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.25-14636 (E) 081025 211025
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025
Opinion No. 58/2025 concerning Nuermaimaiti Maiwulani (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 26 February 2025, the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of China a communication concerning Nuermaimaiti
Maiwulani. The Government replied to the communication on 25 April 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/2025/58
General Assembly
Distr.: General
21 October 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
2
GE.25-14636
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Nuermaimaiti Maiwulani, born in 1986, is a national of China from the Uighur ethnic
community. Prior to his detention, Mr. Maiwulani resided in the city of Bole, in the Xinjiang
Uighur Autonomous Region, where he worked as a telecommunications network engineer
with the Bole branch of China Telecom and owned a small business providing Internet-
related services.
(i)
Arrest and detention
5.
The source submits that on 18 January 2017, several individuals in plain clothes
arrested Mr. Maiwulani at a restaurant while he was having lunch.
6.
According to the source, it is common in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region
for local plain-clothed police officers to arrest individuals in public without providing an
explanation or presenting identification. These police officers are often associated with the
National Security Brigade, which operates under the authority of the municipal Public
Security Bureau.
7.
The source states that the authorities who carried out the arrest did not produce an
arrest warrant, an explanation for the arrest or a reference to any decision by a public authority
authorizing the arrest. No such information has been provided to Mr. Maiwulani or his family
since his arrest in January 2017 and the charges against him remain unknown.
8.
The source submits that it is likely that Mr. Maiwulani was detained without due
process and without being represented by a lawyer. Moreover, his family has not received
any formal court ruling and therefore is unable to proceed with an appeal or seek remedy
through the legal system.
9.
According to the source, in 2019, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances transmitted a communication, through its regular procedure, to the
Government of China concerning Mr. Maiwulani.2 The Government replied in December
2019, stating that on 8 August 2017, Mr. Maiwulani had been sentenced to nine years of
imprisonment and four years of deprivation of political rights for “splitting the State”, in
other words, for separatism.
(ii)
Legal analysis
10.
The source submits that the reason provided by the authorities for Mr. Maiwulani’s
detention, namely splitting the State, was not communicated through any formal legal
proceeding, court ruling or official document. It was only disclosed in December 2019, in the
Government’s official response to the communication from the Working Group on Enforced
or Involuntary Disappearances. No evidence against Mr. Maiwulani has ever been made
public.
11.
The source argues that the definition of splitting the State remains unclear under
domestic law and is often used to criminalize ordinary citizens. This charge thus appears to
have been used to facilitate Mr. Maiwulani’s criminal profiling, particularly because of his
Uighur ethnicity. In any event, no national law was cited as the legal basis for his arrest or
detention.
12.
The source submits that, after his arrest, Mr. Maiwulani was sent to a detention centre
and then to prison. He has been unable to notify or communicate with his family or exercise
his legal right to consult with a lawyer. As a result, he has been unable to challenge his
detention before a court or to access any domestic legal remedies.
13.
The source argues that, while the authorities claim to have judicial and administrative
processes for reviewing detentions, these mechanisms are inaccessible or ineffective in
2 A/HRC/WGEID/118/1, para. 33 (p).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
GE.25-14636
3
practice for individuals of Uighur ethnicity detained under circumstances similar to those of
Mr. Maiwulani.
14.
After learning of Mr. Maiwulani’s arrest in January 2017, his family reportedly sought
legal assistance by contacting several lawyers in China, none of whom have agreed to take
on his case.
15.
The source asserts that Mr. Maiwulani has been deprived of all contact with his family
members, legal representatives and the outside world, including through visits, telephone
calls and letters. As a result, his treatment and conditions of detention remain unknown and
there has been no information about his health or whether he has received any medical care,
notably for the ear condition from which he suffers. Similarly, it is not known whether he is
subjected to solitary confinement, ill-treatment or other forms of abuse. Based on reports
from former Uighur detainees and eyewitness accounts, the source expresses particular
concern that Mr. Maiwulani is enduring relentless interrogations, malnutrition and torture,
including through methods such as the “tiger chair”, which consists of strapping detainees
into a rigid chair for long periods, causing extreme physical pain and emotional trauma. The
source submits that some detainees have not survived these conditions or have been left with
permanent disabilities, their health irreparably damaged by the inhumane treatment they
endured.
