The Rights Practice Briefing Paper maintain secrecy over the use of the death penalty restricts the use of legal aid and lawyers’ access to relevant information. China’s lack of transparency on the death penalty goes against its obligations under international law. The UN Human Rights Council adopted a new draft resolution on the death penalty at the 48th session on 5th October 2021, by a vote of 29 states in favour.17 China was one of 12 member states that voted against.18 A further 24 states, not members of the Human Rights Council, signed in support of the resolution. The resolution takes note of the latest report of the Secretary-General which focussed on the consequences of lack of transparency in the application and imposition of the death penalty. The UN Secretary-General’s report emphasises that the United Nations system has over many years underlined the importance of the public availability of information on the death penalty. At a minimum, this includes the number of persons sentenced to death and the number of executions actually carried out. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions also stated that under international human rights law, even during a state of emergency, derogation from transparency rights is never permitted in death penalty cases. During the last Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2018, dozens of states raised the issue of the death penalty with China. A number of these states, including Australia, Italy and France, specifically recommended China publish death sentence and execution data and increase transparency.19 Concluding thoughts Despite reductions in executions in recent years, Chinese sentencing remains harsh. Chinese law remains ambiguous about when an immediate execution should be sentenced. Death sentences are regularly imposed for offences that do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” under international law, such as drug crimes. Defendants are not guaranteed a fair trial as outlined in the ICCPR, Article 14. Suspended death sentences, unique to China, are viewed by some observers as a positive sentencing option which have helped to reduce executions, such as in domestic violence cases. However, suspended death sentences are not subject to the same level of review and approval as immediate execution. There is thus higher risk of miscarriages of justice. Lack of transparency over not only death penalty statistics but also criminal procedure means that it is impossible for China to guarantee that the death penalty is not being applied arbitrarily. The Rights Practice is a UK registered charity (1133616). We support those working for human rights. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication is the sole responsibility of The Rights Practice and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. 17https://undocs.org/a/hrc/48/l.17/rev.1 18 Global Times. “China objects UNHRC draft resolution on death penalty” October 11, 2021. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1235956.shtml 19 https://lib.ohchr.org 7