🕷️ Crawler Inspector

[](https://dpabolition.substack.com/) # [AI Canada Campaign to Abolish the Death Penalty](https://dpabolition.substack.com/) Subscribe Sign in # China’s Use of the Death Penalty – A Primer ### An essay on how China uses the death penalty and why there is still hope for change [](https://substack.com/@dpabolition) [AICES: Death Penalty Abolition](https://substack.com/@dpabolition) Apr 05, 2025 Share [](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!QiaA!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F826060b2-678c-48b9-8a81-802b79fb8c0d_4627x3085.jpeg) Forbidden City, Beijing, China - Photo by [Ling Tang](https://unsplash.com/@linglivestolaugh?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/people-at-forbidden-city-in-china-during-daytime-yBroAF1cN3I?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash) Late last month we learned[\[1\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn1) that Chinese authorities have executed four Canadian citizens so far this year. As of the time of writing this, we do not know from China the exact dates of the executions, the identities of those executed or a confirmed reason for the executions. Our thoughts continue to be with the loved ones of those executed and those at risk in China[\[2\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn2). Let’s take a moment to look at what we do know about these executions and about China’s use of the death penalty, why it persists and the many concerns even beyond the simple need for abolition of the death penalty. Thanks for reading AI Canada Campaign to Abolish the Death Penalty! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Statements by Canada’s Global Affairs Minister, Melanie Joly[\[3\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn3), are that all of the Canadians were dual nationals and convicted of drugs related crimes. # Secrecy China is the world’s most prolific executioner[\[4\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn4). In 2023, the next greatest number of known executions occurred in Iran, where 853 people were killed. Every year China is known to execute thousands of people, despite [keeping information about the death penalty a state secret](https://www.ecpm.org/en/china-and-the-death-penalty-a-well-kept-secret/). In 2009 Amnesty International made the decision to no longer publish our count of known executions in China[\[5\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn5) as a challenge to China to provide official figures and to prevent China misusing Amnesty’s figures to claim a reduction in executions without providing their own evidence. Amnesty’s numbers will always be a minimum number (Amnesty only includes confirmed executions in annual reports[\[6\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn6) and so for a number of countries, annual reports will use a plus sign (+) to indicate there are likely more than the number shown, or where information is so difficult to even confirm, just a + symbol is used. China is not alone in making official information on the death penalty a secret. Viet Nam, Belarus, Singapore and North Korea are also secretive. Secrecy over other aspects, such as the source of lethal injection drugs or identities of tasked executioners are also made secret in some US states. The fact that states make such information a legal secret – even from the condemned - strongly suggests each state knows there is something about it that the public would object to. If a country were so proud of using the death penalty, then nothing about it would be secret. # Extreme Figures The history of China’s extreme use of the death penalty is well documented and it is not without some moments of progressive reform[\[7\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn7). The [modern experience](https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/advisories/china/criminal-law-system) however is still draconian and [basic rights still seem non-existent even in the courtroom](https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/asa170072004en.pdf). Mao’s era China began with heavy use of the death penalty against “counterrevolutionaries” and others as a demonstration of state power[\[8\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn8) to intimidate and oppress dissent. Ning Zhang writes e.g. in The Death Penalty in China that “In Mao’s view, too few people in the newly liberated areas had been eliminated in the course of land reform, so these areas could become gathering places for the forces of reaction. ‘Major projects of serial executions’ must be applied in these areas…”[\[9\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn9) Commands from Mao specified what would become a system of quotas for executions: > “*… in a telegram to the Committee of the Municipality of Shanghai, Mao gave precise instructions:* > > *In a big city like Shanghai, it would probably be necessary to execute 1,000 or 2,000 people during the course of this year in order to address the problem of \[counterrevolutionaries\]. It is absolutely necessary to kill 300 to 500 people in the spring, in order to curb the arrogance of the enemy and raise the morale of the people. As for Nanjing, I ask you to direct the municipal committee of the city to organize the investigation, arrest and interrogation operations, and kill 100 to 200 important counterrevolutionary elements this spring*.[\[10\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn10) Further directions and commands for specific numbers of execution followed as noted further in Ning Zhang’s chapter. This does shed some light on the perspective by those in power. China’s use of the death penalty as a ‘tool’ for ‘social order,’ regardless of the truth of the charges or nature of the alleged crime, is also reflected in the harvesting of organs[\[11\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn11) from executed prisoners and ‘strike hard’ campaigns[\[12\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn12) that would see surges in executions in a given area for a specific crime. Such actions rely on the myth of deterrence[\[13\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn13) as justification and despite as mentioned some progress to reducing the application of the death penalty, and the reintroduction of the ‘suspended death sentence’ in recent years that ought to reduce the number of actual executions, the death penalty remains a punishment