November 22, 2016
Photo courtesy of @Mongolia Travel & Tours
Mr Hada, founder of the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance, has been appealing his wrongful imprisonment and extrajudicial detention after the expiration of his 15-year prison sentence since 2008 – to no avail. In the 1990s, he had advocated, together with a group of intellectuals, for the exercise of the right for self-determination by Southern Mongolians. Mr Hada remains under house arrest, suffering from the long-term effects of psychological and physical torture suffered while serving his prison sentence. In an appeal to the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, he demands justice for the wrongs done to him and the perpetrators to be held responsible.
Below is Mr Hada's appeal released by Southern Mongolia Watch on 21 November 2016. The original [in Chinese] can be found here.
The following is Mr. Hada's appeal to the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China regarding his 19 years of imprisonment. In 1995, Mr. Hada, prominent human rights activist, writer, and the founder of the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance, was arrested and later sentenced to 15 years in prison on charges of "splitting the country and engaging in espionage." On December 10, 2010, he completed his full prison term. Yet, not only did the Chinese authorities refuse to free him, but they placed him under another 4 years of extrajudicial detention in a "black jail" in suburban Hohhot, capital of Southern Mongolia. Currently Hada is still under a form of house arrest in an apartment in Hohhot owned by the Chinese Public Security authorities. The original Chinese version of the appeal can be found here. The English translation is by the SMHRIC:
To: Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China:
I, Hada, was arrested by the Division No.1 of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Public Security Bureau for nationality question on December 10, 1995. I was sentenced to 15 years in jail in 1996 by the Hohhot Municipality Intermediate People’s Court on charges of splitting the country and engaging in espionage. My appeal to the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court was rejected. During my imprisonment, I appealed multiple times through my family members. In 2008, I appealed myself in writing, demanding your court to restore my freedom by providing a large amount of evidence to prove that the two charges against me were groundless. Six years have passed. Yet, your court still has not reheard this unfair trial. Here I made available all relevant documents including my previous appeals, court decisions and verdicts before I start this appeal. I have also written the major events during the past 18 years into this appeal. I urge your court to carry out a rehearing and rehabilitation as to bring those officials involved to justice.
1, The indictment alleges that: the defendant Hada masterminded, organized and led the “Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance”, a reactionary organization whose goal was to overthrow the government and split the country. The verdict decided that: the defendant Hada masterminded, organized and led the “Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance”, a reactionary organization whose goal was to split the country. The written ruling stated that: aforementioned individual Hada disregarded laws of the nation, and even actively organized, plotted and established the reactionary organization whose goal is to split the country. All of these are inconsistent with the facts. The actual situation should be that once the Communist Party regime collapsed a small autonomous state will be established out of the territory of Southern Mongolia. The Chinese population will be relocated to the remaining piece of the territory. The percentage of the Chinese population can be up to 40%. All Mongolians living across China can migrate into the autonomous state. After a longer period of time (approximately 25 years), a referendum should be held. If the majority favors the merger with the country of Mongolia, then an appeal should be raised to the suzerain state. The merger will be carried out upon obtaining the approval [from the suzerain state]. Without the approval, merger will not be done with force in order to avoid bloodshed. The “Way Out of Southern Mongolia” testifies to this proposal. Key members’ oral confessions also serve as supporting evidence.
2, When the arrest was made the stated accusation was “anti-revolution” although the actual crime name was not mentioned. It was not on the arrest warrant either. I was notified in the indictment later that the reason for the arrest was “attempting to overthrow the government, splitting the country, organizing anti-revolutionary group”. Later the four counts were kept in the indictment. However, the verdict maintained only two counts while the judgment maintained the original indictment. Why would this happen? Isn’t it caused by their legal-illiteracy, trifling and disregarding the law, political interference or intentional framing? As the case was about to be decided, Yu Gui told me, “if you are a son of high ranking official at Departmental level, then it would be nothing. I know you are a very reasonable person but unfortunately you are a son of an ordinary Mongolian farmer”. He said with dissatisfaction that “there are indeed some corruptions going on in our team. This is an unfair trial. But I can do nothing about it. Pressure from the higher-ups is tremendous”. Right before the trial, the chief judge along with the clerks came to me and said, “Hada, I am very sympathetic with you. Your whole life is ruined. This is an unfair mistrial. It is absolutely not that serious case. But I am helpless to it. It is not up to me to decide.” No laws say that organizing and leading an anti-revolutionary group constitute the crime of splitting the country. So, who had made this up? Law says organizing anti-revolutionary group constitutes a crime. Yet, the “Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance” is not an anti-revolutionary group.
3, Crime of splitting the country can be established only if the prerequisite of overthrowing the government through armed intervention is satisfied. Otherwise it would be cracked down by government force. Is this something that bare-handed 30 some intellectuals can do? Is this an activity with ulterior motivation? The former President of Taiwanese Democratic Progressive Party Mr. Xie Changting was not arrested in mainland China during his visit. After his return he went to the United States and had a press conference. In fact, Taiwan has long been in a de facto state of independence with armed forces. Ma Yingjiu upholds “principles of three nots”, suggesting the mainland China to abolish the state law of anti-separatism. On the other hand, he purchased new weapons from the United States. Experts say the amount of weapons sold by Obama in his first term to Taiwan exceeds the total amount sold by Bush in his two terms. In cooperation with the United States, Taiwan manufactures carrier killer battleships preparing to sink Chinese aircraft carrier “Liao Ning”. On one hand he accepted the “Nine Two Consensus”, but on the other hand accepted the visa free treatment offered by the United States. Lian Zhan loudly talked about one China theory while aggressively purchasing military weapons from the United States. Wu Boxiong refused to accept “China’s Taiwan”, adamantly used “Republic of China”. Ma, Lian and Wu frequently made state visits to many foreign countries as leaders. Yet the Chinese leaders always treated them as friends and important guests. Compared to them, what have we done?
