Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on China*
Comments Off on Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on China*
Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
（中文版本）
I. Background
1. The present report was prepared pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1 and 16/21, taking into consideration the periodicity of the universal periodic review and the outcome of the previous review.1 It is a summary of 162 stakeholders’ submissions2 for the universal periodic review, presented in a summarized manner owing to word-limit constraints.
II. Information provided by stakeholders
A. Scope of international obligations3 and cooperation with human rights mechanisms
2. JS1, AI and CHRD recommended that China ratify ICCPR.4 AI recommended that China ratify ICCPR-OP 2 and ICPPED.5
3. CHRD recommended that China ratify OP-ICESCR, OP-CEDAW and OP-CRPD, and accede to OP-CAT.6
4. ICAN recommended that China sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as a matter of international urgency.7
5. FLD recommended that China accept and set a timetable for outstanding requests for country visit by special procedures mandate holders by the next cycle UPR in 2028, including by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, and ensure these visits respected a set of minimum standards for independent, safe and unfettered access, as well as guarantees of confidential and unsupervised meetings with independent human rights defenders without reprisals.8
* The present document is being issued without formal editing.
B. National human rights framework
1. Constitutional and legislative framework
6. FLD recommended that China initiate a transparent and consultative legal reform process of reviewing and revising existing laws and regulations with a view to aligning them with China’s obligations under international human rights norms and standards.9
7. CHRD urged China to overhaul the legal structure of “national security” laws, including the National Security Law, the Anti-Terrorism Law, the Anti-Espionage Law, the Cyber-security Law, the Foreign NGO Management Law, the Charity Law, the Regulations on Religious Affairs, to bring them in line with China’s human rights obligations and international standards. It noted that those laws with overly broad and vague stipulations on “national security”, had been used to arbitrarily suppress civil and political rights and persecute human rights defenders.10 ISHR made similar recommendations.11
2. Institutional infrastructure and policy measures
8. CPAPD welcomed the adoption of the National Action Plan for Human Rights (2021– 2025).12
C. Promotion and protection of human rights
1. Implementation of international human rights obligations, taking into account applicable international humanitarian law
Equality and non-discrimination
9. CHRD recommended that China adopt a national “Employment Anti-Discrimination Law” within one year that would contain prohibitions against all forms of discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, rural-urban residential registration, ethnicity, disability, and religious affiliation.13
Right to life, liberty and security of person, and freedom from torture
10. AI stated that China continued to classify statistics for executions and death sentences as “state secrets”, but thousands of people were believed to have been executed each year since the last review.14 AI and DHF recommended that China immediately establish a moratorium on executions and commute all existing death sentences with a view to the full abolition of the death penalty in national legislation.15
11. AI noted that the continued use of Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL), a measure that enabled investigators to hold individuals outside the formal detention system for periods up to six months without access to legal counsel of their choice or to their families, and placed suspects at risk of torture and other ill-treatment.16 CHRD and TRP recommended that China repeal immediately RSDL.17
12. AI stated that without access to family and to lawyers of their choosing, and effective fair trial mechanisms, many detainees, especially human rights defenders, were reportedly subjected to torture and ill-treatment while in detention. Individuals who spoke out about torture and ill-treatment in detention faced state reprisals.18
13. FLD observed new and continued violations of the rights of human rights defenders, including prosecution and imprisonment, restricted movement, prolonged detention, enforced disappearances, and trans-national repression. It recommended that China: immediately and conditionally release all human rights defenders detained for their legitimate human rights work, drop all charges against them, and cease all forms of intimidation, harassment, and undue restrictions against them and their families; and ensure that there was an impartial, independent, prompt and thorough investigation into the arbitrary detentions, unlawful restrictions of freedom of movement, enforced disappearances, trans-national repression, torture and ill-treatment, and other serious violations of the rights of human rights defenders with a view to holding perpetrators accountable in accordance with international human rights standards.19
14. SAR expressed concern that Chinese authorities and university administrators routinely targeted academic and political expression by students and professors using tools, including violence, imprisonment, prosecution, termination and professional retaliation, and restrictions on movement.20
Human rights and counter-terrorism
15. CHRD stated that in addition to ethnic Uyghurs and Tibetans, ethnic Hui minority persons had also been detained on the pretext of China’s “counter-terrorism” campaigns for peacefully exercising their freedom of expression and religious freedom and maintaining their cultural identity.21
Administration of justice, including impunity, and the rule of law
16. CHRD stated that the judiciary in China remained neither independent nor impartial, and that the Chinese Communist Party had taken steps to strengthen its controls of the judiciary and re-emphasized its supreme leadership over and above any law, legal or judicial processes.22
17. LSEW stated that lawyers had been subjected to harassment, arbitrary prosecutions, unfair trials, arbitrary deprivation of liberty, incommunicado detention, enforced disappearance and torture.23 CHRD also highlighted that lawyers who gained permission to meet their clients might face retaliation if the lawyers went public with their clients’ allegations of ill-treatment, torture, or violation of the Criminal Procedure Law protections. Lawyers who were detained and subsequently released continued to face extra-legal persecution and harassment. JS22 expressed similar concerns.24
18. LSEW recommended that China ensure that all lawyers in China could practice their profession without undue interference in compliance with international standards on the independence of the legal profession.25 JS27 and CHRD also recommended that China ensure protection of lawyers to practice their profession unhindered, free from intimidation and persecution, and repeal legislation that interfered with the independence of lawyers, ending the use of administrative measures such as the annual inspection of lawyers and law firms, which intimidated or penalized lawyers for efforts to practice their professional independence.26
Fundamental freedoms and the right to participate in public and political life
19. JS8 stated that there had been continued reports of sentences against Christian leaders, the demolition or “rectification” of more religious buildings, including churches and mosques, mass arrests of Tibetan Buddhists and the demolition of Tibetan Buddhist statues, and the arbitrary detention and disappearance of countless Falun Gong practitioners, members of the Church of Almighty God and other banned groups, as well as lawyers and activists who defended the right to freedom of religion or belief. JS8, ECLJ and UFI recommended that China protect the rights of all people to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in accordance with international human rights norms and standards.27 JS25 also recommended that China cease the practice of arbitrarily and violently raiding houses of worship and the arrest of faith leaders for their leadership of religious communities and their legitimate resistance to the Chinese Government’s encroachment upon the rights and liberties.28
20. JS1 stated that in the recent years, Chinese human rights defenders were arrested and detained for providing information and/or expressing themselves on an extensive range of topics, including feminism, the #MeToo movement, the situation of other arbitrarily detained human rights defenders and the COVID-19 situation. Ultimately, this policy reached a peak at the end of 2022 when individuals were arrested only for participating in, or being connected to, the “white paper” protests, which consisted solely in holding blank papers while marching, mourning the Urumqi fire of November 26, 2022, and chanting slogans against the Zero-Covid policy still in force back then.29 It recommended that China ensure that human rights defenders, dissidents, journalists, netizens were not being targeted, arrested, detained, and tortured for their work and were able to carry out their work without obstruction and fear of reprisal.30 MAAT made similar recommendations.31
