A/HRC/51/47 State officials, reportedly stationed in the proximity of their home, that at times prevented them from leaving home. On 16 July 2021, Ms. Wang Qiaoling was allegedly prevented from visiting a human rights lawyer, Mr. Jiang Tianjong in Henan province, by some eight State Security officials, who argued she required higher-level approval for the visit. For a second year in a row, on 10 December 2021, they were allegedly prevented from leaving their home to observe Human Rights Day. 47. The case of lawyer Mr. Jiang Tianyong was included in the 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021 reports of the Secretary-General65 on allegations of intimidation and harassment for his cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights during his visit to China in August 201666 and was the subject of actions by special procedures mandate holders (CHN 9/201967 and CHN 13/2016, CHN 15/2016;68 CHN 3/2017).69 The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found the detention of Mr. Jiang Tianyong arbitrary (A/HRC/WGAD/2018/62, paras. 59, 62, 77, 78). 70 On 24 September 2019, special procedures mandate holders71 had called upon China to immediately end harassment and surveillance of Mr. Jiang Tianyong. According to information received by OHCHR, Mr Jiang Tianyong reportedly remained under house arrest during the reporting period, with a travel ban abroad, and prevented from reuniting with this family. Reportedly, he was under close surveillance by local public security at his parents’ home in Luoshan, where he has been since his release from prison in February 2019. On 28 February 2022, the part of his sentencing depriving him of political rights for three years expired and, on 1 March 2022, he allegedly received a “notice of expiry of the period of deprivation of political rights.” Reportedly, since 1 March 2022 the degree of surveillance has decreased to a certain extent, and he is allowed to leave his home but restrictions are still in force. At the time of writing, he remained under camera surveillance and must inform and seek the approval of the relevant authorities to leave his home. 48. On 1 August 2022, the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection to the present report. Regarding the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong National Security Law), the Government categorically disagreed with the allegations set out in the report, which it deemed biased and unjustified. In the view of the Government, the allegations that the Law has created a chilling effect, caused local civil society to refuse to cooperate with the United Nations and resulted in the dissolution and cessation of operation of some organizations are false and biased. 49. The Government noted that the Law does not affect the lawful exercise of the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents, including the right to criticize the Government, nor does it affect freedom of information, academic freedom, policy research, general business activities and general dealings and cooperation with international organizations, including the United Nations. The Government stated that the four categories of offences under the Hong Kong National Security Law are clearly defined, and the elements constituting the offences, penalties, mitigating factors and other consequences of the offences are also explicitly set out. Whether an act constitutes an offence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and it is therefore neither possible nor appropriate to draw overly general conclusions. The Government considered that the law has achieved its intended effect and restored stability and security in an effective manner and that whether individual organizations choose to remain in or leave the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region depends on a wide range of factors and is entirely their decision. 50. Regarding the Civil Human Rights Front and Mr. Figo Hu-wun Chan, the Government stated that the Civil Human Rights Front was suspected of having violated the registration requirement under section 5 of the Societies Ordinance. the Government explained that the 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 A/HRC/36/31, Annex I, paras. 22–24, A/HRC/39/41, Annex II, paras.14–16, A/HRC/42/30, para. 46 and Annex II, paras. 25–26 and 31, A/HRC/45/36, Annex II, para. 26 and A/HRC/48/28, para. 59, Annex II, para. 26. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20987. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=34846. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=33355. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=33449. A/HRC/WGAD/2018/62, para. 59, 62, 77, 78. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25046&LangID=E. 45