PETITION TO:UNITED NATIONSWORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION REGARDING PENG MING CASE

China Aid Association
PETITION TO:

UNITED NATIONSWORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION
Chairperson-Rapporteur:    Ms. Leila Zerrougui (Algeria)
Vice-Chairperson:           Mr. Tamas Ban (Hungary)
Ms. Soledad Villagra de Biedermann (Paraguay)
Ms. Manuela Carmena Castrillo (Spain)
Mr. Seyed Mohammed Hashemi (Islamic Republic of Iran)
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
In the Matter of:
Mr. MING PENG,
Citizen of People’s Republic of China; &
United Nations Refugee with
Permanent Residency in California, USA
Government of People’s Republic of China

URGENT APPEAL ON MEDICAL HUMANITARIAN CRISIS REQUESTED
And Petition for Relief Pursuant to Resolutions on Text Opinion No.43/2005 Adopted on 29th November, 2005 by the UN Commission on Human Rights extending the mandate of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. As of June 19, 2006, the Commission on Human Rights has been abolished pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251. Under this Resolution, the Human rights Council “shall assume all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human rights€¦” G.A. Res. 60/251. #6 (Mar. 15, 2006).

Submitted By:

Ms. Xing Peng & Ms. Dawen Peng
4375 Planet Circle,
Union City, California 94587,
United States of America.
+0-1-510-388-3557 (Cell c/o Sister_Augusta);
+0-1-510-899-1488 (Fax).

Wednesday, February 14th, 2007.

