cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/2035432

Archived

In the three years since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, more than 20,000 people in Russia have been detained for their anti-war stance, according to figures released by the independent human rights organization OVD-Info.

In 2022 alone, over 18,900 people were detained during public anti-war protests against military actions and mobilization — the mass conscription of men into Russia’s armed forces announced by Vladimir Putin in September that year.

In 2023, Russian security forces detained an additional 274 individuals, followed by 41 more in 2024. Over the same period, there were 856 instances of detentions linked to the public display of anti-war symbols.

Some Russians have been detained multiple times. These include 79-year-old St. Petersburg artist Elena Osipova, who has repeatedly staged solo protests against the war in her hometown.

In certain cases, activists have faced additional pressure from the state following their detention. For example, at the end of 2023, officers from the Center for Combating Extremism (also known as Center “E”) detained activist Dmitry Kuzmin, who had already been expelled twice from university for his anti-war stance. After his arrest, police attempted to serve him a military draft notice while he was in custody at the police station.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/2035145

Safeguard Defenders [a NGO focused on human rights in China] is releasing its new handbook ‘Missing in China’ today in response to the growing number of foreign citizens arbitrarily detained in the authoritarian country.

The handbook is a combination of the organization’s extensive research in China’s repressive judicial system and the first-hand experiences of former detainees and their families. It offers readers with crucial insights and practical advice to deal with the detention of a loved one in China and aims to help them become the best possible advocates for their family member.

‘Missing in China’ is available to download here in English, Chinese and Japanese.

It includes information on what to expect from China’s law enforcement and judicial processes, how to retain a lawyer, how your country and consular services can assist, ways to engage with media and other possible allies, as well as other practical information.

While the majority of detentions of foreigners in China go unreported, some of the names that have made the news since 2018 include American Jeff Harper (2020); Australians Yang Hengjun (2019 to present) and Cheng Lei (2020 to 2023); Briton Ian Stones (likely 2018 to 2024); Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor (2018 to 2021); and Japanese Iwatani Nobu (2019).

In recent years, China has amended its counter-espionage and state secrets laws, markedly expanding both the scope of activities considered illegal and the ambiguity surrounding their interpretation. China has used these laws to target more than a dozen Japanese nationals and, for the first time last year, a South Korean worker in the country.

The authoritarian practice of using foreign citizens as bargaining chips in international relations became of such concern that Canada launched the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations on 15 February 2021. As of February 2025, 80 countries have signed on to the Declaration.

Yet, at the same time, those same nations often fail to provide adequate warnings to their citizens. While China was clearly on their minds when the Declaration against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations was drafted, most of the signatory country’s travel advisories do not reflect such a risk assessment.

Authoritarian repression of the media is supported by the findings of the 2023 Global Organized Crime Index, which point to a trend of governments suppressing dissent, opposition and media freedom. Of the 12 resilience indicators measured by the Index, the ‘non-state actors’ indicator (which quantifies the role of civil society, including the media, as an alternative source of resilience to organized crime) declined the most globally, by 0.16 points.

In Asia, this indicator not only had the lowest average score of the five continents (3.72 out of 10), but also experienced the largest decline since 2021. Six of the world’s 11 lowest-scoring countries for non-state actors were in Asia, including Afghanistan (1.0), North Korea (1.0), Vietnam and Myanmar (both 1.50). These countries also scored low on ‘government transparency and accountability’.

More surprisingly, Oceania is beginning to show signs of this trend. Although the Oceania countries covered by the Press Freedom Index are all described as having a ‘satisfactory’ press freedom situation, Papua New Guinea was observed to have a ‘problematic’ situation and identified as having the largest decline in Oceania since 2023. Papua New Guinea also ranked highest in Oceania for criminality (5.72) and lowest for overall resilience (3.29) and non-state actors (2.5) under the Organized Crime Index. This suggests that whereas Oceania’s overall criminality score is well below that of all other world regions, media freedom is nevertheless under threat there.

