cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/55297044

Archived

On 26 June 2026, to mark International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, The Rights Practice - a charity in the UK focused on human rights in China - published an important new report, “Beyond Prison. Mapping Deprivation of Liberty in China”. This report is an attempt to map the multiple ways in which the Chinese state may deprive someone of their liberty. A confusing array of practices and nomenclature can obfuscate the nature and purpose of each type of detention. In this report we disentangle criminal, administrative and extra-legal measures, explaining the legal basis and highlighting issues of concern.

Here is the full report: Beyond Prison - Mapping Deprivation of Liberty in China (pdf)

China uses the deprivation of liberty for investigations and to punish offenders, but also as a tool for repression. The use and threat of detention serve to silence critics and maintain social stability.

Following the high profile detention of several foreigners, the risk of detention is now a factor in decisions to visit China by researchers, critics and the international business community.

This report has been written to help inform anyone visiting or engaging with China including diplomats, officials, journalists, NGOs and the business community.

Informed by China’s obligations under international law, the report highlights two key areas of concern: the risks of arbitrary detention and ill treatment.

With the deprivation of liberty casting a long shadow over all human rights violations in China the report describes the multiple forms of detention used, including their alleged purpose and basis in Chinese law. How China categorises types of detention is important to understand when questioning its use.

The report distinguishes three broad categories of detention in China: criminal, administrative and extra-legal.

The three categories are not mutually exclusive. In several instances, administrative or extra-legal detention is a pathway to detention as part of criminal proceedings which may serve to give the deprivation of liberty quasi legitimacy.

To help readers understand the Chinese context we describe the political legal basis of different types of detention and introduce the main institutions in the administration of justice (the gongjianfa). While the police enjoy substantial discretionary powers to authorise detention, their authority is rooted in the Chinese Communist Party acting through the zhengfawei (Political and Legal Commission) or CCP appointees within the gongjianfa.

The legal basis and procedures governing decisions to detain in China are inadequate. Political interests frequently influence decision making resulting in a high risk of arbitrary detention. China does not have an independent judiciary, and the courts play no role in authorising pretrial detention.

[…]

The lack of judicial transparency is an obstacle to monitoring the law in practice. The education label has been applied to many types of detention in China. This helps officials obfuscate their identity as detention facilities. The label also signals that the main purpose of these facilities is political.

The intent is to remould and transform those who dissent from CCP orthodoxy. Police pressures to secure a confession, the lack of preventive monitoring, weak regulations, risk of arbitrary detention and restrictions on access by lawyers all contribute to the risk of ill treatment and torture.

The report also provides recommendations for other governments in the face of severe human rights violations by the Chinese government.

[…]