Date: 16 January 2023
UN Treaty Body Database: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/countries.aspx?CountryCode=CHN&Lang=EN
Executive Summary
-
Article 6(2) of the ICESCR warrants the full realisation of the right to work, which includes the providing “conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual”
-
Human rights lawyers in China are prevented from exercising their fundamental political and economic freedoms to fulfil their right to work as China utilises measures to restrain their practice
-
In its Replies, China omits fact patterns which constitute intimidation against human rights lawyers
-
Right to education of human rights lawyers’ children was restrained as indicated in news reports
With Reference to the Committee’s List of Issues (E/C.12/CHN/3) (LOIs) and the corresponding Replies by China (E/C.12/CHN/RQ/3), this bulletin gathers and presents information regarding the restrictions against human rights lawyers to properly exercise their right to work which concerns inter alia Article 6 of the Covenant, and Item 4 in the LOIs. We also wish to emphasise the principles in the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers which warrants that lawyers’ right to practice should be safeguarded.
Restraining lawyers’ economic rights to suppress their protection of proper exercise of human rights
Clear fact patterns can be demonstrated currently as there have been nearly 50 human rights lawyers disbarred after the 709 Crackdown (shortly after the last CObs were issued in 2014), according to the records of The 29 Principles. Numerous other lawyers have experienced administrative and economic restraints which hinder their right to practice properly. China fails to explain comprehensively in its Replies how the administration of law firms and lawyers aligned with “safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms” and was not used for intimidation.
-
There were reports as to how human rights lawyers were disbarred after they represented clients in so-called “sensitive cases”, even though they just utilised the judicial system, which their profession rightfully qualifies them to do so
-
The most recent example includes human rights lawyers being contacted by officials to demand they drop cases regarding individuals detained due to the “Blank Paper Incident”, where Chinese residents protested against Covid policies which jeopardise their right to health and economic rights
-
China omits the number of law firms and lawyers who successfully appealed adverse decisions
-
There were reports showing that China further restrained the right to education of human rights lawyers’ children as they were prevented from leaving China to study abroad
We strongly urge clarification from China on its compliance with its treaty obligations under the ICECSR despite the information and the established fact patterns above which suggest otherwise.