[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          ACCESS TO JUSTICE

=======================================================================

                               EXCERPTED

                               FROM THE

                           2015 ANNUAL REPORT

                                 OF THE
                                 
              CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 8, 2015

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China
 
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov
                     
                               ___________
                               
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-306 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2016                    

________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, 
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, 
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). 
E-mail, [email protected].  




                    LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS

House

                                     Senate

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,    MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman
Chairman                             JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina     TOM COTTON, Arkansas
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                STEVE DAINES, Montana
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             BEN SASSE, Nebraska
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California         JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TED LIEU, California                 GARY PETERS, Michigan

                     EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS

                 CHRISTOPHER P. LU, Department of Labor
                   SARAH SEWALL, Department of State
                STEFAN M. SELIG, Department of Commerce
                 DANIEL R. RUSSEL, Department of State
                  TOM MALINOWSKI, Department of State

                     Paul B. Protic, Staff Director

                Elyse B. Anderson, Deputy Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                           Access to Justice
 
                              Introduction

    Chinese citizens continued to turn to the legal system for 
help when they were harmed by environmental hazards,\1\ unsafe 
food,\2\ discrimination,\3\ and other causes.\4\ Chinese law 
allows citizens to use the legal system to dispute unlawful 
government acts.\5\ International human rights instruments, 
such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, likewise 
call for the ability of citizens to obtain effective legal 
remedies when their rights are violated.\6\ During the 2015 
reporting year, however, the Commission observed a persistent 
gap between the Chinese government's rhetoric regarding the 
importance of laws and the actual ability of citizens to use 
the legal system to protect their rights.\7\ Recent judicial 
reforms indicate recognition by the Chinese government that the 
current system is dysfunctional,\8\ and official media has 
touted that the revised PRC Administrative Litigation Law 
``will make it easier for citizens to take the government to 
court.'' \9\ It is too soon, however, to determine fully the 
impact of these developments. Teng Biao, a Chinese lawyer, 
explained that ``[t]he major problem with rule of law in 
mainland China is not establishing legal provisions but rather 
implementing laws.'' \10\

                 The Fourth Plenum and Judicial Reforms

    In October 2014, the Chinese Communist Party's leaders 
gathered for the Fourth Plenum of the 18th Party Congress 
Central Committee and issued the Decision on Several Major 
Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law (Fourth Plenum Decision).\11\ The purposes of 
the Fourth Plenum Decision, according to the government's June 
2015 report on ``Progress in China's Human Rights in 2014,'' 
were ``to protect civic rights, to defend human dignity and to 
put basic human rights into practice.'' \12\ The Fourth Plenum 
Decision reportedly underscored President and Party General 
Secretary Xi Jinping's effort to boost public confidence in the 
legal system \13\ by outlining a number of structural reforms 
to judicial institutions, including: \14\

          Emphasizing that judges should not be removed 
        except for legal reasons and unless legal procedures 
        are followed; \15\
          Creating a ``lifetime'' (zhongshen) 
        responsibility system whereby judges are responsible 
        throughout their careers for cases that they 
        adjudicated; \16\
          Ensuring that courtroom hearings play a 
        decisive role in ascertaining facts and impartial 
        adjudication,\17\ which could entail reconsidering the 
        role of court ``adjudication committees'' (shenpan 
        weiyuanhui) that currently can instruct judges on how 
        to decide certain cases; \18\
          Introducing a model whereby judges are 
        promoted from lower courts; \19\
          Changing from a ``case filing review system'' 
        (li'an shencha zhi) to a ``case filing registration 
        system'' (li'an dengji zhi); \20\ and
          Establishing ``circuit tribunals'' (xunhui 
        fating) to try major administrative or civil commercial 
        cases involving more than one province.\21\ Two of 
        these tribunals reportedly heard their first cases by 
        May 2015.\22\

