谷歌翻译联合国新疆人权评估3

谷歌翻译联合国新疆人权评估

China’s legal and policy framework on countering terrorism and “extremism”

• 中国打击恐怖主义和“极端主义”的法律和政策框架

 

14、In official statements, the Government has emphasized that “Xinjiang-related issues are in essence about countering violent terrorism and separatism” and that it is doing so “in accordance with law”.In its March 2019 White Paper on “The Fight Against Terrorism and Extremism and Human Rights Protection in Xinjiang”, the Government asserted that China’s laws are “powerful legal instruments to contain and combat terrorism and extremism” and that it is upholding “the principles of protecting lawful activities, curbing illegal actions, containing extremism, resisting infiltration, and preventing and punishing crimes”. It also underscored that the local government in XUAR “fully respects and safeguards civil rights including freedom of religious belief”.

在官方声明中，政府强调“涉疆问题本质上是打击暴力恐怖主义和分裂主义”，并且“依法”这样做。 政府在2019年3月发布的《新疆打击恐怖主义和极端主义与人权保护》白皮书中称，中国的法律是“遏制和打击恐怖主义和极端主义的有力法律工具”，坚持“保护人权的原则”。合法活动，遏制违法行为，遏制极端主义，抵制渗透，预防和惩治犯罪。”它还强调，新疆当地政府“充分尊重和保障包括宗教信仰自由在内的公民权利”。

15、In line with international law, United Nations resolutions and other instruments consistently stress that States’ measures to combat terrorism and violent extremism must be firmly grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law.They recognize that effective counter-terrorism and counter-violent extremism measures on the one hand, and the protection of human rights on the other, are not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing. Ensuring a counter-terrorism response compliant with human rights standards requires ensuring that relevant legislation and applicable policies provide a framework that duly considers and addresses human rights risks and impacts, excludes arbitrary and discriminatory application, and incorporates appropriate safeguards and remedies against violations. The UN High Commissioner and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, among others, have highlighted how this remains a challenge in many legal systems.

根据国际法，联合国决议和其他文书一贯强调，各国打击恐怖主义和暴力极端主义的措施必须以尊重人权和法治为基础。双方认识到，有效的反恐和反暴力极端主义措施与保护人权的目标不是相互矛盾的，而是相辅相成、相辅相成的。确保反恐对策符合人权标准，需要确保相关立法和适用政策提供适当考虑和解决人权风险和影响的框架，排除任意和歧视性适用，并纳入适当的保障措施和补救措施以防止侵权行为。联合国高级专员和联合国在打击恐怖主义的同时促进和保护人权和基本自由问题特别报告员等强调了这在许多法律体系中仍然是一个挑战。

16、China has developed what it describes as an “anti-terrorism law system”  composed of specific national security and counter-terrorism legislation, general criminal law and criminal procedure law, as well as formal regulations pertaining to religion and “deextremification”. Most of these laws and regulations, at both national and XUAR level, have been adopted or revised between 2014 and 2018, in the context of the “Strike Hard” campaign. These evolutions have been accompanied by numerous official policy statements and explanatory positions.

中国已经形成了其所谓的“反恐法律体系”，包括具体的国家安全和反恐立法、一般刑法和刑事诉讼法，以及与宗教和“去极端化”有关的正式法规。在“严打”运动的背景下，这些国家和新疆层面的大部分法律法规都是在2014年至2018年期间通过或修订的。这些演变伴随着许多官方政策声明和解释性立场。

 

A、Clarity, breadth and scope of concepts of “terrorism” and “extremism” 

“恐怖主义”和“极端主义”概念的清晰度、广度和范围

 

17、Both the PRC Counterterrorism Law (“CTL”) and the Xinjiang Implementing Measures for the PRC Counterterrorism Law (“XIM”) define terrorism as:

“propositions and actions that create social panic, endanger public safety, attack persons or property, or coerce national organs or international organizations, through methods such as violence, destruction intimidation, so as to achieve their political, ideological, or other objectives”.

