The undersigned organizations are alarmed by the recent publication by the Chinese authorities of new judicial guidelines  providing directives to prosecute and harshly punish, including by the death penalty, those advocating and acting for  Taiwan’s independence. The guidance effectively encourages China’s courts and law enforcement agencies to violate  several rights established under international human rights law and standards, including the rights to life, to the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and to a fair trial. We call on the Chinese authorities to immediately withdraw the guidelines and swiftly introduce legislative changes to repeal vague and overly broad national security-related offences and the death penalty, as critical first steps. 

On 21 June 2024, the Supreme People’s Court of China jointly issued with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the  Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security and Ministry of Justice the “Opinions on Punishing ‘Taiwan  Independence’ Diehards for Conducting or Inciting Separatism in Accordance with Law” (henceforth, guidelines).1 The  guidelines are based on existing provisions under China’s Anti-Secession Law, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law; and encourage lower courts and various government and law enforcement agencies to prosecute and punish as national  security offences various acts, including peaceful ones, aimed at the pursuit of the independence of Taiwan from China.  The guidelines came into effect upon publication.  

Our organizations are gravely concerned by the violations of human rights that are encouraged and would be carried out  through the implementation of these guidelines. By explicitly criminalizing and demanding harsh punishments for peaceful acts that aim at advocating for Taiwan’s independence, the Chinese authorities are cracking down under the  pretext of national security on the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and other human rights.  

According to internationally recognized human rights standards, “national security” cannot be invoked to justify  restrictions on rights and freedoms unless genuinely and demonstrably intended to protect a state’s existence or territorial  integrity against specific threats of the use of force;2 nor can this national security framework legitimately be applied by governments to entrench a particular ideology or deny people the right to express different political views and to exercise  their other human rights as protected by international legal standards.3 Expression can only be punished as a threat to  national security when the authorities can demonstrate that the speaker has the intent to incite violence, there is a  likelihood that the expression will incite such violence and a direct and immediate connection between the expression and  the likelihood or occurrence of such violence.4 Speech such as advocating for a change in government or government  policy, as well as criticism or even insult of a state’s institutions or its symbols, or exposure of human rights violations, is  protected under international human rights law and must not be restricted or penalized on national security grounds.5 Likewise, demanding territorial changes in the form of autonomy or even secession in speeches and demonstrations does  

not automatically amount to a threat to the country’s territorial integrity and national security.6 The UN Human Rights  Committee, the UN body tasked with monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political  Rights (ICCPR) – which China signed in 1998 – has frequently rejected attempts to justify far-reaching restrictions with  vague references to “national security”.7 

Of additional concern is the broad definition of aggravating circumstances that would warrant the harshest penalties,  including the death penalty, under sections 6 and 7 of the guidelines.8International human rights law and standards set  out that the imposition of the death penalty must not be based on “vaguely defined criminal provisions, whose application  to the convicted individual depend on subjective or discretionary considerations, the application of which is not  reasonably foreseeable.”9 These are necessary requirements prescribed by the principle of legality, a core general  principle of law, enshrined, among other places, in Article 15 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of  Human Rights. Without an explicit and effective requirement to comply with international human rights law, vague terms  leave the law open to abuse by authorities who use it to crack down on a wide range of human rights.10 Vaguely drafted  laws can lead to a chilling effect and ultimately self-censorship in public debate, including online. 

We oppose the death penalty absolutely and are already greatly concerned at the overall lack of transparency that  surrounds the use of the death penalty in China. We are further alarmed that the guidelines recommend the imposition of  this cruel punishment in violation of the principle of legality; and as a result of trials where the defendant is not present (in  absentia), including on people in other countries. Death sentences imposed in unfair proceedings are arbitrary in nature  and amount to a violation of the right to life.11 Furthermore, pending full abolition of the death penalty, international law  and standards restrict its use to the “most serious crimes”, most recently interpreted as referring to “crimes of extreme  gravity involving intentional killing”.12 The majority of acts criminalized in the guidelines do not meet this minimum  threshold.13 

We call on the Chinese government and all authorities to review and amend all laws and regulations, and end all related  policies and measures, that violate human rights, in particular the rights to life, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly  and association, and ensure that any legal provisions aimed at protecting national security are clearly and narrowly  defined and conform to international human rights law and standards. We urge the authorities to establish an immediate  moratorium on all executions, as well as initiate legislative amendments to fully abolish the death penalty and commute all  death sentences.  

