As Zhao Lianhai’s defense counsel, let me first clearly state my position. Based on the currently existing evidence and legal provisions, this defense counsel believes that Zhao Lianhai is innocent. The specific defense arguments are as follows：

1. Zhao Lianhai’s family, untold numbers of infants, and even the entire nation, are all victims of the national food safety crisis.

On September 11, 2008, the wonton cruelty and rampancy of China’s tainted milk powder were exposed to the public by conscientious reporters. Nationwide, due to the effects of insufficient nutritional intake or kidney stones, infants who had been consuming the tainted milk powder missed out in the crucial early ten months of their development and became weakened and were slow in their development. Zhao Lianhai’s son, Zhao Pengrui, was no exception. He started drinking infant milk powder at the end of 2006 and was found to have kidney stones in September 2008. He is now five years and one month old and he weighs only 15 kilograms (about 33 pounds). He is barely a meter (about 39 inches) tall. His weight and height are well below the standard for a normal child. 

By December 2, 2008, the Ministry of Public Health stated, There have been cumulative reports of 294,000 infants with abnormalities of the urinary tract caused by the consumption of questionable milk powder. On the afternoon of March 27, 2010, Premier of the State Council Wen Jiabao, during an online exchange with a great number of netizens, said, “Netizens probably don’t know that we’ve paid a great price for this Sanlu milk powder. Our survey showed that as many as 300,000 children have been affected by the milk powder—which, it should be said, is a profound lesson that not only one company or one place, but our entire nation should learn from.”

Under the promotional slogan “A glass of milk a day makes a strong nation,” the flower of our nation, the future of our people stumbled at the starting line on the tainted milk powder, losing out not only in terms of body height and weight but probably also in intelligence and even mental condition.

Of course, the tainted milk powder can also cause long-term damage and medical after-effects in afflicted children. This defense counsel would also like to quote the  professional opinions of several domestic and international experts. First, in October 2008, in an interview with Reuters, Anthony Hazzard, the World Health Organization (WHO) regional adviser for food safety, raised the possibility that in addition to the expelled kidney stones, there could still be crystals in the children’s kidneys. “Our understanding is that these are not normal kidney stones because they are not being detected via all of the tools that one uses to detect kidney stones, so some are not showing up on X-rays,”¹  Hazzard said. “We believe at this stage that it's really the complex of melamine and cyanuric acid forming what you call crystals . . . they can form in the small tubules [in the kidneys] and they get bigger and can block the tubules.”² Second, according to a Southern Metropolis Daily report,³ a research group from Peking University’s Institute of Reproductive and Child Health published an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on February 22, 2010, in which they point out that the effects of melamine on the health of children are not merely short term. Although the majority of the children who were diagnosed with kidney stones and kidney swelling after they consumed melamine-contaminated milk powder recovered over time without specific treatment, six months later ultrasound-based screening still showed renal abnormalities—kidney stones and kidney swelling—in 12 percent of affected children.⁴

To this very day, the tainted milk powder continues to pose an unpredictable danger, and this is what motivates Zhao Lianhai in his struggle.

2. In view of the fact that consumers’ associations lack status and do not have a voice, the courts have refused to hear their cases. The dissatisfaction with the compensation plan unilaterally issued [by a group of manufacturers of tainted milk powder] without any hearings or consultation, and the spontaneous, peaceful, and rational consumers’ rights protection activities undertaken by consumers who fell victim in the tainted milk powder incident, including Zhao Lianhai, to safeguard their own lawful rights and interests, are understandable.

After the tainted milk powder incident was exposed, innumerable food safety incidents—such as “Sudan I red dye” incidents, “bleached food” incidents, “dichlorvos ham” incidents, “stale rice” incidents, “lean meat essence” incidents, “formaldehyde in food” and “formalin in food” incidents, and the recent “toxic cowpea” and “sewer cooking oil” incidents—have been emerging with great frequency, seriously harming the rights and interests of consumers.⁵ That public prosecution agencies should charge Zhao Lianhai with “taking advantage of hot social issues” because of his engagement in the defense of consumers’ rights in order to safeguard his own lawful rights and interests is completely wrong.