    The Fourth Plenum Decision also endorsed improving the 
legal aid system and expanding the scope of aid, with the 
stated objective of ensuring that citizens may obtain timely 
and effective legal assistance when their rights were infringed 
upon.\23\ This past year, the Commission observed efforts with 
respect to the provision of legal aid in at least one domestic 
violence case,\24\ a development that coincided with the public 
release of the draft PRC Anti-Domestic Violence Law.\25\ At 
present, however, the scope of government-funded legal aid 
remains limited. For example, free legal assistance is 
available to criminal defendants only when the defendant is 
facing life imprisonment or death \26\ or when certain 
vulnerable populations like minors or people who are blind, 
deaf, or mute are involved.\27\ Amendments to the laws 
governing civil and administrative cases that restrict the 
ability of non-lawyers to represent parties also reportedly may 
cause citizens to try to resolve their grievances outside the 
legal system.\28\ Such ``barefoot'' non-lawyers offer an 
alternative source of assistance when litigants cannot afford 
or find lawyers to take their cases.\29\
    In February 2015, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) publicly 
released its fourth five-year reform plan (SPC Reform 
Plan),\30\ which echoed themes in the Fourth Plenum 
Decision.\31\ The SPC Reform Plan called for establishing 
mechanisms to prevent official interference in judicial 
activities,\32\ but articles in state- and Party-run Chinese 
media emphasized that the Chinese government was not adopting a 
model of judicial independence based on the United States or 
other Western nations.\33\ SPC President Zhou Qiang said that 
courts must ``resolutely resist the influence of mistaken 
Western viewpoints and ways of thinking . . . .'' \34\ The 
Fourth Plenum Decision indicated the Party's continuing 
interaction with the courts by calling on the Party to 
``support the courts and procuratorates in exercising their 
functions and authorities independently and fairly according to 
the law.'' \35\ Furthermore, the Fourth Plenum Decision called 
on the Party's political-legal committees to continue to 
``ensure that China's Constitution and laws are implemented 
correctly and uniformly.'' \36\ Reports indicate that the 
committees' interference might be decreasing,\37\ but a spate 
of recent resignations by judges \38\ is attributed in part to 
complaints about outside interference in their work.\39\
    During the reporting year, the government and Party 
similarly took a hardline stance against ``Western'' 
constitutionalism,\40\ despite the Fourth Plenum Decision's use 
of language on the importance of China's Constitution \41\ and 
the Chinese government's declaration that ``Constitution Day'' 
would be commemorated on December 4.\42\ The ability of 
citizens to invoke the Constitution as a basis for challenging 
government actions remains limited.\43\ The National People's 
Congress Standing Committee has exclusive power to interpret 
and supervise enforcement of China's Constitution.\44\
    The extent to which the Fourth Plenum Decision and SPC 
Reform Plan will ultimately translate into concrete 
improvements in the judicial system remains unclear. Scholars 
have debated the significance of the Fourth Plenum Decision--
including what is meant by ``advancing governance of the 
country according to law'' \45\--when, as noted by scholars in 
a July 2015 Asia Policy roundtable, the Decision ``also 
underscores the [Party's] sustained leadership over the Chinese 
legal system.'' \46\ One U.S. expert on Chinese law raised 
questions concerning how to reconcile the Fourth Plenum 
Decision's support for the importance of the legal system with 
the crackdown on freedoms of expression, assembly, and 
association observed this past year.\47\

                         Judicial Transparency

    The theme of government transparency runs throughout the 
Fourth Plenum Decision.\48\ The Chinese government began 
implementing the Open Government Information Regulations in 
2008,\49\ but citizens have continued to face substantial 
obstacles when seeking information from the government.\50\ The 
SPC had likewise previously been slow to increase transparency 
and did not create a national online database until 2013.\51\ 
[For more information on government transparency, see Section 
III--Institutions of Democratic Governance.]
    This past year, the judiciary emphasized mechanisms for 
enhancing transparency. In March 2015, the SPC issued a white 
paper on judicial transparency that called for greater access 
to trials, increased use of electronic filing systems, and 
expanded access to case decisions.\52\ When releasing the white 
paper, He Xiaorong, office director of the SPC Judicial Reform 
Leading Group, told reporters that, by the end of 2014, Chinese 
courts had uploaded nearly six million court judgments to the 
public database.\53\ Access to such a vast pool of cases could 
help to ``develop a body of precedents to guide the legal 
community and create judicial transparency and accountability 
to address public concerns about the fairness of the litigation 
system,'' according to a December 2014 post on the American 
Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai website.\54\
    The SPC released its 10th batch of ``guiding cases'' in 
April 2015.\55\ In June 2015, the SPC issued rules specifying 
how judges should refer to guiding cases in subsequent 
cases.\56\ The rules explained that judges should respond when 
parties raise guiding cases when arguing their positions to the 
court,\57\ and SPC officials reportedly ``stressed the use of 
referential precedent to ensure fairer judgements.'' \58\

                 Citizen Petitioning and Revisions to 
                   the Administrative Litigation Law

    The PRC Administrative Litigation Law (ALL),\59\ which 
provides a framework for citizens to challenge government 
actions in court,\60\ underwent significant revisions during 
the past reporting year.\61\ Application of the law, which 
initially took effect 25 years ago,\62\ was hindered by common 
barriers referred to as the ``three difficulties'' (san nan): 
difficulties in filing cases, trying cases, and enforcing 
judgments.\63\ Following passage by the National People's 
Congress Standing Committee in November 2014, revisions to the 
ALL took effect on May 1, 2015.\64\ Revised provisions 
included, among others:

         Expanding the scope of permitted cases by 
        eliminating the ``specific administrative act'' 
        requirement in the previous version of the ALL; \65\
         Listing 12 areas for which legal proceedings 
        may be launched against the government, such as alleged 
        violations of agreements on land and housing 
        compensation, disputes over administrative detention, 
        and abuse of administrative power; \66\ and
         Requiring that a representative of the 
        relevant administrative agency appear in court.\67\

