Freedom, Independence and Democracy for East Turkistan !

E-mail: etic@uygur.org

 The World Uighur Network News 2005

China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2004
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
February 28, 2005

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is an authoritarian state in which, as specified in its Constitution, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP or Party) is the paramount source of power. Party members hold almost all top government, police, and military positions. Ultimate authority rests with the 24-member political bureau (Politburo) of the CCP and its 9-member standing committee. Leaders made a top priority of maintaining stability and social order and were committed to perpetuating the rule of the CCP. Citizens lacked the freedom to express opposition to the Party-led political system and the right to change their national leaders or form of government. Socialism continued to provide the theoretical underpinning of national politics, but Marxist economic planning has given way to pragmatism, and economic decentralization has increased the authority of local officials. The Party's authority rested primarily on the Government's ability to maintain social stability; appeals to nationalism and patriotism; Party control of personnel, media, and the security apparatus; and continued improvement in the living standards of most of the country's 1.3 billion citizens. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice, the Government and the CCP, at both the central and local levels, frequently interfered in the judicial process and directed verdicts in many cases.

The security apparatus is made up of the Ministries of State Security and Public Security, the People's Armed Police, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and the state judicial, procuratorial, and penal systems. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces. Security policy and personnel were responsible for numerous human rights abuses.

The country's transition from a centrally planned economy toward a market based economy continued. Although state-owned industry remained dominant in key sectors, the Government has taken steps to restructure major state-owned enterprises (SOEs), privatized many small and medium SOEs, and allowed private entrepreneurs increasing scope for economic activity. Rising urban living standards; a burgeoning middle class; greater independence for entrepreneurs; the reform of the public sector, including government efforts to increase transparency and eliminate administrative hurdles; and expansion of the private sector, including foreign-invested enterprises, continued to increase workers' employment options and reduce state control over citizens' daily lives.

The country faced many economic challenges, including reform of SOEs and the banking system, growing unemployment and underemployment, an aging population, the need to construct an effective social safety net, and rapidly widening income gaps between coastal and interior regions and between urban and rural areas. In recent years, between 100 and 150 million persons voluntarily left rural areas to search for better jobs and living conditions in cities, where they were often denied access to government-provided economic and social benefits, including education and health care. The Government continued to relax controls over migration from rural to urban areas, and many cities took steps to expand the rights of migrants and their dependents to basic social services. In the industrial sector, continued downsizing of SOEs contributed to rising urban unemployment that was widely believed to be much higher than the officially estimated 4 percent, with many sources estimating the actual figure to be as high as 20 percent. The Government reported that urban per capita disposable income in 2003 was $1,028 and grew by 9 percent over the previous year, while rural per capita cash income was $317 and grew by 4 percent. Official estimates of the percentage of citizens living in absolute poverty showed little change from the previous year. The Government estimated that 30 million persons lived in poverty, and the World Bank estimated the number whose income does not exceed one dollar per day to be 100 to 150 million persons.

The Government's human rights record remained poor, and the Government continued to commit numerous and serious abuses. Citizens did not have the right to change their government, and many who openly expressed dissenting political views were harassed, detained, or imprisoned, particularly in a campaign late in the year against writers, religious activists, dissidents, and petitioners to the Central Government. Authorities were quick to suppress religious, political, and social groups that they perceived as threatening to government authority or national stability, especially before sensitive dates such as the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre and other significant political and religious occasions. However, the Constitution was amended to mention human rights for the first time.

Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings; torture and mistreatment of prisoners, leading to numerous deaths in custody; coerced confessions; arbitrary arrest and detention; and incommunicado detention. The judiciary was not independent, and the lack of due process remained a serious problem. The lack of due process was particularly egregious in death penalty cases, and the accused was often denied a meaningful appeal. Executions often took place on the day of conviction or on the denial of an appeal. In Xinjiang, trials and executions of Uighurs charged with separatism continued. Government pressure continued to make it difficult for lawyers to represent criminal defendants. The authorities routinely violated legal protections in the cases of political dissidents and religious figures. They generally attached higher priority to suppressing political opposition and maintaining public order than to enforcing legal norms or protecting individual rights. According to 2003 government statistics, more than 250,000 persons were serving sentences in "reeducation-through-labor" camps and other forms of administrative detention not subject to judicial review. Other experts reported that more than 310,000 persons were serving sentences in these camps in 2003.

Throughout the year, the Government prosecuted individuals for subversion and leaking state secrets as a means to harass and intimidate, while others were detained for relaying facts about Chinese human rights issues to those outside the country. Among those detained or convicted on such charges were Christian activists Zhang Rongliang, Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai and Zhang Shengqi, and journalists Zhao Yan, Shi Tao, Li Guozhu and members of the independent PEN Center's China branch. The Government detained individuals administratively to suppress dissent and intimidate others. In April and June, authorities detained many who planned 15th anniversary commemorations of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, including activist Hu Jia and "Tiananmen Mothers" organization founders. Similarly, military officials detained Dr. Jiang Yanyong because he wrote to government leaders requesting an official reassessment of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

The number of individuals serving sentences for the now-repealed crime of counterrevolution was estimated at 500 to 600; many of these persons were imprisoned for the nonviolent expression of their political views. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) estimated that as many as 250 persons remained in prison for political activities connected to the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations.

The authorities granted early release from prison to Tibetan nun Phuntsog Nyidrol in February and China Democracy Party (CDP) co-founder Wang Youcai in March. Counterrevolutionary prisoners Liu Jingsheng and Chen Gang were also released during the year, after their sentences were reduced. However, many political prisoners, including Internet activists Xu Wei, Yang Zili, and Huang Qi; Uighurs Rebiya Kadeer and Tohti Tunyaz; journalists Zhao Yan and Jiang Weiping; labor activists Yao Fuxin and Xiao Yunliang; civil activist Mao Hengfeng; Catholic Bishop Su Zhimin; Christian activists Zhang Rongliang, Zhang Yinan, Liu Fenggang, and Xu Yonghai; Tibetans Jigme Gyatso, Tenzin Deleg, and Gendun Choekyi Nyima; Inner Mongolian cultural activist Hada; CDP co-founder Qin Yongmin; and political dissident Yang Jianli remained imprisoned or under other forms of detention, some in undisclosed locations.

The Government used the international war on terror as a pretext for cracking down harshly on suspected Uighur separatists expressing peaceful political dissent and on independent Muslim religious leaders. The human rights situation in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and in some Tibetan regions outside the TAR also remained poor (see Tibet Addendum).

