April 2, 2021 – CHRD Follow-Up Communiqué Alleging Torture or Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of former Chinese lawyer Ding Jiaxi, activists Xu Zhiyong, Li Qiaochu, and lawyer Chang Weiping during periods of their Enforced Disappearance and Arbitrary Detention in reprisals against them for Exercising their Freedom of Expression, Peaceful Assembly and Association
Comments Off on April 2, 2021 – CHRD Follow-Up Communiqué Alleging Torture or Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of former Chinese lawyer Ding Jiaxi, activists Xu Zhiyong, Li Qiaochu, and lawyer Chang Weiping during periods of their Enforced Disappearance and Arbitrary Detention in reprisals against them for Exercising their Freedom of Expression, Peaceful Assembly and AssociationApril 2, 2021
Joint Submission to:
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders,
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention,
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances,
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 right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism:
I. Identity of the person(s) subjected to torture
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. Profession: A disbarred lawyer who has entered into activism. UN experts wrote to Chinese authorities expressing concern over the “alleged arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearance” of Ding Jiaxi and two others, (Zhang Zhongshun and Dai Zhenya).[1]
Later, UN experts expressed “grave concern” regarding the Ding Jiaxi’s detention in the system known as “residential surveillance in a designated location” (RSDL), a practice that the UN experts noted was “not compatible with international human rights law”.[2]
7. ID number:
8. Work type: none
9. Address or work address: none
B. Xu Zhiyong
1. Family name: Xu (许)
2. First name: Zhiyong (志永)
3. Sex: Male
4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention): March 2nd, 1973
5. Nåationality/Nationalities: People’s Republic of China
6. Profession: Xu Zhiyong is a prominent legal activist. Xu founded the “Open Constitution Initiative” (Gongmeng, 公盟), a pro- democracy movement which later spawned the “New Citizen’s Movement,” (新公民运动) a loose grouping of human rights defenders advocating for democratic and rule-of-law reforms, constitutionalism, human rights, and social justice. Xu Zhiyong and many members of the new Citizens Movement were detained in a crackdown on the movement that began in the spring of 2013. Xu received a four-year prison sentence in 2014 and was released from prison in July 2017. Since starting his rights activism in 2003, Xu has promoted non-violence, defended individuals unjustly sentenced to death, drafted legal reforms, and provided legal consultation and other forms of assistance to homeless petitioners. For his many efforts in rights defense, Xu has been beaten, threatened, and arbitrarily detained by authorities. Xu Zhiyong has previously been the subject of Special Procedure communications, including JUA CHN 12/2013[3]; JUA CHN 10/2013[4]; JUA CHN 8/2013[5]; JUA CHN 29/2010.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention most recently issued an opinion that found that:
“The deprivation of liberty of Xu Zhiyong, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 (1) and (2), 12,19, 20 (1) and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V. “[6]
7. ID number:
8. Work type: none
9. Address or work address: Beijing, People’s Republic of China
C. Li Qiaochu
1. Family name: Li (李)
2. First name: Qiaochu (翘楚)
3. Sex: Female
4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention): January 13th, 1991
5. Nationality/Nationalities: People’s Republic of China
6. Profession: Activist. Li Qiaochu has long been an advocate against gender-based violence, for labour rights, and for the building of civil society more broadly. Li, 30, graduated from Renmin University, earned a master’s degree in public policy from the University of York in England in 2015. She went on to work as a research assistant at Tsinghua University, analyzing China’s pension system and other policy issues.
7. ID number:
8. Work type: none
9. Address or work address: none
D. Chang Weiping
1. Family name: Chang (常)
2. First name: Weiping (玮平)
3. Sex: Male
4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention): April 14, 1984
5. Nationality/Nationalities: People’s Republic of China
6. Profession: Lawyer. CHRD has previously written a communique expressing concern about Chang Weiping’s alleged arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance, which occurred right after Chang Weiping made a Youtube video describing the torture he suffered while in RSDL.[7]
7. ID number:
8. Work type: Chinese lawyer
9. Address or work address: Shaanxi Province, Xi’an city, Yanta District Keqi Er Lu, Feicui Tianyu Xiaogang
II. Circumstances surrounding torture
A. Ding Jiaxi
1. Date and place of arrest and subsequent torture
On 26 December 2019, Ding Jiaxi was taken away from his home in Beijing by Yantai City, Shandong Province police agents, and he was placed at a “residential surveillance in a designated location” (RSDL) location administered by the Yantai police.
