Zhong Lun Law Firm London Office Yesterday Publish Article Refuting Essex Chambers Genocide Document

If you like to read bullshit, this, we suggest, is for you……

Xue Haibin Partner at Zhong Lun Express have published the following article …

Four barristers (barrister, barristers) under the Essex Park Law Firm previously issued a “legal opinion” to the so-called “non-profit organization”, claiming to have “credible reasons” to prove China The government carried out the so-called “genocide” of the Uyghur population.Xue Haibin, a managing partner in the London office of Zhong Lun Law Firm, refuted the legal document from a professional perspective.

background

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China announced on March 26 that it will impose sanctions on 9 British personnel and 4 entities for maliciously spreading lies and false information, prohibiting the entry of relevant personnel and their immediate family members (including Hong Kong and Macau), Essex Park Counsel The firm (Essex Court Chambers) is on the list. Knowing that it was included on the sanctions list, this well-known British law firm hurriedly issued a statement explaining that it tried to clarify the relationship with the four lawyers who produced “legal opinions” related to Xinjiang.

According to a report by the Financial Times on the 28th, the Essex Park Law Firm’s official website has deleted the content related to this “legal opinion”. According to the report, four barristers (barrister, barristers) of the Essex Park Law Firm previously issued a “legal opinion” to the so-called “non-profit organization”, claiming to have “credible reasons” “It proves that the Chinese government has carried out the so-called “genocide” of the Uyghur population.

Refutation of the legal opinion

The full text of the lawyer’s opinion is 105 pages and approximately 30,000 words. The summary of the foreword consists of 4 pages, summarizing the concluding observations reached by the four lawyers based on the evidence they reviewed, that is, “The actions of the Chinese government constituted the crime of anti-humanity and genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Letter (a very credible case)”.

The main statutory law and policy basis for the above concluding observations are [China has not joined nor recognized, and is not binding on China (China, the United States, and Russia are not signatories or the signing has withdrawn)] “International Criminal Court Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) (“Rome Treaty”) and the “Magnetisky Act” (The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020) (The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020), which is claimed to be internationally effective, and According to the policies of certain European and American governments and related organizations, the case law is mainly based on the case law of the International Criminal Court and the local courts in the United Kingdom; the factual basis for the above conclusions is the testimony records of victims who claim to [have an obvious conflict of interest with the Chinese government] , Journalists, academic reports, and government documents that have been leaked from satellite images; the basis for deriving the personal criminal responsibility of relevant government officials is based on the understanding of the relationship between the organizational structure of the Chinese government and government orders. details as follows:

1. Applicable laws and entrusted matters

Essex Court Chambers was commissioned by the Global Legal Action Network, the World Uyghur Congress and the Uyghur Human Rights Project to discuss China The government has given qualitative opinions on the behavior of Uyghurs living in Xinjiang in accordance with international criminal law. Based on the above entrustment, the law firm chose to provide opinions on the potential criminal liability of specific Chinese government officials in accordance with the “Rome Treaty” and the “Magnetsky Sanctions Law” in the United Kingdom.

In response to the above entrusted content, based on the original text of the lawyer’s opinion, the client’s request is to provide lawyers’ opinions on the basis of international criminal law, but the four lawyers of the law firm decided to choose the medium without giving specific reasons. It is based on the “Rome Treaty” that is not recognized by the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom, and the local laws of the United Kingdom. The applicable law was originally the starting point of the legal basis for any lawyer’s opinion. Without any factual and legal basis or explanation, randomly using an “international” law and a certain domestic law as the legal basis for the lawyer’s opinion is obviously lacking in evidence. The facts and legal basis of legal confirmation. In the opinion of a law firm, if the choice of applicable law is questioned, any conclusions drawn from this also lack reliability and operability.

