Appendix VI:  Attempt to Hire Independent Counsel for Tenzin Delek Fails

Wang Lixiong: Three Points of Doubt About the Case of A’an Zhaxi to Bring to the Attention of the Supreme Court for Review²⁰¹

Letter dated January 28, 2003

To: The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China

On Sunday January 26, 2003, The Sichuan Higher People’s Court in Kangding, the capitol of Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, carried out the trial of second instance in the case of A’an Zhaxi and “the series of explosions and inciting the division of the state.” It rejected the appeal [of A’an Zhaxi], upheld the death sentence for Lorang Dengzhu and the original sentence of death with a [two-year] reprieve for A’an Zhaxi. Moreover, the death sentence for Lorang Dengzhu was executed.

According to my understanding of the situation, in the course of this trial there have been problems such as: a sudden change of lawyers, reporting of the case situation not corresponding to fact, [and] local authorities threatening and controlling relatives of the parties concerned. The three problems are analyzed and explained as follows:

One: Sudden change of lawyers:

After the trial of first instance in the Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate Court, twenty-four people from all domestic circles issued an opinion expressing their desire for a guarantee that the appeal process would be fair and transparent. They also expressed a desire to hire a lawyer from outside Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture to represent the two at their appeal. On December 17, 2002, Zhang Sizhi of the Beijing City Wu Luan Zhao Yan law offices and Li Huigeng of Beijing City Wan Bo law offices both agreed to represent A’an Zhaxi.

On December 18, Ziren Lulu (A’an Zhaxi’s uncle) of Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Litang county, signed a paper of assignment and faxed it to the two lawyers. He simultaneously sent the formal contract by mail.

On December 25, after receiving the formal contract from Ziren Lulu, Li Huigeng, and the person in charge of A’an Zhaxi’s appeal, Judge Wang Jinghong of the Sichuan province higher criminal court, spoke by telephone. [Li Huigeng] faxed over an official letter from his law firm along with his contract with Ziren Lulu (the original document soon afterwards was express delivered to the Sichuan higher court). Judge Wang phoned to acknowledge [the reception of the fax].

The following day, December 26, Judge Wang Jinghong telephoned Li Huigeng to inquire of the two lawyers what time they could come to Chengdu to review the file. Judge Wang said he was planning to go away on business, but would coordinate [his trip] with the two lawyers’ schedules. The parties set Monday January 6, 2003 as the date to visit the Sichuan higher court to review the file.

On the morning of December 27, Li Huigeng once again called Judge Wang to confirm that he was to see A’an Zhaxi. Judge Wang explained the route to Kangding. Because A’an Zhaxi does not understand Mandarin, the two would have their discussion through a translator. Judge Wang explained that the local Tibetan dialect in Litang was heavily accented and thick, and that [the translation process] would work only if the translator were local. He then promised to go through the local department to provide a translator.

December 27 was a Friday. On Monday, December 30, when Li Huigeng arrived at work, he unexpectedly received a phone call from Judge Wang saying, “On December 17, A’an Zhaxi himself hired two lawyers and, moreover, they have already turned in the defense plea [to the court].”  He also said that Mr. Zhang and Mr. Li, the two lawyers, could not continue acting as defense counsel for A’an Zhaxi’s trial of second instance.

Here’s where the doubt lies: as the primary judge for the trial of second instance, how could it be possible that Judge Wang Jinghong only discovered ten days after the fact that A’an Zhaxi had himself hired a lawyer. How could it be that [Judge Wang] had previously admitted the two lawyers, Zhang and Li, and actively coordinated with them, at the same time that he had absolutely no indication of this?  If one were to say the problem was one of communication, [let us consider these facts], Judge Wang said that the lawyers hired by A’an Zhaxi had “already turned in the defense plea.” Before writing a formal defense plea, one must first review the case file. But how could the lawyer that A’an Zhaxi “hired” review the case file and, moreover, write the formal defense plea, without the leading judge on the case knowing about it?

