Secondary menu
IHRP external news feeds
China: Prominent Rights Lawyer Sentenced to 5 Years
(New York) – A court in China sentenced the prominent human rights lawyer Xie Yang to five years in prison on March 23, 2026, on politically motivated charges of “inciting subversion of state power,” Human Rights Watch said today. The Chinese government should immediately quash the conviction, which followed serious procedural violations and years of persecution, and free Xie unconditionally.
The Changsha Intermediate People’s Court cited several of Xie’s WeChat posts as the basis for the verdict, Xie’s former wife, Chen Guiqiu, posted on social media. The court also ordered the confiscation of 100,000 yuan (US$14,500).
“The Chinese authorities’ prosecution of Xie Yang and the court’s harsh sentence reflects Beijing’s utter contempt for the rule of law,” said Maya Wang, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This case not only aimed to persecute a brave human rights lawyer like Xie, but to intimidate all lawyers seeking to protect Chinese people’s rights.”
The legal proceedings against Xie were marred by serious violations of due process protections, Chen said. The authorities extended his pretrial detention 13 times for a total of over four years and barred his lawyers from participating in his hearings. Xie’s October 2025 trial was held in secret, police only told his family afterward.
Xie’s trial violated the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court as provided under international human rights law, Human Rights Watch said. In addition, the proceedings violated China’s Criminal Procedural Law, which guarantees a right to a defense (articles 33-35), public trial hearings (article 188), and time limits for a criminal investigation. With time served, Xie’s sentence is expected to go to January 2027.
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has recognized Xie’s detention as arbitrary and called for his immediate release.
Xie, 54, from Changsha, Hunan province, began practicing law in 2011. He has defended activists and victims of rights abuses in politically sensitive cases, including cases of religious persecution and land rights disputes.
Xie has faced repeated retaliation for his work. In July 2015, during the nationwide arrests of human rights lawyers known as the “709 crackdown,” Xie was tortured and subjected to enforced disappearance, convicted of “inciting subversion,” and imprisoned until 2017.
The authorities detained him again in January 2022 after he pressed for the release of a young teacher who had been forcibly committed to a psychiatric facility for criticizing censorship in education. Police raided Xie’s home, tortured him in custody, and held him on charges of “inciting subversion” and “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” said the US-based Chinese Human Rights Defenders.
“Foreign governments should continue to speak out for human rights lawyers like Xie Yang because this kind of support is most important when the circumstances are so dire,” Wang said. “Vocal international support could improve Xie’s treatment, and crucially, help give him and others in China the strength to persevere.”
Türkiye: European Court Hears New Case on Jailed Rights Defender
(London, March 24, 2026) – The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will hear pleadings on March 25, 2026, in a case brought by the human rights defender Osman Kavala, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists said today.
Joint Third Party Intervention in Kavala v Türkiye
Kavala has been continuously detained since 2017, despite binding judgments from the court that his detention should end. The three organizations have submitted a third-party intervention to the court, arguing, among other points, that the government’s undermining of judicial independence in Türkiye has contributed to the violations against Kavala.
“Osman Kavala’s unlawful and politically motivated detention has been allowed to persist for the best part of a decade in part because Türkiye’s judicial system lacks independence,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir, director of TLSP. “We hope the court will scrutinize how Türkiye’s ruling political parties have systematically taken steps to capture judicial authority and what that means for human rights.”
Kavala was arrested in October 2017, and on April 25, 2022, was convicted of “attempting to overthrow the government” and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for his alleged role in the 2013 mass protests triggered by an urban transformation plan around Istanbul’s Gezi Park. In 2019 and 2022, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that his detention was arbitrary and motivated by ulterior political purposes. The second judgment was the result of highly exceptional infringement proceedings, initiated by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe when Türkiye failed to implement the earlier judgement.
In early 2024, Kavala submitted a new application to the court, alleging that there had been multiple additional violations of his rights since its 2019 ruling. As of November 2025, the case has been before the court’s Grand Chamber, which is now due to examine the case.
The organizations’ intervention describes the degradation of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in Türkiye, leading to the capture of judicial authority by the ruling coalition political parties—Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)—as part of a broader assumption of effective political control over state institutions.
