从今年3月开始，“法轮功”开始炒作所谓“苏家屯集中营”谣言，声称几千名法轮功练习者被关押在中国辽宁沈阳苏家屯区一家医院中，他们中的多数被活体摘除器官后焚尸灭迹。随后，中国政府、美国驻华使馆和一些境内外媒体都进行了调查或了解，证实这是一个彻头彻尾的谎言。“苏家屯谣言”被揭穿后，“法轮功”开始转移造谣重点，称中国其他地区有大量所谓“活体摘除器官”现象，“法轮功”以及加拿大反华分子大卫·乔高和大卫·麦塔斯采用道听途说、凭空猜测、移花接木、恶意编造等手段炮制了一篇耸人听闻的“调查报告”，报告信奉“谎言重复千变就会变成真理”的逻辑，意图通过攻击中国政府及有关医疗结构，达到其不可告人的政治目的。对此，中国政府予以严正驳斥。
一、报告中所使用的“证据”不符合证据的基本规范，甚至是胡编乱造，根本不能证实所谓的“指控”
（一）整篇报告中，证据的取得方式使得其赖以指控的材料根本不符合证据的基本要求，从而也无法达到想要确证的效果。
我们看到，该报告中所有的证据大体可以分为两类，一部分是其所谓的调查所取得的证人证言或者录音证据。对于证人证言，报告没有提供一个证人的确切姓名、身份、住址和联系方式以及取得证言的时间、地点、程序和见证人等，可以说，所有的证人证言都是无法查证的，这根本就不是规范意义上的证人证言，无非是想借别人之口说作者自己想说的话而已。录音证据也存在同样的问题，这些电话调查的基本程序和规范在报告中没有任何体现，何况录音证据本身的真实性和客观性就是个问题。另一部分所谓的证据是作者从网站下载的资料或通过其他连作者也说不清的途径得到的资料。其中主要的是一些医疗机构网站对器官移植的说明或承诺，我们注意到，所有这些网站的内容现在都无法核实。此外，这些网上信息只是表明了这些医疗机构开展器官移植的种类、数量和价格等信息，由这些内容直接或者间接推断得出所谓的指控都是极其荒谬的；还有一些是网民在网上的留言。这些都是网民的个人感情表达，都无法确定发言者的身份。就连这些内容本身在网络上都已经无从考证，更无法保证其所描述内容的准确性，显然是不能作为指控的证据材料来使用的。
由于所有的所谓“证据”都无法确证，有些内容甚至连作者自己也说不清楚来源和出处，更无法达到证明的效果，所以在通篇报告中，作者也只能含糊其辞，广泛使用“可能”、“据说”、“如果”等模糊语言来搪塞，偏离了一个法律职业人最起码的严谨准则。比如：
在整篇报告中，作者凡涉及到的数字或引文都是含糊其辞，鲜有明确出处和来源，作者也都是用这样的材料来作为据以指控的证据，不足为信。例如：“截止2001年四月，约有83万被确定为法轮功信徒的人员被捕”；“截止2006年12月22日，我们已确认有3006名法轮功练习者被迫害至死”；“此类人数约为300名”；“至少有98%的移植器官并非来自于自愿捐赠者”；“据公开报道，1999年前中国共进行了约30000例器官移植……”；“其他已经证实的移植来源，包括自愿捐献者以及脑死亡病人的数量一直是很少的。2005年，活体肾移植的数量占器官移植总数的0.5%”。所有这些数字都没有表明出处，统计对比前后矛盾，毫无真实性可言。
（二）该份报告不遵守起码的逻辑推理规则，颠倒黑白，混淆是非，根本不能证实其指控。
在报告中，两位作者带有极其明显的感情色彩，这种强烈的感情色彩甚至压倒了作为法律人或者独立调查人员应有的理智，使得他们用错误的前提，通过错误的推理，得出了错误的结论。比如：
第3页，“根据中国自己的宪法，中国是由共产党统治的，而不是依法律治理”。这完全是颠倒黑白，故意混淆了政党制度和国家治理的概念，执政党的领导和依法治国是并行不悖的。中国宪法1999年修正案明确规定：“中华人民共和国实行依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家。”2004年，中国再次修改了宪法，增补了保障人权和公民合法的私有财产等条款。经过20多年的不懈努力，中国全国人大及其常委会已经制定了400多部法律和有关法律问题的决定，国务院颁布了近900个行政法规，已经初步形成了以宪法为核心的中国特色社会主义法律体系。与此同时，中国政府大力推进依法行政，建设法治政府。公务员依法行政能力不断提高。中国的司法机关依照宪法和法律的规定独立行使职权，努力实现和维护司法公正。
在报告第8页，两位作者也运用同样荒谬的逻辑，通过对比中国与几个国家或地区器官移植的等待时间得出了“这只能说明他们存在一个巨大的活体捐献者储存库”的结论。这里既没有说明中国的移植等待时间是从哪里来的数据，也没有说明其他国家等待时间的来源，甚至没有表明等待时间的概念和起止点，按照这个逻辑，如果加拿大某家医疗机构在更短的时间内为病人进行了器官移植，是不是就表明加拿大有一个更巨大的活体捐赠者储存库？
