International Amnesty, on Wednesday, released a new report revealing that the Chinese courts are systematically weaponizing vague national security and public order laws to suppress human rights defenders and dissidents.
The report analyzed 68 cases involving 64 Chinese human rights defenders, covering official indictments and judgments between 2014 and 2024. Out of the 68 cases, only one did not result in a guilty verdict by the Chinese courts. Except for three individuals, the remaining defendants were sentenced to varying prison terms ranging from 1.5 to 19 years.
Titled “Is This a Legitimate Trial? The Role of Chinese (CCP) Courts in Suppressing Human Rights Defenders,” the report details how Chinese courts convict peaceful activists, journalists, lawyers, and ordinary citizens with rubber-stamped charges, using their speeches, participation in social activities, or international connections as grounds for conviction.
Sarah Brooks, the China Program Director at International Amnesty, stated, “The Chinese leadership is keen to promote its commitment to international cooperation and the rule of law. However, this propaganda conceals a stark reality: when it comes to handling politically sensitive cases, Chinese (CCP) courts function more as tools of repression rather than upholders of judicial fairness.”
She added, “Chinese human rights defenders are deemed enemies of the state simply for speaking out, engaging in peaceful activities, or having international connections. Their bravery is met with imprisonment, torture, and sham trials.”
Over 90% of cases indicated that courts cited vague, overly broad, and non-compliant national security or public order laws to define peaceful speech and association as criminal activities. The most common charges by the CCP include “subverting state power,” “inciting subversion of state power,” and “picking quarrels and provoking troubles.”
Courts often use online expressions as evidence of “subverting state power,” including blog posts, social media comments, or sharing human rights articles. Even accepting interviews from foreign media, publishing articles on overseas websites, or participating in non-governmental organization training abroad can lead to charges of “colluding with foreign forces.”
International Amnesty found that Chinese courts systematically equate criticism of the government with threats to national security.
A Chinese human rights lawyer stated, “Authorities can define any of your actions as a criminal offense.”
Research also found labor rights activists being prosecuted for assisting workers in collective bargaining; petitioners punished for submitting complaints to higher authorities; and peaceful assemblies frequently charged with “disturbing social order.”
In over half of the cases, Chinese courts considered individuals’ international connections as evidence of crime. Defendants were charged with “colluding with foreign forces” for receiving minimal funding from NGOs, being interviewed by foreign journalists, or even just renting overseas servers.
In one case, authorities claimed that publishing articles on overseas websites blocked by the Chinese firewall disrupted domestic public order, despite the site being inaccessible in China. In another instance, CCP’s public policy documents were treated as state secrets.
Brooks stated that the CCP, by criminalizing nearly all forms of international connections, attempts to sever human rights defenders from foreign ties.
“This isn’t about national security; it’s purely political control,” she said. “The convictions of Chinese human rights defenders not only affect those directly oppressed but also trigger a chilling effect throughout society. By deeming peaceful activism a national security threat, authorities aim to suppress dissenting voices across society.”
International Amnesty found that in each case they reviewed, the right to a fair trial was violated.
All 68 defendants faced arbitrary detention, with many kept incommunicado for months, and at least 15 subjected to “residential surveillance in a designated location.”
Eleven defendants reported torture by authorities, yet Chinese courts dismissed investigations and often shifted the burden of proof onto the defendants.
Moreover, while courts claimed transparency, hearings frequently barred family members, media, or diplomatic personnel under the pretext of “involving state secrets.”
In 67 out of the 68 cases, defendants were sentenced to imprisonment. Many judgments carried additional penalties of “deprivation of political rights,” restricting defendants from speaking out, publishing articles, or organizing activities even after their release.
International Amnesty urged Beijing to promptly unconditionally release all individuals imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to speech, association, or assembly.
“When lawyers are jailed for defending, petitioners are punished for seeking justice, and writers are imprisoned for their words, the message from authorities is clear: no one is safe,” Brooks said. “Yet Chinese human rights defenders continue steadfastly in their struggle – the international community must come forward to support them.”