The Government maintained tight restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press, and a wave of detentions late in the year signaled a new campaign targeting prominent writers and political commentators. The Government regulated the establishment and management of publications, controlled broadcast and other electronic media, censored some foreign television broadcasts, and jammed some radio signals from abroad. During the year, publications were closed and otherwise disciplined for publishing material deemed objectionable by the Government, and journalists, authors, academics, Internet writers, and researchers were harassed, detained, and arrested by the authorities. Although the scope of permissible private speech has continued to expand in recent years, the Government continued and intensified efforts to monitor and control use of the Internet and other wireless technology, including cellular phones, pagers, and instant messaging devices. During the year, the Government blocked many websites, began monitoring text messages sent by mobile phones, and pressured Internet companies to censor objectionable content. NGOs reported that 43 journalists were imprisoned at year's end.

The Government severely restricted freedom of assembly and association and infringed on individuals' rights to privacy. The authorities harassed and abused many who raised public grievances, including petitioners to the Central Government. The Government outlawed public commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. Thousands of individuals protesting forced evictions and workplace and health issues were detained during the year. Petitioner issues were increasingly considered suspect by the Government, and petitioner leader Ye Guozhu was arrested in August while seeking permission to hold a 10,000-person rally against forced eviction.

While the number of religious believers in the country continued to grow, the Government's record on respect for religious freedom remained poor, and repression of members of unregistered religious groups increased in some parts of the country. Members of unregistered Protestant and Catholic congregations, Muslim Uighurs, and Tibetan Buddhists, including those residing within the TAR (see Tibet Addendum) experienced ongoing and, in some cases, increased official interference, harassment, and repression. Government officials increased vigilance against "foreign infiltration under the guise of religion." The Government detained and prosecuted a number of underground religious figures in both the Protestant and Catholic Church. Among them, Protestants Liu Fengang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi were sentenced for sending to overseas organizations information that the Government considered sensitive.

The extent of religious freedom varied significantly from place to place. The Government continued to enforce regulations requiring all places of religious activity to register with the Government. Many provincial authorities required groups seeking to register to come under the supervision of official, "patriotic" religious organizations. Religious worship in many officially registered churches, temples, and mosques occurred without interference, but unregistered churches in some areas were destroyed, religious services were broken up, and church leaders and adherents were harassed, detained, or beaten. At year's end, scores of religious adherents remained in prison because of their religious activities. No visible progress was made in normalizing relations between the official Patriotic Catholic Church and Papal authorities, although both the Government and the Vatican stated that they were ready to resume negotiations aimed at establishing diplomatic relations. The Government continued its crackdown against the Falun Gong spiritual movement, and tens of thousands of practitioners remained incarcerated in prisons, extrajudicial reeducation-through-labor camps, and psychiatric facilities. Several hundred Falun Gong adherents reportedly have died in detention due to torture, abuse, and neglect since the crackdown on Falun Gong began in 1999.

Freedom of movement continued to be restricted. However, the Government continued to relax its residence-based registration requirements. The Government denied the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) permission to operate along its border with North Korea and deported several thousand North Koreans, many of whom faced persecution and some of whom may have been executed upon their return, as provided in North Korean law. Abuse and detention of North Koreans in the country was also reported.

The Government did not permit independent domestic NGOs to monitor human rights conditions. However, in September, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Beijing, Sichuan, and the TAR and toured 10 detention facilities. Although the Government extended invitations to the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Torture and the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Religious Intolerance, those visits did not occur by year's end. The Government also extended an invitation to the leaders of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, but the visit did not occur due to restrictive conditions that the Government placed on the visit. In December, the Government postponed a planned seminar by the Organization for Economic Cooperation on Socially Responsible Investment, which resulted in the cancellation of a visit by the OECD's Trade Union Advisory Council to discuss labor issues.

Violence against women, including imposition of a coercive birth limitation policy that resulted in instances of forced abortion and forced sterilization, continued to be a problem, as did prostitution. Discrimination against women, persons with disabilities, and minorities persisted. Trafficking in persons continued to be a serious problem.

Labor demonstrations, particularly those protesting nonpayment of back wages, continued. Workplace safety remained a serious problem, particularly in the mining industry. The Government continued to deny internationally recognized worker rights, including freedom of association. Forced labor in prison facilities remained a serious problem.

Significant legal reforms continued during the year, including a Constitutional amendment specifically to include protection of citizens' human rights and legally obtained private property for the first time. In July, the Government enacted the Administrative Procedures Law, which prohibits government agencies from violating citizens' rights or seizing property without clear legal authority. A new infectious disease law was enacted prohibiting discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B, and employment discrimination against those with HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B was outlawed. Treatment of some migrant workers was improved in many major cities through the passage of laws intended to guarantee migrant children access to public education and to protect migrant workers' rights to receive their salary on a regular basis. The Government enacted reforms related to interrogation of detainees, fighting corruption, procedures for requisitioning land, confiscation of personal property, extending social security, regulating religion, and providing legal aid. At year's end, it remained unclear how widely these reforms would be implemented and what effect they would have.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

During the year, politically motivated and other arbitrary and unlawful killings occurred. While no official statistics on deaths in custody were available, state-run media reported that 460 people were killed by law enforcement officials and over 100 seriously injured through abuse or dereliction of duty in 2003. In August, the Sichuan Provincial Procuratorate issued a report stating that, in the first half of the year, 118 individuals in Sichuan Province died and 10 were severely injured due to malfeasance by police and prison officials. In June, state-run media reported that in Guizhou Province police beat Jiang Zongxiu to death after she was detained administratively for distributing Bibles (see Section 2.c.). In April, Gu Xianggao died in police custody in Harbin, Heilongjiang Province. Public security officials offered compensation to his family in connection with his death. In these cases, officials denied that the deaths occurred because of police abuse, but others who viewed the bodies stated that beatings had occurred (see Sections 1.c. and 1.d.).

Several hundred Falun Gong adherents reportedly have died in detention due to torture, abuse, and neglect since the crackdown on Falun Gong began in 1999 (see Section 2.c). Some groups based abroad estimated that as many as 2,000 Falun Gong practictioners have died as a result of official persecution.

