六 四 維 基
當年今日 六四人物誌 事發現場/地方誌 專題聚焦 全部資料 媒 體

 

簡介

曾經是1989年民主運動的最早的學生領袖的周勇軍在2008年9月底試圖進入香港,結果在未經任何法律手續的情況下被香港有關當局押到中國。從2008年9月30日起, 周就被秘密關押達七個月之久,周的家人和朋友對周的關押情況只是通過周勇軍被關押過的同號略知一二。周勇軍的家人直到2009年5月8日才接到中國四川遂寧市公安局正式逮捕周勇軍的通知,罪名是“欺詐”香港恒生銀行。2009年8月初,四川省射洪縣檢察院以此罪名起訴周勇軍。案子正在射洪縣法院等待開庭審理。

這是周勇軍在1989年逮捕後的第三次逮捕。然而,他的第三次逮捕沒有引起國際社會的足夠重視。 周勇軍被關押的情況外人知之甚少。他的家人至今沒有能探訪他。他的律師也收到來自政府的各種壓力。他在中國的家人也因為試圖突破當局的各種封鎖而受到來自政府的各種威脅。

周勇軍的身份,戶籍住所及國籍

周勇軍原本在中國四川省蓬溪縣老家的戶籍上註冊的名字,出生日期是1967年9月26日。1985年周勇軍到北京上學後,他的戶口轉到了北京海定區,並在北京政法大學的學生戶籍處登記註冊。1989年6月被逮捕,但他的戶籍仍然在政法大學。後來被釋放並離開政法大學後,四川當地政府拒絕恢復他的戶口。因此從那時候起,周勇軍在中國變成了一個沒有戶口的‘黑戶’。在國際法上來說, 仍然是個無國籍的人。

1992年,周勇軍逃亡香港並被美國接收為難民。1993年2月,他開始以難民的身份在美國生活,因此在註冊難民身份和調整永久居民身份的時候用的都是他原本的身份(其中文拼音的名字被香港人拼成 Zhou Yung Jun, 出生日期:1967年9月26日)並在1998年12月底他回大陸被逮捕之前一直住在紐約法拉盛王子街33-70號。

2001年周勇軍被釋放後,中國政府一直拒絕為他註冊戶口。經過反復交涉,當地政府才為他註冊為周迓舟、生日是1967年9月15日。這個名字和出生日期都不同於他原始的戶籍記錄。中國政府當時之所以用別名給他註冊,其實是拒絕承認他原本的真實身份。

2002年5月2日,周勇軍在美國政府的幫助下,以周迓舟的名義返回了美國。但他從2002年5月返回到美國後就恢復了他原本的真實姓名周勇軍Yung Jun ZHOU。他在紐約、華盛頓以及加州生活工作過。他在2008年9月離開美國時所居住的最後一個位址是1227 S. Del Mar Ave., San Gabriel, CA 91776 USA.當時他是以周勇軍的真實姓名與其女兒菲奧娜及女兒媽媽月衛生活在這個位址。

1993年2月4日,周勇軍成為美國難民,他的永久居民身份也是從那個時候算起的。2002年他申請了入籍,但因為在美居住的積累時間不夠(1998年回中國被捕),沒有得到批准;因此2006年又一次提交申請, 在2008年9月他離開美國時,他的申請已經進入最後的程式,等待著宣誓成為真正的美國公民。

周勇軍的前兩次被捕

第一次被捕

周勇軍第一次被捕是在1989年“六四”大屠殺之後。1990年3月,周勇軍以反革命宣傳和煽動罪被北京市人民檢察院分院批准逮捕。但在國際社會的壓力下,周勇軍被免予起訴並在1991年1月得以釋放。周勇軍釋放後一直被中國當地政府監視居住。1992年他設法逃到香港。

第二次被捕

1998年12月,周勇軍因為沒有中國的護照只有經香港偷偷潛入中國,後在廣州被捕。被捕後,周被中國員警嚴厲地審問了有關他在美國的政治活動。在廣州被任意羈押六個月後,被轉到了他四川老家的警方手裡。當地政府判了他三年的勞教,罪名是偷越國境。在三年的勞教期間,因為被逼著幹艱苦的體力活兒、屢被虐待,周勇軍的健康狀況日益減退。被釋放後,2002年在美國駐中國領事館的協助下,周勇軍得以返回了美國。

