→ 🇨🇳 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.