Communiqué Alleging Arbitrary Detention of DING Jiaxi, ZHANG Zhongshun, DAI Zhenya – February 2020

Comments Off on Communiqué Alleging Arbitrary Detention of DING Jiaxi, ZHANG Zhongshun, DAI Zhenya – February 2020

Submission to:

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association 

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Communiqué on Behalf of DING Jiaxi, ZHANG Zhongshun, DAI Zhenya, Citizens of the People’s Republic of China, 

Alleging Arbitrary Detention, Enforced Disappearance, 

Deprivation of Rights to Expression, Assembly, and Association, and Reprisals against a Human Rights Defender

I. IDENTITIES

A. Ding Jiaxi

1. Family name: Ding (丁)

2. First name: Jiaxi (家喜)

3. Sex: Male

4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention):  August 17, 1967

5. Nationality/Nationalities: People’s Republic of China

6. Identity document (if any): 

7. Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention): Ding Jiaxi, a Beijing-based lawyer, began his human rights activism in 2010 by pushing for the right of migrant workers’ children to take college entrance exams at the location of their current residence rather than needing to return to a place of origin. He also offered legal assistance and provided food to “petitioners” (individuals presenting personal grievances to central officials) in Beijing. Ding was previously detained in April 2013 in apparent retaliation for his participation in the New Citizens’ Movement, a loose network of activists that promoted social justice and political and legal reforms. Ding was subsequently sentenced to 3.5 years in prison and was released in 2016. In April 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled that Ding’s detention was “arbitrary” and it recommended that he be released and compensated for the harm caused by his period of incarceration. (More background on Ding Jiaxi: https://www.nchrd.org/2013/10/prisoner-of-conscience-ding-jiaxi/)

8. Address of usual residence: Beijing, People’s Republic of China

B. Zhang Zhongshun

1. Family name: Zhang (张)

2. First name: Zhongshun (忠顺)

3. Sex: Male

4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention): August 19, 1967

5. Nationality/Nationalities: People’s Republic of China

6. Identity document (if any): 

7. Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention): Zhang Zhongshun, an activist and university professor, previously was imprisoned for three years after showing students a documentary about the Tiananmen Massacre. Following his release in 2010, Zhang promoted ideas about grassroots activism, training others about how to conduct non-violent rights campaigns, and sought donations and funding for prisoners of conscience and other human rights defenders facing difficult circumstances.

8. Address of usual residence: Shandong Province, People’s Republic of China

C. Dai Zhenya

1. Family name: Dai (戴)

2. First name: Zhenya (振亚)

3. Sex: Male

4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention): May 8, 1973

5. Nationality/Nationalities: People’s Republic of China

6. Identity document (if any): 

7. Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention): Dai Zhenya, a finance manager at a private company, has long been involved in human rights work. He has donated to and raised funds for political prisoners and human rights defenders, submitted applications for the government to publicly disclose information, assisted individuals who have suffered rights violations to file administrative and public interest lawsuits, and promoted the development of civil society. Prior to his current detention, Dai had on several occasions been detained and interrogated by public security forces.

8. Address of usual residence: Xiamen City, Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China

II. Arrest

A. Ding Jiaxi 

1. Date of arrest: December 26, 2019

2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible): Friend’s house at Beijing Municipality 

3. Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out: Unknown

4. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority? No

5. Authority who issued the warrant or decision: N/A

6. Reasons for the arrest imputed by the authorities: Unknown

7. Legal basis for the arrest including relevant legislation applied (if known): Unknown

B. Zhang Zhongshun

1. Date of arrest: December 26, 2019

2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible): Unknown

3. Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out: Yantai City Public Security Bureau National Security Team, Shandong Province

4. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority? No

5. Authority who issued the warrant or decision: N/A

6. Reasons for the arrest imputed by the authorities: Unknown

7. Legal basis for the arrest including relevant legislation applied (if known): Unknown

C. Dai Zhenya

1. Date of arrest: December 26, 2019

2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible): Xiamen City, Fujian Province 

3. Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out: Yantai City Public Security Bureau Shandong Province with assistance from Xiamen City Public Security Bureau, Fujian Province

4. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority? No

5. Authority who issued the warrant or decision: N/A

6. Reasons for the arrest imputed by the authorities: “Inciting subversion of state power”

7. Legal basis for the arrest including relevant legislation applied (if known): 

Article 105 (2) of China’s Criminal Law (“inciting subversion of state power”) stipulates a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights to those who incite others by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system.

