The Endeavour of China's Procuratorate (III)　

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to be here!

I' m Yin Yutong, and we are all young officers from Dongcheng District People's Procuratorate of Beijing.

Good morning!

Today, we'd like to share with you "The Endeavour of China's Procuratorate."

Through representative artefacts, landmark cases, stories, and practices, you will see the ninety years of development of China's procuratorial system.

We'll invite you to step into 4 historical periods.

This is our fourth period, start from 2012.

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, Procuratorial organs not only supervise criminal, civil, administrative trials, and the enforcement of judgments, but also to safeguard the public interest.

A foundamental framework of the "Four Major Procuratorial Divisions" — Criminal, Civil, Administrative, and Public Interest Litigation — has gradually taken shape.

Next through four stories, let's see these four functions in action.

Now, let's welcome my colleague to share the first story, welcome.

【Reflections on Article 20 of the Criminal Law】

My name is Fan Tingyu, from the criminal department.

Let me begin with a film.

The film told three related cases.

First，a thug raped a woman with a hearing and speech disability.

Her husband stopped him and killed him in the struggle.

Second, at school, a secondary school student bullied a classmate.

Another student stepped in to stop it and, in the scuffle, injured the bully.

Third, on a bus, a male passenger molested a woman.

The driver intervened to stop the offence and injured the man.

Each story came from a real case handled by Chinese prosecutors.

The title of the film is Article 20, it refers to Article 20 of China's Criminal Law, which provides: Where a person conducts an act to stop an unlawful infringement in order to avert an immediate and unlawful infringement of the state's interest or of the public interest or of his own or another person's rights of the person, or property rights, or other rights, resulting in harm to the unlawful infringer, such an act shall be justifiable defence, and criminal responsibility shall not be borne for such an act.

This is the clause on justifiable defence.

In the past, many similar cases were not recognised as justifiable defence.

One reason was the outcome: The defender had, in fact, injured or even killed the offender.

Old notions held sway, "Whoever is hurt is in the right." "Whoever dies is in the right."

Evidence-gathering and assessment were also difficult.

Judicial organs were cautious when applying the law on justifiable defence.

As a result, for a long time, Article 20 was not accurately applied in accordance with the law.

In recent years, procuratorates have focused on these widely discussed, high-profile cases.

We have recognised them in accordance with the law and applied the justifiable defence clause correctly.

The "sleeping" Article 20 has been re-awakened.

By handling a series of justifiable defence cases accurately and in accordance with the law, procuratorates have sent a clear signal to society: the law must not yield to the unlawful.

Thus, fairness and justice can resonate with the scales of fairness in the people's hearts.

This is the story I wanted to share.

Now, allow me to introduce my colleague to share the next story.

【From 1.8 Million to 11 Million — What Lay Behind It】

My name is Zhu Jiangqi.

Today, I will share a civil case where we filed a procuratorial protest.

In this case, Li, ran a sapling nursery.

However, the saplings began to wither.

He believed a coal mine nearby had over-extracted coal, lowering groundwater and drying the land.

So, he sued the mine for damages.

But the mine said, "It's not us — it's Li's poor management."

Then, the court brought in experts.

They said: The cause was drought.

But they could not tell why there was drought.

The first-instance court found no evidence to prove that the coal mine's extraction activities caused the drought, so it against Li.

Li appealed.

At second instance, the judges found: The groundwater authority had concluded that mining was the main reason the underground water level fell.

And that fall was one cause of the drought.

The mine must pay1.8 million yuan to Li.

But to Li, it was too little.

He appeal to the higher Court.

The Court found no error in the second instance court's judgment, and dismissed the appeal for a retrial.

Then, Li came to us.

The Supreme People's Procuratorate reviewed the case.

It found that the damage arose from ecological destruction, and in the eyes of law it was an environmental liability dispute.

As the law dictates, in such cases, the burden of proof lies with the defendant — to show whether causation exists, or grounds for exemption.

Compensation must cover the loss already suffered and foreseeable losses to come.

The mining company offered no evidence sufficient to excuse or lessen its liability.

The Supreme People's Procuratorate lodged a protest, and the Supreme People's Court reversed its ruling.

Finally, the mine must pay 11 million yuan to Li.

By raising procuratorial protests against wrongful judgments, prosecutors uphold justice and the lawful rights of the people.

That's all, thank you！My colleague will share the next story.

【Two Protests, Then a Reversal】

My name is Yao Jialei, a prosecutor from the administrative department.

Today, I will share a story named Two Protests, Then a Reversal.

It's about an administrative protest concerning the recognition of a work-related injury.

Zhang was an employee of a company.

One evening, after work, the boss told him to deliver goods to a customer.

Zhang did it.

But, on his way home, he was involved in a traffic accident.

He was left paralysed in all four limbs, classified as having a first-degree disability.

Then Zhang applied to the competent authority for recognition of the injury as work-related.

But the authority held that Zhang could not prove that he was not fully responsible for the accident, so refused the grant recognition.

Zhang appealed by way of administrative review, and then by administrative litigation.

But both motions were dismissed for the same reason.

Zhang then turned to our prosecutors.

Upon review, we found that Zhang's accident stemmed directly from the changes in working hours and travel route arising from his overtime work arrangements in delivering goods.

The accident was therefore closely linked to his work, and should be recognised as a work-related injury.

The authority had refused recognition, but without a legal basis.

Later, the procuratorate lodged a protest.

The court reversed its judgment, and ordered the authority to recognise the injury, and Zhang's employer was required to pay him over three million yuan in compensation.

By raising protests against erroneous administrative rulings, our prosecutors promoted judicial fairness and ensured the rule of law in administration.

That's my whole story for today. Now, allow me to introduce my colleague for the next story. Welcome!

【The Transformation of the Grain Granary from the Ming Dynasty】

My name is Xu Sicheng, a recruit from the public interest litigation department.

The site I am about to present today lies hidden at alleys in Dongcheng District: a grain granary built over 460 years ago, used in the Ming and Qing dynasties to store rice paid to officials as their stipend.

It is a precious relic.

Yet for many years it had been used simply as a warehouse.

It was badly damaged, and posed dangers to the relic's safety and its historic character.

Our procuratorate, together with the Military Procuratorate of Beijing, initiated administrative public interest proceedings.

The authorities expressed willingness to repair, but faced obstacles: entry into the military compound was restricted, and there was no special funding for restoration works.

So how to deal with these problems?

We pressed the district bureau of culture and tourism, and the local street office, to apply for funding from the higher heritage authorities.

We coordinated with the Military Procuratorate to resolve the problem of access to military compounds.

We further secured agreement from the occupiers of the relics: that once restored, two granaries would be handed over to the local government to open as museums, bringing the relics to life again.

To date, the granaries have been renovated.

This case achieved a "triple effect": The occupier's rights respected, the local authorities' duties fulfilled, and the relic put to active use.

It was selected as a guiding case by the Supreme People's Procuratorate — the very first of its kind in Beijing in the field of public interest litigation.

That's all, thank you!

Today, in sharing with you the history of our system, we open not only a window for display, but also a bridge for dialogue.

Though we come from different nations and diverse legal traditions, fairness and justice remain our common language; the pursuit of an ideal society remains our shared conviction.

Let us stride forward together; let us learn from one another; and in that spirit of exchange, let us help build a world more just, more fair, more radiant with the rule of law.

Thank you!