1. The disclosure of the Sanlu tainted milk powder incident originated entirely with conscientious reporters who doggedly stayed on the trail and covered the story, while at that same time various consumers’ associations remained unusually silent. Article 32 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers⁶ stipulates that consumer associations shall exercise the following functions: (3) report to, inquire of, or make suggestions to relevant administrative departments on issues concerning the legal rights and interests of consumers; (4) accept complaints by consumers and conduct investigations into and mediation of such complaints; (5) where a complaint involves issues concerning the quality of commodities and services, it may require an appraisal department to appraise the quality; such appraisal department shall advise the appraisal findings; (6) assist aggrieved consumers in instituting legal proceedings against acts that harm the legal rights and interests of consumers; and (7) reveal and criticize acts harmful to the legal rights and interests of consumers through the mass media. People’s governments at all levels shall support the consumer associations in the implementation of their duties and functions.
2. But the consumer associations have performed none of these tasks. In the entire tainted milk powder incident, consumer associations scarcely figured at all. They showed their faces only to deliver the unilaterally issued compensation agreement into the hands of affected consumers such as Zhao Lianhai and to mobilize them to sign it.
3. At the end of December 2008, standards for the compensation of people affected by the tainted milk powder were formally announced. The compensation scale was as follows: Affected children who died were to receive 200,000 yuan (about $30,000); 30,000 yuan (about $4,500) for gravely ill children; and 2,000 yuan (about $300) for afflicted children receiving general treatment. The entire process of formulating the compensation plan was completely closed. The parents rejected the compensation plan because not only was the compensation scale too low, but the procedure was not public and was unfair. The plan was made unilaterally, without consultation with the victims and without a public hearing, and it completely deprived the victims of their right to know and their right to participate—it was tantamount to a “humiliating treaty forced upon them under duress.”
4. Since October 2008, a succession of the victims of the tainted milk powder have brought lawsuits to the Xinhua District People’s Court of Shijiazhuang, but the channels of judicial relief have been completely blocked. During a telephone interview with a xinmin.cn reporter on October 31, 2008, [a spokesperson of] the Xinhua District People’s Court said the court decided to refuse to accept the cases. The reason it gave was that it had received a directive from a higher court to temporarily reject all compensation lawsuits having to do with the questionable Sanlu milk powder. When the xinmin.cn reporter inquired whether the department concerned had sent down the relevant written document, the Xinhua District Court indicated that it was an internal court notice. At the same time, the Xinhua District People’s Court stated that it would not furnish the plaintiffs’ case with a written decision about the refusal. On the afternoon of March 2, 2009, while visiting the Strong China Forum on the People’s Daily website, Shen Deyong, vice president of the Supreme People’s Court, in charge of day-to-day operations, stated during an exchange with netizens that “the People’s Court had already done the preparatory work in this respect and that it would be accepting compensation legal cases at any time in accordance with the law.” It wasn’t until March 26, 2009, that the Xinhua District Court of Shijiazhuang accepted a case for the first time.

The fact that consumer associations lack status and were not in a position to negotiate with the manufacturers of the tainted milk powder, and the fact that the courts refused to accepted cases, harm the rights and interests of consumers directly. The defense counsel believes that only vigorous consumer rights defense action by civil society can exert maximum deterrent force over lawless manufacturers and executives, be an active monitor, and hold the government accountable, thereby cleaning up the utter chaos of the consumer marketplace.

Just as the theme for the World Consumer Rights Day 2010 was “Our money, our rights,” the spirited rights defense is, naturally, the eternal theme of the protection of the rights and interests of consumers. On April 9, 1985, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection. Principle 6 of the Guidelines stipulates “freedom to form consumer and other relevant groups or organizations and the opportunity for such organizations to present their views in decision-making processes affecting them.”⁷ Zhao Lianhai and the “Home for the Kidney Stone Babies” that he founded indeed want to fight for “the opportunity to present their views in decision-making processes affecting them.”