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/2005305

This is an op-ed by Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, and a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

As Trump empowers Russia and the far right, he is laying the foundation for undermining democracies around the world.

Since the end of the second world war, liberal democracies have stuck together – led by the US. On the opposite side have been authoritarian states, led mainly by the Soviet Union, followed, after the demise of the Soviet Union, by Russia and China.

But all this is rapidly changing. Russia and China have morphed into oligarchies, run by small groups of extraordinarily wealthy people.

The US has been moving from a democracy to an oligarchy as well – and is doing so at lightning speed under Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/29861224

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), its member organisation Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR), Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), and Global Witness lodged a complaint with the European Commission’s trade department, stating that Hanoi’s ongoing crackdown on human rights defenders working on sustainable development violates the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA).

In a complaint filed [...] to the European Commission’s Single Entry Point, FIDH, VCHR, CSW, and Global Witness outlined how the Vietnamese government’s systematic suppression of individuals and organisations working on sustainable development violates EVFTA, which came into force in August 2020.

"The government of Vietnam is imprisoning individuals who express legitimate concerns on environmental protection, labour and land rights violations, and the socio-economic impacts of infrastructure and investment projects. This crackdown is unacceptable and also undermines effective monitoring of the EVFTA’s sustainable development clauses", said Gaëlle Dusepulchre, Deputy Director of FIDH’s Business, Human Rights & Environment Desk.

[...]

A feature of modern EU trade agreements, trade and sustainable development chapters require partners to ratify and implement fundamental international labour rights and environmental conventions, and to commit to upholding civil society participation, freedom of association, and access to information.

[...]

"The EU needs to be firmer in insisting that states uphold the commitments and obligations they have made in their trade arrangements with the EU – in the case of Vietnam, this includes those listed in the EVFTA’s Trade and Sustainable Development chapter. Pursuing adherence to these terms is in line with both the interests and the values of the EU, including human rights – at a time when these are gravely under threat", said Jonathan de Leyser, CSW’s Senior EU Advocate.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/29448107

Archived

In the beginning of February 2020, Chinese journalist Zhang Zhan heard rumours that an unidentified disease was killing citizens in the city of Wuhan. Despite the risk of contagion, she travelled 850 km to cover the situation on the ground, working in the epicentre of what turned out to be one of the deadliest pandemics in modern history. For this, she was sentenced to four years in prison as the Chinese regime tried to cover up news about the outbreak and their responsibility for the spread of the disease.

Five years later — after completing her first, unjust prison sentence — Zhang Zhan is in detention once again, arrested just a few weeks after sharing information about the harassment of human rights activists on social media. She has now been behind bars since August 2024 and recently started a hunger strike in protest of her mistreatment by the regime. According to RSF information, Zhang Zhan — who was already very weak prior herpast six months of detention — is being force-fed by prison authorities.

...

Throughout her imprisonment, RSF campaigned for her release and warned about the mistreatment she was subjected to in prison. During her early months of detention, Zhang Zhan — laureate of the 2021 RSF Press Freedom Award — nearly died after going on a total hunger strike to protest her mistreatment. Prison officials forcibly fed her through a nasal tube and sometimes left her handcuffed for days.

China, the world’s biggest prison for journalists and press freedom defenders with at least 124 media workers currently behind bars, is ranked 172nd out of 180 countries in the RSF 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/1935030

Here is the link to the study.

A quarter of the world’s countries have engaged in transnational repression – targeting political exiles abroad to silence dissent – in the past decade, new research reveals.

The Washington DC-based non-profit organisation Freedom House has documented 1,219 incidents carried out by 48 governments across 103 countries, from 2014 to 2024.

However, a smaller number of countries account for the vast majority of all documented physical attacks on dissidents, with China the most frequent offender, responsible for 272 incidents, or 22% of recorded cases. Russia, Turkey and Egypt also rank among the worst perpetrators.

High-profile incidents of transnational repression include the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a hit squad at Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has targeted his foes in the UK, including the 2006 radiation poisoning of the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko. This was followed by a string of more than a dozen other suspicious deaths of Russians on British soil that are also suspected of being tied to the Kremlin.