中国至今没有人体器官分配协调管理机构以及网络体系，也没有活体器官库，将来也不会建立活体器官库。目前，器官获得和手术实施均由医疗机构完成。为了提高有限器官资源的利用效率，在借鉴国际通行做法的基础上，中国有关部门正在抓紧制定人体器官移植管理法规，研究、探索建立人体器官调配体系，并采用与世界卫生组织、美国、欧盟等相一致的调配原则。
（三）报告中所列举的具体事例，根本不具有可信性，更无法用以证实其所谓的指控。
为了达到作者想象的效果，报告特意安排了相关具体事例，以表明其报告的结论是有事实依据的。但只要稍加分析和斟酌就会发现，报告中的具体事例逻辑混乱，违背常理，不堪一击。比如：
两作者用以支持其整个指控的最为核心和关键的证据是来自一位女士对其丈夫从事眼角膜移植手术的描述。我们注意到，在这个事例中：首先，无疑两位报告人是直接接触了这位证人，但是这位证人的详细情况却没有任何透露，甚至连姓名都用了化名，到底有没有这个人，这个人现在在何处，其基本情况等在报告中未作任何提及，让人怀疑其真实性和客观性。
其次，报告中这位证人的丈夫说，“没有一位角膜捐献者可以存活下来，因为其他医生还要摘除他们身上其他重要的器官，然后再将其掩埋”，而报告后面又写到“许多种移植手术的捐赠者术后仍能生存，……这些依旧生存的捐献人现在在哪里？”，显然，在这里，证人的证言和作者自己的结论本身就是矛盾的。
第三，这个事例并不新鲜，其实是“法轮功”散布“苏家屯集中营谣言”时使用的一个所谓“证据”。去年3月份“法轮功”抛出所谓“苏家屯集中营”谣言后，经过境内外媒体、有关国家驻华使领馆和中国政府的调查和了解，所谓的“苏家屯集中营”已经被证明是“法轮功”蓄意编造的一个彻头彻尾的谎言。美国国务院发言人都已经表明经过调查，“法轮功”指控的“辽宁沈阳苏家屯血栓病医院”只是一家普通的专科医院，所谓的“苏家屯集中营”不存在。现在报告的两位作者又把这个谎言拿出来作为所谓“证据”，不知用意何在？
纵观整个报告，作者所列举的其他事例也存在上述问题。
（四）对报告中提及的几处所谓“证据”的了解情况。
1．报告第26页称，“南宁民族医院的卢医生5月份称，他所在的医院并没有‘法轮功’练习者，而建议打电话去广州询问，他还承认，他早些时候去监狱挑选了一些30多岁的健康的‘法轮功’成员以提供器官。”
经与广西壮族自治区民族医院卢国平医生核实，卢医生的确在2006年五六月间接到一位陌生女性的电话，说她有一亲属患肾脏疾病急需换肾，听说民族医院曾经做过换肾手术。卢回答：我院曾经在外院指导下完成一例肾移植病例，但我当时正在别的科室轮转，并未参与这唯一一例的器官移植手术。该女性问：肾源是从“法轮功”练习者身上摘去的吗？卢回答：本人当时刚参加工作也不在相关的科室，并不清楚肾的来源。此后该女性多次打电话给卢，反复询问肾的来源是否与“法轮功”练习者有关，卢均表示不清楚，并把一个在广州中山大学从事器官移植工作的同学的电话留给她。
因此，该报告中所谓“卢去监狱挑选‘法轮功’人员器官”的指控是作者为了实现特定的目的而蓄意捏造。
2．报告第22页：“中国医学器官移植协会副会长石炳毅说，截至2005年器官移植总数为90000例，这表明自从对‘法轮功’练习者的迫害开始后的六年里（2000年至2005年）共进行了60000个器官移植。”
中华医学会器官移植学分会副会长石炳毅教授已经在2007年1月份接受BBC采访时澄清：没有在任何场合说过这些话，也不知道这些数字；对报告作者的蓄意编造，他表示强烈抗议。
（一）报告中所称中国政府通过劳教机关随意“绑架”、关押“法轮功”人员的情况纯属捏造。
中国的劳动教养制度是根据1957年全国人大常委会第78次会议批准颁布的《关于劳动教养问题的决定》以及有关法律、法规建立的。依据这些法律法规，劳动教养不是刑事处罚，而是为维护社会治安，预防和减少犯罪，对轻微违法犯罪人员实行的一种强制性教育改造的行政措施。目前，劳教所中主要收容的是犯有盗窃、诈骗、赌博、聚众斗殴、寻衅滋事等扰乱社会治安秩序行为和重复吸毒的违法人员，没有单纯因为练习“法轮功”而被决定劳动教养的。
根据中国有关法律法规，对有违法或轻微犯罪行为而又符合劳动教养条件的人决定劳动教养，是要依照严格的法定程序进行的，即必须由省（区、市）和大中城市人民政府下设的劳动教养管理委员会审查批准，由司法行政部门的劳动教养管理所依法收容并进行教育矫治。被决定劳动教养的人如果对决定不服，可以在接到《劳动教养决定书》后的法定时限内，依照《行政复议法》提出申诉，请求复议；也可以依据《行政诉讼法》向人民法院提起行政诉讼，由人民法院审理裁定。提起诉讼的被劳动教养人可以请律师辩护。因此，报告中所称中国政府通过劳教机关随意“绑架”、关押“法轮功”人员的情况纯属捏造。
