For many who grew up believing that a murderer must pay with their life, the execution of Qiu Xinghua, a Shaanxi farmer who killed 11 people and seriously injured 2, was exactly what he deserved.

The way the killings were conducted was simply too gruesome to be recounted.

The merciless murders and robbery Qiu committed qualify him for capital punishment under the country's criminal law, provided he was not mentally ill.

Qiu's family and lawyer appealed for a judicial examination of his mental status, citing allegedly abnormal behavior.

The court refused the appeal, saying Qiu was in perfect mental health. Qiu was executed yesterday morning immediately after the High Court of Shaanxi Province, the second-instance trial court, ruled to uphold the first-instance court's verdict.

We are sorry that Qiu failed to live until the Supreme Court takes over the review and approval of all death sentences, which are now in the hands of local high courts, in three days' time.

We are sorry because the Shaanxi High Court may have missed an opportunity to set a precedent of milestone significance in Chinese criminal justice.

The jurisprudential importance of Qiu's case lies in the fact that it brought up an essential aspect of due process that had never been a topic of public interest.

The heated debates over whether or not a judicial examination should be done for Qiu are enlightening, because they bring into the limelight a less talked-about facet of the human rights guarantee. This guarantee is particularly important for someone facing a verdict of life or death.

Judges have every right to ignore the noises from outside the courtroom and make their own judgments. We want them to be independent.

Justice may have been done in Qiu's case. But it would be much better had it been seen to be done.

Qiu's execution left an essential question without a convincing answer was he or was he not mentally ill when he committed the murders? With Qiu gone, we will never know.

The court's judgment about Qiu's mental status failed to convince examination advocates. They are lamenting the judges' failure to present professional medical evidence for their statement.

Our current Criminal Procedure Law consigns the decision on whether a judicial examination of the judgment is necessary to the court. So the Shaanxi court does not have to feel guilty about denying the appeal for such a check.

But it would be a great bonus if it had more persuasive backup for the decision.

Law experts have actively involved themselves in the discourse, believing such a check may cement the notion of due process.

The case should have been a fine starting point for refining our judicial examination mechanism.

Let us hope that this debate does not evaporate in Qiu's absence.

(China Daily December 29, 2006)