Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We would like to recognize the vital contributions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
to respond to serious violations of human rights of those who peacefully protest, seek reform,
or merely speak their minds. As this Council has previously stated, the protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms can be ensured best and perhaps only when human rights
defenders are able to conduct their work freely, without hindrance or threats to their security.
It is no news to this Council that activists often face detention simply for exercising their
fundamental freedoms and as penalty for their political views. However, the increasing use of
national security provisions to target defenders exacerbates their vulnerability. In some cases,
these provisions create exceptions to due process rights and legalize detention practices in
violation of international standards, such as refusal or failure to notify family members or
provide access to legal counsel. Mistreatment, neglect, and torture of defenders in detention
continue, and access to timely and adequate medical care is often limited. Deaths in custody
continue, rarely with full investigations or accountability.
Since the last Council session, perhaps no country has illustrated the need for protections
against arbitrary detention more than China. Starting on 9 July, the Chinese security apparatus
embarked on a crackdown that has affected over 250 lawyers and defenders. According to
sources, lawyers Wang Yu, Wang Quanzhang, Sui Muqing, and Zhou Shifeng have been held
incommunicado since their disappearance, now over two months ago. Concerns for their
physical security are very real; treatment of detained defenders in China is notoriously poor.
Prominent lawyer Pu Zhiqiang, journalist Gao Yu, and democracy activist Liu Ping have
reportedly been denied adequate medical treatment, as was women’s rights activist Wu
Rongrong during her detention earlier this year. After the unexplained death in custody of
Tibetan spiritual leader Tenzin Delek Rinpoche in July, his body was cremated against the
wishes and spiritual beliefs of his community and family.
The use of ‘residential surveillance in a designated place’, outside the scope of administrative or
judicial appeal, has been applied to 11 lawyers and defenders, including Bao Longjun, Gao Yue,
and Xie Yuandong. Those in criminal detention, such as Liu Sixin, have been held for far more
than the legal limit of 37 days; the location and status of at least one lawyer, Li Heping, is
unknown.
We note that some requests for visits by the Working Group have been pending over eight
years despite regular reminders. This does not demonstrate the respect merited by
mandateholders of this Council or the responsibilities entailed by Council membership. What
can civil society do to reinforce these requests, and can the Working Group consider creative
ways of seeking civil society perspectives when country visits are impossible?
Regarding the new Working Methods, when individual cases are accepted, would the Working
Group consider a more effective and efficient way of communicating updates on cases, to
permit more effective civil society engagement?
Based on the information in the Working Group’s report, we urge the government of China to
release and/or provide remedy to those who have already been identified as victims of
arbitrary detention, including Uighur scholar Ilham Tohti1; journalist Wang Hanfei2; torture
victim Xing Shiku3; lawyers, including Ding Jiaxi4 and the so-called Guangzhou 35; and Nobel
Prize winner Liu Xiaobo6. The Chinese government should release all lawyers and defenders
illegally detained, and ensure access to legal counsel and notification of the family for those
remaining in detention.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1A/HRC/WGAD/2014/3
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/091/36/PDF/G1409136.pdf?OpenElement
A/HRC/WGAD/2014/21 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/227/63/PDF/G1422763.pdf?OpenElement
3A/HRC/WGAD/2014/8 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/071/14/PDF/G1407114.pdf?OpenElement
4 A/HRC/WGAD/2015, opinion 3/2015.
5 A/HRC/30/36, opinion 49/2014.
6 A/HRC/WGAD/2011/15
2