A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10

GE.25-06761 (E) 020725 020725 Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its 102nd session, 1–10 April 2025 Opinion No. 10/2025 concerning Mulizati Tayier (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 51/8. 2. In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 24 December 2024 the Working Group transmitted to the Government of China a communication concerning Mulizati Tayier. The Government replied to the communication on 19 February 2025. 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/2025/10 General Assembly Distr.: General 2 July 2025 Original: English A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 2 GE.25-06761 1. Submissions (a) Communication from the source 4. Mulizati Tayier is a citizen of China born in 1991. He belongs to the Uighur ethnic community. Prior to his detention, Mr. Tayier resided in the city of Urumqi, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Mr. Tayier had previously worked as a tour guide in Türkiye. (i) Background 5. The source submits that Mr. Tayier studied culinary arts at Urumqi Vocational Secondary School in Tianshan District. After he received his diploma, he worked at a restaurant. 6. In November 2014, he travelled to Türkiye for the first time. In March 2015, he applied for a Turkish language course and received a student visa to study there. 7. The source submits that, during the period between April 2015 and May 2016, Mr. Tayier travelled frequently between Istanbul and Urumqi due to family commitments. The initial purpose of Mr. Tayier’s trip to Istanbul was to learn Turkish. He went to a Turkish language school and completed the course in approximately six months. Thereafter, he worked as a tour guide in Istanbul. Most of his clients were nationals of China on holiday in Türkiye, as Mr. Tayier was fluent in Mandarin. 8. Mr. Tayier returned to Urumqi in May 2016 and married in August of the same year. He applied for a visa to travel to Australia, where his wife had resided previously. The visa process took approximately seven months. During that time, Mr. Tayier had to travel out of Urumqi multiple times to obtain certain documents requested by the Australian immigration authorities. For example, he had to travel to Xi’an to undergo a health examination, since there were no approved hospitals in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. 9. He also travelled to Beijing to obtain a police certificate from the Embassy of Türkiye, since his previous stay in Türkiye had exceeded 12 months and the Australian immigration authorities required a police certificate for visa purposes. The Embassy was not able to provide the certificate, however, which required Mr. Tayier to travel to Türkiye to obtain one. He was successful in obtaining a Turkish police certificate and three months later, on 1 April 2017, he was granted an Australian visa. 10. The source submits that, on 10 April 2017, just two days before he was scheduled to leave with his spouse for Australia, Mr. Tayier was arrested by two plain-clothes police officers from the Toutunhe/Tudunghaba District. That district is listed on Mr. Tayier’s identification card and household registration document. The police arrived at his house, confiscated his passport and inquired about his travels to Türkiye. Shortly afterwards, the police informed Mr. Tayier that they needed to take him to the police station for further questioning. At the time of the arrest, no warrant was shown or given. 11. The reason given for Mr. Tayier’s arrest was that he had travelled overseas to Türkiye. He was taken back to the local police station in the Toutunhe/Tudunghaba District, where he was held for three days in a temporary holding cell. 12. The source submits that, during those three days, Mr. Tayier suffered multiple seizures and was subjected to intense interrogations in the so-called tiger chair, which is used to torture detainees. He was transferred to the hospital because of his seizures and he ended up staying there overnight, with a heavy police presence. The following day, the police officers told Mr. Tayier that he was going to be taken back to the local police station to continue with the questioning. Instead, he was transferred to a detention centre. 13. One week later, Mr. Tayier’s family received a phone call informing them that he had been taken to the hospital because his seizures had been so severe. He had been admitted to the hospital and remained there for over a week. During that week, the doctors performed different tests to find out if Mr. Tayier had any underlying medical condition that was causing his seizures. The source submits that, prior to his detention, Mr. Tayier had never had similar seizures. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 GE.25-06761 3 14. While he was being tested and treated, Mr. Tayier was also guarded by four police officers, who kept saying that the situation would all be over soon and that Mr. Tayier had nothing to worry about. According to the police officers, the inquiry into Mr. Tayier’s case would be completed in two weeks. 15. After Mr. Tayier had been in the hospital for 10 days, one of the police chiefs from the police station came and stated that, if no medical condition had been found, Mr. Tayier needed to be taken back to the detention centre immediately. The following day, Mr. Tayier was taken back to the detention centre, where he was detained for the next 10 months. 16. In March 2018, Mr. Tayier was transferred to a camp, described by the authorities as a “vocational training school”. From March 2018 to May 2019, Mr. Tayier was taken to two different so-called re-education schools. At no point was a warrant or any kind of official documentation regarding Mr. Tayier’s detention given to his family. He was finally released on 22 May 2019, after being told that he had “graduated” and could go back into society and live a normal life. 17. On 19 May 2020, however, Mr. Tayier was detained for the second time. That time, he was arrested by police officers in Tianshan District. The reason given by the authorities for his arrest was the same as the first time: that he had travelled overseas to Türkiye. At the time of the arrest, no warrant was shown or given to Mr. Tayier. 