SECTION ONE

The Chinese judicial system has fallen short in its obligation to protect the rights of juveniles in a variety of ways. Although individuals under the age of 18 should not be subjected to forms of incarceration and punishment commonly used for adults, we have documented cases in which the Chinese government -- in order to protect authorities guilty of abusing minors -- has either jailed juveniles or circumvented the official process of the judicial system to their detriment.

Although police officers, members of the judicial system, and government officials are all supposed to protect the rights of anyone identified as a minor, abuses of power and instances of corruption are common in the Chinese judicial system. The result is a system that often ignores both the official process of the law, and the basic distinction that should exist between judicial actions that involve juveniles and adults.

The following cases are only indicators of the sorts of abuses that have occurred, and continue to occur, within the Chinese judicial system.

CASE 1

On the night of September 17, 2001 , an argument erupted between a boy named Lan and a fruit seller over the price of some goods. The boy proceeded to run away with the fruit and the grocer’s money bag. Lan was quickly apprehended and severely beaten. Later examinations revealed extensive subcutaneous hemorrhaging near Lan’s upper vertebrae, muscle putrescence at the second and third ribs, along with damage to both eyes and the right ankle. Lan was then escorted to nearby Hanyang Police Station around 10pm .

The following day, September 18, 2001 , the Fuan County Police Station took custody of Lan and placed him in the Fuan Detention Center . Lan’s mother argued that her son should be released on bail because he suffered from epilepsy. The police refused all requests for bail.

On Sept 19, 2001 , Lan began to suffer from epileptic seizures while being arraigned by the police. After remaining unconscious for more than a day, the policemen arranged for an injection to be administered.

On Sept 20, 2001 , the Fuan Detention Center suggested to the police that Lan be released on bail when a warden discovered that Lan’s condition had become so extreme that he could no longer control his bowels. At 4pm that day, Lan’s mother was informed she could take her son home.

When she arrived at the Fuan Detention Center she discovered Lan lying on the cement floor in a deep coma, near death. At 6pm , the Police sent Lan to Ningde No.1 Hospital. However, treatment was delayed while the Fuan Police Station and the the Fuan Detention Center quarreled over who would cover the cost of Lan’s medical bills. Over five hours later, at 11:20pm , Lan’s mother managed to acquire enough money to gain her son’s admittance to the hospital. Unfortunately, during the long delay things had grown hopeless. Lan died at 4:20am the next morning.

On March 14, 2002 , Lan’s mother asked Fuan police for compensation for her son’s death, but was refused. She applied a second time on May 20, but was refused once more. On Oct.10, Lan’s mother applied to the Ningde Court ; she is still waiting for a decision.

CASE 2

On 28 June 2000 , 14 year old Li relieved himself outside of the classroom at his school. As punishment, he was beaten with a stick by his teacher. By the time someone arrived at the scene in order to help Li, he had already passed out. He was taken to the hospital to be treated for the resulting injuries, but died shortly thereafter.

The school principal quickly called a staff meeting, at which he required all employees to agree to report that Li had committed suicide by drinking poison. The principal later required the same of all students.

In order to destroy any evidence, the township judicial authorities demanded that Li’s parents cremate their son’s body (they did not). Eight days after Li died, officials from the Huayuan Township Bureau of Justice came to the village party secretary’s home, and forced Li’s father to sign an agreement supporting the conclusions of the school and local government.

Under this pressure, Li’s father signed the agreement. However, Li’s mother did not sign the agreement. She took the first steps in the petitioning process, to rectify the injustice, and, as a result, sustained serious injuries from local officials. In order to avoid further abuse, the family moved away from their hometown.

In the meantime, the Guangrao County Court and Bureau of Justice conducted an autopsy that failed to confirm the government’s claim that Li’s death was an instance of “death by poison.” Unfortunately, these examination results were never given to the victims’ family.

SECTION TWO

The Chinese petitioning system based upon the Constitution is a unique process meant to offer ordinary citizens an opportunity to officially register their grievances with structures of authority or private individuals.

However, the justice-seeking process for the petitioners is often painful and generally compounds, rather than mitigates, violations of human rights. Petitioners are arbitrarily thrown into jail, placed in re-education through labor camps, harassed by local officials, or even subjected to torture. At times they are forcibly displaced from the petitioning location and repatriated.