that the government of China refuses to let go. Conviction rates for criminal trials in China are excessively high[\[14\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn14), sending many to death row with little recourse. This leaves a large population of prisoners available to push through the system when desired to ramp up number of executions or specific executions. China, like the United States[\[15\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn15), also relies on prison labour[\[16\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn16) for a large proportion of manufacturing, giving incentive to high rates of conviction and incarceration. # Public Opinion There are Chinese movements to abolish the death penalty[\[17\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn17), however China and a number of other retentionist states [claim](https://worldcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CADP2012report-EN-1.pdf) to have public support[\[18\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn18) for the practice. Yet opposition to the death penalty is very high among criminologists[\[19\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn19), legal experts[\[20\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn20) and human rights experts[\[21\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn21). While these countries rely on secrecy[\[22\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn22) it seems disingenuous to cite public support when you fail to inform them about what they are supporting[\[23\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn23). Singapore has gone to the extent of using the law[\[24\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn24) to publicly shame journalists and others for saying things which the government disagrees with on the death penalty. Forcing “correction notices[\[25\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn25)” be posted in a kind of *newspeak* shocking to see in a state that is generally viewed as a modern and advanced country. The truth is that underlying Singapore’s government is a criminal system[\[26\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn26) that shares draconian elements in common with China. # Foreign Nationals Oxford University’s Mapping Death Row project, which tracks a number of known instances of foreign nationals on death row, has been aware of at least 40 foreign nationals on death row in China in 2021[\[27\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn27), however the true number is likely to be much considerably due to the secrecy of China’s information and possible cases of prisoners whose status as a foreign national may not be known or identified. # International Law and Standards International law does not explicitly prohibit *all* use of the death penalty. It does however restrict its application. It is the position of Amnesty International, and there is broad agreement amongst other human rights bodies and organisations, that the death penalty is always a violation of the fundamental human rights laid out in the United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights> . By its very existence, violating Article 3, the Right to Life (or the right to live), and in practice, Article 5, the Right not to be subject to cruel or inhumane treatment or punishment. The UDHR however is not a law. It is a declaration made in 1948, of foundational principles of human rights to be used in creating international human rights and humanitarian law. The UDHR has 30 articles describing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In order to protect these human rights, the UN developed two covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (both drafted in the 1950s, signed in the 1960s and coming into effect in the 1970s). States that have signed and ratified these covenants, have agreed[\[28\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn28) to be legally bound to the respective covenant. The ICCPR covers most of the rights related to the death penalty, particularly Article 6[\[29\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn29), amongst the restrictions on the use of the death penalty, paragraph 2 of Article 6: > *2\. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, **sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime** and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court*.[\[30\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn30) This section has been clearly interpreted by human rights bodies of the UN as to apply restrictively to crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing: > *39\. The term “the most serious crimes” must be read restrictively and appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing. Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death, such as drug offences, attempted murder, corruption and other economic \[and political\] crimes, armed robbery, piracy, abduction, and sexual offences, although serious in nature, can never justify, within the framework of article 6, the imposition of the death penalty. In the same vein, a limited degree of involvement or of complicity in the commission of even the most serious crimes, such as providing the physical means for the commission of murder, cannot justify the imposition of the death penalty. States parties are under an obligation to constantly review their criminal laws so as to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed for crimes which do not qualify as the most serious crimes.*[\[31\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn31) Furthermore, other standards have been developed by the UN Economic and Social Committee, in several instances that are not in themselves legally binding, but provide a metric to assess the compliance and progress of countries that retain the death penalty. These are collectively known as the ECOSOC Safeguards, or formally “Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty” that were originally laid out in 1984, and added to in subsequent years. Many of the safeguards already exist in international law, like the ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child etc.. These are not the only sources of international law and standards on the death penalty, but they do represent some of the most comprehensive sources. More can be found here: <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ACT50/001/2006/en/> # Applying International law and standards These laws and standards have become part of the metric in assessing human rights compliance with laws and conformance with standards. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions[\[32\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn32) refers to these standards in country reports, other countries may refer to these during UN Universal Periodic Reviews[\[33\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn33) of a country’s compliance with human rights obligations and ways to improve, Amnesty International, other NGOs and IGOs and academics will also refer to these and other standards in regular reports and *amici* submissions[\[34\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn34). The enforcement of international law[\[35\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn35) can be carried out through various means including tribunal decisions and sanctions. But a country’s human rights performance is also a factor in other parts of international relations, tourism and trade. *All other things being equal*, a country with strong human rights protections is more likely to want to do business with, enter into agreements with and travel to countries that similarly recognize human rights than a country that does not. There is the additional pressure that can be applied when large numbers of people write, petition and protest against a human rights abusive nation. Canada, e.g., will not extradite a prisoner who is facing a death sentence in the destination country[\[36\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn36). # Extent of the Death Penalty in China Against this backdrop, here some key facts about the death penalty and China: \- The Chinese government continues to conceal the extent to which capital punishment is being used in China, despite more than four decades of requests from UN bodies and the international community and despite the Chinese authorities’ own pledges to bring about increased openness in the country’s criminal justice system.[\[37\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn37) - China lacks an independent judiciary.[\[38\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn38) - Offenses Punishable by Death[\[39\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn39) many of which are prohibited from being capital crimes under international law such as the ICCPR: - Aggravated Murder - Murder - Other Offenses Resulting in Death - Terrorism-Related Offenses Resulting in Death. - **Terrorism-Related Offenses Not Resulting in Death** - **Rape Not Resulting in Death** - **Rape of Child Not Resulting in Death** - **Robbery Not Resulting in Death** - **Arson Not Resulting in Death** - **Kidnapping Not Resulting in Death** - **Burglary Not Resulting in Death** - **Drug Trafficking Not Resulting in Death** - **Economic Crimes Not Resulting in Death** - **Treason** - **Espionage** - **Military Offenses Not Resulting in Death** - **Other Offenses Not Resulting in Death** # Hope Despite this, it does not have to be this way. We do know that China has changed from the days of Mao when it comes to executions. In 2004 the Supreme People’s Court reasserted jurisdiction to rule on all death sentences itself (a position it had lost in 1983 when such review was devolved to the provincial High Courts)[\[40\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn40) and as recently as 2007, the possibility of future abolition of the death penalty was directly made by China at the UN Human Rights Committee: “The death penalty’s scope of application was to be reviewed shortly, and it was expected that this scope would be reduced, with the final aim of abolishment.”[\[41\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn41) # The Necessity of Abolition Given the interconnectedness of human rights and the foundational principle of the right to exist as a human being so that any and all of our human rights may be enjoyed, universal abolition of the death penalty is not only an important step, but a necessary step in any claim to have and respect human rights. Our experience in Canada, an abolitionist country with room to improve on our own human rights record, is that we are still impacted by the failure of other countries, like China, when executions happen and death sentences passed. Not only when Canadians are at risk[\[42\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn42), but as human beings[\[43\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn43). Family members and loved ones may live here of those sentenced, executed or threatened. Opportunity for progress is hampered by a state that can deny you the right to exist. Perhaps it is this progress that retentionist states fear the most. As with Mao, as with other repressive regimes, the death penalty is a political tool used when states want to lock-in or regress, not when they want to move forward. It is a sign of weakness of the moral argument when states resort to killing hope and killing people. *** [\[1\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref1) <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-ottawa-strongly-condemns-executions-of-canadians-by-china/> [\[2\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref2) <https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/amnesty-international-devastated-by-reports-of-canadians-executed-in-china/> [\[3\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref3) <https://www.ctvnews.ca/video/politics/2025/03/19/foreign-affairs-minister-melanie-joly-condemns-china-executing-four-canadians/> [\[4\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref4)\[4\] <https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/death-penalty-worlds-biggest-executioner-china-must-come-clean-about-grotesque-level-of-capital-punishment/> [\[5\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref5) https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2010/03/death-penalty-2009-amnesty-international-challenges-chinae28099s-secrecy-2010-03/ [\[6\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref6) <https://amnesty.ca/what-we-do/death-penalty/> [\[7\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref7) See e.g. Liang, Bin and Hong Lu, The Death Penalty in China: Policy, Practice, and Reform, Columbia University Press 2016 pp14-15 <https://academic.oup.com/columbia-scholarship-online/book/37062> [\[8\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref8) The more evidence grows that the