21. JS1 also stated that civil society in China still faced an increased crackdown on dissidents, journalists, netizens solely on the grounds of exercising their freedom of expression, as well as restrictions on freedom of expression in general. Moreover, most of those activists were still being detained in conditions contrary to international standards and in violation of their right to a fair trial.32 AI and ISHR expressed similar concerns.33
22. RSF stated that the Cyberspace Administration of China had developed a wide range of measures aimed at controlling the information accessible for China’s one billion netizens. China’s system of online censorship, known as the “Great Firewall” kept the country’s internet users away from foreign news websites. Restrictions on media coverage in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region had led to an information blackout and the few foreign journalists allowed to visit the region were placed under close surveillance. They could not travel and interview freely and risked seeing their names on the blacklist of journalists banned from entering the Chinese territory.34 It recommended that China: immediately release journalists detained in connection with their reporting and stop abducting, arresting, detaining, torturing, mistreating, searching and harassing journalists; end the system of online censorship and surveillance of journalists; stop blocking and censoring the dissemination of foreign media content in China; and not impede the work of foreign reporters in China and provide them with accreditation in an open and transparent manner.35
23. JS7 noted that the Charity Law contained many aspects that set clear limits on the activities that civil society organizations were allowed to carry out. It used vague language regarding threats to national security and public interest, which could be invoked to harass or close civil society organizations. It recommended that China: take measures to foster a safe, respectful, and enabling environment for civil society, including by removing legal and policy measures that unwarrantedly limited freedom of association; remove all undue restrictions on the ability of civil society organizations to receive international and domestic funding; and amend the Charity Law and Overseas NGO Management Law to remove undue restrictions on freedom of association.36
24. AI and CHRD noted that large-scale peaceful protests against COVID-19 restrictions and censorship, referred to as the “A4 protests”, took place across China following a fatal apartment fire in Urumqi in November 2022. Large numbers of people were detained for participating and videos circulated online showed police beating protesters during arrests.37 JS1 highlighted that since the last UPR, the Chinese authorities had violently repressed several offline secret gatherings of human rights defenders and public protests.38
Right to privacy
25. HRW stated that the Government had imposed abusive mass surveillance systems on people across the country: these had become more intrusive and pervasive in recent years as technology had advanced. These surveillance systems remained unchallenged because there were few meaningful checks on government powers. The Ministry of Public Security was only accountable to the Chinese Communist Party and it was not required to report surveillance activities to any other government agency or to the public. It recommended that China: shut down the Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP) and all compulsory programmes aimed at surveilling and controlling Uyghurs and Turkic Muslims and delete all data collected by those programmes; suspend the police’s collection and use of biometrics other than for the investigation of bona fide crimes until there is a comprehensive national law that protects people’s privacy. It also recommended that the National People’s Congress Standing Committee draft and adopt legislation relevant to biometric and personal data to ensure its collection by the police was compliant with international human rights standards.39
Prohibition of all forms of slavery, including trafficking in persons
26. HRW stated that China failed to stem the trafficking of women and girls, including those from neighbouring countries. Law enforcement made little effort to recover trafficked women and girls. Those who escaped and went to the Chinese police were sometimes jailed for immigration violations rather than being treated as crime victims. It recommended that China provide services for survivors of trafficking, regardless of their nationality or immigration status.40 JS13 also recommended that China enact all the necessary measures to prevent the trafficking of North Korean women in China and provide support and holistic care to victims and survivors of sexual exploitation and trafficking.41
27. JS11 stated that China had continued to perpetrate systematic forced labour on a widespread and systematic scale in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and other regions of China targeting the Uyghur population and other Turkic and Muslim-majority peoples on the basis of their religion and ethnicity. Specifically, the Government was subjecting the Uyghur population and other Turkic and Muslim-majority peoples to state imposed forced labour as part of a programme, including so-called “poverty alleviation”, “vocational training”, “re-education through labour” and “de-extremification” focused on eliminating Uyghur culture and religious practices. It recommended that China: swiftly bring about the end of the systematic forced labour of Uyghur and other Turkic and Muslim- majority workers; and provide all victims of forced labour and wider human rights violations, including Uyghurs and other Turkic and Muslim-majority peoples with adequate and effective remedies and reparation.42
Right to work and to just and favourable conditions of work
28. CHRD and CLW expressed concern about the continuing government ban on independent trade unions, highlighting that the Government had tightened its control over labour groups and detained labour organizers. CHRD recommended that China allow workers to join or establish independent trade unions and to exercise their right to strike, ending criminal persecution of labour organizers and activists.43
29. WGPWSH recommended that China support female workers to establish independent unions in factories to address the issues arising from unequal status between labour and management, lack of an adequate judicial system, and in adequate relief measures for sexual harassment complaints.44
Right to social security
30. CCA stressed the importance of establishing a more complete social security system in rural areas through promoting training for older persons and improving their literacy and health.45 CILR recommended that the Government deepen social security system reform and expand social insurance coverage.46
Right to an adequate standard of living
31. JS37 noted that drinking water safety had been included in poverty alleviation scheme with prioritized funding and implementation.47
Right to health
32. ChMA and CSHRS recommended that China establish and continuously improve a system of mental healthcare services.48
33. CFPA suggested that China strengthen reproductive health services; improve service quality of contraception and family planning services; and avoid unwanted pregnancy in order to improve reproductive health of adolescents and people of childbearing age.49
Right to education
34. Broken Chalk recommended that China invest in efforts to eradicate discrimination in education for disadvantaged children in poor and remote areas through investment in basic school infrastructure and quality teachers.50
35. CQCESD noted that primary and secondary schools had not yet set up special human rights education courses, which was mainly interspersed in Ethics and Rule of Law course.51
Cultural rights
36. JS32 recommended that China end all policies that marginalized minority languages and stop the practice of forced assimilation of ethnic minorities to protect the right of cultural expression of ethnic minorities.52 CFU also recommended that China protect the cultural heritage, including the Uyghur language, and religious practices of Uyghurs, and halt any infringements of the rights of Uyghurs to live freely in accordance with their customs, culture, and religious practice.53
Development, the environment, and business and human rights
37. BDPF stated that China faced practical challenges in addressing climate change, including promotion of carbon peaking and neutrality, achieving green transformation of economic and social development, and effective prevention and control of environmental pollution.54
38. AI raised serious concerns about human rights abuses linked to Chinese companies abroad, including concern about labour practices of Chinese mining companies.55 AI and CHRD recommended that China amend relevant laws and regulations to require all Chinese companies to respect human rights throughout their business operations and value chains, regardless of where they operate, and require Chinese companies, and companies operating in China, to conduct robust and transparent human rights due diligence in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.56
