Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of
Falun Gong Practitioners in China

by David Matas, Esq. and Hon. David Kilgour, Esq.
31 January 2007

A.  Introduction 
B. The Allegation 
C. Working Methods 

D. Difficulties of proof 
E. Methods of proof 
F. Elements of Proof and Disproof 

a) General considerations

        1) Human rights violations
        2) Health financing
        3) Army financing
        4) Corruption
    b) Considerations specific to organ harvesting 
        5) Technological development
        6) Treatment of prisoners sentenced to death
        7) Organ donations 
        8) Waiting times
        9) Incriminating Information on Websites 
        10) Donor recipient interviews 
        11) The money to be made 
        12) Chinese transplant ethics
        13) Foreign transplant ethics 
        14) Chinese transplant laws 
        15) Foreign transplant laws
        16) Travel Advisories 
        17) Pharmaceuticals
        18) Foreign state funding for care 
) Considerations specific to Falun Gong

        19) A perceived threat
        20) A policy of persecution 
        21) Incitement to hatred 
        22) Physical persecution
        23) Massive arrests
        24) Deaths
        25) Unidentified
        26) Blood testing and organ examination 
        27) Sources of past transplants
28) Sources of future transplants
29) Corpses with missing organs
30) Admissions
31) A confession
32) Corroborating studies
        33) Government of China responses 

G. Further Research
H. Conclusions
I.  Recommendations 
J. Commentary
K. Appendices

1. Letter of Invitation from CIPFG
    2. Biography of David Matas
    3. Biography of David Kilgour
    4. Letter to The Embassy of China
    5. The Recipient Experience
    6. Ethics of contact with China on Transplants
    7. Statements of the Government of China
    8. Edmonton Police Report of Wilful Promotion of Hatred by Chinese Consular Officials against Falun Gong
    9. Physical Persecution of Falun Gong
    10. Names of the Dead
    11. Witness Statements on the Unidentified
    12. Names of the Missing
    13. Blood Testing of Falun Gong Prisoners
    14. Transcript of Telephone Investigations
    15. Canada, US and Japan transplant statistics in 10 years
    16. Sujiatun
    17. Matas-Kilgour Response to the Chinese Government statements
    18. A Confession
    19. AI’s Records of Number of Executed Prisoners in China Each Year
    20. Corpses with Missing Organs

A. Introduction


The Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of the Falun Gong in China (CIPFG), has asked us to investigate allegations of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China. The coalition is a non‑governmental organization registered in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. with a branch in Ottawa, Canada.  The request came formally by letter dated May 24, 2006 attached as an appendix to this report.


The request was to investigate allegations that state institutions and employees of the government of the People's Republic of China have been harvesting organs from live Falun Gong practitioners, killing the practitioners in the process.  In light of the seriousness of the allegations as well as our own commitment to respect for human rights, we accepted the request.


David Matas is an immigration, refugee and international human rights lawyer in private practice in Winnipeg.  He is actively involved in the promotion of respect for human rights as an author, speaker and participant in several human rights non‑governmental organizations. 


David Kilgour is a former member of Parliament and a former Secretary of State of the Government of Canada for the Asia Pacific region.  Before he became a parliamentarian, he was a Crown prosecutor.  The biographies of both authors are attached as appendices to this report.

B. The Allegation


It is alleged that Falun Gong practitioners are victims of live organ harvesting throughout China.  The allegation is that organ harvesting is inflicted on unwilling Falun Gong practitioners at a wide variety of locations, pursuant to a systematic policy, in large numbers. 


Organ harvesting is a step in organ transplants.  The purpose of organ harvesting is to provide organs for transplants.  Transplants do not necessarily have to take place in the same place as the location of the organ harvesting. The two locations are often different; organs harvested in one place are shipped to another place for transplanting. 


The allegation is further that the organs are harvested from the practitioners while they are still alive. The practitioners are killed in the course of the organ harvesting operations or immediately thereafter.  These operations are a form of murder. 


Finally, we are told that the practitioners killed in this way are then cremated.  There is no corpse left to examine to identify as the source of an organ transplant.

C. Working Methods


We conducted our investigation independently from the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of the Falun Gong in China, the Falun Dafa Association, any other organization, and any government. We sought to go to China unsuccessfully, but would be willing to go even subsequently to pursue the investigation. 


When we began our work, we had no views whether the allegations were true or untrue.  The allegations were so shocking that they are almost impossible to believe.  We would have much rather found the allegations to be untrue than to be true.  The allegations, if true, represent a disgusting form of evil which, despite all the depravities humanity has seen, are new to this planet.  The very horror made us reel back in disbelief.  But that disbelief does not mean that the allegations are untrue.


We were well aware of the statement of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter 1943 to a Polish diplomat in reaction to being told by Jan Karski about the Holocaust.  Frankfurter said:

          "I did not say that this young man was lying. I said that I was unable to believe what he told me.  There is a difference."


After the Holocaust, it is impossible to rule out any form of depravity.  Whether an alleged evil has been perpetrated can be determined only by considering the facts.


After the first version of our report was released, on July 7, 2006 in Ottawa, we travelled extensively, publicising the report and promoting its recommendations. In the course of our travels, and as a result of the publicity surrounding the first version, we acquired substantial additional information.  This second version incorporates this new information. 


Nothing we subsequently discovered shook our conviction in our original conclusions.  But much which we later discovered reinforced it.  This version presents, we believe, an even more compelling case for our conclusions than the first version did.

D. Difficulties of Proof


The allegations, by their very nature, are difficult either to prove or disprove.  The best evidence for proving any allegation is eye witness evidence.  Yet for this alleged crime, there is unlikely to be any eye witness evidence.


The people present at the scene of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners, if it does occur, are either perpetrators or victims. There are no bystanders. Because the victims, according to the allegation, are murdered and cremated, there is no body to be found, no autopsy to be conducted. There are no surviving victims to tell what happened to them.  Perpetrators are unlikely to confess to what would be, if they occurred, crimes against humanity.  Nonetheless, though we did not get full scale confessions, we garnered a surprising number of admissions through investigator phone calls.


The scene of the crime, if the crime has occurred, leaves no traces.  Once an organ harvesting is completed, the operating room in which it takes place looks like any other empty operating room.


The clampdown on human rights reporting in China makes assessment of the allegations difficult.  China, regrettably, represses human rights reporters and defenders.  There is no freedom of expression.  Those reporting on human rights violations from within China are often jailed and sometimes charged with communicating state secrets.  In this context, the silence of human rights non‑governmental organizations on organ harvesting of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners tells us nothing.


The International Committee of the Red Cross is not allowed to visit prisoners in China.  Nor is any other organization concerned with human rights of prisoners.  That also cuts off a potential avenue of evidence.


China has no access to information legislation.  It is impossible to get from the Government of China basic information about organ transplants ‑ how many transplants there are, what is the source of the organs, how much is paid for transplants or where that money is spent.


We did seek to visit China for this report.  Our efforts went nowhere.  We asked in writing for a meeting with the embassy to discuss terms of entry.  Our letter is attached as an appendix to this report.  Our request for a meeting was accepted.  But the person who met with David Kilgour was interested only in denying the allegations and not in arranging for our visit.

E. Methods of Proof


We have had to look at a number of factors, to determine whether they present a picture, all together, which make the allegations either true or untrue.  None of these elements on its own either establishes or disproves the allegations.  Together, they paint a picture.


Many of the pieces of evidence we considered, in themselves, do not constitute ironclad proof of the allegation.  But their non‑existence might well have constituted disproof.  The combination of these factors, particularly when there are so many of them, has the effect of making the allegations believable, even when any one of them in isolation might not do so.  Where every possible element of disproof we could identify fails to disprove the allegations, the likelihood of the allegations being true becomes substantial.


Proof can be either inductive or deductive.  Criminal investigation normally works deductively, stringing together individual pieces of evidence into a coherent whole.  The limitations our investigation faced placed severe constraints in this deductive method.  Some elements from which we could deduce what was happening were, nonetheless, available, in particular, the investigator phone calls.


