2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)

A. ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF LIFE AND OTHER UNLAWFUL OR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED KILLINGS

There were numerous reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year. In many instances few or no details were available. There continued to be no government transparency or public statistics on executions.

In Xinjiang there were reports of custodial deaths related to detentions in the internment camps. In July Radio Free Asia (RFA) reported Tumshuq Prison in Xinjiang’s Maralbeshi County released the bodies of at least 26 Uyghur inmates to their families before the Eid al-Fitr holiday.

There were multiple reports from Uyghur family members who discovered their relatives died while in internment camps or within weeks of their release from causes related to their detention. According to RFA’s December 2022 report, Uyghur poet Abdulla Sawut, detained in 2017 and convicted of “advocating for ethnic separatism,” died in December 2022 shortly after his release from prison.

B. DISAPPEARANCE

Enforced disappearances through multiple means continued at a nationwide, systemic scale.

The primary means by which authorities forcibly disappeared individuals for sustained periods of time was known as “Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location” (RSDL). RSDL codified in law the long-standing practice of detaining and removing from the public eye individuals the state deemed a risk to national security or intended to use as hostages. The primary disappearance mechanism for public functionaries was known as liuzhi. Numerous reports suggested individuals disappeared by RSDL and liuzhi were subject to numerous abuses including but not limited to physical and psychological abuse, humiliation, rape, torture, starvation, isolation, and forced confessions. According to an April 2022 report by human rights nongovernmental organization (NGO) Safeguard Defenders, between 55,977 and 113,407 persons were placed into RSDL (and later faced trial) from 2015 to 2021.

Many Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and members of other Muslim and ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang detained in the government’s mass arbitrary detention campaign remain imprisoned. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other NGOs alleged many of these detentions amounted to enforced disappearance, since families were often not provided information concerning the length or location of the detention.

According to ChinaAid, former lawyer Tang Jitian was released in January after nearly 400 days in detention. Authorities took Tang into custody in 2021 when he was due to attend a Human Rights Day gathering organized by the European Union in Beijing. A 2022 report by Rights Protection Network (RPN) stated Tang was held in a poorly ventilated room without windows, was beaten and subjected to rounds of sleep deprivation, was deprived of adequate medical care, and fell in a bathroom, suffering a concussion.

The government still had not provided a comprehensive, credible accounting of all those killed, missing, or detained in connection with the violent suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations. Many activists involved in the 1989 demonstrations and their family members continued to suffer official harassment. The government made no efforts to prevent, investigate, or punish such harassment.

C. TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, AND OTHER RELATED ABUSES

The law prohibited the physical abuse and mistreatment of detainees and forbade prison guards from coercing confessions, insulting prisoners’ dignity, and beating or encouraging others to beat prisoners. The law excluded evidence obtained through illegal means, including coerced confessions, in certain categories of criminal cases. There were credible reports that authorities routinely ignored prohibitions against torture, especially in politically sensitive cases.

Former prisoners and detainees have reported they were beaten, raped, subjected to electric shock, forced to sit on stools for hours on end, hung by the wrists, deprived of sleep, force-fed, forced to take medication against their will, and otherwise subjected to physical and psychological abuse. Although prison authorities abused ordinary prisoners, they reportedly singled out political and religious dissidents for particularly harsh treatment.

In May 2022 Fuzhou-based human rights defender Liang Baiduan sued the municipal public security department for police brutality in March 2022 that resulted in broken ribs and injured tendons in his hands, according to media. Liang’s attorney appeared on his behalf at a January 29 hearing at a Fuzhou District Court.

The health of Zhang Zhan, sentenced to prison for four years in 2020 for her activities as a citizen journalist during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, continued to deteriorate while imprisoned in Shanghai; her weight dropped to less than 90 pounds. When Zhang went on a hunger strike in 2021, prison officials force-fed her, tying and chaining her arms, torso, and feet.

Members of the minority Uyghur ethnic group reported systematic torture and other degrading treatment by law enforcement officers and officials working within the penal system and internment camps.

The treatment and abuse of detainees under the liuzhi detention system, which operated outside the judicial system as a legal tool for the government and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to investigate corruption and other offenses by officials, featured extended solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, beatings, and forced standing or sitting in uncomfortable positions for hours and sometimes days, according to press reports.

The law stated psychiatric treatment and hospitalization should be “on a voluntary basis,” but the law failed to provide meaningful legal protections for persons who could be involuntarily committed, such as access to a lawyer or other advocate or the right to communicate with those outside the psychiatric institution.

Official media reported the Ministry of Public Security directly administered 23 psychiatric hospitals for the criminally insane. While many of those committed to mental health facilities were convicted of murder and other violent crimes, there were also reports of activists, religious or spiritual adherents, and petitioners being involuntarily subjected to psychiatric treatment for political reasons. Public security officials could commit individuals to psychiatric facilities and force treatment for “conditions” that had no basis in psychiatry.

