[转载]人权观察3 - johanzumimvon/zh.bitterwinter1 GitHub Wiki

中国：应释放反网络审查维权人士

甄江华遭羁押禁见、剥夺会见律师权

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 一名警员对最高人民法院前抗议的“709”家属录像取证，中国北京，2017年7月7日。2015年7月9日，当局突然抓捕数百名人权律师和维权人士，人权团体认为是旨在粉碎中国人权运动的一次计划性镇压，通称“709事件”。 © 2017 路透社人权观察今天表示，中国政府应立即无条件释放人权运动者甄江华，他从2017年9月起被拘押禁见至今。2018年3月30日，中国警方以涉嫌煽动颠覆罪名正式逮捕甄江华，但仍以“国家安全”为由不准其会见律师和亲属。

甄江华现年32岁，是中国权利运动执行理事。权利运动是一个网络平台，专门报导有关逮捕维权人士、警察滥权和其他人权侵犯信息。甄江华也是翻墙网（ATGFW.org）创办人，该网站提供各种信息和服务，协助网民绕过中国防火长城浏览不受审查的全球互联网。

“甄江华遭正式批捕，显见中国当局有意扫除境内一切人权监测活动，” 人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“甄江华案是对所有人权报导者的攻击。”

2017年9月1日，广东珠海警方将甄江华从家中带走，指控他涉嫌“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”。其后，甄江华遭“指定居所监视居住”，这是一种秘密拘押禁见的制度，允许警方将嫌犯关在正式监所之外长达六个月，连律师和亲属都不得会见。许多报导指出，在押人员在“指定监居”期间遭到酷刑。

甄江华为行使言论自由权已被羁押七个多月，而且很可能遭受酷刑。索菲・理查森中国部主任

甄江华原为电脑程序员，从2000年代中期开始涉入维权活动。他曾以社工员身份，援助珠海家暴受害妇女和澳门自闭症患者。他经常协助人权侵犯受害者通过网络争取外界关注，并教导大学生如何翻墙躲避网络审查。

2015年担任权利运动执行理事以来，甄江华全力协助传播有关政府打压人权活动者的新闻，以及构建倡议网络以促其释放。在数百名人权律师与维权人士遭当局逮捕的“709大抓捕”期间，甄江华努力动员各界声援在押的律师、维权人士及其家属。过去十年来，甄江华屡次遭受当局骚扰、恐吓、逼迁和短暂拘留。

2016年起，中国政府为消灭国内少数独立人权新闻平台，陆续逮捕其创建者和主要成员。2016年11月，湖北草根人权监测组织“民生观察”创办人刘飞跃被捕，现以“煽动颠覆国家政权”罪名羁押候审中。人权网站“六四天网”创办人、资深维权人士黄琦也从2016年11月起，以“非法向境外机构提供国家秘密罪”被羁押。黄琦身患肾衰竭等多种重病，但被捕至今未获适当医疗照护。

刘飞跃和黄琦在民生观察和六四天网的同事，也纷纷被逮。公民记者及抗争纪录者卢昱宇于2016年6月被捕，2017年8月被云南某法院以“寻衅滋事罪”判处四年监禁。

“甄江华为行使言论自由权已被羁押七个多月，而且很可能遭受酷刑，” 理查森说。“中国当局必须纠正本身错误，立即释放甄江华。”

侮辱中国国歌后果堪虑

立法草案可将港人判监

王松莲亚洲区助理主任 wang_maya wang_maya

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 保安人员高举双手劝阻香港球迷在中国国歌演奏中发出嘘声或背对球场，摄于亚洲杯预选赛香港对黎巴嫩赛事，中国香港，2017年11月14日。 © 2017 路透社香港市民早已察觉中共统治对他们的言论自由权威胁日甚，但情况恐将雪上加霜。香港立法会将于本周正式开始讨论一部新法，该法草案规定，“侮辱”中国国歌“义勇军进行曲”将遭刑事处罚──最高可判囚三年。

该法若通过，凡是“在公共场合，恶意修改国歌歌词，以歪曲、贬损方式奏唱国歌”的行为均将负有刑责。中小学必须组织学生学唱国歌，并教育学生“了解国歌的历史和精神内涵。”

何种行为可能构成“侮辱”国歌？来自政府的匿名信息源指出，主要根据该人的“意图”而定，而这势必会鼓励有关当局基于政治考量解释法律。

和其他对言论自由的笼统限制一样，只要谈到具体适用，该法荒谬之处便一览无遗。某香港媒体为了理清法条含意，以问答形式说明该法如何适用不同情境，例如该媒体设问，餐厅电视播放国歌，顾客若不起立是否触犯法例？该媒体引述“政府消息人士”指出，因正在用餐而未肃立应无问题，但若有其他反应──例如竪起中指──则另当别论。

国际人权法允许为维护国家安全或公共秩序而对言论加以限制，但须有绝对必要，且其限制应与前述利益受妨害之危险完全相当。该法草案并未满足此一标准，亦可能违反香港《基本法》所保障的相关权利。

为降低各界对政治性立法的疑虑，香港特首林郑月娥强调该法原意仅在鼓励市民“尊重”国歌。但她未能体认市民担忧未来将被迫向北京表忠，或内地人士动辄因和平言论入狱的状况。这项立法只会提醒香港市民，他们的言论自由已如风中残烛。

习近平不会下台

刁野郎

中国国家主席习近平在中国共产党第19次全国代表大会开幕式发表讲话，北京，人民大会堂，2017年10月18日。 © Aly Song／路透社中国共产党提议删除中国宪法有关国家主席任期的限制，并不令人意外。2013年就任国家主席的习近平在第二任期之初没有指定任何接班人，反而持续不懈巩固权力，足以看出他有意在可见的未来继续掌权。

这一改变看似轻而易举，其后果恐令中国人权堕入深渊，并将对境外产生深远影响。

习近平特别敌视独立的公民社会，早已毋庸置疑。首先沦为打击目标的是新公民运动等反贪腐维权人士。消灭贪腐原是习近平的首要政策之一，这一看似自相矛盾的举动，实际上是表明绝不容忍民间独立发声。自从习近平在五年前掌权之后，中国当局就开始不遗馀力打压人权律师、女权人士、劳工运动者、司法改革倡导者、母语维权人士和所有和平批评政府人士。许多人因此横遭强迫失踪或任意拘押。同时，官方媒体还不断对他们进行抹黑，企图吓阻新生代继续揭发弊端或挑战当局权威。

已故诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波曾形容互联网是“上帝赐给中国人的大礼”──透过这个工具，全国各地民众能够互相联系，并保有某种程度的隐私和匿名性。但习近平政府一直加紧对网络的控制，并在全国构建惊人的监控系统，包括第二代身份证、强制采集生物特征数据、脸部及语音辨识和“警务云”大数据系统，这些都被用来汇整个人信息，预测不利政权稳定的情势。连预订火车票、购买网络频宽等各种生活琐事都愈来愈难以匿名进行，遑论参与批评政府的活动。

1990到2000年代的另一厚望，是通过温和的司法改革，争取某些制衡国家权力的空间。然而，习近平也有不同计划：通过系列立法授予国家机关广泛又不明确的权力，同时强化党内大权在握却不受问责的机关──中纪委。该机关即将被纳入政府机构，但仍然不属于司法系统。另一方面，关键的司法改革，例如防范酷刑，一直没有实质进展。

前述各项发展显然将在中国境内产生可怕后果──权力高度集中却缺乏有效制衡，更多人民将难逃人权侵害。

事实证明，习近平的野心已不止于中国边界：他正试图改造联合国人权体系等重大国际建制，或直接压迫国际机构不顾本身宗旨而听命中国。国际刑警组织（Interpol）沦为中国骚扰海外异议人士的工具，即为著例。北京并通过“一带一路”之类的方案向全球推销其大受吹捧──实则严重侵犯人权──的经济发展模式，但在各国争相加入的同时，只有少数国家对其缺乏社区参与的问题表示关切。

因此，危机已趋近临界点。对习近平终身执政之于全球人权的威胁感到忧虑的各国政府，必须提出相对的行动方案：坚守既有的国际人权标准，抵制中国对于从学术自由到经济发展等方方面面的全球性威胁，并且加倍支持在中国境内促进人权的工作。这场竞赛已开始计时。

国民遭中国拘押，瑞典该说什么？

外长错失促中国释放桂民海良机

曼斯・莫兰德瑞典与丹麦部主任 manmader manmader

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 瑞典外交部长瓦尔斯特伦在联合国安全理事会就朝鲜核武计划问题发言，美国纽约州纽约市，联合国总部，2017年12月15日。 © 2017 路透社瑞典外交部长玛戈・瓦尔斯特伦（Margot Wallstrom）本周发表年度外交政策演说，但立即遭到排山倒海的批评，因为她没有直率提出中国反覆任意拘押瑞典公民桂民海的问题。瓦尔斯特伦自我辩护说，这类演说通常不会提及个案。

然而瓦尔斯特伦却在这次演说中强调，瑞典致力保护本国公民、促进世界人权。

其实，关于桂民海，瓦尔斯特伦大可──其实是应该不断地──向北京和世界这么说：

虽然我们通常不在年度演说中谈到个案，但瑞典公民桂民海首先在2014年遭中国强迫失踪、又在2018年被中国任意拘押，情况实在太过严重，值得特别看待。中国警察在1月22日开往北京的列车上，当著我国外交人员面前带走桂民海，造成议题高度政治化。中国已经违背其基于《维也纳领事关系公约》所负的义务──该公约对于保护海外国民的安全至关重要。

Click to expand Image 泛民主派公民党成员举著桂民海（左）和李波的照片，在中联办前抗议，香港，2016年1月19日。 © 2016 路透社瑞典致力确保其公民的权利无论在瑞典或在世界任何地方均可得到保障，同时维护以规则为基础的国际秩序。在即将到来的联合国人权理事会会期中，瑞典将利用一切可得机会，呼吁释放桂民海，并关注中国的严重人权侵犯。我们将努力争取其他联合国成员国支持，因为它们的公民将来也有可能遭到中国不当拘押。瑞典也将敦促所有联合国条约机构和特别程序受理该案，向中国施压要求答复。

瑞典也将通过欧洲联盟提出桂民海案，与欧盟代表团合作，充分利用欧盟的影响力以确保桂民海获释。

还有，瑞典将极力关注对华关系中的人权议题，包括在所有──所有的──双边互动场合要求释放桂民海。如果瑞典无法在短时间内得到中国正面回应，我们将被迫重新检讨两国间的高层互访和长期建设性对话。

我们很遗憾，迫于情势不得不采取以上各项措施，但作为珍视国民人权的国家，面对中国政府的蛮横无理，我们别无选择。

中国：释放人权律师

因批评政府被吊照律师应予复职

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image “709事件”被捕律师和维权人士的家属，在最高人民检察院门口抗议，中国北京，2017年7月7日。 © 2017 路透社（纽约）－人权观察今天表示，中国政府应立即释放被罗织颠覆罪名而拘押或监禁的人权律师。同时，有关当局应停止基于政治理由吊销或注销律师和律师事务所执业证。

2018年2月，当局以“扰乱法庭秩序”为由剥夺隋牧青律师的执业资格；同时，悟天律师事务所也因拒绝参加政治性的年度考核而遭注销执业证。

“中国政府不仅持续拘押数名2015年7月被捕的人权律师和维权人士，还利用将其他人吊照来恫吓维权群体，” 人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“对法律职业的无止尽迫害，暴露出中国维护‘法治’的说法多么荒谬。”

2017年8月起，已有数名人权律师遭当局吊销或注销执业证，并有一家律师事务所被注销执业许可，一名律师以颠覆罪名遭刑拘：

8月，杭州市司法局对吴有水作出暂停执业九个月的处分。该局表示，此举是为惩罚他在网上发表批评中国政府的言论。 9月，山东省司法厅吊销祝圣武的律师执照，指控他在社交媒体发布批评中国政府和中国共产党领导人的帖文“危害国家安全”。 12月，云南省司法厅以伪冒他人签名提起虚假诉讼为由，吊销王理乾和王龙德的律师执照。两位律师则认为吊照是为报复他们宣布退出官方控制的中华全国律师协会。他们曾批评该协会没有尽到维护律师权利的职责。 2018年1月，北京市司法局以未获律所聘用为由注销余文生的律师执照，并以他曾发表“反对〔中共〕党的领导”的言论为由，不许他成立新的律所。1月19日，当局在余文生送儿子上学途中将他逮捕。警方后来将余移送到江苏省徐州市的秘密场所关押，并加上“煽动颠覆国家政权”罪名。被捕前两天，余文生曾发文呼吁修改宪法，开放国家主席直选。2014年，北京当局也曾拘押余文生99天，当时他据称遭到酷刑且剥夺律师会见。 2月，广东省司法厅吊销隋牧青的律师执照。该厅指控隋牧青2014年代理人权律师丁家喜出庭时，拒绝遵守法庭礼仪，包括在法庭上未经许可随意起立、走动、发言。隋牧青曾代理多起知名维权人士案件，包括郭飞雄和黄琦。 2月，北京市司法局注销悟天律师事务所的执业证，理由是该律所未参加该局主管的律师年度考核。该律所创办人程海表示，中国法律并未规定律师必须参加司法局年检，而年检的目的其实是审查律师的政治取向。 2016年，中国司法部修改有关律师和律师事务所的两部行政法规 ──《律师事务所管理办法》和《律师执业管理办法》──明文规定：律师和律所应当“拥护中国共产党领导”，律所应成立党组织，且律师不得发表“否定根本政治制度”或可能“危害国家安全”的言论。

对法律职业的无止尽迫害，暴露出中国维护‘法治’的说法多么荒谬。索菲・理查森中国部主任

余文生被捕和多名律师被吊照，都是近年对人权律师打压的延续。2015年“709”镇压时被捕的300多位律师和维权人士之中，有数人仍在羁押或已判刑入狱。2015年7月被捕、被控“颠覆国家政权”的王全璋律师，至今仍在等候审判且无法会见律师。2017年11月，江天勇律师以煽动颠覆罪被判刑两年。2016年8月，周世锋律师遭天津法院以颠覆罪判刑七年。

人权观察表示，中国政府正用尽各种手段非法打压人权律师。司法部及各级司法机关每年对律师执照进行考核，导致律师很容易遭到政治力排除。法院可以借口扰乱法庭秩序，对律师裁处15天以内的司法拘留；当律师鼓励当事人陈述被办案人员刑讯逼供，公安机关可以引用刑法第306条“伪证罪”逮捕律师。甚至，律师在执业时还可能面临公安人员、法院官员和其他受当局教唆人员的殴打、恐吓和骚扰。

“中国当局总是把律师不受官方控制而表达观点、执行业务，视为反对国家的活动，”理查森说。“国际多边机构和相关各国政府，乃至在中国营业的各大国际律师事务所，必须打破沉默，抗议中国当局刻意打压人权律师。”

中国最新扫黑运动的问题所在

过去历次运动盛行刑讯逼供

王松莲亚洲区助理主任 wang_maya wang_maya

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options “打击黑恶势力”、“增强人民安全感” ── 中国最新一波打击组织性犯罪的运动将进行到2021年，其目标看来无可非议。

Click to expand Image “老虎椅”专门用来拘束囚犯。前在押人员说，他们常被警察铐在这种铁制的椅子上几小时甚至几天，既没法睡觉，全身也动弹不得，以至双腿和臀部严重肿胀。 © 2014 私人提供但这种打黑运动经常伴随著人权侵害。曾代理多起涉黑案件的著名律师张磊说：“‘打黑’案件，都是一个模式。” 所谓的“模式”很简单：对被告人刑讯逼供、强迫认罪，恐吓被告人的家属和同事，然后由法官依照公安和党委的意思做出判决。

看看陈惠良案：2008年，福建警方以“涉嫌参加黑社会性质组织”对陈展开调查，将他关进非法办案地点长达六个月，铐在铁椅子和特制的“老虎椅”上近两个月，并以警棍殴打，导致陈惠良右下肢瘫痪、脊神经损伤。或黎庆洪案：2008年，这位企业家被贵州警方指控领导黑社会性质组织，被警察反铐双手吊起，且被剥夺睡眠。以上两案中，虽然被告均提出遭刑讯逼供问题，法院却都没有认真调查；陈、黎两人分别被判处5年和14年徒刑。

中国打击犯罪运动的另一问题是常常与政治清洗相结合，例如前政治局常委薄熙来在主政重庆期间即曾利用打黑运动整肃政敌。值得担忧的是，中国最高人民法院日前宣布，这次全国性扫黑运动不仅针对欺行霸市、操纵黄赌毒等多种罪行，也包括打击“威胁政治安全”的犯罪。有些地方政府还说要利用这次运动打击其所选定的各种政治犯罪，包括组织策划群体上访，甚至西藏精神领袖达赖喇嘛的支持者也成为打击目标。

中国政府应停止政治化的打击犯罪运动，让司法机关脱离党的控制。终结刑讯逼供是必不可少的第一步。

中国：对西藏寺院控制手段翻新

根据人权观察取得的官方文件，该寺院于2017年遭拆除僧舍、驱逐僧尼（清人拆房）后，其管理、财务、安全、招生甚至教材选择等事务已由大约200名共党干部和普通官员全面接管。

“政府对喇荣寺的新控制措施公然违背中共的说法，即中国尊重受宪法保障的宗教自由，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“对西藏寺院的微观管理有碍宗教自由，而且可能激化对北京的不满。”

相关内容 Larung Gar Institutional Separation Brochure (CH) Larung Gar Institutional Separation Brochure (EN) 该官方折页（《喇荣寺五明佛学院院寺分离方案》明白卡）强调提升安全和管控僧尼，要求严格限制住寺人数，并在居民区建立“网格化管理”系统，对寺院居民实施持续监控。手册说，所有居民和访客都要办理“实名登记”，而且男性僧侣（学僧）须佩挂红卡、女性僧侣（觉姆）佩挂黄卡、一般信众则佩挂绿卡。

喇荣寺原本是西藏甚至全世界最大的佛学教育中心，但在2017年4月结束的八个月清人拆房行动之后，居民人数已减少到五千人左右。过去该寺一向由资深僧侣遴选藏族僧尼负责管理。政府接管寺院行政──官方文件称为“规范化”──可能造成比清人拆房更严重的影响。后一行动曾导致一群联合国专家于2016年11月要求中国政府说明实施驱逐的法律依据。

前述新文件是一份汉藏双语四页彩印的小册子，没有发行日期，显然是用来大量散发。它的结尾印着喇荣寺所在地四川省甘孜“自治”州党委书记刘成鸣的一句话，可见该小册子可能是由他的单位或主管喇荣寺的官员印发。

该文件在2017年8月或稍早发出，说明该寺院将划分为两区，中间以围墙隔开。其中一区为佛学院，居民不超过1,500人，以出家男众为主；另一区为寺院，居民不超过3,500人，以出家女众为主。

据人权观察取得，并在2016年6月发布的原始拆除命令指出，未来喇荣寺管理委员会成员应有五分之三是干部而非僧人。该方案去年8月付诸实践，当地政府宣布六名党政高级干部分别加入该寺院的两个管理委员会。包括甘孜州公安局副局长在内，这些官员全都具有中共党职，必须信仰无神论。

该新文件显示，不仅管理委员会，还有更多干部将被安插在寺院各部门、各阶层。他们将在大部分委员会和部门中占据近半职位，包括大多数领导职位。州公安局副局长将成为五明佛学院的党委书记兼校长，在他属下的七名副校长将有三名是干部。此外，为监管僧尼而设立的六个“片区管理组”也将由干部而非僧人领导。

根据该小册子，五明佛学院将成立新的科（室），分别负责宣教、“内保”、财务、教务和学员，其正副主管均由干部占一半，整个佛学院将有97名干部进驻。另据寺院信息源向人权观察证实，原寺院的另外一半即喇荣寺也将有至少同额的干部进驻。消息源说，寺院内正在兴建大楼，以供干部居住。

“喇荣寺被共党干部接管，足见政府并非仅以减少僧尼人数为目标，” 理查森说。“中国当局还想实施全方位管控，监视宗教社群各个阶层的一切活动。”

根据该小册子，五明佛学院尔后教学内容须以非宗教课程，例如政治，占百分之40。招生的首要原则是“政治坚定，认同伟大祖国、中华民族、中华文化、中国共产党、中国特色社会主义。” 办学宗旨将纳入“拥护中国共产党和社会主义制度，维护祖国统一、促进民族团结、爱国爱教、持戒精修。”

喇荣寺原以聚集不同藏区僧尼共同学习为其特色，但新规定除特殊情况外将仅以四川藏区为招生范围。2008年以后，中国当局逐步在藏区各主要寺院实施同样限制，禁止各寺院接纳外地僧尼。根据前述文件可知，当局将采取措施阻止被清走的僧尼回流。

人权观察指出，中共此次介入喇荣寺的规模是前所未见的。2011年10月以后，位于喇荣寺以西较远处的西藏自治区所有寺院均已由干部工作队长期进驻，接管每一个寺院的管理委员会。报导指出，东部藏区也有部分寺院同样遭到接管。但从未听说任一寺院有如此大量的干部工作队进驻，甚或接管寺院的最低管理阶层。

喇荣寺的变化符合现行宗教政策，强调加强官方管理以确保政治稳定。政治上忠诚的僧尼可获公开表扬，包括“爱国守法先进僧尼”等头衔，乃至其他物质或社会利益。该文件的目标是将该佛学院“打造成正规化、法治化的现代宗教院校”，并提到要引入新而统一的制度，主要通过中国藏语系高级佛学院的网络来管理宗教培训、教材和课程内容，重新培训佛教僧尼。

以上计划显然是为了对宗教机构实施微观管理而非加以关闭，并培养出同时受到宗教教义和政治意识形态薰陶的新一代佛学教师，以便在藏区“引导宗教与社会主义社会相适应”。

“中国政府最近对喇荣寺实施的各种措施，显见其对宗教事务施展绝对控制的恶毒企图，” 理查森说。“它将立即威胁到每一个藏人的宗教自由，但长期而言也将威胁所有中国公民。”

中国：打压人权扩及全球

言论、网络、少数民族权利遭更严厉限制

（纽约，2018年1月18日）－人权观察今天发布的《2018世界人权报告》指出，2017年在国家主席习近平领导下，中国政府对人权的持续性打压在境内、境外均进一步扩大。诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波7月在重兵看守下死于医院，凸显当局对人民权利的深切蔑视。中国利用本身日益强大的全球影响力，在国际层面上对人权保障造成威胁。

刘晓波以“煽动颠覆国家政权”罪名被判刑11年，服刑近9年后，因癌症病逝于沈阳医院，生前遭国家安全人员严密包围。住院期间，有关当局将刘晓波、刘霞夫妇隔离，不让家属和支持者探视，并拒绝刘晓波出国就医的要求。刘晓波过世后，刘霞遭当局强迫失踪。

“中国当局千方百计对和平的人权行动加以残酷打压，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“随着国家主席习近平展开其第二个五年任期，中国人权短期内前途黯淡。“

这是人权观察第28次发布《世界人权报告》，内容共计643页，检视90馀国人权实践。在导言中，人权观察执行董事肯尼思・罗斯（Kenneth Roth）写道，诸多政治领导人愿意为人权原则挺身而出，可见抵制威权民粹主义政治议程是可能的。靠着动员公众和有力的多边行动者，这些领导人让我们看到反人权政府的崛起绝非不可避免。

北京在2017年将更多人权护卫者──包括外籍人士──送上审判秀舞台。公安机关对在押人员刑讯逼供，剥夺他们自由选择律师的权利，切断对外联络长达数月。律师王全璋和维权人士吴淦在2015年7月全国性镇压中被捕，至今仍被公安羁押。台湾民主运动人士李明哲被判刑五年，律师江天勇获刑两年，两人罪名同为“颠覆国家政权”。

人权观察指出，中国政府也在加强打压言论自由。当局禁止未经许可的翻墙工具，这种工具帮助网络用户避开政府审查。广东一男子因兜售虚拟专用网络（VPN）被判刑9个月。科技大厂苹果电脑证实，为遵守中国政府规定，2017年共有674款VPN商品被中国区苹果网络商店下架。有关当局还施压外国学术出版社──包括剑桥大学出版社和施普林格自然（Springer Nature）出版集团──在中国境内屏蔽部分论文。由于国际舆论哗然，剑大出版社已恢复300篇被删除论文。

香港纪念主权回归中国20周年。来自中国中央政府的干预加强，导致香港公民自由日益流失。三名学生领袖因在2014年“雨伞运动”期间参与反对中国政府的和平抗争，被判入狱六至八个月。

新疆、西藏少数民族地区高压统治加剧。在新疆，政府日益限制、惩罚维吾尔人与外部关系，任意收回护照，强迫海外留学生返乡。数千人被任意拘押在政治思想教育中心，监控措施不断升级。在西藏，部分寺院遭当局大规模拆迁，男女僧众被迫参加再教育活动。

人权观察表示，中国日益利用本身全球影响力增长，在海外破坏人权保障。在联合国，中国持续努力压抑对其人权纪录的批评，并以行动削弱联合国主要人权机制。6月，欧洲联盟首度未能在联合国人权理事会常设议程中对中国人权问题发言，因为希腊（亦为人权理事会成员）顾及与中国紧密贸易关系而不愿批评中国侵犯人权。

“随着中国在国际事务日益扮演积极角色，各国政府必须力抗习近平主席在中国境内外恣意侵权，” 理查森说。“保护陷入若战的中国人权护卫者和维权人士，是当务之急。”

马克龙保住中国合同，忘了受迫害者

马克龙总统在当选后首度访华行程中，以热情又有说服力的方式谈论了广泛议题，从贸易平衡，包括乳酪和法国牛肉谈判，到气候、核武和科技。骏马和熊猫宝宝也与有荣焉。但人权却遭到这位法国元首冷落。

问题是，马克龙这次访问的可是一个侵犯人权纪录罄竹难书的国家。2013年起，习近平辜负外界期待他改善人权的厚望，反而加以蔑视，悍拒一切民主推动力。中国仍是执行死刑最多的国家之一。政府压制一切形式的不同政见，剥夺宗教自由，迫害少数民族，全面管控网络和独立民间组织，并且任意打压、拘禁人权护卫者和反政府人士。

去年7月，2010年诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波在军警重重包围下病故，无疑是最能反映习近平政府无情镇压的一幕。其妻刘霞遭强迫失踪，更让中国当局的残暴流露无遗。中国还把侵权政策输出海外，企图阻碍联合国人权保障机制发挥作用，甚至操纵国际刑警组织。

凡此种种，这位法国总统似乎都不放在心上，甚至还奉上一匹共和国卫队骏马做为友谊象征。在他和中国元首共同主持（但不给记者发问）的新闻发布会上，马克龙间接提到基本权利和自由，但主要是表示法中两国外交可以不受人权歧见影响。在访华尾声，马克龙说他曾私下和习近平就人权问题交换意见，但并未说明谈话性质。

马克龙总统在中国多重人权侵犯上的欲言又止，和他去年夏末对法国驻外使节讲话时的义正词严判若两人，当时他说 “与中国的...外交和经贸交流...不是在人权问题上粉饰太平的正当理由，因为那时我们背叛的将是自己。” 他在中国的行为，和他高倡法国应着重促进国际自由与正义的说法，几乎背道而驰。就在上个星期，当土耳其总统埃尔多安访问法国时，他还曾经大力推销这些价值观。

马克龙将自己定位为立场坚定的总统，并且期望法国在国际场合展现强势。然而，当他把原则理念扫进国家战略和经济利益的厚重红毯之下，让人看到的是言行不一、无法捍卫自己的承诺。它将让各国独裁者知道，法国可以为了利润丰厚的合同而把严重侵权问题摆在一边，帮助他们巩固手中大权。另一方面，刘霞等无数被迫害者则将因此了解，他们无法再期待法国为他们仗义执言。

中国的#MeToo运动？言之过早

1月1日，现居美国的中国科学家罗茜茜，联同其他四位女性，指控北京航空航天大学（北航）教授陈小武于她们在学期间曾对她们性骚扰。该指控获中国媒体普遍报导后，北航于当天即宣布暂停陈小武教学工作并展开调查。

“希望这次维权，能让更多人有足够的勇气站出来说 #我也是（#MeToo），” 罗茜茜在微博上写道。

校方迅速做出处置后，许多中国人在问，“#MeToo终于来到中国了吗？”

但过去多起事件令人难以乐观──至少在中国的大学校园里。最近四年，据中国非政府组织网络平台NGOCN纪录，共有13起大学教师被控性骚扰导致校方启动调查的事例。然而，有些学校的调查没有下文，其他学校最多也只是略施薄惩，例如暂停教职。2014年，厦门大学历史系教授吴春明被多名女学生指控强迫性交，但校方仅仅中止他的研究生导师资格。一年后，吴春明仍旧当选中国考古学会专业委员会的委员。

根据广州性别教育中心和公益法律机构北京义派律师事务所在2017年对6,592名大学在学或刚毕业学生所做的调查，百分之69受访者表示曾被性骚扰，但只有少于百分之4向校方或警方报案。该调查报告指出，只有百分之5的大学提供性骚扰防治培训，而且所有学校均未设有正式的性骚扰申诉程序。

2014年9月，256名大学教授和学生联署公开信，要求教育部建立校园性骚扰防治机制与指导原则。2014年10月，该部发出文件，禁止大学教师对学生实施“性骚扰”或“发生不正常关系”，但该文件缺乏名词定义和罚则。

中国各大学若要跟上#MeToo运动的脚步，必须对性骚扰案件实施迅速、彻底且公正的调查，适当定义并追究性骚扰责任，让遭遇性骚扰的学生能有信心提出举报。

‘他们来了！’：中国艺术家记录迫迁遭拘捕

48岁的华涌被捕罪名是“聚众扰乱交通秩序”。他是北京知名画家，因为拍摄北京迫迁外来移民遭公安追捕而逃到天津。在华涌最后拍到的其中一个画面中，可以听见公安人员正大力敲门，并要求他马上开门。

