这是一个吃人的社会 | 包龙军

鉴于中国继续使用其恐怖体系指定居所监视居住(RSDL),用以消失异议人士,尤其是记者、律师、人权捍卫者、NGO工作者群体,以及几位佳士运动支持者也被该系统失踪。保护卫士将陆续发布一系列由经历过该系统失踪的受害人亲笔证词。其中一些人冒着巨大风险公开分享他们的经历,这些经历也将为未来受害者提供关键启发,帮助他们以更好的状态应对糟糕的状况,了解如何保护自己和他人。一系列这样的短篇亲笔讲述,连同分析该体系的章节,包括针对该制度最全面的法律分析,均可在《失踪人民共和国》书中读到。

 

这篇故事来自法律活动人士包龙军,他也是著名维权律师王宇的丈夫。2015年,他在北京机场被警方带走,当时正送十几岁的儿子去澳大利亚留学。包龙军和其妻分别在机场以及午夜在公寓的失踪,成为了709大抓捕的开端。他们二位将在接下来的半年中被以指定居所监视居住的名义单独监禁。以下是他的讲述。

 

其他已发布失踪受害者证词可在此处阅读:

谢燕益 (第二部分),

李方平,

寇延丁

彼得・达林

 

 

加强讯问

 

包龙军,男,1970年出生于内蒙古。一位长期的法律维权活动者。他与妻子人权律师王宇(第三章)以及失踪的人权律师王全璋都曾为锋锐律师事务所工作过。

包是2015年夏天针对人权律师的“709大抓捕”中第一位失踪的人士。他与儿子原本于北京机场准备登上去往他儿子即将就学的澳大利亚的飞机,而被警方从机场带走。当晚,警察也搜捕了他们在北京的家,并且将他的妻子绑架。他们夫妻都被置于指定居所监视居住,并持续被关押一年多后才最终获得自由。

 

这是一个吃人的社会 | 包龙军

 

如果你愿意想象,某些人能够怎样毫不犹豫、毫不踌躇而且毫无怜悯之心地,将极大的痛苦施加到跟他们同样的人身上,如果你想清楚地了解,人的心灵可以充溢什么样的痛苦、什么样的创伤、什么样的强烈憎恨,那就请您把这些笔记读一下吧。

——希尔德烈斯《白奴》

 

早在“709大抓捕”事件之前,我就有了一些预感,与其说是预感,倒还不如说是征兆。大概是在2015年6月,天津一家不知名网站发出的一篇小文,竞相被人民网、新华网、央视网、正义网等官方媒体疯狂转载,很快成为其他各大网络媒体的头条。后来,就连手机新闻上,都滚动播出了这篇文笔低劣的小文。

这篇内容低俗、通篇谎言的文章,对我妻子王宇进行了全面的抹黑、污蔑。如说她“拿着假律师证四处活跃在敏感事件现场”、“她老家小区保安说她是个泼妇”、“拒不执行生效的法院判决”,等等。

其实,这篇文章如此传播后,当时不管是律师们,还是我一家,都清楚地明白了当局的用意,他们要对王宇动手了。但令我想象不到的是,事情竟来得这么快、这么猛、这么凶,而且,是先从抓捕我开始的。因为我做梦都没想过,我也会成为他们抓捕的目标。

7月9日,是我送儿子包卓轩去澳大利亚墨尔本读高中的日子。我们要乘坐的是9日凌晨1点多的飞机,在首都机场2号航站楼登机。我一直怀疑,是不是我的这次出国举动,加快了当局抓捕的步伐? 当时,我和儿子提着行李箱,走在空旷的候机楼里。正想进入国际候机厅,却被一名女机场工作人员拦住,要求我们出示护照,才能进入由简易胶合板隔开的国际候机厅。在被查验了护照后,通过通道就是一台安检机。过完这道安检,就是国际候机厅了。

我把行李箱和背包放在安检机上,安检后刚要走,迎面就走过来5、6个人,都穿着便装,问道:“是包龙军吧?”我的“嗯”声还没落下,他们就一拥而上,左右前后的围住了我。问话的人上前就架住了我的胳膊,我闻到了他身上浓浓的烟油味。那刺鼻的烟油味啊,总让我浮想到流氓、恶棍,我觉得只有那样的人才会如此堕落,才能浑身散发出如此的臭气。他随即掏出个本本,把那本本在我眼前晃了一下,说:“我们是北京市公安局的”,我仅听清了这么一句,后一句是啥我也没往心上去,就被他们拖拽着往大厅里面走去。我当时的想法是:“糟了,可能像张磊一样,被限制出境了”。惊恐中,回头一看,我那年幼的孩子,也被一左一右两人架着跟在我后面。一看这个我就担心起来,心想着孩子可别被误机。于是,我就大喊:“他还是个孩子,我们有什么事和孩子无关,他的护照在我兜里,我把护照给他,别耽误他上学”,但是,他们根本不理。

混乱中,我们走出了候机大厅,我看见外面停着数辆警车,警灯一闪一闪的,有人拿着摄像机在摄像,跟电视上看过的从国外引渡嫌犯回来的场景一样。随即,我被拖到一辆越野车旁,头上套上了一个黑头套,被塞进了车后座,一左一右上来两人,把我夹在了中间。这时我才明白,这不是限制我出境,分明是抓人啊!他们要干什么呢?

