Opinion; Subjects: CHINA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.21-16588(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-first session, 6–10 September 2021
Opinion No. 30/2021 concerning Ding Jiaxi, Zhang Zhongshun and Dai
Zhenya (China)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 42/22.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 14 December 2020 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of China a communication concerning Ding Jiaxi, Zhang
Zhongshun and Dai Zhenya. The Government has not replied to the communication. The
State is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the 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 Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
General Assembly
Distr.: General
12 November 2021
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
2
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Ding Jiaxi, born in 1967, is a citizen of China residing in Beijing.
5.
According to the source, Mr. Ding is a Beijing-based lawyer, who began his human
rights activism in 2010 by advocating for the rights of the children of migrant workers to take
college entrance exams at their current place of residence rather than having to return to a
place of origin. He also offered legal assistance and provided food to individuals presenting
personal grievances to central officials in Beijing. Mr. Ding was previously detained in April
2013 in alleged retaliation for his participation in the New Citizens’ Movement – a network
of activists that promoted social justice and political and legal reforms – and was sentenced
to three and a half years in prison. In April 2015, the Working Group adopted its opinion No.
3/2015 in which it found that Mr. Ding’s detention was arbitrary, and asked for his immediate
release. He was released in 2016 after he had served the full sentence.
6.
Zhang Zhongshun, born in 1967, is a citizen of China residing in the city of Yantai in
Shandong Province. According to the source, Mr. Zhang is an activist and a university
professor. He was previously imprisoned for three years, after showing students a
documentary about the demonstrations held in 1989 in Tiananmen Square, Beijing.
Following his release in 2010, Mr. Zhang promoted ideas about grass-roots activism and
offered training on conducting non-violent rights campaigns. Furthermore, he sought
donations and funding for prisoners of conscience and other human rights defenders facing
difficult circumstances.
7.
Dai Zhenya, born in 1973, is a citizen of China residing in the city of Xiamen in Fujian
Province. The source reports that Mr. Dai is a finance manager at a private company and has
a long-standing record of human rights work. He has donated to and raised funds for political
prisoners and human rights defenders, sought public disclosure of information by the
Government, assisted individuals who have suffered rights violations to file administrative
and public interest lawsuits, and promoted the development of civil society. Prior to his
current detention, Mr. Dai had on several occasions has been detained and interrogated by
public security forces.
8.
The source reports that Mr. Ding had temporarily been living in Beijing at a friend’s
house. On 26 December 2019, at around 9 p.m., a relative of this friend returned home to find
the lock broken and about ten plain-clothed police officers talking to Mr. Ding inside. The
relative was handcuffed and taken to Nanshao Police Station, in Changping District, Beijing,
and was kept there until around midnight. When he returned home, he witnessed Mr. Ding
being taken to a car outside. The house was in disarray and Mr. Ding’s personal items,
including his phone and computer, were missing. The source specifies that the authorities did
not show a warrant or other decision by a public authority and that the reasons for the arrest
were unknown.
9.
Furthermore, according to the source, on 26 December 2019, at around 4.05 p.m., Mr.
Zhang sent a family member a text message saying that the police wanted to speak to him
and that he would be home late. When Mr. Zhang’s family member returned home after work,
at around 4.26 p.m., about ten Yantai City national security officers were waiting at the door
to the residence. The officers searched the home for approximately six hours and left at
around 11.00 p.m. with Mr. Zhang’s computer, phone, books and other items.
10.
The officers did not present any warrant; neither did they notify orally what crime Mr.
Zhang was suspected of committing. They only produced a list of the items that they had
taken, which stated that the national security team from the Yantai Public Security Bureau
had conducted the search and referred to suspected involvement in the “December 13 case”.
The family did not receive a written criminal detention notice.
11.
On 2 January 2020, a national security officer from the Yantai Public Security Bureau
called Mr. Zhang’s family and informed them that Mr. Zhang had been placed under
residential surveillance at a designated location, on suspicion of committing a criminal act,
without stating specifically for which crime or on which exact date he had been put under
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
3
such surveillance. The family never received a written notification attesting to residential
surveillance at a designated location.
12.
The source submits that on 26 December 2019, at around 9 p.m., the power went out
at Mr. Dai’s home in Xiamen. When family members went to investigate the power cut, they
were encircled by about ten plain-clothed police officers, who handcuffed Mr. Dai and then
proceeded to conduct a raid inside the house until 10.30 p.m. Officers took Mr. Dai’s
computer, phone, computer tablet and other items.
13.
According to information received, the officers did not provide the family with a list
of the items they took; neither did they produce an arrest warrant. The officers told Mr. Dai’s
family members that they were from Shandong Province and that officers from the Xiamen
City Public Security Bureau were assisting them. The officers also informed Mr. Dai’s family
orally that he was suspected of “inciting subversion of State power”.
14.
That night, Mr. Dai’s family went to Huli District Police Station in Xiamen to ask for
further details. After making several phone calls, the police officers at the station told the
family that Mr. Dai was at their police station, but that they did not have any further details.