16.
The source argues that Mr. Maiwulani’s arrest and detention were neither authorized
by domestic law nor compliant with international human rights law, rendering his detention
arbitrary and unlawful. In particular, no arrest warrant was presented, no formal charges were
filed and no legal justification was provided for his detention, in violation of article 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
17.
Furthermore, the source argues that international norms regarding the right to a fair
trial, as enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14
of the Covenant, were ignored in Mr. Maiwulani’s case. He was detained without any legal
proceedings, denied access to legal counsel and prevented from challenging the legality of
his detention. Despite the seriousness of the alleged charge of splitting the State – a vague
and undefined term under domestic law – no evidence was presented and no impartial tribunal
has heard Mr. Maiwulani’s case.
18.
The source submits that the denial of due process underscores the arbitrary nature of
Mr. Maiwulani’s detention and further violates his rights under international law.
Mr. Maiwulani has been deprived of any opportunity for administrative or judicial review,
contrary to article 9 (4) of the Covenant.
19.
The source maintains that repeated requests for information concerning
Mr. Maiwulani have yielded no substantive response from the authorities. This lack of
transparency reinforces the unlawful and arbitrary nature of the detention.
20.
The source argues that Mr. Maiwulani’s detention appears to have been driven by
ethnic and political considerations, recalling that Mr. Maiwulani is Uighur and that
individuals belonging to this group have been systematically subjected to arbitrary detention
and persecution. Mr. Maiwulani’s ethnic identity and his cultural associations have doubtless
contributed to him being targeted and detained.
21.
The source claims in this regard that the authorities disproportionately target members
of the Uighur community who have travelled abroad, particularly to Türkiye, which
Mr. Mailuwani has done, having lived and studied there from 2012 to 2014.
22.
According to the source, in September 2017, Radio Free Asia reported that local
authorities in Bole had imprisoned at least six young persons of Uighur ethnicity, including
Mr. Maiwulani, who had travelled to Türkiye for educational purposes. An official
investigation into his activities during his time in Türkiye allegedly found, however, that he
had never been involved in so-called abnormal activities.
23.
The source considers that if Mr. Maiwulani was detained and sentenced due to his
overseas travel and ethnic identity as a Uighur, such discriminatory profiling would constitute
a clear violation of the prohibition of discrimination and the principle of equality before the
law enshrined in article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 26 of the
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
4
GE.25-14636
Covenant. The source further submits that studying abroad falls under the rights to freedom
of movement, expression and association, as enshrined in articles 13, 19 and 20 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 12, 19 and 22 of the Covenant.
24.
The source also highlights that, in late December 2016 or early January 2017,
Mr. Maiwulani successfully registered a telecommunications business in the city of Bole,
which required police clearance. The fact that Mr. Maiwulani was cleared by the police
authorities prior to registering his business demonstrates that the authorities considered him
to comply with domestic regulations and further negates any justification for his detention.
(b)
Response from the Government
25.
On 26 February 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government of China under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide it, by 28 April 2025, with detailed information about
Mr. Maiwulani and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention, as well
as its compatibility with the obligations of China under international human rights law.
Moreover, the Working Group called upon the Government of China to ensure
Mr. Maiwulani’s physical and mental integrity.
26.
In its reply submitted on 25 April 2025, the Government rejected the allegations that
Mr. Maiwulani had been arbitrarily arrested and sentenced, that he was unable to contact his
family and lawyer and that he was subjected to ill-treatment, forced labour or forced
medication.
27.
The Government stated that Mr. Maiwulani had been recruited by the leader of an
illegal ethnic separatist organization aimed at splitting the country. It claimed that
Mr. Maiwulani had repeatedly engaged in anti-China separatist activities, in violation of
articles 25 (1) and 103 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China.
28.
