[2] Compiled from: CCTV.com, The Paper
 
[3] At 4 p.m. on August 4, the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court retried the Zhang Yuhuan intentional homicide case and ultimately declared Zhang Yuhuan innocent, citing that "the original verdict 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 petitioner for justice in publicly reported cases to date.

 

 
Case review
[4] On October 24, 1993, two boys from Zhangjia Village, Huangling Township, Jinxian County, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, were murdered and their bodies dumped in 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 confessions admitting to the murders. However, during the first trial at the Nanchang Intermediate Court in January of the following year, Zhang Yuhuan retracted his confession in court, claiming he had been subjected to torture and forced to confess.
 
[5] In January 1995, the Nanchang Intermediate Court ultimately found Zhang Yuhuan guilty of intentional homicide, stating that the basic facts were clear and the basic evidence was sufficient, and the crime was serious. Based on the specific circumstances of the case, the court sentenced Zhang Yuhuan to death with a two-year reprieve. Zhang Yuhuan refused to accept the verdict and appealed.
 
In March 1995, the Jiangxi Provincial High Court ruled to overturn the original verdict and remand the case for retrial on the grounds of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.
 
In November 2001, the Nanchang Intermediate Court's retrial verdict again determined that the basic facts of the case were clear and the basic evidence was sufficient, reaching the same verdict as the first trial. Facing the third trial, Zhang Yuhuan still appealed.
 
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 Provincial High Court, requesting the court to file the case for retrial and legally acquit him. In June 2018, the Jiangxi Provincial High Court decided to file the case for review.
 
On the afternoon of August 4, 2020, the Jiangxi Provincial High Court publicly pronounced the retrial verdict in the intentional homicide case of the original defendant Zhang Yuhuan, overturning the original verdict and declaring Zhang Yuhuan innocent.
 
In this case, a principle played a key role—presumption of innocence in cases of doubt.

 

 
What is the principle of "presumption of innocence in doubtful cases"?
The principle of "presumption of innocence in doubtful cases" requires that when handling a doubtful case, the approach should favor the accused. If it is difficult to determine guilt or innocence, the case should be treated as innocent; if it is difficult to determine whether the crime is serious or minor, it should be treated as minor.
 
The principle of "presumption of innocence in doubtful cases" is mainly reflected in the stages of review and prosecution and the first instance. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that for cases that have undergone supplementary investigation twice, if the people's court still finds insufficient evidence and does not meet the conditions for prosecution, it should make a decision not to prosecute. During the court trial stage, if the standard of "clear case facts, reliable and sufficient evidence" is not met, the court should render a verdict of not guilty due to insufficient evidence and failure to establish the alleged criminal facts.
 
Doubtful cases in law can also be explained by applying the principle of presumption of innocence in doubtful cases. When the adjudicator cannot determine whether to apply a heavier or lighter charge for the defendant, or cannot decide between a heavier or lighter punishment during sentencing, the lighter charge or lighter punishment should be applied, making an interpretation favorable to the defendant. In 2016, the "Opinions on Trial-Centered Reform" issued by the two high courts and three ministries included the principle of "leniency in sentencing when in doubt" for the first time in a normative document on criminal procedure, marking a further improvement in the level of human rights protection in China's criminal justice.
 
In China, "clear case facts, reliable and sufficient evidence" is the standard for a guilty verdict, which combines subjective and objective elements.
 
"Clear case facts" means that the judicial personnel determining the facts have thoroughly investigated the facts and circumstances related to conviction and sentencing, which is a subjective state. "Reliable and sufficient evidence" is an overall requirement for the quality and quantity of evidence. Combined with Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the specific requirements are:
 
(1) All facts for conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence. This is a requirement for the quantity of evidence, meaning that all objects of proof related to conviction and sentencing must be supported by evidence.
 
(2) All evidence used to decide a case has been verified as true through legal procedures. This is a requirement for quality, including that each piece of evidence must be objectively true, not false, and have objective relevance, as well as that the evidence must have evidentiary capacity, meaning it must go through legal procedures for presentation, cross-examination, and authentication.
 
(3) Based on all the evidence in the case, any reasonable doubt about the established facts has been eliminated. This requires a comprehensive judgment of the case facts based on all evidence, using the elimination of reasonable doubt as the standard. This comprehensive judgment includes both the determination of the certainty of the established facts and the assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those facts.

 

 
[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.
 
This retrial and acquittal of Zhang Yuhuan fully reflects the implementation of the principle of "in dubio pro reo" in judicial practice. In recent years, China has comprehensively advanced the rule of law, resolutely corrected wrongful convictions, strictly implemented the principle of "in dubio pro reo," and adhered to seeking truth from facts and correcting errors whenever found. With an attitude of being responsible to the law, the people, and history, every wrongful conviction has been discovered and corrected. The shift from "in dubio contra reum" to "in dubio pro reo" is an inevitable choice for protecting human rights and a sign of judicial progress.
 
However, this serves as a life-risking warning to those wielding judicial power: they should value evidence, not make arbitrary judgments; value human rights, not abuse power; and not abandon the rule of law and justice for temporary political interests. — Professor Jiang Ping