汽车开动了,出了机场,上了大道。我带着黑头套,只能模糊的感觉到两边昏黄的路灯,也分不清方向。由于紧张,一路上,我一句话也没有。我从没有过这种经历,也不知道他们要干什么,心里非常害怕。

车七转八拐的,我觉得走了好长时间,从大路又拐上了一条小路,最后,就进了一个院子,在一座建筑物前停了下来。接着,我被拉下了车。还是一边一个人架着我,提醒着我“台阶,抬脚,好,走”。最后,进到一间屋子里,我的黑头套被拿了下来。我举目一看,这是一间不大的房间,有一张小床,铺着蓝色的床罩,一张桌子,也罩着蓝色的桌布,还有一把蓝布包着的圈椅。四周的墙上覆盖着白色的泡沫板,至少有三个摄像头,照着屋中的每个角落。

正愣神间,进出中来了另外一拨人,其中一个年岁较大、相貌粗俗的家伙恶狠狠地命令我道:“把衣服脱掉!”我顺从的脱掉了T恤。“都脱了”,又是狠狠的一声。由于是夏季,我穿的本就少,我把大短裤脱下后,仅剩下裤头,我可怜巴巴的望着他,“脱了!”,吓得我赶紧把自己脱得精光。他指指床,“那下面有,自己拿”,我掀开被子,看到枕头下有几件衣物,包括黑色的T恤,短裤、袜子和一条深蓝色的灯笼裤,床边还放着一双拖鞋。我赶紧换上了他们为我准备的衣裤和拖鞋。看我穿戴完毕,那个家伙又凶巴巴的说:“站到墙角,不许乱动。”我乖乖的站到了他指给我的位置。有两个年轻人就一左一右站在了我前边,当时,我都没有心情注意这两个年轻人的外貌和穿着。那个凶狠的家伙这时就拎起我脱下的衣裤、鞋子,走了出去。

好像是就在我换衣裤的时候,门口就又站了两人,当那个凶巴巴的家伙拿着我的衣裤出去后,他俩就进到了屋内。看着我的两个年轻人就把桌子往屋中间搬了搬,又拿来两把椅子,随后走出去,并关上了门。“站好了!”进屋的两个人中一个年岁大的恶狠狠的对我来了一句,靠着墙的我赶紧又把身子直了直,这就开始了来到这里后的第一次讯问。后来我了解到,这是师徒俩,一个岁数大的,带着一个刚从中国公安大学博士毕业的徒弟。

“知道为什么抓你吗?你涉嫌危害国家安全。”这个开场白,让我的心沉重的跳了一下,也让我了解了自己的处境。也许是过于紧张,也许是整宿没睡的困乏,也许是时间的久远,这次讯问的时间长短及内容均记忆不大清了。我恍惚记得我陈述了参与维权的经过,我家的冤案,并要求他们把孩子的护照和行李还给孩子,别耽误孩子上学。记得好像他们间断的审讯了好几回,但一直没让我休息。在这个过程中,给过我一次早餐、一次午餐、一次晚餐,我也都没吃。在又审了一宿后,第二天,我开始少量进食。第三天晚上,借提审人员在夜半的又一次审讯停顿之机,因我实在支持不住,就问看守我的两个年轻人:“能躺床上睡会吗?”他俩点点头。于是我就躺倒在床上,沉沉地睡去了。

这一觉,不知睡了有多久。一醒来,看到窗外泛白,知道天亮了。再次见到审讯的人时,他们的态度就好多了,对我家的遭遇(王宇的冤案)表示了同情。并答应我把孩子的护照和行李还给孩子。我当时是多么的感激他们啊(谁能想到,这些都是欺骗)。
我记不清楚是第二天还是第三天了,他们拿出一套东西,说我涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权,被“指定居所监视居住”,并要求我在相关文件上签字,被我拒绝了。同样还是没记清到底是第三天还是第四天,提审我的人突然多了一个,且操着浓重的天津口音。我当时还问过,“你天津的?”“嗯,天津市公安局的。”当时我还想,难道他们要追究我天津铁路运输法院的事情?想用天津铁路运输法院发生的事定我罪?

还是在那几天,他们把扣押我的物品一一登了记,并让我签字确认。后来,又从扣押物品里划去了我儿子的行李箱等记录,以证实他们对我说的“你儿子安全,东西都还给他了,不会影响他留学”的话。直到后来,当我一点一点的了解了儿子的遭遇后,对他们的欺骗,我才有了更深刻的认识。

总之,他们重点询问了我和二十余名律师还有两三名公民的交往过程,以及北京雁栖湖范木根案研讨会、王宇代理范木根案件经过、王宇会见吴淦过程、建三江事件以及我、刘四新等迎接王全璋律师从建三江被打回来后的那次聚餐、我去泰国培训、北京菜市口的事情(我声援何德普拆迁被打事件)、北京南站安检风波、北京房山法院安检冲突、锋锐律师事务所所详情、我为李昱函大姐维权的经过等等问题,我基本是按照自己的思路,在尽量不涉及他人的想法下,虚实结合的作了回答。但是,我心里很清楚,他们想用这些问题定我罪是却是不太可能的。

范木根案、王宇会见吴淦详情、泰国培训和手机电报培训等几个事件是他们特别关注的,不断地来回重复询问其详情。

关于我在泰国参加的那次培训,我回说,泰国培训就是电脑安全培训,我对这玩意不擅长,也没有好好学,主要是去游玩了。我电脑中有培训教程,你们自己找吧。是一个叫桐木的人给我和王宇发的邀请函,桐木估计是化名,我不确定是谁。他们嘲笑我说,不认识的人给你发个邀请函你就去,也不怕被人卖了?这之后,他们又多次详细的问及泰国培训一事,还说泰国培训就是“反华机构“维权网组织的。

我说范木根是王宇的当事人,我是王宇的助理,这个案件的研讨会,作为辩护人的王宇肯定要去,王宇当时有事,让我先去参加,她晚去了一天。谁组织的我不知道,接待的是一个高个女子,我不认识。参加的当然包括你们所说的李和平、李金星,还有周泽、迟夙生等著名律师,是纯粹的个案研讨。

王宇代理范木根案件的原因是我们当时在苏州有拆迁案件,范木根杀死强拆者当天,我们正好赶到苏州开庭,当地拆迁户都希望王宇能够介入,所以我们当晚就到了医院,签了委托。

他们还问了曹顺利案、以及该案如何接手代理的、再有就是说王宇要在香港召开新闻发布会一事,并问我是否认识滕彪,还提及伊力哈木案相关情况。我说不知道王宇去过香港,也不认识滕彪;再说曹顺利在羁押期间都死亡了,死了还怎么代理?伊力哈木案也只是在侦查阶段代理了一下,会见了几次,也就退出了。

