March 2017
Contents
Preface
I. China's Court System and Reform Process
II. Ensuring the Independent and Fair Exercise of Adjudicative Power by People's Courts by Law
III. Strengthening the Mechanism of Judicial Protection of Human Rights
IV. Judicial Power Serving the People
V. Improving the Judicial Accountability System
VI. Deepening Judicial Openness
VII. Promoting Judicial Democracy
VIII. Promoting Specialized Trial and Flat Management
IX. Improving the Regularization, Specialization and Professionalization of Judicial personnel
X. Promoting Informatization of Courts
Conclusion
Preface
The rule by law is the fundamental method for administering the country and managing governmental affairs, while justice is a key cornerstone of the system of rule by law. The judicial organs apply laws and adjudicate cases according to legal powers and procedures, and perform the functions of settling disputes, punishing the evil and praising the good, granting remedies, setting rules and other statutory functions, to ensure the effective application of laws and safeguard social fairness and justice. The improvement of the judicial management system and the standardization of the exercise of judicial powers will help the judicial system play a more effective role in administering the country and managing governmental affairs by operation of law, and promote the modernization of governance system and capability in our country.
China's courts have been attaching great importance to judicial reform. Since 2013, on the background of deepening reform in an all-round way, by taking the fundamental realities of our country into consideration and keeping pace with the times, and with the aim to make the public experience fairness and justice in each judicial case, China’s courts have been advancing judicial reform in an active, steady and practical manner and scored great achievements. Through deepening judicial reform, China will continuously improve the public credibility of the judiciary, promote judicial impartiality, and build a fair, efficient and authoritative socialist judicial system.
I. China's Court System and Reform Process
Institutional Basis of Court Reform in China
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China provides that the people's courts are judicial organs of the State. The State sets up Supreme People's Court, local people's courts at different levels and special people's courts such as military courts. These people's courts adjudicate civil, criminal and administrative suits in accordance with laws, and carry out judicial activities including the execution of civil and administrative decisions and state compensation.
The Supreme People's Court, as the highest judicial organ of the People's Republic of China, is responsible for adjudicating various cases that have material effects nationwide or are subject to its adjudication according to law, formulating judicial interpretations, supervising and guiding the judicial work of local people's courts at different levels and special people's courts, and managing certain judicial administration work of the courts nationwide within the scope of its functions and powers as per laws.
Local people's courts at different levels include primary people's courts, intermediate people's courts and higher people's courts. Special people's courts include military courts, maritime courts, IP courts, etc.
A people's court at a higher level supervises the judicial work of the people's courts at the next lower level. In litigious activities, the people's courts adopt the systems of public trial, collegiate panel, challenge, people's assessors, defense, and judgment of the second instance as final, etc.
Basic Process of Court Reform in China
Since the introduction of the reform and opening-up policy, along with all-round economic and social development, continuous advancement of democracy and rule by law, and the public’s ever-increasing demands for and expectations of judicature, the original judicial system was unable to meet the need of new situations. As early as in the 1990s, China's courts started the reforms focusing on enhancing the function of court trials, expanding the openness of trials and improving judicial professionalization. Since the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China ("CPC"), the Supreme People's Court has initiated a series of reforms in the areas of organization and system of courts, judge system, litigation procedure, method of trial, enforcement system, judicial management, etc., and promulgated three "Five-year Reform Program for People’s Courts" in 1999, 2005 and 2009 respectively. The said three Programs served as the basis of China's court reform before 2013.
The Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC ("CCCPC") on Some Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening the Reform adopted at the 3rd Plenary Session of the 18th CCCPC set an important task of advancing rule by law in China and deepening the reform of the judicial system. The Decision of the CCCPC on Some Major Issues Concerning Management of State Affairs under the Rule of Law in an All-round Way adopted at the 4th Plenary Session of the 18th CCCPC set the establishment of a socialist system of rule by law with Chinese characteristics and the building of a socialist country under the rule of law as the general objective of advancing management of state affairs under the rule of law in an all-round way, and put forward a series of major reform measures in scientific legislation, strict law enforcement, judicial impartiality, universal law abiding and other areas. The judicial reform has become an important component of the program of comprehensively deepening the reform in China and has been included in the overall development strategy of the State.
