U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–773 PDF 2016

CHINA’S PERVASIVE USE OF TORTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE 

COMMISSION ON CHINA 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

House Senate 

CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TIM WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

TED LIEU, California 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

CHRISTOPHER P. LU, Department of Labor 

SARAH SEWALL, Department of State 

STEFAN M. SELIG, Department of Commerce 

DANIEL R. RUSSEL, Department of State 

TOM MALINOWSKI, Department of State 

PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director 

ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

CO N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS

Page 

Opening Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S. Representative From 

New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ....... 1 

Lewis, Margaret K., Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law .... 4 

Jigme Gyatso, Tibetan Buddhist Monk; Human Rights Advocate; and 

Filmmaker ............................................................................................................ 8 

Yin Liping, Falun Gong Practitioner ..................................................................... 10 

Franks, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Representative From Arizona .................................. 12 

Yin Liping (continued) ............................................................................................. 12 

Richardson, Sophie, China Director, Human Rights Watch ................................ 15 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Lewis, Margaret K. .................................................................................................. 32 

Jigme Gyatso ............................................................................................................ 38 

Yin Liping ................................................................................................................. 41 

Richardson, Sophie .................................................................................................. 45 

Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative From New Jersey; Chairman, 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................................................ 104 

Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Cochairman, CongressionalExecutive Commission on China ........................................................................ 105 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Written Testimony Submitted by Ms. Geng He, Wife of Lawyer Gao Zhisheng, 

April 14, 2016 ....................................................................................................... 107 

Witness Biographies ................................................................................................ 109 

(1) 

CHINA’S PERVASIVE USE OF TORTURE 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA, Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m., in 

Room 210, HVC, Hon. Christopher Smith, Chairman, presiding. 

Also Present: Representatives Franks, Hultgren, and Walz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Chairman SMITH. The Commission will come to order. Good 

afternoon to everybody. Thanks for being here. 

Gao Zhisheng’s account of the torture he experienced is shocking, 

offensive, and inhuman. From the time he was first arrested in 

2006 until his provisional release in 2014, Mr. Gao was regularly 

hooded and beaten, shocked with electric batons, had toothpicks inserted in his genitals, was sleep deprived and malnourished, and 

his life was threatened repeatedly by guards and fellow prisoners. 

Mr. Gao was tortured because he dared to represent persecuted 

Christians and Falun Gong practitioners, and because he was critical of China’s legal system. Gao wanted what was best for China, 

but he got the worst. 

Mr. Gao’s wife, Geng He, submitted testimony to this hearing, 

and I urge all of you to read it. It is over on the side and we will 

make it a part of the record without objection. 

It is for Gao Zhisheng and the many other victims of torture that 

we are holding this hearing today. We are here today to shine a 

light on the brutal, illegal, and dehumanizing systemic use of torture in China. We shine a light in the dictatorship because nothing 

good happens in the dark, and as we will learn today, there are 

some very dark places in China where torture is used regularly to 

punish and intimidate political and religious prisoners as well as 

their lawyers. 

We are also here to urge the U.S. Government to make ending 

torture a higher priority in bilateral relations and to urge the Chinese Government to fully enforce and implement its own laws. A 

country with China’s global leadership aspirations should not engage in horrific practices so thoroughly condemned by the international community. 

As our witnesses will describe today in great detail, the use of 

torture is pervasive in China’s detention centers and criminal justice system. Torture is used to extract confessions for prosecution 

2 

and the coerced televised public confessions we have seen so often 

in the past year. 

Torture is also used to punish those political prisoners the Chinese security forces view as destabilizing forces. Under President 

Xi Jinping, there has been an expansion in the number of individuals and groups viewed as threats to national security. 

The victims of torture are very often human rights advocates and 

lawyers, union activists, members of non-state controlled Christian 

churches, Falun Gong practitioners, members of the ethnic minority groups like Tibetans as well as Uyghurs. 

Chinese officials repeatedly tell me I should focus more on the 

positive aspects of China’s human rights and not on the negative. 

This is a difficult task when you read Gao Zhisheng’s story or read 

the testimony of our witnesses, Golog Jigme and Yin Liping, who 

will present in just a moment. 

Nevertheless, I want to recognize that there have been changes 

made recently to China’s Criminal Procedure Law that purport to 

prohibit the use of confessions obtained through torture and the requirement to videotape interrogations in major cases. According to 

Human Rights Watch, however, judges’ videotaped interrogations 

are routinely manipulated, and police torture the suspects first and 

then tape the confession. 

As professor Margaret Lewis will testify today, ‘‘Preliminary indications are, however, that recording interrogations is not significantly changing the culture of extreme reliance on confessions as 

the primary form of evidence in criminal cases. When I viewed an 

interrogation room in a Beijing police station last October, the staff 

was keen to point out the video technology. What I could not help 

but notice was the slogan ‘Truthfully confess and your whole body 

will feel at ease.’ They were looking down at this while they were 

sitting in the ‘tiger chair.’ ’’ She says, ‘‘Faced with this slogan during prolonged questioning makes crystal clear to the suspect that 

there is no right to silence in Chinese law.’’ 

Perhaps there may be Chinese officials who want to end the use 

of torture in detention facilities and curtail the force and influence 

of the public security bureau. Their efforts should be encouraged 

and, of course, supported. But as with many other things in China, 

particularly in the realm of human rights, with each step forward, 

or seemingly forward, there is often a step back and sometimes 

two. 

China’s laws are too often either selectively implemented or completely ignored by security forces and the courts. Security forces, 

faced with the end of labor camps, created new forms of extralegal 

detention, such as ‘‘black jails’’ or residential surveillance in undisclosed locations where torture can continue without oversight or 

interruption. 

Until suspects have lawyers at interrogations, until all extralegal 

detention centers are abolished and police and public security 

forces are held accountable for abuse, China’s existing laws will 

continue to be undermined by existing practice. The U.S. Government must find effective ways to address this issue urgently at the 

highest levels because hundreds of thousands of Chinese people are 

victims of shockingly cruel, illegal, and inhumane activities. 

3 

Last week, the White House said that President Obama ‘‘reiterated America’s unwavering support for upholding human rights 

and fundamental freedoms in China.’’ President Obama has only a 

couple more meetings with Xi Jinping before his administration 

ends. He should make ending torture a priority. 

This issue touches on so many other human rights issues that 

are also critical ones for U.S. economic and security interests in 

China, like protecting the rights of political prisoners, the right of 

due process in the arrest of human rights lawyers, curtailing police 

powers, and the expansion of national security laws that target 

peaceful reform advocates, encouraging an independent judiciary, 

protections for the freedom of expression and freedom of religion, 

and encouraging the establishment of the rule of law in China. 

Torture will not end until the price of bad domestic policy is too 

high for Chinese leaders to ignore, or Chinese leaders understand 

that the use of torture harms their global interests. It already absolutely harms their standing in the world, and both the UN and the 

Special Rapporteur’s Report, which, like the previous one, is a 

scathing indictment of the China’s systematic use of torture. 

President Obama should not only hesitate to name names and 

shine a light on horrific practices that the Chinese Government 

says it wants to end. If nothing else, doing so would bolster the 

spirits of those prisoners of conscience who are rotting in Chinese 

jails. 

I will never forget when I first met Wei Jingsheng in Beijing in 

the early 1990s, when he was briefly let out of prison in order to 

get the 2000 Olympics, which they did not get, and they rearrested 

him and tortured him some more. He said, ‘‘You Americans and the 

world do not understand that when you kowtow to the Chinese 

leadership, when you are afraid to look them in the eye and speak 

boldly about human rights, they beat us more in the prisons. But 

when you are predictable and strong, and you have a resolve that 

they know is real, they beat us less.’’ It gets right down to the level 

of the jails. 

As a Washington Post editorial concluded last week, private discussions about human rights are important, but so is public messaging. Autocrats and dictators need to know unequivocally that 

the United States sees the freedom of expression, religion, rule of 

law, transparency, and an end to torture as critical interests necessary for better bilateral relations and to lengthen the expansion 

of mutual prosperity and integrated security. 

I would now like to call on our witnesses, and we will be joined 

shortly by members of the House and Senate. Two of our members 

are in an intelligence briefing, Marco Rubio, for example; but he is 

making his way over here and will leave that shortly. Again, I 

want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and, without objection, your full statements and any information and additional 

materials you would like to add to the record is made in order, and 

we will include them in the record of this proceeding. 

I would like to begin with Professor Margaret Lewis, professor of 

law at Seton Hall University, from my state. Welcome. 

Professor Lewis will discuss the Chinese Government’s track 

record in implementing criminal procedure reforms to prevent torVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:06 Jul 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99773.TXT DEIDRE
4 

ture and the continuing use of extralegal forms of detention despite 

the abolition of reeducation through labor in 2014. 

She will also talk about the unprecedented crackdown on human 

rights lawyers in July 2015 that led to the interrogation and harassment of hundreds of lawyers and their families, as well as the 

recent arrest of at least 11 of them on state subversion and inciting 

state subversion charges—nebulous charges at that. 

Additionally, she will share observations regarding forces or coerced confessions extracted through mistreatment of criminal suspects, including recent high-profile cases involving activists, lawyers, booksellers, and others. 

We will then hear from Golog Jigme, a Tibetan Buddhist monk, 

a human rights advocate, and a survivor of torture in Chinese detention centers, now living in exile in Switzerland. Mr. Jigme will 

discuss his personal experiences of torture at the hands of Chinese 

authorities during three periods of detention, 2008 to 2009 and 

2012, as well as broader issues regarding the treatment of Tibetans 

in detention. 

We will then hear from Yin Liping, a Falun Gong practitioner 

and survivor of torture in reeducation through labor camps, now 

living in the United States after being accorded refugee status in 

December of 2015. Ms. Yin Liping will discuss her personal experiences of torture at the hands of Chinese authorities during three 

periods: 1999, 2002, and 2004. 

Then, finally, no stranger to this Commission or to another committee I chair, the Human Rights subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is Sophie Richardson—and we welcome her 

back—who is the China Director of Human Rights Watch. Dr. Richardson will address documented cases in pretrial detention and 

problems with access to lawyers and medical treatment that were 

featured in Human Rights’ May 2015 report and others, and on the 

devices known as tiger chairs and many other aspects relating to 

that. 

She will also comment on the UN Committee against Torture, including her concluding observations, and the Chinese Government’s 

participation in international human rights mechanisms. Dr. Richardson will provide policy recommendations to the Commission. All 

the others, of course, also are welcome to do so, as well as recommendations to the U.S. Government. 

Without objection, we are including written testimony by Geng 

He, wife of human rights lawyer, Gao Zhisheng—as I mentioned 

earlier—as someone who this Commission and I and many of my 

colleagues have followed and who has spoken out repeatedly on his 

behalf. We will put her testimony into the record. 

So, Professor Lewis, the floor is yours. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Geng He appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET K. LEWIS, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 

Ms. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am privileged to be invited to participate in this hearing. I also need to say, having 

worked closely with your staff on the 2015 Annual Report, that I 

5 

saw firsthand what an exceptional group of people you have supporting this Commission. 

In addition to these brief opening remarks, I have submitted a 

more detailed statement that is available outside. 

I want to begin by recognizing that China is undertaking a sizeable basket of reforms having to do with criminal justice. It is understandable that these reforms will take time to implement, both 

because of resource constraints and because of the entrenched practices of the police, the prosecutors, and the courts. 

These transitional challenges are fundamentally different, however, from the government’s decision to selectively ignore legal protections embodied both in Chinese law and international legal 

norms. Here lies the key problem: The Chinese Government places 

perpetuating one-party rule above a robust commitment to the rule 

of law and human rights. 

For example, it is extremely rare for a court to use procedures 

in the Criminal Procedure Law for excluding illegally obtained evidence. Admittedly, courts should rarely have to exclude evidence if 

police and prosecutors are doing their jobs and not relying on illegally obtained evidence. 

That said, ongoing concerns about the courts’ unwillingness and 

even inability to stand up to police, coupled with personal accounts 

of coerced confessions, stretch the bounds of credulity that the careful work of police and prosecutors is what is responsible for the 

rare invocation of these rules. 

The PRC Criminal Procedure Law also provides that no person 

shall be found guilty without being judged as such by a court. But 

the nearly 100-percent conviction rate in China underscores that 

the determination of guilt in practice occurs before a defendant enters a courtroom. 

Any movement toward establishing a presumption of innocence 

has been further undermined by the disturbing practice of televised 

confessions, effectively replacing formal court proceedings with 

public shaming. 

One of the more encouraging recent developments in criminal 

procedure reform has been the use of audio and video recordings 

of interrogation in serious cases. It is not yet of all cases. 

Preliminary indications are, however, that the recording of interrogations is not significantly changing this culture of relying on 

confessions as the primary, if not sole, form of evidence in criminal 

cases. As the Chairman noted, when I was fortunate to visit a police station in Beijing, I was excited to see that there was 

videotaping technology. The staff was very quick to point this out. 

What they did not point out—but what I could not help but notice was literally written in the floor right in front of the constraining metal interrogation chair—was the saying, ‘‘If you confess, your whole body will feel at ease.’’ This is what a suspect faces 

while they are undergoing prolonged interrogation by the police. 

There is no right to silence, currently, under Chinese law. 

The value of interrogation recordings is further limited if the defense has a difficult time accessing those recordings, or if there 

simply is no defense lawyer, which is the case in most cases today 

in China. Suspects need lawyers both to understand their rights 

and then to have someone actually advocate for those rights. Yet, 

6 

the Chinese Government is taking an increasingly hostile stance 

toward defense lawyers. Defense lawyers risk reprisals by the government, rather than praise for their contributions to the rule of 

law. 

