藏人譴責中國慘酷判死 敦請國際協助
『國際西藏郵報2010年5月29日達蘭薩拉報導』西藏流亡政府官員，週五發出聲明譴責中共政府對一名藏人判處死刑，以及5人長期監禁。西藏議會也在週四發表聲明，“強烈譴責以這種不人道的方式，對待勇於表達自己意見的人們，不論是作家或是參與和平示威的藏民。”
「西藏中央政府(CTA)對於中共政府判處一名藏人死刑及5人長期監禁，表達嚴重關切。」新聞和外交部長格桑央吉(Kelsang Yangkyi Takla)在聲明中表示。
「我們強烈譴責未經公開公正審判，即任意判處嚴刑、不尊重人權的行徑。最近死刑的裁決，是違反中國首個國家人權行動計劃(2009-2010)的規定，辦理死刑案件，應當嚴格依照刑法和刑事訴訟法的有關規定，堅守法律之前人人平等和審判公開、程式法定等基本原則。」她在聲明中說。
格桑央吉(Kelsang Yangkyi Takla)表示，此一死刑裁決違背中國去年在聯合國人權理事會定期審查中國人權記錄時，聲稱的“促進和保護人權偉大的成就”。率中國代表團前往聯合國報告，該團主席李保東曾說，自從新中國在1949年成立以來，「社會和政治的基礎，就是憑藉著促進和保護人權而建立。」
她在發言中強烈批評中國，「儘管有中共方面的這些承諾，但我們仍深切關注；自2008年3月以來，7名藏人被判處死刑，其中兩名藏人在2009年10月20日遭到處決。」
西藏流亡政府「再次呼籲中國政府和國際社會，特別是聯合國人權理事會，充份考慮西藏日益惡化的人權狀況。」該聲明呼籲。
國際西藏郵報駐台北記者黃凱莉中文 編譯
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
中國判處一藏人死刑及五人長期監禁
『國際西藏郵報2010年5月26日達蘭薩拉報導』拉薩中級人民法院判處一名藏人四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)死刑，緩刑 2年，另五名藏人因秘密隱匿四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)，而被判處3至7年不等的有期徒刑。
據拉薩晚報(http://www.lasa-eveningnews.com.cn/epaper/uniflows/html/2010/05/25/02/02_41.htm )2010年5月25日報導，拉薩市中級人民法院依其行為觸犯《中華人民共和國刑法》第二百八十九條、第二百六十三條的規定，以搶劫罪名判處四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)死刑，緩刑2年；另依據《中華人民共和國刑法》第三百一十條第一款的規定，5名藏人(扎西曲珍、格勇、珍擁、澤翁牛麥、益西措姆)觸犯窩藏罪名，遭判處3至7年不等的有期徒刑。中國官方媒體報導指出，四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)被指控涉嫌2008年3月14日拉薩事件，煽動公眾騷動。他承認帶領及煽動上百群眾，在車輛和商店縱火、推翻警車。他站在警車車頂、揮舞刀子，大聲高喊反政府口號；造成約 40萬人民幣的損失。另5名藏人被指控涉嫌明知其為通緝犯，卻藏匿他，並準備協助他逃往海外。
四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)，23歲，父親次仁桑珠(Tsering Samdup)和母親央吉(Yangkyi)，是四川甘孜藏族自治區帕宥(Payul)縣惹恰(Rachap)鎮，一個半牧民家庭。2007年底四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)來到拉薩朝聖，也停留在下來。當2008年3月拉薩爆發和平示威，他立即積極地參與其中。四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)在拉薩示威17個月後，也就是2009年10月中旬遭到逮捕。
