Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T12:41:01.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

People's Republic of China Case Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

Diplomatic envoysprivileges and immunitiescharge of espionageexpulsion of member of diplomatic staff
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 205
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1968 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The court's decision does not mention under what provisions of Communist Chinese law the accused was sentenced. It appears that the accused was violating Art. 6 of the “ Act for Punishment of Counter-revolution,'’ promulgated by the People's Republic of China on Feb. 21, 1951. Art. 6 provides: “Those who engage in any one of the following acts of espionage or of aiding the enemy shall be punished by death or life imprisonment; where the circumstances of their cases are relatively minor, they shall be punished by not less than five years of imprisonment: (1) Stealing or searching for state secrets or supplying intelligence to a domestic or foreign enemy… . “ Under Art. 16 of the same Act, Art. 6 could be analogically applied to the crime with which Raghunath was charged. Art. 16 provides: “Those who, with a counter-revolutionary purpose, commit crimes not covered by the provisions of this Act may be given punishments prescribed for crimes enumerated in this Act which are comparable to the crime committed.“

2 On June 13, 1967, Vice Foreign Minister Han Nien-lung informed the Indian charge d'affaires ad interim at Peking of the court's decision and is reported to have said that “ … the criminal K. Raghunath must leave China under the escort of Chinese public security personnel and Bed Guards in strict accordance with the designated time and route.” People's Daily, June 14, 1967. Raghunath left China on June 15. Ibid., June 16, 1967.