A/HRC/7/3/Add.1 page 44 Para Country Date Type Mandate Allegations transmitted Government response whereabouts until 3 December 2006. Previously, it is alleged that Mr. Chen Guanghe was detained and tortured before the first trial by members of the Yinan police in order to procure a false confession and to testify against Mr. Chen Guangcheng. He was convicted on the basis of the false confession but granted a suspended sentence. It is feared that his recent detention may be related to the fact that that he has submitted written testimony stating that his prior evidence had been coerced through torture. Members of Chen Guangcheng’s defence team have also been harassed, including his lawyers Mr. Li Jinsong, Mr. Li Fangping and Dr. Teng Biao. The two lawyers were apparently prevented from interviewing witnesses and obtaining further evidence for the retrial. On 27 November 2006, as the trial was taking place, Dr Teng Biao was detained for five hours during which he was pushed to the ground by six or seven policemen who held him down while they searched him. They also apparently searched his bags and computer and confiscated his mobile phone. property; it found further that Chen, with the aim of influencing and exerting pressure on the Government, had assembled a mob in order to block the flow of traffic, that the circumstances of his offence had been particularly serious, that he had been responsible for organizing the process of assembling a mob to block traffic, that he had directed the operation and had served as the ringleader and that his conduct had therefore constituted the offence of assembling a mob for the purpose of disrupting traffic. As the original court judgement had been based on clear facts, the conviction had been correct, the sentence had been commensurate with the offence and the trial proceedings had followed due process, the court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the original judgement should stand. This ruling was published on 12 January 2007. During the proceedings at second instance, the court also heard the views of Chen’s defence counsel and, in accordance with the applicable evidence, found that the facts set out in the accusation by the procuratorial authorities and the charges brought against the defendant were sound and accordingly handed down the judgement referred to above. In their conduct of the proceedings against Chen, the public security authorities fully upheld his rights in litigation and those of his family members, acted in strict compliance with the law and applied the law in a civilized manner. The proceedings in this case were all conducted in accordance with the law, the facts underlying the court’s judgement were clear, the evidence was ample and