What are human rights? They are the basic and fundamental rights bestowed upon people from heaven upon their birth. Yet, within human rights there is one clause that provides "immunity as the head of state." The very content of this clause has deviated from the meaning of human rights. It has separated the president from the common citizens, and placed "the head of state" in an improper place. The clause states that if "the head of state" breaks the "public law" then he or she could be spared from prosecution, yet common citizens cannot enjoy such a privilege. Please think about it, since such a clause has already been approved, then how could the public law be constitutional and just?

Whether it is the constitution, or national or international laws, they are all established by leaders in power. The real reason that leaders established such a law was to protect themselves out of selfishness and self-interest. They wanted to leave a loophole in case they committed a crime. Isn't it all too clear whether this clause is fair or unjust?

If each and every level of law were to be established this way, then ordinary citizens would suffer a lot. Then the presidents, ministers and leaders could all violate the law at their own will. What kind of world would it become? How could there be real justice?

The Fa rectification process is advancing rapidly. All righteous courts in the world are starting to accept lawsuits filed against Jiang by Dafa practitioners. The hideous crimes of Jiang will be exposed to the entire world. Now the apparent legal technicalities appear to be whether or not Jiang can be granted "the immunity as head of state." Because of this specific issue, I feel that all practitioners should clearly recognize the factors behind the "immunity as head of state."

Since the old forces arranged everything they wanted to accomplish, then shouldn't the so-called "immunity as head of state" be their best-prepared lifesaver for their last gasp? Since human rights are equally applicable to all, then how could a president be pardoned if he committed a crime? Isn't this above the law? Isn't this a provision and safety net for crimes committed by national leaders? Doesn't this clause distort the very idea of human rights itself? Therefore I believe that the fundamental issue is not limited to whether or not Jiang Zemin should be excluded under the "immunity as head of state," but rather the entire concept of "immunity as head of state" is itself a product of the degeneration of human morality.