After sentencing the Falun Gong practitioners, the court refused to provide a document stating the verdict. The reason they cited is: if they give such a document, it will be immediately circulated on the internet overseas.
Court Refuses to Provide Verdict Documentation
On August 18, 2009, the court in Hantai District, Hanzhong City, Shaanxi Province, pronounced its verdict to four Falun Gong practitioners held in a Hantai detention center. The court rejected their appeal and sustained its original verdict, yet refused to provide a document stating the verdict. The reason they cited was, that if the four practitioners Yang Hua, Wu Yali, Ye Hao, and Li Qingmeng received such a document, it would be immediately circulated on the internet overseas. This action strongly illustrates their fear of exposure of investigation by international human rights organizations.
Officials from the 610 Office in Hanzhong City, undercover agents from the State Security Bureau, and the Domestic Security Police from Hantai District and Nanzheng County illegally arrested seven practitioners within a few days, beginning May 7, 2008. The Domectic Security Police in Hantai District sentenced Chen Baohan and Zhan Hanrong to a year and a half of forced labor camp, after they already served six months in a detention center. The court in Nanzheng District illegally sentenced practitioner Xiao Yanping to eight years. In June 2009, Ms. Xiao Yanping was taken to the Xi'an Women's Jail.
On November 27, 2008, the Hantai District Court opened the case on the remaining four practitioners. Held in jail for a year, they were finally sentenced on May 13, 2009, to varying times in jail, with neither lawyers nor family members present. Yang Hua was sentenced to nine years, Wu Yali and Ye Hao to five years, and Li Qingmeng to three years.
When the practitioners asked for documentation of the verdict, Judge Xu Yan (in charge of this case) and Judge Lian (the chief of the court) claimed that, according to orders from superior levels, Falun Gong practitioners were not to be provided with any court documents. The judges told the practitioners to ask detention center officials for the documentation they sought, but of course, the detention center officials refused to comply.
The four practitioners refused to accept the verdict and filed appeal. On August 18, 2009, the district court read the final court verdict from the mid-level court: "Reject the appeal and maintain the original sentence." Again, authorities refused to provide documentation of the verdict.