DOCSLIB.ORG

Issues and Cases CHRD Recommends the Committee Against Torture Include in Its List of Issues for the Chinese Government to Address in Its Fifth Periodic Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Issues and Cases CHRD Recommends the Committee Against Torture Include in Its List of Issues for the Chinese Government to Address in Its Fifth Periodic Report Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) 维权网 Web: http://chrdnet.org/ Email: [email protected] Promoting human rights and empowering grassroots activism in China September 8, 2010 Issues and Cases CHRD Recommends the Committee against Torture Include in its List of Issues for the Chinese Government to Address in its Fifth Periodic Report This submission, prepared by Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), raises a number of issues and cases which we urge the Committee against Torture (CAT) to include in the List of Issues (LOI) it will request the Chinese government to address in its fifth periodic report to CAT. This document is also intended to supplement our recent report on the Chinese government‘s December 2009 submission to CAT under the Committee‘s follow-up procedure.1 Torture remains a serious problem in China and one that urgently demands a genuine commitment to reform on the part of the Chinese government. This submission does not purport to provide a comprehensive overview of the current situation, but rather identifies some of the areas of greatest concern. We urge CAT to press the Chinese government for concrete evidence of actions being taken to address the issues and cases raised here, many of which CAT has raised with China in the past. I. Recommended Issues for CAT to Include in its LOI for the Chinese Government A. Unnatural deaths in detention centers Owing partially to local officials‘ ham-handed attempts to cover up unnatural deaths of individuals in police custody through bizarre, often illogical explanations, detention center (kanshousuo) deaths has been one of the most visible human rights issues in China during the past two years. Unnatural deaths of detainees have been an ongoing concern of CAT‘s as well. The Committee included a question on unusual deaths in detention facilities in its List of Issues provided to the Chinese government for China‘s fourth periodic report, and in its 2008 Concluding Observations on China‘s report (hereinafter ―Concluding Observations‖), CAT stated ―that it remains concerned about reports of abuses in custody, including the high number of deaths, possibly related to torture or ill-treatment, and about the lack of investigation into these abuses and deaths in custody.‖2 1 CHRD, ―Report on Several Issues Raised by the Chinese Government‘s Response to the UN Committee Against Torture‘s Recommendations for Follow-Up in 2009.‖ For the text of that report, and for more information on CAT‘s follow-up procedure, see CAT‘s web page, ―Follow Up,‖ http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/follow-procedure.htm. 2 UN Committee against Torture (CAT), ―Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: China,‖ 12 December 2008, CAT/C/CHN/CO/4, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/496c854b2.html, para. 12; and ―List of issues to be considered during the examination of the fourth periodic report of China,‖ September 9, 2008, (CAT/C/CHN/Q/4), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.CHN.Q.4EN.pdf, para. 2 (d). 1 In its submission to CAT in December 2009, the Chinese government wrote that ―in 2009, the Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) and the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) jointly carried out an inspection campaign dealing specifically with regulation and law enforcement of detention facilities throughout China.‖ 3 Indeed, in late April 2009, the SPP stated that there had been 15 unnatural deaths in detention thus far in 2009 and that the inspection campaign with the MPS aimed to crack down on ―jail bullies‖ and ensure improved management of detention centers.4 However, more than a year after that inspection campaign and related efforts on the part of the Chinese government, victims both young and old continue to perish in different types of detention facilities across the country. A Zhejiang Daily report5 published in June 2010 cites five additional cases since the beginning of this year; moreover, CHRD has documented several cases of suspicious deaths in Re-education through Labor camps during the same time period.6 Far from an exhaustive account, these reports only serve to hint at the severity of the problem. Most deaths in detention centers occur as the result of one of two phenomena: violence perpetrated by ―jail bullies‖ and the use of torture to extract confessions. ―Jail bullies,‖ detainees who attack other inmates with the explicit or understood consent of prison officials, are most often blamed for the deaths of other detainees, and yet the Chinese government, despite issuing notices on the problem as far back as 1988, has so far been unable or unwilling to take effective measures