18. Mr. Tayier was first taken to the Bahuliang police station for questioning and, shortly afterwards, was transferred to a small detention facility not far from his home. There, he was questioned and interrogated by police officers about his stay in Türkiye. The authorities reportedly wanted to know what he had done there, why he had gone there and with whom he had kept in contact while he was there. They asked him all the same questions that he had been asked when he had been arrested for the first time in the Toutunhe/Tudunghaba District. 19. After the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the detention centre in July 2020, Mr. Tayier was placed in quarantine. By the end of August 2020, everyone who had been placed in quarantine had returned home. Mr. Tayier was released and returned home on 31 August 2020. After he had returned home, his family went to the Bahuliang police station to try to find out if the investigation had been concluded. The police officers assured Mr. Tayier’s family that the case had been closed. (ii) Arrest and current detention 20. The source further submits that, on 26 September 2020, Mr. Tayier was arrested for the third time in Urumqi by the police and that his detention continues to date. The reason given by the police officers for the arrest was that the National Day of China (1 October) was approaching and, since Mr. Tayier had been arrested previously, he was seen as a possible threat in that he could try to disrupt the upcoming holiday or engage in illegal activity. The police assured Mr. Tayier’s family that it was a temporary detention and that he would probably be held for no longer than 10 days. 21. Before the end of the National Day, however, police officers from the city of Hami came looking for Mr. Tayier. Once they found out that he was already being held, they took custody of him, arrested him and took him back to Hami with them. The exact reason that he was being detained was never given. The police officers from the city of Hami mentioned that they wanted to question Mr. Tayier about his travels and stay in Türkiye. 22. The source recalls that Mr. Tayier had previously been questioned and interrogated about his stay in Türkiye, during his first and second arrests. It further recalls that he had even been put through the Government’s re-education school, from which he had graduated in May 2019 and been told that he could return to society and live a normal life. 23. The source submits that, at the time of the third arrest, the authorities did not present a warrant. A warrant for the arrest was produced several months later, however, issued by the Hami City Public Security Bureau, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Mr. Tayier’s detention had been ordered by the Public Security Bureau and the Intermediate People’s Court of Hami City. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 4 GE.25-06761 24. The source notes that the warrant was dated 23 October 2020, which was after Mr. Tayier had been arrested by the Urumqi (Tianshan District) police and transferred to the Hami police. 25. The reasons for the detention listed by the authorities on the arrest warrant were the alleged crimes of participating in a terrorist organization, splitting up the country and preparing to commit terrorist activities. The source submits that there is no evidence to substantiate those claims and that they are the justification often given when persons belonging the Uighur community are targeted for arrest. The source notes that the authorities routinely describe Uighurs as being involved in terrorism because of their religion and ethnicity. 26. The source submits that, after his arrest on 26 September 2020, Mr. Tayier was held by the Urumqi (Tianshan District) police and then detained by the Hami police, before undergoing a trial that did not conform to international standards of due process. From October 2020 to February 2022, he was held in detention at the Iwirghol District Pretrial Detention Centre. On 20 February 2022, Mr. Tayier was transferred to Xinjiang No.1 Prison, where he remains to date. (iii) Legal analysis 27. The source submits that the arrest and detention of Mr. Tayier is without legal basis and that it follows a pattern of the authorities targeting people of Uighur ethnicity who have lived outside of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region or have family members living abroad. 28. The source notes that, for some reason, the police officers in charge of the initial arrest in 2017 were not able to intervene and clear the suspicions of the police officers from the city of Hami, even though an investigation had already been carried out and it had been determined that Mr. Tayier was innocent of any type of crime. The source argues that, therefore, Mr. Tayier’s arrest was not based on anything that he had done but rather was part of an ongoing systematic persecution of the Uighur people. 29. The source submits that, since early 2017, a large-scale persecution of the Uighur people and other Turkic peoples has been taking place in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Uighurs, like Mr. Tayier, have been targeted because of their ethnicity. They are being labelled as terrorists or separatists for such reasons as travelling overseas or being deemed too religious. According to the source, such people are being denied their basic human rights and detained in camps or prisons. 30. The source submits that Mr. Tayier is being discriminated against purely because he is of Uighur ethnicity and because he temporarily lived in Türkiye. He was therefore automatically viewed as a separatist and terrorist, even though there was no actual physical evidence against him. It is submitted that the deprivation of liberty in the present case is not authorized by law or the Constitution of China. 