4, Since long ago, Chinese leaders treated Taiwan as a separatist force. Later on, Tibet was added to the list. Most recently Xinjiang has also been included. However, Southern Mongolia has never been mentioned. At the end of 2010, Jia Qinglin published an article on the Communist Party mouthpiece “Qiushi”, specifically naming Tibet and Xinjiang without mentioning Southern Mongolia. The international community never considered Hada as a having committed the crime of separatism. The big boss of Southern Mongolia (the Party Secretary) always told guests from elsewhere that Southern Mongolia is socially stable and ethnically harmonious. They had never said that there exist separatists and social instability. However, they treated me as a separatist criminal and sentenced me to 15 years in jail. Even after my completion of the full term of 15 years, they continued to put me under extrajudicial detention for almost 4 years. Will you accept the fact that you are engaging in ethnic oppression, carrying out a mistrial? If no, then how do you explain all these? Do you have the stomach to stand up and announce to the world that there exist separatists in Southern Mongolia? Has any Party boss ever dared to make a public statement on this? I have never heard so. What the Southern Mongolians can say or do is nothing more than an attempt to defend their rights guaranteed by the constitution and ethnic autonomy laws. In China, only Taiwan has met the criteria of being separatists. However, due to its strong backing including western countries like the United States, Taiwan is free from any punitive actions. Isn’t it a perfect example of a double standard, an example of bullying the weak and fearing the strong, and bartering away principles?
5, Modern international laws honor the right to national self-determination. Certainly the Mongolians have the right to national self-determination as well. In the 1935 Declaration, Mao Zedong confirmed the Mongolians’ right to self-determination and the right to its implementation. Although the Chinese constitution does not explicitly state this, it is an important universal legal standard that international law should be honored when national law and international law come into conflict. The referendum I proposed was a solution to the implementation of national self-determination under a democratic system in the future. Quebec of Canada has been fighting for independence since the 1950s. Referendum was carried out twice in Quebec without a successful favor from the majority. The Canadian Government has neither cracked down on the movement nor carried out any arrests for these. South Sudan also achieved national self-determination through referendum. Most recently, Crimea of Ukraine was annexed into Russia through referendum followed by referendums by Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv to decide whether to be part of Russia. The Chinese Government has never expressed its disapproval on these events. Isn’t it against their own conscience to willfully confound black and white to criminalize an individual who came up with a proposal for national self-determination after the collapse of current regime as national separatist? Do not forget that both Marx and Lenin, founding fathers of Communism, advocated for national self-determination.
6, The indictment claims: Hada and Tegexi also reported to Tumenbayar and Altansukh, intelligence agents of the country of Mongolia, about the organizational and membership status of “Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance” and asked for political and economic assistance from them. The judgment maintained consistency with the indictment. However, the verdict added a line reading “in order to achieve their goal of splitting the country”. I remember that before the formal arrest I had said that we established a contact with the Government of Mongolia, hoping that they would be satisfied with it. However after the formal arrest, I have never accepted this groundless accusation except for the periods when I was in serious mental confusion as a result of psychological torture. Even though, the three different authorities have similar allegations, the so-called evidence was obtained by interrogation through torture. When and where did I see them? [no clear???? Whom???] Did I report verbally or in writing? About which members? Who did witness this? The allegation goes that [I] not only reported about the organizational status but also asked for political and economic assistance? Consistency is seriously lacking in the allegation. What is the purpose of making these up? Didn’t they try to prove that our purpose and activities were for splitting the country? When fabricating the evidence they forgot an important fact: what they have done has already constituted a crime of framing.
7, The indictment claims: [Hada] wrote articles with contents of overthrowing the government and splitting the country, and organized the members to study them. It could have been referring to the “Way Out of Southern Mongolia” which has no such contents whatsoever. Here is what the verdict states: [Hada] wrote the book entitled the “Way Out of Southern Mongolia” in order to comprehensively and systematically illustrate his national separatist ideology. The judgment states: appellant Hada had also vigorously trumpeted the national separatist ideology through his book “The Way Out of Southern Mongolia”. I had already rebuffed the contents of the indictment, judgment, and verdict that contain accusations inconsistent with the fact surrounding the matters such as organizing seminars. So, the question is, why would the public prosecution organ come up with this offensive trick? Isn’t it just for fabricating evidence to support their four counts they just made up? In fact, what the verdict stated about the purpose of my book is inconsistent with the fact as well. I will elaborate more on this in later sections. Regarding the “vigorously trumpeting the national separatists ideology” as claimed in the judgment, it is even more absurdly inconsistent with the facts. On the contrary, my book presented a series of statistics and facts to expose the true nature of Chinese colonial rulers’ inhumane, cruel and heavy-handed oppression as well as heinous crimes committed against the Mongolians. It also argues to justify the absolute correctness of fighting national oppression and exploitation.
8, The indictment defined the “Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance” (SMDA) a subversive organization. Yet, the basis for indictment was that the SMDA is an “anti-revolutionary group”. The verdict also defined it as a subversive organization. The judgment remained consistent with the verdict. Case evidence proves that I myself drafted the constitution of the organization as for nongovernmental organization, not for any subversive purpose. An organization is considered subversive or reactionary only if it works against the good of the people or against social advancement. Democracy, freedom, and human rights are trends of the world today. Our guiding principle is democracy, human rights and self-determination. The main goal of the 13th Congress of the People’s Republic of China was also to establish a democratic, prosperous and civilized China. Our goal does not conflict with theirs. Playing with terminologies by blaming the SMDA as a separatist organization sometimes and anti-revolutionary organization other times confuses people. What is even more absurd is that the authorities continued the indictment against only two of us in the name of an anti-revolutionary organization. To be an organization it has to have multiple members at least more than two. Even an illiterate person would not be confused with this simple math and logic. How can a public prosecution organ get confused with this? The verdict also admitted that “certain crime names do not fit into this case”. Why then is this absurdity still at work? Isn’t it a clear indication that it was a deliberate framing supported by fabricated evidence? I am confident that there can be no explanation other than this.
