Image (L-R): Speakers Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, Dr Matthew Robertson, and Wayne Jordash KC at the IPAC Summit 2025.

IPAC Summit 2025 – Speeches by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, Dr Matthew Robertson, and

Wayne Jordash KC

07 November 2025: At the fifth annual Summit of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), three distinguished speakers addressed the urgent issue of forced organ harvesting in China:

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, distinguished barrister and Chair of the China Tribunal
Dr Matthew Robertson, Research Fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and postdoctoral fellow in Social Data Science at the University of Mannheim
Wayne Jordash KC, founder of Global Rights Compliance.

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC

Barrister and Chair of the China Tribunal on Forced Organ Harvesting

Sir Geoffrey outlined the China Tribunal and its findings.

FULL SPEECH AND FOOTNOTES AVAILABLE HERE.

Excerpt below:

The China Tribunal was based on previous experience of other tribunals to answer the questions asked of it by:
finding facts that would be certain, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; and
by applying settled/established law, on which the Tribunal was directed/instructed by top independent expert lawyers, to reach legal-factual conclusions about crimes being committed and to do that with certainty and beyond reasonable doubt.
..
The 499 paragraph/190-page Judgment is best read in full to discover how the Tribunal applied legal principles for determining accountability derived from the Universal Declaration and the European Convention of human rights – to the extent possible for tribunals like this – and how in reaching its Judgment it gave no account to a great deal of interesting material that may not actually have proved anything adverse to China. …
…
The fundamental question asked of the Tribunal were whether, when, to what extent, and how, forced organ harvesting had been committed in China; and, what criminal offences (if any) had been committed by China, or by official or unofficial bodies, organisations or individuals in China engaged in forced organ harvesting.

Dr Matthew Robertson

China Studies Research Fellow, Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

Dr Robertson addressed what has occurred post the China Tribunal’s findings, outlining four areas (see excerpt below).

FULL SPEECH AND FOOTNOTES AVAILABLE HERE.

First, the 2015 reform has made it significantly more difficult to interpret available evidence, creating a layer of plausible deniability that did not previously exist.
…
Second, the reform itself exhibits serious credibility problems, including falsified statistics and undisclosed compensation practices.
Third, despite claims of fundamental change, nearly every aspect of the transplantation system and the pieces of China’s security state that interact with it—personnel, capacity, opacity, and coercive practices—remains unchanged. Not only that, but a new vulnerable detained population has emerged too.
Fourth, authorities have systematically removed previously available data from public view, and stopped making many other kinds of data available. This has made studying the system increasingly difficult.

Wayne Jordash KC

President, Global Rights Compliance, international human rights lawyer

Jordash outlined three key areas:

The legal responsibility of states to prevent complicity in FOH;
The need for enforceable legislation governing transplant-related collaboration, transparency, and reporting; and
How governments can fulfil their international obligations to act against this crime.

FULL SPEECH AND REFERENCES AVAILABLE HERE.

Excerpt below:

…[R]eflecting the fundamental values of the international community, all States are under an obligation to cooperate to bring to these violations of jus cogens. Indeed, as rules of jus cogens ‘reflect and protect fundamental values of the international community’, every States are under an obligation not to ‘recognise as lawful a situation created by a serious breach [of such rules], nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation’. As a result States must cooperate to bring to an end the commission of FOH in China.
…
Prevention, prosecution and cooperation are the name of the game. Or put differently, transparency; accountability and action that that enforces international obligations against the Transplant industry as businesses and as a whole.
…
[A]s affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, States are bound by three positive obligations in relation to trafficking in persons – obligations that are equally pertinent to FOH. First, they must establish legislative and administrative frameworks to prohibit and penalize trafficking. Second, they are required to take protective measures for victims or potential victims when credible suspicion arises. Third, they must fulfil a procedural duty to investigate suspected trafficking cases at both domestic and international levels, in full cooperation with other States. States would be advised to criminalise trafficking in persons (and complicity in trafficking in persons) as done by Australia in its 2018 Federal Modern Slavery Act, and as required by article 5 of the 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (also called the Palermo Protocol).