Detention and extradition of the author to China

Facts

The author is a national of the Republic of Korea and has permanent resident status in New Zealand. He was accused of murdering a woman in Shanghai and so the Shanghai police issued an arrest warrant for him. In 2010, INTERPOL issued a request for law enforcement authorities worldwide to provisionally arrest him pending his extradition. In 2011, New Zealand’s authorities arrested the author on request for arrest and extradition to China. A district court in New Zealand found the author eligible for surrender and from 2014-2015 the Minister of Justice sought and obtained assurances from China with respect to the author. AIn 2021, after obtaining additional assurances from China, the Minister of Justice decided that the author could be surrendered, and the Supreme Court also reaffirmed this decision. Initially having been detained in 2011, the author was granted bail in 2016 and terms of the bail were relaxed in 2019. The author claims that his rights to not be subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment, liberty and security, humanity, and equality before courts and tribunals have been violated under articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the Covenant. The author remained in New Zealand while his case was being examined by the Committee.

Admissibility

Contrary to the author’s claim that he was detained in conditions amounting to death row which subjected him to a risk of extra-judicial killing in China, the Committee notes the various assurances taken by New Zealand about the authors non-refoulement claims and considered these aspects of the communication as inadmissible. The Committee also decided that the claims of the author regarding the length of the detention and health conditions as inadmissible, given the timely decisions of New Zealand and medical treatment meted out to the author. The Committee considered that the author had sufficiently substantiated his claims regarding risk of torture in China (article 7), arbitrary arrest and detention in New Zealand (article 9 (1)) and declared those claims as admissible and subject to examination on merits.

Merits

With respect to claims of risk of torture in China, the Committee noted that given the assurances and monitoring regime of New Zealand, it has not been established that nothing has aggravated the risk that the author will be tortured in China. The Committee considered that New Zealand had sufficiently considered the author’s arguments about why he would face risk without disregarding them and acted with due diligence and care in requesting diplomatic assurances. The Committee concluded that author had not demonstrated that his extradition to China would result in substantial risk of torture and hence there was no violation of article 7 of the Covenant. With respect to claims of arbitrary arrest and detention, the Committee observed that the detention of the author from 12 September to 01 December 2014 had no lawful basis and was arbitrary as a warrant issued by the High Court had expired before the issuance of the new warrant and hence constituted a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. However, the remaining periods of the author’s detention and his release on restrictive bail were not violative of article 9 (1).

Recommendations

New Zealand is under an obligation to:

a) Provide the author with an effective remedy for violation of his right under article 9 (1) and this requires giving the author adequate compensation;

b) Prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 26 April 2024