9, The mission statement of the SMDA was drafted by Heilong. None of the articles I drafted for the constitution contains such a clause. I, Heilong and Chen Haishan were elected as the President, Vice President and Secretary respectively through secret ballot. We three were the members of the Executive Committee. On August 28, 1995, a meeting of the Executive Committee was held at Heilong’s residence. Heilong presented, Chen Haishan took the meeting notes. All documents including the “Central Committee Notice” were drafted and compiled by Chen Haishan. Heilong, Chen Haishan and Changming were responsible for organizing and lecturing at the seminars. Chen Haishan and Changming were responsible for editing and publishing the journals. I and Tegshii had never been part of the work of editing journals or organizing seminars. Thus, the indictment’s accusation of “publishing illegal journals” against me is groundless. In fact, contents of the journals and seminars were very healthy in nature. They cannot constitute a crime. The indictment, verdict and judgment claim that establishing an organization is a crime. However, what is even more illogical is that one of the two Vice Presidents and the Secretary were not put on trial. The indictment, verdict and judgment all claim that publishing journals and organizing seminars are also crimes. Yet, Heilong, Chen Haishan and Changming were set free. What a ridiculous and nonsensical logic it is! Law is not something there for the authorities to play with at their will. Aren’t they ashamed of what they have done?
10, The verdict states: In order to explain his national separatist ideology comprehensively, the defendant Hada also authored a book entitled the “Way Out of Southern Mongolia”, garbling statements and making a deliberate misinterpretation out of context. With fewer citations compared to the indictment, the verdict still had a trumped-up goal for my writing. The true intention of my book was to explain the SMDA’s short-term and long-term goals. It was not aiming at overthrowing the current regime. It has no goal of splitting the country of the People’s Republic of China. It is the most comprehensive, most systematic and most authoritative interpretation of the goal of the SMDA. Therefore, I had, in fact, hoped to have key leaders of [the government] read it carefully and give me feedback and recommendations which I would use to revise and finalize it (the indictment’s accusation of “organizing seminars for the members” was groundless anyway. The verdict and judgment have already served as counter proofs to it). Later on, Yu Gui said they all unanimously agreed with my argument. Prior to circulating my book for review, I explained to them about our goal. Had I said our goal was targeting the current regime no one would have ever followed me. Using the manuscript to criminalize the author as “splitting the country” is an illegal act.
11, When citing from my book “Way Out of Southern Mongolia”, the indictment and verdict deleted the part “technically speaking” from the original sentence reading “technically speaking, there is no difference between the Chinese invading Southern Mongolia and the Japanese invading China.” The intention for garbling statements and making deliberate misinterpretations is to frame the victim. The facts prove my argument has a firm foundation. Modern political science generally acknowledges that the era of foreign colonization was somewhat put to an end. For example, returning of Hong Kong and Macao is an indication of this. Yet, it is also a generally accepted fact that internal colonization is still pretty much alive. To the indigenous people --- the Mongolians, the Chinese are no doubt a foreign nationality which falls under the framework of internal colonization within the same country. Brutal rules the Mongolians have been subjected to in the past long period of time can only be clearly explained through the framework of internal colonialism. The so-called alliance or brotherhood of nationalities fails to explain this. Therefore, what I wrote in my book is perfectly consistent with the facts. It was a voice against national repression, a voice of self-defense. It is not a voice of crime, let alone the fact that it was an only voice stated in my manuscript.
12, The indictment and verdict both quoted “to carry out a determined, thorough and relentless struggle against the Chinese rulers, and ultimately to completely overthrow the oppressive regime” as a statement from the “Way Out of Southern Mongolia”. The judgment did not mention it. I do not recall that I said this, because I was deeply aware that we do not have the power to overthrow this regime. Even if it was said so, it is not unconstitutional, because the Chinese constitution is against ethnic discrimination and oppression. It is an unshakable fact that there exists a Chinese brutal and oppressive regime in Southern Mongolia. Let us take a look at some cases: In 1981, the total population of the Mongolians [in Southern Mongolia] was 2 million; of them the first grade elementary school students taught in Mongolian were 110,000. In 2008, the Mongolian population rose up to 4 million. Yet, the number of first grade elementary school students taught in Mongolian declined dramatically to 20,000. The Mongolian population in Hohhot is about 210,000. Of them only 3000 first grade elementary school students are taught in Mongolian. In Urad Middle Banner, a survey among the Mongolian herder’s community reveals that 47 out of 50 Mongolian households are forced to send their children to Chinese elementary schools. In Southern Mongolia, the Chinese peasants receive 13 different government subsidies whereas Mongolian herders receive only 5 types of subsidies which are in reality allocated to those Chinese peasants in pastoralist communities. Thus, the Mongolian herders virtually ended up almost receiving no government subsidies. The Grassland Act was adopted almost 30 years ago. However, cultivation of grasslands is rather rampant in every corner of Southern Mongolia. If you carry out an investigation, the Chinese rulers including the Chinese Central Government are inevitably responsible.
