civil society organizations that were engaging with the Committee in connection with the periodic review
Cases- Case status
- Unknown
- Location of case in SG report
- 2023-023-001
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2023
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 35.86166
Longitude: 104.195397
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- China
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Treaty Bodies: HRC
- Dates of prior UN action
- 7 and 8 July 2022, 12 July 2022
- Type of record
- Preemptive statement made to ensure no reprisals will occur
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Type of rights defended
- Civil/political rights
- Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
Engagement with the Human Rights Committee
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Treaty Bodies: HRC
- Dates of engagement
- July 2022
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Submission of information to UN
- Reprisal information
- On 7 and 8 July 2022, during the consideration of the fourth periodic review of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR),17 the Human Rights Committee requested clarification “as to whether the civil society organizations that were engaging with the Committee in connection with the periodic review would be deemed to be in breach of the National Security Law” and sought assurances “that those organizations were not in danger of prosecution or victimization for their engagement” or that they would not be charged under the National Security Law, “as a result of their participation” (CCPR/C/SR.3891, para. 14; CCPR/C/SR.3893 para. 11).18 On 12 July 2022, the Committee asked whether interaction with United Nations human rights mechanisms was classified as “collusion with foreign forces” under Articles 29–30 of the National Security Law (CCPR/C/SR.3895, para. 29).19 In its response, a representative of HKSAR noted that: “Civil society organizations involved in normal interactions with United Nations bodies were protected by the laws of HKSAR; only interactions that fell outside the norm were punishable under the National Security Law. It was impossible to generalize about whether a United Nations body would meet the definition of a foreign political organization under the Societies Ordinance, since that depended on the particulars of the case and on the activities of the body in question” (CCPR/C/SR.3895, para. 44).20
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- Yes
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- Yes
- Government response dates
- 12 July 2022; 28 July 2023
- Government response content
In its response, a representative of HKSAR noted that: “Civil society organizations involved in normal interactions with United Nations bodies were protected by the laws of HKSAR; only interactions that fell outside the norm were punishable under the National Security Law. It was impossible to generalize about whether a United Nations body would meet the definition of a foreign political organization under the Societies Ordinance, since that depended on the particulars of the case and on the activities of the body in question” (CCPR/C/SR.3895, para. 44).20
- On 28 July 2023, the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection to the present report noting that the State respects and safeguards human rights and protects, in accordance with the law, routine exchanges and cooperation with the United Nations. The Government denied allegations of reprisals against those who cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms and opposed the use of what it characterized as false allegations of so-called reprisals as a pretext to interfere with judicial processes.
- The Government reiterated that the “National Security 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 routine interaction and cooperation with international organizations, which are protected by the Basic Law and other relevant legislation.
- Was the case raised by a State at the UN?
- Yes
- Which State raised the case at the UN and when?
USA (October 2023 at the C3); USA (September 2023 at HRC 54);
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- No
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No
sorted by
Date added
3 relationships, 3 entities