Communiqué Alleging Arbitrary Detention of Gao Zhen for Exercising Artistic Freedom, Requesting Urgent Action and WGAD Review

March 12, 2026 Comments Off

Chinese Human Rights Defenders Communiqué

Alleging Violations of Human Rights of Gao Zhen, a Citizen of

the People’s Republic of China

Requesting Urgent Action and

Review by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Submission to:

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights

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

Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers

Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

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

Ⅰ. IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF ARBITRARY DETENTION

Family name(s): Gao (高)
Given name(s): Zhen (兟)
Gender: Male
Date of birth or age at time of detention: 11 May 1956. Gao was 68 years old at the time of detention.
Nationality(ies): People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Identity document number and issuing authority:
Profession and/or activity (if considered relevant to the arrest/ detention):

Gao Zhen, aged 69, is one half of the Gao Brothers, a collaborative artistic duo comprising Gao Zhen and his younger brother. They have worked together since the 1980s as sculptors, photographers, painters, and performers, earning an international reputation as some of the most prominent avant-garde Chinese artists of their generation. Their work confronts the legacy of the Cultural Revolution and the authoritarian rule of Mao Zedong—subjects considered taboo in China—through satirical and often provocative artistic commentary.

Their works include “Mao’s Guilt” (2009), depicting Mao kneeling in contrition; “The Execution of Christ” (2009), in which Mao figures point weapons at Jesus; and “Miss Mao” (2006), a sculptural series rendering Mao with feminine features and an elongated nose. These works have been exhibited internationally and acquired by institutions including the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

In February 1989, while attending an art exhibition in Beijing, the Gao Brothers came across an open letter from physicist Fang Lizhi to Deng Xiaoping and signed it — an act that led the authorities to treat them as dissidents. From 1989 to 2003, the Gao brothers were prohibited from travelling abroad, a ban that was only lifted in 2004. Gao Zhen moved to the United States of America in 2022.His younger brother also lives abroad.

8. Address of usual residence:

Gao Zhen lives in New York, United States of America.

In June 2024, he travelled to China to visit extended family. His temporary address during that stay was his art studio in Yanjiao town, Sanhe City, Hebei Province, PRC.

Ⅱ. DETAILS OF THE ARREST OR DETENTION

Please give a brief description of the events, in chronological order (bearing in mind that further details are requested in sections III and IV).

Date of arrest or detention: Police took Gao into custody on 26 August 2024, criminally detained him on the same day, and formally arrested him on 29 September 2024.
Place of arrest or detention (provide as much detail as possible): Police seized Gao from his art studio in Yanjiao town, Sanhe City, Hebei Province, PRC.
Explain the circumstances of the arrest or detention, in chronological order, including the name of the forces that carried it out or are believed to have carried it out (specify, for example, the number of officers making the arrest and whether they were wearing uniforms and/or had identified themselves):

On 26 August 2024, at around 11 am, more than 30 police officers from Yanshunlu police station and Sanhe City Public Security Bureau—in uniform and plainclothes—barged into Gao’s art studio in Yanjiao town, Sanhe City. The police had contacted the building management to cut the studio’s power supply, and when Gao and his family called a technician for repairs, the officers stormed in. The officers violently seized Gao and left him with a lower back injury that required him to use a wheelchair for three months.

The police also seized numerous computers, hard drives, CDs, and parts of several of Gao’s sculptures.
Did the forces making the arrest produce an arrest warrant or give any explanation or refer to any other decision by a public authority? The officers presented a detention notice.
Which authority issued the warrant or decision? Was it a judicial authority? Sanhe City Public Security Bureau
Was the reason for the arrest or detention given at the time of the arrest or detention? If so, what reason was given? If a reason was not given at this time, when was the individual first informed of the reason for the arrest or detention? Please provide as much detail as possible: The officers alleged that Gao was suspected of “insulting and infringing upon the reputation and honor of heroes and martyrs.”
Which national law (if known) was cited as the legal basis for the arrest or detention?