Trials involving capital offenses sometimes took place under circumstances involving severe lack of due process and with no meaningful appeal. Executions often took place on the day of conviction or appeal. For example, on international antidrug day, June 26, dozens of prisoners were executed, many within hours of their trial and conviction. In Xinjiang, executions of Uighurs accused by authorities of separatism, which some observers claimed were politically motivated, were reported (see Section 5). The Government regarded the number of death sentences it carried out as a state secret. However, in March, a National People's Congress deputy asserted that nearly 10,000 cases per year "result in immediate execution." The statement sparked calls for reform, including returning the power to issue death sentences from provincial courts to the Supreme People's Court (SPC) and eliminating the death penalty for economic and other nonviolent crimes. Nonetheless, media reports stated that approximately 10 percent of executions were for economic crimes, especially corruption. SPC and Ministry of Justice officials stated that the 10,000 executions per year figure is exaggerated. Amnesty International (AI) reported that China executed more persons than any other country. Some foreign academics estimated that as many as 10,000 to 20,000 persons are executed each year.

b. Disappearance

The Government used incommunicado detention. The law requires notification of family members within 24 hours of detention, but many individuals were held without notification for significantly longer periods, especially in sensitive political cases. Dr. Jiang Yanyong and his wife were detained on June 1 and held incommunicado for several weeks in connection with a letter he wrote to government leaders about the 1989 Tiananmen massacre (see Section 2.d.). New York Times researcher Zhao Yan also was held for several days in September before authorities notified his relatives and employer (see Section 2.a.).

By year's end, the Government had not provided a comprehensive, credible accounting of all those missing or detained in connection with the suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations. Public calls for a reassessment of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre increased during the year, especially around the 15th anniversary of the crackdown.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Prison Law forbids prison guards from extorting confessions by torture, insulting prisoners' dignity, and beating or encouraging others to beat prisoners; however, police and other elements of the security apparatus employed torture and degrading treatment in dealing with some detainees and prisoners. While senior officials acknowledged that torture and coerced confessions were chronic problems, they did not take sufficient measures to end these practices. Former detainees reported credibly that officials used electric shocks, prolonged periods of solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, beatings, shackles, and other forms of abuse.

Since the crackdown on Falun Gong began in 1999, several hundred Falun Gong adherents reportedly died in custody due to torture, abuse, and neglect (see Section 2.c.). During the year, the Government arrested Falun Gong members and formally charged them with manufacturing claims that they were tortured.

During the year, police continued to use torture to coerce confessions from criminal suspects. A Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) investigation uncovered more than 4,000 cases of official abuse, including torture and extracting confessions through coercion, from 2001 to 2003. Lawyers and other observers continued to point to the December 2003 conviction and execution of crime syndicate figure Liu Yong on corruption charges as a prominent example of the Government ignoring evidence of torture in the interest of fighting crime. Liu was sentenced to death in 2002, but Beijing-based defense attorneys discovered evidence that a key witness’ confession was coerced through torture. As a result, the Liaoning High Court overturned Liu's death sentence in August 2003. Yielding to public opposition to the ruling, the SPC reinstated the death penalty in December 2003, and Liu was executed the same day.

Mao Hengfeng, a Shanghai housing activist and organizer sentenced to reeducation through labor for staging "disorderly visits" to Government offices, reportedly suffered various forms of torture. She reportedly was held with drug addicts who were allowed to abuse her, was strapped to her bed for hours at time, was force-fed an unidentified medicine that turned her mouth black, and, on one occasion, had her limbs pulled in different directions for a period of 2 days.

The Government made some efforts to address the problem of torture during the year. Some provincial governments issued regulations stipulating that judges and police who used torture to extract confessions from suspects would face dismissal. In May, the SPP announced a 1-year campaign to punish officials who infringed on human rights, including officials who coerced confessions through torture or illegally detained or mistreated prisoners. In August, the Government issued new regulations governing the length and conditions of interrogation for pretrial detainees, including protections for pregnant women, juveniles, and the elderly. Police officers who tortured suspects faced dismissal and criminal prosecution in some cases. For example, in June two police officers in Bazhou, Hebei Province, were sentenced to life in prison and a suspended death sentence after torturing a suspect to death and hiding the body in 2001. In July, two Sichuan Province police officers were sentenced to 12 years and 1 year in prison, respectively, in another case in which a suspect died after being tortured.

During the year, there were reports of persons, including Falun Gong adherents, sentenced to psychiatric hospitals for expressing their political or religious beliefs (see Section 1.d.). Some reportedly were forced to undergo electric shock treatments.

Petitioners and other activists sentenced to administrative detention also reported being tortured. Such reports included being strapped to beds or other devices for days at a time, being beaten, being forcibly injected or fed medications, and being denied food and use of toilet facilities.

The Ministry of Justice administered more than 670 prisons with a population of over 1.5 million inmates, according to official statistics. In addition, 33 jails for juveniles housed over 19,000 juvenile offenders. The country also operated hundreds of administrative detention centers, which were run by security ministries and administered separately from the Ministry of Justice and the formal court system (see Section 2.d.)

Conditions in penal institutions for both political prisoners and common criminals generally were harsh and frequently degrading. Prisoners and detainees often were kept in overcrowded conditions with poor sanitation. Prison capacity became an increasing problem in some areas, including Guangdong Province. Food often was inadequate and of poor quality, and many detainees relied on supplemental food and medicines provided by relatives. Some prominent dissidents were not allowed to receive supplemental food and medicine from relatives. Political prisoners often were kept segregated from each other and placed with common criminals, who sometimes beat political prisoners at the instigation of guards. Xu Guang, a former CDP member released from prison in September, stated that he was beaten and placed in a metal cage for 2 months after he commemorated the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre while in Qiaoci Prison in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. Newly arrived prisoners or those who refused to acknowledge committing crimes were particularly vulnerable to being beaten in prison. In January, political dissident He Depu was reportedly beaten by guards at Beijing No. 2 Prison and made deaf in one ear. Authorities acknowledged He's deafness, but asserted that he was already deaf when he entered prison, a claim denied by his family members. Prolonged use of electric shocks and use of a rack-like disciplinary bed were reported at Inner Mongolia's Chifeng Prison. Inner Mongolian cultural activist Hada was among those tortured, according to credible NGO reports. Chinese prison management relied on the labor of prisoners both as an element of punishment and to fund prison operations (see Section 6.c.).

