LL.

M Program Course Paper

Student No.: 2015190012

Student name: Gherasim Monalisa
Course name: Chinese Judicial System and Case Analysis
Course result:
Course teacher: Prof. WEI Xiaona
Academic year:

2015-2016

201512

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE EFFICIENCY OF THE

ADJUDICATION COMMITTEES

This paper centers on the role of the adjudication committee, an organ that becomes one of
the causes that leads to wrongful convictions when exceeds its duties and meddles in the affairs
of the collegial panel. According to the Organic Law of Peoples Court, each court is required to set up
an adjudication committee, generally comprising the president, vice-president, heads of the trial divisions
and senior judges. The committee sums up judicial experience, and discusses important or difficult cases
and other issues relating to judicial work. It is a permanent organ with adjudicative, political and
administrative powers in court. 1 The most controversial issue relating to the adjudication committee

is that its function in discussing important and difficult cases it is not sufficiently clear. Neither
the Organic Laws of the Peoples Courts nor the 1991 Civil Procedure Law and the 1989
Administrative Litigation Law specify how the function of discussing important and difficult
cases is to be exercised. Only Article 149 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's
Republic of China provides that:
After holding a court session and conducting deliberation, a collegial panel shall
render a sentence. If a collegial panel deems it difficult to make a decision on a
difficult, complicated, or significant case, the collegial panel shall request a decision of
the president of the court to submit the case to the adjudication committee for

See Yuwen Li, The Judicial System and Reform in Post-Mao China. Stumbling Towards Justice, Ashgate
Publishing Limited, Eng land, 2014, pp. 32.

discussion and decision. The collegial panel shall execute the decision of the
adjudication committee.2
According to professor He Jiahong3 , in practice, taking into consideration the authority of a
decision rendered by the Adjudication Committee, the collegial panel prefers to make use of
these provisions in difficult, complicated or significant cases. Another reason is that by
submitting it, the collegial panel moves the responsibility of a mishandled case on the
Adjudication Committee. Therefore, in these cases, which should impose great attention, the real
judges are not those that hear the cases because, as the article stipulates, the decision is rendered
by the adjudication committee after discussions; a decision that shall be executed by the
collegial panel.
A judge at an intermediate peoples court described how the adjudication committee
discussed cases at his court: a specific responsible judge reports a case orally, and even though
the reported contents may not reflect the true facts of a case, one can hardly discover or correct
them; some responsible judges take a long time to report all the details without a clear order,
and members of the adjudication committee ask questions repeatedly, which results in protracted
meetings; the oral report, and the fact that members of the adjudication committee comment
immediately without time to study the case and the relevant laws, means that the quality of the
decision cannot be guaranteed. Sometimes a decision of the adjudication committee is changed
later by the same committee.4
In Li Yongcai Case 5 the collegial panel decision was the acquittal of the defended. However,
after discussions, the Adjudication Committee of The Intermediate Peoples Court of Dandong
City held that Li Yongcai was guilty of the charge and was given the death penalty with a twoyear reprieve, notwithstanding the insufficiency of the evidence. The collegial panel e xecuted
2

Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter CPLPR), adopted on July 1, 1979;
amended on March 17, 1996 and on March 14, 2012 http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/207332.htm
01.12.2015, 10:00
3
He Jiahong, Empirical studies on the de-functionalization of criminal trial in China, in Ren min Chinese Law
Review: Selected Paper of the Jurist, Vo l. 1 Ed ward Elgar Publishing Limited 2013 at 168..
4
Yuwen Li, Id. p.33 citing Liang Baojian (ed), Renming Fayuan Gaige Lilum Yu Shijian (Theory and Practice of the
Reform of Peoples Courts) (Beijing: Ren min Fayuan Chubanshe, 1999), p. 233 -234.
5
He Jiahongm Id. at 168 citing Hu Jianting (2003), The 800 days of the man who was condemned to death
Lawyers and Legal System, (4).