Regarding the above entrusted matters, also based on the original text of the lawyer’s opinion, the client’s request seems to be a characterization of the behavior of the Chinese government against Uyghurs living in Xinjiang. The actions of the Chinese government against Uyghurs living in Xinjiang can include a series of preferential policies against ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, including Uyghurs, and assistance to borders since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and can also include actions specifically accused in the lawyer’s opinion. Without giving any basis or explanation, only the behavior alleged in the lawyer’s opinion was regarded as the commissioned matter, which is obviously suspected of the prejudice and subjective tendency of the choice of the commissioned matter in the lawyer’s opinion.

2. Evidence

The “facts” stated in the lawyer’s opinion are based solely on the following evidence.

2.1 The victim’s first-hand testimony

For any criminal charges, victims who can provide testimony (ignoring the possibility of false victims who acted for other purposes and the exclusion mechanism for the time being) will in principle have obvious conflicts of interest and emotions with the accused individual. Because of the seriousness of the consequences of criminal charges, the accused individual will be given full defense rights in any criminal charge. However, the lawyer’s opinion seems to have only reviewed the testimony of the victim, and it was reported by reporters or testified in the parliament of a country that has obvious geopolitical conflicts with China. It is a testimony of rumors. In the case of almost completely ignoring any contrary information in the publicly available information, and failing to provide a reasonable explanation, using only unilateral testimony as the basis for confirming facts is obviously suspected of violating the principle of fairness of judicial procedures (Fair Trail). During the trial of any criminal case, failure to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, deny the accused individual a chance to defend, or consider objectively existing contrary evidence can lead to the conclusion that fact finding is invalid and the judicial process is seriously unfair.

2.2 Reports by journalists, academics and non-governmental organizations

Also in criminal charges, the specific crimes alleged are based only on reports from reporters, scholars, and non-governmental organizations, and the selective choice only benefits the victim and not the accused individual’s unilateral report. Ignoring other public reports to the contrary with reasonable explanations is also suspected of the principle of fairness in judicial procedures. In the inquiry of public information, a large number of contrary information and reports from the Chinese government, private sector, scholars and individuals can also be found. Failing to inquire about the opposite information, or inquiring and not using, or not inquiring and not using and without any reasonable explanation, can lead to prejudice to the fact finding, and obviously violate the principle of justice in judicial process. The individual accusations against a certain ruling government, especially against specific officials in it, should abide by the principle of fairness in judicial procedures, because according to the “International Human Rights Covenant” repeatedly emphasized in the lawyer’s opinion, any individual enjoys the right to fairness in judicial procedures. Including the ruling officials of the Chinese government, as long as they are natural persons. In the process of issuing a professional lawyer’s opinion, not only the evidence that is detrimental to the accused individual must be considered, but also the evidence that is beneficial to the accused individual must be fully considered.

2.3 Satellite images

The subject of the lawyer’s opinion is the Chinese government’s actions against Uighurs in Xinjiang. Natural persons can be found in the geographic space of Xinjiang, whether in satellite images or public news images. As for how to distinguish the racial characteristics of natural persons from the satellite images taken from the high-altitude angle of view, the relevant group is Xinjiang Uyghurs, not people of other races, and is recognized as a government official. There are no natural persons from Xinjiang Uyghurs. They are all non-Uyghurs. Perhaps only the lawyers of the law firm can propose technical solutions. If what the satellite image proves is the demolition of ethnic belief signs and buildings, even if they are true or accurate, it does not constitute the crimes against humanity and genocide alleged in the lawyer’s opinion. What’s more, as a developing country, China is a developing country. , Reconstruction, reconstruction, and relocation are also daily phenomena that occur in every city. Based on the analysis of satellite images, it is concluded that the systematic removal of landmarks of ethnic beliefs is by no means an easy task, and it is equally questionable.

2.4 Leaked government documents

The facts identified in the lawyer’s opinion, especially the basis for confirming the causal relationship between the alleged facts and specific government officials, turned out to be mainly leaked documents from the government. In the case of doubts about the authenticity and reliability of relevant documents, the integrity and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence chain are extremely critical. The lawyers of the law firm were only confirmed by the so-called “experts” on the basis of relevant documents to be authentic and reliable. Without considering the integrity of the evidence chain and making a comprehensive assessment of it, they were regarded as determining the specific natural person’s responsibility for the alleged criminal case. The main basis for personal liability is clearly against the principle of fairness in judicial procedures and violates the basic human rights of the accused individual, that is, the right to raise different opinions and defend.

