【新唐人2013年02月06日訊】截訪黑保安被判刑 主謀漏網

去年曾引起媒體普遍關注的，大陸首宗起訴「截訪人員非法拘禁訪民」案件，2月5號在北京一審宣判，10名涉案者全部被判刑，刑期半年到兩年不等。但是受害訪民對判決不滿，認為沒有追究主謀的責任，訪民表示會繼續上訴。

據《自由亞洲電臺》報導，受害訪民表示，判決書把被告與政府撇開關係，她們非常生氣。受害訪民桑淑玲說，這些黑社會活動實際上都是政府行為。

這個判決也引起大陸網民紛紛議論，有網友說，這些「黑保安」在給誰「保安」，顯然是給河南某政府，那麼犯罪主謀應是某官員，不給真正犯罪者定罪，只判這些實施者，是法律的不公。

維權人士呼籲取消刑訴法有關條款

2月4號，20多名來自大陸各地的維權人士到中國人大信訪辦，呼籲當局取消《刑事訴訟法》中的「綁架條款」。

他們在信訪辦門前打出的橫幅寫著，「反對新刑訴法綁架條款」，「限制竊聽條款 保障人權自由」，「反對新刑訴法抓人不通知家屬條款」。

據《美國之音》報導，參加呼籲活動的河南維權人士劉莎莎表示，《刑事訴訟法》的相關條款，在執行的時候往往被濫用。有些維權人士，在公共場所喊個口號，就被當局以「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」的罪名「綁架」走。也有的人為阻止自己的房子被強拆，威脅要點燃煤氣罐，就可能被控「恐怖活動犯罪」。

劉莎莎說，希望通過她們的呼籲，能促使更多的民眾行動起來，向各自所在地的人大代表呼籲，在今年的人大、政協「兩會」上反映他們的訴求。

大陸去年修正的《刑事訴訟法》規定，對於「涉嫌危害國家安全犯罪、恐怖活動犯罪、特別重大賄賂犯罪」的嫌疑人，公安機關認為「有礙」犯罪偵查時，可以不通知家屬，對嫌疑人刑事拘留和監視居住，為期不超過六個月。這個規定，被大陸維權人士稱為「綁架條款」或「秘密失蹤條款」。

數百老人下跪阻強拆 遭毆打

2月1號，山西晉中市榆次區小南莊村，數百人老人為了阻止當局強拆房屋，集體下跪，哭求官方手下留情，反被毆打。

據《中國茉莉花網站》報導，當天小南莊村被兩百特警人員包圍，企圖強拆村民房屋。由於村民多是老人，無力對抗，數百人下跪乞求官方保留他們的房屋。

但是，現場官員不為所動，要老人限時離開。最後特警清場，多人被警察打傷，其中兩人重傷，還有多人被抓。

編輯/周玉林

Ringleaders Behind The Petitioner-Interception Event Escape Justice

In 2012, China’s first lawsuit from intercepting and detaining

petitioners got widespread media attention.

On February 5th in Beijing, ten accused offenders were all

given jail terms ranging from six months to two years.

However, the petitioners were dissatisfied with the verdict,

as the court ignored the ringleaders’ liabilities. They decided to continue to appeal.

According to Radio Free Asia, the petitioner victim were

angry with the verdict.

They felt it dissociated the defendants from the authorities.

Sang Shuling, one of the victims, said that the real decision

behind these interceptions is the authorities.

The judgment has sparked heated discussions among netizens.

A netizen said, “Whom did these mafia-style security guards

serve? Clearly, they worked for Henan local authorities.

And so, the criminal mastermind should be some officials.

It’s injustice of the law to neglect real criminals but only

punish the citizens who want to protest.”

Rights Activists Request Annulment of “Kidnapping Provision”

On February 4th over 20 rights activists across China went to

the Petitions & Appeals Office of National People’s Congress.

They called upon the Regime to annul the kidnapping

provision in the amended Criminal Procedure Law (CPL).

They held banners that read,

“Against CPL’s new kidnapping provision.”

“Restricting wiretapping provisions.

Assure human rights and freedom."

“Against new CPL’s provision of arresting citizens

without notifying their families.”

Voice of America interviewed Liu Shasha, one of the

participants and rights activist from Henan.

She said that the new CPL was abused in law enforcement.

Some rights activists were forcibly taken away

by the police for shouting slogans in pubic.

However they were charged with inciting subversion

of state power.

Some citizens threatened to ignite a gas tank in protest

against the regime’s forced house demolition.

They were accused of committing terrorist crimes.

Liu Shasha hoped that their action may encourage more

appeals to be made across China.

That is, urging local “Two Sessions" delegates to help

voice their demands.

China’s amended CPL stipulates that criminals accused

of endangering national security,

terrorism and severe bribery can be detained or placed

under residential surveillance for six months.

They do not have to notify families if this

“obstructs the investigation.”

China’s rights activists call it “kidnapping provision” or

“secrete disappearance provisions”.

Hundreds of Elderly become New Victims of House Demolition

On February 1st in a community of Yuci District in Jinzhong,

Shanxi Province, hundreds of elderly people knelt down to prevent local authorities’ forced house demolition.

These new victims were beaten in public.

Molihua.org reported that 200 special policemen besieged

the community, attempting to demolish villagers’ housing.

The villagers, composed primarily of the elderly,

were too weak to resist.

They knelt down to beg the official to keep their houses.

The officials felt nothing, but required the elderly

to leave within the specified timeframe.

The special police dispersed the crowds and wounded many.

Two people were seriously injured, and many were taken away.