    Announcement of the amendments was followed by an April 
2015 SPC interpretation that provided additional guidance on 
issues such as procedures for filing cases and examples of 
litigation demands that meet the legal standard.\68\ The 
Commission has not observed statistics establishing whether 
these recent reforms have begun to address long-standing 
obstacles to administrative cases.
    Chinese official media expressed hope that a byproduct of 
the ALL revisions would be to increasingly funnel citizen 
complaints away from the petitioning (xinfang) system--through 
which individuals with grievances seek redress from government 
officials \69\--and toward the courts.\70\ According to a 
November 2014 media report, more than 4 million petitions 
involving administrative disputes have been filed annually.\71\ 
Wang Cailiang, a lawyer and deputy director of the All China 
Lawyers Association Administrative Law Committee, told the 
media, ``With the [ALL] amendment, many more people would see 
the courts as an avenue to seek justice, instead of going to 
Beijing hoping to talk to officials.'' \72\
    The basic legal framework for the petitioning system--the 
2005 Regulations on Letters and Visits (2005 Regulations)--
remained unchanged during the 2015 reporting year.\73\ The 
Party and government continued to discuss proposals that were 
addressed during the 2014 reporting year,\74\ including with 
respect to channeling law and litigation-related petitions 
through legal channels \75\ and increasing the use of online 
petitioning.\76\ In May 2015, the Ministry of Justice issued 
the Opinion Regarding Further Strengthening Law- and 
Litigation-Related Petition Work and the Measures on Judicial 
and Administrative Agencies To Conclude Petitioning 
Matters.\77\ Also in May 2015, the State Bureau for Letters and 
Visits announced plans to consider drafting a petitioning law 
to improve the 2005 Regulations.\78\

                 Harassment and Abuse of Human Rights 
                      and Public Interest Lawyers

    During the 2015 reporting year, the Chinese government used 
criminal investigations and charges against citizens who 
engaged in activities that allegedly threatened the existing 
political system.\79\ Lawyers who represented people seeking to 
safeguard their rights \80\ also faced reprisals.\81\ In 
December 2014, for example, hundreds of lawyers signed a letter 
protesting the detention of lawyer Zhang Keke after he openly 
invoked in court the rights to freedom of speech and religion 
provided for in China's Constitution.\82\ In May 2015, the 
government charged public interest lawyer Pu Zhiqiang with 
``inciting ethnic hatred'' \83\ and ``picking quarrels and 
provoking trouble'' \84\ related to comments from his microblog 
accounts.\85\ Pu was among the 14 Chinese civil rights 
advocates profiled in a 2005 issue of the Hong Kong-based Asia 
Weekly.\86\ According to the Economist, ``All of the activists 
pictured on the magazine's cover have since been imprisoned, 
detained, beaten or threatened, except for one lawyer who had 
already fled the country into exile in Canada.'' \87\
    Other cases of concern during the 2015 reporting year 
included:

          Xia Lin. Public security officers in Beijing 
        municipality took lawyer Xia Lin into custody in 
        November 2014 and subsequently criminally detained him 
        on suspicion of ``fraud.'' \88\ Chinese Human Rights 
        Defenders raised concerns that Xia's ongoing detention 
        may be retaliation for representing Pu Zhiqiang and Guo 
        Yushan, founder of the NGO Transition Institute.\89\
          Tang Jingling. In May 2014, public security 
        officials in Baiyun district, Guangzhou city, Guangdong 
        province, took human rights lawyer Tang Jingling from 
        his home and later criminally detained him on suspicion 
        of ``picking quarrels and provoking trouble.'' \90\ 
        Authorities arrested Tang on the charge of ``inciting 
        subversion of state power.'' \91\ The trial of Tang and 
        two other rights advocates concluded in July 2015,\92\ 
        but authorities had not announced a verdict as of 
        September 2015. Tang gained prominence as a rights 
        lawyer working on cases related to land seizures and 
        corruption.\93\ His 2014 detention reportedly was 
        linked to a larger crackdown around the 25th 
        anniversary of the violent suppression of the 1989 
        Tiananmen protests.\94\
          Yu Wensheng. In October 2014, authorities 
        criminally detained Yu Wensheng, a well-known human 
        rights lawyer, on suspicion of ``picking quarrels and 
        provoking trouble.'' \95\ Reports suggested that Yu's 
        detention was linked to his efforts to meet with a 
        client whom authorities detained for his support of the 
        2014 pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.\96\ 
        Authorities released Yu in January 2015,\97\ but his 
        wife issued a statement in June 2015 reporting that 
        domestic security officials had been harassing Yu and 
        his family at their home.\98\
          Qu Zhenhong. In May 2014, public security 
        officials in Beijing took into custody lawyer Qu 
        Zhenhong, the niece and defense counsel for Pu 
        Zhiqiang, on suspicion of ``illegally gathering 
        citizens' information.'' \99\ Following her formal 
        arrest, authorities released Qu on bail in May 
        2015.\100\

