Summary

In late 2012, Chinese President Xi Jinping launched a “war on corruption,” promising to purge the government and Chinese Communist Party of the endemic problem by netting both “tigers and flies,” and by “reining in power in a cage” of laws and regulations. Since that time, the campaign reportedly has punished at least 140 “tigers” – a term which refers to senior government and Party leaders – and thousands of “flies,” who are lower-level officials. Many more are embroiled in corruption investigations. An increasingly powerful, secretive Chinese Communist Party (CCP or “the Party”) body – the Central Commission on Discipline Inspection (CCDI) – has been a central player in the campaign, particularly through its abusive shuanggui (双规) disciplinary system.

The shuanggui system, which functions beyond the reach of China’s criminal justice system, gives the CCDI the authority to summon any of the Communist Party’s 88 million members to account for allegedly ill-gotten gains at a “designated location at a designated time.” Those summoned are deprived of liberty for days, weeks, or months, during which time they are repeatedly interrogated and often tortured. Typically, shuanggui detention ends when the official confesses to corruption or other alleged disciplinary violations; some are then transferred to the regular criminal justice system for prosecution.

The shuanggui system not only facilitates serious human rights abuses, it depends on them. The threat of being subjected to shuanggui strikes fear in Party members regardless of their position. A wide range of officials across industries and provinces – from normally untouchable former Politburo-level officials down to minor local authorities, from national sports team coaches to famous media figures – have been subjected to the system.

Shuanggui detainees face interrogation about corruption or other violations of Party rules. The system relies on indefinite and at times prolonged solitary confinement; individuals taken into custody typically have no contact with the outside world, including family members and lawyers, and are watched around the clock by teams of officials who function as guards. Detainees have none of the procedural rights protected under international human rights law, or even those that criminal suspects are entitled to under Chinese law, such as access to lawyers or appearance before a judge.

In many cases shuanggui detention begins with an enforced disappearance, with detainees’ families having no idea where their loved one is or why he or she is being held. Shuanggui detainees (also referred to as “CDI detainees”) are not held in police stations or other official detention facilities, but often in hostels and training facilities for Party cadres.

Former shuanggui detainees told Human Rights Watch that they were subjected to torture and other ill-treatment including beatings, prolonged sleep deprivation, and being forced to stand or maintain uncomfortable positions for hours or even days. The indefinite isolation of shuanggui – which itself can amount to torture – causes detainees’ minds to “collapse after… three to five days” and “answer everything you ask,” according to Li Peng, who identified himself as a CDI officer. It is telling that Party rules require that shuanggui facilities be designed to prevent those detained from committing suicide.

The shuanggui system is shrouded in secrecy. The CCDI headquarters in Beijing is not marked except for its street address. Although the CCDI has instructed lower-level offices to provide it with information about all shuanggui cases in the country since 2001, key information – such as how many people are subjected to shuanggui each year – is not publicly available. Nor is the CCDI’s 2012 directive that supposedly outlines better protections for shuanggui detainees. Although the CCDI has imposed increasingly strict controls on internal approval procedures for shuanggui since its inception in the 1990s, the lack of transparency makes it especially difficult to hold CDI officers and guards accountable for violating them.

In theory, CDI investigations into violations of Party rules by members are separate from investigations conducted by the procuratorate, the state prosecutors, who are responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption in the formal criminal justice system. However, Human Rights Watch found that, in practice, procurators often participate in shuanggui interrogations. This practice, known as “joint investigation,” involves procurators partnering with CDI officers in interrogating the shuanggui detainees. Former shuanggui detainees said that procurators would simply copy and paste their confessions made during shuanggui interrogations, or ask them later to repeat what they said during such interrogations, as evidence for the ensuing criminal investigation.

Shuanggui thus provides authorities with a platform to coerce confessions from suspects that are then used in court. Because China’s criminal justice system, from procurators to judges, is dominated by the CCP, there are few effective checks on the improper use of this evidence to convict and sentence individuals caught up in the system.

Suspects say they have sought to retract their statements during criminal proceedings, explaining that the statements were the result of torture or other coercion during shuanggui detention. Procurators have responded by threatening to return them to the shuanggui system for further interrogations, and judges routinely have dismissed their complaints, ruling that what happens in the shuanggui system is outside the scope of the justice system.

The use of shuanggui allows judges to skirt even the minimal protections due criminal suspects in China. Judges typically refuse to examine any documentary evidence, including paperwork and any video recordings of shuanggui interrogations; nor is this material available to the shuanggui detainees or their legal representatives. Even though Chinese law requires that evidence obtained through torture be excluded during criminal investigations, we are not aware of any case in which a court acquitted a suspect or overturned a conviction due to misconduct by investigators that occurred during shuanggui. CDI officers are only subject to oversight within the Party. Human Rights Watch found only two cases in which low-level interrogators and guards were jailed after torturing and killing shuanggui detainees. CDI officers otherwise appear to be able to act unlawfully with impunity.

International human rights law obligates governments to protect the rights of individuals to liberty and security of the person. Because shuanggui has no legal basis, CDI apprehensions and detentions carried out under it are arbitrary and in violation of international law; they also may result in enforced disappearances. CDI and government officials’ use of torture and other ill-treatment, including beatings, stress positions, and indefinite solitary confinement to obtain confessions violates China’s obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which China ratified in 1988.

Some scholars and legal experts in China have previously sought to justify the government’s reliance on shuanggui and CDIs as an emergency or “special measure” to effectively address corruption at a time when corruption surged in the late 1980s and 1990s. Political and Party leaders have also considered it an effective way of isolating powerful officials from their allies so that corruption investigations can go smoothly. But a deeper impulse driving these cases may be the desire to closely guard information regarding corruption–and its politically embarrassing details–from public view.

Relying on an internal, non-transparent Party mechanism to investigate corruption cases effectively cedes the power to investigate and detain people to political elites. The resulting anti-corruption drive is thus at least partly a political purge in which the strongest elements within the political structure are able to use the CDIs and the judicial system to root out undesirable elements, whether because of involvement in corruption or any other reason.  

There is no doubt that China faces serious problems with corruption: the corruption monitoring group Transparency International ranked it 83rd out of 168 countries in its Corruption Perceptions Index 2015. Yet in the absence of an independent judiciary, a free media, genuine rule of law, and a criminal justice system that can effectively and fairly investigate and prosecute corruption, it is unlikely that any anti-corruption campaign will succeed. Abolishing shuanggui is a necessary first step.

Back to top

Methodology

Research for this report draws on interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch researchers between November 2015 and June 2016, analysis of a Chinese court verdict database, and review of secondary sources through September 2016.

The Chinese government is hostile to research by international human rights organizations and strictly limits the activities of domestic civil society organizations on human rights issues and other subjects. Shuanggui is an extremely sensitive topic and government-imposed constraints severely restricted the scope of this research.

This study was conducted during one of the most serious crackdowns on human rights in China since the early 1990s. Most of the dozens of former shuanggui detainees, family members, and lawyers contacted by Human Rights Watch declined or did not respond to requests for interviews, some citing the sensitivity of the issue and fears of speaking to a foreign human rights organization.

Our research included interviews with 21 people, including four former shuanggui detainees, seven family members of CDI detainees, eight lawyers who had represented people held in shuanggui (双规), a former procurator who specialized in anti-corruption cases, and an academic. One of the family members interviewed had also been detained and interrogated by the CDI in connection with the case. Interviewees with former shuanggui detainees, families of shuanggui detainees, and lawyers were focused on their recent experience of shuanggui. All of the cases discussed in this report involved shuanggui since January 1, 2010, a date selected to screen out cases which may be outdated. In all interviews with former shuanggui detainees and family members, we cross-checked individual accounts through examination of judicial records and/or official media reports about their cases.

Access to individuals who were recently detained was particularly difficult as those who are convicted of corruption often end up with lengthy prison sentences, while those who are released live in fear of being locked up again should they speak out. The case of Xiao Yifei and his superior, Wang Qiuping – two former officials from Hunan province who spoke to the Associated Press about having been tortured in shuanggui after their release in July 2014, and who subsequently were arrested and sentenced respectively to 13 and 20 years in prison – serves as a cautionary tale to others who may wish to describe their experiences.

All of the former CDI detainees and family members interviewed for this report alleged that they were coerced to confess during shuanggui and that the corruption charges against them were fabricated. Human Rights Watch does not take a position on whether any of the detainees whose cases are included in this report are guilty of corruption: our research focused on these individuals’ experiences in shuanggui. Regardless of whether or not they are innocent of wrongdoing, they should not have been subjected to abuse.