This statement is co-signed by:  

1. Amnesty International 
2. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network 
3. Capital Punishment Justice Project 
4. The Rights Practice 
5. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty 

***

1. English translation available at https://en.spp.gov.cn/2024-06/21/c_998795.htm 
2. Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4,  paras. 29-30. 
3. Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, adopted on 1 October 1995 by a group of experts in  international law, national security, and human rights convened by Article 19, the International Centre Against Censorship, in collaboration with the  Centre for Applied Legal Studies of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/joburgprinciples.pdf 4 Johannesburg Principle 6. 
4. Johannesburg Principle 7.
5. European Court of Human Rights, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, application numbers (29225/95 and  29221/95), 2001, para. 97. 
6. UN Human Rights Committee, “General Comment 34: Freedom of opinion and expression (Art. 19)”, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011,  paras. 21-26. 
7. For example, the death penalty may be imposed for those “who cause particularly serious harm to the state and the people” and when the  circumstances of the crime are “particularly heinous”. 
8. Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life,  UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, para.38. 
9. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report, 15 December 2003, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/3, paras 64-65. 
10. UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to  life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, para.41. 
11. UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to  life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, para.35. 
12. Conduct considered as “serious crime” include directly participating in the implementation of major separatist activities of an organization advocating  for Taiwan’s independence; or carrying out activities advocating for Taiwan’s independence with serious consequences and adverse impacts; and  playing a significant role in separatist activities.

The undersigned organizations express our deep concern about Bangladesh’s current human rights situation and closure of civic space as the country heads toward national elections on  7 January 2024.  

Since late October 2023, following the rallies and demonstrations co-organized by the political opposition,  the ruling party of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Awami League, has resorted to violence to suppress  protests and political dissent. The crackdown has resulted in 17 people being killed, including a journalist,  and 8,249 opposition leaders injured. Moreover, at least 50 people were injured as a result of a clash  between police, ruling party and opposition party activists during a human chain organized on the  commemoration of the International Human Rights Day in the Sayestanagar area of Habiganj. These cases  further emphasize the urgent need for accountability and a thorough and independent investigation into the  circumstances leading to the violence and the killings. 

The indiscriminate and excessive use of tear gas, sticks, batons, rubber bullets, and similar instruments by  law enforcement authorities raises serious concerns about the escalation of violence. Immediate action is  needed to address the abuse of police equipment. The disproportionate use of such tools not only violates  the fundamental rights of citizens but also exacerbates tensions, creating an environment that undermines  dissent, peaceful assembly and democratic dialogue. Security forces must urgently follow the international  human rights standards, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms  by Law Enforcement Officials and the United Nations Human Rights Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in  Law Enforcement.  

In addition, since the end of October, the Bangladeshi government has massively and arbitrarily detained  more than 20,000 individuals identified or perceived as the opposition. The arrests are related to 837  fabricated charges cases, where bail is consistently denied despite valid grounds and due process  guarantees are undermined. There have also been consistent and credible reports of torture and illegal  isolation of detainees in custody. The alleged torture inflicted on persons in custody is not limited to the  detentions that occurred over the past month but rather has been reported in the past and includes  “beatings; electric shocks; waterboarding; deliberately shooting to maim, including knee-capping; mock  executions; and forced nudity.”  

The government is systematically using the judiciary to convict the key opposition leaders en masse,  through prosecuting in the extended hours in the evenings to disqualify the potential opposition candidates  ahead of the January 7, 2024, elections, as pre-planned months ago. The large-scale detentions and  convictions not only erode the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, freedom, personal  integrity, and the right to a fair trial but also leave countless families in distress, as the detained individuals  are often the sole income earners of their households. 

