What to know about the trial of former Tiananmen vigil organizers before a verdict

A verdict is anticipated on Friday in the trial of two former organizers of an annual Hong Kong vigil commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, the former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, are currently facing charges of inciting subversion and could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison if found guilty.

The activists maintained their innocence during the trial's commencement in January and are set to reappear in court on Friday. Should they be convicted by the three government-approved judges, sentencing will take place at a later date.

The vigil, which attracted tens of thousands annually, was the sole large-scale, public remembrance of the 1989 pro-democracy protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. The Communist Party quashed the demonstration with tanks and troops, resulting in hundreds, possibly thousands, of deaths. It became an official taboo in mainland China. However, the alliance continued to hold annual vigils in Hong Kong until authorities banned them due to health risks during the pandemic.

Following the ban, China introduced the national security law, which was subsequently used to prosecute Lee and Chow. The legislation aimed to maintain stability in Hong Kong after the 2019 anti-government protests. The alliance disbanded the same month as the two were charged.

Prosecutors argued that the activists incited others to employ unlawful methods to dismantle China's fundamental system and political bodies, including the call for "ending one-party rule." The defense contended that the slogan was about moving towards democracy and rejected the notion of advocating for any illegal means. Chow, representing herself, cautioned that if the court fails to ensure proper scrutiny of the statements' consequences, it could be considered complicit in the crimes committed by those in power.

Co-defendant and former vigil organizer Albert Ho had already pleaded guilty, a move typically resulting in a reduced sentence. His sentencing remains pending.

Observers view this trial as a test of Hong Kong's civil liberties and judicial independence, as the government asserts that all accused have the right to a fair trial, with courts exercising their power independently. However, critics consider the case and its outcome as a litmus test, emphasizing that the charges of inciting subversion are often used in mainland China to criminalize human rights lawyers, activists, and intellectuals, such as the late Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo.

The trial underscores the extent to which the Hong Kong court might be influenced by the mainland Chinese government's stance.