Turning to forms of detention outside of the formal criminal justice system, a variety of measures persist despite the end of reeducation through labor. While forms of so-called detention like compulsory drug treatment centers and custody and education centers 

have at least some basis in Chinese law, they do not satisfy international requirements for the legal review that must precede longterm deprivation of a person’s liberty. 

The Chinese Government also takes actions without any legal 

basis to silence voices perceived as threatening to the existing political structure. The fact that extralegal measures like ‘‘black jails’’ 

are not officially recognized complicates efforts to estimate their 

prevalence. 

The Committee against Torture has stated that it ‘‘remains seriously concerned at consistent reports from various sources about a 

continuing practice of illegal detention in unrecognized and unofficial detention places. . . .’’ 

This concerning state of affairs leads to the question, What are 

the implications for U.S. policy? I encourage U.S. policymakers to 

think of efforts to improve human rights in China on three levels: 

multilateral, bilateral, and unilateral. 

Multilaterally engaging China through international bodies like 

the UN Committee against Torture emphasizes that China is being 

judged by the yardstick of international human rights norms to 

which China has voluntarily subscribed, not by standards imposed 

on China by the United States or any other country. 

Bilaterally, the official U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue and 

the slightly less official Legal Experts Dialogue are important forums, though I think we must keep our expectations very modest 

for the ability of these forums to actually spur legal reform right 

now in China. 

Non-governmental organizations and American universities further serve an important role in organizing meetings between Chinese and American experts. Conversations with Chinese participants at these meetings restore my faith that there are many reform-minded people both inside the government and outside the 

government who are working to further criminal justice reforms. 

Building interpersonal ties at these meetings is not an immediate deliverable, but instead this effort is going to lay the groundwork for long-term cooperation after the current political winds 

shift, whenever that may be. 

Finally, the increasing resistance by the Chinese Government to 

engage meaningfully in discussions of human rights sometimes requires taking a unilateral stance. I was in Beijing when the government announced the trial date for the renowned civil rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang on charges of inciting ethnic hatred and picking 

quarrels and provoking trouble through comments on his 

microblogs. 

The U.S. Embassy’s request that a representative be able to attend the trial was, not surprisingly, denied. Undeterred, a senior 

diplomat stood outside the courthouse and read a statement exVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:06 Jul 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99773.TXT DEIDRE
7 

pressing concerns about Mr. Pu’s treatment. Literally taking a 

stand on the courthouse steps reaffirms to ourselves that, despite 

our own country’s transgressions sometimes of human rights 

norms, we remain committed to the fundamental dignity and rights 

of all human beings. 

When President Obama addressed the treatment of detainees in 

the aftermath of 9/11 at a 2014 press conference, he recognized 

that ‘‘we tortured some folks.’’ He continued that a detailed government report addressing instances of torture, ‘‘reminds us once 

again that the character of our country has to be measured in part 

not by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when 

things are hard.’’ 

While in China last December, several Chinese scholars and 

practitioners suggested that we stop focusing so much on what they 

term the exceptional cases when there have been marked reforms 

to the criminal justice system as a whole. I responded that the 

character of China’s criminal justice system has to be measured not 

just by the handling of relatively easy, run-of-the-mill cases like 

petty thefts or assaults but also by the blatantly politically motivated prosecutions, even if such cases represent a relatively small 

percentage of all criminal cases. 

The Chinese Government’s failure to live up to the legal standards that it sets for itself in these hard cases undermines the legitimacy of the entire system. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement and I look 

forward to our discussion with the Commission. 

Chairman SMITH. Professor Lewis, thank you very much for your 

statement and thank you for complimenting the staff of this Commission, which are among the most knowledgeable and effective 

people. 

Our report, as you know, that comes out is so heavily footnoted— 

almost half of our footnotes are because the research is so in-depth. 

I compare that to what the Chinese Government just did in their 

release on alleged human rights abuse in the United States, which 

we welcome. 

As you point out, and I did a VOA talk show this morning. It was 

broadcast into China. Some of the call-ins were critical of the U.S. 

policies, and I said, criticize away. Criticism helps when it is benign; especially when it is well-meaning and constructive, it helps 

us to reform. 

Just to come back to the Human Rights Report issued by the 

U.S. Department of State, which was, again, a near-scathing indictment of many of the practices that China’s government engages in. 

People are going to break laws, and you have got to have due process rights, defense attorneys. 

So I thank you for your input to our work on that important report. 

Now I would like to recognize Golog Jigme, and thank you for 

being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lewis appears in the appendix.] 

8 

STATEMENT OF JIGME GYATSO, TIBETAN BUDDHIST MONK; 

HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE; AND FILMMAKER 

Mr. JIGME. First of all, I would like to offer my heartfelt gratitude to Congressman Smith, and to Members of the CECC, and 

those gathered here. My name is Golog Jigme. I consider myself a 

freedom fighter. I consider myself a social worker and filmmaker. 

As a result of our making the film ‘‘Leaving Fear Behind,’’ we had 

some issues. 

My written statement has already been submitted to you. What 

I would like to describe now is a little more about the torture that 

I experienced during the three different detentions that I had to 

undergo. 

The real reason why we made the film ‘‘Leaving Fear Behind’’ is 

because overall Tibetans do not have human rights; Tibetans do 

not have democracy, including religious freedom, freedom of expression. Around 2007, the Chinese started propagandizing about how 

good the situation in Tibet was, how progress was being made in 

Tibet. That was all in connection with the upcoming Olympic 

Games. So we made that film to show the reality of Tibet to the 

world. 

That film conveys the true feelings of the Tibetan people about 

their situation. In 2008, as you know, there were widespread demonstrations all over Tibet. In my hometown—I was then in 

Labrang—there were demonstrations on March 14 and 15. I participated in those demonstrations. 

On March 23, I was detained for the first time. The nature of my 

detention then—I am just a simple monk—when they came to detain me, they came with 300 soldiers, 60 PSB [Public Security Bureau] personnel, and they had machine guns in front of me and behind me. They also brought electric cattle prods and other instruments of coercion. 

I had seen the machine guns as I was lifting my head up when 

I was taken away. I looked up and there was one up there in the 

front, and there was one behind down there. There were people 

with guns pointed at me. So from the very nature of my detention, 

it is clear how counterfactual the Chinese propaganda is about Tibetans being given equality, Tibetans having rights, or Tibetans 

having progress. 

I was taken to a room nearby where a security person was waiting. Then I was stripped naked and searched, and then my beatings began the whole night. Today, I want to give just a shortened 

version of the nature of the suffering that I underwent because if 

I explain in detail, it will take a long time. 

I was then taken to a place called Kachu (Chinese: Lingxia) in 

that same region. There I was kept for 1 month and 22 days during 

which I continued to experience torture. 

During this period, the main tool for torture that they used was 

what is called a ‘‘tiger chair.’’ I was shackled on a chair like this: 

Both my feet and my hands were shackled. I was kept hanging on 

that chair nine times. 

They had a strong light that was shone on me. As a result of all 

of this, my sensations failed, and although I knew that I was being 

beaten on my back with different instruments, I could not feel, except I could see the blood coming out of my body. 

9 

During that period—in terms of food—if you got one small roll 

of bread a week, that was very good. In one week, if you got a little 

bit of water, that was also good. So if you think in terms of that, 

rather than feeling hungry, the feeling of thirst was worse for me. 

Among the many reasons why they tortured me was—first, that 

they wanted to know who the people that we interviewed were— 

for the film that we made. They wanted us to reveal their names. 

Second, they wanted me to reveal the names of those who participated in the demonstrations that I participated in on March 14 

and 15, 2008, in Labrang Monastery. 

Today as I have this opportunity to address you here in the 

United States and as I have had the opportunity to address people 

in Europe, one thing that I am proud of is that despite all the torture that the Chinese inflicted upon me, I have not given up one 

name to them, whether it is those people involved with the film or 

with the demonstrations. So I can hold onto that as my principled 

stance even until my death. 

When I did not reveal any names to the authorities, they said, 

‘‘You do not seem to be giving us anything at all, so your mouth 

is useless. Therefore, we need to do something about your mouth.’’ 

So they burned my mouth twice. That was very painful. 

In addition to the physical torture that I briefly described, they 

also inflicted mental torture on me. That included asking me to 

speak ill of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, asking me to criticize the 

Central Tibetan Administration, asking me to say that I am a 

member of the Tibetan Youth Congress, and asking me to reveal 

the names of the members of the Tibetan Youth Congress. 

Then they taunted me further, saying, ‘‘There is no one who will 

save you. The United States will not save you.’’ At that time, President Bush was the President of the United States. They taunted 

me by showing me a phone, and saying, ‘‘Just call President Bush 

and see if he saves you. Just try calling the Dalai Lama to see if 

he saves you.’’ 

So it was like that. They said, ‘‘You will die like a dog and nobody will care about you.’’ 

Physical torture, although it was bad, was something that I could 

endure. But the mental torture that was inflicted upon me was 

something that I could not endure. I was physically tortured during 

my first two detentions in 2008 and 2009. At one time, during my 

third detention in 2012, they even wanted to kill me. Upon learning that, I had to escape. 

So on September 30, 2012, I escaped, and for a year and several 

months I hid. Eventually, I was able to escape to India. In January 

2015, I arrived in Switzerland, where I was given asylum. I want 

to end by saying that in 2007, on October 17, when the U.S. Congress decided to bestow the Congressional Gold Medal on His Holiness the Dalai Lama, we the people in Tibet felt it. I was in Tibet 

then. We saw it. So it was very gratifying. 

Therefore, as I sit here today to talk to you about it, I also note 

that the United States cares about access to Tibet for people within 

Tibet, domestically, as well as for foreigners wanting to visit Tibet. 

Therefore in your 2015 Annual Report, you mentioned the issue 

about domestic travel for Tibetans as well as access for journalists, 

diplomats, and others. I wholeheartedly support that. 

10 

There are other recommendations that I have made that are in 

the written statement, so I will not talk about them now. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Jigme, thank you very much for your testimony and for such difficult insights as to what you have suffered. 

I deeply appreciate—the Commission does—your testifying today. 

Yin Liping, you are recognized for such time as you may consume. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jigme appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF YIN LIPING, FALUN GONG PRACTITIONER 

Ms. YIN. I really appreciate the CECC Chairman, Mr. Smith, inviting me here. My name is Yin Liping, Falun Gong Practitioner 

from Liaoning province, China. 

I would also like to thank the Members of the U.S. Congress and 

the Members of the European Parliament for rescuing me and admitting me into the United States. I arrived in this free land on 

December 10, 2015. 

I was arrested seven times in China, tortured to the verge of 

death six times, and detained in labor camps three times, where 

I was made to do slave labor for nine months. I was sexually attacked and humiliated, and videotaped by a group of male prisoners while in police custody, all because I refused to give up my 

faith in Falun Gong. [Photo Display.] 

This is Masanjia Forced Labor Camp, notorious for persecuting 

Falun Gong practitioners. 

I was kept in Masanjia three times. In Mid-September 2000, 

Masanjia Director Su Jing addressed an assembly of hundreds of 

jailed Falun Gong practitioners: ‘‘This is a war without guns. Our 

government has spent more money persecuting Falun Gong than 

fighting an international war.’’ 

They also mentioned that the ‘‘transformation’’ rate must be 100 

percent. ‘‘Transformation’’ is a word they use for forcing Falun 

Gong practitioners to give up their belief. When I heard this word, 

I was so scared. 

On the fourth floor of that Masanjia building is a solitary confinement, a small area. I was jailed there. They kept broadcasting 

loud voices for so long that even now when I turn on a TV set, I 

am scared to turn it on. 

Also on the first floor of another building in Masanjia, in 2004, 

I was kept in one of the rooms and I met an old lady, Ms. Qing 

from Fushun city. We talked to each other and promised each one 

that whoever survived this torture would come out and tell the 

world what we suffered. Unfortunately, I heard that the old lady, 

Ms. Qing, was already persecuted to death. 

I was sent to the clinic of Masanjia due to my hunger strike. I 

was cuffed to a bed and injected with unknown drugs for over two 

months. This caused me to temporarily lose my vision. I was also 

put through involuntary ultrasound, electrocardiogram, and blood 

tests at a nearby hospital. 

As a result, I developed endocrine disorders, incontinence, and 

had blood in my urine. In addition, their frequent violent forcefeeding almost suffocated me. 

11 

Since I had never been ‘‘transformed’’ by them, one day I was 

transported to a very special location—I did not know at the time 

what that place was. 

I will never forget the date, April 19, 2001. That morning, eight 

other female Falun Gong practitioners and I were handcuffed by 

male guards and taken to a police van. The van stopped at a men’s 

labor camp. Later we learned it was Zhangshi Male Forced Labor 

Camp. 

Then we were lined up in the courtyard. A policeman read an official announcement to us: ‘‘If a Falun Gong practitioner is beaten 

to death, the death will be counted as a suicide.’’ We were told 

many times by policeman that this was a direct order from Jiang 

Zemin, then head of the Chinese Communist Party. 

We were taken to nine different rooms—because there were nine 

of us. I was sent to the first room. There was a large double bed 

and a floor hanger in the room. Four men were already in the room 

waiting. When I went to the public restroom, I saw there was a big 

room with more than 30 men sleeping there. 

I was so frightened and wondered what kind of place this was. 

Who were those men? Why were there so many men sleeping 

there? 

And then I got the answer that evening. Those men all got up, 

made a lot of noises, banged on doors, and kept on shouting dirty 

words. They kicked open my room door and held a camcorder, 

videotaping me. 