The names and identifying details of those with whom we spoke have been withheld to protect them from government reprisal. All names of shuanggui detainees, their family members, and lawyers sourced to Human Rights Watch interviews are pseudonyms. All of those interviewed were informed of the purpose of the interview, its voluntary nature, and the ways in which the information would be used. All interviewees provided oral consent to be interviewed. All were informed that they could decline to answer questions or could end the interview at any time. No financial or other incentives were provided to individuals in exchange for their interviews.

Human Rights Watch also analyzed 35 detailed cases gathered from more than 200 media reports from 52 Chinese media outlets between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, that mentioned shuanggui, roughly corresponding to the period between the start of President Xi’s anti-corruption campaign and the beginning of research for this report.[1] Most press reports do not describe conditions in shuanggui in detail, but rather simply state that certain individuals have been put in shuanggui or describe the allegations of the individual’s alleged corrupt conduct. Nonetheless, the articles about these 35 cases give some details about the system and are quoted at various relevant points in this report.

Human Rights Watch also reviewed 38 cases obtained from a large database of Chinese court verdicts that mentioned detainee allegations of torture in shuanggui. On January 1, 2014, the Supreme People’s Court began publishing an online database of court verdicts from across the country; by early November 2015, this database included about 2.2 million verdicts. Among those, Human Rights Watch found 746 verdicts that mentioned the words “shuanggui” and another 956 that mentioned the synonymous measure “lianggui.” But most merely mentioned that the defendants, or those connected with their cases, were subjected to shuanggui or lianggui, and gave no details. We found that 59 of the 746 shuanggui verdicts also contained the keyword “torture to extract confession” (刑讯逼供), while 31 of the 956 lianggui verdicts mentioned “torture to extract confession.”

Because shuanggui and lianggui are sometimes used interchangeably in official terminology, some of these court cases are the same. After eliminating duplicate and unclear cases, we found a total of 38 cases in which suspects said they were tortured while in shuanggui. Most of these were males convicted of corruption (受贿, a crime under articles 385 and 388 of the Chinese Criminal Law); they came from 13 provinces and municipalities. The median amount of money involved in the cases was about 1.89 million RMB (about US$290,000), and the median sentence handed down was 9.9 years of imprisonment.[2]

While these verdicts provide a glimpse into how Chinese courts make decisions regarding allegations of torture during shuanggui, the sample analyzed by Human Rights Watch (“the dataset”) almost certainly does not include all such cases from that time period. An unknown but likely large number of cases involving shuanggui are never referred to the formal legal system, leaving no public record of that experience, let alone abuse endured in it. The Supreme People’s Court decision that mandates online posting of verdicts provides exemptions for cases involving state secrets or personal privacy, and cases otherwise “not suitable for making public,” which gives the courts wide latitude to withhold information. Certain cases, such as major corruption cases involving higher-level officials, seem to be missing from the Supreme People’s Court database.[3] In addition, many torture allegations made in court may not be recorded in verdicts. Some shuanggui detainees who have been abused likely do not even raise the issue in court, or have their experiences noted in the verdicts, as shuanggui is considered an extra-legal measure that courts will not address.

Secondary sources Human Rights Watch consulted include CCP and Chinese government documents, laws, and policies; United Nations documents on arbitrary detention, solitary confinement, and torture; news articles from Chinese and international media, including interviews with scholars on shuanggui; and writings by Chinese and foreign academic experts on shuanggui.

With the exception of one lawyer we interviewed, all of our sources concerned individuals subjected to shuanggui under local CDIs, not under the CCDI. We have few details regarding the conduct of the CCDI.

Human Rights Watch sent letters on August 23, 2016, to the CCDI and three government departments with questions related to the report (see Appendix I). Human Rights Watch had not received any responses to them at the time of publication.

​

Back to top

Glossary of Terms

CCDI: Central Commission for Discipline Inspection         

CDI: Commission for Discipline Inspection (local)

CAT: United Nations Committee against Torture

CCP: Chinese Communist Party

CPL: Criminal Procedure Law

NPCSC: National People’s Congress Standing Committee

Back to top

“Shuanggui” and the Chinese Communist Party

Corruption remains an endemic problem in China, one facilitated by a politicized judicial system and the lack of a free media. Successive administrations have acknowledged the problem and established numerous agencies that are in theory responsible for combating corruption. Those include:

• The National Bureau of Corruption Prevention (国家预防腐败局), created by the executive branch, the State Council, in 2007. The Bureau focuses on corruption prevention, education and international cooperation. It merged with the Department of International Affairs in 2014 and is now called the Bureau of International Cooperation;
• The Anti-Corruption and Bribery Bureau (反贪污贿赂总局), created in 1995 by the legislative branch, the National People’s Congress, and operates under the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. It investigates corruption cases; and
• The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (中国共产党中央纪律检查委员会, CCDI), created by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP or “the Party”). It enforces internal rules, which involves combating and investigating corruption and malfeasance in the Party. It is the most powerful agency among the three.

What Is Shuanggui?

“Shuanggui,” which literally means “double designation” (to appear at a “designated location” in a “designated” time), is a measure used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to detain and investigate its members for alleged disciplinary violations. It dates back to 1990, during the rule of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. Shuanggui, as a form of detention, has no basis in Chinese law. It is effectively a form of solitary confinement in unofficial and unmarked facilities for an indefinite period of time.

Who Runs Shuanggui?

The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), created in 1949 and currently headed by Politburo Standing Committee Member Wang Qishan, is the top body responsible for monitoring Party discipline, including corruption. It has 27 offices, and works under the leadership of the CCP’s Central Committee.[4] President Xi Jinping’s crackdown on corruption since late 2012 has mainly relied on the CCDI and its local counterparts.

At the local levels, CDIs are supervised by a “dual supervision system”– the Party committees at the same level, and the CDIs at a higher level.[5] Although the two are supposed to be equally important, the local Party committee tends to wield more power. In order to reduce such local influences over the CDIs and strengthen central control, President Xi’s anti-corruption campaign has sought to increase the power of the CCDI and vertical control of the CDIs.[6] CCDI has established three internal offices bringing the total number to 12 and reassigned personnel and resources to increase their investigative capacity.[7] It has also strengthened the practice of “stationing” (派驻) to inspect and spot-check corrupt practices in local governments and Party-state bodies across the country. In April 2014, the CCDI also established an internal division to supervise CDI officers, which handles petitions and complaints regarding its officers from the public.[8]

CDI officers at all levels are responsible for “upholding the Constitution and other statues of the Party, checking on the implementation of the Party line, principles, and policies,” as well as organizing and coordinating anti-corruption work.[9] In practical terms, officers are responsible for receiving complaints, filing cases, conducting investigations, and deciding on punishments for Party cadres. Allegations against officials often come from citizen petitions or complaints, while others are made by other branches of the Party, the government, or by superiors.[10] CDI officers then decide which cases they need to docket (立案) and formally investigate, and which cases necessitate the use of shuanggui.[11] CDI officers then have to make an application to higher-level CDIs for approval to conduct shuanggui.

Why Use Shuanggui?

Some Chinese and international scholars of shuanggui attribute the adoption of this extralegal system to the collapse of communist regimes in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.[12] Their fall – which Chinese scholars blamed on corruption – is said to have focused the attention of the Chinese government on its own surging corruption.[13] This “special situation” in this “special period” called for ”special measures” to effectively address the rampant corruption.[14] But other scholars have pointed out that the detention of Party members for disciplinary infractions has a long tradition within the CCP.[15]

Some scholars compare shuanggui to the restrictions on civil liberties in countries including the US and the UK after the September 11 attacks on the United States.[16] Secretive measures that exist outside the formal legal system are powerful because, according to these scholars, they can obstruct communications between the officials under investigation and their accomplices as well as prevent these officials from exerting pressure on local law enforcement to thwart corruption investigations.[17] In addition, this extralegal system can serve as a powerful deterrent for Party members in general.[18]

In other countries, law enforcement investigators use covert measures such as sting operations and wiretapping to uncover corruption. But in China, the Party has banned CDIs from having such power because these measures can cause “disturbance, paranoia, mutual suspicion” within the Party and damage “comrade relations.”[19] While nothing prohibits the state agency, the procuratorate, from using such measures, it rarely does so and, even then, does so mostly for tracking down suspects rather than for gathering evidence.[20] As a result, corruption investigators rely on shuanggui and confession.

How Many People Are Detained in Shuanggui?

In 2001, the CCDI began to log the numbers of people detained annually in shuanggui, though this information is not publicly available.[29] But available numbers from the CCDI about its investigations show a dramatic increase in the number of cases it has handled and investigated since President Xi initiated a crackdown on corruption in late 2012 (see Table 1).[30] Only a very small proportion of cases investigated by the CDIs were handed over to the procuratorates for criminal investigations, highlighting the important role played by CDIs in dealing with corruption.