BASIS FOR “URGENT ACTION” REQUEST

Mr. Ming Peng, a United Nations (UN) Refugee and Resident in California, USA, has been a peaceful advocate for Democracy and Human Rights for the current People’s Republic of China (PRC), until May 2004 when Mr. Peng was lured into Myanmar, while on an US-approved travel to Thailand to visit his elderly parents. Mr.Peng was detained by the heavy armed militia in Myanmar and within 7 days, was “kidnapped” under heavy armed guards in a Chinese conspiracy to capture all US-based Dissidents back to their country origin of citizenship; i.e. in the People’s Republic of China, and was immediately turned over to the Chinese Government of the People’s Republic of China, who has arbitrarily detained Mr. Peng since May 2004 through to-date; and even passed an arbitrary and vindictive Life Sentence judgment against the prisoner of conscience, Mr. Peng, on October 2005. This action had already violated No. 19 and No. 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the United Nations. The People’s Republic of China did not seem to have made any attempt to release Mr. Peng unconditionally back to the United States of America and/or to the United Nations even after the United Nations Working Group for Arbitrary Detention had recommended in their Text Opinion No.43/2005 (Ref.G/SO 218/2), as adopted on November 29th, 2005 (Ref. EXHIBIT “A”) that:
The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Peng, Ming is arbitrary, as being in contravention of articles 19 & 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, & falls within Category II of the applicable categories to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.
Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Government to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Mr. Peng Ming, & bring it in conformity with the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Working Group reiterates its recommendations to the Government of the People’s Republic of China to consider the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
            Mr. Ming Peng, a pale-faced bloated, with bloated open-skin wounds extremities on both hands/arms, as well as his one-inch thick swollen/bloated on his entire two legs and feet — essentially a medically-dying prisoner of conscience at the mercy of the Chinese People’s Government, is currently being held in a heavily guarded prison cell in the: Han Yang Prison No. 16 Prison District, Cai Dian District, Wu Han City, Hu Bei Province 430101, People’s Republic of China; Cell: 13114359288.  He has been arbitrarily detained; mis-trialed with a life sentence; tortured in an inhumane manner (such as no sleep for more than 24 hours with tight wrists-cuffs for over one month, in order to forcibly admit on all the three charges stipulated to Mr. Peng by the Chinese authorities; mal-nourished (or no food without any forced confession); deprived of any basic to medical surgery for remedy on his current chronically critical kidney stones with progressive and painful growth and severe symptoms of other medical and physical ailments to his heart, back problems, seriously-infected & bloody urinary tracts, and bloated red skin and infection on all his physical extremities. Mr. Ming Peng has been in arbitrary detention for almost three years now.  He is now almost fifty-one (51) years old, and is in extremely inhumane poor health and has been suffering the chronic kidney stones (now has propagated into several painful “kidney rocks”) for the past almost 3 years now. In 2004 and 2005, tumor growths had developed in his back, kidneys, neck, chest, and abdomen.  Miraculously, in God’s grace and Mr. Peng’s fervent prayers and faith to His Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior, he was spiritually healed of the tumors, to the surprise of the prison doctors  and the prison wards. Recently, it was noted that Mr. Peng’s frail condition is worsening at a very deteriorating critical stage. Because of deprivation to any medical help; i.e., orally, physical surgery, and/or any internal or external medication for Mr. Peng or with any proper medical & physical nourishment, in the Prison, Mr. Peng’s family members outside of People’s Republic of China, had requested to no avail, that Mr. Peng be treated at a better-equipped hospital recommended by the United Nations, and ultimately be released unconditionally back to the United States of Residency, in order to receive immediate humanitarian and medical remedy in his current critical state. To this date, Mr. Ming Peng has not received any medical treatment for his chronic ailments and he has resorted to eating and drinking a few mouthfuls of unfiltered dirty tap water a day, in order to minimize the painful bleeding when he urinates, among other intolerable painful physical stresses on his body, mind, and spirit.
            Meanwhile, Mr. Ming Peng’s activisim and international prominence with the media, the United States Government & State of Foreign Affairs, the United Nations Human Rights Council, The Dui Hua Foundation, and the Amnesty International, had generated numerous negative news articles (Ref. EXHIBIT “B”) about the People’s Republic of China Government; thereby, placing Mr. Ming Peng at further risk of more physical and inhumane mal-treatment during China’s continual arbitration detention of Mr. Peng to-date.
With Emergency Accordance, the Petitioners hereby request that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers this Petition pursuant to the Working Group’s “URGENT ACTION” Procedure.  In addition, the Petitioners request that this Petition be considered a formal request on behalf of the United Nations Human Rights Council to the People’s Republic of China for an EMERGENCY IMMEDIATE MEDICAL & UNCONDITIONAL HUMANITARIAN RELEASE of MR. MING PENG, Escalated from the November 29th, 2005’s adopted Text Opinion No. 43/2005, pursuant to Resolution 1997/50 of the Commission on Human Rights.  With reference to the Fact Sheet No. 26, The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; Pages 1, 4, and 5 of 16 (Ref. EXHIBIT “C”) — the case of Mr. Ming Peng on Arbitrary Detention by PRC, seems to be in a hiatus state at Section V: Procedures followed by the Working Group; Part A: The procedure involving investigation of individual case; STAGE 4(e): Text Opinion No.43/2005, adopted on 29th November 2005 with recommendations to the PRC Chinese Government; and as of December 27th, 2005, the Text Opinion No. 43/2005 was conveyed to the Petitioners, the source of information.  Perhaps, the Working Group may have already “formulated “deliberations” on matters of a general nature involving a position of principle in order to determine a consistent set of precedents and assist States, for purposes of prevention, to guard against the practice in arbitrary deprivation of liberty.”  We have noted that THE ANNUAL REPORT, as in EXHIBIT “C” Page 5 of 16; Section VI. The Annual Report” did not seem to include the following annexes or addenda; e.g. (a) no opinions adopted on individual cases (Ref. EXHIBIT “D”); (b) no reports on field visits, pertaining to Mr. Ming Peng’s case (Ref. EXHIBIT “E”); and (c) no related statistics, or equivalent (Ref. EXHIBIT “F”). Yet, in retrospect, the PRC Government has only made a pre-response to the Working Group in August 2005 (Ref. EXHIBIT “F”; Page 7 of document), prior to the “deliberated” outcomes of the Text Opinion No.43/2005, which still to-date, awaits an immediate humanitarian and medical “URGENT ACTION” response on Mr. Ming Peng’s chronically critical medical condition, during his present period of arbitrary detention, from both the PRC Chinese Government as well as from the United Nations of Human Rights Council/Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and/or the United States of Foreign Affairs on Human Rights. This is especially, in the interest of mutual embrace & never-ending support of Global Human Rights, such that “No one (that is; namely Mr. Ming Peng, holding an official UN Refugee status & US Residency status at the time of PRC’s arbitrary detention since May 2004) shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” — (Ref. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9).
