China Tribunal

The China Tribunal was a non-governmental "people's tribunal" to inquire into forced organ harvesting in China.^[1] It was headquartered in London. The chair of the China Tribunal was Sir Geoffrey Nice KC,^[1] who had also been lead prosecutor at the trial of Slobodan Milošević in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.^[2] Its other members were Professor of Paediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery at University College London Martin Elliott, Malaysian lawyer Andrew Khoo, Iranian lawyer, Shadi Sadr, US lawyer Ragina Paulose, businessman Nick Vetch and historian Arthur Waldron.^[1] All members of the Tribunal provided their time pro bono publico. The Judgment states: "All members of the Tribunal, Counsel to the Tribunal, volunteer lawyers and the editor of this Judgment have worked entirely pro bono publico (for the public good) which for those unfamiliar with the term or practice means completely without financial return of any kind."^[3]

The Tribunal was initiated by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC), which was co-founded by David Matas, one of the leading proponents alleging forced organ harvesting in that country.^[4][5]

Relationship with other groups and organizations

The China Tribunal was initiated by the ETAC, "a group of lawyers, academics, ethicists, doctors, researchers, and human rights advocates that is registered as a charity in Australia".^[6][7][8] The Tribunal notes that although "a minority of those working in and for ETAC are themselves Falun Gong practitioners", the organisation has campaigned to end forced organ harvesting throughout China and to protect the human rights of all prisoners of conscience who are at risk of having their organs forcibly extracted.^[9]

The Tribunal states that it itself is independent from ETAC,^[5] "none of the members of the Tribunal, Counsel to the Tribunal, the editor or the volunteer lawyers working with Counsel to the Tribunal is a Falun Gong practitioner or has any special interest in Falun Gong."^[3]

Events and history

In 2016, ETAC asked Sir Geoffrey Nice KC to write an opinion about the issues that the tribunal was later to consider; Nice advised that a body of several people would be better able to consider the facts and law, which eventually led to ETAC initiating the formation of the China Tribunal.^[10]

Aims and Mandate

The China Tribunal Charter^[11] set out the mandate and aims of the Tribunal. The China Tribunal members were mandated to “consider the evidence regarding forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China and determine whether international crimes have been, and continue to be, committed.”

The method of work included to: “receive submissions on applicable standards and available remedies.” Legal submissions on application of international law were received from Edward Fitzgerald KC and Datuk N. Sivanathan.

Regarding transparency, the Tribunal Charter stipulates that “The Tribunal will be conducted with a commitment to transparency regarding the evidence it has examined and the sources it has consulted.”

The China Tribunal Charter also set out specific questions for the Tribunal to address:^[12]

1. "Given the available evidence about past and continuing forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China, have international crimes been committed?"
    
   
2. "If so, what legal and other actions should be taken by the international community? In responding to these questions, the Tribunal should consider the extent to which alleged perpetrators of forced organ harvesting can be named under relevant legislation and the effect of sovereign immunity on protecting wrongdoers from civil suits."
    
   
3. "The Tribunal is also urged to consider the responsibilities of international hospitals, universities, doctors, professional societies, medical researchers, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, medical journals and publishers regarding collaboration with their Chinese counterparts and Chinese transplant professionals, whether such collaboration might amount to complicity in forced organ harvesting, what constraints should apply to any future collaboration and to make recommendations regarding existing or proposed professional and legal sanctions."
    
   

Hearings and Evidence Presented

The China Tribunal held 5 days of public hearings in London in December 2018 and April 2019, in which over 50 fact witnesses, experts and investigators testified including survivors of detention, family members of victims, medical experts and scholars.^[13][14][15]

Testimonies and Submissions

Witness testimonies included Falun Gong practitioners and Uyghurs who described forced medical testing, including organ scans, and abuse in custody such as torture, rape, and psychological abuse. Testimonies from experts included analysis of organ transplant and donation data, Chinese medical and government documents of policy and practice, and a statistical analysis of official Chinese records such as bed utilization rates, hospital revenue and surgical teams that claimed 60,000 – 100,000 transplants had been performed each year. ^[16][17]

The Tribunal subjected academic submissions and reports to independent scrutiny, including a review by a leading UK statistician^[18] of a study published in BMC Medical Ethics^[19], which showed that China's organ donation figures had been manipulated and did not reflect the real numbers.^[20]

Phone call recordings submitted to the Tribunal, in which government officials and surgeons stated that organs were available on demand, including from Falun Gong practitioners^[21], were reviewed at the Tribunal’s request by independent academic commentators^[22]. In one phone call, which the China Tribunal had forensically examined, the former PLA Minister for Health, Bai Shuzhong, stated that ex-president Jiang Zemin directly ordered the killing of Falun Gong practitioners for their organs.^[23][24]

The Tribunal invited the Chinese government, along with others who had previously expressed scepticism regarding allegations of forced organ harvesting, to submit evidence and participate in the hearings.^[25] These invitations were issued before the Tribunal reached any conclusions, but no response was received.^[26]

In addition, the Tribunal reviewed publicly available exculpatory material. This included media statements and video footage of Chinese officials, such as transplant official Haibo Wang’s response to the 2016 Update Report,^[27] and the Chinese government’s written submission to the UN Committee Against Torture.^[28] Testimonies from international transplant surgeons were also considered, including Francis L. Delmonico’s evidence before the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China,^[29] and Jeremy Chapman’s testimony before the Australian Senate,^[30] both of whom have participated in international collaborations with Chinese transplant authorities.^[31][32]

The Tribunal further examined the Australian parliamentary report Compassion, Not Commerce, which investigated human organ trafficking and transplant tourism.^[33]

Reading Material Reviewed

The China Tribunal’s Reading Material page lists seven categories of documents that Tribunal members were required to review, including overview texts, documentary investigations, investigative documents, academic journal articles, and published reports from organisations and official bodies. It also contains exculpatory evidence—material submitted to counter or challenge the allegations.^[34]

Judgment

On 17 June 2019, the China Tribunal pronounced its "final judgment" on organ harvesting in China, concluding that the Chinese Communist Party was, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty of committing crimes against humanity against China's Uyghur Muslim and Falun Gong populations, and that removing hearts and other organs from living victims constituted one of the worst mass atrocities of this century.^{[35][36][37][38][39][40][41]}

The China Tribunal Judgment stated: "In the long-term practice in the PRC of forced organ harvesting it was indeed Falun Gong practitioners who were used as a source – probably the principal source – of organs for forced organ harvesting."^[42] Adding that there was no evidence of the practice having been stopped and that the Tribunal was satisfied that it continued.^[42]

The judgment was published on 1 March 2020.^[10]

See also

• Antireligious campaigns of the Chinese Communist Party