We also used inductive reasoning, working backwards as well as forwards.  If the allegations were not true, how would we know it was not true?  If the allegations were true, what facts would be consistent with those allegations?  What would explain the reality of the allegations, if the allegations were real?  Answers to those sorts of questions helped us to form our conclusions.


We also considered prevention.  What are the safeguards that would prevent this sort of activity from happening?  If precautions are in place, we could conclude that it is less likely that the activity is happening.  If they are not in place, then the possibility that the activity is happening increases.

F. Elements of Proof and Disproof

a) General considerations

1) Human rights violations


China violates human rights in a variety of ways.  These violations are chronic and serious.  Besides Falun Gong, other prime targets of human rights violations are Tibetans, Christians, Uighurs, democracy activists and human rights defenders.  Rule of Law mechanisms in place to prevent human rights violations, such as an independent judiciary, access to counsel on detention, habeas corpus, the right to public trial, are absent in China. China, according to its constitution, is ruled by the Communist Party. It is not ruled by law. 


Communist China has had a history of massive, jaw dropping cruelty towards its own citizens.  The Communist regime has killed more innocents than Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia combined[1].  Girl children are killed, abandoned and neglected in massive numbers.  Torture is widespread.  The death penalty is both extensive and arbitrary.  China executes more people than all other countries combined. Religious belief is suppressed[2].


This pattern of human rights violations, like many other factors, does not in itself prove the allegations.  But it removes an element of disproof.  It is impossible to say of these allegations that it is out of step with an overall pattern of respect for human rights in China.  While the allegations, in themselves, are surprising, they are less surprising with a country that has the human rights record China does than they would be for many other countries.


When there are so many violations of human rights in China, it is invidious to point to only one victim.  We nonetheless draw the attention to the victimization of human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng as an example or a case study.  It was Gao who wrote to us last summer, inviting us to come to China to investigate the stealing of vital organs from Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. No visa was subsequently issued by its embassy in Ottawa to do so; he was detained not long afterwards.


Gao wrote three open letters to President Hu and other leaders, protesting a range of abuses against the Falun Gong, including specific cases of torture and murder.  Gao also wrote about and condemned the extraction and sale of organs from Falun Gong practitioners. He expressed his willingness to join the Coalition to Investigate Organ Harvesting from Still Alive People[3].


He was convicted of inciting subversion and on December 2, 2006 given a three-year prison sentence. His removal to custody, however, was suspended for five years; his political rights were removed for a year by the Beijing court.  This repression of someone whose only concern is respect for human rights in general and the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in particular in itself reinforces his concerns and ours. 


The International Olympic Committee, in 2001, awarded Beijing the 2008 Olympics.  Liu Jingmin, Vice President of the Beijing Olympic Bid, in April 2001, said: "By allowing Beijing to host the Games you will help the development of human rights."


Yet, the result has been just the opposite.  Amnesty International, in a statement released September 21, 2006 said:

          "In its latest assessment of the Chinese government's performance in four benchmark areas of human rights ahead of the Olympics, Amnesty International found that its overall record remained poor.  There has been some progress in reforming the death penalty system, but in other crucial areas the government's human rights record has deteriorated."


The international community, by carrying on with the Olympics in Beijing despite the deterioration of human rights in China in crucial areas, sends to China a message of impunity.  The impression China must get is that it does not matter how much it violates human rights; the international community seems not to care.

2) Health financing


When China moved from a socialist to a market economy, the health system was part of the shift.  From 1980, China began withdrawing government funds from the health sector, expecting the health system to make up the difference through charges to consumers of health services.  Since 1980, government spending dropped from 36% of all health care expenditure to 17%, while patients' out‑of‑pocket spending rocketed up from 20% to 59%.[4] A World Bank study reports that reductions in public health coverage were worsened by increases in cost by the private sector[5].


According to cardiovascular doctor Hu Weimin, the state funding for the hospital where he works is not enough to even cover staff salaries for one month. He stated: "Under the current system, hospitals have to chase profit to survive."  Human Rights in China reports: "Rural hospitals [have had] to invent ways to make money to generate sufficient revenue".[6]


The sale of organs became for hospitals a source of funding, a way to keep their doors open, and a means by which other health services could be provided to the community.

One could see how this dire need for funds might lead first to a rationalization that harvesting organs from prisoners who would be executed anyways was acceptable and second to a desire not to question too closely whether the donors wheeled in by the authorities really were prisoners sentenced to death.

3) Army financing


The military, like the health system, has gone from public financing to private enterprise.  The military in China is a conglomerate business.  This business is not corruption, a deviation from state policy.  It is state sanctioned, an approved means of raising money for military activities.  In 1985, then President Deng Xiaoping issued a directive allowing the People's Liberation Army units to earn money to make up the shortfall in their declining budgets.


Many of the transplant centres and general hospitals in China are military institutions, financed by organ transplant recipients.  Military hospitals operate independently from the Ministry of Health.  The financing they earn from organ transplants does more than pay the costs of these facilities.  The money is used to finance the overall military budget. 


There is, for instance, the Organ Transplant Center of the Armed Police General Hospital in Beijing.  This hospital boldly states:

          "Our Organ Transplant Center is our main department for making money. Its gross income in 2003 was 16,070,000 Yuan. From January to June of 2004 income was 13,570,000 Yuan.  This year (2004) there is a chance to break through 30,000,000 Yuan."[7]


Military involvement in organ harvesting extends into civilian hospitals.  Recipients often tell us that, even when they receive transplants in civilian hospitals, those conducting the operation are military personnel.


Here is one example.  When we were in Asia promoting our report, we met a man who in 2003 flew to Shanghai to obtain a new kidney for the $20,000 USD price negotiated before his departure. He was admitted to the No 1 Peoples' Hospital‑a civilian facility‑and during the ensuing two weeks four kidneys were brought for testing against his blood and other factors.  None proved compatible because of his anti‑bodies; all were taken away.


He subsequently went to his home country, returning to the hospital about two months later. Another four kidneys were similarly tested; when the eighth proved compatible, the transplant operation was successfully completed.  His eight days of convalescence was done at No 85 hospital of the Peoples' Liberation Army.  His surgeon was Dr. Tan Jianming of the Nanjing military region, who wore his army uniform at times in the civilian hospital.


Tan carried sheets of paper containing lists of prospective "donors”, based on various tissue and blood characteristics, from which he would select names.  The doctor was observed at various times to leave the hospital in uniform and return 2‑3 hours later with containers bearing kidneys.  Dr. Tan told the recipient that the eighth kidney came from an executed prisoner.


The military have access to prisons and prisoners.  Their operations are even more secretive than those of the civilian government.  They are impervious to the rule of law.

4) Corruption


Corruption is a major problem across China.  State institutions are sometimes run for the benefit of those in charge of them rather than for the benefit of the people. Occasionally, China engages in "Strike Hard" against corruption. 


But, in the absence of rule of law and democracy, where secrecy holds sway and public accounting of public funds is absent, these anti-corruption campaigns seem to be more power struggles than true anti-corruption drives.  They are attempts to placate public concern about corruption, politicized public relations drives.


The sale of organs is a money driven problem.  But that is different from saying that it is a corruption problem.  The sale of organs from unwilling donors combines hatred with greed.   A state policy of persecution is acted out in a financially profitable way.


Former Chinese president Deng Xiaoping said: "To get rich is glorious".  He did not say that some ways of getting rich are shameful.


Profiteering hospitals take advantage of a defenceless captive prison population in their regions.  The people are in prison without rights, at the disposition of the authorities.   The incitement to hatred against prisoners and their dehumanization means that they can be butchered and killed without qualms by those who buy into this official hate propaganda.

b) Considerations specific to organ harvesting

5) Technological development                  


Albert Einstein wrote:

          "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."


Technological developments do not change human nature.  But they do change the ability to inflict harm.


The development of transplant surgery has done much to improve the ability of humanity to cope with failing organs.  But these developments in transplant surgery have not changed our way of thinking.