this decision. After two years and two months in prison, the injustice dealt him was righted.
Another case is the case of Zhang Jinbo, a policeman accused of rape. The primary court in
Nangang District, after the joint meeting of agency heads of the interrelated peoples court,
peoples procuratorate and public security bureau, sentenced him for ten-year term
imprisonment, having as evidence only on a statement of the victim and the testimony of the
daughter- in- law. The college panel of second instance, declared him innocent, taking into
account the inconsistency in the victims testimony. Afterwards, the case went to the
Adjudication Committee, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original judgment. After
3664 days, Zhang Jingbo was acquitted of any charge and was set free. 6
As the European Court of Human Rights has stated, we believe in the importance of the
principle of immediacy7 . An important aspect of fair criminal proceedings is the ability for the
accused to be confronted with the witnesses in the presence of the judge who ultimately decides
the case because the observations made by the court about the demeanor and credibility of a
witness may have important consequences for the accused and also it is important that the
accused himself to be directly heard by the judge who ultimately decides the case. 8
We understand that the adjudicating committees offers the possibility of using the collective
wisdom of a court, avoiding the limitations of a judge or a collegial panel, because most of the
members of the adjudication committees are senior judges, who have greater judicial and social
experience. Although, we believe that if there are so many cases in which this aim is far from

He Jiahongm Id. at 169 citing Zhang Yue (2007), The policeman named Zhang unfairly imprisoned for rape for
ten years China Youth Daily, 9 February.
7
According to the principle of immediacy, in a criminal case the decision should be reached by judges who have
been present throughout the proceedings and evidence-gathering process However, this cannot be deemed to
constitute a prohibition of any change in the composition of a court during the course of a case. Very clear
administrative or procedural factors may arise rendering a judges continued participation in a case impossible.
Measures can be taken to ensure that the judges who continue hearing the case h ave the appropriate understanding
of the evidence and arguments, for example, by making transcripts available, where the credibility of the witness
concerned is not in issue, or by arranging for a rehearing of the relevant arguments or of important witness es before
the newly co mposed. ( See Case of Cutean v. Romania, Strasbourg, 2.12.2014
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Emilian
Cutean"],"documentcollectionid 2":[" GRA NDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001 -148277"]} 06.12.2015 at
08:00)
8
Id.

being achieved, something should be changed. If the problem is that Chinese judges are
generally relatively young and lacking in experience, maybe the procedure to become a judge
should be changed. Furthermore, there are other ways to control courts decision: the Procedure
of Second Instance (art.180 - art.198 CPLPR), The Procedure for review of Death Sentences (art.
199 art. 202 CPLPR), The Procedure for Trial Supervision (art 203 art. 225 CPLPR) and,
moreover, The Supreme People's court give interpretation on questions concerning specific
application of laws and decrees in judicial proceedings."9
In conclusion, we believe that the way of how adjudication committees handle the cases
nowadays should be changed because a real control of a decision it is not made through
discussions, but within a new trial, in which they can have a direct contact with the victim,
defendant and witnesses.

China's Judicial System: People's Courts, Procuratorates, and Public Security

http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/pol324/chnjudic.ht m 12.12.2015 at 23:00.

REFERENCE

1. Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, adopted on July 1, 1979; amended
on March 17, 1996 and on March 14, 2012
http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/207332.htm
2. China's Judicial System: People's Courts, Procuratorates, and Public Security
http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/pol324/chnjudic.htm
3. European Court of Human Rights website
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Emilian
Cutean"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001148277"]}
4. Jiahong, He Empirical studies on the de-functionalization of criminal trial in China, in
Renmin Chinese Law Review: Selected Paper of the Jurist, Vol. 1 Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited 2013
5. Li, Yuwen The Judicial System and Reform in Post-Mao China. Stumbling Towards Justice,
Ashgate Publishing Limited, England, 2014