On February 28, media reported church leaders Lian Changnian, Lian Xuliang, and Fu Juan were under RSDL throughout 2022 and were finally transferred to a detention center in February. While in RSDL, interrogators beat them, deprived them of food, blew smoke in their eyes, and denied them the use of toilets.

Impunity was a significant problem in the security forces, including the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, and the Ministry of Justice, which managed the prison system.

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Conditions in penal institutions for both political prisoners and criminal offenders were generally harsh and often life threatening or degrading.

Abusive Physical Conditions: Authorities regularly held prisoners and detainees in overcrowded conditions with poor sanitation. Food often was inadequate and of poor quality, and many detainees relied on supplemental food, medicines, and warm clothing provided by relatives when allowed to receive them. Prisoners often reported sleeping on the floor because there were no beds or bedding. In many cases ventilation, heating, lighting, and access to potable water were inadequate.

The lack of adequate, timely medical care for prisoners remained a serious problem.

Conditions in administrative detention facilities were like those in prisons. Detainees reported beatings, sexual assaults, lack of proper food, and limited or no access to medical care.

In April, the Independent Chinese PEN Center reported prison authorities mistreated Lv Gengsong, sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment in 2016 by a Hangzhou court for “state subversion.” Because he refused to admit his guilt, prison authorities violated Lv’s reading and communication rights, injuring his mental and physical health. Observers believed Lv’s conviction was related to his ties to the banned China Democracy Party.

Administration: While detainee abuse was proscribed by law, the mechanism for detainees to report abuse was unclear. The law stated letters from a prisoner to higher authorities of the prison or to judicial organs should not be censored; it was unclear whether the law was observed. While authorities occasionally investigated credible allegations of problematic conditions, the results were not documented in a publicly accessible manner.

Independent Monitoring: Authorities considered information regarding prisons and various other types of administrative and extralegal detention facilities to be a state secret, and the government did not permit independent monitoring.

D. ARBITRARY ARREST OR DETENTION

Arbitrary arrest and detention remained systemic. The law granted public security officers broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges. Lawyers, human rights activists, journalists, religious leaders and adherents, and former political prisoners and their family members continued to be targeted for arbitrary detention or arrest.

UN human rights bodies have found the system of Residential Surveillance (RS), a form of house arrest used to detain an individual under investigation, constitutes arbitrary detention and have called for its repeal. In March the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said his office had documented large-scale arbitrary detentions and family separations in Xinjiang. Also in March, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention rendered its opinion that the deprivation of liberty of Uyghurs Qurban Mamut, Ekpar Asat, and Gulshan Abbas was arbitrary.

In September 2022 Safeguard Defenders published a report on RS. Unlike the RSDL system, which allowed police to place a suspect into secret detention at undisclosed locations, RS took place at the suspect’s home. In some cases, persons were allowed to receive visitors and use their telephone; in other cases, they were isolated and barred from all communication or visits, and from leaving the house. The report estimated RS was used on between 560,000 and 860,000 persons since 2012.

The law provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court, but the government generally did not observe this requirement.

There were allegations that detainees in the liuzhi detention system of the National Supervisory Commission-Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (NSC-CCDI) were held incommunicado with no recourse to appeal their detention.

There were no statistics available on the number of individuals in the liuzhi detention system nationwide. In previous years, however, several provinces published these numbers, including, in 2020, Heilongjiang (376) and Jilin (275). One provincial official heading the liuzhi detention system stated suspects averaged 42.5 days in detention before being transferred into the criminal justice system.

Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees

Criminal detention beyond 37 days required approval of a formal arrest by the procuratorate, but in cases pertaining to “national security, terrorism, and major bribery,” the law permitted up to six months of incommunicado detention without formal arrest. After formally arresting a suspect, public security authorities were authorized to detain a suspect for up to an additional seven months while the case was investigated.

After completing an investigation, the procuratorate could detain a suspect an additional 45 days while determining whether to file criminal charges. If charges were filed, authorities could detain a suspect for an additional 45 days before beginning judicial proceedings. Public security officials sometimes detained persons beyond the period allowed by law, and pretrial detention periods of a year or longer were common.

The law stipulated detainees be allowed to meet with defense counsel before criminal charges were filed, although lengthy detention without access to lawyers before charges were filed was common. Lawyers reported significant difficulties meeting their clients in detention centers, especially in cases considered politically sensitive.

Criminal defendants could apply for bail (also translated as “a guarantor pending trial”) while awaiting trial, but the system did not operate effectively, and authorities released few suspects on bail.

The law required notification of family members within 24 hours of detention, but authorities often held individuals without providing such notification for significantly longer periods, especially in politically sensitive cases. In some cases, notification did not occur.