39. CSHR recommended that China adopt the Action Plan on Business and Human Rights with the full participation of stakeholders in its formulation.57 JS4 also recommended that China: adopt a national law on corporate legal responsibility and access to justice in matters of human rights and the environment, aligned with international standards, which established obligations to respect and protect human rights against any form of corporate abuse in its operations abroad and/or in its supply chains globally; and establish mechanisms to investigate and sanction overseas business activities that led to human rights abuses and environmental pollution.58 JS3, JS5, JS9, JS12, JS14, JS24, JS26, JS29, JS33, JS36 and JS40 made similar recommendations.59 AFREWATCH further recommended that China require its overseas companies to repair all damage caused to local communities, individuals and the environment.60
2. Rights of specific persons or groups
Women
40. HRW stated that despite its support of recommendations on combating gender-based violence during the previous UPR, China failed to effectively enforce the 2016 Anti- Domestic Violence Law, and victims faced an uphill battle in seeking authorities’ protection and accountability for their abusers. It recommended that China enforce the Anti-Domestic Law, investigate, and prosecute domestic violence cases.61
41. HRW also recommended that China enact and enforce a comprehensive employment anti-discrimination law that would contain a definition of gender discrimination that encompassed the full range of ways in which employers discriminated against women, protecting against both direct discrimination and discriminatory impact.62
Children
42. BCLARC stated that although the legal system had been increasingly improved, children might still face many complex problems during the process of safeguarding their rights when they encountered sexual abuse. It recommended that the Government continue to increase the training of judicial personnel aimed at improving their sensitivities and capacities to handle such cases to reduce secondary harm to child victims.63
43. CHRD stated that when human rights defender parents had been detained, some children were left without adequate care. It also expressed concern that due to the discriminatory Hukou system, many rural migrant parents had little choice but to leave their children behind when they looked for work in the cities. As a result, those children without parent protection were extremely vulnerable to abuse.64 JS18 recommended that China take measures to ensure that all children, especially those of human rights defenders, had access to healthcare and education.65
44. AI also stated that thousands of Uyghur children, whose parents were detained in Xinjiang and living overseas, were forcibly taken to “orphan camps” or boarding schools where they had reportedly not been allowed to speak in their mother tongue.66
Older persons
45. CIDF urged the Government to improve the digital literacy, particularly in rural areas, and address the problem of the digital divide of older persons.67
Persons with disabilities
46. CHRD stated that some civil society organizations advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities had been shut down and individual activists detained. In detention facilities or prison, persons with disabilities had experienced discrimination, violence, and particular punishments that exploited their disabilities, torture, and other ill-treatment, including beatings and the denial of medical treatment.68
47. CAPVD noted that the overall income level of persons with disabilities still lagged that of the average level of society. Rehabilitation and care support for people with severe disabilities needed strengthening, and the quality of inclusive education for children with disabilities, including those children with visual impairment, needed improving.69
Minorities
48. AI highlighted that Tibetans continued to face discrimination and restrictions on their rights to freedom of religion and belief, expression, association, and peaceful assembly. Religious leaders and practitioners, including those belonging to house churches, Uyghur imams, Tibetan Buddhist monks and Falun Gong members, were among those subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention during the review period. In September 2020, police in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region arrested at least 23 individuals for participating in, or sharing information about, peaceful protests against a “bilingual education policy” in the region.70
49. JS39 stated that the Government had routinely detained, tortured, and imprisoned Tibetans who spoke out against the Chinese Communist Party and its oppressive policies in Tibet. Tibetan writers, intellectuals, environmentalists, community leaders, entrepreneurs and artists had become a constant target of the Chinese authorities for their expression of views critical of the Government. It recommended that China: release all those detained or imprisoned for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of religion or belief and conscience; stop torturing prisoners and detainees; and stop the demolition of monasteries and the eviction of young monks from monasteries.71 JS15 also recommended that China effectively address threats, attacks, harassment and intimidation against Tibetan human rights defenders, including by thoroughly, promptly, and independently investigating human rights violations and abuses against them, bringing the perpetrators to justice in fair trials and providing effective remedies and adequate reparation to the victims.72
50. JS38 noted that the Government introduced new labour policies in the “Farmer and Pastoralist Training and Labour Transfer Action Plan (2019–2020) in the Tibetan Autonomous Region” that expanded a labour transfer programme throughout the Tibet Autonomous Region. It expressed concern that all stages of the programme-recruitment, the vocational training process and the labour transfers – appeared to utilize various methods of pressure, leaving Tibetans unlikely to be able to freely make choices once recruited into the programme. It recommended that China ensure that all vocational training programmes for Tibetans were available in the Tibetan language and carry out meaningful consultation with affected Tibetans to ensure they were able to learn appropriate skills and were not merely those designed for low-level/low-paid employment.73
51. HRW stated that compulsory “bilingual” kindergartens immersed Tibetan children in Chinese language and state propaganda from age of 3 in the name of “strengthening the unity of nationalities”. It recommended that China: reaffirm the established rights of minorities to mother-tongue instruction in schools; ensure that all Tibetan children were able to learn and use Tibetan in schools; and end the forced imposition of “ethnic mingling” measures in Tibetan education such as concentrated schooling and “mixed classes”.74
52. AI alleged that the Government had committed at least the crimes against humanity of imprisonment, torture and persecution against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities. China had intensified its campaign of mass internment, intrusive surveillance, political indoctrination and forced cultural assimilation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.75 HRW also stated that Chinese authorities were responsible for offences committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a population, including mass arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, mass surveillance, cultural and religious erasure, separation of families, forced returns to China, forced labour, and sexual violence and violations of reproductive rights.76 ACSLP, UHRP and WUC expressed similar concerns.77 CFU recommended that China abolish the Integrated Joint Operations Platform and erase all the compiled data and terminate the mass collection of DNA and other personal data and biometrics of individuals without their free, prior, and informed consent, and destroy all data gathered.78
53. JS23 also recommended that China promptly investigate allegations of human rights violations in camps and other detention facilities, including allegations of torture, sexual violence, ill-treatment, forced medical treatment, as well as forced labour and other mistreatment.79
54. AI and CFU recommended that China immediately allow UN human rights experts, as well as independent observers, including human rights investigators and journalists, unfettered access to the country, including to internment camps and prisons in Xinjiang.80 AI and CFU also recommended that China immediately release all persons held in internment camps or other detention facilities, including prisons in Xinjiang, unless there was sufficient credible and admissible evidence that they had committed an internationally recognizable offence, be transferred to recognized detention facilities, and be granted a fair trial in line with international standards.81 CFU further recommended that China launch an impartial and independent investigation on government officials and persons suspected or implicated in genocide, crimes against humanity, and other abusive practices and provide accountability.82
