Event Record
Closed Trials and Heavy Sentences of Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi
The two were arrested after a private gathering and convicted of subversion; UN mechanisms raised fair-trial and torture concerns.
Contents
From a Private Meeting to Disappearance
Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi had long advocated civic participation, asset disclosure, and the rule of law. In December 2019 they joined a gathering of lawyers, scholars, and public-interest activists in Xiamen to discuss civil society and political reform. In early 2020 police arrested participants in Beijing, Shandong, and elsewhere. Xu and Ding were placed under residential surveillance at a designated location on suspicion of subversion and later formally detained. UN experts said both men were denied stable contact with family and independent counsel. [1]
Investigation, Detention, and a Closed Trial
After more than three years in custody, a court in Linyi, Shandong, held the trial in April 2023. The hearing was closed to the public, and defense and attendance arrangements were restricted. Xu received a fourteen-year sentence and Ding a twelve-year sentence, both for subversion of state power. A UN working group said the closed proceedings, prolonged isolation, and torture allegations affected fair-trial rights. [1] [2]
The Security Label Applied to a Civic Discussion
The Xiamen gathering involved no armed action and no plan to seize a government office. Participants discussed elections, accountability, judicial independence, and civic organizations. Police treated meeting notes, communications, and personal relationships as subversion evidence. Prosecutors relied on a political objective rather than a specific act of violence. A broad security offense made ordinary policy discussion legible as a criminal case. [1]
Families, Lawyers, and the Public Excluded from Procedure
The location, evidence, and reasoning of the trial were not fully disclosed. Families could not attend in real time, and lawyers faced restrictions on meetings and access to files. China issued no detailed public response beyond the claim that threats to national security were prosecuted according to law. Public documents establish the detention period and sentences but do not permit independent review of all evidence, interrogation methods, or health conditions. [2]
Power Mechanism: Using Security Charges to Close Civil Society
The CCP connected a private meeting to the national-security apparatus. Police made arrests and imposed residential surveillance. Prosecutors and courts converted discussion into the crime of subversion. Political-legal officials controlled the pace. Propaganda labeled advocates as enemies. Closed proceedings cut families, lawyers, and the public out of oversight, allowing years of punishment without open evidence. The Xu and Ding case shows that the Party does not need to prove violence. Defining independent organization, discussion, and public activity as regime risk is enough to destroy participants and their social networks. [1] [3]
Sources
UN Working Group Communication on Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxigovernment-reportLive
2024 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Chinagovernment-reportLive
Regulations on Religious Affairsprimary-recordLive
Ministry of Justice Explanation of the Religious Affairs Regulationprimary-recordLive
Population and Family Planning Law of the PRCprimary-recordLive
White Paper on Vocational Education and Training in Xinjiangprimary-recordUnavailable