Authorities used administrative detention to intimidate political and religious advocates. Forms of administrative detention included compulsory drug rehabilitation treatment (for drug users), “custody and training” (for minor criminal offenders), and “legal education” centers for political activists and religious and spiritual adherents, particularly Falun Gong practitioners. The maximum stay in compulsory drug rehabilitation centers was two years, commonly including six months in a detoxification center. The government maintained similar rehabilitation centers for those charged with prostitution or with soliciting prostitution.

Arbitrary Arrest: Authorities detained or arrested persons on poorly defined allegations of revealing state secrets, subversion, and other crimes to suppress political dissent and public advocacy. Any piece of information could be retroactively designated a state secret, such as information on criminal trials, commercial activity, and any government activity. Authorities also used vaguely worded charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” broadly against many civil rights advocates. A counterespionage law granted authorities the power to require individuals and organizations to cease any activities deemed a threat to national security. Failure to comply could result in seizure of property and assets. Revisions to the counterespionage law broadening the definition of espionage went into effect July 10, accompanied by a significant public awareness campaign discouraging a range of interactions with foreigners.

There were multiple reports authorities arrested or detained lawyers, religious leaders or adherents, petitioners, and other rights advocates for lengthy periods without officially issuing a charge or providing a reason. Authorities subjected many of these individuals to extralegal house arrest, denial of travel rights, or administrative detention in different types of extralegal detention facilities, including “black jails.” Conditions faced by those under house arrest varied but sometimes included isolation in their homes under guard by security agents. Security officials were frequently stationed inside the homes. Authorities placed many citizens under house arrest during sensitive times, such as during the visits of senior foreign government officials, annual plenary sessions of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, and sensitive anniversaries in Tibetan areas and Xinjiang. Security agents took some of those not placed under house arrest to remote areas on so-called vacations.

State media reported the NSC-CCDI had “taken away” and detained billionaire Bao Fan, founder of China Renaissance Holdings, on February 7; he remained in custody as of December.

On March 20, Amnesty International reported that, in Urumqi, Xinjiang, State Security officers detained Zhanargül Zhumatay, an ethnic Kazakh musician who advocated for the rights of herders. Zhumatay communicated with persons abroad and spoke out for the land rights of Kazakh herding communities, according to Amnesty International, adding that she had been previously held in an internment camp.

On April 13, lawyer Yu Wensheng and wife Xu Yan were arrested by Beijing police en route to the mission of the European Union. They were later charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” Previously, Yu was released in 2022 after serving a four-year prison term for his civil society efforts. RFA reported on May 23 that the government was dissuading lawyers from representing Yu and Xu.

On May 18, a district court in Guangzhou sentenced Wang Aizhong (detained since 2021) to three years in prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” in connection with his involvement with the “Southern Street Movement.” Authorities did not permit Wang’s wife to attend the trial, RFA reported.

On May 18, Wang Mo, a civil rights activist from Jiangsu Province, went missing after holding up a banner in Guangzhou in support of Wang Aizhong, an activist tried and sentenced that same day, according to press reports. Wang was released on bail after a three-day detention and sent back to his home in Jiangsu, according to a post on X (formerly Twitter).

On June 6, media reported human rights lawyer Chang Weiping was sentenced to three and a half years in prison in Shaanxi Province for “subversion of state power.” Chang, known for his successful representation of HIV and AIDS discrimination cases, was detained in 2020 after he posted a video to YouTube detailing abuse he suffered during a January 2020 detention.

Voice of America reported major judicial irregularities marked the June 21 trial of Shanghai rights activist Harvey Ji (Ji Xiaolong) on charges of “picking quarrels and stirring up trouble” for his online activism both during and immediately following the spring 2022 Shanghai lockdown. Authorities in Shanghai detained Ji in August 2022. Ji published a petition during the lockdown calling on the government to end its zero-COVID policy, compensate companies for losses caused by the policy, and release those jailed during the pandemic for expressing themselves freely.

Pretrial Detention: Pretrial detention could last longer than one year. Defendants in “sensitive cases” reported being subjected to prolonged pretrial detention. Statistics were not published or made publicly available, but lengthy pretrial detentions were especially common in cases of political prisoners.

As of August, China Human Rights Watch cofounder Xu Qin, detained in November 2021 on suspicion of “inciting subversion,” remained in detention in Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province. Authorities delayed Xu’s trial for the 10th time on August 3. Her lawyer previously stated the government suspended Xu’s trial in retaliation for her refusal to plead guilty.

E. DENIAL OF FAIR PUBLIC TRIAL

Although the law stated the courts should exercise judicial power independently, without interference from administrative organs, social organizations, and individuals, the judiciary did not exercise judicial power independently. Judges regularly received political guidance on pending cases, including instructions on how to rule, from national and local governments and the CCP, particularly in politically sensitive cases. The CCP directed court operations and approved all judicial and procuratorate appointments.