There is a tendency to think of any new medical development as a benefit to humanity.  That is certainly the intent of its developers.  But medical research, no matter how far advanced, comes face to face with the same old capacity for good and evil.


More advanced techniques in transplant surgery do not mean a more advanced Chinese political system.  The Chinese Communist system remains.  Developments in transplant surgery in China fall prey to the cruelty, the corruption, the repression which pervades China.  Advances in transplant surgery provide new means for old cadres to act out their venality and ideology.


We do not suggest that those who developed transplant surgery should instead have become watchmakers.  We do suggest that we should not be so naive as to think that just because transplant surgery was developed to do good, it can do no harm. 


On the contrary, the allegation made against the development of transplant surgery in China, that it is being used to harvest organs from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners, would be just the acting out, in a new context, of the lesson Albert Einstein was teaching.  We have seen before that modern technologies developed for the benefit of humanity have been perverted to inflict harm.  We should not be surprised if this has also happened to transplant surgery.               

6) Treatment of prisoners sentenced to death


Deputy Health Minister Huang Jiefu, speaking at a conference of surgeons in the southern city of Guangzhou in mid November 2006 acknowledged that executed prisoners sentenced to death are a source of organ transplants.  He said: "Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners."  Asia News wrote:

          "'Under‑the‑table business must be banned,' Mr Huang said cognizant that too often organs come from non consenting parties and are sold for high fees to foreigners."


China has the death penalty for a large number of offences including strictly political and economic crimes where there is no suggestion that the accused has committed a violent act.  To go from executing no one to killing Falun Gong practitioners for their organs without their consent is a large step.  To go from executing prisoners sentenced to death for political or economic crimes and harvesting their organs without their consent to killing Falun Gong practitioners for their organs without their consent is a good deal smaller step.


It would be difficult to believe that a state which killed no one, which had no death penalty, which harvested the organs of no one else without their consent, would harvest the organs of Falun Gong practitioners without their consent.  It is a good deal easier to believe that a state which executes prisoners sentenced to death for economic or political crimes and harvests their organs without their consent would also kill Falun Gong practitioners for their organs without their consent.


The Falun Gong constitutes a prison population who the Chinese authorities vilify, dehumanize, depersonalize, marginalize even more than executed prisoners sentenced to death for criminal offences.  Indeed, if one considers only the official rhetoric directed against the two populations, it would seem that the Falun Gong would be a target for organ harvesting even before prisoners sentenced to death.                   

7) Organ donations


China has no organized system of organ donations.[8] [9] In this it is unlike every other country engaged in organ transplant surgery. Donations from living donors are allowed for family members. 


We are told that there is a Chinese cultural aversion to organ donation.  Yet, Hong Kong and Taiwan, with essentially the same culture, have active organ donation programs.


The absence of an organ donation system in China tells us two things.  One is that organ donations are not a plausible source for organ transplants in China.


Because of the culture aversion to organ donation in China, even an active organ donation system would have difficult supplying the volume of transplants now occurring in China.   But the problem is compounded when there is not even an active effort to encourage donations.


Donations matter in other countries because donations are the primary source of organs for transplants.  We can conclude that from the absence of a serious effort to encourage donations in China that, for China, donations do not even matter. China has such a plethora of organs available for transplants without donations that encouraging organ donations becomes superfluous.


The absence of a serious effort to encourage organ donations in combination with short waiting times for transplant surgery in China and the large volume of transplants tells us that China is awash in living organs for transplant; people the authorities have ready on hand to be killed for their organs for transplants.  That reality does nothing to dispel the allegation of organ harvesting of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners. 

8) Waiting times


Hospital web sites in China advertise short waiting times for organ transplants. Transplants of long dead donors are not viable because of organ deterioration after death.  If we take these hospital's self‑promotions at face value, they tell us that there are a large number of people now alive who are available on demand as sources of organs. 


The waiting times for organ transplants for organ recipients in China are much lower than anywhere else. The China International Transplantation Assistant Centre website says, "It may take only one week to find out the suitable (kidney) donor, the maximum time being one month...”[10]. It goes further, "If something wrong with the donor's organ happens, the patient will have the option to be offered another organ donor and have the operation again in one week." [11] The site of the Oriental Organ Transplant Centre in early April, 2006, claimed that "the average waiting time (for a suitable liver) is 2 weeks." [12] The website of the Changzheng Hospital in Shanghai says: "...the average waiting time for a liver supply is one week among all the patients". [13]


In contrast, the median waiting time in Canada for a kidney was 32.5 months in 2003 and in British Columbia it was even longer at 52.5 months.[14]  The survival period for a kidney is between 24-48 hours and a liver about 12 hours.[15]  The presence of a large bank of living kidney-liver "donors" must be the only way China's transplant centres can assure such short waits to customers.  The astonishingly short waiting times advertised for perfectly-matched organs would suggest the existence of a large bank of live prospective 'donors'.    

9) Incriminating Information on Websites


Some of the material available on the websites of various transplant centres in China before March 9, 2006 (when allegations about large‑scale organ seizures resurfaced in Canadian and other world media) is also inculpatory. Understandably, a good deal of it has since been removed. So these comments will refer only to sites that can still be found at archived locations, with the site locations being identified either in the comments or as footnotes. A surprising amount of self‑accusatory material was still available as of the final week of June, 2006 to web browsers. We list here only four examples:


(1) China International Transplantation Network Assistance Centre Website


(Shenyang City)


This website as of May 17, 2006 indicated in the English version (the Mandarin one evidently disappeared after March 9) that the centre was established in 2003 at the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University "...specifically for foreign friends. Most of the patients are from all over the world." The opening sentence of the site [16]introduction declares that "Viscera (one dictionary definition: "soft interior organs...including the brain, lungs, heart etc") providers can be found immediately!"  On another page[17] on the same site is this statement: "...the number of kidney transplant operations is at least 5,000 every year all over the country. So many transplantation operations are owing to the support of the Chinese government. The supreme demotic court, supreme demotic law - officer, police, judiciary, department of health and civil administration have enacted a law together to make sure that organ donations are supported by the government. This is unique in the world."


In the 'question and answer' section of the site are found:

"Before the living kidney transplantation, we will ensure the donor's renal function...So it is more safe than in other countries, where the organ is not from a living donor." [18]

   . "Q: Are the organs for the pancreas transplant(ed) from brain death (sic) (dead) patients?"

     "A: Our organs do not come from brain death victims because the state of the organ may not be good." [19]


(2)Orient Organ Transplant Centre Website


(Tianjin City)


On a page we were informed was removed in mid-April (but can still be located as an archive 12) is the claim that from "January 2005 to now, we have done 647 liver transplants - 12 of them done this week; the average waiting time is 2 weeks." A chart also removed about the same time (but archive still available[20]) indicates that from virtually a standing start in 1998 (when it managed only 9 liver transplants) by 2005 it had completed fully 2248[21].



In contrast, according to the Canadian Organ Replacement Register 14, the total in Canada for all kinds of organ transplants in 2004 was 1773.


(3) Jiaotong University Hospital Liver Transplant Centre Website


(Shanghai ‑ This is #5 in the list of telephoned centres)


In a posting on April 26, 2006, [22]

(, the website says in part: "The liver transplant cases (here) are seven in 2001, 53 cases in 2002, 105 cases in 2003, 144 cases in 2004, 147 cases in 2005 and 17 cases in January, 2006," .


(4) Website of Changzheng Hospital Organ Transplant Centre, affiliated with No. 2 Military Medical University




A page was removed after March 9, 2006. (Internet Archive page is available.[23])  It contains the following graph depicting the number of liver transplant each year by this Centre:

In the "Liver Transplant Application" form [24], it states on the top, "...Currently, for the liver transplant, the operation fee and the hospitalization expense together is about 200,000 Yuan ($66,667 CND), and the average waiting time for a liver supply is one week among all the patients in our hospital...."

10) Donor recipient interviews


For the first version of our report, we did not have time to engage in donor recipient interviews, people who went to China from abroad for transplants.  For this version, we engaged in extensive interviews of a number of these recipients and their family members.  Summaries of their experience are attached as an appendix to this report.


