In April 1996, a rape and murder occurred in a women's restroom in Inner Mongolia. Huugjilt discovered the scene with a colleague and immediately reported it to the police. Within 48 hours, the police identified Huugjilt as the suspect, citing evidence that included: (1) blood type samples from under Huugjilt’s fingernails matched those from the victim’s neck, though officers who first arrived at the scene reported no visible wounds; (2) Huugjilt "confessed" to the crime, but investigation records show he maintained his innocence up until a month before his execution, with signs of coercion in the confession process revealed in the records. His colleague, who reported the case and was also interrogated, recalled hearing Huugjilt’s cries of pain during interrogation. 44 days later, Huugjilt was sentenced to death for hooliganism and murder, and was executed 62 days after the crime.
In the mid-1990s, the death penalty was typically carried out by a firing squad, using a single gunshot. Public observation was occasionally permitted as a deterrent. However, the specific method of execution in this case remains unknown.
In 2005, a criminal suspect Zhao confessed to a 1996 murder, suspected to be the true perpetrator. Huugjilt's case was declared a miscarriage of justice by the local authority in 2006. His family pursued complaints since then. The case gained widespread attention from the academia and media. In 2014, the retrial was initiated. 18 years after his execution, Huugjilt was exonerated, receiving 2 million yuan of state compensation, and 27 officials involved were disciplined.
The case occurred during China’s nationwide "Strike Hard" campaign, highlighting the pattern of political pressure to resolve cases quickly. Legal reforms between 2012 and 2015 strengthened protections in line with international standards and established mechanisms for correcting wrongful convictions. The Huugjilt case was a landmark miscarriage of justice overturned.
Research shows most of the overturned miscarriage of justice cases targeted socially disadvantaged individuals, took place during the “Strike-Hard” campaign, often involving coerced confessions. Lawyers’ strategic advocacy and media scrutiny played key roles in reversing these injustices.