 |
| 图：美联社 |
（香港-2018年6月6日）各国法律团体发声明，谴责中国政府采取吊销丶注销律师执业证手段打压维权律师。在过去8个月，中国9个省份17名维权律师及3间律师事务所被吊销或注销执业证。
全球法律团体联合声明：强烈谴责中国政府以吊销，注销律师执业证之手段持续打压维权律师
自2015年7月爆发轰动全球的「709大抓捕」起，中国政府打压维权律师的行动已持续近三年。虽已接近尾声，但打压行动并未停止，而是从「刑事抓捕」转变为更为隐秘的「行政惩戒」 - 即直接吊销或注销维权律师的执业证，剥夺维权律师的执业权[1]据我们观察，在最近8个月内，全中国已有17名维权律师及3间事务所陆续被吊销或注销执业证。对此，我们表示强烈谴责，并认为，中国政府的做法已严重违反中国宪法，律师法及国际法有关尊重和保障律师执业权利及公民权利的国家义务，中国政府应当立即无条件撤销对受影响律师作出的吊销或注销执业证的各项决定，并停止对维权律师群体的一切管控和打压。
我们注意到，从去年9月（即十九大前夕）开始，中国当局就已经在全国范围内开展了新的一轮针对维权律师的打压行动，并且愈演愈烈。在过去8个月时间里，全中国共有9个省份的17名维权律师及3间律师事务所被吊销或注销执业证;仅过去一个月内，就有包括谢燕益，李和平，黄思敏丶文东海，杨金柱，覃永沛等在内的6名维权律师收到司法局发出的拟吊销或注销执业证的通知书;而广西唯一一所维权律师事务所「百举鸣律师事务所」，则更是被南宁司法局在其办公场所强逼解散。尽管中国政府对外宣称召开听证会，给予律师申辩机会，但听证程序却极为不公开，不透明，救济途径形同虚设。而就在不久前召开的谢燕益律师的听证会外，一名香港记者甚至被警方围殴和非法扣留。[2]
同时，这一轮针对维权律师的吊牌运动，亦是「709大抓捕」的延续。在这17名被吊销或注销执业证的维权律师中，有超过一半是「709大抓捕」的涉案律师或涉案律师的辩护人，前者包括隋牧青，周世锋，李春富，谢燕益，李和平等，后者包括余文生，文东海，杨金柱，覃永沛等打压前者，目的是要把维权律师群体的核心力量连根拔起;打压后者，则是要把709抗争运动中出现的后继力量彻底铲除。
另外，我们亦注意到，中国政府正在以「行政惩戒」之名，行管控律师网路言论之实。尽管中国“宪法”第35条和联合国“关于律师作用的基本原则”第23条均保障律师享有言论自由，且不应因其言论而遭受处罚，但如祝圣武，吴有水，余文生，杨金柱等律师都因为在网上公开批评中国共产党及中国司法制度，而遭当局惩戒;玉品健律师则因他多次于网上撰文评论时政，而被当局向其事务所施压并要求解雇;另外亦有彭永和，王龙德，王理干等律师因为公开声明退出律师协会，遭到报复而被注销或吊销执照。[3] [4]由此可见，中国政府声称的「依法治国」只是欺骗世人的幌子，目的是企图合理化其以言入罪，打压异己的手段。我们注意到，前公安部副部长傅政华于今年3月开始担任司法部部长，我们担心未来局势只会更加恶劣。
因此，我们强烈要求中国政府：
1.立即无条件撤销对受影响律师作出的各吊销，注销执照的各项决定;
2.停止对维权律师群体的一切管控和打压，确保律师不会因其代理的案件或发表的言论受到妨碍，妨碍，不适当的干涉，或起诉和行政制裁;
3.切实遵守中国“宪法”，“律师法”及联合国“关于律师作用的基本原则”，有关保障律师权利的规定，尊重律师的执业权利及公民权利。
发起团体：
中国维权律师关注组，香港
联署团体：
人权现在，日本
律师助律师基金会，荷兰
法政汇思，香港
台湾声援中国人权律师网络，台湾
台北律师公会人权委员会，台湾
日内瓦律师协会，瑞士
2018年6月6日
[1]根据“律师执业管理办法”第23条，与所在律师事务所解除聘用合同，且在六个月内未被其他律师事务所聘用的律师，其律师执业证书将被注销。尽管从法律层面讲，注销与吊销性质不同，但过往经验显示，注销的法律效果实质上与吊销相同，律师一般都无法重新申请执业。
[2] https://hk.news.appledaily.com/.../.../article/20180520/20396145
[3]“中华人民共和国宪法”第35条：「中华人民共和国公民有言论，出版，集会，结社，游行，示威的自由」
[4]联合国“关于律师作用的基本原则”第23条：「与其他公民一样，律师也享有言论，信仰，结社和集会的自由......」
【A Joint Statement to Strongly Condemn the Chinese Government’s Suppression against Human Rights Lawyers through Revocation and Invalidation of Lawyers’ Licenses】
The Chinese government has continued its repression against human rights lawyers for almost 3 years since the start of the sensational and unprecedented “709 Crackdown” in July 2015. While the crackdown has seemingly come to an end, the suppression has not yet ceased. Apart from the manoeuvre of criminal detention, the Chinese government has now resorted to a subtler form of repression, administrative penalty, which involves revocation or invalidation of lawyers’ legal practice licenses, thus depriving them of their right to practice law.[1]
From our observation, at least 17 human rights lawyers and 3 law firms have had their licenses revoked or invalidated in China over the past 8 months. We, the undersigned, strongly condemn this manoeuvre. We believe that the acts of the Chinese government have seriously violated the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (“the Constitution”), the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Lawyers (“Lawyers’ Law”), and international human rights law which prescribes that state members shall respect and protect lawyers’ right to practice and the civil rights of all citizens. We urge the Chinese government to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all the decisions about revoking and invalidating lawyers’ licenses and to stop all forms of harassment, intimidation and repression against human rights lawyers in respect of their legal practice.