Adequate, timely medical care for prisoners continued to be a serious problem, despite official assurances that prisoners have the right to prompt medical treatment if they become ill. In August, businessman Wu Daiyou died in a Chongqing prison. His family claimed he contracted tuberculosis in prison and died because authorities denied him needed medical treatment. Political prisoners continued to have difficulties obtaining medical treatment, despite repeated appeals on their behalf by their families and the international community. Foreign citizen Jude Shao suffered a serious heart ailment in a Shanghai prison that authorities were unable to treat. Foreign legal residents Yang Jianli and Wang Bingzhang suffered strokes in prison, but authorities rejected their requests for outside medical care. Others with health concerns included Uighur businesswoman Rebiya Kadeer; democracy activists Qin Yongmin, Hua Di, and He Depu; Internet writers Yang Zili and Luo Yongzhang; labor activists Xiao Yunliang, Yao Fuxin, Hu Shigen, and Zhang Shanguang; civil activist Mao Hengfeng; Inner Mongolian activist Hada; and religious prisoners Zhang Rongliang, Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, Gong Shengliang, Chen Jingmao, and Bishop Su Zhimin. During the year, some political prisoners went on hunger strikes in prison to protest their treatment.

Special prisons to segregate HIV-positive prisoners and provide care to those with HIV/AIDS were established during the year, including facilities in Henan and Zhejiang Provinces. In July, supporters of a Shangqiu, Henan Province AIDS orphanage and school, which the Government claimed was operating illegally, were detained for contesting the closure of the institution. Wang Guofeng and Li Suzhi, who have HIV, claimed they received inadequate treatment while detained and that authorities refused to provide them with test results or allow them to travel to Beijing to see specialists after they were released on bail. The Government stated they were denied imported HIV medications because such medicines likely were smuggled into the country.

Acknowledging guilt was a precondition for receiving certain privileges, including the ability to purchase outside food, make telephone calls, and receive family visits. Prison officials often denied privileges to those, including political prisoners, who refused to acknowledge guilt or obey other prison rules. After CCP activist Wang Bingzhang told jailers he intended to stage a hunger strike, prison staff withheld prison visits, letters, telephone privileges, and other communication for 6 months as punishment. Foreign Falun Gong member Charles Lee staged a hunger strike to protest forced "reeducation" sessions he was given in prison. Some prominent political prisoners, however, received better than standard treatment.

Conditions in administrative detention facilities, such as reeducation-through-labor camps, were similar to those in prisons. Beating deaths occurred in administrative detention. The March 2003 death of university graduate Sun Zhigang in a custody-and-repatriation camp designed to hold illegal migrants focused public attention on abuses in the administrative detention system. Under the custody-and-repatriation system, police detained and forcibly repatriated to their home provinces migrants, petitioners, and political activists caught without an identification card, work permit, or temporary residence permit. Public outcry following Sun's death played an important role in the State Council's decision, in June 2003, to abolish the custody-and-repatriation system and convert custody-and-repatriation camps across the country into voluntary humanitarian aid shelters for the homeless. Initial reports indicated that most current residents of the camps are indeed there voluntarily. In June, a facility employee who urged inmates to beat Sun was sentenced to death. During the year, one inmate was given a suspended death sentence, and 17 others received prison sentences in connection with Sun's death.

Deaths in reeducation-through-labor camps led to calls to reform or abolish that system as well. Reform of the reeducation-through-labor law was placed on the legislative agenda of the National People's Congress (NPC), but no concrete steps were taken to enact a new law during the year. Scholars publicly discussed reforms, including introducing judicial oversight of reeducation-through-labor sentences, allowing lawyers to participate in hearings prior to reeduction sentences, limiting the types of behavior punishable by reeducation, establishing alternatives to incarceration, and shortening the maximum term of reeducation.

Sexual and physical abuse and extortion were reported in some detention centers. Forced labor in prisons and reeducation-through-labor camps was also common.


The Government generally did not permit independent monitoring of prisons or reeducation-through-labor camps, and prisoners remained inaccessible to most international human rights organizations. However, the Government hosted a visit by the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that included visits to 10 detention facilities in Beijing, Chengdu, and the TAR (see Section 1.d.). The Government also agreed to invite the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Torture, but the visit stalled, in part because of the Government's refusal to allow him to visit prisons without advance notice (see Section 4). By year's end, the Government had not announced any progress in talks with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on an agreement for ICRC access to prisons, although there were several rounds of consultations between the ICRC and the Government about allowing the ICRC to open an office in Beijing. Monthly working level meetings intended to renew cooperation on the U.S.-China Prison Labor Memorandum of Understanding continued during the year, and visits were conducted in July, September, and December (see Section 6.c).


d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

Arbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law permits authorities, in some circumstances, to detain persons without arresting or charging them, and persons may be sentenced administratively to up to 3 years in reeducation through-labor camps and other administrative detention facilities without a trial. Because the Government tightly controlled information, it was impossible to determine the total number of persons subjected to new or continued arbitrary arrest or detention. According to 2003 official government statistics, more than 250,000 persons were in reeducation-through-labor camps. Other experts reported that more than 310,000 persons were serving sentences in these camps in 2003. According to published reports of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the country's 340 reeducation-through-labor facilities had a total capacity of about 300,000 people. In addition, special administrative detention facilities existed for drug offenders and prostitutes. In 2002, these facilities held over 130,000 offenders, and the number reportedly has increased. An additional form of administrative detention for migrants and homeless persons, known as custody and repatriation, was abolished in 2003 and converted into a system of over 900 voluntary humanitarian aid shelters (see Section 1.c.). According to official statistics, those facilities had served more than 670,000 people from August 1, 2003 to November 30, 2004. The Government also confined some Falun Gong adherents, petitioners, labor activists, and others to psychiatric hospitals.

Approximately 500 to 600 individuals continued to serve sentences for the now-repealed crime of counterrevolution. Many of these persons were imprisoned for the nonviolent expression of their political views (see Section 1.e.).

The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) coordinates the country's law enforcement, which is administratively organized into local, county, provincial, and specialized police agencies. Recent efforts have been made to strengthen historically weak regulation and management of law enforcement agencies; however, judicial oversight is limited and checks and balances are absent. Corruption at the local level was widespread. Police officers reportedly coerced victims of crimes, took individuals into custody without due cause, arbitrarily collected fees from individuals charged with crimes, and mentally and physically abused victims and perpetrators. The SPP investigated approximately 1,980 police officials for dereliction of duty in the period from January to September. Among them was a Hunan Province police official who was sentenced to 6 months in prison for failing to investigate the abduction and rape of a 9-year-old girl. Public interest lawyers also sued police in a Hunan Province village for failing to investigate the murder of a young woman, allegedly committed by her police officer boyfriend. Through September, the SPP filed 938 corruption cases against 1,078 officials working in prisons, jails, and other detention facilities.