《中华人民共和国反恐怖主义法》（CTL）和《中华人民共和国反恐怖主义法新疆实施办法》（XIM）均将恐怖主义定义为：

“以暴力、破坏恐吓等方式制造社会恐慌、危害公共安全、攻击人身、财产，或者胁迫国家机关或者国际组织，以实现其政治、思想或者其他目的的主张和行为”。

18、Elements of the definition are broadly worded. Notions such as “propositions”, “social panic” and “other objectives” are not clearly defined and might potentially encompass a wide range of acts that are substantially removed from a sufficient threshold of seriousness and demonstrable intent to engage in terrorist conduct. In both the CTL and the XIM, the definition of terrorism is further accompanied by a list of acts that constitute “terrorist activities” that provide some clarity to the definition:“For the purpose of this Law, “terrorist activities” means the following conduct of the terrorist nature: (1) Organizing, planning, preparing for, or conducting the activities which cause or attempt to cause casualties, grave property loss, damage to public facilities, disruption of social order and other serious social harm; (2) Advocating terrorism, instigating terrorist activities, or illegally holding articles advocating terrorism, or forcing other persons to wear costume or symbols advocating terrorism in public places; (3) Organizing, leading or participating in terrorist organizations; (4) Providing information, funds, materials, labor services, technologies, places and other support, assistance and convenience to terrorist organizations, terrorists, the implementation of terrorist activities or training on terrorist activities; (5) Other terrorist activities” (unofficial translation).

定义的要素措辞宽泛。诸如“提议”、“社会恐慌”和“其他目标”等概念没有明确定义，并且可能包含范围广泛的行为，这些行为基本上远离了足够的严重性阈值和可证明的从事恐怖主义行为的意图。在CTL和 XIM中，恐怖主义的定义进一步附有构成“恐怖主义活动”的行为清单，这些行为为定义提供了一些明确性：“本法所称恐怖活动，是指下列具有恐怖性质的行为：（一）组织、策划、筹备或者实施造成或者企图造成人员伤亡、重大财产损失、社会公共利益损失的活动。设施、扰乱社会秩序等严重社会危害的；（二）宣扬恐怖主义、教唆恐怖活动，或者非法持有宣扬恐怖主义的物品，或者强迫他人在公共场所穿戴宣扬恐怖主义的服饰、标志的；（三）组织、领导或者参与恐怖组织的；（四）为恐怖组织、恐怖分子实施恐怖活动或者开展恐怖活动培训提供信息、资金、物资、劳务、技术、场所等支持、帮助和便利；（五）其他恐怖活动”（非官方翻译）。

19、The listed activities generally correspond to the conduct that is criminalized in the Criminal Law. However, again, a number of the activities listed remain stated in vague and/or subjective terms without further clarification as to the content of what these may encompass, e.g., “disruption of social order and other serious social harm”.

所列活动一般对应于刑法规定的犯罪行为。然而，同样，列出的一些活动仍然以模糊和/或主观的方式陈述，没有进一步澄清这些活动可能包含的内容，例如“扰乱社会秩序和其他严重的社会危害”。

20、Further clarification on the interpretation of the relevant provisions was provided in the March 2018 “Opinions on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Terrorism and Extremism” issued jointly by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security and Ministry of Justice. In the Opinion, some guidance is provided on the interpretation and application of certain terms of article 120 of the Criminal Law pertaining to the formation, leading or active participation in a terrorist organization. While helpful in further defining certain activities considered terrorist, the Opinion does not address all concerns, including for example the scope of the term “extremism” in the description of various terrorist offences as discussed below.

2018年3月最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部联合印发的《关于办理恐怖主义、极端主义刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》进一步明确了有关规定的解释。安全和司法部。 《意见》对刑法第一百二十条有关组建、领导或者积极参与恐怖组织的若干条款的解释和适用提供了一定的指导。尽管有助于进一步定义某些被视为恐怖主义的活动，但该意见并未解决所有问题，例如包括下文讨论的各种恐怖主义罪行描述中“极端主义”一词的范围。

21、As such, there are concerns that the scope of the definitions leaves the potential that acts of legitimate protest, dissent and other human rights activities, or of genuine religious activity, can fall within the ambit of “terrorism” or “terrorist activities”, and consequently for the imposition of coercive legal restrictions on legitimate activity protected under international human rights law.Such provisions are vulnerable to being used – deliberately or inadvertently – in a discriminatory or otherwise arbitrary manner against individuals or communities.

