The amended procedural regulations on the handling of administrative cases took effect by the end of last month. Some amendments on the basis of past experience have sent a message that procedural justice is gaining an increasingly important role in law enforcement.

One of the amended rules stipulates that when a fine of more than 2,000 yuan (US$250) is inflicted on an individual, police officers must inform the individual in advance that he or she has the right to require a hearing on his or her penalty. The same rule also applies to enterprises that have been fined more than 10,000 yuan (US$1,200) by police.

In the past, police officers only told the offenders why they were being punished, and were not required to notify them of their rights.

This rule has given individuals and enterprises the right to defend themselves. Although the hearing is supposed to be held by the public security bureau, police officers who have issued the fine tickets or are involved in the case are not allowed to preside over the hearing.

This is where progress has been made in terms of procedural justice, which has been neglected. We used to place too much emphasis on the concept that offenders must be brought to justice by whatever means.

The quota system, which connected the income of police officers with the number of cases cracked or criminals caught, was based on that concept. Well-known cases in recent years, where suspects were tortured into admitting to crimes they had never committed and then were wrongly convicted, have revealed the neglect of procedural justice in judicial practice.

The amended regulations stipulate that confessions obtained by torture, enticement or cheating cannot be used as evidence against a suspect in court. As a matter of fact, relevant rules have already meted out penalties for police officers who have tortured or mistreated suspects. The new rule has given prominence to procedural justice in this regard, providing a warning to police officers that confessions they obtain through illegal means cannot be valid as evidence for court convictions.

These regulations also stipulate that handcuffs and shackles should not be used on drunken suspects who pose no threat to the safety of other people, their properties or public security.

The amended regulations set limits to how far the police officers can go in their work of enforcing the law. Their significance lies in the awareness of the judicial department that guarding against the abuse of power by law enforcers is as important as the enforcement of law itself.

(China Daily September 6, 2006)