Organ transplant surgery, as described by the recipients and their relatives, is conducted in almost total secrecy, as if it were a crime which needed cover up.  As much information as possible is withheld from the recipients and their families.  They are not told the identity of the donors.  They are never shown written consents from the donors or their families.  The identity of the operating doctor and support staff are often not disclosed, despite requests for this information.  Recipients and their families are commonly told the time of the operation only shortly before it occurs.  Operations sometimes occur in the middle of the night.  The whole procedure is done on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis.


When people act as if they have something to hide, it is reasonable to conclude that they have something to hide.  Since organ sourcing from prisoners sentenced to death is widely known and even acknowledged by the Government of China, Chinese transplant hospitals can not be trying to hide that.  It must be something else.  What is it?

11) The money to be made


In China, organ transplanting is a very profitable business.  We can trace the money of the people who pay for organ transplants to specific hospitals which do organ transplants, but we can not go further than that.  We do not know who gets the money the hospitals receive.  Are doctors and nurses engaged in criminal organ harvesting paid exorbitant sums for their crimes?  That was a question it was impossible for us to answer, since we had no way of knowing where the money went.


China International Transplantation Network Assistance Centre Website


(Shenyang City)

Before its indicated removal from the site [25] in April, 2006, the size of the profits for transplants was suggested in the following price list:

Kidney US$62,000

Liver US$98,000-130,000

Liver-kidney US$160,000-180,000

Kidney-pancreas US$150,000

Lung US$150,000-170,000

Heart US$130,000-160,000

Cornea US$30,000


A standard way of investigating any crime allegation where money changes hands is to follow the money trail.  But for China, its closed doors mean that following the money trail is impossible.  Not knowing where the money goes proves nothing.  But it also disproves nothing, including these allegations.

12) Chinese transplant ethics


Chinese transplant professionals are not subject to any ethical strictures separate from the laws which govern their work.  Many other countries have self governing transplant professions with their own disciplinary systems.  Transplant professionals who violate ethical guidelines can be ejected from their profession by their colleagues without any state intervention.


For transplant professionals in China, we found nothing of the sort.  When it comes to transplant surgery, as long as the state does not intervene, anything goes.  There is no independent supervisory body exercising disciplinary control over transplant professionals independent of the state.


The Wild West system of transplant surgery in China makes it easier for abusive practices to occur.  State involvement and criminal prosecution are inevitably less systematic than professional discipline.   Because the penalties for criminal prosecution are greater than the penalties for professional discipline - potential jail time rather than just barring someone from the profession - prosecution cases are more rare than discipline cases.


The absence of a functioning transplant professional discipline system does not mean that abuses are occurring.  But it certainly makes it more likely that they will occur.

13) Foreign transplant ethics


There are huge gaps in foreign transplant ethics.  In many of the countries from which transplant tourism to China originates, transplant professionals have organized ethical and disciplinary systems.  But it is rare for these systems to deal specifically with either transplant tourism or contact with Chinese transplant professionals or transplants from executed prisoners.   The watch words here seem to be "out of sight, out of mind".


On transplant tourism, the Professional Code of Conduct of the Medical Council of Hong Kong has two principles, in particular, worth emphasizing.  One is that, "if there is doubt" as to whether the consent is given freely or voluntarily by the donor, the profession should have nothing to do with the donation.  And, the very least one can say about China, in light of the fact that "almost all" transplants come from prisoners, is that there is doubt in almost every case whether the consent is given freely or voluntarily by the donor.


The second is that the onus is on the foreign professionals to ascertain the status of the Chinese donor.  The foreign professional is not acting ethically as long as he or she makes no inquiries or only cursory ones.  The foreign professional, after investigation, has to be satisfied beyond any doubt before referring a patient to China that consent was given freely or voluntarily by the donor.


The organ harvesting market in China, in order to thrive, requires both a supply and a demand.  The supply comes from China, from prisoners.  But the demand, in large part, in big bucks, comes from abroad. 


In an appendix, we present a critical analysis of the ethics of contact with China on transplants.  The Hong Kong principles are the exception rather than the rule.  Global professional ethics do little or nothing to staunch the foreign demand for organs from China.

14) Chinese transplant laws


Until July 1st, 2006, the practice of selling organs in China was legal.  A law banning their sale came into effect on that date. 


In China there is a huge gap between enacting legislation and enforcing it. To take one example, the preamble of the Constitution of China promises for China a "high level" of democracy.  But, as the Tiananmen square massacre demonstrated, China is not democratic.


Indeed from what we can tell, the law on organ transplants is not now being enforced.  Belgian Senator Patrik Vankrunkelsven, in late November 2006, called two different hospitals in Beijing pretending to be a customer for a kidney transplant.  Both hospitals offered him a kidney on the spot for 50,000 euros.


As noted earlier, Deputy Health Minister Huang Jiefu in November 2006 decried the selling of organs from executed prisoners sentenced to death saying "Under‑the‑table business must be banned".  Yet, it was already banned, on July 1.   His speech must be taken as an official acknowledgment that the ban is not working. 

15) Foreign transplant laws


The sort of transplants in which the Chinese medical system engages is illegal everywhere else in the world.  But it is not illegal for a foreigner in any country to go to China, benefit from a transplant which would be illegal back home, and then return home.  Foreign transplant legislation everywhere is territorial.  It does not have extraterritorial reach.


Many other laws are global in their sweep.  For instance, child sex tourists can be prosecuted not just in the country where they have sex with children, but, in many countries, back home as well.  This sort of legislation does not exist for transplant tourists who pay for organ transplants without bothering to determine whether the organ donor has consented.


There have been some legislative initiatives. For instance, Belgian Senator Patrik Vankrunkelsven is proposing an extraterritorial criminal law which would penalize transplant tourists who purchase organs abroad where the donors are prisoners or missing persons.   But these legislative proposals are still in an early stage.

16) Travel Advisories


Many states have travel advisories, warning their citizens of the perils in travel to one country to another.  The advisories often warn of political violence, or even weather related problems.  But no government has posted a travel advisory about organ transplants in China, warning its citizens that, in the words of The Transplantation Society, "almost all" organs in China come from prisoners.


Some, and we would hope, many would-be recipients of organ transplants would hesitate to go to China for transplants if they knew that their organs were coming from people who were non-consenting prisoners.  But right now there is no systematic communication to would be recipients of the source of organs in China, either through governments or the medical profession


For instance, the Canadian travel advisory for China, posted on the Foreign Affairs web site gives extensive information, almost 2,600 words, and has a section about health.  But organ transplants are not mentioned.

17) Pharmaceuticals


Organ transplantation surgery relies on anti-rejection drugs.  China imports these drugs from the major pharmaceutical companies.


Transplant surgery used to require both tissue and blood type matching for the transplant to succeed.  The development of transplant anti-rejection drugs has allowed for transplant surgery to circumvent tissue matching.  It is possible, with heavy use of anti-rejection drugs, to transplant from a donor to a recipient whose tissues do not match.  Only blood type matching is essential.  Tissue matching is preferable, to avoid heavy reliance on anti-rejection drugs, but no longer essential.  The Chinese medical system relies heavily on anti-rejection drugs.


International pharmaceutical companies behave towards the Chinese transplantation system the same way everyone else does.  They ask no questions.  They have no knowledge whether their drugs are being used in recipients who received organs from involuntary donor prisoners or not.


Many countries have export control acts, forbidding the export of some products altogether and requiring state permission for the export of other products.  But no state, to our knowledge, prohibits export to China of anti-rejection drugs used for organ transplant patients.


For instance, the Canadian Export and Import Permits Act provides:

          "No person shall export or attempt to export any goods included in an Export Control List or any goods to any country included in an Area Control List except under the authority of and in accordance with an export permit issued under this Act."[26]

But anti-rejection drugs for transplants are not included in the Area Control list for China.

18) Foreign state funding for care


Some state administered health plans pay for health care abroad in the amount that would be paid if the care were administered in the home country.  Where that happens, there is not, to our knowledge, in any country a prohibition of payment where the patient obtains an organ transplant in China.


