Huoji Guangdong was arrested again, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for speech.

On November 2, Han Yunwu, a Chinese democracy activist abroad, revealed on platform X that Hu Shu Jieji, a citizen of Guangdong, Yang Huilai County, was arrested again by Chinese public security authorities. Han Yunxin had previously received identification material and personal accounts from Hu Shuyu-hu and is now publicly calling attention to his personal security. Hu Hu was sentenced to two years ' imprisonment in 2018 for criminal prosecution for speech and after his release in 2020, he repeatedly responded to surveillance, harassment and psychiatric treatment. The news that he was taken away again is now known and the legal basis for the arrest authorities, the place of detention and the imposition of coercive measures remains undisclosed.

Han Yun-hoIn the emergency statement, it was stated that Hu Shu 9 had been lost and that his X account number was controlled by others. He appealed to international media and human rights organizations to the Chinese authorities to immediately make public the conditions of detention, to allow family contact, to guarantee the assistance of lawyers and to provide necessary medical care. The account status was one of the clues he had revealed the incident; More urgently, where, under whose control and security Hu Hu Hu is currently at the moment.

A public statement and two years of imprisonment

The public criticism of the Communist Party of China by Hu Shuyu-ji dates back to

1. On 13 February 2018, New Tang TV published a statement by the name of Hu Huo 9 with an indication of his presence in the county of Kaiyang in Guangdong. It criticized China ' s cyber-information control and the Communist Party ' s suppression of democracy, announced its withdrawal from the Communist Youth League and withdrew its previous will to join the party. This publicly released material of the year documents his clear political position.

According to a personal statement that Hu Hu Hoo-Kyu had previously given to persons abroad, and in 2018, he was arrested by the police authorities of Huilai county for his cyber speech and subsequently sentenced to two years' imprisonment for “incitement to commit terrorist acts”. He maintains that he did not commit terrorist acts and that the acts in question were the subject of an opinion. In 2020, he was released after serving his sentence. The information provided on this occasion included photographs of the identity of the person, the above-mentioned statements and a certificate of suspected release; The full verdict and the specific incriminating statements remain unpublished.

The most worthy of examination in this criminal case is the line between political expression and the crime of terrorist activity. Public opposition to the Communist Party, criticism of the State ' s leadership or questioning of the political system does not in itself constitute incitement to commit terrorist acts. The anti-terrorism law must be based on specific criminal acts and evidence and should not be a convenient ground for sanctioning political dissent. The public statements of 2018 cannot replace the full criminal record, but at least let the outside world see that Hu Hu Shuyuji openly opposed the ruling party in his true name and was subsequently involved in severe criminal prosecutions.

Following release from prison, the charges of surveillance and medical treatment have been reported.

In his personal statement, Hu Hu said that he had worked in the Shioyang Valley, Guangdong City, after he had been released from prison in

1. At the time, people were being posted, followed and strangers were constantly appearing and threatened with words, near their work and place of residence. This life lasted about a year, and he was subjected to severe fear and stress.

The worst of the experiences occurred later. He claims to have been summoned and subsequently taken to psychiatric institutions, including the Fourth People ' s Hospital in the capital and the psychiatric hospital in the country where he is domiciled. He also indicated that problems with personal status information and correspondence records affected normal working and life. The above experience was from the personal statements of Hu Hu Hu, and the decision to send him to a hospital, his medical records and the relevant administrative records still need to be ascertained; However, the public security intervention and personal liberty issues to which they refer cannot be ignored by the lack of public documents.

The Mental Health Law of China provides for the principle of voluntary hospitalization for mental disorders and strict medical and legal conditions for involuntary hospitalization. Political attitudes of citizens and past record of serving sentences cannot substitute for medical diagnosis, much less automatically serve as a basis for restriction of liberty. The International Human Rights Organization “Protection Guards” had previously investigated cases of Chinese dissidents being placed in psychiatric hospitals, indicating that the risk of such abuse had long been of constant concern. The treatment described by Hu Jun-ji requires independent investigation, in particular as to whether the public security organs are involved in the decision to refer him to a hospital, how the hospital is to make the diagnosis and whether they can refuse or complain.

Rearrest, law enforcement responsibility must be made public

Hu Shu 9 has already served the two-year sentence set in

1. It is a fundamental right of citizens to continue working, to live and to express their political views after serving their sentences. The fact that a person has been sentenced does not justify indefinite surveillance, arbitrary summons or further restriction of personal liberty by the public security organs. The police should provide a new and specific legal basis for the arrest; The political stance of the past cannot replace new evidence of crime.

According to the public appeal of Han Yunhwan, the most urgent need is to confirm the safety of Mr. Hu. The public security organ that actually carried out the arrest must indicate what coercive measures were taken, where the detention was being carried out, whether family members had been informed in accordance with the law and whether lawyers were allowed to meet. Monitoring, harassment and the handling of mental health problems reported in the past should also be investigated both directly and by those responsible for taking decisions.

The experience of Hu has revealed a alarming aspect of the political control of the Communist Party under Xi Jinping rule: a citizen facing criminal prosecution after he openly opposed the ruling party; (b) After the end of the sentence, he or she also claims to have sustained interference in employment, residence and medical treatment; The arrest is now being reported again. Once the criminal justice power, the grass-roots policing power and the power of the medical institutions are co-ordinated around political positions, it is difficult for citizens to truly restore their freedom even when they leave prison.

The deeper institutional problems lie in the fact that the Party of the Communist Party has the core powers of legislation, law enforcement and the judiciary, and that citizens who openly criticize the ruling party lack full independent judicial remedies. Such a power structure leaves a great deal of room for silencing dissent and avoiding external oversight. One of the most immediate tests of a regime's respect for human rights is its treatment of those who openly oppose it. Respond to political criticism with criminal intimidation and continuous regulation, revealing the erosion of power on civil liberties.

China Focus expressed its solidarity with Mr. Hu’s right to freedom of expression and liberty in accordance with the law and called for an end to all persecutions for political expression. The relevant public security organs shall immediately disclose the place of their detention and the specific legal basis, guaranteeing their right to physical security, medical care, information about their families and access to a lawyer; In the absence of a legal basis for detention, his liberty shall be restored immediately. The surveillance, harassment and involuntary psychiatric experience that he had previously expressed should also be held accountable under the law. Hu Shuji has been deprived of his liberty for two years and the public power of the State can no longer continue to punish him in a non-transparent manner.