隨著四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)被判處死刑，從2008年迄今共有7名藏人被判死刑，且有2名已遭處決。約 450名藏人，因參與西藏春季反抗中共暴政而被判處刑期不等的徒刑。藏人自發地進行抗議，宣洩幾十年來對中共鐵腕暴政的不滿，卻遭遇政府及其司法機關以法律合法的鎮壓。中共政府及其宣傳部，已多次向國際社會以圖像宣達西藏抗暴的犯罪活動。
國際西藏郵報駐台北記者黃凱莉中文 編譯
『國際西藏郵報2010年5月26日達蘭薩拉報導』拉薩中級人民法院判處一名藏人四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)死刑，緩刑 2年，另五名藏人因秘密隱匿四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)，而被判處3至7年不等的有期徒刑。
據拉薩晚報(http://www.lasa-eveningnews.com.cn/epaper/uniflows/html/2010/05/25/02/02_41.htm )2010年5月25日報導，拉薩市中級人民法院依其行為觸犯《中華人民共和國刑法》第二百八十九條、第二百六十三條的規定，以搶劫罪名判處四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)死刑，緩刑2年；另依據《中華人民共和國刑法》第三百一十條第一款的規定，5名藏人(扎西曲珍、格勇、珍擁、澤翁牛麥、益西措姆)觸犯窩藏罪名，遭判處3至7年不等的有期徒刑。中國官方媒體報導指出，四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)被指控涉嫌2008年3月14日拉薩事件，煽動公眾騷動。他承認帶領及煽動上百群眾，在車輛和商店縱火、推翻警車。他站在警車車頂、揮舞刀子，大聲高喊反政府口號；造成約 40萬人民幣的損失。另5名藏人被指控涉嫌明知其為通緝犯，卻藏匿他，並準備協助他逃往海外。
四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)，23歲，父親次仁桑珠(Tsering Samdup)和母親央吉(Yangkyi)，是四川甘孜藏族自治區帕宥(Payul)縣惹恰(Rachap)鎮，一個半牧民家庭。2007年底四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)來到拉薩朝聖，也停留在下來。當2008年3月拉薩爆發和平示威，他立即積極地參與其中。四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)在拉薩示威17個月後，也就是2009年10月中旬遭到逮捕。
隨著四郎澤仁(Sonam Tsering)被判處死刑，從2008年迄今共有7名藏人被判死刑，且有2名已遭處決。約 450名藏人，因參與西藏春季反抗中共暴政而被判處刑期不等的徒刑。藏人自發地進行抗議，宣洩幾十年來對中共鐵腕暴政的不滿，卻遭遇政府及其司法機關以法律合法的鎮壓。中共政府及其宣傳部，已多次向國際社會以圖像宣達西藏抗暴的犯罪活動。
國際西藏郵報駐台北記者黃凱莉中文 編譯
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
中國死刑的濫殤？
中國死刑的濫殤？
2010年 05月 17日 Gautham Ashok, The Tibet Post International
『國際西藏郵報2010年5月17日達蘭薩拉報導』2009年11月，因遭指控涉嫌在2008年3月抗議事件”蓄意縱火致死”，中國政府處決 4名藏人，兩名男子，一名婦女，另一人身份不明。全球正在醞釀暫停執行死刑的趨勢，中國政府繼續無限制地行使恐怖的判決。更多...