Table 1: Complaints received and investigated by the CDI as well as the number of Party members punished and transferred to state prosecution

Chinese shuanggui scholar Li Yongzhong estimates that between 10 to 20 percent of all cases investigated by the CDIs involved the use of shuanggui.[41] If correct, that would equate to between 33,000 and 66,000 cases in 2015. Given that more than one person is investigated in many of the cases, the number of individuals put in shuanggui could be considerably higher. And with an increasing number of cases investigated by the CDIs since 2012, it is plausible that the number of individuals subjected to the shuanggui system has increased since then.

Shuanggui: Targets, Procedures, and Limits

Shuanggui targets only Party members. Although shuanggui was initially allowed for “everyone… who is knowledgeable about [a] case” in the 1994 Party Regulations,[42] later circulars by the CCDI explicitly prohibit the use of shuanggui for non-Party members.[43]

Legal scholars generally agree that the CCDI has progressively tightened the procedures governing shuanggui since its inception, often after deaths or other serious misconduct against shuanggui detainees were exposed.[44] The 2000 Party regulations, for example, narrowed the use of shuanggui to CDIs at the county level and above to only “complex” and “important” cases, and cases in which the CDI has already gathered sufficient evidence against the individual. Further circulars restrict the use of shuanggui to situations where a Party member fabricates or retracts a confession, and where the corruption in question is above a certain monetary value.[45]

There are also rules regarding who carries out shuanggui. Those participating in shuanggui work must be “politically reliable,” have a “strong understanding of the law,” be healthy, and have a “strong work capacity.” They must also receive “requisite training.”[46] They must either be officials at Party organs or in the government, and not hired guards.[47]

Two or more investigators must be present during interrogations.[48] If members of “other agencies” are participating in shuanggui, the CDI officers must be the ones responsible for leading and organizing implementation of the measure.[49]

In 1998, the Party instructed that no detention facilities should be established for shuanggui, and that CDI officers should not use the detention or office facilities of judicial or administrative authorities for this purpose.[50] But at the same time, the Party became increasingly concerned about shuanggui security. A 2000 circular specified that shuanggui should take place anywhere the CDI officers deem suitable, in which the “personal safety” of those under investigation can be ensured.[51] Then, in a 2001 circular, the CCDI further required that shuanggui take place in a single-story building or the ground floor of a multi-story building to prevent unspecified “accidents.”[52] A 2005 circular explained that such “security incidents” included suicides, as well as escapes and “deaths as a result of illnesses.”[53] These concerns mean that, despite a ban on building specialized shuanggui facilities, in practice, rooms used by CDIs for shuanggui are often designed or modified with security features, such as those described in the following article by the Linghai city CDI in Liaoning Province:

Although CDI investigations are meant to be separate from criminal investigations by state organs, CCDI directives also envision cooperation between CDI officers and the police, procuratorate, and courts. Relevant CDI and procuratorate circulars state that there should be evidence-sharing among the CDI and state prosecutors.[55] If, in the course of an investigation, CDI officers determine that a Party member’s misconduct constituted a crime under the law, they should transfer the case to the criminal justice system.[56] In cases in which the “demarcation” between disciplinary infraction and legal violations is not clear, the CDIs should investigate first, and “if necessary,” the procuratorate should also participate.[57] In “major and complex” cases, a joint investigation (联合调查) unit including the CDI, the procuratorate, and “other relevant judicial authorities” can be established. However, none of these directives explicitly authorize procurators or other state officials to participate in shuanggui.

Recent Changes to the Use of Shuanggui

In recent years, Chinese academics have speculated that the CCDI and the central government would “connect shuanggui with the law,” reduce its use, and eventually abolish the practice.[58]

In 2012, some scholars had hoped that revisions to the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) might provide a means for making shuanggui a legal measure.[59] In particular, they hoped that revising article 73, which allows three categories of criminal suspects, including those involved in “major corruption,” to be held in an undisclosed location for six months under “designated residential surveillance,” might create such a possibility.[60] Such hopes have also been pinned on President Xi’s January 2013 speech, in which he vowed to “use legal methods to fight against corruption.”[61]

In 2014 the Supreme People’s Procuratorate convened a meeting with legal experts to discuss reforms to shuanggui, including transferring the cases of offending officials directly to the procuratorate for investigation, rather than using the CDIs.[62] In March 2016, the CCDI also published an article asserting that CDIs cannot become law enforcers, nor should Party disciplinary reviews become judicial investigations, sending further signals that perhaps it intends to reduce the use of shuanggui.[63] Yet there is little concrete evidence to suggest that the Party or the government intends to reform, reduce the use of, or abolish shuanggui.

In 2012, the CCDI issued “the Regulations of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection on the Use of ‘Shuanggui’ Measure,” which appears to be the most recent procedural requirements for shuanggui, but the document is not publicly available, underscoring the lack of transparency regarding the practice’s actual use.[64]

According to a 2013 state press article, the CCDI has experimented with “open disciplinary hearings,” in which Party and non-Party members are allowed to attend.[65] The hearings, in which CDI officers make decisions after hearing from the accused Party member, who may be assisted by a fellow Party member who acts as a defender, and the CDI officers who conducted the investigation, have been run in 20 provinces since 2001. However, these remain experimental and they are confined to lower level CDIs.

Shuanggui under National and International Law

The Right to Liberty

As an extralegal system, shuanggui does not meet the requirements of China’s constitution and laws on detention and treatment of individuals in custody. Shuanggui also violates China’s obligations under international human rights law to protect the rights to liberty and security of the person.

Article 37 of China’s constitution states that arrest and detention can only be carried out by authorized government bodies or the courts:

No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people’s procuratorate or by decision of a people’s court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens’ freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited.

The Chinese government has told the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) that shuanggui, specifically its variant lianggui, is “a legal system… based on explicit provisions in national laws.”[66] Yet there are no national laws that specifically provide for the system.

Shuanggui is carried out by the Party, not any of the government authorities recognized under the constitution. The practice also contravenes the Law on Legislation, which requires that any “mandatory measures and penalties involving deprivation of citizens of their political rights or restriction of the freedom of their person” can only be governed by law.

The CCDI has no law-making power, and its regulations and directives on shuanggui are not laws. Even if the 1997 Law on Administrative Supervision, which establishes “lianggui,” could be construed as making the practice of shuanggui legal, this law also prohibits persons subjected to the practice from “be[ing] taken into custody or detained in disguised form.”[67]

Finally, some legal scholars contend that shuanggui is lawful given the nature of China’s legal system. They argue that aside from the Constitution and national legislation, China is governed by a “plurality of legal orders,” including Party rules, that are legally binding on their own members because they have sworn obedience to Party discipline.[68] This approach is inconsistent with the rule of law central to international human rights law.

International human rights law, notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has signed but not ratified, prohibit arbitrary detention.[69] Detentions must be in accordance with the law and be appropriate, just, and predictable.[70] According to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deprivation of liberty is arbitrary “[w]hen it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty.”[71]

The Working Group has also determined that detention is arbitrary when the detaining authority fails to observe, wholly or in part, the norms related to the right to due process.[72] Under international human rights law, governments have the obligation to protect the rights of detained persons. Detainees have the rights to be informed of the reasons for their arrest; be detained by competent officials authorized for such purpose; be heard promptly before a judge; communicate with their family and others; access lawyers of their choosing; and be provided adequate medical care, among others.[73]

Detainees in shuanggui are not afforded any real protections. The CCDI regulations and directives state that investigators should “announce the decision to investigate” to the shuanggui detainees but do not require them to communicate the reasons for arrests. Detainees have no right to lawyers and are also not heard by a judge unless they are formally transferred from shuanggui to the criminal justice process. As an expert on shuanggui has pointed out, these regulations and directives have left out “expressed rights to habeas corpus.”[74]

The CCDI regulations say shuanggui detainees have a right to rest and access to prompt medical care, but do not define time periods or procedures for accessing care. And they also allow those in shuanggui to communicate with their families by telephone and letter and to meet with their families when such communications “do not impede the investigation.”[75] Human Rights Watch found these rights were rarely, if ever, respected in practice.

