屡次违规者：中国在贝宁和泰国继续违反国际刑警组织规定
中国对多边警务合作机制的违规利用堪称反复逃避惩罚的典型范例。
在本文撰写时，两名中国公民正面临被引渡回中国的危险。虽然他们身处不同大陆，但有一个共同点：他们的逮捕似乎再次依赖违反国际刑警组织规定的红色通缉令。
高建焕，一名45岁的男子，来自中国浙江省乐清市，因自称长期受到中国当局的迫害，于2017年逃往越南。
据他说，这场冲突始于2005年，当时他家乡的土地因强制低价征收而引发争端。他指控当局对自己和家人发起了暴力袭击。虽然这些指控无法独立验证，但他提供了父亲的释放通知书以及家人遭受严重殴打的照片。
在越南期间，中国指控他犯有诈骗罪。自此他开始面临一连串的追捕。
2023年底，高在阿联酋转机时被拘留。国际刑警组织规定，根据第 84 条 (b) 款，在发出国际通知后提出引渡请求。然而，尽管中国获得了延期，但仍未提交引渡请求，最终高被释放。
这次自由并没有持续多久。虽然国际刑警组织确认该通告正在正式审查中，但并未暂停通告。结果：今年6月29日，高在贝宁被再次拘留。
这次，引渡程序启动了。
9月9日，科托努上诉法院确认了早前的法庭决定，即将高引渡给中国当局。到国际刑警组织档案控制委员会（CCF）完成其审查时——他们的最后一次会议于10月14日至18日举行，但结果尚未公布——对高来说很可能已经太迟。
贝宁尚未参与联合国个人投诉程序，而这一程序在阻止引渡至中国方面具有关键作用。现在，他最后的希望寄托在贝宁司法和立法部长德特切努（Detchenou）先生身上。
9月29日，保护卫士组织向德特切努部长发出呼吁，提醒他注意贝宁司法引渡程序中的严重缺陷，以及如果他签署高的强制遣返决定，将会违反具有约束力的不驱回原则。
完整的呼吁信内容如下（英文）。
审阅该案文件的贝宁独立律师毫不避讳地表达了他们的意见。“高先生的案件处理不公，司法程序违反了贝宁的法律规范。”另一位律师表示，“高先生的案件处理方式极不正常。”
事实上，高建焕至今仍未见过引渡请求，尽管这是可能改变他命运的关键文件，法官也拒绝了他的律师获取该文件副本。法庭拒绝听取任何证据，这些证据本可以表明引渡将使贝宁直接违反其在国际法上具有法律约束力的承诺，包括作为《禁止酷刑公约》缔约国的义务。
该案件及其诸多缺陷已被提交至非洲人权和人民权利委员会，该委员会允许针对违反《非洲人权和人民权利宪章》的国家行为提出个人投诉（根据第55条），其中包括不驱回原则等关键权利条款。
高的案件并非孤例。在各国对中国广泛且系统性人权滥用，尤其是在其监狱和拘留系统中的虐待行为进行日益反击之际，欧洲人权法院数次以存在“普遍暴力情形”为由禁止向中国引渡。然而，中国当局仍在不懈努力，试图强迫遣返人员，这明显违反了国际法中的不驱回原则。
在泰国，一名与中国国家机构有广泛联系的商人——佘智江，也因涉嫌欺诈面临引渡。再次，他的逮捕违反了国际刑警组织的程序规定（《国际刑警组织数据处理规则》）。第83条第2款(b)(v)规定，在请求国正式发出逮捕令之前，不得发出红色通缉令。
在佘智江的案件中，情况恰恰相反。国际刑警组织在中国逮捕令下达几个月前就发出了红色通缉令，违反了上述条款。更糟糕的是，中国当局在提交国际请求时故意对国际刑警组织撒谎。根据提交给泰国法院支持引渡请求的官方文件，实际的中国逮捕令日期与向国际刑警组织申报的不符。
这两个案件不过是中国当局持续违反国际刑警组织程序和规定的最新例子。
问题是：屡次违规的中国何时才会受到真正的惩罚？
我们呼吁国际刑警组织秘书处根据上述规则第124条行使其权力，评估中国在多年间滥用红色通缉令、扩散通报及其他国际刑警组织机制的行为。
虽然贝宁尚未向高建焕提供红色通缉令，但保护卫士组织了解到他被指控犯有诈骗罪。
To the attention of: Honorable Mr Yvon DETCHENOU, Minister of Justice and Legislation
- CC: Honourable Mr Olushegun Adjadi BAKARI, Minister of Foreign Affairs
- CC: Honourable Mr Alassane SEIDOU, Minister of the Interior and Public Security
- CC: Office of the President of the Republic of Benin, Honourable Mr Patrice TALON
- CC: Office of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
- CC: Office of the UN Committee Against Torture
- CC: Office of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Madrid, 29 September 2024
Letter of concern in relation to the pending extradition of Mr GAO Jianhuan (高建焕) to the People’s Republic of China
Dear Honorable Min. DETCHENOU,
We write to express our severe concern regarding an ongoing extradition process in the Republic of Benin, and in particular with regard to the decision adopted by the Cotonou Appeals Court’s Instruction Chamber (case number 0208/PG-24).