三天后，华涌暂获取保释放，但随时可能受到刑事控告。

自11月中旬以来，在北京一栋过于拥挤且安全未达标的公寓失火夺走19条人命之后，北京市政府针对市区外围安全不合格公寓发动清除租户行动。迁移危险建筑住户可能有其必要性，但当局不应在几无预警情况下迫迁上万名外来劳工。起初，许多北京外来劳工在寒冬中抱着家当被扫地出门的照片在网上疯传，引起公众哗然。但当局迅速开始审查媒体相关报导。尽管如此，华涌仍设法用手机记录迫迁实况，并将数十支视频上传YouTube和其他网站。

中国维权人士、人权律师和批评政府人士现在随时面临警察上门将他们带走、抄家或纯粹骚扰。2015年8月某天，天津市公安人员突然闯进李春富律师家中将他逮捕。他的5岁儿子吓坏了，跟妈妈说：“爸爸被用手铐带走了。” 妈妈想安慰孩子，便说那些手铐只是“玩具”。“那些不是玩具，”孩子反驳说。

尽管家门随时可能被警察敲响，中国人权活动者、律师和作家并未因此屈服。正如华涌在为女儿录下的一段视频中所说：“爸爸所做的一切，就是为了你们这代人不要再经历爸爸和爷爷们经历过的那些事情。”

中国：少数民族地区上千万居民被采集DNA

公安机关假借公共卫生计划收集私密信息

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 新疆街头壁画，“稳定是福、动乱是祸”，中国新疆维吾尔自治区莎车县（叶尔羌），2012年9月20日。 © 2012 盖帝图片社（纽约）－人权观察今天表示，中国当局正在新疆收集所有12至65岁居民的DNA样本、指纹、虹膜和血型。这项行动代表当局在新疆地区收集生物数据的措施大幅升级，在此之前只有护照申请人必须提供生物特征。

其中，“重点人员”──当局认为威胁政权稳定的人士──及其近亲属将被“全员采集”，不受年龄限制。当局将通过多种途径收集各项生物数据，例如DNA和血型是来自免费的“全民健康体检工程”，但不确知参检人员是否被告知，当局将借此采集、储存或利用他们身上的敏感DNA数据。

“新疆当局应将‘全民健康体检’改名叫‘全民隐私侵犯’，因为相关计划显然并未考虑知情同意和真实选择问题，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“以数据库强制采集整个人群的DNA及其他生物特征，严重违背国际人权规范。更令人不安的是，相关采集行为竟假借免费健康检查的名义暗中实施。”

以数据库强制采集整个人群的DNA及其他生物特征，严重违背国际人权规范。更令人不安的是，相关采集行为竟假借免费健康检查的名义暗中实施。索菲・理查森中国部主任

收集多维生物特征信息的方式，在官方发出的《全区人口精准登记核实工作指南》中有详细说明，全文可由新疆阿克苏市的政府官网下载。

该《工作指南》没有发布日期，但阿克苏市政府是在2017年7月2日将该文件传发下属单位。据官媒报导，新疆自治区政府于2017年2月通过启动全疆人口登记核实工作，且将“逐步展开”。以塔城市某乡镇政府为例，该乡镇收集生物数据的时间表自2017年6月中旬开始，11月底完成。新疆全区的“全民健康体检”则自2017年7月左右开始，到10月份结束。

该《工作指南》是由自治区人口服务管理和实名制工作领导小组办公室发布。该办公室所隶属的上级政府部门不明，但“人口管理”一般是由公安部门负责。

当局表示，人口登记核实计划目的在为“科学决策”奠定基础，有助脱贫、改善政府管理和“社会稳定”。当局从2016年开始年度性的“全民健康体检工程”计划，并且标榜它能造福经济相对贫困的地区。该计划表面上的宗旨是加强医疗单位的服务递送、筛查检测重大疾病和建构涵盖全区居民的医疗数据纪录。官媒对这项全民健检措施的报导包括许多参与者的见证，内容大多描述居民过去未发觉的病症得到治疗，甚至因此挽救生命。

根据该《工作指南》，不同型态的生物特征由不同机关负责收集。人像、指纹、虹膜等生物信息，应由党、政官员组成联合工作队，以入户采集或设立固定采集点集中采集等方式，通过专用移动终端（APP软件）进行采集，同时查核户口信息。至于DNA和血型，根据《工作指南》规定，应由各地卫生计生部门负责，“依托”全民健康体检工程进行采集。所采集到的血型信息应报送同级公安机关，“DNA血卡交由县（市、区）公安机关检测。” 前述各项信息都被建档储存，和个人身份证号码互相关联、对应。

该《工作指南》要求，收集生物信息的工作必须滴水不漏：“官员必须“确保村不漏户、户不漏人、人不漏项、见人必核”，收集所有新疆籍人员的信息。由《工作指南》看不出任何人可以选择不接受收集，或要求取得知情同意的规定。

有关“全民健康体检工程”的媒体报导和官方实施文件列出了一系列医疗检验项目，包括B超、心电图和“血常规”检查等等，但并不包括DNA。政府似乎也不需要向公众或受检者说明被采集的医疗信息将如何使用和分送有关单位，或将被储存多长时间。尽管官媒报导强调此次全民健康体检应以“自愿参检”为原则，但实际上却要求──甚至强迫──所有人参加。

一名曾经参加2016年全民健检的新疆喀什维吾尔族人士向人权观察表示，他所在的街道委员会“要求他们[街道居民]必须参加体检”。他不觉得自己可以选择是否参加，因为“不参加一定会被当做‘思想有问题’的一种迹象”，也就是“政治上不忠诚”的意思，在高压统治的新疆是非常危险的标签。他说卫生当局事后并未向他说明体检结果。

“中国本来就缺乏有效的隐私保障，且维族地区已经受到高度管制和监控，包括大量安全部队进驻、无数的检查哨和常规性检查智能手机是否存有‘颠覆’内容，”理查森说。“在这种情况下，强迫收集生物数据特别容易受到滥用，也很难视为合理的安全措施。”

伊犁州卫生计生委2017年10月报导指出，各乡镇政府必须做到“应检必检”。《伊犁晚报》2017年6月的一篇报导则说：“对不愿或拒绝体检的人员，...干部要努力说服其参加健康体检。” 显见政府官员可能对拒绝受检的居民施压。根据国际人权规范，医疗行为──包括健康检查──只能在当事人自由且知情同意下进行，上述做法与此显有不合。

据新华社2017年11月1日报导，新疆2017年全民健康体检工作的参检人数已逾1,880万人。

该《工作指南》要求建立收集生物信息采集的长效机制。任何新疆居民办理“户籍业务”──例如注册公立学校和申请护照──之前，必须先由公安机关收集多维生物特征信息。就连设籍新疆但在外地居住的人员，也必须由“内地新疆籍人员服务管理小组”实施信息采集。

新疆各地多个地方政府──伊宁市、塔城市、铁门关市（隶属新疆生产建设兵团）、库尔勒市和精河县──均已就收集多维生物信息工作制定当地实施细则。伊犁市和塔城市的规定大致上完全照抄省级《工作指南》。不过，铁门关市将收集DNA的年龄区间定为14～65岁。该市实施方案并指示宣传部门负责对生物信息收集问题“监视网上公众意见”、“引导处置负面信息”。

人权观察跟进调查发现，美商赛默飞世尔科技公司（Thermo Fisher Scientific）向新疆公安厅出售了其中部分DNA定序仪。人权观察已于2017年6月和8月两度致函该公司，说明中国当局在新疆和中国各地采集非犯罪人员的DNA信息，要求该公司说明其企业人权政策，以及该公司可能与中国当局就DNA定序设备的预定用途所做过的讨论。赛默飞世尔公司回复我方首次致函表示，该公司不能“分享本公司顾客或其购买产品的信息”，以及“本公司营运范围遍及全球，不可能对我们制造的所有产品如何使用和应用加以监督。” 该公司并表示，“本公司期待所有客户遵守相关规定，以及行业最佳实践和标准。” 对于人权观察的第二次致函，赛默飞世尔公司未予回复。

像赛默飞世尔公司一样产售DNA定序仪器和相关设备的业者，均负有人权责任，应避免协助政府侵犯人权。人权观察表示，赛默飞世尔公司应立即调查其产品被滥用问题，并在相关调查完成前暂停在中国的销售与服务。

据人权观察记录，中国公安机关已建成全国性、可查询的DNA数据库，录有逾4千万人的资料，包括异议人士和流动人员。DNA数据库让公安机关不仅可以搜寻特定人士，亦可找出其亲族成员，甚至导致歧视性的社会标签化（profiling）。

强迫采集，或未经知情同意或缺乏正当理由采集血液样本，均可能违反个人隐私、尊严和维护身体整全性的权利；在某些情况下亦可能构成有辱人格的待遇。为维护安全而对整个地区或人口实施DNA强迫采集则是严重的人权侵犯，不可能具有合理的必要性或相当性。

尊重医疗信息保密性的权利，也是健康权的核心原则。联合国经济社会文化权利委员会曾建议各国：“所有医疗设施、物资和服务都必须...基于尊重保密性而设计。” 虽然医疗信息保密性并非隐私权绝对保护的对象，但对其保密性加以妨碍或侵犯必须受到严格限制。如果收集的目的是建成数据库，常规性地提供警方或任何其他有权登入数据库的机构使用，显然将违反上述原则。

DNA信息具有高度敏感性，未经同意进行采集和分享，可能被滥用在各式各样的侵权行为。任何由政府实施的强迫采集或利用，都是对隐私权的严重侵扰。虽然有时政府为侦查犯罪而收集DNA信息是可容许的，但这种妨害隐私权的行为必须受到周全管制，其范围应尽量缩小，并与所欲达成的正当治安目标具有相当性。然而，上述方案采集所有人的DNA信息，不分是否涉嫌犯罪，而且显然不要求知情同意，也不说明采集DNA样本的目的。对其他生物特征信息，例如虹膜，进行强制性、与目的不相当的采集，也有严重的人权顾虑，包括相关数据如何安全存储，以及是否被用于不公开且潜在侵犯人权的用途，例如基于族群、宗教、意见、或行使言论自由及其他受保护权利的行为而对人进行监控。

位于中国西北部的新疆，住着1千万维吾尔人和其他主要信奉伊斯兰教的少数民族。中国政府普遍限制当地居民的宗教自由等基本人权。2016年8月陈全国就任党委书记后，新疆自治区政府陆续出台多项高压政策，包括限制出国旅游、强制海外留学生返乡、将数千人关进思想教育中心，并且增聘成千上万保安人员对民众进行监控。当局的监控手段也已升级，包括将人脸辨识等生物特征识别技术与监控系统结合。在中国各地，人权观察也都记录到当局为大规模监控而加强构建新颖科技系统，包括使用大数据、云端运算和生物识别。

“中国当局似乎认为把人民放在显微镜下就可以保障‘社会稳定’，其实这些滥权措施更可能深化对政府的敌意，”理查森说。“北京应立即停止相关计划，销毁一切未经充分、知情同意而取得的数据。”

中国令人恐惧的‘社会信用’黑名单

苹果电脑执行长库克（Tim Cook）本月稍早出席中国政府主办的世界互联网大会，表示期待与中国共建“网络空间命运共同体”。面对一个积极审查网络言论，为网络空间的未来投下不祥阴影的国家，这样的表态实在令人啼笑皆非。

由律师李肖霖的经验可以一窥那种未来是个什么模样。在2016年一次国内旅程中，李律师凭身份证上网买机票竟遭系统拒绝交易，才发现他已被法院列入黑名单。李律师从法院官网查到：他因为2015年未履行一项法院命令而被放进“失信”名单。他原以为问题早已解决，却因此被困在1,200英里之外，无法回家。

李律师的困境来自中国政府野心勃勃的“社会信用体系”计划。这项计划2012年宣布启动，预计2020年全面实施，达到“让守信畅通无阻，让失信寸步难行”的目标。

这可不是稀松平常的信用分数而已。政府的目的是通过对公民从购物习惯到网上言论等各种行为评分，制造出一个没有问题的社会。信用分数偏低的人，不管是应聘公职或为小孩找明星学校，各方面都将遭遇阻碍。谁来管理这个系统，被评分者能否提出异议，甚至系统本身是否合法，都还没有明确说法。

为了推进体系建设，最高人民法院已多次发布“失信被执行人名单”，包含自2013年以来疏于执行各地法院判决的人员。这些“老赖”被点名羞辱，而且禁搭飞机和高铁。有些地方政府甚至在公布栏上贴出失信者的照片、全名和地址。在2017年前，上述惩罚措施已逾7百万件。

李律师怎么上的黑名单？2013年他为一名强奸案被告辩护时，曾将辩护词影本交给被告家属。在他不知情之下，家属将辩护词上网公开。该案被害人据此控告李律师损害名誉权并获胜诉，位于北京的法院于是在2015年要求李律师道歉。李律师向法院提交了道歉书。直到发现自己上了黑名单，他才想起这回事。原来法院以他的道歉函“不诚恳”为由拒收，理由之一是该函落款4月1日（恰巧是愚人节）。

2013年，调查记者刘虎曾发文质疑某人涉嫌敲诈勒索，两年后，某人控告他损害名誉获得胜诉，法院告知刘虎，将代其登报道歉，费用由他负担。刘虎转账付款后几个月，突然发现自己无法订购机票。法院人员此时才向他表示款项未收到。刘虎立刻纠正了错误。

当局欲执行法院合法命令并没有错，但在李、刘二人案件看来，处罚方式极为任意且无法问责。法院也没有通知当事人，导致他们无法为己辩驳。虽然他们两人后来都找到漏洞──他们仍可凭护照购票──但他们的生活一度大乱，想抗议被列入黑名单也遇到巨大困难。

李律师2016年首次被列入黑名单时，他花了三个星期后才获得官员回应。法院要求他再次致歉，他也写了道歉函，于是他被移除旅行黑名单。但另一份名单上还有他的名字，他也没有得到事前通知，而这份名单禁止他申办信用卡。法院又要求李律师再写一份道歉函。

而记者刘虎则还在黑名单上。法院现在向他索取金额数倍于同类案件刊登道歉声明的费用。他起诉法院滥用职权，但迄今未获回应。

中国政府当局显然希望创造一种现实，让官僚仅凭细故即可严限人民权利。随着习近平主席的权力不断膨胀，社会信用体制日趋全面落实，类似的侵权事件恐将层出不穷。

中国：公安“大数据”系统侵犯隐私、打压异见人士

当局引进自动化系统追踪其视为“威胁”民众

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 上海外滩大厦天台上满布监控摄像头，远方为浦东金融区天际线，2015年3月6日。 © 2015 路透社（纽约，2017年11月19日）－人权观察今天表示，中国政府应停止建置大量收集分析公民个人信息的警务大数据平台。这种侵犯人权的“警务云”系统，除其他功能外，主要目的在追踪和预测维权人士、异见人士和少数民族人员的动态，包括被当局指称怀抱“极端思想”者。

中国没有保护隐私不受国家监控的有效机制。

“中国当局从数以亿计的普通民众身上收集愈来愈多信息并加以集中处理，借以辨别被政府认为偏离‘正常思想’的人士，然后加以监控，这种做法令人不寒而栗，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“中国政府应立即停止这种做法，直到中国建立隐私权保障和负责任的警察部队。”

中国政府以惊人数量收集公民信息素有长期记录，现在更积极开发新技术，例如大数据分析和云端计算系统，藉以更有效率地汇集和采掘个人信息。有关当局并试图连结各式各样的数据库，加强不同部门和各级政府之间，以及民间信息源的数据分享和分析。

中国公安部门利用各种应用程序分析大量且多样的数据，包括文字、视频和图像。这些应用程序能提供实时或接近实时的有用分析，例如监测交通流量模式。中国公安部门曾经表示，大数据的运用将强化公安搜捕嫌犯、预测犯罪和迅速反应的能力。

但有些这类系统也能史无前例地帮助公安任意取得普通民众的日常生活信息，包括无涉违规犯罪的人士。

“警务云”系统即是公安部最具企图心且侵犯隐私的大数据项目之一。该系统迅速挖掘个人信息，从就医病历到超市会员资料，乃至邮件投递记录，而这些信息大多可以连系到独一无二的居民身份证号码。“警务云”因此可以追踪个人行踪、同行人员和过往行为，并可对其未来活动做出预测。其目的是通过分析，例如谁曾住在某间酒店或与谁结伴旅行，发掘出公安机关“看不见”的事件与人物关联。它还可以提醒公安人员注意不寻常的活动──例如某人明明在当地拥有住所却经常入住当地酒店。

上述各种系统的设计目的包含追踪当局眼中具有政治或社会威胁的群体，令人高度担忧社会和种族定性（profiling）问题。这些平台宣称可以通过预测式警务（predictive policing）分析相关群体的过往活动模式，向公安机关“提醒或警告”该群体的未来活动，以便“更有效堵截”。总管党国公安、检察、法院机关的孟建柱──前公安部长及现任中共中央政法委书记──曾在2015年指出，大数据的重要性在于从“碎片化”的信息中找到规律，进而“确定一个人身份”。

人权观察已就山东、江苏和天津等地公安厅局的多项招标文件，以及相关学术论文和媒体报导进行分析。人权观察主要关注这三个地区，因为它们的招标文件公开上网，而且山东省和江苏省均自诩拥有全国最先进的警务云建设。山东省招标文件包括济南、泰安和威海等主要城市公安局公布的材料；江苏省的盐城市；天津市的文件则为该市公安局所公布。

相关招标文件均公布于2015年到2017年9月。天津警务云的造价最高──约达4百万美元（人民币2,700万元）。

警务云系统显然是全国性项目。2015年，公安部颁发《公安机关信息共享规定》，下令整合数据建构省级警务云，做为全国警务云数据库的基础。

“当警务云大肆汲取愈来愈多的公民信息，一场完美风暴已见端倪，”理查森说。“随着当局追踪每个人一举一动的能力日益增强，全国民众失去的将不仅仅是个人隐私──还有他们所应享的许多权利。”

整合政府和企业的公民数据

警务云系统指在整合不同形式的信息，包括中国公安部门例行收集的数据，例如住址、亲属关系、节育方法和宗教信仰。警务云平台并可整合酒店、航班和火车记录、生物识别特征、监视器画面，以及来自其他政府部门甚至私营企业的信息。

在山东省威海市，警务云计划整合63种公安数据和来自43个其他政府部门和企业的115种数据（详见清单）。政府收集的数据包括来自国家卫生计生委的病历记录（包括姓名和疾患），来自国家信访局的上访者（向政府申诉者，通常涉及官员侵权）姓名及事由，以及来自司法局的犯罪者姓名地址。警务云也收集企业数据，包括来自电信公司的用户姓名及IP位址，来自网络聊天室的用户姓名及其社交媒体（微信、微博、QQ和电邮）账号，以及来自邮递业者的寄件人／收件人姓名、电话号码和包裹内容申报记录。

在江苏省徐州市，曾有官媒报导提及公安机关从第三方购买企业数据。其所购买的信息包括“互联网上的导航地图数据，大型的互联网企业物流寄递、商品购买交易等。”该文指出，其中部分数据为实时收集，“过去民警上门逐户走访进行采集，每天最多可以采集40户到50户，现在每天24小时可以不间断通过设备进行数据采集。”这类数据包括MAC位址（电脑或其他网络装置的硬件识别码，每件装置的识别码均为独一无二）和网络用户的路由器信息。

大数据系统的侵入性‘洞察力’与预测式警务

警务云系统目的在通过“可视化”处理，使公安机关能够找到隐藏在海量数据中找到潜在的趋势和人物关系。它的介面在山东省称为“警务千度”（谐拟中国流行搜寻引擎“百度”），在天津市称为“天地E搜”，可供公安人员搜寻和监控个人、车辆和相关案件。该系统经调校后，亦可依据数据及其分析得出的模式向公安人员示警特定人物、人际关系和相关事件。例如，济南警务云可以分析其所收集的旅店住宿、车辆动线和包裹递送等数据，向公安人员提示可疑活动──例如某人在当地拥有住所却经常入住当地酒店。

这类系统的一个关键特性，就是挖掘当局以其他方式不易发现的关联。济南警务云将来可供公安人员查出“和重点人员关系密切”的人士。换言之，例如，它可以查出哪些人曾和重点人员“一同上网吧超过两次，或一同旅行至少两次。”查出关联以后，公安机关“可以进一步挖掘、分析关系人[信息]”，还可利用该系统将数据呈现为人际关系图。同样地，泰安市公安云也可透过分析“谁跟谁同行、同住、同事；谁常上网；谁跟谁同一户口；谁跟谁有亲戚关系；以及谁跟谁涉及同一案件，”让公安机关能够将人际关系视觉化。

警务云系统的另一目的是监控公安机关特别关注的人群，例如政府认为最能威胁政权稳定的人士。按照公安部定义，所谓“七类‘重点人员’”包括：重点上访人员、涉恐（恐怖活动）人员、涉稳（不利稳定）人员、涉毒人员、在逃人员、重大刑事犯罪前科人员和可能“肇事肇祸”的精神病人等。

实际上，地方公安机关几乎可以将任何人指定为威胁份子而予加强监控，尤其是被认为破坏稳定的人士。没有任何法律规定要通知被指定监控的当事人，后者也无从提出异议。天津市的一份招标文件说，该市警务云有能力监控“特定民族人员”、“极端思想人员”、“顽固上访人员”和“南疆维族人员”。新疆自治区有1,100万维吾尔穆斯林少数民族，大多居住在该区南半部，其权利普受严厉压制。天津警务云称其可在地图上标定上述各类人员，并追踪其动态。江苏省盐城市警务云的功能包括在地图上“快速回溯”“重点人员车辆、涉毒人员车辆、...[登记在]新疆车辆”的行进轨迹。

这类系统的还有一个特性，就是所谓的“预测式警务”。透过分析过去罪案数据、行为和动态，该系统有办法预测未来的犯罪活动。公安机关可能想要利用这种系统，举例而言，预判其欲防范行为最可能发生的具体时间、地点。

济南警务云招标文件要求，系统须能“分析访问济南的重点人员及其案件...对其进行监视，并综合其民族、犯罪记录及其他特征[向公安机关]警告[他们的动态]。”经过分析后，该系统将产生日报表或周报表，推送到公安人员的手持装置上。

据《山东法制报》报导，山东省警务云每天早晨8点都会向公安人员传送治安预测情报：

“...‘早八点’...汇总昨日辖区警情、案件、民族、籍贯、旅客、网吧、民航等信息，从云数据中分析异常数据和发展趋势...每天早上八点，陆续推送至民警手机...。”

该系统是用来抓捕“重点人员”。该报导引述一名民警说法：

“每天八点...系统会根据我们的辖区位置、订阅选项有针对性地将消息推送给我们，特别是能对进入辖区的涉恐、涉稳人员进行精准预警...。”

该报导并引用实例，对预测式警务做了生动描述：

“2015年9月17日12时53分，吸毒人员买某入住东营区XO 主题酒店，黄河路派出所民警根据‘早八点’短信提示进行了重点核查。经查，该重点人妹妹阿某因‘危害国家安全罪’被国家机关处罚，根据相关机制，随即对买某进行了重点管控。”

该系统显然因为买某被列为吸毒人员而向公安机关示警。该报导并说‘早八点’系统能够“及时获取少数民族、前科人员频繁聚集、长驻线索”等有助引导警力巡逻的信息。

预测式警务计划并能追踪涉恐人员。人权观察曾批评中国有关当局利用侦办恐怖活动为由对和平异见人士进行镇压，特别是维族人士。

在中国公安部门持续建置这类系统的同时，其有效性和功能性却饱受质疑。据学者指出，公安部门在汇整信息时遭到其他政府部门消极抵制；基层民警常无法收集到有用或完整的信息；不同项目收集数据标准不一，难以整合共享；以及有能力在工作中应用大数据分析的警员为数不多。

协助审阅本新闻稿的大数据专家也指出，中国公安机关目前掌握的观察值可能尚不足以对大量人员进行实时追踪。中国公安机关已可取得所有旅馆、航班和铁路记录。证据显示，中国正在开发利用监控视频进行脸部辨识和车牌号码辨识的技术，以便加强追踪人员的能力。公安机关也已经可以取得电信、手机和网络服务商存储的定位数据，至于能否获取实时数据串流则尚无法确知。另一挑战则是，进行这种追踪恐怕必须消耗大量的数据存储、计算与分析资源。

大数据警务在中国法律和国际法上的问题

近年来，中国政府和中国共产党制定了多项指示和法规，以便进行数据收集、整合与分享，加强维护“社会稳定”（透过镇压犯罪与政治异见维护和谐表象的委婉说法）。2014年，公安部颁布《关于做好公安‘十三五’规划编制工作的补充通知》，要求在2016到2020年之间构建智慧人员数据收集系统，做到“加强对关键人员异常行为发出早期预警的能力。”2015年，公安部一领导小组会议通过《关于大力推进基础信息化建设的意见》，强调要在公安工作中大力推动大数据与云计算。同年，中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅共同发出《关于加强社会治安防控体系建设的意见》，包括利用云计算和大数据等科技手段促进“社会稳定”。各省亦发出同样指令；山东省公安厅曾在2014年发出多项命令，加速数据整合与警务云构建。

中国现行法律也未达到《公民及政治权利国际公约》规定的隐私权国际标准，该公约已由中国签署但尚未批准。按照国际法，为执行警务而收集、存储和使用个人数据，唯当国家安全或公共秩序等公共利益遭受真实威胁时才能采取，且须兼具必要性和相当性，做为达成前述目的之最低侵犯性措施。

中国没有成套的隐私或数据保护法，保护个人身分信息免遭滥用，尤其是政府滥用。公安机关实施监控不需取得任何形式的法院命令，也不必证明被收集数据的人员涉及或参与犯罪活动。公安机关进行监控活动不必向任何其他政府部门报备，也不必公开有关信息。实际上，个人隐私在政府监控面前没有任何保障。公民难以得知政府收集他们哪些信息，又如何使用、分享和存储他们的数据。公民完全无法知道自己是否被归类为“重点人员”，倘若被归类为“重点人员”或相关人员也无法对自己所受待遇提出质疑。若企图调查政府监控，可能被安上“窃取国家秘密”等罪名。

政府方面，却有许多法律授权政府机关和私营企业收集使用公民信息，中央各部委和地方政府也发出无数指示、规则和条例，收集使用各式各样的信息。国家安全相关法规，例如《国家安全法》，赋予公安机关和其他国家安全部门广泛权力“收集有关国家安全情报”。《网络安全法》虽然要求网络服务商保护用户数据，且收集数据前须得用户同意，但也强迫网络业者将用户数据存储在中国境内，并须应安全部门办案需要提供无限制的“技术支持”。

政府对大数据和预测式警务的运用，已使中国原本普遍的隐私权侵犯问题雪上加霜。警务演算法和大数据分析必须以大型数据库为基础。随着愈来愈多公安部门构建云端警务系统，通过日益增加的监控活动，加上与私部门合作，政府收集的个人数据也不断累积。按照计划，警务云系统将建成巨大的全国性与区域性数据库，储存大量人口的敏感信息，并可无限期保存，提供未来不可预知的用途。这种完全不合比例原则的做法，势将侵犯数亿人民的隐私──其中绝大多数根本不会涉及犯罪。

同时面临危险的是无罪推定权和结社权。按政府说法，相关系统是用来追踪、监测及必要时逮捕、起诉“重点人员”以及与之同行、会面或联系的人员。因此，这种预测式警务系统将使所有和“被关注人员”有关系的人都受到怀疑和监控。

基于社交媒体监控和网上活动汇整的大数据分析，也可能对言论自由造成更严重的寒蝉效应。如果用户必须留意自己发出的每一则微博或短信会不会被用来判定他们是否威胁国家安全，网上自我审查必将变本加厉。

这种系统也可能对少数民族等人群产生歧视作用。这种作用部分来自原本设计：中国政府的反恐行动包含对维吾尔少数民族的严厉镇压。各地招标文件显示，警务云系统有一部分就是针对维族和“特定民族人员”进行监控。

除了以上各项人权问题，预测式警务工具能否正确引导警员关注犯罪高发地区也仍有疑问。以美国为例，各级警察单位已开始应用预测式警务系统，对犯罪“热点”或最可能参与犯罪的人员进行定位。但这些系统都是依据过往警方报告的数据进行调校，未必能反映实际风险模式。因此，预测结果往往和警方执法行为惯常指向的目标大同小异，而非实际上最可能产生犯罪行为的地点或人员。

预防犯罪是正当的国家利益，但预测工具通常只是反映既往模式，可能导致警方不断复制同样错误或偏差，例如总是以社经地位偏低人群为目标。这令人不禁怀疑，预测工具的使用究竟能带来多少改变，其对个人权利的侵犯是否具有必要性或相当性。

中国：释放重病异见人士

在押维权人士、出版商申请保外就医被驳

（纽约）－人权观察今天表示，中国政府应当立即无条件释放病情严重的在押维权人士黄琦和出版商姚文田。他们二人均因行使基本权利而被囚禁，有关当局应允许他们根据本人意愿寻求适当医疗，不论在中国或海外。

近年来，许多重要异见人士在狱中病情加重，被剥夺适当照护，最终死于狱中或获释不久后过世。2017年11月7日，异议作家杨同彦（笔名杨天水）获准保外就医后不到三个月即过世；7月13日，诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波则在转送医院三个星期后病逝。

“这些和平维权人士本来就不该被囚禁，当他们罹患重病后继续关押更是残忍且不人道的行为，”中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“有关当局应该立即释放黄琦和姚文田，允许他们自由就医。”

黄琦，现年54岁，是资深维权人士及人权信息网站“六四天网”创办人，2016年11月以“非法为境外提供国家秘密”罪名被拘押至今。黄琦的母亲近日发表公开信请求释放黄琦，因其身患肾功能衰退、肺气肿及肺炎等多重疾病，但未获适当医疗。黄琦的律师曾三度为其申请保外就医，均遭当局无故驳回。11月，黄琦向律师表示在绵阳市看守所多次遭其他在押人员殴打，且至少有一名所方管理人员明知他被殴打，却不加以阻止。所方也不准黄琦购买牙膏、厠纸等生活必需品。黄琦曾在2000到2005年因颠覆罪名入狱，复于2008到2011年因“非法持有国家秘密” 罪名入狱。

即便短短几个月前才因诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波在拘押中病故而重挫国誉，依旧阻遏不了中国当局继续将病入膏盲的异议人士押在狱中。