From 27 December 2019 until 22 January 2020, everyday starting at 9am Ding Jiaxi was interrogated until the next day at 3am. During this time, he fainted twice, losing his memory in the process.
During the first week of the Chinese New Year celebrations, Ding was only given one quarter of a mantou (a bland Chinese bun) and only given 600ml of water, with no other food.
From February 4-14, the RSDL authorities continuously showed the film “Five Years of Xi Jinping” at a high volume. As this was broadcast 24/7, Ding could not get any rest, and his body suffered.
From February 5 to 22, everyday Ding was interrogated 15 hours a day, by 8 people composed of four different interrogation teams.
From April 1-8, Ding was fastened to a “tiger chair”, with his back tightly tied to the chair, and with a band tightly tied around his chest, which inhibited regular breathing. Every day he was interrogated from 9am to 6am the next morning. From 6am to 9am, he was allowed to use the bathroom and eat, but he was not allowed to sleep. This routine was used 24 hours a day. By the morning of April 7, they found that due to sitting in the tiger chair for too long, his feet had swollen up to look like round balls, and his body could no longer endure the torment.
From April 28 to May 6, another round of interrogations began. Ding was interrogated continuously, with his only time allotted from sleep from 3am to 6am. Also, before being arrested (meaning, leaving the RSDL system) on 19 June, authorities deprived him of sleep for another 10 days.
In total, during the six months of RSDL in Yantai, Ding Jiaxi was deprived of sleep and subjected to continuous interrogation for 73 days. For six months, he did not see a ray of sunlight and artificial lights were left on 24/7. He was not allowed to shower and not allowed to brush his teeth. In everything he did he was confined to the two interrogation rooms, with on interrogation room having a mattress. When he was not being interrogated, he was made to sit and not allowed to stand or move about. When going into the corridor to go to the bathroom, he had to wear a black hood on his head.
Since being arrested on June 19, 2020 by the Linyi City authorities and being transferred to the Linshu Country Detention Center in Shandong, Ding has been given just one mantou per meal, with lunch also having a boiled vegetable (water spinach from June to October and otherwise cabbage). Inmates are allowed into the fresh air for a half-an-hour per day. There was no bodily checkup or medical care. There are no books or periodicals, nor pens or paper. There is a lack of material goods and a lack of contact with the outside world.
In January 2021, it was learned that the criminal charges had been changed from “inciting subversion” to the more serious crime of “subversion”.[8]
2. Identity of force(s) carrying out the initial detention and/or torture (police, intelligence services, armed forces, paramilitary, prison officials, other)
Zhao Feng: Bureau Chief of the Yantai City Public Security Bureau
Huang Yongming: Yantai City Public Security Bureau Laishan District Criminal Investigation Team Two Sub-Commander, Police ID: 044286
Zhang Benqing: Yantai City Public Security Bureau Police Officer
Bi Congwu: Yantai City Public Security Bureau Police Officer
Zhao Dan: Yantai City Public Security Bureau Police Officer
Wang Chaoxing: Yantai City Public Security Bureau Police Officer
Li Dengquan: Yantai City Public Security Bureau Police Officer
3. During detention were there any people who saw the victims, such as lawyers, family members or friends? How long after detention were these people allowed to visit?
For the first 13 months after detention no one saw the victim. Seven months after the arrest, a lawyer finally was able to meet with the victim.
4. Describe the methods of torture used
Sleep deprivation, loud noises used to disturb the victim, being tied to a tiger chair for interrogation, being subjected to a well-lit area for 24 hours a day, sitting on a plank, suffering hungering, limiting water.
5. What injuries were sustained as a result of the torture?
A) legs were swollen;
B) teeth fell out;
C) body was weak:
D) immune system was low.
6. What was believed to be the purpose of the torture?
The aim was to obtain a confession and get the victim to sign the interrogation notes.
7. During the period of torture or after the torture was inflicted, was there a medical examination? If there was, when was it? Was the medical examiner a prison doctor or government doctor?
There was no medical examination.
8. With regards to torture inflicted leading to injury, was medical treatment given?
No.
9. Was the doctor at the time of examination able to find wounds? Were there any medical reports or other evidence? If there was, what did the reports say?
There were no medical examinations.
