The following is an English translation of two letters handwritten and sent to the Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center by Mr. Munkhbayar Chuluundorj concerning his case. Mr. Munkhbayar Chuluundorj, a journalist, writer, human rights defender and citizen of the independent country of Mongolia, was sentenced to 10 years in prison by a Mongolian court recently for his alleged "collaboration with a foreign intelligence agency against the People's Republic of China" (English translation by SMHRIC):

Letter 1:

I am a longtime activist who has worked to defend the human rights of Southern Mongolians for years.

The Chinese government’s policy of banning the Mongolian language in schools and society at large in Southern Mongolia led to widespread protests and demonstrations in the summer and fall of 2020. Citizen support of Southern Mongolia had never been as widespread. I actively took part in these protests and demonstrations as an organizer and coordinator.

At this time, I started getting to know a foreigner who supported human rights activism for the cause of Southern Mongolia. Since my “case” was labeled “top secret” by the Mongolian authorities, I am afraid I cannot divulge any further details—but I did nothing but tell the foreigner that I would continue my activism for universally accepted and respected human rights.

On February 17, 2022, Mongolian General Intelligence agents arrested me by force without any legal justification while I was walking down the street and searched my residency without a warrant, confiscating the cash, documents, phones, and computers of my family members. They returned all these items, except for my phone and laptop, to my family a week later as they failed to find any evidence of my alleged “link with foreign intelligence.” I was told that the search was necessary in accordance with Article 19.4.1 of the Criminal Code of Mongolia as I was suspected of “committing the crime of collaborating with a foreign intelligence agency.”

Shortly after that, in the name of “clarifying some matters,” they took me to the General Intelligence Agency headquarters and arrested me. Their justifications were that some cash was found in my home and that a witness claimed the foreigner with whom I was in contact was a spy.

On February 18, 2022, I was notified that I would be detained as a suspect.

On February 21, 2022, I was told that I would be prosecuted. On the same day, the General Intelligence Agency of Mongolia held a press conference and announced that I was guilty. Following this, online reports claimed that I was “arrested in action while receiving 200 million tugriks from the Indian Consulate” and “sentenced to eight years in prison.” Some of the information disclosed in these reports originated from the General Intelligence Agency’s so-called “top secret” documents.

After a year and three months of secret surveillance and investigation, the General Intelligence Agency failed to find any evidence that I violated the law. It is also worth noting that I was arrested only a few days after my colleagues and I hosted a press conference to criticize the Mongolian Prime Minister for remarking that “Mongolia would like to board China’s express train of prosperity” during his visit to Beijing for the Winter Olympics opening ceremony.

On February 23, 2022, my attorneys submitted multiple pieces of evidence to the Procuratorates to prove that the so-called “evidence” gathered against me is fabricated and invalid. Especially concerning is that Mongolian intelligence authorities started gathering this “evidence” after I was arrested and detained as a “suspect.”

Following a seven-day investigation, on February 28, 2022, I was introduced to the “evidence” against me. On March 1, the investigators asked the Procuratorates to move my “case” to the court.

On April 1, 2022, the preliminary trial took place in the Sukhbaatar District Criminal Court and decided that “the evidence is insufficient to prove that the defendant had any knowledge that the said foreigner was a foreign intelligence agent; the evidence the plaintiff provided is insufficient to prove the defendant is guilty.” This was sufficient to prove my innocence, but the court returned the “case” to the Procuratorates for further investigation. The Ulaanbaatar Appeals Court decided that “no further investigation is needed,” however.

On June 28, 2022, the same court tried me again and strangely sentenced me to 10 years in prison. Since no further investigation was conducted, the materials the plaintiff prepared were the exact same as in the first trial. My attorneys’ defense, however, was stronger this time. The chief judge of these two preliminary trials gave no explanation as to why the court made these contradicting decisions.

If I were tried after the enactment of the new Criminal Code in June 2022, I could have been acquitted and released. Additionally, my attorney just revealed that the “evidence” against me was altered by the plaintiff.

The truth of my “case” is as follows:

1. My attorneys proved from many different angles that the authorities manufactured foreign intelligence agency documents as “evidence” to mislead the public. The purpose of these documents was to prove that the foreigner with whom I was in contact was a foreign spy. My attorneys are spearheading the effort to expose this ugly truth to the public. Even the former head of the General Intelligence Agency of Mongolia said that the documents used against me were fabricated.