This defense counsel has also observed that although many incidents of consumer protest have occurred in China, there has not yet been an instance of criminal prosecution. For example:

1. At the end of 2009, at the legislative hearing on the price of natural gas in Zhengzhou, a participant raised a sign that read “No Price Hikes”; at a legislative hearing on the price of water in Harbin, someone threw a bottle of mineral water at the chairperson. But the head of the Department of Pricing at the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) went as far as to say, “These are normal phenomena in a democratic society. They reflect a definite degree of progress of democracy in China.”
2. On March 20, 2010, in the midst of the Hewlett-Packard “Black Screen Incident,” a dozen or so consumers went to the Hewlett-Packard General Headquarters in China and hoisted signs such as “Cockroaches Are Innocent, Shame on Hewlett-Packard” in protest.
3. In the evening of March 1, 2010, at a Beijing press conference given by the Toyota Motor Corporation president, Akio Toyoda, numerous Chinese consumers shouted at Toyoda in protest.

The defense counsel contends that none of Zhao Lianhai’s actions exceeded the scope of protection of the rights and interests of consumers and they should be supported by the government and protected by the state.

3. The crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” is one of four new criminal charges reconstituted from the disassembled crime of “hooliganism” in the old Criminal Law. But due to its excessively vague provisions and lack of further judicial analysis, thus leaving space for arbitrary interpretation, the charge is objectively extremely easy to be used by public authorities to shackle the normal expression of civil rights.

Article 293 (4) of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates, “Whoever commits any of the following acts of creating disturbances [translated here as “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”], thus disrupting public order, shall be sentenced to fixed- term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention or public surveillance: (4) creating disturbances in a public place, thus causing serious disorder in such place.”⁸

“Picking quarrels and provoking trouble” is just one of four criminal charges broken off from the [former] crime of hooliganism. The conduct that constitutes such a crime should not only be indicated in “acts of creating disturbances [picking quarrels and provoking trouble] carried out in public places. The subjective “hooliganistic intent” and the objective “stirring up trouble” are the basic and distinctive characteristics of this crime and are also the critical distinction between this crime and related criminal offenses. “Creating disturbances in a public place” usually refers to actions with an unhealthy intent, such as those done for amusement or out of a desire for mental stimulation. Stirring up trouble and provoking trouble in a public place, and thereby creating a disturbance, are committed out of a hooliganistic intent to fill an internal void.

Zhao Lianhai’s actions, however, are the normal actions of a victim of tainted milk powder defending his rights. There is absolutely no hooliganistic intent involved. Moreover, the manner and methods of his actions did not disturb the order of a public place, nor did they created serious disorder in a public place, such as causing people to panic, flee, or other such chaotic situation.

I will now proceed with an analysis of the specific charges raised by the prosecutorial organ in the court of law:

4. The January 2, 2009, Meeting with Reporters, Fengtai Jinxiugong Hotel

As they found unacceptable the compensation plan that was unilaterally formulated by the government behind closed doors in December 2008, Zhao Lianhai and other parents of afflicted children had a spontaneous discussion and decided meet with reporters on January 2, 2009, at the Chinese restaurant of the closed-down Jinxiugong Hotel in Fengtai District. The meeting would be held to voice the demands and complaints of the victim community. On the evening of January 1, 2009, Zhao Lianhai’s personal freedom was unlawfully restricted and he was forcibly confined to the Tuanhe Farm Conference Center; his mobile phone signals were blocked. As a result, he did not attend the press conference at the Jinxiugong Hotel in Fengtai.

1. The transcript of the questioning of Yang Hao, a plainclothes policeman from the Yuegezhuang Police Substation of Fengtai District Branch Public Security Bureau, who was at the hotel and on duty at the time, reveals:

Q: How long was the interview event?
A: About two hours.
Q: Were there many spectators?
A: There were a few people, not many.
Q: Was there any aggressive behavior at the scene?
A: There was no aggressive behavior at the scene.

The transcript of the questioning of Yu Haibo, another plainclothes policeman from the Yuegezhuang Police Substation of the Fengtai District Branch Public Security Bureau, who was at the hotel and on duty at the time, reveals:

Q: Where there many spectators?
A: There were a few people, not many.
Q: Was there any aggressive behavior, at the scene, such as banner waving or slogan shouting?
A: There was no aggressive behavior at the scene.