The regulations say that shuanggui detainees have the rights to be heard, to appeal, to personal integrity, and to not be deprived of property, but give few details about how detainees are to be informed of their rights, how the rights are to be protected, and what redress mechanisms are available to detainees.[76] As one scholar has emphasized, shuanggui in practice is characterized by the “suspension of all procedural rights” of detainees.[77]

The length of detention in shuanggui can be indefinite. When shuanggui was first introduced in 1994, there was no limit on how long someone could be compelled to remain in the “designated place.” Although a limit of six months was introduced in 2005, a 2008 circular allowed this six-month period to be extended indefinitely if permission had been obtained from higher-level CDIs.[78]

The Right Not to be Tortured

China’s constitution and laws and international human rights law prohibit torture and other ill treatment. However, even the grossly inadequate protections from torture provided by the Chinese criminal justice system are missing in the shuanggui system.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “Convention against Torture”), to which China is a party, prohibits the use of torture, which is defined as the intentional infliction of pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, or as a punishment, by a public official or agent.[79] Also prohibited is cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, referred to as “ill-treatment.”[80]

Governments are obligated to ensure that any statement “made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.”[81] They are required to conduct “a prompt and impartial investigation” by “competent authorities” when they receive complaints of torture and punish “all acts of torture” in criminal law.[82] Victims of torture should be given “fair and adequate compensation” as well as physical and psychological rehabilitation.[83] Similar obligations apply in cases of ill-treatment not amounting to torture.[84]

The CAT has repeatedly raised concerns that provisions in Chinese law “do not include all the elements of the definition of torture set out in article 1 of the Convention.” [85] The CAT has pointed out that the two relevant articles in China’s Criminal Law (articles 247 and 248) criminalizing certain aspects of torture do not cover all “public officials and persons acting in an official capacity,” a problem particularly pertinent with regard to CDI officers who carry out shuanggui.[86] CDI officers do not fall under the definition of “judicial officials” under article 247 or “officers of institutions of confinement including prisons, detention house and detention centers, or other detainees at the instigation of those officers” under article 248.

Although Party rules require that confessions and witness statements obtained through corporal punishment, “corporal punishment in disguise,” threats, enticement, or deception in shuanggui be excluded as evidence against the investigated Party member, no procedures exist to exclude such evidence from shuanggui proceedings.[87]

Solitary confinement of detainees is a central feature of the shuanggui system. Under international law, prolonged solitary confinement amounts to ill-treatment and may rise to the level of torture. The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) define solitary confinement as confinement “for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact” and prohibits the use of prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement.[88] The UN special rapporteur on torture in 2011 issued a detailed analysis of the use of solitary confinement that concluded that solitary confinement causes severe physical and psychological harm.[89] The CAT has stated that the use of solitary confinement should be prohibited for pre-trial detainees.[90]

The CAT has called on the Chinese government to “ensure that the practice of detaining officials for interrogation under the shuanggui disciplinary system is abolished and that any disciplinary proceedings are conducted with full observance of the requirements of fair and proper procedure, including the right to be legally represented.”[91]

Back to top

Abuses in Shuanggui

As detailed below, the shuanggui system is rife with abuses, including denial of access to lawyers, indefinite solitary confinement in unofficial facilities, and the use of torture and ill-treatment.

Arbitrary Detention

Detention Facilities

In shuanggui, individuals are often detained in hostels and training facilities for Party cadres.[92]

Yang Zeyu, a former official detained in shuanggui, told Human Rights Watch:

Bao Ruizhi, a former detainee, said:

Zhou Feng, a lawyer who has represented several clients held in shuanggui since 2010, told Human Rights Watch:

The facilities are generally not formal detention facilities recognized under the law. They are not marked as detention facilities and their locations are usually kept secret. According to a lawyer who has represented six former CDI detainees:

Former shuanggui detainee Ren Zhiqing, said the detention facility he was brought to was not marked as such:

Some of the facilities are temporarily used for shuanggui, or have been converted to detention facilities with special features to prevent suicides or escape, often euphemistically referred to as “security risks” (安全隐患) in official documents. A former procurator who was in charge of anti-corruption work in Beijing, Jiang Zhiyi, told Human Rights Watch:

Mainland media have published information on the interiors of some of these facilities; the accounts describe isolated locations with rooms in which “all sharp points, except the floor, like the walls, tables and chairs, light switches, the doors and windows are wrapped in foam sponge.” With round-the-clock CCTV in the rooms and corridors, and “four doors from the room door to the courtyard… all a CDI detainee can manage is to stay inside the room,” and escape is not possible.[99] All “power cables are concealed, not exposed; bathrooms should have no locks”; and there should not be “any points from which one can hang from in the bathroom.”[100]

Upon entering the shuanggui room, the individuals are searched and their belongings – including anything that can be used to communicate with the outside world – are confiscated.

Former detainee Yang Zeyu recounted:

Fang Guoshan, a former detainee who is currently in prison, wrote in a statement which his family gave to Human Rights Watch:

Some of these objects appear to be taken away to prevent suicides. A CDI officer discussed the importance of ensuring nothing in detainees’ possession creates that possibility:

Lack of Formal Notification

CCDI regulations require officers to inform those they are taking into custody that they are being investigated. But publicly available documents do not spell out exactly how those being investigated should be notified.[104] Former detainees told Human Rights Watch that they were whisked away by CDI officers without being informed that they were subjected to shuanggui, or even that they were being investigated or detained at all.

Said Yang Zeyu:

Said Ren Zhiqing:

Once they are taken into the shuanggui facility, most are informed that they are being subjected to shuanggui at some point. But when and how they are informed varies. The notification may be verbal at first. Ren Zhiqing recounted:

Two former shuanggui detainees said they saw some form of written notification of their detentions, but were not given copies. As one explained:

Similarly, Ren Zhiqing said:

In other cases, the term “shuanggui” may be mentioned but it is often unclear to the shuanggui detainees if the procedure has formally begun. In some cases shuanggui detainees said the term was never invoked, even where CDI officers carried out the detentions, leaving the detainees in the dark as to whether they were, in fact, actually being subjected to shuanggui. Instead, the CDI officers sometimes opted to use vaguer language such as that they were being “investigated by the organization [the Party]” or that they had to “cooperate with the investigation.”

In a rare TV program on his experience during shuanggui, a former deputy county chief in Guizhou Province, Xiong Zumo, said:

Liu Deshan, a former judge, told the media that, when he arrived at the hotel following the CDI’s instructions, he was not allowed to leave:

Lawyer He Gang, who has represented more than a dozen former officials who were subjected to shuanggui, said:

Even in cases in which shuanggui detainees were notified that they were being put in shuanggui, they were rarely informed of precise charges but instead told to “talk about their problems.” Liu Deshan said:

Similarly, former shuanggui detainee Ren Zhiqing said:

In some of these cases, those detained are not informed until days after their initial detention. Said former detainee Chen Juyang:

Chen also told Human Rights Watch that there was no date on the notification he signed. The interrogators, who would not let him write down the date, later backdated the case. Lawyer Huang Xinyao, who has handled more than a dozen shuanggui cases since 2010, described a similar situation:

All of the family members Human Rights Watch spoke with said they were not formally informed of the shuanggui detentions, though they eventually managed to find out from their loved one’s colleagues, or by contacting the CDI. But none received paperwork. Xiao Lingling, wife of a former official who is currently imprisoned, said:

Chen Shan, the wife of Luo Fan, a Party member who was subjected to shuanggui in Zhejiang Province, said:

Prolonged Indefinite Detention

In an analysis of a sample of 380 shuanggui cases reported in the press between 1990 and 2005, the scholar Flora Sapio found that CDI detainees were held “between two days to more than one year, with the average period of detention being between three and six months. Longer periods of detention were, on the whole, more common than shorter ones.”[119] Interviewees told Human Rights Watch that there are cases of Party members being held for as long as one year. In one case reported by the press and examined by Human Rights Watch, a former vice mayor of Wenzhou City, Ye Jiren, was held in shuanggui for 14 months between 2011 and 2012.[120] Two academics who have interviewed disciplinary commission officers on shuanggui concluded:

One former detainee said that he was told explicitly that he was not allowed to leave until he confessed:

Another former shuanggui detainee said:

Lack of Evidence

In principle shuanggui is used to investigate disciplinary infractions – typically corruption – but in some cases shuanggui detainees are accused of other offenses, such as violations of the family planning policy. Allegations of those violations often come from citizen petitions or complaints.[124] A number of interviewees said that they were subjected to shuanggui after the CDI received such complaints. Said Yang Zeyu:

But some interviewees also said that the CDI officials are often seeking to advance their careers, or face pressure to fulfill quotas – either for a certain number of corrupt officials caught or a certain amount of corrupt money uncovered. According to a Beijing-based lawyer, Zhao Lifeng:

Another Beijing-based lawyer, Du Qing, said:

Said Yang Zeyu:

Under President Xi’s anti-corruption campaign, strengthened control by higher-level CDIs over lower-level CDIs has meant that there is keen competition among CDI officers, creating “a high level of pressure” on them to solve cases, according to a press report.[129]

But some former shuanggui detainees believe that their detentions were politically motivated and not aimed at punishing disciplinary violations:

Three of the lawyers interviewed said that at least half of their shuanggui clients told them that cases were the result of retribution, but it was not possible to independently verify these claims.[131]

