How can China address power interference in the administration of justice?

Theoretically, the prime ministers of the United States and Canada have no right to interfere with the judiciary and cannot let the judiciary release them. The judiciary won't listen because the U.S. judiciary is independent. But the Meng Wanzhou incident is not a legal issue, it is a political issue, arresting people in the name of judicial procedures, and then bargaining with China.

China's current Constitution

Article 126:People's courts exercise adjudication power independently in accordance with the provisions of law, and are not to be interfered with by administrative organs, social groups, or individuals.

Article 131: People's procuratorates exercise procuratorial power independently in accordance with the provisions of law, and are not subject to interference by administrative organs, social groups, or individuals.

I agree with the landlord, I don't think that the administrative organs can interfere with the acts of the judicial organs, from the literal meaning of the legal provisions, the judicial organs are responsible to the people's congress that produced them, and to the higher judicial organs (the upper and lower levels of the procuratorial organs are in a leadership relationship, and the lower levels are responsible for the city) The administrative organs have no right to interfere with the acts of the judicial organs (I mean judicial acts, if the procuratorate wants to apply for land to build a family building, then it is the administrative counterpart, of course, it is related to the administrative organs).

Judging from the pattern of the distribution of state power in our country, the administrative, procuratorial and judicial organs are all produced by the people's congress and are responsible to the people's congress, and of course they are all subject to the party's leadership, so the administrative organs and the judicial organs are theoretically at the same level. There is no question of who leads whom.

However, due to China's judicial tradition, since the Tang Dynasty, China's judicial organs are half a level lower than the administrative organs, and it can be seen from the famous "three divisions" system in the Tang Dynasty: at that time, the Criminal Department was the highest judicial organ, but every time there was a big case, it was often tried by Dali Siqing and the Criminal Department Shilang and Yushi Zhongcheng (note that the Criminal Department sent a deputy position, and the main position was the Criminal Department Shangshu, and the other two organs were all main positions).

According to China's current power structure, the head of China's judicial organs is also half a level lower than the local administrative head (for example, the president of the intermediate court and the chief procurator of the procuratorate of a city divided into districts are both at the deputy department level [deputy city level], while the local mayor is at the department level).

So that's my opinion.

Of course, you can't interfere, if you make a mistake, it's not right afterwards.

Even the higher judicial organs of the same system are limited to "interfering" with lower judicial organs, such as the courts enjoy independent adjudication power and are not subject to interference by any organ or unit, even the higher courts. But the necessary corrective procedures are needed, especially in a country like ours that focuses on substantive justice. Therefore, there is a second trial, and there is a provision for a retrial with no time limit.

I think so, because the title is lawful interference with the judiciary's illegal acts. Since it is legal, it should be possible.

I think it's very much a problem for the agency, and the prosecutor's office can intervene unless it's normal with nothing wrong with it.

The term judicial independence is commonly used in two senses:

First, in the structural sense, it refers to the independence of the judiciary from other organs, groups and individuals, so judicial independence is a "structural principle of state power";

Second, in the procedural sense, the intention of judicial independence is to protect the judiciary of judges in the judicial process to maintain the legitimacy of the procedure and the correctness of the results, so it is also called "technical judicial rules." ”

Therefore, a more general concept can be used -- judicial independence refers to the independent exercise of functions and powers by judicial organs in accordance with the law, without interference from any other organs, groups or individuals, and making fair judgments on cases on the basis of legal facts and in accordance with the provisions of the law.

The Ministry of Justice does not interfere in judicial activities, but only acts as an administrative organ to make administrative arrangements and guidance, that is, it cannot interfere in the handling of cases.