15.
On 2 January 2020, police from the city of Xiamen requested a member of Mr. Dai’s
family to go to Huli District Police Station. There, the family member was informed orally
that Mr. Dai had been placed under residential surveillance at a designated location, on
suspicion of committing a criminal act, although the officers did not specify for which act
and on which date Mr. Dai had been moved into residential surveillance at a designated
location. The family member was made to sign a paper stating that she had been informed
orally of this, but was not allowed to keep or copy the transcript, and nor was she provided
with or asked to sign an official notification document. The family never received notification
after that.
16.
The source reports that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai have been detained since
26 December 2019 and have been under residential surveillance at a designated location since
an unknown date. The source notes that residential surveillance at a designated location is a
de facto form of enforced disappearance.
17.
The relevant legislation for the detention of the three above-mentioned individuals is
article 105 (2) of the Criminal Law (on “inciting subversion of State power”), which
stipulates a fixed term of imprisonment of not less than five years, criminal detention, public
surveillance or deprivation of political rights for those who incite others by spreading
rumours or slandering or any other means to subvert State power or overthrow the socialist
system.
18.
The source reports that there are credible allegations that Mr. Ding was tortured while
being held under residential surveillance at a designated location in Yantai City, which
included sleep deprivation with blaring noise and fluorescent lights being switched on for 24
hours.
19.
On 19 June 2020, the Linyi City Public Security Bureau in Shandong Province
formally arrested Mr. Ding on charges of “inciting subversion of State power”. The source
notes that this formal arrest came as the period of residential surveillance at a designated
location was approaching the maximum permitted duration. It also notes that Mr. Ding’s case
was originally being handled by the Yantai Public Security Bureau in Shandong Province.
The authorities did not explain this change to the family. Mr. Ding is currently being held at
Linshu County Detention Centre in Shandong Province.
20.
On 8 July 2020, Mr. Ding’s lawyer travelled to the detention centre but was not
allowed to meet his client. On 4 August 2020, the lawyer made another request to visit Mr.
Ding, which was again denied. Mr. Ding has not been permitted any communication with his
lawyer or family, throughout his detention.
21.
On 19 August 2020, one of Mr. Ding’s lawyers filed a request for release on bail. To
date, the request has not been granted, with Mr. Ding remaining in incommunicado detention.
22.
The source also reports that the prosecutors have reportedly applied article 159 of the
Criminal Procedure Law to extend the investigation period of Mr. Ding’s case to 19 January
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
4
2021. The source explains that article 159 is applied if a person may be sentenced to more
than 10 years in prison.
23.
Moreover, according to the information received, on 18 June 2020 Mr. Zhang and Mr.
Dai were released on bail pending further investigation. They still face charges of “inciting
subversion of State power” but are no longer being held in a detention centre.
24.
The source details that Mr. Dai can currently move around but cannot leave the city
of Xiamen. Any other travel needs to be approved by the Xiamen City Public Security
Bureau. Mr. Dai is required to report his movements and any changes to his residence and
workplace immediately. Moreover, he must report to the local police station and have his
photo taken at least once a month. In addition, he has been repeatedly informed that he cannot
continue his human rights activism, otherwise he could be taken into custody at any time.
25.
The source adds that while held in residential surveillance at a designated location,
authorities forced Mr. Dai to sit in one position for a long time and restricted his food intake.
As a result, he has a number of health complications, such as muscle atrophy, a herniated
lumbar intervertebral disk and knee joint issues.
26.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of and charges against Mr. Ding,
Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai constitute retaliation against these individuals for the exercise of their
rights to free expression, peaceful assembly and free association. The source alleges that they
were detained in retaliation for attending a private meeting, held on 7 and 8 December 2019
in Xiamen, where the participants discussed politics and ideas about the future of China, as
well as sharing civil society experiences.
27.
The source also reports that the Yantai Public Security Bureau in Shandong Province
has set up a task force called “December 13” (as the meeting was initially reported to have
taken place on 13 December 2019 and not on 7 and 8 December 2020). Along with Mr. Ding,
Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai, the police allegedly also detained and summoned for questioning
several activists and lawyers in Fujian, Shandong, Beijing, Hebei, Sichuan and Zhejiang. At
least five individuals were detained under residential surveillance at a designated location in
connection with this meeting, including Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai.
28.
The source concludes that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr.
Dai constitutes a violation of their rights to peacefully exercise freedom of expression,
assembly and association, including those guaranteed under articles 18, 19 and 20 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their detention therefore falls under category II of
the Working Group.
29.
Moreover, the source submits that the above-mentioned individuals have been
deprived of their due process rights since they were initially detained. In this regard, the
source notes that the authorities failed to provide police documentation concerning their
detentions and to notify their families. The source recalls that the three individuals were
initially taken into custody on 26 December 2019 and were placed under residential
surveillance at a designated location on an unknown date. The authorities did not notify the
families of their detentions within 24 hours.
30.
