CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4A578B86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADF9CA74 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:0.4pt } .s510998AE { font-style:italic; letter-spacing:normal } .s5291F2FB { letter-spacing:normal } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .s72E62D63 { width:149.44pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF LIU v. POLAND (Application no. 37610/18)   JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 6 June 2023 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. Art 3 • Proposed extradition to China where the applicant would face a real risk of ill-treatment in detention • Applicant’s allegations not duly examined by the domestic authorities • Considerable weight attached to credible and consistent allegations of serious abuses equated to a general situation of violence • Benefit of the doubt granted to the applicant seeking protection • Informal assurances from China offering insufficient guarantees Art 5 § 1 (f) • Unlawful detention due to unjustified delays in the proceedings   STRASBOURG 6 October 2022   FINAL   30/01/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Liu v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak , President,   Péter Paczolay ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek ,   Alena Poláčková ,   Raffaele Sabato ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland ,   Ioannis Ktistakis , Judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   37610/18) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Hung Tao Liu (“the applicant”) from Taiwan, on 9   August 2018; the decision to give notice to the Polish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 3, Article 5 § 1 and Article 6   §   1 of the Convention; the decision to indicate an interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicant complained that his extradition to the authorities of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter also referred to as “China”) would violate Article 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as – if extradited and tried – he would be at risk of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment; moreover, he would be denied a fair trial. He also complained under Article   5 § 1 that his detention pending extradition was unreasonably long and, therefore, arbitrary. [1] THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1980 and is currently detained in the Warsaw-Białołęka Remand Centre. The applicant was represented by Mr   M.   Górski, a lawyer practising in Łódź. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background of the applicant’s case 5.     The applicant was sought within the context of an international Chinese ‑ Spanish investigation concerning a vast international telecoms fraud syndicate. 6.     On 8 December 2016 Interpol issued, in connection with the aforementioned investigation, a Red Notice in respect of the applicant, requesting that he be located and provisionally arrested pending his extradition. According to the Red Notice, the applicant was suspected of being the deputy head of an international telecoms fraud syndicate and was to be charged with fraud on a grand scale. 7.     On 6 August 2017 the applicant was arrested in Poland. Extradition proceedings 8.     On 1 September 2017 the Chinese authorities requested Poland to extradite the applicant to the People’s Republic of China. 9 .     On 13 September 2017 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Okręgowy ) lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) an application for authorisation to extradite the applicant to China on the basis of the above extradition request. The Regional Court decided to ask the Chinese authorities for additional information – in particular, information concerning any relevant criminal proceedings in China and guarantees of a fair trial, as well as details about the conditions of the applicant’s future detention. The requested information was provided on 8 January 2018 by the Criminal Investigations Department of the Ministry of Public Security of the Peoples’ Republic of China. The note contained a summary of the investigation in which the applicant had been implicated. It also stated that upon his extradition, the applicant would be detained at the Boluo Detention Centre in Guangdong Province, where his human rights would be respected and whose operations were supervised by People’s Prosecutors. The Criminal Investigations Office also indicated that Chinese detention facilities were open to the public and that in 2012 dozens of domestic and foreign journalists had been allowed entry to a detention facility in Beijing. It further indicated that in 2016 a representative of the Ministry of Justice of Taiwan had visited thirty-two Taiwanese detainees in a detention centre in Zhuhai (Guangdong Province). The note contained an extensive summary of the human-rights protection system in China and a guarantee that the applicant’s human rights would be protected. 10 .     