death penalty is not only unnecessary but even costlier than more effective alternatives, the stronger the argument is that all use of the death penalty is political and sign of a ruling power afraid of its own weaknesses being exposed. [\[9\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref9) Ibid, pp67-68 and Mao, Z (1991) *Jianguo yilai Mao Zedong* wengao \[Mao Zedong’s Manuscripts since the Founding of the PRC\]. Beijing Central Literary Contributions Publishing House, as quoted within the text [\[10\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref10) Ibid, still referring to the same original source as above. [\[11\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref11) <https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646> [\[12\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref12) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting> [\[13\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref13) <https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/editorials-the-myth-of-deterrence> et al. [\[14\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref14) <https://www.npr.org/2024/06/25/nx-s1-4984616/china-convicts-99-of-defendants-in-criminal-trials-reversing-a-conviction-is-hard> [\[15\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref15) [https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/captive-labor-exploitation-of-incarcerated-workers\#:~:text=State%2Downed%20businesses%20employ%206.5,subject%20to%20exorbitant%20wage%20deductions](https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/captive-labor-exploitation-of-incarcerated-workers#:~:text=State-owned%20businesses%20employ%206.5,subject%20to%20exorbitant%20wage%20deductions) – note this reliance on prison labour also undermines the claim that labour in China et al is cheap because of the ‘willingness’ of people to work for low pay but rather a lack of choice. [\[16\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref16) <https://www.reuters.com/article/business/factbox-chinas-use-of-prison-labor-idUSKBN1YS0OF/> [\[17\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref17) <https://worldcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CADP2012report-EN-1.pdf> but consider also diaspora groups noting targeting by China for executions, including as a source for organ harvesting. [\[18\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref18) <https://duihua.org/dialogue-issue-41-study-forces-rethinking-on-popular-support-for-death-penalty-in-china/> [\[19\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref19) [https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/MCICvrrCdp3hwAx9FP3U/full](https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/MCICvrrCdp3hwAx9FP3U/full) [\[20\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref20) <https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6901&context=jclc> [\[21\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref21) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2024/01/death-penalty-incompatible-right-life> [\[22\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref22) See also <https://worldcoalition.org/2024/06/28/what-chinas-report-to-the-united-nations-tells-us-about-transparency-and-the-death-penalty/> regarding China failing to report on the death penalty [\[23\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref23) <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427891028003006> [\[24\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref24) <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/opinion/fake-news-law-singapore.html> [\[25\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref25) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ACT5087042024ENGLISH.pdf> [\[26\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref26) To clarify, i.e. the government justice system of Singapore, not that the system is criminal [\[27\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref27) <https://foreign-nationals.uwazi.io/en/entity/b4jyemi943d> [\[28\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref28) Others may be bound where the standards are so universally agreed-to that they hold the weight of *jus cogens* [\[29\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref29) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights> [\[30\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref30) *Ibid*, my emphasis [\[31\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref31) <https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf> para 39 (p. 13) [\[32\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref32) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-executions> [\[33\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref33) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/upr-home> [\[34\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref34) E.g. <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/6751/2023/en/> [\[35\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref35) <https://www.un.org/en/our-work/uphold-international-law> [\[36\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref36) This was not always the case, however since 2001 with the Burns (2001) Supreme Court of Canada ruling, it would be illegal to extradite a prisoner without reasonable assurances that a death sentence would not be applied, see <https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1842/index.do> [\[37\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref37) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/5849/2017/en/> [\[38\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref38) <https://worldcoalition.org/2022/02/15/china-death-penalty-2022/> and <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/judicial-independence-in-china/judicial-independence-in-china/D6F8D75C4F16A80C6D6650F2E4C8E5F8> [\[39\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref39) https://dpw.lawschool.cornell.edu/database/\#/results/country?id=16 [\[40\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref40) Hood, Roger and Carolyn Hoyle [The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-death-penalty-9780198701743), 5th ed. Oxford 2015 p. 117 [\[41\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref41) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2009/10/human-rights-council-opens-fourth-session> [\[42\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref42) <https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc382/p814255_A1b.pdf> [\[43\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref43) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/death-penalty> Thanks for reading AI Canada Campaign to Abolish the Death Penalty! