Beijing YIRENPING Center August 18, 2008

Dongguan Branch of Nokia ( China ) was sued by a job applicant, who was refused by Nokia because he was an HBV carrier. In the morning of July 31, 2008, the second instance opened in the fourth tribunal of court in Dongguan Intermediate Court . Many citizens and journalists came to attend the trial on that day. To their shock, however, the court announced that the court had decided not to try the case in public and trail audit was not allowed.

The decision of Dongguan Intermediate Court of not trying this case in public was in violation of related regulations of the Supreme Court. The plaintiff has sent a letter to the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province to complain about this.

Attached you see is the complaint letter.

Complaint about the Procedural Illegal Actions of

Dongguan Intermediate People's Court

July 31, 2008

Dear chief justice Zheng E of Guangdong Supreme People's Court,

Dear chief justice He Bixia of Dongguan Intermediate People's Court,

Investigation & Supervision Office of Dongguan Intermediate People's Court,

My name is Li Sheng, who has encountered HBV discrimination from Dongguan Branch of Nokia ( China ) in employment. I have initiated a proceeding against Dongguan Branch of Nokia ( China ), which is now under second instance. I hereby write to complain the procedural illegal actions of Gongguan Intermediate People's Court in the second instance.

On July 23, 2008, Dongguan Intermediate People's Court notified my lawyer that my case was to be brought to trail at the fourth tribunal of court at 10 am, July 31st. On the morning of July 31st, many citizens and journalists came to attend the trial. To their shock, however, the court announced that the court had decided not to try the case in public and trail audit was not allowed.

It is clearly provided in Article 3 of Several Provisions of the Supreme Court on the Strict Application of Public Trial System that an appeal filed by a party who refuses to accept a judgment or ruling which is reached in public in first instance shall be tried in public. The first instance was in public and as the plaintiff, I appealed. According to this article, this appeal shall be tried in public. And either the so claimed privacy or trade secret has already been denied by the court as due cause for trial in camera in first instance. Article 5 also provides that where a case is tried in public according to law, the facts of the case shall not be ascertained without court investigation in public. Therefore, the court investigation of my appeal shall certainly be conducted in public. The ruling made by the court of this trail in camera thus lacks legal basis and breaks the law.

We can not help asking why the court insists to try this case in camera which shall be tried in public according to law? Journalists at home and abroad have expressed their fears that the trail will be rigged and irregularities for favoritism may be committed. I am also worried that the image of justice of the People's Court may be damaged by illegal actions.

You honored chief justices, we all know that since 2007, the Party and state have attached great importance to the discrimination suffered by HBV carriers and have made a series of regulations and policies to protect the legal rights of HBV carriers. As a result, I believe that, under the lead by the Party, the People's Court will definitely implement the regulations and all the related policies would be put into effect positively.

As a case regarding HBV discrimination in employment, this case has drawn great attention at home and abroad. The Legal Daily, China Youth Daily, Southern Metropolis Daily, Yangcheng Evening News, Financial Times of UK, Finland Press, the domestic media of Finland , and other media have widely reported it. This case was also selected as Top Ten Labor Disputes in China in 2007. My lawyer had discussed this case with EU Chamber of Commerce in Beijing .

I think it is reasonable for me to look forward to a thorough investigation of the procedural illegal actions in this case which have seriously impeded or prejudiced the course of justice. My lawyer and I insist that this case should be tried in due process and we hope that a impart justice will be reached.

The collegial panel of second instance of this case consists of: Liu Peiying , Mo Songjian and Li Qiling.

Yours faithfully,

Li Sheng