On 27 February 2018 the Warsaw Regional Court held that the applicant’s extradition to China would be in conformity with Polish law. The court stressed that the Chinese authorities had presented sufficient arguments to substantiate a high probability that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. It also established that the remaining conditions for his extradition to be held legal had been met. In particular, the offence with which the applicant had been charged was also criminalised under Polish law, its prosecution was not time-barred, it had not yet been adjudicated in any State and was not subject to any criminal proceedings conducted in Poland. The Regional Court also observed that the applicant had not been granted asylum in Poland. It further found that there were no other reasons to refuse the applicant’s extradition, noting in particular that his prosecution was not based on political or other discriminatory grounds and that there were no reasons to suspect that the applicant would be at risk of torture, other forms of ill ‑ treatment or a flagrant denial of his right to a fair trial. It indicated, inter alia , that the Chinese authorities had provided sufficient information concerning his future detention and trial and that none of the general reports concerning the human rights situation in China presented by the applicant were relevant to his situation and prosecution. Referring to allegations of torture and instances of ill-treatment reported by Amnesty International, the Regional Court held that such reports always highlighted irregularities, while ignoring positive developments in the State concerned. It also reasoned that single instances of torture did not mean that it was being used in every case and that the applicant would be subjected to torture. The applicant and his lawyer appealed against that decision. 11 .     On 26 July 2018 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) upheld the decision of the Warsaw Regional Court. It relied on the same reasoning as the court of first instance. It indicated, in particular, that it was not the role of the domestic courts to assess the overall evidence against the applicant but only to establish that it was sufficient for the purposes of determining that there was a high probability that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The Court of Appeal also emphasised that there were no reasons to conclude that the applicant would be at any risk of a violation of his rights. In particular, it noted that the applicant had relied mainly on the fact that he was a citizen of the unrecognised Republic of China (Taiwan); however, the court also noted that his prosecution was not related to any political crimes, but to common offences. Also, he had not engaged in any political activities in the past. The Court of Appeal concluded that reports of instances of human rights violations (including those issued by Amnesty International) concerned the general state of affairs in China and did not state that such violations occurred in every set of criminal proceedings. 12.     On 9 August 2018 the applicant applied for an interim measure, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, requesting the Court to stop his extradition to China. In relation to that request, the Court (the Duty Judge) decided to request further information from the Government concerning, specifically, the date of the planned extradition and whether diplomatic assurances had been requested by Poland from the Chinese authorities in relation to fears voiced by the applicant regarding possible violations of his Convention Rights if he were to be returned to China. 13 .     The Government informed the Court that the applicant’s case was pending before the Minister of Justice and that no diplomatic assurances had been sought. They also submitted that on 6 September 2018 the Commissioner for Human Rights ( Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich ) had requested the relevant governmental authority to provide him with the applicant’s case file in order for him to be able to analyse whether he should lodge a   cassation appeal on behalf of the applicant. 14 .     On 12 September 2018 the Court (President of the Chamber to which the case has been allocated) decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to indicate to the Polish Government that they should not extradite the applicant until further notice. 15 .     On 7 May 2019 the Commissioner for Human Rights lodged a cassation appeal against the decision of 26 July 2018 with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ). The Commissioner argued that the court of second instance had failed to properly examine whether the applicant was at risk of being sentenced to life imprisonment and what were the possibilities of that sentence being reduced. He relied in particular on Article 3 of the Convention. 16 .     On 1 October 2020 the Supreme Court (case no. II KK 154/19) dismissed the Commissioner’s cassation appeal. The Supreme Court held that the courts of first and second instance thoroughly examined the character of offences of which the applicant had been suspected and the possible penalty for them under the Chinese law. They had also taken into consideration the requirements of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention. They had analysed, in particular, the conditions in which the applicant would be placed after his extradition. The Supreme Court further indicated that even though the applicant was at risk of being sentenced to life imprisonment, such a sentence would not be automatic and it was possible that it might subsequently be reduced. It held that the sole fact that life imprisonment was one of the penalties that could be imposed on the applicant did not amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 17 .     The Government informed the Court of the judgment of the Supreme Court on 11 January 2021. The applicant’s application for international protection 18.     On 15 November 2017 the applicant lodged an application for international protection. On 3 August 2018 the Head of the Aliens Office ( Szef Urzędu do Spraw Cudzoziemców ) issued a decision refusing to grant the applicant refugee status or subsidiary protection. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. The applicant’s detention 19.     On 6 August 2017 the applicant was arrested. 20 .     On 8 August 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to detain the applicant until 15 September 2017 in order to secure the proper course of the extradition proceedings. The decision was based on the Interpol Red Notice and the fact that the Chinese authorities had requested the applicant’s extradition. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 21.     On 14 September 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 January 2018. It indicated in particular that the applicant presented a flight risk as he did not reside in Poland and did not have any links with Poland. It also noted that he was facing the possibility of receiving a severe sentence (of up to life imprisonment) and that the extradition procedure had already been initiated. 22.     Following an appeal by the applicant, on 9 November 2017 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the above-mentioned decision, referring to the same reasons as those cited by the court of first instance. It also indicated that the risk of the applicant obstructing the proper course of the proceedings was very real in the light of the fact that he had been previously hiding from the local authorities in Spain. 23 .     The applicant’s detention was further extended several times by the Warsaw Regional Court on 12 January, 13   April, 12 September 2018 and 12   February 2019. On each occasion the domestic court cited the same reasons for the applicant’s detention. It indicated that the applicant – according to his statements – had entered Poland for the purpose of tourism and had no ties to the country. It also stated that he had previously fled the authorities in Spain and had travelled through several European States. In its reasoning in respect of the last two decisions, the Regional Court also indicated that the first ‑ instance court had held that the applicant’s extradition would be in conformity with Polish law (see paragraphs   10 ‑ 11 above) and that the extradition proceedings should accordingly be concluded promptly. It also held that, in the light of the applicant’s sound financial situation, the fact that he had the financial resources to travel, and his history of fleeing from the authorities, there were no measures other than detention that could ensure the proper course of the extradition proceedings. The applicant did not appeal against any of those decisions. 24.     On 31 July 2019 the Warsaw Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 6 November 2019. Its decision was based on the same reasons as those given for the previous decisions extending the applicant’s detention. It also indicated that the applicant’s case was particularly complex, given the fact that the cassation appeal lodged by the Commissioner for Human Rights was pending before the Supreme Court (see paragraph 15 above) and that the Court had indicated an interim measure obliging the Polish Government not to extradite the applicant (see paragraph 14 above). 25 .     The applicant appealed against that decision. He submitted that his detention had thus far lasted for over two years and was based on the risk of his being sentenced to severe punishment in a country, which did not guarantee him a fair trial. He also argued that the extradition proceedings had been prolonged for reasons that were not attributable to him. He also emphasised that his detention was extremely harmful to him, given that he did not speak Polish and thus had no possibility of communicating with his co-detainees, who did not speak English or his native Chinese. Also, the domestic courts were mistaken in their conclusion that he had been hiding from justice. The applicant submitted that prior to his arrest he had not been aware that he was being sought by the authorities and that he had travelled extensively as part of his work. 26.     On 20 August 2019 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 31 July 2019. It noted that the applicant was aware of the fact that the domestic courts had held that his extradition would be in conformity with Polish law and that, in consequence, he could expect that he would be extradited and that it was likely that he would receive a severe sentence in China. Consequently, if he were not detained, he would be likely to act in a   manner that would render extradition impossible. Moreover, the Court of Appeal reasoned that if there had been sufficient basis for the issuance of an arrest warrant by the country seeking the applicant’s extradition, then there were also sufficient reasons for deeming it probable that he would go into hiding in the country that was about to extradite him. It also observed that – if released – the applicant was likely to leave Poland. 27 .     The applicant’s detention was further prolonged by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 4 November 2019 and again (until 6 July 2020) on 31   January 2020. The court cited the same reasons for prolonging the applicant’s detention as in its earlier decisions. It indicated in particular that the case was still pending before the Supreme Court and that the Court had obliged the Government not to extradite the applicant until further notice. 28 .     The applicant appealed against both of the above ‑ mentioned decisions. The Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as a court of second instance upheld them on 17 January and 24 April 2020 respectively. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT Domestic LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 29.     The extradition procedure is regulated by Articles 602-606 of the 1997 Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kodeks postępowania karnego – “the Code”). Under the Code’s provisions, the procedure consists of two stages. Firstly, the domestic courts decide whether the extradition in question would be in accordance with the Polish law; secondly, the Minister of Justice decides whether to extradite the person concerned. 30 .     