download the report - International Campaign for Tibet

Unit 3 and the Drapchi protests of May 1998“Counter-revolution”, as the main descriptor of perceived threats to Party supremacy, has roots deeper than Criminal Law.Each of China’s four constitutions, in 1954, 1975, 1978 and 1982, affirmed the state’s intent to suppress and punish counterrevolution,but the constitution was brought into line with the new terminology in March 1999. Article 28, which hadpreviously asserted:“The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter-revolutionary activities; itpenalizes activities that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy as well as other criminalactivities; and it punishes and reforms criminals.” [emphasis added]was changed to“The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other criminal activities that endanger nationalsecurity; it penalizes activities that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy as well as other182criminal activities; and it punishes and reforms criminals.” [emphasis added]Critics of China’s suppression of civil, social and political rights argued that the 1997 changes to the Criminal Code werecosmetic, inconsistent with bona fide “rule of law”. This was an instance of replacing terminology that had become a publicrelations liability with more modern language, emulating criminal codes found under well-established rule of law. TheNational People’s Congress (NPC) passed another amendment in March 1999. A new paragraph was added to Article 5 ofthe Constitution:“The People's Republic of China shall be governed according to law and shall be built into a socialist country basedon the rule of law.” 183On a national level, constitution and criminal code have established direct equivalence between “counter-revolution” and“endangering state security”, and have made that link into a feature of Chinese rule of law. The release documents of LobsangChoezin and Choeying Gyaltsen provide an unusual illustration of this transformation.Judicial and labour re-education documents also set out a post-incarceration period of punishment for released politicalprisoners. “Deprivation of political rights” begins when incarceration ends and is an important component of punishment.Many former political prisoners have fled into exile after experiencing the repressive effects that constrain daily life. Theymay be deprived of their political rights for one to five years, typically as a roughly three-to-one ratio (a three year sentencecould be followed by one year of deprivation of political rights).Article 52 of the 1979 Criminal Law stated, “A counter-revolutionary element shall be sentenced to deprivation of politicalrights as a supplementary punishment. When necessary, a criminal element who seriously undermines social order may alsobe sentenced to deprivation of political rights as a supplementary punishment.” [translation by TIN] Article 35 of theamended 1997 Criminal Law replaces the older provision, but is unchanged, providing periods of deprivation of politicalrights from one to five years. 184One of the released Shar Bumpa nuns, in discussing her sentencing procedure and documentation, sums up her understandingof loss of political rights:“1. you are not allowed to vote;2. you are not allowed to visit your monastery;3. you are not allowed to perform rituals in other monasteries and temples;57