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Share Previous Next Top Latest No posts ### Ready for more? © 2026 AICES: Death Penalty Abolition · [Privacy](https://substack.com/privacy) ∙ [Terms](https://substack.com/tos) ∙ [Collection notice](https://substack.com/ccpa#personal-data-collected) [Start your Substack](https://substack.com/signup?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=web&utm_content=footer) [Get the app](https://substack.com/app/app-store-redirect?utm_campaign=app-marketing&utm_content=web-footer-button) [Substack](https://substack.com/) is the home for great culture This site requires JavaScript to run correctly. Please [turn on JavaScript](https://enable-javascript.com/) or unblock scripts

Late last month we learned[\[1\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn1) that Chinese authorities have executed four Canadian citizens so far this year. As of the time of writing this, we do not know from China the exact dates of the executions, the identities of those executed or a confirmed reason for the executions. Our thoughts continue to be with the loved ones of those executed and those at risk in China[\[2\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn2). Let’s take a moment to look at what we do know about these executions and about China’s use of the death penalty, why it persists and the many concerns even beyond the simple need for abolition of the death penalty. Statements by Canada’s Global Affairs Minister, Melanie Joly[\[3\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn3), are that all of the Canadians were dual nationals and convicted of drugs related crimes. China is the world’s most prolific executioner[\[4\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn4). In 2023, the next greatest number of known executions occurred in Iran, where 853 people were killed. Every year China is known to execute thousands of people, despite [keeping information about the death penalty a state secret](https://www.ecpm.org/en/china-and-the-death-penalty-a-well-kept-secret/). In 2009 Amnesty International made the decision to no longer publish our count of known executions in China[\[5\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn5) as a challenge to China to provide official figures and to prevent China misusing Amnesty’s figures to claim a reduction in executions without providing their own evidence. Amnesty’s numbers will always be a minimum number (Amnesty only includes confirmed executions in annual reports[\[6\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn6) and so for a number of countries, annual reports will use a plus sign (+) to indicate there are likely more than the number shown, or where information is so difficult to even confirm, just a + symbol is used. China is not alone in making official information on the death penalty a secret. Viet Nam, Belarus, Singapore and North Korea are also secretive. Secrecy over other aspects, such as the source of lethal injection drugs or identities of tasked executioners are also made secret in some US states. The fact that states make such information a legal secret – even from the condemned - strongly suggests each state knows there is something about it that the public would object to. If a country were so proud of using the death penalty, then nothing about it would be secret. The history of China’s extreme use of the death penalty is well documented and it is not without some moments of progressive reform[\[7\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn7). The [modern experience](https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/advisories/china/criminal-law-system) however is still draconian and [basic rights still seem non-existent even in the courtroom](https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/asa170072004en.pdf). Mao’s era China began with heavy use of the death penalty against “counterrevolutionaries” and others as a demonstration of state power[\[8\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn8) to intimidate and oppress dissent. Ning Zhang writes e.g. in The Death Penalty in China that “In Mao’s view, too few people in the newly liberated areas had been eliminated in the course of land reform, so these areas could become gathering places for the forces of reaction. ‘Major projects of serial executions’ must be applied in these areas…”[\[9\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn9) Commands from Mao specified what would become a system of quotas for executions: > “*… in a telegram to the Committee of the Municipality of Shanghai, Mao gave precise instructions:* > > *In a big city like Shanghai, it would probably be necessary to execute 1,000 or 2,000 people during the course of this year in order to address the problem of \[counterrevolutionaries\]. It is absolutely necessary to kill 300 to 500 people in the spring, in order to curb the arrogance of the enemy and raise the morale of the people. As for Nanjing, I ask you to direct the municipal committee of the city to organize the investigation, arrest and interrogation operations, and kill 100 to 200 important counterrevolutionary elements this spring*.[\[10\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn10) Further directions and commands for specific numbers of execution followed as noted further in Ning Zhang’s chapter. This does shed some light on the perspective by those in power. China’s use of the death penalty as a ‘tool’ for ‘social order,’ regardless of the truth of the charges or nature of the alleged crime, is also reflected in the harvesting of organs[\[11\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn11) from executed prisoners and ‘strike hard’ campaigns[\[12\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn12) that would see surges in executions in a given area for a specific crime. Such actions rely on the myth of deterrence[\[13\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn13) as justification and despite as mentioned some progress to reducing the application of the death penalty, and the reintroduction of the ‘suspended death sentence’ in recent years that ought to reduce the number of actual executions, the death penalty remains a punishment that the government