Five International Lawyers’ Organizations Submit China’s UPR Interim Report: Why Lawyers’ Independent Practice Becomes a Rule of Law Pressure Test

On September 9, the international organization Lawyers for Lawyers released a joint mid-term report on the situation of China’s lawyers, which was jointly submitted by Lawyers for Lawyers, the Association of Lawyers of England and Wales, the Canadian Observatory for Lawyers’ Rights, the International Association of Lawyers’ Institute for Human Rights and the Asian Network of Lawyers to assess China’s implementation of its commitments to the rule of law, fair trial, judicial remedies and lawyers’ rights in the fourth round of the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

The meaning of this report is not to add another human rights document that criticizes China, but to set “whether lawyers can work independently” as an observable indicator for testing the commitment to the rule of law.

What is the report *

The joint report found that the eight relevant UPR recommendations supported by China were not fully implemented and listed the risks faced by lawyers and legal professionals, including harassment, surveillance, arbitrary prosecution, unfair trial, arbitrary deprivation of liberty, travel restrictions, isolation, forced disappearance, exile, transnational repression, and allegations of torture or other abuse.

The report specifically mentions cases of Ruth,余文生,许艳,谢阳,张文鹏,许志永 and丁家喜, and pay attention to the pressure on lawyers to defend the cases of the Church of Zion.

The content belongs to the assessment of civil organizations and individual case materials submitted to the UPR mechanism, not to the United Nations Judicial Court.Their value lies in the formation of international review records and also needs to be contrasted with court documents, party materials and government responses.

* Three system indicators worth observing

Instead of simply treating the report as “international organizations criticizing China,” China’s focus is on observing three indicators that can be continuously verified: – whether lawyers in politically sensitive cases can meet the parties in a timely manner and obtain the case; – whether lawyers’ licenses, annual assessments and legal supervision will be used for punishment for agent-sensitive cases or public expression; – whether the right of detainees to lawyer assistance is guaranteed under mandatory measures such as the designation of residence surveillance.

* Amendments to the Lawyer’s Act push the issue further forward

The report also focuses on the draft amendment of the Lawyer Law published in June 2026.The submitting agency believes that the proposed content of requiring lawyers to adhere to the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the establishment of party organizations in accordance with the Party Constitution, and other proposals, is tense with the independence of lawyers emphasized in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

This is precisely a long-standing structural contradiction in China’s rule of law narrative: Are lawyers first and foremost independent agents of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties or obedient sexual professional roles in the political governance system? The two may not be obviously conflicting in ordinary cases, but can quickly collide in cases of national security, religion, speech and civil rights.

Moving from individual case dispute to system review

There may, of course, be information choices, legal assessments, and differences in positions in international reports, and Beijing has the right to respond one by one, but a system that can refute criticism of the rule of law should be able to provide more transparent procedural facts, rather than simply deny the issue from a political standpoint.

For example, why is a lawyer denied a meeting? why is the practice permit suspended or cancelled? how is the right to appoint a lawyer during the residence surveillance period guaranteed? can the decision be subject to independent judicial review?

Focus on China’s view that the situation of Chinese lawyers is of public importance because the rights of lawyers are never merely the professional interests of lawyers.