Torture and Ill-Treatment

All those interviewed by Human Rights Watch, except for a former procurator, said that shuanggui detainees are subjected to various forms of physical and psychological abuse, which include beatings, solitary confinement, prolonged sleep deprivation, extended periods in stress positions, exposure to extreme temperatures, deprivation of adequate food and water, and threats to their families. Lawyer He Gang told Human Rights Watch:

Bao Ruizhi, a former official, said:

Lawyer Zhou Feng told Human Rights Watch:

Similarly, lawyer Zhou Lifeng said:

Being subjected to cold and hunger is quite normal… there are also [other forms of] torture, like being strapped to chairs, beaten, insulted, deprived of sleep… there are varying degrees of torture in the cases I have handled.[140]

These descriptions are consistent with media reports documenting such abuses, as well as the findings of Flora Sapio’s 2005 study on shuanggui, which details “sleep deprivation and harsh interrogation techniques,” and “abusive treatment” including sleep deprivation, “forced to stay in uncomfortable or painful positions for hours at a time,” and kicking and punching of detainees.[141]

One former procurator told Human Rights Watch that his “model unit” did not handle any cases passed on from the CDI officers that involved torture or abuse, though he said that in some cases, “some” sleep deprivation, primarily in the form of nighttime interrogations, took place during shuanggui.[142]

Solitary Confinement

Shuanggui is, by definition, a form of solitary confinement.[143] Detainees are held on their own without contact with anyone except their captors, who follow and monitor them in shifts around the clock.

Said former detainee Yang Zeyu:

Fang Guoshan, another former detainee, wrote:

According to lawyer Du Qing:

None of the former shuanggui detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch were allowed any contact with family members. Xiao Lingling, wife of shuanggui detainee Li Xinlin, told Human Rights Watch:

The setup of shuanggui rooms appears to be designed to create a sense of disorientation and helplessness for CDI detainees, presumably to pressure them into confessing. Some noted how small and oppressive their rooms were. According to Liu Deshan:

Former detainee Xiong Zumo told the press:

These rooms are often modified, apparently to make shuanggui detainees lose their sense of time. According to Yang Zeyu:

Similarly, Ren Zhiqing said:

In some cases, CDI officers were instructed not to speak with the detainees, evidently to heighten the sense of isolation. According to one officer:

One shuanggui detainee described how he was not allowed any interaction with his captors, nor any other form of stimulation or entertainment. According to Fang Guoshan:

According to CDI officer Li Peng, the mental stress alone from being held in solitary confinement in shuanggui was normally enough to induce the desired confession:

Sleep Deprivation

Sleep deprivation appears to be one of the most common means of torture for detainees in shuanggui, according to lawyers we interviewed. One, Huang Xinyao, said:

Zhang Rensen, a Beijing-based lawyer, told Human Rights Watch:

In some cases shuanggui detainees were not allowed to sleep at all for days. Others were allowed very little sleep. Ren Zhiqing said:

According to former detainee Lu Yicheng:

Fang Guoshan also described being deprived of sleep during shuanggui:

In a media interview, former vice-mayor of Wenzhou City in Zhejiang Province, Ye Jiren said:

Stress Positions

Forcing shuanggui detainees to stand, sit, or maintain other positions for extended periods of time appears to be a common method of torture.

Chen Xiaoling, the daughter of a former shuanggui detainee who is now in prison, told Human Rights Watch about her father’s experience:

Former shuanggui detainee Yang Zeyu said:

One former shuanggui detainee spoke of alternating periods of prolonged sitting and standing:

Another, Lu Yicheng, described the brutality of forced sitting during his month-long detention in a shuanggui facility:

Forced standing or sitting is often is used in conjunction with sleep deprivation. Lawyer Du Qing told Human Rights Watch:

The former President of Nanchang University spoke about his torture in court, according to a press report:

Lawyer Du Qing said in other cases, shuanggui detainees are strapped in “tiger chairs” – “interrogation chairs” used by the police to restrain and immobilize suspects. While Chinese officials have publicly claimed that tiger chairs are used for the “safety” and “comfort” of detainees, extensive Human Rights Watch research has shown that detainees in police custody are often strapped in these metal chair for hours and even days, deprived of sleep, and immobilized until their legs and buttocks are swollen.[167] Some shuanggui facilities are also equipped with these chairs, where shuanggui detainees are similarly immobilized for days. Du told Human Rights Watch:

According to a former police chief in Jiangxi Province:

Deprivation of Adequate Water and Food

Official media reports claim that shuanggui detainees enjoy a “standard of food slightly better than their interrogators,”[170] or at least the same food as their interrogators.[171] In one case, according to one of these reports, the interrogators ensured that the CDI detainee was able to eat dumplings – a treat – and other special side dishes, as he was held during the Chinese New Year holiday. In another press report, the interrogators ordered special noodles for another cadre detained on his birthday.[172]

But several interviewees told a very different story. They said that water and food were used as a means of control and coercion. Yang Zeyu said:

According to Fang Guoshan:

Similarly, Xiong Zumo told the media:

Xiong said that they also deprived him of his medication, in addition to food, to force him to confess:

Beatings

Several of those interviewed said disciplinary officers physically assaulted them or their clients. Lawyer Liu Yi told Human Rights Watch:

[One of my clients] was tortured very severely; he was forced to stand and was beaten, and they forced his legs against the wall into a split.[177]

Former CDI detainee Yang Zeyu said:

***

***

Deaths in Custody

There have been a number of deaths in shuanggui in recent years, many of which have attracted domestic media attention. Authorities typically state that the person died from “natural causes” such as heart attacks, or that they had committed suicide.[201]

Along with torture and prolonged solitary confinement in shuanggui, contemplation of and attempted suicide appears to be a major problem. One former detainee was quoted in a press report:

CDI officer Li Peng wrote that some unspecified “improper methods” during shuanggui may have led to suicidal thoughts:

In another case, a former shuanggui detainee told Human Rights Watch that suicides are not easy in shuanggui, as guards were monitoring him around the clock and acted quickly to foil any attempts:

In our review of Chinese and foreign media articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015, Human Rights Watch found reports on the cases of 11 individuals who died while in shuanggui custody, including one who died during CCDI interrogation.[205] Initial official announcements about the deaths all said the detainees died from natural causes, suicides, or in one case, an “accident” of unspecified cause. In most of those cases, families were quoted in the media as having suspected torture, or pointed out injuries or other signs that are inconsistent with the official narrative.

International standards provide that all cases of death in custody should be subjected to “thorough, prompt and impartial investigation.”[241] The Party’s existing rules require that those responsible for “serious security incidents” be “held responsible,” but otherwise provide no details on how deaths during shuanggui should be handled or investigated.[242] In 9 of the 11 cases, authorities publicly promised an investigation when the death was announced. According to media reports, authorities conducted autopsies in only five of the cases, however, and there is no further information about the other cases. It is possible that the media may simply not have followed up on the other cases, but it is also possible that limitations on press freedom prevented them from doing so.

Human Rights Watch was able to speak with individuals connected with three of the deaths.[243] In one case, the family faced difficulties getting access to the deceased’s body. This was a problem also described by families in media reports of other cases: authorities tried to prevent family members from viewing or taking photos or videos of the body.[244] Another problem is getting the police and the procuratorate to accept their cases and initiate formal investigations.[245] According to a person knowledgeable about one of the cases:

Another challenge is getting an independent autopsy. As noted above, autopsies were conducted in 5 of the 11 cases reported in the media; in two of them, media reports stated that the families had objected because they were not able to choose the forensic experts themselves.[247] According to a person knowledgeable about one such case:

In the case of Li Ming, a well-known movie producer, the family was quoted by the press as saying that his body was only returned to them on the condition that no autopsy would be conducted. Those same reports detailed the police as having monitored the transportation and cremation of the body.[250]

Interrogators were put on trial and convicted for the deaths of detainees in only 2 of the 11 cases: the case of Ran Jianxin, a Party secretary in Hubei Province, and of Yu Qiyi, an engineer in Zhejiang Province.[251] In June 2011, thousands of people in the town where Ran had worked protested his death in custody, which local Hubei authorities had initially said was the result of natural causes. Following the protests, local authorities initiated an investigation into the death, and suspended and imprisoned some of those thought responsible.[252] Two officials – a procurator and a court police officer – were sentenced to three years and one year, respectively, for “torture to extract confession.” In documents written by Ran before his death and smuggled to his wife after he died, Ran alleged that his shuanggui detention and torture were authorized by Mou Laijun, the head of the investigations and a CDI officer, and Li Wei, the Party secretary of the city’s CDI. Ran claimed he was subject to these abuses in retaliation for work disagreements. Mou and Lai were not among those prosecuted, though they were earlier suspended and investigated.[253]

In Yu’s case, which was very well-documented in part due to the involvement of a number of human rights lawyers, six officials were convicted of “intentional injury” and sentenced to between 4 and 14 years in prison. However, Yu’s lawyers pointed out multiple procedural irregularities with the trial: the court had denied the lawyers access to all case files; had restricted the trial to the day of Yu’s death instead of his entire detention in shuanggui, during which he alleged he was repeatedly tortured; and failed to investigate and prosecute the top cadres responsible for the torture as suspects despite several lower officials testifying about senior officials’ culpability.[254] The court also removed Yu’s lawyers from the trial for challenging the judges on these issues.