（二）报告中所称的中国的劳教所无视、甚至任意侵害被劳教的“法轮功”人员合法权益的现象不符合事实。
劳教所依法保护劳动教养人员的合法权益。根据中国的法律法规，劳教人员可以依法行使选举权，人格尊严不受侮辱，人身不受体罚和虐待，个人合法财产不受侵犯；家属可以经常来所探视，劳教所可以提供住处允许劳教人员夫妇同居；家里有特殊情况的劳教人员，经批准可以回家探视或休假；劳教人员对劳动教养管理所的工作有提出批评、建议的权利，对劳教所及其工作人员的违法、失职行为有提出申诉、控告和检举的权利等。一直以来，对于被劳动教养的人员，劳教机关始终坚持执行教育挽救的基本政策，依法保护他们的合法权益，并在实际执行中充分运用减期、所外执行、提前解教等法律手段，最大限度的教育挽救他们。广大劳教人民警察认真贯彻“教育、感化、挽救”的劳教工作方针，对劳教人员做到像老师对待学生、父母对待子女、医生对待病人那样，充分尊重他们的人格，并对他们进行法制和文化教育。在劳教所的帮助下，绝大多数因扰乱社会秩序而被劳动教养的人员认识到了自己行为是错误的，给国家和社会造成了危害，从而重新回到了正常人的生活轨道上。他们满怀着对政府的感激之情，很多人还积极、主动地协助政府做转化工作，以实际行动回报社会。因此，报告中所称的中国的劳教所无视、甚至任意侵害被劳教的“法轮功”人员合法权益的现象不符合事实。
（三）报告所称劳教警察拷打折磨致死大量“法轮功”人员、甚至对“法轮功”人员进行活体器官摘除纯属恶意捏造。
中国的劳动教养机关一直在致力于公正文明执法，严格禁止打骂、体罚、虐待劳教人员的现象发生，中国的法律法规对警察权力的行使有明确规定，劳教人民警察的各项工作都是严格依据这些法律法规进行的。同时，为保证劳教人民警察公正执法、文明执法，切实保障劳教人员的合法权益，劳教工作的主管机关对劳教人民警察有严格的要求和纪律约束。劳教人民警察必须具有较高的文化素养和一定的专业知识，从事劳教工作前要接受岗位培训，掌握劳教工作法规和有关业务知识，工作期间还要定期进行业务培训，以适应工作需要。同时，《中华人民共和国刑法》、《中华人民共和国人民警察法》以及国务院《劳动教养试行办法》等法律、法规中均规定，严禁打骂、体罚、虐待劳教人员，对违法者要追究其行政责任，严重的还要追究刑事责任。这些法律规定在实际工作中都得到了有效的执行。报告上所称的劳教警察拷打折磨致死大量“法轮功”人员、甚至对“法轮功”人员进行活体器官摘除的事件，纯属无中生有的恶意捏造。
（四）报告中所称的劳教所秘密处置被劳教的“法轮功”人员的情况纯属捏造。
劳教所的全部执法活动都受到法律和社会各界的监督。根据中国的有关法律法规，各级劳动教养管理委员会在审查和决定劳动教养时，要严格遵循法定的制度和程序，接受人民检察院的监督；同时，人民检察院在劳教所设立驻所检察室，对劳教所的执法活动进行监督。近年来，全国劳动教养机关全面推行了所务公开活动，通过多种途径将劳动教养工作的执法依据、程序、相关规定和执法结果向劳教人员及其家属以及社会各界公示，自觉接受社会监督。在此基础上，劳动教养机关又开展了“规范执法行为、促进执法公正”专项活动，并将保障劳教人员的合法权益作为这项工作的首要任务，认真检查、严厉查处一切侵害劳教人员合法权利的案件，收到了良好效果，干警的执法意识和水平有了进一步提高，劳教人员的合法权益得到了充分的保障。上述措施的施行，保证了劳动教养执法工作的公平、公正和文明，报告中所称的劳教所秘密处置被劳教的“法轮功”人员的情况纯属捏造。
监狱机关严格依照我国法律认真开展“法轮功”罪犯的收押、收容、管理和教育转化工作，确保了监狱的持续安全稳定，有效杜绝了殴打、体罚、虐待“法轮功”罪犯事件发生。报告中提到的“在中国监狱中，大多数政治犯都是‘法轮功’练习者”的说法是毫无根据的，因为中国刑法各项罪名中根本没有“政治犯”的说法。另外其提到的“该报告称，估计在羁押期间死亡的法轮功练习者的人数可达成百上千名”，也没有任何的事实依据。其报告附录中第二个电话摘要（广西自治区南宁民族医院）中卢博士所称以前进行器官移植使用的器官来自广州监狱系统的法轮功练习者，这种说法纯属捏造，因为广州的任何监狱都没有和借用大学名义的研究所进行这方面的合作（这也是法律所不允许的），其所提到的医生到监狱挑选器官更是与监狱的严格的执法程序相悖，是十分荒谬的。
（注：文中提及的页码均为报告中文译本的页码）
该报告立足于“法轮功”邪教立场，不正视事实，借用一些医疗机构在因特网上的夸大宣传和所谓的“电话调查”，得出一些没有任何事实根据的推断。该报告缺乏起码的中立性、客观性和准确性。
