In 1996, Huugjilt, an 18-year-old worker at a wool textile factory in Hohhot City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, was identified as the "4·9" wool textile factory murderer. 61 days later, the court sentenced Hugjilt to death and he was executed immediately. In 2005, Zhao Zhihong, the murderer of a series of rapes and murders in Inner Mongolia, was arrested. Several cases he explained included the "4.9" female corpse case in the women's toilet of the woolen textile factory, which triggered widespread media and social attention to the Hugjil pattern.
Li, the spokesperson of the Higher People's Court of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, said that the court's retrial decision was mainly based on the appeal of Huugjilt's close relatives. After review, it is believed that this case complies with the second paragraph of Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, that is, the evidence based on the original trial for conviction and sentencing was inaccurate and insufficient and should be excluded in accordance with the law, and the people's court should retry it.
It is understood that on the morning of the 20th, Bao Batu, the president of the filing division of the Higher People’s Court of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, delivered a retrial decision to Hugjilt’s parents on behalf of the High Court.
Li said that the People's Court will try the case fairly and strictly in accordance with the law in the spirit of being responsible for the parties, the facts and the law. Since the defendant Hugjiltu in the original trial has died, according to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, the retrial of this case will not be held and will be conducted in writing.
Focus Q&A
Why did it take eight years from the time Zhao Zhihong confessed to being the murderer in the case before the retrial of the case began today?
Inner Mongolia High Court Spokesperson Li: Since the Inner Mongolia High Court received the complaint from Hugjilt’s parents, it has been attaching great importance to it and carefully organized a review. During this period, the relevant public security agencies also conducted separate reviews.
Because the case took a long time, the review was very difficult, especially when some evidence had to be supplemented. In addition, when it comes to homicide cases, we must maintain a prudent attitude, use facts as the basis, and the law as the criterion to ensure a rigorous, meticulous, objective, fair, and highly responsible review.
How is the decision to retry the case made?
Li: The retrial decision was mainly based on the appeal of Huugjilt’s parents. After review, the court found that this case complied with the provisions of Article 242, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, that is, it determined that "the evidence based on the original conviction and sentencing was reliable and insufficient and should be excluded in accordance with the law." The people's court should retrial.
During our review, we did identify issues with the facts and evidence. As for the specific issues, they will still be heard by the retrial collegial panel and finally confirmed in accordance with the law. They will be listed one by one in the retrial judgment document.
What are the key points and difficulties in the retrial of cases before 18?
Li: During the retrial, the court will conduct a comprehensive review of the facts, evidence and legal application found in the original trial.
Chen Guangzhong, a tenured professor at China University of Political Science and Law: Obviously, the focus of the retrial is to re-verify the evidence and facts, ascertain the objective truth of the case, and find out what kind of evidence is used to identify the Hugjilt murder. Whether the evidence is legal and whether it was forced out; whether the evidence is true and whether the evidence can corroborate each other to form a chain.
One of the difficulties in the retrial is that Hugjiltu has been executed and there is no evidence of death. Second, some of the victim’s physical evidence at the time, such as semen spots and other very important physical evidence, were not preserved. Third, the investigators at the time may have concerns and may not tell the truth about the interrogation at that time because it involves their responsibilities.
Did the investigators of the case interfere with the 8-year review?
Does starting a retrial mean that the case has been determined to be unjust, false or wrong?
Li: During the review process, we did not encounter any resistance or obstacles. The case is under trial and a conclusion can only be drawn after a retrial is made in accordance with the law.
Chen Guangzhong: Once a retrial is initiated, the sentence will basically be changed. Starting a retrial and modifying the sentence are basically the same. Although initiating a retrial now does not necessarily mean that the sentence will be changed, I estimate that initiating a retrial in this case means that the sentence will be changed.
Will the retrial of the case be conducted in public? How to protect the litigation rights of participants in criminal proceedings?
Li: As for the trial method, according to the provisions of Article 384, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Procedure Law, there will be no court hearing, but a written trial.
However, a written trial does not mean that it is not open to the public. The court will disclose the trial process, reasons and results in accordance with the law.
Lawyers can perform their duties by reviewing files and submitting opinions to the agency. The courts will also strictly protect the rights of all participants in proceedings, including the rights of legal representation.
Chen Guangzhong: In China’s past judicial practice, most retrial cases were heard in writing. However, in terms of the social attention of the Hugjil pattern, if there is no trial in the end and the sentence is not changed, I am afraid it will arouse more doubts from all walks of life.
The trial of Zhao Zhihong’s case is closely related to the retrial of the Hugjil model. Will you hear it right away?
Li: Zhao Zhihong’s case is currently in the first instance process. The Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court is responsible for the first instance, and the trial was held in 2005. During the trial, if there are new circumstances that require supplementary investigation, when the trial will be held again will be decided by the relevant judicial organs of Hohhot City in accordance with the law.