Conclusion The UN Safeguards for persons facing the death penalty set out minimum standards that must be respected by any country that has not yet abolished the use of the death penalty. Our review of the extent to which China complies with these basic international standards reveals that the country falls woefully short. Overall, we believe that there is a high risk of arbitrary execution in China because the right to a fair trial is not protected. There is no right to an independent and impartial tribunal. The authority of the Chinese Communist Party over the legal system ensures that courts, at all levels, are required to consider the interests of the Party in their decision making. Recent years have seen greater emphasis placed on the collection and examination of evidence. Obtaining a confession to convict, however, continues to take priority in the investigation and trial stages leaving suspects open to the risk of torture and other forms of ill treatment. This risk is increased for suspects accused of one of the three types of offences (terrorism, national security and corruption) where incommunicado detention, RSDL or liuzhi, may be authorised. The right to appeal in death penalty cases is seriously compromised by the reluctance of Chinese appeal courts to undertake a substantive review of law and fact and by restrictions on the right to counsel. While some rights are protected on paper, the implementation of these rights is undermined by political considerations. China cannot guarantee the provision of effective legal assistance in death penalty cases. The role of lawyers is restricted and they are not given sufficient opportunity to present evidence in mitigation. The lack of adequate funding for legal aid in death penalty cases discriminates against defendants on the grounds of economic status. The death penalty is given extensively for a range of drug-related offences. These do not meet the threshold for “most serious crimes”. There are still 46 capital crimes in Chinese criminal law of which just one is solely for intentional killing. There is limited recourse to individualised sentencing by the Chinese courts. Publicity given to death sentences for drug crime is often used for political propaganda purposes. We are also concerned by what appears to be an increase in the politicised sentencing of foreigners as a result of diplomatic disputes. There is a potential for the death penalty to be applied where cases, under Hong Kong’s National Security Law, are prosecuted in China. The suffering of prisoners sentenced to death is not minimised. The use of shackles on such prisoners appears to be the norm. The two-year suspended death sentence imposes additional trauma through the threat of execution. Research also indicates that prisoners facing execution are pressured to give consent to providing their organs for transplant purposes. 57