Under Article 603 §§ 1-4 of the Code, a regional court delivers a   decision on the legality of an extradition request lodged by a foreign State – usually after hearing the person to whom the request relates, or if necessary, after conducting the evidentiary proceedings. The decision is delivered at a court hearing at which both the prosecutor and the defence lawyer of the person concerned may be present, and it can be appealed against. The decision of the court of second instance is final. However, under Article   521 of the Code the Prosecutor General and the Commissioner for Human Rights may lodge a cassation appeal against any final decision that concludes the proceedings in question. 31 .     Under Article 603 § 5 of the Code, a regional court transfers its final decision, together with the case file, to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice then decides on the request and communicates its decision to the relevant authority of the foreign State. The Minister may refuse to extradite the person concerned for one of the reasons specified in Article 604   §   2 of the Code (see paragraph 32 below) or for other reasons – in particular, reasons of a political and/or humanitarian nature. In the event that the domestic courts finally decide that the extradition would be contrary to the law, the Minister cannot consent to the extradition. 32 .     The conditions to be fulfilled in order for extradition to be legal are set out in Article 604   § 1 of the Code, which stipulates that a person cannot be extradited, inter alia , if there is a risk that he or she would, if convicted, be sentenced to death, or if his or her rights and freedoms would be violated in the requesting State, or if he or she is to be prosecuted for a non-violent political offence. Moreover, paragraph 2 of Article 604 provides a non ‑ exhaustive list of reasons on the basis of which a   request for extradition may be refused; that list includes the ground that the person in question has his or her domicile in Poland or that he or she is charged with an offence of a military, tax-related or political nature. 33.     The principles governing proceedings in respect of detention pending extradition are regulated by Articles 605 and 605a of the Code and by the general provisions concerning detention during criminal proceedings ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), which are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Gołek v. Poland (no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006); Kauczor v.   Poland (no. 45219/06, § 25-33, 3 February 2009); and Porowski v.   Poland (no.   34458/03, § 71-82, 21 March 2017). Reports on the situation in China United Nations Documents Concluding Observations of the United Nations Committee against Torture regarding China dated 12 December 2008 and 3 February 2016 34 .     A document entitled “List of issues to be considered during the examination of the fourth periodic report of China” (CAT/C/CHN/Q/4), examined by the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) at its forty ‑ first session in November 2008, states, in so far as relevant: “2. According to information before the Committee, despite new laws and regulations adopted by the State party to prevent torture and ill-treatment, an array of mutually reinforcing conditions contribute to its continued pervasiveness in the criminal justice system. A lack of information regarding torture and ill-treatment is allegedly compounded by the fact that much basic data is classified under the State secrets system ...” 35 .     In its Concluding Observations of 12 December 2008 on China (CAT/C/CHN/CO/4) the CAT made the following observations: “11.     Notwithstanding the State party’s efforts to address the practice of torture and related problems in the criminal justice system, the Committee remains deeply concerned about the continued allegations, corroborated by numerous Chinese legal sources, of routine and widespread use of torture and ill-treatment of suspects in police custody, especially to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the Committee notes with concern the lack of legal safeguards for detainees, including: ... (d)     Continued reliance on confessions as a common form of evidence for prosecution, thus creating conditions that may facilitate the use of torture and ill-treatment of suspects, as in the case of Yang Chunlin. Furthermore, while the Committee appreciates that the Supreme Court has issued several decisions to prevent the use of confessions obtained under torture as evidence before the courts, Chinese Criminal procedure law still does not contain an explicit prohibition of such practice, as required by article 15 of the Convention; (e)     The lack of an effective independent monitoring mechanism on the situation of detainees (arts. 2, 11 and 15) ... 12.     While the Committee takes note of the information from the State party on conditions of detention in prisons, it remains concerned about reports of abuses in custody, including the high number of deaths, possibly related to torture or ill-treatment, and about the lack of investigation into these abuses and deaths in custody   ... 16.     While taking note of the oral information from the State party on the conditions of application of the 1988 Law on the Preservation of State Secrets in the People’s Republic of China, the Committee expressed grave concern over the use of this law which severely undermines the availability of information about torture, criminal justice and related issues. The broad application of this law raises a range of issues relating to the application of the Convention in the State party: (a)     This Law prevents the disclosure of crucial information that would enable the Committee to identify possible patterns of abuse requiring attention, such as disaggregated statistical information on detainees in all forms of detention and custody and ill-treatment in the State party, information on groups and entities deemed to be ‘hostile organizations’, ‘minority splittist organizations’, ‘hostile religious organizations’, ‘reactionary sects’, as well as basic information on places of detention, information about the ‘circumstances of prisoners of great influence’, violations of the law or codes of conduct by public security organs, information on matters inside prisons; ... (d)     The classification of a case falling under the State Secrets law allows officials to deny detainees access to lawyers, a fundamental safeguard for preventing torture, and such denial appears to be in contradiction with the 2007 amended Lawyers Law (arts. 2 and 19).” 