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons
55. AI noted that China still lacked a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that protected people with different sexual orientations and gender identities. It also stressed that large-scale censorship during the review period shut down numbers online lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) groups and social media accounts and had undermined LGBTI activism both online and offline.83 CHRD recommended that the Government adopt necessary measures to ensure that laws and regulations with respect to sexual harassment are effectively implemented, end its harassment and intimidation of women and LGBTIQ+ rights NGOs, and take specific measures to combat discrimination against these populations.84
56. AI also noted that there continued to be a serious lack of information for transgender people on how to access gender-affirming treatment, as well as stringent eligibility criteria for gender-affirming surgeries. Transgender people faced widespread stigma and discrimination from society, in particular family members.85 JS21 also highlighted that transgender individuals faced significant barriers in seeking employment, in particular those who had undergone gender affirmation surgery but were unable to alter the gender stated on their educational certificates.86
Migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers
57. CLW noted that there were strong indicators of human trafficking for migrant workers within China in six dimensions of labour trafficking: deceptive recruitment, coercive recruitment, recruitment by abuse of vulnerability, exploitation, coercion at destination, and abuse of vulnerability at destination. It recommended that China ensure migrant and foreign workers enjoyment of labour rights, including humane standards of living and working conditions, freedom of expression and freedom of movement.87
58. JS13, JS31 and NKHR recommended that China: refrain from forcibly repatriating North Korean refugees to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and grant them refugee status and access to asylum procedures in line with the principle of non-refoulement; and recognize the legality of marriages between North Korean women and Chinese men to ensure that North Korean women could acquire Chinese citizenship and access legal protections.88 JS35 specifically recommended that China: halt the practice of forced repatriation of North Korean mothers with Chinese children and immediately release all detained mothers from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and provide temporary protection to North Korean defectors, explore options for resettlement in third countries, and ensure their right to seek asylum.89
3. Specific regions or territories
59. AI highlighted that Hong Kong authorities used vague national security and sedition charges, including but not limited to the National Security Law to effectively remove all political opposition, undermine long-established means of scrutinizing, critiquing, and trying to influence government actions, and criminalize various kinds of expression, association, and advocacy. Journalists, lawyers, and human rights defenders had been arrested and imprisoned because of their peaceful activism.90 HRIC also stated that the passage of the National Security Law in June 2020 was a major catalyst that precipitated attacks on internet freedoms, especially through the application of the law to block specific websites, arrest and prosecute individuals for online speech, and engage in transnational actions against internet companies and websites in other countries.91
60. CFHK Foundation, HKB, HKDCDN, Hong Kong Scots, ISHR, UT-HRD, JS10, JS19 and JS20 recommended that Hong Kong, China: repeal the National Security Law; restore the right of defendants using legal aid to choose their own lawyer; ensure the practice of trial by jury in all national security cases; restore the presumption of bail in national security cases; and stop all acts of intimidation, harassment and attacks on human rights lawyers, particularly those who represented opposition figures or protesters and who requested judicial reviews.92 GCAL also recommended that Hong Kong, China repeal the sedition provision of the Crimes Ordinance, and until that time, suspend all prosecutions currently in process and refrain from any new arrests or prosecutions under the law.93
61. RSF recommended that Hong Kong, China: immediately release 13 journalists and press freedom defenders detained in Hong Kong, including Apple Daily founder, Jimmy Lai; and end all legal harassment and intimidation of journalists and strive to protect journalists from all forms of violence, pressure, discrimination, and unfair legal proceedings.94
62. JS28 also recommended that Hong Kong, China immediately stop censoring books and other material in the public libraries, including school libraries, and reinstate the books and other material that had been removed for allegedly breaching the National Security Law for being contrary to the interests of national security.95
63. HRW stated that Chinese and Hong Kong authorities had arbitrarily arrested and prosecuted Hong Kong’s pro-democracy leaders. The Hong Kong authorities had dismantled its civil society organizations and independent labour unions, shut down its most popular pro- democracy newspaper, suppressed the free press, censored films, and imposed “patriotic education”. They had also permitted no public assemblies since 2020 on dates that were key to Hong Kong’s democracy movement.96 JS1 also stated that the Chinese Government was using surveillance technologies at an unprecedented level to target human right defenders, activists, and journalists from Hong Kong, inside and outside the country.97
64. HKRLM expressed concern that numerous provisions in the National Security Law imposed restrictions on the judiciary by diminishing judicial discretion. The power of designation was given to the Chief Executive only, who could remove a judge from the designated NSL list if the judges “make any statement or behaves in any manner endangering national security.”98 UN just made recommendations in this regard.99
65. JS30 also recommended that Hong Kong, China guarantee the right to a fair trial for individuals charged with offences related to artistic expression, including ensuring access to legal representation, evidence and an impartial judicial process.100
66. CFHK Foundation recommended that Hong Kong, China: allow individuals to freely practise the religion of their choice without repercussions; and stop authorizing search warrants for religious buildings unless there was credible evidence for criminal activity.101
67. CFHK Foundation stated that the Hong Kong authorities had shut down and censored numerous media outlets, as well as arrested journalists. It recommended that Hong Kong authorities: release all journalists imprisoned for covering social events in Hong Kong; ensure a free media environment from intimidation and harassment of journalists and prosecute those involved in such activities in an open, fair trial; and cease government censorship of content from independent media.102
68. HKLRM stated that wince the promulgation of the National Security Law in 2020, dozens of trade unions were forced to dissolve due to political pressure and repression. It recommended that Hong Kong, China: ensure that trade unions, civil society organizations and their members could exercise their rights in a climate free of fear and threats of any kind; and guarantee, in law and in practice, the right of associations to seek, receive and utilize funding from national, foreign and international sources without prior authorization or undue interference.103
69. HKDC recommended that Hong Kong, China: abolish the “patriotic” electoral reforms which excluded all who were opposed to the Chinese Communist Party; protect citizens’ right to political participation regardless of their political ideology in line with international standards; and implement genuine universal suffrage.104
70. Women4HK highlighted the importance of taking prompt actions to address the under-representation in leadership positions in the higher education sector. It recommended that Hong Kong, China set a timeline for achieving gender-balanced recruitment and promotion in order to enhance equal participation of women employees in universities.105
71. HKLRM stated that working conditions and rights of migrant domestic workers remained precarious and vulnerable. HKLRM and Leitner Center also expressed concern about the “two-week rule” whereby migrant domestic workers had to leave Hong Kong 14 days after their employment contracts were terminated and the “live-in policy”, whereby they were required to live in the employing household putting them at high risk of abuse and exploitation.106
72. WGAM recommended that Macao, China continue to analyse the relevant cases of domestic violence and review existing legal measures to prevent and combat domestic violence.107
