Previous 2 / 6 Next

相关案例－［第1220号］依斯坎达尔·艾海提等组织、领导、... 2 of 6 http://www.drxsfd.com/xf/houtai/xx_anli_sj.asp?bh=3457 亚孜多次为组织提供资金支持；玉山·买买提邀约吐尔洪·托合尼亚孜、玉苏甫·牙森加入组织。因非法出境未逞，2014年2月24日至26日，依斯坎达尔·艾海提、吐尔洪·托合尼亚孜、玉山·买买提、阿尔米亚·吐尔逊、艾合买提·阿比提、盲沙尔·沙塔尔和阿卜杜热伊木·库尔班、帕提古丽·托合提在云南省个旧市沙甸区热孜曼理发店，多次共谋、组织策划在人员密集的昆明火车站或者个旧火车站以用刀杀人的方式实施暴力恐怖活动，吐尔洪·托合尼亚孜出资购买了10余把长、短刀，依斯坎达尔·艾海提、吐尔洪·托合尼亚孜、玉山·买买提等人验看了刀具，帕提古丽·托合提等人制作了两面暴恐旗帜。 2014年2月27日，依斯坎达尔·艾海提、吐尔洪·托合尼亚孜、玉山·买买提因涉嫌偷越国境在沙甸被抓获。3月1日中午，因联系不上依斯坎达尔·艾海提等人，阿卜杜热伊木·库尔班、艾合买提·阿比提、帕提古丽·托合提、阿尔米亚·吐尔逊、盲沙尔·沙塔尔商定即日按原计划在昆明火车站实施暴力恐怖活动。17时30分许，5人携带作案工具，租车从沙甸出发，20时30分许到达昆明火车站。21时12分许，5 人持刀从火车站临时候车区开始，经站前广场、第二售票区、售票大厅、小件寄存处等地，打出暴恐旗帜，肆意砍杀无辜群众，致31人死亡，141人受伤，其中40人系重伤。因抗拒抓捕，帕��古丽·托合提被民警开枪击伤并抓获，其余4人被民警当场击毙。昆明市中级人民法院认为，被告人依斯坎达尔·艾海提、吐尔洪·托合尼亚孜、玉山·买买提受宗教极端思想影响，成立暴力恐怖组织，并预谋、策划在人员密集场所实施杀人恐怖活动，其行为构成组织、领导恐怖组织罪，故意杀人罪，依法应当数罪并罚。依斯坎达尔·艾海提、玉山·买买提邀约他人参加恐怖组织，吐尔洪·托合尼亚孜多次提供资金用于恐怖组织活动，3被告人组织、策划在人员密集场所实施杀人的暴力恐怖活动，均系恐怖组织的组织、领导者；3被告人在被公安机关抓获后，明知其组织成员即将实施杀人恐怖活动，拒不供述犯罪事实，积极追求暴恐犯罪目的的实现，应对恐怖组织所犯全部罪行承担责任。被告人帕提古丽·托合提受宗教极端思想影响，积极参加恐怖组织，按照安排具体实施杀人行为，其行为构成参加恐怖组织罪、故意杀人罪，依法应当数罪并罚。4被告人犯罪情节特别恶劣，犯罪后果特别严重，造成社会影响极坏，应依法严惩。帕提古丽·托合提在羁押时已怀孕，依法不应适用死刑。据此，依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百三十二条、第一百二十条、第二十五条第一款、第二十六条、第四十八条、第四十九条第一款、第五十七条第一款、第六十九条、第六十四条之规定，判决如下： 1．被告人依斯坎达尔·艾海提犯故意杀人罪，判处死刑，剥夺政治权利终身；犯组织、领导恐怖组织罪，判处无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身；决定执行死刑，剥夺政治权利终身。 2．被告人吐尔洪·托合尼亚孜犯故意杀人罪，判处死刑，剥夺政治权利终身；犯组织、领导恐怖组织 27/02/2025, 12:18

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Iskender Ehet (依斯坎达尔·艾海提)

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

China

Nationalities

Chinese

Case Title: Iskender Ehet et al. – Organising, Leading, and Participating in a Terrorist Organisation, Intentional Homicide Case (“3·01” Kunming Station Incident)

Age at Offence: 22

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Islam

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Minorities: Ethnicity
Minorities: Religion

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 35.8617

Longitude: 104.1954

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): China

Contributing TRP Partner

The Rights Practice (United Kingdom)
The Rights Practice Partner (China)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Executed

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2014

Method of Execution: Unknown

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to fair hearing by impartial, independent tribunal

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims
Terrorism / Threat to National Security

Case Background (300 words max): On March 1, 2014, a knife attack occurred at Kunming Railway Station, left 31 dead and 141 injured. Police killed five attackers on the spot and arrested one. The attack was shortly classified as terrorist attack. The defendant was detained two days earlier for illegal border crossing and was held as the principal of the attack despite not directly participating. Ultimately, the defendant, along with two other co-defendants, were sentenced to death on 12 September 2014, and executed on 24 March 2015 upon the approval by the Supreme People’s Court. According to official reports, court-appointed interpreters ensured the defendants could use their native language during the trial, and state-appointed lawyers provided their defence. The case occurred amid escalating ethnic tensions and is regarded as a turning point in China’s national counter-terrorism policy and the ongoing crackdown in Xinjiang. In 2009, a factory dispute in Guangdong led to Uyghur worker injuries, sparking the “July 5 Incident” in Urumqi and escalating ethnic tensions. From 2012 to 2014, China linked several attacks to Uyghur separatists, with Kunming being the deadliest, and had executed 13 individuals in 2014. In response, the government launched a nationwide anti-terror campaign, including a year-long crackdown in Xinjiang, later institutionalized.

The court ruling was not publicly available. Therefore, the case brief is based on information reported by state media disclosed, and an analysis of the verdict by a judge served at the Supreme People’s Court, both of which failed to provide information on the evidence. The analysis, although non-binding, serves as a reference for judges in convicting terrorist organisation members and applying the death penalty in terrorism cases.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): The defence arguments remained unavailable, as neither official announcement or judge’s analysis provide information on defence arguments.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): The court found the defendant, influenced by religious extremism, had formed a terrorist group, recruited members, disseminated extremist content, and planned the attack along with other co-perpetrators.

As the court ruled, after being detained on 27 February, two days before the attack, he refused to disclose information, actively pursuing terrorist objectives. As the organiser and leader of the terrorist organisation, Ehet played a key role of organising and leading the attacks.

The Defendant's offence of intentional homicide met the criteria for a death sentence. His role in organising and leading the terrorist organisation, along with the deadly consequences of the attack, further aggravated the seriousness of his convictions. As he demonstrated deep criminal intent, posed significant harm to society, and committed crimes of extreme severity, the court sentenced him to death. Therefore, he should be held responsible as one of the organisers, despite not directly participating in the attack.

Legal Representation Received

Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown
Second Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s)

Article 232(Intentional Homicide), and Article 120 ( Organising, Leading Terrorist Organisations) of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.