Attacks on judicial independence have included the removal of many legal safeguards designed to protect the independence of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the main self-governing body of the judiciary. Positions on the council were then able to be filled by judges and prosecutors close to the government. Some of those appointed have a track record of misusing anti-terrorism and national security laws as well as failing to implement Constitutional Court and European Court judgments.
“The council appears to have become an instrument to unduly influence the judiciary and its decision making, rather than serving as a safeguard for its independence,” said Temur Shakirov, director of the Europe and Central Asia program at the International Commission of Jurists. “Its powers are used to create a climate of fear and submission among judges and prosecutors, including through arbitrary measures affecting their careers and rights.”
Influence and control over the judiciary have also been secured in the aftermath of the 2016 coup attempt in Türkiye by arbitrarily dismissing thousands of judges and prosecutors and replacing them with individuals seemingly approved by or aligned with the ruling political parties. Their recruitment has been neither independent from the executive nor based on objective and transparent criteria.
Continued political pressure and interference with the judiciary in cases concerning perceived dissidents or others viewed as obstructing the interests of the ruling coalition have further contributed to the capture and instrumentalization of judicial authority in Türkiye.
Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to an effective remedy for violations of human rights protected by the convention. The third-party intervention argues that individual applications to Türkiye’s Constitutional Court can no longer be considered an effective remedy due to the lack of independence of its members from the executive and the resulting ineffectiveness in upholding the human rights of perceived dissidents. The Constitutional Court also lacks a transparent case prioritization policy, contributing to selectivity and facilitating interference with its independence.
The groups’ intervention notes that Türkiye consistently avoids discharging its convention obligations, particularly in politically sensitive cases, and that judicial and government authorities frequently circumvent national or European Court judgments and actively undermine their proper implementation.
“Turkish judicial authorities have subverted criminal proceedings, including by unreasonable interpretations of provisions of criminal law and disregard for core procedural rights,” said Aisling Reidy, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. “This is also reflected in the persistent defiance of European Court of Human Rights judgments and the standards established in its case law.”
Japan Authorities Take Steps to Address Athlete Abuse
The Japan Sports Agency (JSA) recently released its Guidelines for Evaluating and Improving Safety Measures in Physical Activity and Sports (Trial Version). After documented suffering by Japanese athletes and insufficient mechanisms to report abuse, the government’s efforts to end mistreatment in sports are a positive step. However, effective implementation is crucial.
The guidelines, published on January 27, 2026, come in five versions targeting groups involved in sports. The ones for athletes, coaches, and sports organizers, such as teams and clubs, include a section on abuse and harassment, provide examples of abusive behavior, identify contributing factors, and offer prevention and response measures.
In 2020, Human Rights Watch documented systemic child abuse in Japanese sports. Five years later, the Basic Act on Sport was revised, requiring the national government to address abuse. Soon after, Human Rights Watch and advocacy partners wrote to the JSA commissioner, Junichi Kawai, recommending establishing a Safe Sport Act and a Safe Sport Center to ensure that athletes can report abuse and that their cases are addressed.
On January 28, safe sport advocacy groups and former athletes and scholars met with the JSA to back efforts to eliminate harassment in sports and to stress the need for a Safe Sport Act and a Safe Sport Center.
Carrying out the new guidelines is merely voluntary. The draft FY2026 budget states that JSA will promote the guidelines and create a program to register and publicize organizations that comply. However, the process to address abuses in organizations that have refused to carry out the suggested measures remains unclear. Japan needs a legal framework requiring sports organizations to act on abuse.
While the guidelines list hotlines to report athlete abuse, each sports organization would operate its own complaint mechanism. Experts have raised concerns about insufficient staffing, funding, and expertise if organizations operate the hotlines. To establish a system that athletes can use without fear of retaliation and can trust to take effective action, an independent complaint mechanism is necessary.
The Japanese government has embarked on a path to greater sports safety, but to succeed, effective implementation, including a Safe Sport Act and a Safe Sport Center, is needed so that athletes and children across Japan are protected.