周勇軍目前被捕、被羈押、被起訴的狀況

周勇軍於2008年9月26日離開洛杉磯前往中國探望家人,尤其是他曾得過腦中風現在變殘疾的老父親。 但他屢次向中國駐美國領事館申請護照或者旅行證都沒有成功,無奈之下,他只得從一移民公司購買了本署名為王興翔(Wang Xingxiang),的馬來西亞假護照並持該護照試圖通過澳門進入香港,計畫通過香港回大陸探望病重的父母。但他在機場就被香港員警扣留。警方因為他的假護照上的名字與幾封寫給香港恒生銀行涉嫌詐騙的信件落款名字相同而調查他。 該些信要求恒生銀行轉兩筆款項到其他銀行同一戶主的名下(Wang Xingxiang)。因為恒生銀行認為信上的簽名跟銀行記錄上的簽字不符,於是員警就介入了。但經過幾小時的盤問並嚴格地鑒別對照周勇軍的簽名和涉嫌詐騙信上的簽名後,香港員警得出了‘周勇軍跟該詐騙事件無關’的結論,當即將周勇軍交還給香港移民局處理出入境問題。然而,香港移民局卻通知他不許進入香港但也不允許他返回澳門或美國。因此周勇軍在機場被扣留了48小時。當時他病得很嚴重。

2008年9月30日,周勇軍被香港有關當局秘密送到中國大陸深圳靠近香港邊界的一個小城,然後周勇軍的案子就被轉到了中國警方及國安部的手裡。從那時起,周勇軍就一直處於被秘密關押的狀態。

2008年11月7日,當遂甯員警到深圳去審問周勇軍的時候,其中有兩個員警在1998年就處理過周的案子於是當時就辨認出了周勇軍,周也向警方承認了自己的真實姓名。儘管從一開始就完全知道了周勇軍的真實身份,中國政府卻一直拒絕以周勇軍的名字予以登記關押。在深圳第一看守所的時候,當局給周勇軍註冊的是“20號犯人”。2008年11月底,周勇軍被秘密轉到了深圳市鹽田看守所後,被註冊的姓名是‘王華’。周勇軍曾拒絕在轉犯人的檔上簽署“王華”的名字,而是簽上了自己的真實姓名周勇軍。然而在他被轉到鹽田的整個期間仍然被獄方登記為‘王華’。

周勇軍從2008年9月底突然失蹤後,他的家人一直在努力地尋找他。在2008年11月份,周通過獄友偷偷地捎信給姐姐。這時周的家人方得知周的下落和處境。姐姐是四川成都的一個法官。在收到這個資訊後,她立即飛往深圳第一看守所去探望弟弟。但監獄的公安人員卻不讓她填寫探監申請、並否認他們關押了‘周勇軍’這麼個人、也沒有“20號犯人”。 姐弟倆到今天也沒有見上面。

經過7個月的秘密關押之後,周勇軍於2009年5月4號被轉到四川遂寧市看守所,但在5月8號,遂寧市公安局才電話通知周勇軍的姐姐去遂甯市看守所給他送生活用品。2009年5月13號,周勇軍的父親才收到遂寧市公安局對周勇軍的‘正式逮捕令’。周的家人這才知道遂寧市公安局按照《中華人民共和國刑事訴訟法》在處理周勇軍的案子,罪名是詐騙罪。這也是中國當局自秘密關押周勇軍以來第一次承認關押周的事實。而且所謂詐騙的行為仍然是已經被香港員警調查並否決過的有關要求香港恒生銀行轉帳的偽造簽名信件。

之後周勇軍的案子被提交到遂寧市檢察院。遂甯市檢察院指定射洪縣檢察院起訴周勇軍。射洪縣人民檢察院在2009年8月4號以‘詐騙未遂’為由起訴了周,指控周勇軍以Wang, Xingxiang的名義發了幾封信到香港恒生銀行要求該銀行轉兩筆款到其他銀行的Wang, Xingxiang的名下。該起訴書認定周犯了《刑法》第266條詐騙罪。詳情請參見附件中《起訴書》。

自從周勇軍被關押以來,中國當局一直不允許其家人去探望。2009年5月25日,周在被關押了8個月後,當局才允許周的家人聘請律師。他們開始聘請了北京勇於為政治異議分子辯護的律師莫少平。莫律師及助手陳澤睿律師在2009年5月25日到遂寧市看守所會見了周勇軍。然而,在當局給家人的壓力下,周勇軍被迫撤換莫少平律師。現在只有莫少平律師的助手陳澤睿律師配合四川本地一唐姓律師來代理周的案子。唐姓律師至今出於壓力不敢對外公佈自己的名字和聯繫方式。同時遂甯當局拒絕讓唐律師閱卷並一直拖延他會見周勇軍的要求。唐律師直到2009年8月6號他才見到了周勇軍。但到看守所見過周勇軍之後,這位唐律師卻表示不敢代理這個案子、怕自己被捲入複雜的政治事件中。他同時也表示‘看不出有什麼事實證據可以證明這是一個刑事詐騙案’。射洪縣法院也沒有允許陳澤睿律師和本地的唐律師參閱全部的卷宗。列在法院起訴文件裡的很多重要證據材料都不允許看 。

