The Report, while full of empty slanderous words, listed a number of so-called "cases" to attack China. These "cases" cannot stand close scrutiny. They are either based on rumors or deliberately fabricated, with none true to the facts.

The very first case cited in the Report is false. The Report said, "Credible reports from international human rights organizations indicate a Tibetan nun died on June 4 in a prison hospital, reportedly as a result of a beating by guards." The U.S. State Department may have considered this as a "powerful shell" to attack China and used it repeatedly in the Report.

The truth is that Puncog Yangji, a nun in the Miqiongri Temple in the inner suburbs of Lhasa, capital of Tibet, died of illness. She was sentenced to five years in prison by the Lhasa Intermediate People's Court on August 3, 1992 for breaking the criminal law. She received treatment from prison doctors immediately after she was found ill on May 18, 1994. After her condition worsened on May 24, the prison authorities sent her to a well-equipped hospital outside the prison for hospitalization and treatment. After she was diagnosed as suffering from cerebral tuberculosis, the prison authorities sent two people to the hospital to help nurse her and used a car to take her parents in Maizhokunggar County 100 kilometers away to the hospital to visit her. To save her life, the hospital used whatever means of treatment available to it to rescue her but her conditions kept worsening and failed to respond to the medical treatment. She died on June 4, 1994. In keeping with the Tibetan tradition, the prison authorities provided her a celestial burial and issued her parents with money to go back home in Maizhokunggar County. Her medical and burial costs were all covered by the prison. While bidding farewell to the prison, her father Gaisang Zhaxi said, "I thank the government and hospital. We shall never forget that they did everything they could to save my daughter!"

The fact is that Puncog Yangji died of illness despite medical treatment; the Report, however, unjustifiably asserted that she died of a "beating by guards." This is one more case of the Chinese Government giving a prisoner Humanitarian treatment, pure and simple; but the Report cited it as an example of "human rights abuse" by the Chinese Government.

The Report went so far as to again dish out some rumors which China has repeatedly clarified. One example is the alleged "maltreatment" suffered by Liu Gang.

In March of 1993, a U. S. representative, speaking at the 49th Session of United Nations Commission on Human Rights, mounted the accusation that Chinese prison officers had broken one arm of Liu Gang, a convict serving his term in prison. In refuting the accusation, a Chinese representative displayed a latest photo of Liu Gang playing volleyball in prison, rendering the U. S. representative speechless.

Despite this, the Report repeated the lie about "Liu in poor health because of beatings he had suffered." The China Human Rights Society had sent people to the prison to investigate, and learned that Liu had never been beaten and he often enjoyed himself by playing volleyball games and bridge. Moreover, they saw with their own eyes Liu was healthy and sound, and nothing was wrong with his arms. After that, five American reporters went to the prison for a visit and they, too, found a healthy Liu. The truth is there, clear to all. In disregard of this , however, the Report still had this assertion: "Reports persist that Liu suffers ill health as a result of beatings and other mistreatment, although Chinese officials have denied these allegations." It is learned that Liu Gang has been in good health, weighing more than 80 kg now compared with 69 kg at this time of last year and 65 kg when he was sent to prison. Physical checkups show that all his physical functions are normal. Liu took part in four volleyball competitions last year and he receives visits by relatives regularly.

By time and again repeating the lie about "Liu Gang suffering ill health as a result of beatings and other mistreatment", the U. S. State Department has proved itself to be impervious to all reason when it can find no more justifications for doing so.

Once again Wang Juntao was cited in the Report. Wang has been repeatedly used by the U. S. State Department as an example of the alleged "mistreatment suffered by Chinese prisoners."

The fact is that Wang Juntao had suffered from hepatitis before he was sent to jail and, while in prison, he received proper medical treatment. He was hospitalized in a prison hospital for 19 months and, at the invitation of the hospital, experts from society held group consultations on his treatment. He was later hospitalized in a hospital specializing in the treatment of hepatitis, which is rated as the most authoritative of its kind in China. The treatment Wang received there was highly effective. Despite this, the U. S. State Department repeatedly says that Wang "had difficulties in obtaining timely and adequate medical care for his illness" in prison, going so far as to allege that Wang was "in a critical condition." In April of 1994, Wang, with permission of the Chinese judicial authorities, went to the United States for medical treatment. Meeting him at the airport, a U. S. embassy official said: "I didn't expect to see Wang Juntao in a good health.