因此，有人担心定义的范围使合法抗议、异议和其他人权活动或真正的宗教活动有可能属于“恐怖主义”或“恐怖主义活动”的范围，以及因此，对受国际人权法保护的合法活动施加强制性法律限制。这些规定很容易被故意或无意地以歧视性或其他任意方式对个人或社区使用。

22、In relation to “extremism”, the Xinjiang Religious Affairs Regulation (“XRAR”) sets out a definition of “religious extremism” referring to “the distortion of religious teachings and the promotion of extremism, as well as other extremes of thought, speech and behavior such as the promotion of violence, social hatred and anti-humanity”.As such, the XRAR prohibits “extremist… ideas”, “thought”, “activities”, “clothing”, “symbols”, “signs” and “content”, but provides little clarity on what constitutes these elements such as to render them “extremist”.

关于“极端主义”，新疆宗教事务条例（XRAR）对“宗教极端主义”进行了定义，指“歪曲宗教教义，宣扬极端主义，以及其他极端的思想、言论和言论”。诸如宣扬暴力、社会仇恨和反人类的行为”。因此，XRAR 禁止“极端主义……思想”“思想”“活动”“服装”“符号”“标志”和“内容”，但没有明确说明这些要素的构成，例如使它们成为“极端主义”。

23、The XUAR Regulation on Deextremification (“XRD”) defines “extremism” as “propositions and conduct using distortion of religious teachings or other means to incite hatred or discrimination and advocate violence”, and “extremification” as “speech and actions under the influence of extremism, that spread radical religious ideology, and reject and interfere with normal production and livelihood”. This regulation also contains an open-ended list of “primary expressions of extremification”, all of which are to be prohibited, including “interfering with normal cultural and recreational activities, rejecting or refusing public goods and services such as radio and television”, “spreading religious fanaticism through irregular beards or name selection”, and “deliberately interfering with or undermining the implementation of family planning policies”. In this regard, it is notable that Chinese law and policy consistently refer to “extremism” generally, without the critical qualifying adjective “violent”, as UN instruments approach the issue.

新疆维吾尔自治区去极端化条例（XRD）将“极端主义”定义为“利用歪曲宗教教义或其他方式煽动仇恨或歧视、鼓吹暴力的主张和行为”，“极端化”是“受宗教势力影响的言论和行为”。传播激进宗教思想，拒绝和干涉正常生产生活的极端主义”。该规定还包含一个开放式清单“主要的极端化表现形式”，所有这些都是被禁止的，包括“干扰正常的文化和娱乐活动，拒绝或拒绝广播和电视等公共产品和服务”，“通过不规则的胡须或选名传播宗教狂热”，以及“故意干预或破坏计划生育政策的实施”。在这方面，值得注意的是，随着联合国文书处理该问题，中国的法律和政策始终普遍提及“极端主义”，而没有关键的限定形容词“暴力”。

24、As such, the legal texts appear to conflate what might otherwise be construed as matters of personal choice in relation to religious practice with “extremism”, and “extremism” with the phenomenon of terrorism, significantly broadening the range of conduct that can be targeted under a counter-terrorism objective or pretext. Such conflation through the application of broadly stated or vague definitions pose particular problems in relation to criminalization under Chinese criminal law, for example, of the “promotion of terrorism and extremism through books, audio and video materials” or the “possession of books, audio and video materials or other things despite being aware that they produce, distribute and preach terrorism or extremism”. Owing to the highly subjective notions of what defines or constitutes “extremism”, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has argued that “the term … has no purchase in binding international legal standards and, when operative as a criminal legal category, is irreconcilable with the principle of legal certainty; it is therefore per se incompatible with the exercise of certain fundamental human rights.”