2. Wei Shuyong, the owner of the cellar at the Jinxiugong Hotel, confirmed during police questioning: “Those foreign reporters started interviewing those few Chinese. They split to several locations.”

5. The Tuanhe Farm Conference Center

Because Mr. Zhao Lianhai was illegally confined to the Tuanhe Farm Conference Center, several parents of afflicted children proceeded there to negotiate [his release], whereupon the entrance gate to the conference center was closed and the parents were not allowed in. If the entire negotiation process entailed the so-called “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” criminal behavior as the prosecutorial organ charges, why didn’t the conference center dial 110 to report it to the authorities? To this day, the investigative organ has not questioned the several parents of afflicted children who were negotiating that day, so the evidence contains only the conference center’s one-sided testimony. Even more difficult to comprehend is how Zhao Lianhai, who had been illegally confined within the conference center and was himself not at the scene, and whose mobile was blocked, could turn into the “instigator and convener” as charged by the prosecutorial organ.

6. The August 4, 2009, report of Li Ruirui’s rape case to the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau

Li Ruirui, a young woman from Anhui, was sent to Juyuan Hotel on Majiabao Road by local officials stationed in Bejing and illegally locked up because she had traveled to Beijing to petition the authorities. In the early hours of August 4, 2009, at 2 am, Li Ruirui was raped by an unlawful detention guard. When the other illegally locked-up petitioners found out about it, they stormed out of the place of detention enraged and went to the Yangqiao Police Substation of the Fengtai District Branch Public Security Bureau to report the case. They then proceeded to the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau to report the case, as they believed that the situation was serious. When Zhao Lianhai heard the appalling news, he was furious, and notified reporters to let the press take on a watchdog role. Besides Zhao Lianhai, there were no more than a dozen or so people gathered on the sidewalk some hundred meters east of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau at the time, and they discussed how to report the case. Police investigation showed that present at the scene were Li Ruirui, Liu Shasha, Zhao Lianhai, Xiao X, Liu XX, Ba XX; also present were Xing Changbao, Li Huazhen, and Yu Guiying, three petitioners who had fled Juyuan Hotel. Altogether, there were about a dozen people, including the reporters.

Yang Laiping, a passerby who is a witness for the prosecution in this case, testified, “I saw two or three foreigners who were filming with video cameras. Surrounding the foreigners were six or seven Chinese and three to four officers from the people’s policemen.”

The above facts show that, astonishingly, in the best of all places, our capital Beijing, an outrageous scandal of collective illegal detention took place, with a guard brazenly raping a woman in a large room holding more than ten people. That Zhao Lianhai, being a righteous citizen of good conscience, bravely stepped forward and notified the media and discussed reporting it to the authorities upon hearing about it, could be turned around to become “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” How could this happen? When a dozen people stand on the sidewalk around 1:00 pm, what specifically were they doing that disturbs public order? The Dongcheng District police did not even issue administrative penalties that day, but now it has become the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” which gravely disturbs public order.

7. The September 11, 2009, candlelight commemoration of the first anniversary of “Kidney Stone Babies”

The candlelight commemoration of the first anniversary of “Kidney Stone Babies” was held at the private Peach Blossom Room at the Jing’eqing Restaurant in Daxing District. It did not in any way create a disturbance or cause trouble by way of “shouting slogans and illegal assembly,” as charged by the prosecutorial organ. If the “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” did happen that day, why was it not reported by Jing’eqing Restaurant, the injured party, to the authorities? Is it possible that a small gathering in a private room has been elevated to “illegal assembly” on ideological grounds?

In order to gather the “proof of crime,” the Tuanhe Police Station carried out an evidence-gathering investigation on September 12, 2009, questioning servers and the manager of the Jing’eqing Restaurant.

1. Transcript of questioning with server Zhu Shumin:

Q: Who called for the lighting of candles?
A: Mr. Zhao Lianhai said, “Let’s start.” Then the other people took out candles from the things they had brought with them and lit them. They also displayed a sign with “9/11” written on it.

