Name: Gu Huaibing(谷怀兵) (Clearwisdom.net) In the evening of July 21, 2009, Mr. Gu Huaibing, a resident of Pi County, Chengdu City, who works part time at a computer company under the Chengdu Branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, was arrested by officers from the Tiaosanta Police Station. On August 5, 2009, Mr. Li Jinglin and Mr. Lan Zhixue, two attorneys representing Mr. Gu, requested to meet with their client according to the law but were rejected by the chief of the Wuhou District Domestic Security Division, Chengdu City. Both attorneys have filed complaints with the Chengdu City and other relevant authorities against the unlawful actions of the Chengdu City Detention Center, the Legislative Affairs Section of the Public Security Department, Wuhou Branch and the chief of the Wuhou District Domestic Security Division.
Date of Most Recent Arrest: July 21, 2009
Most recent place of detention: Chengdu City Detention Center (成都市看守所)
In their complaint, the attorneys stated that on the morning of August 5, 2009, after they had accepted the entrustment of Ms. Yang Qin, Mr. Gu's wife, they went to the Detention Center and requested to meet with their client, Mr. Gu. After the officer on duty inspected Mr. Lan Zhixue's letter of attorney, letter of introduction and his attorney license, he asked for the written permission from the investigation authorities, citing that it was required by the Public Security Department in Chengdu City. After failing to convince the officer to allow them to meet with their client, the two attorneys went to the Legislative Affairs Section, where the officer on duty told them that according to internal regulations, all Falun Gong related cases required the Domestic Security Division's review as to whether Domestic Security personnel needed to be present during the attorney-client meeting.
On the morning of August 6, 2009, the two attorneys went to the Public Security Department, Wuhou Branch. Mr. Li Jinglin found the chief of the Domestic Security Division in his office. The Chief took a look at Mr. Li's attorney license and told them that during the investigation period, no attorney-client meeting would be permitted. Mr. Li stated that it was not a case involving state secrets and according to the law, attorneys should be permitted to see their client. Plus, the Legislative Affairs Section only told them to ask whether the Domestic Security Division decided to be present during the meeting. The Chief replied, "Why send personnel if the meeting is not permitted?"
The attorneys also stated in their complaint that according to the Lawyers Law, "From the day a criminal suspect is taken into custody or questioned for the first time by investigative authorities, the entrusted lawyer...has the right to meet with the suspect/defendant and to obtain information related to the case ..."
The officer on duty at the Legislative Affairs Section mentioned that according to the Criminal Procedure Law, the "investigation authorities can send personnel to the attorney-client meeting according to the condition and the requirement of the case." When there is a conflict between the Criminal Procedure Law and the Lawyers Law, the published official written reply from the Legal Works Committee of the National People''s Congress (NPC) to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) National Committee, dated August 7, 2008, clearly states that, according to the legislative stipulations, when conflicts between the Criminal Procedure Law and the Lawyers Law arise, the Lawyers Law should be enforced. In other words, the attorneys do not need the personnel from the investigation authorities to be present in their meeting with client at the detention centers. However, the Legislative Affairs Section sent the attorneys the Domestic Security Department's decision, and the Chief specifically said, "No." These acts are an open violation of both the Lawyers Law and the Criminal Procedure Law because even when only the Criminal Procedure Law is enforced, the investigation authorities only have the right to send personnel to be present at the attorney-client meeting for the cases that do not involve state secrets. It does not have the right to prevent the attorney from seeing their clients.
The complaints also stated that the Detention Center, the Legislative Affairs Section, and the Chief have the responsibility to ensure the correct implementation of the law. If they deliberately failed to do so, they bear the charge of openly sabotaging law enforcement. The attorneys hope that the related government bodies and officials will pay close attention to the matter and adopt effective measures to immediately stop the unlawful acts of the Detention Center, the Legislative Affairs Section, and the chief of the Domestic Security Division.