The extensive use of violence and arbitrary detentions in Bangladesh paints a grim picture of the state of  democracy and human rights in the country. These abuses are committed in the context of a social  movement in which the people are demanding free and fair elections next January. Instead of upholding  the fundamental principles of democracy, the Bangladeshi government’s violent and repressive response  “has created an environment of fear, anxiety and extreme insecurity for citizens”.  

United Nations experts shared their concern about this violent crackdown: “As Bangladesh heads towards  national elections in early 2024, we are deeply disturbed by the sharp rise in political violence, arrests of  senior opposition leaders, mass arbitrary detention of thousands of political activists, use of excessive force  by the authorities and internet shutdowns to disrupt protests, and allegations of harassment, intimidation  and unlawful detention of family members as a retaliatory measure”. 

Another concern is the draft Data Protection Act, which allows law enforcement unrestricted authority to  access citizens’ data “if it is deemed necessary for national security or prevention or detection of an  offence”. Misuse of such power could lead to widespread surveillance, particularly of political dissenters,  and poses a threat to human rights, particularly the right to privacy. The cases in which the collection and  access are necessary must be defined clearly and narrowly tailored to the legitimate purposes they aim  to accomplish, limited in time and scope, and subject to an independent judicial review. 

We stand with the people of Bangladesh as they strive for a fair, democratic, and peaceful society. We  strongly urge an immediate halt to the violence, repression, and intimidation targeting political opponents.  Hence, we call on the government of Bangladesh to: 

1. Immediately cease violence against protesters and ensure that the rights to freedom of expression,  freedom of peaceful assembly, life, liberty, and personal integrity are respected and protected. 2. Immediately and unconditionally drop all the politically-motivated cases, release all arbitrarily  detained activists and opposition members, and ensure fair and transparent judicial processes. 3. Conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the gross human rights violations, particularly  cases involving deaths and torture allegations. 
2. Reevaluate and revise the Draft Data Protection Act to ensure it aligns with international standards,  protecting the privacy and rights of citizens. 

Furthermore, we urge the international community to closely monitor the situation and advocate for the  protection of fundamental rights in Bangladesh. 

Signed: 

1. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights (RFKHR) 
2. Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP) 
3. The United Against Torture Consortium (UATC) 
4. Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) 
5. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) 
6. International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)

We the undersigned civil society organizations condemn attempts1 by Bangladeshi authorities to proceed  with the execution of Shukur Ali, in violation of his right to a fair trial and in total disregard of due process. 

On 7 November 2021, it was reported that the prisons authorities sought to proceed with the execution of Mr. Shukur Ali who was convicted in 2004 for the abduction, rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl,  despite the fact that the release of his appeal-verdict by the in August 2021 was still pending. On 7  November, the Supreme Court ordered to halt Mr. Shukur Ali’s execution until it releases the full text of  the judgement after the schedule execution was circulated publicly through the media. 

This incident would not be the first of its kind in Bangladesh as recently published reports2suggest that  two convicts – namely Abdul Mokim and Golam Rasul Jharu – were executed in Jessore Central Jail on 16  November 2017 while their appeals were pending before the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Such cases  are a violation of a person’s right to life and the right to a fair trial and due process. These planned executions are also in violation of Article 35 (3) of the Constitution of Bangladesh as the due process of  law was denied to the convicts prior to the execution of the capital punishment. 

In addition, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees that  everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a  higher tribunal according to law. Failure to fulfil and uphold these rights in such cases renders the  execution unlawful and an act of extrajudicial killing by state authorities. 

We call on Bangladesh to investigate the violation of the right to fair trial against Mr. Shukur Ali and ensure  that similar violations do not take place against other individual. Failure to safeguard the right to a fair  trial will undoubtedly contribute to the violation of their right to life. We also call on the Bangladeshi  government to immediately impose a moratorium on executions and review the use of the death penalty  in Bangladesh in line with international trends towards abolition.

In response to campaigns for perpetrators of recent cases of extreme sexual violence to be  ‘brought to justice’, the Bangladesh government proposed an amendment to section 9(1) of  the Suppression of Violence Against Women and Children Act 2000, which would introduce  the death penalty as a punishment for single-perpetrator rape. The crime of rape was  previously punishable by death but only in the context of multi-perpetrator rape and where  a victim died as a consequence of single-perpetrator rape.  