to root out and eliminate jail bullies.7 Given that the public security apparatus (under the MPS) is responsible for both managing detention centers and investigating criminal cases, the prevalence of the use of torture to extract confessions is not surprising. CHRD recommends that CAT ask the Chinese government to: provide information on concrete steps being taken to address the issue of deaths in detention centers since the SPP and MPS‘s joint review of detention center management in mid- 2009. CHRD reiterates its recommendation that the Chinese government transfer management authority over detention centers from the Ministry of Public Security to a different government agency.8 B. New regulations banning evidence obtained through torture face uncertain future On June 25, 2010, the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Justice jointly issued two new regulations regarding evidence in criminal cases: one dealing with evidence in capital cases, and the other concerning the exclusion of 3 ―Comments by the Government of the People‘s Republic of China concerning the concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee against Torture,‖ December 9, 2009, CAT/C/CHN/CO/4/Add.2 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/followup/CAT.C.CHN.CO.4.Add2.pdf, para. 2. 4 ―Top Prosecuting Body Starts Jail Safety Drive After Inmate Deaths,‖ South China Morning Post, April 21, 2009. 5 For an English translation, see the Dui Hua Human Rights Journal, http://www.duihuahrjournal.org/2010/06/zhejiang-daily- compiles-morose.html. 6 See, e.g., CHRD, ―Deaths Highlight Continued Problem of Torture, Poor Oversight in Detention Facilities,‖ October 6, 2009; CHRD, ―Man Dies in Re-education through Labor Camp, Allegedly Tortured,‖ China Human Rights Briefing May 4-10, 2010. 7 CHRD, ―Supreme People‘s Procuratorate Reports on Actions Taken Against ‗Prison Bullies‘ in 2009,‖ China Human Rights Briefing March 9-15, 2010, http://chrdnet.org/2010/03/16/china-human-rights-briefing-march-9-15-2010/. 8 See CHRD, ―Persistent Torture, Unaccountable Torturers: A Report on China‘s Implementation of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,‖ November 5, 2008, http://chrdnet.org/2008/11/05/persistent-torture- unaccountable-torturers/. This recommendation appears on page 29. 2 confessions which had been extracted through torture.9 These regulations went into effect on July 1, 2010. While the appearance of these regulations is an encouraging sign, CHRD is concerned that these regulations contain certain problematic provisions, and it remains to be seen whether they will prove to be effective in preventing torture. There are a number of articles in these regulations, particularly in the Rules Concerning Questions about the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases, which are worrisome. Among these is Article 6, which places an undue burden of proof on the victim of torture. Defendants are required to provide evidence including persons, time, place, and manner of the torture inflicted upon them, some of which may be difficult or impossible for a torture victim to ascertain or understand at the time they were tortured or afterwards. The rules are silent regarding the consequences if a defendant cannot produce this evidence. Article 12 poses a problem as well. When a judgment of a court of first instance is appealed, according to the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), courts of second instance are required to ―conduct a complete review of the facts... not limited by the scope of appeal.‖ 10 The new rules, however, appear to conflict with this provision of the CPL. The new rules provide that if a defendant alleges that a confession was extracted through torture, and the procuratorate ―does not provide evidence to confirm [the legality]‖ of the confession, the court is not required to investigate how the confession was obtained. It simply states that the confession may not be used as a basis for conviction. Even more important than the language of these regulations, however, is their implementation. Early indications have not been encouraging. In late July, lawyer Zhu Mingyong released to the public a video recording in which his client, alleged Chongqing mob boss Fan Qihang, describes being subjected to torture by police seeking to extract a confession and displays scars left by their abuse. Fan was convicted and sentenced to death based on a confession obtained through this torture. Zhu publicly released the video after having submitted it to the Supreme People‘s Court (SPC), as Fan‘s case went to the SPC for review of his death sentence. In August, a group of prominent Chinese lawyers, including Teng Biao, Li Xiongbing, and Li Fangping, signed a public letter calling on the SPC to investigate the allegations of torture in Fan‘s case. Fan‘s case remains
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 28. Rights Defense and New Citizen's Movement