The source also submits that residential surveillance at a designated location is a form
of detention that constitutes de facto enforced disappearance according to international
standards, exposing detainees to a greater risk of torture. According to national law, detainees
can remain under residential surveillance at a designated location, at a secret location, for as
long as six months. Requests for such detainees to meet with their lawyers must be approved
by the police and are routinely denied in cases involving human rights defenders. The source
also recalls that the Working Group, in its opinion No. 15/2019, stated that placement in
residential surveillance at a designated location was a violation of articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 (1)
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
31.
Moreover, in the case of Mr. Zhang, the Yantai police authorities have repeatedly
changed the charges used to justify raids on his home and real estate properties. According
to the source, this appears to indicate that the authorities did not have strong evidence to
justify his detention in the first place.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
5
32.
As such, on 2 January 2020, national security officers from the Yantai Public Security
Bureau returned to one of Mr. Zhang’s properties in Yantai City which was let out to a tenant.
The officers had a search warrant based on the crime of “causing an accident through
dangerous materials” stipulated in article 136 of the Criminal Law. It is reported that the
authorities claimed to have found at the property 245 bullets as well as printed material on
how to make a bomb. Officers showed the warrant to a member of Mr. Zhang’s family but
did not allow the family member to make a copy or to take a photo.
33.
On 4 January 2020, national security officers from the Yantai Public Security Bureau
searched two properties in the city of Weihai, owned by Mr. Zhang, which had been empty
for almost a year. The officers had another search warrant, citing the crime of “sabotaging a
broadcasting, television or public telecommunications facility”, stipulated under article 124
of the Criminal Law. Officers again showed the warrant to Mr. Zhang’s family member but
would not allow a copy to be made or a photo to be taken.
34.
On 13 January 2020, national security officers from the Yantai Public Security Bureau
searched Mr. Zhang’s office in Yantai City. They had a warrant which did not mention any
crime. The authorities did not allow Mr. Zhang’s family member, who was present during
the search, to make or keep a copy of the warrant.
35.
The source emphasizes that for over a week, families and lawyers of Mr. Ding and
Mr. Zhang did not formally know that these individuals were suspected of having committed
the crime of inciting subversion of State power. Moreover, although family members of Mr.
Dai were informed orally of the charge, they did not receive a written notification shortly
after his apprehension. It took several weeks for them to receive it.
36.
Reportedly, the first written notification that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai were
being held on suspicion of inciting subversion of State power are written notices given to
lawyers by the Yantai Public Security Bureau. These written notices, dated 9 and 16 January
2020, deny lawyers the possibility of visiting their clients, on the grounds that such visits
may endanger State security. The notices concerning Mr. Ding and Mr. Zhang were received
on 15 January 2020. The notice concerning Mr. Dai was received on 21 January 2020.
37.
The source explains that national legislation allows the police to deny detainees access
to a lawyer beyond 48 hours if they have been accused of “endangering State security”.
38.
The source recalls that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai were held incommunicado
while in custody. It is alleged that this has put them at a significant risk of torture and cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment.
39.
The source also remarks that the Working Group has described the crime of “inciting
subversion” as a vague and imprecise offence and has “called upon the Government to repeal
article 105 (2) of the Criminal Law or bring it into line with its obligations under international
human rights law”.
40.
The source concludes that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr.
Dai contravenes article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and falls within
category III of the Working Group.
Response from the Government
41.
On 14 December 2020, the Working Group transmitted the allegations made by the
source to the Government through its regular communications procedure. The Working
Group requested the Government to provide, by 12 February 2021, detailed information
about the current situation of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai and to clarify the legal
provisions justifying their continued detention, as well as the compatibility of his detention
with the obligations of China under international human rights law. Moreover, the Working
Group called upon the Government to ensure Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai’s physical
and mental integrity. In the current context of a global pandemic, and in accordance with the
World Health Organization recommendations of 15 March 2020 concerning the response to
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in places of detention, the Working Group urged the
Government to prioritize the use of non-custodial measures at all stages of criminal
proceedings, including during the pretrial phase, during the trial and sentencing, as well as
after sentencing.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
6
42.
The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government to
that communication. The Government did not request an extension of the time limit for its
reply, as is provided for in paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work.
Discussion
43.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
44.
In determining whether Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai’s detention was arbitrary,
the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to
rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.2 In the present case, the
Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the
source.
45.
As a preliminary issue, the Working Group notes that Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai have
been released on bail. The Working Group nevertheless notes that, in accordance with its
methods of work,3 it reserves the right to render an opinion, on a case-by-case basis, on
whether or not the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release of the
person concerned. In the present case, the Working Group considers that the allegations made
by the source are extremely serious. Therefore, it proceeds to deliver its opinion.
Category I
46.
