  
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The researcher, Zhao Yan, 44, who worked in the Beijing bureau of The Times, is charged with disclosing state secrets and with fraud. Mr. Zhao denies the charges. The Times also denies that Mr. Zhao disclosed state secrets. Critics of the case against Mr. Zhao accuse the authorities of applying all-embracing secrecy laws to contain public debate, burgeoning Internet discussion and a sometimes rebellious news media. Even as China's headlong economic boom continues to deliver wider economic and personal freedom, the scope of these laws has been broadened over the last two decades to include almost all information related to the workings of the ruling Communist Party and government. Chinese courts have imposed prison terms for journalists, social activists and religious leaders for disclosures that would be routine public information in most countries. "The system is actually expanding," said Nicholas Bequelin, a Hong Kong-based researcher for Human Rights Watch. "Basically, anything can be classified as a state secret." Mr. Zhao has been in custody for 22 months since his arrest in Sept. 2004. If he is found guilty in the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, he could face a prison term of 10 or more years. The charges against him are linked to a Sept. 7, 2004 article in The Times which reported that the former president, Jiang Zemin, had offered to resign as head of the military, his last top leadership post. The report proved to be accurate, as Jiang retired less than two weeks later. However, Mr. Zhao's indictment does not allege he was the conduit for this information. Instead, the principal evidence against him is a photocopy of a handwritten note he prepared in July 2004 about rumors of the possible promotion of two generals as part of the battle for influence in the military between Mr. Jiang and his eventual successor, Hu Jintao. This information was included at the bottom of the Sept. 7 article to illustrate the rivalry between the two leaders. Only one of the generals was subsequently promoted. The original of the note remains in the Beijing office of The Times. In March, after prosecutors dropped the charges against him, it appeared that Mr. Zhao might be released. However, an almost identical set of charges was reinstated last month. For defense lawyers in China, cases involving state secrecy laws can present formidable obstacles. A powerful government agency, the State Security Bureau, has absolute authority to decide whether disclosed information is a state secret, according to experts on the Chinese legal system. Courts have no power to challenge these rulings. In addition, the authorities can limit contact between lawyers and their clients, deny access to evidence and hold hearings in closed courts. After Mr. Zhao's arrest, his lawyer, Mo Shaoping, was repeatedly barred from consulting his client because the case involved state secrets. Legal experts noted that Mr. Mo, a veteran defense lawyer, must be careful about his public comments on the case because exposing how the law worked could also be deemed an offense. The scope of the state secrets laws also serves to deter public analysis and criticism of prosecutions. Chinese legal experts approached for comment, for example, insisted that their names should not appear in any coverage of Mr. Zhao's case, for fear of official reprisals. Legal experts have little doubt that Mr. Zhao, a veteran journalist and social activist, will be found guilty, because a decision to proceed to trial in China is tantamount to a conviction — particularly in cases involving state secrets or national security. But Mr. Mo said he was preparing a robust challenge to the prosecution's handling of the case and would contest critical elements of the evidence against Mr. Zhao. He said he would argue that the court should not have agreed to hear the case because prosecutors had reintroduced the same charges against Mr. Zhao, ignoring the requirement to include substantial new evidence. On the state secrets charge, Mr. Mo said he would argue that the prosecution version of events was incomplete because it failed to show how secrets were relayed to The New York Times. And he said he would tell the court that prosecutors were unable to explain how a copy of the handwritten note came to be part of the evidence. Mr. Mo said he also intended to contest the State Secrets Bureau ruling that the note contained state secrets. With the prosecution relying on what were described as rumors in the handwritten note, Mr. Mo said he intended to ask the court if a rumor could be deemed a state secret. If it is, he said, he planned to ask if a rumor needed to be accurate to deserve this classification, given that events suggested in the note were only partially borne out. Mr. Mo said that a judge who would preside over the trial, Wang Wantie, had told him that the court would rely heavily on prosecution evidence and Mr. Zhao's testimony on the charge of disclosing state secrets. Joseph Kahn, The Times bureau chief in Beijing and the writer of the Sept. 7 article, would be the only witness for the defense, Mr. Mo said. Mr. Kahn has provided written testimony, and Mr. Mo has sought approval for him to appear at the trial, though it does not appear likely that it will be forthcoming. Mr. Wang said that only the Foreign Affairs Office of China's highest court, the Supreme People's Court, has the power to approve this application, according to Mr. Mo. Mr. Mo said Mr. Wang also told him there would be no witnesses called to appear in court on the fraud charge. Prosecution witnesses lived outside Beijing and the cost of travel was deemed too high to require them to attend the hearing. In the absence of prosecution witnesses, there was no need for the defense to call witnesses, Mr. Wang told Mr. Mo. "This may be a trial with no witnesses," Mr. Mo said.
|