Then I heard my best friend, Ms. Zou Guirong’s voice from the 

hallway shouting around 10 p.m. She kept calling my name, 

‘‘Liping! Liping! We were sent from a wolf’s den to a tiger’s den. 

This government is a bunch of gangsters.’’ 

Hearing her miserable cries, I rushed into the hallway and met 

Ms. Zou there. We held each other tightly no matter how much the 

men beat us. One man used the wooden floor hanger in the room 

and hit my head. However, I desperately still wanted to protect her 

since she was shorter and thinner than me. The corner of my right 

eye was swollen from the beating. 

Then my clothes, at the time, were torn off. I was almost naked. 

Ms. Zou and I were dragged back to our individual rooms. 

Four or five male inmates threw me onto the bed. Some held my 

arms, some held my legs. One young man, around 30 years old, sat 

on me and beat me. I became dizzy and passed out. My memory 

stops there. 

When I became conscious, three men were lying beside me; one 

on my left, two on my right. There was one sitting on the floor 

above my head. There were two others standing between my legs; 

one videotaping, one was watching. There were a few others standing below me. 

I realized that I had been videotaped when I was sexually attacked and humiliated by gangs of inmates. I swore to myself, ‘‘If 

I ever get out of here alive, I will disclose their crimes and bring 

them to justice. If I die, my soul will never let them off the hook.’’ 

Chairman SMITH. Ms. Yin, if we could just take one brief moment. There is a—it will give you time to collect yourself as well. 

I thank you for your willingness to tell us, the Commission, and by 

extension other Members of Congress what you have been through. 

12 

We do have five votes on the floor. We are almost out of time on 

the first. We will take a short recess. Other Members, I know, will 

be coming back. Again, I thank you for your courage in coming forward, but we will take a very brief recess. I thank you for your forbearance. 

[Whereupon at 3:23 p.m. the hearing was recessed.] 

AFTER RECESS [3:31 P.M.] 

Chairman SMITH. We will reconvene. We are in the middle of 

votes, but we have a short—we are joined by Commissioner Trent 

Franks who is also Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution and also Chairman of the Religious Freedom Caucus 

in the House. It is a delight and a privilege to recognize my good 

friend and colleague, Commissioner Trent Franks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT FRANKS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA 

Representative FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think 

probably most people in this room know that Chairman Smith is 

one of the great human rights advocates in the Unites States Congress for the past 30 years. He has the deepest respect on my part 

and I know many of yours. 

I guess the primary thing that I would say to all of you is that 

your efforts are not wasted here. Only God knows what fruits will 

come from your talk here, but you are being responsible and you 

are letting your compassion, your commitment to humanity prevails here in this forum. 

Torture is something that those who are perpetrators and those 

who are observers are completely shamed by it and the more that 

you are able to express it in open terms, the more that there are 

people out there that you will never see that will be spared that 

tragedy. 

I just want to express the deepest gratitude on my part to all of 

you and just the honor that I afford to all of you because of your 

commitment. I am convinced that one day if time turns every star 

in heaven to ashes, that the eternal moment of deliverance will 

come to every last one of God’s little children. Until then, he has 

given us the responsibility to do the best we can to prevent hurt 

and tragedy in their lives, and I thank you for exhibiting that commitment today. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you very much, Commissioner Franks. 

I would like to now recognize Ms. Yin to continue your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF YIN LIPING, FALUN GONG PRACTITIONER 

(Continued) 

Ms. YIN. The following paragraphs are related to how I was force 

labored. 

In 2000, January through September, I was transferred to 

Liaoyang Forced Labor Camp for nine months. For those nine 

months, I had so much forced labor. 

In the daytime I had to load eight tons of steel bars onto trucks 

in a team of only four people. On those iron steel bars, there are 

a lot of thorns, sharp edges. I have always been cut on both of my 

13 

arms, bloody and cannot recover—even though the old one has not 

recovered, the new cuts are coming up. 

Also, we need to bind flowers in the evenings until 2 a.m. Those 

flowers are used for exports. My hands were so badly injured because of what they needed to finish the quota—the flowers also are 

so very thorny, that my fingerprints disappeared and are also 

bloody. 

Because I still do not want to be ‘‘transformed’’, they don’t allow 

me to sleep. My menstrual period stopped within three months 

over there. I also threw up blood. My hair turned gray. They do not 

allow us to meet our family members. Almost all of the products 

we made were exported to overseas. 

I have been suffering so much persecution, and I have written 

that down online. However, I want to spend a bit more time about 

this book. [Photo Display.] 

This book was authored by Mr. Du Bin. He was a former New 

York Times reporter. There is a sentence from him I just want to 

recite. ‘‘To all of those who have suffered in China, the forced labor 

system, those who have been persecuted, punished, humiliated 

women—Chinese men like me, the only thing I can do is to send 

my very minor respect and sorrow.’’ 

Mr. Du Bin collected those survivors’ testimonies of Masanjia 

Forced Labor Camp, all of their tortures, what they suffered from, 

those different torture methods, and particularly sexual abuses and 

crimes. Also, most of those are Falun Gong practitioners and other 

prisoners of conscience. [Photo Display.] 

This is my hometown’s Falun Gong practitioner. Her name is 

Wang Ling. You may see she has no teeth in her mouth. Before I 

escaped from China, I met her. I asked her what happened to your 

teeth? She said while she was in Masanjia Labor Camp, the policeman put an inspection device for female parts into her mouth and 

expanded it to the extreme. While doing that, they pulled her teeth 

out one by one. 

In the meantime, the police put female sanitary napkins, dirty 

clothes, and even spit in her mouth. She also said, she was put into 

a place where she was stretched to the extreme and put into a 

cage. Then the policeman used three toothbrushes tied together 

and inserted into and stirred up her private part. That is what she 

told me. 

There are so many other torture methods that have not been exposed. The persecution is still going on, even while we are speaking 

now. 

Because of the time limit, I would like to talk a little bit about 

those lawyers who help Falun Gong practitioners in China. 

We all talk about Mr. Gao Zhisheng, lawyer, and he helped a lot 

of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Because Mr. Gao’s story has 

been exposed to the world, and other lawyers in China have 

learned from Gao Zhisheng’s stories, they want to come out to help 

more Falun Gong prisoners such as those who I just talked about: 

lawyer Wang Yu, lawyer Wang Quanzhang, lawyer Tang Jitian, 

and many other lawyers in China. 

Because of those lawyers, other human rights lawyers are willing 

to come out and help Falun Gong practitioners in China. Now a lot 

14 

of Falun Gong practitioners need their help and they formed like 

a news information group. They communicate with each other. 

Because of those lawyers’ help, the pressure from the Chinese 

Government on the Falun Gong practitioners is a little bit not so 

much. It’s been helpful. 

Unfortunately, on July 9, 2015—I will never forget about this 

day—I learned that lawyer Wang Yu was arrested that morning. 

Then we quickly had this internet group set up to rescue him. 

Luckily, I was in that group. 

So a lot of other lawyers are trying to think about how to rescue 

lawyer Wang Yu. Unfortunately, in the evening, news from around 

all of China, in each city, large-scale arrests of lawyers happened. 

That evening I could not sleep. I was paying very close attention 

to what was going on. Actually on July 6, I already submitted my 

suing paper, document, to the legal system in China to sue Jiang 

Zemin. 

I thought because during that period a lot of Falun Gong practitioners are suing Jiang Zemin legally in China—then within a couple of days they have a large-scale arrests of those lawyers. So I 

didn’t sleep for two nights. I really worry about Falun Gong practitioners, but not only Falun Gong practitioners, but also other persecuted groups in China. 

Chairman SMITH. Ms. Yin, I have got two minutes to get to the 

floor for a recorded vote. It is an important vote. I will be back 

right after that, but Senator Cotton and some other Senators, we 

believe, are on their way as well. So please hold that thought. 

We stand in brief recess. 

[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the Commission was recessed.] 

AFTER RECESS [4:15 P.M.] 

Chairman SMITH. We will reconvene. There are no further votes 

on the House side, so there will be no interruptions. 

We are joined by Randy Hultgren, Commissioner. Also you probably have seen him presiding as Chair before 10 o’clock. He will do 

it again tomorrow. He did an excellent job of managing the House. 

I would like to, again, go to Ms. Yin to conclude. 

Ms. YIN. Because of the time limit, I will go back and focus more 

on myself a little. [Photo Display.] 

This is a photo of Wang Jie, also a Falun Gong practitioner. She 

was arrested on October 8, 2002. The reason she was arrested is 

because she was at the time collecting evidence of the persecution 

of Falun Gong, and she was sentenced to seven years in jail. 

After seven years and just when she was released, she was arrested again in September 2010. When she was released this time, 

within a year she passed away because of her bladder cancer due 

to the torture she suffered. I was just sitting next to her bed the 

last 10 days while she was in the hospital. 

On April 21, 2012, the day of her daughter’s birthday, she was 

actually dying. Her sister kept calling her and saying, ‘‘Wang Jie! 

Wang Jie! Please don’t die. Please don’t die this day, it is your 

daughter’s birthday. How can she live on if you die now? ’’ I do not 

know if it was Heaven’s will or her will—she died around 9 a.m. 

the next morning in my arms. The other lady, Ms. Zou Guirong, 

the three of us went through all those persecutions. We promised 

15 

each other if any one of us can survive this persecution, we have 

to come out and tell the whole world our stories, expose those persecutions. Today, I bring both of them with me here to tell the people about what happened. [Photo Display.] 

This is another practitioner from Shenyang city [sobbing]. Her 

name is Gao Rongrong [sobbing]. She was killed because she was 

also a Falun Gong practitioner. She cannot tell her story anymore. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to be here to tell these stories. 

I took them all with me today. 

Chairman SMITH. Ms. Yin, thank you very much again for sharing this with the Commission. 

We are joined by Tim Walz. Thank you, Tim, for being here. 

We will go to Dr. Richardson for as much time as you would like 

to use. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yin appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF SOPHIE RICHARDSON, CHINA DIRECTOR, 

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thanks. I think in the interest of welcoming 

your questions which I think everybody would like to answer, I am 

going to give you the Readers Digest condensed version. 

I do want to say, Chairman Smith, Members of the Commission, 

thank you so much for your devoted leadership on these issues over 

the years. We are also extremely grateful for your world-class staff 

who are excellent colleagues. 

I would like very much to associate HRW with Professor Lewis’ 

remarks and to thank Golog Jigme and Yin Liping for their courage and for sharing their stories. I think the facts of the matter are 

established. 

There is only one aspect of this issue, of the issue of torture that 

we covered in our May 2015 report that we have not talked about 

this afternoon. I want to take a moment to underscore that to give 

you a little bit of math or metrics. 

In researching this report, we looked at a four-month slice of 

cases that were available through the Supreme People’s Courts’ 

database. We looked at 158,000 court verdicts looking for indications that suspects in criminal detention had alleged torture or illtreatment in detention. 

We found from that universe only about 432 cases which we 

think is very much a function of the difficulty the criminal suspect 

face in detention centers, getting claims of ill-treatment lodged 

with the authorities. Of those 432 cases, only 23 resulted in the 

court throwing out evidence, but not a single one resulted in an acquittal. 

And we only found one prosecution involving three police officers 

responsible for torture. None of them served jail time, not a one. 

Quite simply, police torture and ill-treatment of suspects in pretrial detention remains a serious problem, largely because the 

measure is taken that were described by Professor Lewis are ignored in practice. They are great on paper. They are not serving 

suspects in reality. 

We had hoped in doing this research that many of the recommendations that we had made could be seized upon by the Chinese Government in advance of its November 2015 review under 

16 

the Convention Against Torture, which is taking place about six 

months after this report came out. 

They could have worked to hold police accountable. They could 

have significantly reduced the amount of time a suspect can be 

held in police custody before seeing a judge. They could have moved 

to see that lawyers are present during police interrogations. They 

could have adopted legislation guaranteeing suspects rights to remain silent. They did none of those things. 

In our view, the United Nations Convention Against Torture Review of China was critically important, especially at a time when 

torture survivors, lawyers, and other activists took so much difficulty accessing any forms of redress inside the country. 

The list of issues which sketched out the Committee’s concerns 

was unbelievably detailed and diverse. The actual interactive dialogue was quite extraordinary in that the Members of the Committee did not shy away from asking any of the difficult questions, 

not a one. 

Unfortunately, they were not given the benefit of proper replies. 

Requests for data went unanswered. Direct questions were responded to with misleading or patently untrue replies. Arguably, 

the rock bottom moment was when the Chinese delegation leader 

suggested that tiger chairs, which people have spoken about and is 

depicted in the photograph on the cover of this report, were in fact 

used for suspects’ ‘‘comfort’’ and ‘‘safety’’. We find that a little bit 

hard to believe. 

You could not ask for a better roadmap to mitigating or hopefully 

irradiating torture in China, than this document. The Committee 

is concluding observations. 

This is what China needs to do to fix the problem, whether you 

are talking about Tiananmen survivors or their family members, 

whether you are talking about North Koreans, Falun Gong practitioners, whether you are talking about criminal procedure reform, 

it is all there. It raises issues that are foundational. 

The very definition of torture—China signed onto this in 1988. 

Its legal definition of torture still does not match what the Convention requires. It challenges procedural issues that they still have 

not replied to queries from their last review in 2008. 

It addressed a number of the very significant needs for reforms 

in areas that we have talked about this afternoon. Whether China 

takes those, of course, remains to be seen. 

Most of our recommendations were, of course, geared toward the 

Chinese Government because we always think that there are steps 

that the U.S. Government and Congress can take. 