Extended, unlawful detention by security officials remained a serious problem. The SPP reported that from 1998 through 2002 there were 308,182 persons detained for periods longer than permitted by law. In 2003, the Government initiated a campaign to resolve cases of extended, unlawful detention. According to state media, 7,064 criminal suspects endured extended unlawful detention during the year (including some whose detention was prolonged from 2003). Courts reviewed and resolved 6,775 of those cases from January to October 2004, leaving only 289 cases unresolved, the Government stated. In March, the SPC and SPP reported to the National People's Congress that they had reviewed nearly 30,000 extended detention cases in 2003, including many that dated back several years, and resolved nearly all. In most cases, those detained unlawfully were formally charged or convicted, but a few, including Internet writer Liu Di, were released. Procuratorates in Hainan and Guizhou Provinces formally punished local police officers who unlawfully extended a suspect's term in custody.

According to the Criminal Procedure Law, police may unilaterally detain a person for up to 37 days before releasing him or formally placing him under arrest. After a suspect is arrested, the law allows police and prosecutors to detain him for up to 6 and one-half months before trial while a case is being further investigated. In practice, pretrial detention in some cases lasted for a year or longer. Dissident Yang Jianli was held without conviction for more than 2 years before his verdict and 5-year sentence on espionage and illegal entry charges was announced in May. Originally detained in April 2002, he was not tried until August 2003. The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that the country's pretrial detention of Yang Jianli violated the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The law stipulates that authorities must notify a detainee's family or work unit of his detention within 24 hours. However, in practice, failure to provide timely notification remained a serious problem, particularly in sensitive political cases. Under a sweeping exception, officials are not required to provide notification if doing so would "hinder the investigation" of a case. In some cases, police treated those with no immediate family more severely. Police continued to hold individuals without granting access to family members or lawyers, and trials continued to be conducted in secret. Detained criminal suspects, defendants, their legal representatives, and close relatives were entitled to apply for bail, but, in practice, few suspects were released pending trial.

The Criminal Procedure Law does not address the reeducation-through-labor system, which allows non-judicial panels of police and local authorities, called Labor Reeducation Committees, to sentence persons to up to 3 years in prison-like facilities. The committees can also extend an inmate's sentence for an additional year. Defendants legally were entitled to challenge reeducation-through-labor sentences under the Administrative Litigation Law. They could appeal for a reduction in, or suspension of, their sentences; however, appeals rarely were successful. Many other persons were detained in similar forms of administrative detention, known as "custody and education" (for example, for prostitutes and their clients) and "custody and training" (for minors who committed crimes). A special form of reeducation center was used to detain Falun Gong practitioners who had completed terms in reeducation through labor, but whom authorities decided to detain further.

According to foreign researchers, the country had 20 "ankang" institutions (high-security psychiatric hospitals for the criminally insane) directly administered by the Ministry of Public Security. Some dissidents, persistent petitioners, and others were housed with mentally ill patients in these institutions. "Patients" in these hospitals were reportedly given medicine against their will and forcibly subjected to electric shock treatment. The regulations for committing a person into an ankang facility were not clear. Credible reports indicated that a number of political and trade union activists, "underground" religious believers, persons who repeatedly petitioned the Government, members of the banned China Democratic Party, and Falun Gong adherents were incarcerated in such facilities during the year. These included Wang Miaogen, Wang Chanhao, Pan Zhiming, and Li Da, who were reportedly held in an ankang facility run by the Shanghai Public Security Bureau. The Government negotiated with the World Psychiatric Association to resolve a motion pending in previous years that would have expelled the country from the organization for using psychiatric facilities to incarcerate political prisoners, but a planned WPA visit to the country did not take place.

Administrative detention was frequently used as a vehicle to intimidate political activists and prevent public demonstrations (see Section 2.b.). For example, authorities detained several persons in the period before the April "Qingming" memorial holiday as a means to prevent public commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. Tiananmen Mothers organization co-founders Ding Zilin, Jiang Xianling, and Huang Jinping were detained at separate locations in late March. AIDS activist Hu Jia also was detained after he stated his intention to commemorate the anniversary on their behalf. All were released eventually, but some were prevented from returning to Beijing until after the holiday was over. On June 1, military officials detained retired PLA doctor Jiang Yanyong, who in 2003 had helped focus international attention on the spread of Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Beijing, because he wrote to government leaders requesting a reassessment of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown. The 72-year-old Jiang and his wife, Hua Zhongwei, were interrogated in an undisclosed location. Hua was released on June 15. Jiang was released without charges on July 20, but he was forbidden to speak with journalists or foreigners, and he remained in a form of house arrest. Dr. Jiang also was pressured not to leave the country to accept an award (see Section 2.d.).

Arrests on charges of revealing state secrets, subversion, and common crimes were used during the year by authorities to suppress political dissent and social advocacy. Citizens were detained and prosecuted during the year under broad and ambiguous state secrets laws for, among other actions, disclosing information on criminal trials, meetings, and government activity. The number of persons executed each year has been deemed by the Government to be a state secret. Information could retroactively be classified a state secret by the Government. Dozens of citizens writing on the Internet or engaging in on-line chat about political topics were detained on state secrets and subversion charges during the year (see Section 2.a.). More than 100 intellectuals signed a petition urging the Government to revise the subversion law because its use in the prosecution of Internet writer Du Daobin contradicted the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

In September, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited detention facilities in Beijing, Sichuan Province, and the TAR. Although satisfied with its access, the Working Group noted that all four recommendations from its 1997 visit to China still had not been implemented and continued to be serious problems. First, the law lacks a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Second, it fails to define "endangering national security" so that overly broad prosecutions can and do occur. Third, the law includes no protection for those peacefully exercising rights protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Fourth, no "real judicial control" exists over the reeducation-through-labor system. The Working Group noted the Government's announced plan to adopt legislation that would address deficiencies in reeducation through labor and regulate the use of psychiatric institutions in administrative detention.

Police sometimes harassed and detained relatives of dissidents. Journalists also were detained or threatened during the year, often when their reporting met with the Government's or local authorities' disapproval (see Section 2.a.). For example, New York Times researcher Zhao Yan was detained in September shortly after the newspaper published an article correctly predicting the resignation of Jiang Zemin as chairman of the Central Military Commission. The newspaper denied that Zhao had any involvement with the story, and prosecutors did not disclose the basis for the charges, citing state secrets laws (see Section 2.a.). In December, farmers' advocate and writer Li Boguang and three members of the independent PEN Center promoting writers' freedoms were among those detained in what appeared to be a campaign targeting writers (see Section 2.a.). Local authorities used the Government's campaign against cults to detain and arrest large numbers of religious practitioners and members of spiritual groups, including Christian leader Zhang Rongliang (see Section 2.c.).