The Government further explained that in July 2017, Mr. Maiwulani had been
lawfully sentenced by a people’s court to nine years in prison, which he is currently serving.
It argued that the facts of the case were clear, the evidence was conclusive and the sentence
is appropriate.
29.
The Government submitted that Mr. Maiwulani undergoes medical examinations as
required, is in good health and has unimpeded access to appeal, complaint and
whistle-blowing mechanisms. Since his incarceration, his legal rights to communicate and to
meet with family members have been duly protected. Since January 2024, he has had one
in-person visit and 15 video visits with his mother and his wife, in addition to making
27 telephone calls to his family.
30.
The Government asserted that China is a country governed by the rule of law that has
always adhered to the principles of legality, equal application of criminal law and
proportionality of crime and punishment. It stated that judicial and administrative authorities
in Xinjiang strictly enforce the law in a standardized, fair and civil manner and attach great
importance to safeguarding the lawful rights of prisoners.
(c)
Further comments from the source
31.
The Government’s response was transmitted to the source for further comment on
26 May 2025. The source’s reply was submitted on 18 June 2025.
32.
In the further comments, the source reiterated the allegations and arguments made in
the initial submission, stressing that the offence of splitting the State is a broadly framed,
vaguely worded charge frequently used in China to accuse individuals of separatism. In
Mr. Maiwulani’s case, the source considers that the Government has failed to provide a clear
definition of that charge or any specific, verifiable evidence to support it.
33.
The source underlines that information about the accusation against Mr. Maiwulani
came to light only in December 2019 through the official response from the Government to
the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
34.
The source maintains that Mr. Maiwulani was arrested in 2017 without being
presented with an arrest warrant and was held incommunicado for an extended period without
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
GE.25-14636
5
legal justification. He was accused of offences he did not commit, based on unsubstantiated
associations with unnamed organizations.
35.
According to the source, in numerous human rights reports, including the 2022 report
of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), serious
due process flaws in Xinjiang have been documented, including denial of access to legal
defence and the widespread use of arbitrary detention. In addition, the source recalls that after
Mr. Maiwulani’s arrest, attempts to secure legal representation for him failed because every
lawyer contacted refused to take his case. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that
Mr. Maiwulani has had no legal support at any point following his arrest.
36.
The source further points out that the Government provides no credible evidence to
substantiate the claim that Mr. Maiwulani is in good health. The source claims that detainees
are subjected to organ harvesting and that leaked information from Xinjiang suggests that
families have been given the bodies of deceased detainees in circumstances that prevent the
conduct of autopsies, such as being ordered to carry out burials quickly or being provided
only with ashes. Some families who managed to see the bodies allegedly reported seeing
surgical marks consistent with unauthorized medical procedures.
37.
The source also argues that the Government’s assurance that Mr. Maiwulani maintains
contact with his family cannot be independently verified. On the contrary, the source claims
that Mr. Maiwulani was recently placed in solitary confinement for five months as
punishment for the source’s public advocacy on his behalf.
2.
Discussion
38.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
39.
In determining whether Mr. Maiwulani’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.3
40.
The Working Group reaffirms that States have the obligation to respect, protect and
fulfil all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including liberty of person, and that any
national law allowing deprivation of liberty should be made and implemented in conformity
with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and other applicable international and regional instruments.4 Consequently, even if a
detention is in conformity with national legislation, regulations and practices, the Working
Group is obliged to assess the facts and the law itself to determine whether the alleged
detention is also consistent with international human rights law.5
41.
By way of a preliminary observation, the Working Group notes that the allegations in
the present case concern an individual from the minority Uighur ethnicity in the Xinjiang
Uighur Autonomous Region in China. Although the source has not provided full particulars
as to Mr. Maiwulani’s detention or categorized the allegations using the classification
contained in the Working Group’s methods of work, it is obvious that the allegations raised
are serious and can easily be identified using the Working Group’s categorizations.
3 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
4 See General Assembly resolution 72/180, preamble; Human Rights Council resolutions 6/4, para. 1
(a); 10/9, para. 4 (b); 41/2, preamble; 41/6, para. 5 (b); 41/10, para. 6; 41/17, preamble; 43/26,
preamble; 44/16, preamble; 45/19, preamble; 45/20, preamble; 45/21, preamble; and 45/29, preamble.