I think the first area of focus ought to be whether the United 

States is using all, and I mean all interactions to press Chinese 

counterparts on mitigation of torture. By that I mean everything 

from the Minister of Public Security, Guo Shengkun’s, meetings 

with National Security Advisor, Susan Rice. I mean working level 

interactions about China’s hunt for fugitives or securing nuclear 

materials. I mean in training programs for Chinese police here in 

the United States, in the sensitive issue session of the—or in the 

run-up to the G–20 in Hangzhou in September. 

I think U.S. officials have to make clear and set benchmarks that 

significant progress towards mitigating torture is an essential preVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:06 Jul 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99773.TXT DEIDRE
17 

cursor to more substantial bilateral law enforcement and other 

kinds of cooperation. 

Chairman SMITH. Would you yield on that? When you talk about 

law, has the President, has Susan Rice, and has the Secret Service, 

for example, leading up to the G–20 done that? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Fine question. 

Chairman SMITH. Oh, okay. We do not know. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. It is a fine question. That and several other aspects of this debate are unclear to me. One of the recommendations 

I want to make is that it is harder, I think, than it ought to be 

to get clarity about the precise nature, particularly of law enforcement and any other kind of security force cooperation between the 

two. 

It is amazing how infrequently you hear the term, ‘‘Leahy Vetting Invoked with China.’’ I think there should be a review of what 

exactly this cooperation entails and what opportunities might be 

missed. So that is one area I think is important to look at. 

The other is really in supporting UN mechanisms. And again, I 

want to stress—we have talked a little bit about the ways in which 

Chinese activists or activists from the mainland have been restricted in accessing these kinds of reviews in Geneva. They have 

been harassed. They have been prevented from traveling. 

We all know the case of Cao Shunli who died for efforts trying 

to participate in the UPR. These mechanisms matter enormously 

for China. It is all people have these days. Obviously they cannot 

take their cases to court. 

So in this sense what I would like to ask you to do is to push 

China to issue invitations to the Special Rapporteurs on all of these 

issues: torture, lawyers, and forced disappearances. 

Speaking out as you have and we know you will continue to do, 

when accessed to mechanisms for independent activists the mainland has denied or restricted, we would ask that whenever you are 

speaking with the Chinese Ambassador to the United States or 

other officials, you ask why their government is unwilling to provide credible answers in these review processes. The more you reiterate those questions, the harder it is for them to avoid them. 

The third area there is a lot of room, I think, for improvement 

in is in providing support to survivors of torture in the mainland. 

One aspect we had not been aware of was just how few services 

there are available to people, whether it is physical rehabilitation 

or psychological counseling. 

The ironies of one of the best known cases, somebody who has 

been repeatedly tortured and essentially prosecuted for trying to 

get some redress for having been tortured was stopped on his way 

to Hong Kong which was the only place in the region where he 

could find a counselor who could work with him on PTSD. There 

are almost no services available to people. 

I think this ranges from adding the names of torture survivors 

like people who share their stories with us today, or people like 

Nian Bin whose case we have written about to your list of cases 

of concern. You can engage groups like the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association or any USG-funded 

medical or psychiatric exchanges to see if there is room in their 

work to actually provide support to survivors. 

18 

I am glad Mr. Walz is here because some of the U.S.’s best experts in this realm on assistance to torture survivors are in Minneapolis. They are in L.A. They are in New York. I think those are 

resources that we should tap. The United States could underwrite 

training specifically for people to provide these services. 

Then last, but not least, I think there is merit in easing the way 

to the United States or other countries for torture survivors so that 

they can at least get out and have their stories heard. 

I will just close by noting that I swapped emails last night with 

someone in the mainland who helped us with our research. She 

closed her message with the hope that someday such discussions 

would not only take place in Washington and Geneva, but also in 

Beijing. 

In the meantime, she, we, and I am sure many others thank you 

for having this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson appears in the appendix.] 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Richardson, thank you so very much. 

On the torture victims, I actually authored the Torture Victims 

Relief Act four times. Then we have a pending bill that would reauthorize it. 

We need to ensure that people, the walking wounded if you 

will—one estimate puts it at a half a million people who are in 

America, usually people have been granted asylum—carry PTSD or 

some form of it. I would like to coordinate with you to see how we 

could further ensure that the suffering Chinese diaspora avail 

themselves of those services because again, a good psychiatrist, 

psychologist, a good program may not eliminate the nightmares 

and the pain, but it could mitigate it. That has been the story of 

the Torture Victims Center. So I thank you for brining that up. 

Let me ask—I will only ask one question then yield to my colleagues. Then I will have a few if time does permit. 

The first would be on the—maybe Professor you might want to 

take this or others. The whole idea of providing video and audio recording of interrogations and ‘‘interviews’’ is often gamed, is often 

a fraud as it unfolds. 

I will never forget—I have been in camps, prison camps in Russia, Indonesia, China, Northern Ireland and many other places. I 

will never forget being in Long Kesh in Northern Ireland when the 

British were showing me how—Long Kesh had a terrible reputation for beating people and coercing the coughing up of names and 

information and confessions. 

So they put in these cameras. While I was there on the Potemkin 

Village tour, talking to the police at the time, they said oh, here 

in the next room is the monitor and it is all being surveilled and 

watched. 

I said what is this button here? Oh, that’s the off button. I said, 

well what happens in terms of the video if that is hit while someone is being beaten? Nothing. 

The person who actually does the auditing is his fellow officer. 

So there is no kind of—there is a potential conflict of interest that 

is huge. I am wondering in China where they get kudos in the 

international community for at least stalling some of this, when it 

19 

comes to actual application, it seems to me it just invites fraud. I 

saw it myself at a Northern Ireland prison. 

Ms. LEWIS. So at least some of the video recording equipment is 

the kind now where if someone enters the room, it turns on. That 

is what was emphasized to me by legal experts. 

Of course, there is the problem of who is auditing the process. 

You can say the machinery is such that you enter the room, it 

turns on, but if the whole process is in the hands of the 

Procuratorate—the prosecutors—and the police, then how do we 

know that? This was raised in the report by the Committee Against 

Torture. 

Of course, too, it only works if you are in a location where the 

videotape is recording. So if you are at one of these residential surveillance at a designated place, not necessarily the person’s home, 

if you are at a black jail, if you are at an extrajudicial site, wherever that might be, you are just not going to have any recording. 

So it is only as good as feeling confident that this is a true recording. Beyond that, if you do get a recording, you need to have 

a defense lawyer who could use this in court. 

Then the final link that is lacking is a judge who is willing to 

stand up to the prosecutor and the police and say, did you actually 

do this—what happened in this room? You do not see judges in a 

position right now that they will question the police. 

Police do not show up as witnesses. So that crucial final link to 

actually implement an exclusionary rule is lacking. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. If I could just add one quick point to that—in 

a way, it is actually worst. We had interviewees tell us that they 

were being held in formal detention centers with all of the proper 

proceedings and they were simply taken out of the detention centers and beaten up, and then brought back. 

You can equip the facilities until the cows come home, but if 

there is no accountability for the police for behaving that way, it 

is not going to matter much. 

Representative WALZ. Thank you, Chairman Smith. First of all, 

thank you all for being here and sharing painful stories. 

It is important. The one thing we always ask—and I returned in 

November from Tibet—is to ask people as they courageously approached us, does it hurt when we talk about these things? Does 

it hurt your cause? Does it make it worse? And they universally 

say no, continue to bring it to light. So I appreciate that. 

Dr. Richardson, I appreciate you pointing out the Center for Victims of Torture and their rehabilitation programs. 

I would just say—and it seems absurd to me that we would have 

to state this, but in today’s world, we may. This nation rejects torture in all forms, no matter what any private individual may express. We have got to stand as strong as we ever have because listening to the stories here and this Commission and those Commissioners that sat on it I know share that, and make that case as 

strongly as we can because the moral authority we hold matters. 

The actions we take matters. 

I say that because I think it is important for people to know and 

probably more so for me to say that because I never would have 

imagined in my life I as a United States Congressman would be deVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:06 Jul 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99773.TXT DEIDRE
20 

fending the United States’ position that torture is unacceptable in 

all forms in any situation. So to clear that out. 

Maybe, Dr. Richardson or Professor Lewis, you could help me 

with this. I had an opportunity to have supper with the Chinese 

Ambassador here. What was interesting to me is it was the first 

time I ever witnessed this. 

We had a frank and candid conversation about Tibet in a way 

that was very ‘‘un-Chinese’’ if you will, not evasive, not let us 

change the subject, let us have that conversation. Is that misplaced 

optimism on my part to think that perhaps this conversation at 

higher levels is actually being taken seriously to understand that 

long-term rule of law is going to be dependent on getting this right? 

I know it is a subjective question, but your expertise would be appreciated. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Maybe I can take a stab at that and then there 

are plenty of other people on the panel who are qualified. 

I will get optimistic when we see that there are no more political 

prisoners in Tibet. I will be optimistic when people have the freedom of movement. I will be optimistic when people can challenge 

in court the way they have had their religious practices restricted. 

I am sure Ambassador Cui is plenty good at saying the right 

thing in the right moment. 

Representative WALZ. Which you believe he knows? How much 

do you believe he knows of what is happening? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I think he probably knows a fair amount. 

I think he is equally knowledgeable. 

Representative WALZ. So the old fallback that it is a few bad apples—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. What to say in the right moment. 

Representative WALZ. Right. That does not work. You do not buy 

that at all. It is a few bad officials at lower levels, and that happens everywhere type of attitude? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I think it logically follows that if you think you 

have got bad apples, you fire them, or you prosecute them, or you 

hold them accountable. You do not then turn—— 

Representative WALZ. And there is no mechanism that really 

works to do that? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I am waiting to see it. 

Representative WALZ. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And look, the mechanisms exist; right? I mean 

China has a legal system. It is just not used. 

Representative WALZ. Because candidly to you nearly 30 years of 

visiting and certainly subjective from my position, it felt worse to 

me than it ever has. It felt worse to me in the oppression both from 

Christians in Hong Kong to Uyghurs to Tibet. So that troubles me 

that it is heading in the wrong direction. 

Ms. LEWIS. It is a really tough time. I am an optimist, but a longterm optimist. I think that under the current leadership we are 

going to see very little good news when it comes to human rights. 

That is really unfortunate. 

But, I do not want that to be a reason for disengagement. As you 

said, it matters that our voice is out there. I really sincerely believe 

there are wonderful people inside the government whose heart is 

in the right place and outside the government, too. 

21 

When I go over—not the official dialogues, but during the tea 

breaks, or over lunch—I see that they are concerned too about the 

future of their country and they believe in the rule of law. Right 

now they are concerned not just about themselves, but their families. 

This is not just about if I stick my neck out, I might lose my job, 

I might end up in prison. I have kids and I need to make sure that 

they are going to be okay. 

I understand why people are hesitant to speak out sometimes, 

but we need to cultivate those relationships and hope that not tomorrow, but longer-term, this will turn in the right direction. 

Representative WALZ. You know something that was interesting 

in this dialogue with high-level officials of the Premier Li was 

when I would speak about this a little bit on this trip with them 

in Beijing in November, they would always mention, they would 

say, oh, Congressman, I see you used to live on Pine Ridge. How 

did that work for you? 

I thought it was so interesting they were trying to make it, you 

have done it too. You have no moral authority. 

That is why I brought this up earlier and I think we have to 

guard against that because it was an argument I had never seen 

them make before, that you have done it and we are on the equal 

status, and yes, we have, too. 

Ms. LEWIS. I just want to add that when I go to China and they 

say, what about Guantanamo, or what about other transgressions? 

Then I point out that at Seton Hall we have a center at the law 

school that published the Guantanamo reports, a highly critical report of the U.S. Government using the Freedom of Information Act 

to get information. 

Everyone who worked on that report went home to their families. 

No one lost a job. No one went to prison, in fact, they were celebrated as bringing to light problems that our government needed 

to face. That is the fundamental difference between our two governments. 

Representative WALZ. Yes, absolutely. That is when we are our 

best. Anyone else on just general feelings of direction? 

Ms. YIN. I would like to add something. Through the interpreter, 

I heard something that reminded me. 

From my point of view, those who claim this is a war without 

guns, against Falun Gong in China. I believe those who made me 

suffer so much pain should be punished. 

At the time, I asked those policemen who persecuted me, ‘‘Why 

are you doing this to me so cruelly? ’’ Some policemen said, ‘‘I do 

not even want to do this, but this is from the very top of the CCP, 

Jiang Zemin, his order that—he wants to defame all of you and 

make all of your property disappear and also kill you—treat you as 

if you committed suicide, even though you were beaten to death.’’ 

Jiang Zemin was the top one in CCP who initiated this persecution. So there are so many people like myself, lost my home and 

happy family. A lot of students are expelled from schools, many arbitrarily detained and disappeared, and many, many other bad 

things happened. 

22 

So I really wish that those who are responsible for this war without guns be punished. They have to take the responsibility of their 

wrongdoings and its outcome. 

Now I am holding a brief report listing the 42 perpetrators 

against me, which I want to submit to the CECC and Congress. I 

can still remember those who persecuted me, including Jiang 

Zemin, Bo Xilai, and Wang Lijun. Bo Xilai and Wang Lijun at the 

time were CCP leaders in Liaoning province in charge of the persecution. 

Another major perpetrator is Wen Shizheng [No. 2 perpetrator in 

the report submitted]. He, at the time, was the Liaoning Provincial 

Communist Party Secretary. One time he assembled all the Falun 

Gong practitioners out in the field. A ‘‘transformed’’ person said 

there was no ‘‘torture’’ at all in Masanjia. Ms. Zou Guirong immediately stood out of line and said that was a lie. Then right away 

several police ran over and started beating Zou Guirong. Wen 

Shizheng saw it right over there. 

