World Uyghur Congress, 8 November 2019

In the latest effort to substantively question China’s mass arbitrary detention of Uyghurs in internment (or ‘re-education’) camps, a group of UN experts have sent a letter to the government of China expressing serious concerns about their treatment of Uyghurs on a broad range of issues.

In an official Joint Letter sent on November 1 and made public this week, ten UN Special Rapporteurs and two Working Groups offered comments on the effect and application of China’s Counter-Terror Law and Implementing Measures for the Uyghur region. The letter addresses a broad range of associated issues relating to the use of extra-judicial detention, criminalization of the Uyghur identity, and the invasive use of surveillance measures.

This follows a Letter sent in November 2018 calling for the repeal of the Regulation on ‘De-extremification’, the first such effort to address mass arbitrary detentions and the use of internment camps from the perspective of UN independent experts, as well as countless calls  for access to the Uyghur region and China more broadly.

WUC Program Manager, Peter Irwin, said in response to the Letter that, “This represents the UN’s clearest expression of concern on the mass, arbitrary detention of Uyghurs since the camps opened in 2017.”

Irwin noted its significance, stating that, “The power and credibility of the Letter stems from the independent nature of the broad range of experts from diverse backgrounds who have all thrown their weight behind it, defusing potential claims of politicization.”

The letter directly addresses a multitude of concerns relating to the Counter-Terror Law itself, namely:

• A broad and lengthy definition of terrorism that, “may allow for the conflation of domestic protest, dissent, peaceful human rights activism or religious activity with international terrorism.”
• Conflation of extremism with religious belief and practice, “giving scope for the penalization of peaceful expression of Tibetan or Uyghur identity […], acts of non-violent dissent, or criticism of ethnic or religious policies […]”
• Lack of clarity and precision in terms of how an individual may understand how the Law limits his or her conduct and potential restrictions on other rights as a result, including the exercise of freedom of expression, movement, family life, religious belief, education and health.
• Lack of clarification of the definition of “terrorist organization” in Article 3(4).
• Discrimination against Uyghurs and Tibetans due to the Law’s references to extremism, and in particular, that profiling based on ethnicity or religious belief is “unsuitable and ineffective, and therefore a disproportionate, means of countering terrorism.”

The letter also raises strong concerns about the potential for the Law to serve as a continuation of previously existing practices of administrative detention. In the case of the Uyghur population, direct reference is made to the continued use of mass, indefinite and arbitrary detentions in internment (or ‘re-education’) camps.

In terms of the direct relation to the internment camp system, the experts raise the following concerns:

• Absence of judicial oversight and insufficient clarity regarding when an individual may “constitute a danger to society” (Article 30) and no differentiation between “what conduct is “minor” and thus not at the level of criminality and conduct […]”
• Total lack of time limit for the “educational placement”.
• Arbitrary character of detention and refusal to provide information or procedural rights as well as the severity of the conditions of detention, which “can cumulatively inflict serious psychological harm which may well amount to torture or other ill-treatment.”
• Enforced disappearance of an unknown number not accompanied by concrete charges, without evidence or independent legal representation, as well as issues with verification of release and an individual’s physical integrity and ability to exercise their rights upon release.
• The detrimental effect of arbitrary detention on “the economic, social and cultural rights of family members including gendered consequences for women victims.”
• Indoctrination programs for unspecified periods of time which negatively interfere with the right to form and hold opinions.

The letter goes on to enumerate a number of additional concerns relating to the absence of judicial oversight as well as infringements on freedom of expression, assembly, movement, religion, the right to education and right to privacy. These concerns include:

• Absence of an independent judiciary and judicial oversight regarding detentions, which constitutes a breach of the right to habeas corpus, as well as a total lack of guarantees of effective remedies or independent review of “terrorism designations”.
• Limitations to the rights to freedom of association and assembly “beyond the scope necessary to counter-terrorism.”
• Legal provisions halting the use of internet and telecommunications services, requirements to delete or block content, or order websites to be shut down without judicial review (Article 19) and the impact on civil society, journalists and human rights defenders.
• Disproportionate impact of the Law on minority populations that may interfere with “enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including health and education services, within a climate of increasing vulnerability and intimidation.”
• Very low threshold to restrict freedom of movement.
• Conflation of religious extremism and terrorism, given that Uyghurs have been “jailed and convicted on charges related to public displays of Uyghur culture or Islam more generally” as well as the opaque definition of extremism.
• Conflation of dietary requirements as an implicit or explicit terrorism threat.
• Vast collection of data violating the individual’s health confidentiality and the right to health, the violation of the right to informed consent regarding collection under false pretenses, which “may amount to an “arbitrary” interference with the right to privacy.”
• Lack of transparency and due process regarding the refoulement of Uyghurs to China where they would be at risk of “being sentenced on terrorist charges and of enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and other human rights violations.”

The group of experts recommend that the problematic aspects of the Law and its Implementing Measures “should be reviewed in order to bring them in line with international human rights standards as previously requested.”

The experts add that “compliance with all human rights represents a best practice as an indispensable part of a successful […] strategy to combat terrorism,” and that not only do aspects of the Law violate rights, but also “may contribute to further radicalization of persons belonging to the targeted minorities, creating major and growing pockets of fear, resentment and alienation.”

Importantly, the experts state that “multiple laws, decrees and policies, in particular those concerning national security and terrorism, deeply erode the foundations for the viable social, economic and political development of society as a whole,” suggesting wider economic impacts beyond those individuals directly affected by the Law.

Finally, the experts “encourage a process of independent review” so that the definition of terrorism is appropriately narrow, that the use of the Law is in conformity with international human rights standards, and is restricted to acts that constitute terrorism under international law.

Given the lengthy Letter and the list of serious concerns, we call on the international community, most notably UN member states, to ensure that China responds adequately to the group of experts. In this light, states should:

• Renew calls for unfettered access for UN Special Mandate Holders to the Uyghur region of China as well as for the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
• Increase engagement on counter-terrorism cooperation to emphasize the importance of proportionality, non-discrimination and respect for human rights as a means not only of complying with international human rights standards, but of effective counter-terrorism work itself.
• Develop stronger human rights standards for companies working in China, particularly those working in the field of technology and security, and strongly consider outright bans on cooperation with Chinese firms indirectly or directly implicated in the arbitrary detention of Uyghurs or in the creation or maintenance of the surveillance and security apparatus.
• Ensure conformity with the stated recommendations with regards to refoulement of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims from their territory in light of the aforementioned concerns.

The WUC looks forward to the response from the Chinese government to these concerns and hopes that clear steps will be taken to ameliorate many of the highlighted issues by the group of experts.