MB Civic

BEIJING, June 14 — The trial of a researcher for The New York Times, which is to begin here on Friday, is evidence of China’s increasing reliance on state secrecy laws to tighten control over information, experts in human rights and the legal system say.

The researcher, Zhao Yan, 44, who worked in the Beijing bureau of The Times, is charged with fraud and disclosing state secrets. Mr. Zhao denies the charges. The Times also denies that he disclosed state secrets.

Critics of the case against Mr. Zhao accuse the authorities of applying all-embracing secrecy laws to contain public debate, burgeoning Internet discussion and sometimes rebellious news media.

Even as China’s headlong economic boom continues to deliver wider economic and personal freedom, the scope of these laws has been broadened over the last two decades to include almost all information related to the ruling Communist Party and the government.

“The system is actually expanding,” said Nicolas Becquelin, a Hong Kong-based researcher for Human Rights Watch. “Basically, anything can be classified as a state secret.”

Mr. Zhao has been in custody since his arrest in September 2004. If he is found guilty here in the No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, he could face 10 years or more in prison.

The charges are linked to an article in The Times on Sept. 7, 2004, reporting that the former president, Jiang Zemin, had offered to resign as head of the military. The report proved to be accurate; Mr. Jiang retired less than two weeks later.

But Mr. Zhao’s indictment does not allege that he was the conduit for this information.

Instead, the principal evidence against him is a photocopy of a handwritten note he prepared in July 2004 about rumors of the possible promotion of two generals as part of the battle for influence in the military between Mr. Jiang and his eventual successor, Hu Jintao.

This information was included in the Sept. 7 article to illustrate the rivalry between the leaders. Only one of the generals was promoted.

The original note remains in the Beijing office of The Times.

In March, prosecutors dropped the charges against him, and it appeared that Mr. Zhao might be released. But an almost identical set of charges was reinstated last month.

For defense lawyers in China, cases involving state secrecy laws can present formidable obstacles.

A powerful government agency, the State Secrets Bureau, has absolute authority to decide whether disclosed information is a state secret, according to experts on the Chinese legal system. Courts have no power to challenge these rulings.

In addition, the authorities can limit contact between lawyers and their clients, deny access to evidence and hold closed hearings.

After Mr. Zhao’s arrest, his lawyer, Mo Shaoping, was repeatedly barred from consulting with his client because the case involved state secrets. Legal experts noted that Mr. Mo must be careful about his public comments on the case because exposing how the law worked could also be deemed an offense.

The scope of the state secrets laws also serves to deter public analysis and criticism of prosecutions. Chinese legal experts approached for comment, for example, insisted that their names not appear in any article about Mr. Zhao’s case, for fear of official reprisals.

The legal experts have little doubt that Mr. Zhao, a journalist and social advocate, will be found guilty, because a decision to proceed to trial in China is tantamount to a conviction — particularly in cases involving state secrets or national security.

But Mr. Mo said that he was preparing a robust challenge to the prosecution’s handling of the case and that he would contest critical elements of the evidence. He said he would argue that the court should not have agreed to hear the case because prosecutors had reintroduced the same charges against Mr. Zhao, ignoring the requirement to include substantial new evidence.

On the state secrets charge, he said, he will argue that the prosecution’s version of events is incomplete because it fails to show how secrets were relayed to The Times. And, he said, he will tell the court that prosecutors are unable to explain how a copy of the handwritten note came to be part of the evidence.

Mr. Mo said he also intended to contest the ruling by the State Secrets Bureau that the note contained state secrets.

With the prosecution relying on what were described as rumors in the note, Mr. Mo said, he intends to ask the court if a rumor can be deemed a state secret. If it is, he said, he plans to ask if a rumor must be accurate to deserve the classification, given that events suggested in the note were only partly borne out.

Mr. Mo said a judge who would preside over the trial, Wang Wantie, had told him that the court would rely heavily on prosecution evidence and Mr. Zhao’s testimony on the charge of disclosing state secrets.

Joseph Kahn, bureau chief for The Times in Beijing and writer of the Sept. 7 article, would be the only witness for the defense, Mr. Mo said.

Mr. Kahn has provided written testimony, and Mr. Mo has sought approval for him to appear at the trial, though it does not appear likely that permission will be given.

Judge Wang said only the Foreign Affairs Office of China’s highest court, the Supreme People’s Court, has the power to approve such an application, according to Mr. Mo.

Mr. Mo said Judge Wang had also told him there would be no witnesses called on the fraud charge. Prosecution witnesses lived outside Beijing and the cost of travel was deemed too high to require them to attend the hearing, according to the judge. Without prosecution witnesses, there was no need for the defense to call witnesses, Judge Wang told Mr. Mo.

“This may be a trial with no witnesses,” Mr. Mo said.