See also Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1991/42, para. 2; and 1997/50, para. 15; and
opinions No. 41/2014, para. 24; No. 3/2018, para. 39; No. 18/2019, para. 24; No. 36/2019, para. 33;
No. 42/2019, para. 43; No. 51/2019, para. 53; No. 56/2019, para. 74; No. 76/2019, para. 36;
No. 6/2020, para. 36; No. 13/2020, para. 39; No. 14/2020, para. 45; and No. 32/2020, para. 29.
5 See opinions No. 1/1998, para. 13; No. 82/2018, para. 25; No. 36/2019, para. 33; No. 42/2019,
para. 43; No. 51/2019, para. 53; No. 56/2019, para. 74; No. 76/2019, para. 36; No. 6/2020, para. 36;
No. 13/2020, para. 39; No. 14/2020, para. 45; and No. 32/2020, para. 29.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
6
GE.25-14636
42.
The Working Group further notes that the Government’s response is brief and generic.
The Working Group regrets the Government’s failure to engage with it constructively,
notably by providing detailed responses to the allegations concerning Mr. Maiwulani.6
43.
The Working Group considers it relevant to recall the assessment of human rights
concerns in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China, issued in 2022, in which
OHCHR clearly documented the persistent failure of the authorities to provide any
information concerning the detention of individuals belonging to the Uighur minority and the
near impossibility for family members and others to ascertain the fate of the detainees.7 The
Working Group itself has faced similarly scarce information concerning the detention of
Uighur individuals in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, and considers this opacity a
continuing concern in such cases.8
(a)
Category I
44.
According to the information supplied by the source, Mr. Maiwulani was arrested on
18 January 2017 by several plain-clothed individuals at a restaurant where he was having
lunch. There is no information indicating that he was shown an arrest warrant or provided
with the reasons for his arrest. He has allegedly been unable to notify or communicate with
his family or exercise his legal right to consult with a lawyer. As a result, he has been unable
to challenge his detention before a court or access any domestic legal remedies.
45.
In its response, the Government has not alluded to the circumstances of the arrest, let
alone whether the arrest complied with due process consistent with international human rights
standards. The Government’s only statement in this regard is that, in July 2017,
Mr. Maiwulani was lawfully sentenced by a people’s court to nine years in prison. No other
details are given of the procedure followed or of any challenges he may have been allowed
to bring concerning his detention.
46.
The Working Group has consistently stated that, for a deprivation of liberty to have a
legal basis, it is not sufficient that there be a law that authorizes 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).9 Persons who are
detained have the right to be promptly informed of the charges against them.10 This is inherent
in 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.
47.
The insistence that arrests must be based on a duly issued arrest warrant is to ensure
the exercise of effective control by a competent, independent and impartial judicial authority,
which is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person and the prohibition
of arbitrary detention 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. The Working Group has maintained from its early
years that the practice of arresting persons without a warrant renders their detention
arbitrary.11 In cases of flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not
be available. However, nothing in the information provided to the Working Group, by either
6 See opinion No. 77/2023, paras. 49 and 50.
7 “OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,
People’s Republic of China” (Geneva, 2022), para. 132.
8 See, for example, opinions No. 77/2023 and No. 2/2024.
9 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.
10 For example, opinion No. 30/2017, paras. 58 and 59.
11 See, for example, decisions No. 1/1993, paras. 6 and 7; No. 3/1993, paras. 6 and 7; No. 4/1993,
para. 6; No. 5/1993, paras. 6, 8 and 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 and 7. More recent
jurisprudence is available in 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; No. 82/2018, para. 29; No. 6/2020, para. 40;
No. 11/2020, para. 38; No. 13/2020, para. 47; No. 14/2020, para. 50; No. 31/2020, para. 41;
No. 32/2020, para. 33; No. 33/2020, para. 54; and No. 34/2020, para. 46.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
GE.25-14636
7
the source or the Government, suggests that Mr. Maiwulani was arrested in flagrante delicto.