    JOBNAME: EE10 Biddulph PAGE: 1 SESS: 3 OUTPUT: Fri May 10 14:09:18 2019 28. Rights defense and new citizen’s movement Teng Biao 28.1 THE RISE OF THE RIGHTS DEFENSE MOVEMENT The ‘Rights Defense Movement’ (weiquan yundong) emerged in the early 2000s as a new focus of the Chinese democracy movement, succeeding the Xidan Democracy Wall movement of the late 1970s and the Tiananmen Democracy movement of 1989. It is a social movement ‘involving all social strata throughout the country and covering every aspect of human rights’ (Feng Chongyi 2009, p. 151), one in which Chinese citizens assert their constitutional and legal rights through lawful means and within the legal framework of the country. As Benney (2013, p. 12) notes, the term ‘weiquan’is used by different people to refer to different things in different contexts. Although Chinese rights defense lawyers have played a key role in defining and providing leadership to this emerging weiquan movement (Carnes 2006; Pils 2016), numerous non-lawyer activists and organizations are also involved in it. The discourse and activities of ‘rights defense’ (weiquan) originated in the 1990s, when some citizens began using the law to defend consumer rights. The 1990s also saw the early development of rural anti-tax movements, labor rights campaigns, women’s rights campaigns and an environmental movement. However, in a narrow sense as well as from a historical perspective, the term weiquan movement only refers to the rights campaigns that emerged after the Sun Zhigang incident in 2003 (Zhu Han 2016, pp. 55, 60). The Sun Zhigang incident not only marks the beginning of the rights defense movement; it also can be seen as one of its few successes.
    [Show full text]
  • LEGAL ADVOCACY and the 2011 CRACKDOWN in CHINA: ADVERSITY, REPRESSION, and RESILIENCE
    1. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings. 2. Governments co railtoroype and subject to their jurisdiction, tion rat erna ion without distinction of any kind, such as discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationalt or social origin, property, birth, economic or i in n yf , to other disadvanptaged persons. Professional o r t o associations of lawyers shall cooperate in the organization and provision of services, facilities and other resources. 4. Governments and profnessional associations ofm lawyers shall promote e o m t programmes to inform the public about their rights and duties under the law and the important role of lawyers in protecting their fundamene tal freedoms. Special attenintion should be given to ac v g and rld e h i e assisting the poor and other disadvantagedo a persons so as to enable them to assert their rights and where necessary call upon the assistanh ce of lawyers. 5. Governments shae ll ensure that all w t e r n c h m s t u c e t e r s p p f , p o o o s e persons are immediately informed by the competein t authority of their right to be assisted by a lawyer of their own choice upon arrest or detention or when charged with a crimu en r cef . 6. r r g agin o o t i pe p e r e s r e l h Any such persons who do not havee a lawyer shall, in a all cases in which the interests of justice so require, be entitled to have a lawyer of experience and competence commensurate with the h u t l i m s a t h nedn to them in order to prov ofo pay for such services.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003: China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong and Macau)
    Page 1 of 66 China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor February 25, 2004 (Note: Also see the section for Tibet, the report for Hong Kong, and the report for Macau.) The People's Republic of China (PRC) is an authoritarian state in which, as directed by the Constitution, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP or Party) is the paramount source of power. Party members hold almost all top government, police, and military positions. Ultimate authority rests with the 24-member political bureau (Politburo) of the CCP and its 9-member standing committee. Leaders made a top priority of maintaining stability and social order and were committed to perpetuating the rule of the CCP and its hierarchy. Citizens lacked both the freedom peacefully to express opposition to the Party-led political system and the right to change their national leaders or form of government. Socialism continued to provide the theoretical underpinning of national politics, but Marxist economic planning has given way to pragmatism, and economic decentralization increased the authority of local officials. The Party's authority rested primarily on the Government's ability to maintain social stability; appeals to nationalism and patriotism; Party control of personnel, media, and the security apparatus; and continued improvement in the living standards of most of the country's 1.3 billion citizens. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice, the Government and the CCP, at both the central and local levels, frequently interfered in the judicial process and directed verdicts in many high-profile cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Rights Defence Lawyers As Dissidents in Contemporary China