III. Detention

(Submitter’s note: Ding Jiaxi, Zhang Zhongshun, and Dai Zhenya have not yet been formally arrested at the time of submission but put under Residential Surveillance in Designated Location (RSDL), a de facto form of enforced disappearance (OL CHN 15/2018). They may be under this status for up to six months before being formally arrested. We have included the RSDL details under “Detention”).

A. Ding Jiaxi

1. Date of detention: Unknown (residential surveillance at a designated location). 

2. Duration of detention (if not known, probable duration): Ding Jiaxi has been continuously detained since December 26, 2019 and under RSDL since an unknown date.

3. Forces holding the detainee under custody: Yantai City Public Security Bureau, Shandong Province

4. Places of detention (indicate any transfer and present place of detention): Unknown (Current location unknown under Residential Surveillance in Designated Location, previous detention location also unknown). 

5. Authorities that ordered the detention: Yantai City Public Security Bureau, Shandong Province

6. Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities: “Inciting subversion of state power”

7. Relevant legislation applied (if known):

Article 105 (2) of China’s Criminal Law (“inciting subversion of state power”) stipulates a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights to those who incite others by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system.

B. Zhang Zhongshun

1. Date of detention: Unknown (residential surveillance at a designated location). 

2. Duration of detention (if not known, probable duration): Zhang Zhongshun has been continuously detained since December 26, 2019 and under RSDL since an unknown date. 

3. Forces holding the detainee under custody: Yantai City Public Security Bureau, Shandong Province

4. Places of detention (indicate any transfer and present place of detention): Unknown (Current location unknown under Residential Surveillance in Designated Location, previous detention location also unknown). 

5. Authorities that ordered the detention: Yantai City Public Security Bureau, Shandong Province

6. Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities: “Inciting subversion of state power”

7. Relevant legislation applied (if known): Article 105 (2) of China’s Criminal Law (“inciting subversion of state power”) stipulates a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights to those who incite others by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system.

C. Dai Zhenya

1. Date of detention: Unknown (residential surveillance at a designated location). 

2. Duration of detention (if not known, probable duration): Dai Zhenya has been continuously detained since December 26, 2019 and under RSDL since an unknown date.

3. Forces holding the detainee under custody: Yantai Public Security Bureau, Shandong Province

4. Places of detention (indicate any transfer and present place of detention): Unknown (Current location unknown under Residential Surveillance in Designated Location, previous detention location was Huli District Police Station, No. 73 Xinglong Road, Xiamen City, Fujian Province).

5. Authorities that ordered the detention: Yantai City Public Security Bureau, Shandong Province

6. Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities: “Inciting subversion of state power”

7. Relevant legislation applied (if known):

Article 105 (2) of China’s Criminal Law (“inciting subversion of state power”) stipulates a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights to those who incite others by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system.

IV. Describe the circumstances of the arrest

A.   Ding Jiaxi

Ding Jiaxi had been temporarily living at a friend’s home in Beijing. The friend informed Ding’s wife on December 27, 2019 that around 21:00 on December 26, the friend’s relative returned home to find the lock broken and approximately 10 plainclothes police officers talking to Ding Jiaxi inside. The friend’s relative was handcuffed and taken to Beijing Municipal Changping District Nanshao Police Station until around midnight. When the relative returned home, he witnessed Ding Jiaxi being taken to a car waiting outside. The house was in disarray and Ding’s personal items like phone, computer, and other items were missing. No written document was left behind. 