In order to further deepening the reform of people's courts, the Supreme People’s Court promulgated the Opinions on Comprehensively Deepening the Reform of People's Courts on February 4, 2015, putting forward 65 reform measures, which'was served as the Fourth Five-year Reform Program for People's Courts 2014-2018. As of the end of 2016, 63 reform tasks had been basically accomplished or carried out in an all-round way.
Organization and Implementation of the Court Reform in China
In early 2014, China set up the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reform headed by President Xi Jinping, which is responsible for the overall design, arrangement, coordination, promotion and implementation of the reform. The Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reform held 31 plenary meetings between January 21 and December 31, 2016, 23 of which discussed the issues relating to the judicial reform, considered and passed 38 documents relating to the judicial reform, thereby fundamentally forming the Central Government's top-down design and basic frame of comprehensively deepening the reform of the judicial system.
The Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reform sets up six special sub-groups, which are responsible for considering important issues relating to reforms in the relevant areas, coordinating and advancing the formulation and implementation of special reform policies and measures. The Leading Group for Reform of the Social System (also called “Central Leading Group for Reform of the Judicial System) is responsible for deepening the reform of the judicial system.
The reform of the judicial system covers a wide range of issues and has high policy sensitivity. In consideration that the improvement of classified management of judicial personnel, improvement of judicial accountability, improvement of job security of judicial personnel and promotion of centralized management of personnel, financial and material resources of local courts below the provincial level are basic measures of the reform of the judicial system, according to the principle that major reforms shall be first conducted on a pilot basis, China launched pilot reforms in respect of the aforesaid four issues in some provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government in three batches, to accumulate experience for advancing the reform in an all-round way. Since July 2016, these four major reforms have been implemented nationwide in an all-round way.
The Supreme People's Court set up a leading group for judicial reform headed by Chief Judge Zhou Qiang, which is responsible for organizing, leading, making overall arrangements for and coordinating the judicial reform at courts, holding plenary and special meetings, overall planning of key issues of reform, considering reform proposals, discussing and deciding major issues. Each higher people’s court sets up a leading group for judicial reform to be responsible for supervising, guiding, making overall arrangements for and coordinating the judicial reform at courts within its jurisdiction. The proposal for any pilot program in respect of judicial reform made by a higher people's court is subject to examination and approval by the Supreme People's Court, and if it involves any major reform, by the Central Government.
II. Ensuring the Independent and Fair Exercise of Adjudicative Power by People's Courts by Law
China's Constitution provides that people's courts shall exercise their adjudicative power independently and free from any interference by any administrative organ, social organization or individual. The judicial power is a power of the Central Government. A local court in a place is not subject to the jurisdiction of the local government in that place, but is a judicial organ set up by the State in that place to exercise the adjudicative power on behalf of the State. Since 2014, in conjunction with the related departments under the Central Government, the Supreme People's Court has been advancing the reform of the judicial management system, exploring ways to improve the organizational system of courts, establishing the record system for interferences with cases, improving the system for safeguarding the authority of judicature, and promoting the creation of an institutional and social environment trusting, respecting and supporting judicature.
Promoting centralized management of personnel, financial and material resources of local courts below provincial level. The reform of the judicial management system by promoting centralized management of personnel, financial and material resources of local courts below the provincial level reflects that the judicial power is a power of the Central Government in nature. All the regions have advanced the work of centralized management in an open, transparent and democratic manner relying on the provincial platforms. The size and composition of local courts below provincial level in a provincial-level region are subject to management by the provincial commission department with the assistance of the higher people's court in that region. The commission departments at municipal or county level are no longer responsible for the management of size and composition of courts within their respective jurisdictions. Each provincial-level region has established the mechanism that the judges of local courts below provincial level are subject to nomination, management, appointment and removal according to the legal procedures by the provincial-level government in a centralized manner. Judge assistants are recruited and employed by provincial-level public server management departments in conjunction with higher people's courts in a centralized manner. Junior judges are subject to professional qualification examination by provincial-level judge selection committees, and nomination, appointment and removal according to the legal procedures by provincial-level governments in a centralized manner. The provincial-level regions have also explored the reform of centralized funding management system for local courts below provincial level in light of their respective local conditions. In some provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, the funds required by local courts below provincial level are fully included in the budgets of the Central Government and of the provincial-level governments; the provincial-level financial departments manage the funds required by local courts below provincial level; all the courts at the provincial, municipal and county levels are classified as first-level budgetary units and prepare and submit their respective budgets to the provincial-level financial departments; their budgetary funds are appropriated from the central payment system of the Treasury.
