From 9:00am to 8:00pm of November 21, 1999, the Court of Yuzhong District of Chongqing City conducted a trial for Ms. Gu Zhiyi, who was a contact person of Chongqing Falun Gong Assistance Center. She was arrested on her way to the practice site at 4:00am of July 20^th, 1999. Before she was arrested, she had been a senior lecturer in the Tax school of Chongqing. She is 63 with a bachelor degree. She has been honored with "outstanding teacher in Sichuan province", "outstanding teacher in Chongqing" and other titles.

Many practitioners did not go to the court to audit the trial because they had been told that they must have a ticket for entrance. Later they found out that they could get in with an ID card. But many of them did not carry their ID cards with them, so they could not get in. Because the whole trial appeared very unfair, many practitioners left the court before the trial was over. During the break in the morning, some practitioners were confused: Whom did the defending lawyer speak for, the defendant, or the prosecutor?

During the whole trial, Gu Zhiyi appeared calm and kind, while the public prosecutor and the presiding judge often appeared angry and emotional. It was often the case that after the prosecutor finished his statements, the judge would ask Gu, "Gu Zhiyi, Did you hear that?" Gu replied, "Yes, I did." The judge asked again, "Do you have any different opinion?" Gu Said, "Yes, I do." But before Gu could finish her statement, the judge would interrupt her, "Gu Zhiyi, you cannot repeat what you have said." When the defending lawyer was making a statement in objection to that of the prosecutor, he was often interrupted by the prosecutor with "Objection! Judge, please support!" Then, he would find some casual excuses. The judge would say, "The objection is valid." In the afternoon, when the defending lawyer was interrupted again, he sighed, "Two sides should be equal in the court. But this is not the case. We do not have the equal opportunity to speak. Why don't they just go ahead and sentence her?"

During the trial, the practitioners auditing the trial were peaceful and quiet. None of them made any noise. Towards the end of the trial, the defending lawyer requested the judge to give Gu a light sentence. He said, "We should look at the problem in a fair way. From the working experience of the defendant, she has been working hard in the schools for 41 years. After she was graduated she was assigned to teach in the Chongqing Normal School. In 1989, she was transferred to the Tax School of Chongqing. After she was retired, she was re-appointed by the Tax school. She has been awarded with "outstanding teacher in Sichuan province", "outstanding teacher in Chongqing" and other titles. When we investigated her history, the director of the human resources department of her school told us that she had done very well in her work. All the activities she is accused of have no obvious political motivations. Please consider giving her a light sentence." The prosecutor said, "It is true that the defendant has worked hard and well. She has trained many qualified personnel for the Tax department in computer and other aspects. But she has slackened her efforts in the political study. According to the policy against "evil religion", she should be given 3 to 7 years of sentence." It was really a strange thing. Before the judge sentenced her, how could a prosecutor give the defendant 3 to 7 years of sentence?

In the morning, Gu's lawyer did not speak much in defense of Gu; in the afternoon, he did so to some extent. Below are some conversations in the court.

1. The prosecutor: "In 1992, Gu Zhiyi and her daughter went to Beijing to attend Li Hongzhi's Qigong class. She invited Li Hongzhi to give classes in Chongqing after she came back. ..."

Gu's lawyer (who is not a Falun Gong practitioner) said, "It is not true that 'Gu Zhiyi invited Li Hongzhi'. According to our investigation, the fact was that Gu Zhiyi recommended the Jiangbei Qigong Society of Chongqing invite Li Hongzhi to hold Qigong classes in Chongqing, and then Jiangbei Qigong Society of Chongqing invited Li Hongzhi to hold Qigong classes in Chongqing. The contract for holding Qigong classes was signed and stamped by the Jiangbei Qigong Society of Chongqing instead of by Gu Zhiyi. She should not take any direct responsibility. She at most takes some indirect responsibility because she was the contact person. This is the contract, you may take a look at it."

The prosecutor did not look at the contract. He said, "Objection! Judge, . . . please support."

The judge: "Objection is effective. State next fact."

2. The public prosecutor: "After Li Hongzhi held classes in Chongqing, he appointed Gu Zhiyi as the key contact person of Falun Gong assistance center in Chongqing...."

The judge asked Gu's lawyer whether he had any different opinion.

The lawyer: "Yes, I do. It cannot be said 'appointed'. It is more appropriate to use the term 'assign'. Only a government institution or an enterprise can 'appoint'. If she was 'appointed', there should be a 'certificate of appointment' or some written materials, stamps, signatures etc. But there are none of them. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use 'assign'. Do not apply those terms from the governmental institutions to a group like Falun Gong."

(Note by the writer: The day after the trial, it was still reported in the article "Falun Gong leader put on trial" published in the Chongqing Evening Newspaper that "in September of 1993, after Li Hongzhi held classes in Jiangbei of Chongqing at the invitation of Gu Zhiyi, Li Hongzhi appointed Gu Zhiyi as the leader of Falun Gong assistance center of Chongqing...")

3. The prosecutor: "Gu incited Huang Genghui (another contact person in the Jiangbei district of Chongqing) to guide Falun Gong practitioners to besiege the offices of the Zhigong Daily Newspaper, Luzhou Daily Newspaper, Jiucheng Weekend Edition..."

The judge: "Bring the witness Han Changye to the court."

The witness: "I don't know anything about the matter in Luzhou. I knew the matter about Zhigong Daily Newspaper. This newspaper published a very unfavorable (should be 'false') article about Falun Gong. At that time, Huang and 20 other Falun Gong practitioners went to the office of the Zhigong Daily newspaper to kindly tell them the facts about Falun Gong and request that the false report be corrected. They did not intend to bring many practitioners there; they needed only a few practitioners with good ability in expressing their viewpoints. After Huang came back, he told me about what he had done. After a short while, I called Gu and told her this matter. Huang did not talk to Gu about that. . ."

The lawyer: "it is important to pay attention to the two statements 'before Huang went to Zhigong, he told Han, and then Han told Gu' and 'after Huang came back from Zhigong, Huang told Han and then Han told Gu'. According to the witness, Gu knew what had happened in Zhigong only after Huang came back from Zhigong. It should not be that Gu incited Huang to go to Zhigong. Gu should not take any direct responsibility but at most some indirect responsibility as the contact person."

The prosecutor: "The witness' testimony in the court differs that in the bureau of public security. According to the testimony of the witness in the bureau of public security, it should be that "Gu knew that matter."

The witness: "It is not contradictory to say that Gu knew that matter, She knew that afterwards."

The prosecutor: "Objection! Because the testimonies are different, I urge the judge to ignore the witness's testimony and take his testimony in the bureau of public security as the standard."

The judge: "The objection is effective."

Gu's lawyer: "Why was the most important witness Huang Genghui (who had been jailed and tortured) not allowed to show up today to testify? Should she testify in person, the matter can be made clear."

The judge, "Objection is already effective. Move on to the next fact!"

The prosecutor also accused Gu and other contact people of inciting Falun Gong practitioners to "besiege" the office of the Chongqing Evening Newspaper to defend Falun Dafa, and during the 1999 spring festival, inciting and organizing Falun Gong practitioners to go to some religious sites to spread Falun Gong.

The court had not sentenced Gu yet when this article was written.

[Provided by Chongqing Falun Gong practitioners. November 24, 1999.]