3. Legal Analysis

First of all, if the foregoing determination of facts violates the principle of fairness of judicial procedures and seriously violates the basic human rights of the accused individual, any legal analysis lacks a reliable factual basis. Moreover, in the choice of applicable law, the lawyers of the firm used the “Rome Treaty” and a random British sanctions law as the applicable law of international criminal law without any reasonable explanation. And it is clearly stated in the lawyer’s opinion that the lawyer’s opinion does not consider matters that must be considered in the lawyer’s opinion such as jurisdiction, admissibility of evidence, and immunity.

On the basis of randomly selecting the “Rome Treaty” as the applicable law of international criminal law, the lawyers of the firm took murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, illegal detention, torture, rape, persecution, disappearance, and apartheid as serious crimes as specific investigations. The direction of opinions on personal criminal responsibility of government officials.

In the legal analysis of “widespread or systematic attack”, even if the choice of applicable law is acceptable, the legal requirements include “for a specific group, with rigorous considerations, and through collective Large-scale, normalized behavior” or “organized and planned behavior”. Based only on the testimony of several self-proclaimed victims, the lawyers of the law firm can conclude that specific Chinese government officials organized and planned collective actions to specifically target Xinjiang Uyghur women to systematically rape, and during the rape process It can also meet the requirement of “insertion theory”. If such a legal analysis also meets professional standards, it seems that a writer, and a surreal writer, is more suitable to issue legal analysis opinions.

In the legal analysis of genocide, one of the legal requirements is “a specific act whose purpose is to eliminate a race.” There are a large number of public facts that can prove that Chinese government officials, especially those in Xinjiang, including the police, have a certain percentage of Uyghurs and China’s general policy of protecting ethnic minorities. The lawyers of the law firm refused to consider such facts without giving any specific reasons. They could also draw the conclusion of the legal analysis that certain specific officials of the Chinese government were carrying out genocide against the Xinjiang Uyghurs through a certain policy behavior. It is indeed impossible to see the general logic and reasoning in it.

The legal analysis basis for the issue of the personal criminal liability of specific government officials seems to be “China is a country tightly controlled by one party.” The Communist Party of China has a strict organizational structure at the upper and lower levels. The United States has imposed sanctions on a specific official, which was proved by “experts”. The leaked government documents recorded the relevant speeches, so the relevant government officials have met the subjective and objective requirements for the large-scale crimes against humanity and genocide that occurred in Xinjiang. They should be accepted in accordance with the “Rome Treaty” and the local laws of the United Kingdom. To sanctions. If this is the logic, it seems that all events that occur on the land of China, including natural disasters and corruption cases, should be the will of the leadership, and specific leaders should be responsible.

Lawyer’s opinion conclusion

Based on selective oral testimony, journalists and academic reports, satellite images, and government leaked documents, without considering other evidence to the contrary, and without giving any reasonable explanations, the lawyers of the firm concluded that the Chinese government had committed a crime. The crime of humanity and genocide, and claims that the evidence is reliable.

Based on the above confirmation of facts and random selection of the applicable law analysis, governments of various countries should urgently issue statements and impose sanctions on specific Chinese officials in accordance with local laws. At the same time, they should consider diplomatic efforts to allow China to accept investigations by foreign forces and conduct investigations on relevant officials. Trial and punishment.

It is believed that every natural person with independent thinking and judgment ability can pass the original text of the lawyer’s opinion attached to the law firm, from the applicable law chosen to the one-sided “evidence” on which the facts are determined, and its lack of persuasiveness Drew his own conclusions in terms of legal analysis.

· The End ·

Areas of expertise: mergers and acquisitions, litigation and arbitration, compliance/government supervision

contact details:[email protected]

Source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/53QoZQWvshzrwkS7OYX4AA?from=singlemessage&isappinstalled=0&scene=1&clicktime=1617269159&enterid=1617269159