The Supreme People's Court sets up circuit courts. In January 2015, the Supreme People's Court set up No. 1 Circuit Court in Shenzhen, Guangdong, whose circuit covers Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan, and No. 2 Circuit Court in Shenyang Liaoning, whose circuit covers Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang. These Circuit Courts are responsible for adjudicating major administrative cases and trans-regional civil and commercial cases. As the standing local judicial organs dispatched by the Supreme People's Court, the judgments, rulings and decisions made by these Circuit Courts have the equal effect as those made by the Supreme People’s Court. As of December 31, 2016, No. 1 and No. 2 Circuit Courts of the Supreme People's Court had accepted 4,721 cases, concluded 4,573 cases and received 73,000 visitors in total, and have become the "experimental units" and "pacesetters" of the judicial reform conducted by the Supreme People's Court, and realized the original intention to delegate the adjudicative power, facilitate initiation of lawsuits by the people, settle disputes locally and safeguard the unification of legal system. On December 28-29, 2016, upon the approval by the Central Government, four additional circuit courts set up by the Supreme People's Court were officially opened in east, central, southwest and northwest China respectively. The No. 3 Circuit Court was established in Nanjing, Jiangsu, whose circuit covers Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Fujian and Jiangxi. The No. 4 Circuit Court was established in Zhengzhou, Henan, whose circuit covers Henan, Shanxi, Hubei and Anhui. The No. 5 Circuit Court was established in Chongqing, whose circuit covers Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunan and Tibet. The No. 6 Circuit Court was established in Xi’an, Shaanxi, whose circuit covers Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia and Xinjiang. Hunan was added into the circuit of the No. 1 Circuit Court, while the circuit of the No. 2 Circuit Court remains unchanged. The head office of the Supreme People's Court directly accepts cases from Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Shandong and Inner Mongolia, thereby realizing a reasonable layout of circuit courts.
Setting up trans-regional people's courts. In order to ensure lawful and fair adjudication of trans-regional cases, with the approval by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court and the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People's Court were established in Beijing and Shanghai respectively in December 2014. As pilot trans-regional people's courts, these two courts are responsible for adjudicating major civil, commercial, administrative, environmental and resource protection, food and drug safety and certain criminal cases involving different administrative regions, to ensure fair adjudication of cases involving local interests. As of December 31, 2016, the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court had accepted 5,686 cases and concluded 5,380 cases, while the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People's Court had accepted 3,325 cases and concluded 3,119 cases. The Supreme People's Court will, according to the overall arrangement by the Central Government, and on the basis of seriously analyzing the experience of the two pilot trans-regional people’s courts in Beijing and Shanghai, explore and establish a new pattern of litigation system in which general cases are adjudicated at local courts and special cases are adjudicated at trans-regional courts.
Setting up IP courts. In order to further enhancing judicial protection of intellectual property rights (IP) and unifying the adjudicative criteria for IP cases, with the approval by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, IP courts were established in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou on November 6, December 16 and December 28, 2014 respectively. The Supreme People's Court promulgated the relevant judicial interpretations, defining the jurisdiction of IP courts over cases, and providing guidelines on the appointment of IP judges, participation in litigious activities by technological investigation officers of IP courts and other issues. The IP courts have built a new image of China in judicial protection of IP through fair adjudication of typical cases, timely publication of typical cases, news conferences and otherwise.