13, The indictment cites the following sentence from the “Way Out of Southern Mongolia”: “to reclaim the entire territory of the Mongolian people to achieve independence and merge with the country of Mongolia.” What is interesting is that both the verdict and judgment did not use it. Why? Because I did not say that. “The territory north of the Great Wall is inherited from our ancestors. Therefore reclaiming it back is a matter of course” is cited with the deletion of the second half sentence “we have no power to reclaim it”. This was a statement intended for those who advocate reclaiming the lost territory. It conflicts with the idea of establishing a small autonomous state. As far as the argument about the territory inherited from the ancestors, it is consistent with historical fact. All news media agree with this argument. Again, the verdict and judgment did not use it. It was also cited, “to establish a true Mongolian autonomous state on the larger part of the territory taken out of the total territory of 1.18 million square kilometers of Southern Mongolia.” The original phrase should be, “to establish a truly Mongolian autonomous state on the appropriate part of Southern Mongolian territory.” What interests me is that the judgment did not use this. The purpose of the public prosecution organ was to fabricate evidence to support the four counts trumped up against me. The reason why the judgment used the last sentence indirectly was to fabricate evidence for the accusation of “splitting the country”.
14, The indictment deleted the “right to” of the “right to self-determination” in the guiding principles of the organization. The Mongolian version was also consistent with the Chinese one. With the “right to” deleted, “self-determination” is an act. No doubt, the intention of the deletion of “right to” in the indictment was so clear that they wanted to accuse me of engaging in the “act of overthrowing the government and splitting the country”. The three organs all revised the name of “Constitution of the Southern Mongolia Democratic Alliance” to “Constitution of the Inner Mongolia Mongolian Nationality Democratic Alliance”. The name of the organization is the “Southern Mongolia Democratic Alliance”. The constitution and bylaws of the organization were drafted by the same individual and adopted at the same meeting. It was impossible that there was such a huge discrepancy in the terminologies. The indictment also used “Southern Mongolian Way Out” (“nan meng chu lu” in Chinese) instead of “Way Out of Southern Mongolia” (“nan meng gu zhi chu lu” in Chinese). However, the verdict and judgment used the “Way Out of Southern Mongolia”. Why would there be such an inconsistency? Didn’t they understand the difference between “Southern” and “Inner”? There must be an intention. If it was “Southern Mongolia”, it could not constitute the crime of splitting the country. It would be otherwise if it was “Inner Mongolia”. What a despicable way of framing the victim!
15, The indictment alleges: Hada wrote articles, trumpeting his ideology of national separatism (the verdict used “it” while the judgment deleted “ideology”). It refers to my article entitled “Gunsannorbuu’s Political Ideology” which was dedicated to the Mongolian Philosophy Annual Meeting to which I was a member. Due to my bookstore work, I was not able to make it to attend the meeting. But I submitted this article to the meeting upon the request of the organizer. It was a purely scholarly paper. Historians agree that Gunsannorbuu was a progressive prince. Locals pay homage to his statue at his palace and extolled his achievements and efforts. The Chinese official press Inner Mongolia Television produced and aired a two-part documentary about him as a historical figure who made a great deal of contribution to Mongolian culture. Indeed, he advocated and worked for the independence, autonomy and unification with Mongolia until Yuan Shikai called him to Beijing as a tactic of “luring the enemy away from his base”. I used a great deal of materials for the research on his ideology. This turned out not only to be “trumpeting for the ideology of national separatism” but also an “action of national separatism”. To the Chinese authorities, “trumpeting for ideology of national separatism” equals to “action of national separatism”. Otherwise, the crime of “splitting the country” cannot be established. Question is, which article or which clause of the criminal law, new and old alike, has it as “trumpeting for national separatist ideology is an act of splitting the country”?
16, The indictment places an emphasis on “overthrowing the government and splitting the country” whereas the verdict stresses “splitting the country”. They consider “national separatism” as an ideology. In 2011, the authorities claimed again that I had engaged in activities of national separatism. Had I engaged in national separatism, then there must have been some negative consequences to the regime. What were those consequences then? The Criminal Act has no article for national separatism. Lenin said national oppression is national separatism, and struggle against national oppression is just and right. Therefore, cracking down on an opinion for national minorities’ struggle against national oppression and for defending legal rights as separatist speech or separatist activity is an act of national oppression and national separatism. Who can dare to say there exists no national oppression in Southern Mongolia? The Movement Against National Rightists in 1957 was another shining example of national separatist activity. No one was brought to justice. During the “Movement for Digging-up and Cleansing”, hundreds of thousands of Mongolians were killed, and millions implicated and persecuted. Those Chinese chauvinists who had zealously engaged in national oppression and national separatism have never been brought to justice. This is a discrimination against the Mongolians, as well as a flagrant violation of the fundamental principle of “everyone is equal before the law”.
17, The indictment continues the accusation: “they launched an attack on our party’s nationality region autonomy policy.” The verdict and judgment did not use this accusation because their policy is very faulty and problematic. On the other hand, criticizing the policies is not an illegal act. In my article, I mentioned multiple occasions that the “autonomy” of Southern Mongolia is a titular one. Similar arguments have increasingly gained popularity in recent years. For example, Muunohai said, what we have in Southern Mongolia is a “titular autonomy yet genuine Chinese chauvinism”. He Fang argued, “ethnic region autonomy exists in name only”. The autonomy of Southern Mongolia in 1947, and that of Hong Kong and Macao can be counted as true autonomy. It has been 30 years since the “Ethnic Region Autonomy Law” was issued. There has been no single concrete ordinance passed whatsoever in any of those five so-called “autonomous regions”. The reason is, the “emperor” (Party Secretary-cum-Director of National People’s Congress) doesn’t like it. As a result, national legislation lacks integrity. Minority nationalities including those higher ranking Mongolian officials feel dissatisfied with this. Under this lawless and brutal regime, legal rights of the legitimate owners of the land have never been protected, leaving them in a circumstance in which they are not even allowed to express their dissatisfaction. The so-called “establishment of rule of law” in Southern Mongolia has been advertised for long enough. Yet, there has been no meaningful progress for nationality legislation. Let me ask, when will the era of the totalitarian regime that solely depends on violence and lies be put to an end? Is there any time table to it?