As such, the case of Mr. Ming Peng has had progressively more than the sufficient reliable sources of information that Mr. Ming Peng is still “being detained arbitrarily and that the continuation of the detention has already constituted a serious danger to that person’s (i.e. Mr. Ming Peng’s) health or life.” Thenceforth, the Urgent Action Procedure must be resorted to, in this hiatus state of current circumstances, when the Working Group has already deemed that the situation warranted such an URGENT Appeal, in light of the outcomes in EXHIBIT “A”.   The Petitioners and supporters of Mr. Ming Peng would further request the UN World Human Rights Council to immediately SEND AN URGENT APPEAL to People’s Republic of China (PRC), by the “most rapid channel of communication, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs” of PRC concerned, and concurrently requesting a MEDICAL EMERGENCY & UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE OF MR. MING PENG, by the latter’s Chinese Government.  This is the only reasonable human rights’ act of basic human decency to carry out as the most appropriate measure, since the detained person’s (i.e. Mr. Ming Peng’s) “right to life and to physical and mental integrity” were compromised and he was not respected by the relevant PRC Chinese Government authorities or equivalent; especially based on the final assessment in 2005 that Mr. Ming Peng’s deprivation of liberty was already arbitrary (Text Opinion No. 43/2005; CATEGORY II).
We, the Petitioners, with due respect, would like to submit that the PRC Government’s arbitrary detention of Mr. Ming Peng since May 2004, has also violated World Human Rights on Arbitrary Detention, CATEGORY III, as well, since the investigation timing and outcomes of Text Opinion No. 43/2005 in November 29th, 2005, did not include the PRC’s Trial findings and Life Imprisonment sentence on Mr. Peng as of October 2005.
CATEGORY III on ARBITRARY DETENTION
1.            The Government’s Detention of Mr. Ming Peng is ARBITRARY because Mr. Ming Peng has been denied the Right to a Prompt Hearing, the Right to Access to Counsel, the Right to be informed of the Charges Against him, and the right to a Fair Trial in accordance with International Norms as set forth in the ICCPR, UDHR, and the Body of Principles
As recommended and concluded in the Working Group’s Opinion Text No. 43/2005, adopted on 29th November, 2005, the Chinese Government of PRC’s detention of Mr. Ming Peng is arbitrary because it denies him the right to exercise his fundamental freedoms of opinion and expression of his previous two books published on New Democracy for China.  The Chinese Government exacerbated these violation by failing to provide Mr. Peng with a prompt hearing, access to counsel, information about the charges against him, release pending trial, and a fair trial. Once convicted to life imprisonment, the PRC Government also violated Mr. Peng’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment of zero medical help and remedy while being arbitrarily detained for life for almost 3 years to-date.
a.                    By refusing to provide Mr. Ming Peng with a Prompt Public Hearing, the PRC Government failed to observe Article 9 of the ICCPR, Article 10 of the UDHR, and Principle 11 of the Body of Principles.
The PRC Government’s unlawful detention of Mr. Peng commenced immediately when he was literally being “kidnapped” and/or forcibly taken under intense armed guard detention and transported directly from Myanmar into PRC’s Detention Camp and over a year later , Mr. Peng was put to a non-public trial and sentenced immediately to life imprisonment. Article 9(3) of the ICCPR mandates that a person held on alleged criminal charges be “brought promptly before a judicial officer who rules on whether the detention will continue.”  Article 10 of the UDHR similarly provides that “[e]veryone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing€¦in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” Furthermore, Principle 11 of the Body of Principles states that “[a] person shall not be kept in detention without, being an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority.”   Finally, under Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR, an individual is entitled “[t]o be informed promptly and in detail€¦of the nature and the cause of the charge against him.”  To comply with Article 14(3)(a), an individual must be provided with this information “as soon as the charge is first made by competent authority.”  The Committee has explained that the right to be informed arises “when in the course of an investigation a court or an authority of the prosecution decides to take procedural steps against a person suspected of a crime or publicly names him as such.”
According to all available information (i.e. because Mr. Peng is being held incommunicado, the PRC Government’s progress in handling his case cannot be accurately ascertained), Mr. Ming Peng did not receive any arrest order, even though Mr. Peng has official UN Refugee status in the United States of America at hand in his possession when he was arbitrarily detained by Myanmar authorities for the PRC pre-meditated conspiracy of “kidnapping of all US-based Dissidents back to origin PRC country for permanent detention and physical duress for life.  Mr. Peng was never brought before a non-bias third-party country judicial authority for a determination of the “lawfulness” of his arbitrary detention, and the PRC Government issued its official indictment (Ref. EXHIBIT “E”) about seventeen months after Mr. Peng’s arbitrary detention. During this time, the PRC Government held Mr. Peng incommunicado, refusing to allow him contact with his family in the United States, Canada, and Thailand (and later in Sweden), or a lawyer of his choosing in the United States of residency. In applying Article 9(3) of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee interprets “promptly” as no longer than “a few days,” versus Mr. Peng’s current permanent  and unlawful arbitrary detention for life in PRC’s prison cell.  More specifically, judicial review should be provided “somewhat between seventy-three hours€¦.and five days.”  (see comparing Van Der Houwen v. The Netherlands (583/94), where a delay of seventy-three hours did not violate Article 9(3), with Jijon v. Ecuador (277/88), where a delay of five days constitute a violation of Article 9(3)). Because Mr. Peng was detained for 17 months without being brought before a judicial officer for determination of the validity and arbitrary of the criminal charges against him, Mr. Peng’s detention is arbitrary.
b.                    Mr. Ming Peng’s Trial Failed to meet internationally recognized Standards and Procedures, as well as those Guaranteed by PRC Chinese Law.

