【新唐人2014年11月24日讯】在被判为杀人犯枪决18年后，内蒙古少年呼格吉勒图的案件终于等来了重审的决定书。当年，呼格吉勒图从报案人突然变成嫌疑人，并在两个月后就被枪决，甚至在真凶出现后的9年里，也一直无法启动重审。我们采访了大陆的几位律师，为您剖析他的案件和重审的背景。
11月20号，呼格吉勒图父母发表了这样一则微博：“今早8:30左右，收到内蒙古自治区高级人民法院的再审决定书，我们一家人终于看到了希望，真相终究要大白。谢谢大家的关注。”
呼格吉勒图被枪决后，9年蒙冤，9年申冤，这个重审的消息，一家人等了18年。这一案件也被形容为“内蒙古版的聂树斌案”。
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，他主动找到辖区民警报案，事后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，案发62天后呼格吉勒图被执行枪决。
到了2005年，内蒙古系列强奸杀人案凶手赵志红被捕后，供认是“毛纺厂女尸案”的真凶，才引发社会关注呼格吉勒图的冤情。
广州律师隋牧青：“他这个现在怀疑，根本就是一个假造出来的案件。那么如果这个能确定的话，那就是故意杀人了。那可不是枉法，滥用职权等罪名，那是故意杀人。这个案例其实按照现在听说、看到的一些分析，是很可怕的。”
之后在2006年8月，“呼格吉勒图案”经内蒙政法委复核，确定为冤案。警方在调查过程中也被质疑存在刑讯逼供、诱供的行为。可是尽管呼格吉勒图的父母常年申诉，在真凶出现后长达9年的时间里，一直无法启动重审，两位老人反而被内蒙当局作为维稳对像长期监控，多次被截访送回内蒙古。
广州律师隋牧青：“真凶出现仍然无法申冤，因为当年办案的那些人，他们已经因为这些案件立功升迁。他们本身就成为了主要的一些领导者，阻力是非常大的。”
“呼格吉勒图案”当时被列为内蒙古“严打”期成功案例，办理案件的冯志明等四名警察获二等功，并被媒体誉为“神探”。冯志明目前已升任呼和浩特市公安局党委委员、副局长。而对该案作出“特别指示”的，当时呼和浩特市公安局的局长王智，后来升任内蒙古公安厅巡视员。
北京律师唐吉田：“如果查明这个案子当时确实他们违反法定程序，认定事实错误，相应的直接责任人和指挥决策者，都应该承担相应的行政，甚至刑事责任。因为无罪之人判有罪，而且执行死刑了，这可以说是非常严重的事件。”
那么为什么在今年年末，“呼格吉勒图案”终于能够重审了呢？
整理“呼格吉勒图案”18年的始末，可以发现两个时间点上的“巧合”。一是案发时，中共正在进行第二次全国“严打”，要求办案“从重从快”。二是案件再度启动复查时，正好是十八届四中全会后，当局加大宣传“依法治国”之际。
隋牧青：“现在都是因为中央开始宣传依法治国，所以在这样的背景下，某一些冤案都得到了解决。基本上我觉得他们运气成分都很大。你必须要有一个制度上的保证，无论谁执政，你在法律上，这一块东西该怎么做就怎么做。”
事实上，呼格吉勒图案并不是个例，与他相似的案例，仅根据被报导出来的，就有“聂树斌案”、“赵作海案”、“陈满案”、“陈夏影案”等等，其他没有被报导出的案件，数量无法掌握。
唐吉田律师认为，这类案件频繁出现，和中国“警察主导”的刑事诉讼架构有很大关系。由于利益驱动，或非法律因素干扰，一线执法人员就可能越过法律底线，一味追求“有罪供述”。
唐吉田：“最根本的还是，在中国到目前为止，一线的执法人员，他们‘无罪推定’的理念普遍是缺失的。实际上，还有像中国大陆的这种，所谓的政法委协调的机制，往往未审就先定。法院、检察院对于警方的工作成果很难去进行非常客观、中立的评判。”
隋牧青律师指出，尽管当局宣称要加强法制，但近期对《刑事诉讼法》，《刑法》等提出的修订，并没有朝着法治方向前进，甚至很多在“开倒车”，使他对中国法律现状并不乐观。他认为，人们不能把自己的期望以及权利的保障，都寄托在某时某刻政治气候的变化上。
采访/朱智善 编辑/尚燕 后制/萧宇
An Unjustified Execution vs. The Political Climate
A retrial of an Inner Mongolia teenager’s case was finally
granted recently after 18 years of struggle.