2. The decision issued by the court on April 1, 2022, was sufficient to prove my innocence.

3. 12 of the 13 accounts of criminal offenses I was accused of having committed were referring to my meetings with the said foreigner, and the last was a protest I was involved in. The groundless accusation that I “agreed to collaborate with and received instruction from the foreign intelligence agency” during these 12 meetings was not mentioned at all in the corresponding meeting notes; these notes, kept by the authorities, were confirmed to only discuss human rights issues. The protest I allegedly organized “under the instruction of the foreign intelligence agency” was organized by the Democratic Party of Mongolia, not by me. None of the “13 pieces of evidence” against me prove any of the accusations that they claim to. Much of this “proof” is simply laughable.

4. The meeting notes the Mongolian intelligence authorities maintained themselves prove that written evidence was fabricated to incriminate me. Therefore, the plaintiff changed their tactic and manufactured their own documents to “prove” my “guilt.”

5. The “crimes” that I allegedly committed do not even fall under the jurisdiction of Article 19.4.1 of the Criminal Code. I have not done anything to jeopardize the national security of Mongolia; I have not collaborated with any foreign intelligence agency. I merely engaged in the same human rights activities in which I had participated for years. I have never obtained or maintained any state secret, let alone leaked one. This has all been proven true.

6. There is no evidence proving I am guilty. Witness testimonies, phone and email communications, and even the authorities’ fabricated “evidence” failed to prove that I “collaborated with a foreign intelligence agency.” Except for the memos written by the investigators themselves, nothing demonstrates that I “collaborated with a foreign intelligence agency” and “received instructions from it.”

7. It is worth noting that all my conversations, including my emails, messages, and phone records, are considered relevant to the “case” and included as evidence. All my communications were subject to secret surveillance. However, no single mention of a foreign intelligence agency appears in these materials. The keyword “foreign intelligence, giving, receiving or following instruction” also never appears in these documents.

8. The foreign individual clearly said that “the reason why we meet is you are my friend” in the conversation records.

9. The foreign individual has never given me any instruction or influenced my activities. I have carried out my activities for years according to the universal standards of human rights activism. Many of my activities were carried out synchronously with activists around the world. Additionally, the foreign individual was careful not to be misunderstood as having given me any instruction. At nearly every meeting, the foreign individual said something along the lines of, “I am not instructing you to do anything. It is your freedom to do whatever you like”, according to my interpreter. However, while these statements proving my innocence were in the original audio recordings, they were deleted from the conversation records.

10. The main witness to prove my innocence was the interpreter present at all my meetings with the foreign individual. This witness testified that Munkhbayar Chuluundorj did not engage in any conversation about a foreign intelligence agency and only discussed protests and the resistance movement.

11. Notes reading, “the foreign individual did not engage in any spying activities and is not a spy” appeared frequently in the plaintiff’s original materials. They even stated blatantly on multiple occasions that “the foreign individual became a spy only after meeting with Munkhbayar Chuluundorj.” If the foreign individual really is a spy, then he should have been deported, but he is still working in Mongolia.

12. There is ample evidence suggesting that some of my contact with the interpreter and foreign individual was arranged by Mongolian intelligence authorities.

13. The plaintiff said that “the General Intelligence Agency of Mongolia had long suspected that the foreign individual was a spy.” If so, the General Intelligence Agency failed to fulfill its duty of warning citizens of danger. No one has ever given me information to suggest that the foreign individual was a spy. Instead, I believe the General Intelligence Agency has been hinting to me that the foreign individual is not a spy.

Mongolian intelligence agents committed several crimes by launching a smear campaign against me, implicating others in the trumped-up case, spreading disinformation to ruin my reputation, and taking away my right to express my opinion.

With the above 13 facts, I am strongly repudiating the so-called “13 accounts of criminal offense” allegedly proved by the so-called “13 pieces of evidence.”

I do not have any motivation to commit any crime. I have not committed any crime.

