China

The applicant, a Chinese national of Uyghur Muslim origin, challenged a deportation order issued by Turkish migration authorities.The authorities designated Kyrgyzstan as a safe third country.The applicant argued that removal to Kyrgyzstan created a substantial risk of onward surrender to China, where he faced possible persecution due to his ethnic and religious identity.He submitted evidence indicating prior transfers of Uyghurs from Kyrgyzstan to Chinese authorities.The administrative court rejected his challengeThe Constitutional Court held that domestic courts failed to conduct sufficient scrutiny of:- direct removal risk to China;- indirect surrender risk through Kyrgyzstan;- country-specific human rights concerns.The Court found that effective procedural safeguards against refoulement had not been provided.

The People's Republic of China requested the extradition of two individuals — a mother and son residing in Paphos, Cyprus since 2014 — for prosecution in connection with the alleged unlawful absorption of public deposits in violation of Article 176 of the Chinese Criminal Code, allegedly committed between August 2012 and April 2014 through a British company operating in Beijing. The requested persons raised objections on both formal and substantive grounds, arguing inter alia that their surrender would violate the fundamental principles of Cypriot and European law, given the prevailing situation of torture and systemic human rights violations in Chinese detention facilities. The court found that the formal requirements of the bilateral Extradition Treaty of 29 June 2018 (ratified by Law 12(III)/2019) and the double criminality condition were satisfied, but concluded — relying extensively on the ECtHR judgment in Liu v. Poland (App. No. 37610/2018, 6.10.2022) and expert evidence — that a general situation of violence and torture exists in Chinese detention and penitentiary facilities, thereby relieving the requested persons of the obligation to demonstrate specific personal risk factors. The court further held that the diplomatic assurances provided by China through the bilateral channel were insufficient to eliminate the real risk of ill-treatment, and accordingly rejected the extradition request as mandatorily precluded under Article 3(d) and (θ) of the Treaty.

In cases of extradition to the China, a concrete risk of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment must be considered to exist (as held by the European Court of Human Rights in Liu v. Poland, 6 October 2022), in light of multiple reliable international sources reporting systematic human rights violations, the tolerated use of forms of torture, and the substantial impossibility for independent institutions and organizations to verify the actual conditions in detention facilities.

The case concerned a request by the People’s Republic of China for the extradition of QJ, a citizen of Saint Christopher and Nevis, for prosecution in China on allegations of large-scale embezzlement connected to his former position as chief financial officer of a state-owned company. The alleged conduct involved several transactions between 2008 and 2011, with an overall value of approximately 210 million yuan. The Swedish Supreme Court found that most of the alleged offences satisfied double criminality under Swedish law and that there was sufficient probable cause for the prosecution allegations. It also held, however, that extradition was barred on several human rights grounds. First, the Court found an impediment under Swedish extradition law because the requested person had been politically active in connection with demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and later in the Chinese democracy movement, and there was a risk that he would be persecuted on account of his political opinions. Secondly, the Court held that extradition to China would be incompatible with Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the Court relied on the risk of the death penalty, the general and individual risk of torture or inhuman treatment, the lack of sufficient guarantees of an independent and fair trial, and the limited value of possible assurances in light of the structure and functioning of the Chinese criminal justice system. The Supreme Court therefore declared that there were legal impediments to extradition.