laws.

In accordance with provisions of Article 189 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Higher People's Court of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region made the following ruling on July 31, 2008: the appeal of Chen Lihong, Li Manlin, Xiong Zhaoqi, Xu Erxi and He Yiqing shall be rejected and the original judgment shall be affirmed.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

- to move away from a confession-based prosecution system, - use independent monitors at detention centres and - allow suspects earlier access to lawyers. "This isn't rocket science," he said. "It's what the government should do if it's serious about eradicating torture."[27]
Mr Nowak welcomed an apparent decline in the incidence of torture, as well as improved police training. But one big problem, he said, was that officers remained under heavy pressure to obtain confessions. Even after imprisonment, those who refuse to admit guilt are subjected to "re-education", aimed at breaking their will. Mr Nowak called this "inhumane and degrading punishment".
Legal experts say the draft amendment will help improve human rights protection of criminal suspects after repeated cases of forced confessions and miscarriages of justice in China.
Solutions aminorar la pena si confiesan…better systems of confesion.

INVESTIGATION

THE ROLE OF THE CONFESSION
Poor investigative techniques, [28]

PROCEDURE

Preliminary investigation: Chinese procurators report that the first stage in any criminal case is the preliminary investigation, which begins after a criminal activity is reported. Articles 84 and 85 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) make clear that the police and the procuratorate should make provisions for receiving such reports, while CPL Article 84 specifically grants citizens the right and imposes the duty to make such reports.

-----------------------
[1] See more China’s Criminal Justice System: A work in progress, Ira Belkin, Washington Journal of Modern China, page 61.
[2] www.hrw.org/world-report-2010/china
[3] See more in legislation part
[4] This process consisted on police holding a suspect indefinitely while investigating the person's true identity.” China's Criminal Justice System: A Work in Progress Ira Belkin
[5] TINI TRAN Associated Press Write, 05.14.2010
[6]In 2005, She Xianglin was compensated $67,000 after being in jail 11 years for murdering his wife, that also reappeared. He also stated that he was tortured to confess.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Paper of torture de CSHRS
[13] The Right degree of Pain in Imperial China
[14]
[15] Analects
[16]
[17] Analects XIII
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Ira
[25] Change and challenge for Chinese Criminal Procedure Law reform, Prof. Guo Zhiyuan, US-Asia Law institute, NYU School of Law, 2011
[26] http://www.china.org.cn/video/2011-08/25/content_23280002.htm
[27] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/03/china.jonathanwatts
[28] Challenges and Problems on Chinese Work against Torture, by the China Society for Human Rights Studies, 2008