从这些问话中,我隐隐感到了我妻子王宇面临的危机,于是我追问他们,我妻子王宇怎么样了?他们对我说,王宇没事,并以“向毛主席保证”的方式来证明他们所说是真。

我尽量不和他们争辩,也极力在不牵涉他人的情况下,以适合的方式回答他们的问题。

他们认为我较老实,没有对抗,态度较好,能够回答他们提出的问题,对我也就友善了起来。这样一来,看守们对我的态度也就并不凶狠了。

 

被压抑、恐惧、孤独时刻包围

 

在里面,我的生活是这样的:我住的是一间带卫生间的小屋,这间小屋通体都用白色海绵泡沫包着,就连卫生间的坐便器、洗漱台都是用白色海绵泡沫包裹的。屋里24小时亮着灯,窗帘沉重的垂着,很少有拉开的时候;我的早餐几乎没有换过样,都是粥、小馒、头和咸菜;中午是一荤一素两个菜加4个小馒头,晚饭和中午差不多,一星期中也能吃到一顿面条或两顿米饭;除提审外,我24小时被人盯着,一般是两人一班,一班大概两个小时(我能看他们腕上戴的专门配发的功能表,问他们时间,有的小伙子会给我看)。头七八天是频繁提审,除了提审,我基本不动地方,就在那个圈椅里一坐,那两个看守呢,则两手腹前交叠叉开双腿以非常标准的姿势一左一右地站在我前方不到一步远的地方紧紧盯着我。晚上睡觉时,他们也一个床头一个床尾地站在那盯着我,包括上厕所和洗漱,都是一个站在卫生间内,一个站在门口。他们中有一个兜里会揣着一个小本本,封皮上写着《双规人员情况登记本》,每隔十来分钟或我有什么举动了,他都要拿出来记录。除非提审,我的作息他们都有严格的时间规定。送水有专门人员,这个人好像有点特权,能和我搭讪两句。每天也有医务人员来我这里,给我量量血压,简单做一下身体检查。在这个小屋中,我一共呆了有七八天的时间。

有一天,北京的老预审(他们从来没给我亮明过自己的身份,姑且如此称之)突然跟我说,“老包,换个地方,这里要装修。”这样,我就又戴上了黑头套,被送到了另一处地方。我觉得就在原来地方的侧后院里,因为坐上车没走两分钟(车开的还很慢)。新换的地方是一个空旷的大房间,大概能有二十几平米,四墙也一样由白色泡沫包着,窗户上尽管没有窗帘,也同样以白色塑料泡沫遮挡。虽然时刻有两人盯防,但墙的上方还是至少有三四个摄像头同时在盯着你,有时我都能听见摄像头吱吱转动的声音。这个房间的特点就是总让人觉得有股阴森森的寒气,我本是个怕热不怕冷的人,但自进到这个房间,我就一直觉得自己经常冷得直打哆嗦。这间房间里没有卫生间,这就给洗漱或解手带来了很多不方便。而且,每次洗漱或解手,都要先经控制室批准,之后,要戴上黑头套,由看着我的两个人架着,离开房间,穿过走廊,到另一头的一个公共卫生间里去进行。

在这里,我知道了自己的编号是02。因为我经常能听他们用对讲机在讲,02洗漱,02提审等等。我还听到他们叫01提审、洗漱、04提审、洗漱、05提审、洗漱,等等,我觉得我这一层至少关押着4个人。而且有一天他们交接班打开房门时,我听到了李和平的声音,和平好像是在说:“松点、松点。”我想,和平肯定是在上卫生间时,要求架着他的两个人松一点架着他。我当时真有一种激动的感觉,这么久了,终于听着点朋友的声音了。要知道,在这个地方,除了预审,你不能和任何人说话,也没有人和你说话(就算送水的,也就是简单的两句问话)。

我很讨厌他们提审,一听到外面搬动椅子的声音,我立马就紧张起来,因为我不知道他们要问到我哪些事情,如何回答会不伤及他人。所以,每回一开门,值班人员说“提讯”时,我都会显出不安的样子来。只有当他们坐到我对面,聊一会后,我才能放松下来。尽管我讨厌提审,但要是他们隔几天不来,就又让我担起了十分的心来,满腹怀疑的想这是怎么了?又出什么事了?这时,真的希望有人陪着你说说话了,而不管这人是什么人!真的,这就是那里的真实感受!那里就是这样一种环境,那种压抑、那种恐惧、那种孤独,时时刻刻包围着你,在那里那真是度日如年,天天想的都是什么时候能出去,快点离开那个鬼地方。

 

你妻子在外面呢,不用担心

 

转到新地方后,提审就相对少了。刚开始时,是对前几天做的笔录重新再做一遍,后来有的时候连着三五天都不见他们来。北京那个岁数大的老预审和我说:“老包,你没事,过几天就放了。”有一次,他见我洗了替换下来的衣服晾在他们提审时用的桌子上,还说:“洗它干嘛,过几天就回去了。”这些话,成了我的祈盼。然而一天天过去了,一个月过去了,却一点放的迹象都没有。在一次提审后,我问他:“你不说这几天就放我吗?”他说:“领导不说放,我有什么办法。”这段时间,我也能相对活动活动了。我不再是长时间地坐在椅子上,我会经常的要求走走。这样,两个看守会让出一段距离,一边一个站着,我就在他们中间走动。在他们中间走时,我总想起伏契克那篇《二六七号牢房》里那句著名的话:“从门口到窗户七步,从窗户到门口七步。”

但是,我不像伏契克,我可既到不了门口,又到不了窗户,我只能在两个人中间来来回回地走。我每天总是长时间的在那儿来回走,就像那困在笼中的狼,但我不能像狼一样,边走还能边嚎叫两声,因为他们不让我出声。别说出声,我在无聊至极的时候嘴唇翕动着背诗,都会被他们禁止,“嘴唇不许动”,他们说。