On the contrary, the source states that he was having lunch in a restaurant when he was
arrested.
48.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s submission that Mr. Maiwulani has
been kept in detention in undisclosed locations, has been unable to communicate with his
family members and has had no access to a lawyer, leading the Working Group on Enforced
or Involuntary Disappearances to transmit a communication to the Government. These
allegations, like those concerning the arrest without a warrant, have not been refuted in the
Government’s response. The Government’s failure to take action regarding Mr. Maiwulani’s
inability to communicate with a lawyer or his family, at least prior to January 2024, means
that the source’s allegations on these points are also unrefuted. The Working Group also takes
note of the transmission by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
of a communication to the Government concerning Mr. Maiwulani as a case of enforced
disappearance. In its report, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
stated that Mr. Maiwulani had allegedly been seen for the last time in March 2017, at the
police station in Bole.12
49.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention underlines the fact that holding persons
in secret locations and in circumstances that are not disclosed to their families violates their
right to contest the legality of their detention before a court or tribunal. Judicial oversight of
any detention is a central safeguard for liberty of person and is critical in ensuring that
detention has a legitimate basis. In the circumstances of the present case, the Working Group
finds that, on the basis of the information provided, Mr. Maiwulani was unable to challenge
his detention before a court. Consequently, his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been violated. The act of keeping detainees
at a location unknown to their family and lawyers implies a wilful refusal to disclose their
fate or whereabouts and to acknowledge their detention.
50.
The detention thus lacks any valid legal basis and is 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.13 The Government’s failure to notify Mr. Maiwulani’s family
of his arrest and the location of his detention also violated principle 16 (1) of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
51.
With regard to the source’s allegation – confirmed by the Government – that
Mr. Maiwulani was charged with and convicted of the offence of splitting the State, it is
relevant to point out that, following its visits to China in 1997 and 2004, the Working Group
emphasized that charges involving vague and imprecise offences jeopardized the ability of
individuals to exercise their fundamental rights and were likely to result in arbitrary
deprivation of liberty.14 Indeed, 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.15
52.
The Working Group observes that article 103 of the Criminal Law does not define
what conduct amounts to splitting the State. Moreover, in its response, the Government
merely stated that Mr. Maiwulani had conducted anti-China separatist activities, without
providing any information as to what those activities might have been. Importantly, there is
nothing to suggest that Mr. Maiwulani engaged in or incited any violence. The Working
Group therefore considers that article 103, insofar as it may have been the basis for
Mr. Maiwulani’s arrest, does not meet the requirements of the principle of legality under
article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
53.
For all the reasons raised, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Maiwulani’s arrest
and detention violated articles 3, 6, 8, 9 and 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and lacked a legal basis. His detention is therefore arbitrary under category I.
12 A/HRC/WGEID/118/1, para. 33 (p).
13 For example, opinion No. 55/2023, para. 97.
14 For example, E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4, para. 78 (e).
15 Opinion No. 64/2022, paras. 32–35.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
8
GE.25-14636
(b)
Category III
54.
As regards category III, the source argues that Mr. Maiwulani’s right to a fair trial was
ignored and, specifically, that no formal legal proceeding concerning the charge against him
has ever been initiated or a court ruling or official document issued. Instead, the nature of the
accusation surfaced only in December 2019, through an official response from the Chinese
authorities to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. In response to
these allegations, the Government merely states that Mr. Maiwulani was lawfully sentenced
and that the facts of the case were clear, the evidence conclusive and the sentence appropriate,
without any further details or specificity.
55.
The lack of any information from the Government on the judicial proceedings
reinforces the concerns voiced by the source regarding violations of Mr. Maiwulani’s right
to a fair trial. The Working Group takes the view that the fact that judicial proceedings are
not public makes it impossible to scrutinize and be satisfied of the fairness of any trial
Mr. Maiwulani may have received and to reconcile the actions of the authorities with the
most basic guarantees of a fair and public hearing, as enshrined in article 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. 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.16
56.
