April 4, 2006

Supervisory Office of the Beijing Public Security Bureau

Filed under: Nina's blog — Rebecca MacKinnon @ 6:59 pm

On the same day as the previous entry posted below, Nina Wu also wrote:

Supervisory Office of the Beijing Public Security Bureau:

Regarding the Beijing public security organ’s initiation of an investigation into Hao Wu (male, born April 1972, profession: “documentary filmmaker”, residing in this city, Chaoyang district XXXX garden XXXX) for suspected violation of the law (the alleged crime is as yet unknown) on procedural problems in the handling of the case by the organs responsible, Beijing XXXX Law Firm reports as follows:

On February 22, 2006 Hao Wu was taken away by policemen of this bureau.  Wu’s relatives submitted written objections to this bureau and his local Chaoyang Branch PSB on March 18, asking for a reply about Wu’s alleged crimes and his current condition.  They did not receive a reply.  On March 20, Wu’s relatives inquired at the Beijing PSB.  They only received the reply that Wu had been detained, but were still not informed of his alleged crimes or the location of his detention.

Under these conditions, Hao Wu’s sister Na Wu sought legal assistance from the Beijing XXXX Law Firm.  Our firm accepted her request, and according to law assigned two lawyers to the investigation stage for the detained and suspected Hao Wu, providing him with legal assistance.  However, due to their inability to ascertain Wu’s alleged crime, the organ handling the case, and the location of Wu’s detention, our firm submitted a letter on March 21 to the Legal Office of the Beijing PSB, requesting assistance in making contact, at the same time submitting requests to meet the detained suspect and initiating the [legal representative] retention procedure.  We hoped to urge the relevant organs in this case to promptly set a time to meet the suspect.  Afterwards, a media outlet reported that this case was being handled by the Beijing PSB National Security Unit.  However, our firm has yet to receive any reply from the Beijing PSB.

On March 29, Hao Wu’s sister Na Wu again visited the petition bureau of the Beijing PSB.  She inquired into the crime that Hao Wu was suspected of, the organ handling the case, and the location of his detention, but was again denied the information.

We believe: the procedures followed in this case are contrary to regulations in the “Code of Criminal Procedure.”  They also do not adhere to the “Regulations on Lawyer’s Visits to Suspects in Detention and Related Issues of the Defendant”(trial version) co-issued by the Beijing Supreme People’s Court, Beijing People’s Procuratorate, Beijing PSB, Beijing State Security Bureau, and Beijing Administration of Justice, as well as the “Bulletin on Further Safeguarding the Professional Rights of Lawyers” and “Thirty Measures on the Standards of Civilized Law Enforcement” of the Beijing PSB.

1. According to regulations in the “Code of Criminal Procedure”, suspects can retain a lawyer to provide legal assistance, offer representation for appeals, and make complaints after the first interrogation by the investigative agency or on the same day that coercive measures are first taken.  The lawyers retained have the right to learn the suspected crime from the organ responsible.  They can meet with the suspect in detention, and learn relevant details from the suspect.

2.  According to regulations in the “Code of Criminal Procedure,” the investigating organ can criminally detain someone for a maximum of 30 days before requesting for approval to make an arrest.  However, in this case, coercive measures have been employed to limit Hao Wu’s physical freedom for over 37 days.

3.  According to relevant Beijing city regulations, in the investigative stage, “In cases that do not involve state secrets, the organ handling the case should issue an official letter about meeting with the lawyer and arrange for the meeting within 48 hours of a request to meet with the suspect.”

4.  Even if lawyers cannot learn of the crimes of which Hao Wu is suspected, during the investigation stage, even in cases involving state secrets, the organ handling the case, “If not permitting a meeting, should provide the lawyers with a “Notice on Not Permitting a Meeting With Suspect in Detention” and explain its reasons.”

In view of the above, according to relevant regulations, we report this to the Supervisory Office of this bureau, and request that the relevant departments be charged with rapidly correcting their inappropriate behavior, safeguarding the lawyer’s execution of professional duties according to law, and safeguarding the procedural rights of the accused.


Beijing XXXX Law Firm

March 31, 2006

cc: Beijing Lawyer Association Committee on Safeguarding Rights and Interests


  1. Dear Mr. Zukerman, thank you very much for hosting this website for my friend Hao Wu! I only found out today about his life after 1992 and his detention. I was really shocked to learn that, and meanwhile I am very proud of him. I tried to write a comment on his sister’s blog, but thanks for microsoft, I can’t post it without sign in. So I am posting it here on your website instead.

    I have to say that Hao’s detention is a wake up call for me, to realize how real that lack of citizen’s fundamental rights is in China. We Chinese have to learn to fight to get these rights for ourselves and for our chidren!

    Please pass my comments to Hao’s sister. I wish her and her family the best! Thanks!

    Wu Na,


    Comment by YW — April 5, 2006 @ 12:36 am

  2. 1q

    Comment by Anonymous — April 5, 2006 @ 12:38 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML ( You can use these tags): <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> .