of China refuses to let go. Conviction rates for criminal trials in China are excessively high[\[14\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn14), sending many to death row with little recourse. This leaves a large population of prisoners available to push through the system when desired to ramp up number of executions or specific executions. China, like the United States[\[15\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn15), also relies on prison labour[\[16\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn16) for a large proportion of manufacturing, giving incentive to high rates of conviction and incarceration. There are Chinese movements to abolish the death penalty[\[17\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn17), however China and a number of other retentionist states [claim](https://worldcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CADP2012report-EN-1.pdf) to have public support[\[18\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn18) for the practice. Yet opposition to the death penalty is very high among criminologists[\[19\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn19), legal experts[\[20\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn20) and human rights experts[\[21\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn21). While these countries rely on secrecy[\[22\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn22) it seems disingenuous to cite public support when you fail to inform them about what they are supporting[\[23\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn23). Singapore has gone to the extent of using the law[\[24\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn24) to publicly shame journalists and others for saying things which the government disagrees with on the death penalty. Forcing “correction notices[\[25\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn25)” be posted in a kind of *newspeak* shocking to see in a state that is generally viewed as a modern and advanced country. The truth is that underlying Singapore’s government is a criminal system[\[26\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn26) that shares draconian elements in common with China. Oxford University’s Mapping Death Row project, which tracks a number of known instances of foreign nationals on death row, has been aware of at least 40 foreign nationals on death row in China in 2021[\[27\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn27), however the true number is likely to be much considerably due to the secrecy of China’s information and possible cases of prisoners whose status as a foreign national may not be known or identified. International law does not explicitly prohibit *all* use of the death penalty. It does however restrict its application. It is the position of Amnesty International, and there is broad agreement amongst other human rights bodies and organisations, that the death penalty is always a violation of the fundamental human rights laid out in the United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights> . By its very existence, violating Article 3, the Right to Life (or the right to live), and in practice, Article 5, the Right not to be subject to cruel or inhumane treatment or punishment. The UDHR however is not a law. It is a declaration made in 1948, of foundational principles of human rights to be used in creating international human rights and humanitarian law. The UDHR has 30 articles describing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In order to protect these human rights, the UN developed two covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (both drafted in the 1950s, signed in the 1960s and coming into effect in the 1970s). States that have signed and ratified these covenants, have agreed[\[28\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn28) to be legally bound to the respective covenant. The ICCPR covers most of the rights related to the death penalty, particularly Article 6[\[29\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn29), amongst the restrictions on the use of the death penalty, paragraph 2 of Article 6: > *2\. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, **sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime** and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court*.[\[30\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn30) This section has been clearly interpreted by human rights bodies of the UN as to apply restrictively to crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing: > *39\. The term “the most serious crimes” must be read restrictively and appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing. Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death, such as drug offences, attempted murder, corruption and other economic \[and political\] crimes, armed robbery, piracy, abduction, and sexual offences, although serious in nature, can never justify, within the framework of article 6, the imposition of the death penalty. In the same vein, a limited degree of involvement or of complicity in the commission of even the most serious crimes, such as providing the physical means for the commission of murder, cannot justify the imposition of the death penalty. States parties are under an obligation to constantly review their criminal laws so as to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed for crimes which do not qualify as the most serious crimes.*[\[31\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn31) Furthermore, other standards have been developed by the UN Economic and Social Committee, in several instances that are not in themselves legally binding, but provide a metric to assess the compliance and progress of countries that retain the death penalty. These are collectively known as the ECOSOC Safeguards, or formally “Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty” that were originally laid out in 1984, and added to in subsequent years. Many of the safeguards already exist in international law, like the ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child etc.. These are not the only sources of international law and standards on the death penalty, but they do represent some of the most comprehensive sources. More can be found here: <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ACT50/001/2006/en/> These laws and standards have become part of the metric in assessing human rights compliance with laws and conformance with standards. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions[\[32\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn32) refers to these standards in country reports, other countries may refer to these during UN Universal Periodic Reviews[\[33\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn33) of a country’s compliance with human rights obligations and ways to improve, Amnesty International, other NGOs and IGOs and academics will also refer to these and other standards in regular reports and *amici* submissions[\[34\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn34). The enforcement of international law[\[35\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn35) can be carried out through various means including tribunal decisions and sanctions. But a country’s human rights performance is also a factor in other parts of international relations, tourism and trade. *All other things being equal*, a country with strong human rights protections is more likely to want to do business with, enter into agreements with and travel to countries that similarly recognize human rights than a country that does not. There is the additional pressure that can be applied when large numbers of people write, petition and protest against a human rights abusive nation. Canada, e.g., will not extradite a prisoner who is facing a death sentence in the destination country[\[36\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn36). Against this backdrop, here some key facts about the death penalty and China: \- The Chinese government continues to conceal the extent to which capital punishment is being used in China, despite more than four decades of requests from UN bodies and the international community and despite the Chinese authorities’ own pledges to bring about increased openness in the country’s criminal justice system.[\[37\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn37) - China lacks an independent judiciary.[\[38\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn38) - Offenses Punishable by Death[\[39\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn39) many of which are prohibited from being capital crimes under international law such as the ICCPR: - Aggravated Murder - Murder - Other Offenses Resulting in Death - Terrorism-Related Offenses Resulting in Death. - **Terrorism-Related Offenses Not Resulting in Death** - **Rape Not Resulting in Death** - **Rape of Child Not Resulting in Death** - **Robbery Not Resulting in Death** - **Arson Not Resulting in Death** - **Kidnapping Not Resulting in Death** - **Burglary Not Resulting in Death** - **Drug Trafficking Not Resulting in Death** - **Economic Crimes Not Resulting in Death** - **Treason** - **Espionage** - **Military Offenses Not Resulting in Death** - **Other Offenses Not Resulting in Death** Despite this, it does not have to be this way. We do know that China has changed from the days of Mao when it comes to executions. In 2004 the Supreme People’s Court reasserted jurisdiction to rule on all death sentences itself (a position it had lost in 1983 when such review was devolved to the provincial High Courts)[\[40\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn40) and as recently as 2007, the possibility of future abolition of the death penalty was directly made by China at the UN Human Rights Committee: “The death penalty’s scope of application was to be reviewed shortly, and it was expected that this scope would be reduced, with the final aim of abolishment.”[\[41\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn41) Given the interconnectedness of human rights and the foundational principle of the right to exist as a human being so that any and all of our human rights may be enjoyed, universal abolition of the death penalty is not only an important step, but a necessary step in any claim to have and respect human rights. Our experience in Canada, an abolitionist country with room to improve on our own human rights record, is that we are still impacted by the failure of other countries, like China, when executions happen and death sentences passed. Not only when Canadians are at risk[\[42\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn42), but as human beings[\[43\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_edn43). Family members and loved ones may live here of those sentenced, executed or threatened. Opportunity for progress is hampered by a state that can deny you the right to exist. Perhaps it is this progress that retentionist states fear the most. As with Mao, as with other repressive regimes, the death penalty is a political tool used when states want to lock-in or regress, not when they want to move forward. It is a sign of weakness of the moral argument when states resort to killing hope and killing people. [\[1\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref1) <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-ottawa-strongly-condemns-executions-of-canadians-by-china/> [\[2\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref2) <https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/amnesty-international-devastated-by-reports-of-canadians-executed-in-china/> [\[3\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref3) <https://www.ctvnews.ca/video/politics/2025/03/19/foreign-affairs-minister-melanie-joly-condemns-china-executing-four-canadians/> [\[4\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref4)\[4\] <https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/death-penalty-worlds-biggest-executioner-china-must-come-clean-about-grotesque-level-of-capital-punishment/> [\[5\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref5) https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2010/03/death-penalty-2009-amnesty-international-challenges-chinae28099s-secrecy-2010-03/ [\[6\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref6) <https://amnesty.ca/what-we-do/death-penalty/> [\[7\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref7) See e.g. Liang, Bin and Hong Lu, The Death Penalty in China: Policy, Practice, and Reform, Columbia University Press 2016 pp14-15 <https://academic.oup.com/columbia-scholarship-online/book/37062> [\[8\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref8) The more evidence grows that the death penalty is not only unnecessary but even costlier than more effective alternatives, the stronger the argument is that all use of the death penalty is political and sign of a ruling power afraid of its