Notes
1 A/HRC/40/6 and A/HRC/40/6/Add.1, and A/HRC/40/2.
2 The stakeholders listed below have contributed information for this summary; the full texts of all original submissions are available at: www.ohchr.org.
Civil society
Individual submissions:
AAIL Asian Academy of International Law (China);
ACEF2005 All-China Environment Federation (China);
ACSLP Atlantic Council Strategic Litigation Project;
ADY Association of Democratic Youth (China);
AFREWATCH African Resources Watch (Democratic Republic of Congo);
AI Amnesty International, London (United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland);
ANEC Cuba National Association of Economists and Accountants of Cuba (Cuba);
BCLARC Beijing Children’s Legal Aid and Research Center, Beijing (China);
BDPF Beijing NGO Association for International Exchanges, Beijing (China);
Broken Chalk Broken Chalk Amsterdam (Kingdom of the Netherlands);
C(M)TCEDP China(Macao)Tibet’s Cultural and Economic Development Promotion Association (China);
CAFIU Chinese Association for International understanding, Beijing (China);
CALC China-ASEAN Legal Research Center, Chongqing (China);
CANGO China China Association for NGO Cooperation, Beijing (China);
CAPDTC China Association for Preservation and Development of Tibetan Culture, Beijing (China);
CAPVD China Association of Persons with Visual Disabilities, Beijing (China);
CCA China Charity Alliance, Beijing (China);
CCRP China Committee on Religion and Peace, Beijing (China);
CEAIE China Education Association for International Exchange, Beijing (China);
CEPF China Environmental Protection Foundation, Beijing (China);
CFHK Foundation Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, Washington D.C. (United States of America);
CFHRD China Foundation for Human Rights Development, Beijing (China);
CFU Campaign for Ugyhurs, Washington D.C. (United States of America);
CHINAFPA China Family Planning Association, Beijing (China);
ChMA Chinese Medical Association, Beijing (China);
CHRD Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, Washington D.C. (United States of America);
CHRS-CASS Centre for Human Rights Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing (China);
Chunhui Children Chunhui Children’s Foundation, Beijing (China);
CIDF China Internet Development Foundation, Beijing (China);
CLW China Labor Watch, New York (United States of America);
CNIE China NGO Network for International Exchanges, Beijing (China);
CPAPD Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament, Beijing (China);
CQCESD Chongqing Centre for Equal Social Development, Chongqing (China);
CSEF China Social Entrepreneur Foundation, Beijing (China);
CSHRS China Society for Human Rights Studies, Beijing (China);
CSRH Center for the Study of Human Rights at Nankai University, Tianjin (China);
CTRC China Tibetology Research Center, Beijing (China);
CTS CTS, Chengdu (China);
CULR China Institute of Labour Relations, Beijing (China);
CWRS China Chinese Women’s Research Society, Beijing (China);
CYDF CYDF, Beijing (China);
DHF The Dui Hua Foundation, San Francisco (United States of America);
EAHK The LGBTQ Equality Alliance of Hong Kong, Hong Kong (China);
ECLJ European Centre for Law and Justice, Strasbourg (France);
EFCA Egyptian Chinese Friendship Association, Cairo (Egypt);
Equality Equality (Beijing), Beijing (China);
FANJ Fundacion Antonio Nunez Jiménez de la Naturaleza y el Hombre, Havana (Cuba);
FFH Fight For Her, Beijing (China);
FLD Front Line Defenders – The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Dublin (Ireland);
FMC Federacion de Mujeres Cubanas, Havana (Cuba);
FNTY Federation of New Territories Youth, Hong Kong (China);
FOS Federation of Outstanding Students, Hong Kong (China);
Friends of L’Humanite Foundation for Independent Journalism Support “Society of Friends of L’Humanite,” Moscow, (Russian Federation);
FUNDALATIN Fundacion Venezolana por el Derecho a la Vivienda, Caracas, (Venezuela, (Bolivarian Republic of));
Fundavivienda FUNDALATIN, Caracas, (Venezuela, (Bolivarian Republic of));
GCAL Georgetown Center for Asian Law, Washington D.C. (United States of America);
GCR2P Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, Geneva (Switzerland);
Género con Clase Fundacion Género con Clase, Caracas, (Venezuela, (Bolivarian Republic of));
GreenovationHub Beijing Greenovation Institute for Public Welfare Development, Beijing (China);
Halofund Halo Fund Limited. Hong Kong (China);
HKAYC Hong Kong Association of Young Commentators, Hong Kong (China);
HKB Hongkongers in Britain, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
HKCHR Hong Kong Centre for Human Rights, Hong Kong (China);
HKDC Hong Kong Democracy Council, Washington D.C. (United States of America);
HKDCDN Hong Kong District Councillor Diaspora Network, Tokyo (Japan);
HKFLU Women Affairs Committee of the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions, Hong Kong (China);
HKFLU-LEC Labour Education Committee of the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions, Hong Kong (China);
HKIWA The Hong Kong Island Women’s Association, Hong Kong (China);
HKLRM Hong Kong Labour Rights Monitor, Manchester (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
HKMLPA Hong Kong and Mainland Legal Profession Association, Hong Kong (China);
HKRLM Hong Kong Rule of Law Monitor, Chicago (United States of America);
HKIWA The Hong Kong Island Women’s Association, Hong Kong (China);
Hong Kong Scots The Hong Kong Scots, Edinburgh (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
HRIC Human Rights in China, New York (United States of America);
HRW Human Rights Watch, Geneva (Switzerland);
ICAN International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Geneva (Switzerland);
IFWA International Foundation Witness Ashoora, Babol, Mazandaran (Iran (Islamic Republic of));
IGCP Information Group on Crimes against the Person, Moscow, (Russian Federation);
IPWR Institute for Protecting Women’s Rights, Tehran (Iran (Islamic Republic of));
IREC Iranian Elite Research Center, Tehran (Iran (Islamic Republic of));