Article 299(1) of China’s Criminal Law states that “insulting, defaming, or otherwise infringing on the reputation and honor of heroes and martyrs, harming the public interest, where the circumstances are serious, is to be given a sentence of up to three years’ imprisonment, short-term detention, controlled release, or deprivation of political rights.”

This charge was formally adopted and promulgated by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on 26 February 2021 and came into effect on 1 March 2021. It derives from the Law on the Protection of Heroes and Martyrs, passed by the National People’s Congress in April 2018.
Duration of detention (if not known, approximate duration): Gao has been continuously detained since 26 August 2024.
Which authority is responsible for detaining the person? Sanhe City Public Security Bureau, Hebei Province, PRC.
Place(s) of deprivation of liberty (indicate any transfers, date of transfer and current place of detention, if known): Gao has been detained at Sanhe City Detention Center, Hebei Province, PRC.
Has the detainee, or anyone else on the detainee’s behalf, been able to challenge the detention domestically? Which domestic remedies are available, and which have been used? How effective have such remedies been?

Gao’s first lawyer of choice applied for bail on 4 September 2024. The Sanhe City Public Bureaurejected the application on 7 September 2024 without citing a specific reason. Gao’s current lawyers, whom he also chose, applied for bail on 10 December 2025. The Sanhe City Court orally informed of its rejection of the application on 12 December 2025 and stated that Gao’s case was “too complicated to qualify for bail,” without providing further details. The formal notice from the court is dated 14 December 2025.

On 16 August 2025 Gao wrote a letter from detention to a renowned Chinese artist, asking the artist to rally international artists and art critics in support of his case. While acknowledging that external pressure may not change his outcome, Gao stressed that staying silent would mean surrendering artists’ right to free expression and that other artists could face asimilarfate if no resistance is mounted. After Gao’s letter was made public, his access to communication and books was further restricted. (More details in Section III on access to family and the outside world.)

III. FURTHER DETAILS CONCERNING THE ARREST OR DETENTION

Please provide further details about the arrest or detention, including information regarding:

Access to a lawyer of one’s own choosing from the outset of the deprivation of liberty and prior to questioning or rendering a declaration; date of first access, ability to communicate privately, presence during interrogations, hearings and proceedings.

Following Gao’s detention, he first met with a lawyer of his choice on 2 September 2024. His current lawyers, also of his choice, has been representing him since July 2025.
Conditions of detention and treatment (including solitary confinement and/or ill-treatment), and where the person was held and is currently held

Gao’s treatment in detention may constitute torture and ill-treatment. Following Gao’s detention on 26 August 2024, Sanhe City Detention Center authorities held him in solitary confinement in a small cell for around 20 days. During this period, police interrogated of Gao day and night on multiple occasions, depriving him of sleep.

The detention center subsequently moved him into a group cell. That cell was just over 30 square meters but shared by 15 people.

The food provided at the detention center is inadequate and may constitute deliberate deprivation of food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength. The three daily meals consist only of porridge, bread buns, and boiled cabbage — with rice only on rare occasions — and no protein.
Access to family and contact with the outside world (ability to communicate with relatives, date of first family visit, frequency of family visits)

Gao has not seen his family since his detention. Chinese law does not permit family visits in pre-trial detention, which itself constitutes a violation of international standards. From the beginning of his detention until the end of December 2024, Sanhe City Detention Center authorities blockedhis right to communicate with his family by letter. Between January and May 2025, his family received a letter from Gao on average every 10 days, and they wrote to him once a week. However, the detention center cut off access again from May 2025 until the present.
Access to consular assistance (in the case of persons holding dual nationality)

While Gao is a legal permanent resident of the United States, his ability to access consular assistance is unclear.
Health concerns, and access to health care in detention

Gao Zhen, who will turn 70 in May 2026, has a number of pre-existing medical conditions, including lumbar spine disease, knee effusion, an eye disease, prostate issues, a lung condition and chronic hives. His health has deteriorated during detention.

In October 2025, Gao suddenly fainted and collapsed while getting out of bed one day, initially raising fears that he might have suffered a stroke. Later medical examinations determined that the episode was linked to an eye condition and malnutrition. In addition, he has been taking medication for chronic hives, which has also produced side effects affecting his health.