索菲・理查森中国部主任

姚文田，现年76岁，是香港出版人、晨钟书局负责人，2013年10月被捕后以走私罪名判处10年徒刑，现在广东省某监狱服刑。姚文田被捕时正准备出版一本批评中国国家主席习近平的书籍。姚文田患有多种疾病，包括心脏病、肝病、哮喘等等。他曾在狱中多次昏厥。大约两年前，监狱当局将重病的姚文田转送到监狱附属医院。据姚妻表示，狱方自2015年起未曾向她出示姚文田的任何体检病历，她无法确知姚文田的健康状况。姚文田的律师一再为他申请保外就医未果。

中国看守所和监狱情况恶劣，经常存在伙食营养偏低和医疗照护不足的问题。此外，人权观察长期记录公安部门拘留设施中，公安人员对在押人员实施酷刑和虐待的案件。重病在押人员直到病情极度恶化才获送医救治的案例，屡见不鲜。

不让囚犯获得适当医疗照护，违反国际人权法上享有最高可达标准之身心健康的权利。联合国《囚犯待遇最低限度标准规则》规定，“需要专科治疗的患病囚犯，应当移往专门院所或平民医院。”中国《刑事诉讼法》虽然规定“有严重疾病”的罪犯可以适用保外就医，但实际上很少政治犯获准。

自2013年习近平主席掌权以来，已有多名持不同政见者或维权人士因被剥夺适当医疗照护而于拘押期间或释放不久后过世，包括：

· 曹顺利：2014年3月，当时52岁的曹顺利为争取参与联合国人权理事会对中国的普遍定期审查，于2013年9月遭任意拘押后死于北京某医院。其亲属曾多次为其病情示警并申请保外就医，但当局直到她已陷入昏迷才予许可，而她在送医数日后即病故。

· 果秀洛桑（Goshul Lobsang）：西藏维权人士果秀洛桑于2014年3月过世，距其获保外就医仅五个月，享年42岁。果秀洛桑因2008年在西藏境内参加抗议活动而于2010年6月被捕，判刑12年。入狱三年期间，果秀洛桑据报遭受严重酷刑和剥夺食物、睡眠。

· 丹增曲扎（Tenzin Choedak）：2014年12月，时年33岁的西藏环保人士丹增曲扎因身体极度虚弱获释，三天后死于拉萨某医院。丹增曲扎被控领导2008年藏区抗暴，于同年被判刑15年。狱中，丹增曲扎据报因严重酷刑而染患慢性疾病及脑部创伤。

· 丹增德勒仁波切：2015年7月，时年65岁的丹增德勒仁波切在狱中圆寂。他是普受敬重的西藏喇嘛，却因远不符合国际标准的不公审判而以“煽动分裂国家罪”被判处无期徒刑。在他病故前，外界不断为他的健康恶化发出强烈警告。在他服刑13年间曾一再有可靠消息传出，指丹增德勒仁波切在狱中遭受酷刑。

· 张六毛：2015年11月，维权人士张六毛，时年43岁，以“寻衅滋事罪”（经常被用于维权人士的口袋罪名）被捕三个月后，亡故于广州市第三看守所。官方媒体称张六毛死因为癌症并发症，但家属代理律师参与尸检后指出，张的身上带有瘀伤、血渍，显见曾遭酷刑。

· 刘晓波：2017年7月，以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判刑11年、已服刑第9年的诺贝尔和平奖得主暨公共知识份子刘晓波，因肝癌殁于沈阳某医院。刘晓波过世不到一个月前，当局宣布以保外就医为由将其“释放”，实际上却以大量警力监控刘晓波及其妻刘霞，阻止他们会见家属和支持者，并拒绝刘晓波申请出国接受治疗。刘氏在狱中所受待遇鲜为人知。虽然当局允许刘霞等近亲属探病，但同时软禁刘霞以防家属对外发声。

· 杨同彦（笔名杨天水）：被控“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判刑12年的异议作家杨同彦， 2017年8月因确诊脑瘤而于刑期届满前四个月获准保外就医释放，时年56岁。申请出国治疗被拒后，杨同彦于11月7日病故，距获释不到三个月。在杨服刑期间，其律师曾多次为其申请保外就医，均遭驳回。

“即便短短几个月前才因诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波在拘押中病故而重挫国誉，依旧阻遏不了中国当局继续将病入膏盲的异议人士押在狱中，”理查森说。“如此冷血、傲慢的中国政府，理当迎来国际严厉谴责。”

中国‘释放’的书商身在何方？

华裔瑞典公民桂民海于2015年10月17日在泰国失踪迄今已逾两年，他的下落仍然是谜。被指控越境绑架桂民海，然后将他拘押在国内的中国政府，上周向瑞典外交人员表示，桂民海触犯交通违规服刑期满，已被“释放”。然而，瑞典当局尚未见到他本人，他的家属也没有。桂民海或许真的已经重获自由──但在确知他的下落之前，他仍处于被强迫失踪的状态。

桂民海被“释放”几天后，有一自称桂民海的男子致电瑞典驻上海领事馆，说他为了照顾病母，要再过一阵子才会跟领馆联系。但据桂民海的女儿表示，她的祖母身体健康，而且还没见到儿子。

桂民海是2015年被绑架拘留的香港巨流传媒公司五名书商中，最后一位仍失踪者。据其中一位书商林荣基获释后揭露，他遭到秘密关押，审问他在书店的工作情况。该书店陈售许多谈论中国高层领导人私生活的书籍。

中国政府惯以谎言掩盖国内政治犯的情况。当局宣称已故诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波之妻刘霞是自由的，但已知信息指出实情显然相反。二十多年前才6岁就被拘捕的班禅喇嘛──西藏第二重要的宗教人物──在北京口中过着“正常的生活”，但事实上从未有人见到他或得其音信。

瑞典外交部长瓦尔斯特伦（Margot Wallström）本周曾发推特，对桂民海获释的消息表示欢迎。但除非瑞典当局能够完全确定桂民海已经无条件释放──例如私下见到本人──他们应当假定他仍然失踪，并在中国高官面前或国际场合上直率质问。

本案牵涉不只是一个人的自由。中国政府侵犯的不仅是桂民海的基本人权──它的侵权行为已跨越国际边界。如此严重的问题不仅值得瑞典关注，任何关心国民人身安全的国家都不应再坐视。

中国：公安采集声纹特征恐侵犯隐私

警方与人工智能巨头合作触及法律灰色地带

人权观察指出，有关当局正与生产全国百分之80语音识别技术的科大讯飞公司（Iflytek）合作，开发一种试验性监控系统，可以从电话通话中自动识别目标人声。人权观察已于2017年8月2日致函科大讯飞公司，查询该公司与公安部的商业合作关系，该公司网站上公布的一种自动人声识别及监视系统，以及该公司是否订有人权政策。科大讯飞迄未回复。

“中国政府一直在采集千千万万人民的声纹特征，但整个计划缺乏透明性，也没有法律规范采集目标或相关信息的用途，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“在一个长久以来监控权力不受制衡，异见人士屡受报复的国家，这样的数据太容易被有关当局滥用。”

近年来，为了执行大量监控和社会控制，中国政府不断加强利用生物特征技术──包括建构大规模生物特征数据库。相较于公安机关其他生物数据库，声纹数据库显然尚在起步，样本数量不多。截至2015年，公安机关已在主要试点地区之一的安徽省采集到7万份人声样本。

采集人声生物特征是中国政府建构“多模态”个人生物特征图像，采集更多公民数据的行动之一。此一人声生物特征数据将与警方数据库中的居民身份证号码联结，进而可联结其他生物特征和个人档案信息，包括民族、住址、甚至酒店订房纪录。

中国民众几乎不可能清除这些个人信息或质疑官方采集个人信息的行为，也不能因政府监控而获得赔偿。和采集其他生物特征如指纹或DNA样本不同，个人根本察觉不到自己的声纹已被采集，也难以知道自己是否正被监听。

官方招标文件和警方报告显示，公安机关采集声纹时，将同时收集其他生物特征，包括指纹、掌纹、人像、尿液和DNA样本，做到信息采集“标准化”、“一体化”。

中国当局的监控工具不断推陈出新，隐私权却远远滞后，当局应立即停止采集高度敏感的生物特征数据，直到建立明确──且可靠──的法律保障机制。索菲・理查森中国部主任

只要公安人员认有“违法犯罪”嫌疑，包括行为不检，就可以采集任何人的生物特征。例如，据安徽省某县级公安机关提报，有三名女性因被怀疑卖淫（其中两人并涉行政违规）而被采集声纹。

并无任何公开的官方政策可以说明创建或使用声纹数据库的理由，但据领导相关技术开发的学者在学术论文中指出，其目的是协助从犯罪现场蒐集到的语音材料中指认出说话人的身分。称为自动话者识别（ASR）系统的人工智能专项研究正在进行中，可望加速声纹比对程序。

官媒报导宣称，自动话者识别系统已通过声纹鉴定侦破多起电信诈骗、毒品贩运、绑架勒赎和黑函恐吓等案件。相关报导指出，这种技术也可以应用在反恐和“维稳”（当局有时以此为借口打压和平异见人士）。

中国政府正在编织一张日益严密的监控网，有越来越多的方式可以抓到普通公民批评政府或为社会改革进行组织动员。维权人士和网民只因在社交媒体──如微信──等通讯工具上和平地表达言论，就被定罪判刑的案例原本就不少见。

现在政府又规定购买手机SIM卡等各项服务都必须经过“实名登记”，匿名和隐私空间更加狭窄。有些维权人士就因为搭乘火车和其他公共交通工具都必须“实名登记”而被公安追踪捕获。当局还在一些维权人士的住家门口安装闭路电视摄像头，既为监控，也是恐吓。

政府采集或使用生物特征数据并不必然违法，有时它确实是合理合法的办案手段。但若要符合中国已签署尚未批准的《公民及政治权利国际公约》所规定的隐私权国际标准，政府在每一次采集、保留和使用生物特征时，都必须有充分的法律依据，范围尽量缩小，对所要满足的正当治安目的具有必要性，并合乎比例原则。

鉴于生物特征数据的敏感性，政府官员应当避免采集或利用这种信息，除非对侦办重大犯罪确有必要，而且不应用于轻微犯罪或行政目的，例如追踪流动人口。采集和使用都应该仅限于涉案人员，而不包括没有具体涉案的广泛人口。采集、使用和存储均绝对不应基于一个人的性别、性倾向、种族、族群、宗教、政治或其他观点。个人应有权利知悉政府握有其何种生物特征数据。

科技业者也负有人权义务，应确保其产品和服务不被用于人权侵害，包括侵犯隐私和公正审判权利。

“中国当局的监控工具不断推陈出新，隐私权却远远滞后，”理查森说。“当局应立即停止采集高度敏感的生物特征数据，直到建立明确──且可靠──的法律保障机制。”

声纹数据库和说话人自动识别

2012年，公安部开始建设全国声纹数据库，并以安徽省为试点省份之一。

2014年，安徽省公安厅发文要求加快数据库建设。由政府招标文件可见，该省各地公安局此后陆续添购声纹采集终端设备。

2016年，新疆公安厅下发《关于全面开展三维人像、声纹、DNA指纹生物信息采集系统建设相关工作的通知》后，这个住着1,100万维吾尔族的自治区也开始大量采购声纹采集设施。据基层公安派出所报导，第一线警员每个月必须完成一定的生物特征采集指标。

此外，据公安机关和媒体报导，广东省、福建省安溪县、湖北省武汉市和江苏省南京市公安机关也都建有声纹数据库。

人权观察并发现，普通公民的声纹也遭到采集。例如：

安徽省宣城市某公安机关2017年4月27日报告指出，为“有效掌握流动人口实际情况”，将采集辖区内农民工的声纹、指纹和血样；新疆自治区博乐市暂住人口管理办公室2016年度报告书指出，为“加大流动人口信息采集”，该单位已添购14套声纹采集系统；根据河南省郑州市公安机关分别于2017年4月和5月发布的两则信息，该市已对维吾尔流动人口的声纹和其他生物特征进行全面采集；据人权观察早先纪录，新疆居民申办护照时须由公安机采集生物特征，包括声纹样本。 2017年2月《澎湃新闻网》曾报导──该文在国内已被删除，但仍可在海外《中国数字时代》网站浏览──安徽省公安厅正在实验对电话通讯进行实时监控，即利用自动话者识别系统自动找出目标人员的声纹并通知公安人员：

“安徽淮南的一位女士曾接到一个诈骗电话...电话那头的骗子正一步步指挥她如何进行转账...声纹识别系统根据骗子的声纹给出了预警，接到预警后，公安干警直接掐断了这位女士的电话。”

这项技术，在科大讯飞（Iflytek）以及一家不知名的国内电信服务商协助下与监控系统完成整合。

科大讯飞公司

科大讯飞（Iflytek）公司成立于安徽省，是一家专注发展语音和说话人识别技术的国家级人工智能企业。根据科大讯飞官网，该公司主要成就之一是建成全国第一个“海量语音自动说话人识别监控系统”。其官网指出，该公司已协助公安部建成全国声纹数据库，并且是新疆和安徽公安厅指定的声纹采集系统供应商。该公司和公安部物证鉴定中心合作成立的“智能语音技术公安部重点实验室”，已屡次协助安徽、甘肃、西藏和新疆等地“侦破刑案”。该公司并表示有能力开发可识别藏语、维语等少数民族语言的人工智能系统。

科大讯飞官网并称已开发完成其他与声音有关的应用产品，包括“关键词检测”，可用于“公安”、“国防”等领域。网站并未说明所谓的“关键词”或安全威胁所指为何。根据2013年8月提出的专利申请文件，该公司已开发出一套可以在电话网或互联网上发现“音频文件重复模式”的系统，可被用于“舆情监控”。

“[这种系统]在信息安全和舆情监控应用中有着非常重要的应用价值，特别是从海量音频数据中自动发现频繁出现的音频片段...对电话类音频数据，利用该技术可以快速发现正在传播的非法电话录音。而对互联网音视频数据，利用该技术可以快速准确地挖掘出目前最流行的音视频片段。”

科大讯飞和清华大学电机系设有联合实验室。清大电机系是居于领先地位的研究机构，在开发电话自动监控的语音和说话人识别技术方面有悠久历史，也是公安部金盾工程（通过科技强化、扩大监控能力的巨型计划）的要角。

科大讯飞也开发出一系列文语转换（text-to-speech）和语音识别的商业性手机应用程序，包括一款专供中国安卓手机使用的语音支援应用软件。该公司表示，该软件用户已达8.9亿人，足以提供海量语音数据集，可用来培训或改善该公司各种用途的语音识别软件，其中可能包括监控功能。

科大讯飞为商业用途收集的个人信息，在何种程度上与公安部分享，不得而知。该公司的客户隐私声明虽然承诺维护保密性，但又说该公司可以“依据相关政府部门的要求”揭露个人信息。中国《网络安全法》要求业者提供未经明确定义的“技术支援”以协助安全机关侦办犯罪，却没有任何条文保护个人隐私免于国家监控。举例而言，科大讯飞若被政府要求提供用户信息，该法并未要求该公司知会用户本人。

2014年全国人大（中国的橡皮图章立法机构）开会期间，科大讯飞董事长刘庆峰以全国人大代表身分敦促当局“尽快利用大数据反恐，加快建设声纹库...保障国家安全。”

自动语音识别系统也有其他国家采用，包括在美国用来监控囚犯对外通话，在澳大利亚用来核对社会服务申请人的身分；西班牙警方则采集了3,500份以上的犯罪前科者语音样本。

虽然有些国家尝试为特定用途采集声纹以供指认或核实身分，但这种技术在犯罪防治和监控上的应用仍存在重大困难。自动话者识别系统的精确性受到说话时的状况影响，例如说话者的情绪。

一位不愿具名的语音识别专家向人权观察表示，自动话者识别系统执行实时监控的能力也有其限制：以现有的技术，这种系统在追踪同一个语音目标时，最多只能同时“监听”50条电话线。当这种系统可能将一个语音误认为一个存档声纹，即产生错误识别，而该技术又被用于犯罪侦查与起诉时，其后果可能十分严重，尤其是在刑案定罪率高过百分之99、又缺乏有效救济机制的中国。

各国政府和私人企业同样面临的另一挑战，是如何确保海量生物特征数据库的安全。这种数据库正是网络罪犯的首要目标，他们可能设法侵入取得生物特征，用来进行身份盗窃或诈骗。不同于居民身份证号码或密码，语音、面容或其他生物特征通常难以改变，因此这种数据一旦被盗，一般人可能求助无门或无力自保。

中国法律显然限制公安机关只能为侦办具体刑事案件采集生物特征样本。《刑事诉讼法》第130条规定，在刑事侦查过程中，为了“确定被害人、犯罪嫌疑人的某些特征、伤害情况或者生理状态，可以对人身进行检查，可以提取指纹资讯，采集血液、尿液等生物样本。犯罪嫌疑人如果拒绝检查，侦查人员认为必要的时候，可以强制检查。”

但关于生物特征样本可以存储多久，可以如何分享、使用，或如何对其采集或使用提出申诉，并无任何法律指导原则或限制。虽然公安部对于声纹采集订有行政或技术方面的部门内规，但内容大多并未公开。

对流动人口的生物特征采集，也常逾越法律规范。虽然有些省级法规授权地方政府采集流动人口的“基本数据”，但并未明确将生物特征列入应采集数据。

中国现行法也并未授权公安机关为行政违法案件采集个人生物特征数据，尽管这方面的规定可能正在改变中。2017年初，中国政府发布《治安管理处罚法》修订稿，其中新增第112条，授权公安机关为确定违反治安管理的行为人和被侵害人而采集其生物特征。

中国：废除秘密拘押应同时确保人权

以同样滥权制度取代“双规”无法终结侵害

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 中国国家主席习近平在中国共产党第19次全国代表大会开幕式发表讲话，北京，人民大会堂，2017年10月18日。 © Aly Song／路透社（纽约，2017年10月18日）－人权观察今天表示，中国国家主席习近平已承诺废除滥权的党内纪律调查手段，即俗称的“双规”，但若非代之以保障在押人员权利的制度，此举将毫无意义。习主席在2017年10月18日中国共产党第19次全国代表大会开幕式致辞时表示，为了对法律制度进行更广泛改革，将以新的拘押制度“留置”取代双规措施。

“如果习主席的方案意味在押人员不受虐待、可自选律师、其他各项权利也得到保障，那将是不折不扣的大进步，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“但若他不过是想用另一个侵权的拘押制度取代原本的双规，中国法律改革将再次倒退。”

双规是一种拘留调查措施，由中共中央纪律检查委员会（中纪委）主管，可适用于中共8,800万党员。

2016年12月，人权观察曾发布双规研究报告，详述当局如何运用这种揉合任意拘押、酷刑与强迫失踪的措施，并呼吁将其废除。约莫同时，中纪委书记王歧山宣示将以审讯全程录音录像等方式制约双规滥用，但相关保障机制的落实情况不明。

习近平提到的“留置”是一种新增的拘押权力，由即将成立的“超级”反贪机构国家监察委员会掌握。预定2018年3月正式启动的国监委将统合目前分属政府不同部门的反贪权力，有权调查任何行使公权力的人员，包括政府官员、国企经理人甚至公立学校主管。该机构将与中纪委合署办公。

官媒报导指出，留置措施将有所改进：该制度将有法律明文规范，且须通过更严格的内部程序；在押人员的饮食、休息将获保障；拘押时间将受限制──最长三个月，经批准得再延长三个月。

然而，人权观察指出，中纪委自1990年代以来推行的类似措施并未遏止双规流弊。目前没有迹象显示被留置人员可以会见律师，或享有救济机制──人权观察认为这两点是助长双规严重侵犯人权的首要因素。《国家监察法》草案迄今尚未公布；但目前已知的少量信息已令许多中国人权律师深感忧虑。

在其初上任时，习主席承诺要“把权力关进笼子”，贯彻依法治国。其政府曾废除侵权的“劳动教养”制度，但这种正面发展马上就打了折扣且蒙上阴影，因为他继续滥用法律制度，打击被其认为威胁中共统治的对象，特别是辩护律师、上访民众、异见人士、维权活动者和任何批评政府的人。在他领导下，政府陆续出台多项法律，借口保护“国家安全”，实为加强限制言论与结社自由、扩大监控范围。

“中国最高立法机关应确保在制定有关留置的新法时，纳入对在押人员基本权利的保障，”理查森说。“否则，留置只会成为一种合法、但同样侵犯人权的措施，与双规异曲同功──也不可能更有效地遏制贪腐。”

朝鲜难民难逃中国拦截网

另一个性命攸关的危机正由朝鲜向外蔓延，却少人关注：中国似乎正在扩大拦截网，推回朝鲜脱北者。遭到强迫遣返的数十名难民，很可能沦为朝鲜民主主义人民共和国监禁与酷刑的对象。

从7月开始，中国显然已加强打击试图取道中国前往第三国避难的朝鲜人团体，并且扫荡协助他们逃亡的人员网络。

虽然无从得知朝鲜逃亡者的精确人数，但据人权观察纪录，从7月到8月至少已有41人被捕。相较于2016年7月到2017年6月整整一年之间被捕51人，显见急剧增加。

据人权观察所知，自2016年6月迄今被捕的92名朝鲜人，包括1名新生婴儿，11名儿童，以及4名健康堪虑的高龄妇女。家属和维权人士指出，只有46人仍被中国拘押，其馀都已遭到遣返。联合国难民署和相关国家的请求都被置之不理。

人权观察相信，中国还拘捕了多名当地向导，以破坏协助朝鲜人经中国逃往韩国或其他安全第三国的人员网络。

中国是1951年联合国难民公约及其1967年议定书的缔约国，却一贯将朝鲜难民归类为非法的“经济移民”。中国经常将脱逃者遣返朝鲜，不顾他们可能仅因逃亡而遭迫害、酷刑和不人道或有辱人格的待遇，此举违反其条约义务。这些朝鲜人是国际公认的就地（sur place）难民──即因为返国可能遭受迫害而成为难民──不论以何方式离开朝鲜都应该得到保护。

中国显然已加强打击试图取道中国前往第三国避难的朝鲜人团体，并且扫荡协助他们逃亡的人员网络。中国必然了解，酷刑虐待被遣返者以逼迫其供述海外活动，是朝鲜的国家政策。按照朝鲜人民保安部颁布的命令，逃跑行为属于“反国家”犯罪。该罪名可判处包括死刑在内的重刑。逃过一死者也会消失在朝鲜恶名昭彰的政治犯集中营（管理所），面临酷刑、性暴力、强迫劳动和其他不人道待遇，或被送进强迫劳动营，长年在严酷、危险环境下做苦工。

中国应立即停止将逃亡者送回朝鲜受害。北京应承认朝鲜人的难民地位并予保护，或至少允许他们顺利通过中国前往愿意接纳他们的国家。

朝鲜1994到1998年“克难长征”（Arduous March）引发大饥荒饿死数十万人、甚至上百万人之后，许多朝鲜人越界到中国寻求粮食和庇难所。北京可能希望吓阻未来发生大量人员渡过鸭绿江和图们江的天然边界进入中国的情况。然而，目前情势已和当年不同。跨越边界已日益困难，而且除非爆发重大灾难不会再有大量难民逃往中国。边界保安措施本不断提升，最近五年两国又大幅加强控管，缺乏政治背景或社交人脉而欲逃离朝鲜早已难上加难。

两国政府均已增加边界警卫人力和铁丝围篱。中国增设大量闭路监视器和，并在边境联外道路增设检查哨。平壤则加强打击协助公民逃亡的人际网络，包括向导和受其贿赂的边界哨兵与警察，并且搜捕在边境地区利用中国走私手机与第三国非法通讯的人员。

中国应当了解，给予朝鲜人政治庇护或允许他们安全通过前往第三国，不可能引发大量逃亡潮。北京也应当认识到，允许联合国难民署和国际红十字会接触在中国的朝鲜人，有助于应对未来可能发生的情势，不论当前朝鲜内部及其与邻国之间的紧张局势将伊于胡底。

中国可以重新考虑改变做法，让朝鲜人穿越国土，或着手研拟机制使朝鲜人可以安全通过并前往愿意接纳保护他们的第三国。容许朝鲜人通过中国而不加以逮捕，可以向平壤送出一个重要讯息，即朝鲜不能再对邻国予取予求。

必须让朝鲜了解到，中国和世界其他国家不会任由他们摆布。朝鲜领导人金正恩及其政府应当知道，他们若不停止有计划地普遍侵犯人权，就无法避免国民为避免迫害而逃往外国，使他们在国内承受的苦难被摊在国际社会的眼前。

北京铁腕不放过台湾人权工作者

“如果看到李明哲在非自由意志下，在法庭做出或说出某些难堪的言行，请国人体谅，”遭中国羁押的台湾民运人士李明哲之妻，李净瑜说。“那就是中国政府的拿手好戏‘被认罪’而已。”

9月11日，中国湖南省法院完成一起案件的审理，其拘押、起诉过程多处违反公正审判权，包括禁止与外界接触的拘押和不许自由选任辩护律师。该案被告李明哲和中国维权人士彭宇华均以“颠覆国家政权罪”出庭受审。李明哲3月份在中国大陆遭强迫失踪获得了国际媒体广泛报导，彭宇华被捕则直到开庭前四天法院发布通知时才为世人所知。

庭审中，检察官指控两名被告发布“诋毁政府机关和国家体制的言论”，经营网上聊天群组，成立以“颠覆国家政权”和“推翻社会主义制度”为目的组织。但检方没有提示任何证据，证明两人除和平表达与结社之外还有其他行动。李明哲的官派律师本来应该为他辩护，却在法庭上主张当事人在网络上批评中国政府的言论构成“煽动颠覆”，并有“推翻国家政权的故意”。

庭审也是李明哲太太六个月来首次见到他──他被剥夺家属探视。中国当局4月注销了李净瑜的入境证件，使她无法到中国探视丈夫。庭审后，李明哲在公安监视之下要求妻子返台后不要继续抗议。李净瑜事后抨击庭审不过是一场“政治大戏”。

中国国家主席习近平2013年3月掌权以来，中国当局曾拘捕多位外国公民──包括境内外──因为他们协助中国人权活动者或公开批评中国领导人与政策。北京对非公民加以任意逮捕、拒绝正当程序保障，是对全球人权的威胁。外国政府应强烈抗议这种做法，呼吁立即无条件释放李、彭两人。

中国阻挠维权人士、骚扰专家

（日内瓦）－人权观察今天发布报告指出，中国政府应该停止削弱联合国人权机制的行动。面对中国企图限制与中国有关人权团体及维权人士进入联合国的行为，联合国相关机构应予积极抵制。

“中国持续在人权议题上与联合国互动，但其目的通常是极力压抑批评意见，阻断与中国有关维权人士参与联合国机制的机会，”人权观察执行长肯尼思・罗斯（Kenneth Roth）说。“中国不是唯一在联合国行为不佳的国家，但它拥有安全理事会席次和全球影响力，又在国内激烈打压公民社会，使它成为威胁联合国人权体系健全性的坏榜样。”

这份122页的报告，《国际倡议的代价：中国对联合国人权机制的干预》，详尽说明中国如何骚扰民间维权人士，尤以来自中国者为甚。中国官员违反联合国规则对参会的维权人士进行拍照、录像，并限制中国大陆维权人士前往日内瓦出席联合国人权理事会。中国还利用其在经济与社会理事会非政府组织委员会的成员地位，阻挠对中国持批判态度的非政府组织获得联合国认证，同时尝试──并且成功──将已获认证的维权人士列入黑名单，阻止其出席联合国活动。

2017年 9月 5日国际倡导的代价中国对联合国人权机制的干预

Download the full report

Download the appendices

下載建議 - (Download the recommendations in Chinese)

作为主要基础，该报告对55人进行访谈，受访者均对中国与联合国人权机制互动有直接了解，包括20名联合国官员与专家、15名外交官和20名公民社会代表。

中国官员有时骚扰恐吓联合国工作人员、条约机构专家和专注特定人权议题的独立专家。一位专家告诉人权观察，“整个联合国机器都在试图为公民社会创造空间，而[中国]的机器却背道而驰，想方设法缩小非政府组织的空间。”中国大幅限制联合国专家赴中国访问，施压联合国将可能批评中国的专家排除在委员会外，而且很少对联合国人权机构提出的问题给予实质答复。”

特别令人发指的例子是，中国当局在2013年逮捕维权人士曹顺利，因为她要求北京起草联合国人权审议报告前征询公民社会意见，并试图前往日内瓦参加人权培训活动。曹顺利在看守所重病去世后，中国驻日内瓦代表团于2014年3月使出惊人举措，强行质疑并阻止人权理事会主席应非政府组织要求进行默哀的决定。

“中国下次普遍定期审议定在2018年，但曹顺利之死已对中国维权人士造成持续的寒蝉效应：参加者风险自负，”罗斯说。

联合国高层官员，包括秘书长古特雷斯（Antonio Guterres）和人权事务高级专员侯赛因（Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein），经常强调联合国支持并依赖独立的公民社会以获取信息和分析。有时，联合国官员也会抵制中国的不当压力，或在工作上无视来自中国的影响。

但其他状况下，例如维护中国异见人士进入联合国，包括西藏流亡精神领袖达赖喇嘛、维吾尔族维权人士多里坤・艾沙（Dolkun Isa）等人，联合国官员似乎为避免与中国对立而屈服于中国压力。

人权观察指出，这种默认态度有时导致联合国在中国人权纪录方面的立场软化。2017年1月，中国国家主席习近平访问日内瓦并在万国宫发表演讲，联合国官员十分异常地要求近三千名工作人员提早下班，并禁止非政府组织出席听讲。

“联合国体系是中国国内维权人士仅剩的少数渠道，可以传播他们的观点并向北京施压，要求改善中国黑洞般的人权纪录，”罗斯说。“除非联合国和有关政府出手阻止中国操弄或削弱联合国人权机制，联合国的公信力和维护中国及全球人权的能力都将岌岌可危。”

中国打压逃离朝鲜人士力度大增

（首尔，2017年9月4日）－人权观察今天表示，中国显然正在加强打压借道中国寻求保护的逃离朝鲜人士（又称“脱北者”）。据维权人士和旅韩朝鲜人得自中朝两国内部的信息，中国近两个月内已拘捕至少41名朝鲜难民和不明人数向导人员。

