Revised Prison Law fails to address systemic human rights concerns in Chinese prisons
Comments Off on Revised Prison Law fails to address systemic human rights concerns in Chinese prisons
Proposed new statute backslides further on international commitments
(Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders—October 9, 2025) The proposed revisions to the Prison Law entrench the Chinese government’s disdain for its international human rights obligations, especially around the prohibition of torture, and enshrine vague “national security” restrictions limiting freedom of expression and other rights.
CHRD is concerned that new, amended, or unchanged provisions fail to comply with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which China ratified in 1988. The draft law fails to establish an independent supervisory mechanism to ensure prisoners are not mistreated, and does not guarantee full communication rights with families and friends and unmonitored visits with lawyers. It expands the use of solitary confinement and restraints, and allows unchecked prison labor. It also stipulates loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and further entrenches vague national security-related provisions. Many of these amendments enable practices that amount to torture and restrict independent access to prisoners—already chronic problems in prisons across the country.
“Beijing had a chance to show it’s serious about fulfilling obligations under a key international human rights treaty,” said Angeli Datt, research and advocacy coordinator at CHRD. “Instead, it’s moving in the opposite direction, and prisoners—including wrongfully detained human rights defenders—will pay the price.”
CHRD submitted comments on some select areas of concern on the second draft revision to the National People’s Congress (NPC) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the period for public consultation that will close on October 11. That critique is included as an annex below. CHRD also spoke to formerly imprisoned Chinese human rights defenders (HRDs), including lawyers, to gather perspectives on deficiencies in the law in practice. Their testimony, which has been anonymised and slightly edited to protect their identities, illustrates the existing problems with the law and how the revision fails to address human rights concerns.
CHRD has long documented human rights violations in Chinese prisons that stem from vague laws, poor or discriminatory implementation, and impunity for police prison guards or officials. Torture and ill-treatment in detention are common, particularly for HRDs, many of whom are already wrongfully detained.
Several imprisoned HRDs have died while serving prison sentences after being tortured, including being denied access to adequate medical treatment, including 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo, writer Yang Tongyan, citizen lawyer Ji Sizun, activist Guo Hongwei, and members of persecuted ethnic communities, such as Tibetan monk Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and Uyghur scholar Muhammad Salih Hajim. CHRD is not aware of any independent investigation into or any officer or official being held accountable for these deaths in state custody.
Currently imprisoned HRDs—including journalist Huang Qi, activist Guo Feixiong, legal scholar Xu Zhiyong and lawyer Ding Jiaxi—have endured torture, deprivation of adequate medical care, and other mistreatment while serving lengthy prison sentences handed down for exercising their human rights. HRDs, Tibetans, and Uyghurs have reported human rights abuses in prison, such as being beaten, restrained in iron shackles or interrogation chairs for days, forced to stand for long periods of time, held in solitary confinement, forced to work long hours for minimal pay, even when ill, given inadequate and poor-quality food, denied adequate medical treatment, denied water, access to a toilet, and forced to live in unsanitary conditions. Much of this treatment is prohibited under existing Chinese law, but CHRD has found no evidence of complaints being investigated or perpetrators being held accountable.
Chinese authorities have also denied or restricted many prisoners’ right to communicate with their families, including prohibiting calls with family members living outside China, placing the detainee in a prison thousands of miles from their homes, or by sending national security officers to harass and threaten family members who do visit. The importance of being able to communicate with family members and friends is paramount to imprisoned HRDs and their families, and some of the only measures of comfort and protection against ill-treatment for prisoners.
Sophie Luo, the wife of imprisoned human rights lawyer Ding Jiaxi, has long been advocating to be able to speak with her husband and told CHRD in October 2025: “I wish l could get a call from my husband in prison, which is our right. But it has been denied by the Chinese authorities for over six years.” She had previously noted that, “Letters remain our most precious sustenance.”
In February 2025, independent UN human rights experts raised concern about the fate of 10 imprisoned HRDs, including allegations of torture, denial of prison visits, denial of access to information by family members, and lack of information on the health and wellbeing of the imprisoned individuals. The Chinese government in its response denied the allegations without providing any evidence to support its claims.
