• Thu
  • Apr 17, 2014
  • Updated: 3:00am

Hu Jintao

Born in 1942 and Chinese president since 2003, Anhui native Hu Jintao had been posted to Gansu, Guizhou and Tibet during his climb up the party ranks, and first became a member of the Politburo’s standing committee in 1992. He graduated from Tsinghua University in 1964 with a degree in engineering. The Communist Youth League is known to be a staunch supporter of Hu. He retired as General Secretary of the Communist Party Central Committee and Chairman of the Party's Central Military Commission during the 18th Party Congress in November 2012, and expected to handover presidency of the PRC to Xi Jinping in the spring of 2013. 


NewsChina Insider

Spanish court indicts China's ex-president Hu Jintao on genocide charges

PUBLISHED : Friday, 11 October, 2013, 12:38pm
UPDATED : Friday, 11 October, 2013, 4:23pm

Spain’s National Court has agreed to hear charges of genocide against former Chinese President Hu Jintao.

On Thursday, the court’s criminal division ruled in favour of an appeal by Tibetan exile groups allowing the indictment of Hu, a request which had been dismissed in June by the same court.

The court, which handles crimes against humanity and genocide, argued that the earlier decision had to be overturned because one of the plaintiffs, Thubten Wangchen, is a Spanish citizen and because China had not carried out its own investigation into the allegations.

“There’ll be some sort of diplomatic reaction,” said Nina Jorgensen, an associate professor at the Chinese Univeristy of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law. “China has been very much against these proceedings.”

“But in all likelihood, not a lot will happen,” she cautioned. “The case brings attention to the issue and gives the victims at least an opportunity to bring attention to their claims.”

Spanish courts can hear cases of crimes against humanity wherever they occur outside its national territory on the legal principle of universal competence. In 2009, the universality was limited to cases in which Spanish citizens are victims of such crimes.

The court’s decision follows lengthy proceedings which started in 2008, when Tibetan activist groups, one of them headed by Wangchen, asked the court to hold seven Chinese state leaders, including former President Jiang Zemin and former Premier Li Peng, responsible for crimes against humanity allegedly committed by the Chinese government in Tibet. China denounced the trial proceedings.

Hu Jintao served as Communist Party Secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Region between 1988 and 1992, overseeing a crackdown on anti-Chinese riots in 1989.

The court “recognises that this genocide is against the country of Tibet and against the Tibetan nation, and the judges recognise that this indictment of Hu Jintao comes at the precise judicial moment ‘when his diplomatic immunity expires’”, the Madrid-based Comité de Apoyo al Tíbet, a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.



Related topics


This article is now closed to comments

Bobby, you can't read English to save your life, and you're quite possibly an idiot as well.
1) Where has Spain declared a Tibetan state? Is that from the article, or from the voices in your head? In fact, please show me in the article where it is supposedly reported that the Spanish court (let alone the Spanish nation) has declared a Tibetan state? (Hint: you can't, cuz they didn't).
2) Where has the Spanish court tried to prosecute China? "Spain’s National Court has agreed to hear charges of genocide against former Chinese President Hu Jintao". Do i need to translate that into something other than English for you so that you might grasp it better? Would gibberish help? I mean seriously, is your ability to formulate a cogent argument so negligible that you have to resort to arguing against something other than what happened in reality? Cuz if all you have are imaginary arguments, then I'll leave you to debate them with your imaginary friends.
You are certainly welcome to debate "moral authority". But the courts don't deal in moral authority; they deal in legal authority. The court has made no claim of moral authority. So your point is pointless. Now, do you even understand what tu quoque is? Do you know why it's a logical fallacy? I don't have time to teach idiots, so you can go google it yourself.
Hu is a confucius idiot!!!
Just for a little perspective, George W. Bush was indicted for war crimes in Switzerland, and convicted of war crimes in Kuala Lampur. And before that, Pinochet was charged by Spain with war crimes. So former heads of state are definitely fair game after they leave office, for those who think that the current Spanish court is somehow doing something totally unbelievable in the current instance. And remember they're only agreeing to hear the appeal. I can only imagine the frothing at the mouth that will occur if Hu actually gets convicted. That will be a popcorn-worthy spectacle, I'm sure.
I also didn't see much belly-aching from the US State Department when Bush got roasted in foreign courts. Contrast that with the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Sometimes (ok, almost all of the time), they doth protest too much. And as a study in human nature, I wonder if those who complain the most are the ones with the most to hide...
Spain has now become an enemy of China, even illegally indicting Hu Jintao. If there is any legality to the indictment, then Spain must show that she has the authority to arrest Hu Jintao.
On what basis do you suggest that the indictment was illegal? On what legal basis do you say that "the authority to arrest" is the litmus test for whether an indictment is "legal"?
Here's some news for you. THe Spanish court is hearing the case, so you already know that the indictment was legal insofar as Spain goes. As for arresting Hu, that wouldn't be necessary unless he's convicted. Even then, no one would be extraditing him; on the other hand, no more Spanish vacations for Hu cuz he would then be fair game for arrest if he went onto Spanish soil.
And why would Spain become China's enemy? The indictment is of Hu, and not of China. Time for you people to take a chill pill, and leave the histrionics behind.
To Ipc1998,
like I said earlier, please read a little more closely. Why is that so hard for you people? This court didn't say "country of Tibet"; " the Madrid-based Comité de Apoyo al Tíbet, a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement" that included that reference. It's in bloody quotation marks. I don't know what the court precisely said, but in this article, the only attribution of "country of Tibet" should be to the plaintiff who made the statement. See, read better, and knee-jerk less. It's not that hard, and it's better for everyone.
Now, in the United Nations Treaty definition of "organs of the state", "Conduct engaged in by organs of the State in excess of their competence may also be attributed to the State under international law, whatever the position may be under internal law". The listed example refers to police; there is no mention of the courts. So by referring to Spanish courts as an "organ", you're doing something the UN does not, and also assuming that this case is beyond that court's competence. I think I'll stick to the UN version, thanks very much. So no, by the UN version, this Spanish court isn't an "organ of the state", unless it goes on to do something beyond its competence. Good luck demonstrating that....I'll wait.
So let's summarize: you've wrongly accused the court of saying something it didn't, and you've failed to establish that the court is an organ of Spain under international law. Not a good day for you so far, it seems.
"The court “recognises that this genocide is against the country of Tibet and against the Tibetan nation".......Since when Tibet is a sovereign country?
Tibet has been a sovereign country till the Peking Nazi's invaded and occupied it, murdering 2 millions of its inhabitants. Maybe time to ask your tuition fee back.
"Tibet has been a sovereign country till Peking Nazi's invaded and occupied it"
You can't use has been and then until in the same sentence. It would be they were... until. So, what you're saying is, "it was a sovereign nation until it wasn't"? Because Tibet was part of China around the times of the Kangxi Emperor(died in 1722) and only became sovereign(kind of) again when Yakub Beg had his Muslim rebellion. They then lost that sovereignty when Yakub died. So, it's been part of China longer than America has been free from England. If they didn't want to be part of China, they should have fought harder. Native Americans, and most Natives in the western hemisphere, were conquered and subjugated as the victors saw fit. Very little complaining about that, though. The Chinese did the same thing, except they allowed the tibetans to keep their religion, live in their land, and live. Unlike the europeans, who forced conversion to their religion, forced the natives to live in the undesirable parts of the nations, and killed the vast majority of them.
Maybe it's time for you to pay tuition.



SCMP.com Account