According to the source, the arresting officers did not provide Mr. Ding or Mr. Zhang
with an arrest warrant at the time of their arrest, nor did they inform them promptly of the
reasons for the arrest at the time of arrest. In the case of Mr. Dai, no arrest warrant was
produced, and the authorities informed his family orally that he was suspected of “inciting
subversion of State power”. The Working Group recalls that in order for a deprivation of
liberty to have a legal basis, the authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the
circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant, which was not implemented in relation
to Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai.4
47.
International law concerning the right to personal liberty allows restrictions to this
right and includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant in cases that do not involve
arrests made in flagrante delicto, to ensure the objectivity of the arrest process. It is also
required that the decision about whether the arrest is warranted be taken by an outside
authority, that is, by a competent, independent and impartial judiciary. This is procedurally
inherent in the right to personal liberty and security and the prohibition of arbitrary
deprivation under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment.5
48.
The Working Group finds that, in order to invoke a legal basis for deprivation of
liberty, the authorities should have informed Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai of the reasons
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3 See para. 17 (a).
4 See, for example, opinions No. 93/2017, para. 44; No. 10/2018, paras. 45–46; No. 36/2018, paras. 39–
40; No. 46/2018, para. 48; No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 32/2019, para. 29; No. 33/2019, para. 48; No.
44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; and No. 46/2019, para. 51.
5 The Working Group has maintained from its early years that the practice of arresting persons without
a warrant renders their detention arbitrary. See, for example, decisions No. 1/1993, paras. 6–7; No.
3/1993, paras. 6–7; No. 4/1993, para. 6; No. 5/1993, paras. 6 and 8–9; No. 27/1993, para. 6; No.
30/1993, paras. 14 and 17 (a); No. 36/1993, para. 8; No. 43/1993, para. 6; and No. 44/1993, paras. 6–
7. For more recent jurisprudence, see opinions No. 38/2013, para. 23; No. 48/2016, para. 48; No.
21/2017, para. 46; No. 63/2017, para. 66; No. 76/2017, para. 55; No. 83/2017, para. 65; No. 88/2017,
para. 27; No. 93/2017, para. 44; No. 3/2018, para. 43; No. 10/2018, para. 46; No. 26/2018, para. 54;
No. 30/2018, para. 39; No. 38/2018, para. 63; No. 47/2018, para. 56; No. 51/2018, para. 80; No.
63/2018, para. 27; No. 68/2018, para. 39; and No. 82/2018, para. 29.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
7
for their arrest at the time of arrest and promptly informed them of the charges.6 Their failure
to do so violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 10 of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. It also renders their arrest devoid of any legal basis.7
49.
The source submits that in the case of Mr. Zhang, the Yantai police authorities
repeatedly changed the charges used to justify raids on his home and other properties. While
two of these search warrants (those dated 2 January 2020 and 4 January 2020) specified a
crime, the third (dated 13 January 2020) did not. Family members were not allowed to have
copies of these warrants. The Working Group observes that not allowing the family members
to retain copies of the warrants and other legal documents relating to the detention is a
recurring pattern in the cases of these individuals. The Working Group finds that the absence
of a paper trail relating to search warrants, arrest warrants and other official notifications of
the procedures undertaken impacts on the ability to mount a proper defence, and contributes
to the arbitrary nature of the detentions.
50.
Following their detention on 26 December 2020, Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai
were subjected to residential surveillance at a designated location, on an unknown date. The
Working Group observes that the Government’s failure to provide notification of the arrest
and of the location of detention to their families violated principle 16 (1) of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.8
51.
The Working Group considers that the term that is sometimes employed, “residential
surveillance at a designated place of residence”, is a misnomer, since the criminal suspect or
defendant who is subjected to it is confined not in his or her usual place of residence – that
is, he or she is not under house arrest – but in a designated place of residence, which may
well be a prison. The authorities, in effect, have the power to make a person disappear,
without judicial oversight. In the Working Group’s view, such an enabling act for law
enforcement officials is devoid of a legal basis.9 The Working Group finds that placement in
residential surveillance at a designated location is a violation of articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 (1)
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.10
52.
The Working Group and other special procedure mandate holders have expressed
concern that the regime of residential surveillance at a designated location is being employed
in a manner which violates human rights.11 These concerns include the following:
(a)
The practice, which consists of placing individuals in incommunicado
detention for investigation for prolonged periods without disclosing their whereabouts,
amounts to secret detention and is a form of enforced disappearance;
(b)
The practice of imposing residential surveillance at a designated location
without judicial oversight and without formal charges contravenes the right of every person
not to be arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty, and to challenge the lawfulness of detention
before a court without delay, as well as the right of accused persons to defend themselves
through legal counsel of their choosing;
(c)
The provisions on residential surveillance at a designated location appear to
allow persons suspected of certain crimes to be held incommunicado for long periods and in
undisclosed locations, which may, in and of itself, amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, or even torture, and additionally may expose such persons to an
increased risk of further abuse, including acts of torture;
6 See, for example, opinion No. 10/2015, para. 34. See also opinions No. 32/2019, para. 29; No.
33/2019, para. 48; No. 44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; and No. 46/2019, para. 51. See also
opinions No. 5/2020, para. 74; and No. 6/2020, para. 43.