B. Xu Zhiyong
1. Date and place of arrest and subsequent torture
The victim, Xu Zhiyong, was taken away by authorities on February 15, 2020 in Guangzhou. On 16, February, he was place in RSDL in Beijing. He was deprived of sleep from March 9 2020 to March 19, 2020. On May 7, 2020, Xu Zhiyong was transferred from RSDL in Beijing to RSDL in Yantai, Shandong province. He suffered torture for about ten days in mid-May 2020 in Yantai, namely, being tied to a iron interrogation chair for 10+ hours per day; with all four extremities tied to the chair, causing difficulty breathing. Each meal consisted of one mantou, and he was taken to the interrogation chambers in a black hood. On June 19, 2020, he was transferred out of RSDL in Yantai to the Linshu County Detention Center, also in Shandong province.
In January 2021, it was learned that the criminal charges had been changed from “inciting subversion” to the more serious crime of “subversion”.[9]
2. Identity of force(s) carrying out the initial detention and/or torture (police, intelligence services, armed forces, paramilitary, prison officials, other)
NA
3. During detention were there any people who saw the victims, such as lawyers, family members or friends? How long after detention were these people allowed to visit?
He was only able to see a lawyer for the first time on 21 January 2021, nearly eleven months after first being detained. He has been allowed subsequent lawyer visits on February 5, February 23, and March 11.
4. Describe the methods of torture used
A) Sleep deprivation. In Beijing, Xu Zhiyong was deprived of sleep for ten days: only four hours of sleep were permitted during the first six days and two hours of sleep for final four days.
B) In Yantai, for approximately ten days, Xu’s hand and feet were fastened to an iron chair for 10+ hours per day, and he was given very little food and water.
5. What injuries were sustained as a result of the torture?
Body became weakened; white hair began to appear very suddenly; difficulty urinating, suspected to be suffering from prostate disease
6. What was believed to be the purpose of the torture?
Obtaining a confession
7. During the period of torture or after the torture was inflicted, was there a medical examination? If there was, when was it? Was the medical examiner a prison doctor or government doctor?
No medical examinations were conducted.
8. With regards to torture inflicted leading to injury, was medical treatment given?
No.
9. Was the doctor at the time of examination able to find wounds? Were there any medical reports or other evidence? If there was, what did the reports say?
There were no medical examinations.
C. Li Qiaochu
1. Date and place of arrest and subsequent torture
On 16 February 2020 in the morning, Li Qiaochu was taken away by Beijing police from her residence in Beijing, she was placed in an RSDL facility operated by the Beijing City Public Security Bureau.
On 6 February 2021, just days after she had tweeted out information regarding the alleged torture information about Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, a Beijing police officer with the surname of Guo asked Li Qiaochu to come out and talk (约谈) with him, but then, in a surprise move, Li Qiaochu was taken away by police officers from Linyi, Shandong, where Xu Zhiyong is also being held. Li’s parents were then told to come to the Yuqiao police station in Beijing to sign a detention notice, which they were not allowed to read. Li’s father saw that the notice said that she was being held on the charge of “subversion.” He refused to sign.
On 19 February 2021, Li Qiaochu’s lawyer, Li Guopei sent a request to the Linyi City police requesting a lawyer’s visit. The lawyer learned that, while she is nominally detained by the Linyi City Detention Center, she is currently being held at a hospital in Linyi for “quarantine purposes,” and will later be transferred to the Linyi City Detention Center.
To date, authorities have prevented Li Qiaochu from seeing a lawyer. However, in the process of trying to see her, her lawyer learned that she has apparently gained 6kg due to an endocrine imbalance issue.
2. Identity of force(s) carrying out the initial detention and/or torture (police, intelligence services, armed forces, paramilitary, prison officials, other)
Li He: Beijing City Public Security Bureau police officer
Sun Di: Beijing City Public Security Bureau police officer
3. During detention were there any people who saw the victims, such as lawyers, family members or friends? How long after detention were these people allowed to visit?
During the four months of RSDL no one was allowed to visit the victim.
4. Describe the methods of torture used
A) 24/7 monitoring
B) Bright lights on for 24/7
C) Made to have fixed positions while sitting and sleeping
D) Threatened, berated, humiliated, and yelled at by RSDL officials.