Transplant tourists need aftercare in their home country.  They continue to need prescription and administration of anti-rejection drugs.  States which provide government funding for health services typically provide funding for this sort of after care.


Again here, to the funders how the organ recipient got the organ is a matter of indifference.  The fact that the organ may have came from an unconsenting prisoner in China who was killed for the organ is simply not relevant to foreign state funding of aftercare for the recipient.

c) Considerations specific to Falun Gong

19) A perceived threat 


The overwhelming majority of prisoners of conscience in Chinese prisons are Falun Gong.  An estimated two thirds of the torture victims in Chinese prisons are Falun Gong.  The extremes of language the Chinese regime uses against the Falun Gong are unparalleled, unmatched by the comparatively mild criticisms China has of the victims the West is used to defending.  The documented yearly arbitrary killings and disappearances of Falun Gong exceed by far the totals for any other victim group.


Why does the Chinese government denounce so viciously and repress so brutally this one group, more so than any other victim group?  The standard Chinese refrain about the Falun Gong is that it is an evil cult. 


Falun Gong has none of the characteristics of a cult.  It has no memberships, no offices and no officers. 


David Ownby, Director of the Centre of East Asian studies at the University of Montreal and a specialist in modern Chinese history, wrote about the Falun Gong in a paper prepared six years ago for the Canadian Institute of International Affairs.  He stated that unlike cults, Falun Gong has no mandatory financial obligations, isolation of practitioners in communes or withdrawal from the world.  He says:

          "Falun Gong members remain within society. In a vast majority, they live within nuclear families. They go to work; they send their kids to school." [27]


There is no penalty for leaving the Falun Gong, since there is nothing to leave.  Practitioners are free to practice Falun Gong as little or as much as they see fit.  They can start and stop at any time.  They can engage in their exercises in groups or singly.


Li Hongzhi, the author of the books which inspired Falun Gong practitioners, is not worshipped by practitioners.  Nor does he receive funds from practitioners.  He is a private person who meets rarely with practitioners.  His advice to practitioners is publicly available information - conference lectures and published books.


The Chinese government labelling of the Falun Gong as an evil cult is a component of the repression of the Falun Gong, a pretext for that repression as well as a defamation, incitement to hatred, depersonalization, marginalization and dehumanization of the Falun Gong.  But this labelling does not explain why that repression arose.  The "evil cult" label is a manufactured tool of repression, but not its cause.  The cause lies elsewhere.


In order to enforce conformity, Chinese exercise regimes or qigong in all their variations were suppressed in 1949 after the Chinese Communist Party seized office. By the 1990s, the police state environment had become less oppressive for all forms of qigong, including Falun Gong.


Falun Gong includes elements of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. In essence, it teaches methods of meditation through exercises intended to improve physical and spiritual health and fitness. The movement has no political platform; its followers seek to promote truth, tolerance and forbearance across racial, national and cultural boundaries.  Violence is anathema.


Li registered his movement with the government's Qigong Research Association. At a time when the movement was falling into official disfavour but before it was banned, in early 1998, Li moved to the United States.  But Falun Gong continued to flourish.  The Jiang government estimated in 1999 that there were 70 million adherents.  That year, the Communist Party of China membership was an estimated 60 million.


Before Falun Gong was banned in July, 1999, its adherents gathered regularly throughout China to do their exercises.  In Beijing alone there were more than 2000 practice stations.


The Communist Party, in April 1999, published an article in the magazine Science and Technology for Youth, which singled out Falun Gong as a superstition and a health risk because practitioners might refuse conventional medical treatments for serious illnesses. A large number of Falun Gong adherents demonstrated against the contents of the piece outside the Tianjin editor's office. Arrests and police beatings resulted.


To petition the Government Petition Office in Beijing about these arrests, on April 25th, 1999, 10,000‑15,000 Falun Gong practitioners gathered from dawn until late at night outside the Communist Party headquarters at Zhongnanhai next to Beijing's Forbidden City.  The gathering was silent, without posters[28].  Jiang was alarmed by the presence of these petitioners. The ideological supremacy of the Communist Party was, in his view, in danger.

20) A policy of persecution


If organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners were widespread across China, one would expect some governmental policy directive to that effect.  Yet, the secrecy of policy formulation in China prevents us from determining whether such a policy exists.


Nonetheless, we do know that persecution of Falun Gong exists as an official policy.  There are some very strong policy statements, attached as an appendix to this report, by the Government of China and the Communist Party of China, calling for the persecution of the Falun Gong, including physical persecution.


The Government of China set up a dedicated bureaucracy assigned with the task of repressing the Falun Gong.  This dedicated bureaucracy has representatives throughout China.  Because it was established on the tenth day of the six month of 1999, it is called, in shorthand, the 610 office.   The 610 office has representatives in every province, city, county, university, government department and government-owned business in China.


According to Li Baigen, then assistant director of the Beijing Municipal Planning office who attended the meeting, during 1999 the three men heading the 610 office called more than 3,000 officials to the Great Hall of the People in the capital to discuss the campaign against Falun Gong, which was then not going well. Demonstrations were continuing to occur at Tiananmen Square. The head of the 610 office, Li Lanqing, verbally announced the government's new policy on the movement: "defaming their reputations, bankrupting them financially and destroying them physically."  Only after this meeting were the deaths of adherents at police hands recorded as suicides.

21) Incitement to hatred


The Falun Gong in China are dehumanized both in word and deed. Policy directives are matched by incitement to the population at large both to justify the policy of persecution, to recruit participants, and to forestall opposition. This sort of vocabulary directed against a particular group has become both the precursor and the hallmark of gross human violations directed against the group. 


According to Amnesty International, the Chinese Government adopted three strategies to crush Falun Gong: violence against practitioners who refuse to renounce their beliefs; "brainwashing" to force all known practitioners to abandon Falun Gong and renounce it, and a media campaign to turn public opinion against Falun Gong. [29]


Local governments were authorized to implement Beijing's orders to repress the Falun Gong. Implementation meant, in part, staged attempts to demonstrate to China's population that practitioners committed suicide by self-immolation, killed and mutilated family members and refused medical treatment.  Over time this campaign had the desired effect and many, if not most, Chinese nationals came to accept the Communist Party view about Falun Gong.  The National People's Congress then passed laws purporting to legalize a long list of illegal acts done by Falun Gong practitioners against other practitioners.


This incitement to hatred is most acute in China.  But it exists worldwide.  Chinese officials, wherever they are posted, engage in this incitement as part and parcel of their official duties.  In Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, this behaviour became the subject of a police recommendation for prosecution of two Chinese consular officials in Calgary for wilful promotion of hatred against the Falun Gong.  The police report is attached as an exhibit to this report[30].


Incitement to hatred is not specific enough to indicate the form that persecution takes. But it promotes any and all violations of the worst sort.  It is hard to imagine the allegations we have heard being true in the absence of this sort of hate propaganda.  Once this sort of incitement exists, the fact that people would engage in such behaviour against the Falun Gong ‑ harvesting their organs and killing them in the process ‑ ceases to be implausible.

22) Physical persecution


Former president Jiang's mandate to the 610 office[31] was to "eradicate" Falun Gong[32].  An appendix gives extensive detail about this attempt at eradication through persecution.


The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture's recent report [33] noted that

          "Since 2000, the Special Rapporteur and his predecessors have reported 314 cases of alleged torture to the Government of China. These cases represent well over 1,160 individuals." And "In addition to this figure, it is to be noted that one case sent in 2003 (E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1 para. 301) detailed the alleged ill treatment and torture of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners." 


Furthermore, the report indicated that 66% of the victims of alleged torture and ill‑treatment in China were Falun Gong practitioners, with the remaining victims comprising Uighurs (11%), sex workers (8%), Tibetans (6%), human rights defenders (5%), political dissidents (2%), and others (persons infected with HIV/AIDS and members of religious groups 2%).


