Liu v. Poland and its Practical Consequences

[chandonar0]

As both the ECtHR and Polish Supreme Court, no. II KK 154/19, observed, Liu could not be considered a member of any vulnerable group in China. The aforementioned approach did not then apply to a Taiwanese, such as Liu, without any recognized political, religious, or ethnic association. Moreover, to the defendant State Poland, the Chinese authorities had presented documents and guarantees (rather than formal diplomatic assurances) to promise the absence of ill-treatment in “detention centres… open to the public” (paras. 61-62). On the other hand, for Liu, all he could provide to prove his risk of ill-treatment were b2b email list multiple third-party reports — albeit reliable and extensive — on the notorious conditions of detention and criminal procedures without due process (paras. 34-44).

In the Court’s view, forlorn efforts to retrieve detailed, credible information from the Chinese government constituted the primary reason Liu remained unable to provide any evidence suggesting a real individualized estimation of risk. The ECtHR highlighted the absence of any meaningful international supervision of Chinese detention conditions due to the lack of access allowed by the government. It then went further to address the Chinese State’s obligations of preventing any forms of ill-treatment. Although only a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), China is a State party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). China nevertheless refuses to consent to the CAT’s monitoring mechanisms of individual petition and on-site visit.