Chapter 3. Evidence This chapter considers Safeguard Four which states that capital punishment can only be imposed when the guilt of the person is based on “clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for alternative explanation of facts”. We examine the situation in China and the overreliance on confessions in criminal convictions, often obtained through torture or ill treatment. The chapter also looks at the role of lawyers and witnesses, and issues with forensic evidence and examination in death penalty cases. In the final part of the chapter we examine the reluctance of the Supreme People’s Court to reconsider convictions and overturn a death sentence with immediate execution. International Law Although there is a lack of guidance in the jurisprudence on what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence” and on the use of expert witnesses under Safeguard Four, international jurisprudence indicates that a heightened burden of proof is required for death penalty cases under this Safeguard. At minimum, the Safeguard has been interpreted to affirm the presumption of innocence as contained in the ICCPR, article 14. Article 14 of the ICCPR also underlines the parties’ right to examine hostile witnesses as a significant element of fair trial, stipulating that “to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”. According to the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, Safeguard Four demands that, “Defendants must be presumed innocent until their guilt has been proven without leaving any room for reasonable doubt, in application of the highest standards for the gathering and assessment of evidence. All mitigating factors must be taken into account”. The report of the Special Rapporteur goes on to note that these standards must be applied to every case, even when a State’s laws generally comply with international standards for fair trials. In General Comment No. 36, the Human Rights Committee argues that the execution of a sentenced person whose guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt would constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life. States have an obligation to be open to the reconsideration of convictions in the light of new evidence, including new DNA evidence. The Committee also encourages states to consider the implications of studies that suggest the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the prevalence of false confessions. Chinese Law In Chinese law, there is no clear inclusion of the presumption of innocence. Official Chinese publications, however, acknowledge the principle of the presumption of innocence (e.g. ‘New Progress in the Judicial Protection of Human Rights in China’ 2016). The Criminal Procedure Law also goes some way to include the concept. Article 195 states that “the defendant cannot be found guilty for insufficient evidence”. This, combined with article 12 which states that “no one shall be found 27