    International JournalRights of Defence China LawyersStudies as Dissidents in Contemporary China 325 Vol. 3, No. 3, December 2012, pp. 325-344 Rights Defence Lawyers as Dissidents in Contemporary China Feng Chongyi*, Colin Hawes** and Gu Ming*** University of Technology, Sydney Abstract Rights defence lawyers in contemporary China have attracted tremendous attention. Their supporters take them as a leading force for social and political change toward justice, the rule of law and democracy, whereas the hardliners of the ruling Chinese Communist Party regard them as a dangerous hostile force of political dissent. In this article, we will trace the resumption and development of the legal profession in China since the 1980s after its forced disappearance for three decades. Then we will explore the emergence of a group of “rights defence lawyers” in the context of recent economic, social and political changes. The article will end with a discussion about the potential role of rights defence lawyers in China’s social and political transformation. We argue that the name “rights defence lawyer” reflects the current politically charged environment for the legal profession in China and the dual identities of socially concerned lawyers as both legal professionals and rights advocates. We also argue that lawyers in China become political dissidents when defending clients whose rights are violated by the party- state and power holders, and that, in response to political persecution, rights defence lawyers have interacted with other lawyers, other rights activists and the wider society to advance their causes of bringing about justice, the rule of law and democratic political reforms in China.
    [Show full text]
  • A PDF of This Newsletter
    China Human Rights and July 2006 Rule of Law Update Subscribe United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China Senator Chuck Hagel, Chairman | Representative Jim Leach, Co-Chairman Message from the Chairmen The Arrest of Chen Guangcheng The Commission is concerned about the June 21st arrest of Chen Guangcheng, a blind legal advocate who has suffered months of official harassment and detention in retaliation for exposing violent abuses by local officials in Linyi city, Shandong province. Mr. Chen spoke out courageously against abuses committed by population planning officials in Linyi, raising these issues peacefully, lawfully, and in the spirit of good citizenship. The activities that Mr. Chen criticized contravene Article 39 of the 2002 PRC Population and Family Planning Law, and a senior official of the National Population and Family Planning Commission called them "definitely illegal." The Chinese Constitution prohibits "unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person," and confirms that the "State respects and safeguards human rights." The arbitrary restrictions placed on Mr. Chen's personal liberty, however, undermine these constitutional guarantees. The Commission urges the Chinese government to ensure that Mr. Chen's rights are respected and to allow him to resume his valuable humanitarian work. Announcements Translations: Open Letters From Wife of Arrested Advocate Chen Guangcheng In March 2006, local authorities in Linyi city, Shandong province, exceeded a six-month time limit on their house arrest of Chen Guangcheng and took him into custody for interrogation. They did not send formal notice of Chen's detention to his wife until June. Since June, authorities have placed Chen's wife, among other close relatives, under house arrest.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case and Treatment of Prominent Human Rights Lawyer Gao Zhisheng Hearing Congressional-Executive Commission on China
    THE CASE AND TREATMENT OF PROMINENT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER GAO ZHISHENG HEARING BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 2012 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74–543 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS House Senate CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Cochairman Chairman MAX BAUCUS, Montana FRANK WOLF, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TIM WALZ, Minnesota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES RISCH, Idaho MICHAEL HONDA, California EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS SETH D. HARRIS, Department of Labor MARIA OTERO, Department of State FRANCISCO J. SA´ NCHEZ, Department of Commerce KURT M. CAMPBELL, Department of State NISHA DESAI BISWAL, U.S. Agency for International Development PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director LAWRENCE T. LIU, Deputy Staff Director (II) CO N T E N T S Page Opening statement of Hon. Chris Smith, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................ 1 Brown, Hon. Sherrod, a U.S. Senator from Ohio; Cochairman, Congressional- Executive Commission on China ........................................................................ 4 Wolf, Hon. Frank, a U.S. Representative from Virginia; Member, Congres- sional-Executive Commission on China ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Justice Excerpted Congressional-Executive