Then on the same day, he changed the title of Masanjia Labor 

Camp to the Masanjia Mind Reeducation center. That label, that 

plaque at the gate has his own calligraphic signature. Those who 

persecuted us at the time in Masanjia are still working in Masanjia 

doing the same bad thing, persecuting Falun Gong practitioners 

now and all other people. 

Also in my testimony I talked about Ms. Su Jin [No. 29 perpetrator in the report submitted]. She said in front of us that ‘‘This 

war is a war without guns; the money spent on this persecution of 

Falun Gong is like an international war.’’ 

I would like to officially submit this listing report of 42 perpetrators against me to the U.S. Congress. Hopefully, the U.S. Congress 

can help disclose and punish those people who are responsible for 

this persecution. 

Chairman SMITH. I thank you. 

Commissioner Hultgren? 

Representative HULTGREN. Thank you so much for being here. 

Thank you for telling your story. It is so important and I appreciate your courage and coming before us so that we can find ways 

that we can help. We are just very grateful for you doing it. 

I do have a couple of questions if I could. Ms. Yin, if I could address a question to you. We have heard stories and claims that 

China has abolished the reeducation through the RTL system back 

in 2014. 

I wonder, to your knowledge, is the facility at Masanjia still in 

operation today? Is it still used to detain Falun Gong practitioners 

and do you know if Falun Gong practitioners currently detained 

there suffer the same kind of torture and abuse that you did? 

Ms. YIN. Yes, my husband’s sister, or my sister-in-law—on April 

10, 2014, she was sentenced to three years to Masanjia. About 15 

days ago, March 28, 2016, Mr. Li—also a Falun Gong practitioner—at the time he was, as I mentioned earlier, also suing Jiang 

Zemin in China. Then he was arrested and sentenced to seven 

years in prison. 

Yes, as a matter of fact, I know many other practitioners are still 

being persecuted in mainland China. For their safety, I should not 

disclose their names. 

23 

Representative HULTGREN. Dr. Richardson, if I could ask you a 

couple of questions. 

The UN panel of experts, noted in their concluding observations, 

that there were seven human rights defenders who were prevented 

from participating in the Convention Against Torture Review. I 

wonder if you would be able to provide an update on the status of 

those seven individuals and are they still unable to leave the country? Have they faced any further consequences of the CAT review? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. That is a little bit of a difficult question to answer because not all of those people chose to identify themselves 

publically. I think it is a reasonable assumption that they have not 

been allowed to leave the country, especially if you sort of look at 

the general trends Ms. Lewis was alluding to earlier. 

This has been a terrible period for civil society and we have seen 

either people prevented from leaving or grabbed back from other 

places. We know that the two who did publically identify themselves have been harassed, partly in response to their interest in 

participating in the review. The other five, I think we can only 

make reasonable assumptions about for now. 

Representative HULTGREN. Dr. Richardson, also, the concluding 

observation noted that China told the Committee, ‘‘Government 

acts of intimidation and reprisals against citizens do not exist in 

China.’’ Of course from your work at Human Rights Watch and just 

from our involvement, reading the paper, and other things, we just 

know that is absolutely false. 

Statements like this from the Chinese Government suggest that 

they are not participating in international human rights mechanisms in good faith. Would you agree with this, first of all? If so, 

why is China participating in this review process at all? What can 

be done—I think you talked about some of this, but just to reiterate, what can we do either the United States unilaterally or 

through our involvement in international institutions to make 

these mechanisms more meaningful and productive and hold their 

feet to the fire? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. It is a huge question. I will try to answer it in 

60 seconds or less. 

I mean, look, that statement on the delegation’s part was just ludicrous. It did not pass the laugh test, not even close. We can document lots of cases to show that. 

Why do they participate at all? Because they can participate in 

bad faith and there are no really lousy consequences. 

This is the nature of the way the covenants are written and implemented. It is not that the UN is failing. I do not have enough 

positive things to say about how the Committee itself approached 

and carried out the review. It was exemplary. It is that there are 

not consequences for participating badly which is where other governments that care about human rights issues in China come in. 

It is to say to the Minister of Public Security, I am sorry, but we 

are not going to be able to host you for X and such meeting unless 

you have answered some of these key questions, or release some of 

these people from prison. There has to be a consequence attached 

to it. 

Representative HULTGREN. Has that happened at all, or no? 

24 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I think there is a tiny little bit of it. I think 

to the extent it happens, it is—look, if it is hard for me to see, and 

if it is hard for you to see, it is invisible to most of the people who 

desperately need to see it and who need to be seen to be treated 

that way; right? It has to be visible that there is some negative 

consequence for standing at the top of the torture apparatus and 

failing to follow your own laws. 

That is where I think a scrub of issues like law enforcement cooperation come in to be able to more precisely identify the people 

who should be responsible without ruling out precisely the kinds of 

people Professor Lewis has spoken about who are essential longterm to solving the problem. I think people behave differently when 

they know there is a rotten consequence coming at them for not 

changing their ways. Energy has to go into creating those disincentives. 

Representative HULTGREN. We, obviously, need to do a better job 

as a government here of being strong there. What other international allies or institutions do you think would maybe join with 

us because I think there is some power in numbers and maybe different avenues of attack there? Where would you recommend that 

we would have our best chance or best groups internationally to be 

working with, governments or institutions? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I’m going to answer that in two different ways. 

First of all, the United States gets a lot of credit for spearheading 

an unprecedented joint statement at the Human Rights Council in 

March. That had not happened since 2004, during the previous convention. Eleven other governments joined on. That is a practice 

that should be continued. It matters. It really registered in Beijing. 

There were also a couple of joint letters. So it is our view that 

more of these efforts that can be done jointly with other likeminded 

governments and with some unusual suspects are effective. It really gets Beijing’s attention. 

The other way to think about it is to think about the kinds of 

engagements that Beijing cares about the most, the high profile, 

the glossy, the glitzy. Let us look at—there is supposed to be a real 

vigorous independent civil society component to the G–20. 

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that that ain’t going 

to be happening in China this summer in advance of September. 

I think what we will probably see is a very government-run, NGOdriven process to sort of check the box. But it is not going to be 

the kind of discussion that involves independent activists. 

I think there is real merit in dialing down the pomp and the 

glitz. I have to say the five hours I spent at the State dinner in 

September were trying. I have respect for people whose job it is to 

try to talk all day to Politburo members who really do not want to 

talk back, but that was an occasion that the Chinese cared enormously about. 

You know what? I do not think a whole lot of very important 

U.S.-China business necessarily got transacting that night. It could 

have been handled very differently in a way that would have hurt 

for the right reasons. 

Ms. LEWIS. I would just add that I think when we raise these 

issues with China we need to come with specifics, with the facts. 

If we just speak in terms of rule of law is important, human rights 

25 

are important, that not only is easy for China to come back with 

platitudes, but it also makes them think that we do not know what 

we are talking about. 

One point, when I was at the Legal Expert’s Dialogue in October, 

I really commend the State Department for showing up with facts. 

They said, well, what about this person and what about this instance. Then it forces the Chinese to be more specific and also to 

recognize that we are doing our homework. 

If we are going to raise these issues, we need to raise them not 

just as abstract concepts, but bringing in the specific cases and the 

specific steps that need to happen in order to show progress. 

Representative HULTGREN. That is good. That is helpful. Thank 

you all so much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Let me just conclude with a few 

final questions. 

Thank you again for your expertise and for coming forward and 

helping this Commission do a better job. 

Let me first begin with the idea of consequences. I have been a 

critic of this Administration, and I will continue to be so. I would 

love to praise it instead, but there have been numerous times 

where a strong rhetorical expression on the part of the President 

on down could have and would have made a difference. 

Certainly when Hu Jintao was here and was asked a pointed 

question about human rights in the press conference and the President defended the status quo by saying, well, they have a different 

culture and a different political system. The Washington Post very 

properly wrote a scathing editorial that said—the headline was 

President Obama Defends Hu, President Hu Jintao on Rights, because it gave him a pass. That is all they are looking for in my 

opinion. If they can get out unscathed or relatively unscathed, no 

harm done. They live to abuse and abuse another day. 

State dinners and the like ought to be predicated on real 

progress. Liu Xiaobo ought to be released immediately. It is unconscionable that a Noble Peace Prize winner remains incarcerated 

and—his wife all but incarcerated under house arrest and not 

doing very well—continues to serve out a jail sentence for asking 

for reform and doing it in a totally nonviolent way. 

Consequences—I have asked the Administration repeatedly to 

enforce the visa ban that I wrote in the year 2000 on the horrific 

forced-abortion and involuntary sterilization program that has led 

to disproportionality, males to females, the likes of which we have 

never seen. Girls targeted, the girl child, simply because she is a 

girl and is killed through sex-selected abortion has now exacerbated the trafficking issue. It is a gender crime with no parallels. 

Yet, there are no visas being denied, which is the law. Just enforce the law. I will ask again that the Administration do this. 

We had to ask Congressional Research Service to give us an accounting. You can count on two hands how many people have been 

denied visas, even though women have been so horrifically mistreated. 

On trafficking, I just chaired a hearing. I wrote the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act, so I follow that issue every single day. 

China was one among 14 countries that got a passing grade, in 

26 

other words, not Tier 3, egregious violator. It allows them to not 

be sanctioned for sex and labor trafficking which is exponentially 

increasing because of the missing girls and because of a great deal 

of buying and selling, turning women into commodities in China. 

They should have been Tier 3 and sanctioned. That would have 

sent a clear unmistakable message. 

On religious freedom, we have a tool sitting right there for all 

of these years. Frank Wolf wrote the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998. China has been a CPC country ever since. 

They torture religious believers. They torture Falun Gong practitioners. They are CPC. Where are the sanctions? 

His bill prescribed 18 specific mutually reinforcing sanctions that 

could be imposed on China. Some of them have real heavy serious 

consequences, economically as well as other ways. 

Where is the sanction regime? For half of President Obama’s 

term in office he did not even designate CPCs and had no Ambassador-at-Large. Now we have a very fine Rabi who runs it, but 

there was no enforcement of religious freedom—another big issue. 

Xi Jinping—from my trip there with these two gentlemen in 

Shanghai, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that Xi Jinping 

is on a tear to do what he calls ‘‘sinificcation’’ of the churches, the 

practitioners, and everyone else who have a faith or who have any 

kind of religious expression to further tighten the screws on the 

free exercise of anything that even comes close. 

Next week the Foreign Affairs Committee will mark up the 

Magnitsky Act, make it global. It will probably pass the House 

with flying colors, be signed into law. We will have another tool 

that I fear will go unutilized vis-a ́-vis China to hold all of these 

people, the ones that Ms. Yin just described. 

The more in the weeds that we get in terms of people who commit torture, we can deny them visas now. Now we will have even 

a more moral imperative to do so and legislative sanctioning of that 

with the Magnitsky Act which has been applied, as we all know, 

to Russia. It will apply to the world. That is coming. 

We have not had the rhetoric in my opinion. Yes, we have had 

some good State Department lawyers who know their business, 

who raise these issues with their interlocutors, but when it gets to 

the higher levels, there is a great big void. It is time. 

At the UN, we do raise these issues. Again, as you pointed out 

Dr. Richardson, there is very little by way of enforcement. 

Before yielding to—Golog Jigme, when you talked about, earlier, 

the issue of cattle prods—on April 3, 1995, I convened a hearing 

of my Human Rights Subcommittee. We had six survisors of the 

Laogai: Catherine Ho, who had been abused while she was held by 

the Chinese; but we also had Paul D’Angiotso who when he came 

he literally brought the cattle prod that was used—one that he 

bought since—to demonstrate how it is used against prisoners, in 

this case Tibetan nuns and monks. 

He held it to different parts of his body and explained what the 

pain is like when this cattle prod is being applied to the genitals, 

under the arms, and in other sensitive areas. 

When he came into the Rayburn House Office Building, our police stopped him from coming in because he was carrying someVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:06 Jul 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99773.TXT DEIDRE
27 

thing that looked very nefarious, which it is. I had to go down and 

escort him in. 

You could have heard a pin drop as he talked about the torture 

that he had experienced personally, like you. I know that you 

wanted to elaborate on a question that was raised by Mr. Walz. 

This issue of torture is so heinous. Doesn’t Xi Jinping realize the 

dishonor it brings to his government because these torturers are 

government employees and obviously owe their employment to his 

regime. It brings a loss of face and dishonor to the regime. You cannot tell me he does not know. 

Remember when that was used during the Third Reich, when 

people said, ‘‘If only the Fu ̈hrer knew.’’ Well Xi Jinping, if he does 

not know, should know now, but I do believe he knows. He should 

take corrective action as should his government against these people who commit acts of perversion, sexual abuse, and rape against 

innocent people. 

So please, if you could respond and also perhaps answer one of 

the earlier questions that I believe you wanted to answer. 

Mr. JIGME. Congressman, I agree with you that since China is 

an authoritarian state there is nothing that Xi Jinping does not 

really know, except maybe one or two things. 

In 2008, when I underwent these experiences, Hu Jintao was the 

leader and Zhou Yongkang was there among the nine members of 

the Politburo. Zhou Yongkang, who was holding the security position there, mentioned that too. All issues had to be completed in 

one month, which meant many things. Officers were given facilities 

like cars—free cars to undertake those actions. 

