{"id":6529,"date":"2025-10-03T15:58:11","date_gmt":"2025-10-03T08:58:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/?p=6529"},"modified":"2025-10-03T15:58:12","modified_gmt":"2025-10-03T08:58:12","slug":"china-courts-used-as-tools-of-systematic-repression-against-human-rights-defenders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/news\/2025\/10\/china-courts-used-as-tools-of-systematic-repression-against-human-rights-defenders\/","title":{"rendered":"China: Courts used as tools of systematic repression against human rights defenders"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Chinese courts are systematically weaponizing vague national security and public order laws to silence human rights defenders, Amnesty International said today in a new report<\/strong><\/a> exposing the judiciary\u2019s central role in sustaining the Beijing authorities\u2019 crackdown on fundamental freedoms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research briefing, How could this verdict be \u2018legal\u2019?<\/em>, published on China\u2019s National Day, analyses more than 100 official judicial documents from 68 cases involving 64 human rights defenders over the past decade. It details how Chinese courts are rubber-stamping convictions against peaceful activists, journalists, lawyers, and ordinary citizens, often on the basis of their words, associations or international contacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cChina\u2019s leaders like to play up a message of international cooperation and commitment to the rule of law. The reality is, this masks a system in which Chinese courts operate as instruments of repression rather than justice when handling politically sensitive cases,\u201d said Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International\u2019s China Director.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHuman rights defenders in China are being treated as enemies of the state for no more than speaking out, organizing peacefully, or engaging with the outside world. Their bravery is met with prison, torture and sham trials.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In over 90% of cases analysed in Amnesty\u2019s research, courts relied on national security or public order provisions that are vague, overly broad and inconsistent with international standards. Charges such as \u201csubversion of state power,\u201d \u201cinciting subversion,\u201d and \u201cpicking quarrels and provoking trouble\u201d were most frequently applied, enabling authorities to criminalize peaceful speech and association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Courts frequently treated online expression \u2013 including blog posts, social media comments, or sharing human rights articles \u2013 as evidence of \u201csubversion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

International engagement was routinely cited as criminal activity. Giving interviews to foreign media, publishing articles on overseas websites, or attending NGO trainings abroad were presented as proof of \u201ccollusion with foreign forces\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, fair trial rights were consistently violated: defendants were denied access to lawyers of their choice, subjected to prolonged pre-trial detention, or forced into \u201cresidential surveillance at a designated location\u201d (RSDL) \u2013 a practice which amounts to enforced disappearance and can amount to torture or other ill-treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 67 of 68 cases reviewed where verdicts were issued, the result was guilty. All but three defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 18 months to 19 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Criminalizing fundamental freedoms<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Amnesty found that Chinese courts systematically equated criticism of the government with threats to national security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one case, a human rights lawyer was convicted of \u201csubversion\u201d after representing clients in politically sensitive cases and supporting families of detainees. In another example, Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to 11 years in prison for co-authoring Charter 08, a call for political reform. Women human rights defenders were also targeted. One activist was convicted of \u201cinciting subversion\u201d for publishing writings on women\u2019s rights and land issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[Authorities] can take whatever you do \u2013 any behaviour or action \u2013 and define it as criminal,\u201d said one Chinese human rights lawyer interviewed for the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research also documented prosecutions of labour rights activists for assisting workers in collective bargaining, and petitioners punished for submitting complaints to higher authorities. Peaceful assemblies were routinely prosecuted as \u201cdisrupting social order\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