5. What injuries were sustained as a result of the torture?
During her stay in RSDL in 2020, her depression became dramatically worse; she suffered from panic attacks, nightmares, lack of sleep, and experienced difficulties with mental focus.
As mentioned, there are concerns about her endocrine imbalance situation. It is unknown whether she has been receiving proper medical care for this endocrine issue or her depression, which became much worse while she was in RSDL in 2020, as mentioned.
6. What was believed to be the purpose of the torture?
Forcing her to admit guilt and write a document demonstrating remorse.
7. During the period of torture or after the torture was inflicted, was there a medical examination? If there was, when was it? Was the medical examiner a prison doctor or government doctor?
No medical examination was conducted.
8. With regards to torture inflicted leading to injury, was medical treatment given?
She subsequently saw a psychologist and received psychological care.
9. Was the doctor at the time of examination able to find wounds? Were there any medical reports or other evidence? If there was, what did the reports say?
There were no medical examinations.
D. Chang Weiping
1. Date and place of arrest and subsequent torture
Chang Weiping has experienced RSDL on two occasions: the first instance was from January 12, 2020 to January 23, 2020, which occurred at the Baotai Hotel in Baoji City, Shaanxi Province; the second RSDL commenced on October 22, 2020 and continues until the time of writing and is suspected to be carried out at the same location.
2. Identity of force(s) carrying out the initial detention and/or torture (police, intelligence services, armed forces, paramilitary, prison officials, other)
The two times in RSDL have been carried out by the Gaoxin branch of the Baoji City Public Security Bureau in Shaanxi Province.
3. During detention were there any people who saw the victims, such as lawyers, family members or friends? How long after detention were these people allowed to visit?
During the first time in RSDL, Chang did not see any lawyer or family member; in the second instance in RSDL, his lawyer tried to visit him on three occasions but was not permitted. On November 25, 2020, Chang Weiping was allowed to speak to his father for ten minutes. He appeared to only be slowly reciting what the RSDL authorities wanted him to say. He told his father not to speak up on his behalf with the outside world. He also said at the end of the 10-minute visit that he no longer wanted to live.
4. Describe the methods of torture used
For the ten days in which Chang Weiping was in RSDL in the hotel, he was strapped in and forced to sit on a “tiger chair” non-stop, with the exception of bathroom breaks. This caused his thumb and index finger on his right hand to become numb and lose feeling. Both legs experienced swelling, and the pain was so intense that he cried, and wanted to see a doctor, but the interrogators said that they had experience, and that these situations wouldn’t necessitate a doctor and that he would not die, and that they had done this to people before for a month and they had not died.
Every day he was only given some noodle soup for lunch, and a mantou for dinner. He was often so hungry that he nearly fainted and his stomach hurt. The police who were guarding him deliberately ate snacks in front of him. Every day these guards would play cards, drink alcohol, smoke, and deliberately be noisy in order to not let him sleep. When he was so exhausted that he would rest his head on the dining table, the guards would immediately wake him and force him back to a sitting position. After a few days of confined sitting, his pain became unbearable. Police engaged in interrogation while he was in this extremely tired state, and in ten days they produced 16 transcripts of notes. His father said that after ten days when he finally got out, his face appeared exhausted, his cheeks had sunken, and he had bloodshot eyes, and appear exhausted.
5. What injuries were sustained as a result of the torture?
His legs became swollen and his thumb and index finger on his right-hand lost feeling.
6. What was believed to be the purpose of the torture?
NA
7. During the period of torture or after the torture was inflicted, was there a medical examination? If there was, when was it? Was the medical examiner a prison doctor or government doctor?
No medical examination was conducted.
8. With regards to torture inflicted leading to injury, was medical treatment given?
No treatment was given. Chang Weiping requested to have a doctor look at his swollen legs, but the authorities refused.
9. Was the doctor at the time of examination able to find wounds? Were there any medical reports or other evidence? If there was, what did the reports say?
There were no medical examinations.
III. Remedial action
Were any domestic remedies pursued by the victim or his/her family or representatives (complaints with the forces responsible, the judiciary, political organs, etc.)? If so, what was the result?