例如，报告中提出中国在1971年和2001年间，有4万多例肾脏器官的捐赠。据我们了解，主管中国医疗机构的卫生部从来没有做过相关统计，不知这个数字从何而来？显然，这个数据是编造的，连报告作者也说不出该数字的来源。再如：该报告所谓“网上罪证”中对交通大学医院肝脏移植中心指控的证据竟然来自搜狐网站上的一个帖子！这个所谓的调查报告还有什么可信度？
器官来源不足是各国普遍存在的、影响器官移植发展的重要制约因素。解决供体来源不足的问题，各国通行的做法是一方面加强社会宣传，动员社会人群自愿捐赠器官，另一方面实施亲属间活体器官捐献和移植。中国的做法也不例外，一方面通过宣传动员人们自愿捐赠器官，同时把捐赠的途径和方式告知公众；另一方面实施亲属间活体器官捐献和移植，但是予以严格限制，即活体器官捐献的公民必须年满18周岁，具有完全民事行为能力，活体器官的接收人限定为捐献人的配偶、直系血亲或者三代以内旁系血亲。
四、中国政府在器官移植方面的政策和立场
中国《人体器官移植条例》已经于2007年3月21日在国务院第171次常务会议上通过，并于2007年5月1日起实施。日前，卫生部副部长黄洁夫就《人体器官移植条例》的贯彻实施接受了有关媒体的采访,请通过以下链接浏览采访实录内容：http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2007-05/08/content_607932.htm
中国驻新加坡大使馆 2007/06/28
China refutes so-called report on harvesting organs live by Canadian anti-Chinese men
From March of this year, Falun Gong began to hype the rumor of so called "concentration camp in Sujiatun" and claimed that several thousands of Falun Gong practitioners were held in custody in a hospital of Sujiatun district in Shenyang City, Liaoning Province, and most of them were killed and burned to nothing after their organs were harvested alive. Subsequently, Chinese government, American embassy in China and some domestic and foreign media investigated the accusation and confirmed that it was an arrant lie. After the "rumor of Sujiatun" was debunked, Falun Gong began to shift the focus of rumor, claiming that there were a lot of "harvesting organs alive" incidents in many other regions of China. By using the tricks such as hearsay, guessing without foundation, grafting one twig on another, drawing up, Falun Gong and Canadian anti Chinese person David Kiguor and David Matas forged a horrible "investigation report". The report embraced the logic of "lie will become truth after repeating a thousand times", intended to achieve the secret political goal of Falun Gong by attacking Chinese government and the medical institution of China. Therefore, Chinese government solemnly refutes it.