During the first three months in detention, Gao had to use a wheelchair to attend meetings with his lawyer due to a lower back injury sustained when police took him into custody.
Please describe any legal proceedings since the individual’s arrest or detention, including:The date of their first appearance before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power; whether the detainee was allowed to appear in person; the dates of subsequent appearances to review the detention

2. Please describe any legal proceedings since the individual’s arrest or detention, including:

The date of their first appearance before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power; whether the detainee was allowed to appear in person; the dates of subsequent appearances to review the detention

As of the date of submission, Gao Zhen is still pending trial, therefore he has yet to appear before a judge.

Gao Zhen was formally arrested on 29 September 2024 by Sanhe City Public Security Bureau upon authorisation by the Sanhe City Procuratorate.

On 28 November 2024, his case was transferred to the Sanhe City Procuratorate for indictment, which returned it twice to the Sanhe City Public Security Bureau for supplementary investigation. The first time was 12 January 2025 and the second time 27 March 2025.

The Sanhe City Procuratorate formally indicted him on 20 June 2025.
Whether the pretrial detention was renewed; if so, provide the date of the renewal and the authority that ordered it

The Sanhe City Procuratorate twice returned Gao’s case in January and March 2025 to Sanhe City Public Security Bureau for further investigation before formally indicting him in June 2025.

Following Gao’s formal indictment on 20 June 2025, his case was transferred to Sanhe City Court. Under China’s Criminal Procedure Law, courts should conclude a trial within three months after accepting a case.The court has postponed the trial three times, each time by three months—first from 10 September to 10 December 2025, then to 10 March 2026, and most recently to 10 June 2026. Court authorities are using procedural grounds to delay the proceedings and prolong his pre-trial detention.

As of the date of submission, Gao Zhen has spent more than 18 months in pre-trial detention.
Whether the detainee was able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention (provide details)

Gao Zhen’s lawyers have filed twice for bail, the first time on 4 September 2024, and second time on 10 December 2025. Authorities rejected both applications.
The date of the first court hearing (and of any subsequent hearings), and a description of the proceedings (such as whether it was a public hearing; whether the individual detained was present in the courtroom; whether the individual’s legal counsel was present; whether the detainee was able to confer with their lawyer; the language in which the proceedings were conducted, and whether interpretation services were provided; whether the defence was able to call and examine witnesses, and was given equal opportunity to present the case under conditions that did not place the individual at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the opponent)

As of the date of submission, Gao Zhen’s case has not yet been heard in court.
Details of any sentence imposed: N/A
Details of the appeals process (whether the detainee was able to appeal and whether an appeal hearing has been held). Describe the circumstances of any hearings and the outcome. N/A

IV. HOW DOES THIS AMOUNT TO ARBITRARY DETENTION?

Give the reasons why you consider the arrest and/or detention to be arbitrary. Please detail your reasons and analyse them as much as possible with reference to international human rights law and the categories of the Working Group. Specifically, provide details about:

Whether the arrest or detention was authorized by the Constitution or domestic law, and whether you consider this to be compliant with international human rights law; explain your reasons;

Gao Zhen’s arbitrarily detention is a violation of international human rights law and China’s Constitution.

China’s Constitution guarantees the rights to freedom of expression and artistic creation, under Articles 35 and 47, respectively.

The use of Article 299(1) of China’s Criminal Law violates domestic and international law on non-retroactivity and the principle of legality. Article 299(1) came into effect on 1 March 2021 and Gao Zhen’s artwork cited as evidence of criminal activity was created between 2005-2009.

