Suzhou No. 4 Detention Center
Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court
Suzhou People’s Procuratorate
Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court
Jiangsu Provincial People’s Procuratorate
Foreign Affairs Office of Jiangsu Provincial People’s Government
Jiangsu Provincial Committee
Supreme People’s Court
Supreme People’s Procuratorate
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China
International Department, Central Committee of CPC
27 August 2024
Urgent Appeal for the Immediate Release on Bail of Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan
The British human rights organization, Sentinel Defenders Network, urgently calls on the Chinese authorities: On August 29-30, 2024, Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan will stand trial at the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court, charged with “inciting subversion of state power.” The court should acquit them of all charges. Before delivering the verdict, the court should immediately decide to release them on bail.
We believe that “state power” refers to a set of rules, cultures, or social norms established by a government within a specific territorial range and applied to the people living within that territory. In the current Chinese context, “state power” refers to the governmental branches under the supervision of the National People’s Congress, specifically the government branches defined by the “New Six Laws” (the Constitution, Criminal Law, Civil Law, Criminal Procedure Law, Civil Procedure Law, and Administrative Law).
“Subversion,” according to the legal explanations on the website of the National People’s Congress of China, requires “illegal means,” including both violent (non-armed rebellion) and non-violent “peaceful evolution.” The subject of peaceful evolution can only be another country, making it impossible for Chinese citizens to be the subjects of “peaceful evolution.”
“Incitement” is a serious accusation against citizens’ right to freedom of speech. The Chinese authorities should strictly adhere to the “real and imminent threat” principle established by the Johannesburg Principles. If a citizen’s speech does not present a “real and imminent threat,” no government has the right to infringe upon it.
Therefore, incitement to subvert state power that can be deemed criminal under international conventions (principles) refers to speech by citizens with the intent to subvert state power (as defined above) that leads to a real and imminent threat of violence.
We believe that in January 2018, lawyer Yu Wensheng published “Citizen Proposal on Constitutional Amendments—An Open Letter from Yu Wensheng to the 19th CPC National Congress,” and his wife, Xu Yan, has been accused this year of posting or reposting related texts on X (formerly Twitter) since 2019.
Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan’s actions have not led to any real and imminent threat of violence to state power and therefore do not constitute a crime.
We believe that freedom of speech is a fundamental right confirmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Constitution of China. It includes “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
We believe that Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan’s actions are entirely within the scope of their right to freedom of speech. Article 41 of the Chinese Constitution stipulates that citizens have the right to criticize and make suggestions, which is a specific provision of the right to freedom of speech.
Yu Wensheng’s publication of the “Citizen Proposal on Constitutional Amendments—An Open Letter from Yu Wensheng to the 19th CPC National Congress” was a form of advice, criticizing the illegitimate and unreasonable parts of the current Constitution and providing specific suggestions. This behavior by Yu Wensheng does not constitute a crime. However, on June 17, 2020, the Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province sentenced him to four years in prison for “inciting subversion of state power.” Yu Wensheng’s conviction for his speech highlights the Chinese authorities’ severe repression of citizens’ freedom of speech.
Xu Yan’s mention of the “Citizen Proposal on Constitutional Amendments” on Twitter between 2019-2020, and related texts, also cannot constitute any crime. However, in July of this year, she was charged with “inciting subversion of state power,” further infringing on citizens’ freedom of speech by the Chinese authorities.
We believe that the arrest of Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan by Chinese authorities in April 2023 not only infringes on their right to freedom of speech but also amounts to judicial persecution, leaving their son, who was 18 years old at the time of the incident (now 19 years old) into psychological and practical distress. Regardless of the case’s guilt or innocence and the trial’s outcome, on humanitarian grounds alone, the Chinese authorities should immediately decide to release Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan on bail.
Sincerely,
Sentinel Defenders Network
敦促中国当局立即对余文生、许艳夫妇取保候审
(2024年8月27日）英国人权团体吹哨人连線(Sentinel Defenders Network)敦促中国当局：2024年8月29-30日，余文生、许艳被控煽动颠覆国家政权罪分别在苏州市中级人民法院开庭审理，法院应当宣告二人无罪。苏州市中级人民法院在宣判之前，应当立即对二人决定取保候审。
我们认为：“国家政权”系在一定疆域范围内，作用于居住在这片疆域内的人民，以某种政府形式产生的一套规则、文化或社会规范。现行中国语境下的“国家政权”，指的是现行全国人大监督下的“一府一委两院”的政府分支，具体指以“新六法”（即“宪法”、“刑法”、“民法”、“刑事诉讼法”、“民事诉讼法”、“行政法”）为代表的一套规则、文化或社会规范。
“颠覆”，按中国人大网法律问答作出解释，其形式要求为“非法手段”，即包括暴力（非武装暴乱）和非暴力的“和平演变”方式。和平演变的主体只能是其他国家，中国公民显然不可能成为“和平演变”的主体。
“煽动”，系对公民言论自由权的严重指控，中国当局应当严格遵守《约翰内斯堡原则》所确立的“现实而紧迫的威胁”原则。公民言论若不会带来“现实而紧迫的威胁”，任何政府不得侵犯。
因而，可以被指控犯罪，符合国际公约（原则）的煽动颠覆国家政权行为，系指公民言论以颠覆国家政权（在上文定义下的）为目的，且导致现实而紧迫的暴力威胁。
我们认为：2018年1月，余文生律师发表《关于修宪的公民建议——余文生致中共十九大二中全会的公开信》，其妻子许艳今年被指控自2019年以来，在X（原推特）发布或转发相关文字。
余文生和许艳的行为，完全没有导致国家政权，遭受现实而紧迫的暴力威胁，完全不构成犯罪。
我们认为：言论自由，是《世界人权宣言》、《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》，以及中国宪法所确认的公民基本权利。其内涵包括“人人有自由发表意见的权利；此项权利包括寻求、接受和传递各种消息和思想的自由，而不论国界，也不论口头的、书写的、印刷的、采取艺术形式的、或通过他所选择的任何其他媒介。”
我们认为：余文生、许艳的行为完全是行使言论自由权。中国宪法第41条规定了公民享有批评和建议权，是对言论自由权的特别规定。
余文生律师发布《关于修宪的公民建议——余文生致中共十九大二中全会的公开信》是一种谏言，系对现行宪法不合法、不合理部分的批评，也给出了具体的建议。余文生的该行为本不构成犯罪，2020年6月17日，却被江苏省徐州市中级人民法院以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判刑4年。余文生因言获罪，昭显了中国当局对公民言论自由权的严重迫害。
2019-2020年，许艳发推特提到“关于修宪的公民建议”等相关文字更不可能构成任何犯罪，却在今年7月被指控“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”，是中国当局对公民言论自由权的进一步践踏。
我们认为：中国当局于2023年4月抓捕余文生、许艳的行为，不仅侵犯其言论自由权，更是一种司法灭门，致其案发当时18周岁（现为19周岁）的儿子陷入心理和生活双重困境。撇开案件罪与非罪、开庭情况不谈，出于人道主义考量，中国当局亦应当立即决定对余文生、许艳取保候审。
此致
苏州市第四看守所
苏州市中级人民法院
苏州市人民检察院
江苏省高级人民法院
江苏省人民检察院
江苏省人民政府外事办公室
江苏省委
最高人民法院
最高人民检察院
中华人民共和国外交部
中共中央对外联络部