...

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/1928226

Archived

As China aggressively expands its economic footprint across the globe, the recent scandal at BYD's Brazilian factory construction site has exposed the darker side of Chinese overseas investment. The discovery of 163 Chinese workers living in "slavery-like conditions" in Camaçari, Brazil, reveals how China's corporations are exporting not just their products and services, but also their oppressive labor practices beyond their borders. The details that emerged from the Brazilian labor inspector's investigation paint a disturbing picture of systematic exploitation. Workers building BYD's electric vehicle factory were forced to surrender their passports, which is a classic indicator of forced labor and submit to contracts laden with draconian conditions. These included an $890 deposit that could only be retrieved after six months of work, effectively trapping workers in their positions, and arbitrary fines for infractions as minor as walking shirtless or engaging in arguments.

[...]

More revealing still are the discussions that emerged on Chinese social media platform Weibo, where some users noted that the conditions found in Brazil mirror those faced by construction workers within China itself. This acknowledgment hints at how China's domestic labor practices, characterized by the notorious "996" work culture (9 AM to 9 PM, six days a week), are being internationalized through its corporate expansion. The BYD Brazil scandal serves as a warning about the hidden costs of Chinese investment. While countries like Brazil eagerly court Chinese capital as part of their industrialization strategies, they must be vigilant about the potential for labor exploitation. The incident has already prompted Brazilian authorities to suspend temporary work visas for BYD, but more systematic safeguards are needed.

[...]

This case also highlights the tension between economic development and worker rights. The BYD factory, built on the site of a former Ford plant, was supposed to symbolize Brazil's reindustrialization. Instead, it has become a symbol of how Chinese investment can undermine rather than enhance labor standards.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/1891393

Archived

Avaaz is backing the call to the UN human rights chief from a coalition of activists fighting for Tibetan rights led by:

• International Tibet Network
• Students for a Free Tibet
• Tibet Action Institute
• Tibet Justice Center
• Tibetan Youth Association Europe

Three out of four.

That’s how many children China is forcing into boarding schools in Tibet, where they face abuse and are indoctrinated until they no longer speak the same language as their parents.

Many of these children often spend weeks or even months without seeing their parents, who say they’re simply not allowed to visit. Cut off from home, Tibetan children are only taught Mandarin and the love of the Chinese Communist Party, until their culture and religion is erased.

Now China is trying to cover it up while rooting out Tibetan culture for 1 million children. That’s where we come in.

Reporters just exposed the scandal thanks to brave Tibetan experts and teachers – and a UN investigation could force the truth of China’s indoctrination schools into broad daylight. Tibetan activists want to bring this call to the UN rights chief in days, before he addresses the Human Rights Council – and a big petition will get his attention! Sign and share now.

Just started reading this book by J. McKenzie Alexander, Professor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method at London School of Economics (LSE), which is free to download as ePub, Mobi, and pdf.

Nearly 80 years ago, Karl Popper gave a spirited philosophical defence of the Open Society in his two-volume work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. In this book, J. McKenzie Alexander argues that a new defence is urgently needed because, in the decades since the end of the Cold War, many of the values of the Open Society have come under threat once again. Populist agendas on both the left and right threaten to undermine fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracies, so that what were previously seen as virtues of the Open Society are now, by many people, seen as vices, dangers, or threats.

The Open Society as an Enemy interrogates four interconnected aspects of the Open Society: cosmopolitanism, transparency, the free exchange of ideas, and communitarianism. Each of these is analysed in depth, drawing out the implications for contemporary social questions such as the free movement of people, the erosion of privacy, no-platforming and the increased political and social polarisation that is fuelled by social media.

In re-examining the consequences for all of us of these attacks on free societies, Alexander calls for resistance to the forces of reaction. But he also calls for the concept of the Open Society to be rehabilitated and advanced. In doing this, he argues, there is an opportunity to re-think the kind of society we want to create, and to ensure it is achievable and sustainable. This forensic defence of the core principles of the Open Society is an essential read for anyone wishing to understand some of the powerful social currents that have engulfed public debates in recent years, and what to do about them.