Part of a wire story from the Beijing bureau of the Washington Post fully two summers later (5 Aug 2001) [34] illustrates the severity of the ongoing methods of the 610 office and other agents of the regime against Falun Gong practitioners:

          "At a police station in western Beijing, Ouyang was stripped and interrogated for five hours. 'If I responded incorrectly, that is if I didn't say, 'yes,' they shocked me with the electric truncheon,' he said. Then, he was transferred to a labour camp in Beijing's western suburbs. There, the guards ordered him to stand facing a wall. If he moved, they shocked him. If he fell down from fatigue, they shocked him..."


          "(Later) he was taken before a group of Falun Gong inmates and rejected the group one more time as the video cameras rolled. Ouyang left jail and entered the brainwashing classes. Twenty days after debating Falun Gong for 16 hours a day, he 'graduated'. 'The pressure on me was and is incredible,' he said. 'In the past two years, I have seen the worst of what man can do. We really are the worst animals on Earth.'"


Ownby noted that human rights organizations

          "have unanimously condemned China's brutal campaign against the Falungong, and many governments around the world, including Canada's, have expressed their concern."

He cited Amnesty International's report of 2000 which noted that 77 Falun Gong practitioners had "died in custody, or shortly after release, in suspicious circumstances since the crackdown began in July 1999."             

23) Massive arrests                


Massive arrests of practitioners are a form of physical persecution which deserves separate attention because of its potential link to organ harvesting.  Any person organ harvested against his or her will has to be detained first.


Repression of Falun Gong included sending thousands upon thousands of its practitioners to prisons and labour camps beginning in the summer of 1999. The US State Department's 2005 country report on China [35], for example, indicates that its police run hundreds of detention centres, with the 340 re-education-through-labour ones alone having a holding capacity of about 300,000 persons. The report also indicates that the number of Falun Gong practitioners who died in custody was estimated to be from a few hundred to a few thousand.


Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners travelled to Beijing to protest or to unfold banners calling for the group's legalization. People came almost daily. Author Jennifer Zeng, formerly of Beijing and now living in Australia, informs us that by the end of April 2001 there had been approximately 830,000 arrests in Beijing of Falun Gong adherents who had been identified.  There are no statistics available of practitioners who were arrested but refused to self identify.  From our interviews with released Falun Gong practitioners we know that the number of those who did not self identify is large.  But we do not know how large.


Large numbers of Falun Gong adherents in arbitrary indefinite secret detention alone do not prove the allegations.  But the opposite, the absence of such a pool of detainees, would undermine the allegations.  An extremely large group of people subject to the exercise of the whims and power of the state, without recourse to any form of protection of their rights, provides a potential source for organ harvesting of the unwilling.

24) Deaths


As of December 22, 2006, we have identified 3006 Falun Gong practitioners who died as a result of persecution.  These identified victims can be gathered into six groups. 


One group is the victims who died from stress related causes precipitated by constant harassment and threats from the authorities.  A second is those mistreated in detention and then released alive to their families, but who died subsequently of their mistreatment.  The third group is the victims who died in detention of torture and whose bodies were released by the authorities to the family for cremation.  The fourth is the victims who died in detention of mistreatment and were cremated while still detained, but whose families got to see the bodies in between death and cremation.  The fifth is the victims who died and were cremated in detention without the families ever seeing the bodies.  The sixth is the victims who died in detention but we do not have enough information to determine whether the families saw the bodies before cremation.


The bulk of the possible Falun Gong victims of organ harvesting are, from what we can tell, those whose families were not notified of the deaths of their loved ones.  This failure to notify had two causes.  One was that the practitioners refused to identify themselves to the authorities.  The other was that the authorities, though they knew who the practitioners were, refused to notify the families of their detention; as well, these practitioners were not, before death, allowed to contact their families. 


However, we can not exclude the possibility that the fifth and sixth group of the identified dead were also victims of organ harvesting.  This group numbers about 300.  The fifth group in particular raise suspicions.  Their names are listed in an appendix.


The large number of Falun Gong practitioners killed by the authorities through torture supports the allegation we are investigating.  When the life of Falun Gong practitioners is cheap, there is no particular reason to rule out one cause of death.  If the Government  of China is willing to kill large number of Falun Gong practitioners through torture, it is not that hard to believe they would be willing to do the same through organ harvesting.

25) Unidentified  


Falun Gong detentions, though in some ways they are just Chinese repression as usual with the Falun Gong being the unlucky targets, present an unusual feature.  Falun Gong practitioners who came from all over the country to Tiananmen Square in Beijing to appeal or protest were systematically arrested.  Those who revealed their identities to their captors would be shipped back to their home localities. Their families would be implicated in their Falun Gong activities and pressured to join in the effort to get the practitioners to renounce Falun Gong. Their workplace leaders, their co-workers, their local government leaders would be held responsible and penalized for the fact that these individuals had gone to Beijing to appeal or protest. 


To protect their families and avoid the hostility of the people in their locality, many detained Falun Gong declined to identify themselves.  The result was a large Falun Gong prison population whose identities the authorities did not know.  As well, no one who knew them knew where they were.


Though this refusal to identify themselves was done for protection purposes, it may have had the opposite effect.  It is easier to victimize a person whose whereabouts is unknown to family members than a person whose location the family knows. This population is a remarkably undefended group of people, even by Chinese standards.


Those who refused to self identify were treated especially badly. As well, they were moved around within the Chinese prison system for reasons not explained to the prisoners.


Was this a population which became a source of harvested Falun Gong organs?  Obviously, the mere existence of this population does not tell us that this is so.  Yet, the existence of this population provides a ready explanation for the source of harvested organs, if the allegations are true.  Members of this population could just disappear without anyone outside of the prison system being the wiser. 


For the authors, the investigations which led to this report had many chilling moments.  One of the most disturbing was the discovery of this massive prison/detention/labour camp population of the unidentified.  Practitioner after practitioner who eventually was released from detention told us about this population.  A collection of some of their statements is attached as an exhibit.


What these practitioners told us was that they personally met the unidentified in detention, in significant numbers.   Though we have met many Falun Gong practitioners who were released from Chinese detention, we have yet to meet or hear of, despite their large numbers, a practitioner released from detention who refused to self identify in detention from the beginning to the end of the detention period.  What happened to these many practitioners?  Where are they?


The problem of enforced disappearances is distinguishable from the problem of the unidentified, because, in the case of enforced disappearances, families know that the state is involved.  For the unidentified, all the families know is that they have lost track of a loved one.  For those victims of enforced disappearances, the families or witnesses know more.  They know that the person was at one time in the custody of the state.  The state either refuses to acknowledge that the person was ever in their custody or conceals the fate or whereabouts of the person[36].


There are some Falun Gong practitioners who have disappeared, abducted by the authorities.  However, the only disappearances case of which we know are people who were subsequently released and then spoke of their abduction.  We know that these victims were made to disappear only after the fact, once they reappeared. It is likely that there are other such practitioners who were never released. 


For the unidentified, because family members know only that they have lost contact with a loved one, they do not necessarily turn to the state to ask if the person has been detained.  When the person who is missing is the adherent to a practise which is brutally repressed by the state, the tendency of the family to avoid the government is heightened.  Nonetheless a few have sought out Chinese government help to find a missing Falun Gong practitioner family member.  Some of those cases are listed in an appendix to this report.

26) Blood testing and organ examination


Falun Gong practitioners in detention are systematically blood tested and organ examined.  Other prisoners, who are not practitioners, sitting side by side, with practitioners are not tested.  This differential testing occurs in labour camps, prisons and detention centres.  We have heard such a large number of testimonials to this effect that this differential testing exists beyond a shadow of a doubt.  These tests and examination happen whether practitioners are held at labour camps, prisons or detention centres.  Interview statements testifying to systematic blood testing and organ examination of Falun Gong practitioners to the exclusion of other prisoners are attached as an appendix to this report.


The practitioners themselves are not told the reason for the testing and examination.  It is unlikely that the testing and examination serves a health purpose.  For one, it is unnecessary to blood test and organ examine people systematically simply as a health precaution.  For another, the health of the Falun Gong in detention is disregarded in so many other ways, it is implausible that the authorities would blood test and organ examine Falun Gong as a precautionary health measure.