The campaign that began in 1998 against the China Democracy Party (CDP), an opposition party, continued during the year. Dozens of CDP leaders, activists, and members have been arrested, detained, or confined as a result of this campaign. Since December 1998, over 40 core leaders of the CDP have been given severe punishments on subversion charges. Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, and Qin Yongmin were sentenced in 1998 to prison terms of 13, 12, and 11 years, respectively. Xu Wenli and Wang Youcai were released on medical parole to the United States in December 2002 and March 2004, respectively. Qin remained in prison at year’s end. During the year, Sang Jiancheng was sentenced to a 3-year prison term in connection with an open letter calling for political reform and a reappraisal of the official verdict on the 1989 Tiananmen massacre signed by 192 activists, including former CDP members, prior to the 16th Party Congress in November 2002. Internet writer Ouyang Yi, one of the signers of the open letter, was released after serving a 2-year prison sentence in December, but other signers of the letter remained jailed.

Since the Government banned the Falun Gong spiritual group in 1999, criminal proceedings involving accused Falun Gong activists were held almost entirely outside the formal court system. In December, a Beijing attorney sent an open letter to the National People's Congress highlighting issues of arbitrary detention and unlawful process in cases involving Falun Gong. The letter focused on the April detention and subsequent administrative sentencing of his client, Huang Wei of Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, who was released in 2002 from a 3-year reeducation sentence for Falun Gong activities. On April 13, Huang was detained again, his home was searched, and a security official signed Huang's name on a confession, according to the open letter. Huang was sentenced on June 3 to three more years of reeducation in connection with Falun Gong. When Huang tried to sue the Government in protest, his attorney was denied permission to see his client. According to the letter, court and prison authorities told the attorney that only the "610 Office" of the Ministry of Justice could address Falun Gong matters. In the process, the letter described how judges explained that courts are under strict orders not to accept Falun Gong cases and that, in such cases, the courts do not follow normal pretrial procedures. The attorney's letter concluded that such treatment of accused Falun Gong adherents was unlawful.

The campaign against separatism in Xinjiang specifically targeted the "three evils" of extremism, splittism, and terrorism as the major threats to Xinjiang's social stability. Because authorities in Xinjiang regularly failed to distinguish carefully among those involved in peaceful activities in support of independence, "illegal" religious activities, and violent terrorism, it was often difficult to determine whether particular raids, detentions, arrests, or judicial punishments targeted those seeking to worship, those peacefully seeking political goals, or those engaged in violence (see Section 5).

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The Constitution states that the courts shall, in accordance with the law, exercise judicial power independently, without interference from administrative organs, social organizations, and individuals. However, in practice, the judiciary was not independent. It received policy guidance from both the Government and the Party, whose leaders used a variety of means to direct courts on verdicts and sentences, particularly in politically sensitive cases. At both the central and local levels, the Government frequently interfered in the judicial system and dictated court decisions. Trial judges decide individual cases under the direction of the trial committee in each court. In addition, the Communist Party's Law and Politics Committee, which includes representatives of the police, security, procuratorate, and courts, has authority to review and influence court operations at all levels of the judiciary; the Committee, in some cases, altered decisions. People's Congresses also had authority to alter court decisions, but this happened rarely. Corruption and conflicts of interest also affected judicial decision-making. Judges were appointed by the People's Congresses at the corresponding level of the judicial structure and received their court finances and salaries from those government bodies. This sometimes resulted in local authorities exerting undue influence over the judges they appointed and financed.

The Supreme People's Court (SPC) is the highest court, followed in descending order by the higher, intermediate, and basic people's courts. These courts handle criminal, civil, and administrative cases, including appeals of decisions by police and security officials to use reeducation through labor and other forms of administrative detention. There were special courts for handling military, maritime, and railway transport cases.

Corruption and inefficiency were serious problems in the judiciary as in other areas (see Section 3). Safeguards against corruption were vague and poorly enforced.

In recent years, the Government has taken steps to address systemic weaknesses in the judicial system and to make the system more transparent and accountable to public scrutiny. In 2003, the SPP prosecuted 9,720 officials involved in investigating, prosecuting, or adjudicating criminal cases. In its March report to the National People's Congress (NPC), the SPC reported that 794 judges were investigated for corruption in 2003, and 52 faced criminal prosecution. SPC regulations require all trials to be open to the public, with certain exceptions, such as cases involving state secrets, privacy, and minors. The legal exception for cases involving state secrets was used to keep politically sensitive proceedings closed to the public and even to family members in some cases. Under the regulations, "foreigners with valid identification" are to be allowed the same access to trials as citizens. As in past years, foreign diplomats and journalists sought permission to attend a number of trials only to have court officials reclassify them as "state secrets" cases, thus closing them to the public. Some trials were broadcast, and court proceedings were a regular television feature. A few courts published their verdicts on the Internet.

Citizens continued to use the court system to seek legal redress against government malfeasance. According to official statistics, 110,199 administrative lawsuits were filed against the Government in 2002, slightly fewer than in the previous year. Administrative actions were affirmed 18 percent of the time, transferred 23 percent of the time, and dismissed or rejected 59 percent of the time, according to those 2002 statistics. Decisions of any kind in favor of dissidents remained rare.

Court officials continued efforts to enable the poor to afford litigation by exempting, reducing, or postponing court fees. During the year, new regulations went into effect requiring law firms and private attorneys to provide some legal aid. Criminal and administrative cases remained eligible for legal aid, although the vast majority of defendants still went to trial without a lawyer. During the year, courts waived over $128 million (RMB 1.057 billion) in litigation costs. Legal aid to migrant workers accounted for 137,656 cases; in most cases, migrant workers sued for unpaid wages. State media claimed that the number of attorneys in the country increased to 102,000, but the supply of legal aid attorneys remained inadequate to meet demand. For example, the number of registered legal aid attorneys in Guangdong Province dropped 25 percent in 2003, and no legal aid agency existed in 45 counties in Guangxi Province. Nonattorney legal advisors and government employees provided the only legal aid options in many areas.