...

Ukraine cooperates with the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other organizations to ensure POWs receive humane treatment in line with international humanitarian standards. Authorities should continue to uphold these protections and undertake not to forcibly repatriate POWs to countries like North Korea, when they face a real risk of serious rights violations. This aligns with the principle of nonrefoulement, which prohibits repatriating individuals to countries where they risk persecution or torture.

Ukraine and governments around the world should ensure these soldiers are informed of their rights, treated with dignity, and protected from forced repatriation if they face serious rights violations, in alignment with the principles of international humanitarian and human rights law.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/20532607

I would like to know if vegans have any protection for their practice under human rights laws. Veganism is essentially a boycott against all industries that exploit non-human animals. And more broadly, are boycotts of any kind protected?

These laws could potentially be relevant:

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Self-determination seems quite vague and would seem to imply autonomy in general. Does that imply that someone can boycott whatever they want, like fossil fuels, credit cards, cars, meat, Internet, etc?

I also wonder about the language effect of using “peoples” in that wording. It would seem to imply that individuals do not get self-determination, but a people (a group of people) have that right. Can anyone clarify?

UDHR

Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Vegan is not religion but this seems to say you can manifest a belief and practice it. So then I wonder about (for example) a vegan in prison. Can a vegan prisoner insist on a plant-based diet?

I wonder to what extent ¶3 can reduce these rights. To say it’s okay to limit ¶1 rights in pursuit of “public order” is quite broad. Any action by a gov to repress ¶1 would be argued to be in the interest of “public order”.

If an Amish person or luddite were to say “fuck the Internet -- I’m done with CAPTCHAs, tracking and surveillance, forced use of email…etc“, and develop beliefs against Internet and thus unplug from it, couldn’t the gov argue that going analog compromises “public order” (as governments increasingly impose the use of Internet on people)?

(edit) A big fuck you to the cowardice assholes silently downvoting this thread for asking questions. Contempt for people knowing their rights is despicable.

From women activists feeding thousands of vulnerable families amid the brutal war in Sudan, to young Bangladeshis working to stamp out child marriage, human rights defenders worldwide are helping to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

In fact, they are integral to ensuring that the 17 Goals – which include ending poverty, reducing inequality and protecting the environment – become reality, said Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4186240

Governments, even democratic ones, are willing to aid autocracies in silencing exiled dissidents if the host nation thinks it’s in its economic interest.

That is what we found when looking into cases of transnational repression – the act of governments reaching across their national border to repress diasporas and exiles – from 2014 to 2020.

Since 2014, international watchdog Freedom House recorded 1,034 cases of governments reaching across borders to illegally deport, abduct, intimidate or assassinate their citizens.

The most frequent offenders were autocratic countries such as China (213 cases), Turkey (111), Egypt (42), Tajikistan (38), Russia (32) and Uzbekistan (29).

These governments have extended their reach into over 100 foreign countries to silence critics abroad. While autocracies sometimes act alone or collaborate with nongovernment actors, the most common form of transnational repression involves the governments of countries to which targeted people have fled. This includes democracies working closely with autocratic regimes to arrest, detain and deport people who face the risk of persecution and repression in the home country.

[...]

We found strong quantitative evidence that international cooperation on transnational repression relies on a country’s economic ties to the origin country and the quality of the country’s rule of law.

[...]

Our findings suggest that many countries are willing to sacrifice the civil liberties of foreign dissidents for economic opportunities with authoritarian governments. Autocracies also appear to be strategically targeting vulnerable states with weak rule of law institutions, such as the police, courts or immigration authorities.

Foreign countries that are less concerned about the consequences of breaking the rule of law are easier to co-opt and coerce, especially when they’re more financially dependent on the autocratic partner.

[...]

case 1: account closure

Cashless banks have no vault and no cash services apart from the ATMs. ATMs in Europe never handle denominations smaller than €20. This means that even when you are closing an account at a cashless bank, the most you can pull out is a multiple of €20 from your balance. The bank expects you to open an account somewhere else first and transfer the remainder to the other account. This is to keep people trapped in the banking system.

