Human Rights Violations Under Criminal Law In China
I. Legal and Human Rights Context in China
Constitutional Guarantees:
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China provides for certain rights, such as equality before the law, freedom of speech, and protection against unlawful deprivation of personal freedom.
In practice, these rights are limited by criminal law and national security concerns, and the judiciary operates under strong Party oversight.
Criminal Law Protections:
The Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) of China outlines procedures for arrest, investigation, trial, and sentencing.
Key provisions for protecting human rights include:
Article 37: Right to defense and lawyer consultation
Article 38: Protection against illegal searches and seizure
Article 39: Right to remain silent (implicitly)
Human Rights Concerns in Practice:
Despite formal protections, international and domestic reports identify recurring violations, especially:
Arbitrary detention
Forced confessions
Denial of legal counsel
Political imprisonment
Excessive sentencing
II. Detailed Case Examples of Human Rights Violations
Case 1: Ilham Tohti (Uyghur Academic)
Background: Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur economist, was accused of “separatism” under China’s criminal law.
Violation:
Arbitrary arrest and detention
Limited access to legal counsel
Trial behind closed doors
Outcome: Sentenced to life imprisonment, international organizations criticized the violation of rights to free speech and fair trial.
Significance: Highlights how national security laws are used to limit civil liberties and restrict academic freedom.
Case 2: Human Rights Lawyer Wang Quanzhang
Background: Wang Quanzhang, a prominent human rights lawyer, was detained during the 2015 nationwide crackdown on lawyers.
Violation:
Disappeared for over 1,000 days without formal charges
Restricted access to family and lawyers
Allegedly subjected to forced confessions
Outcome: Sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment on subversion charges.
Significance: Demonstrates systemic violations of right to counsel, fair trial, and freedom from enforced disappearance.
Case 3: Liu Xiaobo (Nobel Laureate)
Background: Liu Xiaobo, pro-democracy activist, was charged with “inciting to subvert state power.”
Violation:
Limited legal representation
Closed trial
Arbitrary arrest
Outcome: Sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.
Significance: Illustrates how criminal law has been used to suppress dissent and political expression, violating freedom of speech and fair trial rights.
Case 4: Falun Gong Practitioners
Background: Falun Gong practitioners were criminally prosecuted for “disturbing public order” or “subverting state power.”
Violation:
Mass arrests without clear evidence
Forced confessions and coerced testimony
Physical abuse during detention
Outcome: Sentences ranged from 3 years to life imprisonment.
Significance: Highlights systemic human rights abuses under criminal law for religious and spiritual practices.
Case 5: Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Activists (2019–2020)
Background: Activists charged with “rioting” or “inciting secession” under the Hong Kong National Security Law.
Violation:
Arrests without warrant in some cases
Restricted access to legal counsel
Trials conducted with limited transparency
Outcome: Many received long-term prison sentences, some up to 10 years.
Significance: Shows the application of criminal law to curtail political freedoms and suppress peaceful protest.
Case 6: Chen Guangcheng (Blind Legal Activist)
Background: Chen Guangcheng exposed human rights violations in family planning enforcement.
Violation:
Arbitrary house arrest and detention
Denial of legal counsel
Torture and physical abuse reported
Outcome: Sentenced to 4 years in prison; later placed under strict surveillance.
Significance: Demonstrates how criminal law is used to punish whistleblowers and restrict freedom of movement.
Case 7: Detention of Online Critics
Background: Individuals posting critical content online, including essays on governance or corruption, are sometimes charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
Violation:
Arrest without clear evidence
Harsh detention conditions
Forced confessions used in trial
Outcome: Sentences vary from 6 months to 3 years.
Significance: Shows a pattern of criminalizing free speech under broadly defined criminal offences.
III. Key Patterns Across Cases
Arbitrary Detention: People often held for extended periods without charge.
Forced Confessions: Coerced admissions are used to convict suspects.
Limited Legal Representation: Lawyers often restricted or denied access to defendants.
Political/Religious Repression: Criminal law used to suppress activism, dissent, or religious practices.
Harsh Sentences: Lengthy imprisonment, often disproportionate to the alleged crime.
Closed Trials: Lack of transparency undermines procedural fairness.
IV. Conclusion
Human rights violations under China’s criminal law are a systemic issue, particularly in cases involving political, religious, or civil rights. While the law formally protects defendants’ rights, in practice, arbitrary detention, denial of counsel, forced confessions, and closed trials are recurrent. The cases above show how criminal law has been applied not only to conventional crime but also to suppress dissent and restrict freedom of expression.
RELATED Blog
comments