CAT/C/CHN/CO/5
party once again to consider including a comprehensive definition of torture in its
legislation that is in full conformity with the Convention and covers all the elements
contained in article 1, including the purpose of discrimination. The State party should
ensure that all public officials and any other person acting in an official capacity or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official can be prosecuted for torture. The
Committee draws the State party’s attention to paragraph 9 of its general comment
No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by State parties, in which it is noted
that serious discrepancies between the definition in the Convention and that
incorporated into domestic law create actual or potential loopholes for impunity.
Prolonged pretrial detention
10.
The Committee remains concerned that the State party has not taken any steps to
shorten the 30-day maximum legal period during which detainees can be held in police
custody and the additional seven days before the procuratorate, who is responsible for
supervising detention, approves their arrest. While taking note of the State party’s
information that procuratorial authorities disapproved the arrest of 406 persons in 2014, the
Committee remains concerned that the excessive period of time during which public
security officials may detain persons without independent supervision may increase the risk
of detainees being ill-treated or even tortured. The Committee expresses concern over
reports that public security officials routinely use the exceptional power of extending the
detention period to up to 30 days, and even beyond the legally permitted lengths of time.
The Committee notes with concern that the detention of a person in a criminal investigation
or prosecution is not brought under judicial control until the case is ready for trial (art. 2).
11.
The Committee calls on the State party to:
(a)
Reduce the 37-day maximum period of police custody and ensure, in law
and in practice, that detained persons are promptly brought before a judge within a
time limit in accordance with international standards, which should not exceed 48
hours;
(b)
Ensure that all detainees are either formally charged and remanded by a
court pending trial or released;
(c)
Guarantee the right of detainees, any time during the detention, to
challenge the legality or necessity of their detention before a judge who can order
their immediate release;
(d)
Encourage the application of non-custodial measures as an alternative to
pretrial detention.
Restrictions to the rights to access a lawyer and to give notification of custody
12.
While appreciating the 2012 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, which,
inter alia, stipulates that a defence lawyer may meet with a suspect within 48 hours at the
latest from the moment of the request, the Committee regrets that the Law does not
guarantee the right of the detained person to meet with a lawyer from the very outset of the
detention. The Committee is also concerned that in cases of “endangering State security”,
“terrorism” or serious “bribery”, the lawyer must obtain permission from public security
investigators to meet with the suspect, and investigators may legally withhold permission
for an indefinite period of time if they believe that the meeting could hinder the
investigation or could result in the disclosure of State secrets. Public security investigators
may also refuse the notification of the detention to family members in the same type of
cases if it is considered that the notification may impede their investigation.
Notwithstanding that detainees may challenge the decision of whether or not their cases
concern State secrets before the national or provincial authorities for confidential affairs,
3