(i)            Mr. Ming Peng was Denied the Right to a Public Trial.
Article 11(1) of the ICCPR provides that every one charged with a penal offense has the right to a fair and public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.   In the case of Mr. Ming Peng, his trial lasted about five (5) hours (1st day was about 4 hours and 2nd day of the one-sided trial, the life sentence immediate judgment was only about 1 hour; plus, PRC Government has denied his Appeal process) — was conducted in total secrecy and under heavy armed guard.  No journalists or independent observers were permitted to witness the trial, and the trial excluded foreign diplomats who had sent formal requests to attend ahead of time; yet, date, time, and place of the trial was only announced to a local defending attorney at PRC for Mr. Peng with very limited and unacceptable lead-time notification process.  Mr. Ming Peng’s half-brother in PRC was the only “family” witness allowed to attend from a distant, outside the perimeter of a “make-shift court room of a mobile-container-type of room setting”, while the rest of Mr. Peng’s family and relatives presently also UN Refugees and residing in distributed countries, such as the USA,  Canada, Thailand, and Sweden, and were not allowed to attend Mr. Peng’s last-minute trial at PRC, at risk to physical well-being and life again. Mr. Peng’s defending attorney, not having the necessary resources from Mr. Peng’s resident USA home, was not and could not effectively defend the alleged and arbitrary charges stipulated by the PRC Government then. Such a proceeding is completely incompatible with the accused’s rights to a “fair and public trial” as provided by the Article 14(1) of the Covenant.
While the right to a public trial may be limited in certain circumstances, the Chinese Government of PRC did not close the trial to safeguard a legitimate end. The subject matter did not implicate issues offensive to morals or public order, nor were state secrets or other sensitive national security information likely to be compromised. (Ref. ICCPR, at Article 14(1): The Government may exclude the press or public from a trial “for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interest of justice.)   Quite the contrary, the Chinese PRC Government’s closure of the trial was an attempt to avoid public condemnation and scrutiny of its persecution and arbitrary detention of Mr. Ming, an internationally well-known US-based Chinese Democracy Dissident. Thus, Mr. Ming Peng’s case “shows China is taking more extreme methods against dissidents, by kidnapping them and taking them to China for alleged terrorist offenses€¦.Political analyst and human rights groups say China has been using the global war against terrorism to justify its crackdown on dissidents and separatists groups (Ref. VOA News; s3rd December 2005; EXHIBIT “G”).