在不允許請莫少平律師、當地律師不敢介入的情況下,周勇軍的姐姐作為成都市的一個法官,曾試圖以周勇軍的家人身份為弟弟代理這個官司。這在中國的法律上是允許的。但遂寧市當局卻拒絕讓她代理,並聲稱她沒法證明他們的姐弟關係。中國政府這一立場也充分說明,周勇軍的身份在檔案裡是不完整的。他的國籍也是不清楚的。與此同時,周勇軍的姐姐還收到了丟性命、丟工作的威脅 。

根據周勇軍獄友提供的資訊,周勇軍在看守所裡受到了殘酷的虐待。

 

法律分析

周勇軍的案子讓我們看到中國當局是如何將其法律視作一個工具來任意制裁一個政治異議分子的。這個案子昭示出中國當局無視自己的憲法和法律以及全然不顧國際社會的批評。在這方面, 中國當局正在得到香港當局的合作,而此種合作違背了香港的基本法和香港在保護人權方面的國際責任。

第一,周勇軍的抓捕完全出於政治動機

香港警方對周勇軍涉及幾封寫給恒生銀行的偽造簽字的信件看起來屬於正常的刑事偵查。除非中國當局對周勇軍本人有特別的興趣,中國當局沒有理由對這個普通的刑事偵查案子感興趣。周勇軍的背景恰恰解讀了中國當局對周勇軍特別感興趣的理由, 那就是他過去參與民主運動的歷史以及和法輪功和中功(張宏堡的中華養生益智功)的聯繫。這種政治的背景是中國政府當局抓捕周勇軍的真實原因。

第二,香港政府違反了香港基本法及其有關國際公約

周勇軍一案是香港當局將一個政治異議分子直接從飛機場押往中國大陸管轄地區的首列。 從香港法律和實踐來看,香港當局沒有任何法律理由將周勇軍直接送回到中國大陸的深圳並交由中國警方處理。 周勇軍不是從中國大陸飛往香港。按慣例,香港移民當局如果不接受一個外來的訪客,香港當局應當遣返此人到其出發地。周勇軍也不是中國當局通緝的刑事嫌疑犯。香港當局此舉違反了香港當局依據《香港特別行政區基本法》和中英兩國關於香港回歸的聯合聲明中有關香港依法“實行高度自治,享有行政管理權、立法權、獨立的司法權和終審權”的規定。 從周勇軍的案件我們可以看到,香港政府未經任何法律程式將一個政治異議分子交給中國當局,其程度達到了放棄高度自治的的地位和權力。

香港當局在周勇軍一案中也 違反了《世界人權宣言》第九條關於“任何人不得加以任意逮捕、拘禁或放逐”的規定,違反了聯合國《公民和政治權利公約》第9條關於“任何人不得加以任意逮捕或拘禁。除非依照法律所確定的根據和程式,任何人不得被剝奪自由”。香港是該公約的簽字方。香港當局未經任何程式就將一個政治異議分子交給中國當局並導致此人受到長達7個月的秘密關押,違反了此公約規定的國際責任。

第三,中國當局對周勇軍的案子沒有管轄權

中國當局目前起訴周勇軍的罪名是“欺詐”,欺詐行為是所謂偽造香港恒生銀行某個客戶的簽名寫信要求恒生銀行轉款。如果周勇軍是刑事嫌疑犯,那麼只有香港當局才有管轄權。香港警方對周勇軍進行了盤問,也鑒定了周的簽字筆跡。香港警方最後認為沒有足夠的證據指控周勇軍,於是將周勇軍交還給香港移民當局處理。因為所指控的“欺詐罪”受害人和發生地在香港,而香港有高度自治的行政管轄權和司法權和終審權,中國大陸的法律不適用於香港,中國當局也就不應當用中國大陸的法律去偵查起訴本應由香港管轄管轄的案子。中國當局在周勇軍一案的做法,是侵犯了香港政府高度自治的行政和司法權。

即便按照中國刑法第七條關於“屬人管轄原則”(“中華人民共和國公民在中華人民共和國領域外犯本法規定之罪的,適用本法,但是按本法規定的最高刑為三年以下有期徒刑的,可以不予追究。”)中國大陸當局也沒有管轄權。首先,周勇軍在送往中國大陸時,他所持用的是馬來西亞護照。中國當局在深圳拘留周勇軍的時候也是在拘留證上填寫的周所持有的馬來西亞護照上的名字(Wang Xingxiang)而不是周勇軍的名字。中國當局對一個在境外實施的不針對危害中國主權或領土的犯罪行為的外國人不具有一般管轄權,這是中國的法律,也是國際法上通行的規則。

