No sooner has criticism of the proposed CPL revision been raised, than a rebuttal has come from the People’s Daily, writing that critics have come to an absurd conclusion.
And what do crimes against public order have to do with the amendment, if the proposed text does not mention them?
Could it be – as this author says and you can bet he knows his stuff! – that covert detention was mostly used on sensitive cases ? If this is the case, then where´s the progress the People´s Daily talks about?
And if before passing any judgment on the CPL revision we should read earlier legal documents, then why don’t we also analyze the content of internal police rules? We know such rules exist, but we don’t know why – if things are really getting so much better – they have not been compared to provisions in the 1980 and 1996 CPL and to the proposed amendment.
In the future, the exception will concern a small number of suspects or defendant.
That covert detention may be used on some people is not really an argument. Lifting procedural guarantees means lifting procedural guarantees, no matter whether 10 or 10.000 people are involved. By this logic, we would have no reason to point our fingers at extraordinary renditions, the detention of illegal migrants and the fingerprinting of gypsies. Because, after all, the majority of criminal suspects are treated much better than them.
If everybody is equal before the law (33 Constitution, 6 CPL), why then are some more equal than others?
Also while some suspects can be detained without notice, this rule does not apply to corruption suspects, who nonetheless can be still placed under residential surveillance at “a designated place”.
This is the text of the proposed amendment
Residential surveillance shall be executed at the domicile of a criminal suspect or defendant. When [a criminal suspect or defendant] has no stable domicile, it can be executed at a designated place.In cases involving crimes against state security, crimes of terrorism or grave crimes of corruption, if execution at a [suspect or defendant´s] domicile may hinder investigation, [residental surveillance] can, after approval by the next higher level people´s procuracy or public security organ, be executed at a designated place. But, detention facilities, places deputed to handling cases cannot be designated to execute [supervised residence].When during the executing of residential surveillance notification is not possible, except for cases involving crimes against state security, terrorism when notification may hinder investigation, the reason of residential surveillance and the place of execution must be notified to the family of those placed under supervised residence within 24 hours of its execution.When residential surveillance is executed at a designated place, criminal suspects, defendants placed under residential surveillance entrust a lawyer according to provisions in article 33 of the present law.People´s procuracies supervise the legality of the decision on and execution of supervised residence at a designated place.