In January this year, Chinese media brought the 10-year-old case to public attention after interviewing some of the released convicts. Investigative reporting raised questions and pointed out flaws in the legal procedures.

According to court records of the trial in 2010, Tong Bin, the cellmate of one of the convicts, Ji Guangcai, testified that Ji told him he had raped Tang Lanlan three times. But in an interview with The Beijing News in February 2018, Tong said he had never testified for anyone. He denied even knowing Ji.

Wang Danyang, the defense lawyer for Wan Xiuling at the 2010 trial, told Sixth Tone’s sister publication, The Paper, that key evidence supporting the defendants had been ruled inadmissible. One example was the recording of a phone call in which Tang Lanlan told a distant relative, Cai Xiangling, that she would accuse him of rape unless he paid her hush money.

“I feel angry every time I think of the call,” says 49-year-old Cai Xiangling, who refused to pay up. “Why would I hurt her? She’s the same age as my own child. I am not that kind of person.” The call came several days after the mass arrest, while Cai Xiangling and his wife were at the grocery store. Another villager recorded the conversation, but though they reported it to the police, Cai Xiangling says the police never contacted them about it, and the girl never followed through on her threat.

Cai Xiangling, a distant relative of Tang Lanlan, claims she threatened to accuse him of rape.

Media coverage of the case shocked readers. The story sparked widespread debate on the ethics of journalism, the protection of child rape victims, and the legal process. While at first, many slammed journalists for violating Tang Lanlan’s privacy and for seemingly siding with the accused, public opinion later shifted to questioning whether the case was a miscarriage of justice.

Legal experts argued for a review of the case. “The emergence of new evidence has shaken the credibility of the facts confirmed at the trial,” wrote Cheng Lei, an associate professor at Renmin University of China’s law school, in a commentary for news outlet Caixin. In his opinion, dubious legal procedures surrounding the case have damaged the credibility of the justice system at a time when the public demand for truth has never been stronger.

China has overturned numerous wrongful convictions as part of the government’s recent focus on judicial reform and the “rule of law.” More than 6,700 cases had their sentences changed following retrials in the last five years. Yet the conviction rate of Chinese courts remains high: More than 99.9 percent of criminal suspects are found guilty.

Copies of Tang Lanlan’s accusation letter, sent Oct. 3, 2008.

At the same time, child sexual abuse is underreported in China as elsewhere, and few reported cases result in criminal prosecutions even today, when public awareness and professional expertise are much greater than 10 years ago. Though experts stress that minors can give reliable testimony if questioned appropriately, police often dismiss allegations that rely on a single victim’s account.

In 2013, the Supreme People’s Court issued a judicial explanation on handling such cases after an enormous public outcry that year over the rape of six primary school girls by a principal and a government official in China’s southern Hainan province. Yet according to Zheng Ziyin, deputy director of the Guangdong Lawyers Association specialist committee on child law, prosecutors still complain of “unprofessional” police investigations.

Child sex abuse should be treated differently from other crimes, Zheng says, as sexual assault of minors typically takes place in secret, victims often cannot express themselves clearly, and evidence is easily lost. With regard to the Tang Lanlan investigation, he says the case cannot be judged solely on the testimony of the released convicts, but he hopes that a judicial review will help push for more thorough, specialized investigations of child rape allegations and “reveal the facts to the public.”

Tang Lanlan’s grandmother, Li Xiuzhi, is now 73 and barely recalls her arrest 10 years ago. The grandmother’s statue of Guanyin, the goddess of mercy in Chinese Buddhism, with offerings of fruit.

After widespread national coverage of the Tang Lanlan case, the political and legal affairs commission of Wudalianchi’s municipal Party committee accused Wan Xiuling and others released from prison of seeking media attention to pressure local authorities. Some news stories on the case were suppressed.

In late February, Heilongjiang’s high court accepted the appeal of four convicts — including Tang Lanlan’s father, Tang Jihai.

Tang Jihai’s attorney, Deng Xueping — who has worked on several high-profile cases including the suspicious death of Lei Yang in police custody in 2016 — released a statement in March. “Based on the [investigative] work we have done, we think the case involves seriously unjust, false, and erroneous charges that are based on forced confessions and depart from common sense,” Deng wrote.

In late May, Deng released another statement saying that the high court had spoken with Tang Lanlan as part of its review.

But after a five-month investigation, the court announced on July 27 that it would not retry the case. The 2012 verdict was upheld, the court said, because the facts were clear and the evidence sufficient. “There is nothing improper about the original judgment, which determined the convictions and the sentences for the appellants according to the law,” it said.

Tang Jibin, Tang Lanlan’s uncle, says that they plan on taking the case to the Supreme People’s Court. “We suffered such an injustice, and must keep appealing,” he tells Sixth Tone, following the decision not to hold a retrial.