没有书报、没有电视,在这封闭、孤寂的环境中,我一呆又是40余天。但是,在空闲时间里,我会搜肠刮肚的背诵记忆深处的诗词。可更让我挂念的,还是我尚年幼的孩子以及卧床三年的老父。孩子出国了吗?老爸谁在照料?老妈身体还好吗?有时我也向他们询问我儿子的事,他们都推说不知道,还说:“你妻子在外面呢,她会照料好的,你不用担心。” 当然,那也是个谎言。

这40余天中后来的日子里,他们也没闲着,要我提供手机密码,一再要求下,我给了他们。我清清楚楚的记得,在我给他们手机密码的那天晚上,外面电闪雷鸣,那个雷呀,仿佛要把我住的那个楼都给劈了,打得那个凶,我觉得是我来北京十年来最厉害的一次。后来,他们从我手机上恢复了我的部分电报(telegram)内容,包括我和薛孟春关于支持香港占中运动的内容。

他们要了解我做过的所有事情,要知道我所有的底细,包括私密的内容、以及和他人的交往,都要向他们公开。在他们眼里,我有义务向他们诉说你过往的一切,我不能有任何的隐瞒和个人隐私,而他们则好像完全有权利如此似的。仿佛他们就是我的主人,我则是他们豢养的一只猪仔,他们可以随心所欲的支配我、处置我。看到他们什么都有权了解的样子,我的愤怒已经无以复加。但我只在心里暗骂,表面上,我还表示服从,并与他们天花乱坠的闲聊。

这个地方,时常有些奇事发生,当我百无聊赖的安静下来时,连着好几天常能听到不知从何处传来的女人的哭声,呜呜的,声音时断时续,不很真切,可却扰得我心神不宁。尽管我听出那不是王宇的声音,但是由于心里不安,我就问来审我的人,究竟是谁在哭?是王宇吗?他们对我说,哪有人哭,你听岔了,又说王宇没事,并说,“你媳妇你还不知道,她还会哭?”我也就不能确定了。但我又听到他们叨咕,“看来这里封闭不严呐。”

直到有一天,两个看守给我戴上了黑头套拉我出去,我当时想,难道是要放我了?可是,七转八拐,我又被带进了一间小屋。这是一个重新进行了装修的房间,我觉得比我刚来时呆的那个房间还要小,墙上已不再是裸露的白色泡沫,而是被深红色皮革包裹上了。满屋子都是新装修完的呛鼻气味。送水的进来对我说,“这回漂亮了吧?”

我回答:“都是牢笼,漂亮不漂亮能怎地。”

连着三天,我的三个预审又天天都来提审,其中主要的还是王宇会见吴淦的细节以及是否向外界发布了案件信息。对于王宇会见吴淦一事,我仍坚持说,就会见了那一回,没发任何东西。

搞不明白的是,在一次询问完后,先前态度一直较好的北京那个老预审竟突然恶狠狠的对我说:“关于唐吉田,你知道的每一件事都要跟我说,除非在公共汽车上偶然碰上的不用说外,你们每一次吃饭、聚会都要和我说,包括谈话内容。”他说完这些话走后,竟八、九天没再来。隔了八、九天后,他带着他的小徒弟又来了,却没做笔录,仅仅对我说:“老包,你没有犯罪行为,但你有违法的地方,违反《治安管理法》也是违法呀。你出去后,做事别太较劲了,也劝劝你爱人别较劲。”说完这些,他俩就走了。

我突然又充满了希望。

谁知,几天后,也就是九月八号晚,他又来了,这次不但有他,还有一大帮其他的人。他一见我就说:“老包,再换个地方。”

我还是没能回家,坐车走了很远的路,来到了天津的一个基地。北京的两个月过去了,我又迎来了天津四个月的“指定场所监视居住”的生活。

天津的所谓“基地”也是新装修的,一样的新装修的刺鼻气味,一样的皮革包装,甚至他的床、桌子都用皮革海绵包裹了起来。唯一不同的是它的厕所不再是坐便器,而变成了蹲便器。这次我的住所在一楼,我能清楚地听到外面清脆的鸟鸣和嘈杂的人声(但没多久,他们为了遮挡,竟在窗外焊上了一个铁罩)。来到这里后没有两天,他们就撤掉了我们的圈椅,改为一个小圆墩。坐小圆墩很不舒服,没有倚靠的地方,胳膊也没有扶手可以搭。所以,在这个墩上坐久了会很累。而且,天津的小武警看守更严格,他们好像都是新手,也就显得更死板、更循规守矩。我的活动空间比照北京时小了很多,他们其中有邪恶的人,甚至会规定我走的时间。当然,也得分人,他们当中也还是有善良的人的,对你相对友好。

我的预审都换成了天津的(其中有一个是在北京时就一直跟着的那个人),头几天里,主要是对以前做过了多遍的笔录再次重复做,尽管问的更细,甚而还加上诱导、文字游戏等小动作,但我都理智的应对了。我的原则是,以前怎么样的就按以前那个来,我不再多说。

有一次,我曾生气的问他们:“你们这是监视居住吗?法律允许在办案地点实施监视居主吗?你们抓人依据是什么?是不是要有基本的犯罪事实的认定?这么多月都过去了,你们掌握了我什么罪证?还有什么理由这么羁押我?”