其次,即便中國當局在逮捕周勇軍的時候知道周的中國國籍身份,中國當局也沒有管轄權。這是因為周勇軍從1991年起就在中國成為一個黑戶,沒有正式戶口登記。當他離開中國後就變成了一個無國籍人。周勇軍從1993年起一直在美國保留有居留地而且在美國申請了歸化。

周勇軍原始戶口登記是在四川蓬溪。他在1985年到北京政法大學上學後,就按照規定將戶口遷到北京政法大學的集體戶口中。可是在他1991年被釋放並必須離開北京後,他的戶口應當轉到原始登記地。可是他中國當局不予登記他的戶口。而他1998年“偷回”中國並以“偷越國境”被判三年勞動教養後,當地政府也拒絕給他上戶口。為了生活,在他多次努力下,當局只是按照他1998年“偷回”中國時所用的一個身份證件上的周迓舟登記的身份,出生日期也不是原來周勇軍的。現在射洪縣檢察院起訴書上的指出周勇軍的戶籍根據是“周迓舟”的,不是周勇軍原始的登記。周迓舟的戶口登記不是確定周勇軍的身份和國籍的有效證據。而且,周勇軍在美國身份證件的名字是“Yung Jun Zhou”。所以,中國政府要首先恢復周勇軍的身份才可以對周有“屬人的管轄”權。

周勇軍身份的歷史來看,周早在1991年的時候就變成了一個無國籍的人。同時,周曾經在美國申請過中國護照,都被中國當局拒絕。周勇軍申請加入美國國籍,只等待宣誓。這些情況講明,周不具有中國公民的身份。

第四,中國當局在起訴周勇軍一案中也沒有任何應當保護的利益所在

周勇軍的案件中,所謂的犯罪行為地在香港,受害者是香港恒生銀行,所涉及只是幾百萬港幣(對個人來講是一筆鉅款,對一個國家和銀行來說這是一筆小的款項)。在香港警方不追究周勇軍後,我們看不到一個遠在四川中部的射洪縣與此案有任何關係。周勇軍不是出生在射洪,從沒有在射洪居住過,不在射洪保留有戶籍,犯罪地不在射洪,所謂受害的人也不在射洪。中國的射洪縣為什麼要管這個案子?中國在司法部門本身的能力和財力都有限,當地的司法部門本身有很多案子都處理不過來,但是卻要花老百姓的錢去處理一個與本地沒有任何關係的案子。 除了背後有極強的政治原因,我們找不到任何答案。

第五,中國員警當局非法關押周勇軍

根據中國的刑事訴訟法,員警當局應當在48個小時內通知周的家屬有關周的拘留, 同時居留時間不得超過37天。可是本案從2008年10月1日計算到2009年5月8日止,周勇軍在被關押了七個月零8天后才被宣佈逮捕。這遠遠超過了法律許可的範圍。同時,在5月8日之前,中國當局不透露周勇軍的關押情況,用別名或數位號碼來登記關押。如果中國當局認為,這種關押是因為周勇軍的身份不確定而造成的,那麼在一開始中國政府就沒有屬人管轄權。另外,從記錄上來看,周勇軍的身份是在2008年11月7日予以確定的。即便從那個時候算起,中國政府也非法關押周勇軍6個月之久。

第六,中國當局侵犯了周勇軍享有律師辯護的權利。中國政府對周勇軍家屬施加壓力,導致周勇軍不得繼續雇傭北京的莫少平律師。同時,當地法院不讓周勇軍現在的律師翻閱案卷的全部材料。許多列在案卷裡的證據,在律師閱卷時被抽走。

根據以上分析,我們要求中國當局撤回對周勇軍的起訴,立即釋放周勇軍

 