    Despite the personal risks underscored by the cases 
described above, lawyers continued to provide advice to 
citizens who sought to access the legal system during this 
reporting year in cases that involve issues such as religious 
freedom,\101\ opposition to forced eviction,\102\ and freedom 
of speech and association.\103\ The mainland China-based China 
Human Rights Lawyers Group, members of which provide legal 
services to citizens who have been detained for exercising 
their civil rights,\104\ marked its one-year anniversary in 
September 2014 with 225 participating lawyers.\105\


          july 2015 crackdown on rights lawyers and advocates


    Beginning on July 9, 2015, Chinese authorities took into 
custody more than 200 lawyers and rights advocates within a 48-
hour time period in what appeared to be a nationwide, 
coordinated crackdown.\106\ As of September 1, 2015, 
authorities from 24 provinces and provincial-level 
municipalities had summoned for questioning, harassed, 
prevented from leaving China, or had taken into custody at 
least 300 lawyers, law firm staff, rights advocates, and some 
of their family members; 23 remained in detention or were being 
held under `` `residential surveillance' in unknown 
locations,'' according to Chinese Human Rights Defenders.\107\ 
The crackdown received widespread condemnation from foreign 
governments,\108\ international non-governmental organizations 
and bar associations,\109\ and scholars.\110\ In a letter to 
Chinese President and Communist Party General Secretary Xi 
Jinping that urged the immediate release of all of the detained 
individuals in the crackdown, the New York City Bar Association 
noted, ``Chinese law and international standards protect the 
rights of lawyers in China both to practice their profession 
and to carry out their professional duties to clients free of 
government interference. These detentions violate those 
standards and undermine the rule of law.'' \111\ [For 
information on some of the detained lawyers' cases, see Section 
I--Findings--Access to Justice.]
    Notes to Section III--Access to Justice