因此，法律文本似乎将可能被解释为与宗教实践有关的个人选择事项与“极端主义”“极端主义”与恐怖主义现象混为一谈，大大拓宽了可针对以下行为的行为范围。反恐目标或借口。这种通过应用宽泛或模糊的定义进行的混同对中国刑法的刑事定罪造成了特殊的问题，例如，“通过书籍、音像资料宣扬恐怖主义和极端主义”或“持有书籍、音像制品”等问题。和视频材料或其他东西，尽管知道它们制作、传播和宣扬恐怖主义或极端主义”。由于对“极端主义”的定义或构成具有高度主观性的概念，联合国在打击恐怖主义的同时促进和保护人权和基本自由问题特别报告员认为，“这个词……在具有约束力的国际法律标准中没有任何意义，并且，在作为刑事法律范畴运作时，与法律确定性原则不可调和；因此它本身与行使某些基本人权是不相容的。”

 

B、Methodologies applied to identify suspects and persons “at risk” of “extremism” 

用于识别“极端主义”嫌疑人和“处于危险中”的人的方法

 

25、As mentioned, the 2017 XUAR Regulation on Deextremification (“XRD”) includes a list of 15 “primary expressions of extremification”, described as “words and actions under the influence of extremism”, to be prohibited. This list may have been an attempt at standardizing and codifying a number of such lists that had emerged in various localities in XUAR, most notably a list of 75 signs of religious extremism that local authorities and police departments had reportedly started distributing in December 2014. These lists of “signs” and “primary expressions” of religious extremism include conduct that falls well within the exercise of fundamental freedoms and which are not, per se, linked with violence or potential violent action. Examples include “rejecting or refusing radio and television”; being “young and middle-aged men with a big beard”; “suddenly quit[ing] drinking and smoking, and not interacting with others who do drink and smoke”; and “resisting normal cultural and sports activities such as football and singing competitions”;among others.

如前所述，2017年新疆维吾尔自治区去极端化条例 (“XRD”) 包括15种“极端化的主要表现形式”的清单，描述为“受到影响的言行极端主义”，予以禁止。这份清单可能是试图对新疆各地出现的一些此类清单进行标准化和编纂，其中最引人注目的是据报道地方当局和警察部门于2014年12月开始分发的75种宗教极端主义迹象清单。这些宗教极端主义的“迹象”和“主要表现”清单包括完全属于行使基本自由的行为，并且这些行为本身与暴力或潜在的暴力行动无关。例子包括“拒绝或拒绝广播和电视”；是“留着大胡子的中青年”；“突然戒烟，不与饮酒和吸烟的人交往”；“抵制足球、歌唱比赛等正常的文化体育活动”等。

26、Various forms of conduct associated with the expression of different opinions, stated in broad terms, are also considered a sign of “extremism”. These include, for instance, “resisting current policies and regulations”; “using mobile phone text messages and WeChat and other social chat software to exchange learning experience, read illegal religious propaganda materials”; “carrying illegal political and religious books and audio-visual products or checking them at the residence”; or “using satellite receivers, Internet, radio 

and other equipment to illegally listen to, watch, and spread overseas religious radio and television programs”, “resisting government propaganda” and “refusing to watch normal movies and TV networks”.

从广义上讲，与表达不同意见有关的各种形式的行为也被视为“极端主义”的标志。其中包括，例如，“抵制现行政策和法规”；“利用手机短信和微信等社交聊天软件交流学习心得，阅读非法宗教宣传材料”； “携带非法政治、宗教书籍、音像制品或者在住所查验”；或“利用卫星接收机、互联网、广播等设备非法收听、收看、传播境外宗教广播电视节目”“抵制政府宣传”“拒绝收看正常影视网络”等。

27、Furthermore, the lists include violations of other laws and policies, for example family planning policies. This means that a person breaching such other law or policy is not only exposed to the sanctions provided under that law or policy for its own breach, but may also fall within the ambit of what is considered as “extremist” with additional consequences on that basis, such as criminal punishment and/or “re-education”, as discussed below.

包括违反其他法律和政策，例如计划生育政策。这意味着违反此类其他法律或政策的人不仅会因其自身的违规行为而受到该法律或政策规定的制裁，而且还可能落入被视为“极端分子”的范围内，并在此基础上产生额外后果，例如刑事处罚和/或“再教育”，如下所述。