7 See, for example, opinion No. 82/2020.
8 Opinion No. 6/2021, para. 75.
9 Opinion No. 36/2019, para. 38; and opinion No. 78/2020, para. 47.
10 See opinion No. 15/2019.
11 See communication CHN 15/2018, dated 24 August 2018, available at
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=23997.
See also opinion No. 15/2019, para. 42.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
8
(d)
The provisions on residential surveillance at a designated location appear to be
used to restrict the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association by human rights defenders and their lawyers.
53.
Enforced disappearance constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary
detention, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.12 Such
deprivation of liberty, entailing a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons
concerned or to acknowledge their detention, lacks any valid legal basis under any
circumstance. It is also inherently arbitrary, as it places the person outside the protection of
the law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
54.
During the most recent review of the human rights record of China in the third cycle
of the universal periodic review, held in November 2018, delegations expressed concern
about residential surveillance at a designated location, particularly about its use in arbitrarily
detaining individuals who defend and promote human rights.13 The Working Group calls
upon the Government to repeal the provisions governing residential surveillance at a
designated location or bring them into line with its obligations under international human
rights law.
55.
The source submits that Mr. Ding has not been allowed to communicate with his
family and remains in incommunicado detention. The Working Group finds that the
restrictions placed on his contact with his family violate his right to contact with the outside
world under rules 43 (3) and 58 (1) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and principles 15 and 19 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
56.
The Working Group notes the source’s submission that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr.
Dai were not brought promptly before a judge during their detention – that is, within 48 hours
of their arrest barring absolutely exceptional circumstances, as per the international standard
set out in the Working Group’s jurisprudence.14
57.
The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on
the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court affirm
that the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human
right, the absence of which constitutes a human rights violation, and is essential to preserve
legality in a democratic society. 15 This right, which is in fact a peremptory norm of
international law, applies to all forms and situations of deprivation of liberty. 16 Judicial
oversight of deprivation of liberty is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is
essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.17
58.
The Working Group observes Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai were not afforded
the right to take proceedings before a court so that it could decide without delay on the
lawfulness of their detention in accordance with articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and principles 11, 32, 37 and 38 of the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The Working
Group therefore finds a violation of this right.
59.
The source submits that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai have been charged with
the vague and imprecise offence of inciting subversion of State power, under article 105 (2)
of the Criminal Law of China. This provision does not define what conduct amounts to
subverting and overthrowing the socialist system through rumours, slander or other means.
Merely communicating thoughts, ideas or opinions could potentially fall within the scope of
12 A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, para. 21. See also E/CN.4/1996/38, para. 55.
13 A/HRC/40/6, paras. 28.176 and 28.180–181.
14 Opinions No. 57/2016, paras. 110–111; No. 2/2018, para. 49; No. 83/2018, para. 47; No. 11/2019,
para. 63; No. 20/2019, para. 66; No. 26/2019, para. 89; No. 30/2019, para. 30; No. 36/2019, para. 36;
No. 42/2019, para. 49; No. 51/2019, para. 59; No. 56/2019, para. 80; No. 76/2019, para. 38; No.
82/2019, para. 76; and No. 78/2020, para. 49.
15 A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2–3.
16 Ibid., para. 11, and annex, para. 47 (a). See also opinion No. 39/2018, para. 35.
17 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 27; No. 83/2018, para. 47; No. 32/2019, para. 30; No. 33/2019, para. 50;
No. 44/2019, para. 54; No. 45/2019, para. 53; No. 59/2019, para. 51; and No. 65/2019, para. 64.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
9
prohibited conduct. Moreover, determining whether an offence has been committed appears
to be left entirely to the discretion of the authorities.
60.
As the Working Group has previously stated, the principle of legality requires that
laws be formulated with sufficient precision so that the individual can access and understand
the law, and regulate his or her conduct accordingly.18 The Working Group has emphasized
in its reports that vague and imprecisely worded laws jeopardize the fundamental rights of
those who wish to exercise their right to hold an opinion or exercise their freedoms of
expression, of the press, of assembly and of religion, as well as to defend human rights, and
that such laws are likely to result in arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
61.
Following its visits to China in 1997 and 2004, the Working Group emphasized in its
reports that charges involving vague and imprecise offences jeopardize the ability of
individuals to exercise their fundamental rights and are likely to result in arbitrary deprivation
of liberty. The Working Group recommended that those crimes be defined in precise terms
and that legislative measures be taken to introduce an exemption from criminal responsibility
for those who peacefully exercise their rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.19 Importantly, there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr.
Dai engaged in or incited violence as part of their activities which might have given cause to
restrict their behaviour. On the contrary, they chose to work peacefully within the legal
system of China by attending a peaceful meeting to discuss the politics and the future of
China as well as their experiences as activists.
62.
The Working Group considers that the charge on which Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr.