36 .     In its Concluding Observations of 3 February 2016 on China (CAT/C/CHN/CO/5) the CAT made the following observations: “6.     ... the Committee regrets that the recommendations identified for follow-up in the previous concluding observations have not yet been implemented. Those recommendations concerned: legal safeguards to prevent torture; the State Secrets Law and reported harassment of lawyers, human rights defenders and petitioners; the lack of statistical information; ... 7.     The Committee notes that various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and the Criminal Law, as amended in 2014, prohibit and punish specific acts that could be considered as torture. However, it remains concerned that those provisions do not include all the elements of the definition of torture set out in article 1 of the Convention. In particular: (a)     While noting the provisions established to prohibit the extraction of confessions under torture or the use of violence to obtain a witness statement (article 247 of the Criminal Law), the Committee is concerned that the prohibition may not cover all public officials and persons acting in an official capacity. Moreover, the provisions do not address the use of torture for purposes other than extracting confessions from defendants or criminal suspects; (b)     The crime of beating or ill-treating detainees, contained in article 248 of the Criminal Law, restricts the scope of the crime to the actions of officers of an institution of confinement or of other detainees at the instigation of those officers. It is also restricted to the infliction of physical abuse only. 8.     The Committee appreciates that the Supreme People’s Court recognizes as torture the use of other methods that cause the defendant to suffer severe mental pain or suffering (see para. 5 (a) above). However, it remains concerned that the Court’s interpretation applies to questions regarding exclusion of evidence rather than criminal liability (arts. 2 and 4) ... 18.     The Committee is deeply concerned about the unprecedented detention and interrogation of, reportedly, more than 200 lawyers and activists since 9 July 2015. Of those, 25 remain reportedly under residential surveillance at a designated location and 4 are allegedly unaccounted for. This reported crackdown on human rights lawyers follows a series of other reported escalating abuses on lawyers for carrying out their professional responsibilities, particularly on cases involving government accountability and issues such as torture and the defence of human rights activists and religious practitioners. Such abuses include detention on suspicion of broadly defined charges, such as ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble’, and ill-treatment and torture while in detention. ... The Committee is concerned that the above-mentioned abuses and restrictions may deter lawyers from raising reports of torture in their clients’ defence for fear of reprisals, weakening the safeguards of the rule of law that are necessary for the effective protection against torture (art. 2) ... 20.     Notwithstanding the numerous legal and administrative provisions prohibiting the use of torture, the Committee remains seriously concerned over consistent reports indicating that the practice of torture and ill-treatment is still deeply entrenched in the criminal justice system, which overly relies on confessions as the basis for convictions. It also expresses concern over information that the majority of allegations of torture and ill-treatment take place during pretrial and extralegal detention and involve public security officers, who wield excessive power during the criminal investigation without effective control by procuratorates and the judiciary. This overarching power is reportedly further intensified by the public security’s joint responsibilities over the investigation and the administration of detention centres which, in the Committee’s view, creates an incentive for the investigators to use detention as a means to compel detainees to confess (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16) ... 24.     The Committee remains concerned over allegations of death in custody as a result of torture or resulting from lack of prompt medical care and treatment during detention, as was reportedly the case of Cao Shunli and Tenzin Delek Rinpoche. It is also concerned over information that the procedures in place to investigate deaths in custody are often ignored in practice and relatives face many obstacles to press for an independent autopsy and investigation or to recover the remains. The Committee regrets that, despite its requests to the State party’s delegation to provide statistical data on the number of deaths in custody during the period under review, no information has been received on this subject, or on any investigations into such deaths. The Committee also regrets the State party’s failure to provide information on the number of instances in which the procuratorates overturned the medical appraisals of death due to illness made by prison medical doctors. No information has been provided either on the number of instances in which relatives of the deceased objected to the procuratorate’s conclusion on the cause of the death (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13 and 16)   ... 30.     Recalling its previous recommendations (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/4, paras. 