Back to top

Lack of Protection from Abuse

No Access to Lawyers

Party rules on shuanggui do not ensure access to lawyers for CDI detainees; indeed, the rules do not even mention lawyers. Former detainees and relatives told Human Rights Watch that when they asked for legal representation, they were told it was not possible.

Chen Shan, the wife of a former official who was subjected to shuanggui, told Human Rights Watch:

Former detainee Bao Ruizhi said:

Even when shuanggui cases are transferred into the formal legal system, access to a lawyer is not guaranteed.

If CDI officers determine in the course of shuanggui that a Party member’s infraction constitutes a criminal offense, they are supposed to transfer the case to the procuratorate. Therefore, in some shuanggui cases, the Party member detained in shuanggui is physically moved from the shuanggui location to the procuratorate’s office for interrogations for up to 24 hours, and then to detention centers managed by the Ministry of Public Security. Since few suspects are released on bail pending trial, nearly all such individuals are held in detention centers until they get to see a judge, typically months after they first arrive in the detention center.

Once detainees are moved out of shuanggui and into formal criminal procedures, they are treated as criminal suspects. But there are two major differences in the handling of their cases and those of ordinary criminal suspects. One difference is that suspects coming via shuanggui are investigated by the procuratorate, which is charged with investigating crimes by officials, while the other suspects are investigated by the police.

The other difference is access to a lawyer. Ordinary criminal suspects, at least according to law, are allowed to meet with a lawyer as soon as they are first interrogated or held under any of the compulsory measures by the police or the procuratorate.[257] However, for suspects in cases of “major corruption,” terrorism, and state secrets, lawyers must request permission from investigators before they can meet with suspects.[258] “Major corruption” is defined as receiving over 500,000 RMB (about US$76,000) in bribes.[259] In these kinds of cases, procurators have the power to authorize lawyers’ access to clients; most lawyers we interviewed about shuanggui cases said that, in practice, such permission is not granted. Said lawyer Huang Xinyao:

Similarly lawyer He Gang told Human Rights Watch:

According to lawyer Zhang Rensen:

In some cases, lawyers told Human Rights Watch even when the amount of money involved was less than the required 500,000 RMB, the procuratorate still denied legal access. Lawyer Du Qing told Human Rights Watch that in a case she handled the procuratorate inflated the amount of the alleged bribe:

According to lawyer Zhao Lifeng:

In these “major corruption” cases, typically suspects are not allowed to meet with their lawyers until months after they are transferred from shuanggui – leaving them incommunicado without the protections afforded by a lawyer for considerable periods of time. Meng Li, the wife of a Lu Dezhi, a former official, said:

Prior to being sent to the detention center, Lu had already been held in shuanggui for a month. This means he was held for a total of three months without any legal representation.

Xiao Lingling, wife of a former shuanggui detainee, said:

In most of the cases we documented, interviewees said that CDI detainees were able to meet with their lawyers relatively promptly after investigations ended and they were admitted to the detention centers. In two cases, interviewees reported that the lawyers their families had hired were not independent, a common problem facing criminal suspects in China.[267]

Said former detainee Yang Zeyu:

Family member Chen Shan said:

One lawyer told Human Rights Watch that he was hired by a family member to represent an official investigated by the CCDI, but was then quickly dismissed, as the CCDI put pressure on the family to ensure that only government-approved lawyers could represent the suspect.

Participation of Medical Professionals in Shuanggui

Under international human rights standards, all persons detained in any setting have a right to necessary medical care, regardless of whether they have requested it. Physicians should under no circumstances engage in, actively or passively, ill treatment or torture, and they have a duty to report such abuse. These are key safeguards against torture and mistreatment in detention.[270]

Although one Party directive states that detainees in shuanggui who are ill should be given “prompt access to medical care,” there are few publicly available details about the kind of care to which CDI detainees are generally entitled, or which medical professionals should be engaged to provide that care.[271]

Some local CDIs have announced measures requiring that doctors be stationed in shuanggui locations and creating “green channels” in local hospitals to allow CDI detainees quick access to medical care, and some media reports on shuanggui tout the presence of doctors in shuanggui locations as a means to ensure “safety.” But it is unclear how widespread these practices are; available CCDI rules do not give such details.[272]

In some shuanggui locations, the presence of doctors appears to be required, as in facilities operated by authorities in Hubei Province and Anhui Province, for example.[273]

Doctors stationed in these shuanggui locations are required to check the CDI detainees as they enter the facility. Jiang Huiling, who was interrogated in such a shuanggui facility, said that a doctor examined her and checked her blood pressure before interrogation commenced.[274]

In other cases, interrogators summoned doctors when shuanggui detainees were experiencing physical distress from illness or torture, according to interviews and media reports. According to a press report:

While Party documents say that medical professionals are to be present during shuanggui to improve “safety,” their role appears to be mainly to ensure that CDI detainees are fit for interrogations. It is unclear whether, in cases involving torture, doctors sought to halt the mistreatment of their patients. Former shuanggui detainee Yang Zeyu told Human Rights Watch that his legs swelled up because he was forced to stand for extended periods, and that while doctors came, they did little for him:

Jiang Huiling also said that a doctor came when she complained of feeling unwell; upon checking her, he stated that she was fine, and interrogation and threats against her continued:

One lawyer said that it was impossible for her client to complain to doctors about torture because of the presence of the officers who stood guard:

Detainees whose cases are transferred to the formal criminal system from shuanggui have another opportunity to encounter medical professionals: a mandatory physical check upon admission to the detention centers to screen out those who should not be detained.[277] The regulations do not require doctors to check for signs of torture and abuse, but the examination should provide an opportunity for doctors to note such signs. Previous research on police abuse by Human Rights Watch has shown that doctors typically do not check for signs of mistreatment or are too intimidated by the police to note them, and that police sometimes take preemptive measures to prevent doctors from seeing such signs.[278]

Two interviewees who were subjected to shuanggui in two different provinces described situations in which CDI officers took action to ensure that they were admitted to the detention centers.

Yang Zeyu said:

Chen Juyang said:

In another case, after the shuanggui detainee told the doctor conducting the physical exam that he was experiencing headaches, nausea, blurry vision, pain, wounds, bruises, and had difficulties moving his limbs and walking properly because of the beatings, the doctor initially refused to sign for him to be admitted into the detention center, saying he was “in a dangerous condition.” Eventually the doctor acquiesced after the procurator in charge of the case told her to sign the admission form.[281]

Human Rights Watch was unable to interview any doctors who had participated in shuanggui or who had treated CDI detainees in detention centers.

Exploitation of Shuanggui by the Procuratorate

In theory, shuanggui is an internal Party mechanism for addressing members’ infractions of Party discipline, and is separate from the formal criminal procedures. In practice, shuanggui interrogations and investigations by state prosecutors frequently overlap. Except for one case in which this information was not available, all of the former shuanggui detainees and family members interviewed by Human Rights Watch said procurators were involved in the interrogations during shuanggui, though the point at which procurators joined the shuanggui interrogations varied.

This practice is often referred to as a “joint investigation” involving the CDI and the procuratorate. A few interviewees also reported the participation of police during shuanggui through ad hoc investigative units sometimes referred to as “special investigation units” (专案组).

Because most courts refuse to review what takes place in the shuanggui system, participating interrogators – whether procurators, CDI officers, or police – are typically not held accountable for abuses. Procurators who otherwise are required to follow basic criminal procedures and ensure basic protections for suspects according to Chinese laws and regulations, such as videotaping all interrogations, are able to act freely of such requirements during shuanggui.

