Municipal government officials accused of rape, two county security cases rejected: the Zheung case exposed the chain of protection of power at the grass-roots level

On the night of 28 June, Jiachi, an employee of the Government of the town of Artem Dam, was pushed into the toilet and forced to have sexual relations with her, according to some allegations made by Qi Lin, a barbeque owner in Sichuan Ibein Lian County. On 30 June, the police sent a letter of reply to the case for “Rape by Lin-Lin”; The police station of the district of Yanlian subsequently refused to open the case on the ground that “no criminal fact had occurred” and upheld the decision in the criminal review. The original decision was only revoked on 7 September when the Ebein City Public Security Bureau reviewed the finding that “criminal facts have been committed” and made it clear that the Police Directorate of the city of Yanlian “convenied that the facts were wrong and that there was insufficient evidence”. On 12 September, Lin was given the official " notice of case ".

From receipt to refusal: cases are blocked in the county-level security chain

Public information indicates that on the day after the incident, a husband brought Jay to the police station. (a) On 30 June, the police received a reply from the police station of the police station of the police station of the police station of the district of Yanlian, stating that the case had been taken up by the police as “Rin-i-Ki-Se-Wi”; Jay was subsequently released on 1 July.

On 16 July, the Police Department of the county of Yanlian served on Lin-Cai for the "notice of non-clarification ", the central reason being that “no criminal fact has occurred”. Following an application for criminal review, the District Public Security Bureau issued a decision on 10 August on criminal review, stating that the original decision “confirmed that the facts were clear, sufficiently substantiated, based on correct and procedurally legitimate”, and continued to maintain the case.

These decisions constitute the most critical node of responsibility in the case. Not a miscalculation of the findings of an investigation, but the same public security organ reconfirmed its original conclusions at the review stage, and it was not until the intervention of the higher public security organs was overturned.

The public security review in Hueben directly contradicts the district public security core judgement

Lin Koi continues to apply for review by the City Public Security Bureau in Huby. On 7 September, the City Public Security Bureau of Hueben issued a decision on criminal review, finding that “criminal facts have been committed” in a rape case and stating that the previous criminal review by the Public Security Bureau of Yanlian County “confirmed that the facts were wrong and that there was insufficient evidence” decided to quash the decision of the District Public Security Bureau.

The institutional significance of this decision is clear: The central factual judgement previously used by the Public Security Bureau of the county of Zhong Lian to refuse to open a case was officially identified as a mistake by its superior public security organs. This is not a subjective question of the police by public opinion, but a correction of errors made by a formal legal instrument within the public security system.

On 12 September, the Public Security Directorate of the county of Yanlian reissued to Lin-Cai the " Notice of Case ". From the end of June to the date of the formal filing of the case, the case went through a complete process of receiving, releasing the persons involved, not filing a case, review maintenance, dismissal by a superior and reopening of the case.

The person concerned has the status of town government and power relations cannot be removed from the case

The news verified that Jay was a government worker in the Artemis Dam town of Yangren County, and that the Government ' s public column indicated that it was undertaking a comprehensive law enforcement effort. Jayy denied the rape charges and claimed that the “misunderstanding” between the parties, while acknowledging that he had “more or less minor problems” and that the disciplinary commission had intervened in the investigation.

At this stage, a criminal case has been opened, but the public materials do not establish that Jay was guilty of rape by a court decision. Criminal responsibility for a person in Jay must therefore be based on a final judicial process; However, his status as a government official and the successive refusal of the county public security bureau to open a case has led to the case going beyond the ordinary allegations of sexual assault and to the question of whether the grass-roots power constitutes a protective barrier to the internal population.

The Government of the Artemis Dam, the Public Security Bureau of the county of Yanlian and the District Board of Supervision are in different positions of responsibility: the former is the body to which the persons concerned belong; The District Public Security Directorate is responsible for the initial investigation and the two decisions not to open a case; The disciplinary system intervenes to investigate disciplinary responsibilities of public officials after the event has become known.

Chain of responsibility: who carries out the action, who reviews it, who assumes the leadership

The current chain of responsibility, which can be confirmed by public information, includes:

• Jae (alias): Integrated law enforcement staff of the Government of Artemis Dams, raped on charges of some kind; I deny rape and the case has now been officially opened;
• Police station of the police station of the county of Zhonggong,: initially received and processed the case and the persons involved;
• The Public Security Bureau of the county of Zineen: a decision to “not open a case” was taken and the decision was upheld in the criminal review;
• The City of Huehbing Public Security Bureau: the review of 7 September found “the commission of a crime” and found that the county public security office “was wrong in fact, not sufficient evidence”, and reversed the original reconsideration decision;
• The Government of Artemis Dams: an agency of which Jay is a member has institutional responsibility for the day-to-day management, discipline and post-incident organization of the integrated law enforcement personnel of the unit;
• The county public security system led by the Director General, Cai Bae Zhi, the party secretary of the Police Department of the county of Zai Lian: The public information shows that Cai Pe Zhi is currently the deputy governor, the party secretary and the director of the District Public Security Bureau. There is no public evidence that he himself issued the specific decision directly in the case, but as the principal head of the county public security organs, he is responsible for the functioning of the law enforcement authority, the quality of the case and the internal mechanisms for correcting errors.

In March this year, the Ebein City Council, on its inspection of the police station of the county of Yanlian, publicly made a public call for a focus on monitoring “the strictness of the operation of the law enforcement powers” and “the care of the people”. Less than six months later, this case was the scene of a continuing failure of the county public security, which clearly found that the facts were wrong. This makes “normative law enforcement” no longer a slogan of the Conference, but rather a question of responsibility that can be tested in a specific case.

The real need to record is how grass-roots power allows victims to prove themselves repeatedly.

It took Lin to get a notice from the first time he reported the case, for more than two months. Public reports also indicate that she had suffered a cut wrist and had been taken to hospital during the absence of a case. She had to go through the reporting of a crime, apply for reconsideration and apply for review before she could be returned to the criminal investigation process.

The cost of such a procedure is itself part of the violation of rights. When an ordinary citizen accused a public official of serious sexual abuse and the same public security organs twice kept the case out of the way, the victim was not just an accused person, but an administrative justice system that required a step-by-step breakthrough.

The review decision of the City Public Security Bureau of Ebein, which corrected the errors of the county public security, left a clear record of responsibility: why the police station of Yanren County found “no criminal facts” at both the original stages of investigation and review, who made the key determinations, how evidence was evaluated internally and whether it was affected by the official status of the person involved, which was the retroactive scope of the quality of the case and of the responsibility for law enforcement.

From the point of view of accountability, the case cannot be concluded with the words “a case has been established”. The criminal proceedings were only reopened, and the previous two erroneous decisions of the county public security authorities were in themselves a fact of law enforcement that had been confirmed by a higher authority. For the system of power at the grass-roots level, the real institutional question is not just whether to make mistakes in public opinion, but why a serious criminal charge must rely on the continued complaints of the victim and the overturn of the superior to obtain the most basic investigative procedures.