CHRD’s analysis of new or revised provisions of the Prison Law find that they fail to address these key human rights concerns, and in some instances create new and worse threats to prisoners’ rights. CHRD calls on the National People’s Congress to undertake a much more comprehensive revision of the law during its third revision to bring it in line with international standards. Beijing should do so in advance of its overdue review before the Committee against Torture, which was last held in 2015, and is now tentatively expected in 2026.
“The Chinese government likes to claim its conduct is in always in accordance with the law,” Datt said. “But unless it changes course on the proposed revisions to the Prison Law, it should be prepared to explain to human rights experts its efforts to legalize rather than prevent abuses in prisons.”
For more information, please contact:
Sophie Richardson, Co-Executive Director, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, sophierichardson[at]nchrd.org, +1 917 721 7473
Angeli Datt, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, angelidatt[at]nchrd.org, +1 934 444 6155
Shane Yi, Researcher, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, shaneyi[at]nchrd.org
Annex – CHRD’s analysis of the second draft of revised Prison Law
中文版本 – “中国人权捍卫者”（民间团体）就《中华人民共和国监狱法（修订草案二次审议稿）》提出的建议
Lack of independent supervision mechanism
The revised draft fails to address the lack of a separate and independent supervisory body to inspect and monitor prisons to ensure prisoners’ rights are being respected, including the right to be free from torture, as enshrined under international human rights standards. In China, prosecutions are the responsibility of the people’s procuratorates. Under the current law and the revised draft, the procuratorate also supervises the treatment of prisoners. Prisoners do not have a separate body, distinct from the entity that oversees their prosecutions and convictions, to which to appeal to ensure their rights are respected. This leaves them vulnerable to abuses.
In 2015, the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT), which oversees states’ compliance with the Convention Against Torture, called on the Chinese government to remove the procuratorate as the supervisory mechanism for precisely these reasons. The CAT urged Beijing to “establish an independent oversight body to monitor places of detention, with the mandate to carry out unhindered and unannounced visits.” The draft law fails to take these steps.
One HRD told CHRD about their previous experiences trying to file complaints with the procuratorate office at the prison where they were held. “One time I reported a situation to the procuratorate during its inspection tour. They said that reporting problems would affect my future application for sentence reduction.”
CHRD calls for the draft law to be revised and for the procuratorate to be replaced by an independent oversight body. That entity should be tasked with monitoring and inspecting prisons, and authorized to carry out unhindered and unannounced visits.
Communication with family
International human rights norms state that prisoners should be allowed to communicate with their family and friends at regular intervals, subject only to necessary and reasonable supervision or restrictions. This applies to letter writing, telephone or online calls, and receiving visits.
The current Prison Law includes a provision enshrining prisoners’ rights to receive visits from family and to correspond with “others” (individuals not explicitly identified as family members or guardians). It does not explicitly restrict communication with family members living outside China. In practice, these provisions have been systematically violated for years and authorities restrict many HRD prisoners from communicating with their loved ones inside and outside China.
For example, the family of imprisoned activist and former judge Huang Yunmin, whose ten-year sentence has been raised by UN Special Procedures in 2021 and 2025, said in June 2025 that for the past eight years their requests to visit him have been denied. The family sends him letters but have not received any back; they believe the prison is withholding Huang’s correspondence to them. In addition, the family’s monthly calls to him are monitored and arbitrarily cut off.
As one HRD told CHRD in July 2025, “The law says correspondence and meetings are guaranteed, but in fact, there is still no guarantee. Guards said I can make a phone call once a week, but everyone had to stand in line and there was only one phone. I wasn’t able to make a phone call in a year.”
Another HRD told CHRD in July 2025 about prison authorities intercepting letters he sent to his sister so that she never received them, and not passing along letters his niece had sent him, including one to inform him that his sister had undergone surgery due to illness. He found out that the letters were being withheld because a family member was permitted to visit him in prison. He said, “I complained to the resident prosecutor, and they explained that after investigation, the letter’s content was inappropriate, so they didn’t give it to me.” The only letter he received throughout his nearly three years’ imprisonment was the letter informing him of his sister’s death.