    \1\ ``Landmark Case on Lead Poisoning in Children Begins in 
China,'' Reuters, reprinted in Guardian, 12 June 15; Alexandra Harney, 
``Lead Poisoning Lawsuit Tests China's Resolve Over Pollution,'' 
Reuters, reprinted in The Age, 6 May 15; ``Wuhan Residents' Pollution 
Case Filed Against Guodingshan Garbage Incinerator Plant Seeking 7 Yuan 
Compensation'' [Wuhan jumin gao guodingshan laji fenshao chang wuran 
huo li'an, suopei 7 yuan], The Paper, 18 April 15; ``5 Lanzhou 
Residents Suing `Lanzhou Veolia' Are Finally Able To File Case'' 
[Lanzhou 5 shimin su ``yang shuiwu'' zhong huo li'an], Legal Daily, 26 
February 15. For other examples of citizens attempting to use the legal 
system to address environmental concerns, see Dominique Patton, 
``Chinese Citizens Sue Government Over Transparency on Monsanto 
Herbicide,'' Reuters, 8 April 15; ``Court Hearing China's Landmark NGO 
Environmental Lawsuit,'' China Daily, 15 May 15.
    \2\ Zheng Caixiong, ``Half of Poisoned Food Cases Involved Pork,'' 
China Daily, 10 July 15. Under the revised Food Safety Law, violators 
are liable for compensation when they cause harm to consumers. National 
People's Congress, PRC Food Safety Law [Zhonghua renmin gongheguo 
shipin anquan fa], passed 28 February 09, amended 24 April 15, 
effective 1 October 15, arts. 126, 147, 148.
    \3\ China Labour Bulletin, ``Plaintiff Awarded 2,000 Yuan by Court 
in Hangzhou Gender Discrimination Case,'' 13 November 14; China Labour 
Bulletin, ``Plaintiff Obtains 30,000 Yuan in China's First Gender 
Discrimination Lawsuit,'' 9 January 14.
    \4\ Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Court Work Report 
[Zuigao renmin fayuan gongzuo baogao], 12 March 15, 39. See also Susan 
Finder, ``Supreme People's Court President Says Court Reforms in `Deep 
Water Area,' '' Supreme People's Court Monitor (blog), 15 March 15.
    \5\ PRC Administrative Litigation Law [Zhonghua renmin gongheguo 
xingzheng susong fa], passed 4 April 89, amended 1 November 14, 
effective 1 May 15, art. 11; Supreme People's Court Interpretation 
Regarding Several Questions on the Application of the PRC 
Administrative Litigation Law [Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu shiyong 
``zhonghua renmin gongheguo xingzheng susong fa'' ruogan wenti de 
jieshi], issued 20 April 15, effective 1 May 15, art. 1. See also Kevin 
J. O'Brien and Li Lianjiang, ``Suing the State: Administrative 
Litigation in Rural China,'' China Journal, No. 51 (January 2004).
    \6\ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed 
by UN General Assembly resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 48, art. 8; 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted 
by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 66, entry 
into force 23 March 76, art. 2. China signed the ICCPR in 1998 but has 
not yet ratified it. ``Over One Hundred Lawyers and Citizens Urge 
National People's Congress To Ratify International Conventions on Human 
Rights and Enact Press Laws'' [Yu bai lushi ji gongmin yu renda pizhun 
guoji gongyue baozhang renquan ji banbu xinwen fa], Radio Free Asia, 10 
March 15.
    \7\ Rachel Lu, ``China's President Raises Eyebrows With Sharp 
Rhetoric on Rule of Law,'' Foreign Policy, TeaLeafNation (blog), 3 
February 15; Stanley Lubman, ``Chinese Rule of Law: The Rhetoric and 
the Reality,'' Wall Street Journal, China Real Time Report (blog), 4 
April 11.
    \8\ Susan Finder, ``China's Master Plan for Remaking Its Courts,'' 
The Diplomat, 26 March 15.
    \9\ Zhou Yu, ``Newly Amended Law Empowers Private Citizens To Sue 
Government,'' Global Times, 6 April 15. See also ``China Adopts 
Amendment to Administrative Procedure Law,'' Xinhua, 1 November 14; 
``Amendment to Administrative Procedure Law Hailed in China,'' Xinhua, 
24 December 13.
    \10\ ``Experts Pessimistic on CCP Fourth Plenum Proposals on Ruling 
the Country According to Law'' [Zhuanjia bu kanhao zhonggong si zhong 
quanhui tichu de yifa zhiguo], Radio Free Asia, 28 October 14.
    \11\ Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several 
Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa 
zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14. Various 
government agencies have issued follow-on documents. See, e.g., Supreme 
People's Procuratorate, Opinion Concerning Implementation of the 
``Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several Major 
Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country According 
to Law'' [Zuigao renmin jianchayuan guanyu guanche luoshi ``zhonggong 
zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de 
jueding'' de yijian], reprinted in Procuratorial Daily, 5 February 15; 
Supreme People's Court, Opinion Concerning Comprehensively Deepening 
People's Courts' Reform [Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu quanmian shenhua 
renmin fayuan gaige de yijian], issued 26 February 15.
    \12\ State Council Information Office, ``Progress in China's Human 
Rights in 2014,'' reprinted in Xinhua, 8 June 15.
    \13\ ``Xi Stresses Boosting Public Confidence in Judicial System,'' 
Xinhua, 25 March 15; Luo Shuzhen, ``Have Strength To Reform and 
Innovate; Continue To Improve Judicial Credibility, Allow the People in 
Each Judicial Case To Have the Feeling of Fair Justice'' [Yongyu gaige 
chuangxin buduan tigao sifa gongxinli rang renmin qunzhong zai mei yi 
ge sifa tiaojian zhong dou ganshou dao gongping zhengyi], China Court 
Net, 8 May 15.