(ii)          Mr. Ming Peng’s Right to Counsel and to prepare a Defense has been violated.
The PRC Chinese Government detained Mr. Ming Peng incommunicado after his arrest. The PRC Chinese Government refused Mr. Ming Peng communication with legal counsel until about a few days before trial. As such, the Government’s actions violate Article 10 of the Universal Declaration, Article 14(3) of the Covenant, and Principles 18(1) (right to consult with counsel); 18(2) (right to be allowed time to consult with counsel); and 18(3) (right to communicate with counsel confidentiality of the Body of Principles. Moreover, the fact that the PRC Chinese Government has held Mr. Ming Peng for 17 months  incommunicado before the Trial is further  evidence of a violation of Article 14(3)(b) because it obviates his ability to communicate with counsel, especially being UN refugee status of US residency.

(iii)         Mr. Ming Peng was Denied an Independent and Impartial Tribunal
The right to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal is one of the most fundamental of human rights. It is specifically enshrined in Article 10 of Universal Declaration and further described in Article 14 of the ICCPR, which provides that “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”  There is no evidence that Mr. Ming Peng’s five hours’ trial met this standard, with only a few prominent non-independent PRC Chinese judicial officials already condemning Mr. Ming Peng’s immediate guilt with the three stipulated charges, and under heavy armed guard in a non-public trial setting, with about four dozen (i.e. about 48) or so PRC officials as watchful audience; and without proper resources back in the US residency country to present and/or defend the alleged three charges against him by the PRC plaintiff attorney. When Mr. Peng returned fro the 2nd day trial, he was totally shocked that within one hour he was already condemned to life imprisonment sentence, without the PRC judicial authorities even giving him or his PRC defending counsel a chance to defend his case. Mr. Peng’s case was not an independent nor an impartial tribunal.
c.                    The PRC Government’s Treatment of Mr. Ming Peng in Prison Violates basic Standards of International Law.

(i)            The PRC Government has DENIED Mr. Ming Peng’s Adequate Medical Care.
The PRC Chinese Government’s continued denial of medical care violates Articles 24 and 25 of the Body of Principles. Principle 24 provides that medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary for a detained individual.  Principle 25 states that a detained person shall, subject only to reasonable conditions to ensure security and good order in place of imprisonment, has the right to petition a judicial or other authority for a second medical examination or opinion. Mr. Ming Peng has kidney stones and has been urinating blood for the last 2.5 years.  He has tumor growths in other extremities of his body. He can only drink few mouthfuls of water a day in order to minimize the excruciating pain when he makes bloody urine. The kidney stones now have turned to rock-sizes. Mr. Ming Peng is weak and trembling in deep pain and has been kept in solitary confinement for extended periods during his initial arbitrary detention; and for the past last year was in constant confinement with two other medically  and disease-infected cell-mates alongside with him. As a result Mr. Peng has contracted other infectious diseases from these cell-mates, who would report to the prison wards what Mr. Peng would be doing even in a tightly-confined cell; and in turn has worsened his own chronic kidney stones medical condition.
Despite these grave conditions, Mr. Peng has been denied adequate medical treatment as well as the right to receive a second medical opinion, especially, being an official UN refugee status with US residency.  Accordingly, there is a medical unit in the prison where Mr. Ming Peng is detained, but the facilities are not sufficient to treat Mr. Peng’s grave illnesses. Mr. Peng and his overseas family members have requested that prison authorities send him to nearby Wuhan Hospital in PRC for medial treatment, but authorities have heretofore refused.
(ii)          The PRC Government has Violated Mr. Ming Peng’s Right to a Climate-Controlled Cell.
The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners of Principle 11 require that in all places where prisoners are required to live or work, “the windows shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air.” Yet, Mr. Ming Peng has been confined to a windowless cell since May 2004. The cell is very hot during the summer and freezing during the winter.  During the summer, there is no fan, and cell floor is muddy, wet and floody, and his shoes are soaking wet constantly.  Due to extreme changes in temperature, Mr. Ming Peng’s health has deteriorated, and he is urinating painful blood all the time now.
(iii)         Mr. Ming Peng is the Victim of Cruel and Degrading Treatment.
Article 7 (safeguards the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment) of the ICCPR, and Article 5 of the UDHR provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.   Although the UDHR and the ICCPR do not define “cruel treatment,” other international conventions, such as the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, define such treatment in the following terms:
                              Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.  {Note:  Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1(1) — that the “prohibition against torture has become part of customary international law, as evidenced and defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly Resolution 217(III)(A)(Dec.10, 1948) which states, in the plainest of terms, “no one shall be subjected to torture.”} (Ref. EXHIBIT “H”)

