709 case Zhou Sheng sentenced to four years still continued restriction: WeChat five degrees closed, lawsuits and friends are blocked

After the 11th anniversary of the "709 Great Gathering", the situation of Zhou Zheng, the former director of Beijing's sharp law firm, was again concerned.Radio Free Asia on July 8After almost four years in prison, Zhou still faces restrictions on communications, travel, friends and lawsuits; in the past year, five of his WeChat accounts have been permanently blocked.

The punishment is over and the limitations in reality are not over

Zhou was arrested in 2015 in the “709 Great Arrest” and sentenced to seven years in 2016 for “crimes of subversion of the state regime” and released in September

1. Since then, several lawyers familiar with his situation have told RFA that Zhou is still under police surveillance, and that cross-regional travel, meetings with friends and public expression are interfered in varying degrees.

RFA reportsThe latest WeChat account was again permanently blocked on July 2, and social features such as one-to-one chat could not continue to be used. People familiar with its situation said it was the fifth account permanently blocked in a year. In the environment of WeChat is deeply embedded in payments, family communication, social interaction and work connections, the impact of permanent seals far exceeds the normal social platforms.

Zhou said to RFA that five WeChat numbers were blocked, and there was no legal remedy, so he lost the basic tools to maintain contact with society.

Prosecuted Tencent, but encountered a new procedural threshold at the court entrance

Zhou Jing sued Tencent to the Beijing Internet Court in 2025The platform has been accused of permanently blocking its accounts without providing specific evidence of the violation, violating communications, personality and property rights.RFA in FebruaryWhen he went to the Beijing Internet Court to submit materials, he was accompanied by Beijing public security personnel.

Since then, Zhou Feng has attempted to pass the case through the Beijing Internet Court and the Shenzhen South Mountain District Court.RFA reports in July this year quoted informed lawyers as saying that the online case filing system requires filling out the information of the defendant's legal representative's mobile phone number, fixed phone and other ordinary individuals that is difficult to access, leading to the case filing being blocked; Zhou Feng has still not received the formal judicial treatment he expected after inspection agencies.

*Friends and travellers are equally involved

The report also mentionedThe other 709 person in the case had planned to meet Zhou and Zhou in Henan after his death sentence was expired, but the two eventually failed to meet. A lawyer familiar with the two said that Beijing State Insurance personnel had travelled to Henan in advance and prevented the meeting. Because the relevant restrictions often lack a public written decision, it was difficult for the outside world to verify the specific basis for implementation through formal legal documents.

This situation highlights a persistent issue of the rule of law: If a person remains subject to long-term restrictions of action without a definite deadline, a lack of public decisions and difficulties in appealing after the execution of a sentence, the actual freedom is restored to a decrease compared to the sentencing period determined by a court ruling.

From 709 cases to “post-punishment” control

In July 2015, Chinese police arrested, summoned and interviewed a large number of rights lawyers, legal workers and their families across the country, later referred to as the “709 Great Arrest”. Some of the core figures were convicted of subversive or inciting subversive crimes.

In the past, the Chinese government has described 709 cases related to law enforcement as combating illegal criminal activities in accordance with the law, and stressed that the judicial organs are handling cases in accordance with the law.But in the current individual cases, WeChat blockade, national security accompaniment, friends blocked and litigation difficulties occur in different areas, such as the platform, public security and courts, forming a real limitation of cross-institutional overlap. Whether these measures have a clear legal basis, deadline and remedy mechanisms, is the key to measure their legitimacy.

Focus on China Observation: The rule of law cannot become an extension without a sentence after the expiration of a sentence

One of the basic principles of criminal justice is that the state clearly defines the type and duration of punishment by court ruling. Full-time release means that the sentence sentenced by the court has been executed. If communications, communications and actions are continuously restricted by means of non-public, informal or non-formal appeal, a state of "post-punishment" that is difficult to review by the judiciary can be formed.

The significance of the Zhejiang case therefore lies not only in whether a WeChat account should be restored. More importantly, whether a person who has been convicted by the state and has served a sentence can regain the right to communicate, travel, social and litigation due to ordinary citizens; if restrictions continue, whether the state authorities are willing to give clear legal documents and allow the parties to challenge through independent procedures. Without these system guarantees, the boundaries of punishment could extend from seven years in the judgment, to long-term controls without a definite endpoint.