过去五年来，朝中双方均不断增强两国边境的安保措施，包括加派卫兵、增建围篱。中方在边界扩建闭路电视监控系统，并在边境联外道路增设检查哨。朝鲜政府则有计划地逮捕、处罚所有擅自离境企图脱逃的，以及被中方捕获遣返的朝鲜人。在朝鲜，非法出境属于犯罪行为，一旦被捕可能被判处重刑，关进重刑犯监狱（教化所）或政治犯集中营（管理所），这两种监管设施长期以来均充斥酷刑、饥饿和缺乏医疗照护等情形。

“中国早已明知朝鲜安全官员使用酷刑是该国存在已久的国家政策与实践，凡擅自出国者均会遭到判刑监禁，”人权观察亚洲区副主任费尔・罗柏森（Phil Robertson）说。“中国把这些人送回可能遭受酷刑和迫害的地方，显然已违反国际法，也违背该国作为联合国难民公约缔约国的义务。”

据人权观察记录，中国在2017年7月到8月之间共拘捕41名朝鲜人，逮捕地点包括云南省西双版纳傣族自治州（近老挝边境）和临近朝中边界的长白县附近。

逃离朝鲜的总人数，以及被捕人数，几乎不可能得到权威性统计，但相较于人权观察自2016年7月到2017年6月这一年之间所记录到的估计数51人，近期被捕人数显然急剧增加。在2016年7月至今被捕的92人当中，包括一名在拘留所出生的婴儿、11名儿童以及4名身体孱弱的老年妇女。人权观察呼吁中朝两国提供朝鲜人在中国被捕的总人数，被中方遣返朝鲜的人数，以及他们的下落与现况。

基于家属和韩国维权人士提供的数据，人权观察估计中国自2016年7月迄今已强迫遣返至少37名朝鲜人。据家属和维权人士指出，一部分2017年6月到7月被强迫返国的朝鲜人，目前和其他身份不明的被遣返朝鲜人一同被拘押在图们移民拘留所。

人权观察正在关注另外55名被中国拘押的朝鲜人，必须立即采取行动避免他们遭遇同样命运。

中国例行性将朝鲜人视为非法的“经济移民”，不接受他们为难民。中国是联合国难民公约缔约国，但北京持续违反其国际法义务，包括为难民提供保护与安全以及允许联合国难民署接触朝鲜庇护寻求者。

未经官方许可离境在朝鲜是重大犯罪，经常被判处监禁、强迫劳动和肉体虐待，最严重者可处死刑。由于所有未经许可入境中国的朝鲜人都会遭到国家安全保卫部（保卫部）和人民保安部（警察）施加酷刑和严厉处罚，人权观察认为他们属于就地难民（refugees sur place），急需国际保护。人权观察并认为，将他们强迫遣返违背不驱回（refoulement）原则，即禁止将难民送回可能受迫害之处或将任何人送回可能遭酷刑之处。

被中国强迫遣返的朝鲜人经常遭到酷刑侦讯，逼问他们在境外的活动。按照朝鲜人民保安部现行规章，脱逃被列入“叛国罪”，刑罚极重且可判死刑。一旦被判处徒刑，将从此消失在朝鲜令人闻之丧胆的政治犯集中营（管理所），面临酷刑、性暴力、强迫劳动和其他不人道待遇，或被送进劳改营，长年在危险环境和严酷气候中从事苦工。

迹象显示，中国不仅逮捕遣返更多朝鲜人，而且试图打击帮助他们脱逃的网络。一名基督教传教士向人权观察说明，他手下的大型救援网络部分成员和向导遭中国拘捕后，救援能力较2017年6月份降低近八成。另一维权人士参与一个规模较小、较松散的网络，他估计他转送朝鲜人的能力掉了两成，因为他的网络成员现在不敢冒险转送他们不熟识的人。曾在今年8月协助多名朝鲜人渡过图们江抵达中国的三位维权人士也向人权观察表示，由于警卫巡逻和其他活动日益频繁，现在几乎不可能到达图们江目视距离内，不像2016年夏季时能无碍通过。

“由于逃离朝鲜人士遭到拦截，难以将该国真实情况传向外部世界，国际间纪录朝鲜持续侵害人权的努力也因而顿挫，”罗柏森说。“朝鲜领导人金正恩正在极力阻止最新消息外泄，以掩饰其系统性、普遍性侵犯同胞人权的罪行，中国的援手对他而言不可或缺。”

朝鲜一直在加大力度防范人民逃出国外。与脱北者援助网络有关的两名传教士告诉人权观察，自2017年初迄今，他们获知至少三起中国当局接获密报指脱北者群体涉及运送毒品，而在半途将其逮捕的事例。向中国警方提供密报的来源不明亦无法核实，但据多名维权人士告知人权观察，他们怀疑是朝鲜政府特工人员将脱北者群体的行踪泄露出去。

联合国朝鲜人权问题调查委员会2014年发布的调查报告认定，对企图逃离朝鲜者的攻击是“针对被认为威胁朝鲜民主主义人民共和国政治体制和领导人的所有人民群体的蓄意和普遍攻击”的一部分，因为他们威胁到政府“隔离人民，使其与外部世界断绝联系”的能力。该委员会并认定，朝鲜政府对该国囚犯和被中国遣返人士犯下诸如酷刑、处决、奴役和性暴力等危害人类罪行。委员会也批评中国未能履行作为1951 年《关于难民地位的公约》及其1967 年议定书缔约国的义务。

“中国应在原则上或实践上为朝鲜难民提供庇护，或允许其安全通过中国领土前往他处寻求保护而毋需担忧被逮捕或强迫遣送回国，”罗柏森说。“强迫脱北者返回朝鲜的行为必须停止。世界各国应及时向中国施压，还给朝鲜难民应有的权利。”

中国要求女人“回家过好日子”

北京劝谕妇女辞职，以家庭为重

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options 8月21日，已获香港大学录取读研的中国女权人士武嵘嵘，到山西省某警局查询港澳通行证换发进度却遭拒绝，理由是她曾在2015年3月因发起反性骚扰行动被捕──即当时人称“女权五姐妹”之一。一名警员还在伤口洒盐：“别再读书了，有什么意义？不如回家过好日子。”

尽管号称性别平等，中国当局仍不断向全国妇女灌输“回归家庭”的观念。

Click to expand Image 北京市某区婚姻登记处贴出海报，写著“做一个好主妇、好母亲，是女人最大的本事”。 © 微博截屏图片面对人口老化，北京已在2016年改变政策，允许所有家庭生育两名子女。此后，中国31个省级行政区已有30个延长了女性职工的法定生育假──但男性职工的法定陪产假仍然极为有限或尽付阙如。在湖南和海南等省区，女性现在享有190天的带薪生育假。

其结果是，考虑到女性职工可请生育假的成本，百分之75受访公司表示对雇用女性更加迟疑。百分之33的受访中国妇女表示，她们的工资在产后遭到扣减；百分之36遭到降职。看看近十年来的高速经济增长下，女性劳动参与率却滑落三个百分点，便能说明问题。

最近，官方媒体和部分地方政府更公然宣导“女性回归家庭”的美德。新华社2016年2月的一则报导引述专家见解表示，女性留在家中“不仅有利于子女的成长、家庭的稳定，”而且“对社会发展也起到正面作用”。政府掌控的《中国青年报》近期一篇文章也提到，妇女“更适合在家庭中照顾孩子”。北京市政府2015年张贴在婚姻登记处的一幅海报则说：“做一个好主妇、好母亲，是女人最大的本事。”

中国当局真正该做的不是宣导妇女“回归家庭”，而是通过法规政策打击性别歧视，支持双薪家庭。政府应当与女权人士合作，而非对她们骚扰、监禁。唯有如此，性别平等才看得见曙光。

中国敌托邦式的监控技术革新

世界互联网大会工作人员在会场外滑手机，中国乌镇，2016年11月17日。 © 2016 路透社中国政府正在新疆开展投资金额以亿元计的新建设项目，其中包括“科技围城”。如果它让你联想起奥威尔的小说《1984》，是因为实际内容正是如此。根据新浪网报导，该项目的目的在加强当局应对社会骚乱的能力。该项目将整合各种信息源，包含铁路系统和私人社区的访客查核系统，汇聚成“大数据”，以便“实现高危人员和车辆的事前预警”。

这还不是中国企图扩大监控、剥夺个人隐私的唯一项目。全国各地地方政府正投下数十亿元经费，为实施大规模监控建置精密的科技系统。未来对人权的影响令人忧虑。

中国政府企图监控人民当然不是新闻。但市场经济转型导致大量人口移动与私有化，使国家管控人民的老方法，例如“户口”制度，不再灵光。为了加强、拓宽监控能力，公安部转而采用新科技，在2000年启动了金盾计划。该计划的目标是建立覆盖全国的情报数据监控网络，能够对特定人员进行指认、定位，并且让国家随时掌握个人数据纪录。

这个敌托邦计划已逐渐开花结果。中国无远弗届的互联网审查，以及无所不在的监视摄像头皆已广为人知。最近的报导更指出，当局积极部署高阶摄像头进行人脸辨识，基于社经地位计算公民的“社会信用”，以及收集个人基因码、建立不限于有犯罪前科者的全民DNA数据库。

对于中国监控系统的革命性发展，我们尚缺全面了解。我们不清楚中国利用声音和语言辨识的情况。对于中国已在全国铺开、强调利用科技促进公共安全的“平安城市”计划，尚未有任何机构进行调研。对于中国如何利用大数据进行犯罪预测，我们所知更少。

就算中国政府在国内推行的奥威尔式政策无法引起国际社会警觉，它向海外输出的兴趣也该敲响警钟。但我们确知中国缺乏有效的隐私保护，而且经常将和平言论视为犯罪。同样引人忧虑的是，前述各种技术被用来辨识“重点人员”──这个概念包罗万象，既包含犯罪前科人员，也包含被当局视为反社会的人员，例如和平异议人士、民运人士、少数民族和涉毒人员。

由吴冰（化名）的案例可一窥事态发展。和吴冰同名同姓的大约有三百万人，他们的资料都被存储在全名为“吸毒人员网上动态管控预警系统”的公安数据库。吴冰早在2005年就已戒断毒瘾，但现在每当他使用身份证──例如入住酒店──就会触动警报，有时还被强迫尿检。

更糟的是，中国政府正在向海外输出这套监控模式。北京持续推动“网络主权”的观念──反对自由的全球资讯网，认为各国网民发布、获取信息的范围应由该国统治当局决定。急欲推销硬件设备的中国科技业者也推波助澜。2014年，人权观察发布报告指出，中国电信巨头中兴通讯（ZTE ）曾向埃塞俄比亚专制政权出售监控手机与网络活动的技术，并提供培训。同时，中国生产的闭路电视摄像头和监控系统──包括高解析度并配备人脸识别和移动侦测功能的器材──已被售往世界各国，包括巴西、厄瓜多尔、肯尼亚和英国。

但我们已开始看到与中国政府关系密切的中国科技业者，因安全顾虑而遭遇逆袭。2017年7月，德国成为欧盟第一个收紧外资收购规则的国家；此举将可确保德国对关键技术的掌控，包括人工智慧应用。此外，美、英两国也正在考虑实施类似限制。

但外国政府必须采取更强硬、有计划的行动。首先各国必须深入了解和检讨当前恶意技术转移是透过何种方式进行的。美国必须检讨改进有关向中国出口警察执法和“犯罪侦防”设备的长期禁令。这项制裁措施制定于1989天安门屠杀后不久，早已无法发挥限制美国公司出售监控软件与硬件的作用。相关政策检讨必须确保禁止出口设备清单定期更新或增补，以便纳入最新技术，落实制裁效果。

就算中国政府在国内推行奥威尔式的政策无法引起国际社会警觉，它向海外输出的兴趣也该足以敲响警钟。受威胁的不只是中国人民的自由──而是全世界所有人的自由。

中国应保护15名在押朝鲜人

（首尔）－人权观察今天表示，中国不应将该国拘押的15名朝鲜人遣返朝鲜，而应给予政治庇护或允许他们安全转往第三国。逃往国外的朝鲜人一旦被强迫遣返，极可能遭受酷刑，性暴力及性虐待，监禁于强迫劳动集中营，甚至处决。

根据2013年以来逃出国外或与国内保持联系的朝鲜人士说法，被中国遣返人员会被关进强迫劳动集中营或政治犯集中营（管理所），甚至被处决。朝鲜的政治犯集中营常见系统性虐待及恶劣生活条件，包括口粮粗劣令囚犯濒临饥饿，毫无医疗照护，缺乏适足住房及衣物，经常遭警卫性侵、酷刑等不当对待，以及草率处决。据前囚犯和前狱警表示，这些集中营的死亡率极高。一般集中营监狱的囚犯也面临强迫劳动及危险工作条件，食粮及药品短缺，以及狱警的经常性不当对待。

“中国必须承认，将这15名朝鲜人送回本国无异强迫他们承受残酷的人权侵犯，因此应当立即停止一切将令他们受害的遣返行为，”亚洲区副主任费尔・罗柏森（Phil Robertson）说。“中国领导人毋宁应当呼吁朝鲜停止人权侵犯，才能根除该国人民逃亡的动机。”

人权观察通过一名父亲得知这15名在押人士的情况，他的儿子和另外四名朝鲜人于7月初一同遭中国当局捕获。这位父亲得知该五人原本在老挝边境被捕，后来连同其他十名朝鲜人被关在云南省西双版纳傣族自治州，其中包括三名儿童。

该父亲告诉人权观察，有部分家属曾设法到看守所会见这批被捕朝鲜人，但发现他们已于2017年8月1日被送往吉林省图们市的移民收容所。图们市跨过边界即是朝鲜咸境北道的南阳市，该市收容所通常是朝鲜人被强迫遣返前的最后一站。8月4日，该父亲由可靠信息源得知，包括他儿子在内的15名在押人员已经抵达图们市，随时可能遭中国当局遣返朝鲜。

中国通常将朝鲜人贴上非法“经济移民”标签，依据两国1986年签订的边界议定书强迫遣返朝鲜。

人权观察访谈曾遭中国逮捕遣返的朝鲜人得知，朝鲜政府对未经许可出国人员一律严惩。依照朝鲜人民保安部2010年颁布的命令，叛逃行为构成“背叛国家罪”，最高可判处死刑。人权观察认为，所有未经许可入境中国的朝鲜人均具有难民地位（就地难民），因为他们有充分理由恐惧遣返后面临迫害。

强迫朝鲜难民返回本国构成推回（refoulement），即将人送回其生命或自由可能受威胁之地。中国已缔结的多项国际条约，以及习惯国际法，均禁止推回行为。依照1951年《联合国难民公约》及其1967年《议定书》，以及1984年《禁止酷刑公约》，中国负有明确义务不得强迫遣返朝鲜人士使其承受迫害或酷刑的危险。

被遣返的朝鲜人若未关进政治犯集中营，可能会以非法在中国居留或工作的罪名被判处2年到15年徒刑，在一般集中营监狱（教化所）进行强迫劳动。

一名曾在边境负责接收中国遣返朝鲜人的前朝鲜国家安全保卫部高级官员告诉人权观察，当时他命令部属对每一个被遣返人员刑讯逼供，包括他们去过哪些地方，和什么人联络，以及离开朝鲜期间的所做所为。

2014年联合国朝鲜人权状况调查委员会认定，朝鲜囚犯和被中国遣返人员遭受的待遇，包括酷刑、处决、奴役和性暴力等，足以构成危害人类罪。2017年7月27日，朝鲜人权状况特别报告员金塔纳（Tomás Ojea Quintana）表示：“朝鲜人离开国家后便掉进一个肉体和心理暴力的恐怖循环，据我得到的信息，有些人知道自己即将被遣返时不惜自杀。”

人权观察呼吁中国保护被拘押在中国境内的朝鲜人，给予政治庇护或允其安全前往其他国家，并应允许联合国难民机构履行保护朝鲜庇护寻求者的职责。

“中国应向联合国及世界各国证明其不再协助朝鲜政府侵犯本国人民权利，”罗柏森说。“北京可以借由保护这15名朝鲜人送出一项强烈讯号，即中国不会再配合并漠视朝鲜对人权的侵犯。”

埃及：勿将维族人遣返中国

（贝鲁特，2017年7月8日）－人权观察今天表示，埃及当局不应将数十名在押的中国维吾尔族穆斯林驱回中国，他们极可能因此遭受任意拘押与酷刑。

自2017年7月3日以来，当局陆续逮捕至少62名居留埃及的维吾尔族人，没有说明法律依据，且不准会见律师或家属。近数月来，中国要求旅居海外的维族留学生返国，同时以打击“分离主义”和“宗教极端主义”为名镇压该穆斯林少数民族。

“埃及当局应停止恣意搜捕维族人士，”人权观察中东区主任莎拉・莉亚・惠特森（Sarah Leah Whitson）说。“居留埃及的维族人应有免于恐惧的自由，不应被任意逮捕且驱逐到可能遭受迫害和酷刑的国家。”

许多在押者持有有效的埃及居留许可，正在艾兹哈尔大学（Al-Azhar University）就读。该大学是全球逊尼派伊斯兰教的学术重镇，招收中国维族学生已有数十年历史。

人权观察已于7月7日致函艾兹哈尔大学大伊玛目艾合梅德（Ahmed al-Tayeb），请求他敦促埃及当局释放在押维族人士，勿将其遣返中国。

人权观察访问了四名开罗维族居民，以及一名熟悉情况的埃及境外维权人士。他们表示，大约自7月3日开始，埃及警方在维族经常光顾的餐厅、大卖场或他们的住处逮捕了这些维族人士。例如，埃及警方曾在7月初临检一家餐厅，带走在场所有维族顾客。当局对于查询被捕者下落一概不予答覆，且至少有一人因查询同伙下落而被警方逮捕。

据《纽约时报》引述埃及航空官员报导，埃及已于7月6日将至少12名维族人押上飞往中国的航班，当天另有22人被拘留，等待随时驱逐出境。该官员告诉纽时记者，警方下令他们驱逐这些维族人士，但没有说明理由。

这波逮捕行动发生在6月19日埃及内政部长麦格迪（Magdy Abd al-Ghaffar）与时任中国公安部副部长陈智敏会谈后，陈在会中强调中国热切希望交换有关“极端组织”信息。

一名居住开罗的维族人士告诉人权观察，他在7月初某日傍晚出门散步，回程发现家门外有警察，于是马上逃走以免遭到逮捕遣返，至今再没回家。这人自2008年就住在埃及，领有联合国难民事务高级专员核发的庇护寻求者登记证，但埃及没有难民法，因此从未发给他任何证件。

另一曾在艾兹哈尔大学就读的维族男子表示，至少39名维族人被捕，拘留在同一警局。他说他们全家人都已逃离住所。

维吾尔族是说突厥语的穆斯林民族，大多居住中国西部的新疆维吾尔自治区。中国政府在该地区假借反恐名义，不仅限制他们从事宗教活动的权利，也不让他们自由享有许多其他人权。

过去数月，中国政府命令海外维族留学生回国，包括埃及在内。有报导指中国当局扣押留学生家属，以强迫他们归国。2016年9月，埃及内政部和中国公安部签署技术合作协定，承诺加强反恐及分享中国相关技术。

近年来，中国政府以打击“分离主义”、“恐怖主义”与“宗教极端主义”为借口，加强对新疆的控制。2015全年，中国各级法院以危害国家安全、煽动分裂国家和暴力恐怖行为等罪名共判刑1,419人──其中许多是维族。然而，相关抗议活动、暴力行为或反恐行动的详情均鲜为人知，几乎不存在独立信息来源。

由于中国对维族人士任意拘押、酷刑和强迫失踪，以及过往强迫遣返案件中司法程序受政治干预的纪录，令人极为忧虑这些维族人被遣返后可能遭受酷刑和其他虐待。

依据习惯国际法，以及做为禁止酷刑公约缔约国，埃及有义务保障所有该国拘押人员不被强迫送往他们可能遭到迫害、酷刑或其他严重人权侵犯的地方。

近年来已有多起维族人被违反国际法强迫遣返中国的事例。2015年8月，泰国强迫遣送220名维族人回到中国。2012年12月，马来西亚将六名维族人遣返中国。在这两件案例，人权观察均无法从泰国、马来西亚或中国政府取得进一步信息，了解被遣返人员的去向或健康状况。

“埃及能否悬崖勒马停止遣送，可以检证该国能否顶住中国压力，不做违反国际法的帮凶，”惠特森说。“人命危在旦夕。”

中国：“709”二周年，持续打压律师

倡导法治人士遭酷刑、骚扰家属等迫害

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 民主派示威人士在中联办门外举起被吊照律师江天勇的照片，要求将他释放，中国香港，2016年12月23日。 © 2016 路透社／Tyrone Siu （纽约）－人权观察今天表示，中国政府应放弃以政治罪名控告自2015年7月9日全国大抓捕关押至今的数名律师与维权人士。中国政府并应邀请联合国酷刑问题特别报告员，对在押人员指控拘押期间遭酷刑进行调查。

“中国政府声称保障人权，但只要这些律师与维权人士继续被拘押，其说法就一天比一天更加荒谬，” 中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“监禁这些奋斗争取法治的人士，已对中共维护社会稳定的诉求造成反效果。”

2015年7月，中国公安机关拘捕审讯全国约300名人权律师、律师助理和维权人士。这次对法治倡导人士的镇压始于2015年7月9日，因此又被称为“709大抓捕”。虽然绝大多数已经获释，至少三人仍被羁押候审，另有两人正在服刑。

人权律师王全璋于2015年8月遭北京公安逮捕，至今音信全无。他被控以“颠覆国家政权罪”。据报，王全璋在拘押期间曾遭电击酷刑。公安并持续骚扰为王全璋奔走的妻子李文足，多次强迫她迁离租住处所。王李两人的儿子也无法就近注册北京当地幼儿园。

吴淦于2015年5月19日在江西省被公安拘捕，当时他正为一起强奸杀人案被告律师无法查阅法庭材料而在法院外组织抗议。两个月后，吴淦被户籍地福建省的检察机关控以“颠覆国家政权罪”和“寻衅滋事罪”。2015年8月，吴淦被强迫接受官方媒体中央电视台访问。根据其律师代为传出的信件描述，当局要求吴淦认罪，但他拒绝照剧本演出。吴淦并说公安曾连续几天几夜不许他睡觉。吴淦的父亲徐孝顺，据信因儿子的维权行动受到牵连，也被福建当局以涉嫌职务侵占罪逮捕，自2015到2017年羁押约19个月。

人权律师江天勇于2016年11月从湖南长沙返回北京时失踪，后来被控颠覆国家政权罪。2017年3月，江天勇的“认罪”视频经官媒播出，他自承编造另一律师谢阳遭酷刑的情节，以此“抹黑中国政府的形象”。6月，北京公安称江天勇已将家属代其聘请的律师解除委任，但家属认为是当局强迫所致。

人权律师周世锋和民运人士胡石根被控颠覆国家政权罪，于2016年8月分别被天津法院判处七年和七年半有期徒刑。两人都曾电视“认罪”。2017年3月，中国最高法院院长周强以周世锋案为例，将审判人权律师列为中国司法系统去年最大成就之一。

部分律师和维权人士形式上获释，但仍受严密监控，与友人、同事隔绝。湖南谢阳律师于2017年5月取保，随即与父母一同被公安送往湖南偏远乡村。2017年4月被判缓刑三年的李和平律师被要求配戴电子监控器。李律师及其家人到任何地方都有公安人员跟踪。王宇律师和家人自她2016年8月取保迄今均被软禁在内蒙古。北京谢燕益律师被关押18个月，2017年1月取保后，其住宅门外被公安架设数支摄像头监控。

过去数月，由于获释的律师与维权人士揭发拘押期间所受待遇，更多酷刑细节被公诸于世。部分在押人员，包括李和平律师、李春富律师、律师助理李姝云和维权人士勾洪国，均指控公安人员强迫喂食不明药物，造成他们肌肉疼痛、视线模糊。李和平和吴淦在拘押期间都曾被上手铐及脚镣，中间用铁链连结，使他们无法站直，睡觉也不能躺平。勾洪国、吴淦、李和平和律师助理赵威均指控遭单独禁闭，不得离开囚室长达数月。据其律师2017年1月所做的会见律录，谢阳说他受到安全人员日夜审问，对他拳打脚踢，用香烟薰面，强迫维持僵直坐姿每次逾20小时。李春富律师被秘密拘押、酷刑18个月，2017年1月释放后出现多种严重精神创伤征兆。

人权观察长期纪录中国政府使用酷刑情况，其行为违反禁止酷刑公约及其他国际条约义务。殴打、长时间剥夺睡眠、无限期禁闭、威胁伤害家人等等，都是中国当局常用的手法，可能导致长期性的身心创伤。

中国当局并且持续骚扰、恐吓709律师与维权人士的代理律师，常常命令他们不得接受媒体采访，否则吊销其律师执照。至少四名律师──谢阳的律师蔺其磊、江天勇的律师覃臣寿、王全璋的律师余文生和谢阳的律师梁小军──无法通过司法当局的年度律师考核，实际上等同被停业。

“只要中国政府仍将法律辩护视同反政府活动，该国司法系统的公信力就不可能提升，”理查森说。“中国当局若能停止这种可耻的打压，就能创造今年法院工作的最大成就──也将促使中国朝向正义迈进一步。”

中国：不得遣返5名朝鲜难民

（首尔）－人权观察今天表示，中国应立即释放5名被中国拘押的朝鲜难民，并同意不将他们遣返朝鲜，以免他们面临重大危险。人权观察今天致函中国国家主席习近平，敦促中国保护这5位难民，允许他们前往第三国以求安全。

逃往国外的朝鲜人士一旦遭到强迫遣返，极可能遭受酷刑、性暴力和性虐待、劳改营监禁或公开处决，因此，根据国际法，他们属于必须加以紧急保护的难民。

“中国不应强迫这5位难民返回朝鲜。众所皆知，朝鲜政府一向严酷迫害被遣返人士，手段包括酷刑、性暴力、强迫劳动和长期监禁在该国惨无人道的集中营，”人权观察亚洲区副主任费尔・罗柏森（Phil Robertson）说。“北京应履行联合国难民公约赋予的义务，释放这5位难民，准许他们前往第三国获得安全保障。”

相关内容 Letter from HRW to Chinese President Xi Jinping re: North Korean Refugees 上周末，中国政府官员在中国东北辽宁省渖阳市逮捕这群难民。其中三人的“林”姓（化名）亲戚是现居韩国的朝鲜人。6月16日，林女士接到其兄弟用朝鲜黑市购得的中国手机打来电话，说他已带著他们的母亲和一位表亲渡过鸭绿江到达中国境内。他背著虚弱不良于行的母亲逃亡，但在山上迷路急需援助。林女士的家人在途中断粮，她的兄弟最后因为疲劳和饥饿陷入昏迷。

林女士后来联系上某人，为这几位难民送去食物和必需品，并带他们下山。据林女士告知人权观察，她在数日后一度和家人通上电话，当时那人正协助这群难民搭车离开。此后她便与家人失联。

6月21日，林女士由当地友人得知，她的家人和其他难民在吉林省延吉市遭中国军方捕获。6月22日，她听说当局将把她的家人送往延吉西南方70公里的和龙市。

中国向来将朝鲜人士视为非法“经济移民”，依据1986年签定的中朝边界议定书予以遣返。然而，不论朝鲜人士逃离本国的动机为何，只要被遣返几乎必然受到极端残酷的对待。因此，国际法一律将其视为“就地难民（refugees sur place）”，即因离国后的情况而成为难民。

中国做为1951年联合国难民公约及其1967年议定书、以及1984年反酷刑公约的缔约国，当难民可能遭受迫害或酷刑时，负有不予遣返的义务。另外依据习惯国际法，中国也负有同样义务。强迫朝鲜人回国即构成推回（refoulement），意谓将人送回其可能面临严重人权侵犯的领土。许多中国已加入的国际条约都禁止这种行为。

根据人权观察对曾遭中国遣返的朝鲜人所进行的访问，所有擅自离境的国民在返国后都会遭到朝鲜政府严厉惩罚。

2010年，朝鲜人民保安部出台法规，将叛逃列入“叛国罪”，最重可处死刑。据2013年以后逃出或持续与国内保持联系的朝鲜人告知人权观察，凡被中国遣返的朝鲜人都被判处重刑。在逃往韩国途中被捕者，可能被判刑7到15年，关进教化所（一般矫正机构）或管理所（政治犯集中营），甚至可能被处决。

朝鲜人可能因为非法居留中国而被判处两年强迫劳动，关进普通监狱。一名曾任职朝鲜国安单位（保卫部）负责在边境接收被中国遣返朝鲜人员的前高级官员向人权观察表示，每一名被遣返人员都会遭到官员刑讯逼供，调查他们在中国的藏匿地点、联系对象和所作所为。

林女士仍特别担忧家人的情况，因为她的父亲也曾在2010年遭警方拘捕并强迫失踪。凡是有人被捕后下落、开庭日期或判决结果都音信全无，亲友便会认为该人员已被送进政治犯集中营（管理所）。林女士担心，由于她父亲的情况，她的家人也将消失在管理所中。

朝鲜政治犯集中营的特征是系统性虐待，且条件通常极为恶劣，包括口粮稀少濒临饥饿、几乎毫无医疗照护、缺乏适当住房与衣物和经常性的不当对待，例如警卫性侵与虐待，以及草率处决。根据朝鲜前政治犯和狱警的说法，集中营的死亡率极高。普通监狱的囚犯同样也面临强迫劳动、粮食与药品短缺以及警卫的频繁虐待。

2014年联合国朝鲜人权问题调查委员会发现，朝鲜当局“广泛且有系统打击被视为威胁[该国]政治制度与领导人的群体...俾将该群体孤立于外在世界”，逃脱者因此成为打击目标。该委员会并发现，各种危害人类罪行，包括酷刑、处决、奴役与性暴力，都被施加在由中国强迫遣返朝鲜的囚犯和其他人士。

人权观察呼吁中国停止遣返朝鲜人士，允许联合国难民机构行使保护人员的职责。中国应为朝鲜难民提供政治庇护，让他们到第三国获得安置，或允许他们通过中国领土时不必担心被捕或强迫遣返。