31. The source also recalls that, on 1 April 2017, Mr. Tayier obtained an Australian visa enabling him to go to Australia and live with his spouse. To obtain the visa, he had had to provide the Government of Australia with police clearances from both China and Türkiye. The certificates of clearance, from both China and Türkiye, had shown that he had no criminal record in either country. Therefore, the source notes, he had been cleared by the Government of China, the Government of Türkiye and the Government of Australia. He had been ready to travel to Australia and start a new life there, when he was detained by the Chinese authorities in 2017. 32. The source submits that, as he is now being held in detention, Mr. Tayier should be allowed to contact his family members. Since his transfer to Xinjiang No.1 Prison, however, he has had no contact with his family. The source submits that Mr. Tayier is being denied his basic rights and there are fears that he is being mistreated in custody. 33. It is further submitted that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Tayier is in breach of his rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant insofar as: A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 GE.25-06761 5 (a) It is discriminatory and contrary to Mr. Tayier’s right to equal protection under the law in that it is based on his belonging to the Uighur minority ethnic group and his following of Islam and the fact that he had lived in Türkiye. His detention is therefore in breach of article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 26 of the Covenant; (b) It is contrary to Mr. Tayier’s right to freedom of movement, as he was about to move to Australia to live with his spouse, who is a national of Australia. The detention is, therefore, in breach of article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 12 of the Covenant; (c) It is contrary to Mr. Tayier’s rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and opinion and expression. It is thus in breach of articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the Covenant; (d) It is contrary to Mr. Tayier’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, given that his detention is based on his membership in the Islamic community in China. His detention is therefore in breach of articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Covenant; (e) It is also contrary to article 27 of the Covenant, which provides that persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities should not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language; (f) Given that Mr. Tayier was not afforded a fair trial with independent and impartial legal representation, it is also submitted that the right to a fair trial was not observed. Contrary to article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant, Mr. Tayier was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention on the basis of his ethnicity and religion and the fact that he had lived in Türkiye and had been about to move to Australia; (g) It cannot be concluded that Mr. Tayier was afforded in full equality a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him, as he was entitled to be under article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant. 34. The source submits that, in October 2020, when Mr. Tayier was taken to the Iwirghol District Pretrial Detention Centre, he was allowed access to a lawyer to represent him. His family had hired a lawyer in Urumqi. It is reported, however, that the lawyer was not allowed to advocate effectively on Mr. Tayier’s behalf. 35. It is also reported that, during his detention, Mr. Tayier met with his lawyer only two or three times. In April 2021, Mr. Tayier was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. The source further submits that the lawyer did not represent Mr. Tayier appropriately due to fear of reprisals. After the verdict, Mr. Tayier’s family tried to appeal the case but the attempt was not successful. 36. The source concludes that Mr. Tayier has been deprived of his liberty for reasons of discrimination based on ethnic origin, language and religion, which amounts to ignoring the equality of human rights. (b) Response from the Government 37. On 24 December 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government of China under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested the Government to provide it, by 24 February 2025, with detailed information about Mr. Tayier and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention and its compatibility with the obligations of China under international human rights law. 38. On 19 February 2025, the Government submitted its reply. It stated that, on 30 March 2021, Mr. Tayier had been convicted by the People’s Court of separatism, membership in a terrorist organization and preparation to commit terrorist acts and had been sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. According to the Government, the facts of his crimes had been clear, the evidence had been conclusive and the conviction and sentence had been appropriate. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 6 GE.25-06761 Currently, he was serving his sentence in prison. During his detention, trial and imprisonment, Mr. Tayier’s legitimate rights and interests had been protected in accordance with the law. (c) Further comments from the source 39. The source categorically rejects all the allegations of the Government against Mr. Tayier. The source emphasizes that Mr. Tayier had successfully obtained police clearances from both China and Türkiye during his visa application process in early 2017. Those clearances had confirmed he had no criminal record in either country. His Australian visa had been granted in April 2017, shortly before the intensification of the campaign against Uighurs in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, at which point he was detained. 