During the year, the conviction rate in criminal cases remained over 95 percent. In 2003, 730,355 of the 747,096 persons (97.7 percent) whose criminal cases were resolved at trial were found guilty and received criminal punishment. Of this number 158,562 (21.2 percent) were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 5 years or greater. In practice, criminal defendants often were not assigned an attorney until a case was brought to court. In many politically sensitive trials, which rarely lasted more than several hours, the courts handed down guilty verdicts immediately following proceedings. Defendants who refused to acknowledge guilt often received harsher sentences than those who confessed. There was an appeals process, but appeals rarely resulted in reversals.

Police and prosecutorial officials often ignored the due process provisions of the law and of the Constitution. The lack of due process was particularly egregious in death penalty cases. There were over 60 capital offenses, including nonviolent financial crimes such as counterfeiting currency, embezzlement, and corruption. Executions were often carried out on the date of conviction (see Section 1.a.). The SPC reported that, in 2003, it reviewed 300 serious criminal cases, including capital cases, and affirmed 182 of them. Tibetan Lobsang Dondrub was executed in January 2003 for his alleged connection to a series of bombings in 2002. His execution occurred despite government assurances that he would be afforded full due process and that the national-level Supreme People’s Court would review his sentence (see Tibet Addendum). The Government regarded the number of death sentences it carried out as a state secret. Minors and pregnant women were expressly exempt from the death sentence, although AI reported that a few criminals who were under age 18 at the time they committed an offense were executed as a result of courts' failure properly to determine their age. On March 8, Gao Pan was allegedly executed for a murder committed in August 2001, when he was not yet 18 years old.

The Criminal Procedure Law falls short of international standards in many respects. For example, it has insufficient safeguards against the use of evidence gathered through illegal means, such as torture, and it does not prevent extended pre- and posttrial detention (see Sections 1.c. and 1.d.). Appeals processes failed to provide sufficient avenue for review, and there were inadequate remedies for violations of defendants' rights. Furthermore, under the law, there is no right to remain silent, no protection against double jeopardy, and no law governing the type of evidence that may be introduced. The mechanism that allows defendants to confront their accusers was inadequate; according to one expert, only 1 to 5 percent of trials involved witnesses. Accordingly, most criminal "trials" consisted of the procurator reading statements of witnesses whom neither the defendant nor his lawyer ever had an opportunity to question. Defense attorneys have no authority to compel witnesses to testify. Anecdotal evidence indicated that implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law remained uneven and far from complete, particularly in politically sensitive cases.

The Criminal Procedure Law gives most suspects the right to seek legal counsel shortly after their initial detention and interrogation; however, police often used loopholes in the law to circumvent defendants' right to seek counsel. Defendants in politically sensitive cases frequently found it difficult to find an attorney. In some sensitive cases, lawyers had no pretrial access to their clients, and defendants and lawyers were not allowed to speak during trials. Even in nonsensitive trials, criminal defense lawyers frequently had little access to their clients or to evidence to be presented during the trial. Defendants in only one of every seven criminal cases had legal representation, according to credible reports citing internal government statistics. Government-employed lawyers often were reluctant to represent defendants in politically sensitive cases. The percentage of lawyers in the criminal bar reportedly declined from 3 percent in 1997 to 1 percent in 2001.

Defense attorneys rarely entered not guilty pleas on behalf of their clients, choosing instead to argue only for mitigation of the sentence. In June, a Hubei Intermediate Court scheduled the trial of Internet dissident Du Daobin on less than a week's notice, in part to prevent Du's Beijing-based defense counsel from appearing in court and presenting a not guilty plea. The local attorney who defended Du declined to submit a not guilty plea, citing fear of pressure by local authorities.

Some lawyers who tried to defend their clients aggressively continued to face serious intimidation and abuse by police and prosecutors, and some were detained. According to Article 306 of the Criminal Law, defense attorneys could be held responsible if their clients commit perjury, and prosecutors and judges in such cases have wide discretion in determining what constitutes perjury. In May, prominent Beijing defense attorney Zhang Jianzhong was released after serving a 2-year sentence under Article 306. Chinese legal scholars claimed he was singled out for being too effective at representing criminal defendants, and approximately 600 lawyers signed a petition demanding that Zhang be found not guilty. According to the All-China Lawyers Association, since 1997 more than 400 defense attorneys have been detained on similar charges, and such cases continued during the year.


During the year, Chinese and foreign lawyers, law professors, legal journals, and jurists held seminars and publicly debated systemic legal reform. Among the suggested reforms were the introduction of a more transparent system of discovery, the abolition of coerced confessions, abolition of all forms of administrative detention, a legal presumption of innocence, an independent judiciary, improved administrative laws, restriction on use of the death penalty, reform of the media's interaction with the court system, and adoption of a plea bargaining system.

Government officials continued to deny holding any political prisoners, asserting that authorities detained persons not for their political or religious views, but because they violated the law; however, the authorities continued to confine citizens for reasons related to politics and religion. Tens of thousands of political prisoners remained incarcerated, some in prisons and others in labor camps. The Government did not grant international humanitarian organizations access to political prisoners.

Western NGOs estimated that approximately 500 to 600 persons remained in prison for the repealed crime of "counterrevolution," and thousands of others were serving sentences under the State Security Law, which Chinese authorities stated covers crimes similar to counterrevolution. Persons detained for counterrevolutionary offenses included labor activist Hu Shigen; writer Chen Yanbin; Inner Mongolian activist Hada; and dissidents Yu Dongyue, Zhang Jingsheng, and Sun Xiongying. Foreign governments urged the Government to review the cases of those charged before 1997 with counterrevolution and to release those who had been jailed for nonviolent offenses under the old statute. During the year, the Government held expert-level discussions with foreign officials on conducting such a review, but no formal review was initiated. However, a number of "counterrevolutionary" prisoners were released during the year, some after receiving sentence reductions, including Liu Jingsheng in November and Chen Gang in April.

Amnesty International has identified more than 80 persons by name who remained imprisoned or on medical parole for their participation in the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations; other NGOs estimated that as many as 250 persons remained in prison for political activities connected to the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations.

