The original Chinese article written by Teng Biao:
一、 《零八宪章》公布后几天内，北京市公安局传唤我，询问宪章签名的事情，他们最想知道的就是303人是如何协调行动的，背后有没有组织，这种思维非常可笑。 我谈了对08宪章的看法，大意是：宪法保障公民表达的自由，08宪章属于表达自由；它在很大程度反映了自由知识分子和民间的共识，不应该因言治罪。08宪 章不但没有任何社会危害性，反而有利于中国社会朝着健康的方向发展。签署过程，说的和判决书引用的一样。之后签了字。
四、刑事诉讼法第47条规定，“证人证言必须在法庭上经过公诉人、被害人和被告人、辩护人双方讯问、质证，听取各方证人的证言并且经过查实以后，才 能作为定案的根据。”最高人民法院《解释》第五十八条规定：“证据必须经过当庭出示、辨认、质证等法庭调查程序查证属实，否则不能作为定案的根据。”“对 于出庭作证的证人，必须在法庭上经过公诉人、被害人和被告人、辩护人等双方询问、质证，其证言经过审查确实的，才能作为定案的根据；未出庭证人的证言宣读 后经当庭查证属实的，可以作为定案的根据。”因此，引述我的证言而不让我出庭作证，是不能作为定案依据的。
五、其实，当局此种做法，并非想用我和他人的证言证明什么，而是他们惯用一种卑劣手段；他们想告诉公众的是：“你看，刘晓波的亲人、兄弟、战友都做 出了不利的证言，以此来混淆视听、制造矛盾、怨恨和分裂。这种事情，我代理刑事案件的过程中见得太多了。蔡卓华案，公安局在抓捕过程的记录里都说是某某亲 戚带着去找的。甘锦华案，故意混淆甘锦华妻子的证言所提到的事件，来暗示甘锦华有作案时间。胡佳案的判决书也提到我的证言，说我在海外的网站上看到了胡佳 的文章。他们想证明胡佳在海外发表了文章完全不需要这类证言，但就是要把我的证言掐头去尾，目的就是要让胡佳怨恨我，并企图在看到判决书的民众中隐隐约约 产生“滕彪人品不佳、没有骨气”的印象。嘿嘿，我都被气笑了。高瑜老师文中提到，“1993年审判我，安全局约我丈夫儿子谈话，让他们各写一份证言，说对 我会很有利，他们信以为真，各自为我做无罪证言。在要求之下还各自签了字。等判决书下来，竟然最后有一句话：‘有 xx证言为证。’一句证言未引。我丈夫气的去找预审吵架，已无任何作用。”当局公检法之龌龊荒唐，一至于此！
六、我没有在《“刘晓波一审判决书”证人严正声明》上面签字，至少和我自己有关的部分，《声明》与事实有所不符。我愿意相信是营救刘晓波心切，善意而为。 不过我觉得，目的不能证成手段，不能用谎言去回击谎言。我在广州市民抗议番禺垃圾焚烧项目时，和大家一起喊：“我们不要被代表！”这是喊给共产党听的，但 又何尝不是喊给争取自由的同仁们呢？
八、但我不仅仅是证人。刘晓波如果犯了罪，我就是“共犯”。作为08宪章的首批联署人，如果你们认定08宪章有罪，我要求承担同样的罪责。如果签署 和传播08宪章构成煽动颠覆国家政权，我也签署了，也传播了，而且还会继续传播。我要求分担刘晓波先生的苦难，因为这等于分享他的光荣。站在你们的被告席 上，住在你们的监狱里，不是我的耻辱。
The following is my English translation of Teng Biao’s article:
A Testimony about My Testimony
I find it necessary to say a few words about certain parts of the verdict that the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court has handed down for Liu Xiaobo’s case. The relevant section reads, “Testimonies from witnesses such as Xu Junliang, Zhi Xiaomin and Teng Biao prove that during the months from November to December 2008, their email boxes had received emails concerning Charter 08 from an unknown source. They signed and returned the Charter 08 document to the original sender.”
- A few days after the publishing of Charter 08, I was summoned to the Beijing Public Security Bureau to answer questions about my signature on the Charter. The line of interrogation focused on the method in which the 303 signatures were collected, as well as the organisation responsible for coordinating such action. I found this way of thinking rather amusing at the time. During the interrogation, I talked about my view on Charter 08. To summarise, what I said was: Our constitution protects the rights of citizens to freedom of speech, and Charter 08 is our way of exercising this right. It is unfair to criminalise us for speaking out because Charter 08, to a very large extent, represents a consensus among liberal intellectuals and civil society. Charter 08 is not harmful to society. On the contrary, it ensures the health of China’s future development. The signatures were collected in the same manner as stated on the verdict. Afterward I put down my signature.