Dai were taken into custody is so vague that it is impossible to invoke a legal basis for their
detention and continuing investigation in their cases.20 The Working Group calls upon the
Government to repeal article 105 (2) of the Criminal Law or bring it into line with the
Government’s obligations under international human rights law.
63.
The Working Group therefore considers that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Ding
lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary, falling under category I. Moreover, until Mr. Zhang
and Mr. Dai were released on bail on 18 June 2020, their detention lacked a legal basis and
was thus arbitrary under category I.
Category II
64.
The source alleges that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai have been detained as a
result of peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of opinion, expression, assembly and
association. Specifically, it is submitted that their detention is in retaliation for attending a
peaceful, private meeting on 7 and 8 December 2019 in Xiamen, where participants discussed
politics, and ideas about the future of China, as well as sharing civil society experiences.
According to the source, the authorities detained and summoned for questioning several
activists and lawyers from different parts of China, five of whom were detained under
residential surveillance at a designated location, in connection with this meeting.
65.
The Working Group considers that the conduct of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai
and their work as human rights defenders is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which recognizes that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media, and the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association (arts. 19, 20 and 21 (1)). The work of human rights defenders is
also protected by the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and
Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), which states that
18 See, for example, opinion No. 41/2017, paras. 98–101. See also opinions No. 62/2018, para. 57; and
No. 36/2019, para. 4.
19 E/CN.4/1998/44/Add.2, paras. 42–53, 106–107 and 109 (c); and E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4, paras. 73 and
78 (e). See also CAT/C/CHN/CO/5, paras. 36–37 (which notes consistent reports that human rights
defenders and lawyers continue to be charged, or to be threatened with being charged, with broadly
defined offences as a form of intimidation).
20 See, for example, opinions No. 22/2018 and No. 62/2018; and A/HRC/48/55, para. 48.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
10
everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive
for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national
and international levels (arts. 1, 5 (a) and 9 (3))21 and to communicate with non-governmental
organizations, and to have effective access in the conduct of public affairs.22
66.
The source has demonstrated that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai were detained for
the exercise of their rights under the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders for their work
as human rights defenders. The Working Group has determined that detaining individuals on
the basis of their activities as human rights defenders violates their right to equality before
the law and equal protection of the law under article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.23 The Working Group also reiterates that it applies a heightened standard of review
in cases where freedom of expression, opinion, assembly or association has been restricted
or where human rights defenders are involved.24
67.
The Working Group therefore concludes that the detention of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang
and Mr. Dai resulted from their peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of opinion,
expression, assembly and association as well as their right to take part in the conduct of public
affairs, and was contrary to articles 19, 20 and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Their detention is therefore arbitrary under category II. The Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association, for further consideration of the circumstances of the
case and, if necessary, appropriate action.
Category III
68.
Given its finding that the detention of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai is arbitrary
under category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should take place in the future.
69.
The source submits that written notices received by Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai
were given to their lawyers, who were denied the possibility of visiting their clients on the
grounds that such visits might endanger State security. The Working Group notes that Mr.
Zhang and Mr. Dai have been released on bail pending further investigation, since 18 June
2020. Mr. Zhang has not been reachable since October 2020. It is believed that Mr. Zhang
could be subject to close surveillance. Thus, the Working Group refers the present case to the
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. In light of the possibility of the
domestic surveillance of Mr. Zhang upon his release on bail, the Working Group refers the
case to the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.
70.
According to the source’s submission, Mr. Ding has not been released and was being
held in pretrial detention. The Working Group also notes with concern the source’s
submission that Mr. Ding has been denied access to a lawyer throughout his detention.
71.
The Working Group notes that access to counsel from the outset of detention is an
essential safeguard in ensuring that the detainee can challenge the legal basis for detention.25
The Working Group observes with concern the various obstructive measures undertaken by
the authorities to restrict or deny access to legal counsel. The Working Group observes that
the above-mentioned individuals are being deprived of their right to legal counsel and
21 See also General Assembly resolution 70/161, para. 8.
22 General Assembly resolution 53/144, arts. 1, 5 (c), 6, 8, 9 (3) (c) and 11. See also General Assembly
resolution 70/161, para. 8, in which the Assembly calls upon States “to take concrete steps to prevent
and put an end to the arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights defenders, and in this regard
strongly urges the release of persons detained or imprisoned, in violation of the obligations and
commitments of States under international human rights law, for exercising their human rights and
fundamental freedoms”.
23 Opinions No. 45/2019, No. 44/2019, No. 9/2019, No. 46/2018, No. 45/2018, No. 36/2018, No.
35/2018, No. 79/2017 and No. 75/2017.
24 Opinions No. 57/2017, para. 46; No. 41/2017, para. 95; No. 62/2012, para. 39; No. 54/2012, para. 29;
and No. 64/2011, para. 20. Domestic authorities and international supervisory bodies should apply the
heightened standard of review of government action, especially when there are claims of a pattern of
harassment (see opinion No. 39/2012, para. 45).