ISDNGO Institute of Sustainable Development, Tehran (Iran (Islamic Republic of));
ISHR International Service for Human Rights, Geneva (Switzerland);
KWOF Kowloon Women’s Organisations Federation, Hong Kong (China);
LawyersHK Lawyers HK Limited. Hong Kong (China);
Leitner Center The Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School, New York (United States of America);
LSEW The Law Society of England and Wales, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
MAAT Maat for Peace, Development and Human Rights, Cairo (Egypt);
Macao Youth Federation Macao Youth Federation, Macao (China);
MacRG Macau Research Group, Poole (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
MSHRS Macao Society for Human Rights Studies, Macao (China);
MUPAC Minzu Unity and Progress Association of China, Beijing (China);
NHKR Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, Seoul (Republic of Korea);
New Line Youth Volunteer New Line Youth Volunteer Service Groups, Hong Kong (China);
NSCF New Sunshine Charity Foundation, Beijing (China);
NTAS New Territories Association of Societies, Hong Kong (China);
NTWYOCS NTWYOCS, Hong Kong (China);
NWUPL, FRI NWUPL, FRI (China);
Project Verum Project Verum, Moscow, (Russian Federation);
Purple Ribbon Purple Ribbon, Beijing (China);
RSF Reporters Without Borders, Paris (France);
SAR Scholars at Risk, New York (United States of America);
SD Safeguard Defenders, Hong Kong (China);
TAF Amity Foundation, Nanjing (China);
TPRC1959 Tai Po Rural Committee, Hong Kong (China);
TPRYG2019 Tai Po Rural Youth Group, Hong Kong (China);
TRP The Rights Practice, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
UFI United Families International, Arizona (United States of America);
UHRP Uyghur Human Rights Project, Washington D.C. (United States of America);
UNA-China United Nations Association of China, Beijing (China);
UNJC Union Nacional de Juristas de Cuba, Havana (Cuba);
UNjust UNjustHK, Hong Kong (China);
UT-HRD University of Tokyo – “Enhancing Capacity and Facilitating Regional Solidarity of Human Rights Defenders” Program, Tokyo (Japan);
WEDC World Eco-Design Conference, Guangzhou (China);
WFAS World Federation of Acupuncture-Moxibustion Societies, Beijing (China);
WFCMS World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies, Beijing (China);
WGAM Women’s General Association of Macau, Macao (China);
WGPWSH Working Group on Preventing Workplace Sexual Harassment, Hong Kong (China);
Women4HK WomenStandingWithHK, Hong Kong (China);
WUC World Uyghur Congress, Munich (Germany);
YCCA Youth Concentric Association Limited, Hong Kong (China);
YLAY YLAY, Hong Kong (China);
Youth Vision HK Youth Vision HK, Hong Kong (China);
Z.G.M ZHONGGUANCUN Green Mine Industry Alliance, Beijing (China).
Joint submissions:
JS1 Joint submission 1 submitted by: ACAT-France, (France); Africa Hong Kong France (AHKF), (France); Ensemble contre la peine de mort/Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM), (France); Comité pour la liberté à Hong Kong, (France);
JS2 Joint submission 2 submitted by: Asociacion Cubana de las Naciones Unidas, Havana (Cuba);
JS3 Joint submission 3 submitted by: Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Kampala (Uganda); Youth for Green Communities; Friends of Zoka; Guild Presidents’ Forum on
Governance; Oil Refinery Residents Association; East African Crude Oil Pipeline Host Communities; Centre for Environmental Research and Agriculture Innovations: Women for Green Economy Movement Uganda; African Initiative on Food Security and Environment; Environment Governance Initiative (EGI); World Voices Uganda;
JS4 Joint submission 4 submitted by: Colectivo sobre Financiamiento e Inversiones Chinas Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CICDHA) consisting of Alianza de Organizaciones por los Derechos Humanos de Ecuador, Amazon Watch (Internacional), Brics Policy Center (Brasil), FARN, Equidad (Perú), CooperAcción (Perú), Sustentarse (Chile), Red Muqui (Perú), CEDIB (Bolivia), Kanan Derechos Humanos (México), OLCA (Chile), LAS (regional), SAT – LAC (regional), Semillas del Lirken (Chile), Somos Biobío (Chile), Coletivo Proteja (Brasil), Equipo de investigación Ecología Política del SuI (IRES-CONICET) (regional), FIAN Internacional (Internacional), ISHR (Internacional), Pueblo Shuar Arutam (Ecuador), Federación de Organizaciones Indígenas de Napo (Ecuador), Napo Resiste (Ecuador), Colectivo Social Napo Ama la Vida (Ecuador), CASCOMI, Consejo de Defensoras y Defensores de los Derechos Humanos y de la Naturaleza de la Defensoría del Pueblo en Napo (Ecuador), Kuska Estudio Jurídico (Ecuador), Yasunidos Guapondelig, Cuenca (Ecuador), Observatorio de Ecología Política de Venezuela (Venezuela), Asamblea Ciudadana Última Esperanza (Chile), Grupo de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (Venezuela), Provea (Venezuela), Fundación Cerro Verde (Ecuador), Fundación El Limbo (Ecuador), CONTIPCAP (Bolivia), PROBIOMA (Bolivia);
JS5 Joint submission 5 submitted by: ALTSEAN-Burma (Thailand), Blood Money Campaign Myanmar, Milk Tea Alliance (Friends of Myanmar);
JS6 Joint submission 6 submitted by: China Ethnic Minorities’ Association for External Exchanges, Beijing (China), China Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Beijing (China);
JS7 Joint submission 7 submitted by: CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Asia Democracy Network (ADN);
JS8 Joint submission 8 submitted by: Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), Surrey (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Impulso 18 (Mexico);
JS9 Joint submission 9 submitted by: Les Memes Droits Pour Tous (MDT), Center for Transnational Environmental Accountability (CTEA), Baltimore (United States of America);
JS10 Joint submission 10 submitted by: Defending “Glory to Hong Kong” Coalition, Berlin (Germany);
JS11 Joint submission 11 submitted by: Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region, Washington D.C. (United States of America);