It has come to our attention that the Chinese authorities have launched another wave of nationwide suppression against human rights lawyers since September 2017 (i.e., the eve of 19thParty Congress), which has been intensifying. In the past 8 months, 17 human rights lawyers and 3 law firms from 9 different provinces have been deprived of the rights to practise as lawyers due to the revocation and invalidation of their practising licenses. In the past month alone, 6 human rights lawyers have already received notice from the Bureau of Justice that their licenses were to be revoked or invalidated, including Xie Yanyi, Li Heping, Huang Simin, Wen Donghai, Yang Jinzhu and Qin Yongpei. The sole human rights law firm in Guangxi, the Nanning Baijuming Law Firm, was also forced to be immediately shut down by the Nanning Municipal Bureau of Justice. Despite the Chinese government’s commitment to protect its citizens’ right to a fair and public trial which shall offer lawyers a fair hearing, the hearing procedures have never been truly open and transparent. All legal remedies are de facto futile. One Hong Kong journalist was even beaten by police and illegally detained while attempting to cover the hearing of lawyer Xie Yanyi.[2]
In the meantime, this wave of suppression of human rights lawyers is an extension of the notorious “709 Crackdown” in 2015. Amongst the aforementioned 17 lawyers, more than half are the 709 detainees or the defence lawyers for the 709 detainees. The former includes Sui Muqing, Zhou Shifeng, Li Chunfu, Xie Yanyi and Li Heping, etc., while the latter includes Yu Wensheng, Wen Donghai, Yang Jinzhu and Qin Yongpei, etc. The purpose of repressing the lawyers detained in the “709 Crackdown” is to uproot the core community of human rights lawyers, while the purpose of repressing their defence lawyersis to purge the honorable lawyers arising from the “709 Crackdown”.
It is also noted that the Chinese government has in fact controlled lawyers’ freedom of speech online by threatening to impose “administrative penalties”. According to Article 35 of the Constitution[3]and Article 23 of Basic Principles of the Role of Lawyers (“the Principles”) by the United Nations,[4]lawyers are entitled to freedom of speech and expression. Lawyers shall not be punished simply for exercising their freedom of speech. However, lawyers Zhu Shengwu, Wu Youshui, Yu Wensheng and Yang Jinzhu all received punishment due to their online criticisms of the Communist Party of China and China’s judicial system. In the case of lawyer Yu Pinjian, the law firm he belonged to was pressured by the authorities to dismiss him because he had repeatedly made comments on current affairs and politics online. In addition, lawyers Peng Yonghe, Wang Londe and Wang Liqian had their licenses retributively revoked or invalidated due to their public announcements about quitting the officially-run Lawyers’ Association. Thus it can be seen that China’s alleged “rule of law” is just a veneer to deceive the public. The underlying purpose is to justify its unlawful acts of restricting freedom of speech and repressing dissidents. It is worth noting that the former deputy minister of the Ministry of Public Security, Fu Zhenghua, was named Minister of Justice in March of this year. We share deep concern over the foreseeable exacerbation of the political situation.
In light of the above, we, the undersigned, solemnly demand the Chinese government to:
1. Immediately and unconditionally withdraw all the decisions in respect of the revocation and invalidation of lawyers’ practising licenses.
2. Stop all forms of political repression against human rights lawyers to ensure that lawyers do not suffer intimidation, hindrance, harassment, improper interference, prosecution or administrative sanctions for taking up sensitive cases or for giving speeches in accordance with their recognized professional duties.
3. Duly uphold and respect the legal rights enjoyed by Chinese lawyers, which include the right to practice and civil rights protected under the Constitution, relevant legislation governing the practice of lawyers in China, and the Principles of the United Nations.
Initiator:
China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, Hong Kong
Co-signatories:
Human Rights Now, Japan
Lawyers for Lawyers, Netherlands
Progressive Lawyers Group, Hong Kong
Taiwan Support China Human Rights Lawyers Network, Taiwan
Taipei Bar Association Human Rights Committee, Taiwan
The Geneva Bar Association, Switzerland
6th June 2018
[1]According to Article 23 of Administrative Measures for the Practice of Law by Lawyers, if a lawyer is dismissed by the incumbent law firm and not employed by a registered law firm for over 6 months, his or her legal practice license will be invalidated. From a legal perspective, the nature of “revoked” is different from that of “invalidated”. However, past experiences have shown that both statuses have same de facto outcome, lawyers generally cannot resume their practice.
[2]https://hk.news.appledaily.com/…/…/article/20180520/20396145.
[3]Article 35 of Constitution of the People’s Republic of China: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”
[4]Article 23 of United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers: “Lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly.”