2. Transcript of questioning with Jing’eqing Restaurant manager Zhang Yuying:

Q: What were the distinctive features of the clothing they changed into?
A: The clothing had a portrait of a child covering the entire front, with “Never Forget China 9/11” written below it. There was nothing on the back, just the words “Never Forget” at the neckband.
Q: Is there anything else you want to say?
A: On September 11, 2009, at about four in the afternoon, two reporters who came with Mr. Zhao Lianhai were filming an interview in the main hall. They were recording a video of a little kid running around. At the time, a man and a women were eating at table 6 in the main hall, so around 5:00 pm. I went to the reporters and told them, “Your filming is messing with our restaurant’s regular business. Our customers are unable to eat their meal as normal.” I asked that they stop, and they left. Our restaurant had previously scheduled cleanup and cockroach extermination for around 9:00 pm. But Mr. Zhao and his friends in the Peach Blossom Room kept not wanting to leave until around 9:40 pm when they finally left, which directly affected the time of our previously scheduled cockroach extermination, affected the time when our employees got off work, so that they couldn’t get their normal rest.

Nothing had happened in the first place, but nobody had foreseen that once the police took the initiative to go asking around like this, Zhao Lianhai’s meal at the restaurant would be turned into proof of the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and gravely disturbing public order.

8. Trips to Shijiazhuang to follow the events of the Sanlu trial, bankruptcy, and auction

Zhao Lianhai and other victims of the Sanlu milk powder paid close attention to the developments in the Sanlu tainted milk powder incident from beginning to end. Zhao went to Shijiazhuang four times altogether, to follow the events of Sanlu’s trial, bankruptcy, and auction, and to push local courts to file the case as soon as possible. Due to his tenacity and outspokenness, Zhao had become the most closely watched person in Shijiazhuang. Every time he went to negotiate, the police stood at attention. If, indeed, he “created a disturbance in a public place, thus causing serious disorder in such place” in Shijiazhuang, why did the Shijiazhuang police not impose an administrative penalty or file a criminal case? Instead, it was the Daxing District Branch Public Security Bureau and the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s Division of Public Security Administration that took the trouble to investigate.

So what “facts of crime” did the two public security organs choose?

1. Testimony of Li Luquan, a guard at the Shijiazhuang Sanlu Group Co., Ltd.:

Q: What was he [Zhao Lianhai] doing these two or three times?
A: He was inciting family members of the victims at the company gate.
Q: How was he inciting them?
A: He was shouting, “Sanlu, compensate us for the damage! Give us money! We demand justice!”
Q: What consequences did these five people’s posters and shouting have for your work unit?
A: I urged them to move to the side of the gate, and the people who stood around watching promptly dispersed. It didn’t cause any consequences.

2. Testimony of the Shijiazhuang Municipal Intermediate People’s Court bailiff Yang Yongbo:

Q: What aggressive behavior did Zhao Lianhai exhibit during the entire process?
A: He only shouted things like, “Are there any laws left?” At the time, a lot of people had gathered to watch, but they were later scattered by public security officers on duty.
Q: Tell us a bit about the course of events.
A: After Zhao Lianhai and his group came to the court gate, a small child knelt down on the ground, a woman wept, and Zhao Lianhai shouted things like, “Are there any laws left?” and “The heavens cannot tolerate injustice!” He said a lot of things, but I don’t remember clearly what. This went on for about half an hour. After this, we used “cold treatment” to deal with this matter. We ignored him. We didn’t try to persuade him either. And then the few of them left.

(Note: The kneeling child and the weeping woman also come from families affected by the tainted milk powder, but they had nothing to do with Zhao Lianhai and his group.)

One can see from the written records above that Zhao Lianhai expressed his feelings of indignation only verbally and that his words and actions were the peaceful, rational, and restrained expressions of a victim. 

9. There are numerous procedural illegality issues in this case of such gravity and to the extent that most of the evidence is completely invalid.