國際法上的死刑
“任何人對生命有固有的權利。這種權利應受到法律保護，任何人不得被任意剝奪其生命。“
聯合國公民權利和政治權利公約
此一國際公約本身並不禁止死刑；然而，該公約強烈阻止死刑的判決。 2007年和2008年12月，聯合國大會分別以62/149和63/168通過決議案，呼籲暫停使用死刑。這些決議案，以及最近通過的其他國際條約，國際共同朝向建立廢除死刑的趨勢。然而，中國政府每年持續地執行不確定人數多寡的死刑。大赦國際在2008年的報告中指出，中國將死刑的統計資料視為國家機密。
“根據公開的報導，大赦國際估計，2007年至少有 470人遭到處決，1,860人被判處死刑，相信實際上的數據要高出許多。中共法律有68條可處以死刑的判決和執行，包括許多非暴力罪行，如與貪污腐敗和毒品有關的罪行。“瑞典代表曾在聯合國人權理事會指出，全球80％的處決在中國，大赦國際在2007年引述該代表的話。
事實不明
中國國營媒體(新華社)2009年4月8日報導指出，“兩名被告[洛桑堅贊(Lobsang Gyaltsen)和洛亞(Loyak)]因罪行重大，判處死刑，並速執行以減輕人民的憤怒。”他們和另外兩名，潘吉(Penkyi)和另一身份不明的藏人，被控“縱火致死”的罪名。
是否有任何明確的證據足以證實這些罪行？是否有任何事實可以指出所謂的死亡和財產損失？到底什麼才是導致任何死亡和財產損失事實的成因？西藏新聞由中共的宣傳機構新華社控制在手上，是否有任何別於新華社的獨立報導存在？至少，中國應該向國際社會提供任一在審判庭上的證詞記錄以及證據的副本，如果有任何的證據，可能可以用來證明他們無罪。
眼見的不一定能夠為憑...
根據國際法，任何被指控的犯罪，都有一定的基本權利；包括有權獲得獨立機構的公正審判，有權擁有合格的法律代表。
中國憲法所賦予被告的權利是，獲得公開審判、法律諮詢的保障，甚至規定法院獨立行使其權力。不過，這些規定的字眼，與他們的普遍認知是絕對的相反與矛盾。一旦，我們更深入地鑽研中國憲法的雙重標準，我們終於可以理解了....
中共司法制度的結構，是為了防堵公平和公正的審判；中共在各種層面上，獨掌其司法制度。中共黨選出全國人民代表大會；人民代表大會選舉產生最高法院院長和檢察總長(檢察官)，以及其他重要政府官員，非常可惜的是，中共也有權利移除其職務。
雖然中國憲法載明，“人民法院應當．．．．獨立行使審判權。“但並不'獨立行動於黨的體制外'；這是一個重要的事實，而西方媒體卻從不提起。
最高人民法院院長在2007年10月聲明指出：“法院獨立作出裁決的權力，並不意味著獨立於黨的體制之外，完全是相反的．．．． “。有趣的是，最高法院院長王勝俊，並不是法律專業人士，是警方和黨的行政執行者。
律師也不是獨立的。司法副部長於2007年10月的一次演講中說，律師“在任何時間點上，都必須支持黨的領導。”從2007年通過新律師法(2008年生效)看來，表面上賦了律師更多的權利，實際上限制更多了。2007年10月副司法部長在中共黨會上表示，“制定讓法律界擁有更大的獨立性，但與此相反的是，強調進一步控制律師的工作，以此化解社會不安定。”懷疑每個人對黨的忠誠？？
摘要
因此，鮮少有人知道西藏究竟發生了什麼事 – 到底哪兒不對勁了，如果有的話，是誰幹的。無論這四名被處決的人，犯下任何於法不容的罪行，他們都有權獲得公平和公正的審判，以及自己選擇獨立的律師代表。這的確是令人非常懷疑，他們到底有沒有犯了這些罪行。即使2008年北京奧運之後，之前中國政府承諾要改善人權的記錄，事後卻事與願違，這是非常可恥的。
國際西藏郵報駐台北記者黃凱莉中文 編譯
2010年 05月 17日 Gautham Ashok, The Tibet Post International
『國際西藏郵報2010年5月17日達蘭薩拉報導』2009年11月，因遭指控涉嫌在2008年3月抗議事件”蓄意縱火致死”，中國政府處決 4名藏人，兩名男子，一名婦女，另一人身份不明。全球正在醞釀暫停執行死刑的趨勢，中國政府繼續無限制地行使恐怖的判決。更多...