这段时间,我的睡眠质量更差了。我一直就有睡眠障碍,患有轻度的神经衰弱症,在北京时,我一天都睡不了多久,主要是靠坐在圈椅中打盹来恢复。到了天津,一是他们撤走了圈椅,二是他们在非睡觉时间连眼睛都不让你闭。有时,我坐在那小圆墩上,靠墙刚闭上眼睛,小武警就会提醒:“别闭眼,不许睡觉。”甚至有的小武警连你身体靠墙都不让,“坐直身子”,他们命令道。我晚上睡不好,白天就乏的厉害,又不让睡,我就要求走走。但就是走,有的小武警还要限制你时间、限制你距离。有的限制距离非常窄的,你迈第二步都会撞上他。这段时间,我会和每天都来检查身体的医生谈,让他们给我配一些治疗神经衰弱的药。后来他们给我服用过一段时间安眠药,我的感觉却是更睡不着了。

而且,洗漱也很不方便。起先的半个多月,一次澡都没让洗,说是没热水。我穿的衣裤,还是在北京时身上穿的那套,来了一个月了都没换。尤其是短裤,脏的实在没样子了,引发了我的前列腺炎。经多次要求,他们才给了我新的衬衣衬裤、短裤、袜子。一星期也让洗一次澡了。

我明显的变瘦了,我洗澡时,一个小武警悄悄对我说,你刚来时看着很壮,现在不行了。是啊,这是一个什么样的环境啊?吃不好,睡不香,时刻有人盯着你,就连上厕所,都要在两人的紧盯下方便,甚至还要验一下你到底排泄了还是没排泄(小武警悄悄和我说过,我们这里有人不老实,一站就让他站一天,站得那人用上厕所大解来休息,一蹲就不起来。所以,他们要防着长蹲的人)。在那里,干什么都要先打报告,甚至连你咽个唾沫都要报告。我对这个要求实在忍无可忍,要求见他们领导,他们一个排长摸样的人来了,说:“咽唾沫打报告是为了你好,是怕你噎着。”

这期间,在晚上睡觉时,我曾数次被噩梦惊醒,激灵的一下,我甚至都能从床上蹦起来,让看守我的小武警大为惊慌。

残酷的环境让我更加思念亲人、想念我的朋友们。

但打击最大的,还是我儿子的事件。

 

一个好消息,一个坏消息,你先听哪个

 

那是在那里过了一个多月后的一天晚上,我迷迷糊糊,半睡不醒的样子(长时间以来我一直是这么一个状况),突然就进来一个小武警和看守我的两个小武警说,“让他起来,提审。”晚上提审,这是很久没有过的事了(我只在被抓的头七八天里,夜夜被提审)。我预感到有什么重大的事了,一点困意都没有了,心里很紧张。

我让他们拿来我的衣裤,每到上床休息时,脱下的衣裤要由看守人员拿出去,放到门外整理箱内,他们这里的这些小规定很多。我穿好了,就坐在那等,一会,我的两个预审就来了,捧着他们那台电脑,拿着一个小摄像头(这也是往常的装备)。那个史姓预审对我说:“老包,你不一直问我你儿子的消息吗,现在有了,一个好消息,一个坏消息,你先听哪个?”

一听是儿子的事,我头轰的一下子,什么都不清晰了。我听到他断断续续的讲,我儿子确实没去成澳大利亚,但是,在天津市公安局的努力下,去了乌兰浩特一中,上了重点班。他还问我,“这是不是好事?乌兰浩特一中,在当地是很难进的,你是不是该感谢天津市公安局?”

我记得我当时说,我为什么要谢你天津市公安局?是你们不让我儿子留学,墨尔本和乌兰浩特哪里更好你不知道吗?你们凭什么剥夺我儿子出国求学的权利?等等。接着,我问他坏消息是什么。

他说,你儿子被不明身份的人拐走了,是境内外的反华人士或组织干的。他们带着你儿子偷渡到了缅甸,被缅甸警方遣送回来,并拿出了一份云南省公安厅的协查文件,上面的犯罪嫌疑人栏里,有我儿子的信息和照片。这是事隔3个月后我第一次知道儿子的信息,又见到了儿子的照片,是那种每个进看守所的人都被要求的站在标尺下的照片,我当时眼泪就下来了。“你不知道他们带你儿子走的那条道有多危险,是一条贩毒通道”,他们说。

我整整哭了三天。我是那样的思念孩子,总是想起他小时候和我在一起的景象,想起了我对他的几次粗暴,一想这个,我就总是谴责自己。每想一回,我就哭一回。我总是幻想着抱他、亲他,我发誓,以后再也不会骂他、打他。“你们不知道,我儿子有多么善良,每回和我出门见到乞丐,都会和我要一块钱给乞丐”,我和看守的小武警说。我不再走动,总是坐在那流泪。

我又深刻的怀疑我妻子王宇是否真如他们所说的“没事”了,我问他们,我儿子出这么大事王宇在干嘛?她没跟着一起走吗?是谁带走的我儿子?他们说不清楚,但又说,“王宇我们猜有可能也被抓了,因为很多笔录都涉及她。”

几天后,他们又频繁的来提审了。问我认不认识唐志顺(第九章)、幸清贤?我说不认识。我当时还想,草根(唐志顺)都被抓了?他是因为什么呢?

又过了七八天,他们拿来了一沓纸,给我看了,都是我电报上的内容,包括薛孟春建的有我在内的一个电报群的相关信息,我和薛孟春的聊天记录等等。我说,就电报的内容你们写了我签字就得了,不就是为给在支持香港占中运动中被抓的朋友寻找律师、支付律师费的事嘛。他们指责我,说我的行为是接受境外资金支持危害国家安全的犯罪行为。我向他们指出:1、声援占中的人士都是以涉嫌寻衅滋事为名被抓捕的,而寻衅滋事也不是什么危害国家安全方面的犯罪;2、钱是薛孟春给我的,薛孟春是北京一家公司的副总,不是外国人,我不存在接受境外资金一说;3、我代为支付的是律师费,是用于打官司的,并不是给某人用来危害国家安全的,没有法律规定律师代理案件就是危害国家安全。

从什么时候开始,代理案件也成危害国家安全了?