1. The charge in this case is directed against the criminal conduct of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” by way of “creating disturbances in a public place, causing trouble without reason, and making trouble out of nothing,” but on November 13, 2009, the Daxing District Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau seized a large quantity of articles that have nothing to do with the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” e.g., computers, external hard drives, cameras, videotapes, audio cassettes, video cameras, and business cards. Such seizures were completely in error.
2. Investigation prior to the filing of the case: The Daxing District Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s Prosecution Opinion No. 25 (2010) states, “Criminal suspect Zhao Lianhai is suspected of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, which was reported to our bureau on September 12, 2009. After examination, our bureau filed the case on September 12, 2009, and undertook investigation.” But we have discovered that only the investigation of the first-anniversary commemoration of the tainted milk powder incident at the Jing’eqing Restaurant was conducted after the case was filed. All other evidentiary material involved in the case was gathered before the case was filed. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, conducting an investigation prior to the filing of a case in itself violates the law, and thus all evidence obtained from such an investigation is of course invalid.
3. The hierarchic and territorial jurisdiction in this case is confused. Evidence obtained by public security organs other than the Daxing District Branch Public Security Bureau cannot legally be admissible. The investigative organ in this case should have been the Public Order Department under the Daxing District Branch Public Security Bureau, but in addition to that body, Changping, Fengtai, and Dongcheng public security bureaus, and the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s Division of Public Security Administration took part in the investigation and took down records for the case, entering their transcripts in the official record to be used as evidence in the indictment. For example:
   • On December 31, 2008, the Changping District Branch Public Security Bureau’s State Security Detachment questioned witness Liu Dongguo (aka Liu Donglin).
   • On January 2, 2009, the Fengtai District Branch Public Security Bureau’s Yuegezhuang Police Substation questioned witness Zhang Jun.
   • On February 1, 2009, the Daxing District Branch Public Security Bureau’s Tuanhe Police Substation questioned Yang Jianmin.
   • On May 14, 2009, the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s Division of Public Security Administration questioned Jiao Lei.
   • On August 4, 2009, the Dongcheng District Branch Public Security Bureau’s Dongjiaomin Alley Police Substation questioned Gui Ying.

Article 15 of the Regulations on the Procedures for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs stipulates, “A criminal case shall be under the jurisdiction of the public security organs in the place where the crime was committed. If it is more appropriate for the case to be under the jurisdiction of the public security organs in the suspect’s place of domicile, then the public security organs in the suspect’s place of domicile may have jurisdiction over the case.” Article 16: “When a criminal case falls under the jurisdiction of several public security organs, it shall be under the jurisdiction of the public security organ that first filed the case. When necessary, it can come under the jurisdiction of public security organs of the place where the principal crime was committed.”⁹

Five public security organs of differing levels and in different districts collaboratively investigated this case, but only the Daxing District Branch Public Security Bureau filed the case for investigation. Therefore, evidence in this case obtained by the Changping, Fengtai, and Dongcheng public security bureaus and the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s Division of Public Security Administration should be categorized as invalid according to the law.

4. Based on the facts in this case, the Daxing District Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau’s does not have legal jurisdiction.

The “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” that occurred on January 2, 2009, at the Tuanhe Farm Conference Center in Daxing District has absolutely nothing to do with Zhao Lianhai. Nor did the first-anniversary commemoration of the tainted milk powder incident on September 11, 2009, involve “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” let alone “create a serious disorder in a public place.” On these grounds, Zhao Lianhai did not engage in “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” in Daxing District, and therefore the Daxing District Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau does not have jurisdiction according to the law.

5. The indictment did not include a catalogue of transferred evidence or a list of witnesses.

Article 282 of the Rules of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the Criminal Procedure for People’s Procuratorates stipulates, “When a people’s procuratorate initiates an indictment, it shall transfer to the people’s court the written indictment, the catalogue of evidence, the list of witnesses, and photocopies or photographs of key evidence.”¹⁰

6. The court’s decision not to hear the case in public, citing personal privacy issues, is in obvious conflict with the facts of this case and with reason and common sense.
7. Li Ruirui’s rape had already been openly reported, and the particulars of Li Ruirui’s rape are not necessarily facts that need to be heard during the trial, so there is no legal justification for not having a public hearing. Even should it for some reason not be heard publicly, only the part involving what had been reported to the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau can be withheld from the public; the rest requires a public hearing. Could the Wen Qiang¹¹ case or the Rio Tinto case ¹² have been tried like this?

In sum, I ask the court to declare Zhao Lianhai innocent in accordance with the law.