Unsurprisingly, this system of petitioning has a serious impact on the lives of children. When families are uprooted and subjected to the possibility of punishment, as listed above, children are either directly or indirectly affected by the process. For instance, when a parent is forcibly detained or relocated, a child is either relocated or forcibly separated from a parent, thus violating an internally accepted right to the unity of the family. A variety of rights violations suffered by children involved in the petitioning process include:

A) Being forced to live in extremely poor environments along with parents/ petitioners;

B) Loss of the opportunity to access education;

C) Discrimination that occurs as a result of parental involvement in the petitioning process;

D) Denial of access to adequate health care;

E) Being taken into police custody or taken to jail with parents;

These abuses primarily occur because petitioners are often forced to have their children accompany them throughout the petitioning process. Petitioning involves constant contact with authorities and taking up temporary residence in Beijing . Due to these demands, the system uproots lives and becomes a full-time occupation. If a parent seeks redress through the petitioning system, and therefore must travel to Beijing , children are either left without parental care, forced to live with a geographically divided family, or must uproot their own lives to travel with their parents. This last scenario is especially true of families in which both parents are involved in the petitioning process as seen in Cases 3 and 4 below.

The following cases provide a glimpse into the world of families with children who are forced into the petitioning process, giving examples of the direct and indirect violations of children’s rights that occur as a result of these situations.

CASE 3

Huang, a woman from Chong Qing, traveled with her husband and their family to sell produce in Fujian Province .. In November of 2000, her husband was assaulted by prisoners at a labor reform camp that was supervised by Liangbu Farm in Fujian Province . Due to the incident, the parents, and their two-year old child, were forced to relocate to Beijing in order to petition for justice.

At the time of the move, Huang was 6 months pregnant and after two months of petitioning she gave birth in Beijing . At the time of documentation, the family was living in a home consisting of three cloth sheets joined to create a small shed (in Shangfang village). This form of shelter is typical of the inadequate living conditions found in petitioning villages, conditions which are a catalyst for health problems.

In order to provide for their family, the Huang parents gather wild plants, scraps of food from trash piles or pan-handle on the streets. The infant is fed powdered milk donated by Christian charities, due to the fact that the mother is incapable of producing milk.

The availability of health care and education in the petitioner village are extremely limited. One of the Huang family’s children burned a large portion of her body in a cooking accident. As a result of inadequate medical care, the burns on her thighs became infected. The Huang family would also like to send their children to school, but are unable to afford it.

Huang’s husband has fallen quite ill and thus Huang must bring the children along when she attempts the petitioning process. She fears that if left unattended, the children might be abducted and sold.

The chances of the family winning their lawsuit are very slim. Huang believes she has put her children at a disadvantage by placing them in such an environment, but there is no other way to achieve justice.

CASE 4

Mr. Zhang, of Shangxi Province , filed a complaint against the corruption and abuse of power by the party secretary and chief of his village. The village chief has a history of extortion, having sold large amounts of public property for personal gain. Furthermore, in order to cover up the corruption he has violently attacked local whistleblowers. Zhang was one of the men attacked by the village leader for proclaiming his rights.

On Jan. 31, 2002 , Zhang and his family were having dinner in their home when the village chief, along with six hired men, went to Zhang’s house with an axe and a hammer. Thinking Zhang’s brother was Zhang himself, the group attacked him with a hammer. Zhang’s brother fought back and in defense, killed one member of the group. In response to this act of self defense, Zhang’s brother was arrested and put into jail.

Fearing further violence against his family, Zhang brought his two sons and his brothers’ two daughters with him to Beijing as he began the petitioning process. His petition contests the violation of his rights by local party leaders, the violent actions taken by village party leaders, and the unlawful imprisonment of his brother.

Once in Beijing , the Zhang children were taken into custody by the police and government officials. While in custody, the officials failed to feed them, leaving the children no option other than to live in the street.

All four of the children have dropped out of school and only Zhang’s wife has been able to only occasionally teach the children basic lessons. Periodically the family has been able to save enough money to put the children into school for a few months at a time.

Currently the children are living with their parents in a petitioner village located at the south railway station of Beijing , where beds are shared with dozens of other people. The family relies on donations and garbage scraps for food, and the children are often sick due to the poor living conditions. Medical treatment is too expensive to afford.