So at that time the official who was torturing me was a Chinese 

official named You Dengzhou. He was the head of a seven-member 

unit. He has now been promoted to being the head of a county. 

Therefore, with situations like this, there is nothing that all officials in China would not know. Therefore, it looks like people who 

commit such torture and who commit these crimes seem to get promoted from one level to another, from the prefecture level to the 

provincial, from provincial to—like this. So that indicates that officials at all levels know of these things. 

Just to give you a case in point, in 2008, among those who came 

to investigate me were some people sent directly from Beijing by 

the central government. 

Now there is discussion about whether we should trust the Chinese or have some hope in the Chinese. From what I have experienced, I do not have any basis for hope. 

For example, at the United Nations Committee against Torture 

session in November, which I attended, there was a 39-member 

delegation from China and in their talk they mentioned that the 

‘‘tiger chair’’ that Sophie mentioned earlier and I had mentioned 

earlier was not a torture instrument, but was meant for the safety 

and protection of the detainees. Protection because it will help prevent wounds on their backside. 

They also said there are no political prisoners in China. They 

said no lawyers are being detained. So all this was said in the face 

of the fact that I, who underwent torture was there; I was very 

much present in that room, and they were telling these lies. So 

that does not give me any hope. 

28 

Even in the case if you are talking about political prisoners—the 

CECC itself has a list of around 640 names of Tibetan political 

prisoners. The Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy in 

Dharamsala has more than 2,000 names. So all these names are 

of political prisoners and yet the Chinese have the audacity to say 

that there are no political prisoners. 

I am glad that Congressman Walz is here, and you mentioned 

about your trip to Tibet. In our interaction with people in Tibet, we 

knew that they knew about your trip to Tibet, and they were very 

much pleased that you were able to go with Nancy Pelosi. They 

said that if I got the opportunity, to please thank you all on their 

behalf. 

The Chinese will continue to hold onto their positions about development in Tibet and progress in Tibet, and so forth. I believe 

that it is important that we continue to engage with them and to 

try to understand the real situation in Tibet, whether it is going 

to Tibet or meeting people who will really be able to provide the 

real information about things relating to Tibet. 

I want to say this: While I was in Tibet, I was aware of this 

issue, and now that I am out, I am more aware of it. This is the 

issue about opening a U.S. Consulate in Lhasa. The Tibetan people 

have great expectation, great hope that something like this would 

happen because they know that if any country can do something 

about the Tibet issue, it’s the United States. 

These are the words that I hear from the Tibetan intellectuals. 

These are words that I hear even from Tibetan nomads who may 

not know many things, but they will know that there are some 

American leaders who care about Tibet. 

The United States is a country that bestowed the Congressional 

Gold Medal on His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Its leaders have always cared about Tibet. Although I respect President Obama as an 

individual, when he went to China for the first time in 2009, I had 

expected that he would raise certain specific issues about Tibet, 

particularly about the Tibetan prisoner—by the name of Loyak; but 

unfortunately, nothing like that happened. That is sort of a disappointment that I continue to have about the President’s trip. 

Very soon there will be a new President. I hope that whenever 

the new President goes on his or her maiden trip to China, there 

would be some benchmarks, some conditions that lead to such a 

visit. Otherwise, it might lead to disappointment for some people. 

I listened to the discussion about providing relief to survivors of 

torture. I also think that former political prisoners and current political prisoners also need such assistance. I would appreciate it if 

that could be considered, too. For example, I have a relative, 

Chokyi, who is in Tibet and who was detained on June 19. Although his physical condition is not good, he has not received any 

medical treatment in the hands of the Chinese. 

I want to reiterate one of the recommendations that is in my 

written statement. I care deeply about my colleague, Dhondup 

Wangchen; we made the film together. He is still in Tibet. His family—wife and children—are in the United States. His parents are 

in India. I would appreciate any steps that you can take to enable 

the family’s reunification. 

29 

I also want to raise the case of another Tibetan prisoner, 

Shokjang, who is a blogger and writer. He has been sentenced to 

three years, but he has denied all of the charges that authorities 

have leveled against him. He has, in fact, written a strong denial 

about all the charges. I would appreciate anything that you can do 

about his case. 

I would like to conclude by requesting Members of this Commission, as well as journalists and other independent individuals to 

consider visiting Tibet to understand the real situation of the people there. Thank you. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I am going to add a quick lever, a possible 

realm to your list. There is an organization called the Rhodium 

Group that put out a great report earlier this week about FDI [foreign direct investment] from the mainland and the United States. 

I want to be clear, investments are good, jobs are good. This is 

not an objection, but I think there are a lot of questions to be asked 

about—especially if that investment is coming from state-owned 

enterprises—who those enterprises are. If there are opportunities 

to press for improvements through those enterprises back onto the 

Chinese Government as a condition of their having access here in 

the United States. 

So I am just going to toss that out to you. 

Ms. YIN. Through this meeting, I would like to also express my 

concern about another 160 Falun Gong practitioner refugees now 

in Thailand. As far as I know, their condition in Thailand is not 

very good—actually, in a lot of danger. 

Those practitioners in Thailand have already been told by the 

people who confine them that their cases cannot be moved forward 

because of pressure from the Chinese Government. Their interviews with the United Nations for refugee status cannot go through 

directly, but has to wait for at least three years in Thailand. 

Another problem is that the Thailand Government does not allow 

them to work in Thailand. So for the three-year waiting period, 

how are they going to survive? 

And then I heard recently that there were nine people, including 

some Falun Gong practitioners that could not stay in such poor 

conditions, so they tried to escape. They found a boat. Unfortunately, the boat was wrecked, and now they all have been arrested 

by the police in Thailand. 

As a matter of fact, just yesterday I called the wife of one of the 

persons who tried to escape. She told me that her husband is already now in the custody of Thailand police, but the Chinese Government has already sent somebody to get this gentlemen’s passport. 

So during that time, the wife just sent me this statement about 

her husband’s case in Thailand. She would also like to submit it 

to the CECC for help. 

On March 16, 2001, for unknown reasons, Masanjia bought a lot 

of sports goods that were hung on the wall. The entire building was 

cleaned and sanitized. All manual work products were moved to 

the storeroom downstairs. All persecution was stopped. A little 

after 8 a.m., Zhang Xiurong, a policewoman, took out a list of 

names. Those called out were divided into groups to be transported 

to watch a movie in turns. The movie’s title was ‘‘The Choice.’’ SixVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:06 Jul 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99773.TXT DEIDRE
30 

teen of the 32 people in our room, including me, were called up and 

taken to a large bus. This action was campwide; the same took 

place in other groups. Those on the bus were Falun Gong practitioners who were not ‘‘transformed.’’ They were flanked by the 

Labor Camp personnel. There were three large buses taking these 

practitioners from Masanjia to a Youth Detention Center where we 

were herded into the canteen. It wasn’t a movie theater. We were 

brought back to Masanjia in the evening. We learned later that we 

were taken away because a delegation of foreign media reporters 

was visiting the Camp that day. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I would like to thank all of our distinguished witnesses. I would like to thank our staff: Jen Salen, 

Andy Wong, Scott Flipse, Elyse Anderson, Judy Wright, Deidre 

Jackson, and Paul Protic who is the Chief of Staff for their work, 

not just for this hearing and our series of hearings that we have 

been holding, but for the work that they do every day on this vital 

information, trying to convey both to China, to other parts of our 

government, including the Executive Branch and, of course, for 

working so diligently on the Human Rights Report, the annual report that lays bare the record, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and 

sadly so much of it has been ugly of late. I want to thank them 

for that as well. [Applause.] 

Let me also just conclude by again reminding everybody that the 

Chinese Government told the Committee, the Convention against 

Torture as Randy Hultgren said so well, ‘‘Government acts of intimidation and reprisals do not exist in China.’’ That is a big lie 

and it needs to be so denounced as that. 

Then to say, as it was pointed out in our testimony, that tiger 

chairs are utilized for the safety and comfort of women and men 

who are being interrogated and tortured is absolutely absurd. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 5:29 p.m.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

32 


99773.001
33 


99773.002
34 


99773.003
35 


99773.004
36 


99773.005
37 


99773.006
38 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VENERABLE GOLOG JIGME

APRIL 14,2016

I would like to first thank the CECC, particularly Chainnan Smith and CoChainnan Rubio, for holding this important hearing today, and for inviting me to 

participate. As a survivor of torture inflicted by Chinese public security officers, and 

now as a human rights advocate living in exile in Switzerland, I believe that it is 

essential for the U.S. and other governments, as well as the UN and other entities, 

to understand what actually happens inside Chinese detention facilities from someone who has experienced it, and to understand the human rights situation in Tibet 

today. Not only behind bars, but beyond the prison walls, my Tibetan brothers and 

sisters are suffering. I urge the CECC and the U.S. Congress to continue to pay attention to the situation inside Tibet. For the future of Tibet, it is very important 

to break the ‘‘lockdown’’ that the Chinese government has imposed around the Tibetan people. As human beings, we Tibetans have the right to peacefully express 

our views without fear of being arrested or tortured. We have the right to freedom 

of movement and to freedom of religion, and China should be held accountable for 

denying us these basic freedoms, and subjecting us to arbitrary detention and torture when we try to exercise these basic human rights. It is my profound hope that 

the CECC and Congress will continue to pay attention to the suffering of Tibetans. 

* * * 

MY STORY (IN BRIEF)

My name is Golog Jigme, and I am also known as Jigme Gyatso. I was born into 

a Tibetan nomadic family in eastern Tibet, and when I was a teenager joined the 

Labrang Monastery in Kanlho, Amdo (Gansu province). I was involved in various 

social causes while at Labrang, including teaching children about Tibetan culture 

and promoting the Tibetan language, and [ was engaged in social welfare work, such 

as relief efforts following the Yushu earthquake in 2010. 

In 2008, I worked with the filmmaker Dhondup Wangchen to interview a wide 

range of Tibetans—including nomads, elders, monks and people in remote areas— 

about their thoughts and feelings before the Beijing Olympics, which became the 

documentary film ‘‘Leaving Fear Behind.’’ We wanted the world outside Tibet to understand the reality of what was happening in Tibet; and for people to hear the 

voices of Tibetans themselves, discussing their feelings and experiences. 

As a result of this work, Dhondup Wangchen was imprisoned for six years. I was 

detained three times during the period from 2008 to 2012. While in Chinese custody 

for seven months in 2008, I was severely tortured. Chinese officials accused me of 

shooting the film ‘‘Leaving Fear Behind’’ and of being a member of the Tibetan 

Youth Congress, and they also accused me of not denouncing His Holiness the Dalai 

Lama. 

In April 2009, I was detained again, and accused of disclosing State secrets. I was 

held for several months, and was subjected to severe beatings, but not tortured brutally like during my first detention in 2008. 

In September 2012, I was detained yet again but managed to escape from the detention facility. Chinese security officers had accused me of being the main instigator of the self-immolations protest across Tibet, among other baseless allegations. 

After my escape from detention, I went into hiding for more than a year and a half 

before I escaped to India, in May 2014. I arrived in Switzerland in January 2015, 

where I have been granted political asylum. 

I was never formally arrested. I was given two separate detention warrants 

(juliuzheng), but only after I had been released. During my three detentions, I was 

never given any document setting forth formal charges against me. I was never 

given a trial. Neither my monastery nor my family was informed of my whereabouts; I was held incommunicado. I had no access to a lawyer. I never received 

any medical treatment. 

* * * 

Here I will describe in brief the torture I suffered at the hands of Chinese security 

officers. If I were to describe everything, it would take a very long time, so I will 

summarize. At the outset, I would like to emphasize that I am walking proof of Chinese government torture. Today, I still have severe back pain, scars on my wrists 

and ankles, and other injuries from the torture that still cause pain in my knees, 

ribs, and eyes. The first incarceration, in 2008, was the most difficult for me because 

I was brutally tortured. For one month and 22 days I was tortured continuously. 

I was forced to sit in the ‘‘tiger chair’’ (also known as the ‘‘iron chair’’) day and 

39 

night. This was the worst fonn of torture I experienced during my three detentions. 

My arms were handcuffed in front of me on a small metal table, and my legs were 

bent beneath the seat and strapped to the chair with iron cuffs. My joints suffered 

horribly and at one point my feet became so swollen that all my toenails fell off. 

I still have scars on my wrists and ankles from when I was turned backwards in 

the chair and suspended from the ceiling, for hours at a time. I was deprived of 

sleep and given very little to eat. The pain of thirst was the second worst torture; 

I was given only a very small amount of water, and felt unbearably thirsty because 

of blood loss from my body. During the first and second detentions, I was subjected 

to severe beatings and kicking; some of my ribs were broken and my knee joints 

were dislocated. 

During the third detention in 2012, Chinese security officers told me I would be 

transferred to Lanzhou City Military Hospital for a medical exam to see if I had 

any diseases, and that if they I was fortunate that I was able to escape before they 

moved me to the hospital. While I was in hiding, I learned that the Chinese government had issued a warrant for my arrest accusing me of murder, and offered a large 

sum of money to anyone who could provide information about my whereabouts. I 

am deeply grateful to the people who risked so much in order to arrange things and 

help me get out of the country. My safe escape was a collective effort, and the people 

who gave so much are an ongoing source of inspiration for me. 

UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE’S REVIEW OF CHINA’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (NOVEMBER 2015)

As a survivor of torture at the hands of Chinese security officials, I was grateful 

to have been able to attend the UN Committee against Torture’s review of China 

in Geneva this past November. But I was shocked that the Chinese government told 

such lies at the UN. I was glad to be able to tell the Committee my story—the true 

story of China’s torture record. I was very happy to see the Committee ask tough 

questions of the Chinese delegation. Moreover, I felt the strength and commitment 

of the Committee to stand by the truth. It was heartening to watch the Committee 

hold the Chinese government accountable for torture, arbitrary detention and 

otherhuman rights abuses in Tibet and China. 

