The problem with the XZY case is that the procedures are so opaque that sometimes you can’t even tell if the law is being followed. Worse, it feels like you are trying to find a fig leaf for an indecency of a trial when you comb through the laws and records trying to make sense of them. Two issues have been criticized in the press, the question of why the case was heard by an intermediate court, and why XZY was and his co-defendants were tried separately.
Posts published in February 2014
《最高人民法院关于审理涉及农村土地承包经营纠纷调解仲裁案件适用法律若干问题的解释》已于2013年12月27日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1601次会议通过，现予公布，自2014年1月24日起施行。 最高人民法院 2014 1月9日 法释〔2014〕1号 最高人民法院关于审理涉及农[……] Read more