I. The "evidences" used in the report do not accord with the general criterion of evidence; they are even forged ones, which can not prove the so called "accusation".
1. In the whole report, because of the way of obtaining the evidences, the based materials of the accusation don't accord with the basic requirements at all, so it can not make the accusation approved. We can find there are two kinds of evidences in the report. One is the so called testimonies of witnesses and recorded evidence through investigation. To the testimonies of witnesses, the report hasn't provided even one witness's exact name, identity, address and the way to contact him, and it hasn't provided the information about the time, location, program and eyewitness of the obtaining of those testimonies, which means that all the testimonies of witnesses can not be verified, and these are not the testimonies according with the criterion, it is no more than the authors want to speak out their own voice through the mouth of others. There are similar questions about the recorded evidences. The basic program and criterion of telephone investigation haven't shown up in the report, not even to say the verification and objectivity of recorded evidences are questionable. The other kind of so called evidences are the materials the author downloaded from websites or some other places even the authors themselves cannot tell. Most of these materials are the explanations and promises about organ transplants from the websites of some medical institutions. We have noticed that the content of all these websites cannot be verified right now. In addition, the information on line just shows the category, number and price about organ transplants held by these medical institutions, and the so called accusations deduced directly or indirectly are very ridiculous, and some of them are just the messages left on the net by some net users. These personal expressions of net users can not tell the identity of the writers. Even the content cannot be verified and no one can guarantee the veracity of it. Therefore, these contents should not be taken as the evidences materials for the accusations.
Since all the so called "evidences" cannot be verified, and even the authors themselves cannot tell the source of some contents, the so called evidences cannot prove anything. That's why in the whole report the authors uses vaguer words as much as possible, such as "probable", "it is said", "if", which do not accord with the elementary criterion of preciseness of law professionals. For example:
In the whole report, all the numbers and quotations are vague and have no exact sources, and these are the materials used by the authors as the evidences in support of their accusations, of course they are unconvincing. For example: "To April of 2001, about 830 thousand Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested", "to Dec. 22, 2006, we have confirmed there are 3006 Falun Gong practitioners who were persecuted to death", "the number of this kind of people is about 300", "at least 98% organs transplanted do not come from volunteer donators", "according to public reports, there were about 30 thousand organ transplanting cases in China before 1999……", "the other confirmed sources of organs transplanted, including volunteer donators and brain death patients, are always rare. In 2005, the number of live renal transplantation was about 0.5% of the total organ transplantations. All these figures do not indicate the sources and the statistics are contradictory, therefore they are unconvincing at all.
2. This report hasn't observed the elementary logic reasoning rule, calls white black and confounded right and wrong, and can not affirm its accusations. In the report, the two authors have very obvious personal sentiments, which overwhelm the intelligence they should have as law professionals or independent investigators, that's why they made a wrong conclusion with the wrong precondition and through the wrong reasoning. For example, in the third page, "according to Chinese constitution, China is ruled by the Communist party and not by the Law". They just want to call white black and intentionally confuse the concepts of party system and the governing of a country. However, the leadership of the ruling party is not contradictory with the governing according to the law. Amendment to the Chinese Constitution of 1999 prescribes clearly, "People's Republic of China is a socialist country ruling by law." In 2004, China amended the constitution once again and supplemented articles of safeguarding human rights and legal private properties of citizens. After unceasing hard work of more than 20 years, the People's Congress of China and its standing committee has established more than 400 laws and decisions concerning the problems of law, the State Department has issued nearly 900 administrative laws, and the socialist law system with Chinese characteristics with the core of the Constitution has come into being. At the same time, Chinese government vigorously promotes administration according to law and establish governments ruled by law. The civil servants' administrative ability according to law has greatly improved. The judicatory departments of China exercise its power independently according to the prescripts of Constitution and law, and try the best to achieve and maintain the judicial justice.