40. The source further recalls that, from April 2017 to May 2019, Mr. Tayier was held in re-education camps, after which he had been told that he could resume a normal life. Despite complying with all the requirements following his release, he was detained again and received what the source describes as an “absurd” 25-year sentence. The source points out that there has been no contact with Mr. Tayier since 26 September 2020, contradicting the Government’s claim that his legitimate rights and interests have been protected. The source maintains that Mr. Tayier is an ordinary man who simply wanted to live in Australia with his spouse and has never had any political motives against the Government of China. 2. Discussion 41. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions. In determining whether Mr. Tayier’s detention is 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 law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.2 42. The source argues that the detention of Mr. Tayier is arbitrary and falls under categories I, III and V. The Working Group shall proceed to examine those in turn. (a) Category I 43. The source alleges that Mr. Tayier was arrested on three separate occasions without being shown a warrant. According to the source, the warrant for his third arrest was issued on 23 October 2020, after he had already been arrested on 26 September 2020 and transferred to the city of Hami. 44. As the Working Group has previously stated, for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case. This is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).3 Persons who are detained have the right to be promptly informed of the charges against them, in accordance with article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. In its reply, the Government does not refute the allegation that Mr. Tayier was arrested on three occasions without a warrant. The Working Group therefore finds that Mr. Tayier’s rights under article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles were violated. 45. Furthermore, the source alleges that, during Mr. Tayier’s first detention, from April 2017 to May 2019, and his second detention, from May to August 2020, no formal charges were presented against him. The Working Group recalls that prolonged detention without a charge or trial and without the periodic re-evaluation of the justification for continuing 2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68. 3 In cases of flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 GE.25-06761 7 detention constitutes arbitrary detention, in contradiction to articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 46. In that respect, the Working Group also notes with concern the allegation of the source, unrefuted by the Government, that Mr. Tayier has had no contact with his family. The Working Group recalls that giving prompt and regular access to family members and to independent medical personnel and lawyers is an essential and necessary protection against arbitrary detention and a safeguard for the prevention of torture. 4 Moreover, prohibiting contact with the outside world contravenes rule 58 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. It also violates the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court. The Working Group stresses that judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis. Absent any information to the contrary, the Working Group considers that the detention of Mr. Tayier amounts to incommunicado detention, as he has been denied any contact with the outside world. That violates his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 47. In the light of the preceding considerations, the Working Group finds that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Tayier is arbitrary under category I. (b) Category III 48. The source further alleges serious violations of Mr. Tayier’s fair trial rights. According to the source, during Mr. Tayier’s third arrest and subsequent conviction, he met with his lawyer only two or three times and the lawyer was not allowed to advocate effectively on his behalf due to fear of reprisals. That particular allegation is not addressed by the Government in its reply. 49. In that regard, the Working Group recalls that article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. Moreover, under 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, all 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 their apprehension, and such access is to be provided without delay. The right to effective legal representation is a fundamental component of the right to a fair trial. The Working Group considers that denying Mr. Tayier access to lawyers violated his right to legal assistance as guaranteed under article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 50. The source also alleges that, during his first detention, Mr. Tayier was subjected to intense interrogations while restrained in a tiger chair, which the source describes as a device used for torture. The Working Group is deeply concerned by those allegations, which the Government does not address in its response. 51. The Working Group reiterates that the use of evidence or confessions obtained through torture or ill-treatment is prohibited under international law and renders the trial and resulting conviction fundamentally unfair. In the absence of information from the Government refuting those allegations, the Working Group cannot rule out that Mr. Tayier’s conviction may have been based on evidence obtained through improper means. 52. The Government merely states that Mr. Tayier’s legitimate rights and interests have been protected in accordance with the law, without providing any specific information about the trial proceedings, his access to legal representation or his ability to prepare an adequate defense. That general assertion is insufficient to refute the detailed allegations made by the source. 4 Opinion No. 19/2022, para. 52. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 8 GE.25-06761 53. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to a public hearing. As the Human Rights Committee has explained, the publicity of hearings ensures the transparency of proceedings and thus provides an important safeguard for the interest of the individual and of society at large.5 Although the right to a public hearing is not absolute, it may only be restricted for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would be prejudicial to the interest of justice, and, in the absence of such exceptional circumstances, a hearing must be open to the general public, including members of the media, without entrance being limited to a select group of people.6 The Working Group notes the source’s unrebutted submission that the authorities closed Mr. Tayier’s trial to the public and the media and finds that the hearing of his case behind closed doors violated his rights under the article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 54. Based on the foregoing, the Working Group finds that the non-observance of Mr. Tayier’s due process rights was of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character under category III. (c) Category V 55. The source alleges that Mr. Tayier’s detention is part of a systematic persecution of Uighurs in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. According to the source, Mr. Tayier was targeted solely because of his Uighur ethnicity, his Muslim faith and his temporary residence in Türkiye, without any credible evidence of criminal activity. 56. The Government does not address that specific submission. The Working Group notes that the present case follows a series of instances in which it has found the detention of persons belonging to the Uighur minority to be discriminatory on the basis of their ethnicity and being of the Muslim faith.7 Given the similar circumstances in the other cases involving the detention of Uighurs, the Working Group considers that the source has demonstrated that the detention of Mr. Tayier was carried out on a discriminatory basis. 57. The source notes that, despite his having obtained police clearances from both China and Türkiye confirming that he had no criminal record in either country and despite having been granted an Australian visa following background checks, Mr. Tayier was nonetheless arrested and detained on multiple occasions, allegedly for having travelled to Türkiye. 58. The Working Group notes that, according to the source, the police authorities explicitly stated that the reason for Mr. Tayier’s first and second arrests was that he had travelled to Türkiye. For his third arrest, he was initially detained because of his previous arrests and then transferred to the city of Hami, where the authorities again wanted to question him about his stay in Türkiye. That pattern suggests that Mr. Tayier’s travel history, rather than any specific criminal conduct, was the primary basis for his detention. 59. The Government has not provided any evidence of specific criminal acts committed by Mr. Tayier beyond the general assertion that he was convicted of separatism, membership in a terrorist organization and preparation to commit terrorist acts. Without specific information about the factual basis for those charges, the Working Group cannot conclude that Mr. Tayier’s detention was based on legitimate security concerns rather than discrimination. 60. The Working Group therefore finds that Mr. Tayier’s deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law, in particular article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the grounds of discrimination based on his national, ethnic and religious identity, falling under category V. 5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 28. 6 Ibid., para. 29. 7 See, for example, opinions No. 3/2014, No. 66/2021, No. 6/2022, No. 64/2022 and No. 88/2022. See also “OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China”; and A/HRC/36/37, para. 48. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 GE.25-06761 9 (d) Concluding remarks 61. The present case is one of a number of cases brought before the Working Group in recent years concerning the arbitrary deprivation of liberty in China.8 The Working Group is concerned that this might indicate a widespread or systemic practice of arbitrary detention in the country. The Working Group underlines that States have the obligation not to engage in acts that could constitute crimes against humanity and to prevent and punish them if they are committed. 3. Disposition 62. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of Mulizati Tayier, being in contravention of articles 3, 7, 9 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V. 63. The Working Group requests the Government of China to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Tayier without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 64. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Tayier immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. 65. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Tayier and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights. 66. The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible. 4. Follow-up procedure 67. 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: (a) Whether Mr. Tayier has been released and, if so, on what date; (b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Tayier; (c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Tayier’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation; (d) 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; (e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion. 68. 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. 8 See, for example, opinions 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. 36/2019, No. 72/2019, No. 76/2019, No. 11/2020, No. 32/2020, No. 78/2020, No. 82/2020, No. 25/2021, No. 30/2021, No. 9/2022, No. 41/2022, No. 64/2022, No. 88/2022, No. 6/2023, No. 30/2023, No. 38/2023, No. 77/2023, No. 2/2024, No. 4/2024 and No. 34/2024. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/10 10 GE.25-06761 69. 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 of any failure to take action. 70. 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.9 [Adopted on 2 April 2025] 9 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.