JS12 Joint submission 12 submitted by: Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee (PKRC) (Pakistan), Aarhus Center in BiH (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Center for Ecology and Sustainable Development (Serbia), Just Finance International, FIAN International;
JS13 Joint submission 13 submitted by: International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Paris (France), Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB), Seoul (Republic of Korea);
JS14 Joint submission 14 submitted by: International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Paris (France), Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC), Memes Droits pour Tous (MDT), Observatorio Ciudadano (Citizens’ Rights Watch), Peru Equidad;
JS15 Joint submission 15 submitted by: International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Paris (France), International Campaign for Tibet, Washington D.C. (United States of America);
JS16 Joint submission 16 submitted by: Free Tibet, Tibet Watch, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
JS17 Joint submission 17 submitted by: Global Detention Project (GDF), Geneva (Switzerland), Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network, Bangkok (Thailand);
JS18 Joint submission 18 submitted by: Humanitarian China, Hayward (CA) (United States of America), China Change (United States of America);
JS19 Joint submission 19 submitted by: Hongkonger in Deutschland e. V. (HKDE) (Germany), Hong Kong Watch (HKW) (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Freiheit für Hongkong e. V. (FfHK) (Germany);
JS20 Joint submission 20 submitted by: Hong Kong Watch (HKW) (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Hong Kong Link up (HKLU) (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
JS21 Joint submission 21 submitted by: China Rainbow Observation, Chinese Lala Association, Chinese Trans Voices, Human Rights in China, New York (United States of America);
JS22 Joint submission 22 submitted by: Human Rights Now (HRN), Tokyo (Japan), Judicial Reform Foundation;
JS23 Joint submission 23 submitted by: International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Coalition for Genocide Response;
JS24 Joint submission 24 submitted by: International Commission of Jurists, Geneva (Switzerland), Extra- Territorial Obligation Watch Coalition;
JS25 Joint submission 25 submitted by: Jubilee Campaign, ChinaAid, Human Rights Without Frontiers, Uyghur Human Rights Project, Falun Dafa Association of Washington, D.C.;
JS26 Joint submission 26 submitted by: Just Finance International, Groesbeek, (Kingdom of the Netherlands), Koalisi Pemantau Pembangunan Infrastruktur Indonesia (Indonesia), WALHI South Sulawesi (Indonesia);
JS27 Joint submission 27 submitted by: Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L), Amsterdam, (Kingdom of the Netherlands), International Bar Association’s Human Rights Initiative (IBAHRI);
JS28 Joint submission 28 submitted by: Japan-Hong Kong Democracy Alliance (JHKDA), Tokyo (Japan), Lady Liberty Hong Kong (LLHK), Tokyo (Japan);
JS29 Joint submission 29 submitted by: Living River Association, Mekong Community Institute, Ing River People Council;
JS30 Joint submission 30 submitted by: NGO DEI, Art in Defence Of Humanism (AIDOH), Humanitarian China, Human Rights in China (HRIC);
JS31 Joint submission 31 submitted by: Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, Seoul (Republic of Korea), Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG), Seoul (Republic of Korea);
JS32 Joint submission 32 submitted by: PEN International, PEN America, Independent Chinese PEN Center, PEN Tibet Abroad Center;
JS33 Joint submission 33 submitted by: Protect Dumagat- Remontado Ancestral Domain Group, Samahan ng mga Katutubong Agta-Dumagat-Remontado na Binabaka aat Ipinagtatanggol ang Lupaing Ninuno Inc. (SAGIBIN-LN), Samahang Kababaihang Dumagat ng Sierra Madre Inc. (K- GAT), Samahang Pangkatutubo na Umaaruga sa Kapakanan ng mga Dumagat-Remontado ng Tanay, Inc. (SUKATANLN);
JS34 Joint submission 34 submitted by: Self-exile Former DCs Hong Kong, Hong Kong Watch, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
JS35 Joint submission 35 submitted by: Rights for Female North Korean Defectors (RFNK), Seoul (Republic of Korea), People for A Successful Corean Reunification (PSCORE), Seoul (Republic of Korea);
JS36 Joint submission 36 submitted by: Kanopi Hijau Indonesia (Indonesia), Yayasan Srikandi Lestari (Indonesia), Perkumpulan Pembela Lingkungan Hidup(Indonesia);
JS37 Joint submission 37 submitted by: Shaanxi Patriotic Volunteer Association (SXPVA), Beijing on Action International Cultural Centre (BAICC);
JS38 Joint submission 38 submitted by: Tibet Advocacy Coalition, International Tibet Network Member Groups;
JS39 Joint submission 39 submitted by: Tibet Bureau, Tibet Women’s Association (Central), Tibetan Community of Switzerland and Liechtenstein;
JS40 Joint submission 40 submitted by: Environment Governance Institute (EGI), Friends with Environment in Development (FED), Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFRIEGO), Women for Greener Economy Movement (WoGEM), Center for Conservation and Eco Energy Initiative, Youth for Green Communities Uganda, Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment and Management (CECIC), Strategic Response on Environmental Conservation (STREC), East African Crude Oil Pipeline Host Communities, Center for Environmental Research and Agriculture Innovations (CERAI), Just Finance International, Both ENDS.
3 The following abbreviations are used in UPR documents:
ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
OP-ICESCR Optional Protocol to ICESCR
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICCPR-OP 1 Optional Protocol to ICCPR
ICCPR-OP 2 Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
OP-CEDAW Optional Protocol to CEDAW
CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
OP-CAT Optional Protocol to CAT
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
OP-CRC-AC Optional Protocol to CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict
OP-CRC-SC Optional Protocol to CRC on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