25 Opinion No. 40/2020, para. 29.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
11
representation, which is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person
and the prohibition of arbitrary detention, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, principles 15, 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and principles 1, 5,
7, 8, 21 and 22 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
72.
According to principle 9 and guideline 8 of the United Nations Basic Principles and
Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty
to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal
assistance by counsel of their choice, at any time during their detention, including
immediately after the moment of apprehension, and must be promptly informed of this right
upon apprehension; nor should access to legal counsel be unlawfully or unreasonably
restricted.26
73.
The Working Group agrees with the submission made by the source that the denial of
access to legal counsel increases the risk of ill-treatment.27 In the case of Mr. Ding, the source
submits that there are credible allegations that he was tortured while in detention under
residential surveillance at a designated location and that this included sleep deprivation with
blaring noise and exposure to fluorescent lights for 24 hours.
74.
Similarly, the source submits that Mr. Dai, who was released on bail on 18 June 2020,
is reportedly recovering from torture suffered in residential surveillance at a designated
location, where authorities forced him to sit in one position for a long time and restricted his
food intake. As a result, he has muscular atrophy around the waist, a herniated lumbar
intervertebral disk and knee joint issues. When he returned home, Mr. Dai needed assistance
going up and down the stairs. Although he is now better, he reportedly continues to
experience problems with his waist and knees. The Working Group thus finds that principle
6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment has been violated.
75.
In relation to the allegations of torture, the Working Group is of the view that these
allegations strengthen the conclusion that Mr. Ding and Mr. Dai’s right to a fair trial is likely
to have been jeopardized, adding weight to its conclusion that their detention falls within
category III. The Working Group has consistently concluded in its opinions that it is not
possible for a person who is subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment or punishment
to prepare an adequate defence for a trial that respects the equality of both parties before the
court.28 Ill-treatment of detainees who are being prosecuted is a denial of the fundamental
principles of a fair trial.
76.
For these reasons, the Working Group finds that the fair trial rights of Mr. Ding, Mr.
Zhang and Mr. Dai have been violated, and that as such their detention is arbitrary under
category III.
Category V
77.
The source submits that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai were deprived of their
liberty on discriminatory grounds, that is, owing to their status as human rights defenders.
78.
According to the information received, they were detained, along with other activists,
for attending a peaceful meeting of activists. The reason for their detention is based on their
activities as human rights defenders. The Working Group therefore agrees that they were
targeted because of their activities as human rights defenders.
79.
The Working Group finds that the circumstances of their arrest are consistent with a
pattern of harassment by the authorities against them. The source submits that all three men
have been previously detained. In addition, the arrest of Mr. Dai involved tactics of
intimidation, such a power cut and the encircling of members of his family by about ten plain-
clothed police officers who handcuffed Mr. Dai before conducting a raid on his house. It is
unclear why so many police officers were needed to arrest Mr. Dai. Moreover, Mr. Dai, who
26 See also A/HRC/45/16, para. 55.
27 Opinion No. 11/2020, para. 54; and No. 82/2020, para. 67.
28 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 42.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
12
has been released on bail, has repeatedly been warned that if he contacts and meets with
dissidents, human rights lawyers or human rights defenders, he could be taken into custody
any time. As such, it would appear that he is serving his bail under the threat of arrest should
he resume his activities as a human rights defender. The source also submits that he is
required to report to the police station and have his photo taken at least once a month. The
source also alleges repeated changes in the charges against Mr. Zhang to justify raids on his
properties. These tactics suggest a pattern of harassment and intimidation that appears to
subvert the law enforcement and legal processes.
80.
With regard to Mr. Ding, in April 2015, the Working Group, in its opinion No. 3/2015,
found that his detention was arbitrary and asked for his immediate release. He was released
in 2016, after having served the full sentence of three and a half years. The Working Group
notes the source’s submission that Mr. Ding’s request for bail was not granted and he remains
in incommunicado detention. In the absence of information from the Government, the
Working Group is concerned at the differential treatment of Mr. Ding, in comparison with
the other accused, which has an element of reprisal against him that is indicative of
discriminatory treatment, leading to his continued incommunicado detention.29 The Working
Group is also gravely concerned at the source’s submission that there are credible allegations
that Mr. Ding was tortured while being detained under residential surveillance at a designated
location.
81.
There appears to be a pattern in China of detaining human rights defenders for their
work, and these cases are further examples. The cases follow a familiar pattern of arrest that
does not comply with international norms, lengthy detention pending trial with no access to
judicial review, denial of access to legal counsel, incommunicado detention, prosecution
under vaguely worded criminal offences for the peaceful exercise of human rights, and denial
of access to the outside world. 30 In the Working Group’s view, this pattern indicates a
systemic problem.31
82.
Moreover, in the discussion above concerning category II, the Working Group
established that the detention of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai had resulted from the
peaceful exercise of their rights under international law. When detention has resulted from
the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention
also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on
political or other views.32
83.