Safeguard Defenders is a non-governmental organization registered in Spain. It has extensive experience in the range of issues associated with extraditions to the People’s Republic of China and, as such, has intervened in multiple cases around the world as an expert witness, both in- and outside of Courts. Its work in this matter is based entirely on the international and regional treaties that define the conditions under which an individual may be extradited to a third nation, notably including the absolute prohibition of returning an individual to a country where he or she may be at risk of irreparable harm, including persecution, torture, ill-treatment or other serious human rights violations.”
A range of substantial grounds exist to assume that Mr Gao would encounter such irreparable harm if he were to be returned to the People’s Republic of China. The detrimental human rights situation in its judicial and penitentiary system continues to be denounced by the UN’s independent human rights procedures, leading the European Court of Human Rights to issue a judgment in October 2022 stating that “the extent to which torture and other forms of ill-treatment were credibly and consistently reported to be used in Chinese detention facilities and penitentiaries could be equated to the existence of a “general situation of violence”. Thereby the applicant was relieved from showing specific personal grounds of fear, it being enough that it was established that, upon extradition, he would be placed in a Chinese detention centre or penitentiary where, the Court concluded, he would face a real risk of ill-treatment."
The European Court of Human Rights’ decision is on par with a growing trend of refusals to extradite individuals to the People’s Republic of China, as it fails to uphold the minimum standards required under international law. In fact, Mr Gao was previously first detained, then released by authorities in the UAE as China failed – in violation of INTERPOL rules – to file a request for his extradition.
As a signatory State to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols, the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; as well as under Article 18 of its Constitution and the Robben Island Guidelines, the People’s Republic of Benin is beholden to uphold the principle of non-refoulement.
We further note the provisions regarding extradition in Titre XIII – Chapitre II – Section I of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Republic of Benin, and in particular article 737, §8, which provides that: “Extradition shall not be granted when the person requested would be judged in the requesting State by a court that does not provide the fundamental guarantees of procedures and protection of the rights of the defence.”
Ample internationally recognized reports exist on how such guarantees are fundamentally absent in China’s judicial system.
None of these legitimate concerns, based on ample international jurisprudence, was allowed into evidence during the procedure before the Cotonou Appeals’ Court, counter to article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and its Constitutional status under article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Benin.
At the time of writing, the defendant nor his counsel have received a copy of the Court’s verdict.
We express further concern at the procedural gaps in the present case, that have further undermined the full enjoyment of Mr Gao’s right to a defence. Several lawyers consulted in Benin has made clear that the case has proceeded in violation of Beninese judicial procedure.
While the appeal process before the Court concluded on September 9, the defence has still not been able to review, read or otherwise access the extradition request from the People’s Republic of China, a situation that Safeguard Defenders has never before encountered. This has made it impossible to verify whether provisions under Section I and II of the aforementioned Title XIII, Chapter II, of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Republic of Benin have been complied with.
The latter is all the more relevant considering the precedent of Mr Gao’s release in the UAE, due to China’s failure to comply with prescribed procedure under the INTERPOL Statute. A failure which has also led to the ongoing review of the INTERPOL Red Notice at the basis of the defendant’s detention in your country. On 27 September INTERPOL notified Safeguard Defenders that the abuse of the Red Notice by China is to be reviewed by INTERPOL at their 130th session 14 to 18 October.
Honorable Minister,
We kindly request careful review of the process and risks associated with the present case.
We believe the above summarized overview provides sufficient procedural, legal and reputational grounds to halt the extradition of Mr Gao to the People’s Republic of China and uphold Benin’s Constitutional, regional and international commitments.
Sincerely,
Safeguard Defenders
