Treaties such as the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)" constitute through their sheer scope of member countries the global human rights instruments of today. Although not binding for non-members, the basic ideas of the CAT are of high significance even to those countries. Since China's ratification of the CAT in 1988, the government has made efforts to combat the widespread practice of torture throughout the judicial system and executive organs.
This paper is outlining how the CAT has been implemented into Chinese laws and describes certain problems the implementation is facing.
The paper consists of three chapters and a summary. First, the CAT is described. After defining torture and looking at the reservations and obligations of China upon ratification, an examination of China's legal framework is to follow in chapter three. In chapter four, problems and criticism concerning China's implementation are described. In the summary, the findings are recapitulated.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Convention against Torture
2.1 Definition of torture
2.2 Reservations and obligations of China
3. China’s legal framework
3.1 Implementation and related documents
3.2 Exclusionary rule
3.2.1 The two evidence rules
3.2.2 The CPL revision in 2012
3.2.3 Exclusion procedure
4. Major points of criticism
5. Summary
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines how the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (CAT) has been implemented into the Chinese legal system, analyzing the gap between legislative standards and judicial practice.
- Analysis of the definition of torture under CAT and China's reservations.
- Evaluation of China's domestic legal framework regarding the prevention of torture.
- Assessment of the "Exclusionary rule" and its application in criminal proceedings.
- Critical review of police practice, interrogation methods, and the role of defense lawyers.
- Examination of systemic obstacles to the effective protection of rights in criminal trials.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Exclusionary rule
Art. 15 CAT makes clear that all evidence or statement obtained through torture has to be excluded. Solely in proceedings against a person accused of torture they can be used as evidence. An exclusionary rule has been incorporated in Chinese laws through Art. 43 CPL 1996, that prohibits extortion of confessions by torture or the use of other illegal means to collect evidence and therefore lays the basis for the exclusion of such. Furthermore Art. 61 of the "Interpretations of the SPC on Some Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC" and Art. 265 of the SPP "Criminal Litigation Rules for the People’s Procuratorates" also addressed the problematic. Both interpretations were only binding for their specific fields i.e. the SPP's for the procuratorate and the SPC's for the courts. This caused confusion and friction throughout the judicial organs as public security, for example, did not have to comply by them.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the significance of the Convention against Torture (CAT) globally and defines the scope of this paper, which examines China's implementation of the treaty.
2. Convention against Torture: Details the conceptual definition of torture and the specific reservations made by the Chinese government regarding their obligations under the CAT.
3. China’s legal framework: Describes the integration of CAT standards into Chinese domestic law, focusing on implementation documents and the development of the exclusionary rule.
4. Major points of criticism: Addresses the discrepancies between written law and actual practice, specifically highlighting problems with interrogation culture and police conduct.
5. Summary: Concludes that while formal legal incorporation was successful, future efforts must focus on the practical application of these laws within the judiciary.
Keywords
China, Convention against Torture, CAT, Criminal Procedure Law, CPL, Human Rights, Exclusionary Rule, Torture, Judicial Reform, Confession, Rule of Law, Criminal Justice, Interrogation, Evidence, Defense Lawyers
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper focuses on the implementation of the United Nations "Convention against Torture" within the People's Republic of China and the effectiveness of the corresponding domestic legal reforms.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The core themes include international human rights law, Chinese criminal procedure, evidence law, judicial interpretation, and the practical challenges of police and court cooperation.
What is the main research question or objective?
The primary objective is to determine how China has integrated the CAT into its legal system and to identify the persistent practical hurdles that prevent the full prohibition of torture.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The research relies on an analysis of primary international legal texts (the CAT), relevant Chinese national statutes, judicial interpretations (SPC/SPP), and existing academic literature on human rights in China.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body examines the definition of torture, the reservations China placed on the CAT, the development of the exclusionary rule from 1996 to the 2012 CPL revision, and critical areas where practice still fails to meet international standards.
How would you characterize this work using keywords?
Key terms include: China, CAT, CPL, Exclusionary Rule, Torture, Judicial Reform, Human Rights, and Criminal Justice.
How did the 2012 CPL revision impact the protection of suspects?
The 2012 revision aimed to improve protections by defining extorted confessions according to CAT standards, introducing requirements for audio/videotaping of interrogations, and enhancing the role of defense lawyers.
What is the significance of the "trial in trial" concept mentioned in the text?
The "trial in trial" refers to a specific procedure introduced to decide the legality of evidence, separating the assessment of whether evidence was obtained through illegal means from the main trial proceedings.
Why is the "exclusionary rule" considered problematic in current Chinese practice?
While the law prohibits the use of torture-derived evidence, the paper notes that performance indicators for police (focusing on solved cases and success rates) often incentivize methods that undermine the enforcement of the exclusionary rule.
- Quote paper
- Eva Lena Richter (Author), 2015, Implementation of the "Convention against Torture" in China, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/387951