The Working Group concludes, in the light of the source’s unrefuted allegations that
Mr. Maiwulani was unable to obtain legal representation, that his right to legal counsel has
been violated. It recalls that 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 that such access must be provided without delay.17
The right to prompt legal assistance is essential to the right to a fair trial, as it serves to ensure
that the principle of equality of arms is duly observed.
57.
For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Maiwulani’s detention
violated articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is thus
arbitrary within the meaning of category III.
(c)
Category V
58.
The source submits that Mr. Maiwulani was possibly targeted on discriminatory
grounds as part of a pattern of persecution against persons with similarly distinguishing
characteristics (in this case, the Uighur population in Xinjiang). The authorities, according to
the source, disproportionately target members of the Uighur community who have travelled
abroad, particularly to Türkiye, as Mr. Maiwulani has done.
59.
The source argues on this basis that Mr. Maiwulani’s detention on discriminatory
grounds amounts to a violation of the right to equal protection of the law and freedom from
discrimination under article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
60.
The Working Group notes that, in its response, the Government did not contest with
any specificity either these submissions by the source or the source’s claims that
Mr. Maiwulani is an ordinary civilian who was targeted because of his Uighur identity and
Turkish connection.
61.
The Working Group notes that this 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, their Muslim faith and their travels to Türkiye.18
62.
The Working Group further notes that the Government has not provided any evidence
of specific criminal acts committed by Mr. Maiwulani, beyond the general reference to anti-
China separatist activities in violation of articles 25 (1) and 103 of the Criminal Law. Without
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 28.
17 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51 and 52; and 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 (A/HRC/30/37, annex), principle 9 and guideline 8. See also Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers, paras. 16–22.
18 See, most recently, opinion No. 10/2025, para. 56.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
GE.25-14636
9
specific information about the factual basis for those charges, and recalling, in any event, its
findings on the vagueness of article 103, the Working Group cannot conclude that
Mr. Maiwulani’s detention was based on a legitimate legal basis rather than on
discrimination.
63.
The Working Group recalls that, in her follow-up report to the joint study on global
practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism, the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism detailed the practices of mass arbitrary and secret detention and other
serious violations of international law directed at Uighurs, and recorded the ongoing flow of
credible information pointing to a sustained practice of mass arbitrary detention. 19 In
addition, the Working Group observes that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, acting under its early warning and urgent action procedures, expressed
concern about the discriminatory character of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range
of human rights, targeting predominantly Uighur and other ethnic Muslim communities in
the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. 20 The Working Group also recalls its own
jurisprudence regarding discrimination against Uighurs.21
64.
For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that the arrest and detention of
Mr. Maiwulani was based on discrimination on the ground of his belonging to the Uighur
minority, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His
detention is thus arbitrary under category V.
(d)
Concluding remarks
65.
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.22 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.
66.
The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to conduct a country visit to
China. Given that a significant period of time has passed since its last visit to China in
September 2004, the Working Group considers that it is an appropriate time to conduct
another visit. The Working Group looks forward to a positive response to its country visit
request made on 15 April 2015.
3.
Disposition
67.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Nuermaimaiti Maiwulani, being in contravention of
articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is
arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V.
68.
The Working Group requests the Government of China to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. Maiwulani without delay and bring it into conformity with the
relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
19 A/HRC/49/45, para. 33.
20 See
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2FCER
D%2FEWU%2FCHN%2F9624&Lang=en.
21 See, most recently, opinions No. 2/2024, No. 7/2025, No. 9/2025 and No. 10/2025.
22 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,
No. 34/2024, No. 7/2025, No. 9/2025 and No. 10/2025. See also “OHCHR assessment of human
rights concerns in the Xinjian Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China”, para. 148.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/58
10
GE.25-14636
69.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Maiwulani immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
70.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Maiwulani and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation
of his rights.
71.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
72.
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. Maiwulani has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Maiwulani;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Maiwulani’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.
73.
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.
74.
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.
75.
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.23
[Adopted on 29 August 2025]
23 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.