The targeting of the eight activists follows the introduction of controversial national security laws in Hong Kong since it came under the jurisdiction of the Government of China. Following months of mass civil unrest, the new laws were passed in June 2020. The US , Australia and the UK subsequently condemned Hong Kong’s extraterritorial application of it’s national security laws and heavily criticised the conduct of the Chinese Government for targeting pro-democracy campaigners. This led i n the same year to the UK, Australia and the US suspending their extradition treaties with Hong Kong.
In a further sign of the strained relations between the UK and China over Hong Kong, on 3 July 2023 the UK Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly announced that the UK government “will not tolerate any attempts by China to intimidate and silence individuals in the UK and overseas,” and that the UK “object to the National Security Law that China imposed on Hong Kong, including its extraterritorial reach, in breach of the legally binding Sino-British Joint Declaration.”
Soon afterwards, the Chinese embassy in the UK stated that “British politicians openly sheltering wanted criminals is a gross interference in the rule of law in Hong Kong and China’s internal affairs, and China expresses strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition.”
It is to be hoped that if any Red Notice requests are received from Hong Kong in respect of the 8 activists, they will be immediately rejected by the NDTF during the screening process – see our RNM blog on the work of the NDTF here . Given the highly politicised background to this case it would seem obvious that any Red Notice would potentially fall foul of Articles 2 and 3 of Interpol’s constitution – specifically contravening the prohibition on political activity and bars on human rights violations on e.g., the right to free speech and political protest. This could explain why Interpol has chosen to highlight these provisions in its response.
Sadly, Interpol has not always shown the same inclination to act decisively and publicly in the past in response to claims that China has misused its procedures to pressurise critics of the regime.
At a recent Red Notice Monitor event members of the UK House of Lords heard extensive testimony of China persistently issuing abusive Interpol Red Notices against exiled-Uyghurs in an attempt to force them back to China where they and their family members face severe persecution and human rights abuses.
Speaking to members of the House of Lords, Interpol expert, Ted Bromund , stated that:
“China uses INTERPOL in a deliberate effort to disobey the legal protections built into legitimate systems of extradition. China uses a wide range of repression to back up its abuse of INTERPOL. That abuse is justified by politically motivated definitions of criminal behaviour and it then deliberately uses INTERPOL to evade the legal protections built in extradition systems. INTERPOL cannot continue to allow its systems to be used to pursue political offences.”
In the present case of the Hong Kong 8 there can be no doubt that Interpol’s uncharacteristically swift intervention in this matter is to be applauded. Hopefully, it signals a greater willingness on Interpol’s part to speak out on the possible abuse of its systems in unfolding highly sensitive political cases when responding to pre-emptive requests for information.
If you require legal advice from specialist Interpol Red Notice lawyers about any matter relating to Interpol, please contact us here . You can read more about us, here .