In the eighth page of the report, the two authors use the same ridiculous logic. Comparing the waiting time organ transplantation of China with other countries and regions, they conclude that "this will show that they have a huge storeroom of live donators". However, they don't explain where they get the statistics of waiting time of China and other countries; they even don't explain the concept, the starting and ending point of waiting time. According to their logic, if a Canadian medical institution make organ transplantation for a patient in a shorter time, then there is must a bigger storeroom of live donators in Canada.
Right now there is no institution supervising the distribution of human organs in China, and there is no live organ storeroom either, and we will not establish such kind of storeroom in the future. At present, the obtainment of organ and the operation are all handled by medical institutions. In order to improve the utilization efficiency of limited organ resource, the related departments of China is working out the managing law and regulation about human organ transplantation according to the international common measures. And try to establish a regulating system of human organs according with the regulating principle of WTO, United States and EU.
3. The examples listed in the report are unconvincing and can not be used to prove the so called accusations. In order to obtain the effect the authors want, the report lists related examples so as to show that the conclusion of the report is based on the reality. However, if you analyze and consider it, you will find the examples in the repot are illogical and irrational. For instance, the core and key evidence the two authors use to hold the whole accusation comes from a woman's description about the cornea transplantation operation of his husband. We have noticed that, in this example, there is no doubt that these two authors have contacted with this witness, but the detailed information about this witness is not disclosed, even the name is anonymous. Does this woman really exists and where is her now? The basic information about her is not mentioned in the report, which makes people to doubt the verification and objectivity.
Secondly, in the report the husband of the witness says, "None of the donors of cornea can survive, because other doctors will harvest other important organs in their bodies, and then their bodies will be buried". However, the reporter later writes that "many organ donors are still alive ……, where are they now?" Obviously, the testimony of the witness and the authors' conclusion are contradictory.
Thirdly, actually this example is not a fresh one, it is evidence used by Falun Gong when it spread the "rumor of Sujiatun camp". Last March, Falun Gong shot off the so called "Sujiatun camp" rumor, but after the investigation of domestic and foreign media, embassies of related countries in China and the Chinese government, the so called "Sujiatun camp" had been proved to be a lie forged by Falun Gong. The spokesman of American State Department had showed that, "Sujiatun hospital of thrombus in Shenyang City, Liaoning Province" accused by Falun Gong is just a common hospital; the so called "Sujiatun camp" does not exist. Now the two authors took out his lie as their so called "evidence", what is their intention?
Viewing the whole report, the other examples listed by the authors also have similar problems.
4. The investigations about several so called "evidences" mentioned in the report.
1) In the 26th page, the report claims, "Doctor Lu of Nanning nationality hospital said in May that there are no Falun Gong practitioners in his hospital and suggested them to call hospitals in Guangzhou. He also admitted that he had chosen some healthy Falun Gong practitioners above 30 years old in the prison earlier so as to provide organs."
After verifying the so called evidence with Doctor Lu Guoping from nationality hospital of Guangxi province, we found that doctor Lu do accepted a telephone call from a strange woman in May or June 2006; the woman said that one of her relatives was in dire need of changing his kidney and she heard that nationality hospital had made kidney transplantation operation before. Lu answered: "Our hospital once made kidney transplantation under the direction of another hospital, but I worked in another section office at that time and did not attend the only organ transplantation operation in our hospital." The woman asked: "The kidney was harvested from Falun Gong practitioners?" Lu answered: "at that time I hadn't worked for a long time, and did not work in the related section office, so I was not clear about the source." The woman called Lu several times after that and asked him whether the kidney was from Falun Gong practitioner, Lu said he was not clear every time, and left the telephone number of one of his classmates in college who was engaging in the work of organ transplantation in Zhongshan University in Guangzhou.
Therefore, the so called "Lu went to the prison and selected organs of Falun Gong practitioners" is just a forged accusation with the intention to achieve the authors' objective.
2) In the 22nd page, the report says, "the vice chairman of Chinese Transplantation Association Shi Bingyi said, up to 2005 the total number of organ transplantation is 90 thousand, which showed that in the six years after Falun Gong practitioners was firstly persecuted (2000 to 2005), there were totally 60 thousand organ transplantation."