Additionally, during their petitioning process Zhang and his family have been detained by officials several times. Such detentions have generally involved a day in closed quarters without food or drink. The children have been taken into custody along with their parents.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to the fact that a functional, independent judiciary does not yet exist, the Chinese petitioning system is still a necessary evil. At the moment it is the best potential means by which individuals can seek redress of their grievances, and it is provided for under the Chinese constitution.  Although it can bring about a variety of indirect violations of children's rights, it also offers both children and parents their only chance of redress for human rights abuse.

As the only system currently in existence that has the potential , the Chinese government should make it a priority to both protect petitioner's rights and streamline and strengthen the system.  An efficient and responsive petitioning system should be able to provide redress for violations like those seen in Cases 1 and 2 above, and a concentration on protecting the rights of petitioners should mitigate the abuses suffered within the lifestyles of children illustrated in Cases 3 and 4.

The Chinese government has recently taken steps to reform the petitioning system, by issuing the New Petitioning Rules Act. Although this Act claims to protect petitioners' rights, in fact, it has significantly curtailed traditional rights enjoyed by petitioners. It forbids petitioners to form advocacy groups, and discourages or punishes petitioners who complain, within or outside the system, to higher authorities.

We fear these steps are merely cosmetic, and aim to eventually eliminate the petitioning system, by weakening the power of the petitioners.  Often when critiquing the Chinese judicial system, human rights groups point to the petitioning system.  However, a complete elimination of the system is simply not practical in the current Chinese context.

The petitioning system is being neglected.   China 's judiciary system, especially in its operations outside of Beijing , is mired in corruption. The petitioning system, albeit originally conceived as a
short-term historical stay, can easily become more effectual. While the central Government works on reforming the current judicial process, the petitioning system should serve as an interim system.  Were Beijing to increase its intake of cases and the impartiality of its verdicts, China 's judicial system would have made great strides.

It is for the central Government to set the tone.  Along the path to a proper and independent rule of law in China , an accountable and reliable petitioning system is an\excellent chance to set a precedent.  Through the process of actualizing a functional petitioning system, the Government can learn many valuable lessons about how to implement and enforce reliable judiciary bodies at the local level.

Additionally, an open and fair dialogue with Chinese citizens from across the nation has the ability to aid the Government in learning about the shortcomings of current policies and the ways in which they can be remedied.  Some may hesitate to give more power to Beijing , but the absence of responsible power is what has resulted in failed judiciaries.

The petitioning system is a temporary step, but during that temporary period, providing schooling, minimal healthcare, and affordable food is a reasonable request.  A petitioning village is neither a long-term solution nor a welfare system; however, neither should it be a refugee camp.

STATISTICS

The following statistics were gathered in Beijing ’s petitioning village, which is located a short distance south of the South Railway Station. 10 families with 21 children answered questions about various conditions in the petitioning village, and its effect on the lives of their children. The families we spoke with were petitioning against instances of corruption, violence, and abuse by local officials, labor rights, appeals of earlier judicial decisions and incidents of homicide.

86% of children described their parents’ efforts to petition as “a painful situation”.

While 80.9% of children were enrolled in school before the petitioning process, only 28.6% were consistently schooled after beginning the petitioning process.

Prior to entering the petitioning process, 76.2% of children had permanent shelter. 19.0% reported having stable housing after entering the petitioning process.

61.9% reported having lived on the street or in a shed at some point during the petitioning process.

29% children reported having been imprisoned/detained with their parents.

62% of children reported differential treatment as a result of parental involvement in the petitioning process. Of those 62%, 53.8% reported that their treatment included revenge by defendants in petitioner cases.

Only 19% children reported having a consistently normal diet. Generally, only infants of mothers who are still lactating have proper infant care.

76.2% children reported strong hatred for the police and the government.

57.1% children reported having scavenged or begged for money at some point during the petitioning process.

38.0% children reported frequent colds and fevers.

One particularly frightening report: after being detained in Zhongnanhai (the Central government headquarters; the home of the premier and the president) an entire family, including 3 children, were detained for 17 hours without food or water.

Article 41 of the Constitution stipulates that citizens have “the right to criticize and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints or charges against, or exposures of, any state organ or functionary for violation of the law or dereliction of duty, but fabrication or distortion of facts for purposes of libel or false incrimination is prohibited. The state organ concerned must deal with complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts.”