Since the last edition of our China Human Rights Monitor, the UN Special Procedures – experts tasked with monitoring respect for thematic human rights issues around the world – have issued four formal ‘Communications’ to the Chinese government which are now public.
These ‘Communications’ are letters written to the Chinese government, on the basis of information provided by civil society as well as past letters and the government’s international obligations and commitments on human rights.
In general, each letter includes the following:
These are important documents for three reasons. First, the experts use their position with the UN to try to ask questions, and get answers, that civil society cannot – usually because they do not have a clear way of entering into dialogue with the Chinese government. Second, the legal analysis can help inform lawyers, advocates and scholars who are working to improve Chinese practices or defend cases in court. Finally, the Chinese government response to the letters – which are also made public once they are received by the UN, although usually with a delay for translation – can give some insight into how the government views the case and can theoretically provide additional information to the outside world.
As always, these letters will not cause the government to make change on their own; but they are available for human rights defenders and civil society to use for their own research and policy advocacy.
The Communications now public, sent between July and September, include:
Similar letters were also sent to the Papua New Guinea government; to companies involved in the project, including the Chinese company; and to other governments where those companies are based (in this case, Australia and Canada).
According to the experts, such measures are not necessary or proportionate to the national security challenge, and may in fact risk undermining the goal of improving security. They also state that ‘indoctrination programs, such as “re-education camps”, violate international law’, and ask the government to provide information about judicial oversight of surveillance, legal grounds for placement in ‘re-education’, and safeguards to ensure human rights are not jeopardized by ‘counter-terrorism’ efforts.
Yu Wensheng’s case has been followed closely by the UN Special Procedures. His arrest and detention were considered ‘arbitrary’ under international law by the UN WGAD. Now, the experts are concerned that he may have been deprived of his right to fair trial. With regard to the use of RSDL early in his detention, the experts emphasise: ‘the use of RSDL in practice contravenes the right of every person not to be arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty and to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court and without delay’.
Based on their expertise, the Special Procedures raised concerns about, and asked for clarification on, the use of the NSL to counter ‘terrorism’; the definitions of ‘subversion’ and ‘secession’; extraterritorial jurisdiction of the NSL; the likelihood of the NSL resulting in limits on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly; and its chilling effect on civil society.
For each of these letters, different experts or groups co-signed, depending on the human rights issues at hand. The diversity of issues affected by Chinese government policies is reflected by the long list of experts:
For more information, please contact Sarah M. Brooks (at [email protected] or on Twitter at @sarahmcneer); or Raphaël Viana David (at [email protected]T or on Twitter at @vdraphael).
On Tuesday 16 April 2024, ISHR delivered to both Geneva’s Administrative Council and its legislative counterpart, the Municipal Council, physical copies of the more than 1000 signatures collected in support of a memorial honouring Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli.
13 April 2024 marked one year since the Chinese authorities arbitrarily detained prominent human rights lawyer Yu Wensheng and his wife, woman defender Xu Yan. As their health steadily deteriorates, 30 rights groups and the European Union have renewed their call for their prompt release.
In a series of groundbreaking rulings in early 2024, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Colombia set new precedents that significantly enhance protections for human rights defenders across Latin America.