    \14\ For additional judicial reforms raised in the Fourth Plenum 
Decision, see Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on 
Several Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the 
Country According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin 
yifa zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14, 
sec. 4 (``Guarantee Judicial Fairness, Raise Judicial Credibility''). 
The Fourth Plenum Decision did not propose increased centralization of 
court finances; instead, only limited local experimentation is 
underway. Wang Guibin, ``Shanghai Legal System Reform: Legal Inspection 
of Budget by Municipal Finance Bureau Administration'' [Shanghai sifa 
tizhi gaige: fajian yusuan you shi caizheng ju zhi guan], Beijing News, 
19 January 15; Supreme People's Court, ``Shanghai Deploys Pilot Program 
To Comprehensively Advance Legal System Reforms'' [Shanghai bushu 
quanmian tuijin sifa tizhi gaige shidian gongzuo], 24 April 15; Carl 
Minzner, ``Legal Reform in the Xi Jinping Era,'' Asia Policy, No. 20 
(July 2015), 6-7. Professor Donald Clarke noted that the centralization 
up to the provincial level of court finances and personnel appointments 
``is popular among [Chinese] legal academics but controversial among 
judges.'' Donald Clarke, ``The Fourth Plenum's `Decision': My Take,'' 
Chinese Law Prof Blog, 29 October 14. The centralization of court 
finances was reportedly considered following the Third Plenum of the 
18th Party Congress. See John Wagner Givens, Jamestown Foundation, 
``Fleshing Out the Third Plenum: The Direction of China's Legal 
Reform,'' China Brief, Vol. 14, No. 6, 21 March 14, 10.
    \15\ Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several 
Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa 
zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14, sec. 
4(1.3).
    \16\ Ibid., sec. 4(3.3).
    \17\ Ibid., sec. 4(3.2).
    \18\ Susan Finder, ``Where Is the Supreme People's Court Headed 
With Judicial Committee Reform?'' Supreme People's Court Monitor 
(blog), 21 December 14. For more information regarding the adjudication 
committee system and calls for its reform, see Zhu Lei, ``Committee 
Member Shi Jie's Proposal: Further Reform the System of Adjudication 
Committees'' [Shi jie weiyuan jianyi: jinyibu gaige shenpan weiyuanhui 
zhidu], Legal Daily, 6 March 15; Procedural Law Research Institute, 
China University of Political Science and Law, ``Consensus and 
Disagreement: Concerning Reform of the Court Adjudication Committee 
System'' [Gongshi yu fenqi: guanyu shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu gaige], 5 
May 15; ``Chen Ruihua: Mistakes in Justice--Comments on Court 
Adjudication Committee System'' [Chen ruihua: zhengyi de wuqu--ping 
fayuan shenpan weiyuanhui zhidu], Ai Sixiang, 11 October 11; Xin Frank 
He, ``China and Its Adjudication Committees,'' East Asia Forum, 3 
December 11.
    \19\ Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several 
Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa 
zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14, sec. 
6(1.3).
    \20\ Ibid., sec. 4(2.4). The Supreme People's Court subsequently 
issued provisions in April 2015. Zhang Ziyang, ``Supreme People's Court 
Issues `Provisions on Several Issues Regarding Case Registration and 
Filing' '' [Zuigao renmin fayuan gongbu ``guanyu renmin fayuan dengji 
li'an ruogan wenti de guiding''], Xinhua, reprinted in China News Net, 
16 April 15; Susan Finder, ``New Docketing Procedures Come to the 
Chinese Courts,'' Supreme People's Court Monitor (blog), 18 June 15.
    \21\ Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several 
Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa 
zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14, sec. 
4(2.3); Shannon Tiezzi, ``4 Things We Learned From China's 4th 
Plenum,'' The Diplomat, 23 October 14.
    \22\ ``Gavel Falls on Supreme People's Court First Circuit Court's 
First Case'' [Zuigao renmin fayuan diyi xunhui fating shou an luochui], 
People's Court Daily, reprinted in Xinhua, 5 May 15; ``Supreme People's 
Court Second Circuit Court Hears First Case in Shenyang'' [Zuigaofa 
di'er xunhui fating zai shenyang jin shen diyi an], China News Net, 
reprinted in People's Daily, 10 March 15.
    \23\ Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several 
Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa 
zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14, sec. 
5(3).
    \24\ See, e.g., ``Bozhou Establishes First Domestic Violence 
Shelter, Women Injured by Domestic Violence Can Receive Legal Aid'' 
[Bozhou chengli shoujia fan jiabao bihusuo; jiabao shouhai funu ke huo 
de falu yuanzhu], Bozhou Daily, reprinted in Hefei Hotline, 5 May 15.
    \25\ State Council Legislative Affairs Office, PRC Anti-Domestic 
Violence Law (Draft) (Draft for Comment) [Zhonghua renmin gongheguo fan 
jiating baoli fa (cao'an) (zhengqiu yijian gao)], 25 November 14; Simon 
Denyer, ``Battered Women in China Could Finally Get a Measure of Legal 
Protection,'' Washington Post, 6 March 15; ``China's Draft Domestic 
Violence Law `Largely Cosmetic': Feminists,'' Radio Free Asia, 30 July 
15; Liu Rong, ``Standing Committee of the National People's Congress 
Today Convened Its 16th Meeting, Anti-Domestic Violence Law Is Publicly 
Revealed'' [Quanguo renda changweihui jin zhaokai 16 ci hui fan jiabao 
fa chu liangxiang], People's Daily, reprinted in National People's 
Congress News Net, 24 August 15. For a report on how ordinary Chinese 