Blood testing is a pre‑requisite for organ transplants.  Donors need to be matched with recipients so that the antibodies of the recipients do not reject the organs of the donors.


The mere fact of blood testing and organ examination does not establish that organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners is taking place.  But the opposite is true.  If there were no blood testing, the allegation would be disproved.  The widespread blood testing of Falun Gong practitioners in detention cuts off this avenue of disproof. 

27) Sources of past transplants


The numbers of organ transplants in China is huge, up to 20,000 in 2005 according to China Daily.  China has the second largest number of operations done in the world, just after USA.


The large volumes coupled with the short waiting times means that  there has to be a large number of potential donors on hand at any one time.  Where is and who is this large donor population?


There are many more transplants than identifiable sources.  We know that some organs come from prisoners sentenced to death and then executed.  Very few come from willing donor family members and the brain dead.  But these sources leave huge gaps in the totals.  The number of prisoners sentenced to death and then executed and willing sources come nowhere close to the number of transplants.


The number of prisoners sentenced to death and then executed is itself not public.  We are operating only from numbers provided by Amnesty International sourced from Chinese public records.  Those numbers, when one considers global execution totals, are large, but nowhere near the estimated totals of transplants.


At least 98% of the organs for transplants come from someone other than family donors.9 In the case of kidneys, for example, only 227 of 40,393 transplants - about 0.6% - done between 1971 and 2001 in China came from family donors. [37]


The government of China admitted to using the organs of prisoners sentenced to death and then executed only in 2005 [38] [39], although it had been going on for many years. The regime has had no barriers to prevent marketing the organs of "enemies of the state".


According to tabulations constructed from the Amnesty International reports [40] of publicly available information in China, the average number of prisoners sentenced to death and then executed between 1995 and 1999 was 1680 per year. The average between 2000 and 2005, was 1616 per year.  The numbers have bounced around from year to year, but the overall average number for the periods before and after Falun Gong persecution began is the same.  Execution of prisoners sentenced to death can not explain the increase of organ transplants in China since the persecution of Falun Gong began.


According to public reports, there were approximately 30,000 [41] transplants in total done in China before 1999 and 18,500 [42] 4141 in the six year period 1994 to 1999. Shi Bingyi, vice‑chair of the China Medical Organ Transplant Association, says there were about 90,000 [43] transplants in total up until 2005, leaving about 60,000 transplants in the six year period 2000 to 2005 since the persecution of Falun Gong began. 


The other identified sources of organ transplants, willing family donors and the brain dead, have always been tiny.  In 2005, living-related kidney transplants consisted of 0.5% of total transplants [44].  The total of brain dead donors for all years and all of China is 9 up to March 2006 4444 [45].  There is no indication of a significant increase in either of these categories in recent years.  Presumably the identified sources of organ transplants which produced 18,500 organ transplants in the six year period 1994 to 1999 produced the same number of organs for transplants in the next six year period 2000 to 2005.  That means that the source of 41,500 transplants for the six year period 2000 to 2005 is unexplained.


Where do the organs come from for all the transplants in China?  The allegation of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners provides an answer.


Again this sort of gap in the figures does not establish that the allegation of harvesting of organs from Falun Gong practitioners is true.  But the converse, a full explanation of the source of all organ transplants, would disprove the allegation.  If the source of all organ transplants could be traced either to willing donors or executed prisoners, then the allegation against the Falun Gong would be disproved.  But such tracing is impossible.


Estimates of executions in China of prisoners sentenced to death are often much higher than the figures based on publicly available records of executions.  There is no official Chinese reporting on overall statistics of executions, leaving totals open to estimation.


One technique some of those involved in estimating executions have used is the number of transplant operations.  Because it is known that at least some transplants come from executed prisoners and that family donors are few and far between, some analysts have deduced from the number of transplants that execution of prisoners sentenced to death have increased.


This reasoning is unpersuasive.  One cannot estimate execution of prisoners sentenced to death from transplants unless executions of prisoners sentenced to death are the only alleged source of transplants.  Yet, Falun Gong practitioners are another alleged source.  It is impossible to conclude that those practitioners are not a source of organs for transplants because of the number of executions of prisoners sentenced to death where the number of executions of prisoners sentenced to death is deduced from the number of transplants.


Can the increase in transplants be explained by increased efficiency in harvesting from prisoners sentenced to death and then executed?  The increase in transplants in China paralleled both the persecution of the Falun Gong and the development of some transplant technology.  But the increase in transplants did not parallel the increase of all transplant technology.  Kidney transplant technology was fully developed in China long before the persecution of Falun Gong began.  Yet kidney transplants shot up, more than doubling once the persecution of Falun Gong started.  There were 3,596 37 kidney transplants in 1998 and nearly 10,000 in 2005 43


A second reason that multiple organ harvesting from executed prisoners sentenced to death does not explain the increase in organ transplants is overall disorganization of organ matching in China.  There is no national network for the matching and sharing of organs.[46] Doctors decry the wastage of organs from donors, bemoaning the fact that “only kidneys were used from donors, wasting of other organs” 46 . Each hospital manages its own organ supply and waiting list.  Patients go from one hospital where there are no ready organs for transplants to other hospitals were transplant surgery takes place at once. [47] Hospitals refer patients from their own hospital where they say they have no readily available organs for transplant to another hospital which they say does have organs for transplant. [48] This disorganization diminishes the efficient use of organs.


A third reason that multiple organ harvesting from executed prisoners sentenced to death does not explain the increase in organ transplants is the experience elsewhere.  Nowhere have transplants jumped so significantly with the same number of donors, simply because of a change in technology.  Year by year statistics for Canada, the United States and Japan are set out in an appendix.


The increase in organ transplants in China parallels the increase in persecution of the Falun Gong.  These parallel increases of Falun Gong persecution and transplants, in themselves, do not prove the allegation.  But they are consistent with the allegation.  If the parallel did not exist, that hypothetical non‑existence would undercut the allegations.

28) Sources of future transplants


Organ transplant surgery in China is a booming business.  There were only 22 liver transplant centres [49] operating across China before 1999 and 500 in mid - April, 2006 88 [50]. The number of kidney transplantation institutions increased from 106[51] in 2001 to 368[52] in 2005.


The money to be made has led to the creation of dedicated facilities, specializing in organ transplants.  There is the Peking University Third Hospital Liver Transplantation Centre[53] founded in October 2002, the Beijing Organ Transplantation Centre [54] established in November 2002, the Organ Transplant Centre of the People's Liberation Army Number 309 Hospital [55]  established in April 2002, the People's Liberation Army Organ Transplant Research Institute [56]  (Organ Transplant Centre of the Shanghai Changzheng Hospital) established in May 2004 and the Shanghai Clinical Medical Centre[57] for Organ Transplants established in 2001.  The Oriental Organ Transplant Centre [58] in Tianjin began construction in 2002.  It is fourteen floors above ground and two floors underground with 300 beds. It is a public facility, built by Tianjin City.  It is the largest transplant centre in Asia.


The establishment of these facilities is both an indicator of the volume of organ transplants and a commitment to their continuation.  The creation of whole facilities dedicated to organ transplants bespeaks long term planning.


Yet, the organ source for virtually all Chinese transplants is prisoners.  There is a debate which this report addresses whether these prisoners have all previously been sentenced to death or whether some of them are detained Falun Gong practitioners who have been sentenced to jail terms only or not sentenced at all.  But there is no debate over whether the sources of organs are prisoners; that much is incontestable.  The establishment of dedicated organ transplant facilities in China is an overt assertion of the intent to continue organ harvesting from prisoners.


Yet, the Government of China has, both in law and through official statements, said that it would cease organ harvesting from prisoners sentenced to death who do not consent to organ harvesting.  And, as set out elsewhere in this report, there is no such thing as meaningful consent to organ harvesting from a prisoner sentenced to death.