Meng Li, the wife of a former detainee, told Human Rights Watch that her husband’s case was “jointly investigated”:

Lawyer Zhao Lifeng told Human Rights Watch:

Similarly, lawyer Zhang Rensen said:
 

“Joint investigations” are justified as a practical way of investigating corruption that often involves both Party members, who can be investigated by the CDI officers, and non-Party members, who can only be investigated by state judicial organs.[285] During these joint investigations, according to scholars Fenfei Li and Jinting Deng:

The use of “joint investigations” is also justified by the procuratorate in the name of a procedure known as “getting involved in advance,” according to former procurator Jiang Zhiyi:

But “getting involved in advance” violates Chinese law insofar as it takes place in a coercive setting where the suspect’s freedom is clearly restricted. According to article 173 of the People’s Procuratorate Rules of Criminal Procedure, “initial investigation” should not involve deprivation of freedom of those under investigation:

In fact, investigators are not even allowed to meet with those under investigation except when they have obtained permission from their superiors to do so, according to article 172 of the People’s Procuratorate Rules of Criminal Procedure:

In at least one case, the detainee was not sure whether he was being detained pursuant to the Party’s shuanggui mechanism or a formal legal proceeding, making it difficult for him to know what, if any, protections he was entitled to, or to legally contest his treatment. Lawyer Jiang Zhiyi said:

Because shuanggui is not a legal process, evidence or statements obtained during the procedure are not admissible in court. In cases transferred to the formal legal system, procurators often tell the CDI detainee to repeat to them what they said during shuanggui, instead of conducting a fresh investigation, in order to obtain a legally binding confession. According to lawyer He Gang:

Lawyer Jiang Zhiyi also said:

Lawyer Zhou Feng told Human Rights Watch:

In theory, the procurators and the CDI officers are meant to be independent of each other, and the former should provide some kind of opportunity for the shuanggui detainees to recant their confessions. But because in many cases the procurators already participated in the shuanggui process, suspects do not trust them. Lawyer Zhao Lifeng told Human Rights Watch:

Some suspects subsequently make the same confession during the legal process that was coerced out of them during shuanggui. Xiao Lingling, the family member of a former detainee, said:

Some detainees attempt to recant their confessions, but are threatened with being sent to shuanggui again. According to lawyer Liu Yi:

When my client saw that the two procurators were exactly the same people who had questioned him during shuanggui, he didn’t dare recant his confession. They said if he recanted it they’d send him right back [to shuanggui]. He had the courage to recant his confession only at the stage of review for prosecution, when he had a lawyer.[296]  

Former detainee Ren Zhiqing said:

Lawyer Du Qing told Human Rights Watch:

The fact that what happens during shuanggui is not scrutinized by the courts means that investigators — whether they are CDI officers or state prosecutors — have an extralegal cloak to shield them from accountability. According to Chinese academics Fenfei Li and Jinting Deng:

Interrogators who participate in shuanggui are well aware that they can act with impunity. Jiang Huiling, the wife of a former official held in shuanggui, and who was herself also detained by the CDI, confronted her captors:

But one of the people who claimed during shuanggui that he was a CDI officer turned out to be a procurator, she learned after her release:

The difficulty in holding anyone accountable for shuanggui or abuses committed in it is compounded by the fact that CDI detainees, families, and lawyers are not given copies of any shuanggui documentation, and efforts to obtain relevant documents from the authorities are regularly denied.

Lawyer Zhao Lifeng told Human Rights Watch:

Former detainee Yang Zeyu said:

The names and identities of those interrogating and guarding shuanggui detainees, or the shuanggui location, are often not known, though some detainees found out after some detective work. Yang Zeyu said:

Former shuanggui detainee Bao Ruizhi told Human Rights Watch:

A number of interviewees said that shuanggui detainees were monitored by video camera, though it is unclear if the CDI requires video monitoring, or that recordings of shuanggui interrogations must be kept on file, as no publicly available Party rules show such requirements. Mandatory video monitoring and access to the videos by CDI detainees or their lawyers would serve as deterrents to abuse and provide evidence in cases of alleged illegal conduct by CDI officers. Procuratorates, responsible for investigating alleged crimes by officials, are required to record all interrogations, and police are required to video-record interrogations in cases involving capital offenses, life imprisonment, and “other major crimes.”[306] The Chinese government and Chinese legal scholars consider this requirement one of the most promising means of preventing torture during criminal interrogations, though previous research by Human Rights Watch shows that the requirement is routinely manipulated, such as by first torturing the suspects and then taping the confession.[307]

A number of interviewees said that they have reason to believe that they were videotaped. Said Yang Zeyu:

Similarly, according to former detainee Fang Guoshan:

A CDI officer wrote that video-recording is required:

Another CDI officer, Cheng Wenjie, said during the trial examining Yu Qiyi’s death that while video-recording is required, it can be easily bypassed. According to the court transcript compiled by one of Yu’s lawyers:

However, when families or lawyers of detainees have sought access to copies of such documentation or video-recordings, the CDI or other authorities have rejected their requests. According to family member Zhong Ruhua:

Similarly, laywer Du Qing said:

Exclusionary Rule in Criminal Procedures Rendered Meaningless

Chinese criminal procedure now requires that all illegally obtained evidence – including evidence obtained through torture – must be thrown out if found during any phase of legal proceedings.^[313]

However, this “exclusionary rule” is weak in practice and limited in utility, as a 2015 Human Rights Watch report shows.[314] The rule is all but irrelevant in shuanggui cases because, as noted earlier, judges commonly do not allow anyone to challenge in court any aspects of shuanggui proceedings, including the alleged mistreatment of detainees. This is despite the fact that the relevant provision in the Criminal Procedure Law does not exclude the CDI from the exclusionary rule – in fact, it does not name the agencies to which the rule is applicable. It simply states that whenever evidence used for criminal proceedings is obtained through illegal conduct, those handling the case must exclude it.[315]

This is consistent with international human rights law. Article 15 of the Convention against Torture states that “any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings.”[316]

Lawyer Liu Yi told Human Rights Watch:

Lawyer Jiang Zhiyi said:

Similarly, according to lawyer Zhao Lifeng:

As noted above, Human Rights Watch’s search of court verdicts found 38 cases in which individuals alleged being tortured while in shuanggui. Judges’ responses in those cases were consistent with what interviewees in other cases had described: that the conduct of investigators during shuanggui was largely ignored. Below is a typical, albeit more detailed than usual, response by a judge to a lawyer’s request to initiate the procedure to exclude a coerced confession obtained during shuanggui:

As a result, shuanggui detainee Hu Xiaozhong was unable to have evidence critical to his defense entered into court showing that he had been coerced into confession. He was convicted of three crimes and sentenced to a total of 14 years and six months in prison.

In several of the 38 cases from the verdict database, the suspects said in court that they repeated confessions made in shuanggui during the procuratorial stage because they were afraid that retracting them would result in their being sent back to shuanggui. Yet judges paid little attention to that argument. So long as the torture in question took place during shuanggui, it was ignored. As one judge put it in ruling against a former shuanggui detainee:

Despite Ren’s claims that he was subjected to “violence and threats” during shuanggui, the judge dismissed the allegation, rejected his appeal, and upheld his original 12-year sentence.

In other cases, the judges’ rulings remained the same even when the procuratorate apparently had participated in joint investigations with the CDI during which torture allegedly took place. After a corruption suspect, Zhuang Zheng, told the court that he was beaten, not allowed to sleep, and threatened by the CDI, and that the procurators had taken down the first statement from him while he was still in shuanggui, the judge replied:

Former shuanggui detainee Ren Zhiqing told Human Rights Watch that when he requested that the procurator who had participated in shuanggui appear in court to answer allegations that he had tortured Ren, the judge accepted a written statement from the procuratorate asserting that the procurator had been participating in shuanggui and was therefore exempt from the law:

Courts examining torture allegations generally do not grant requests to compel documentation, recordings, or appearances by CDI officials. According to family member Xiao Lingling:

Lawyer Zhao Lifeng told Human Rights Watch:

Similarly, lawyer Zhou Feng said:

Said former detainee Yang Zeyu:

The defendants interviewed by Human Rights Watch and the defendants in the 38 verdicts we analyzed from the Supreme People’s Court database were all found guilty, despite their claims that they were tortured during shuanggui. None of the verdicts we reviewed excluded any piece of evidence due to concerns over the use of torture during shuanggui. The sentence was affected in only two cases. Lawyer He Gang told Human Rights Watch: “There’s been no acquittal. There was one person who could have gotten 10 years, and got a two-year sentence instead. That was the best-case [scenario].”[328] Lawyer Zhou Feng said: “All the officials held in shuanggui were convicted. All of them said they were tortured to extract confessions… Except for one, whose sentence was slightly reduced, no others had [any impact].”[329]

In addition, all the lawyers interviewed recalled only one case in which the authorities had dropped charges before the case reached the trial stage. There was no official explanation to why the charges were dropped, but the lawyer believed that it was due to a lack of evidence.[330]

Acquittal rates in China are extremely low: In 2013, only 825 people were found not guilty out of an estimated 1,160,000 verdicts – an acquittal rate of 0.07 percent.^[331] Although Chinese state media has reported on high profile acquittals – some posthumously, and many involving defendants or families who spent years seeking justice together with dedicated human rights lawyers – none were corruption cases. As one lawyer who specializes in corruption cases, and is an official of the state-run Shanxi Bar Association, wrote:

Generally, judges extremely rarely hand down not guilty verdicts for fear of offending superiors and colleagues in other government and Party agencies, which are much more powerful than the courts in China’s politicized judicial system. Lawyer Jia described what happened when a judge recommended acquittal for a corruption suspect:

Back to top

Lack of Accountability

Who Supervises the Supervisors?

