Introduction This report addresses whether the use of the death penalty in China complies with international law, in particular, the United Nations Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty issued in 1984 and strengthened in 1989 and 1996. These Safeguards (see Annex I), adopted by the UN General Assembly, apply to all countries that have not yet abolished the use of the death penalty regardless of whether they have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 6 of the ICCPR recognises and protects the right to life of all human beings. It provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life and that this right shall be protected by law. The Human Rights Committee is unambiguous, in General Comment 36, in concluding that the imposition of the death penalty would be arbitrary in nature where it is imposed in proceedings that violate the fair trial guarantees provided for in article 14 of the ICCPR. In the Safeguards, the rights set out in article 14 establish a minimum set of standards for proceedings that involve the death penalty. China currently has 46 crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed. In this report we have attempted to describe key features of the use of the death penalty in China and the extent to which practice respects the UN Safeguards. Overall, we are forced to conclude that the application of the death penalty in China does not comply with the severe restrictions imposed by international law and is, therefore, tantamount to arbitrary execution. Our report acknowledges the progress that has been made with some improved procedural protections and a reduction in the number of capital crimes since the height of 1997. We also salute the efforts of many lawyers and legal scholars to challenge a flawed process and raise awareness of the problems inherent in the use of the death penalty. Nevertheless, the situation we describe is not encouraging. We have seen, in recent years, what has been described as a retreat from the rule of law in China as the leadership emphasises stability. This trend amplifies the risk of arbitrary execution. Unfair trials, politicised sentencing and the use of the death penalty for drug crime and other offences which do not meet the threshold for “most serious crimes” illustrate what is wrong with the death penalty in China. Statistics on death penalty cases are classified in China as a state secret. State secrets laws classify data regarding national-level approval and execution of death penalty sentences as top-secret, the highest possible level of secrecy.1 Hundreds of documented death penalty cases are missing from the online court database. Secrecy in the use of the death penalty undermines efforts to hold the government to account and push for meaningful criminal justice reforms. One of the challenges in producing this report has been to use a human rights framework to assess law and practice that operates under very different organising principles. To help readers understand the context, we begin the report with a brief introduction to Chinese law and the political environment in which it operates. This is followed by seven chapters that examine the Safeguards in more detail and the extent to which they are respected by proceedings in China. In the final chapter we summarise our key findings and offer some recommendations. 1 Human Rights in China (HRIC). ‘State Secrets: China’s Legal Labyrinth’ Human Rights in China’. 2007. https://www.hrichina.org/en/publications/hric-report/state-secrets-chinas-legal-labyrinth. 6