OP-CRC-IC Optional Protocol to CRC on a communications procedure
ICRMW International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
OP-CRPD Optional Protocol to CRPD
ICPPED International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
4 JS1, para. 44; AI, para. 29; CHRD, para. 1.
5 AI, para. 29.
6 CHRD, para. 3.
7 ICAN, p. 1.
8 FLD, pp. 7–8.
9 FLD, p. 8.
10 CHRD, para. 4.
11 ISHR, p. 4.
12 CPAPD, p. 7. See also FUNDALATIN, p. 4; Project Verum, p. 7; JS2, para.13.
13 CHRD, paras. 5–6.
14 AI, para. 2.
15 AI, para. 31; DHF, para. 37.
16 AI, para. 21.
17 CHRD, para. 18; TRP, para. 6. See also SD, paras. 33–43.
18 AI, paras. 19–20.
19 FLD, pp. 2 and 7.
20 SAR, para. 49.
21 CHRD, para. 10.
22 CHRD, para. 19. See also UNJC, p. 2.
23 LSEW, p. 5.
24 JS22, pp. 1–2.
25 LSEW, p. 7.
26 CHRD, paras. 21 and 23–24; JS27, p. 12.
27 JS8, paras. 4 and 60; ECLJ, para. 25; UFI, p. 5. See also CCRP, p. 5; NWUPL, FRI, para. 6.
28 JS25, p. 12–13.See also CPAPD, pp. 8–9.
29 JS1, para. 5. See also AI, paras. 12–14.
30 JS1, para. 47.
31 MAAT, p. 7.
32 JS1, para. 10.
33 AI, para. 25; ISHR, paras. 8–11.
34 RSF, pp. 2–3.
35 RSF, pp. 4–5.
36 JS7, pp. 4 and 15. See also CNIE, pp. 3–4.
37 AI, para. 26; CHRD, para. 28.
38 JS1, para. 23.
39 HRW, pp. 2–3.
40 HRW, p. 6.
41 JS13, p. 7. See also FFH, pp. 3–4.
42 JS11, pp. 1–2 and 5.
43 CHRD, paras. 31–32; CLW, p. 6.
44 WGPWSH, para. 33.
45 CCA, para. 15. See also ChMA, para. 5.
46 CULR, p. 8.
47 JS37, para. 27. See also ANEC Cuba, paras. 2–7; EFCA, para. 5; WFCMS, para. 14; IFWA, p. 3;
IGCP, pp. 2–3; IPWR, p. 3; IREC, pp. 2 and 5–6; ISDNGO, p. 3; MUPAC, p. 3; UNA-China, paras.
2–16; WEDC, pp. 1–2.
48 ChMA, para. 10; CSHRS, para. 27. See also CYDF, para. 10; NSCF, pp. 1–2; WFAS, paras. 9–10.
49 CHINAFPA, para. 8.
50 Broken Chalk, para. 13. See also CEAIE, para. 6.
51 CQCESD, p. 7.
52 JS32, p. 10.
53 CFU, p. 5.
54 BDPF, p. 5. See also ACEF2005, paras. 2–7; CAFIU, paras. 3–6; CALC, paras. 3–10; CANGO
CHINA, paras. 5–7; CEPF, para. 5; FANJ, para. 14–15; FMC, para. 7; Fundavivienda, paras. 10–12;
GreenovationHub, paras. 1–4.
55 AI, para. 27.
56 AI, para. 45; CHRD, para. 9. See also CFU, p. 5.
57 CSRH, p. 5.
58 JS4, para. 58(c). See also Z.G.M, paras. 2–8.
59 JS3, page 7; JS5, p. 7; JS9, pp. 6–7; JS12, p.3; JS14, p.7; JS24, pp. 10–11; JS26, pp.5–6; JS29, pp.
11–12; JS33, pp. 11–12; JS36, pp. 8–9; JS40, pp. 2–3.
60 AFREWATCH, para. 20. See also CFHRD, paras. 6–9.
61 HRW, pp. 5–6. See also Género con Clase, para. 39.
62 HRW, p. 6. See also CWRS, PP. 8–9; CSEF, pp. 5–6.
63 BCLARC, pp. 5–6. See also Chunhui Children, pp. 5–6.
64 CHRD, paras. 37–38.
65 JS18, p. 8.
66 AI, para. 17. See also Purple Ribbon, p. 5.
67 CIDF, p. 7. See also Friends of L’Humanite, p. 5.
68 CHRD, paras. 39–40.
69 CAPVD, p. 7. See also CHRS-CASS, paras. 10–11; TAF submission.
70 AI, paras. 15 and 18. See also JS6, paras. 6–8; CTRC, pp. 1–7.
71 JS39, pp. 9–10. See also JS16, pp. 15–16.
72 JS15, p. 10.
73 ACSLP, pp. 2–9; JS38, pp. 18–19. See also CTS submission.
74 HRW, pp. 4–5. See also C(M)TCEDP, pp. 3–4; CAPDTC, para. 4.
75 AI, para. 16.
76 HRW, pp. 1–2. See also GCR2P, p. 2.
77 ACSLP, pp. 2–11; UHRP, paras. 1–4; WUC, paras. 3–18.
78 CFU, p. 4.
79 JS23, para. 61.
80 AI, para. 35; CFU, p. 4. See also HRW, p. 2.
81 AI, para. 36; CFU, pp. 3–4.
82 CFU, p. 4.
83 AI, paras. 3–4.
84 CHRD, para. 36. See also EAHK, paras. 13–20; Equality, para. 3.
85 AI, para. 5.
86 JS21, p. 5.
87 CLW, pp. 5 and 9.
88 JS13, p.6; JS31, pp. 12–13; NKHR, pp. 6–7.
89 JS35, pp. 25–26.
90 AI, para. 11.
91 HRIC, para. 8. See also JS34, paras. 25–29; Halofund, p. 1; HKIWA, para. 11.
92 CFHK Foundation, para. 15; HKB, p. 2; HKDCDN, paras. 26; Hong Kong Scots, paras. 4–9; ISHR,
p. 4; UT-HRD, pp. 7–8; JS10, p. 8; JS19, p. 18; JS20, p. 16. See also AAIL, para. 9; HKCHR, paras. 44–46; HKMLPA, para. 5; LawywersHK, paras. 21–25; NTWYOCS, pp. 1–2; YCCA, p. 1; YLYA
submission; Youth Vision HK submission.
93 GCAL, para. 10.
94 RSF, p. 5. See also NTAS submission.
95 JS28, para. 34.
96 HRW, p. 4.
97 JS1, para. 41. See also ADY, para. 1.
98 HKRLM, paras. 6 and 8. See also HKAYC, paras. 11–12.
99 UNjust, pp. 1–3.
100 JS30, pp. 9 – 10. See also KWOF, pp. 2–3.
101 CFHK Foundation, para. 36.
102 CFHK Foundation, paras. 17–27.
103 HKLRM, para. 10.
104 HKDC, p. 12. See also FNTY submission; FOS submission; New Line Youth Volunteer submission.
105 Women4HK, paras. 3 and 7. See also HKFLU, p. 2; HKFLC-LEC, p. 4; TRPC1959 submission; TPRYG2019 submission.
106 HKLRM, paras. 21–23; Leitner Center, pp. 2–3. See also, JS17, pp. 8–9.
107 WGAM, para. 9. See also Macao Youth Federation submission; MacRG submission.