这段时间,看管明显严了,又换上三组比较邪性的小武警。也不让我走动了,我说那我站站行不?行,但站起来就别想坐下。我口渴,想喝水,小武警说“领导说了,为了你的身体健康,以后不能让你喝凉水。”可是也没有热水啊!渴得我,一到吃饭时,就拼命喝水。

我现在还记得一个小武警对我说的一句话:“服从便是一切。”

在天津基地,为我们送水、送饭的人是固定的,有三个人。后来,到了看守所后我才知道,这三人是天津第一、第二看守所的管教。其中二看有两人,一看有一人。一看来的那个人年岁较大,态度和蔼,为人也随便些,四个月中,为我们理发的就是他。二看那两个人,年轻一点的叫李超,是后来我转到天津第二看守所后我所在的C8监室的管教。另外那个我一直也不知道他叫啥名,不过后来在二看放风时,我又见过他两回,我和他打招呼,他也不太理。但是在监居时,他倒和我聊过天,“知道为什么一直不放你吗?就因为你不如实说!你要是一五一十的把知道的事情都说了,还能来这?”有一天他送完水后这样和我搭讪。一看那位年岁大的也在送水或理发空闲时和我聊天,并安慰我说,“有没有罪法院说的算,你要相信政府。”

 

“对你们不适用法”

 

眼看着就进入了12月,他们找不出我有罪的证据,对我就又放松了。我觉得对我的管束又不那么严了,有时小武警们还经常的把窗帘拉开一小片,并稍稍的把窗户打开那么一点点,尽管窗户外面有一层铁皮挡着,啊,那艳丽的阳光啊,却遮挡不住,从铁皮上方斜照进屋中。这是自由的阳光,我多么的喜爱它,它让我心情愉快、无比的振奋。

但是,他们开始做我的工作,让我同意他们给我指派律师。我说我要请自己的律师,他们问谁,我指出了几人,大概有李方平、张俊杰等。他们说,据他们了解,我找的这几个人里就有被抓的。他们还劝我,“你别害人家,你找谁做你律师就抓谁。”

我说这还有法吗?他们说,对你们不适用法。但是,我坚决不同意他们为我指定律师,我说如果他们不同意我自己找律师,那我就自己辩护。这样,他们几乎天天来磨我,后来几乎都求我了,说你看满走廊哪还有人来了,就我俩还天天往你这跑,别人都签了,就你不签,签了你就能走(指回家)。我被他们磨得没有办法,就说:这样吧,我一直不知道我爱人的确切消息,你们也认为她有可能和我一样被抓了,那你们就找一找,如果她被抓了而且她也签了,我就签。他们一听,挺高兴的就走了,没过中午他们就来了,拿出手机,给我看他们拍的一张照片,照片上是王宇的一份同意官方为其指派律师的“申请”(出来后我才知道,王宇根本没写过申请,是他们伪造的),我一看,确实是王宇的笔迹。我想,王宇都同意了,我也答应过他们,也就签了一份同意他们为我指定律师的文件。这天是2016年1月5号。

到了8号,我就收到了天津市第二人民检察院的批捕通知书,晚上的时候,就被送到了天津市第二看守所。我的“指定场所监视居住”生活就此结束了。

我总觉得,看一个政权是否暴虐,就要看它对国内民众所采用的手段。孟德斯鸠说过,专制的特征就是使人畏惧。是啊,尽管人们热爱自由,憎恶暴力,但大多数民族仍然屈从于专制政体之下,原因就在于权力没有制约,遭受侵害的人们救济无途。

自从王宇被天津铁路运输法院枉法裁判之时起,我就对这国的法律彻底失去了信心。后来我又代理了大量的拆迁户和访民案件,让我对这国的司法黑暗有了更为深刻的认识。我非常的明白,这国有的,只是权力,而且,统治者会不择手段的维护这种权力。

这是一个吃人的社会,缺少平等,更没有公平、正义和良知。

 


 

自2013年指定居所监视居住被立法以来,中国对失踪的使用在不断演变。2018年,中国对前双规制度进行了改革,成立了国家监察委和其拘留系统“留置”,该立法几乎从指定居所监视居住的规定中逐字照搬。可在此阅读我们针对该系统的报告。对于一些人来说,在指定居所监视居住时间结束后,他们被正式逮捕并转移到审前拘留所——不过由于警方用假名为他们在看守所登记,因此往往持续处于失踪状态,可参阅我们近期针对该新型消失手段的简短报告。如果您在中国境外并有意支持我们的工作,请考虑在亚马逊全球购买《失踪人民共和国》的实体书,中英版本均有。

 

 

The use of solitary confinement in RSDL as a method of torture

With the detention and placement into ‘Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location’ (RSDL) of foreign citizens by China in several high-profile cases, such as Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor and Yang Hengjun, it merits a closer look at the use of solitary confinement within China’s RSDL system, and if and if so why, it constitutes torture under international law, in particular the Convention Against Torture, one of the few key human rights treatises both signed and ratified by China.

Due to the detention of foreign citizens often, but not always, done either by China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) (as in all three cases named above), or by Police at higher levels, and the fact that their detention can have an impact on China’s foreign affairs, their treatment, compared to those of Chinese nationals, tend – from data that is available – to be far better. It seems from the limited data available that otherwise common features of RSDL such as physical torture, is either not used or used on a much more limited scale. However, China and the RSDL system employs many methods that constitute torture under relevant international law, one of which is solitary confinement.

 

Download as PDFThe use of solitary confinement in RSDL as a method of torture

 

For more information on both physical and psychological methods of torture used, including in the RSDL system, please see Safeguard Defenders report Battered and Bruised: Why torture continues to stand at the heart of China’s judicial system.

For more information on torture inside China’s RSDL system, see Safeguard Defenders joint submission to the United Nations from May 16, 2018.

 

Solitary confinement and relation to torture

The use of solitary confinement (SC) in general may amount to either torture, maltreatment or neither of the two, as defined by the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To establish whether Solitary confinement amounts to Torture according to International law, one must first separate short vs long-term confinement, and if confinement is disciplinary or non-disciplinary. On top of that, the existence of intent is also key.

 

Article 1.1 of the Convention Against Torture; “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person”.

 

Disciplinary use is understood as being used to issue punishment against an individual for a wrongdoing, in which case the placement into SC is intentional as a form of punishment. Non-discriminatory use is normally for purpose of managing prison populations, and not carried out with the purpose of punishing the victim, and also include protective custody, pre-trial isolation, and administrative segregation.

