Hong Kong Alliance National Security Law Case Enters Sentencing Stage: Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung Convicted for June 4 Memorial and "End One-Party Dictatorship" Advocacy

Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China National Security Law Case Enters Sentencing Stage: Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung Convicted for June 4 Memorial and "End One-Party Dictatorship" Advocacy

The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China national security law case has entered the sentencing stage. On August 28, the Hong Kong High Court heard the mitigation pleas of Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung, and Albert Ho. Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung were previously found guilty of "inciting subversion of state power" on August 21, while Albert Ho had pleaded guilty in January this year. The judge indicated that sentencing would be handed down within two weeks, with the three facing a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.

The core of this case is not whether violent acts existed, but whether the long-standing political advocacy of the Hong Kong Alliance can be defined as "subversion" under the national security law. The Hong Kong court ruled that the alliance's advocacy of "ending one-party dictatorship" aims to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party's leadership and the fundamental system established by the Chinese Constitution, thus constituting an intention to "overthrow the state power." The court also acknowledged that the defendants did not use or advocate violence but still determined that the relevant advocacy belonged to the "other illegal means" referred to in the national security law.

Photo: On June 4, 2019, a candlelight vigil was held in Hong Kong's Victoria Park to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown. The image is from a Human Rights Watch original report, with the original copyright marked as AP Photo/Vincent Yu, File.

The Hong Kong government welcomed the conviction and publicly stated that the Chinese Communist Party's leadership is at the core of China's constitutional order, and any attempt to overthrow this leadership may infringe on national security laws. The government also claimed that the defendants had long promoted the relevant platform through public activities, publications, and speeches and denied that the case targeted political views themselves.

This official stance is in stark contrast to the evaluation of international human rights organizations. Human Rights Watch pointed out that Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung had long been involved in organizing the Victoria Park June 4 candlelight vigil, while the Hong Kong Alliance had held annual commemoration activities since 1990 until it was banned and eventually disbanded after the implementation of the Hong Kong national security law. Human Rights Watch believes that the conviction of the two infringed upon freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly and warned that June 4 commemorations in Hong Kong have gradually transformed from a public mourning space to a criminal risk.

Human Rights Watch reported that on June 4, 2019, tens of thousands of citizens could still light candles in Victoria Park to commemorate the victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. That was one of the last large-scale public June 4 commemoration activities in Hong Kong. Subsequently, the authorities first banned the 2020 and 2021 vigils on the grounds of epidemic prevention, and the Hong Kong Alliance was later forced to disband, with the space for public commemoration activities continuously shrinking.

The European Union expressed concern over the August 21 judgment, stating that the case further showed that the space for freedom of speech, assembly, and independent civil society in Hong Kong is shrinking. The European Union particularly mentioned that the defendants had experienced long-term pre-trial detention, been refused bail, and Chow Hang-tung had been subjected to solitary confinement multiple times, which weakened external confidence in Hong Kong's rule of law.

The mitigation procedure on August 28 brought the case into the final sentencing stage. The Associated Press reported that Chow Hang-tung made a statement in court, saying that pursuing democracy should not be considered a crime and indicated that even if faced with imprisonment, she would not abandon her relevant beliefs. The judge stated that the sentence would be announced within two weeks.

From Human Rights Watch's perspective, the significance of this case has gone beyond the three defendants themselves. The Hong Kong Alliance had long played a role in preserving the historical memory of June 4, organizing public mourning, and promoting accountability. When the court included political advocacy such as "ending one-party dictatorship" in the category of subversion under the national security law, the boundaries of political expression, historical commemoration, and civil society activities in Hong Kong, which were previously protected, were further compressed.

However, in terms of facts, it is necessary to distinguish between the court's judgment, the government's stance, and the evaluation of human rights organizations. The court has made a guilty verdict, which is a established judicial fact; the Hong Kong government's recognition that the activities endangered national security is an official stance; Human Rights Watch and the European Union believe that the case infringed upon basic freedoms and had a political nature. These three should not be confused.

The next step worth attention is the final sentencing and whether the court will further define the legal relationship between "ending one-party dictatorship," June 4 commemoration activities, and peaceful political initiatives in the reasoning for the sentence. If the sentence is close to the high penalty range under the national security law, it will further strengthen external concerns about the shrinking space for political expression in Hong Kong.