【新唐人2015年02月11日讯】内蒙古呼和浩特市中级法院9号对“呼格吉勒图冤案”真凶赵志红，作出一审判决，裁定赵志红故意杀人、强奸、抢劫、盗窃罪成立，并判处死刑。呼格吉勒图枉背了十几年的罪名，终于“物归原主”。案件引发外界思考，为什么在中国纠正冤假错案会这么困难呢？请看报导。
1996年4月9号，年仅18岁的呼格吉勒图在当地毛纺厂女厕里，发现一具被强奸杀害的女尸。之后他主动找到辖区民警报案，却被认为有作案嫌疑而遭逮捕。当时中共正在进行第二次“严打”。在案件证据不足并有多处疑点的情况下，法院在案发后61天内完成一审和终审，并对呼格吉勒图执行死刑。
18年后，也就是在去年底，呼格吉勒图才被改判无罪。而真凶赵志红在上个月5号进行二审，共持续3天，赵志红在法庭上始终承认，自己就是呼格冤案的真凶。
其实，早在2005年，赵志红因内蒙古系列强奸杀人案落网时，第一个供认的就是呼格冤案。当时他一共招认了10起命案。但在2006年，呼和浩特中院对赵志红一审时，检查机关却只起诉9起案件，唯独不提呼格冤案，这甚至遭到赵志红本人的当庭质疑。
之后，赵志红的案件审理一直暂停，在9年的时间里，虽然呼格吉勒图的父母多次上访，想为儿子洗冤，案件却迟迟得不到纠正。
为什么在中国，纠正冤假错案会这么艰难呢？
曾经在吉林省延边检察院，从事刑事公诉工作多年的唐吉田律师分析，这和中国的刑事诉讼制度有关。目前的刑事诉讼制度，严格来讲，是靠公安的口供定案，因此办案人员为了获取口供，可能使用刑讯逼供。而一旦由于所谓的“破案”立功受奖，这些人就会形成利益共同体。
维权律师唐吉田：“最根本的，实际上还是中国这个刑事诉讼制度，它不是以保障人权为核心，而是以所谓的打击敌人，惩罚犯罪为宗旨，从制度上就有这样一些空间。因而纠正的话，就不是个别人的阻力，可能是来自于这样一个评判体系，工作模式，惯性。短期内还没有看到有明显的减少。”
著名宪政学者、“天安门民主大学”教务长王天成指出，从小的方面说，是个人错判不愿承担责任，从大的方面说，有政治上的原因。
“天安门民主大学”教务长王天成：“从大的方面说，共产党要维持它所谓的表面的面子。它把这个东西往一个更大的，政治上的方向去靠。出了这样的冤案，它觉得对这个体制是不光彩的，当然它是不光彩的。它要掩盖这种东西，不愿意承认这个错误，这个事情就变的比较难，拖的时间比较长。”
当年在严打期间被作为“从重从严”办案典型，得到表扬的呼格冤案，在去年当局推行“依法治国”后，再次成为“司法进步”的典型。
王天成：“这是共产党一贯的做法，它把很多事情换一个说法，通过媒体的运作，就变成好像是给它脸上贴金的事情。实际上，这个事情完全是一个丑闻。”
唐吉田律师认为，所谓“法治进步”，“司法改革”是概念上的混乱。
唐吉田：“第一在中国大陆，其实也不存在严格意义上的‘司法’，因为在中国，官方更习惯用所谓的‘政法’，这是中国的真实写照。另外，中国也不存在所谓的‘法治’，因为目前来讲中国仍然是少数人之治，那绝对就不是法治，法治肯定是众人之治。”
呼格冤案在中国并不是孤立的现象,近年来例如“聂树斌案”、“赵作海案”、“佘祥林案”等案件频频出现，王天成认为，中国媒体报导不自由，无法起到舆论监督作用，也是中国冤假错案纠正难的原因之一。
采访/编辑/尚燕 后制/钟元
Hugejiltu Case Murderer Sentenced to Death
On Feb 9th, Inner Mongolia Hohhot Intermediate People’s
Court made the first instance verdict on real murderer
Zhao Zhihong of the “Injustice Hugejiltu Case" with a ruling
that Zhao Zhihong committed intentional homicide, rape,
robbery and theft, and sentenced him to death.
The unjust charges on Hugejiltu over ten years are
finally “returned to the real culprit".
Such a case has triggered thinking: why is it so difficult
to correct a case of injustice in China? Let’s see the story.
