Image: The panels for Breakout Session 2, Awareness Track (L) and Breakout Session 2: Accountability Track (R).

International Religious Freedom Summit 2026: Speakers Sarah Cook (ETAC) and Samir Goswami (GRC)

February 2nd, 2026, Washington D.C: At the 2026 International Religious Freedom Summit, speakers Sarah Cook (on behalf of ETAC) and Samir Goswami (on behalf of Global Rights Compliance) each respectively took part in different panels to address forced organ harvesting in China.

Cook’s participation in the panel “Identifying Reg Flags Before Persecution Escalates” saw her address three key questions:

1. What is forced organ harvesting in China?
2. How does it differ from ethical transplant systems elsewhere?
3. And what early warning signs—or red flags—indicated this abuse was targeting religious minorities and may be continuing?

Goswami spoke at the panel “From Local Victories to Global Impact – Connecting Local Advocacy to Global Policy Successes for Religious Freedom“, whereby he explored how GRC, an international law firm specialising in international crimes and human rights, was commissioned by ETAC to assess forced organ harvesting through a business and human rights lens, and how the resulting Do No Harm framework provides a clear, practical roadmap to ensure institutions are not silently enabling these abuses.

See below further details of each session and excerpts from Cook and Goswami’s sharing.

Panel:

Identifying Red Flags Before Persecution Escalates

Monday, February 2. Breakout Session 2: Awareness Track

Image 1: Sarah Cook speaking at the panel.

Moderator

Rachel Miner, Bellwether International

Speakers

Sarah Cook, International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China
Rania Dean, AIDPAC
Jonathan Duarte, Nicaragua Freedom Foundation

Excerpts from Sarah Cook’s sharing:

After 12 months of review, including five days of public hearings, the [independent China] Tribunal concluded unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt that: “Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale,” that “Falun Gong practitioners have been one—and probably the main—source of organ supply,” and that “In regard to the Uyghurs, the Tribunal had evidence of medical testing on a scale that could allow them, amongst other uses, to become an ‘organ bank’.” The Tribunal also found no evidence that the infrastructure behind these abuses had been dismantled and concluded the practice continues.

…

This issue highlights a broader pattern in religious persecution: tactics refined against one group spread to others. Some officials aggressive in the anti-Falun Gong campaign or Tibet were later promoted to Xinjiang, just as Uyghur detentions escalated. And tactics recently refined in Xinjiang are now spreading to other parts of China.  

Thus, watching how repression evolves across communities is vital—to spot warning signs that could endanger believers from a wider range of faiths, in China or beyond.

…

What can or should the international community do?

• Avoid collaboration on organ transplant related activities with Chinese hospitals until it is clearer that forced organ harvesting has ceased. Conduct due diligence for any collaboration with Chinese hospitals regarding organ transplants, including via existing research, academic studies, directories on the past track record of specific hospitals and doctors. We hope to include some user-friendly appendices in the upcoming report, but a lot of this information is already publicly available.
• Pass legislation restricting collaboration, limiting reimbursements for foreign patients going to China for organ transplants, sanctioning officials and doctors implicated in past abuses, and recognizing the crimes against humanity and genocide committed against victim groups. Several countries have adopted such legislation – the UK, Israel, and Taiwan are a few examples -, as well as several U.S. states, there are two pieces of pending legislation – the FGPA and SFOHA – awaiting passage. Rules requiring medical professionals to report cases of patients returning from China or elsewhere with transplanted organs would be important too.
• Track religious prisoner detentions closely: De-anonymizing is a key form of protection – both from violations like forced organ harvesting but also torture and other abuses. The scale of detentions in a country like China is overwhelming, but more resources and funding should be provided to religious communities, human rights groups, and government agencies like USCIRF and the CECC to maintain more complete records and relay lists to the Chinese government. Even if people aren’t released, signaling that the int’l community knows these people are detained could offer protection.

See below a video clip of Cook’s sharing:

Panel:

From Local Victories to Global Impact – Connecting Local Advocacy to Global Policy Successes for Religious Freedom

Monday, February 2. Breakout Session 2: Accountability Track

The panel explored how grassroots action drives policy change in religious freedom. Using case studies, the experts showcased how local advocacy, strategic litigation, and NGO support successfully reversed religious persecution. By analysing domestic victories and legal challenges against non-state actors, the discussion identified replicable strategies and the specific sequencing required for profound positive change.

Image 2: Samir Goswami (far right) with other experts at the panel. Photo credit to @IRFSummit via X.

Moderator

Rachel Miner, Bellwether International

Speakers

Rebecca Cataldi, International Center for Religion & Diplomacy
Senator Khalil Tahir Sandhu, Senate of Pakistan
Dolkun Isa, Independent Uyghur Tribunal
Samir Goswami, Global Rights Compliance

Excerpts from Goswami’s sharing:

Forced Organ Harvesting: Do No Harm

… [The] work produced the Do No Harm Legal Advisory and Policy Guidance, launched with the British Medical Association and supported by the Canadian Medical Association, signaling that this is a medical ethics issue as much as a legal one.

The Do No Harm framework deliberately shifts the question from “Is this proven beyond all doubt?” to “What are our responsibilities when credible evidence of abuse exists?”

Under U.S. law and international standards, waiting for a “smoking gun” is not a defense. Human rights due diligence requires action when there is a credible risk of serious harm, especially where international crimes may be involved.

Relevant U.S. legal frameworks include the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and criminal complicity doctrines attach liability to assistance, training, funding, or cooperation. Forced organ harvesting is illegal under U.S. law primarily because it constitutes human trafficking, murder, and conspiracy. While there is no single statute dedicated exclusively to forced organ harvesting, existing federal laws already prohibit it and allow for prosecution, sanctions, and civil liability. The remaining challenge is not legality, it is enforcement and prevention of complicity.

There is growing bipartisan momentum in the U.S. and among allies through the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China to prohibit public funding linked to forced organ harvesting and to require human rights due diligence before medical or research cooperation. The Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act passed the House on a near-unanimous vote and is awaiting action in the Senate. 

GRC’s Do No Harm guide stresses a critical reality: organ transplantation does not happen in isolation. It requires trained surgical teams, anesthesiologists, nurses, transport logistics, data systems, and institutional coordination. In China’s case, this system is state-controlled, state-resourced, and state-backed.

• First, we recommend that medical, academic, and research institutions adopt explicit human rights policies that directly address unethical transplantation, organ trafficking, and forced organ harvesting, not generic ethics statements.
• Second, institutions must conduct ongoing human rights due diligence, not one-off checks. This includes assessing risks linked to clinical training programs, visiting fellowships, research collaborations, publications, conferences, and grant funding.
• Third, the guidance makes clear that absence of transparency is itself a red flag. Where transplant systems, donor data, or institutional practices cannot be independently verified, engagement should be treated as high risk.
• Fourth, Do No Harm explicitly rejects the “smoking gun” standard. Institutions do not need proof beyond reasonable doubt to act, credible evidence is enough to trigger responsibility.
• Fifth, where risks cannot be prevented or mitigated, disengagement is required. Continued cooperation in the face of known risk is not neutral and may amount to complicity in international crimes.

Finally, Global Rights Compliance emphasizes accountability. Institutions must document decisions, embed oversight mechanisms, and ensure leadership-level responsibility for preventing involvement in forced organ harvesting.

In closing, medical innovation cannot come at the expense of human dignity. Forced organ harvesting is not only a medical crime, it is a grave human rights violation that disproportionately targets religious and ethnic minorities. The Do No Harmframework provides a clear, practical roadmap to ensure institutions are not silently enabling these abuses.