When receiving the interview of BBC in January 2007, Professor Shi Bingyi had clarified that he did not say such words under any occasions and knew nothing about those numbers. He strongly protests the forging and compiling work done by the authors of the report.
II. About the labor rereeducation of China in the report.
1. In the report, the authors claim that Chinese government "abducts" and imprisons Falun Gong practitioners arbitrarily through the institution of labor reeducation, and such claim is totally forged.
The labor reeducation system of China was set up according to the "Decision about labor reeducation" issued by the Standing Committee of the People's Congress in the 78th meeting in 1957 and related laws and regulations. According to these laws and regulations, labor reeducation is not criminal penalty, but a kind of administrative measure of compulsive labor reeducation for those who just slightly break law so as to maintain the social security, prevent and reduce crimes. Right now, labor reeducation camp mainly takes in persons committing stealing, bluffing, gambling, affray, defiance and affray and other crimes of disturbing the social security, and it also takes in those who take drug repeatedly, and Falun Gong practitioners are not the only reason that they are sent to receive labor reeducation.
According to the related laws and regulation of China, the decision about labor reeducation must abide by the strict legal proceedings, that is, it should be censored and ratified by the supervising committee of labor reeducation under the government of cities and provinces, and the labor reeducation camp of judicial department will take in the people according with the condition and reeducate them. If one is not compliant about the decision, he or she has the right to lodge a complaint and ask for reconsideration according to Administrative Reconsideration Law within the legal time limit after receiving the "Decision of labor reeducation". Or he or she can institute administrative lawsuit according to "Administrative Procedure Law" and ask the People's court to judge. Those who institute a lawsuit have the right to employ a counsel. Therefore, Chinese government "abducts" and imprisons Falun Gong practitioners arbitrarily through the institution of labor reeducation mentioned in the report is completely forged.
2. The so called Chinese labor reeducation camp ignoring and even arbitrarily violating the legal rights of Falun Gong practitioners is unture.
Labor reeducation camp protects the legal rights of personals under reeducation through labor. According to laws and regulations of China, personals under reeducation have the right to vote, and their dignity should not be insulted, they should not be treated with corporal punishment and torture, their personal legal property should not be violated, their relatives have the right to visit them regularly, the camp should provide accommodation for couples under reeducation so that they can live together, personals with special situation in home may visit home or take a holiday after ratification, personals under reeducation have the right to criticize the work of labor reeducation camp and bring forward suggestions, and they also have the right to complaint, accuse and impeach the illegal and duty breaching activities of the staffs of labor reeducation camp. At all times, the labor reeducation institutions always persist in carrying out the basic policy of educating and saving the personals under labor reeducation and protect their rights according to law. In addition, labor reeducation institutions make full use of legal measures such as commutation of punishment, implementation outside the camp, releasing in advance so as to educate and save them furthest. Policemen worked in labor reeducation camps carefully carry out the reeducation guideline of "education, influence and retrieval" and their relationship with personals under reeducation is just like the relationship between teachers and students, parents and children, doctors and patients, they fully respect their dignity and educate them with law and culture. With the help of labor reeducation camp, most personals who was took in because they had disturbed the society security had realized their faultiness and the harm they brought to the country and the society, and they want to come back to their normal lives. With the appreciation to the government, some of them actively assist government in transforming work and return the society with practical actions. Therefore, the so called Chinese labor reeducation camp ignoring and even arbitrarily violating the legal rights of Falun Gong practitioners is unture.
3. The accusation of the policemen in labor reeducation camp torturing and killing a large amount of Falun Gong practitioners and even live harvesting organs of Falun Gong practitioners in the repot is forged.
Chinese labor reeducation institutions are always committing themselves to execute the law with equity and civilization, strictly forbidding beating and cursing, corporal punishment, torturing personals under reeducation. There are clear regulations to the power of policemen in Chinese law and regulation, and the work of policemen in labor reeducation camps strictly abide by the law and regulation. At the same time, in order to guarantee the equity and civilization of executing law of policemen of labor reeducation camps and protect the legal rights of personals under reeducation, the charging department of labor reeducation has made very strict requirements and discipline restricts to policemen of labor reeducation camps. Policemen of labor reeducation must have relatively good cultural diathesis and certain special knowledge, they must receive post training before taking the job of labor reeducation, master the law and regulation of labor reeducation and related operation knowledge, and they must receive regular operation training during their career so as to meet the needs of their work. At the same time, "The Criminal Law of People's Republic of China", "The Police Law of People's Republic of China" and "Measures of Labor Reeducation (For Trial Implementation)" and other laws and regulations have prescribed that, beating and cursing, corporal punishment and torturing are strictly forbidden, those who break the laws and regulations should take administrative responsibility and even criminal responsibility. These laws and regulations have been well implemented during the practical work. The accusation of the policemen in labor reeducation camp torturing and killing a large amount of Falun Gong practitioners and even live harvesting organs of Falun Gong practitioners in the repot is forged.