It seems to violate article 17 ¶2:

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

This is not exactly up there with genocide and torture. It’s perhaps the smallest human rights infraction I can think of. But nonetheless, banks should be structured to comply with human rights no matter how trivial, no? It seems like even a cashless bank should (in effect) be required to keep some petty cash on-hand for account closures.

case 2: withdrawal limits

The same question applies for bigger cases. E.g. a bank (cashless or not) may have a daily withdrawal limit; weekly, and monthly too. Perhaps it is fair enough to have a fee or penalty for exceeding their limits, but if I understand correctly the bank has a human rights obligation to allow you to withdraw all your money. At the moment banks with limits simply refuse to execute withrawals that exceed their limits.

case 3: card refusal

ATMs and shops refuse people access to their money for countless arbitrary reasons.

• When a customer’s ID card copy on the bank’s files expires, some banks do not bother to inform the customer or request an updated copy. They just freeze the account. When money is denied, the customer magically presents themselves to the bank to find out why. Cutting off access to funds is the bank’s way of communicating.
• ATMs reject cards for undisclosed reasons. Sometimes a faulty AI bot falsely triggers and claims a transaction looks fraudulent. Sometimes ATMs are discriminating against people based on their origin (locally issued cards get a higher limit than foreign ones, but the ATM does not tell the customer what the limit is or why their transaction is denied).

Here is the study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp1274

Most people in most countries state that they wish to have a democratic government. But the definition of democracy has been constantly contested. Without understanding what people really mean by democracy, the concept is vulnerable to being exploited by dictators and anti-democratic politicians for their own ends.

[...]

A new research study led by the University of Oxford, National University of Singapore, and Emory University has now shed light on the question: "How do people around the world define democracy?"

The study surveyed over 6,000 people from the United States, Italy, Egypt, India, Thailand, and Japan- countries with highly different political regimes, democratic histories, geographic regions, levels of development, and cultural backgrounds. The study explored how people prioritize nine different attributes in their understanding of what makes a country democratic, using examples of hypothetical countries.

[...]

• Overwhelmingly, participants were significantly more likely to view countries that select their leaders through free and fair elections as more democratic than countries without elections.

• Participants were also significantly more likely to view countries with strong protections for civil liberties as more democratic compared with countries without such protections.

• The relevance of these was consistent regardless of people's age, gender, education, minority status, or political ideology.

• After elections and liberties, the two most important attributes were gender equality, then economic equality. Countries in which men and women have equal rights are more likely to be seen as democratic than countries with highly unequal gender rights. Relative equality between the rich and poor (compared with high inequality) also increased the likelihood that a country was seen as more democratic.

• Then, countries where leaders must respect the legislature and courts' authority in decision making were more likely to be perceived as more democratic compared with countries in which the leader frequently bypasses the legislative and judicial branches when making decisions.

• In contrast, the researchers found little evidence of an "authoritarian" redefinition of democracy taking root anywhere. Even within authoritarian countries such as Egypt or Thailand, democracy was still perceived as being rooted in elections and liberties.

cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/38945

Question about #humanRights— Article 20 of the #UDHR¹ states:

“① Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

② No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

How does that apply in the context of forced banking? If a government forces you to enter the marketplace and register for a bank account, does that qualify as being compelled to belong to an association?

¹UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

#askFedi

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/3823927

"The dehumanization of Palestinians and the collective punishment they endure from Israel's war in Gaza have shattered the very fabric of their society, much like what China has inflicted upon my people," writes exiled Uyghur human rights lawyer Rayhan Asat.

The Palestinian mother watching a bulldozer tear through her house reminds me of every Uyghur mother whose home was invaded by Chinese forces. The rubble of schools and mosques destroyed in Gaza takes me back to my homeland, where the oldest shrines have been leveled, and our teachers handed life sentences. The surveillance system China tested against the Uyghurs has been exported to the streets of occupied Hebron. As Israeli settlers flood the West Bank with the full support of Israel's government, I'm reminded of the millions of Han people that China brought into my homeland, where they receive special privileges in an apartheid system the world has ignored for decades.