It is absurd for Chinese officials to say that torture doesn’t exist in China. I was 

detained three times and tortured numerous times by Chinese authorities. I was 

beaten with wooden batons and electronic devices and had my face, eyes and lips 

burned when I was tied to a hot stove. I was shackled with my hands behind my 

back and hung from a pipe on the ceiling and I was also physically assaulted by 

a group of five Chinese officials who trampled all over my body. 

Unbelievably, when asked by the Committee about the ′′tiger chair′′ used during 

police interrogations, a Chinese government official said the chair was for the protection and safety of the detainees. I spent days and nights in such a chair; it was 

horrific torture. 

The Chinese delegation also claimed that there were no political prisoners in 

China. This is absurd. The CECC Political Prisoner Database has over 640 records 

of Tibetan political prisoners; some NGOs have a much higher number. Regardless, 

it is laughable for the Chinese government to say that political prisoners do not 

exist in Tibet and China. Not only were Dhondup Wangchen and I political prisoners, but Shokjang, a popular blogger and my good friend, was recently sentenced 

to three years in prison for ‘‘inciting splittism’’—based on nothing other than the 

peaceful expression of his own views on ethnic policy and other issues of concern 

to Tibetans. We are just a few examples of many other political prisoners who have 

come before us, and of those who are currently serving time in prison or detention 

facilities, or who have been disappeared, for simply exercising their basic human 

rights of freedom of expression, religion, movement, among other rights. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the U.S. and the international community for 

the attention given to my case during my detentions in Tibet. The support and pressure of governments, outside media, the UN and human rights groups do make a 

difference to those imprisoned or otherwise detained in Tibet. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• I urge the U.S. Congress and the Administration to challenge China’s oppressive policies in Tibet and to continue to pay attention to the suffering of the Tibetan 

people. 

• The U.S. government should press China to invite the UN Special Rapporteur 

on Torture for a follow-up visit to the last one conducted by the Special Rapporteur 

on Torture, which was over 10 years ago. Unimpeded access to prisons and prisoners in Tibet should be part of the terms of the visit. 

40 

• I urge the U.S. government to continue raising the case of Dhondup Wangchen 

with Chinese officials, and ask that he be allowed to travel internationally in order 

to be able to reunite with his wife and three children, who now live in the U.S. 

• Urge China to release all Tibetans who have been detained or imprisoned for 

peaceful, nonviolent views and opinions such as Shokjang, the young Tibetan 

blogger sentenced to three years in prison in February 2016. 

• I fully support the CECC’s recommendation to Congress and the Administration 

to press China to respect the right of freedom of movement of Tibetans domestically, 

and to allow greater access to foreign diplomats, journalists, NGOs and others to 

the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan autonomous areas, as well as the 

other recommendations on Tibet contained in the CECC’s 2015 Annual Report. 

41 


99773.007
42 


99773.008
43 


99773.009
44 


99773.010
45 


99773.011
46 


99773.012
47 


99773.013
48 


99773.014
49 


99773.015
50 


99773.016
51 


99773.017
52 


99773.018
53 


99773.019
54 


99773.020
55 


99773.021
56 


99773.022
57 


99773.023
58 


99773.024
59 


99773.025
60 


99773.026
61 


99773.027
62 


99773.028
63 


99773.029
64 


99773.030
65 


99773.031
66 


99773.032
67 


99773.033
68 


99773.034
69 


99773.035
70 


99773.036
71 


99773.037
72 


99773.038
73 


99773.039
74 


99773.040
75 


99773.041
76 


99773.042
77 


99773.043
78 


99773.044
79 


99773.045
80 


99773.046
81 


99773.047
82 


99773.048
83 


99773.049
84 


99773.050
85 


99773.051
86 


99773.052
87 


99773.053
88 


99773.054
89 


99773.055
90 


99773.056
91 


99773.057
92 


99773.058
93 


99773.059
94 


99773.060
95 


99773.061
96 


99773.062
97 


99773.063
98 


99773.064
99 


99773.065
100 


99773.066
101 


99773.067
102 


99773.068
103 


99773.069
104 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

ENDING TORTURE IN CHINA: WHY IT MATTERS

APRIL 14, 2016

Gao Zhisheng’s account of the torture he experienced is shocking, offensive, and 

inhumane. From the time he was first arrested in 2006 until his provisional release 

in 2014, Gao was regularly hooded and beaten, shocked with electric batons, had 

toothpicks inserted in his genitals, was sleep deprived and malnourished, and his 

life was threatened repeatedly by guards and fellow prisoners. Gao was tortured because he dared to represent persecuted Christians and Falun Gong and because he 

was critical of China’s legal system. 

Gao wanted what was best for China, but he got the worst. 

Gao’s wife, Geng He, submitted testimony to this hearing and I urge you to all 

read it. It is for Gao Zhisheng, and the many other victims of torture, that we hold 

this hearing today. 

We are here today to shine a light on the brutal, illegal, and dehumanizing use 

of torture in China. We shine a light on a dictatorship because nothing good happens in the dark. And, as we will learn today, there are some very dark places in 

China were torture is used regularly to punish and intimidate political and religious 

prisoners and their lawyers. 

We are also here to urge the U.S. government to make ending torture a higher 

priority in bilateral relations and to urge the Chinese government to fully enforce 

and implement its own laws. A country with China’s global leadership aspirations 

should not engage in horrific practices so thoroughly condemned by the international community. 

As our witnesses will describe today in great detail, the use of torture is pervasive 

in China’s detention facilities and criminal justice system. 

Torture is used to extract confession for prosecution and to coerce the televised 

‘‘public confessions’’ we have seen too often in the past year. 

Torture is also used to punish those political prisoners the Chinese security forces 

view as destabilizing forces. Under Xi Jinping, there has been an expansion in the 

number of individuals and groups viewed as threats to national security. 

The victims of torture are very often human rights advocates and lawyers, union 

activists, members of non-state-controlled Christian churches, Falun Gong practitioners, and members of ethnic minority groups, like the Tibetans and Uyghurs. 

Chinese officials repeatedly tell me I should focus more on the positive aspects 

of China’s human rights and not on the negative. That is a difficult task when you 

read Gao Zhisheng’s story or read the testimony of our witnesses Golog Jigme and 

Yin Liping. 

Nevertheless, I want to recognize the changes made recently to China’s Criminal 

Procedure Law that prohibits the use of confessions obtained through torture and 

the requirement to videotape interrogations in major cases. 

According to Human Rights Watch, judges’ videotaped interrogations are routinely 

manipulated—and police torture the suspects first and then tape the confession. 

And as Professor Margaret Lewis will testify today, ‘‘Preliminary indications are 

that recording interrogations is not significantly changing the culture of extreme reliance on confessions as the primary form of evidence in criminal cases. When I 

viewed an interrogation room in a Beijing police station last October, the staff was 

keen to point out the videotaping technology. What I could not help but notice was 

the slogan ‘‘truthfully confess and your whole body will feel at ease’’ that was written in large characters on the floor in front of the metal, constraining interrogation 

chair, otherwise known as a ‘‘tiger chair.’’ Faced with this slogan during prolonged 

questioning makes it crystal clear to the suspects that there is no right to silence 

in Chinese law. 

Perhaps there may be Chinese officials who want to end the use of torture in detention facilities and curtail the force and influence of the Public Security Bureau, 

their efforts should be encouraged and supported, but as with so many other things 

in China—with each step forward there is another step or two back. 

China’s laws are too often either selectively implemented or completely ignored 

by security forces and the courts. 

Security forces, faced with the end of labor camps, created new forms of extralegal detention—such as ‘‘black jails’’ or ‘‘residential surveillance in an undisclosed 

location’’—where torture can continue without oversight or interruption. 

105 

Until suspects have lawyers at interrogations, until all extra-legal detention centers are abolished, and police and public security forces are held accountable for 

abuse, China’s existing laws will continued to be undermined by existing practice. 

The U.S. government must find effective ways to address this issue urgently and 

at the highest levels, because hundreds of thousands of China’s people are victims 

of shockingly cruel, illegal, and inhumane activities. 

Last week, the White House said that President Obama ‘‘re-iterated America’s unwavering support for upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms in China.’’ 

President Obama has only a couple more meetings with President Xi before his 

Administration ends. He should make ending torture a priority. This issue touches 

on so many other human rights issues that are also critical ones for U.S. economic 

and security interests in China such as: Protecting the rights of political prisoners; 

advancing the right to due process; addressing the arrests, disbarments, and disappearances of human rights lawyers; curtailing police powers and the expansion 

of national security laws that target peaceful reform advocates; encouraging an 

independent judiciary; protecting the freedom of expression and religious freedom; 

and encouraging establishment of the rule of law in China. 

Torture will not end until the price of bad domestic publicity is too high for China’s leaders to ignore or when finally China’s leaders understand that the use of 

torture harms their global interests. On this last point, only the United States has 

the ability to deliver such a blunt message to China. 

President Obama should not hesitate to name names and shine a light on horrific 

practices that the Chinese government says it wants to end. 

If nothing else, doing so would bolster the spirits of those prisoners of conscience 

who are rotting in Chinese jails. We know their jailers tell them repeatedly that the 

world has forgotten them. 

As a Washington Post editorial concluded last week, private discussions about 

human rights are important, but so is public messaging. Autocrats and dictators 

need to know unequivocally that the United States sees the freedom of expression, 

the freedom of religion, the rule of law, transparency and an end to torture as critical interests, necessary for better bilateral relations, and linked to the expansion 

of mutual prosperity and integrated security. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA; 

COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

APRIL 14, 2016

Despite government pledges to reform, torture remains a systemic problem in the 

Chinese criminal justice system. These abuses are well documented and they demand our attention. 

The State Department’s 2015 Annual Human Rights Report, released just yesterday, found that in China, ‘‘Numerous former prisoners and detainees reported they 

were beaten, subjected to electric shock, forced to sit on stools for hours on end, deprived of sleep, and otherwise subjected to physical and psychological abuse. Although ordinary prisoners were abused, prison authorities reportedly singled out political and religious dissidents for particularly harsh treatment. In some instances 

close relatives of dissidents also were singled out for abuse.’’ 

As the Department’s Report makes clear, the victims of this horrific treatment are 

as diverse as the Chinese government’s means of denying them justice. 

In May 2015, the non-governmental organization (NGO) Human Rights Watch 

issued a sobering report titled ‘‘Tiger Chairs and Cell Bosses’’ which explored police 

torture of criminal suspects in China. The report found that interrogation, or ‘‘tiger,’’ 

chairs are routinely used to restrain detainees. Several of those interviewed indicated that they were strapped into these metal chairs for hours and in some cases 

days at a time. They also reported physical and psychological torture during police 

interrogations, including being hung by the wrists, being beaten with police batons 

or other objects, and deprived of sleep for prolonged periods of time. One convicted 

prisoner awaiting review of his death sentence had been handcuffed and shackled 

for eight years. 

While the Human Rights Watch report focused on the deplorable treatment of ordinary criminal suspects, torture is often employed in cases involving political prisoners as the State Department noted. 

Today’s hearing Record will include a letter from Geng He, the wife of noted 

rights lawyer and political prisoner Gao Zhisheng who has suffered unimaginable 

abuse at the hands of the Chinese authorities. Geng He fled China with their two 

children in 2009 just one month before Gao was again kidnapped and disappeared. 

106 

She writes movingly of the sacrifices her husband has made saying, ‘‘Even though 

he lost his own freedom and suffered unspeakable torture, he never lost his belief 

in freedom and human rights.’’ 

Unfortunately, disappearances of the sort Gao experienced are all too commonplace. Extralegal detention facilities such as ‘‘black jails’’ are routinely used as is 

‘‘residential surveillance at a designated location’’ whereby people are held for up 

to six months for undefined crimes of endangering state security. This was true for 

several of the human rights lawyers and activists rounded up last July during a nationwide sweep, some of whom have been held incommunicado for nearly nine 

months making them especially vulnerable to mistreatment or even torture. 

In March, the NGO China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) reported that a significant number of the detained lawyers and advocates have apparently ‘‘dismissed’’ 

their lawyers or allegedly ‘‘hired’’ other lawyers to represent them. But when family 

members and family-authorized lawyers have requested to meet the detainees to 

confirm such ‘‘decisions,’’ police have rejected the requests outright raising alarms 

about coercion. CHRD further reported that ‘‘Most of the individuals who have allegedly ‘fired’ their lawyers have been arrested for ‘subversion,’ a political crime for 

which a conviction carries a minimum of three years, and up to life imprisonment.’’ 

They also noted that police-appointed lawyers are not likely to challenge ‘‘evidence’’ 

obtained through torture or coercion. 

The phenomenon of televised confessions has also been on the rise with most legal 

experts inferring that such ‘‘confessions’’ are obtained through force or coercion of 

suspects. The Chinese government has for years acknowledged the problem of 

wrongful convictions, including the use of torture to extract confessions, as documented in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China’s (CECC) 2015 Annual 

Report. 

The overreliance on confessions in the criminal justice system perpetuates this 

practice. Notably the airing of confessions on state television, in violation of Chinese 

law, has become more common since President Xi Jinping’s ascent to power. 

Several such confessions— including that of Christian rights lawyer Zhang Kai, 

Hong Kong bookseller Gui Minhai, veteran dissident and journalist Gao Yu and 

Swedish national and NGO worker Peter Dahlin—have rightly garnered international attention. 