國際法上的死刑
“任何人對生命有固有的權利。這種權利應受到法律保護，任何人不得被任意剝奪其生命。“
聯合國公民權利和政治權利公約
此一國際公約本身並不禁止死刑；然而，該公約強烈阻止死刑的判決。 2007年和2008年12月，聯合國大會分別以62/149和63/168通過決議案，呼籲暫停使用死刑。這些決議案，以及最近通過的其他國際條約，國際共同朝向建立廢除死刑的趨勢。然而，中國政府每年持續地執行不確定人數多寡的死刑。大赦國際在2008年的報告中指出，中國將死刑的統計資料視為國家機密。
“根據公開的報導，大赦國際估計，2007年至少有 470人遭到處決，1,860人被判處死刑，相信實際上的數據要高出許多。中共法律有68條可處以死刑的判決和執行，包括許多非暴力罪行，如與貪污腐敗和毒品有關的罪行。“瑞典代表曾在聯合國人權理事會指出，全球80％的處決在中國，大赦國際在2007年引述該代表的話。
事實不明
中國國營媒體(新華社)2009年4月8日報導指出，“兩名被告[洛桑堅贊(Lobsang Gyaltsen)和洛亞(Loyak)]因罪行重大，判處死刑，並速執行以減輕人民的憤怒。”他們和另外兩名，潘吉(Penkyi)和另一身份不明的藏人，被控“縱火致死”的罪名。
是否有任何明確的證據足以證實這些罪行？是否有任何事實可以指出所謂的死亡和財產損失？到底什麼才是導致任何死亡和財產損失事實的成因？西藏新聞由中共的宣傳機構新華社控制在手上，是否有任何別於新華社的獨立報導存在？至少，中國應該向國際社會提供任一在審判庭上的證詞記錄以及證據的副本，如果有任何的證據，可能可以用來證明他們無罪。
眼見的不一定能夠為憑...
根據國際法，任何被指控的犯罪，都有一定的基本權利；包括有權獲得獨立機構的公正審判，有權擁有合格的法律代表。
中國憲法所賦予被告的權利是，獲得公開審判、法律諮詢的保障，甚至規定法院獨立行使其權力。不過，這些規定的字眼，與他們的普遍認知是絕對的相反與矛盾。一旦，我們更深入地鑽研中國憲法的雙重標準，我們終於可以理解了....
中共司法制度的結構，是為了防堵公平和公正的審判；中共在各種層面上，獨掌其司法制度。中共黨選出全國人民代表大會；人民代表大會選舉產生最高法院院長和檢察總長(檢察官)，以及其他重要政府官員，非常可惜的是，中共也有權利移除其職務。
雖然中國憲法載明，“人民法院應當．．．．獨立行使審判權。“但並不'獨立行動於黨的體制外'；這是一個重要的事實，而西方媒體卻從不提起。
最高人民法院院長在2007年10月聲明指出：“法院獨立作出裁決的權力，並不意味著獨立於黨的體制之外，完全是相反的．．．． “。有趣的是，最高法院院長王勝俊，並不是法律專業人士，是警方和黨的行政執行者。
律師也不是獨立的。司法副部長於2007年10月的一次演講中說，律師“在任何時間點上，都必須支持黨的領導。”從2007年通過新律師法(2008年生效)看來，表面上賦了律師更多的權利，實際上限制更多了。2007年10月副司法部長在中共黨會上表示，“制定讓法律界擁有更大的獨立性，但與此相反的是，強調進一步控制律師的工作，以此化解社會不安定。”懷疑每個人對黨的忠誠？？
摘要
因此，鮮少有人知道西藏究竟發生了什麼事 – 到底哪兒不對勁了，如果有的話，是誰幹的。無論這四名被處決的人，犯下任何於法不容的罪行，他們都有權獲得公平和公正的審判，以及自己選擇獨立的律師代表。這的確是令人非常懷疑，他們到底有沒有犯了這些罪行。即使2008年北京奧運之後，之前中國政府承諾要改善人權的記錄，事後卻事與願違，這是非常可恥的。
國際西藏郵報駐台北記者黃凱莉中文 編譯
The death of free trial in China?