International connections treated as crimes<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In more than half of the cases reviewed, courts portrayed international engagement as evidence of criminality. Defendants were accused of \u201ccollusion\u201d for receiving modest NGO funding, speaking to foreign journalists, or even renting servers overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one case, authorities argued that publishing articles on a blocked overseas website amounted to disrupting public order inside China, despite the website itself being blocked by China\u2019s Great Firewall. In another, possession of publicly available policy documents was treated as \u201cillegally providing state secrets abroad\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBy making nearly all forms of contact with the international community a crime, China\u2019s government is trying to cut off human rights defenders from the outside world. This is not national security; it is pure political control,\u201d Sarah Brooks said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe criminalization of human rights defenders in China also has a chilling effect far beyond those directly targeted. By equating peaceful activism with national security threats, authorities aim to silence dissent across society.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Systematic denial of fair trials<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Amnesty found that every case it reviewed was tainted by violations of fair trial rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All 68 defendants were arbitrarily detained, many held incommunicado for months, and at least 15 were held under RSDL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 11 cases where lawyers raised torture allegations, courts dismissed them without investigation, often shifting the burden of proof onto defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, trials were routinely closed to families, media, or diplomats under the guise of \u201cstate secrets\u201d, even when charges had nothing to do with classified information and even in some cases where courts asserted that the trial had, in fact, been open.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 67 out of 68 cases, courts handed down custodial sentences. Many included an additional punishment of \u201cdeprivation of political rights\u201d, banning defenders from speaking, publishing, or organizing even after release.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Nobody is safe\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Amnesty International reiterates its longstanding calls on the Chinese government to repeal or substantially revise vague and overbroad provisions of the Criminal Law, such as \u201csubversion\u201d and \u201cpicking quarrels\u201d, as well as the 2015 National Security Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It also urges authorities to abolish RSDL, end all forms of incommunicado detention and guarantee fair trial rights, including access to lawyers of choice and exclusion of evidence obtained through torture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Chinese government must immediately and unconditionally release all those imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association, or assembly,\u201d Sarah Brooks said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen lawyers are jailed for defending clients, petitioners are punished for seeking justice, and writers are imprisoned for their words, the message is clear: nobody is safe. Yet still, Chinese human rights defenders persist \u2013 and the world must stand with them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The report is based on Amnesty International\u2019s analysis of 102 official indictments and verdicts from 68 cases involving 64 human rights defenders highlighted by UN human rights mechanisms between 2014 and 2024.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Chinese courts are systematically weaponizing vague national security and public order laws to silence human rights defenders, Amnesty International said today in a new report exposing the judiciary\u2019s central role in sustaining the Beijing authorities\u2019 crackdown on fundamental freedoms. The research briefing, How could this verdict be \u2018legal\u2019?, published on China\u2019s National Day, analyses more […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":6530,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_yoast_wpseo_focuskw":"","_yoast_wpseo_title":"","_yoast_wpseo_metadesc":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-noindex":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-nofollow":"","_yoast_wpseo_canonical":"","_yoast_wpseo_opengraph-title":"","_yoast_wpseo_opengraph-description":"","_yoast_wpseo_opengraph-image":"","_yoast_wpseo_opengraph-image-id":0,"_yoast_wpseo_twitter-title":"","_yoast_wpseo_twitter-description":"","_yoast_wpseo_twitter-image":"","_yoast_wpseo_twitter-image-id":0,"_hero_title":"","_hero_content":"","_hero_cta_text":"","_hero_cta_link":"","_hero_alignment":"","_hero_background":"","_hero_size":"","_hero_show":"","_hero_type":"","_hero_embed":"","_hero_video_id":0,"_hero_hide_image_caption":true,"_hero_hide_image_copyright":false,"_nav_style":"","_disable_share_icons":false,"_disable_sidebar":false,"_display_author_info":false,"_hide_featured_image":false,"_hide_featured_image_caption":true,"_maximize_post_content":false,"_reduce_content_width":false,"_sidebar_id":0,"_stretch_thumbnail":false,"byline_context":"","byline_entity":"","byline_is_author":false,"disable_related_content":false,"download_id":0,"download_text":"","show_published_date":true,"show_updated_date":true,"term_slider":"","amnesty_index_number":"","recipients":"","recipients_refresh":"","recipients_refreshed":"","amnesty_umbraco_data":"","document_ref":"","amnesty_updated":"","footnotes":""},"category":[1585],"location":[1589],"resourceType":[],"topic":[1596,1653,1637],"class_list":["post-6529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","location-world","topic-censorship-and-freedom-of-expression","topic-freedom-of-association","topic-freedom-of-peaceful-assembly"],"datePosted":"October 3, 2025","mlpRelationships":{"1":17161,"2":6529},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6529\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6530"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/category?post=6529"},{"taxonomy":"location","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/location?post=6529"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resourceType?post=6529"},{"taxonomy":"topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amnesty.or.th\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?post=6529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}