As with so many other areas the CECC monitors, there is little evidence of 

progress and in many cases continued erosion when it comes to mistreatment in 

China’s criminal justice system. China will never be viewed as a responsible global 

stakeholder as long as it persists in subjecting its own people to torture and denying 

them basic human rights and legal protections. 

107 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY MS. GENG HE, WIFE OF LAWYER GAO ZHISHENG

APRIL 14, 2016

Respected Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My husband Gao Zhisheng is one of China’s top ten lawyers, but starting in 2005, 

he became a target of the Chinese government’s persecution and torture for his legal 

defense work on behalf of persecuted Christians and Falun Gong practitioners. In 

November 2005, the government revoked his lawyer’s license and forcibly closed 

down his law firm. On August 15, 2006, the police unexpectedly kidnapped him, and 

by holding our children and me hostage, they forced my husband to admit he was 

‘‘guilty.’’ After Gao had been ‘‘disappeared’’ for four months, on December 22, 2006, 

the police found him guilty of ‘‘inciting subversion of state power,’’ and sentenced 

him to serve three years in prison, a sentence that was suspended for five years, 

with deprivation of his political rights for one year. He came home, but was now 

reputed to be a convicted criminal. However, while serving a suspended sentence at 

home, the Chinese Communist Party’s police kidnapped Gao Zhisheng more than six 

times, with one of those disappearances lasting for 21 months. He suffered many 

forms of torture during each disappearance. 

He first experienced torture on September 21, 2007. Gao Zhisheng had sent an 

open letter to the U.S. Congress that exposed the Chinese Communist Party’s trampling of human rights, and, in retribution, the Chinese Communist police placed a 

black hood over Gao’s head and took him away for 50 days. The day he was kidnapped was September 21, during which Gao Zhisheng experienced terrifying torture and suffering at the hands of the police. On that day, six or seven policemen 

placed a black hood over his head, brought him into a room, and stripped him 

naked. After beating him, four of the policemen each took an electric baton in hand 

and struck him all over his body, including his genitals, causing his entire body to 

shake convulsively and to roll on the floor in pain as his sweat rolled off him like 

rain. The police continued to use electric shocks to torture him for several hours, 

during which time he fell in and out of conscious, almost to the point of death. On 

the second morning, the police set alight five cigarettes and let the smoke go into 

his nose and eyes, and pricked his genitals with toothpicks. They continued to use 

many forms of torture through the afternoon of the third day. By then, Gao 

Zhisheng was desperate to break free of this pain, and calling out the names of his 

two children, he began to smash his head against the table in an effort to kill himself. But his suicide attempt did not succeed, though it left Gao with swollen eyes 

and head, and blood running down his face. Gao Zhisheng begged his captors to put 

him in jail, but the police responded, ‘‘If you think you’re going to prison, dream 

on. We can make you disappear permanently! ’’ As they said this, they continued to 

cruelly torture my husband throughout the day until nighttime. At the end of it, 

Gao Zhisheng’s eyes were so swollen from the smoke that he could no longer open 

his eyes and his skin was darkened all over at the places he had been touched by 

the electric batons. And the torture didn’t end there and then. 

In an attempt to protect our two children and in a state of absolute terror, in January 2009, I escaped China with my daughter and son. On February 9, 2009, Gao 

Zhisheng again was kidnapped and disappeared. 

On September 25, 2009, Gao Zhisheng was hooded and taken away by several 

burly men of Uyghur ethnicity in front of secret police from Beijing. When Gao was 

being taken to a secret jail, his captors beat him severely with their fists. Upon arriving at the secret jail, they roughly stripped off his clothing and shoes, but leaving 

the black hood on, they proceeded to mercilessly beat and torture Gao for the next 

48 hours. One of the men punched his chin with his bare fists, and another grabbed 

his neck, dragged him backwards and shoved him into the wall. They began to 

throttle him, causing his lungs to lack air, blood to swell his brain, his eyeballs to 

protrude and almost pop out, and make him feel as if death were imminent. But 

unexpectedly, they loosened their grip, and Gao weakly leaned against the wall as 

he sank to the floor. Several of the thugs began to curse him, and started to shamelessly kick his legs, making Gao scream out in pain. Under the barrage of both 

curses and kicks, Gao couldn’t move his legs anymore, and was shaking uncontrollably. When they were tired of hitting him, they sat down and ate. Following their 

break, they continued to beat Gao for a day and a night. They tried to force Gao 

to beg for mercy, but Gao refused, and they went crazy with anger and beat him 

till the sun rose the next day. But Gao didn’t beg for mercy. One of the thugs cursed 

108 

him, saying: ‘‘You animal, if you don’t kneel today, I’m definitely going to kill you.’’ 

Sure enough, their beatings became even more inhuman! Gao’s two legs and feet 

were already swollen and bent, yet they still harshly kicked him and with each kick, 

Gao suffered greatly. But Gao adamantly refused to kneel down. One of the thugs 

completely lost his cool and pointed a gun at Gao’s forehead. Gao said to him, ‘‘You 

are a spiritual pygmy, and don’t have the guts to fire a gun.’’ Gao’s statement enraged the thug who angrily went into another room. Gao prepared for more torture 

and the result was that the thug returned with the gun wrapped in a pillow and 

put it against Gao’s head. Gao lost conscious, thus easing his pain. 

One year later, in April 2010, Chinese Communist officials arranged for Gao 

Zhisheng to be interviewed by the Associated Press. During the interview, Gao 

didn’t hew to the script prepared by the officials, and instead revealed to the Associated Press the truth of his being tortured. Gao again was ‘‘disappeared’’ following 

the interview. 

A period of torture in Beijing started, all of it done at night. On the evening of 

April 28, 2010, a group unexpectedly barged into Gao’s cell room (this group turned 

out to be the same who conducted the torture in 2007). They rushed him from behind and began to throttle Gao, saying, ‘‘Little boy, you’ve fallen again into the 

hands of your uncles! We’ll do a good job of taking care of you! ’’ As before, they 

used a black hood to cover his head and tightly shackled his hands behind his back. 

They additionally put two pillow cases over the black hood and forced his body into 

a ninety degree angle. Two of them then forced Gao to kneel and they put him in 

a car, as if the whole process was a robbery. While in the car, the torture went on 

and on, like a living death. Two of the men were behind him, crushing his body, 

but this was a specially designed car that had no support. Gao was shackled, and 

from behind, the two were crushing him. What made it even worse was that he 

lacked oxygen under the thickly layered hoods. His labored breathing began to cause 

him to shake uncontrollably with sweat pouring off his body and his eyeballs about 

to pop out of his head. A little while later, his knees had gone completely numb and 

he momentarily felt his body disconnect from the physical pain. But when trying 

to get out of the car, Gao found that his legs were numb. He couldn’t stand and 

fell to the ground whereupon the thugs began to kick him without mercy. Gao didn’t 

even have the strength to curl up. Several of them raised him up, only to throw 

him back to the ground. One pulled his hood off, and another pulled him up into 

a half sitting position. Three of them unexpectedly began to hit him in the face for 

several minutes. One brought a lighted cigarette up to Gao’s eyes and asked if he 

still wanted to write essays? After this, he struck Gao’s chest with his knee. Gao 

heard himself cry out with an almost non-human sound, his eyes blurred, and it 

felt as if his head was spinning and he was floating in the ocean waves. But the 

non-human cry turned into a strong shout of pain because the thug suddenly loosened his hands and Gao’s forehead smashed down on the ground. Gao began to 

vomit, with half of his face stuck to the ground. Gao’s hands were still shackled behind his back so there was no way to reposition himself. The thugs were there 

smoking and cursing him. Once they finished their cigarettes, someone called Director Wang began to use an electric baton to strike Gao. Gao was in so much pain 

that he screamed in anguish, and words cannot fully describe that physical pain. 

They thought that, with enough time and cruelty, the torture would force Gao to 

kneel for mercy, but Gao never kneeled down. This utterly exasperated the thugs 

who beat him with greater fury. Finally, Gao was carried to an empty room where 

he was locked up for 21 months. In almost two years locked up there, the world 

didn’t hear any news of Gao Zhisheng. 

According to the Communist Party authorities, the verdict of a ‘‘three-year sentence, suspended for five years’’ should have ended by August 15, 2012 and Gao 

should have been able to go home. But after his disappearance of more than a year 

and a half, the words of his tormentors came true and it was as if he had ‘‘disappeared.’’ 

Not until the end of 2011, following the period of the five-year suspended sentence, Xinhua issued a brief English news report that on December 16, Gao 

Zhisheng had violated the terms of his suspended sentence and had been sent back 

to jail to serve the entire three-year sentence. But within two weeks, there was no 

news of Gao serving his sentence at the prison, and his family had not yet seen the 

official paperwork or received any kind of notification about visits. The news also 

didn’t mention what regulation Gao had violated or where he had been for 21 

months or why Gao Zhisheng again had been disappeared. On January 1, 2012, Gao 

Zhisheng’s older brother , Gao Zhiyi finally received a ‘‘criminal imprisonment notification’’ regarding Gao Zhisheng from Shahe Prison in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. 

109 

Torture at the Shahe Prison came in disguised form. Gao Zhisheng was imprisoned in a small cell and for three years, did not feel fresh air on his face. From 

the very start of his detention, they played loud noises on a large speaker to disturb 

him, and this went on for 96 weeks. All of Gao’s teeth fell out from living in this 

horrific environment and being given poor quality food, resulting in his being unable 

to walk or speak. At the completion of serving his sentence, he was on the verge 

of death and had to be lifted out of his cell and carried home. 

Gao Zhisheng has sacrificed greatly on behalf of the Chinese people’s freedom and 

human rights. Even though he lost his own freedom and suffered unspeakable torture, he never lost his belief in freedom and human rights. He adamantly believes 

that a free and democratic system will be realized in China in the near future. He 

sincerely hopes that the United States will be able to shoulder the moral responsibility of all humankind, and that the U.S. Government will be able to make human 

rights a key priority in U.S.-China relations. An increasingly powerful China, without human rights, is a threat to the United States and the whole world that can 

no longer be ignored. 

With thanks to God! 

Thank you all. 

Geng He 

CHINA’S PERVASIVE USE OF TORTURE

APRIL 14, 2016

Witness Biographies 

Margaret K. Lewis, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law 

Professor Margaret Lewis’s research focuses on China’s legal system with an emphasis on criminal justice. She joined Seton Hall Law School as an Associate Professor in 2009. Professor Lewis is a graduate of the NYU School of Law and Columbia University, and also studied at the Hopkins-Nanjing Program. Her recent publications have appeared in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, NYU Journal 

of International Law and Politics, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, and 

Virginia Journal of International Law. She also co-authored the book Challenge to 

China: How Taiwan Abolished its Version of Re-Education Through Labor with Jerome A. Cohen. Professor Lewis participated in the U.S.-China Legal Experts Dialogue in October 2015 at the invitation of the U.S. State Department. She is also 

a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Public Intellectuals’ Program 

Fellow with the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, and an Affiliated 

Scholar of New York University School of Law’s U.S.-Asia Law Institute. 

Jigme Gyatso, Tibetan monk, Tibetan language education advocate, and 

filmmaker 

Jigme Gyatso (a.k.a. Golog Jigme) was born in Serthar county, Sichuan province, 

and became a monk when he was 15 years old. He later joined the Labrang Monastery in Gansu province and has been involved in Tibetan language education advocacy, environmental protection, and earthquake relief. In 2007 and 2008, Jigme 

Gyatso worked with filmmaker Dhondup Wangchen to interview 108 Tibetans for 

the documentary ‘‘Leaving Fear Behind,’’ which was shown prior to the start of the 

Olympics held in Beijing in August 2008. Chinese authorities detained Jigme 

Gyatso for two months in 2008, four months in 2009, and three months in 2012, 

during which he was severely tortured by Chinese public security personnel. In 

2012, he escaped from detention in fear of his life, and spent one year and eight 

months on the run until he arrived in India in May 2014. He received asylum in 

Switzerland and has testified about his own experiences of torture and abuse to the 

UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the European Parliament, and the International Olympic Committee, among others. 

Yin Liping, Falun Gong Practitioner 

Yin Liping is a Falun Gong practitioner who survived torture, forced labor, and 

sexual violence in Masanjia and other forced labor camps. Since 1999, she was arrested seven times and given three separate sentences totaling seven-and-half years. 

During her detentions she was often severely tortured and was sexually abused by 

both police and male prisoners. Her story is featured in the documentary ‘‘Above the 

Ghost’s Heads: The Women of Masanjia Labor Camp’’ by former New York Times 

photographer Du Bin. In August 2013 she escaped from China to Thailand and, in 

December 2015, was granted refugee status in the United States. 

110 

Sophie Richardson, China Director, Human Rights Watch 

Dr. Sophie Richardson serves as the China director at Human Rights Watch. A 

graduate of the University of Virginia, the Hopkins-Nanjing Program, and Oberlin 

College, She is the author of numerous articles on domestic Chinese political reform, 

democratization, and human rights in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Hong Kong, the 

Philippines, and Vietnam. She has testified before the European Parliament and the 

US Senate and House of Representatives. She has provided commentary to the 

BBC, CNN, the Far Eastern Economic Review, Foreign Policy, National Public 

Radio, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. Dr. 

Richardson is the author of China, Cambodia, and the Five Principles of Peaceful 

Coexistence (Columbia University Press, Dec. 2009), an in-depth examination of 

China’s foreign policy since the 1954 Geneva Conference, including rare interviews 

with policy makers. 

Æ