Reforming the organizational system of military courts. Military courts are judicial organs set up by the State in the army. According to the overall arrangement by the Central Government, the basis for the setup of military courts was changed from branches of services and systems into combat zones. After the said reform, the new organizational system of military courts includes the PLA Military Court (at the level of higher court), the Military Court of the East Combat Zone of the PLA, the Military Court of the South Combat Zone of the PLA, the Military Court of the North Combat Zone of the PLA, the No. 1 and No. 2 Military Courts of the West Combat Zone of the PLA, the Military Court of the Central Combat Zone of the PLA and the Military Court Directly under the Headquarters of the PLA (at the level of intermediate court), and 26 military courts of the PLA in Shanghai, Nanjing, and Hangzhou and other cities (at the level of primary court).
Promoting trans-regional centralized jurisdiction over administrative cases. Considering that an administrative case is subject to jurisdiction of the court in the place where the administrative organ as the defendant is located and may be subject to interference by local administrative organs, according to the overall arrangement by the Central Government, the courts in all regions have been exploring the establishment of a system of jurisdiction over administrative cases relatively separate from administrative divisions, through escalation of the jurisdiction to the higher level, cross-jurisdiction among different regions, relatively centralized jurisdiction and otherwise, carrying out reforms of the jurisdiction system with different characteristics, to practically solve serious problems in administrative lawsuits, such as difficulty in case filing, difficulty in trial and difficulty in enforcement. In June 2015, the Supreme People's Court promulgated the opinions on trans-regional centralized jurisdiction over administrative cases, instructing certain higher people's courts to, according to their respective local conditions, designate some courts to exercise jurisdiction over trans-regional administrative cases, so as to integrate resources of administrative adjudication and improve the judicial environment for administrative adjudication. The higher people's courts in Fujian, Shandong, Henan, Guangdong and other regions assigned the jurisdiction over certain administrative cases of first instance to some designated primary or intermediate people's courts other than the courts originally having the jurisdiction over such cases, so as to eliminate the public's concern that officials shield each other, through fairly adjudicating all kinds of administrative cases as per law.
Improving the system for safeguarding the authority of judicature. The Supreme People's Court, in conjunction with the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, amended certain charges under the Criminal Law, to further safeguard the authority of judicature. The Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China adopted on August 29, 2015 further defined the offences of refusal to execute judgments or rulings, added an offence under the Criminal Law and inserted the provisions regarding offences committed by entities; amended the offences of interference with court order by defining the acts of beating up the parties to lawsuits, or insulting, defaming or threatening the judicial personnel or parties to lawsuits, or refusing to obey the court’s order to stop such acts or otherwise seriously interfering with court order as offences; and added the offences of false charges by defining the acts of bringing any civil lawsuit on the ground of fabricated facts, disturbing the judicial order or otherwise seriously damaging the legitimate rights and interests of others as offences. On June 20, 2016, the Supreme People’s Court promulgated the guidelines on preventing and punishing the persons lodging false charges, instructing the courts in all regions to identify the elements of false charges, and enhance the examination of and punishment against false charges, to safeguard the credibility and order of lawsuits.
Strengthening the system requiring principals of administrative organs to appear in the court to respond to charges as per law. In July 2016, the Supreme People's Court issued a notice requiring the people’s courts in all regions to further regulate and promote response to administrative lawsuits pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and providing that if the principal or related staff members of an administrative organ do not appear in the court personally and just appoint an attorney to appear in the court, or if the principal of an administrative organ fails to appear in the court at the written request of the people’s court, the people's court shall record the fact in the case file and state it in the judgment, and may issue public notices thereon according to law, and suggest that the appointing authority, supervisory authority or the administrative organ at the higher level should impose serious punishments on the responsible persons. In Jiangsu, the rate of appearance of principals of administrative organs in the court to respond to charges has remained above 90% for two consecutive years, in particular, the rate of their appearance in the court has been above 90% in Nantong and other eight prefecture-level cities, and reached 100% in Kunshan and other 58 counties (cities and districts); while in Hai'an County, the three consecutive heads of the County have appeared in the court to respond to charges and the rate of appearance of principals of administrative organs in the court to respond to charges has remained 100% for six consecutive years.