The revised draft law maintains the right to visits and correspondence, and includes minor revisions clarifying that prisoners can speak on the phone with family (Article 68). It also includes a new clause that expands the justification for restricting correspondence between prisoners and others by stating that, “Any correspondence suspected of endangering national security or involving criminal activities must be detained and dealt with in accordance with the law” (Article 67).
As illustrated above, authorities have long arbitrarily restricted correspondence to HRDs, often in violation of the law. HRDs and their families have also frequently been accused of, prosecuted, or had rights restricted on vague and unsubstantiated charges of “endangering national security” in violation of their human rights, and CHRD is concerned this new provision may be used to systematically deny HRDs or anyone convicted of a national security crime their communication rights. As currently drafted, Article 67’s vague and overbroad restriction does not meet the standard of “necessary supervision” to restrict prisoners of their rights to correspondence, and may lead to further persecution of HRDs who try to assert these rights.
International standards also state that prisoners should be allowed to meet and correspond with friends and not just family or guardians. While the current law permits correspondence with “others,” the revised draft includes a provision to permit visits or telephone calls with such individuals solely based on “the approval of the prison director” (Article 68).
In practice, prisons have restricted correspondence between imprisoned HRDs and their partners if they are not married, or with friends and supporters, even though it is permitted under the law. Article 68 opens up the possibility of visits and calls by non-married partners and friends, but this revision does not adhere to international standards as such communication is still subject to the approval of the prison director and may be arbitrarily denied.
CHRD calls for the draft law to be further revised to ensure that prisoners are guaranteed correspondence and visitation rights with family and friends, including family outside of China, and only subject to restrictions set out in clearly defined standards subject to judicial review if communication and meetings have been limited.
Meetings with lawyers
International human rights standards state that prisoners should be provided with adequate opportunity, time, and facilities to be visited by, and to communicate and consult with a lawyer or legal aid provider of their own choice. These rights should be respected without delay, obstruction, or censorship and in full confidentiality, on any legal matter, in conformity with applicable domestic law. Consultations may be within sight, but not within hearing, of prison staff. Such protections are especially critical to preventing torture or ill-treatment in detention.
The first and second revised draft included a new provision under Article 69 that enshrines the right of prisoners to “meet with a lawyer appointed by themselves, their legal representative, or their immediate family, or assigned by a legal aid agency.” While a welcome step on paper, it does not fully comply with international standards: it fails to guarantee that these visits should be arranged promptly, be fully confidential, and not subject to any censorship or monitoring by authorities. CHRD is concerned that in practice this provision is already violated, especially for HRDs that have reported torture in prison, and that a new provision in the draft law suggests that these meetings can be monitored.
The new provision under Article 70 in the first and second draft revisions states that, “If any violation of regulations occurs during a phone call or meeting, prison police officers shall immediately stop the violation and issue a warning. If the violation persists or the circumstances are serious, prison police officers shall terminate the call or meeting.” Article 70 does not make clear to which regulations it is referring, but it is likely the 2017 Ministry of Justice (MOJ) provisions on lawyers meeting with prisoners. That stipulates that prisons may have personnel present in a meeting and that it is prohibited for lawyers to “secretly deliver letters,” “provide communication tools,” make audio or video recordings or take photos without the consent of the prison, and other vague prohibitions. Human rights lawyers have in the past been stopped from photographing evidence of torture of their clients, such as bruises or cuts.
The revised Prison Law and the 2017 MOJ provisions undermine prisoners’ rights to unmonitored meetings with their lawyers. Many HRDs have faced torture and mistreatment in prison and report these abuses to their lawyers and family members during visits, yet perversely visits may be restricted if authorities monitor those discussions and prisoners share information about abuse.
CHRD calls for the draft law to be further revised to ensure that meetings with lawyers are arranged promptly and are fully confidential, and that any monitoring of meetings with other visitors are necessary, proportionate, and clearly defined in law with a process for judicial review if meeting rights are revoked.