16 and 17), the Committee remains concerned at the use of State secrecy provisions to avoid the availability of information about torture, criminal justice and related issues. While appreciating the State party’s assertion that ‘information regarding torture does not fall within the scope of State secrets’, the Committee expresses concern at the State party’s failure to provide a substantial amount of data requested by the Committee in the list of issues and during the dialogue. In the absence of the information requested, the Committee finds itself unable to fully assess the State party’s actions in the light of the provisions of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that the same concerns raised in its previous recommendation with regard to the 1988 Law on the Preservation of State Secrets persist in relation to the 2010 Law on Guarding State Secrets. The Committee is also disturbed at reports that a significant amount of information related to torture and the actions of public security authorities under the Criminal Procedure Law remain out of the public domain owing to the State secrets exception of the Regulations on Open Government Information. Furthermore, it notes with concern the limited scope of the Regulations on Open Government Information to information about administrative actions by administrative organs, excluding matters within the criminal law system (arts. 12, 13, 14 and 16).” Reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture 37 .     From 20 November to 2 December 2005 the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr Manfred Nowak, undertook a visit to China. In his report of 10 March 2006, submitted to the Economic and Social Council, Mr Nowak observed, inter alia : “... Though on the decline, particularly in urban areas, the Special Rapporteur believes that torture remains widespread in China ... While the basic conditions in the detention facilities seem to be generally satisfactory, the Special Rapporteur was struck by the strictness of prison discipline and a palpable level of fear and self-censorship when talking to detainees.” 38 .     Since at least 2009, the Chinese government has not issued a standing invitation to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to conduct an official visit, despite many requests for it to do so. [2] Reports of the United States Department of State 39 .     In its 2018 Report on Human Rights Practices in China, the United States Department of State noted, inter alia : “The law prohibits the physical abuse and mistreatment of detainees and forbids prison guards from coercing confessions, insulting prisoners’ dignity, and beating or encouraging others to beat prisoners. Amendments to the criminal procedure law exclude evidence obtained through illegal means, including coerced confessions, in certain categories of criminal cases. Enforcement of these legal protections continued to be lax. Numerous former prisoners and detainees reported they were beaten, raped, subjected to electric shock, forced to sit on stools for hours on end, hung by the wrists, deprived of sleep, force fed, forced to take medication against their will, and otherwise subjected to physical and psychological abuse. Although prison authorities abused ordinary prisoners, they reportedly singled out political and religious dissidents for particularly harsh treatment. ... Conditions in penal institutions for both political prisoners and criminal offenders were generally harsh and often life threatening or degrading. Physical Conditions: Authorities regularly held prisoners and detainees in overcrowded conditions with poor sanitation. Food often was inadequate and of poor quality, and many detainees relied on supplemental food, medicines, and warm clothing provided by relatives when allowed to receive them. Prisoners often reported sleeping on the floor because there were no beds or bedding. In many cases provisions for sanitation, ventilation, heating, lighting, and access to potable water were inadequate. Adequate, timely medical care for prisoners remained a serious problem, despite official assurances prisoners have the right to prompt medical treatment... Authorities considered information about prisons and various other types of administrative and extralegal detention facilities to be a state secret, and the government typically did not permit independent monitoring.” Reports of Amnesty International 40 .     An Amnesty International report entitled “China: No end in sight – Torture and forced confessions in China”, published on 11 November 2015, in so far as relevant, reads: “The lawyers described their own experiences when trying to carry out their work and the difficulties they often faced in raising claims of torture and other ill-treatment, getting these claims heard, and ultimately achieving justice for their clients. They often expressed their frustration with the system they feel is not adequately addressing torture and implementing existing prohibitions. Many related stories of torture their clients suffered in detention centres and unofficial detention facilities including black jails – torture and other ill-treatment often at the hands of police or the procuratorate or other detainees on orders of officials. They almost uniformly concur that the extraction of confessions through torture remains widespread in pre-trial detention, in particular in cases considered politically sensitive by the government, where officials are detained for alleged corruption charges and cases involving religious activities, including Falun Gong practitioners. However the lawyers also gave accounts of torture and forced ‘confessions’ in other criminal and fraud cases as well. Most chilling is the harassment and torture and ill-treatment the lawyers themselves faced as the authorities tried to dissuade them from investigating torture claims, seeking redress and otherwise