2016年12月，联合国安全理事会连续第三年将朝鲜人权情势列入讨论议程，将其视为国际和平与安全的威胁之一。3月，联合国人权理事会通过决议，加强联合国关于起诉朝鲜政府普遍人权罪行的策略评估与研议工作。

“绝不能粉饰太平：只要这些人被强迫回到朝鲜，他们的生命安全必有危险，” 罗柏森说。“全世界正拭目以待，看北京是要履行义务保护这五位难民，还是要做朝鲜侵权的共犯。”

人权观察致函中国国家主席习近平主旨：朝鲜难民问题

习近平主席

中国共产党中央委员会办公厅

北京市西城区府右街中南海西门

中华人民共和国

邮编：100017

主旨：关于五位在押朝鲜难民

习主席钧鉴：

人权观察是专门调查并报导人权问题的国际组织，范围涵盖中国、朝鲜、韩国、美国等90多个国家。我们关注世界各地广泛人权议题，例如保护难民、阻止推回，终结酷刑和防止限制基本自由，包括离开自己国家的迁徙自由。

我们谨此要求阁下，立即停止强迫五位朝鲜难民返回朝鲜民主主义人民共和国。这五人上周在辽宁省渖阳市被公安逮捕，目前据信被拘押在吉林省延吉市附近。人权观察呼吁阁下准许这五位最近露面是在贵国政府拘押下的人士安全前往第三国。

这五人若被遣返朝鲜，很可能遭到严酷虐待。他们可能被施加酷刑、关进监狱集中营、强迫劳动，根据往例，他们还可能遭受性暴力，乃至处决。上述信息既基于人权观察的调研，也符合联合国人权理事会朝鲜人权调查委员会的结论。该委员会的完整报告已于2014年发布。

本件事项相当紧急，因为我们获得的最新信息指出，这五人即将被送往延吉西南70公里、靠近中朝边界的和龙市。一旦他们被送抵和龙，便可能随时遭到强迫遣返。详情请见本则新闻稿。

贵国政府将滞留中国的朝鲜人士视为非法“经济移民”，依据1986年签定的中朝边界议定书予以一律遣返。但人权观察调查发现，朝鲜人擅自离国被遣返后，必然面临严厉处罚。因此，依照国际法规定，他们应被视为“就地难民（refugees sur place）”──因逃离本国的行为或出国后发生事变而成为难民。2010年，朝鲜人民保安部通过法规，将叛逃行为列入“叛国罪”，最重可处死刑。据2013年以后逃出、但持续与国内保持联系的朝鲜人告知人权观察，凡被中国遣返的朝鲜人士，回国后马上会面临监禁、酷刑、不人道待遇、奴役和性暴力。

做为1951年联合国难民公约及其1967年议定书的缔约国，中国应履行义务，不得将可能受迫害的朝鲜人士送回朝鲜，以免他们的生命或自由因擅自出国而受到威胁。

我们注意到，针对中国将在其国内被捕的朝鲜脱逃人员强迫返回朝鲜，联合国禁止酷刑委员会曾在2015年11月表示严重关切。我们强烈要求中国政府揭露五名在押朝鲜人士的下落，遵守中国依《难民公约》所负有的国际法义务，即保护难民且在任何情况下均不得强迫难民返回他们可能遭受迫害的地方。

费尔・罗柏森

亚洲区副主任

索菲・理查森

中国部主任

谨上

中国：西藏宣传掩饰压迫

（纽约，2017年6月20日）－人权观察今天发布一份图解词汇指出，中国当局日益在官方媒体上利用掩盖事实的政策词汇加大对西藏的压迫力度。

《西藏压迫词汇》以图片配合说明十二个关键术语，字面上看来相当温和甚至富有积极意义，事实上却用来确保全面服从官员对藏族平民的监控。该词汇收录的术语分别代表不同形式的政治与社会控制，例如“综合治理”、“没有缝子、没有盲点、没有空白点”和“村村成堡垒，人人做守望”。

“即便欧威尔（Orwell）再世，怕也造不出更好的极权管理词汇，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“但中国当局利用这些词汇，传达给藏人的信息再清楚不过：若不在政治上保持一致，难逃严厉惩罚。”

这些词语的运用──而且不厌其烦地通过官媒逐日反覆宣导──不仅是在指导藏区官员执行中共的规则与政策，同时也是在遏制批评党和质疑其政策。这些词语很少向民众或外界人士做全盘说明，虽然有些听起来有益无害，实际上却反映出深具压迫性的治藏政策。

即便欧威尔再世，怕也造不出更好的极权管理词汇，但中国当局利用这些词汇，传达给藏人的信息再清楚不过：若不在政治上保持一致，难逃严厉惩罚。索菲・理查森中国部主任

在中国各藏区，尤其是西藏自治区，地方官员长期遵行自2007年正式出台的“维稳”政策──为防范、控制或惩戒异见人士和社会失序，遍布中国各地的一套治安与行政系统──作为吓阻藏人支持达赖喇嘛的一种办法。但青藏高原各地自2008年春季爆发支持达赖喇嘛的抗议后，中共领导人又派员到当地调研，寻求防范未来抗争的新方法。

此举导致西藏自治区自2011年起实施一连串前所未见的行政与安全机制，包括在每一所寺院和宗教机构派驻干部工作组充任管理人员，在每一座村庄派驻干部工作队执行安全勤务和思想教育，以及设立“网格系统”办事处监控和管理每一城镇和部分乡村的街区或联户单位。《西藏压迫词汇》揭示官员如何利用这些话语来推动上述创新，使它们看来符合社会需求，同时暗示其真实目的。

“了解诸如‘社会整改’之类的词语，可以看清中国当局对西藏的意图：一切日常生活行为都要监控，任何可疑活动都要立即查明严惩，”理查森说。

粉红爱心遮不住西藏宣传活动压迫本质

“四爱”听在许多人耳里，可能会联想到流行音乐或心灵鸡汤──而不是威权政权刺激政治効忠的新活动。但中国共产党就是喜欢用甜言蜜语包装人权压迫。

Click to expand Image 西藏自治区首府拉萨，小学生排队参加“四讲四爱”系列活动之一的“我向习爷爷说句心里话”活动。 © 中国西藏之声网在人权持续遭受国家系统性侵犯的西藏，最近街头巷尾挂满了“四讲四爱”活动的宣传海报，要求民众“讲党恩爱核心，讲团结爱祖国，讲贡献爱家园，讲文明爱生活”。

它真正的意思是：大家不可以针砭政策、评议官员，要向“核心”──即中共及其领导人习近平──感恩戴德。“爱祖国”的唯一方式，就是反对任何破坏“团结”的言行，当然包括批评党和国家，或谈论有关独立或高度自治的话题。若想成为“好公民”，就该全心全意努力“贡献”──但什么可以贡献、什么不可以贡献，党说了算。

给下一代灌输这种教条永远不嫌早：有照片为证，在西藏自治区首府拉萨，每所小学的学生都要参加“我向习爷爷说句心里话”活动。其中一张照片附有图说：“把小小心声化为...小小留言。”

放在当地饱尝压迫的背景下，这种争取西藏人心的活动更显其悲剧性。近年来，当局按照中央政府意志重塑藏区经济，将藏人排除在决策之外──某些游牧社群的生活水平反而因此明显恶化。

当局对藏人的忠诚依旧存疑，不断大幅扩充安全与监控机构，有计划地将国家控制力伸入宗教活动的每一面向。同时，藏人──和中国各地民众一样──根本没有办法参与、改变或反对那些造成他们生活天翻地覆的政策。

宣传──不管涂上多厚的蜜糖，贴上多少粉红色的爱心──绝不可能为中国当局制造出他们想从藏人得到的忠诚或尊重。反之，若尊重藏人的人权，长此以往或能成功。

中国应停止限制公民社会参与反贫困政策，并与联合国任务负责人合作且不予干涉

项目3：与极端贫困问题特别报告员的互动对话

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options 人权观察欢迎特别报告员菲利普・奥尔斯顿（Philip Alston）先生的报告，探讨中国实施有关极端贫困的政策与计划是否符合该国人权义务。

特别报告员承认中国在减贫方面的重大成就，但也正确指出公民社会被限制而无法参与制定反贫困政策与计划，政府在反贫困工作上的作为和不作为导致公民政治权利和经济社会权利受侵害，以及前述侵害发生后缺乏有效问责机制。正如特别报告员所强调，新近颁布的法律，诸如《境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》和《慈善法》，对NGO倡导反贫困政策议题的作用造成了进一步囿限。

特别报告员的发现，与人权观察的研究不谋而合。中国自上而下的反贫困工作，加上系统性忽视人权，带来严重后果，特别是对边缘弱势人群，例如儿童、身心障碍者和少数民族。近年来，我们纪录到铅中毒儿童家长为维权饱受政府骚扰、恐吓；身心障碍者因童年求学四处碰壁，以致沦为文盲、失业和贫穷的比率偏高；藏族地区大规模非自愿性的住房重建或迁移计划导致流离失所与边缘化。

人权观察也对中国当局极力阻挠特别报告员访问深感忧虑。如报告所述，特别报告员身边总是伴随安全官员，他指明要求的会议和活动都被省略，他预定会见的公民社会代表都遭到威胁或报复，这种种做法都违背了人权理事会的行为守则和业务手册。理事会应谴责中国政府前述干涉行为，促其尊重树立已久的原则，允许各种特别程序自由实施独立调查。

我们想请问特别报告员将建议理事会采取何种行动，俾能加强保障各特别程序访问不受政府干涉，且各任务负责人所接触的人员获得充分保护。

铅中毒

June 15, 2011 “My Children Have Been Poisoned” A Public Health Crisis in Four Chinese Provinces

Available In English 简体中文 Summary Testing Practices Access to Information Access to Medical Treatment Intimidation by Police and Government Officials Remediation and Long-Term Solutions Occupational Health Recommendations Methodology I. Background The Scope and Impact of Pollution in China Lead Poisoning in China Social Unrest Due to Environmental Hazards at Home and in the Workplace Access to Information and Environmental Protection II. Findings Testing Practices Restricted Testing Withholding of Test Results Discrepancies in Test Results Access to Medical Treatment Provision of Inappropriate, Inadequate, and Inconsistent Treatment Denial of Treatment Protection from Re-exposure Access to Information Withholding of Information Obstructions to Reporting Intimidation by Police and Government Officials Arrests and Detention Remediation/Long-Term Solutions Relocation Financial Remediation Services for Children Occupational Health III. China’s Domestic and International Obligations Related to Human Rights and the Environment Right to Health Environmental Health The Child’s Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health Occupational Health The Right to Health Information Appendix I: Lead Poisoning Symptoms, Effects on Health, and Treatment Appendix II: Toxicity Levels in Children Acknowledgments Maps June 15, 2011 News Release China: Children Poisoned by Lead and Denied Treatment Click to expand Image Click to expand Image Related Content June 15, 2011 News Release China: Children Poisoned by Lead and Denied Treatment Officials Prevent Access to Care, Intimidate and Detain Parents

Summary My children have been poisoned and there is nothing I can do to help them. —Sun, Henan province, May 2010 Hundreds of thousands of children in China are suffering permanent mental and physical disabilities as a result of lead poisoning. Many of them live in poor, polluted villages next to, and surrounded by, lead smelters and battery factories. Often, their parents work in these factories, bringing more lead into their homes on their clothes, boots, and hands.

China today has the world’s largest population and second largest economy. The country’s gross domestic product has increased ten-fold in the last 15 years. That rise in gross domestic product (GDP) growth has helped lift 200 million people out of absolute poverty since 1978. But this rapid economic development has also exacted a steep environmental price; widespread industrial pollution that has contaminated water, soil, and air and put the health of millions of people—likely even hundreds of millions—at risk. Currently, 20 of the world’s 30 most polluted cities are in China.

Pollution from lead is highly toxic and can interrupt the body’s neurological, biological, and cognitive functions. Children are particularly susceptible, and high levels of lead exposure can cause reduced IQ and attention span, reading and learning disabilities, behavioral problems, hearing loss, and disruption in the development of visual and motor functioning. High levels of lead can cause anemia, brain, liver, kidney, nerve, and stomach damage, as well as comas, convulsions, and even death. Worldwide, lead poisoning kills 230,000 people each year.

Today, lead poisoning is among the most common pediatric health problems in China.While the lack of comprehensive data makes it difficult to determine the extent of the epidemic, a number of sources—including academic and media reports—indicate it is a public health emergency affecting whole communities.

The Chinese government’s ill regard for human rights means it has been able to pursue a model of economic development that is not accountable to its citizens, including poor people who are often particularly susceptible to the most damaging health effects of environmental hazards. But industrial pollution, and the lack of accountability that accompanies it, extends far beyond health issues: it impacts the full realization of human rights in China, including people’s right to life, health, an adequate standard of living, as well as to information, participation, and access to justice.

Underpinning China’s lead poisoning epidemic is a tension between the government’s goals for economic growth and its efforts to curb environmental degradation. The Chinese government has developed numerous laws, regulations, and action plans designed to cut emissions, encourage more environmentally-friendly industries and decrease pollution. Yet these policies are in competition with the Chinese government’s goals for economic development; the first guiding principle of the country’s Twelfth Five-year Plan for Environmental Protection (2011-2015) is “optimizing economic development.”

At the local level, such policy contradictions may encourage factories to cut corners on emissions standards. Corruption and conflict of interest can also undermine environmental protection efforts. Local officials, who often have a legal or financial role in local factories, may be resistant to implementing environmentally friendly technology. Existing environmental laws often lack effective enforcement mechanisms.

This report—based on interviews in Henan, Hunan, Shaanxi, and Yunnan provinces, and research in Beijing and Shanghai between late 2009 and early 2010 — finds that local governments have imposed arbitrary limits on access to blood lead testing; refused appropriate treatment to children and adults with critically high lead levels; withheld and failed to explain test results showing unaccountable improvements in lead levels; and denied the scope and severity of lead poisoning.

Parents said that government officials told them that only children living within one kilometer of a factory smokestack were at risk and that milk was adequate treatment for lead poisoning. Parents reported that local police threatened individuals seeking treatment and information, and those trying to protest against polluting factories have been arrested. Journalists told us they have been intimidated and threatened when trying to report on lead poisoning.

Meanwhile local Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs), staffed and supervised by local government officials, have done little to fulfill their obligation to monitor emissions, disseminate information to the public about polluting factories, and enforce environmental regulations that stipulate a factory or polluting entity must be improved or removed when it endangers public health.

Among the many government abuses that Human Rights Watch documented that directly compromised the health of children and adults at risk for lead poisoning are:

Testing Practices Although local governments have provided some free testing for children under the age of 14, in the areas we visited with acute lead poisoning, seemingly arbitrary restrictions on testing restricted the ability of individuals to access free testing. In some cases, children were denied testing, even when parents were willing to pay for it.

Many parents in Henan and Shaanxi, suspicious about false results showing normal blood lead levels (BLLs), brought their children to towns outside the contaminated area for testing. In every case, these results were much higher than those provided by the local hospital or the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC). In Yunnan, many parents said they were denied access to their children’s results and simply told the results were normal.

Access to Information In Hunan, Henan, Shaanxi, and Yunnan provinces, parents said they only learned that local factories were polluting at toxic levels when their children fell ill. In each province, they said they received no information about the health risks associated with the pollution, including any risk or medical consequences of lead poisoning.

Journalists who reported on lead poisoning told Human Rights Watch that police had followed them or forced them to leave the area when they tried to interview people. A foreign journalist who had been to a polluted site in Hunan said police had questioned his driver, as well as people he had interviewed. A journalist reporting on lead poisoning in Shaanxi was also forced to leave.

Access to Medical Treatment Parents of children with dangerously high blood lead levels in all four provinces were unable to access effective treatment. They reported that health workers and government officials told them to feed their children specific foods, including apples, garlic, milk, and eggs. In rare cases children were given medicine but inconsistently and without medical supervision. In nearly every case, children were returned to their homes to face ongoing exposure to lead with dangerous and potentially deadly consequences.

Intimidation by Police and Government Officials In all four provinces, villagers told Human Rights Watch they were scared to ask government officials for more help or information. In Shaanxi province, villagers said police had detained people protesting outside a lead-processing factory. In Hunan, seven people were arrested while trying to seek help for their children.

Remediation and Long-Term Solutions Most families said they were not financially able to move to an unpolluted area. Villagers in Shaanxi said the government had announced plans to move residents from several villages to other areas but did not know when or if this will happen, where they are supposed to go, and/or how they would earn a living in a new area.

In villages where lead exposure is highest, a generation of cognitively and physically disabled children will need significant and ongoing support. Most parents Human Rights Watch spoke with were generally unaware of these long-term consequences of lead exposure. However, some said their children were already struggling: failing physically or underperforming in school. Yet neither the schools nor the local government had offered special services or opportunities for children with lead poisoning. These needs will become even more acute as the years pass and lead poisoning continues to be neglected.

Occupational Health In addition to researching the effects of lead on the communities surrounding polluting factories, Human Rights Watch interviewed family members of a female worker in a lead processing plant in Yunnan who died of acute lead poisoning. Human Rights Watch also interviewed individuals concerned about the absence of adequate worker protections. According to workers in Yunnan, Henan, and Shaanxi, blood lead tests and safety measures are not routine practice.

The Chinese people have already suffered grave consequences as a result of inappropriate and inadequate responses to public health crises. During the 1990s and early 2000s, local officials in Henan and other provinces ran programs for impoverished farmers to sell their blood plasma and platelets. The program was unsanitary and unsafe, but selling blood plasma was profitable for officials, and they continued to deny evidence of an emerging HIV epidemic. Tens of thousands were infected, nearly a majority of adults in some villages, and the public health consequences continue. Similarly, in 2003, SARS was first denied and then downplayed by government health officials who censored media and lied to international health agencies, resulting in ongoing transmission and unnecessary suffering and deaths.

The Chinese government’s response to AIDS and SARS was characterized by corruption, cover-up, and harassment of media and health activists, resulting in a delayed and ineffective public health response. The response to lead poisoning has so far followed this same road, but it is not too late for the Chinese government to take a different approach.

The Chinese government has repeatedly and voluntarily pledged in public statements, in domestic law, and in international treaties to protect the fundamental human rights of its citizens, including their right to the highest attainable standard of health. It must ensure that laws that safeguard human health against environmental hazards are implemented locally and followed consistently. When health is compromised, the government needs to act swiftly to provide health information and evidence-based medical treatment. Further, the government must hold accountable those responsible for protecting the community’s health and wellbeing when they choose actions that instead endanger or neglect health.

Recommendations To the Government of the People’s Republic of China

Ensure that government officials who are suspected of failing to uphold environmental regulations or preventing people from accessing medical care are investigated and held accountable. Invite the special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the United Nations independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation to lead an independent inquiry into the impact of industrial lead poisoning in China. To the Local Governments across China Facing Widespread Lead Poisoning

Conduct surveillance to determine the extent of lead poisoning affecting communities. Where surveillance indicates lead poisoning, take immediate actions to identify and eliminate sources of lead pollution and to treat those affected. Ensure that local residents are informed of the results of surveillance efforts and the measures being taken in response. If contamination is severe enough to require the community’s relocation: Begin a relocation process that includes community participation. Attention should be paid to the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement. Relocation should, as far as possible, provide equivalent land, facilities, and opportunity to earn an income that permits an adequate standard of living as that provided by the land from which communities are forced to relocate. Provide affected communities with regular and accurate information regarding relocation, including a timetable, and any economic, health, or educational services that will be provided. When blood lead testing shows elevated levels of lead, provide referrals to social services to ensure that children and adults who have, or may develop, physical and cognitive disabilities as a result of lead poisoning receive disability-related services, including educational, employment, and financial assistance, as guaranteed under Chinese law. Allow communities to exercise their rights to assembly and expression in seeking remedies in relation to environmental contamination. Stop all arbitrary arrests of individuals who are exercising these fundamental rights. Stop the harassment and obstruction of journalists seeking to report on environmental pollution and its impact on communities and arbitrary detention and arrests of parents and community members seeking information and remedies to environmental contamination. To the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Chinese Government

Test all factories for pollution levels that surpass national guidelines, prioritizing factories that are located close to residential areas; that have not had environmental impact assessments; and which have been the focus of inquiries about contamination without proper investigation. Shut down factories found to have pollution levels that surpass national standards or put in place lead mitigation systems to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals, both for the workers inside and local communities. Ensure affected communities receive information on the environment and health consequences of contamination. Revise laws by closing loopholes to ensure that factories which endanger people’s health cannot continue to operate by paying a fine without further measures. Ensure that local Environmental Protection Bureaus have the staff, resources, and accountability mechanisms to implement and enforce the Environmental Protection Law and other legislation protecting health and the environment. Ensure that government officials do not have ownership or financial interests in industrial facilities under their direct supervision and strengthen monitoring of government officials to identify conflicts of interest. Devise a comprehensive environmental clean-up strategy for all lead contaminated areas in China. Provide citizens with environmental information in an accessible format that they are entitled to by law. To the Ministry of Health at the National and Provincial Levels

Use scientifically sound methods to designate the accurate area of risk for lead exposure and ensure all people within that area are offered free blood lead testing. Ensure that no one, regardless of residency or proximity to lead poisoning areas, is denied access to blood lead tests. Put in place quality control measures and oversight to ensure that each individual who is tested receives accurate test results. Provide evidence-based medical treatment and case management for lead poisoning to all in need, consistently across provinces. Work with the local government to ensure that all children receiving treatment are removed from the area of contamination. Ensure that all affected communities have access to information on lead poisoning. Devise a comprehensive public health strategy to tackle chronic lead exposure and its long-term consequences in China. To the Ministry of Education at the National and Provincial Levels Ensure that all children who have developmental disabilities as a result of lead poisoning are able to access appropriate educational opportunities. To the World Health Organization

Provide technical expertise to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure accuracy of blood lead level testing. Work with the Ministry of Health to develop a comprehensive treatment plan for children and adults with elevated blood lead levels. To Foreign Companies Sourcing Materials from China

Ensure that materials originate from a factory with an environmental impact assessment and that is legally allowed to be operating through the following mechanisms: Execution of a social and environmental review by a credible third party of source industrial facility operations. Conduct site visits of source industrial facilities to ensure compliance with safeguards aimed to mitigate social and environmental risks. Ensure that allegations of hazardous conditions which local populations are exposed to are investigated and resolved. To Governments and International Organizations Funding or Concerned about Health, Environment and Human Rights Issues in China, including the United States (US) Government and European Union

Voice concern to the Chinese government about the severity and persistence of industrial pollution in China. Strongly condemn the arrests and detention of citizens exercising their legal rights by protesting industrial pollution and lead poisoning in China. Methodology Between the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010, Human Rights Watch conducted research in villages in four different provinces: Henan, Hunan, Shaanxi, and Yunnan, as well as in Beijing and Shanghai.

China does not allow independent, impartial organizations to freely conduct research or monitor human rights abuses; as a result, conducting interviews and gathering credible information presents great challenges.

This report is based on interviews we conducted with 52 parents and grandparents whose children or grandchildren have lead poisoning.[1] Some of the parents and grandparents work in lead processing factories and smelters. We also interviewed the family of a female factory worker who had died of lead poisoning in the previous six weeks and six children who have lead poisoning. In addition we interviewed five journalists who had reported on lead poisoning issues in China and both Chinese and international nongovernmental organization (NGO) workers with familiarity on pollution and lead poisoning in China.

Interviews were conducted in Chinese and English and no incentives were offered or provided to persons interviewed. All participants provided oral informed consent to participate and were assured anonymity. As a result, pseudonyms have been assigned to each individual interviewed and, where relevant, to their child or grandchild. Individuals were assured that they could end the interview at any time or decline to answer any questions, without any negative consequences. In addition to oral statements, some interviewees also gave Human Rights Watch copies of test results and health records. All participants were informed of the purpose of the interview, its voluntary nature, and the ways data would be collected and used.

Human Rights Watch also interviewed government officials in two provinces who were responsible for restricting access to villages where high levels of lead poisoning has occurred. For security reasons, names of villages and specific information on their locations are withheld. Because of security concerns, Human Rights Watch did not request interviews with central government officials.

Past and current environmental legislation, regulation, and policy documents in English and Chinese were reviewed, as well as scholarly articles from Western and Chinese journals of environmental health, the United Nations (UN), and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) health guidelines and Chinese Ministry of Health guidelines. In addition, researchers also reviewed local news reports of lead poisoning, environmental pollution, and environmental protests.

Human Rights Watch research in four provinces found similar trends in each government’s response to the local lead poisoning epidemic, and media and Chinese government reports support our findings. However, several limitations to our research should be considered. First, our research is based on interviews in only 4 of China's 33 provinces. While the problem of pollution and lead poisoning is widespread, local responses may be different in provinces we did not visit. Second, because of security concerns, we were limited in our ability to interview government officials, including government health workers, and were not therefore able to reflect their perspectives on barriers to treatment and the limited scope of testing. While the Chinese GDP has grown rapidly in recent years, healthcare spending has lagged, and rural healthcare facilities are generally under resourced. The extent to which these facilities have failed to effectively respond to the lead crisis because of lack of financial resources or because of other causes is unknown.

In this report, the word “child” refers to anyone under the age of 18. The Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.”[2] China’s Law on the Protection of Minors also defines children as citizens under the age of 18.[3]

I. Background The Scope and Impact of Pollution in China Since the late 1970s, China has achieved tremendous economic growth. With the second largest economy in the world, China is widely recognized as an economic superpower.[4] In the past 15 years, the gross domestic product has increased ten-fold.[5] China contributed one-third of global economic growth in 2004 and held 14 percent of the world economy on purchasing parity basis in 2005, second to the United States.[6] The rapid economic growth has lifted millions out of poverty: according to the World Bank, the average income was US$293 in 1985 and $2,025 in 2006.[7]

However, this unprecedented growth has come at a high environmental cost. Rapid development has triggered widespread industrial pollution.[8]China has earned the notorious distinction of having 20 of the world’s 30 most polluted cities.[9] Water, air, and soil pollution in China are dangerously widespread and are garnering international attention as a public health crisis both domestically and abroad.[10]

Contaminated drinking water kills 95,600 people per year in China.[11] Approximately one-third of low-income households depend on surface water as the primary drinking source. Yet even after treatment, only half of China’s 200 major rivers and less than a quarter of its major lakes and reservoirs are considered suitable for human consumption.[12] Widespread pollution exacerbates water scarcity by compelling communities and factories to rely on contaminated water sources.[13] As a result, water scarcity quickly becomes a public health problem. For instance, water scarcity in northern China forced farmers to irrigate approximately 40,000 kilometers with waste water; consequently, crops and soil were contaminated with heavy metal pollutants such as lead and mercury.[14] Water scarcity additionally contributes to the spread of diseases associated with microbial and industrial pollutants. Over 300 million people in China rely on hazardous water sources.[15]

Industrial run off and disasters profoundly impact the safety of the water supply since the release of toxic chemicals can devastate an entire city; for example, Harbin, China’s tenth largest city, was left with no water for its four million residents after a chemical plant explosion in 2005. The city’s water system was shut down for four days as the accident led to the release of 100,000 kg of benzene, aniline, and other heavy metals into the water system.[16]

In addition to severe water pollution, China has the world’s highest levels of air pollution[17] and is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.[18] The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that an estimated 656,000 Chinese citizens die of diseases triggered by indoor and outdoor air pollution per year,[19] and the level of airborne particulate matter, which includes ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and dust, in Chinese cities consistently violates WHO air quality guidelines.[20] In 2004, the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) conducted a routine monitoring of air quality in 360 cities, and results showed that 70 percent of urban areas failed to meet national ambient air quality standards.[21]

Adverse health effects from air pollution include acute lower respiratory infections, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Compounded by the high prevalence of smoking in China,[22] COPD alone is responsible for one to three million deaths in China every year.[23] Outdoor air pollution is caused by a variety of sources, including motor vehicle emissions, chemical combustion from industrial use, burning of agricultural waste and solid fuels, and use of coal as a primary energy source. Because coal provides 70 percent of China’s electricity, China has become one of the world’s largest emitters of sulphur dioxide, which in turn has increased occurrences of acid rain.[24] The use of coal in China accounts for 25 percent of mercury and 12 percent of carbon dioxide emissions globally.[25]

Heavy metal pollution is also widespread within China. Heavy metals are discharged as waste from various industries such as mining, chemical refineries, textile printing and dyeing, leather tanning, pesticides, animal feed manufacturing, electroplates, battery producers, and smelters, which are electrolytic plants that separate chemical concentrates into a pure form. Heavy metals commonly discharged through air or water pollution include arsenic, mercury, zinc, copper, nickel, chromium, manganese, cadmium, and lead. These elements are all found naturally in the environment. Trace amounts of arsenic, mercury, zinc, copper, manganese, chromium, and nickel in the human body are tolerable; however, overexposure results in adverse health effects.

Although these substances are naturally found within the environment, they may become extremely toxic to the ecosystem in high concentrations. Copper amounts above 0.0002 mg/L become toxic for fish in water and adversely affect other aquatic organisms. Copper toxicity also prevents the development of plants, negatively impacting the process of nutrient absorption and root growth. Chromium inhibits the water self-purification process and kills beneficial microorganisms in water. In animals, chromium may induce birth defects, weaken immune systems, and cause tumors. The accumulation of heavy metals in the soil has also been known to adversely affect plant growth. If heavy metals are prevalent in soil, then plants may absorb the chemicals and become contaminated as well, causing food safety issues.

The dangers of widespread pollution have been acknowledged at the highest levels of the Chinese government. Premier Wen Jiaobao summarized the grim challenges facing China: as of 2006, one-third of China was affected by acid rain, 90 percent of natural grasslands have deteriorated, and 1.74 million square kilometers had become desertified.[26] Despite a rising GDP, Cheng Siwei, former vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, conceded in 2010 that the country has “paid heavy costs for all the environmental pollution, wasted resources and ecological deterioration.”[27]

In an effort to address environmental degradation, the Chinese government has committed to what it calls “sustainably developed GDP”[28] and has implemented plans to slow the growth of greenhouse gases.[29] In expanding its environmental agenda, the government has rigorously developed and encouraged the use of green technologies.[30] Yet despite the pledge to adopt greener policies and technologies, China still faces an enormous task in protecting health and cleaning up pollution sites while employing sustainable practices and technologies.

