Secret detention centres (14) The Committee is concerned by allegations that secret detention facilities, including the so-called “black jails”, exist and are used to detain petitioners, such as those seeking to come to the capital, such as Wang Guilan. Detention in such facilities constitutes per se disappearance. Detainees are allegedly deprived of fundamental legal safeguards, including an oversight mechanism in regard to their treatment and review procedures with respect to their detention. The Committee is also concerned over other unacknowledged detention facilities such as those where prominent disappeared persons have been reportedly confined (arts. 2 and 11). The State party should ensure that no one is detained in any secret detention facility. Detaining persons in such conditions constitutes, per se, a violation of the Convention. The State party should investigate, disclose the existence of any such facilities and the authority under which they have been established and the manner in which detainees are treated, and make reparations to the victims of enforced disappearances where appropriate. Main obstacles to the effective implementation of the Convention (15) The Committee identified three overarching problems that impact all other issues raised by the Committee in the list of issues and during the oral presentations: (a) the 1988 Law on the Preservation of State Secrets in the People’s Republic of China; (b) the reported harassment of lawyers and human rights defenders; and (c) the abuses carried out by unaccountable “thugs” who use physical violence against specific defenders but enjoy de facto immunity. Collectively, these problems stand in the way of ensuring the legal safeguards that the Committee generally recommends to all States parties to the Convention as necessary for the prevention of torture. 1. State secrets law (16) While taking note of the oral information from the State party on the conditions of application of the 1988 Law on the Preservation of State Secrets in the People’s Republic of China, the Committee expressed grave concern over the use of this law which severely undermines the availability of information about torture, criminal justice and related issues. The broad application of this law raises a range of issues relating to the application of the Convention in the State party: (a) This Law prevents the disclosure of crucial information that would enable the Committee to identify possible patterns of abuse requiring attention, such as disaggregated statistical information on detainees in all forms of detention and custody and ill-treatment in the State party, information on groups and entities deemed to be “hostile organizations”, “minority splittist organizations”, “hostile religious organizations”, “reactionary sects”, as well as basic information on places of detention, information about the “circumstances of prisoners of great influence”, violations of the law or codes of conduct by public security organs, information on matters inside prisons; (b) This Law provides that the determination of whether a piece of information is a State secret lies with the public body producing this information; (c) This Law prevents any public process of determination as to whether a matter is a State secret and the possibility of appeal before an independent tribunal; (d) The classification of a case falling under the State Secrets law allows officials to deny detainees access to lawyers, a fundamental safeguard for preventing torture, and such denial appears to be in contradiction with the 2007 amended Lawyers Law (arts. 2 and 19). The State party should review its legislation on State secrets with a view to ensuring that information, including statistics, relevant to the assessment of the State party’s compliance with the provisions of the Convention throughout its territory, including in the Special Administrative Regions, is available to the Committee. 20