Establishing the system of recording and circulating notices of criticism on officials' interference with judicial activities and handling of specific cases. The General Affairs Office of the CCCPC and the State Council jointly promulgated the regulations on recording, circulating notices of criticism on and investigating and affixing the responsibility for officials’ interference with judicial activities and handling of specific cases. The Supreme People's Court formulated the measures for the implementation of such regulations, which provide that each people's court, at whatever level, shall establish a database of interference with cases by outsiders in its case information management system; the staff members of people’s courts shall record in a complete, truthful and timely manner the correspondences, letters and oral opinions relating to any specific cases passed on by any external organizations or individuals outside the legal proceedings; each people’s court shall summarize and analyze the information in its database of interference with cases by outsiders involving interference by officials on a quarterly basis, prepare a special report thereon and submit the same to the departments concerned and the people's court at the higher level; any staff member of a people's court who fails to record such information or to record such information truthfully or any official in charge who incites any staff member not to record such information or not to record such information truthfully shall be subject to disciplinary actions depending on the actual circumstances.
Improving the mechanism for protecting judicial personnel in performing their statutory duties by law. The Supreme People's Court, in conjunction with the departments concerned, formulated the regulations on protecting judicial personnel in performing their statutory duties by operation of law and the measures for implementing such regulations, which expressly provide that no administrative organ, social organization or individual may interfere with the adjudication of cases by judges as per law; no entity or individual may request any judge to do anything beyond the scope of his/her statutory duties; except for legal causes or according to legal procedures, no judge may be transferred to a different post, removed from office, dismissed, demoted or discharged or subject to any other punishment; any person who interferes with or obstructs any judicial activity, threatens, disturbs, takes revenge on, frames up, insults, defames or commits violence towards any judicial person or any close relative thereof shall be subject to serious punishment immediately according to law; and any person who insults or defames any judge by submitting any false report, lodging false accusations or fabricating false charges through the information network or otherwise shall be held liable under the law, so as to create a favorable institutional environment for judges to perform their duties.
III. Strengthening the Mechanism of Judicial Protection of Human Rights
To respect and protect human rights is an important principle set forth in China's Constitution, and an important character of the socialist judicial system with Chinese characteristics. China’s courts have achieved positive results in the development of the mechanism of judicial protection of human rights through pushing forward the reform of the litigation system centering on trials, strictly implementing the legal principles that crimes shall be punished only under the law, judgments shall be made upon evidence and presuming innocent until proven guilty, scientifically applying the policy of balancing leniency and severity, actively preventing cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged or sentenced and protecting the lawyers' right to practice according to law.
Pushing forward the reform of the criminal litigation system centering on trials. On July 20, 2016, the Supreme People's Court, in conjunction with the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Justice, promulgated the guidelines on pushing forward the reform of the criminal litigation system centering on trials, which emphasize the principles that crimes shall be punished only under the law, presuming innocent until proven guilty, judgments shall be made upon evidence and centering on court trials, clarify the centrality of the judicial proceedings in criminal lawsuits, and require strengthening the substantialness of court trials and improving the mechanism of supervision over investigation and prosecution activities, and preventing extortion of confessions by torture, collection of evidence through illegal means and other illegal acts from the source, so as to ensure that court trials play a decisive role in finding the facts, admitting evidences, protecting the right of action and making judgments fairly, and the facts of cases found during investigations, prosecutions and trials will be proved to be true according to law. The courts in all regions have been actively pushing forward the reform of the criminal litigation system centering on trials, as a result of which the rate of investigators, experts and witnesses testifying before court has increased significantly and the rule of excluding illegal evidence has been widely implemented. In 2016, the courts in Beijing reviewed 129 applications for excluding illegal evidence filed by litigants or their attorneys, and excluded seven evidences by law. Anhui Higher People’s Court, in conjunction with the Provincial Procuratorate, the Provincial Department of Public Security and other departments, formulated the operating rules for excluding illegal evidence in handling of criminal cases and the rules for collection, examination and judgment of evidences in drug-related cases, to standardize the determination of illegal evidences and exclusion procedure. The courts in Wenzhou, Zhejiang have improved the mechanism for protecting personnel testifying before court, promulgated detailed rules on policemen’s appearance in court as witnesses, provided remote rooms for offering testimonies, devices for concealing faces of witnesses and other appropriate facilities, established the mechanism for protecting the rights and interests of witnesses in conjunction with the public security and procuratorial organs, and formulated the standard of subsidies for witnesses testifying before court.
