Mr. Zheng hijacked the China Airline and was caught at the Fukuoka Airport on December 16, 1989. He was seeking political asylum to avoid prosecution for having participated in the Tinnamen Square Incident. When the justifiability of deportation of a man who sought political asylum should have been seriously addressed, the Japanese government stated to deport him back to China the same day he was arrested.
Once deported, he might have suffered torture, inhuman treatment, or even summary execution. His counsel took every legal measure conceivably possible, arguing that the deportation violated the principle of non-refoulement of political prisoners and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that prohibits torture and inhuman treatment. The measures included: attendance as defense counsel at meetings of the Extradition Review Board, application for the refugee status, administrative lawsuit for the retraction of non-recognition of the refugee status, administrative lawsuit for the retraction of the extradition order as well as suspension of its execution, and request for habeas corps.
Besides legal measures, the counsel also appealed to the UNHCR, UN Sub Commission on Human Rights, human rights groups inside and outside of Japan so that problems of this case be known to the public. The Chinese government sent a note verbale to the Japanese government, in which China promised that Mr. Zheng would be punished only on account of hijacking.
Despite various efforts made by the counsel, Mr. Zheng was handed over to the Chinese authority on April 28, 1990, and was sent back to China. On July 18, 1990, the Beijing People's Middle Court sentenced, only after two hours of trial, eight years in prison and two years of deprivation of political rights on account of endangering public transportation.
Meanwhile, there were two administrative lawsuits still pending in Japan which requested the retraction of extradition order and non-recognition of a refugee status. The counsel turned these cases, which lost the merit of an action, into national redress suits.
The Japanese government presented the court a document titled "my statement" written by Mr. Zheng which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs obtained from the Chinese government, which read to the effect that he had never asked for Japanese attorneys to file any lawsuits. Despite the counsel's argument that the statement did not represent his true thinking, the court declared on March 17, 1997, based on the statement, that the case was withdrawn by the plaintiff thus closed. In objection, the counsel applied for the designation of a trial date which was accepted by the court. class="footer"[Jinken Shinbun, May 25, 1997, No.306]
At any rate, the counsel needed to confirm the circumstances and true will of Mr. Zheng, and five members among the counsel, Junichi Ikeda, Masahiro Sumita, Makoto Kondo, Hiroyuki Abe, and I visited Beijing On September 5, 1998 to meet with him.
Mr. Zheng came to Beijing with his wife, children and relatives, and he looked quite fine. He said clearly that he was forced to write the document "My Statement" by the direction of a prison governor, and it was not based on his own will. He also said that he was completely free by now.
Having confirmed that Mr. Zheng was living safe and free, we proposed and he agreed to terminate the lawsuit as its biggest objective had been to ensure his safety.
On September 30, 1998, the counsel explained the court about the meeting with Mr. Zheng and withdrew the action. It is said that Mr. Zheng lived in the city, seven hours by train from Beijing, where he ran a restaurant and a hospital.
Finally the counsel would like to extend heartfelt gratitude for the support given by the JCLU, people who sent us donations, and human rights groups in and outside of Japan that cooperated with us.