On December 28, 2019, the relative was again summoned to Changping District Nanshao Police Station and given a warning by a police officer to not reveal information about Ding’s arrest to anyone or it will be “trouble” for their family. The friend has been unreachable since that time. 

B. Zhang Zhongshun

On December 26, 2019 around 16:05, Zhang Zhongshun sent his wife a text message that police wanted to speak to him and he would be late coming home. When Zhang’s wife returned home after work, around 16:26, there were approximately 10 Yantai City national security officers waiting at her door. The officers searched the home for approximately 6 hours and left at around 23:00 with Zhang’s computer, phone, books, and other items. They did not give his wife any warrant or orally inform her what crime Zhang had been suspected of committing. Officers only gave her a list of the items which they had taken, which stated that Yantai Public Security National Security team conducted the search and cited suspected involvement in the “December 13 case” (details below). She never received a written criminal detention notice. 

On January 2, a Yantai PSB national security officer surnamed Liu called Zhang Zhongshun’s family and said that Zhang had been put under RSDL on suspicion of committing a criminal act without stating specifically which crime or the exact date he had been put under RSDL. The family never received a written RSDL notification.

C. Dai Zhenya

On December 26, 2019 around 21:00, the power went out at Dai Zhenya’s home in Xiamen City. When the family went to investigate the power cut, they were swarmed by approximately 10 plainclothes police officers who handcuffed Dai Zhenya and then proceeded to conduct a raid on the house until 22:30. Officers took Dai’s computer, phone, tablet and other items. Officers did not provide a list to the family of the items they took or produce an arrest warrant The officers told Dai’s wife that they were from Shandong Province and Xiamen City PSB were assisting them. The officers orally told Dai’s wife that he was suspected of “inciting subversion of state power.”

That night, Dai Zhenya’s wife went to the Huli District Police Station in Xiamen to ask for further details about the raid. After making several phone calls, the police officers at the station told her that Dai was at their police station, but they knew nothing more. 

On January 2, Xiamen police told Dai’s wife to go to Huli District Police Station. There she was orally informed that Dai had been put under RSDL on suspicion of committing a criminal act, though the officers did not specify which act and on which date Dai had been moved into RSDL. She was made to sign a transcript that summarised what she had been orally informed but not allowed to keep or copy the transcript, nor provided or asked to sign an official notification document. She never received any notice in the mail. 

V. Indicate reasons why you consider the arrest and/or detention to be arbitrary

The detentions Ding Jiaxi, Zhang Zhongshun, and Dai Zhenya constitute state retaliation against the three men for their peaceful exercise of the rights to free expression, peaceful assembly, and free association. Yantai City PSB detained the three men on December 26, 2019 in retaliation for their attendance at a private meeting held on December 7-8 in Xiamen City where the participants discussed politics and ideas for China’s future, and shared civil society experiences. Yantai City PSB in Shandong Province led the crackdown, including setting up a task force called “December 13” (the date of the meeting had initially been misreported as December 13) and detained Ding, Zhang and Dai. As a part of the crackdown surrounding the meeting, Chinese police detained and summoned for questioning a dozen activists and lawyers in Fujian, Shandong, Beijing, Hebei, Sichuan, and Zhejiang around this time. At least five human rights defenders had been detained under RSDL in connection with the December meeting, with four still in custody at the time of submission, including Ding, Zhang, and Dai. 