The Chinese government has also fined or shut down companies that operate illegally. According to government statistics, a total of 2,183 heavy metal companies were punished for illegal operations in 2009,[31] and an additional 231 companies were shut down. In November 2010, the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) issued a list of enterprises which violated national safety standards through unsafe heavy metal storage and disposal procedures, and the list typifies the kinds of violations which commonly occur among heavy-metal-related enterprises. Among these companies, illegal operations generally involved improper management and storage of hazardous waste, such as lead-containing slag, failure to implement preventative measures for the seepage of arsenic-containing residue into the environment, and failure to adhere to environmental impact assessments, such as the improper disposal of lead-containing sludge through rainwater channels.[32] In rare instances, owners of hazardous factories may face criminal charges.[33] However, liability for contaminated industrial sites is frequently disputed, with neither current nor former owners consistently held responsible. Even when hazardous facilities are shut down in response to environmental concerns, they may be re-opened with no changes in operation procedures.[34]

In addition to large industrial facilities, small-scale heavy metal enterprises can pose a serious threat to the eco-system and public health.[35] The township and village enterprise (TVE) sector, comprised of small-scale, private factories, emits 60 percent of China’s air and water pollution and employs more than 130 million rural workers.[36] The TVE sector encompasses over 20 million small-scale factories scattered throughout the Chinese countryside, making these enterprises difficult to monitor and regulate.[37] The TVE sector is less likely to use environmental mitigation technologies since they often lack access to significant capital. Although national regulations have successfully closed some of the worst environmental offenders, the TVE sector remains a major threat to the environment and public health.[38]

A study by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture surveyed the TVE sector in 30 sample counties in 15 provinces.[39] Industries surveyed included textiles, chemical production, metal processing, construction material production, plastics manufacturing, coal mining, and electronic equipment production. It found that there was at least one occupational hazard to worker safety in 83 percent of the workplaces surveyed. Within the chemical industry, the study noted that 1,473 out of 1,553 enterprises had occupational risks, and in the electronic communication equipment manufacturing industry 414 out of 548 enterprises were also found to have occupational hazards.[40] The study concluded that approximately one-third of all employees were exposed to those hazards.[41]

In response to increasing cases of heavy metal pollution, the Ministry of Environmental Protection[42] in August 2009 approved a draft of the Implementation Plan for the Comprehensive Handling of Heavy Metal Pollution, which set out to strengthen the regulatory system for heavy metal pollutants, bolster industrial structure reform, and establish an inspection and supervision system for the prevention of pollution.[43] The MEP also announced a three-month nationwide campaign that would investigate enterprises which handle significant amounts of heavy metals.[44] Locally, some municipal governments have been reported to offer free lead blood tests for children under 14 in response to the outcry over heavy metal pollution cases.[45]

Lead Poisoning in China Elevated lead levels damage the brain, kidneys, and blood cells, which may result in anemia, deficits in IQ, high blood pressure, coma, or death.[46] However, the range of manifestations of lead poisoning may also mean that it can go unrecognized or confused with other disorders.[47] While the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines lead poisoning as any blood lead concentrations over 10 micrograms per deciliter, the World Health Organization considers lead in the blood unsafe at any level.[48] Researchers have suggested that there is no blood lead level in which there are not cognitive effects, and each microgram per deciliter of blood lead concentration can be associated with a reduction in IQ of 0.25 points.[49]

Childhood lead poisoning is among the most common pediatric health problems in China.[50]Pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning. In pregnant women, lead poisoning can cause premature birth, low birth weight, or damage the fetus.[51] Children are especially at risk for lead poisoning because they tend to absorb up to 50 percent of lead they are exposed to, compared to 10-15 percent for adults.[52] Lead affects the development of a child’s nervous and digestive system, and virtually every organ in children is susceptible to damage from lead poisoning.[53] The propensity of infants and young children to explore the world through their mouths or play in what may be lead contaminated areas, increases their likelihood of ingesting or inhaling lead in dust and dirt.[54]

In China, lead exposure may occur through a variety of sources such as lead-polluted air, paint, water, food, lead-painted toys, and stationery.[55] Determining the overall extent of lead poisoning in China is difficult due to a lack of comprehensive data, but an increasing number of sources including academic and media reports suggest that lead poisoning is becoming a public health emergency, especially in heavy industrial areas. In a study published in 2004 of the blood lead levels of children in rural communities in Zhejiang province, the average blood lead level was 9.5 μg/dL; children whose parents worked in potentially lead contaminated sites had BLLs greater than 10 μg/dL.[56] A review of reports regarding lead poisoning in the Chinese medical literature between 1990 and 2005 found that the 2002 Occupational Diseases Prevention and Control Act had limited impact on either lead exposure or lead poisoning in China.[57]

Even in non-industrial areas located away from heavy metal facilities, people were still found to have elevated blood lead levels. In 2004 in Chengdu, located in Sichuan province, 938 children under seven-years-old were tested for elevated blood lead levels; the average BLL was 6.4 μg/dL.[58] The studies concluded that using formula rather than breast milk and living on the ground floor, in one story houses, or near the street were all considered major risk factors in exacerbating lead exposure.[59]

In an attempt to provide an overall picture of the distribution of blood lead levels among children in China, researchers from the Peking University Health Science Center reviewed articles regarding children’s BLLs from 1994 to 2004. The study looked specifically at children living in sites far from industrial sources of lead pollution and found a BLL average of 9.3 μg/dL; 34 percent of subjects possessed BLLs greater than 10 μg/dL.[60] Children in Shaanxi were found to have the highest average BLL and highest prevalence of BLLs over 10 μg/dL (70.6 percent). After Shaanxi, provinces with the highest averages included Henan and Sichuan, following by Gansu, Hainan, Lioaning, Jilin, and Yunnan. Despite these cases of elevated blood levels in non-industrial and urban areas, China has not yet established a routine national blood lead surveillance system.

Social Unrest Due to Environmental Hazards at Home and in the Workplace Chinese residents are increasingly participating in public protests, which the government refers to as “mass incidents”.[61] Protests over pollution and occupational health and labor disputes are increasingly accounting for many of the more than 100,000 mass protests occurring each year in China.

As reported by Chinese media, the MEP acknowledged that in Shaanxi province alone in 2009, there were 32 public disturbances (起群体性事件).[62] In addition, an average of 10 air and water contamination accidents nationally was reported per month in 2010.[63] Environmental protests are largely in rural areas, and many are either quickly suppressed or censored. Any news of these incidents often emerges days or weeks later.[64]

For instance in 2005, thousands of people rioted in the village of Huaxi in Zhejiang province after police officers attempted to stop elderly villagers from protesting the poor air quality and contaminated farmland due to a nearby factory’s pollution.[65] Although the government temporarily suspended the factory’s operation after several weeks of protesting, villagers reported that the government eventually sent over 3,000 police officers in response to disperse the elderly women who continued to protest and the village erupted in violence. According to a local resident, the village had already sent representatives to file complaints at the government petition offices in Zhejiang province and Beijing over the course of two years, with “no results.”[66]

Although environment-related protests largely occur in rural areas, growing social unrest caused by environmental concerns has also risen among city dwellers and the middle class.[67] In 2009 more than one thousand people protested the construction of a rubbish incinerator in a district in Guangzhou province.[68] In 2008 hundreds in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan province, protested against the construction of an ethylene and oil refinery in a neighboring city. Over 400 residents took part in the peaceful demonstration against the joint project between the Sichuan provincial government and PetroChina, a publicly traded subsidiary of the country’s main oil producer.[69] In interviews, critics of the joint venture stated that the government had failed to perform proper environmental assessments and hold public hearings on the project.[70]

In China the number of labor disputes due to occupational health hazards has also risen dramatically with a 16-fold increase from 1994 to 2006. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of labor-related protests rose from 87,000 to 127,000.[71] In an effort to address occupational health hazards, the central government has launched investigations into workplace health and safety. During a nationwide campaign in 2002, authorities probed more than 48,000 enterprises and found that almost one quarter had violated laws on labor safety and occupational disease control.[72] The Chinese government subsequently shut down or suspended production in more than 12,000 enterprises that failed to protect employees from toxic working conditions.[73]

Access to Information and Environmental Protection In an effort to ease public fears about industrial pollution, China has instituted legislation that calls for increased transparency of environmental pollution issues. In 2008 China passed the Environmental Information Measures, a law which requires environmental protection departments to disclose information such as environmental statistics, environmental investigative information, the allocation of total emission quotas of major pollutants and their implementation, the issuance of pollutant emission permits and importantly, lists of heavily polluting enterprises, enterprises that have caused serious environmental pollution accidents, and enterprises that refuse to enforce environmental administrative penalty decisions.[74] Article 5 of the law explicitly states that citizens have the right to request environmental information from government departments as well.[75] However, a recent survey performed by the US-based National Resource Defense Council and the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs, a Chinese research institute, found that average compliance levels remained low despite the recent passage of the Environmental Information Measures.[76] Of the 113 municipal environmental protection departments that were tested, only five were recognized for meeting information disclosure requirements.

In addition to the Environmental Information Measures, the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Open Government Information legally obligate local governments to disclose information that is “vital” to public interest. Articles 9-12 state that governments must disclose any information that “involves the vital interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations” or is related to “important and major matters in urban and rural construction and management.”[77] Article 5 further states, “Citizens, legal persons and other organizations may request environmental protection departments to obtain government environmental information.”[78]

Despite these laws, the public continues to be blocked from accessing public information. For example, during the Heilongjiang Provincial government’s 2009 environmental emergency management work meeting, media outlets were invited to observe proceedings. However, as two journalists from Xinhua, the Chinese state media outlet, attempted to photograph internal documents listing polluting enterprises, a local official stopped them, saying that the information was “confidential.” He added that the current public information was “enough,” despite the fact that China’s transparency laws require environmental departments to disclose the information. Xinhua later ran an article asking, “How can it be that information meant to be disclosed and publicly supervised is kept confidential from the media and the public? Especially information regarding enterprises’ illegal discharge of pollutants – how can this ‘confidentiality’ protect the people’s right to know and right to supervise?”[79]

II. Findings I’m very worried about my son’s health, I’m very worried about my son’s future, but what can I do? The government ignores us.[80] —Su, father of a nine-year-old boy with lead poisoning, Henan province, 2010 The villages that Human Rights Watch visited are mostly in rural areas, with villagers relying primarily on small scale agriculture for their livelihood. In one area of Hunan where Human Rights Watch carried out research, the manganese smelting factory that villagers believe is the cause of elevated blood lead levels is situated in the center of several villages. The surrounding areas are large tracts of land for farming. In Shaanxi, the factory rises up over multiple villages, with some homes bordering the factory. In Yunnan, there are small factories dotting the hillside as far as the eye can see with villages all around, on the side of the hill and in the valley. In Henan, where the area is more industrial, the lead factories are situated next to clusters of villages and near schools. All of these areas are poor and the factories are an important source of income for the villages.

In the area of Henan we visited, there are three large lead smelting factories that were in full operation. There are also dozens of smaller factories that we were told had been temporarily shut down because of pollution violations. In Hunan, the main factory in the area we visited was a manganese smelting factory; in Shaanxi it was a zinc and lead smelter. In Yunnan there were dozens of small factories of different types.

Although most of these factories are privately owned, many are connected to the local government in some way, which could present a conflict of interest. In Hunan, for example, the legal representative of the manganese smelter is also a city government official,[81] serving on the National People’s Congress for Hunan province.[82] In Henan one lead smelter is state-owned, while another, which is privately owned, has top local officials on its board, including the chairman of the City People’s Congress.[83] In Shaanxi, local government officials were instrumental in securing the construction of the lead and zinc smelter, even orchestrating forced evictions to ensure that there was a place for the factory to be built.[84]

In each province, the people we spoke with had common complaints: parents and grandparents caring for sick children told us that local governments had given them little or no information on lead poisoning, or they had denied its scope and severity, and had intimidated parents and journalists so they would not call for attention to be paid to their children and demand accountability for those responsible.

Human Rights Watch heard how children are turned away from hospitals, are denied access to testing for blood lead levels, and how test results are withheld or unreliable. Despite strong Chinese environmental laws, Human Rights Watch was told that polluting factories are rarely shut down, and when they are, they often quickly re-open with no apparent change in their operations. Human Rights Watch was told that local police and government officials harass and intimidate, and even arrest, many of those who complain, and when journalists investigate these issues they are told that access to highly contaminated regions is restricted. When Human Rights Watch researchers spoke with government officials in two provinces, we were also told that these areas are off-limits.

Testing Practices I want to know how sick my son is, but I can’t trust the local test results. —Dan, mother of a three-year-old with lead poisoning, Hunan province, 2010[85] In each area visited in Henan, Shaanxi, Hunan, and Yunnan the local governments provided free testing for lead poisoning to children under the age of 14 who local authorities designated to be at high risk for lead poisoning.[86] Testing took place at local hospitals and local Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention clinics.[87] However, according to all the parents we spoke with, families in these high-risk areas were not informed by medical or government workers that the testing sites had been set up; rather people found out about the testing by word of mouth.

Restricted Testing Evaluating a population’s exposure to lead is an extremely complex process as there are numerous pathways for lead exposure, including via air, water, food, and soil, and the harm that lead in environmental sources can cause is dependent on more than just the concentration of lead. While the exact risk of exposure cannot be precisely measured, the best estimates require monitoring of both blood lead levels and environmental sources of lead and take into consideration factors other than distance from a polluting source.[88] The Chinese government’s designation of testing areas, such as one kilometer from the largest smokestack, are arbitrary and do not reflect the actual area of risk.

Although blood lead testing was available in Henan, Shaanxi, Hunan, and Yunnan, parents and grandparents reported that local government officials had placed arbitrary restrictions, beyond age restraints, on who could be tested. In Henan, the local government mandated that only children from villages that are within one kilometer of the largest smokestack in the nearest factory could be tested.[89] Children who did not fall within these areas were unable to access the free government testing, and in many cases they were prevented from being tested at all, even if the parents were willing to pay for the testing themselves.

One woman, Yan, explained:

Officially our village is four kilometers from the factory but I had heard that some neighbors had found out that their children had lead poisoning. I went to the testing center but the government said they wouldn’t test my son because our village is not within one kilometer of the factory. I brought a complaint to the Office of Letters and Visits but they said the rule is that they will only test people within one kilometer.[90] I took my son to a different city to get tested and his lead level was 32.9μg/dL.[91] A man, Liu, from a different village in Henan, where palpable heavy pollution made the air thick and hard to breathe told Human Rights Watch:

Our village is not within the government’s one kilometer line, but when it turned out that children in other villages had lead poisoning we wanted to find out if our children also had lead poisoning. There were 56 children in total who needed to get testing. About half of them went, this was early on, and almost all of them showed serious lead poisoning. But then when we wanted to bring in the second group the government wouldn’t test them. They kept making up excuses, like the testing machines were broken. When my son got tested in a different city his level was over 40 μg/dL. All the children who got tested in the second group had lead poisoning and really high lead levels.[92] Several people from different villages in Henan explained that at the beginning of the local lead poisoning epidemic, children who lived outside of the one kilometer zone could be tested, but according to several accounts, the local government started adding more restrictions and the local hospital began refusing to test people as the extent of the lead poisoning became clear.

A man named Su in Henan told us:

We don’t live in the one kilometer zone, but my son was very sick so the doctor suggested a lead test. I had to pay for it myself, and his result was high, 35.6 μg/dL. This was early on, and we’re lucky because now the hospital won’t do tests for children who live outside the one kilometer mark, even if the parents pay out of pocket.[93] One woman, in Henan, whose six-year-old child had a lead level of 20 μg/dL explained:

At the beginning, some children in this village had free tests. But then as other people heard about lead poisoning and wanted to have their children tested, it wasn’t free anymore. Now it’s hard to have your child tested at all.[94] In Shaanxi, where heavy pollution extends far beyond the government’s designated lead-testing area, parents told Human Rights Watch that only children in the villages right next to the factory could be tested. According to one grandmother, “the way the government is doing testing is excluding many children who need help.”[95]

Both the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which China ratified in 1992, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which China ratified in 2001, guarantee the right to the highest attainable standard of health.[96] The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which oversees states compliance with the ICESCR clarified in its General Comment 14 on the Right to Health, that states are obligated to “[refrain] from denying or limiting equal access for all persons….to preventative…and curative health…”[97] The CESCR has also clarified that a core obligation of the right to health is: “To provide education and access to information concerning the main health problems in the community, including methods of preventing and controlling them.”[98] The government’s refusal to provide access to testing for all children affected by lead poisoning constitutes a violation of the right to health.

Withholding of Test Results Even parents who were able to access testing for their children reported difficulties in obtaining the results of the tests conducted. Many parents in Yunnan and Shaanxi reported that test results from their children’s lead tests were withheld completely. Some parents in Yunnan and Shaanxi told Human Rights Watch that they never saw any test results. Others were allowed to see the results from initial testing but were prevented from seeing the results from follow-up testing.

Several of the parents Human Rights Watch spoke to in Yunnan said that medical workers told them that their child had a slightly elevated level and that the parents should give them extra milk and vegetables. Those parents told Human Rights Watch that attempts to get the actual results from medical workers were refused.

In Yunnan one woman explained:

All of the children in this village got free testing paid for by the government. The doctor told us that that some of the results were a little bit higher than normal and they should drink more milk. They wouldn’t give us the results; they just told us to give the children milk.[99] Parents in Yunnan reported they were told that follow up tests were “normal” although they were never allowed to see the result themselves. One mother told us:

The doctor told us all the children in this village have lead poisoning. Then they told us a few months later that all the children are healthy. They wouldn’t let us see the results from the tests though.[100] According to a grandmother named Bao who Human Rights Watch spoke to in Shaanxi, attempts to access the results of her four-year-old granddaughter’s follow-up lead test were unsuccessful. She said:

Her first test, done at the hospital in our local town was 18 μg/dL. We went back for another test, which we had to pay for ourselves. The doctor said her results were fine. We didn’t believe him so we asked to see the results but he wouldn’t give them and just said the results were fine. We don’t have any power to force him to give them to us so we don’t know what her true result is now.[101] A man, Dong, who lives in Shaanxi across the street from the smelter, told Human Rights Watch:

The first time my grandson got tested his result was 30 μg/dL. When he had a second test a few weeks later the doctors said he was normal. We didn’t believe that could be right, so we brought him in a third time and they still said it was normal. But they refused to let us see the actual results.[102] An international NGO working on environmental issues in China told Human Rights Watch that the local CCDC clinics did blood lead testing on communities across China without informing people that they were doing lead tests. According to this NGO, the CCDC clinics did not tell people even when the tests showed that people had lead poisoning.[103]

A professor at a Chinese university who works closely on these issues suggested that the reason the CCDC does not inform people of their results is because they do not have the infrastructure to treat everyone with lead poisoning, and they also do not have the resources to relocate the families who are living in a toxic environment.[104]

Discrepancies in Test Results In villages in Henan, Yunnan, Hunan, and Shaanxi, parents told Human Rights Watch they are afraid the blood lead test results provided by health workers are incorrect. In a number of cases, those parents had their child tested again by a hospital or a CCDC clinic in a different area. In each case reported to Human Rights Watch, the second test revealed far higher levels of lead in the blood, and parents were gravely concerned that the first test result had been deliberately altered and falsified so that it seemed as if the child’s health was either not at risk or at lower levels of risk.

In Henan, parents told us that at first when the government started testing children in 2009 all the children had very high levels. After a few months, in which there had been consistent results of high blood lead levels indicating that lead poisoning was a big problem in the area, children being tested for the first time started to receive test results indicating much lower levels. This was despite the fact that the factories were still operating as normal and there had been no other changes to the environment or treatment offered to the children. According to parents in Henan and Shaanxi, authorities offered no explanation for the suddenly lower level results. According to many parents we spoke to, suspicion about false results led parents to bring their children to towns outside the contaminated area for testing. In every case these results were much higher than the results that the local hospital or CCDC clinic had provided.

In Henan, a father tearfully described the experience of his daughter, Rong, who was 10-years-old when she was tested for lead poisoning. According to his account, Rong received government sponsored free testing. He went on to say:

She was very thin and not eating and had trouble sleeping. When she got tested her level was over the normal limit, but it wasn’t very high. It was 14.8 μg/dL. We didn’t think that test result could be right, and we had heard of other children being given results that were false, so we took her to another place to be tested. The result of the second test was 25.4 μg/dL. These tests were on the same day! The government doesn’t want to have to give us anything so they make up the results.[105] A mother told Human Rights Watch about her son who is four-years-old and had been losing weight and frequently had a fever. She said:

He had been feeling sick for a long time and we didn’t know what was wrong with him. In August, when a lot of children were having tests for lead poisoning we took him to the doctor to do the test. His result was 8 μg/dL. In September we took him to a different town to do another lead test. His result was 22 μg/dL.[106] The parents of a five-year-old girl, Peng told Human Rights Watch that their daughter had been tested for lead poisoning at the local CCDC clinic in September 2009. They were very worried about her health and thought the result of her lead test, which was 15.2 μg/dL, was not right. According to her parents, Peng had not been eating, had lost a significant amount of weight and frequently had fevers. Her father told Human Rights Watch:

We want to take her to the doctor, we want her to have another test, we want her to get better. But we don’t have any money to pay for the test or the doctor. We’re very worried about her, but what can we do?[107]

The mother of a 10-year-old girl from Henan province had a similar experience. At the local CCDC clinic where Xuxu had the government-sponsored test, her result was 25.5 μg/dL. Her mother said:

My daughter is not well. She is really skinny, she doesn’t eat and she doesn’t study well. I took her to the doctor in a different town a few weeks later and they did another lead test. Her result was over 40 μg/dL.[108] Wei, the mother of a five-year old girl, said:

We are really worried about our daughter. They said the result of her lead test was 16 μg/dL but we don’t believe it. She doesn’t eat, her stomach hurts all the time and she gets fevers easily. We don’t have any money to take her to the doctor.[109] Purposely withholding tests results violates the right to health. Any efforts to manipulate test outcomes, to alter, or to deliberately falsify test results would be an even more egregious violation. At a minimum as a matter of basic accountability, when there is an inexplicable change in the outcome of testing that has direct health implications, not attributable to an identifiable change of circumstance or specific intervention, the authorities should provide a plausible explanation for the difference. The CESCR specifically states that “the deliberate withholding or misrepresentation of information vital to health protection or treatment” is a violation of the right to health.[110]

Access to Medical Treatment My children are sick but we didn’t get any medicine. ‘Just drink milk,’ they tell us. —Peng, mother of a boy with lead poisoning, Henan, 2010[111] The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lays out guidelines for the treatment of children with elevated blood lead levels. According to these guidelines, when the blood lead level is 10 μg/dL and above, the nutritional and environmental interventions should include reducing the lead hazard and eating foods with calcium and iron. For children who have blood lead levels persistently between 15 μg/dL and 44 μg/dL, the CDC also recommends extensive lab work, lead hazard reduction, neurodevelopment monitoring, environmental investigation and follow-up blood monitoring. For levels above 44 μg/dL, it additionally suggests chelation therapy, a process usually requiring a lengthy hospitalization when a medication is taken that binds to the lead, which is removed from the body in urine. The CDC stresses the necessity of medical supervision and follow-up testing in all interventions.[112]

In Shaanxi, Hunan, Henan, and Yunnan provinces, there is no standardized treatment for lead poisoning. There was widespread confusion among all parents we interviewed about what kind of treatment, if any, is appropriate for lead poisoning.

There is also confusion at the national level. National Ministry of Health guidelines for lead poisoning state that only children under six in higher risk areas should be tested, since, according their guidelines, the number of children in China with levels of 20 μg/dL or higher has decreased in recent years.[113] Not only does this claim run counter to indications that lead poisoning is on the rise in China, the Ministry of Health defines unsafe levels of lead in children at 10 μg/dL and above, not 20 μg/dL or higher. The World Health Organization also identifies a lead level of 10 μg/dL and above as detrimental to physical and mental health.[114] At that level the CDC recommends environmental and nutritional interventions.[115]

Provision of Inappropriate, Inadequate, and Inconsistent Treatment The most common response we received when we asked about treatment was that parents were told to give their children more of any number of food items. According to parents in Shaanxi, medical workers and government officials told them to give their children apples and garlic.[116] In Henan and Yunnan, parents told Human Rights Watch that they were instructed to give their children milk.[117] However, even the provision of this nutritional treatment was not applied consistently. In no interviews with parents or children did we find the treatment they said their children had received for lead poisoning to be consistent with international standards and best practices.

A small number of parents told us that their children had been given some medicine, although it was unclear what medicine had been administered. While exposure was constant, almost always these “treatments” were sporadic.

A grandmother in Shaanxi, Zheng, whose grandson has lead poisoning, said:

The government gave us some garlic and told us to give our grandson extra garlic. We asked about medicine, something to make him better. They said they wouldn’t give us any because medicine for lead poisoning doesn’t work.[118] In Shaanxi a grandfather showed us a box of medicine that local officials had given his grandson. He told Human Rights Watch:

We were given some medication by local officials to give to our grandson. We don’t know what it is but we had him take it for a month until the supply ran out and so he stopped taking it. Then a few months later they brought another box of it. We don’t know when or if they’ll bring more.[119] In Henan, according to some parents we spoke to, only children under six-years-old were to receive any kind of treatment. Others said they did not understand the criteria that determined who received what or why the treatment would improve their children’s health condition.

A grandmother of two children with lead poisoning in Henan told Human Rights Watch that the local government had provided milk for her nine-year-old grandson, not for her one-year-old granddaughter. She said:

There was milk provided for my grandson but not my granddaughter. I don’t know why. I asked them but they didn’t have an answer.[120] Parents in Henan told us that they did not know why they would get a box of milk one day and then not another for a long period of time, sometimes as long as three months. One father, Su, spoke of his experience trying to get treatment for his son:

My son has a high lead level and is sick all the time. The government is not giving us any help or medication. I went to see a doctor in Zhengzhou [the provincial capital] and he told me to get a certain medication, which I did. It’s really expensive, 1000 RMB ($150) for four months, and said my son should take it for a year. We really can’t afford it but we borrowed money and bought the medication. It has been four months and there is no change in my son’s health. I wish they would just close the factory.[121] Some parents in Hunan and Henan told Human Rights Watch that their children had been hospitalized to be treated for lead poisoning.[122] According to guidelines put out by a local hospital in Henan, any child with a blood lead level over 25 μg/dL should be hospitalized.[123] However, the guidelines give no indication of what kind of treatment the hospitalized children will receive. In Henan we spoke to several parents whose children had been hospitalized. One woman told us:

First my daughter was tested and her result was 25 μg/dL. But then she was tested again and it was over 40 μg/dL. They told us to bring her to the hospital and we did. She stayed there for a week. They said they gave her medicine but we don’t know if they actually did or what kind of medicine they gave her. When she came home they told us to give her more milk but we don’t know why. She doesn’t seem any better.[124] According to a father in Henan:

The local government told us that any children who had a blood lead level of over 40 would be hospitalized. They did not tell us what kind of treatment they would receive. My one-and-a-half-year-old had a high level so we brought her to the hospital. But there they did not give her any treatment and moved her to a hotel where there were other children with lead poisoning. We found out that a provincial level official came to town and our local officials wanted to hide these children! They kept them at the hotel for a month. My daughter was never given any treatment.[125] The lack of clear information about lead poisoning and treatment caused some people not to seek help. A grandmother we spoke to in Henan who has a young granddaughter with a very high blood lead level told us:

A local official said my granddaughter should be taken to the hospital for treatment. But she wasn’t even one-year-old at that time and I was afraid of what they would do to her. The official didn’t explain to me what the treatment was so I didn’t bring her. They never came back to talk about it again.[126] Some parents in Henan reported that local officials had told them to give their children nutritional supplements. Yet parents said they did not have the financial resources to provide these to their children on their own, nor were they clear about the purpose of the supplements.

In Shaanxi, Henan, and Yunnan, when Human Rights Watch conducted interviews, the factories, believed to be the cause of widespread lead poisoning, were continuing to operate, even while the local governments were dispensing “treatment.” In Hunan, the factory had been temporarily shut down, but parents were concerned that it was already operating at night and would re-open fully in the future.

Treatment guidelines for lead poisoning from the CDC and WHO specify that any treatment should be undertaken in a “lead-free environment,” and the CDC guidelines say that the “single most important factor in managing of childhood lead poisoning is reducing the child's exposure to lead.”[127] The CDC guidelines go on to say that, “Children should NEVER be discharged from the hospital UNTIL THEY CAN GO TO A LEAD-FREE ENVIRONMENT” (emphasis in original).[128]

According to experts from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “there is no evidence that chelation can prevent adverse developmental and intellectual outcomes in children who continue to be exposed to very high environmental lead concentrations.[129] A team of specialists from Britain’s National Health Service confirm:

There is a risk that chronically poisoned children who receive chelation therapy then return to a high-lead environment soon afterwards while their blood lead concentrations are still high, could be at risk of acute lead toxicity.[130]

Chinese guidelines recommend chelation therapy at a blood lead level of 45 g/dL or higher. While Chinese national guidelines on lead poisoning treatment released by the Chinese Ministry of Health do not explicitly say that a child with lead poisoning should be removed from the area of contamination, they note the importance of identifying the source of the lead poisoning and say that no oral medication for lead poisoning should be taken while there is continued exposure.[131]

Denial of Treatment One consequence of the denial of testing for lead poisoning, the withholding of test results, or the provision of inaccurate results, is the denial of treatment and financial compensation to children with acute lead poisoning.[132] Children and adults who were excluded from the official testing program because of age or geographic restrictions but who tested positive for lead poisoning in other cities were also refused treatment where they live.[133] While removing the lead hazard is the most critical step towards treatment, children who are still exposed to lead can benefit from certain nutritional supplements and other interventions.