Judge Wang has not appeared in public since [the last telephone call]. The two lawyers, Zhang and Li, suggested formal negotiations withthe collegiate (three-judge) panel(see attached letter), hoping that “according to arrangements made earlier in coordination with the lead judge, we could immediately travel to Kangding [to] solicit A’an Zhaxi’s own final decision about the question of the ‘hired lawyer.’” But, no matter how they asked or urged, they received no response. A’an Zhaxi’s relative also wrote to the Sichuan higher court expressing his opinions. [Ziren Lulu] believes A’an Zhaxi would want to receive the lawyers his relatives had hired for him. He requests that A’an Zhaxi be allowed to make his decision after fully understanding the situation. But again, no reply ever arrived.

I believe that if proof pertaining to A’an Zhaxi’s participation in the explosions was reliable, there simply would not be these kinds of mistakes, such as that concerning the sudden change of lawyers. The action of taking these two lawyers and exchanging them for two Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture lawyers who cannot possibly maintain independent standing is already viewed by many people as steps that would be taken only to cover up certain facts.

Two:  Facts being reported differ from reality:

On January 26, 2003, Xinhua News Agency reported the result of the trial of second instance as such: [as for the case of] A’an Zhaxi and Lorang Dengzhu “the facts of the crime are clear, the evidence is reliable, the two defendants both admitted and did not try to conceal [the truth].” However, relatives of A’an Zhaxi who attended the public trial of first instance²⁰² heard with their own ears A’an Zhaxi’s denial that he had anything to do with the explosions. He expressed clearly that he was being unjustly tried. So, where did the [idea that they] “candidly confessed” come from? Similarly, where does the motive lie in issuing such reports, which obviously don’t conform to reality, to the outside?

The report also claimed: “After the trial of first instance, defendant Lorang Dengzhu accepted the verdict and did not appeal.”  But in Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, people say that Lorang Dengzhu did not forego his appeal because he accepted the verdict. They say it was actually because [during the initial investigation] he could not take the pressure and fingered A’an Zhaxi. The result was A’an Zhaxi’s arrest and conviction. [Lorang Dengzhu] felt such shame that he sought death. It is said that Lorang Dengzhu said: shooting me will make me “incredibly happy.” This kind of speculation has yet to be confirmed. Nonetheless, after the trial of first instance, Lorang Dengzhu shouted the slogan, “Long live A’an Rinpoche.” His relatives heard this themselves at the trial of first instance.

Three:  Local authorities systematically threatened and controlled the relatives of the parties concerned:

The above report also claimed that, “during the trials of first and second instance, the defendants’ trial rights [procedural rights] were fully guaranteed.” I have no way of contacting the people involved in the trial procedure or the defendants themselves. But you can see from the treatment that A’an Zhaxi’s relatives have been receiving that even they were receiving no guarantees [related to] anything from their trial rights to their physical/personal rights. Clearly the idea that the defendants themselves were having their rights guaranteed is hard to believe.

A’an Zhaxi’s relatives faced the following situations:

1) during the trial of first instance, they expressed a desire to hire a lawyer for [A’an Zhaxi]. [People at] the relevant department rudely responded that A’an Zhaxi was a counterrevolutionary, that a lawyer would not be found for him.

2) The Litang County Public Security Bureau stipulated that if they were going to go to Kangding they must first get the approval of the head of the Public Security Bureau. Otherwise they would be arrested. Afterward, when it was discovered that the relatives had hired Beijing lawyers [for A’an Zhaxi], they went one step further and ordered them not to leave Litang County.

3) On the afternoon of Friday, December 27, 2002 (the same day that Li Huigeng, the lawyer, and Judge Wang Jinghong were discussing a visit to A’an Zhaxi), the Litang County Public Security Bureau summoned three relatives of A’an Zhaxi and interrogated them about the hiring of the Beijing lawyers. Simultaneously, they warned them that there would be serious consequences for those responsible.

4) On December 30, 2002, Ziren Lulu wrote a letter to the Sichuan higher court about the mistake regarding the lawyer. Afterward, he made many phone calls inquiring [about the matter]. The court is yet to respond. [A’an Zhaxi’s] relatives hope to know how they may make contact with what the court calls “the lawyers A’an Zhaxi hired for himself.” This is [the defendant’s] relatives’ basic right. They never received a response to this either. To this day his relatives still don’t know who the lawyers were.

5) On January 10, 2003, upon hearing that the trial of second instance in Kangding had begun, the relatives of A’an Zhaxi phoned the Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture court to inquire about the situation. They heard a stern voice denouncing them and telling them to “mind their own business.” Moreover, because I personally had expressed opinions about this case and made public my understanding of the case, the Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture police started an investigation of me which involved a number of people whom I had contacted in Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. My friend Liao Yiwu also spent one entire night being interrogated by the Chengdu police. Moreover, they searched his house.

Due to the above situations, it is difficult to believe that this case was getting a fair hearing inside Sichuan province. The possibility exists that that there is a mistake in the current verdict. Moreover, this case involves relationships among ethnicities, religious personages, and international influence. The details of the case are difficult, complicated, and significant. According to the “The Supreme People’s Court Explanation of Certain Questions in Reference to the Implementation of the People’s Republic of China Criminal Procedure Law,” clause 305 stipulates: “If the Supreme People’s Court discovers, in relation to a legally effective decision or ruling made by any level of court, or by any higher level people’s court in relation to a legally effective judgment or ruling made by any lower level people’s court, that there has certainly been a mistake made, it may order the lower people’s court to retry; as for the original ruling or judgment, if it is maintained that the facts are true, but there was a mistake in the application of the law or the details of the case are difficult, complicated, or significant, or there were other reasons for which it was unsuitable for the original people’s court to hear the case, the case can also be reviewed [by a higher court].”  I earnestly suggest that the People’s Republic of China Supreme People’s Court initiate a review of this case.

Wang Lixiong

January 27, 2003

Beijing

ATTACHMENT 2

Letter from Ziren Lulu to the Sichuan Higher People’s Court in Reference to the Unforeseen Event about the Lawyers

To: Lawyer Wang Singsong

       Sichuan Higher People’s Court

I am Ziren Lulu, A’an Zhaxi’s uncle. I hired Zhang Sizhi of the Beijing City Wu Luan Zhao Yan law offices and Li Huigeng of the Beijing City Wan Bo law offices to defend A’an Zhaxi at his appeal. The two lawyers recently planned to go to Chengdu and Kangding to deal with the case. Today, I received information from the lawyers that Judge Wang has suddenly stated that A’an Zhaxi has already hired a lawyer. Because of this, the two lawyers I hired will not be able to take on this case. I, and other relatives of A’an Zhaxi, hold a different opinion.

Moreover we request:

1.  Please tell me the names of the lawyers that A’an Zhaxi hired for himself, along with the addresses and telephone number of their companies.

2.  I believe that if A’an Zhaxi knew the situation, that I had hired two lawyers for him, he would dismiss the lawyers he had hired. He would accept the lawyers I hired for him. I request that you permit A’an Zhaxi to completely understand the situation before [requesting] him to make his choice once more.

3.  I hope that you will allow one relative to meet with A’an Zhaxi order to explain to him the situation with the lawyers and to seek his own personal opinion. Moreover, I request of the relevant personages on the scene that there be a collegiate panel [three-judge panel] joint decision concerning the lawyers.

Ziren Lulu

December 30, 2002

[201] The document is available at http://www.xizang-zhiye.org/gb/xzxinwen/0301/index.html (retrieved November 6, 2003).

[202] Editors note: there was no public trial, only a public sentencing hearing. Information from other sources confirmed that the proceeding referred to here was the sentencing hearing.