For these reasons, the Working Group finds that Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai
were deprived of their liberty on discriminatory grounds, that is, owing to their status as
human rights defenders, and on the basis of their political or other opinion. Their detention
violates articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is arbitrary
according to category V. The Working Group refers the present case to the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
Concluding remarks
84.
In its 30-year history, the Working Group has found China in violation of its
international human rights obligations in numerous cases.33 The Working Group is concerned
29 See, for example, opinion No. 36/2016, paras. 29 and 35.
30 See, for example, opinions No. 78/2020, No. 82/2020, No. 11/2020, No. 32/2020 and No. 36/2019.
31 See also A/HRC/48/55, paras. 46–50.
32 Opinion No. 59/2019, para. 79; No. 13/2018, para. 34; and No. 88/2017, para. 43.
33 See decisions No. 43/1993, No. 44/1993, No. 53/1993, No. 63/1993, No. 64/1993, No. 65/1993, No.
66/1993, No. 46/1995 and No. 19/1996; and opinions No. 30/1998, No. 1/1999, No. 2/1999, No.
16/1999, No. 17/1999, No. 19/1999, No. 21/1999, No. 8/2000, No. 14/2000, No. 19/2000, No.
28/2000, No. 30/2000, No. 35/2000, No. 36/2000, No. 7/2001, No. 8/2001, No. 20/2001, No. 1/2002,
No. 5/2002, No. 15/2002, No. 2/2003, No. 7/2003, No. 10/2003, No. 12/2003, No. 13/2003, No.
21/2003, No. 23/2003, No. 25/2003, No. 26/2003, No. 14/2004, No. 15/2004, No. 24/2004, No.
17/2005, No. 20/2005, No. 32/2005, No. 33/2005, No. 38/2005, No. 43/2005, No. 11/2006, No.
27/2006, No. 41/2006, No. 47/2006, No. 32/2007, No. 33/2007, No. 36/2007, No. 21/2008, No.
29/2008, No. 26/2010, No. 29/2010, No. 15/2011, No. 16/2011, No. 23/2011, No. 29/2011, No.
7/2012, No. 29/2012, No. 36/2012, No. 51/2012, No. 59/2012, No. 2/2014, No. 3/2014, No. 4/2014,
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
13
that this indicates a systemic problem with arbitrary detention in China, which amounts to a
serious violation of international law. The Working Group recalls that under certain
circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty
in violation of the rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity.34
Disposition
85.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Ding Jiaxi, Zhang Zhongshun and Dai Zhenya, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
86.
The Working Group requests the Government of China to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group urges the Government to accede to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
87.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Ding immediately, to unconditionally
release Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai, and to accord Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai an
enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law. In the current context of the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the
threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to
take urgent action to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang
and Mr. Dai.
88.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Ding, Mr.
Zhang and Mr. Dai and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of their rights.
89.
The Working Group requests the Government to bring its laws, particularly article
105 (2) of its Criminal Law, into conformity with the recommendations made in the present
opinion and with the commitments made by China under international human rights law.
90.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to: (a) the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right
to freedom of opinion and expression, (b) the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association, (c) the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, (d)
the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, and (e) the Working Group
on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, for appropriate action.
91.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
92.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
No. 8/2014, No. 21/2014, No. 49/2014, No. 55/2014, No. 3/2015, No. 39/2015, No. 11/2016, No.
12/2016, No. 30/2016, No. 43/2016, No. 46/2016, No. 4/2017, No. 5/2017, No. 59/2017, No.
69/2017, No. 81/2017, No. 22/2018, No. 54/2018, No. 62/2018, No. 15/2019, No. 35/2019, No.
36/2019, No. 72/2019, No. 76/2019 and No. 11/2020.
34 A/HRC/13/42, para. 30; and opinions No. 1/2011, para. 21; No. 37/2011, para. 15; No. 38/2011, para.
16; No. 39/2011, para. 17; No. 4/2012, para. 26; No. 38/2012, para. 33; No. 47/2012, paras. 19 and
22; No. 50/2012, para. 27; No. 60/2012, para. 21; No. 9/2013, para. 40; No. 34/2013, paras. 31, 33
and 35; No. 35/2013, paras. 33, 35 and 37; No. 36/2013, paras. 32, 34 and 36; No. 48/2013, para. 14;
No. 22/2014, para. 25; No. 27/2014, para. 32; No. 34/2014, para. 34; No. 35/2014, para. 19; No.
36/2014, para. 21; No. 44/2016, para. 37; No. 60/2016, para. 27; No. 32/2017, para. 40; No. 33/2017,
para. 102; No. 36/2017, para. 110; No. 51/2017, para. 57; and No. 56/2017, para. 72.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/30
14
(a)
Whether Mr. Ding has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai have been released unconditionally and, if so,
on what date;
(c)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Ding, Mr.
Zhang and Mr. Dai;
(d)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Mr. Ding, Mr. Zhang and Mr. Dai and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(e)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of China with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(f)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
93.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
94.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-
mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would
enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
95.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.35
[Adopted on 8 September 2021]
35 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.