In Henan, in cases where parents were denied treatment at the local hospital or CCDC clinic and took their children to other areas for testing, they reported that even when they showed the local government the results of the lead test, the government refused to give them the compensation offered to children within the one kilometer range. A mother, Yan, who took her son to a nearby town for testing after the local CCDC clinic refused to test him, told us:

The result of my son’s lead test was 32.9 g/dL.[134] We showed our local officials that our son’s lead level was way over the safe level and that he should receive extra food and compensation from the government like other children who were tested. But they refused to give us anything because we are not within one kilometer. We’ve gone to complain a few times but we won’t anymore. We are afraid to make the local officials angry. There is nothing we can do now for our son.[135] A man, Liu, took two groups of children from the same village to be tested for lead poisoning. The first group was tested locally, but the second group was refused testing and Liu had to take them to a different town for testing. Liu told Human Rights Watch that the children in the first group who were tested locally and had lead poisoning received milk and a small amount of monetary compensation from the local government. The children in the second group, who were refused testing locally, were denied compensation when they brought evidence of their high blood levels to officials.[136]

The father of a ten-year-old girl, Rong, told Human Rights Watch how she had two lead tests on the same day, one at the local CCDC clinic and one in a town further away. The result from her free at the local CCDC clinic, 14.8 μg/dL was much lower than the one at nearby town, which was 25.4 μg/dL. Rong’s father explained:

To get compensation from the government or to receive free milk and garlic, a child had to have a lead level over 25 μg/dL. Even though her other test result was high, Rong’s free government test was under the 25 μg/dL mark, so she did not receive any milk and we did not receive any compensation. A woman in Henan, whose one-and-a-half-year-old son had very high levels of lead, said that because they had not been within the official testing zone her son was refused treatment:

My son is in poor health. He doesn’t eat, he can’t sleep, and he gets sick really easily. He can’t talk at all and can’t walk. We know his development has been affected by the lead poisoning. We have not been given any lead poisoning medication or any other kinds of help. We haven’t gotten anything at all from the government.[137] A mother in Henan told us that her son could not receive treatment because her family members are migrants and their residence permit is from a different part of the province. She said:

We are living within the one kilometer mark and my son got tested for free. His test was high, over 40 μg/dL. He’s sick, he doesn’t eat and he’s lost so much weight. But they wouldn’t give him any medicine because his residence permit is not from here.[138] As a party to the ICESCR, China is obligated to ensure that access to health facilities is available on a non-discriminatory basis, including on the basis of social origin.[139] However, many of China’s domestic migrant workers who are employed in parts of the country other than the province of their residence permit are denied access to health care. This practice violates the Chinese government’s obligations to ensure non-discriminatory access to available health care.

Protection from Re-exposure When Human Rights Watch visited Henan, Shaanxi, and Yunnan, the factories surrounding the villages were still in operation. In Hunan, although the factory in the middle of the villages had been officially closed, villagers told us they were suspicious that the factory was already operating at night. The majority of families we interviewed said they could not move away from the factories because they lacked the financial means to do so.[140] People were clearly angry that the factories had not been closed (or had been closed and then re-opened), but there was a lack of understanding about the extent to which staying in the polluted areas would continue to be harmful to their children, even if the children were on “treatment.”[141]

Human Rights Watch interviewed a grandmother in Henan, who lives close to a lead processing plant. Her grandchildren, who live with her, both have lead poisoning, the six-year-old granddaughter having a lead level over 30 μg/dL. The grandmother told us: “The government has given us milk but not any information about lead poisoning.”[142]

In Henan a father to a girl with lead poisoning told us:

The factory should be closed. We have lived here for years and the factory is newer. We are worried about our daughter but we have no ability to move. What can we do?[143] A mother in Hunan, whose three-year-old has a lead level of over 30 μg/dL said:

My son is sick, always has a cold and a temperature, he doesn’t eat much anymore. He’s not taking any medicine. My only hope is that the factory will not re-open because there’s nothing I can do for his health. Maybe if he lives in a cleaner environment he will get better.[144] In Henan, some children in villages where officials acknowledged the lead poisoning were moved to new schools, ostensibly away from the toxicity of their village. But parents told Human Rights Watch that the new schools were not safer. A grandfather said:

The new school is not safe! The only difference is that the government has not tested the children in this area so they can claim there is not a problem. But children from this area who already go to the school have been tested in other places and have high levels too. One child whose parents I know had a level of lead of over 30 μg/dL. How is that safe?[145] Parents and grandparents were distraught over temporary relocation in Shaanxi as well, where the factory is still in operation. One parent told us:

Our children are bused to a school in the town, so that they are not going to school in the pollution. But they still live here, sleep here, and eat this food. And the factory has been re-opened and is still polluting everything. If the government really wanted to help our children they would shut the factory down.[146] China’s Law for the Protection of Minors requires schools and departments of health to provide children with “the necessary hygienic and healthcare conditions and make efforts to prevent diseases.”[147] Moreover, the law stipulates that: “Schools, kindergartens and nurseries may not conduct education or teaching among minors in such school buildings or places or with such facilities as are dangerous to their personal safety or health.”[148]

The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to take appropriate measures to combat disease and malnutrition through the provision of “clean drinking water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution.”[149]

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care…[150] Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which obligates states to provide for the health of its citizens, also implicates the right to a healthy environment. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has clarified that the right to health imposes on states:

The requirement to ensure an adequate supply of safe and potable water and basic sanitation; the prevention and reduction of the population’s exposure to harmful chemicals or other detrimental environmental conditions that directly or indirectly impact upon human health.[151] Access to Information Is it safe for my grandchildren to be living so near the lead factory? —Xu, Grandmother of children with lead poisoning, Henan, 2010[152] Withholding of Information In Hunan, Henan, Shaanxi, and Yunnan, parents told Human Rights Watch that they found out that the local factories were polluting at toxic levels only when they realized that children were getting sick. Parents in each place told Human Rights Watch they received no information about the factories, the pollution, health risks associated with the pollution, including any risk of lead poisoning, or about the medical consequences of lead poisoning.

In addition to not being able to obtain test results for lead poisoning, parents in Hunan, Henan, Yunnan, and Shaanxi routinely told Human Rights Watch they had not received information about what lead poisoning is, its impact, or its treatment. Almost none of the parents and grandparents we interviewed had an understanding of what lead poisoning is. Although many of their children have blood lead levels that are considered dangerously high, neither the local health workers nor government officials had explained the health consequences of lead poisoning and how to prevent it.

In the shadow of a lead processing factory in Henan, Human Rights Watch spoke to the grandmother (who is the primary caretaker) of a one-year-old girl, who, at the age of nine-months, had a lead level of over 40 μg/dL. She said:

I know that 40 μg/dL is above the normal standard. I don’t know what that means. During Chinese New Year we got some extra milk for my grandson from the government, but they didn’t tell us anything about what lead poisoning is or where it comes from.[153] In the villages we visited in Henan, Yunnan, Shaanxi, and Hunan, parents had not received any information on the kinds of health consequences caused by lead poisoning. Although many reported that their children were not well, could not eat or hold down food, or had a constant low-grade cold, none of them had been told at any point the symptoms and health consequences of lead poisoning. Even parents whose children were receiving treatment were uninformed when it came to the basics of lead poisoning.

In Yunnan, parents of children with lead poisoning uniformly told Human Rights Watch that no information on lead poisoning had been provided. One mother, Lei, told us:

The local government said that all the children in this village were tested and that they have a little bit of lead poisoning and they should eat more apples and drink milk. But I don’t understand, are our children still sick? No one will answer our questions.[154] In Henan, Human Rights Watch asked a medical worker in a hospital for information about lead poisoning treatment. She produced a booklet. We asked if every family affected by lead poisoning was given the booklet. She said: “These books are not widely distributed. If people want to know more information about treatment they can look on the Ministry of Health website.”[155]

The vast majority of families affected by industrial pollution and lead poisoning in the areas we visited have no access to the internet or a computer; some grandparents charged with their grandchildren’s care are illiterate.

While information about lead poisoning is not disseminated in communities that are affected or given to parents whose children are at risk or have high blood lead levels, the Ministry of Health does have detailed information about lead poisoning on its website. The guidelines specify that health workers should educate parents on lead poisoning, including the health consequences. But rather than focusing on removing the lead hazard, the treatment guidelines emphasize children’s sanitation and indicate that lead poisoning can be avoided by children washing their hands and cleaning under their fingernails.[156]

Chinese laws, such as the Measure on Open Government Information, state clearly that citizens should have access to government information on environmental issues. The 2009 National Human Rights Action Plan reiterates the Chinese government’s commitment to citizens’ “right to be informed;” the goal is to “improve relevant laws and regulations so as to guarantee citizens’ right of information.[157] The right to be informed reads:

The state will release information on natural disasters, emergencies and production safety accidents in a timely manner and accurate manner, and in accordance with the law, and publicize timely the results of investigation and handling of serious or exceptionally serious production safety accidents.[158] The 2008 Measures on Open Environmental Information expand the breadth of information to be released by the government, focusing specifically on information relating to environmental issues. Article 1 of the Measures states that these regulations are intended, in part, to “maintain the rights and interests of citizens” and to “promote the public’s involvement in environmental protection.”[159]

The Human Rights Action Plan, as well as the Measures on Open Environmental Information, clearly put the burden of disclosure on the Chinese government, indicating that the government is responsible for actively informing citizens when there is an accident or a mass pollution incident. The fact that the burden of disclosure is on the government is especially important to protect those most susceptible to industrial pollution and lead poisoning including rural populations who are already socially marginalized and vulnerable.

One aspect of this public participation guaranteed in the Measures is that citizen complaints posted on Environmental Protection Bureau websites will be made public and the ensuing investigation and results will be posted on the website as well. In the polluted area we visited in Hunan, a group of villagers had made a written complaint on the local Environmental Protection Bureau website. The complaint entitled Pollution from the manganese smelter is harming people and crop, says:

In 2008 a manganese smelter was built next to our township middle school. Black smoke came from the factory production and affected people around the area and now our crops are dying too. The Agricultural Board already said our harvests would have to take a big cut this year. In order for us to harvest our crops, and for the health of our people, and also for the health of middle school students in the future, we ask our superiors to close this manganese smelter![160] Although the local Environmental Public Bureau acknowledged receipt of the complaint, government officials have not taken direct action in addressing the local accounts of lead pollution; neither have the investigations into the allegations of pollution or the findings been made public, as required by law.

Obstructions to Reporting The Measures on Open Government Environmental Information states that media should be used to disseminate environmental information.[161] Yet attempts by journalists to report on pollution have been undermined by intimidation and threats by government officials. Journalists who reported on the lead poisoning in three of the four locations told Human Rights Watch that police had followed them or forced them to leave the area when attempting to interview people.[162] A journalist who had been to a pollution site in Hunan told Human Rights Watch that after he left the area police had questioned the people he had interviewed.[163] His driver had also been questioned. A journalist who had been reporting on the lead poisoning in Shaanxi was forced to leave.[164]

In one province, government officials told Human Rights Watch that journalists are not permitted to be in the area. The police told Human Rights Watch: “Journalists are not allowed to come here and not allowed to go into villages to talk to people. There was a small problem here last year but it’s all been resolved, there is nothing to see here.”[165]

In another province, government officials told Human Rights Watch that individuals could only be interviewed about pollution if the local propaganda department cleared the questions in advance, and if they were accompanied by a local government official.[166]

In obstructing journalists from reporting on lead poisoning, the Chinese government is violating its own domestic laws, as well as international human rights standards.

Both international and Chinese law protects freedom of the press. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has signed but not ratified, states:

Everyone shall have the freedom of expression; this right will include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.[167] Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution also guarantees that: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”[168] The Chinese government’s National Human Rights Action Plan of 2009-2010 states:

Institutional guarantees for the legitimate rights of news agencies and journalists will be strengthened, the legitimate rights and interests of news agencies, journalists, editors and the person(s) concerned in news items safeguarded, and the journalists’ right to gathering materials, criticize, comment and publish ensured in accordance with the law.[169] In order to ensure that the provisions of the Law for the Protection of Minors are effectively implemented, the law also assures all organizations and individuals the right to accuse and report any person infringing upon a minor’s lawful rights and interests.[170]

Intimidation by Police and Government Officials We want to talk about what is happening here but we are afraid to. —Ai, female factory worker, Yunnan, 2010[171] In many of the poorer areas in China, people are reliant on the local government for food subsidies, health care, and in some cases, employment. People in these areas reported that raising the lead poisoning issue with local government officials could result in the loss of whatever government help they were receiving.

Arrests and Detention In villages in Yunnan, Henan, Hunan, and Shaanxi that Human Rights Watch visited, villagers said they were scared to try to obtain more help or information for their children from government officials. In Shaanxi province, villagers told Human Rights Watch that people had been detained when they protested outside the lead-processing factory that had begun operating again.

One elderly woman said:

The factory was shut down after everyone found out that hundreds of children have serious lead poisoning. But actually the factory started operating again at night. This happened right after the school vacation for Chinese New Year, when children were coming back to the village after being away. Lots of us, including me, protested that the government was allowing the factory to operate at night even when it was supposed to be closed, and especially because the children were back in the villages. When we were protesting the police came and detained several people. It was very scary and then everyone was too scared to keep on protesting.[172] She went on to say:

When the factory officially re-opened, at the beginning of April, there were lots of police all around the factory to keep us from protesting. By that time we were all afraid to protest anyway because we don’t want to get detained.[173] Villagers in Shaanxi told Human Rights Watch that plainclothes police walk the streets of the villages in the area near the factory to make sure that people are not gathering and discussing more protests or other ways to stop the factory from operating or bring more attention to this issue. Indeed when Human Rights Watch was visiting there was a heavy police presence, both plainclothes and uniformed officers.

Villagers reported that they were very afraid of talking about these issues, even with each other, for fear of retribution by local government officials. One villager, Ling, told us:

We are very scared to talk about lead poisoning or the factory or what to do because we don’t want to make trouble with the local government.[174] In Henan, a man named Ting with two children who both have lead poisoning told Human Rights Watch the story of how he had been detained:

On October 6 2009, after it was clear that lead poisoning was all over our village and the whole area and very serious, about 1,000 people protested in front of the factory gates demanding that the factory be closed. The local government responded and promised that all children [within the officially acknowledged lead poisoning area] with a level of lead over 25 μg/dL would receive free cartons of milk and medical attention by October 20. On October 25, when none of the promises made by the local officials had been delivered on, villagers went back to the factory and protested again. I wasn’t there though, because one my relatives had died and I was taking care of his family. On October 30, 10 police, some uniformed and some not, came to my house. It was really scary and my children had to see the whole thing. They took me to the police station and held me there for eight days. They didn’t tell me why even though I kept asking why I had been detained. Eventually when they let me out they told me I had been detained for being a leader of the protests.[175] Across the four research sites, people we spoke to consistently said they feared angering local government officials, and this prevented them from trying to seek help for their children.

One woman, whose two children both have lead poisoning, said:

The government isn’t doing anything. We are all scared to ask for help, because people have been detained. Other people have tried to ask the government for help and medicine but they were detained. Now we are all scared to do anything.[176] In Hunan, seven people were arrested while trying to seek help for their children. One of the men arrested who was in jail for six months, explained:

There was a group of us who were trying to get to Changsha [the provincial capital] to seek more help for our children. We had already been to a hospital in Changsha: of 86 children who went originally, 83 were found to have very high blood levels. We were on our way back to Changsha when a huge number of police stopped us on the road; there were so many of them. They said they were there to direct traffic, but then they stopped our bus and wouldn’t let us continue. We explained that we were going to get help for our children but the police didn’t care. They would not let us go and arrested seven of us.[177] He went on to explain:

They wouldn’t let us out of jail unless our families paid a lot of money. Five people were let out earlier because their families could find the money. I was in jail for six months. Now of course everyone is terrified of the police so no one is protesting anymore.[178] In Henan, a woman whose son has lead poisoning, said:

My son is sick, but I have no money to take him to the doctor. The doctor said to give him more milk, that’s all. The factory is still operating. What are we going to do? I’m afraid of going to the local government for help because I don’t want to get arrested.[179] A man in Henan said:

We are intimidated into not doing anything to get more help because people have been detained. We really have no power.[180] One woman in Henan told Human Rights Watch:

I tried and tried to get help for my son from the local government. But then some people got detained and I decided to stop trying because I don’t want the local government angry, that could have very bad consequences for our lives.[181] Another man in Henan said:

A lot of people were detained while protesting in front of the factory in October. Now we all know that we have no power to keep protesting and no ability to change things.[182] International law prohibits arbitrary detentions, that is, detentions carried out without due process of law or carried out merely for exercising a basic right protected under human rights law. China’s own domestic law also provides protections against illegal detention. The 2009 Human Rights Action Plan states:

The State prohibits illegal detention by law enforcement personnel. Taking a criminal suspect in custody, changing the place of custody or extending the term of detention must be carried out in accordance with the law. Wrongful or prolonged detention shall be prevented.[183] Remediation/Long-Term Solutions Relocation Under Chinese law when an environmental hazard threatens the health of the local population, the hazard is to be alleviated or removed.[184] In Shaanxi, rather than removing the polluting factories, the government had told local communities that they had to move.[185] Villagers we talked to in Shaanxi expressed confusion and anger over moving. They said they are being made to move against their will, but the government had not been clear about when they would have to leave their homes, or where and what their new living arrangements would be.

One woman from Shaanxi told Human Rights Watch:

The government says we have to move soon, but the houses we are supposed to move into haven’t even been built yet. When we ask them questions about it, they have no answers.[186] Although the local government had closed the village schools and was bussing children to a school further away from the factory, at the time we visited there were still children living in the villages. According to families we spoke with, the children who remained in the villages came from families who could not afford to relocate to the nearby town without the government’s financial help and so had no choice but to live in the contaminated area.[187]

Villagers from Shaanxi also told Human Rights Watch that they did not know how they would survive if forced to move. Many of the villagers have small plots of land that they rely on for income.[188] Although the crops grown there are now contaminated with lead, the villagers we spoke to expressed concern over where they would derive their livelihood. A man in the village whose livelihood comes from farming a small plot of land told Human Rights Watch:

They are keeping the factory operating and forcing us to move. We have no way to make a living in the place we are supposed to move to because there is no land for us to farm. The government said they will bring us back here so we can farm and make a living but our land here is full of lead.[189] Another man in the same village, 60-years-old, said:

We are very concerned about how we will make a living and have enough money to survive when are forced to move. The government says we can do migrant work—but we are too old for that kind of work now! We don’t know what to do.[190] According to another family, the local government had told them they would receive 200 RMB (US$30) a month for one year, to facilitate the move. The family was very angry and worried about how they would survive on that money. The grandfather said:

We live within one kilometer of the factory so we are being forced to move. The money we are getting is not enough to move and buy food and medicine for our grandchildren. We want the government to give us more help but it won’t.[191] An elderly woman told Human Rights Watch:

The government is forcing me to move so the factory can keep operating. But I don’t want to move, I don’t know how I’ll survive.[192] The issue of relocation is especially crucial for children. According to health experts the most critical intervention for children with lead poisoning is to remove them from the toxic environment.[193] In every area where the factories are continuing to operate children’s health is potentially at risk. In Shaanxi, while children are waiting for relocation, they are still being exposed to a toxic environment that continues to affect their health.

In Henan and Yunnan, where the factories are all still in full operation, none of the villages are actively being relocated.[194] Local governments in both these places are fully aware that their populations are being poisoned by lead, which is evident from the free testing that has occurred in both these places. Yet the local governments are still allowing the factories to operate, and the children, some of whom have taken medication distributed by the local CCDC clinic, are still living in a toxic environment, negating the effectiveness of any medication.

By not removing the environmental hazard, which is severely impacting the health of the local community, the Chinese government is in clear violation of the Environmental Protection Law. Article 32 of the law reads:

If the safety of the lives and property of inhabitants is endangered by severe environmental pollution … the people’s government concerned shall take effective measures to remove or alleviate the hazard.[195]

The UN has developed a set of Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement.[196] Whilst these principles do not apply wholesale to those who are forced to move as a result of environmental degradation and toxic poisoning of their homes, the human rights framework provided is directly relevant. As well as articulating the core tenet of non-discrimination, the principles provide that “all persons, groups and communities have the right to resettlement, which includes the right to alternative land of better or equal quality and housing that must satisfy the following criteria for adequacy: accessibility, affordability, habitability, security of tenure, cultural adequacy, suitability of location, and access to essential services such as health and education.”[197]

Financial Remediation In many places visited, the local government had given a small sum of money to each family that had been officially acknowledged to have been affected by lead poisoning.

In one village in Henan where lead levels of children are especially high, local government presented villagers with a contract, which several families showed us. The contract gave the families 6,000 RMB ($880) for one year, ostensibly to move. If they accepted the money, the villagers could no longer hold the factory responsible for any health effects caused by pollution from the factory. When Human Rights Watch visited the village, the factory was still in operation: its operating agreement with the local government is valid through 2030.[198]

At the time we visited the village, the villagers who signed the contract and accepted the money had not moved. According to villagers we talked to, 6,000 RMB ($880) over a year, or 500 RMB ($74) per month, was not enough money to relocate and start over. Some people also expressed confusion over the contract. One contract that a family showed us was signed with a thumbprint, which suggests that the man who signed is not literate. He may not have fully understood the ramifications of accepting the lump sum of money.

Very close to the village in Henan where villagers had been given 6,000 RMB ($880), large signs advertised new construction for new homes. Although the local government is aware that these areas are very polluted and residents have high blood lead levels, it is still building new homes in the area and encouraging people to move into them.

The Chinese government is obligated to protect the health of its citizens. By allowing citizens to sign away their right to hold the factory legally responsible and then to remain in the toxic area where the factory is in full operation, the Chinese government is in violation of its obligations to protect the health of its citizens under both Chinese and international law.

Services for Children Lead poisoning affects cognitive development, and many children with moderate to severe lead poisoning experience developmental delays and disabilities.[199] In China, because the testing for lead poisoning is unreliable if it exists at all and affected children remain in the toxic environment where they are continually exposed to dangerous levels of lead, the population of children who have been impacted developmentally is likely high.

Parents we talked to were generally unaware of the biological connection between lead poisoning and cognitive development. However, some parents did tell Human Rights Watch that their children were underperforming in school and that there appeared to be a marked difference in their ability to focus and succeed at school. All interviewees confirmed that the local government had offered no special services or schooling opportunities for children with lead poisoning. In fact, according to every family interviewed, neither local officials nor health workers had raised the issue of developmental delays caused by lead poisoning.

In Shaanxi, one man, Dong, was very worried about his grandsons, particularly the seven-year-old who had a blood lead level of 39.6μg/dL. We talked to him in his home, which is very close to the fully operating factory, with his grandson nearby. Dong said:

His body is very weak, he gets sick all the time and he doesn’t have any energy. He is also doing very badly in school. We’re not getting any help from the government. I don’t know how to help him.[200] Based on China’s obligations under both domestic and international law, the Chinese government is required to provide appropriate schooling opportunities for children who are developmentally delayed, irrespective of the cause. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which China ratified in 1992, the Chinese government is required to provide adequate schooling opportunities for children with disabilities. Articles 23, 28, and 29 clearly state that parties to the convention are required to ensure that children with disabilities have schooling opportunities that are appropriate for their situation. China’s National Human Rights Action Plan 2009-2010 clearly states the rights of children with disabilities to receive appropriate schooling: “For children with eyesight, hearing, language or intelligence problems, special education will be provided.”[201]

In 2008 China ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which recognizes the rights of children with disabilities.[202] The CRPD obligates China to provide educational opportunities and health services to children with disabilities.[203]

Occupational Health Adults who work in smelters and factories have also suffered severe health consequences. In Henan and Yunnan, Human Rights Watch was told about two adult deaths from lead poisoning.[204] In both cases the people worked in the local factories. In these areas many people who previously were farmers began working in the factories because the pay was considerably more.[205] As the pollution from the factories made farming even less viable, more and more people moved to factory work.

In Yunnan, we spoke to the family of a woman named Ru who had died of lead poisoning six weeks earlier. The woman’s sister, who cried throughout the interview, said:

My sister had been working in the lead factory for some time. The day before she died she was feeling very sick and the factory boss told her she could go to the village health clinic. They didn’t do any tests and she came home. The next day she was too sick and we brought her to the hospital in Kunming [Yunnan’s capital]. She died that night. The doctor at the hospital in Kunming told us she died of lead poisoning. Now she’s gone.[206] The woman’s father-in-law said:

After she died they closed the factory for a month. But now it’s open again and there is still no information about lead poisoning available to the workers. There is no effort to tell people who work in the factory about what happened, no effort to get people tested. As long as there are no obvious symptoms, the factory boss won’t do anything.[207] In Henan, one man told us:

People who work in these factories die young. Either there is no safety equipment or people don’t know how to use it.[208] We heard another account of a lead poisoning death in Henan from a journalist who had interviewed a man, Li Yingfu, shortly before his death. In an article the journalist wrote:

After a year or so of working in the plant, Li lost feeling in his arms and legs and suffered severe abdominal pains. Then he began coughing up blood and, in the end, lost more than 20 kilograms. Tested four times, he registered alarming lead levels every time. Finally, after submitting to what he was told was experimental therapy at a clinic inside the plant, a doctor told him surgery was his only hope. "In August 2008 they removed two-thirds of my stomach," he says, lifting his shirt to reveal a 15 centimeter vertical scar. "I spent 31 days in hospital. I was in critical condition four times." Today he suffers from dizziness, ringing in the ears, forgetfulness, insomnia and headaches.[209] Li Yingfu died less than a week after this story was published. He was 42.

In Yunnan, Shaanxi, and Henan people told Human Rights Watch that workers are not routinely tested for lead poisoning.[210] In Yunnan, one woman who works in the same factory where Ru died in the spring 0f 2010, said:

I heard that a woman who worked in the same factory as me died because of lead poisoning, but I have not been tested myself. The test is expensive and the factory won’t pay for it.[211] In the same village, Human Rights Watch talked with a cluster of people who expressed anger and confusion about treatment and lead poisoning in general. One woman said:

After the woman died because of lead poisoning, three other people who work in the factory were taken to the hospital in Kunming. One of them has left and is working in the factory again, and the other two are still in the hospital. But there are lots of other people who work in the factory and we don’t know if other people are sick and what to do. The factory doesn’t give lead tests so we don’t know if we’re sick or not.[212] In Shaanxi, a man told Human Rights Watch:

My two adult sons have both worked at the local factory. The factory didn’t want its employees to get tested for lead poisoning and did not provide testing. One of my sons snuck in to the hospital and got tested and he had a high lead level. I know my other son must be poisoned too.[213] A father in Henan said:

There are about 5,000 people who work in the nearby factory. The factory does not do lead testing but I know some people who have gone to the hospital because of lead poisoning. They stay for awhile and then go back to the factory. People have no choice; they have to make a living.[214] Other people told Human Rights Watch that factory workers who are found to have elevated levels of lead are fired, not treated, and are not compensated for their termination.[215]

China has several legal instruments to protect workers from occupational health hazards. China’s Labor Contract Law and the Occupational Disease Prevention and Control Act are among the legal instruments intended to protect workers’ health rights and interests. These laws aim to protect workers’ safety and health through its legal obligations for a safe and hygienic workplace. Article 32 of the Occupational Disease Prevention and Control Act guarantees that “expenses for occupational health checkups shall be borne by the employer.” Article 36 ensures occupational health rights which include: the right to receive education and training in occupational health, to receive services for prevention of occupational diseases, to criticize, report, and accuse violations of laws and regulations which endanger workers, among others.[216]

Almost none of the adults interviewed by Human Rights Watch, including the majority of those who work at lead processing plants, were able to access government-sponsored testing or treatment for lead poisoning.

According to people interviewed by Human Rights Watch, adults in areas that are known to have severe lead poisoning— such as those in which we conducted interviews—are consistently denied testing.[217] Some adult interviewees said the local CCDC clinic or hospital in Henan had directly refused them testing. [218] Others said that each time they tried to get tested doctors came up with an excuse for why the testing could not be done, such as broken equipment.[219] Not only were they not able to participate in the free testing program, many adults were refused testing at local hospitals even when they were willing to pay out of pocket for the test.[220] Other people interviewed told us that the lead test was too expensive for them to pay for.[221]

However, the vast majority of adults interviewed by Human Rights Watch said they had not tried to get tested because the government has made it clear that testing is only for children.

III. China’s Domestic and International Obligations Related to Human Rights and the Environment Right to Health The right to highest attainable standard of health is found in article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international treaties binding upon China, including the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[222] Realization of this right imposes a number of duties on the Chinese government including the obligation to provide relevant health information and to guarantee nondiscriminatory access to healthcare services.[223]

Chinese law also contains a number of provisions that expressly protect the right to health. Most recently, the right to health is articulated in China’s National Human Rights Action Plan 2009-2010. The plan, issued by the Information Office of the State Council, lays out human rights obligations that are to take effect by 2011. This document, which is intended to strengthen the provisions laid out in the Chinese Constitution, contains strong protections of Chinese citizens’ right to health.

A number of other rights such as the right to receive and impart information and to access information and freedom of assembly also have direct relevance for realization and enjoyment of the right to health. China has signed but not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which contains specific guarantees in relation to these rights. Additionally, Chinese domestic law provides for protection of these rights. The National Human Rights Action Plan reiterates the Chinese government’s commitment to “guarantee citizen’s right of information”. Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution also guarantees these basic rights: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”[224]

As we document in this report, the families whose children have lead poisoning are affected by a series of factors that are impacting their health. Despite the visible signs of serious pollution in their communities, many continue to eat food grown in toxic soil and breathe polluted air. People we spoke to had not received adequate or accurate information regarding lead poisoning and therefore had an inaccurate perception of risk and a lack of understanding of how to protect themselves. People were able to access testing and limited treatment not on objective, evidence-based criteria, but according to standards that were unrelated to the health risk and appeared to have been arbitrarily set.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the body charged with interpreting and monitoring compliance with the ICESCR, confirms that social determents of health are crucial to the full realization of the right to health:

The Committee interprets the right to health….as an inclusive right extending not only to timely and appropriate health care but also to the underlying determinants of health, such as access to safe and potable water and adequate sanitation, an adequate supply of safe food, nutrition and housing, healthy occupational and environmental conditions, and access to health-related information and education.[225] Environmental Health The ICESCR requires that states, in order to realize the right to the highest attainable standard of health, shall take the steps necessary for “the improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene.”[226]

The CECSR, in their General Comment 14 on the Right to Health has clarified that this right imposes on states:

The requirement to ensure an adequate supply of safe and potable water and basic sanitation; the prevention and reduction of the population’s exposure to harmful chemicals or other detrimental environmental conditions that directly or indirectly impact upon human health… States are also required to adopt measures against the environmental and occupational health hazards and against any other threat as demonstrated by epidemiological data. For this purpose they should formulate and implement national policies aimed at reducing and eliminating pollution of air, water and soil, including pollution by heavy metals such as lead from gasoline.[227] States should also refrain from unlawfully polluting air, water and soil e.g. through industrial waste from State-owned facilities.[228] The CESCR has also explained that governments violate the right to the highest attainable standard of health if they do not take reasonable measures to prevent third parties from causing environmental degradation:

Violations of the obligation to protect follow from the failure of a State to take all necessary measure to safeguard persons within their jurisdiction from infringements of the right to health by third parties. This category includes… the failure to enact or enforce laws to prevent the pollution of water, air and soil by extractive and manufacturing industries.[229] It is important to note that failure to enforce lawsthat are in place to protect people’s health can be a violation of the right to health. China has many domestic laws on environmental protection and health, but these laws have very weak enforcement mechanisms and therefore do not adequately protect the health of Chinese citizens.

