(Minghui.org) In persecuting Falun Gong practitioners, those who work at the Procuratorate and the courts use their power to frame innocent practitioners, using “evidence” provided by the local police departments. However, the departments that verify the legitimacy of the “evidence” are appointed by the police and take orders from the 610 Office. Any "verification" is therefore biased.

Those who work in the evidence-verification departments know that the “evidence” in Falun Gong cases would never be verified by an independent third party. But if the police label it as "evidence," the courts and the Procuratorate accept it, even though what constitutes that “evidence” may be in common use and not in violation of any law. When practitioners and their lawyers reject the evidence as unacceptable in court, the judges dismiss their defense.

Articles published on the Minghui website expose how the Chinese Public Security Bureau, the Procuratorate, and the courts work together to persecute practitioners, and it has shown how the Chinese judiciary violates the law when prosecuting practitioners. The following examples further demonstrate this violation of the judicial process.

Case 1.

On page 8 of Mr. Chen Xuzhong's verdict (Reference No. 2012/66), which was issued by the Jinchuan District Court in Jinchang City, Gansu Province, it states: “There were electronic working records, encrypted software video, Nero 9 software, trace data erasure software, and virtual container software found on his computer.” “Encrypted software video was verified as evidence of violation of the law.”

TrueCrypt, Nero 9, vbox, and WYWZ can be found through Google and Baidu and can be downloaded free from the Internet. But here they constitute “evidence” in persecuting Falun Gong practitioners.

Case 2.

Another verdict (Reference No. 2008/10) from the Jinchuan Procuratorate states: “After examination by the Network Security Supervision Department of the Jinchang City Police Department, it was found that the computer's burn process was successfully executed, and that it had burned a total of 58 DVDs.” There were key words found on the computer such as: Jinchang, Dafa, arrest, evil, and quit the CCP.

Those words are considered to be “sensitive words” by the police and have therefore become “criminal evidence.”

Case 3.

When Mr. Wang Shushen was on trial, procurator Zhao Kai said, “When checking Wang Shushen's computer, it was found that he visited the Minghui website over 190 times. The literature called Minghui Weekly was printed on Wang Shushen's printer, and this has been verified by the Gansu Police Academy.”

When Mr. Wang's defense lawyer asked to see the document of verification and the reference number, Zhao had no reply, repeatedly wiping sweat from his forehead.

Case 4.

In 2007, police from Yongchang City in Gansu Province deceived local practitioners by first asking them to write letters to their families. They then took the handwritten letters to the Gansu Police Academy and compared the handwriting with a message about the persecution of Falun Gong that had been written on a wall in the city, attempting to arrest the practitioners.

Those responsible for the persecution: Feng Xun (冯珣), head of the Criminal Investigation Department at the Gansu Police Academy: +86-931-8304120, E-mail: Fengxun618@126.com Wang Jinghui (王锦辉), verifier from the Gansu Police Academy: +86-931-8304126, E-mail: wangjinhui730046@126.com Bai Jianjun (白建军), verifier from the Gansu Police Academy: +86-931-8304185 Zhou Wenkui (周文魁), party secretary of the Jinchang City Political and Legal Affairs Committee in Gansu Province: +86-935-8229340, +86-13909455166 (Cell)
Gu Changshou (顾长寿), chief of the Jinchang City Procuratorate: +86-935-8336590, +86-13830567719 (Cell)
Fang Yintian (方银天), director of the Jinchang City 610 Office: +86-935-8213167 (Office), +86-935-8333999 (Home), +86-13993562399 (Cell)
Li Xuhe (李叙和), director of the Jinchuan District Domestic Security Division in Jinchang City: +86-935-8315759