Preventing and correcting cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged or sentenced. The Supreme People's Court promulgated the guidelines on improving the mechanism for preventing criminal cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged or sentenced, providing that in a case in which there lacks sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of a crime, the people's court shall pronounce the defendant innocent according to law, rather than imposing a relatively light penalty or otherwise imposing penalty on the defendant by leaving some leeway. On December 2, 2016, No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People’s Court publicly pronounced the judgment on the case of Nie Shubin suspected of intentional homicide and raping women, overruling the judgment of the lower court and pronouncing Nie Shubin innocent, thereby correcting the judgment on this major doubtful and complicated case that had lasting 22 years, and reflecting that the people's courts attach great importance to judicial protection of human rights and seriously observe the legal principles that judgments shall be made upon evidence and presuming innocent until proven guilty and other legal principles. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the people’s courts have corrected the judgments on 34 major criminal cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged or sentenced, including the case of Nie Shubin, the case of Hugjiltu and the case of Zhang Hui and Zhang Gaoping (nephew and uncle), thereby greatly enhancing the public's confidence in judicial impartiality. From 2013 to 2016, the courts at all levels pronounced 3,718 defendants innocent as per law, ensuring that the innocent will not be prosecuted under law.
Deepening the pilot reform on fast-track sentencing procedure for criminal cases. With the authorization of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, since August 26, 2014, China has launched a two-year pilot reform on fast-track sentencing procedure for criminal cases in 217 primary courts in Beijing and 17 other cities. During the period of the pilot reform, the pilot courts tried and concluded 52,540 criminal cases using the fast-track sentencing procedure, involving 54,572 defendants in total, accounting for 35.88% of criminal cases in which not more than one-year sentences were pronounced by such pilot courts in the same period, and 18.48% of the criminal cases tried by such pilot courts in the same period; among such cases, 95.35% were concluded within 10 days, 65.04 percent higher than those subject to the summary procedure, and the judgments on 96.05% of such cases were announced at the court, 41.22 percent higher than those subject to the summary procedure. The Haidian Court in Beijing has explored the mode of whole-course fast-track sentencing procedure to effectively reduce the time of circulation of cases at all the stages. Under the said mode, the average duration of the judicial procedure in which the defendants were under detention was 33 days, about 70% shorter than that of the similar cases concluded using the summary procedure prior to the reform. Among all the cases subject to the fast-track sentencing procedure, the rate of plaintiffs filing appeals who also lodged civil lawsuits was 0, the rate of defendants filing appeals was 2.01%, the rate of procuratorial organs filing protests was only 0.01%, and the overall rate of filing appeals or protests was 9.52 percent lower than that of the criminal cases taken as a whole. According to a third party assessment conducted by the China University of Political Science and Law, the defendants’ rate of satisfaction with the effect of the fast-track sentencing procedure reached 97.69%. Through shortening pre-trial detention and passing sentences on defendants quickly and leniently, the fast-track sentencing procedure can give full play to the function of social correction, and help the offenders reform themselves and return to the society. In September 2016, the 22nd Session of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress reviewed a report on the pilot reform, and highly commended the effect of the reform conducted in the pilot courts that applies the policy of balancing leniency and severity in criminal cases, separates simple criminal cases from those complicated, and ensures to punish crimes in a timely and powerful manner while protecting human rights.