28、These lists of indicators for identifying persons “at risk” of “extremism” or terrorism appear to be based on elements that do not necessarily serve as actual and substantive indicators that an individual has engaged, or is at risk of engaging in, violent extremist or terrorist conduct. Rather, they appear based on a simplistic association of these indicators with “terrorism” or “extremism”, whereas many of these indicators, taken individually (and even collectively) may merely be manifestations of nothing more or less than personal choice in the practice of Islamic religious beliefs and/or legitimate expression of opinion. The use of methodologies based on such subjective or superficial “risk factors” and which overemphasize elements of what might otherwise be considered as legitimate religious practice, cultural preference, or a matter of personal choice, risks casting a wide net to subject individuals (who have no connection with violent extremism or terrorism) to these laws and policies, unpredictable outcomes and potentially arbitrary application of law and policy.The imposition of coercive sanctions on the basis of indicators that encompass conduct that may amount to the legitimate exercise of rights to freedom of religion, carries serious risk of discriminatory application and use as profiling tools on individuals primarily on grounds of their ethno-religious identity and individual expressions thereof.

这些用于识别“面临”“极端主义”或恐怖主义“风险”的人的指标清单似乎基于的要素不一定作为个人从事或有风险从事暴力极端主义或恐怖主义活动的实际和实质性指标。恐怖行为。相反，它们的出现是基于这些指标与“恐怖主义”或“极端主义”的简单关联，而这些指标中的许多单独（甚至集体）可能仅仅是在实践中的个人选择的表现。伊斯兰宗教信仰和/或合法的意见表达。使用基于此类主观或肤浅“风险因素”的方法，并且过分强调可能被视为合法的宗教习俗、文化偏好或个人选择问题的要素，有可能将广泛的网络撒向受调查的个人（他们有与暴力极端主义或恐怖主义无关）与这些法律和政策、不可预测的结果和可能任意适用法律和政策。宗教，主要基于其民族宗教身份及其个人表达方式，具有歧视性应用和用作对个人进行剖析工具的严重风险。

 

C、Scope and nature of responses to alleged “terrorist” or “extremist” conduct 

对涉嫌“恐怖主义”或“极端主义”行为的回应范围和性质

 

29、In its August 2019 White Paper on “Vocational Education and Training in Xinjiang”, the Government explained that its system sought to balance harsh punishment for serious acts, with compassion, leniency, education and rehabilitation for minor cases. Under that system, judgment and punishment is meted out by criminal courts for serious acts, whereas an administrative track deals with more “minor” cases. This administrative track involves so- called “Vocational Education and Training Centres” (VETC facilities), which are facilities where individuals can be placed for “deradicalization” and “re-education”. The significant distinction between what constitutes “serious” and “minor” acts of terrorism and/or “extremist” acts is unclear, with the same types of conduct often included under both legal categories. This creates a further level of uncertainty for the population at large as to which cases must (or can be) decided in formal court proceedings, and which will (or may) be handled administratively. Moreover, the differentiation between the categories of cases according to an assessment of “gravity” is itself based on undefined criteria (such as “circumstances are minor”, a person “poses a real danger but has not yet caused actual consequences”, a person’s “subjective malice is not deep and they can sincerely repent”,or a person “still [is] a threat to society”). These broadly worded requirements create significant scope for arbitrary, inconsistent and subjective application of the law. As such, the same act could readily lead to quite different and unpredictable legal consequences.

在其2019年8月的《新疆职业教育与培训》白皮书中，政府解释说，其制度试图平衡对严重行为的严厉惩罚与同情、宽大, 教育和康复的轻微案件。在该制度下，刑事法院对严重的行为进行判决和处罚，而行政轨道则处理更多的“轻微”案件。这条行政轨道涉及所谓的“职业教育和培训中心”（VETC设施），这些设施可以安置个人进行“去极端化”和“再教育”。什么构成“严重”和“轻微”恐怖主义行为和/或“极端主义”行为之间的重大区别尚不清楚，同一类型的行为通常包括在两个法律类别中。这给广大民众造成了更大程度的不确定性，即哪些案件必须（或可以）在正式的法庭程序中裁决，哪些案件将（或可能）通过行政方式处理。此外，根据“严重性”的评估区分案件类别本身是基于未定义的标准（例如“情况轻微”，一个人“构成真正的危险但尚未造成实际后果”，一个人的“主观恶意不深，可以真心忏悔”，或者一个人“还是对社会构成威胁）。这些措辞宽泛的要求为任意、不一致和主观地适用法律创造了很大的空间。因此，同样的行为很容易导致完全不同和不可预测的法律后果。