view domestic violence, see ``Heard in the Hutong: How Chinese View 
Domestic Violence,'' Wall Street Journal, China Real Time Report 
(blog), 8 May 15.
    \26\ PRC Criminal Procedure Law [Zhonghua renmin gongheguo xingshi 
susong fa], passed 1 July 79, amended 17 March 96, 14 March 12, 
effective 1 January 13, art. 34. See also Dui Hua Foundation, ``China's 
New Criminal Procedure Law: Death Penalty Procedures,'' Dui Hua Human 
Rights Journal, 3 April 12.
    \27\ PRC Criminal Procedure Law [Zhonghua renmin gongheguo xingshi 
susong fa], passed 1 July 79, amended 17 March 96, 14 March 12, 
effective 1 January 13, arts. 34, 266. See also ``New Issues and 
Countermeasures for Criminal Law Legal Aid System Following Revisions'' 
[Xingshi falu yuanzhu zhidu xiuding hou de xin wenti ji duice], China 
Court Net, reprinted in China Legal Aid Net, 13 May 14. For an example 
of a pro bono legal aid program see `` `Assistance Plan for the 
Wronged' Starting on Friday'' [``Mengyuanzhe yuanzhu jihua'' ben zhouwu 
qidong], Beijing Shangquan Law Firm (blog), 20 May 14.
    \28\ Aaron Halegua, ``China's Restrictions on Barefoot Lawyers 
Could Backfire,'' South China Morning Post, 29 March 15.
    \29\ Ibid.
    \30\ Supreme People's Court, Opinion on Comprehensively Deepening 
Reform of the People's Courts--Fourth Five-Year Outline for Reform of 
the People's Courts (2014-2018) [Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu quanmian 
shenhua renmin fayuan gaige de yijian--renmin fayuan disi ge wu nian 
gaige gangyao (2014-2018)], 4 February 15; Xu Juan, ``Supreme People's 
Court Releases Post-Revision `Fourth Five-Year Reform Plan' '' 
[Zuigaofa fabu xiuding hou de ``si wu gaige gangyao''], People's Daily, 
27 February 15. The Ministry of Public Security, Supreme People's 
Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Justice also issued reform plans. 
``Comprehensively Deepening Public Security Reform Includes 
Cancellation of Temporary Residency Permit System Among 15 Prominent 
Highlights'' [Quanmian shenhua gong'an gaige han'gai quxiao zanzhuzheng 
zhidu deng 15 ge tuchu liangdian], People's Daily, reprinted in Legal 
Daily, 16 February 15; ``Opinion Concerning Deepening Procuratorial 
Reforms (2013-2017 Work Plan) (2015 Revised Edition)'' [Guanyu shenhua 
jiancha gaige de yijian (2013-2017 nian gongzuo guihua) (2015 nian 
xiudingban)], Procuratorial Daily, 26 February 15; ``Outline of the 
Procuratorate Reform Plan,'' translated in China Law Translate (blog), 
27 February 15; Ministry of Justice, ``Ministry of Justice: Fully Exert 
Judicial and Administrative Offices' Functional Roles, Earnestly 
Complete Comprehensive Advancements Towards Rule of Law in All Work'' 
[Sifabu: chongfen fahui sifa xingzheng jiguan zhineng zuoyong, renzhen 
zuo hao quanmian tuijin yifa zhiguo gexiang gongzuo], 17 March 15.
    \31\ See, e.g., Supreme People's Court, Opinion on Comprehensively 
Deepening Reform of the People's Courts--Fourth Five-Year Outline for 
Reform of the People's Courts (2014-2018) [Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu 
quanmian shenhua renmin fayuan gaige de yijian--renmin fayuan disi ge 
wu nian gaige gangyao (2014-2018)], 4 February 15, sec. 3(3)17; Chinese 
Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several Major Issues in 
Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country According to Law 
[Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa zhiguo ruogan zhongda 
wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14.
    \32\ Supreme People's Court, Opinion on Comprehensively Deepening 
Reform of the People's Courts--Fourth Five-Year Outline for Reform of 
the People's Courts (2014-2018) [Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu quanmian 
shenhua renmin fayuan gaige de yijian--renmin fayuan disi ge wu nian 
gaige gangyao (2014-2018)], 4 February 15, para. 55. See also ``China 
Regulates Against Officials' Judicial Meddling,'' Xinhua, 30 March 15; 
Xing Shiwei, ``Leading Cadres' Lawbreaking and Judicial Interference 
Can Lead to Criminal Responsibility'' [Lingdao ganbu weifa ganyu sifa 
ke zhui xing ze], Beijing News, 31 March 15.
    \33\ Zhang Chunxian, ``Zhang Chunxian: Comprehensively Advance 
Ruling Xinjiang According to Law'' [Zhang chunxian: quanmian tuijin 
yifa zhi jiang], People's Daily, 7 January 15; Liu Ruifu, ``The 
Fundamental Differences Between China's Independent, Impartial Justice 
and Western Countries' `Judicial Independence' '' [Woguo duli gongzheng 
sifa yu xifang guojia ``sifa duli'' de genben qubie], Seeking Truth, 
reprinted in Xinhua, 26 December 14. See also Qian Gang, ``Who Gave 
`Judicial Independence' a Death Sentence?'' China Media Project, 14 
January 15; Sui-Lee Wee, ``China's Top Court Says No to West's Model of 
Judicial Independence,'' Reuters, 26 February 15.
    \34\ Wen Yaqiong, ``Supreme People's Court: Distinguish Clearly 
Between Western `Judicial Independence' and `Separation of Powers' '' 
[Zuigaofa: huaqing yu xifang ``sifa duli'' ``san quan dingli,'' 
jiexian], China Internet Information Center, 25 February 15; Josh Chin, 
``Don't Call It Western, China's Top Court Unveils Vision for Reform,'' 
Wall Street Journal, China Real Time Report (blog), 26 February 15.
    \35\ Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several 
Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa 
zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14, sec. 
4(1).
    \36\ Ibid., sec.7(1).