Carrying out the pilot reform of imposing lenient penalties on those who admit their guilt and accept punishments. On September 3, 2016, the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress adopted a decision to authorize the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate to carry out the pilot reform of imposing lenient penalties on those who admit their guilt and accept punishments in Beijing and other 17 regions. On November 16, the Supreme People's Court, in conjunction with the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Justice, promulgated the measures for carrying out the pilot reform of imposing lenient penalties on those who admit their guilt and accept punishments in certain regions, which provide that if a criminal suspect or defendant of a case truthfully makes a confession on a voluntary basis, raises no objection to his/her crime facts as asserted, agrees with the proposed sentence and enters into recognizance, the people's court shall determine whether and to what extent leniency should be exercised in passing sentence according to the facts, nature and circumstances of the crime and its harm to the society and by taking a comprehensive consideration of the specific situations of his/her admission of his/her guilt and acceptance of punishments. In the next step, the pilot reform on the fast-track sentencing procedure for criminal cases will be integrated with the pilot reform of imposing lenient penalties on those who admit their guilt and accept punishments, and the scope of application of the pilot reform on the fast-track sentencing procedure for criminal cases will be extended to the criminal cases under the jurisdiction of primary courts in which the facts are clear, the evidence is sufficient, the parties thereto have no objection to the applicable laws, the defendants admit their guilt and accept punishments and agree with the adoption of the fast-track sentencing procedure, and the defendants are liable to be sentenced to not more than three years' imprisonment.
Deepening the reform on standardization of measurement of penalty. In the end of 2013, the Supreme People's Court promulgated the guidelines on measurement of penalty by people's courts to regulate the judges' discretion in measurement of penalty, which require setting up an independent debate procedure regarding measurement of penalty, and promoting standardization of measurement of penalty throughout the country. In 2016, the Supreme People's Court further extended the kinds of charges and punishments under the pilot program on standardization of measurement of penalty by including dangerous driving and other seven charges into the scope of application of the pilot program and extending the kinds of punishment from limited imprisonment and criminal detention to fines and probation. The Supreme People's Court designated some courts to carry out the pilot program to ensure the standardization of measurement of penalty and the punishment meted out being appropriate to the crime committed, and that the pilot courts mete out punishments in a more balanced manner.
Strictly regulating commutation of punishment, parole and temporary execution of sentences outside prison. In 2014, the Supreme People's Court promulgated the judicial interpretations regarding the hearing procedures for commutation of punishment and parole, requiring establishment of the system of public hearing on commutation of punishment and parole and the system of periodic publication of typical cases. In 2015, the information website on the cases of commutation of punishment, parole and temporary execution of sentences outside prison granted by the courts nationwide was opened, which is a unified platform for publication of notifications, public notices, court trials and judgments in respect of related cases. In November 2016, the Supreme People's Court further specified the requirements for the grant of commutation of punishment and parole, and unified the criteria for the adjudication of cases of commutation of punishment and parole to ensure the fairness and equality in handling cases of commutation of punishment and parole.
Amending and improving court rules. On April 13, 2016, the Supreme People's Court promulgated the newly amended Court Rules of People's Courts of the People's Republic of China, aiming to further strengthening judicial protection of human rights, making the courts be more open, convenient, civilized and safer and become venues where the people can experience fairness and justice. In February 2015, the Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued a notice, providing that when appearing in the court, the criminal defendants and appellants no longer need to wear their identification uniforms of detention houses and the criminals in jail no longer need to wear their prison uniforms, and that when the people’s court brings a criminal defendant or appellant under detention to trial, the detention house shall turn over the criminal defendant or appellant in formal or informal wear to the people’s court to reflect modern judicial civilization.