[...]

Israeli atrocities in Gaza, and the intentional blocking of humanitarian aid that has led to starvation and the spread of polio in the besieged territory, have sparked global outrage, especially among young people. However, this same level of outrage has not been directed toward China's systematic efforts to slowly eradicate the Uyghur people in its prison camps. Some argue that the differing reactions are due to America's direct support for Israel's war in Gaza, but victims do not suffer less because of the identity of their perpetrator. If human rights are truly universal, then what happens in Gaza and Xinjiang should equally outrage us all.

New York-headquartered Human Rights Watch and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) said that at the end of September there was a "wave" of arrests of people "peacefully celebrating or posting on social media" about the anniversary marking the creation of the Yemen Arab Republic.

The groups said the Iran-backed Huthis, who control vast swathes of Yemen including its capital Sanaa, had brought no charges against the protesters and "should immediately release all those who were detained solely for exercising their right to freedom of assembly and speech".

The Huthis have kidnapped, arbitrarily detained and tortured hundreds of civilians, including UN and NGO workers, since the start of Yemen's civil war in 2014, according to rights groups.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/3660846

• The European Parliament (EP) urges Turkish authorities to drop the charges against Bülent Mumay and all other arbitrarily detained media workers, political opponents, human rights defenders, civil servants and academics. Türkiye deplores "a complex web of legislation that systematically silences and controls journalists, and denounce the new “foreign agent regulation” to be introduced by the end of 2024", the EP says in a statement.

• China must immediately and unconditionally release Ilham Tohti, 2019 Sakharov Prize laureate, and Gulshan Abbas, as well as all those arbitrarily detained in China, MEPs say. They strongly condemn the human rights violations against Uyghurs and people in Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau and mainland China.

• For Iraq, the EP resolution underlines that new proposed laws do not legally protect women and child victims of domestic violence in the country and deplore the fact that the proposed amendments to the law, if enacted, would lead to an even more radical application of Sharia law.

The resolution urges Iraq to adopt a national action plan to eliminate child marriage, criminalise marital rape, fight domestic violence and strengthen women’s and girls’ rights, in line with the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/3597758

China criminalizes human rights defenders with laws on Disturbing Social Order, while the top crime category across whole population is Endangering Public Security, an analysis by the Safeguard Defenders has found.

Safeguard Defenders analysed around 1,400 human rights-related court cases in China over the past 15 years. We used it show that the Chinese Communist Party continues to arrest and impose lengthy sentences on religious groups.

Decided criminal cases in courts of first instance as recorded on the Chinese Supreme Court’s National Court Judicial Statistics Bulletin (Gongbao) have grown from 766,746 in 2009 to 1,038,523 in 2022. That’s an increase of more than one third over 13 years. Total decided cases reached a peak in 2019 at almost 1.3 million, according to Safeguard Defenders.

Many of China’s laws are left intentionally vague, allowing the justice system great freedom to define its limits at will, the NGO adds.

Decided cases in courts of first instance in the category Endangering Public Security have risen four-fold from 86,814 in 2009 to 350,290 in 2022.

Obstructing the Administration of Social Order has also more than doubled from 133,639 to 298,803 over the same period.

[Decided cases are close to, but not exactly the same as, convictions. Decided cases are those that have gone to trial and reached a verdict (both guilty and non-guilty) in a court of first instance (that means it does not include appeals). Since convictions in China are near 100%, we can assume that this number is almost the same as first-instance convictions, Safeguard Defenders says.]

[Edit typo.]

cross-posted from: https://feddit.nl/post/21795594

When?

Oct 1st, 8:30am CEST

More info on the event:

https://pace.coe.int/en/news/9600/julian-assange-to-attend-a-pace-hearing-in-strasbourg-on-his-detention-and-conviction-and-their-chilling-effect-on-human-rights