The above circumstances related to detainees’ detention constitute violations of their rights to peacefully exercise free expression, assembly, and association, including those guaranteed under Category II of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (i.e., when the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights under Articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26), and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 18, 19, and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The men have been deprived of their due process rights since they were initially detained, including in lack of the provision of police documentation concerning their detentions and notification to their families. The three activists were initially disappeared on December 26, 2019 and on an unknown date they were placed under Residential Surveillance in a Designated Location (RSDL). Authorities did not notify families of their detentions within 24 hours, which is allowed under exemptions in China’s Criminal Procedure Law (CPL, Article 83) for individuals charged with a crime in the category of “endangering state security.” RSDL is a form of detention that constitutes de facto enforced disappearance according to international standards, exposing detainee to greater risk of torture. According to Chinese law, detainees can remain under RSDL, at a secret location, for as long as six months. Requests for meetings with their lawyers must be approved by police and are routinely denied in cases involving human rights defenders. Ten UN Special Procedures called on the Chinese government to repeal the provision in August 2018 (OL CHN 15/2018). The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stated in Opinion No. 15/2019 (China) that placement in RSDL is a violation of articles 6, 9, 10, and 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the case of Zhang Zhongshun, Yantai police have repeatedly changed the crime which they have used to justify raids on his home and real estate properties. This appears to indicate that police did not have strong evidence to justify his detention in the first place.  

On January 2, Yantai PSB national security officers returned to one of Zhang’s rental properties in Yantai City which was let out to a tenant. The officers had a search warrant based on the crime “causing an accident through dangerous materials” (art. 136 of the Criminal Law: “Whoever violates the regulations on the control of explosive, inflammable, radioactive, poisonous or corrosive materials and thereby causes a serious accident during the production, storage, transportation or use of those materials, if there are serious consequences, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention; if the consequences are especially serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years.”) Officers claimed to find 245 bullets and printed material on how to make a bomb in the property. Officers showed the warrant to Zhang’s wife but would not allow her to make a copy or take a photo. Zhang’s wife believed the officers planted the bullets and printed materials. She found it suspicious that the search warrant was based on art. 136 as police seemed to “know” that they would find such articles in the rental property. 

On January 4, Yantai PSB national security officers searched two properties in Weihai City owned by Zhang which had been empty for almost one year. The officers had another search warrant, this one cited the crime “sabotaging broadcasting, television or public telecommunications facility (art. 124 of the Criminal Law: “Whoever sabotages any broadcasting, television or public telecommunications facility, thereby endangering public security, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; if there are serious consequences, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than seven years. Whoever negligently commits the crime mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; if the circumstances are minor, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention”.) Officers showed the warrant to Zhang’s wife but would not allow her to make a copy or take a photo. On January 13, 2020, Yantai PSB national security officers searched Zhang’s office in Yantai. They had a warrant which did not list a crime on it. They did not allow Zhang’s wife, who was present during the search, to copy or keep a copy of the warrant. 

The families and lawyers of the Ding and Zhang did not formally learn the crime that police suspected the two men of committing— “inciting subversion of state power”—for over a week, and though Dai’s family were orally informed of the crime, they also did not receive written notification for several weeks. The only written notification given to the families of the three detainees is a written notice given to each of the three lawyers from Yantai PSB that denied the lawyers a visit on the grounds the visit may “endanger state security.” The written notices concerning Ding and Zhang were dated January 9, 2020 but the lawyers only received them on January 15. Dai’s notice is dated January 16 and the lawyer received it on January 21. These notices were the first written confirmation that the three men had been held on suspicion of “inciting subversion of state power.”

Under China’s Criminal Procedure Law, police are allowed to deprive detainees access to a lawyer beyond 48 hours if they have been accused of a “endangering state security” crime (CPL, Article 37). In addition to denying all access to their lawyers, the men have also been deprived of communication with their family members by Yantai police officers.

Shandong authorities have held the men under incommunicado detention during their entire period in custody, which has put them at significant risk of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Authorities have accused the men with a harsh politically-motivated criminal offense of “inciting subversion of state power”—a crime in the category of “endangering state security.” The Working Group described the crime of “inciting subversion” a “vague and imprecise offence” and called “upon the [Chinese] Government to repeal article 105 (2) of the Criminal Law or bring it into line with its obligations under international human rights law” (Opinion No. 15/2019, para. 33, 25).