Munkhbayar Chuluundorj

September 12, 2022

 

Letter 2:

Repudiating the so-called “13 accounts of criminal offense,” which are actually 13 lies

1. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of “agreeing, on November 5, 2020, to collaborate with Mr. Manan, an intelligence agent from India, to illegally work against the People’s Republic of China.”

Truth: Rajendra Ja Manan is the second secretary of the Embassy of India and Consul-General to Mongolia according to Official Note MH-31 (page 2, 212), issued by the Foreign Minister of Mongolia on February 22, 2022. There is no evidence indicating that he is a foreign intelligence agent. The “Letter from India” (page 3, 172) that claims Manan is a representative of an intelligence agency was proven fraudulent. Even in this forged letter, Manan was never identified as an “intelligence agent,” and prosecutor Batbyamba referred to the “representative” as a diplomat rather than an intelligence agent at the Sukhbaatar District Criminal Court preliminary hearing on June 28, 2022.

On November 5, 2020, I asked Manan for his support in the human rights activities in which I had been engaging as part of my effort to contribute to various human rights global actions . I made it clear that “our activities must be transparent” (page 3, 207, 208) and “should be carried out in the form of projects with the support from friends who are sympathetic to our cause” (page 3, 231). The Consul-General said, “I cannot respond” (page 3, 229) and “I cannot promise anything at this moment” (page 3, 231). There was no mention or intention of working against the People’s Republic of China. No so-called “deal” has ever been made.

All of this is evident in the conversation record (page 3, starting 201).

The Consul-General always made it clear that he represents and receives support from the Embassy of India. Many such conversations were deleted from the record. However, the Consul-General’s comment that “it might become an issue if this is the support from the Embassy as I mentioned” has been left untouched in the record.

While Darhanbayar (the witness and interpreter) was said to have established a connection with the General Intelligence Agency on November 11, 2020, he secretly recorded my meeting with the Consul-General on November 5, 2020, using a hidden microphone provided by the General Intelligence Agency.

2. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of “accepting, on January 21, 2021, the assignment of establishing contacts between overseas Southern Mongolians and the Government of India against the People’s Republic of China.”

Truth: This is groundless as the conversation record does not mention any such assignment . The Consul-General never gave me any assignment as I consistently told him what I had been doing. Additionally, during our meetings, the Consul-General repeatedly stressed, “I am not asking you to do anything. It is your freedom to do whatever you want.”

I haven’t seen any content from the conversation record supporting the accusation. The accusation is unverifiable as the conversation record was selectively compiled as case evidence. If the General Intelligence Agency does not have the unedited record of the entire conversation, the accusation is naturally groundless.

We had never discussed “Southern Mongolians fighting against the People’s Republic of China.” Our primary concern was Southern Mongolian human rights defenders. The words “against the People’s Republic of China” were willfully and repeatedly inserted by investigators to alter the fact.

3. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of receiving instruction from the Consul-General on February 6, 2021, to organize a protest against the Beijing Winter Olympics.

Truth: This is groundless as there is no content related to it in the conversation records compiled as case evidence. I never received any instruction or assignment from the Consul-General. We merely discussed the global action against the Beijing Winter Olympics. I clearly remember the Consul-General telling me, “I am not instructing you to do anything.” This content may have been deleted from the conversation record because it proves my innocence.

4. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of proposing on February 26, 2021, to train D. Gansaruul, a reporter from “Udriin Sonin” newspaper, to enter the People’s Republic of China as an investigative reporter to gather information.

Truth: I never said this during any meeting. What I said was, “Gansaruul reported on the situation in Southern Mongolia in her newspaper. That is why she is not allowed to enter China. The People’s Republic of China never invites any reporters from ‘Udriin Sonin’ anyway. Gansaruul is a very committed reporter. As her senior colleague, I mentioned that she could become a brilliant reporter if she is given the proper training” (page 3, 189-190). The General Intelligence Agency document (page 3, 181) proves that I said “brilliant reporter,” which just means “brilliant journalist.”

When the Consul-General was away from his seat, the interpreter, Darhanbayar, who turned out to be an informant of the General Intelligence Agency, told me that “we should meet [with Gansaruul]” (page 3, 181). Shortly after, Darhanbayar asked me to give the Consul-General Gansaruul’s phone number (page 3, 190), which the Consul-General did not request. Many of the accusations are based on Darhanbayar’s testimony.