carrying out their work. This seems a calculated efforts by authorities to dissuade lawyers from taking up such cases and could have an extremely negative impact on individuals who are trying to exercise their rights to fair trial and to be free from arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment and a range of other human rights violations. ... Amnesty International has documented cases of torture and other ill-treatment since 2010 both as means of punishment and to extract confessions. Sixteen of the 37   lawyers interviewed for this report also described torture reported by their clients either to extract ‘confessions’ and other evidence or as punishment for detainees sometimes carried out by officials and sometimes by fellow inmates likely at the instigation of officials. Many of the lawyers’ clients were involved in “‘sensitive cases’ – petitioners, religious practitioners, or activists charged with the offences of ‘inciting subversion of state power’ or ‘picking quarrels and provoking troubles’ due to their activism – but others were charged with crimes that would not necessarily garner political attention. Beijing lawyer Wu Hongwei described various kinds of torture to which his clients have been subjected including cases of religious practitioners but also regular criminal cases.” 41.     The chapter on China of “Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State of The World’s Human Rights”, released on 24 February 2016, in so far as relevant, reads: “Torture and other ill-treatment remained widespread in detention and during interrogation, largely because of shortcomings in domestic law, systemic problems in the criminal justice system, and difficulties with implementing rules and procedures in the face of entrenched practices. Lawyer Yu Wensheng was tortured during his detention from October 2014 to January 2015 at Daxing Detention Centre in Beijing. He was questioned for 15 to 16 hours every day while seated on a rigid restraint chair, handcuffed for long hours and deprived of sleep.” 42.     The chapter on China of “Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State of The World’s Human Rights”, released on 22 February 2017, in so far as relevant, reads: “Shortcomings in domestic law and systemic problems in the criminal justice system resulted in widespread torture and other ill-treatment and unfair trials.” Report of Human Rights Watch 43 .     A Human Rights Watch report entitled “Tiger Chairs and Cell Bosses – Police Torture of Criminal Suspects in China”, published on 13   May 2015, in so far as relevant, reads: “Our analysis of court cases and interviews with former detainees show that police torture and ill-treatment of suspects in pre-trial detention remains a serious concern. Former detainees described physical and psychological torture during police interrogations, including being hung by the wrists, being beaten with police batons or other objects, and prolonged sleep deprivation. Some said they were restrained for days in so-called ‘tiger chairs’ (used to immobilize suspects during interrogations), handcuffs, or leg irons; one convicted prisoner awaiting review of his death sentence had been handcuffed and shackled for eight years. Some detainees spoke about abuses at the hands of ‘cell bosses,’ fellow detainees used by detention center police as de facto managers of each multi-person cell. In some cases, the abuse resulted in death or permanent physical or mental disabilities. Most suspects who complained of torture to the authorities had been accused of common crimes such as theft. Interviewees said torture is particularly severe in major cases with multiple suspects, such as in organized or triad-related crimes. In most of the cases we examined, police used torture and other ill-treatment to elicit confessions on which convictions could be secured. Abuses were facilitated by suspects’ lack of access to lawyers, family members, and doctors not beholden to the police. Former detainees and relatives described the difficulty of retaining lawyers willing to challenge the police in court over allegations of mistreatment. In addition, many told Human Rights Watch that medical personnel who have the opportunity to report apparent torture or ill-treatment do not do so, denying detainees a critical source to validate their allegations. Videotaped interrogations are routinely manipulated, such as by first torturing the suspects and then taping the confession, further weakening suspects’ claims of ill-treatment. Police use of torture outside detention centers means that detainees often live in terror of being taken from the centers, whether for purported transfers to another facility or for any other reason. ... Our research also shows that criminal suspects are at risk of ill-treatment in detention at times other than during interrogations. So-called cell bosses, detainees who act as de facto managers of a cell, at times mistreat or beat detainees. Police subject some detainees to the use of restraints in so-called stress positions or prolonged solitary confinement to punish them, or to force them to work long hours without pay. While authorities say that the numbers are down, detainees continue to die in custody, in many cases allegedly due to torture and ill-treatment by police officers, guards, and fellow detainees, or prolonged lack of adequate medical attention.” Report of Freedom House 44 .     Freedom House stated the following concerning the situation in China during 2021 in its “Freedom in the World 2022” report: “Reforms to the criminal justice system in recent decades were ostensibly meant to guarantee better access to lawyers, allow witnesses to be cross-examined, and establish other safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions. However, violations of due process are widespread in practice. Criminal trials are frequently held in secret, and the convictio