18, The indictment also distorted facts by selectively quoting a few sentences from my 13 pieces of works: “on their own land, the Mongolians have already become the minority of the minorities, and the slave of the slave nationalities (the original article does not have “nationalities”). The fake harmony among nationalities advertised by the rulers of China (“the Chinese” in the original article) is nothing but a political conspiracy (not “conspiracy”, but “deception” in the original article) designed to defend the interest of the Chinese (not “the Chinese” but the “dominant nationalities” in the original article) and deceive, assimilate and eradicate small and vulnerable nationalities. Using the theory of human rights and self-determination as a weapon to fight the Chinese Communist Party’s (not “the Chinese Communist Party” but “the Chinese” in the original article) colonial regime. No one has ever read my 13 articles. The public prosecution body knows as little as this. However, the public prosecutor still chose to prosecute me willfully. Why? Therefore, two layers of justice departments were virtually useless. I sincerely thank the public prosecution body for publicizing the contents of my articles (even though partially), and helping me expose the Chinese rulers’ arbitrary and brutal nature. I know that the public prosecution body will strongly disagree with my opinion. So, let me ask exactly what is wrong with my opinions? I still think it was consistent with the reality of Southern Mongolia. Not only that, it has proven correct as time has passed. If not, then you must point out what is wrong with it. Not only did all these fail to prove I am guilty, but they also prove that the Chinese rulers including you all committed a heinous crime.
19, The indictment modified my phrase of “struggle against the Chinese colonial rulers” into “struggle against the Chinese Communist Party”. Its goal was to accuse me of engaging in anti-party activities and speeches. My lawyer testified to this fact. In addition, I was accused of being “anti-party” in 2011. However, the verdict and judgment did not use this accusation, which partially proves its non-existence. Also, these articles were read by no one. They were just my personal thoughts. Yet, if you say it was anti-party, then it is an intentional activity or an act of overthrowing the Communist Party, not an issue of ideology or speech. However, neither did I have any target nor did I have any activity. Therefore, the accusation of overthrowing the government is groundless. Anti-party and criticizing some of the party policies are not the same thing. The Communist Party has tens of millions of members. How can I as a single individual overthrow its authorities? Do you really believe in what you are talking about? What is the real purpose of selecting a few sentences from my unpublished work and interpret them as anti-party speech? I still cannot understand why this happened. I have never imagined that they would use this trick to frame and criminalize me. Will you admit that you have done all manner of crimes? If not tell me why.
20, The indictment accuses me: “Also they loudly advocate for the so-called democracy, equality, human rights, and national self-determination”. How can the promotion of these constitute a crime? Open your eyes wide and take a closer look at it: Is there any fundamental difference between these and the core values of your socialism? They are all universal values. We believe in these values because the Mongolians need them. We can protect our legal rights only if these are accepted. The Chinese regime is scared of these values since 1989 pro-democracy movement was bloodily crashed. Therefore, whoever upholds these ideas is considered an element of bourgeois liberalization, and met with merciless strike and exclusion. That was the reason why I was not provided with any employment opportunity. Please review my personal profile. On the one hand, you claim there is no political prisoner in China as part of your effort to fool the international community, on the other hand, you criminalize individuals for their speeches and ideas. You are shameless to commit all sorts of crimes in order to force individuals to give up what they believe. We are not guilty! You are the real criminals! Don’t you believe things will be cleared soon?
21, When I was arrested, I was accused of having serious bourgeois liberalization ideas. The supporting evidence includes the assertion that I recognized multi-party system and separation of powers. This in fact is a matter of belief. The constitution guarantees freedom of belief. This is not a bourgeois thing. From 1917-1922, the former Soviet Union was a multi-party system. The SMDA believed in separation of power until it was dissolved. Therefore, it should be consistent with the fact that it belongs to a universal value of mankind. Take a step back, even if you advocate capitalism it cannot constitute a crime. In 1980, during his inspection tour in Tibet, Hu Yaobang said “if you make the mistake of capitalism, you should not be criticized. But we should have self-criticism”. Wan Li said, “it will be best if we have a developed capitalism.” In the past, market economy has always been considered capitalistic in nature. However, since 1990s, China started implementing market economy. Therefore, capitalism liberalization is not a crime however serious it may be. But, why did they come up with this trick to criminalize me? Was it because of their ignorance? Or is it an intentional framing? What you haven’t realized is that you made yourself a criminal.
22, The indictment claims: the defendant also made photo copies of and distributed “Statement of Dalai Lama”, “Relationship between the Mongolians and the Chinese and nationality question”, and articles of Wei Jingsheng and Ma Beiming to the SMDA members for study. This accusation was repudiated by the verdict and judgment themselves, saving me a great deal of pen and paper. Indeed we copied some articles and let our members read as reference. But it was not the same as having them study. Even if there was some organized study, it was not organized by me. As the President I have never ordered anyone to learn anything. If you don’t believe, please provide us with evidence. When, where, and how many people? Who read which articles to whom? Who was the witness then? In this world, only you the Communist Party forces people to have political study or political discussion to achieve the goal of “brainwashing” or “cleansing out one’s evil thoughts”. No other party has ever come up with this type of evil idea. Therefore, I can assure you that: your public prosecutor famed me with your old trick. It is disgusting and shameless!
