The light of justice! After 26 years of detention, the day of acquittal has finally come.

[2] Compiled from: CCTV.com, The Paper
 
At 4 p.m. on August 4, the Jiangxi High People’s Court retried and pronounced judgment on the Zhang Yuhuan intentional homicide case. The court ultimately declared Zhang Yuhuan not guilty on the grounds that “the original judgment had unclear facts and insufficient evidence.” Since losing his freedom on October 27, 1993, Zhang Yuhuan had been detained for 9,778 days, making him the longest-detained person seeking vindication in publicly reported cases to date.

 

 
Case review
On October 24, 1993, two boys from Zhangjia Village, Huangling Township, Jinxian County, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, were murdered and their bodies thrown into a reservoir. Zhang Yuhuan, a fellow villager, was taken away by police as a suspect. A few days later, on November 3 and 4, Zhang Yuhuan made two transcripts confessing to the murders. However, when the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court held its first hearing of the case in January of the following year, Zhang Yuhuan recanted his confession in court, stating that he had been subjected to torture to extract a confession and had no choice but to plead guilty under duress.
 
In January 1995, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court issued a final judgment finding Zhang Yuhuan guilty of intentional homicide, with the basic facts clear, the basic evidence sufficient, and the crime serious. Based on the specific circumstances of the case, Zhang Yuhuan was sentenced to death with a two-year suspension of execution. Zhang Yuhuan refused to accept the judgment and appealed.
 
In March 1995, the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court ruled to revoke the original judgment and remand the case for retrial on the grounds of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.
 
In November 2001, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court, upon retrial, again found the basic facts of the case clear and the basic evidence sufficient, and rendered a judgment identical to that of the first instance. Facing this third trial, Zhang Yuhuan once again filed an appeal.
 
That same month, the Jiangxi Provincial High Court issued a final ruling: dismissing the appeal, upholding the original verdict, and sentencing Zhang Yuhuan to death with a two-year reprieve. Zhang Yuhuan did not give up, persisting for years in writing appeals by hand to judicial authorities at all levels, and his family also supported him.
 
In August 2017, Zhang Yuhuan submitted a criminal appeal to the Jiangxi High People's Court, requesting that the court file the case for retrial and overturn his conviction in accordance with the law. In June 2018, the Jiangxi High People's Court decided to file the case for review.
 
On the afternoon of August 4, 2020, the Jiangxi High People's Court publicly pronounced its verdict on the retrial of the intentional homicide case involving the original defendant Zhang Yuhuan, revoking the original judgment and declaring Zhang Yuhuan not guilty.
 
In this case, there was a principle that played a crucial role —— the presumption of innocence.

 

 
What is the "presumption of innocence"?
The principle of "presumption of innocence in doubtful cases" requires that the handling of doubtful cases proceed from the principle of favoring the accused: when it is difficult to determine guilt or innocence, the case shall be treated as innocent; when it is difficult to determine whether the crime is serious or minor, it shall be treated as a minor offense.
 
The principle of "presumption of innocence in doubtful cases" is mainly reflected in the stages of review for prosecution and first instance. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that for cases returned for supplementary investigation a second time, if the people's court still finds the evidence insufficient and the conditions for prosecution are not met, it shall make a decision not to prosecute. After the court trial stage, if the standard of "clear facts and reliable and sufficient evidence" is not met, the court shall render a verdict of not guilty on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient and the alleged criminal facts cannot be established.
 
Legal doubtful cases can likewise be interpreted by borrowing the principle of in dubio pro reo. When a adjudicator cannot determine whether a heavier or lighter charge applies to the defendant at conviction, or cannot determine whether a heavier or lighter penalty applies at sentencing, the lighter charge or lighter penalty shall apply, yielding an interpretation favorable to the defendant. In 2016, the “Opinions on Taking Trial as the Center” issued by the two courts and three ministries introduced for the first time the sentencing principle of “in dubio pro mitius” in a normative document on criminal procedure, marking a further enhancement of the level of human rights protection in China’s criminal justice system.
 
In China, "the facts of the case are clear and the evidence is reliable and sufficient" is the standard for a guilty verdict, and this standard combines both subjective and objective elements.
 
"The facts of the case are clear" means that the judicial officers determining the facts have thoroughly investigated the facts and circumstances relevant to conviction and sentencing, which is stated from a subjective perspective. "The evidence is reliable and sufficient" is an overall requirement for the quality and quantity of evidence. In conjunction with Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the specific requirements are:
 
(1) All facts relevant to conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence. This is a requirement as to the quantity of evidence, requiring that all objects of proof related to conviction and sentencing be supported by evidence.
 
(2) The evidence on which a verdict is based must all be verified as true through statutory procedures. This is the requirement of confrontation, which includes not only that each piece of evidence must be objectively true, not false, and objectively relevant, but also that the evidence must have evidentiary capacity, that is, it must have undergone the statutory procedures of presenting evidence, cross-examination, and authentication.
 
(3) A comprehensive assessment of all evidence in the case has eliminated reasonable doubt as to the facts found. This requires that, on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of all evidence in the case, a comprehensive judgment of the facts of the case be made using the elimination of reasonable doubt as the standard. Such a comprehensive judgment includes both a judgment as to the certainty of the facts found and a judgment as to the sufficiency of the evidence on which the findings of fact are based.

 

 
[1] The author's perspective
The main basis for Zhang Yuhuan's final acquittal was that the facts determined in the original trial were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. In the original trial, because a sack and hemp rope made of the same material as those used in the crime were found in Zhang Yuhuan's home, along with scratch marks on the back of his hand, he was identified as the murderer. However, regarding these two so-called pieces of evidence, the sack and hemp rope were only similar in material and could not prove that Zhang Yuhuan was the murderer, and the scratch marks on the back of his hand could not prove their connection to the murder. Given that this evidence was fundamentally untenable, Zhang Yuhuan's two confessions of guilt contained obvious contradictions regarding the location of the murder, the tools used, and the process of the crime, casting doubt on their authenticity, and they could not be used as the basis for a verdict according to law. Additionally, there was no other evidence to prove that Zhang Yuhuan committed the crime, and the circumstantial evidence could not form a complete chain. Therefore, after more than twenty years, Zhang Yuhuan was finally acquitted and released.
 
The retrial and acquittal of Zhang Yuhuan fully demonstrates the implementation of the principle of presumption of innocence in judicial practice. In recent years, China has comprehensively advanced the rule of law, resolutely corrected wrongful and erroneous cases in accordance with policy decisions, strictly implemented the principle of presumption of innocence, and adhered to seeking truth from facts and correcting mistakes whenever they are found. With an attitude of being responsible to the law, the people, and history, wrongful and erroneous cases are discovered and corrected as they arise. The shift from “presumption of guilt in doubtful cases” to “presumption of innocence in doubtful cases” is an inevitable choice for protecting human rights and represents judicial progress.
 
Let this serve as a warning, at the cost of life, to those who hold the reins of judicial power: they must value evidence and avoid conjecture; they must value human rights and refrain from abusing power; they must not abandon the rule of law and justice for the sake of temporary political interests. —— Professor Jiang Ping