Improving the mechanism for protecting lawyers in performing their duties by law. In December 2015, the Supreme People's Court promulgated the opinions on protecting lawyers' right of action according to law, requiring protection of lawyers' rights to know, access case files, appear in court, debate, defense, apply for discovery of evidence, apply for excluding illegal evidence, lodge appeals on behalf of their clients and otherwise exercise their right to practice law, and providing protection and convenience to lawyers in performing their duties under the law. The Supreme People's Court promulgated the measures for soliciting lawyers’ opinions in the review of death penalties, which require protection of lawyers' rights, including the right to access case filing information and case files, and provide that lawyers can directly make defenses to the judges of the Supreme People’s Court, so as to ensure the fairness of review of death penalties. On December 30, 2015, the Supreme People's Court opened the lawyer service platform, on which the lawyers can, among other things, file cases, access case fillies and contact judges on online. As of the end of 2016, the lawyer service platform of the Supreme People's Court had collected the information of 21,846 law firms and had 88,000 registered lawyer-users. The lawyer service platform established by the courts in Shanghai introduced many functions that were firsts in the country, including online case filing, online payment of fees, automatic avoidance in scheduling of court trials, automatic reference to related cases, online application for preservation in lawsuits and online application for exchange of evidences. As of the end of 2016, 1,393 law firms engaging in lawsuit services were using the platform and the platform had received 1.86 million page views, directly accepted the filing of 31,000 cases and recorded a success rate of online case filing of 92.4%, thereby greatly facilitating the handling of lawsuits by lawyers. The courts at three levels in Zhejiang each established a lawyer service center to provide access to case information and files, meeting with judges, rest, dressing and other services, and explored the establishment of special facilities at law firms for handling lawsuit-related matters on line. The courts in Chongqing have introduced lawyer investigation orders to facilitate investigations and collection of evidence by lawyers, and in conjunction with the municipal bureau of justice and the municipal bar association, carried out a special supervisory campaign for the protection of lawyers' right to practice law, and held trilateral meetings on the protection of lawyers' right to practice law, to promote exchanges and communications between judges and lawyers and ensure proper protection of lawyers' right to practice law.
Enhancing the work of state compensation. The Supreme People's Court has formulated the interpretations on certain issues relating to the application of law in cases of criminal compensation, published guiding cases of state compensation, improved the cross-examination procedure for compensation cases, standardized the measurement of consolation payment for psychological injuries, and expressed opinions on further improving state compensation in criminal cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged or sentenced, so as to give full play of the function of remedy of state compensation. From 2013 to 2016, the people's courts at all levels accepted 16,889 cases of state compensation, in which RMB699,051,800 was offered as compensation in total. The victims in criminal cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged or sentenced, such as the case of Hugjiltu and the case of Zhang Hui and Zhang Gaoping (nephew and uncle), and their close relatives have received compensation in a timely manner according to law.
Standardizing the judicial procedure for handling properties involved in cases. On October 30, 2014, the Supreme People's Court promulgated judicial interpretations for the purpose of standardizing the enforcement of properties involved in criminal cases, including confiscation and recovery of properties, appraisal at the current price, handling of disputes in enforcement, etc. After the General Affairs Offices of the CCCPC and the State Council jointly promulgated the Opinions on Further Standardizing the Disposal of Properties Involved in Criminal Lawsuits in January 2015, the Supreme People's Court has, in conjunction with the related departments of the Central Government, explored the establishment of inter-departmental information platforms for centralized management of properties involved in cases, improved the procedures of advance disposal and pre-trial return of properties, defined the interested parties' right of action, and improved the remedy mechanism and the accountability system. In May 2015, the first inter-departmental center for the management of properties involved in criminal lawsuits in our country was established in Zhuji, Zhejiang. The center established a centralized information platform for the management of properties involved in cases. All the public security, procuratorial and judicial departments are required to enter the information about the properties involved in cases under their respective management into the platform, thereby realizing electronic handover of properties involved in cases, facilitating the handling of cases and standardizing the procedures for handling properties involved in cases. In 2016, the Supreme People's Court, in conjunction with the related departments of the Central Government, determined the demands for inter-departmental information platforms for centralized management of properties involved in cases, and established the inter-departmental information sharing platforms in three pilot provincial-level regions, namely Inner Mongolia, Qinghai and Zhejiang.
Continue to Part 2 of of Court Reform in China(2013-2016) (White Papers, March 2017).