周勇軍家庭成員的聲明

我們的訴求

我們已經一年沒有見到周勇軍(Majer)了;我們很擔心他的健康

—— 由周勇軍家人陳述,由張月衛筆錄

勇軍於去年他的41歲生日那天也就是2008年9月26日離開洛杉磯前往中國去看望他殘疾的老父親以及剛剛經歷過大地震的家鄉,這一走就再也沒有了音訊、始終聯繫不上他! 大約兩個月以後也就是2008年11月底,我們聽說他在香港被中國員警秘密逮捕然後被秘密轉到深圳並被秘密關押了起來,這個消息讓我們很欣慰,因為至少我們知道他還活著。然而,中國員警始終否認關押勇軍的事實。當我們從和勇軍關押在一起被釋放出來的人那裡瞭解到勇軍被關押的處境後,我們意識到勇軍又一次被捕了,就像上次回國所經歷的一樣:1998年勇軍回國時,中國政府將他秘密逮捕並封鎖了的所有的消息、直到他們找到了關押他的藉口、給他扣上個莫須有的罪名。比如說,1998年,中國政府把他秘密逮捕六個月後將他作為非中國籍公民逮捕並判為‘偷渡罪’(本國的公民在自己的國土上算什麼偷渡?),而2009年五月中國政府把他作為中國籍公民逮捕、然後判為‘詐騙罪’,他這麼多年一直生活工作在美國,是根本不可能在中國犯什麼詐騙罪的。

因為中國政府官員不斷的對我們家人進行騷擾、恐嚇以及威脅並警告我們不許向外界透露勇軍的情況(自從2008年11月分開始),因此我們完全可以肯定勇軍確實又被秘密關押了,但是我們無法瞭解到他在監獄裡面的情況,到底是已經被暗殺了還是還活著? 因此我們開始給中國各級政府部門寫信請求他們釋放勇軍。然後三個月、四個月、五個月----過去了,沒有任何答覆!七個月過去了----仍然沒任何回復!直到2009年四月,我們從被釋放的人員那裡瞭解到:勇軍被秘密關押在深圳市鹽田看守所,並被監獄看守改名為王華。這時我們突然意識到勇軍也許會被暗殺、並且是以王華的名義被殺害,那麼周勇軍這個人在這個世界上就沒有了痕跡、我們就再也見不到他了。於是我們以及國內的親戚馬上去深圳看守所尋找他,然而中國政府卻一再地否認他們關押了勇軍。在無可奈何之下、在絕望中,我們不得不向上帝求救、向媒體、向人權組織以及美國政府尋求説明。荒唐的是,中國政府始終不做回應,而在2009年5月13號,我們收到了中國政府逮捕勇軍的‘逮捕令’。然後我們聘請了打人權官司的知名律師莫少平,但不久我們受了很大的壓力、中國政府要求我們辭退莫律師、並給我們指定了當地的一個律師。

在巨大的壓力下,勇軍不得不辭退了莫律師。儘管勇軍的下落已經被公開化,但中國政府始終不允許我們探望他。我們從被釋放的人員以及律師那裡知道,勇軍在遂寧市看守所裡面健康狀況日益惡化,偏頭痛、心絞痛、四肢痛開始頻繁發作。而在此之前也就是2008年11月開始,勇軍在深圳的第一及第二看守所裡也被暴打過,打得臉腫腿瘸了很長時間;勇軍被秘密關押在深圳鹽田看守所的時候,曾絕食要求跟家人或者律師通話,但都被拒絕;每次勇軍因絕食而出現嚴重的胃痛痛得捲縮在角落裡、痛得在地上打滾的時候,獄醫就強行給他打針要他立即平靜下來。勇軍的姐姐是個公務員也曾經呼籲國際社會關注勇軍的案子,但他受到中國政府的屢次威脅和警告、現在她不得不保持沉默。

馬上就是勇軍42歲的生日了,我們不知道9月26日這一天他在中國的監獄裡會如何慶祝自己的生日。他深愛自己的家人、愛他的母國,然而,他的母國,一個號稱‘民主、法制’的東方大國竟然如此對待他:在二十年裡把他三次投入監獄、無數次的虐待。勇軍只不過是一個努力尋求民主和自由的熱血青年,這究竟有什麼錯?他沒有犯任何錯!

自從1989年被捕入獄,勇軍中國的監獄裡經受了很大的精神折磨和身體的傷害、以及所造成的創傷後果,這一次我們很擔心他的健康。我們很想念他,但是我們不允許探望他。他80多歲的正值的老父老母需要他,他的孩子們更需要他!我們期待著他能早日返回美國

在此,我期待著在坐的每一位、每一個熱愛民主、自由、人權和世界和平的人士關注一下勇軍的情況、第三次被中國政府投入監獄。I

非常感謝,

張月衛謹代表勇軍的子女、父母、及兄弟姐妹。

9-18-2009

 

Zhou Yung Jun's Family Impact Statement

We Haven't Seen Zhou Yung Jun (Majer) for One Year Already; We're Quite Worrying about His Health

——from Yung Jun's families, written by fiancée Yuewei Zhang

Yung Jun left Los Angeles for China Last year to visit his disabled father and his earthquake-hit hometown, on his 41st birthday, September 26, 2008. Then immediately, he went missing and we couldn't hear from him at all! About two months later in November, 2008, we were relieved to learn that he was arrested secretly in Hong Kong by the Chinese police and then was secretly transferred to Shenzhen and put in secret custody. However, the Chinese police denied that they held him. As we learned about Yung Jun's situation on the inside from released inmates, we realized that he was experiencing a replay, quite similar to the last time in 1998, when he was secretly arrested and the Chinese government tried to block all the information about him, until they found a pretext to charge him with a crime. For example, in his 1998 arrest, he was charged with "Secretly Entering China as a non-Chinese citizen." In May of 2009, he was charged with fraud as a Chinese citizen, a crime that he never committed.