A. Ding Jiaxi: On February 26, 2021, complaints were lodged to the Shandong Province Public Security Department and the Linyi City Procuratorate regarding torture related to his inability to have sufficient food and other issues while in detention; An application to the Linyi City Procuratorate was filed regarding a request to exclude “illegally obtained evidence”. Moreover, Ding Jiaxi informed his lawyer that he had already informed the Linyi City Procuratorate that police had engaged in torture with the aim to obtain a confession, and that he had applied to exclude this illegally obtained evidence. A complaint was filed with the Yantai City Procuratorate and the Shandong Province Procuratorate about Yantai Public Security Bureau Chief Zhao Feng and police officers Huang Yongming and Zhang Benqing. The complaint said that during Ding Jiaxi’s six months in RSDL, they engaged in the behavior of torture to extract a confession, and they should thus be investigated.
On March 18, 2021 Luo Shengchun made a complaint on the Ministry of Public Security’s website for reporting unlawful conduct, 12389.gov.cn. The complaint was about how Yantai City PSB Chief Zhao Feng, police officer Huang Yongming, and Zhang Benqing had allegedly engaged in torture, and requesting these individuals be investigated.
B. Xu Zhiyong: On January 31, 2021 Li Qiaochu made an open government information request to the Linyi City Public Security Bureau regarding the issue of the food given to inmates, including Xu Zhiyong. On February 2, 2021 she filed a complaint about the Linshu Country Detention Center alleging that the food given was lower than the national standards and about the problems in inmates buying food, and that the procuratorate stationed in the detention center was not fulfilling its supervisory role. The complaint also made allegations about the unlawful behavior of the Linyi City Public Security Bureau Chief and the Linshu Country Detention Center Director.
C. Li Qiaochu: On August 27, 2020, Li Qiaochu made an open government information application to the Haidian District Public Security Bureau, requesting her legal documents and records regarding her medical treatment, medical examinations, pharmaceutical records and medicines used for treatment while she was in RSDL. On October 20, 2020, she initiated an administrative reconsideration regarding the fact that the Haidian District Public Security Bureau has not replied to her open government information request by the legal deadline. On December 9, 2020, she initiated an administrative lawsuit (xingzheng fuyi) on the case answer, but to date, the case has not been filed (li’an).
D. Chang Weiping: On January 6, 2021, Chang Weiping’s wife – Chen Zijuan – filed a complaint with the Shaanxi Baoji City Province Procuratorate regarding the torture of Chang Weiping. She received a reply on January 21, 2021 stating that, after investigation, it was found that the case was handled in accordance with the law. On January 25, 2021, Chen filed a complaint with the Shaanxi Province Procuratorate regarding Chang Weiping’s torture and alleging administrative inaction (xingzheng bu-zuowei) on the part of the Shaanxi Baoji City Procuratorate. On February 5, 2021, the Shaanxi Province Procuratorate replied, stating that the case was not in their jurisdiction, but rather, was being handled by the Baoji City Procuratorate.
On 25 March 2021, Chen Zijuan went to Baoji City to once again go to many government bureaus, including the Baoji City Public Security Bureau, the Baoji City Committee for Discipline Inspection, the Baoji City Procuratorate, the Shaanxi Province Procuratorate, and the Shaanxi Public Security Department, to file complaints regarding the torture Chang Weiping suffered while in RSDL However, each bureau refused to accept her, and would pass the buck to other departments. She was unable to make progress in her quest for redress for Chang Weiping’s torture complaints.
From 22 October to 25 December 2020, on nine occasions, police officers from the Baoji Public Security Bureau came to Chen Zijuan’s home in Shenzhen [almost 2,000km away] to threaten Chen Zijuan about advocating for her husband. Most notably, they said that if she continued to speak out, she would lose her job.
The details are as following:
1) On October 22, 2020 at approximately 6pm, Chen Zijuan received a phone call from Chang Weiping’s father, saying that Baoji police had come to her Shenzhen home and wanted to visit her. At 8pm, Chen [who had been out] returned home to see at her doorstep Pang Dingming of the Baoji City PSB and Song Zixin of the Gaoxin branch of the PSB and another male who refused to show his police identification. Later, they talked to her, filming her, taking notes, and wanted her to promise not to say anything publicly about what they were doing. If she did, that wouldn’t be good for Chang Weiping, they threatened.
2) On October 24, 2020 at 11am, Song Zixin and the male who would not identify himself once again came to her Shenzhen home to take notes and continue to pressure her not to speak out, and not to take interviews with the international media. The unidentifiable male asked whether she had hired a lawyer and who the lawyer was in order to enhance their convenience in contacting him. Chen later learned that the same afternoon, lawyer Zhang Tingyuan received a call from the Chongqing City Justice Bureau asking to have a talk.
