significantly increase around the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking on 26 June. 11 This corresponds with the central government’s narrative that drug control is a ‘people’s war on drugs’ which is reflected in heavy sentencing. Lack of judicial transparency China’s courts cannot guarantee fair trial rights. It is impossible for Chinese courts to be transparent over death penalty cases while also adhering to state secrecy laws. 12 Top-level state secrets provisions have been criticised by both Chinese domestic and international audiences as being too broad and vague.13 The policy and regulations guiding courts on what can be made transparent use language that is unclear.14 According to the 2017 Judges Law, article 7, judges are required to keep ‘judicial work secrets’ confidential. The 1990 Judicial Work Secrets Regulations prohibits the disclosure of trial secrets.15 Any violations may be punished by Party discipline, administrative penalties and even criminal prosecution. The definition of judicial work secrets is unclear in Chinese law but includes non-court personnel accessing secondary files without approval of the leadership of a court. Lawyers are not permitted access to this secondary file.16 This means lawyers are restricted access to information that may be vital to provide adequate defence for their client. Chinese lawyers, legal professionals and judges have previously called to reduce or abolish this secondary file as it contradicts the Supreme People’s Court aims of greater judicial transparency.17 In 2013, the SPC responded to calls for greater judicial transparency by setting up China Judgments Online, an online database of decisions from all levels of Chinese courts.18 According to SPC Provisions issued in 2016, all criminal case documents should be published on this website.19 There are however exceptions for cases involving state secrets, minors and “other reasons it is unsuitable to post [a decision] on the internet”. According to Chinese legal researchers, cases are uploaded selectively and hundreds of cases are missing20 restricting lawyers and scholars’ ability to analyse cases and understand the courts’ approach to using capital punishment. Where not all trials are open an incomplete database undermines ICCPR article 14 and the need to make judgements public. Since September 2020, China Judgements Online has further restricted access, as a phone SIM number is required to register and sign in. This may prevent individuals from seeking to use the database to search for death penalty cases for fear of government monitoring.21 11 According to domestic media reports, examined by Chinese researchers, there were between 160 and 200 executions on this day in 2018 and 2019. Private communication shared with The Rights Practice. 12 Human Rights in China (HRIC). ‘State Secrets: China’s Legal Labyrinth’ Human Rights in China’. 2007. https://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/hric_statesecrets-report.pdf 13 Finder, Susan. “China's Translucent Judicial Transparency“. 18 October, 2018. in: Transparency Challenges Facing China (2018), Peking University School of Transnational Law Research Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3344466. The 2010 State Secrets Law and the 2014 Interim Provisions on Management of State Secrets, and 2014 Interim Provisions on Management of State Secrets Classification are the top-level state secrecy legislation. 14 The 2018 Opinion on Judicial Transparency sets out broad areas where courts should release information, but also provides for situations where the release of information is not permitted or “unsuitable for being made public”. 15 Finder, Susan. “China's Translucent Judicial Transparency“. 18 October, 2018. in: Transparency Challenges Facing China (2018), Peking University School of Transnational Law Research Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3344466. pp. 145 16 Ibid. pp. 146 17 Ibid. pp 147 18 China Judgments Online. The Supreme People's Court of The People's Republic of China. http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/ 19 Supreme People’s Court. “Provisions on People’s Court Release of Judgements on the Internet” 29 August, 2016. https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/the-supreme-peoples-court-provisions-on-peoples-courts-release-of-judgments-on-the-internet/ 20 Lau, Mimi and Xie, Echo. “How China’s supreme court tried to open up the legal ‘black box’ to let in the light” South China Morning Post. 26 March, 2021. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3127001/how-chinas-supreme-court-tried-open-legal-black-box-let-light 21 Roth, Kenneth and Wang, Maya. “Data Leviathan: China’s Burgeoning Surveillance State”. The New York Review of Books. 16 August, 2019. https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/08/16/data-leviathan-chinas-burgeoning-surveillance-state/ 3