Local CDIs are supervised both by Party committees at the same level, and by higher-level CDIs.[333] But there are no external mechanisms – nothing other than the Party – to hold CDI officers accountable. In theory, officers must abide by Chinese law and official misconduct should be under the purview of the procuratorate. But given the lack of an independent judiciary in China due to the CCP’s control over the police, the procuratorate, and the judiciary, the CDI is effectively above the law. And as illustrated in the above chapters of this report, courts routinely consider the conduct of CDI officers during shuanggui beyond the scope of the law.

Interviewees expressed frustration at the lack of transparency and accountability of the CDI. According to a former procurator who works with the CDI on anti-corruption cases:

Lawyer Zhou Lifeng said that his clients described visits by superiors of the CDI officers “inspecting” the shuanggui locations in which they were being held. But those superior officers did not appear interested in protecting CDI detainees’ rights:

One former shuanggui detainee said supervisors of the procuratorate visited him during shuanggui, but he was told off by them for complaining:

Many interviewees also noted that after they filed complaints against CDI officers, nothing happened. Former shuanggui detainee Bao Ruizhi said:

Former detainee Chen Zuyang told Human Rights Watch:

Former detainee Ren Zhiqing said:

In some cases, the authorities did respond to complaints, but merely claimed they had acted properly during shuanggui, or tried to foist the responsibility of replying onto other offices. Chen Xiaoling, the daughter of former official Chen Yiwen, said:

Chen Shan, wife of former official Luo Fan, said:

Human Rights Watch is aware of only one case in which a complaint against the CDI resulted in official action: in that case, a court agreed to hear a complaint from a former official who, upon being released after serving his sentence, alleged he had been tortured to falsely confess during shuanggui. At the time of writing, however, the court has yet to hold a hearing in the case.

Apart from cases involving deaths in shuanggui, none of the CDI officers who allegedly tortured or mistreated CDI detainees were investigated or punished, according to interviewees. On the contrary, a few noted that the CDI officers were promoted or received distinctions for their work. Said former detainee Yang Zeyu:

Another detainee, Fang Guoshan, wrote:

Most former shuanggui detainees and family members we interviewed said that they were able to complain and publicize their plight online, though some said the authorities subsequently contacted them and told them to stay silent. The level of harassment appears to depend on how much public attention a case has received. One former CDI detainee told Human Rights Watch that he was under tight surveillance, while another lawyer who has handled cases of deaths during shuanggui said some families were subjected to so much “pressure” from the authorities that they decided to cancel contracts with him, fearing retaliation. Said lawyer Zhou Feng:

Zhong Ruhua, whose family member died during shuanggui detention, told Human Rights Watch about what said “pressure” can involve, and about the abrupt transition to being treated as an enemy of the state:

When CDI officers are not held accountable – or are even promoted – for using torture, they are encouraged to use similar tactics in future cases. Two of the cases examined by Human Rights Watch were from the same area. After CDI officers tortured Zhai Leiming and the court sentenced him to more than a decade in prison, they were promoted.[346] Some of the same interrogators were later responsible for torturing another detainee, Lu Yicheng, during shuanggui.[347] Lu was sentenced to six years in prison after being put on trial for corruption. Despite the families of both victims petitioning ceaselessly and complaining to higher authorities, both Zhai and Lu remain in custody – while their torturers continue to work for the CDI. 

Back to top

Recommendations

Corruption, by definition, involves acting without regard for the rule of law. Chinese government efforts to combat corruption are unlikely to succeed so long as the rule of law is flouted throughout China’s justice system. Undoing pervasive corruption will require freeing the judicial system from Communist Party control, ending impunity for senior officials, and implementing genuine legal reforms.

To the Chinese Government

• Immediately abolish shuanggui, as called for by the UN Committee against Torture. To achieve this:
  • The president, as well as the head of the CCDI, should publicly announce the end of shuanggui;
  • The CCDI should immediately release all those being held in shuanggui;
  • The National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) should revise China’s Law on Administrative Supervision to abolish the related practice of liangzhi; and
  • Prior to the abolition of shuanggui, the CCDI should ensure that:
    • Family members of shuanggui detainees are given written notifications of the reason for and location of detention within 24 hours; and
    • Shuanggui detainees have prompt and regular access to lawyers, doctors, and their families.
• Issue an invitation to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct independent investigations into the treatment of shuanggui detainees in China.

To the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC)

• Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
• Set up a task force to review existing laws, institutions, and mechanisms tasked with preventing and investigating corruption. As part of this review, the NPCSC should:
  • Enact reforms, revising laws if necessary, to ensure that:
    • Budgets of government departments are transparent, accounts are audited, and relevant documents are made publicly available;
    • Agencies tasked with investigating corruption are subjected to effective external oversight, including by an independent oversight body that receives complaints directly from suspects, family members, and lawyers. Such agencies should be required to act with appropriate transparency but without comprising ongoing investigations or the rights of suspects, and should be staffed with investigators trained in rights-respecting investigative techniques, instead of relying on confessions.
• Revise the Criminal Procedure Law to:
  • Ensure that all suspects, including those accused of corruption and bribery, have prompt access to lawyers, including during any interrogations;
  • Repeal articles in the law that require lawyers representing suspects charged with terrorism, major corruption, or state security offenses to seek permission from investigators before they can meet with their clients;
  • Adopt the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine with respect to the exclusionary rule and evidence obtained through coercion. According to this legal doctrine, any and all evidence obtained as a result of torture or other ill-treatment is inadmissible in a court of law;
  • Ensure that anyone taken into custody be promptly brought before a judge, normally within 48 hours of being apprehended, as is required in Hong Kong and many other jurisdictions;
  • Mandate that all interrogations of suspects and witnesses to be used in proceedings be videotaped in their entirety, and that a complete copy of the interrogations be made available to the defense and the court;
  • Mandate that criminal interrogations be conducted only in rooms designated for interrogation in detention centers and police stations; and
  • Repeal articles that allow suspects charged with terrorism, major corruption, or state security offenses to be subjected to six months of secret detention without lawyers under “designated residential surveillance.”
• Amend the Administrative Litigation Law and the State Compensation Law so that individuals can file lawsuits against CDIs for arbitrarily detaining them, and to sue the state for compensation.
• Revise the relevant laws, including the Organic Law of the People’s Courts, to empower the Supreme People’s Court and lower-level courts to review cases of individuals detained or imprisoned after being subjected to shuanggui, and retry them after excluding confessions or evidence obtained during shuanggui.
  • Ensure access to prompt and fair redress, including restoration of positions and compensation, for shuanggui detainees who were wrongfully prosecuted;
  • Ensure access to prompt and fair redress for detainees, their family members, and other individuals who were subjected to arbitrary detention and other mistreatment during shuanggui.

To the Supreme People’s Procuratorate

• Order investigations into all allegations of torture and other ill-treatment by CDI officers, including as a matter of superior responsibility, and discipline or prosecute them as appropriate. Suspend such officials from office pending trial where appropriate.

To the Ministry of Health

• Provide voluntary rehabilitation services for former shuanggui detainees to address the physical and psychological consequences of torture and indefinite detention.

To Governments and international agencies funding Chinese legal reform, security sector training projects, or anti-corruption cooperation

• Express strong concerns to Chinese officials about shuanggui and urge them to adopt and implement the recommendations above; and
• Urge the abolition of shuanggui when engaging in any cooperation on corruption in China, including extradition of corruption suspects, and factor the existence of shuanggui in all decisions regarding returns to China.

Back to top

Acknowledgements

This report was written and researched by a Human Rights Watch researcher, with the assistance of a research assistant. It was reviewed and edited by Sophie Richardson, China director; Megan McLemore, health and human rights senior researcher; and Brian Root, quantitative analyst. James Ross, legal and policy director, and Joseph Saunders, deputy program director, provided legal and program review respectively.

This report was also reviewed by a China legal expert outside of Human Rights Watch who did not wish to be named.

Production assistance was provided by Daniel Lee, associate in the Asia division.

Human Rights Watch is grateful to the former CDI detainees and family members who spoke with us despite the risks, and to the lawyers and others we interviewed for this report.

Back to top