Based on Chinese government officials' harrassment, threats, and intimidation for our family (since the end of November, 2008), we knew that Yung Jun was in custody again, but we had no way of knowing his condition (dead or alive?) inside the prison. So we began to write to all levels of the Chinese government repeatedly begging them to release Yungjun. Three months, four months, five months passed with no answer -- until seven months passed, there was no reply! Until April of 2009, we heard from another released inmate that Yung Jun was held in secret custody in Shenzhen Yantian Detention Center under the name Wang Hua, a name given to him by the jailers, we suddenly realized that Yongjun might be killed or murdered inside as Wang Hua, and we would never see him again. However, the Chinese government still denied that they held Yongjun and threatened Yongjun's relative who went to the detention center looking for Yongjun. Helplessly and hopelessly, we had to cry for help from God, from the media and human-rights-protecting groups and people, from the U.S. government. Ridiculously, we got Yongjun's Arrest Warrant from them--the Chinese government--on May 13, 2009. Then we retained Mr. Mo Shaoping, a well known human rights attorney. But soon thereafter, we received a lot of pressure to fire Mr. Mo.

Under the pressure, Yongjun had to dismiss Mo. In the time since Yongjun's whereabouts were disclosed, we haven't been allowed to visit him. We learned from the released cellmates that Yongjun suffered migraine, chest pain, and extremities pain in Suining Detention Center. And back in November of 2008, Yongjun was even hit and beaten so much by the jailers that he had a swollen face and a limp for a long time while he was held at Shenzhen Second Detention Center and Shenzhen First Detention Center; in Shenzhen Yantian Detention Center, Yongjun went on a hunger strike to request to talk with us or an attorney, but all his requests were refused; every time Yongjun was rolling about on the ground with severe stomachache or just shrinked in a corner, the jail doctor would give him shots to make him calm down. Yongjun's sister is herself a government employee and had called international attention to Yongjun's case. She has received warnings and she has to keep silent about Yongjun's case.

It will be Yongjun's 42nd birthday soon, and we don't know how he will celebrate it in China on September 26. He loves his family and his motherland China, however, this motherland, ostensibly an oriental big "DEMOCRACTIC AND LAWFUL" country has treated him with three imprisonments and cruel tortures within 20 years. Yongjun has been just a hot-blooded youth working hard to seek democracy and freedom. What's wrong with this? It's nothing wrong!

Since 1989, Yongjun suffered both mental tortures and physical injuries in the Chinese prisons and the serious consequences. We're quite worrying about his health. We really miss him now, however, we're not allowed to see him. His 80-year-old upright parents need him, and his children need him more. We've been looking forward to his return to the U.S.A.

I am, hereby, expecting everybody here present who loves and supports democracy, freedom, human rights and world peace to keep an eye on Yongjun's third imprisonment by the Chinese government.

Thank you very much,

Yuewei Zhang on behalf Yongjun's children, parents, sisters and brothers

9-18-2009

 

Letter to Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

c/o Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Ms. Navanethem Pillay

United Nations Office at Geneva (OHCHR-UNOG)

8-14 Avenue de la Paix

CH-1211, Geneva 10

Switzerland

October 6, 2009

 

Dear Ms. Pillay,

We respectfully request an urgent action and expedited determination of arbitrary detention in the case of ZHOU Yung Jun, also spelled as Zhou Yongjun. Mr. Zhou is a famous Chinese political dissident exiled to the United States. Zhou was the first Tiananmen Square student leader elected to lead the Autonomous Students Federation of Beijing Universities, the group which was then occupying Tiananmen Square.

Hence, Zhou was a key figure in the student uprising that led to the June 4, 1989 massacre when the army used live ammunition to retake Tiananmen Square. Zhou was a political prisoner from 1989-1991, and again from 1998-2001.

He has now become a political prisoner for a third time. The particulars of his case are found in our submission, and his case has had press coverage in the world news. On May 13, 2009, Western news wires reported the formal arrest of Zhou, based on an arrest warrant dated May 8, 2009 citing suspected fraud. His detention was kept secret by the Chinese government for more than seven months prior to mid-May, 2009. On Sept. 4, 2009, Radio Free Asia reported that Zhou will soon go on trial for the trumped up charge of attempted financial fraud.