The death of free trial in China?
Monday, 17 May 2010 Gautham Ashok, The Tibet Post International
Dharamshala: In November, 2009, the Chinese government executed 4 Tibetans, two men, one woman and a fourth unidentified person, for allegedly "starting fatal fires" during the uprising in March 2008.With the world mulling over a moratorium on the death penalty, the Chinese government continues to exercise the dread verdict with little or no restraint.
International Law on the Death Penalty
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
This international convention does not in itself prohibit the death penalty. However, it strongly discourages it. In December 2007 and 2008 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168. These resolutions call for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
These resolutions, together with other recently adopted international treaties, establish an international trend toward abolishing the death penalty.
However, the Chinese government continues to execute an indeterminate number of people every year. Amnesty International stated in its 2008 Report on China that death penalty statistics are regarded as a state secret.
"Based on public reports, Amnesty International estimated that at least 470 people were executed and 1,860 people sentenced to death during 2007, although the true figures were believed to be much higher. Death sentences and executions continued to be imposed for 68 offences, including many non-violent crimes such as corruption and drug-related offences."
The Swedish representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council stated that, 80% of the total executions that were carried out in the world were from China, this was cited by Amnesty international in 2007
The facts unknown
The Chinese state run media (Xinhua) reports that on April 8, 2009 "the two defendants [Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak] given the death penalty had committed extremely serious crimes and have to be executed to assuage the people's anger." They and two others, Penkyi and the unidentified fourth person were charged with "starting fatal fires."
Is there any evidence that these crimes, which require criminal intent, were committed? Are there any facts that point to the alleged deaths and damage to property? What are the facts that allegedly tie any deaths or loss of property to these individuals?
News in Tibet is controlled by Xinhua, the Communist Party propaganda agency. Are there any independent reports?
At the very least, China should provide to the international community a copy of any recordings of testimony and evidence presented at the trials and any evidence if any, that might and could have exonerated them.
Seeing is not always believing...
Under international law, anyone accused of a crime has certain fundamental rights. They include a right to a fair trial by an independent body, and the right to legal representation.
China's own constitution gives the accused the right to an open trial, to legal counsel and even states that the courts exercise their power independently. However, the words are applied contrary to their common sense meaning. Once we delve deeper into the double meaning of the Chinese constitution we understand how....
The structure of the legal system prevents a fair and impartial trial. The Communist Party controls the legal system at all levels.
The Communist Party elects the National People's Congress. The People's Congress elects the president of the Supreme Court and the procurator general (prosecutor), as well as other key government officials. And sadly enough also has the power to remove them.
And although the constitution states "The people's courts shall . . . exercise judicial power independently"
It does not however ‘act independently of the Party'. This is the one crucial fact that the western media does not pick up on
The President of the Supreme People's Court stated in October 2007: "The power of the courts to adjudicate independently doesn't mean at all independence from the Party. It is the opposite . . . "
interestingly enough, Wang Shengjun, the President of the Supreme Court, is not a legal professional but a police and party administrator.
Lawyers are not independent either. In a speech in October 2007, the vice-minister of justice said that lawyers "must support the leadership of the Party at all times."
A new Law on Lawyers was passed in 2007 (effective 2008) purporting to give lawyers more rights, it in fact did not do so. The vice minister of justice in October 2007 stated that the party "ruled out greater independence for the legal profession, stressing to the contrary the need to further control the work of lawyers as a way to diffuse social unrest." paranoia anyone??
Summary
So little is known about what actually occurred in Tibet - what wrongs, if any, were done and by whom. Whether or not these four individuals committed any criminal wrongs, they were entitled to a fair and impartial trial and independent lawyers of their own choosing. It is very doubtful indeed they had any of these. It is shameful indeed that even after the Beijing Olympics of 2008, when the Chinese government promised to improve its human rights record, the statistics state the exact opposite.