- Now that I have read the verdict, I find it pathetic. What is it trying to prove? At no stage did I mention Liu Xiaobo during my interrogation. So my testimony could not be used as a valid proof that Liu Xiaobo had authored Charter 08. Nor could it be used to prove that Liu had forwarded a copy of Charter 08 to me for my signature. In other words, my testimony is totally unrelated to the case.
- During interrogation, I also mentioned that I had made a few suggestions to improve the draft of Charter 08. For instance, I suggested that certain sections in relation to environmental protection and social security should be deleted in order to maintain a focus on human rights and political infrastructure. What I implied was that Liu Xiaobo was not the only person responsible for drafting Charter 08. So it was not fair to target Liu Xiaobo alone for arrest. I indicated that I was also willing to bear the legal consequences for Charter 08. The Beijing Public Security Bureau has a full written record of these words of mine.
- Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates: “A witness’ testimony can only be included in a verdict after it has been verified through subjecting the witness to questioning and cross-examination in the court of justice by the victims and the prosecutors, as well as by the accused and their defence counsels.” Article 58 of the Supreme Court’s <Interpretation> of the Code also stipulates: “Evidence must be investigated and verified by the Court of Justice through a process of presenting, identifying and witness questioning before it can be used as a basis of a final verdict.” “A witness who attends the court of justice to give evidence must be subjected to questioning and cross-examination by the victims and the prosecutors, as well as by the accused and their defence counsels. Only testimonies verified in this manner can be used as a basis of a final verdict. Testimonies given by witnesses who do not attend the trial must be read aloud in court and must be verified by the court as true evidence before they can be used as a basis of a final verdict.” Hence my testimony cannot be used as the basis of a final verdict when I am not allowed to attend to give evidence in court.
- It is not the intention of the authorities to use our testimonies to prove Liu’s guilt. This is just a nasty habit of vilification. What they intend to say to the public is: “Have a look. All of Liu Xiaobo’s relatives, friends and comrades are giving testimonies against him.” Their intention is to mislead the public by creating contradictions, hatred and division. There is nothing novel about this tactic. I have witnessed many of such tactics in the criminal cases that I have handled. In Cai Zhuohua’s case, police records claimed that Cai’s arrest was instigated by his relatives. In Gan Jinhua’s case, Gan’s wife’s testimony was deliberately misquoted to justify prosecution’s claim that Gan had sufficient time to commit a crime. Hu Jia’s verdict also mentioned my testimony and it claimed that I had read Hu Jia’s articles at some overseas websites. There was no need to use my testimony to prove that Hu Jia had published online articles at overseas websites. My testimony was deliberately quoted out of context, with a hope that Hu Jia would blame me for his conviction. It was also intended to mislead the public so that those who read the verdict would have an impression that “Teng Biao is a crook who betrays his friends”. This is so pathetic. Gao Yu also had a similar experience: “In 1993 during my trial, the Security Bureau invited my husband and my son for a chat. They were each made to write a statement and were told that their testimonies will help me. They believed in what they were told and each made a statement to claim my innocence. They even put down their signature upon request. When the verdict was finally handed down, my husband discovered his testimony was mentioned but not quoted as evidence to prove my guilt. My husband went to confront the prosecution, but it was all too late.” This is the kind of corruption and absurdity we are facing with our public prosecution system.
- I did not sign the document titled <A Solemn Declaration from Witnesses Quoted in Liu Xiaobo’s Verdict>, on the basis that there were some factual discrepancies in the part of the <Declaration> that mentioned me. I believe that the declaration was issued out of a good intention to save Liu Xiaobo. However, the ends cannot justify the means. We cannot use lies to defeat lies. During our protest against the building of a rubbish incinerator at the city of Panyu, we joined other Guangzhou residents to proclaim, “We do not need to be represented!” We neither want to be represented by the Chinese Communist Party, nor by those who claim to be advocating freedom on our behalves.
- I have been listed as a witness. Because of that, the public prosecution and the court of appeal have an obligation to summon me to appear in court. To help them avoid making further procedural mistakes, I strongly demand to be summoned to appear in court in the second trial, so that I can be examined and cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defence.
- I am not just a witness. If Liu Xiaobo were guilty, I would be his “accomplice”. I am one of the first people who signed Charter 08. If Chinese authorities are determined to treat Charter 08 as illegal, I demand to be held responsible for breaking the law. If the signing and disseminating of Charter 08 did constitute inciting subversion of state power, I must admit my guilt in signing and disseminating the document, and for my intention to continue to do so in future. I therefore demand to share Liu Xiaobo’s suffering, so that I can also share his glory. I am not ashamed to stand trial as an accused in your law courts. I am not ashamed to be imprisoned in your jail.
Teng Biao 26 December 2009
Teng Biao’s article was first published at Boxun.
A copy of the judgement for Liu Xiaobo’s verdict can be found at the Freemorenew website.