    ACCESS TO JUSTICE EXCERPTED FROM THE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 8, 2015 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 98–306 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:47 Jan 19, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 U:\DOCS\AR15 SECTIONS\AR15 A2J.TXT DEIDRE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS House Senate CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman Chairman JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina TOM COTTON, Arkansas TRENT FRANKS, Arizona STEVE DAINES, Montana RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois BEN SASSE, Nebraska TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MICHAEL M. HONDA, California JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TED LIEU, California GARY PETERS, Michigan EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS CHRISTOPHER P. LU, Department of Labor SARAH SEWALL, Department of State STEFAN M. SELIG, Department of Commerce DANIEL R. RUSSEL, Department of State TOM MALINOWSKI, Department of State PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Deputy Staff Director (II) VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:47 Jan 19, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt
    [Show full text]
  • CECC China Human Rights and Rule of Law Update
    China Human Rights and June 2006 Rule of Law Update Subscribe United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China Senator Chuck Hagel, Chairman | Representative Jim Leach, Co-Chairman Message from the Chairman Seventeenth Anniversary of Tiananmen Seventeen years after the world witnessed the devastating events in and around Tiananmen Square, we remember the courage of the students and workers who peacefully exercised their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Today, Chinese citizens are turning to the law to assert their rights and speak out against government abuses. They do so in the tradition of those who gathered at Tiananmen, appealing to their leaders through peaceful means for the ability to enjoy rights protected by the Chinese Constitution. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China remains hopeful that this type of positive change will continue to grow. But developments over the past year undermine the government's stated commitment to build a fair and just society based on the rule of law. New government rules published this year punish lawyers who defend politically sensitive cases. Chinese citizens, like Chen Guangcheng and Guo Feixiong, have faced harassment and imprisonment for legal challenges against government abuses. Political change is complex and imperfect, but China's leaders must take steps to build a more open and participatory society, and the United States must continue to assist in that effort. Announcements Roundtable: Political Change in China? Public Participation and Local Governance Reforms The Congressional-Executive Commission on China held another in its series of staff-led Issues Roundtables on April 11 entitled Political Change in China? Public Participation and Local Governance Reforms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Olympics Countdown – Failing to Keep Human Rights Promises
    People’s Republic of China The Olympics countdown – failing to keep human rights promises Introduction With just two years to go until the Olympic Games take place in Beijing, the Chinese authorities are failing to meet the human rights commitments they made when Beijing was awarded the Olympics in April 2001.1 Serious human rights violations continue to be reported across the country fueling instability and discontent. Grassroots human rights activists continue to be detained and imprisoned, and official controls over the media and the Internet are growing tighter. While there have been some positive legislative and judicial changes in connection with the application of the death penalty, progress appears to have stalled in connection with other punishments, including “Re-education through Labour” (RTL) and other abusive forms of administrative detention. This report summarizes a number of Amnesty International’s human rights concerns in China – concerns which the organization is continuing to highlight as key areas for reform in the run-up to the Olympics. They are: the continuing use of the death penalty and abusive forms of administrative detention, the arbitrary detention, imprisonment, torture and harassment of human rights defenders, including journalists and lawyers, and the censorship of the Internet. Amnesty International considers that positive reforms in all of these areas are essential if China is to live up to its promises to improve human rights. Each section is accompanied by recommendations, summarized at the end of the report, which Amnesty International considers would constitute significant and concrete progress in the run-up to the Olympics. They form a core component of the organization’s broader agenda for human rights reform in China.