own weaknesses being exposed. [\[9\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref9) Ibid, pp67-68 and Mao, Z (1991) *Jianguo yilai Mao Zedong* wengao \[Mao Zedong’s Manuscripts since the Founding of the PRC\]. Beijing Central Literary Contributions Publishing House, as quoted within the text [\[10\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref10) Ibid, still referring to the same original source as above. [\[11\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref11) <https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646> [\[12\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref12) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting> [\[13\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref13) <https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/editorials-the-myth-of-deterrence> et al. [\[14\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref14) <https://www.npr.org/2024/06/25/nx-s1-4984616/china-convicts-99-of-defendants-in-criminal-trials-reversing-a-conviction-is-hard> [\[15\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref15) [https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/captive-labor-exploitation-of-incarcerated-workers\#:~:text=State%2Downed%20businesses%20employ%206.5,subject%20to%20exorbitant%20wage%20deductions](https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/captive-labor-exploitation-of-incarcerated-workers#:~:text=State-owned%20businesses%20employ%206.5,subject%20to%20exorbitant%20wage%20deductions) – note this reliance on prison labour also undermines the claim that labour in China et al is cheap because of the ‘willingness’ of people to work for low pay but rather a lack of choice. [\[16\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref16) <https://www.reuters.com/article/business/factbox-chinas-use-of-prison-labor-idUSKBN1YS0OF/> [\[17\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref17) <https://worldcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CADP2012report-EN-1.pdf> but consider also diaspora groups noting targeting by China for executions, including as a source for organ harvesting. [\[18\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref18) <https://duihua.org/dialogue-issue-41-study-forces-rethinking-on-popular-support-for-death-penalty-in-china/> [\[19\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref19) [https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/MCICvrrCdp3hwAx9FP3U/full](https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/MCICvrrCdp3hwAx9FP3U/full) [\[20\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref20) <https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6901&context=jclc> [\[21\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref21) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2024/01/death-penalty-incompatible-right-life> [\[22\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref22) See also <https://worldcoalition.org/2024/06/28/what-chinas-report-to-the-united-nations-tells-us-about-transparency-and-the-death-penalty/> regarding China failing to report on the death penalty [\[23\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref23) <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427891028003006> [\[24\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref24) <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/opinion/fake-news-law-singapore.html> [\[25\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref25) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ACT5087042024ENGLISH.pdf> [\[26\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref26) To clarify, i.e. the government justice system of Singapore, not that the system is criminal [\[27\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref27) <https://foreign-nationals.uwazi.io/en/entity/b4jyemi943d> [\[28\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref28) Others may be bound where the standards are so universally agreed-to that they hold the weight of *jus cogens* [\[29\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref29) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights> [\[30\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref30) *Ibid*, my emphasis [\[31\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref31) <https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf> para 39 (p. 13) [\[32\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref32) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-executions> [\[33\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref33) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/upr-home> [\[34\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref34) E.g. <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/6751/2023/en/> [\[35\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref35) <https://www.un.org/en/our-work/uphold-international-law> [\[36\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref36) This was not always the case, however since 2001 with the Burns (2001) Supreme Court of Canada ruling, it would be illegal to extradite a prisoner without reasonable assurances that a death sentence would not be applied, see <https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1842/index.do> [\[37\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref37) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/5849/2017/en/> [\[38\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref38) <https://worldcoalition.org/2022/02/15/china-death-penalty-2022/> and <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/judicial-independence-in-china/judicial-independence-in-china/D6F8D75C4F16A80C6D6650F2E4C8E5F8> [\[39\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref39) https://dpw.lawschool.cornell.edu/database/\#/results/country?id=16 [\[40\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref40) Hood, Roger and Carolyn Hoyle [The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-death-penalty-9780198701743), 5th ed. Oxford 2015 p. 117 [\[41\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref41) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2009/10/human-rights-council-opens-fourth-session> [\[42\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref42) <https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc382/p814255_A1b.pdf> [\[43\]](https://dpabolition.substack.com/p/chinas-use-of-the-death-penalty-a#_ednref43) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/death-penalty>