We must point that the within report will disclose the arbitrary actions that not only have occurred in the People’s Republic of China, but also, based on a finding that Zhou was detained at Hong Kong airport by the Hong Kong immigration authorities and sent to the police authorities of the Mainland China, have occurred in Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Zone of the PRC that should remain the self-governance, judicial independence, and common law tradition based on the Sino-British agreement.

On September 18, 2009, our group, the Rescue Alliance for Zhou Yung Jun (co-founded by the pro-democracy China Support Network, with Zhou family members and more supporters), held a New York City press conference to call attention to the document in your hands as we submit the case of Zhou Yung Jun to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

We hope that you will review our submission that follows, beginning with the model questionnaire that is the standard form of a new case submission for the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. We would appreciate receiving notices of progress, steps and status changes in this case, and of course we stand ready to assist you with research if further information is required.

Please note that, you should have received a prior communication (on or about 08/27/2009) in this matter from Yuewei Zhang, the mother of Fiona Laong, the daughter of Zhou Yongjun. She is now a part of our group here, and this submission should replace her prior appeal for your help.

Thank you sincerely,

/s/ Jim Li, Esq., Director of China Judicial Watch

/s/ John P. Kusumi

Director emeritus, the China Support Network

for the Rescue Alliance for Zhou Yung Jun

 

Enclosed:

Authorization letter by the daughter of Zhou Yung Jun

Model Questionnaire

Case report with Appendix in English

Case report with Appendix in Chinese

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE

I. IDENTITY

1.     Full name in Chinese: 周勇军 (Zhou Yongjun in Chinese pinyin)

2.     Family name: Zhou

3.     First name: Yung Jun (spelled when registered as refugee status in the United States, which is now the official name)

4.     A/K/A: Yazhou Zhou; for the benefit of those in the English speaking world, Zhou chose to also be known as Majer Zhou.

5.     Sex: male

6.     Birth date, or age at the time of detention: September 26, 1967 (The Chinese authorities currently uses the identification of Yazhou Zhou with date of birth of September 15, 1967).

7.     Nationality/Nationalities: stateless, but a legal permanent resident in the U.S. and the naturalization application is pending before the United States Department of Homeland Security

8.     Identity document (if any): U.S. Permanent Resident Card, issued by: U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Feb. 4, 1993, No.: A071889900

9.     Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention): Best known as a political dissident, a former student leader in the Tiananmen Square uprising in Beijing, China in 1989

10.   Address of usual residence: 1227 S. Del Mar Ave., San Gabriel, CA 91776 USA

 

II. ARREST

1.     Date of arrest: 09/28/2008

2.     Place of arrest (as detailed as possible): Hong Kong

3.     Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out: Hong Kong port of entry forces

4.     Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority? Not at that time.

5.     Authority who issued the warrant or decision: More than seven months later, an arrest warrant was issued by the Suining Public Security Bureau of Sichuan Province, P.R.C. (dated 05/08/2009)

6.     Relevant legislation applied (if known): There is no legal basis for this arrest and detention.

 

III. DETENTION

1.     Date of detention: 09/28/2008

2.     Duration of detention (if not known, probable duration): 12 months already; still in custody; trial pending

3.     Forces holding the detainee under custody: Sichuan Suining Detention Center (Sichuan Province of the P.R.C. is holding Zhou on orders from higher up.)

4.     Places of detention (indicate any transfer and present place of detention):

a.     Secret detention In Hong Kong, 2 days; then transfer to

b.     Secret detention at Shenzhen Second Detention Center, 7 days; then transfer to

c.     Secret detention at Shenzhen First Detention Center, 49 days; then transfer to

d.     Secret detention at Shenzhen Yantian Detention Center with an alias Wang Hua assigned by Chinese police, 6 months; then transfer to

e.     Public detention Center at Sichuan Suining Detention Center 4 months

5.     Authorities that ordered the detention: The family believes that the Hong Kong and Shenzhen detentions were at the behest of the Ministry of Public Security. After transfer, the authorities responsible are now the Sichuan Suining People's Procuratorate.

6.     Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities: They cite suspected attempted financial fraud.

7.     Relevant legislation applied (if known): Seen in an attachment, the official indictment of Zhou cites Article 266 of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China.

IV. Describe the circumstances of the arrest and/or the detention and indicate precise reasons why you consider the arrest or detention to be arbitrary:

In September 2008, Zhou attempted a return to China from exile, out of concern for the declining health of his aging parents and the effects in his hometown of the Sichuan earthquake, which ravaged that area early in 2008.