Chinese law broadly provides for the protection of the environment and the health of Chinese citizens. Starting with the Chinese Constitution in 1978 and evolving over the past 30 years, Chinese law has consistently reiterated and strengthened provisions around environmental protection. Under the Chinese Constitution, promulgated in 1978 and the highest law in China, the state is obligated to protect the environment. Article 26 of the constitution places clear responsibility on the state to “prevent and control pollution and other public hazards.”[230]

In 1979 the Chinese government drafted the Environmental Protection Law, which came into force in 1989. Article 32 of the law stipulates that when the “lives and property of inhabitants is endangered by severe environmental pollution … the people’s government shall take effective measures to remove or alleviate the hazard.”[231] The Environmental Protection Law lays out a framework for protecting the environment and preventing excessive pollution, with the State Council setting the emissions standards at the national level. Local level officials are charged with enforcing regulations, including by monitoring emissions from factories and levying fines on companies that exceed emissions standards. The Environmental Protection Law compels the local government to take action when factories are found to be emitting pollutants in excess of the standards and threatening health.[232]

The Environmental Protection Law obligates the government to investigate for “criminal responsibility” any violations of the law that result in human injuries or death. The law also requires investigation of officials who, charged with supervising environmental protection, are found to be abusing their position.[233] After the creation of the Environmental Protection Law, a series of further environmental laws were promulgated, laying out specific regulations relating to water pollution, air pollution, and solid waste pollution, among other subjects.[234]

The Child’s Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Chinese government ratified in 1992, is legally binding and provides special protections for all children. The convention calls on state parties to ensure the highest attainable standard of health for children. Article 24 reads: “States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.”[235]

China is also required by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to respect and protect the rights of children with disabilities.[236] The Convention on the Rights of the Child calls on governments to ensure appropriate services, including health care and schooling opportunities, for children with disabilities. The CRPD obligates China to provide educational opportunities and health services to children with disabilities.[237]

China’s Law on the Protection of Minors states that children “shall enjoy the right to life, the right to development, the right to being protected and the right to participation, and the State gives them special and preferential protection in light of the characteristics of their physical and mental development and ensures the inviolability of their lawful rights and interests.”[238] The same law provides various protections to children and places an obligation on parents, schools, and society to protect children. For example, it states that “[s]chools, kindergartens and nurseries may not conduct education or teaching among minors in such school buildings or places or with such facilities as are dangerous to their personal safety or health.”[239] Moreover, it stipulates that: “Food, medicines, toys, utensils and amusement facilities produced and sold for use by minors shall conform to national or industrial standards and may not be harmful to minors’ safety and health.”[240]

The Children’s Rights section of the National Human Rights Action Plan reinforces the rights of children and highlights the importance of the right to life for children.

During the course of the research for this report in the spring of 2010, the action plan had been announced and the protection of the rights laid out in the plan was purported to have begun. However, Human Rights Watch research found that the Chinese government was consistently violating the rights of its citizens and that the action plan had no apparent effect on bringing China closer in line with international human rights norms.

Occupational Health The ICESCR requires that states, in order to realize the right to the highest attainable standard of health, shall take the steps necessary for the “prevention, treatment and control of … occupational and other diseases.” In addition, article 7 of ICESCR recognizes “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favorable conditions of work” including “safe and healthy working conditions.”[241]

The CESCR has affirmed states’ obligations to protect the health of its workers:

Violations of the right to health can also occur though the omission of States to take necessary measures arising from legal obligations. Violations through acts of omission include the failure to take appropriate steps towards the full realization of everyone’s right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the failure to have a national policy on occupational safety and health as well as occupational health services, and the failure to enforce relevant laws.[242] The International Labour Organization (ILO) has developed a comprehensive body of conventions that address virtually every aspect of workers' rights. ILO Convention 161 specifically addresses workers occupational health and safety. Article 12 states: “The surveillance of workers' health in relation to work shall involve no loss of earnings for them, shall be free of charge and shall take place as far as possible during working hours.”[243] Article 13 states: “All workers shall be informed of health hazards involved in their work.”[244]

Chinese law provides comprehensive protections for workers. China’s Labor Contract Law and the Occupational Disease Prevention and Control Act are among the legal instruments intended to protect workers’ health rights and interests. Workers may not have the power or finances to invoke these laws on their own behalf, as the administrative and legal procedures are often complicated and time consuming, especially for cases regarding compensation.

Nonetheless, Chinese law is clear in protecting the rights of workers from occupational hazards. Article 32 of China’s Labor Contract Law states: “The refusal of an employee to perform dangerous tasks shall not be deemed as a breach of contract if he is forced to do so by the management staff of the Employer or if the instruction to do so is made in violation of regulations.”[245] Article 42 further states that the employer cannot terminate a labor contract if the employee “is engaged in operations that would expose him to occupational disease hazards and has not undergone a occupational health check-up before leaving work, or is suspected of having contracted an occupational disease and is being diagnosed or under medical observation;” neither can the employer end a labor contract if the employee “has been confirmed as having lost or partially lost his capacity to work due to an occupational disease contracted or a work-related injury sustained during his employment with the Employer.”

The Right to Health Information Access to information is protected by both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China signed in 1998 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which China ratified in 2001.[246] The CESCR has stated that a “core obligation” of states under the right to the highest attainable standard of health is:

To provide education and access to information concerning the main health problems in the community, including methods of preventing and controlling them.[247] The committee has explained that:

Accessibility includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas concerning health issues.[248] Internationally, it is increasingly acknowledged that freedom of information is critical to environmental protection and the realization of the right to health. The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, known as the Aarhus Convention, went into effect in 2001, and has been ratified by more than 40 countries in Europe, the Caucuses and Central Asia, though not China.[249] The convention reads:

The parties to this Convention: Recognizing that adequate protection of the environment is essential to human well-being and the enjoyment of basic human rights, including the right to life itself. Recognizing also that every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, and the duty, both individually and in association with others, to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations. Considering that, to be able to assert this right and observe this duty, citizens must have access to information, be entitled to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters, and acknowledging in this regard that citizens may need assistance in order to exercise their rights.[250] Article one of the convention states the objective:

In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.[251] Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Open Government Information, which took effect in 2008, lay out provisions intended to ensure that citizens have access to government information, in line with the law. The measure, said Vice Minister Zhang Qiong, ensures “the public’s right to know, the right to participate” and are intended to “help curb corruption at its source, largely reducing its occurrence.”[252]

The State Environmental Protection Administration (now the Ministry of Environmental Protection) issued implementing measures for the regulations, that standardized “the disclosure of environmental information by government agencies and enterprises, and provide the public with the right to request government environmental information.”[253]

Issued by the State Environmental Protection Agency in 2007, the Measures on Open Environmental Information, which went into effect in May 2008, require the disclosure of environmental information. As written in the measures, “environmental information” includes both government and enterprise environmental information.[254] The measures obligate the local Environmental Protection Bureaus to release environmental information at the public’s request. The scope of information that can be disclosed under the measures is broad and includes: results of environmental impact assessments, names of enterprises that have exceeded the government’s standards for emissions, enterprises that have caused pollution incidents and any fees levied upon enterprises, among other information. The measures also require the EPBs to disclose the outcome of petition letters and pollution complaints from local citizens.

The stated purpose of the Measures on Open Environmental Information is to provide the public with the right to request government environmental information. Despite a broad loophole in the regulations that allows EPBs to withhold information considered to be “trade secrets,” the ultimate objective of the law is to help control pollution by including citizens in the monitoring system.[255]

Acknowledgments This report was researched and written by Human Rights Watch staff with critical assistance from a long-term consultant, and edited by Joseph Amon, the director of the Health and Human Rights Program. The report was reviewed by Sophie Richardson, Advocacy Director of the Asia division and other members of her team; Aisling Reidy, senior legal advisor; Danielle Haas, senior editor; and Iain Levine, deputy program director at Human Rights Watch. Production assistance was provided by Alex Gertner, associate; Grace Choi, publications director; Kathy Mills; publications coordinator, and Fitzroy Hepkins, administration manager.

Thanks go to the many people who shared their experiences with us for this report. This report would not have been possible without the kind guidance of journalists and activists who provided invaluable assistance along the way. Above all, we thank all the people affected by lead poisoning who were willing to speak with us and share their stories, often at great personal risk.

Appendix I: Lead Poisoning Symptoms, Effects on Health, and Treatment Lead is a heavy metal that naturally forms in the Earth’s crust. It is highly toxic to humans when ingested or inhaled. Although lead was previously considered safe at low levels, lead is now considered unsafe at any level.[256] Elevated lead levels damage the brain, kidneys, and blood cells, which may result in anemia, deficits in IQ, high blood pressure, coma, or death. Because lead poisoning may not necessarily manifest in obvious symptoms, it can often go unrecognized.[257] Today, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines lead poisoning as any blood lead concentrations over 10 micrograms per deciliter. Although the effects of lead poisoning vary according to blood lead levels, the World Health Organization now considers lead unsafe at any level.[258]

Pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning. In pregnant women, it can cause premature birth, low birth weight, or damage the fetus’ developing brain.

Children are especially at risk for lead poisoning because they tend to absorb up to 50 percent of lead that they are exposed to, compared to 10-15 percent for adults.[259] The potential damage of lead poisoning in children is high because lead affects the development of their nervous and digestive systems. Virtually every organ in children is susceptible to damage from lead poisoning.[260] Infants’ and young children’s propensity to explore the world through their mouths or play in what may be lead contaminated areas increases their likelihood of ingesting or inhaling lead in dust and dirt.[261]

In children, elevated blood lead levels can cause:[262]

reduced IQ and attention span reading and learning disabilities behavioral problems hearing loss impaired growth and visual and motor functioning anemia brain, liver, kidney, nerve, and stomach damage coma and convulsions death The adverse effects of lead poisoning intensify with repeated exposure, and the long-term effects of lead poisoning cause irreversible damage.

Chelation therapy is the most common treatment for lead poisoning. It uses EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), a synthetic amino acid, to bind and thus neutralize lead and other heavy metals in the bloodstream, forming a compound that is then dispelled in urine.[263] The process generally takes one to three hours and can be administered through intravenous injection or orally in the form of dimercaptosuccinic acid. Chelation therapy can also be used to eliminate other heavy metals from the body including mercury, arsenic, aluminum, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and zinc.[264]

Side effects of chelation therapy can include headaches, nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, joint pain, cramps, and skin irritation.[265] More serious side effects include kidney toxicity, bone marrow depression, shock, low blood pressure (hypotension), convulsions, disturbance of regular heart rhythm, allergic heart reaction, and respiratory arrest.[266] As chelation treatment may also deplete useful elements in the body, such as iron, zinc, and copper, dietary supplements and vitamins are recommended to be taken during treatment as well.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, environmental impact assessments should be performed in tandem with lead detoxification treatments in order to identify and eliminate the source of contamination. Unless the exposure to lead is mitigated, chelation therapy may not be fully effective, and instead, chelating agents may in fact facilitate the absorption of lead in the gastrointestinal tract.[267]

中国：应负起“六四”屠杀责任

血腥镇压28周年，压迫仍凌驾改革

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 八九民运群众聚集在天安门广场上的毛主席纪念堂和人民英雄纪念碑周围，北京，1989年5月17日。（纽约，2017年6月1日）－人权观察今天表示，中国政府应为1989年6月4日前后屠杀争取民主的和平示威者一事负起责任，将加害者绳之以法。同时，当局应该允许悼念“六四”，释放为悼念“六四”被判刑监禁人士。

“习近平在世界舞台上大谈开放，但他的政府却掩盖‘六四’屠杀真相，对纪念“六四”人士加以噤声、否定和迫害，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“北京若不能痛改前非，为过去罪愆负起责任，习近平的主张就毫无说服力。”

一如往年，随著6月4日临近，中国当局已对各地维权人士加强监控，以防他们表达抗议或哀悼。今年5月，广州公安一再骚扰人权律师黄思敏及其男友，作家黎学文，强迫他们离开当地。广州维权人士聚餐被公安打断，王爱忠被带往派出所拘留盘问数小时。山东省也出动数十名警力，阻止维权人士前往退休教授孙文广家中参加悼念“六四”活动。

过去一年，许多维权人士都为纪念“六四”遭到拘押、起诉或判刑。今年3月，四川成都当局以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”起诉陈兵、符海陆、罗富誉和张隽勇，因为他们在网上义卖谐音“八酒六四”的纪念酒。同月，成都法院以“寻衅滋事罪”将组织追悼“六四”死难者的陈云飞判处四年有期徒刑。4月，广州维权人士刘兵因在街头举牌号召民众游行抗议“六四”屠杀，以涉嫌“寻衅滋事”被捕。

虽然已知最后一位因参与八九民运入狱人士已在2016年10月获释，仍有许多当年参与者因持续倡导民主而身陷囹圄，包括诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波，四川维权人士刘贤斌、陈卫和广东维权人士郭飞雄。在习近平主政下，中国政府积极打压各种人权，打击公民社会活动人士，加紧限制言论表达和宗教信仰自由，同时加强政治思想控制。

尽管中国政府持续忽视国内外追究“六四”屠杀责任的呼声，各国政府已采取新措施对世界各地人权侵犯者究责。2016年12月，美国国会通过《全球马格尼茨基人权问责法》，授权联邦政府对违反人权查有实据者进行制裁或拒发签证。英国国会也将对类似马格尼茨基法的法案进行表决，该法将授权英国政府和民间机构对全世界人权侵犯者提出冻结其资产的申请。2017年5月，加拿大政府宣布将支持参议院审议中的一项法案，扩充加拿大对人权侵犯者的制裁措施，包括冻结资产和拒发签证。

“这些制裁外国人权侵犯者的新机制，再度为追究‘六四’屠杀罪责带来曙光，”理查森说。“它将令习主席和其他中国领导人在继续严重侵犯人权之前停步掂量。”

背景：1989血腥镇压

“六四”屠杀之前，北京学生、工人和市民自1989年4月起聚集在天安门广场，要求言论自由、问责和反贪腐。随著抗议声势扩大，政府在1989年5月下旬宣布戒严。

6月3日至4日，军队开火，击毙不明人数的和平示威者和旁观市民。目睹军方暴力的部分市民，群起攻击进城部队，焚烧军车。血腥镇压后，政府实施全国扫荡，数千人被捕，控以“反革命”或扰乱社会秩序、纵火等刑事罪名。

中国政府从未承担屠杀责任，也没有法办任何杀人官员。政府拒绝对事件进行调查，也不公布死亡、受伤、强迫失踪和判刑入狱者的数据。主要由死难者家属组成的非政府组织“天安门母亲”，已在北京及其他城市收集到202名“六四”遇难者的详细资料。屠杀后28年来，已有许多“天安门母亲”成员和“六四”良心犯──例如在天安门广场污损毛泽东画像而入狱12年的余志坚──含寃去世。

人权观察要求中国政府纪念“六四”28周年，改正与“六四”有关的人权侵犯。具体而言，中国政府应做到：

尊重言论、结社与和平集会权利，停止对质疑“六四”官方说法人士的骚扰和任意拘押；与“天安门母亲”成员会面并向其致歉，公布所有死难者名单，给予死难者家属合理赔偿；允许对“六四”事件进行独立、公开的调查，并于调查完成后尽速公布结果；允许因八九民运流亡海外的中国公民自由返国；以及调查所有政府和军方官员的责任，包括策划或下令非法使用致命武力对付和平示威群众，以及事后不当起诉示威人士。

中国人权侵犯感染联合国

“一种疾病正朝四方蔓延。”联合国秘书长古特瑞斯（Antonio Guterres ）今年稍早如此描述全世界失去对人权关注的情况。但古特瑞斯也不能忽略来自联合国内部对人权的压力；尤其是中国，联合国安理会常任理事国之一，正在向联合国各主要机构施压。

4月26日，来自德国、长期为中国压迫下维族穆斯林进行人权倡导的多尔昆・艾沙（Dolkun Isa），原本正在联合国纽约总部参加有关原住民议题的一场论坛。尽管他出席该次活动的资格已获充分认证，但据艾沙表示，当他在会议中途步出四号会议室，竟有联合国保安人员在走道上拦住他，要求他立刻离开大楼。他没有得到任何解释，即使他的出席证仍然有效，却无法再次进入该大楼开会，也无法参加同一论坛在4月28日的后续会议。人权观察已为此事要求说明，但发言人办公室回覆对本案毫无所悉。

这不是单一个案。今年1月，联合国为欢迎中国国家主席习近平造访日内瓦办事处，竟以“后勤”需要为由，要求近三千名联合国员工留在家中──同时堵截非政府组织进入办公区周边。秘书长古特瑞斯在介绍习近平主席上台时，盛赞中国坚定支持多边主义和联合国，对人权侵犯只字未提。

三年前，维权人士曹顺利为争取出席联合国人权理事会，参与对中国的普遍定期审议，遭中国当局拘押并于2014年死于看守所。至今，中国仍未就其死因做出合理说明，更未曾处分违法失职人员。几星期后，联合国极端贫穷问题特别报告员奥斯顿（Philip Alston）即将就其2016年8月赴中国访调行程提交报告，当时他的调查工作曾受到中国官员限制。

联合国领导阶层应认真消灭这场人权侵犯的“疫病”，维护联合国工作的必要支柱。他们必须向所有中国人权倡导者公开承诺联合国同样属于他们，并应强硬抵制中国破坏联合国人权机制的图谋。

中国：公安DNA数据库危及隐私

4千万人被建档，包含异见人士、移民、维族穆斯林

Share this via Facebook Share this via Bluesky More sharing options Click to expand Image 中国新疆维吾尔自治区喀什噶尔街上，警方检查一名男子的身份证，2017年3月24日。 © 2017 路透社/Thomas Peter （纽约，2017年5月16日）－人权观察今天表示，中国公安机关正在收集个人DNA，建立一个全国性可查询数据库，但却缺乏监督、透明和隐私保障。证据显示，素来行铁腕统治的新疆自治区政府有意加速DNA的收集和建档。

中国许多地区的公安人员，正在强迫一般人──既非罪犯也非嫌疑人──抽血提取DNA。其他样本则来自早已受到政府锁定监控的各种弱势人群，包括移民工、异见人士和维吾尔族穆斯林。由于公安部门大权在握，且隐私权在中国尚无可诉性，人们几乎没有能力抵制这种个人信息的收集。

“DNA采集在侦办具体刑事案件时是正当的警察执法行为，但前提是人们的隐私获得有效保障，”人权观察中国部主任索菲・理查森（Sophie Richardson）说。“中国若不能做到这一点，就必须停止大规模收集并扩充DNA数据库。”

中国公安机关利用手中大权广泛收集DNA，却缺乏有效的隐私保障和独立的司法系统，无疑是一场完美的侵权风暴索菲・理查森中国部主任

2000年代初期，中国公安部就开始建立名为“法庭科学DNA数据库系统”（又名“全国公安机关DNA数据库应用系统”）的全国性可查询DNA数据库。它是整个公安信息化项目“金盾工程”的一部分。

2015下半年，公安部已录得4千4百万件“未分类数据记录”，号称世界最大同类数据库。这些数据是从逾4千万人身上提取，另有150万笔取自刑案物证。公安部还建有另一个“打拐DNA数据库”，已录入513,000份DNA记录。当局表示该DNA数据库的用途是侦办犯罪，例如恐怖主义活动和人口贩运，以及辨认尸体和流浪人员的身份。

但人权观察指出，由已知个案看来，中国收集DNA未必与具体刑案侦办有关。公安机关通过运动形式大量收集一般公民的生物数据，只是因为收集“基础信息”已被该部门列为工作目标，对满足不特定的“破案”需求很有帮助。基层公安派出所为了夸耀执行绩效，有时会发出通知，将收集来的数以百计DNA样本公诸于众。

此外，按照中国法律，公安机关收集DNA样本只限于侦办具体刑事案件所需。《刑事诉讼法》第130条规定，在刑事侦查过程中，为了“确定被害人、犯罪嫌疑人的某些特征、伤害情况或者生理狀态，可以对人身进行检查，可以提取指纹资讯，采集血液、尿液等生物样本。犯罪嫌疑人如果拒绝检查，侦人员认为必要的时候，可以强制检查。”但法律并未规定DNA样本可以保存、分享或使用多长时间，也没有说明如何对采样手续提出申诉。

“中国公安机关利用手中大权广泛收集DNA，却缺乏有效的隐私保障和独立的司法系统，无疑是一场完美的侵权风暴，”理查森说。“中国正在将它的欧威尔式体制推上遗传学的层次。”

背景：民间反对DNA采集

许多曾遭公安采集DNA的民众将他们的经验详细发表在社交媒体平台，包括微博、知乎、百度知道、贴吧和天涯。有些网民在贴文中描述，官员来到他们的住家、学校或工作场所对他们进行采样；但没有一个人说到官员曾出示搜索票或事先通知来访。其他人则是在向公安机关申办证件时被要求提供DNA样本，例如居住证和身份证。还有些人是被公安人员带回派出所问话时遭采集DNA样本，尽管他们大多数并未遭到正式的刑事拘留或逮捕。

有些人在网络上表示，他们“不想被采集DNA”或对个人信息被提取感到“很生气”。2016年6月28日发表在天涯的一则贴文为例，作者说他在广东中山遇到交警拦检，而且公安人员强迫采集他的DNA样本，他写道：“这一天我都在想，这算什么，为什么被这样对待，我又不是囚犯，但这样胜过囚犯，我心里一直很压抑。害怕他对我的采集会做什么手脚”。

上述贴文反映出人们对其个人信息被收集的不安，怀疑收集是否合法，是否会对其生活带来负面影响，以及是否会留下犯罪纪录或遭到调查。同时对未经本人知情同意感到愤怒。

贴吧2016年8月6日的一则贴文中，一位在申请身分证时被提取DNA的网民写道，“因为身份证读不出来，昨天去乡里派出所重办，结果让先采血采DNA，当时我就问...采DNA干嘛？结果就说规定就是这样，不采不给办...哎！现在TMD连DNA都是共产党的了”。

收集DNA的问题已引起部分媒体关注。2013年10月，山东省公安机关从一所大学的五千多名男学生身上采集DNA。学生们不知道为什么要提取他们的生物信息，许多学生“感到不理解或不舒服”。记者前往采访，校方表示是配合公安机关要求建立流动人口数据库，公安机关则说是为侦办该校发生的多起偷窃案件。

DNA采集的标签化

由公安机关近年发出的通知可见，这种运动通常以远超过“嫌疑人与罪犯”的广泛类别为对象。这些类别因时因地而异，但通常包含：“重点人员”，即当局眼中具有潜在威胁的人员，如异见人士、维权人士、上访者和其他曾有犯罪纪录人员；“工作对象”，这也是公安机关用来描述其管控目标的含糊概念，包括治安违法人员、刑满释放人员等等；以及流动人口，即非属本地户口的人员，包括农民工。有些运动以特定场所──宾馆旅店、娱乐场所、网吧和出租房屋──为目标，凡是公安认为“可疑”的人员都可以采集其DNA。少数通知则针对特定行业：如性工作者、锁匠。

这种广泛且歧视性的社会标签化（profiling）显然是公安预防性执法的一种形式。有些地方公安机关以移民工为目标实施采集DNA的运动，自称其目的是为了“维稳”──官方用来指代压抑批评、遏阻抗议的委婉表述。实例包括：

陕西省宝鸡市、商洛市和铜川市公安人员，于2016年10月到11月之间，到辖区各企业单位采集移民工DNA，声称是为了“确保稳定”；贵州省贵阳市某公安局发起运动，收集流动人口的DNA样本和指纹等信息，做为“构建和谐社会”的部分措施；吉林省某边境城镇的公安机关于2015年7月由当地移民工提取了247份DNA样本。据称这种“改良的流动人口信息”有助侦破犯罪，“加强维护社会安全保障”。有些和平异议人士和维权人士也说曾被提取DNA，通常是当他们被带到派出所侦讯或传唤的时候：

沈良庆，合肥维权人士，2015年因接受外媒采访、在推特上讨论天津化学工厂爆炸而被公安传唤，并被采集生物信息，包括血样。沈良庆说，公安人员告诉他必须“收集公民信息”，但没有说明用途或存储方式。江西反腐败维权人士刘萍2012年9月遭公安机关审讯11小时，期间遭到酷刑和强迫提取DNA、拍照、制作指模和掌形。公安人员说，采集她的信息是为了建构“犯罪数据库”。刘萍被判处六年徒刑，尚在服刑中。维权人士何延运因2015年7月发表一篇关于人权律师的文章遭到广东省当局审讯，并提取了他的DNA和指纹；人权律师王全平2014年4月欲旁听另一人权律师开庭时遭到拘押，官员要求采集他的指模、血样和DNA样本。官员告诉王全平，任何人被送到派出所都要经过这个例行手续，目的是“收集公民信息”。王当场抗议说，他既不是犯罪嫌疑人，也没有遭到刑事羁押，官员最后没有提取他的生物信息，但将他的案件由行政违规升级为刑事犯罪，将他拘留八天。新疆的危险趋势

Click to expand Image 2017年3月23日，工人们在中国新疆维吾尔自治区喀什噶尔购物区安装闭路电视摄像机。国家媒体表示，类似的数千个公安网络措施遍布街头是为了让民众感觉更安全。 © 2017 路透社/Thomas Peter 人权观察2016年11月报导，新疆公安机关规定所有护照申请人──并非犯罪嫌疑人或罪犯──必须提交DNA样本才能办理。新疆是一千万维吾尔族穆斯林的故乡，长期遭受国家压迫。

人权观察进一步研究发现，2016年9月，新疆自治区公安厅发布两项招标案──金额分别高达六千万人民币（869万美元）和两千万人民币（290万美元）──总共采购12台DNA定序仪，30台聚合酶连锁反应（PCR）放大器，和一千套基因分型试剂。根据人权观察征询四名DNA专家的意见，这两项采购显示新疆公安厅企图建造大规模基础设施，对大量人员进行归档。然而，由于招标文件并未全部公开，很难评估该基础设施的具体范围。

2016年，新疆公安厅还发出了《关于全面开展三维人像、声纹、DNA指纹生物信息采集系统建设相关工作的通知》。该通知全文并未公开，因此无法确定其采集对象，采集到的信息如何使用、分享或存储，采集背后的理据，或被采集者如何申诉。另一件招标案由新疆省喀什地区岳普湖县公安局发出，引用上述《通知》，并说采集生物信息是“维稳”措施的一部分。自治区当局对这些新举措均三缄其口。

缺乏保障机制

DNA数据库不仅可让公安机关找到完全相符的人员，还可查询亲属关系。如果公安人员从数据库找到一位表亲、侄子或婶婶的DNA样本，就能查出他们在找的人属于一等亲或二等亲，进而锁定这个家族为调查重点。据公安部DNA数据库研究人员表示，目前公安DNA数据库的架构方式使他们难以有效进行较复杂的家族DNA检索。但有些地方当局，特别是在河南省，正试图收集更多数据，包括Y染色体连续重覆片段（Y-STR）DNA信息，即父系亲属的遗传信息，以便对家族树实施系统性检索。

公安部虽已制订关于DNA数据收集的行政和技术内规，但内容大多不公开。公安部法医鉴定中心2003年公布的《法庭科学DNA数据库建设规范》（GA/T418—2003）规定，该数据库由“违法犯罪”人员的数据构成，但并未进一步说明或界定。公安部曾于2009年发布一份文件，胪列可进行数据采集的“十类案件”和“八种人员”，但人权观察无法通过网络找到该文件，也无法经由公开信息掌握更多细节。上海市公安局发出的一份通知比较明确：凡是触犯“暴力、毒品、性犯罪”以及“受过治安行政拘留处罚以上”的人员，都应对其进行DNA采样。后一群体包括未被定罪、仅受到行政拘留的人员，即被公安剥夺自由但未经法院判刑者。2017年初，中国政府颁布公安部《治安管理处罚法》修订草案，其中增列第112条规定，公安机关侦办违反治安管理案件时，为确认行为人和被侵害人的身分，可通过抽血及其他多种方式收集人体生物识别信息。

DNA数据库并非当然不合法，在某些情况确实是可以接受的办案工具。但若要达到中国已签署但尚未批准的《公民及政治权利国际公约》所载的隐私权国际标准，DNA的采集和储存机制必须受到周延管制，范围尽量狭窄，并与所欲达成的正当安全目的成比例。

联合国隐私权问题特别报告员曾指出，DNA数据库可能导致人权问题，包括“可能被滥用于政府监控，包括确认亲属和父子关系，以及造成寃错假案”。未经充分知情同意收集DNA数据，只在极有限的情况下是合理的，例如侦办重大犯罪的需要，而且必须基于符合人权的理由事先立法许可。

类似中国现行的DNA采集制度，曾在其他国家被判定侵犯隐私权。例如，欧洲人权法院（ECHR）大法庭于2008年作成判决，认定收集并无限期留存指纹、细胞样本及DNA档案是违法行为。欧洲人权法院在其判决中论证指出，全面性、无区别的DNA数据库侵犯个人隐私权。判决并表示，为国家安全或犯罪防治，可以进行DNA采集，但前提是采集制度受到现行法律的严格规管，而且可由法院加以慎重审查。美国联邦最高法院在马里兰州诉金恩（Maryland v. King）一案中也做成类似判决，由于法律对DNA样本的采集、分析和使用已有限制，故可合法采集及留存暴力犯罪定罪人员的DNA档案。