Expanded use of solitary confinement
The draft revised Prison Law expands the possible criteria for punishment of a prisoner with solitary confinement, and so fails to comply with China’s international obligations. International human rights law and norms call for the abolition of solitary confinement as a punishment and to only use it as an exceptional measure, for as short a period of time as possible, subject to independent judicial review.
Under Article 83 of the revised Prison Law, solitary confinement can now result from “insulting prison guards” and “resisting reform through attempted suicide or hunger strikes.” Other existing and problematic criteria have been retained, including “refusing to work despite being able to do so, or engaging in passive resistance, and failing to change after education,” and the overly broad and vague “committing other acts that violate prison rules and regulations.” The draft limits solitary confinement to seven to 15 days.
In 2015, the Committee against Torture called on the Chinese government to comply with its treaty obligations by limiting the use of solitary confinement and establishing “clear and specific criteria in its regulations for decisions on solitary confinement, indicating the conduct, type and maximum duration.” The draft Prison Law does the opposite.
Imprisoned HRDs, Tibetans, Uyghurs and other political prisoners suffered blatant violations of the limits on solitary confinement. Pro-democracy writer and activist Wang Bingzhang is now in his 22nd year of this abuse: he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2003 and has been serving his entire sentence in Shaoguan Prison, Guandong Province under solitary confinement. Businessman Ekpar Asat, who was forcibly disappeared in 2016 and sentenced on an unknown date to 15 years in prison because of his Uyghur identity and travel abroad, spent at least two years in solitary confinement between 2019-2021 in Aksu Prison in the Uyghur region. Tibetan monk Tenzin Delek Rinpoche was repeatedly held in solitary confinement during the 13 years of imprisonment in Chuandong Prison, Sichuan Province. He had been serving a life sentence when he died in 2015 after repeatedly being tortured and denied access to medical care. Prisoners have also undertaken hunger strikes out of desperation due to other violations of their rights in prison, such as legal scholar Xu Zhiyong and journalist Zhang Zhan. The UN has said that engaging in a hunger strike is a form of nonviolent protest protected as an act of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and forced feeding may amount to torture.
CHRD calls for the draft law to remove punishment with solitary confinement from the methods of possible discipline. Hunger strikes and mental health-related crises should be removed from the grounds for punishment, as should overly broad and catch-all provisions—such as “other acts that violate rules and regulations”—that do not clearly define what conduct is prohibited. The law should include provisions for independent review of prisoner discipline punishments to ensure that prisoners’ due process rights are respected.
Use of restraints in prison
International human rights standards call for the prohibition of restraints like irons, chains or other instruments used to inflict inherently degrading treatment. CAT called on Chinese authorities in 2015 to avoid the use of restraints or only as a “measure of last resort, when less intrusive alternatives for control have failed and for the shortest possible time.” CAT also called for the full prohibition of “interrogation chairs,” also known as “tiger chairs.”
The current law permits the use of restraints on four grounds: if the prisoner has escaped, committed violence, is on their way to an escort, or “other dangerous behaviors” (Article 45). Article 63 of the second revised draft expands the potentially permitted use of restraints to include circumstances in which the prisoner is being escorted for medical treatment, special leave (under provisions that allow a prisoner to apply for leave to visit family under certain criteria), or prison transfer. This Article also suggests restraints can be used if a prisoner creates a disturbance, injures themselves, mutilate themselves or attempts suicide, or “seriously violates management regulations and endangers the order of custody,” criteria that lack clarification.
HRDs have been subjected to torture through the use of restraints, and the expanded grounds for the use of restraints may lead to their more frequent usage, in violation of China’s obligations under the Convention against Torture.
For example, Guandong-based Zhu Chunlin was imprisoned at Qingyuan Prison in 2017. Zhu described having 30-pound iron shackles placed on his legs for 20 days straight because of a minor dispute over his clothing. He wrote to the prison procurator to file a complaint, but no one came to investigate. HRD Xie Wenfei wrote that he had been tortured by being placed in a “tiger chair” while imprisoned in Chengzhou Prison, Hunan Province in 2023.
