Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting of Prisoners of Conscience in China

Susie Hughes – Executive Director, Co-founder

The China Tribunal has been initiated by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC), an international not for profit organisation, with headquarters in Australia and National Committees in the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. ETAC is a coalition of lawyers, academics, ethicists, medical professionals, researchers and human rights advocates dedicated to ending forced organ harvesting in China.

ETAC felt compelled to establish the Tribunal given the many reports, some from very eminent bodies, that have dealt with forced organ har- vesting but that have not dealt specifically with whether China’s trans- plant practices have amounted to – or included – commission of international criminal offences.

Under the chairmanship of Sir Geoffrey Nice, the China Tribunal will en- gage in a rigorous examination of existing evidence of systematic, wide- spread forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic of China.

Specifically, the Tribunal’s mandate is to consider the evidence regarding forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China and determine whether international crimes have been, and continue to be, committed.

BACKGROUND

Prior to 2000, there were few transplants in China, with numbers gradually increasing following advances in immunotherapy. During this period, organs were sourced solely from capital offence prisoners during or fol- lowing judicial executions, although this was not officially admitted until 2006.

From 2000, there was a rapid increase in the number of transplants. The evidence demonstrating this will be presented throughout the course of the Tribunal hearings.

The source of the organs underpinning this high level of activity has never been explained in a credible way by the Chinese Government. Claims that organs came from prisoners found guilty in the criminal jus- tice system and sentenced to death do not add up.

Of great concern, the increase in transplant activity coincided with the repression of practitioners of the Buddha school Qigong practice of Falun Gong. During the 2000s, analysis of various sources of emerging evidence led to the conclusion that people who practised Falun Gong were being killed to provide the organs fuelling China’s transplant boom.

Broadly speaking, evidence of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience includes:

1. The coincidence of persecution campaigns with expansion of the or- gan transplantation sector
2. Evidence of medical testing, that includes organ scanning, of Chinese prisoners of conscience. Primarily Falun Gong practitioners in custody but also more recently of the Uyghur people, a Turkic ethic minority group, who are also incarcerated in very large numbers in China.
3. Evidence from whistleblowers
4. The mass incarceration and permanent disappearances of members victim communities
5. Telephone evidence of organ sourcing from hospitals where Falun Gong ‘donors’ are specifically offered
6. Dual careers of prominent Chinese citizens in the persecution of prisoners of conscience, and organ transplantation

It is this evidence that the Tribunal will examine in order to determine whether international crimes have been, and continue to be, committed.

It is common for Chinese transplant professionals to parrot the Communist Party line saying that those who have been speaking out about the very real and abhorrent treatment of prisoners of conscience in China, or those who raise awareness of the investigations that have already taken place on forced organ harvesting, have a ‘political agenda’. This has resulted in a testimonial injustice that we believe has denied the prisoners of conscience who have escaped the persecution, their voice and al- lowed the crimes that we believe are happening to continue.

Whilst ETAC initiated the Tribunal, there is a necessary and scrupulous separation between ETAC and the Tribunal. For example, ETAC has worked on the logistics for setting up these hearings over the next three days but is not, and will not be, privy to the Tribunal’s internal deliberations and consideration of the evidence save to the extent those deliberations are revealed in the Tribunal’s final public decision. (Sir Geoffrey Nice will explain more regarding the Tribunal processes.)

During these hearings 30 witnesses, – fact witnesses, investigators and expert witnesses who have submitted evidence – will be questioned to assist the Tribunal to reach its conclusions in a transparent and evidence-based way. A comprehensive public record of all evidence relied on by the Tribunal will thus be created.

The findings of the Tribunal will be of interest to many including policy makers (medical, legal, academic and governmental), medical and non- medical transplant professionals and universities outside of China who may be collaborating with China or considering a collaboration in relation to organ transplantation.

ETAC also hopes to add impetus to these issues being considered at institutions including the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

And finally, ETAC also aims to bring recognition, solace and hope to victims including the bereaved of those killed for their organs and members of the victimised and targeted groups; to signal that their suffering is not being ignored by the international community, that their demands for ac- countability are just, that in principle they deserve restorative justice, and that there is hope for an end to forced organ harvesting in China.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Evidence includes:

• Up to 1000 hospitals started offering transplants
• Hospitals had an abundant supply of organs (e.g. 16-17 transplants per day)
• Very large numbers of transplant staff were trained
• The military-medical complex became deeply involved in transplant activity and research
• The State started subsidizing the local immunosuppressant industry
• There was a dramatic fall in waiting times for transplants
• Hospitals advertised transplant services to foreigners on a pre-scheduled basis, including for heart transplants

Claims that organs came from prisoners found guilty in the criminal justice system and sentenced to death do not add up including:

• the sheer volume of transplant activity unmatched by numbers of prisoners shown to have been executed;
  the very short time that passes in China between conviction and execution of a capital punishment prisoner making matching of the organ(s) of such a prisoner ‘donor’ with a needy recipient of particular organ(s) impossible;
• the fact that prisoners often make poor organ sources due to ill health and blood-borne infections very common in prisoners convicted of capital offences.