    [Show full text]
  • People's Republic of China the Olympics Countdown
    China: The Olympics Countdown 1 People’s Republic of China The Olympics countdown – crackdown on activists threatens Olympics legacy Introduction With little more than four months to go before the Beijing Olympics, few substantial reforms have been introduced that will have a significant, positive impact on human rights in China.1 This is particularly apparent in the plight of individual activists and journalists, who have bravely sought to expose ongoing human rights abuses and call on the government to address them. Recent measures taken by the authorities to detain, prosecute and imprison those who raise human rights concerns suggest that, to date, the Olympic Games has failed to act as a catalyst for reform. Unless the Chinese authorities take steps to redress the situation urgently, a positive human rights legacy for the Beijing Olympics looks increasingly beyond reach. It is increasingly clear that much of the current wave of repression is occurring not in spite of the Olympics, but actually because of the Olympics. Peaceful human rights activists, and others who have publicly criticised official government policy, have been targeted in the official pre-Olympics ‘clean up’, in an apparent attempt to portray a ‘stable’ or ‘harmonious’ image to the world by August 2008. Recent official assertions of a ‘terrorist’ plot to attack the Olympic Games have given prominence to potential security threats to the Olympics, but a failure to back up such assertions with concrete evidence increases suspicions that the authorities are overstating such threats in an attempt to justify the current crackdown. Several peaceful activists, including those profiled in this series of reports, remain imprisoned or held under tight police surveillance.
    [Show full text]
  • China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (CHRLCG) 中國維權律師關注組 3/F, 6 Portland Street, Yaumatei, Kowloon, Hong Kong
    China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (CHRLCG) 中國維權律師關注組 3/F, 6 Portland Street, Yaumatei, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Tel: (852) 23881377, Fax: (852) 23887270 Email: [email protected] Website: www.chrlcg-hk.org An NGO Submission to the UN Committee Against Torture for the 41st session for the Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports of the People's Republic of China on the Implementation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment October 2008 1. The China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (CHRLCG) is a non-profit organization based in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). Its objective is to advocate for the protection of the human rights lawyers and legal rights defenders in China. It was established on 20 January 2007 by a group of lawyers, legislators and academics in Hong Kong. Despite their endeavours to fight for the rights of the underprivileged within the legal framework, many lawyers and legal activists in China have been subjected to tremendous political pressure and unfair treatment by the Chinese authorities. They and their families deserve more attention and support from Hong Kong and the international community. We believe that the status and rights of these lawyers must be respected before China can successfully develop constitutionalism and the rule of law. 2. Although the State party ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention) on 4 October 1988, dissidents and human rights defenders continued to be subjected to various forms of torture. In addition to the State party’s failure to effectively implement all the relevant provisions on torture in domestic laws, law enforcement officers are usually the ones who violate the domestic laws and the international convention.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline: Human Rights Defenders
    CRF-2008-04-074-079.qxd:HRIC-Report 1/14/09 2:55 PM Page 74 TIMELINE: HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS SEPTEMBER 10 –DECEMBER 2, 2008 September 10 New York Times researcher Zhao Yan (赵岩 ) was detained for two days after interviewing several petitioners who had travelled to Beijing to apply to protest. Zhao was previously imprisoned for three years (2004 –2007) on fraud charges after being detained in connection with a 2004 Times article that accurately predict ed the retirement of Jiang Zemin that year; the initial charge of “revealing state secrets” was later dropped, and Zhao was convicted of fraud. September 18 Henan-based HIV/AIDS activist Li Xige (李喜阁 ) was prevented from leaving her home to attend an HIV/AIDS symposium in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, organized by the China Global Fund to Fight AIDS . Li, who contracted HIV through a tainted blood transfusion, is a frequent petitioner for compensation on behalf of those suffering from HIV/AIDS due to tainted transfusions , and is under tight surveillance by local authorities. September 19 Jiamusi Intermediate People’s Court in Heilongjiang Province upheld the sentence of Olympics critic Yang Chunlin (杨春林 ). Yang was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in March 2008 on charges of “inciting subversion of state power” after organizing an open letter campaign entitled “We want human rights, not the Olympics.” The letter received over 10,000 signatures. September 19 Tao Jun (陶君 ), a student leader in the 1989 democracy movement, was granted political asylum in the U.S. In early June , Tao evaded state security police who were following him and went to Hong Kong; he then arrived in Los Angeles on June 19, 2008.
    [Show full text]