Short-term SC is usually, including by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, considered to be 15 days or less, while anything beyond 15 days is classified as long-term[1], and it is after this period that harm that is caused by SC is considered to possibly becoming irreversible.

SC, in any form, have negative consequences on the victim, but the CAT does allow for certain exceptions; if the placement into SC is lawful, and when no injury is intentional, should such injury occur nonetheless, it is considered an exception and does not fall under the CAT.

In general, Solitary confinement is usually understood to isolate prisoners from contact with other prisoners, the outside world, and prison staff, in an attempt to control and manage them. Usually, one is kept in solitude for at least 22 hours per day, with limited or no access to outdoor exercise or sometimes even natural light. They often have limited or no personal privileges, such as access to mail, books, or television.

A key aspect to understanding whether placement into SC constitutes torture relies on intent. To meet the intent standard, the actor must simply intend to inflict suffering for a prohibited purpose. These purposes include obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, and discrimination.

Even though the CAT is not specific, the Special Rapporteur has stated that acts constituting torture include beating, suffocation, exposure to intense loud noises and bright lights, and “prolonged denial of rest, sleep, food, sufficient hygiene, or medical assistance, and prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation.” Furthermore, under article 1 of the Convention against Torture, the U.N. considers disciplinary solitary confinement to be torture. It does however not provide clear statements on use of non-disciplinary SC as torture, unless such have intent to punish[2]. Because solitary confinement’s harms––including severe negative effects on prisoners’ mental health––exist even when it is not used for punishment, non-disciplinary solitary confinement’s effects are largely indistinguishable from those of disciplinary solitary confinement. The difference in the end is one of whether intent to punish exist.

Additionally, the Special Rapporteur found in 2011 that, even if disciplinary solitary confinement is not torture (article 1), it still violates article 16, which addresses and condemns[3] harmful practices that fall short of its definition of torture (meaning it constitutes maltreatment, but not torture). This determination has been echoed in recent years by the U.N. General Assembly, which in 2015 adopted a revised version of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, a set of minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners also known as the “Mandela Rules.” The new Mandela Rules tightened the U.N.’s restrictions on solitary confinement and recommended that solitary confinement “be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time as possible.”[4]

Solitary confinement causes negative effects, including hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, and uncontrollable intrusive violent thoughts, among prisoners who are placed into isolation.[5] Prisoners frequently suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following isolation due to the severe psychological harm it inflicts.[6] The then Special Rapporteur on Torture further stated in 2008 report to the General Assembly in that;

 

The weight of accumulated evidence to date points to the serious and adverse health effects of the use of solitary confinement: from insomnia and confusion to hallucinations and mental illness. The key adverse factor of solitary confinement is that socially and psychologically meaningful contact is reduced to the absolute minimum, to a point that is insufficient for most detainees to remain mentally well functioning. Moreover, the effects of solitary confinement on pre-trial detainees may be worse than for other detainees in isolation, given the perceived uncertainty of the length of detention and the potential for its use to extract information or confessions. Pre-trial detainees in solitary confinement have an increased rate of suicide and self-mutilation within the first two weeks of solitary confinement.[7]

 

The serious possible harm done by prolonged solitary confinement has also led the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to recommend that a medical officer should visit the victim every day, to monitor their health.[8] The minimal stimulation experienced during solitary confinement can also lead to a decline in brain activity in individuals after seven days. One study found that “up to seven days, the [brain activity] decline is reversible, but if deprived over a long period this may not be the case”[9].

 

Solitary confinement in RSDL

The use of solitary confinement in RSDL is by design, and is not likely, but guaranteed. All those in RSDL must be kept in solitary confinement and are held incommunicado, and the facilities they are kept in must, according to law, be designed to prevent self-harm. By law, those in RSDL must be kept in suicide-proofed cells. RSDL facilities varies between two extremes; one consist of custom-built prisons, legally not allowed to be called as such, but having the appearance and function of one, and refurbished rooms inside military, police or party run guesthouses or training centers, unmarked but used as cells.

Following a submission by Safeguard Defenders, 10 different mandate holders of the Special Procedures of the OHCHR stated, in a letter to China on August 24, 2018, that “these conditions of detention are analogous to incommunicado and secret detention and tantamount to enforced disappearance; they expose those subjected to RSDL to the risk of torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment and other human rights violations.”[10]

In RSDL, the confinement is different from how SC is thought of when issued as punishment for a prisoner, in that it is monitored in form. Specifically, within RSDL, the detainee is never physically left alone, whether sleeping, sitting in their cell, or using the toilet. However, the two guards that are present inside the cell 24/7, often working in teams, does not deny RSDL as a form of SC, because the victim is denied any meaningful interaction. The Mandela Rules[11], adopted in 2015, makes clear that it nonetheless qualifies as SC. In fact, victims have spoken of the presence of two guards, who are not allowed to communicate or interact with the detainee, and found it to exaggerate the suffering of isolation – as they are there to monitor the detainee’s every movement and sound, but without communicating with them. In effect, they stare at the victim from a close distance and take notes on every movement, sound or similar.

Placement into RSDL are long-term, lasting for up to six months. Based on data collected by Safeguard Defenders, a third of all known incidences of RSDL (discounting those currently ongoing) last for the full 180 days, while the average length is 128 days[12]. Placement into RSDL for 15 days or less is almost unheard of. As such, almost every single case of RSDL uses solitary confinement long-term, after which negative effects on health may be irreversible.