The authorities granted early release from prison to Tibetan nun Phuntsog Nyidrol in February and CDP co-founder Wang Youcai in March. In March, Uighur businesswoman Rebiya Kadeer received a 1-year sentence reduction on her 8-year sentence for supplying state secrets to foreigners, but she was scheduled to remain in prison until August 2006. Many others, including Internet activists Xu Wei, Yang Zili, and Huang Qi; journalists Zhao Yan and Jiang Weiping; labor activists Yao Fuxin and Xiao Yunliang; Catholic Bishop Su Zhimin; Christian activists Zhang Rongliang, Zhang Yinan, Liu Fenggang, and Xu Yonghai; Tibetans Jigme Gyatso, Tenzin Deleg, and Gendun Choekyi Nyima; Uighur writer Tohti Tunyaz; CDP co-founder Qin Yongmin; and political dissident Yang Jianli remained imprisoned or under other forms of detention during the year. Political prisoners generally benefited from parole and sentence reduction at significantly lower rates than ordinary prisoners.

Criminal punishments could include "deprivation of political rights" for a fixed period after release from prison, during which the individual is denied the limited rights of free speech and association granted to other citizens. Former prisoners also sometimes found their status in society, ability to find employment, freedom to travel, and access to residence permits and social services severely restricted. Former political prisoners and their families frequently were subjected to police surveillance, telephone wiretaps, searches, and other forms of harassment, and some encountered difficulty in obtaining or keeping employment and housing.

Officials confirmed that executed prisoners were among the sources of organs for transplant. Transplant doctors stated publicly in September 2003 that "the main source [of organ donations] is voluntary donations from condemned prisoners," but serious questions remained concerning whether meaningful or voluntary consent from the prisoners or their relatives was obtained. There was no national law governing organ donations, but a draft law was under consideration during the year. A Ministry of Health directive explicitly states that buying and selling human organs and tissues is not allowed. In 2003, the first local law regulating organ donation was passed in Shenzhen, prohibiting the sale or trade of human organs. The impact of this law in practice remained unclear. As of year’s end, there were no reports of other localities passing a similar law. There were no reliable statistics on how many organ transplants occurred using organs from executed prisoners.

f. Arbitrary Interference With Privacy, Family, Home, Correspondence

The Constitution states that the "freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens are protected by law"; however, the authorities often did not respect the privacy of citizens in practice. Although the law requires warrants before law enforcement officials can search premises, this provision frequently was ignored; moreover, the Public Security Bureau and the Procuratorate could issue search warrants on their own authority. Cases of forced entry by police officers continued to be reported.

During the year, authorities monitored telephone conversations, facsimile transmissions, e-mail, text-messaging, and Internet communications. Authorities also opened and censored domestic and international mail. The security services routinely monitored and entered residences and offices to gain access to computers, telephones, and fax machines. All major hotels had a sizable internal security presence, and hotel guestrooms were sometimes bugged and searched for sensitive or proprietary materials.

Some dissidents were under heavy surveillance and routinely had their telephone calls monitored or telephone service disrupted. The authorities frequently warned some dissidents and activists not to meet with foreigners. During the year, police in Beijing ordered several dissidents not to meet with Western journalists or foreign diplomats, especially before sensitive anniversaries, at the time of important Government or Party meetings, and during the visits of high-level foreign officials. These events also sparked greater surveillance, short-term detention, and harassment of dissidents. The authorities also confiscated money sent from abroad that was intended to help dissidents and their families.


Security personnel monitored and harrassed relatives of prominent dissidents, particularly during sensitive periods. For example, security personnel followed the family members of political prisoners to meetings with Western reporters and diplomats. Dissidents and their family members routinely were warned not to speak with the foreign press. Police sometimes detained the relatives of dissidents.

Official poverty alleviation programs and major state projects have included forced relocation of persons to new residences. The Government estimated that at least 1.2 million persons have been relocated for the Three Gorges Dam project on the Yangtze River.

Forced relocation because of urban development continued and, in some locations, increased during the year. Protests, some of which included thousands of participants, over relocation terms or compensation were common, and some protest leaders were prosecuted during the year (see Sections 2.b. and 3). Some evictions in Beijing were linked to construction for the 2008 Olympics.

In urban areas, many persons historically depended on government-linked work units for housing, healthcare, and other aspects of ordinary life. With the increase in market activities and private business, these benefits have changed so that newer employees at some government-linked work units no longer enjoy all of these benefits. For example, most work units now provide housing subsidies to employees, instead of directly alloting housing. Similarly, the work unit and the neighborhood committee have become less important as means of social and political control. Government interference in daily personal and family life continued to decline for most citizens. For example, work unit permission is no longer required before obtaining a divorce.

Under the country's family planning law and policies, citizens in 6 of the country's 31 provinces still were required to apply for government permission before having a first child, and the Government continued to restrict the number of births. Penalties for out-of-plan births still included social compensation fees and other coercive measures.

The Population and Family Planning Law, the country's first formal law on the subject, entered into force in 2002. The National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC) enforces the law and formulates and implements policies with assistance from the China Family Planning Association, which had 1 million branches nationwide. The law is intended to standardize the implementation of the Government's birth limitation policies; however, enforcement continued to vary from place to place. The law grants married couples the right to have one child and allows eligible couples to apply for permission to have a second child if they meet conditions stipulated in local and provincial regulations. Many provincial regulations require women to wait 4 years or more after their first birth before making such an application. According to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), the spacing requirement was removed in 5 and relaxed in 10 of the 30 counties across 30 provinces participating in UNFPA's "Country Program V." The NPFPC reported that the spacing requirement was removed in the provincial regulations of Hainan, Jilin, and Shanghai, and UNFPA reported that the requirement was relaxed by 15 other provincial-level governments.

The law requires counties to use specific measures to limit the total number of births in each county. Both the Constitution and the family planning law further require couples to employ birth control measures. According to a September 2002 U.N. survey, the percentage of women who select their own birth control method grew from 53 percent in 1998 to 83 percent in UNFPA-assisted counties in 2000. The law requires couples who have an unapproved child to pay a "social compensation fee," which sometimes reached 10 times a person's annual income, and grants preferential treatment to couples who abide by the birth limits. Officials often strongly encouraged women with multiple children to undergo sterilization, such as tubal ligation, according to multiple reports. Although the law states that officials should not violate citizens' rights, neither those rights nor the penalties for violating them are defined. The law provides significant and detailed sanctions for officials who help persons evade the birth limitations.

The law delegates to the provinces the responsibility for drafting implementing regulations, including establishing a scale for assessment of social compensation fees. The National Population and Family Planning Law requires family planning officials to obtain court approval for taking "forcible" action, such as confiscation of property, against families that refuse to pay social compensation fees.

The one-child limit was more strictly applied in the cities, where only couples meeting certain conditions (e.g., both parents are only children) were permitted