CHRD calls for the draft law to be further revised so any provision on the use of restraints bans irons, shackles, chains, and interrogation chairs. The draft should be amended to stipulate that when restraints like handcuffs are used it is used as a measure of last resort, for the shortest time possible, restricted to scenarios where safety—not punishment—is concerned, and that prison personnel who violate this provision can be prosecuted for torture.
Concerns around prison labor
While international standards for prisoners encourage opportunities for paid employment in prison to help rehabilitate prisoners and facilitate their eventual re-entry into society, such work must meet certain standards to ensure that prisoners are not subject to pain and suffering, obliged to work in slavery-like conditions, or conducting work for the private or personal benefit of prison personnel.
Several of these standards exist in the current Prison Law and have been included in the draft revision. Working hours are meant to be in line with national regulations and the right to rest on statutory holidays and rest days (Article 71 in current law, Article 101 in second revised draft), and prison labor should be remunerated in line with national regulations (Article 72 in current law, Article 102 in second draft). Work should be based on the individual circumstances of prisoners including efforts to “develop labor habits, learn labor skills, and create conditions for employment after release” (Article 70 of current law). The second revised draft incudes these stipulations and that prisoners’ “capacity and physical health, and needs of their education and reform” is taken into account (Article 100 in second draft). However, the law also punishes vague “passive resistance” or “failing to change after education [while working]” with potential solitary confinement.
According to the testimony of previously imprisoned HRDs these provisions are regularly violated, and it is unlikely that the minor revisions will ensure compliance with international human rights standards.
As one HRD shared with CHRD in July 2025, prison labor conditions are gruelling, and do not appear designed to help rehabilitate a prisoner but rather to make a profit for a private company. Prisoners were paid between 30 to 100 RMB (US $3 to 14) a month even though China’s average monthly minimum wage is 1,755 yuan (US $246).
“Inmates leave their cells at 7:00 AM and return at nearly 7:00 PM, with only three days off per month for haircuts and family visits. Though the prison notice board clearly states that the prison should have a 5+1+1 model (five days of work, one day of study, and one day of rest), this is not enforced.”
Another HRD also raised concern to CHRD in July 2025 that their experience in prison was not in line with the provisions of the current law, nor the second revised draft which contains the same provisions. “We never took two days off in a row [from working]. Except for the 11th day of the Spring Festival, we did not get time off for statutory holidays as required by the law.” They also raised concerns about low pay below minimum wage and said that if the law was implemented that prison labor conditions would likely improve.
CHRD reiterates our call for the establishment of an independent supervisory body that can make unannounced and unhindered visits to monitor and inspect prisons to ensure compliance with Chinese laws and regulations regarding prison labor.
Law mandates loyalty to Chinese Communist Party and vague national security concepts
The revised law includes new provisions that elevate the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) within the prison system and amongst prison personnel. These provisions would further entrench the political discrimination that imprisoned HRDs or others who are critical of the CCP and its policies face.
The revised draft states that “prison work shall adhere to the leadership of the CCP” (Article 3), that “prison police officers shall be loyal to the Party” (Article 20). It establishes that prisons shall have a “political commissar” alongside wardens and deputy wardens for prison management (Article 19). “Political commissars” are CCP cadres responsible for supervising political ideology and political education within a unit. According to the NPC’s explanation of the first draft, these provisions are to ensure the implementation of “decisions and arrangements of the Party Central Committee on prison work.” This approach undermines the rule of law by emphasizing political and ideological leadership in the management of prisons instead of judicial bodies.
The revised Article 3 also states that prisons should uphold the undefined “overall national security concept,” which further entrenches the vague and overly broad usage of “national security” that has permeated in Chinese laws under Xi Jinping, who has been in power since late 2012. As noted earlier, vague accusations of “endangering national security” are regularly used against those who express opinions critical of the government, the CCP, or its policies, and for members of ethnic or religious communities.
CHRD calls for the draft law to be revised to remove any references to a particular political party, ideology, or leadership, including requirements that prison personnel must swear loyalty to a political party, and the remove references to vague and overbroad “national security” concepts.