At this particular meeting, the Consul-General said “the Embassy [of India] is supporting you” (page 3, 197).

5. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of reporting to the Consul-General on April 1, 2021, on the Beijing Winter Olympics protest that I had allegedly been organizing.

Truth: This is groundless as there is no mention of it in the conversation record. I of course made no such report to the Consul-General as I had never accepted any instruction from him to complete such an assignment.

6. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of accepting instruction from the Consul-General on May 21, 2021, to organize a political rally in connection with the commemoration of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Truth: There is no evidence of this in the conversation record. Although there was some discussion of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Consul-General never assigned me any such task. This is an example of how an ordinary conversation was willfully distorted into a “task assignment.”

I clearly remember the Consul-General again clarifying, “I am not asking you to do anything. It is up to you to decide what to do.” This part of the conversation was possibly removed from the conversation record because it vindicates me. In reality, I just organized a press conference for the “Southern Mongolian Khuraldai,” an NGO of which I was a member, as part of a global action carried out synchronously around the world.

7. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of accepting on August 18, 2021, an assignment from the Consul-General to host a press conference in support of “Resist China” against Chen Quanguo, the Chinese Communist Party Secretary of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

Truth: This is groundless as nothing in the conversation record supports this accusation. Although our discussion touched upon Chen Quanguo, no task was assigned whatsoever. I merely mentioned my plan to hold a press conference as several NGOs supported the idea of boycotting the Beijing Winter Olympics. The boycott was planned long before. I only mentioned the proposal to have a rally in Mongolia in support of Resist China.

As the global action against Chen Quanguo gained momentum around the time of the press conference, I came up with the idea to add related symbolism to our posters. Nothing else was done concerning Chen Quanguo.

Additionally, I clearly remember the Consul-General stressing, “I am not asking you to do anything.” The conversation record thus does not indicate any assignment from the Consul-General. Instead, the Consul-General always respected my decision to continue our activism at our own will.

8. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of accepting on September 17, 2021, a task assigned by the Consul-General to gather information on the His Holiness Bogdo Jebtsendambaa the 10th and report back to the Consul-General on weekly basis.

Truth: The Consul-General, who has a strong interest in religion, had much more information about and knowledge of the 10th Bogdo than I did. He had no need or intention whatsoever for me to tell him about the 10th Bogdo. In addition to my inability to gather information about the 10th Bogdo, the conversation record proves that I never received such an assignment.

I was accused of saying, “Let’s use electronic communications if no confidentiality is necessary” (page 3, 229) during the meeting on November 5, 2020. Emails, messages, and other conversations intercepted by the General Intelligence Agency prove that during our meetings, I reproduced all the information I had sent to the email and messenger addresses provided by Darhanbayar as those communications were never received by the Consul-General. The bottom line is that sending non-confidential information is not a crime.

During the meeting on September 17, 2021, I said, “let’s communicate via email on weekly basis” (Assessment 1, 27). This was not a task assigned to me. As a matter of fact, I kept in touch no more than once a month. Since the Consul-General supported my activism, my emails only mentioned matters related to my continued activities.

At the meeting, the Consul-General told me that the Embassy of India to Japan supports the Southern Mongolian activists (Assessment 1, 29) in Japan. This was compiled as “you are assigned a new task” in the conversation record (page 5, 296).

9. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of organizing the Resist China protest at Sukhbaatar Square on October 1, 2021, under the instruction of the Consul-General.

Truth: The report by the General Intelligence Agency (page 1, 17) proves that this was not organized by me but by the Democratic Party. I merely held a poster reading “No Double Standard” at the “Enough is Enough” protest as young activists from the Democratic Party had launched a movement called “No Double Standard” at that time.

10. Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of receiving an assignment from the Consul-general on October 20, 2021, to misinform the public that the target of the singer C. Javkhalan’s sit-in protest is the People’s Republic of China; to make a moviefilm, and to report [to him] via email.

