Tibetans Appeal Splittism, Espionage Sentences for Horse-Racing Festival Incident

Relatives of four Tibetan men -- two nomads, a monk, and a school teacher -- traveled from a Tibetan area of Sichuan province to the provincial capital, Chengdu City, to submit appeals to the Sichuan High People's Court following the men's sentencing on November 20, 2007, on splittism and espionage charges, according to a December 4 Radio Free Asia (RFA) report. The Ganzi (Kardze) Intermediate People's Court, located in Kangding (Dartsedo), the capital of Ganzi (Kardze) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (TAP), Sichuan province, sentenced the four men to prison terms of up to 10 years on charges of splittism, espionage, or both, for actions linked to an August 1 incident at a horse-racing festival in Litang (Lithang) county in Ganzi TAP, according to a Xinhua report published the same day as the sentencing.

The Ganzi court convicted one of the men, 52 year-old nomad Ronggyal Adrag (or Runggye Adak) on October 29 on the charges of attempting to "subvert state power" and "split the country" by standing before a crowd gathered at the festival and shouting slogans calling for the Dalai Lama's return to Tibet and greater Tibetan freedoms, according to an October 30 RFA report. Security officials detained him immediately. (For more information, see International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) reports, 2 August 07, 10 August 07.) If the report of conviction on both charges is accurate, Ronggyal Adrag was the first Tibetan convicted under the 1997 Criminal Law on the charges of "splittism" (Article 103: "splitting the State or undermining unity of the country") as well as "subversion" (Article 105: "subverting the State power or overthrowing the socialist system"). The judge presiding over the trial said that Ronggyal Adrag's sentencing would take place within six or seven days (e.g. by November 5), according to the RFA report.

The same court sentenced Ronggyal Adrag to eight years' imprisonment on the charge of splittism on November 20 (about two weeks later than the court predicted), according to another Xinhua report that day. The report did not provide any information showing that Ronggyal Adrag was sentenced on the subversion charge. Articles 103 and 105 each provide sentences ranging from three years up to life imprisonment depending on the court's perception of the seriousness of the alleged activity. In October, the judge presiding over the trial characterized Ronggyal Adrag's crimes as "very severe," according to the October 30 RFA report, leading to initial concerns that he could face a prison sentence of extraordinary length as punishment for an incident of disorderly conduct.

The Ganzi court sentenced the other three Tibetans, monk Adrug Lupoe of Lithang Monastery (detained August 21), middle school teacher Jamyang Kunkhyen (detained August 22), and nomad Jarib Lothog (detained August 19), for alleged activities following Ronggyal Adrag's detention, when Tibetans reportedly protested in and near Litang town, and authorities called in the People's Armed Police (PAP) to enforce a crackdown, according to an August 24 ICT report, an August 28 Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy report, and a September 4 RFA report. Adrug Lupoe (one of Ronggyal Adrag's nephews) and Jamyang Kunkhyen followed "directions from overseas sources" and "took pictures and made discs and provided them to overseas organizations" with Jarib Lothog's assistance, according to information about the sentence provided in the first Xinhua report cited above. The report did not name the photographer or the overseas recipient of the images. According to the September 4 RFA report, Kunkhyen's detention was "thought to be connected to his possession of a video camera at the time of the protests," and followed a search of his residence by security officials. The August 24 ICT report provided images of security officials and PAP in and near Litang on August 8 to disperse Tibetans gathered to protest Ronggyal Adrag's detention.

The court found the three men guilty of espionage (Criminal Law, Article 110) because some of the images recorded on the discs "concern[ed] national security and interests" and "provid[ed] intelligence to overseas organizations," according Xinhua's account of the verdict. In addition to espionage, the court convicted Adrug Lupoe and Jamyang Kunkhyen of inciting splittism by "writing and posting secessionist flyers," and sentenced them to prison sentences of 10 years and 9 years, respectively. Jarib Lothog was sentenced to three year's imprisonment as an accomplice to espionage.

The men's relatives initially attempted to submit appeals to the Ganzi Intermediate People's Court in Kangding, but "they were not allowed to do so in the same court," according to a Kangding source cited in the December 4 RFA report. The Ganzi court's refusal to accept the appeal is consistent with Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), which provides "the defendant, private prosecutor, or their legal representatives" the right to refuse to accept a judgment and "to appeal in writing or orally to the People's Court at the next higher level." A provincial high court is one level higher than an intermediate court. When the relatives traveled to Chengdu, the Sichuan High People's Court did not at first respond to their requests to submit the appeals, the RFA source said. The provincial court accepted the appeals and provided the relatives with an official receipt only after the relatives produced a "joint appeal" addressed to officials in Beijing and signed by an unspecified number of Tibetan residents of the Litang area.

The CPL imposes strict limits on the period of time during which an appeal may be submitted. Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Law states, "A defendant shall not be deprived on any pretext of his right to appeal," but Article 183 restricts the period of time during which an appeal may be lodged to 10 days after receipt of the written judgment.

Information is not available about whether or not the men have access to legal counsel during their appeals process. A court-appointed lawyer representing Ronggyal Adrag at his trial in Kangding argued that his call for the Dalai Lama to return to Tibet was strictly religious in nature, and not aimed at toppling the government, according to a November 20 ICT report.

See Section IV, on "Tibet: Special Focus for 2007," in the CECC 2007 Annual Report, available on the Web site of the Government Printing Office (GPO), for more information. The Tibet section of the 2007 Annual Report is available as a reprint on the GPO Web site.