On Apr 9th of 1996, 18-year-old Hugejiltu spotted
a body of a woman who was raped and killed
in the female toilet of a local woollen mill.
Afterwards, he actively reported to the local police
regarding what he found. But he was considered
the criminal suspect and then arrested.
At that time, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
was launching for the second time
“Hard Crackdown on Criminal Offences".
Under the circumstances of insufficient evidence
and many doubts, the court finished the first instance
verdict and the final judgement within 61 days,
and executed the death penalty on Hugejiltu immediately.
18 years later, at the end of last year, Hugejiltu was
vindicated as innocent. The true murderer, Zhao Zhihong,
experienced the second instance on Jan 5th,
which lasted for three days.
Zhao Zhihong always admitted in the court that
he was the true murderer in the unjust Hugejiltu case.
In fact, as early as 2005, when Zhao Zhihong was arrested
as the key culprit of a series of rapes and homicide,
his first confession was the Hugejiltu case.
At that time, he confessed to a total of 10 murder cases.
But in 2006, when the Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court
carried out the first Instance of Zhao Zhihong’s case,
the prosecutors indicted him only on nine cases,
with the exception of the Hugejiltu case, which was
even questioned by Zhao Zhihong himself in court.
After that, Zhao Zhihong’s case hearing was
suspended.
During the period of nine years,
although Hugejiltu’s parents repeatedly appealed
to the government for correcting the injustice
to their son, the case had not yet been corrected.
Why should it be so difficult
to correct injustice cases in China?
Lawyer Tang Jitian once involved in criminal
indictment for many years in Yanbian’s Procuratorate
of Jilin Province, said that this is related
to China’s criminal procedure system.
The current system of criminal procedure, strictly speaking,
is to bring a verdict by relying on the oral testimony
of the suspects, obtained
by the public security department.
So in order to obtain confessions, the investigators
of the department may use torture.
Once this so-called “detection" is conferred
with the label of meritorious service, then these people
form a community of interests.
Human rights lawyer Tang Jitian:"Fundamentally, this is still
what the Chinese criminal litigation system is based
on:- the core value of fighting against the enemy
and punishing the criminals rather than the core value
of protecting human rights.
So there is some room existing in the system.
Hence, to correct such a case will face resistance
not only from an individual person,
but also from such an evaluation system,
the operation pattern and the mode of inertia.
In the short term we cannot
see such cases reduced significantly."
Mr Wang Tiancheng is a renowned constitutional scholar,
and the Dean of “University Tiananmen Democracy".
He noted that from a narrow viewpoint,
the individual person is unwilling
to take the responsibility of a case of injustice;
from a wider viewpoint, there are some political reasons.
Wang Tiancheng: “From the wide viewpoint,
the CCP tries to maintain its so-called glazing surface,
which is used for proving its expansion
to a larger and more political direction.
Once such an injustice case is reported,
then the CCP thought this a disgraceful system.
It is of course not glazing. The CCP is going to hide
this kind of thing, do not want to admit the mistake,
and then this thing becomes more difficult
with a lengthened time period."
As a model case in terms of the principle
of “Harsh and Strict" crackdown on criminal offences,
the awarded Hugejiltu injustice once again becomes
another model case for “judicial progress"
after the Chinese authorities promoted
the “rule of law" in the last year.
Wang Tiancheng: “This has been the usual practice
of the CCP, which changes a lot of things
with a new statement, via the operation of the media,
which seem to claim credit for things that are actually given it.
This thing is a complete scandal."
Lawyer Tang Jitian believes that the so-called
“progress of the rule of law" and “judicial reform"
are conceptually confused.
Tang Jitian: “First in China mainland, in fact,
there is no “justice" in the strict sense.
Because in China, the official side is more accustomed
to using so-called" Political and Legal",
as a true portrayal of China.
In addition, there is no so-called “rule of law" in China.
Because the current situation of China’s regime
is still minority rule, it is definitely not the rule of law
as the rule of law must be decided by the people. “
The Hugejiltu injustice case is not an isolated phenomenon
in China in recent years. For example, the “Nie Shubin",
“Zhao Zuohai", “She Xianglin"
and other cases are frequently reported.
Wang Tiancheng believes that Chinese media reports
are not free, so cannot play the role of public opinion
to monitor such cases. This is one of the reasons
why it’s difficult to correct injustice cases in China.
Interview- Edit/sangyan Post-Production/zhongyuan
