According to a report by Minghui.net on Feb. 17, 2007, the Gansu Provincial Court sentenced Falun Gong practitioner Cao Dong to five years in prison on Feb. 8, 2007, under the charges of “illegal collusion with anti-China forces in and out of China” and “accepting illegal interviews.” Right now Cao Dong is filing an appeal.
On May 21, 2006, Cao Dong met with Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott, Vice-President of the European Parliament. He talked about the persecution he, his wife and other Falun Gong practitioners he knows well received. He also talked about how he saw the body of Falun Gong practitioners after organ extraction. On the same day of meeting, Cao Dong was kidnapped by spies of Beijing National Security Bureau. Initially he was secretively jailed in Beijing, and on Sept. 4, he was transferred to the detention center in Lanzhou City, which belongs to Gansu Provincial National Security Bureau. Cao’s case, through Mr. McMillan-Scott’s urging to the outside world, has gained extensive attention from the international society
Some people in the legal field pointed out there is no such rule of “accepting illegal interviews” in Chinese laws. Gansu Provincial Court apparently created this phrase.
Another charge pressed against Cao Dong is that Cao provided documents to prove the persecution of Falun Gong such as “Helping and Teaching Agreement,” “Complaining Letter,” “Police Department Meeting Notification,” and “Notification of Relief from Labor-Education” to foreigners for photographing, “so as to pressure the government.”
Analysts pointed out that these documents are legal documents that labor camps issue to those who completes full-term of the labor-education. Theses documents are made by the labor camps and related agencies. Releasing these documents should not generate any threat to the country. Cao Dong emphasized at the court that what he told the Vice-President of the European Parliament his own experience.
Minghui.net reported that an internal document within Chinese Communist regime showed the background of this sentence at Gansu Provincial Court. This document claimed that “According to guideline from Central ‘610 office,” ’striking on Cao Dong and sentencing him in Beijing would be relatively sensitive, and could easily be speculated.’ In addition, No. 17 Department of National Security Bureau issued a guideline that ‘it is more appropriate to transfer Cao to Gansu Province, his hometown, to handle and sentence. The legislature department of Gansu Province will sentence him by law…if allowing Cao to return to the society, it certainly will bring harms to the social stability in Beijing, therefore he must be stricken on.”
On Dec. 22, 2006, Gansu Provincial Court held a court hearing over Cao’s case. But the final verdict had to be announced after the approval of “upper-level 610 office.” The final verdict of five-year in prison was eventually delivered this Feb. 8.
Friends Read Free