The teenager, Hugejiltu, became a suspect from an informant
and was executed within two months.
After the murderer confessed, the case retrial was put on hold
for more than 9 years.
We interviewed lawyers to analyze his case
and the background to the retrial.
On Nov. 20, Hugejiltu’s parents issued a microblog: “Received
notice to open retrial from the Inner Mongolia Autonomous
Region Higher People’s Court around 8:30 this morning.
We have finally seen hope for the truth.
Thanks to everyone’s concern."
For 18 years, after Hugejiltu was wrongfully executed,
his family has called for redress to no avail.
This case was described as an Inner Mongolian version
among many unjustified executions in China,
such as the Nie Shubin case.
On April 9, 1996, the then only 18-year-old factory worker,
Hugejiltu, found a female body raped and murdered
at the factory female restroom.
His voluntary report to the police turned him into a suspect
and he was arrested.
In 1996, the Communist regime was conducting its second
campaign to crack down on crime.
In spite of lack of sufficient evidence and existence of many
questions, 62 days later Hugejiltu was executed.
In 2005, the Inner Mongolia serial rape killer Zhao Zhihong
was arrested.
His confession to the 1996 rape murder case brought concern
to Hugejiltu’s family grievances.
Guangzhou lawyer Sui Muqing: “This case is a suspected fake
case. If it is confirmed, that would be an intentional murder.
It is not just bending the law or abuse of power,
but an intentional homicide.
According to the analysis we are seeing and hearing now,
it is very frightening."
In August 2006, Hugejiltu’s case was reviewed and identified
as an injustice by the Inner Mongolia Political and Law Commission.
Police were also suspected of torturing the suspect
to induce testimony.
Nine years after the murderer emerged,
the case was never re-opened.
Hugejiltu’s parents have been treated like a target for stability
maintenance.
Their petitions were often intercepted by the authorities.
Lawyer Sui Muqing: “The grievance was not redressed even
after the real murderer had confessed because those who
were promoted over the case became the authoritative leaders.
The resistance has been very big."
Hugejiltu’s case was praised as a success for the crackdown
campaign in Inner Mongolia.
Police officer Feng Zhiming and three others, honored as
the “detectives", received second class awards.
Feng Zhiming is now Party Committee and Deputy Director
of Hohhot Public Security Bureau.
Then Hohhot Public Security Bureau Director Wang Zhi
who gave special instructions for the case was promoted
to be the inspector of Inner Mongolia Public Security Bureau.
Beijing lawyer Tang Jitian: “If they are identified as the ones
who are liable for and commending the acts of violating
legal procedures, they should bear the corresponding
administrative and even criminal liability.
Because innocent people were wrongfully convicted
and even killed. This is a very serious matter."
Why is this case finally granted a retrial now?
In the past 18 years, Hugejiltu’s case is “coincidental" with two
time points.
First, the case took place during the second campaign of crack
down on crimes in the country; the regime demanded
“harsh and speedy" punishment.
Second, the re-opening of the case is granted when the regime
hyped “rule of law" after the 2014 fourth plenary session.
Sui Muqing: “It is in the context of the rule of law publicized
by the Central.
Some injustices get to be resolved.
Basically I think they are plainly lucky.
With an institutional guarantee,
those who govern need to go by law."
In fact, Hugejiltu’s case is not isolated.
There are many other known unjustified cases,
such as those of Nie Shubin, Zhao Zuohai, Chen Man,
and Chen Xiaying.
The number of unreported cases is not known.
Lawyer Tang Jitian believe the high incidence of unjustified
cases is associated with the fact that “police" lead the criminal
litigation framework under the Communist regime.
The frontline police blindly pursue confession of guilt
by bending the law driven by interest or other interfering factors.
Tang Jitian: “The most fundamental issue is that front line law
enforcement officers generally lack the concept
of “presumption of innocence."
In fact, the so-called coordination mechanism of Politics and
Law Committee often ruled before it was investigated.
It is very difficult for the court and prosecutors to carry out
an objective and impartial judgement of police work."
Sui Muqing points out, although the authorities vowed to
strengthen the rule of law, he is not optimistic about the legal
system in China.
Many of the recent amendments to Code of Criminal Procedure
and Criminal Law were actually “backsliding".
He indicates that people should not rely for protection of rights
on political climate changes.
Interview/Zhu Zhishan Edit/ShangYan Post-Production/XiaoYu