30、Furthermore, under the law, each intervening authority at every stage of the process (be it police, prosecutor, judge, or enforcement official), whether in the criminal or administrative track, can make the determination that “education” is deemed warranted and can direct the transfer of an individual to a VETC facility. A placement in such facility thus becomes an available consequence of having committed any type of act that can be construed as “terrorism” or “extremism”, regardless of whether the person is also criminally prosecuted. There are further concerns that the law fails to provide sufficient legal certainty on core elements of the “education and transformation” system itself, such as the permissible duration for such residential programmes in VETC facilities or the criteria or procedure according to which individuals are or can be deemed appropriately “educated” and thereby liable for release.

此外，根据法律，在程序的每个阶段（无论是警察、检察官、法官还是执法官员），无论是在刑事还是行政领域，每个干预当局都可以确定“教育”被认为是必要的，并且可以将个人转移到VETC设施。因此，无论此人是否也受到刑事起诉，在此类设施中的安置成为犯下任何可被解释为“恐怖主义”或“极端主义”行为的可用后果。还有人担心法律未能就“教育和转型”系统本身的核心要素提供足够的法律确定性，例如在 VETC设施中此类住宿计划的允许期限或个人可以或可以依据的标准或程序被认为受到适当的“教育”，因此有责任释放。

 

D、Breadth of preventive, investigative and coercive powers, and degree of oversight and redress

预防、调查和强制权力的广度，以及监督和补救的程度

 

31、Under applicable law, public security organs, and the executive more broadly, are given far-reaching powers to prevent, investigate and respond to terrorist and “extremist” acts. The Counterterrorism Law (“CTL”) and Xinjiang Implementing Measures (“XIM”), for example, authorize public security organs to employ “technological investigative measures” and to collect and retain data regarding numerous aspects of individuals’ lives, including personal data and biometric data. The Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) allows these authorities to use special investigative techniques, including electronic surveillance,while the CTL authorizes imposition of a range of restrictive measures on suspects, including orders not to leave the city, not to use public transport, not to communicate with certain persons, to hand over passports, or to periodically report to the authorities. Under the law, other entities also have a role and must cooperate with the authorities. For example, telecommunications and internet providers must put information content monitoring systems in place and provide public security officials with decryption and other technical support, and local governments are required to use technology, alongside other measures, to prevent the spread of terrorism and “extremism” and to ensure that “public areas of the city as needed” are equipped with “public security video image information systems”.

根据适用的法律，公安机关和更广泛的行政部门被赋予了预防、调查和应对恐怖主义和“极端主义”行为的广泛权力。例如，《反恐法》（CTL）和新疆实施办法（XIM）授权公安机关采取“技术侦查措施”，收集和保留个人生活的诸多方面的数据，包括个人数据和生物特征数据。 《刑事诉讼法》（CPL）允许这些当局使用特殊侦查手段，包括电子监控，而《刑事诉讼法》授权对嫌疑人实施一系列限制性措施，包括不得离开城市、不得使用公共交通工具、不与某些人交流、交出护照或定期向当局报告。根据法律，其他实体也有作用，必须与当局合作。例如，电信和互联网提供商必须建立信息内容监控系统，并为公安人员提供解密等技术支持，并要求地方政府使用技术和其他措施，防止恐怖主义和“极端主义”的蔓延并确保“根据需要在城市公共区域”配备“公安视频图像信息系统”。

32、These specific counter-terrorism powers come in addition to the general powers of the public security organs to take suspects into custody and pre-trial detention for lengthy periods without independent review, contrary to international human rights law and standards. For example, under the CPL, a person can be in detention for up to 37 days before any formal review and decision that an arrest is warranted.

这些具体的反恐权力是公安机关对犯罪嫌疑人进行拘留和预审的一般权力之外的。在没有独立审查的情况下长期审判拘留，违反国际人权法和标准。例如，根据《刑事诉讼法》，一个人可以被拘留长达37天，然后才能进行任何正式审查和决定逮捕是正当的。

33、With respect to the exercise of powers under the CTL, article 94 punishes the abuse of power by personnel of counter-terrorism institutions and “other conduct violating laws or discipline”. Article of the XIM, in turn, provides that staff of counter-terrorism institutions and relevant departments who “fail to perform their duties in counter-terrorism work” may be reprimanded and educated, given administrative sanctions where the circumstances are serious and held criminally responsible where a crime was committed.Article 96 of the CTL also provides that where “relevant units or individuals” are unsatisfied with a decision under the CTL to impose administrative punishment or administrative compulsory measures, they may apply for administrative reconsideration or raise an administrative lawsuit.