4. The so called labor reeducation camp secretly executing Falun Gong personal under reeducation is completely forged.
All the law executing activities of labor reeducation camp are under the supervision of law and the society. According to related laws and regulations of China, labor reeducation supervising committee of all levels must strictly observe the legal system and procedure when censoring and deciding labor reeducation cases and everything is under the supervision of People's Procuratorate. At the same time, People's Procuratorate sets up procuratorate office in labor reeducation camp, which is in charge of supervising the law executing activities of labor reeducation camp. In recent years, labor reeducation camps all over the country are carrying out activities of opening up the affairs handled by them, showing the law executing bases, procedures, related regulations and law executing results to the relatives of personals under reeducation and to the society through various ways, and receiving the social supervision self-consciously. Furthermore, labor reeducation institutions carry on a special activity of "regulating the law executing action, promoting the equity of law executing", and put the task of protecting legal rights of personals under reeducation as the primary task of this activity. Through the above measures, the equity, justice and civilization of law executing are ensured, the so called labor reeducation camp secretly executing Falun Gong personal under reeducation is completely forged.
III. About the issue of prison management of our country in the report.
The department of prison carries on detaining, taking in, administering, educating and transforming works about Falun Gong criminals strictly abiding by Chinese law, which ensures the persisting security and stability in prison and effectively puts an end to criminal incidents of beating, corporal punishing and torturing "Falun Gong" criminals. The so called "in Chinese prisons, most of the political prisoners are Falun Gong practitioners" in the repot is baseless, in the crimes list in Chinese criminal law, there is no 'political prisoner'. In addition, the so called "according to the report, it is estimated that the death roll of Falun Gong practitioners under custody reaches hundreds and thousands", it is also baseless. In the second telephone memorization (Nationality hospital of Nanning City, Guangxi Province) in the appendix of the report, the so called Docter Lu says the organs used in transplantation before came from Falun Gong practitioners in prisons of Guangzhou is totally forged, because no prison in Guangzhou has such kind of cooperation between any researching institutes in the name of some university (this is also forbidden by law), and the so called the doctor coming to prison and selecting organs is contradictory to the strict procedures of prison, so ridiculous.
This report is established in the position of the evil religion Falun Gong, it neglects the truth and by making use of some exaggerated propaganda in the net of some medical institutions and the so called "telephone investigation", it draws some conclusions without any real bases. This repot is short of elementary neutrality, objectivity and accuracy.
For instance, in the report it mentions that from 1971 to 2001, there are totally 40 thousand kidney donations in China. According to our understanding, the Ministry of Health in charging of Chinese medical institutions has not done such kind of calculation; we don't know where does this number come from? Obviously, this statistic is forged, even the authors of the report cannot tell the source of this number. In addition, the so called "evidence on the net" in the repot about the accusation to the liver transplantation center of Hospital of Jiaotong University actually comes from a post from the website of SOHU. How can we believe such kind of investigation report?
The insufficiency of organ sources is a ubiquitous and the most important restrictive factor of organ transplantation in every country. The usual method in every country to solve the problem of the insufficiency of organ is to enhance social propaganda and mobilize people to donate organs volunteer on the one hand, and implement live organ donation and transplantation between family members on the other hand. China has no exception, on the one hand, we mobilize people to donate organ volunteer, and implement live organ donation and transplantation between family members on the other hand. However, we have very strict limits, that is, the live organ donator should be a citizen above 18 and with full civil capacity, and the receiver of live organ is limited to the couple, direct consanguinity or indirect consanguinity within three generations of the donator.
IV. The policy and position of Chinese government about organ transplantation
"Regulation on Human Organ Transplantation" of China has got passed in the 171st meeting of standing committee of State Department on Mar.21, 2007 and came into effect since May 1, 2007. A few days ago, the vice minister of Ministry of Health Huang Jiefu received interview of related media on the implementation of "Regulation on Human Organ Transplantation", please browse the interview through following link: http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2007-05/08/content_607932.htm.
(Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Republic of Singapore, July 28, 2007)