Likewise, the use of solitary confinement is on the extreme scale, and tend to be up to 24 hours per day (any time not spent in interrogation). From data from Safeguard Defenders, allowance to access outdoor enclosures, or for that matter access to any kind of exercise, even walking outside of the cell, is severely limited – in fact, almost unheard of. Unless the active part of the interrogation have ended, and the victim is kept in RSDL despite no investigative value (which is common), all forms of external stimuli is prohibited, such as books, access to television, communication of any form, etc. As the Special Rapporteur states in his 2011 report to the General Assembly, as part of solitary confinement there is often a “reduction in stimuli …not only quantitative but also qualitative”.[13]

The use of RSDL is for prolonged investigations, pre-trial, and taking place within a legal system that is almost entirely reliant on confessions. RSDL, and therefore the solitary confinement can only end once a detainee is either released or arrested, at which point they are moved to pre-trial detention. To meet the intent standard, the actor must simply intend to inflict suffering for a prohibited purpose. These purposes include obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, and discrimination. The intent behind the placement of the victim into solitary confinement is entirely to facilitate investigation, in reality, getting a confession, and the use of RSDL falls very squarely within the scope of SC used with intent. Placing the victim incommunicado and in solitary confinement is the very purpose of the RSDL system, and is what distinguishes the system from normal detention and investigation through the normal judicial process. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture explicitly found pre-trial solitary confinement to be torture under article 1 of the CAT when used to obtain information or a confession[14].

SC thus constitutes torture either if it is a disciplinary measure to punish, or if it is non-disciplinary but with clear intent. Regardless of definition of RSDL as disciplinary or not, the use of SC in it constitutes torture. Based on the legal code in China, RSDL is not a disciplinary system, but there to facilitate investigations. In reality however, the placement in RSDL is used indiscriminately as a form of punishment itself, which can be seen by how victims are continued to be kept in RSDL even after active investigations have ended despite that in those cases the person should be either arrested and moved to pre-trial detention, or set free.

Or, as written by Samuel Fuller in his book Torture as a Management Practice; to meet the CAT’s purpose standard [of torture], the act must be committed for one of the specific purposes listed in the treaty: “obtaining . . . information or a confession . . . or intimidating or coercing him [or her] or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.”[15] In addition, in 2011, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture explicitly found pre-trial solitary confinement to be torture under article 1 of the CAT when used to obtain information or a confession[16]. The Special Rapporteur has determined that pre-trial solitary confinement is used for its coercive power in order to pressure prisoners to confess or to make false statements to authorities.

China’s Prison law does allow for use of SC as a punishment on prisoners, but limits its use to 7 to 15 days, although it has been shown to be used for longer period if “the danger cannot be eliminated.” It also specifies that even a victim of SC must get an hour of outdoor time per day. The Management Regulations for Juvenile Reformatories (1999) furthermore specifies that for juvenile detainees SC may last 3 to 7 days, and must include two hours of outdoor time each day. This is also echoed in a white paper on criminal reform issued by the Chinese state as early as 1992, which states that “Prisoners in confinement are let out about an hour or so twice a day for fresh air”.

These regulations does not apply to RSDL, but shows that even in Chinese law elsewhere, the issue of SC is taken very seriously and comes with several limitations on how greatly it can be used. For RSDL victims, no such protections exist, and no rules stipulates any form of protection against the use of SC at all. The Provisions on People’s Procuratorates’ Oversight of Residential Surveillance in a Designated Location, which came into effect 2016, stipulates that the Procuratorate (Prosecutor’s office) may (but is not required) visit those held in RSDL on a weekly basis, to provide oversight against torture and maltreatment, but in all the cases Safeguard Defenders have collected data on, not one single case having any such visits have ever been found. The same regulation also gives police the right to deny such visits if it may impede their investigation, should the procuratorate actually insist on making such visits.

To learn more about solitary confinement, please see The Sourcebook on solitary confinement, downloadable as a PDF[17].

For more information on treatment inside China’s RSDL system, see The People’s Republic of the Disappeared, available as paperback and kindle on Amazon worldwide, and available for free as ebook and pdf in Chinese. The book offers both an extensive analysis of Chinese domestic and International law on the issue of enforced/involuntary disappearances, and collects a number of short stories written by victims of China’s RSDL system themselves – showing how they ended up in RSDL, what they experiences inside, and how they got out.

 


 

[1] U.N. Secretary-General, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment: Note by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5, 2011).

[2] U.N. Secretary-General, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment: Note by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5, 2011).

[3] Article 16 differs from Article 1 because it includes harsh treatment inflicted without a specific purpose under its general intent requirement, as opposed to Article 1’s elevated intent standard. States have fewer enforcement obligations for Article 16 practices, and there is no mention of the prohibition of emergency or exceptional circumstances that exists for Article 1 practices.

[4] G.A. Res. 70/175, U.N. Doc. A/Res/70/175, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Dec. 17, 2015) [hereinafter the Mandela Rules].

[5] Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary confinement, 22 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y

[6] Bruce A. Arrigo & Jennifer Leslie Bullock, The Psychological Effects of Solitary confinement on Prisoners in Supermax Units, 20 INT’L J. OF OFFENDER THERAPY. COMP. CRIMINOLOGY 1, 10

[7] Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 62/148. “Annex : Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement”, 28 July 2008, A/63/175 https://www.refworld.org/docid/48db99e82.html

[8] .N. Secretary-General, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment: Note by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5, 2011).

[9] [9] Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary confinement, 22 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y

[10] Communication to China, OL CHN 15/2018, 2018-08-24, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=23997

[11] G.A. Res. 70/175, U.N. Doc. A/Res/70/175, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Dec. 17, 2015) [hereinafter the Mandela Rules].

[12] Safeguard Defenders, Submission to 31st Session of UPR, November 2018, third cycle, China, 28 March 2018 https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=5661&file=EnglishTranslation

[13] U.N. Secretary-General, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment: Note by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5, 2011).

[14] U.N. Secretary-General, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment: Note by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5, 2011).

[15] Fuller, Samuel (2018) “Torture as a Management Practice: The Convention Against Torture and Non-Disciplinary Solitary confinement,” Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 19: No. 1, Article 4. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol19/iss1/4

[16] U.N. Secretary-General, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment: Note by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5, 2011).

[17] Shalev, S. (2008) A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement. London: Mannheim Centre for Criminology, London School of Economics. Available online at: www.solitaryconfinement.org/sourcebook