关于行使《反恐法》规定的权力，第94条惩处反恐怖主义机构人员滥用职权和“其他违法违纪行为”。厦门国际刑警组织又规定，反恐怖主义机构和有关部门的工作人员“不履行反恐怖主义工作职责”的，可以给予训诫教育，情节严重的，给予行政处分并追究刑事责任。《刑法》第九十六条还规定，“有关单位或者个人”对根据《刑法》作出行政处罚或者行政强制措施的决定不服的，可以申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼。

34、OHCHR does not have information on the degree to which these remedies are implemented, either in absolute terms or as a proportion of relevant cases, or, where they are implemented, their effectiveness in ending a breach of rights and providing effective remedy. For their part, the applicable legal texts themselves suggest there is only limited, if any, independent judicial oversight of the authorities exercising the powers conferred to them under the counter-terrorism and counter-“extremism” laws and policies, increasing the risk of discriminatory or arbitrary application. The broad and far-reaching legal powers given to the authorities under Chinese legislation require comprehensive and transparent regulation, in line with the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and accountability, in order to remain consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms, notably to protect rights to privacy and to freedom of movement, expression and religion.

人权高专办没有关于这些补救措施实施程度的信息，无论是绝对数量还是相关案例的比例，或者在实施这些补救措施的情况下，它们在结束侵权行为和提供有效补救方面的有效性。就他们而言，适用的法律文本本身表明，对行使反恐和反“极端主义”法律和政策赋予他们的权力的当局进行有限的独立司法监督（如果有的话），增加了歧视的风险 或任意应用。中国立法赋予当局的广泛而深远的法律权力需要根据合法性、必要性、相称性和问责制原则进行全面和透明的监管，以保持与人权和基本自由的一致性，特别是保护隐私权以及行动、言论和宗教自由的权利。

35、In summary, the Chinese “anti-terrorism law system” is based on vague and broad concepts that grant significant discretion to diverse officials as to their interpretation and application. Methods set out under the framework to identify and assess problematic conduct are simplistic and prone to subjectivity, and do not appear to be based in empirically obtained evidence that establishes the links between the indicators of conduct relied on and terrorism or violent extremism. Furthermore, the legal consequences attached to such conduct are unpredictable and insufficiently regulated. Authorities are granted broad investigative, preventive and coercive powers with limited safeguards and independent judicial oversight. Individually and cumulatively, these factors present significant concerns as to the system’s compliance with international human rights law, establishing a framework that is vulnerable to arbitrary and discriminatory application, unjustifiably limits the exercise of legitimate rights, potentially subjects individuals to arbitrary detention, and fails to provide adequate safeguards to protect against abuse. In the context in which this system is implemented and by associating “extremism” with certain religious and cultural practices, it also carries inherent risk of unnecessary, disproportionate, and discriminatory application to the ethnic and religious communities concerned.

总而言之，中国的“反恐法律体系”是基于模糊而宽泛的概念，赋予不同官员对其解释和适用的重大自由裁量权。该框架下确定和评估有问题行为的方法过于简单，容易带有主观性，而且似乎并非基于经验获得的证据，这些证据确定了所依赖的行为指标与恐怖主义或暴力极端主义之间的联系。此外，此类行为的法律后果是不可预测的，并且监管不充分。当局被授予广泛的调查、预防和强制权力，但保障措施有限，司法监督独立。单独和综合起来，这些因素对系统是否符合国际人权法、建立一个容易受到任意和歧视性适用的框架、不合理地限制合法权利的行使、可能使个人受到任意拘留以及未能提供充分的保护措施以防止滥用。在实施这一制度的背景下，通过将“极端主义”与某些宗教和文化习俗联系起来，它也具有对有关民族和宗教社区不必要、不成比例和歧视性适用的内在风险。