New interpretations for the procedure of second instance for the death penalty issued on Monday suggest that more concerns for procedural justice are making a dent in the country's judicial practice, and its importance for the realization of judicial justice itself is gaining acceptance.

Since the criminal law stipulates that an open trial can be omitted when all relevant facts of the first instance trial are clear, many second trials of death-penalty convictions used to be processed by several judges who just went through the relevant documents to make sure the conviction of first instance was correct.

The new interpretations require that an open trial must be held when the defendant appeals, the prosecutor protests or defendant sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve provides new evidence that affects the conviction.

In essence, this new requirement dictates that nearly all death penalty cases of second instance must be processed in open trial, which may make the judicial process more transparent.

And only in such a transparent trial can the rights of a defendant be guaranteed fully.

The verdict for the second-instance trial must contain the opinion of the prosecutor, the argument of the defendant and the major view of the defending lawyer, and tell which of these the court has adopted or rejected and why, according to the interpretations.

This ensures that judicial justice could materialize by following the strict required procedure: a defendant must be allowed to defend himself and the defending lawyers must be permitted to defend their clients.

The interpretations also have detailed procedures that courts and prosecutors must follow in making preparations for the trial, including the interrogation of a defendant, the examination of evidence by relevant parties, the identification of evidence and so on.

Deserving attention is a stipulation that the same level prosecution institutions must send prosecutors to attend the second trial to oversee whether it follows proper judicial procedure.

Should the prosecutors find any violation of procedure, they have the right to tell the court to mend its mistake.

If the verdict has meted out a sentence either lighter or more severe than the crime deserves, a second instance trial must be held to straighten out this case. This reflects the spirit of the law that penalties must be meted out in accordance with fact and evidence.

The more detailed the procedure is, the more possible it is for a court to avoid loopholes and unfairness in its trial. This is where the significance of procedural justice lies.

It is also just what these interpretations are striving for and intend to add to the judicial system, in which prudence and procedural justice will render due penalties for criminal offences.

(China Daily September 27, 2006)