Man cleared of children's deaths awarded 2.9m yuan in compensation

Li Jinlian, whose name was cleared in July after serving 19 years in prison, was awarded more than 2.93 million yuan ($426,852) in state compensation from a court in East China's Jiangxi province on Tuesday, his lawyer said.

The compensation includes 2 million yuan for Li's wrongful detention and conviction, as well as 900,000 yuan for mental anguish, according to a legal document from the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court provided by Liu Chang, Li's lawyer.

Li's daughter said the family would continue appealing to the Supreme People's Court for a review, because they are not satisfied with the amount of compensation.

Li applied to the court in Jiangxi for 41.4 million yuan in state compensation on July 18, 47 days after a retrial in which the same court found him not guilty, based on insufficient evidence, of killing two children.

He also asked the high court to apologize in the media for the wrongful conviction and for damaging Li's reputation, but these requests were rejected by the court on Tuesday.

In October 1998, two children in the province's Suichuan county died after eating tainted candy they had picked up near their home. Li was named as the suspect and criminally detained.

In 1999, Li was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve for intentional homicide by Ji'an Intermediate People's Court. A year later, the high people's court rejected Li's appeal and upheld the original ruling.

During the two-year probation, Li did not engage in any new criminal activity, so his sentence was cut to life imprisonment. He also received five commutations for good behavior in prison.

The country's top court ordered the high people's court in Jiangxi to retry the case after a review in 2011, but the original judgment was upheld following that review. Li's family appealed again.

In July last year, the top court ordered another rehearing, and the Jiangxi high people's court retried the case on May 18.

On June 1, Li was acquitted, because the chain of evidence in his case was incomplete, which meant a crime could not be proved, the high court said.