Using a false Malaysian passport that Zhou purchased from an immigration company, Zhou went to Macao and tried to enter Hong Kong. At that point, Hong Kong police questioned him about an allegedly fraudulent letter that was written to Hang Seng bank by a person named Wang Xingxiang, which happens to be the name on the false passport that Zhou presented.

Zhou has made it clear that he did not author the letter in question. The bank had declined to transfer money in reply to the letter, because it had discerned that the signature did not match its records. After questioning, Hong Kong police concluded that Zhou was not the man in whom they were interested.

Zhou was then notified that immigration still needed to verify his identity, and that he was not allowed to enter Hong Kong, nor return to Macao nor the US. HK immigration authorities held him at the border for 48 hours, from September 28-30, 2008. In the words of Zhou, “Later they said ‘sorry’ to me that they misidentified me and turned me back over to immigration.”

Hong Kong immigration authorities experienced some mercurial lark and turned Zhou over to authorities of the People’s Republic of China. This was arbitrary arrest, not supported by any provocation, nor legal basis, nor any shred of due process of law. With no proceedings, no official decision, no chance for review, hearing, representation, or appeal, Zhou found himself moved to “a small hotel in Shenzhen.” What Zhou experienced may accurately be called an extrajudicial kidnapping.

To have a case against him in the Mainland is arbitrary because, since Zhou did not set foot in Mainland China for several years prior to these charges – and he was intercepted before ever reaching the Mainland – it is physically impossible that Zhou committed a crime in China. Furthermore, the Mainland authorities lack jurisdiction to prosecute the case that they have brought against Zhou. If a Hong Kong bank were victimized, such a case would be for Hong Kong authorities to prosecute, not the Mainland. Hence, their criminal indictment of him in Sichuan province is a ruse and a pretext to hold Zhou in this case of political persecution.

V. Indicate internal steps, including domestic remedies, taken especially with the legal and administrative authorities, particularly for the purpose of establishing the detention and, as appropriate, their results or the reasons why such steps or remedies were ineffective or why they were not taken:

From his arrest in late September, 2008, for over seven months until mid-May, 2009, the Chinese government denied that they held Zhou. This secrecy made it impossible for Zhou’s family to use China’s legal system. They were denied recourse, visitation, and communication with Zhou. The family learned some information from other prisoners who were released and passed along messages from Zhou.

During the secret detention interval, Zhou's family wrote many letters to all levels of Chinese government, demanding release of Zhou, to no avail. The letters were met with harassment, threats, and intimidation that officials directed against Zhou’s family.

Once the secrecy was over, the family retained the services of a famous attorney, Mo Shaoping of Beijing. The government then placed enormous pressure on the family to dismiss the attorney and to hire a more local attorney in the Suining area of Sichuan province. The more local attorneys have been fearful to take a case of a political nature.

The family has turned to international media and to the China Support Network, where we formed the alliance that authors this document; and, prepared this submission for the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, among other activities intended to raise pressure in this case.

VI. Full name and address of the person(s) submitting the information (telephone and fax number, if possible):

Date: 09/21/2009

 

Signers and contact info:

John P. Kusumi

The China Support Network

1035 S. Main St., #230

Cheshire, CT 06410 USA

            1 (203) 640-2715     

mailto: jpk@usacommons.net

 

Jim Li, Esq.

China Judicial Watch

401 Broadway, #1705

New York, NY 10013 USA

            1 (212) 334-7200     

fax: 1 (212) 334-0322

mailto: lawyerli3@verizon.net

Yuewei Zhang, parent and on behalf of the prisoner’s daughter, Fiona

1229 S Marguerita Ave,

Alhambra, CA 91803 USA

            1 (626) 497-5687     

mailto: wwwzhou7@gmail.com

 

意見 :     分享     
Tags : 聯合國 | 任意羈押 | 國際公約 | 公開信 | |

1 2

[Top]  

 

tag
search
tag_div
西藏(116)    (100)    天安門母親(52)    六四良心(49)    劉曉波(41)    零八憲章(41)    劉霞(40)    煽動顛覆國家(40)    諾貝爾和平獎(40)    中國良心(39)    四川好人(38)    汶川地震(38)    六四亡靈(30)    三面紅旗(29)    大躍進(29)    反右(26)    公民運動(25)    法庭陳述(25)    四川地震(18)    貴州維權(17)    退黨聲明(17)    趙紫陽(13)    刺刀下(12)    照相機(12)    艾曉明(12)    記者(12)    六四(11)    木樨地(11)    歷史證詞(10)    辯護詞(9)    

divider