Truth: The Consul-General gave me no such assignment. In reality, I told him, “Southern Mongolians are being oppressed, and it is not an overstatement that the independent country of Mongolia will soon become a region like the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region if we do not act immediately” (Assessment 1, 316). Regarding singer C. Javkhalan’s sit-in protest, it was already directed at the government proposal of “allowing wealthy Chinese to migrate to Mongolia in the name of inviting foreign investment.” The protest’s slogans and posters clearly display an existing anti-China sentiment. I was not its source.

I only said that friends in Sweden suggested I write a script for a film (Assessment 1, 386). The Consul-General never gave me any such assignment. It is not even possible for me to make a film.

When the Consul-General mentioned that he did not receive any email, Darhanbayar instead of translating it faithfully asked me “Did you send the report?” (Assessment 1, 326). Additionally, my response of “I will share the information about our activities in a timely manner” was altered to the Consul-General telling me to “Send me the report once every 15 days” (Assessment 1, 41) even though the Consul-General said nothing to that effect. I have been incriminated on the grounds of GIA agent Darhanbayar’s misleading changes.

Reiterating that the support is from the Embassy of India, the Consul-General asked, “why are other embassies not showing their support?” (Assessment 1, 35). Noting that “we are meeting because we are friends” (Assessment 1, 41), the Consul-General made our relationship clear.  All these testify to the fact that I have no involvement whatsoever with any foreign intelligence.

11.  In the court’s decision, an ordinary discussion during a meeting with the Consul-General on November 27, 2021, was counted as one of my “13 accounts of criminal offense.” In fact, all our meetings were no different from this one. All the charges brought against me are based on false accusations and fabricated evidence.

12.  Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of reporting to the Consul-General on December 22, 2021, about my assignment to bring Gansaruul on board via email communication.

Truth: The conversation record proves that I did not receive any such assignment, hence no report was made. When I mentioned that Gansaruul was a like-minded colleague, Darhanbayar chimed in, saying, “She should be sent to India” (Assessment 1, 56). The Consul-General never mentioned anything to that effect. Darhanbayar also falsely claimed that the Consul-General said he would like to meet Gansaruul (Assessment 1, 57). The Consul-General said he never met with Gansaruul, and Gansaruul said she never met with the Consul-General.

13.  Lie: In the court’s decision, I was accused of reporting via email on February 17, 2022, about my assignment to speak with and recruit Gansaruul, and to gather other information I was tasked to gather.

Truth: The conversation record proves that no such assignment was given. The Consul-General never mentioned Gansaruul, but Darhanbayar did so and eagerly asked me “You are preparing to introduce Gansaruul [to the Consul-general], right?”, “She is from Udriin Sonin, right?”, “Give her number [to the Consul-general]” (Assessment 3, 8), “Salary,” “Send the report,” and “Sign your name” (Assessment 3, 9). I have been criminalized for what Darhanbayar said.

With these repudiations, I have demonstrated that the “13 accounts of criminal offense” brought against me by the court failed to prove that I have any connection with any foreign intelligence.

Of these “13 accounts of criminal offense,” seven are disproved by the conversation record, one is disproved by the GIA note, and five are disproved by lack of evidence. A great deal of other evidence disproves these accusations as well. I believe the record excluded the conversations of five meetings at which the Consul-General repeatedly emphasized that he is not giving me any assignment. There could be more content proving my innocence in those conversations as well. If the GIA does not have any record of those five meetings, those five” accounts” are naturally groundless.

The plaintiff’s evidence consists of conversation records obtained by the GIA, but the plaintiff never cited from which pages and sections their evidence comes as I did here. Doing so would only expose their falsification. Therefore, this is nothing but the investigator’s shameless criminal act of attempting to justify a trumped-up case with fraudulent documents and manufactured evidence.

The original conversation records also testify to the fact that the GIA attempted to play a dirty trick by training its informant, Darhanbayar, to speak into a hidden microphone he wore during our meetings for the purpose of crediting his words to me and the Consul-General.

The so-called “13 accounts of criminal offense” are nothing but lies and falsehoods. It is a shame that Mongolia as a democratic country has sentenced her innocent citizen to 10 years in prison on trumped-up charges justified by fabricated evidence.

Munkhbayar Chuluundorj (Defendant)

September 12, 202

Original Handwritten Letters from Munkhbayar Chuluundorj

Letter 1:

 

Letter 2: