Un funzionario del tribunale cinese ha commentato in un articolo pubblicato il 16 gennaio, le prove insufficienti riguardo l’arresto di diversi uomini con l’accusa di “mettere in pericolo la sicurezza dello Stato”. Oltre a ciò egli solleva interrogativi inquietanti riguardo la mancata trasparenza nelle procedure penali e l’ incoerenza nella trasmissione di informazioni sui processi penali.
Segue articolo in inglese:
A Chinese court official’s comments regarding trials on “endangering state security” raises troubling questions about Chinese authorities’ misuse of state security charges, lack of transparency in criminal procedures and inconsistency in reporting information about criminal trials. An article in Chinese state media published on January 16 quoted Xinjiang Higher People’s Court president Rozi Ismail as stating that 376 trials had been conducted in 2010 for individuals charged with “endangering state security” in a series of cases, including an August 2008 attack in Kashgar in which 16 policemen were reportedly killed. The Uyghur American Association’s concern is compounded by Ismail’s statement that “the people’s courts at all various levels in Xinjiang will put the crackdown on terrorism as its top priority for the criminal courts.” Terrorism has long been used as a pretext to crack down on all forms of Uyghur dissent, and crackdowns announced by top officials in East Turkestan often indicate particularly intense campaigns against peaceful expressions of Uyghur identity and dissent. In addition, a security clampdown announced at this time could indicate a heightened drive to execute Uyghurs on the eve of the Chinese New Year, which falls in early February this year. Executions are often carried out in significantly greater numbers in East Turkestan on the eve of the Chinese New Year. In light of the use of vague “state security” charges to disproportionately prosecute Uyghurs, and the harsh sentences given to a number of Uyghur journalists and bloggers in 2010 on charges of “endangering state security”, the Uyghur American Association (UAA) calls upon Chinese officials to provide a full and fair accounting of the 376 cases reported. Despite Ismail’s statement that “evidence, facts, and procedures” were followed in the prosecution of the 376 cases, the January 16 article merely continues the Chinese government’s failure to consistently and transparently report information about criminal procedures in East Turkestan. Chinese authorities must honor their own pledges regarding the dissemination of information regarding cases involving “state security” cases and cases related to July 5, 2009 unrest in the regional capital of Urumchi. While regional governor Nur Bekri remarked in March 2010 that trials of defendants in July 5 cases had been tried “openly, fairly, and impartially”, the figure he gave for sentences for crimes that had been committed in July 2009 appeared to exceed the number of cases reported up to that time by Chinese media. It is unclear why individuals would have been tried in 2010 for the August 2008 attack in Kashgar, as the two Uyghurs alleged to have carried out the attack were executed on April 9, 2009. Thirty-four year-old Abdurahman Azat and 29-year-old Kurbanjan Hemit were reportedly denied access to legal counsel and were not allowed to see their families following their initial detention. Many questions about the evidence presented by the Chinese government regarding the incident remain unanswered, and the details of the event remain uncertain. UAA believes that the sentencing and execution of the two men was motivated by a desire to silence questions concerning the evidence presented by Chinese authorities in the case, and was also aimed at sending a clear message of intimidation to the Uyghur people in an on-going crackdown in East Turkestan. In August 2008, the Chinese state media reported that Azat and Hemit attacked and killed sixteen policemen using a truck, homemade grenades and machetes in the city of Kashgar. However, a September 28, 2008 New York Times report on the attack cast doubt on the official Chinese version of events in a number of key areas, detailing the eyewitness accounts of three western tourists, one of whom had taken photographs of the attack. Following the attack, the party secretary of Kashgar, Shi Dagang, said that the two men in custody for carrying out the attack were members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). However, no evidence has been presented on the men’s affiliation with ETIM or of the very existence of ETIM itself since Shi Dagang’s statement. On January 17, Amnesty international questioned the legitimacy of the hundreds of trials conducted by Chinese authorities in 2010, calling upon Chinese authorities to “demonstrate that the 376 individuals tried in 2010 in connection to the unrest in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region received fair trials and were not punished for simply exercising their freedom of expression.” “According to information obtained by Amnesty International, many Uighurs have been punished with harsh sentences for ‘endangering state security’, when they did nothing more than grant interviews to the media or post articles to the internet,” said Catherine Baber, Asia-Pacific Deputy Director at Amnesty International. Research publicized by the organization Dui Hua regarding the high number of trials on charges of “endangering state security” documented China’s heavy reliance on vague anti-state charges. Dui Hua expressed the belief that “a substantial percentage of those being prosecuted on state security charges” are Uyghurs and Tibetans. Under Chinese law, individuals can be prosecuted for “endangering state security” if they are believed to have engaged in subversion, “splittism”, and “illegally providing state secrets to overseas entities,” all charges that are of a highly subjective nature in China. The Chinese government’s contradictory statements on the details of trials for Uyghurs detained in the wake of unrest in Urumchi on July 5, 2009 indicate an absence of transparency surrounding criminal and judicial procedures, as well as a process driven by political motivations. Many of the details on the criminal and judicial procedures in the cases as reported by Chinese official media have been contested in reports emerging from East Turkestan, adding to grave doubts regarding the divergent official accounts of detentions and trials. UAA calls upon President Barack Obama to raise the issue of the August 2008 attack with Chinese President Hu Jintao during his visit, together with China’s use of the incident to present a false image of an organized Uyghur terrorist movement. UAA urges Chinese officials to allow an independent investigation into the criminal procedures carried out in the wake of the attack.
Fonte: UAA, 20 gennaio 2011