The Chinese government has also ratified treaties — particularly theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UNESCO Cultural Diversity Convention — that affirmatively oblige it to protect artistic freedom from criminal punishment.
Whether the person was arrested or placed in detention because they had exercised the rights or freedoms guaranteed by international human rights law, as specified in articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, in articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; specify the rights the person was exercising;

The detention of Gao Zhen stems from his exercise of the rights to artistic freedom and expression. As an artist, Gao’s creative activities are protected under Article 35 of China’s Constitution and under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

The indictment against Gao alleged that between 2005 and 2009 Gao “harbor[ed] resentment toward former national leaders” and conspired with others in Beijing to produce a large number of sculptures that “maliciously distorted and denigrated the heroic image of former national leaders.” These pieces of art were transported abroad for exhibition under the name “Gao Brothers,” which was Gao Zhen and his younger brother, who also gave media interviews. The indictment further alleged that from 2013 to 2024, Gao “conspir[ed] with others to upload images and text related to the sculptures on the platform X [formerly Twitter] for online dissemination,” authorized others to use images of the sculptures as book covers and participated in related award ceremonies. The Sanhe City Procuratorate concluded that Gao’s conduct was “serious” and “particularly egregious,” finding that he had “infringed upon the honor of heroes and martyrs and damaged the public interest.”

The acts cited in the indictment—creating sculptures, exhibiting them internationally, publishing related images, participating in award ceremonies, and speaking to media—fall squarely within the ordinary and protected exercise of artistic expression.

The above circumstances constitute violations of Gao Zhen’s right to peacefully exercise freedom of expression, His deprivation of liberty is therefore arbitrary under Category II of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s criteria, which covers deprivations of liberty resulting from the exercise of rights or freedoms guaranteed by Articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by Articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Whether the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial were fully respected; if not, explain your reasoning;

The international norms relating to the right to a fair trial were not fully respected in the case of Gao Zhen. Specifically, the retroactive application of Article 299(1) of China’s Criminal Law to works created between 2005 and 2009 violates the principle of legality.

Article 11(2) of the UDHR and Article 15(1) of the ICCPR prohibit the conviction of any person for an act that did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time it was committed. The Human Rights Committee has stated, in General Comment No. 32, that foreseeability and accessibility of the law at the time of the relevant conduct are essential elements of the fair trial right, not merely legislative requirements addressed to states.

This is confirmed by China’s own domestic legal framework. Article 299(1) of China’s Criminal Law entered into force on 1 March 2021. The sculptures forming the basis of the indictment were created between 2005 and 2009, more than a decade before the criminal provision existed.

Article 3 of China’s Criminal Law codifies the legality principle by prohibiting punishment for acts not defined as criminal at the time of commission. Article 12 of China’s Legislation Law further prohibits the retroactive application of laws that are detrimental to citizens’ rights and interests, absent an explicit retroactivity clause, which Article 299(1) does not contain. The prosecution of Gao Zhen therefore violates not only international fair trial standards but China’s own domestic legal principles.

The authorities have further violated Gao’s right to be tried without undue delay under Article 14(3)(c) of the ICCPR. Since his detention on 26 August 2024, authorities have repeatedly delayed the investigation and trial in his case: the case was returned twice by the Sanhe City Procuratorate to the Public Security Bureau for supplementary investigation before a formal indictment was issued on 20 June 2025, or nearly ten months after his detention. Following the indictment, the Sanhe City Court postponed his trial three times in succession, each time by three months, pushing the scheduled hearing date to 10 June 2026. Gao has now been detained for over eighteen months without his case being heard.

The above circumstances constitute violations of Gao Zhen’s right to a fair trial. His deprivation of liberty is therefore also arbitrary under Category III of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s criteria.
Whether the person – in the case of an asylum seeker, migrant or refugee subjected to prolonged administrative custody – was guaranteed the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy: Not applicable in Gao Zhen’s case.
Whether the individual was deprived of liberty owing to discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation or disability, or any other status leading towards or resulting in disregard for the equality of human rights.

Not applicable in Gao Zhen’s case.

V. CONSENT OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM

In cases where allegations have not been submitted by the alleged victim, specific consent must be provided to allow the Working Group to proceed with consideration of the allegations. The consent form (also available in annex IV) should be filled out (note that it is not subject to the 20-page limit) and included in the submission.

Do you have the consent of the alleged victim(s)? Yes

VI. DETAILS OF THE PERSON(S) SUBMITTING

Provide the full name and postal and electronic addresses of the person(s) submitting the information (including your telephone and/or fax number, if possible).

CHRD
Date: 12 March 2026