Corruption often influenced court decisions since safeguards against judicial corruption were vague and poorly enforced. A CCP-controlled committee decided most major cases, and the duty of trial and appellate court judges was to craft a legal justification for the committee’s decision. Courts routinely barred the public from attendance.

Trial Procedures

Although the law reaffirmed the presumption of innocence, the criminal justice system remained biased toward a presumption of guilt, especially in high-profile or politically sensitive cases.

Courts often punished defendants who refused to acknowledge guilt with harsher sentences than those who confessed. The appeals process rarely reversed convictions, and it failed to provide sufficient avenues for review. Remedies for violations of defendants’ rights were inadequate.

Authorities often closed trials to the public and used the state secrets provision to keep politically sensitive proceedings closed, sometimes even to family members, and to withhold a defendant’s access to defense counsel. Criminal defendants were eligible for legal assistance, but most criminal defendants went to trial without a lawyer.

Human rights lawyers reported authorities did not permit them to defend certain clients or threatened them with punishment such as revoking licenses if they chose to do so; defendants in politically sensitive cases frequently found it difficult to find an attorney. Other government tactics to intimidate or otherwise pressure human rights lawyers included unlawful detention, vague “investigations” of legal offices, disbarment, harassment, physical intimidation, and denial of access to evidence and to clients.

Despite regulations that defense attorneys should be allowed to meet suspects or defendants, lawyers often had no pretrial access to their clients (especially in sensitive cases), had limited time to review evidence, and were not allowed to communicate with defendants during trials. Similarly, criminal defendants were frequently not assigned an attorney until a case was brought to court.

Mechanisms allowing defendants to confront their accusers were inadequate. Judges retained significant discretion over whether live witness testimony was required or even allowed. In most criminal trials, prosecutors read witness statements, which neither the defendants nor their lawyers had an opportunity to rebut through cross-examination. Although the law stated pretrial witness statements could not serve as the sole basis for conviction, prosecutors relied heavily on such statements. Defense attorneys had no authority to compel witnesses to testify or to mandate discovery.

Media reports indicated public security authorities used televised confessions to establish guilt before criminal trial proceedings began. In some cases, these confessions were likely a precondition for release. NGOs asserted such statements were likely coerced, perhaps by torture; some detainees who confessed recanted upon release and confirmed their confessions had been coerced. No provision in the law allowed the pretrial broadcast of confessions by criminal suspects.

On April 10, civil rights activists Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong were sentenced to 14- and 12-years’ imprisonment, respectively, for “subversion of state power” and incitement to the same, media reported. They were tried in secret in June 2022. The court limited public access because the cases involved “state secrets.” Relatives were not allowed to attend the trials and lawyers were warned not to speak with media. Rights groups called the trials “grossly unfair” and the charges “trumped up.” Ding and Xu were detained in 2019 after a meeting in Xiamen, Fujian Province, to organize peaceful civil society activities.

Political Prisoners and Detainees

Government officials continued to deny holding any political prisoners, asserting persons were detained not for their political or religious views but because they had violated the law. Authorities, however, continued to imprison citizens for reasons related to politics and religion or spiritual beliefs. Human rights organizations estimated thousands of political prisoners (not counting persons held in Xinjiang) remained incarcerated, most in prisons and some in administrative detention. The government did not grant international humanitarian NGOs or UN agencies access to political prisoners. Prison authorities at times withheld medical treatment from political prisoners.

Many political prisoners remained either in prison or held under other forms of detention, including writer Yang Maodong (pen name Guo Feixiong); Uyghur scholars Ilham Tohti, Rahile Dawut, and Hushtar Isa, brother of World Uyghur Congress president Dolkun Isa; retired Uyghur medical doctor Gulshan Abbas; Uyghur entrepreneur Ekpar Asat; Tibetan Buddhist monk Go Sherab Gyatso; Tibetan Dorje Tashi; activists Wang Bingzhang, Chen Jianfang, and Huang Qi; pastors Zhang Shaojie and Wang Yi; Falun Gong practitioner Zhou Deyong; Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Shanghai Thaddeus Ma Daqin; rights lawyers and activists Xia Lin, Gao Zhisheng, Xu Zhiyong, Ding Jiaxi, Xu Yan, Yu Wensheng, Chang Weiping, and Li Yuhan; citizen journalist Zhang Zhan; Shanghai labor activist Jiang Cunde; and others.

Criminal punishments included “deprivation of political rights” for a fixed period after release from prison, during which an individual could be denied rights of free speech, association, and publication. Former prisoners reported their ability to find employment, travel, obtain residence permits and passports, rent residences, and access social services was severely restricted.

Authorities frequently subjected former political prisoners and their families to surveillance, telephone wiretaps, searches, and other forms of harassment or threats. Click here to read more.