CONCLUSION:
                           For the reasons stated herein, Mr. Ming Peng’s arbitrary detention & arrest  from the onset in Myanmar and immediately transported to People’s Republic of China (PRC), violate  guarantees found in both the PRC and international law. His case qualifies for Category II and Category III deliberation by the Working Group.  Mr. Ming Peng should be immediately released from detention.
                           Mr. Ming Peng appealed his conviction in October 2005, but was denied the Appeal process; and instead received a vindictive life imprisonment sentence by the PRC Chinese Government.  Foreign diplomats were barred from attending the closed proceedings, and the Trial lasted no more than five hours of review and life sentencing.  Mr. Peng was also not allowed to choose his own counsel from his US residency country. Absent a transcript from the appeal, we are not aware on what grounds the PRC Chinese Government upheld Mr. Ming Peng’s conviction.
                          In response to a UN Working Group’s investigation, prior to the Text Opinion No. 43/2005, adopted in November 29th, 2005, the PRC Chinese Government reiterated that Mr. Ming Peng had violated Chinese laws and was a terrorist by being a US-based Chinese Democracy Dissident, having published two books on Democracy content for China,  In 2002-2003, while being a US resident in the San Francisco County/San Mateo County of California, Mr. Ming Peng has shared his Article “South East Asia of Anti-Terrorism Special Force” regarding Anti-Terrorism, with US Congresswoman Barbara Boxer, US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and US Congressman Tom Lantos.  In turn, the PRC Chinese Government has distorted the contents and accused and finally condemned Mr. Ming Peng to life imprisonment for being a terrorist himself.  Mr. Ming Peng’s last residency address in California was in Union City, and since May 2004, Mr. Peng’s family members had approached US Congressman Pete Stark (Ref. EXHIBIT “I”) for intervention and Emergency Medical Treatment (Ref. EXHIBIT “J”)on an URGENT MEDICAL PAROLE APPEAL, on the basis of International Human Rights to PRC Government to release unconditionally Mr. Ming Peng on critical medical and humanitarian grounds (Ref. EXHIBIT “K”).
                            Since the receipt of the Working Group Text Opinion No.43/2005 dated December 27, 2005 from Mr. Miguel de la Lama, Secretary of Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, we have received seemingly no further actions and/or Urgent Medical Resolutions to secure Ming Peng’s freedom and critical medical surgery and from any further arbitrary detention and human rights violations. The Chinese PRC Government has already been elected as Representative Country in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in May 2006 (Ref. EXHIBIT “D”), and we would respectfully beseech the Chinese Government in setting the tone to greater freedom from arbitrary detention while embracing more humanitarian medical care for prisoners of conscience, like Mr. Ming Peng; thereby, ratifying the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights as well as conforming to Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the remedial recommendations by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Human Rights Council of the United Nations.
As members of Amnesty International, we consider Mr. Ming Peng to be a prisoner of conscience, who has been incarcerated solely for the peaceful publication of his dissenting political views of “The Project of Democracy“. For this reason, a conspiracy was planned on his kidnapping from Myanmar to China; & he was unlawfully tried, charged, and swiftly sentenced to life imprisonment without any free legal counsel/representation from his US residency country as an UN refugee status, during his entire Arbitrary Detention in China for almost 3 years to-date, on 3 fabricated allegations of being a terrorist for writing an article “South East Asia of Anti-Terrorism Special Force” and on his previous two books on “The Democracy Project”; a perceived kidnapper of a corrupted Chinese official; & in possession of an unknown sealed package of counterfeit Chinese currency in Myanmar. Thenceforth, we join with all members & supporters of Amnesty International in urging China and the UN Reps from China, to bring about the UN Refugee of USA-based residency, Ming Peng’s immediate & unconditional release from the Chinese prison on arbitrary detention of all counts. With reference to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Economic and Social Council Report # E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4; 29th December 2004; Appendix: “List of Persons in Detention” (page 21) è we would like the UN Working Group and the US State of Foreign Affairs to respectfully beseech China to put Mr. Ming Peng as the TOP “HOT” PRIORITY on China’s List of Arbitrary Detention and be released unconditionally on emergency medical parole, based on basic humanitarian grounds that China has agreed to cooperate with the UN (Ref. EXHIBIT “D”).
We deeply thank-you in advance for your concurrent emergency humanitarian response to Mr. Ming Peng’s urgent medical and terminally-critical needs & for your swift intervention in securing his freedom from any further arbitrary detention & slow torturous death with zero medical aid.
Respectfully,
Ms. Xing Peng                                     & Ms. Dawen Peng______________________