One of the major characteristics of the “Reports” is to repeat the old trick and continue to vilify China by making fabrications and distorting the facts.

The “Reports” attempt to mislead the public by using materials that were proven worthless long ago, and tried to turn lies into truth by repeating this.

For instance, the “Reports”, ignoring the fact that in 1996 China revised the Criminal Procedure Law which was originally adopted in 1979, use a large amount of words to attack the 1979 Law, saying that “The law provides that defence lawyers may be retained no earlier than seven days before the trial”, and that “Under the law, there is no requirement that the court appoint a defence attorney for the defendant”.

In fact, Article 110 of the revised law states that “as soon as a people’s court decides to begin trial proceedings, it should send a copy of the indictment from the people’s procuratorate to the accused no later than seven days before the trial, and should serve notice that the accused is able to seek counsel, or should appoint counsel for the accused if necessary.”

Here, the “no later than seven days before the trial” is misquoted as “no earlier than seven days before the trial;” and the court is able to “appoint counsel for the accused” is misquoted as “there is no requirement that the court appoint a defence attorney for the defendant.”

Although China has repeatedly pointed out that the materials, which are claimed by the “Reports” as “violating human rights”, confound black and white and are contrary to facts, the “Reports” have used the materials year after year. This calls for more serious thought.

The “Reports” also cite some seemingly “new” materials and certain individual cases, but most are fabricated and contrary to the facts. For example, the “Reports” say that “Chinese authorities in Fujian refused in August to provide medical care for 76 year-old Catholic Bishop Zeng Jingmu, who had contracted pneumonia,” and that “Zeng has been detained for holding illegal church services in his home.”

The fact is that Zeng Jingmu, who is from Chongren County in Jiangxi Province, had been involved in illegal meetings in recent years that seriously disrupted the public order, and refused to stop this in spite of repeated warnings.

In March 1996, a local re-education-through-labor commission, acting in accordance with the law, edciede that he be subject to three years of re-education-through-labor. At present, Zeng is in good health and has not contracted pneumonia. The wording of “contracted pneumonia” and “Chinese authorities…refused…to provide medical care” in the “Reports” is a fabrication and is unfounded.

The “Reports” say China “detained foreigners visiting Tibet, searched them…” alleging that Ngawang Choephel, a foreign scholar visiting Tibet, was detained by Chinese authorities for making a documentary about Tibetan performing arts, and was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

The fact is that the 30-years-old Ngawang Choephel, whose ancestral home is Zada County, in the Ngari region of Tibet, was a dance teacher with the song and dance ensemble of the exiled “government” of the Dalai before his arrest. Using funding and equipment provided by a foreign country, he entered China in June 1995, having been sent by the Dalai’s group to engage in intelligence activities under the guise of collecting materials on Tibetan performing arts.

During his stay in Tibet, he collected information in Lhasa, Shannan, Nyingchi and Xigaze by using methods conforming to the “information collection plan” he drafted before his visit.

Having gained sufficient evidence of Nagawang Chhoephel’s espionage activities, China’s public security departments arrested him in accordance with the law, and Nagawang Choephel made a full confession of his espionage activities. The Intermediate People’s Court of the Xigaze Region sentenced him to 18 years in prison on the charge of espionage, and deprived him of political rights for four years, also in accordance with the law.

After the first ruling, the defendant appealed to a higher court, and the second instance is now under way. With regard to such people who endanger a country’s security and engage in espionage activities, any country that practices a legal system should punish them according to law. It is a complete distortion of the facts when the “Reports” use the term “visiting scholar” or “foreign tourist” to describe a spy.

The “Reports” also attack China for arresting or detaining foreign businessmen at will, saying “Australian businessman James Peng, whom Chinese public security officials kidnapped in Macao in 1994 and brought to China for trial, was sentenced to a lengthy prison term in September 1995.”

The fact is that Peng Jiandong was from Jiexi County in Guangdong Province; the became a naturalized Australian citizen in December 1991.

Acting as the general manager of the Shenzhen Yuanye Industrial Co Ltd, Peng diverted HK $ 800,000 (US $ 130,000) of his corporation’s investment remittances intended for the Sino-Australian Liupin Corp in Australia to his own Kangya Company in Hong Kong in March 1989.

When he became chairman of the board of Yuanye in November 1989, he embezzled 290,000 yuan (US $ 35,000) in funds from the corporation under the guise of borrowing money from its subsidiary, the Yuanye Materials Co, in February 1992.

Peng was arrested, according to law, for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds in October 1993. The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court and the Guangdong Higher People’s Court handled the case and sentenced him to 17 years in prison in addition to expulsion form China.

The “Reports” call an economic criminal who violated China’s law a “victim” of a kidnaping case; those writing it must have ulterior motives.

The “Reports” are full of flaws and contradictions, looking for justifications but failing to conceal its true intentions of making unwarranted accusations against China. For instance, on one hand, the “Reports” say that “because the Government tightly controls information, it is impossible to estimate accurately the total number of people subjected to new or continued arbitrary arrest or detention.”

On the other hand, the “Reports” say, “Procurator General Zhang Siqing reported in March to the NPC that during 1995 the Supreme Procuratorate investigated 4,627 illegal detention cases.”

Since the Chinese Government “tightly controls information”, how does the “ Repots” account for the fact that the Supreme Procuratorate reported to the NPC the figure of illegal detention cases?

And since the Supreme Procuratorate made the exact figure public, how can the “Reports” say that it is impossible to estimate accurately the total number of people subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention?

For another example, the “Reports” say that the Chinese authorities fail to act in accordance with legal standards in an attempt to show China as a country without a legal system. But then, the “Reports” went on to say that “the 1988 Law on State Secrets provides justification for denying a public trial. Details regarding cases falling under this provision are frequently kept secret.”

That means that when Chinese legal departments handle affairs according to the Law on State Secrets, they will be “infringing on human rights”. Such contradictions can be found throughout the “Reports”.