23, The indictment accuses: Under the instruction of Hada, the SMDA Eastern Bureau member Gao Yulian obtained a copy of a top secret document entitled “Inner Mongolia Party Committee Document  No.13”. Chen Hu seemed to state at the court that “Hada gave a presidential order to Gao Yulian to obtain the document.” The Mongolian version of indictment just mentioned that Hada “gave an order”. The question is, where is the “presidential order”? What type of paper was used for it? What type of pen was used? Was it in Mongolian or Chinese? What was the document code then? year, month and date? In fact, all the above accusations were groundless. I have never given any so-called “presidential order” to anyone. The handwritings of what they confiscated from Gao Yulian’s home were completely different from mine. The so-called package from Zorigt to Gao Yulian and the copy of the document issued before my second trip to Mongolia were all false confessions obtained through interrogation during which my physical and mental states were at the brink of collapse due to the intolerable torture. I totally lost my ability to resist. When and where did Gao Yulian give [me] the copies? Who was the witness then? You must show concrete and sufficient evidence to support these. While Gao Yulian was accused of handing over the copies of the documents, the verdict and judgment have never mentioned this. Why?
24, For my first trip to Mongolia, Shuang Zhu provided me with an invitation which was actually from his friend Tumenbayar, an owner of a company there. The purpose of my first trip to Mongolia was to explore the possibility of opening a branch store for my bookstore in Mongolia. My second trip to Mongolia was for finding a school to pursue my doctoral studies there. The so-called confession to “smuggling secret documents and engaging in espionage” was obtained through brutal tortures and interrogations. All types of torture techniques were applied to me for an extended period of time. I felt unbearable agony under my right armpit. My whole body experienced a serious muscle convulsion. Sleep deprivation often lasted as long as more than a week. My body weight reduced to only 30-40 kilograms. I had a serious mental confusion. The so-called confession they obtained through torture includes “Hada sold a top secret document to Mongolian intelligence personnel named Erden at a price of 1000 USD.” The dollars I had was my earnings through business. The verdict and judgment all deleted the name of “Erden”. This testifies to the fact that the accusation was groundless. When and where did I sell the document? Where is the witness? If there is a witness who is he or she? Who can testify to this? I need concrete and sufficient evidences.
25, Was the so-called document top secret? If so, were those who copied the document and handed over to me Communist cadres? If both Gao Yulian and I had the copies, then it seems it could be acquired by anyone. There was a document circulating among all students and faculties in the Inner Mongolia Normal School. Heilong expressed discontent with the contents of the document. He told me this was circulated in the school. Soon after the issuance of the document, professors of the Inner Mongolia Normal School and scholars of the Inner Mongolia Social Academy complained about the document when they visited my bookstore. I obtained a copy of this widely circulated document and found out from it that the root cause of the national oppression is actually the government policy which was reflected in this document. This was the only reason why I was interested in the document. The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Party Committee that came up with this document with a nature of national oppression not only was free from being held accountable but also it did victimize me by throwing me into jail and kept me under extrajudicial detention until today. What an injustice! The proposer of the document Mr. Han Maohua publicly and blatantly advocated doctrines of discrimination and oppression against the entire Mongolian nationalities at a certain meeting. Many Mongolians complained to the Chinese Central Government about him. However, he has never been brought to justice. Because they are the Chinese who are the ruling class. The ruling class was given unrestricted authority and privileges to be above the law. What can I do with this?
26, The indictment, judgment, and verdict mentioned the Document No.13 as “top secret” five times and as “confidential” eight times. Each of the indictment and judgment mentioned it once as “top secret” while the judgment mentioned it as “confidential” three times and indictment twice. The verdict defined it as “confidential” on six occasions. The same document cannot be both “top secret” or “confidential” at the same time. The ratio of number of occurrence between “top secret” and “confidential” is 2:8 in the indictment and verdict. Considering the ratio of 5:8 in the judgment, it can be said that the document is most likely a “confidential” one. The copy of the document also shows “confidential” not “top secret”. How can a document from the regional Party Committee come up with “top secret” document and disseminate it among all the students and faculties of the Normal School? You still should have the original document. How come the Public Security authorities are unable to identify if it is a “top secret” or “confidential” document? I firmly believe that this will eventually be made clear.
27, The indictment claims: Hada passed on a copy of the “Report on the Situation of Soviet Union and Mongolia” to a British correspondent from The Times in Mongolia. Also Hada distributed copies of “North East Asia” to Mongolian intelligence agents Tumenbayar and Tsedev. While it is groundless, the indictment made it up as if it was a fact. Yet, two levels of courts completely turned down this accusation from the public procurators. The public procurators failed to provide concrete evidence to back their claims up. The authorities do not have any evidence except for some information extracted through torture. It was evident that the prosecutors did not want to give up the prosecution because my case was a highly beneficial to them. The authorities must not be kind enough to destroy the evidences if there was any. This in fact put me in an extremely difficult situation but helped me to tell the world that there exists serious cruel torture and inhumane and degrading treatments in China. This is an undeniable fact. Why do they hate me instead of hating those who committed crimes of national discrimination and national oppression?
28, The verdict states: the defendant Hada confessed everything when the Public Security authorities carried out the interrogation. Yes, but it was extracted through cruel torture including application of some unknown drugs. I have mentioned multiple times about this. What I need to add is, as early as on August 28, 1995, for the first time I felt heavy impact on my head when Heilong asked Chen Haishan was to take notes during our meeting. On December 11 around midnight I was forced to drink a type of tea. Shortly after I had to urinate every few minutes; in the morning after the breakfast my heart rate had become erratic; when it was evening 11 PM, my tongue started having a serious ulceration; under my right arm pit, I felt severe pain; my brain function became uncontrollable; in the afternoon, Mr. Jargal rushed into the room and shouted and yelled loudly. In my head I felt like something was exploding. Later on, I found out the pattern in which the more the exploding effects occur the crazier my mental status. Liu Fulin and Yu Gui all admitted that torture was applied to me. At that time, investigators, detention center personnel and many inmates had been part of the torture for an extended period of time. Later on, I submitted a written complaint to the Public Security Bureau, People’s Procuratorates, People’s Court, Inner Mongolia Party Committee Secretary: during the investigation process, there had been serious violations of law. However, my complaint was completely ignored. Instead even today the authorities still seem to consider all the torture methods they used are a normal acceptable practice.