Monday, 17 May 2010 Gautham Ashok, The Tibet Post International
Dharamshala: In November, 2009, the Chinese government executed 4 Tibetans, two men, one woman and a fourth unidentified person, for allegedly "starting fatal fires" during the uprising in March 2008.With the world mulling over a moratorium on the death penalty, the Chinese government continues to exercise the dread verdict with little or no restraint.
International Law on the Death Penalty
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
This international convention does not in itself prohibit the death penalty. However, it strongly discourages it. In December 2007 and 2008 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168. These resolutions call for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
These resolutions, together with other recently adopted international treaties, establish an international trend toward abolishing the death penalty.
However, the Chinese government continues to execute an indeterminate number of people every year. Amnesty International stated in its 2008 Report on China that death penalty statistics are regarded as a state secret.
"Based on public reports, Amnesty International estimated that at least 470 people were executed and 1,860 people sentenced to death during 2007, although the true figures were believed to be much higher. Death sentences and executions continued to be imposed for 68 offences, including many non-violent crimes such as corruption and drug-related offences."
The Swedish representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council stated that, 80% of the total executions that were carried out in the world were from China, this was cited by Amnesty international in 2007
The facts unknown
The Chinese state run media (Xinhua) reports that on April 8, 2009 "the two defendants [Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak] given the death penalty had committed extremely serious crimes and have to be executed to assuage the people's anger." They and two others, Penkyi and the unidentified fourth person were charged with "starting fatal fires."
Is there any evidence that these crimes, which require criminal intent, were committed? Are there any facts that point to the alleged deaths and damage to property? What are the facts that allegedly tie any deaths or loss of property to these individuals?
News in Tibet is controlled by Xinhua, the Communist Party propaganda agency. Are there any independent reports?
At the very least, China should provide to the international community a copy of any recordings of testimony and evidence presented at the trials and any evidence if any, that might and could have exonerated them.
Seeing is not always believing...
Under international law, anyone accused of a crime has certain fundamental rights. They include a right to a fair trial by an independent body, and the right to legal representation.
China's own constitution gives the accused the right to an open trial, to legal counsel and even states that the courts exercise their power independently. However, the words are applied contrary to their common sense meaning. Once we delve deeper into the double meaning of the Chinese constitution we understand how....
The structure of the legal system prevents a fair and impartial trial. The Communist Party controls the legal system at all levels.
The Communist Party elects the National People's Congress. The People's Congress elects the president of the Supreme Court and the procurator general (prosecutor), as well as other key government officials. And sadly enough also has the power to remove them.
And although the constitution states "The people's courts shall . . . exercise judicial power independently"
It does not however ‘act independently of the Party'. This is the one crucial fact that the western media does not pick up on
The President of the Supreme People's Court stated in October 2007: "The power of the courts to adjudicate independently doesn't mean at all independence from the Party. It is the opposite . . . "
interestingly enough, Wang Shengjun, the President of the Supreme Court, is not a legal professional but a police and party administrator.
Lawyers are not independent either. In a speech in October 2007, the vice-minister of justice said that lawyers "must support the leadership of the Party at all times."
A new Law on Lawyers was passed in 2007 (effective 2008) purporting to give lawyers more rights, it in fact did not do so. The vice minister of justice in October 2007 stated that the party "ruled out greater independence for the legal profession, stressing to the contrary the need to further control the work of lawyers as a way to diffuse social unrest." paranoia anyone??
Summary
So little is known about what actually occurred in Tibet - what wrongs, if any, were done and by whom. Whether or not these four individuals committed any criminal wrongs, they were entitled to a fair and impartial trial and independent lawyers of their own choosing. It is very doubtful indeed they had any of these. It is shameful indeed that even after the Beijing Olympics of 2008, when the Chinese government promised to improve its human rights record, the statistics state the exact opposite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)