Written evidence submitted by the East Turkistan Government in Exile and East Turkistan National Awakening Movement (XIN0081) Who we are and our aims 1. We are the legal team acting on behalf of the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGE) and the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement (ETNAM). Our clients represent millions of Uyghur and other Turkic victims of the international crimes committed by Chinese state officials in East Turkistan and abroad. East Turkistan is the territory referred to as Xinjiang that is widely considered to be a colony or occupied territory. 2. Within this submission, we refer to ‘East Turkistan’ instead of ‘Xinjiang’. Using this terminology helps counter the oppression of Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples, who refer to their homeland as East Turkistan. ‘Xinjiang’ is a Chinese term meaning ‘the New Territory’. The FCDO and the UK Government are encouraged to consider using the same terminology. 3. The ETGE is the official body, registered in Washington DC, which represents East Turkistan and its people worldwide. The ETNAM is a non-profit political rights organisation whose goal is to end China’s oppressive activity within East Turkistan. 4. On 6 July 2020 the legal team acting on behalf of the ETGE and ETNAM submitted a Complaint to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) urging her to open an investigation for the crimes that come within the ICC’s jurisdiction. The Complaint provides detailed and extensive evidence that high ranking officials of the Chinese government are committing genocide and other crimes against humanity. 5. Both our aim as the lawyers and our clients’ aim in bringing the Complaint is to give a voice to the millions of victims of Chinese state oppression. We wish to bring them justice in a way which has a significant deterrent effect on China. Our Complaint seeks to establish that the gravest crimes have been committed on a mass scale and should be investigated and prosecuted by the ICC. 1 6. The evidence which we have submitted and will continue to submit includes first- hand witness evidence, expert evidence and publicly available documentation. Central to this is the indisputable evidence that China has constructed, and continues to construct, detention camps in which millions of people have been incarcerated. In this sense, we act not only on behalf of our direct clients, but as the representatives of the victims. 7. In short, we plan to bring justice to those who are suffering on a daily basis at the hands of the Chinese government. The purpose of this Submission 8. The Committee has asked (in different terms) what mechanisms can be used effectively for atrocity prevention, and how to influence China towards better human rights practices. This submission aims at informing the Committee about the content and importance of the Complaint filed with the ICC Prosecutor. Furthermore, it lays out how the UK could support this Complaint so that those responsible for human rights abuses against the Uyghurs be held accountable. Our clients, the ETGE and ETNAM, have contributed substantially to our submission with regard to what the UK can do to support Uyghurs and other Turkic nationals and influence China to stop its oppressive acts. The Complaint at the ICC 9. The Complaint provides evidence of the detention of millions of people in internment camps, the forced mass sterilisation of Uyghur women, and numerous repressive measures against Uyghur culture and religion. We have gathered, and will continue to gather, numerous first-hand testimonies of the torture, disappearances and other inhumane acts conducted inside the camps and elsewhere. 10. Although China is not a signatory to the ICC, the Court has jurisdiction over these crimes because many of them either started or finished in ICC Member States, namely Tajikistan and Cambodia. Thousands of victims have been forced to flee China on account of the deprivation of fundamental rights and threat of incarceration. Thousands more have been forced back into China from abroad either to place them 2 into camps or otherwise to exert its power over them, resulting in the above crimes being committed against them. 11. Jurisdiction in the present matter rests on the clear precedent set by the ICC in the Bangladesh/Myanmar (Rohingya) case. In that case, the crimes against the Rohingyas were said to start in Myanmar and continued into Bangladesh, an ICC Member State. The Court made clear that it has jurisdiction over crimes within its purview when at least one element of the crime or part of it is committed on the territory of a State Party to the Statute. In the present case, the evidence strongly suggests that the crimes both start and end in ICC Member States. This clearly gives the ICC jurisdiction. 12. The ICC holds a unique place as the only international body which has the power to adjudicate on matters of individual criminal responsibility for genocide and crimes against humanity. Should there be sufficient evidence to charge Chinese officials with these crimes, then every effort would be made, including arrest warrants, to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice. If this were to occur in the present case, it should have a significant deterrent effect against China committing further human rights abuses in the region, as its officials subject to the arrest warrants would be liable to arrest in any ICC Member State that they visit. 13. The Complaint is currently at the first stage in the process at the ICC, with the Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. It is up to her to make a decision as to whether she wishes to commence an investigation into the alleged crimes. Widespread national and international support for the Complaint has a vital impact as to whether such an investigation happens. It is therefore key to whether the victims’ voices will be heard at the ICC. 14. Accordingly, the Complaint represents a momentous opportunity to hold those responsible for the detention camps accountable. If it succeeds (and arrest warrants are ordered), it is certain to have a significant impact on those responsible for the detention camps. This is why the UK Government and other UK institutions are encouraged to support the Complaint. 3 The support the Complaint has had so far and what more can be done to support both an ICC investigation and Uyghurs/other Turkic peoples in general The support the Complaint has had at this early stage 15. Several newspapers have covered the submission of the Complaint and its ramifications. 16. Over 60 parliamentarians from 16 countries, members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), signed a letter dated 30 October 2020 urging Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to open an investigation. We are in discussion with parliamentarians worldwide as to further potential letters of support, with the purpose of building international momentum behind the prospect of an independent international investigation by the ICC. Why is it so important for the UK to support the opening of an ICC investigation? 17. China has ratified the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. However, it has made a reservation to Article IX of the Convention, which gives the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over disputes relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention. As a result, there is, today, no judicial avenue to engage the responsibility of China as a State for the violation of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. 18. In this context, it is all the more important to ensure that the individuals responsible for the atrocities committed against the Uyghurs be tried and that their crimes do not remain unpunished. The very purpose of the International Criminal Court is to put an end to impunity for the worst crimes. In light of the nature and the scale of the crimes committed by Chinese officials, an ICC investigation is undoubtedly warranted. What can be done to support the ICC investigation? 19. Here is a list of concrete measures which the UK and its institutions can take to help build momentum behind an ICC investigation and in general to influence China to stop its oppressive acts: a. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee could make both written and oral statements in support of the opening of an ICC investigation and of the 4 principle that those who are responsible for the detention camps should be held accountable under international law; b. The Government could, likewise, make a public statement in support of an ICC investigation. Such a statement would show that the Government is resolute in supporting justice for those who are persecuted by China. This would not be inappropriate or somehow illegitimately seeking to influence the Prosecutor. Rather, this would represent the United Kingdom, as a State Party committed to the implementation of the Rome Statute and the fight against impunity for the most atrocious crimes, doing its part to ensure that those officials responsible for the detention camps face the consequences of their criminal acts; and c. The Government should encourage other States to support an ICC investigation. 20. There is no trade-off between supporting an ICC investigation and simultaneously taking other actions at the international level. The UK can leverage its power through international institutions, while supporting this case. In addition, what can be done to influence China towards better human rights practice? 21. We would urge the UK Government to undertake the following actions in order to pressure China to stop its persecution of the Uyghur and other Turkic peoples: a. The Government should formally recognise China’s atrocities as genocide as defined under the UN Genocide Convention. At the international level, the UK could highlight the breaches of several other treaties to apply international pressure on China: such treaties include the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Rights of the Child; b.