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) shares the outrage expressed by the  community in relation to violence against women. We also recognise the need for justice in  response to the heinous nature of sexual crimes and their lasting and devastating impact on  victim-survivors.  

However, we are greatly concerned with the regional response to this issue. We have seen  nations give into the ‘temptati[on]’ of imposing ‘draconian punishments’ on those who  commit these ‘monstrous acts’.1 We have seen India extend the category of crimes attracting  the death penalty to include the rape of children under the age of 12.23 We have seen Pakistan  issue an ordinance for the amendment of the Women and Children Repression (Prevention)  Act so as to introduce the death penalty for crimes of rape of children and women with  aggravating factors,4 and we have also seen Pakistan put forward proposals of chemical  castration, televised hangings and making the crime non-compoundable.5 These proposed  legislative changes, and those proposed by Bangladesh would be in violations of international  standards under the Conventions against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading  Treatment or Punishment, and breach the rights afforded by the International Covenant on  Civil and Political Rights.  

The imposition of the death penalty will only contribute to further violations of human rights  without addressing—the underlying failures and weaknesses of the criminal justice system for sexual offences. We urge the Bangladesh government to consider an approach which is  both survivor-centred and responsive to underlying structural and societal concerns.  

There is no evidence to support the claim that the death penalty will be an effective deterrent  to rape in Bangladesh and the broader region. The likelihood of conviction and punishment  has been proven to be a greater deterrent than the severity of the penalty itself. Available  data suggests that there is only a 3% conviction rate for cases of violence against women and  children in Bangladesh.6In contrary, statistics from countries that have abolished the death  penalty show that conviction rates for crimes punishable by death actually rose after the  death penalty was abolished7. The discrepancy indicates that there are more impactful means  of addressing sexual offences beyond the death penalty. 

Imposing the death penalty for perpetrators of rape will not address the main impediments  to victim-survivors achieving justice. The introduction of the death penalty will likely further  deter victim-survivors from disclosing incidents. Victim-survivors who come forward are  already subject to a high degree of shame and scrutiny from their communities, throughout  and following the investigation and court process. This is further compounded by the nature  of the sexual offences involving associates or in some cases, close associates of the victim survivors, creating additional barriers against reporting of the rape. In other countries, such  factors have resulted in a reduced number of successful cases where there is a conviction  against the perpetrator. 

Introducing the death penalty will only exacerbate this issue, as death penalty cases involve  more victim scrutiny through extensive Court processes and attract more media attention.  Furthermore, the prospect of being blamed for the offender’s death, especially when it  involves an individual known to the victim-survivor would likely act as anadditional barrier  for victim-survivors in disclosing incidents.  

ADPAN acknowledge the Government of Bangladesh’s commitment to delivering justice to  rape victim-survivors but strongly urge the government to address the underlying flaws of  existing criminal justice system and not introduce mechanisms that have no impact in  deterring future crimes Reforms should revolve around empowering victim-survivors and  encouraging the pursuit of criminal prosecution against perpetrators by removing stigma and   providing specific legal and medical services for victim-survivors throughout the criminal  justice process. 

We also urge the government of Bangladesh to consider including all victims, male or female,  as well as marital partners, in the definition of rape, prohibiting character evidence and  training courts and police to interact with rape victim-survivors more appropriately. ADPAN  urges the Government of Bangladesh to take this opportunity to lead the Asia region on this  matter and implement meaningful policy changes that will make Bangladesh a safer place for  victims-survivors of sexual violence. 

Death penalty for rape will not deliver justice. Justice can only be achieved when victim survivors are provided the necessary support and perpetrators are convicted for their crimes. 

1. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26379&LangID=E 
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43850476
3. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26379&LangID=E. 
4. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26379&LangID=E
5. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/716494-government-considering-death-penalty-for-rape offenders
6. https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/dhaka/2019/11/26/only-3-convicted-for-rape-in-bangladesh