3) On November 11, 2020, Baoji City Police Officer Xiang Jianhong and Baoji City Police Officer Yang Yongke suddenly appeared at Chen’s the office, telling her to come outside, where they proceeded to threaten her about not speaking out for Chang Weiping. Xiang stated that Chang had committed an ideological crime. Yang warned that her employer could discipline her or make her lose her job.
4) On November 12, 2020, Xiang and Yang once again showed up at Chen’s office, where they proceeded to threaten her about not speaking out.
5)On November 23, 2020, Chen received a call from her employer, stating that police in Shaanxi province were looking for her. Later Xiang and another officer, Fu Yongqiang, requested her to delete weibo posts. Chen later learned that the two had previously gone to speak to her employer’s leader earlier that day. The two officers continued to put pressure on her employer to put pressure on Chen to delete weibo posts.
6) On November 24, 2020, the two officers engaged in the same behavior.
7) On 15 December 2020, the Gaoxin branch of the Baoji City Public Security Bureau called her employer, saying that Chen was planning to petition to Beijing, and asking for the employer’s leader to talk to her.
8) On December 23, Chen received a call from her employer’s security team, stating that Shaanxi police were looking for her. She ten saw four police officers claiming to be from the Shaanxi Public Security Department, a man claiming to be from the Baoji PSB, officers Xiang and Fu, and two officers from the Shenzhen Public Security Department. The police basically brought up three points: 1) Chen’s job is very good, and that it would be hard to find a similar one, and that she should treasure it. 2) that Chen really didn’t understand Chang Weiping well, and they made many insinuations about their marriage. 3) Chang Weiping had joined an anti-China organization intent on overturning the Communist’s power.
9) On December 25, 2020, the police came to her office while she was not there, and they made a copy of her computer’s hard drive.
Also, on January 14, 2021 at 12:20am, Shenzhen police knocked on the door, and when opened, the police stated that they merely wanted to express their “concern” for Chang Weiping. On that same day at 9pm, police came again to engage in “spreading knowledge of the law” by telling Chen that were comments on weibo should be appropriate. These actions severely impacted Chen and her family.
Date of submission: April 2, 2021
[1] Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, UA CHN 6/2020 , March 9, 2020, https://www.nchrd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/March-9-2020-Five-UN-Special-Procedures-Inquiry-to-China-on-Violations-of-Rights-of-Ding-Jiaxi-Zhang-Zhongshun-and-Dai-Zhenya.pdf
[2] China: UN experts gravely concerned by enforced disappearance of three human rights defenders, March 23, 2020, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25735&LangID=E
[3] Mandates of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, UA G/SO 218/2 G/SO 217/1 G/SO 214 (67-17) Assembly & Association (2010-1) G/SO 214 (107-9) CHN 12/2013, 22 October 2013, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=15295
[4] Mandates of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, UA G/SO 218/2 G/SO 214 (67-17) Assembly & Association (2010-1) G/SO 214 (107-9) CHN 10/2013, 18 September 2013, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=14710
[5] Mandates of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, UA G/SO 218/2 G/SO 217/1 G/SO 214 (67-17) Assembly & Association (2010-1) Health (2002-7) G/SO 214 (107-9) G/SO 214 (53- 24)
CHN 8/2013, 9 August 2013, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=15447
[6] See: Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, “Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-ninth session, 23–27 November 2020”, 2 March 2021, A/HRC/WGAD/2020/82, https://www.nchrd.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Mar-2-2021-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary-Detention-opinion-No.-82-2020-China-on-Xu-Zhiyong.pdf
[7] Please see: https://www.nchrd.org/2020/11/chrd-communique-alleging-the-enforced-disappearance-and-arbitrary-detention-of-lawyer-chang-weiping-october-30-2020/
[8] Guo Rui. “Critic of Chinese President Xi Jinping, fellow activist set to face stiffer charge, sources say”
South China Morning Post, 23 January 2021, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3118554/critic-chinese-president-xi-jinping-fellow-activist-set-face
[9] Guo Rui. “Critic of Chinese President Xi Jinping, fellow activist set to face stiffer charge, sources say”
South China Morning Post, 23 January 2021, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3118554/critic-chinese-president-xi-jinping-fellow-activist-set-face