Wang Juntao has never been hospitalized - not even for a single day - since he arrived in the United States and he has spared no effort to engage in activities against the Chinese Government. Two questions thus arise: if it is true that Wang had to go to the United States because in China he couldn't get timely and adequate treatment while he was seriously ill, does it conform to humanitarianism when the U. S. Government, after getting Wang into the United States, doest not let him be hospitalized even for a single day and, instead, makes him busy with activities against the Chinese Government?

If Wang Juntao is in good health and doesn't need to be hospitalized in the United States, why is it that the U. S. State Department does not apologize to the Chinese government for having fabricated lies on the issue and clarify the facts to the public?

The Report also accused Chinese prisons and hospitals of alleged use of organs taken from executed criminals without authorization. The Report had this to say: "During 1994, new reports revived previous allegations that organs from executed Chinese prisoners are removed and transplanted to patients without the consent of the prisoner or his or her family. There reports have not been verified."

It is obvious that the writer of the Report knew well "these reports have not been verified," but he still used them in a document. Isn't this deliberate attempt to concoct and spread lies.

In China, cases involving transplant of organs taken from executed criminals are extremely exceptional. Only with the voluntary consent and signature of a person sentenced to death or the consent of the person's family and the approval by public health administration and judicial departments after stringent examination, can it be possible for a public health or scientific research organization to use the body of the person or organs removed from the body after his or her execution. What is applied here is the same rule that governs the voluntary donation by any dying citizen of his or her body or organs taken from the body after he or she dies. In October of 1994, a video film of alleged transplant in China of organs taken from an executed criminal was aired in some western countries, which was used to attack China. The video film, as a matter of fact, was the concoction of Harry Wu, who had gone abroad from China, and Sue Loyd Roberts, a British national. The two persons went to the hospital affiliated to the Huaxi Medical College in Chiengdu in April 1994, cheating the hospital by asserting that Roberts' uncle needed one kidney replaced. They asked the hospital to but a kidney for the transplant, hinting that a kidney removed from an executed criminal might be bought. Chinese doctors there told them in explicit terms that in China, the purchase and sales of human organs are forbidden by law. Nevertheless, the hospital, out of courtesy, agreed to their request to visit an operating room. It so happened that in the operating room, doctors were performing an operation on a patient named Chen Zuchuan to replace a mitral mechanical valve with an artificial one. Roberts recorded the process with a video camera. In the film concocted by the two persons, however, this process was called an on-the-spot scene of "transplant of kidney taken from an executed criminal." The video film was first aired by BBC and the broadcast was relayed by TV stations in other western countries. In response, Xhinhua News Agency of China reported the truth in November. However, in its 1994 "Human Rights Report," the U. S. State Department again attacked China for alleged transplant of organs from executed criminals.

The report contained numerous attacks on China allegedly for "cracking down on political dissidents," asserting that some were sentenced just for "non-violent political activities" and that hundreds or even thousands of "criminals of conscience" were jailed. It cited the example involving nine persons in Beijing who were "sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to 20 years in December of 1994 for leading or participation in 'counterrevolutionary organizations' or conducting 'counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement'." This obviously refers to the case of Hu Shigen and eight others found guilty of plotting to use violence to overturn the state power.

China has time and again made it clear that its " Criminal Law" has a clear definition for the crime of counter-revolution, which is equivalent to the crime of jeopardizing state security in other countries. Hu Shigen and his group are by no means "prisoners sentenced for their thinking" or "political prisoners." In china, to think of anything only without taking actions in violation of the "Criminal Law" does not constitute a crime. Hu Shigen and his group were found guilty of illegally setting up a secret organization and in its programs, they explicitly stated their plot to overturn China's state power by "making active preparations for armed struggle" and "working in real earnest and effectively in the military field" so that "once conditions ripen, there will be no hesitation to launch an uprising." Within their secret organization, there is a special "armed forces department" charged with "work with distinct military characteristics such as recruiting and training of personnel and acquisition of weapons." They were proven to have mailed, posted and distributed leaflets of incitement to overturn the state power, forged secret links with anti-China organizations abroad and received from them financial and material assistance including model planes specifically for dropping leaflets.

Crimes of conspiring to overthrow the government by using forces of arms such as those committed by Hu Shigen and his group are punishable in any country governed by law. Severe punishment is prescribed in the Code of the United States. What is the Report of the U. S. State Department up to by crying out grievances on behalf of Hu Shigen and other criminals and deliberately inflating the number of such people to "hundreds or even thousands"?