The above circumstances indicate that the men had been detained due to the peaceful exercise of their rights guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and their ongoing detention constitutes violations of their rights guaranteed under Category III of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 9) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 9).

VI. Indicate internal steps, including domestic remedies, taken especially with the legal and administrative authorities, particularly for the purpose of establishing the detention and, as appropriate, their results or the reasons why such steps or remedies were ineffective or why they were not taken.

A. Ding Jiaxi

On January 7, 2020, Ding Jiaxi’s lawyer went to the Yantai City Public Security Bureau to inquire about Ding’s case. The lawyer also had hoped to visit with Ding that day, but he was not allowed to do so. The next day, a Yantai PSB officer informed the lawyer that Ding had been placed under “residential surveillance in a designated location” because Ding had been accused of “endangering state security.” On January 9, 2020, the lawyer formally submitted to the Yantai City Public Security Bureau an application to visit Ding Jiaxi. On January 10, 2020, the lawyer received a phone call from the Yantai City Public Security Bureau notifying him that he would not be permitted to meet with Ding Jiaxi because Ding was detained for the crime of “inciting subversion of state power.” The lawyer received a written notice denying the visit on the grounds that Ding is suspected of “inciting subversion of state power” and the visit may harm state security. The notice is dated January 9 but the lawyer did not receive it until January 15. This is the only written notice provided by Yantai PSB regarding Ding Jiaxi’s detention. 

On January 15, 2020, the lawyer submitted two “applications for inspection” to the Yantai City People’s Procuratorate requesting they investigate the police force for illegalities in the case. Under art. 47 of the Criminal Procedure Law, defense lawyers may file a complaint with the procuratorate if they believe the police or other authorities have violated the lawyer’s lawful exercise of litigation rights. However, the officer who received the applications claimed that he had never had to handle such applications. The lawyer requested that the Yantai City People’s Procuratorate investigate the unlawful behavior of the Yantai City Public Security Bureau, notify Ding Jiaxi’s family in writing of the decision to apply compulsory measures against Ding, and provide case details to him as Ding’s lawyer so he can prepare a defense. Also, the lawyer submitted to the Yantai City Bureau of Justice a complaint about the denial of visits with his client. At the time of this communication, Ding’s lawyer has not received any responses to his requests. 

BZhang Zhongshun

On January 7, 2020, Zhang Zhongshun’s lawyer went to the Yantai City Public Security Bureau and requested to meet with Zhang, but he was told that the officer in charge of Zhang’s case was not there. On the morning of January 8, 2020, the lawyer again requested a visit with Zhang and met several officers from a national security team of Yantai City. The officers informed him that Zhang’s case involved suspicion of “subverting state power” and “terrorist activities,” that it had recently been determined that he could not be visited, and that Zhang would be notified later about when he could be permitted a visit. On January 15, 2020, the lawyer received the written decision letter from Yantai Public Security Bureau indicating that a visit was not permitted because Zhang was held on suspicion of “inciting subversion of state power” and the visit may harm national security.

C. Dai Zhenya

On the morning of January 15, 2020, Dai’s lawyer went to the Yantai City Public Security Bureau and discussed the matter of visiting Dai with the team to whom Dai’s case was transferred. Seven police officers were present in the meeting room. Officers introduced to the lawyer the case details during a half-hour conversation, but they claimed that they couldn’t respond at that time to the issue of visitation, and that the matter needed to be looked into further before a reply could be provided. In terms of criminal charges, officers simply said they were related to “endangering state security” but that they couldn’t explicitly inform the lawyer of the crime, and nor did they have any legal documentation on the case. The lawyer’s request to visit Dai was refused. On January 21, 2020, the lawyer received a decision from the Yantai City Public Security Bureau notifying him that he would not be permitted to visit Dai because Dai was held on suspicion of “inciting subversion of state power” and the visit may harm national security. This written decision is the only legal document concerning Dai’s case that his family has received since police took Dai into custody on December 26, 2019. 

Date of Submission: February 11, 2020

Back to Top