29, Later on I realized that more than 100 individuals were arrested following my arrest. Of them two were forcibly sentenced. Of those who were released, some lost their jobs, others demoted or expelled from the party, still others forced to leave the country and went into exile. Some of them were even arrested multiple times. My brother-in-law was detained for 100 days after being arrested. After his release his wife was forced to divorce him. Later on, he was forced to leave his home and went to Beijing. My wife Xinna had been arrested multiple times. Some police revealed to me that the authorities forced me to go on hunger strike and applied some poisons to break me physically. At the same time they also took my family members hostage to blackmail me to give up what I believe. The authorities also illegally shutdown my bookstore, confiscated a large number of books and other publications, making our family go through an extreme financial hardship. My son almost committed suicide as a result of unbearable persecutions. When my brother-in-law as an attorney went to defend us, the Public Security authorities not only barred him but also threatened to arrest him. As a result, my brother-in-law was not even given the chance to review the case. [My attorney] Wang Feng was able to point out a number of inconsistencies and flaws while defending me at the court. However, Chen Hu (???) immediately became unhappy and stopped him from continuing the defense. Before the appeal, I signed on the agreement to have Wang Feng as my defense lawyer. However, after receiving the judgment, I found out that he has never been allowed to handle the case. In addition, the interpreter the court assigned is very poor in quality.
1, As early as in January 1997 before I was transferred to the Inner Mongolia Prison No.1, the authorities started talking to me asking me to admit to the crimes I allegedly committed. I insisted on appealing. Wang Heping stated that I have the right to appeal. On the other hand, [he or they] mobilized prison guards and inmates to pressure me. Particularly, the inmates took over my right to manage my cash and other personal belongings. I asked the prison authorities to take corrective actions. The prison authorities refused to take any action. One of the cells was stacked with clothes taken over from newly arrived inmates. After the prison guards and inmates forced us to load up a truck-full of clothes that were to be sold outside the prison, there still left stacks of clothes there. Later on, en route transitioning me to Ulaanhad (“chi feng” in Chinese) Prison Wang Heping escorted me and spent hours to try to convince me to admit to the alleged crimes. Not only did he illegally take over my personal belongings but also he mobilized train attendants to physically assault me.
2, At the Ulaanhad Prison, the pain under my right armpit has never stopped, making me unable to sleep for [years]. Once, Ji Yingjie punished us several inmates to stand in the middle of sport field for half a day. In the fall, my eyesight has deteriorated to the point where I was not able to read at all. Shortly after, Jiang Guosheng, the jailhouse bully of the entire prison, beat me up at the canteen in front of more than 100 inmates. I complained to the prison authorities to hold him accountable for his act. My complaint was totally ignored. I witnessed that on many occasions he was assaulting other inmates as well. Later on, the prison authorities asked me to withdraw my appeal. I refused. In the winter, I had constant high fever and serious diarrhea for a long period of time. Dizziness lasted from the spring of 1998 to the beginning of 1999.
3, In early March of 1999, I felt another heavy strike (this is the third and last) followed by frequent hallucinations and occasional total loss of mind that caused me to smash my own fingers with bricks. [The authorities] caused me to suffer from a serious mental disorder by mobilizing the People’s Procuratoriats, prison guards, armed police and more than 1000 inmates to carry out physical and mental assault against me in addition to various methods of torture applied frequently to break me down. As a result I was collapsed physically. They forced me to write some statements taking advantages of my physical weakness and mental disorder. Around July 1 and 2, my mental state was somehow restored to normal. I immediately refused to follow their orders. I regained my strength to resist and started my hunger strike to express my strong protest. Winter came and no heat was provided to my small cell. It was unbearably cold. At the end of the year, I appealed to the People’s Procuratorates about what had happened to me over the past six months.
4, In the spring of 2000, I was placed under solidarity confinement as long as 80 days straight. The purpose of this was again to force me to write some statements including one admitting to the alleged crimes. Not only did I reject all these but also I kept myself silent. They exhaustively applied all of their torture methods without any expected result. At the end, one day, Song Zhanlin, Liu Chen and Zhang Shixin came together to strangle me by my neck. For the first stranglehold, I was able to manage to resist and free myself from their hands. But the second stranglehold almost took my life as it was much longer and tighter. I was unable to breath normally for hours. Eventually I breathed normally half a day later. Yang Songtao cursed at me at the top of his lungs. Song Zhanlin handcuffed me in the back sometimes as long as 20 hours, causing me to be unable to sleep for the whole night. On the second day, I realized my hands were swollen when he changed the handcuff in the front. I reported to the People’s Procuratorates again.
5, When I was transferred from the solidarity confinement to the regular cell, I realized my clothes left in the cell were rotten and destroyed. Apparently someone intentionally poured water on them. Many of my belongings including some food from my family were taken away by other inmates. In the cell, I was again asked to admit to the alleged crimes. I refused. They started to put me under heavy manual labor including digging earth under the sweltering heat. Failing to break me down, they extended my work hour to more than 16 hours per day. Shortly later, I was forced to work over time day and night, causing me a serious back problem. I refused to work. They forced me again to write something to ask for forgiveness. I insisted that I am not guilty. Instead, I wrote that my back was severely damaged as a result of unbearably heavy labor. I also submitted this to the People’s Procuratorates. I knew the executors included Liu Chen, Qian Youcun and Li Xin. But I wanted to know who were the masterminds.