    \37\ ``Political-Legal Committees Carry Out 11 Reforms This Year: 
Leaders' Interference in Judicial Process Will Be Recorded'' 
[Zhengfawei jinnian jinxing 11 xiang gaige: lingdao ganyu sifa yao 
jilu], Xinhua, reprinted in Sina, 22 January 15; Qiu Rui, ``Mainland 
Political-Legal Committees Show Signs of Reform'' [Dalu zhengfawei 
xianlu gaige jixiang], Phoenix Weekly, 19 January 15; Keith Zhai, 
``Communist Party Committees Are Meddling Less in Courtrooms: Judges,'' 
South China Morning Post, 12 December 13; Song Shijing and Li 
Xiangrong, ``Politics and Law Committee Reform Accelerates, Advocating 
Rule of Law Thinking and Non-Intervention in Specific Cases'' 
[Zhengfawei gaige jiasu, changdao fazhi siwei bu jieru juti anjian], 
Beijing News, reprinted in People's Daily, 23 October 14. For a report 
on opposing views, see ``China's Judicial Reforms Won't Shake Party 
Hold on Courts: Experts,'' Radio Free Asia, 31 March 15.
    \38\ Ren Zhongyuan and Huang Ziyi, ``Shortage of Judges, Court 
Panic: Things Are Changing'' [Faguan huang, fayuan huang: shiqing zheng 
zai qi bianhua], Southern Weekend, 17 April 15; Wu Lina, ``Loss of 
Judges Serious, Can Salary Alone Get Modern `Judge Bao' To Stay?'' 
[Faguan liushi yanzhong dandu xinchou nengfou liuzhu xiandai ``bao 
gong''], Xinhua, reprinted in China Court Network, 15 April 15.
    \39\ Tan Mintao, ``Judicial Reforms Are Coming, Why Do Judges Still 
Want To Resign? '' [Sifa gaige lai le, faguan weihe hai yao cizhi?], 
Consensus Net, 16 April 15; Stanley Lubman, ``China's Exodus of 
Judges,'' Wall Street Journal, China Real Time Report (blog), 4 May 15. 
See also ``Legal Window: Resignations of Chinese Judges Reflect Deep 
Problems'' [Falu chuangkou: zhongguo faguan cizhi zheshe shengce 
wenti], Voice of America, 5 June 15.
    \40\ ``People's Daily: Blindly Following Western So-Called 
`Constitutional Government' Is Nothing More Than Cutting Feet To Fit 
the Shoes'' [Renmin ribao: mangmu gen xifang suowei ``xianzheng'' pao 
wuyi xuezushilu], People's Daily, reprinted in China News, 5 February 
15; Minxin Pei, ``China's War on Western Values,'' Project Syndicate, 
10 February 15. See also Jacques deLisle, ``The Rule of Law with Xi-Era 
Characteristics: Law for Economic Reform, Anticorruption, and Illiberal 
Politics,'' Asia Policy, No. 20 (July 2015), 28. For a contrasting view 
on recent discussions of constitutionalism, see Cheng Li, ``Fourth 
Plenum Has Opened Up Discourse on Constitutionalism, Governance,'' 
China's Transition, Bloomberg Brief, October 2014, 8.
    \41\ Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several 
Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa 
zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14, sec. 2.
    \42\ Guo Junkui, `` `National Constitution Day' Strengthens the 
Constitution's Supreme Idea'' [``Guojia xianfa ri'' qianghua xianfa 
zhishang de linian], People's Daily, 4 December 14; State Council 
Information Office, ``Progress in China's Human Rights in 2014,'' 
reprinted in Xinhua, 8 June 15, sec. 3(1). See also ``On China's First 
Constitution Day, Distance From Constitutional Rule Remains Great'' 
[Zhongguo shou ge xianfa ri juli xingzheng reng yaoyuan], Radio Free 
Asia, 4 December 14.
    \43\ ``China's Constitution `Useless' Without Enforcement: 
Lawyers,'' Radio Free Asia, 4 December 14; Otto Malmgren, ``Article 37: 
The Right to Liberty of Person Under the Chinese Constitution,'' China-
EU Law Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1-2 (September 2013), 42-43; Jerome A. 
Cohen, ``A Constitutional Court for China? Taiwan's Example,'' US-Asia 
Law Institute, New York University School of Law, 28 October 09. See 
also Joanna Chiu, ``China's Constitutional Crisis,'' Atlantic, 3 
September 13.
    \44\ ``NPC's Power of Supervision,'' Xinhua, reprinted in China 
Daily, 3 March 15; Keith J. Hand, ``An Assessment of Socialist 
Constitutional Supervision Models and Prospects for a Constitutional 
Supervision Committee in China: The Constitution as Commander?'' Social 
Science Research Network, 29 June 15, revised 25 July 15, last visited 
3 August 15, 1. See also Gui Tiantian, ``Former Supreme People's Court 
President Proposes Adding Constitutional Committee to the National 
People's Congress'' [Zuigao fayuan yuan yuanzhang jianyi zai quanguo 
renda zengshe xianfa weiyuanhui], Beijing Youth Daily, reprinted in 
People's Daily, 8 November 14. China does not have a constitutional 
court or specialized committee within the National People's Congress 
for examining constitutional issues.
    \45\ Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, Decision on Several 
Major Issues in Comprehensively Advancing Governance of the Country 
According to Law [Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu quanmian tuijin yifa 
zhiguo ruogan zhongda wenti de jueding], issued 23 October 14. See, 
e.g., Jerome A. Cohen, ``China's Socialist Rule of Law Still Offers 
Real Hope of Improvements to Legal System,'' New York University School 
of Law, US-Asia Law Institute, 5 November 14; Elizabeth C. Economy, 
``Is China Committed to Rule of Law?'' Council on Foreign Relations, 29 
October 14; ``YCW Conversation--Legal Reform in China,'' Young China 
Watchers, 28 April 15.
    \46\ ``Roundtable: The Future of `Rule According to Law' in 
China,'' Asia Policy, No. 20 (July 2015), 3. Participants in the 
roundtable were Carl Minzner, Donald Clarke, Ling Li, Jacques deLisle, 
Kjeld Erik Brog