6, Later I was transferred to Liu Bian Middle Brigade. The work hour was still more than 12 hours a day. In May and June, I was forced to write something to admit to the alleged guilt. I refused flatly. They put me into sleep as long as 105 hours twice in addition to many other type of tortures including forcing to work under extreme heat for a prolonged period of time. I was unable to bear with these. Shortly later, I refused to work again. They tricked me saying that they were to take me to a doctor, which turned out to be another solidarity confinement for 20 days. I had diarrhea every day during the solidarity confinement. I was also threatened to be put on “death bed” or “cross”. I did not give in. After being released from the solidarity confinement, I was not given any food and water, but was forced to work several times. I refused to work. Later on I was transferred to Middle Brigade where I was forced multiple times to write a statement of guarantee which I refused. Later on I was transferred to the First Greater Brigade.
7, After being transferred to the First Greater Brigade, the Deputy Director talked to me several times in vain. As a result I suffered a series of pain and agony caused by some poisonous substances applied to me. One night, my heart beat had gone into an uncontrollable rhythm, causing me sleep disruptions for the whole night. In both the Middle Brigade and the First Greater Brigade, I had a serious weight loss. In the spring of 2003, I was forced to work again. I had a swollen abdomen day and night. In the winter I was forced to clean the prison yard in the freezing cold. My cell was given no heat for the entire winter. One of my cell walls shared by the toilet was cold, wet and dark all the time. In February of 2005, I had arteriosclerosis with one leg. Not only did the prison authorities refuse to provide medical treatment, but also they forced me to continue the hard labor. I refused. In 2007, I had diarrhea again which lasted for almost 6 months with frequent shocks that lasted more than 10 minutes every time. Phlebitis also accompanied me for a while. In the spring of 1999, my teeth started shaking. In 2004, many of them were lost. The prison guards took them away.
8, In order to continue my struggle in accordance with the law, before leaving the prison I was able to manage to keep some physical evidences for the poison applied to me. The rest were either stolen or confiscated by prison guards. Up until the release date of December 10, 2010, I had suffered from serious poisoning by the prison guards from Ulaanhad Prison and a black jail in Hohhot. As soon as the release was announced, I was put to hard labor again in the name of “corrective action through community service” under the supervision of the Public Security authorities. I was also asked to sign two documents. They held the release certificate, appeal letter and two letters from my wife. The local police station took me to another black jail after announcing seven items as regulation set for me.
9, During those 13 years, my wife Xinna was arrested multiple times; my son who was still a high school student was persecuted and sent to juvenile prison for “reeducation through labor” for two years, causing his fiancée to leave him. Due to a series of persecutions, he even attempted to abandon his family. My bookstore was shut down. Xinna was also fired from her work. Due to the extended period of persecution, completely gray-haired she has a serious heart problem. She has been making ends meet by borrowing money from almost everyone she knows. Today she has no one to borrow money from. My son Uiles is almost 30 years old, yet still is single. Xinna was arrested on December 3, 2010. Uiles was arrested on December 5, 2010 on a trumped-up charge of “illegal drug possession”. Later on I was able find out that all these were a way of blackmailing me to give up what I believe. What a dirty trick!
1, I have been under an illegal extrajudicial detention for almost 3 years today [15 May 2014]. The authorities claim that this is because of the so-called “deprivation of political rights for 4 years”. So, what is the true purpose of the extrajudicial detention? It was nothing but to force me to give up what I believe. Not only that, they also claim to setup two sets of regulations specifically for me. The main purpose of these regulations was to deprive me of the right to free speech, another form of deprivation of right to think. I have a great deal of evidence for this. Starting mid-July of 2011, an additional set of restrictions was imposed on me: deprivation of my right to appeal. The place I have been held is a “black jail”. Yet, they claim it is a luxury hotel. What is even more egregious was that they refused to admit that the detention is an illegal and extrajudicial one.
2, In order to achieve the abovementioned goals, they have used numerous illegal and even criminal methods. The serious ones include: taking my wife and son hostages to blackmail me. As this failed to produce their expected outcome, they persecuted my wife by sentencing her to 3 years in jail with 5 years reprieve. My son was similarly detained for more than 9 months before he was released on bail pending trial. A year later, the authorities claim he is guilty but would not be tried. He was subjected to various abuses and tortures during the detention. He contracted a skin disease in detention. He was barred from being employed. Once the police beat him up and confiscated his cell phone. My relatives have also been threatened, intimidated, beaten, harassed, and pressured. Among them, my uncle, mother-in-law, younger brother and sister-in-law were affected the most. Whoever came to visit me have been strip-searched. The authorities tried hard to damage my relationship with relatives.
3, Restriction and deprivation of basic rights. For example, I was not allowed to read newspaper and watch TV. I was deprived of the right to meeting visitors, right to communication and right to visit my family and relatives. I have been denied access to daily supplies including toilet paper and bath soap. Supplies from family members and relatives are also denied. They used food and drink as a means to torture me. I have frequently been on sleep-deprivation. They attempted to buy me over with alcohol, women, money, job, and luxury house. Disregarding my age and illness, they forced me to do hard labor. They demonized and defamed me. Physical assault, rude curse, threatening, and trickery are commonplace. Rotational use of all these methods deprived me of the right to be silent. My right to appeal and right to complain are seriously violated. Their attitudes are rude, barbarous and unreasonable. Relatives are often used to pressure me.
5, I have already been imprisoned almost for 18 and a half years. Use of poisonous drugs against me has never stopped. It will never be put to an end as long as I am not freed. Number of person/time of torture and abuse against me is well over tens of thousands. It will increase steadily. Over the years, I was forced to divorce from my wife. I am still not given adequate food, water and sufficient sleep. My rights to appeal and express my grievances are seriously violated. Other rights are also arbitrarily taken away or deprived of. From the time of the very beginning of the detention, illegal confiscation of personal properties and various forms of persecutions have never been halted, rather accelerated. This appeal contains only some major events while many other details are omitted for the sake of keeping it shorter. Most of the perpetrators are still alive. I have sufficient evidence to support our appeal. Therefore, I believe this unjust trial will be reinitiated, and the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
By Hada who is still under extrajudicial detention.