The creation of these dedicated facilities raises the question not only what has been the source for so many organs transplanted in the past, but, as well, what will be the source for so many organs which China intends to transplant in the future?  From whom will these organs come?  The source of prisoners sentenced to death will presumably disappear or diminish substantially if China is genuine in applying to this population its law and stated policy about requiring consent of donors.


The Chinese authorities, to build these dedicated organ transplant institutions, must have the confidence that there exists now and into the foreseeable future a ready source of organs from people who are alive now and will be dead tomorrow.  Who are these people?  A large prison population of Falun Gong practitioners provides an answer.

29) Corpses with missing organs


A number of family members of Falun Gong practitioners who died in detention reported seeing the corpses of their loved ones with surgical incisions and body parts missing.  The authorities gave no coherent explanation for these mutilated corpses.  Again the evidence about these mutilated corpses is attached as an appendix to this report.


We have only a few instances of such mutilated corpses.  We have no official explanation why they were mutilated. Their mutilation is consistent with organ harvesting. 


In the first version of our report, appendix twelve had a photo of a person with stitches after his body was cut open to remove organs.  One comment we received back is that the stitches the photos show are consistent with an autopsy.


We observe that organs may indeed be removed for autopsies in order to determine the cause of death.  A corpse which has been autopsied may well have stitches similar to those shown in the photo.  Outside of China, except for organ donors, that is likely the reason why organs would be removed from a corpse.  Similarly, outside of China, when people are blood tested, typically, the test is done for their own health.  However, the suggestion that Falun Gong practitioners who are tortured to the point of death are blood tested for their health or that practitioners who are tortured to death are autopsied to determine the cause of death belies the torture experience. 


The corpse whose photo we reproduced was that of Wang Bin.  Beatings caused the artery in Mr. Wang's neck and major blood vessels to break. As a result, his tonsils were injured, his lymph nodes were crushed, and several bones were fractured. He had cigarette burns on the backs of his hands and inside his nostrils. There were bruises all over his body. Even though he was already close to death, he was tortured again at night. He finally lost consciousness.  On the night of October 4, 2000, Mr. Wang died from his injuries.


The purpose of an autopsy report is to determine the cause of death when the cause is otherwise unknown.   But in the case of Wang Bin, the cause of death was known before his organs were removed. The suggestion that Wang Bin would be autopsied to determine the cause of death after he was tortured to death is not plausible. There was no indication that the family of Wang Bin was asked for consent before the organs of the victim were removed nor provided an autopsy report afterwards.  The suggestion of an autopsy is not a tenable explanation for the stitches on Wang Bin's body. 

30) Admissions


Mandarin speaking investigators called in to a number of hospitals and transplant doctors to ask about transplants.  The callers presented themselves as potential recipients or relatives of potential recipients.  Phone numbers were obtained from the internet.  These calls resulted in a number of admissions that Falun Gong practitioners are the sources of organ transplants. Since our last report, there are further calls with admissions set out in an appendix.


If the phone numbers was a general number of a hospital, the callers usually started with asking to be connected to the transplant department of the hospital and they first spoke with whoever picked up the phone for some general information of transplant operations. Usually the person would help to locate a doctor or the chief‑physician of the transplant department to speak to the caller. If the doctor was not available, the caller would then call back to look for this specific doctor or chief‑physician next time she called and speak to the doctor, or chief physician.


Usually hospital staff talked to people (or family members) wanting organ transplants, and actively located relevant doctors for them.


Although callers always began by speaking to a hospital or a doctor, sometimes they were referred to prisons or courts, because these were the distribution points for harvested organs.  It may seem strange to call a court about organ availability; but systematic organ harvesting in China began with executed prisoners sentenced to death even if it did not end there.  It seems that the distribution point for organs from people in the prison system remained the same after China moved on from harvesting organs from prisoners sentenced to death to other prisoners.


One of the callers, "Ms. M", told one of us that in early March, 2006 she managed to get through to the Public Security Bureau in Shanxi. The respondent there told her that healthy and young prisoners are selected from the prison population to be organ donors.  If the candidates could not be tricked into providing the blood samples necessary for successful transplants, the official went on with guileless candour, employees of the office take the samples by force.


On March 18 or 19, 2006 M spoke to a representative of the Eye Department at the People's Liberation Army hospital in Shenyang in north-eastern China, although she was not able to make a full recorded transcript. Her notes indicate that the person identifying himself as the hospital director said the facility did "many cornea operations", adding that "we also have fresh corneas." Asked what that means, the director replied "...just taken from bodies".


At Army Hospital 301 in Beijing in April, 2006, a surgeon told M that she did liver transplants herself.  The surgeon added that the source of the organs was a "state secret" and that anyone revealing the source "could be disqualified from doing such operations."


In early June, 2006, an official at the Mishan city detention centre told a telephone caller that the centre then had at least five or six male Falun Gong prisoners under 40 years of age available as organ suppliers. A doctor at Shanghai's Zhongshan hospital in mid March of 2006 said that all of his organs come from Falun Gong practitioners. A doctor at Qianfoshan hospital in Shandong in March implied that he then had organs from Falun Gong persons and added that in April there would be "more of these kinds of bodies..." In May, Dr. Lu of the Minzu hospital in Nanning city said organs from Falun Gong practitioners were not available at his institution and suggested the caller call Guangzhou to get them. He also admitted that he earlier went to prisons to select healthy Falun Gong persons in their 30s to provide their organs.


In mid - March of 2006, Dr. Wang of Zhengzhou Medical University in Henan province agreed that "we pick all the young and healthy kidneys..." Dr. Zhu of the Guangzhou Military region hospital in April of 2006 said he then had some type B kidneys from Falun Gong, but would have "several batches" before May 1 and perhaps no more until May 20 or later. An official at the first detention centre in Qinhuangdao city in Liaoning province told a caller in mid May 2006 that she should call the Intermediate People's court to obtain Falun Gong kidneys. The same day, an official at that court said they had no Falun Gong live kidneys, but had had them in the past, specifically in 2001. Finally, the First Criminal Bureau of the Jinzhou people's court in May of 2006 told the caller that access to Falun Gong kidneys currently depended on "qualifications".


Director Song at the Tianjin city central hospital in mid March 2006 volunteered that his hospital had more than ten beating hearts. The caller asked if that meant "live bodies" and Song replied, "Yes it is so."  An official at the Wuhan city Tongji hospital two weeks later tells the caller that "(i)t's not a problem” for his institution when the caller says, "...we hope the kidney suppliers are alive. (We're) looking for live organ transplants from prisoners, for example, using living bodies from prisoners who practise Falun Gong, Is it possible?"


The map of China which follows indicates the regions where detention or hospital personnel have made admissions to telephone investigators:



Most of the excerpted phone call texts are in an appendix.  For illustration purposes, excerpts of three conversations follow:


(1) Mishan City Detention Centre, Heilongjiang province (8 June 2006):


M:      "Do you have Falun Gong [organ] suppliers? ..."

Li:      "We used to have, yes."

M:      "... what about now?"

Li:      "... Yes."


M:      "Can we come to select, or you provide directly to us?"

Li:      "We provide them to you."

M:      "What about the price?"

Li:      "We discuss after you come."


M:      "... How many [Falun Gong suppliers] under age 40 do you have?"

Li:      "Quite a few."


M:      "Are they male or female?"

Li:      "Male"


M:      "Now, for ... the male Falun Gong [prisoners], How many of them do you have?"

Li:      "Seven, eight, we have [at least] five, six now."

M:      "Are they from countryside or from the city?"

Li:      "countryside."


(2) Nanning City Minzu Hospital in Guangxi Autonomous Region

    (22 May 2006):


M:      "...Could you find organs from Falun Gong practitioners?"

Dr. Lu: "Let me tell you, we have no way to get (them). It's rather difficult to get it now in Guangxi. If you cannot wait, I suggest you go to Guangzhou because it's very easy for them to get the organs. They are able to look for (them) nation wide. As they are performing the liver transplant, they can get the kidney for you at the same time, so it's very easy for them to do. Many places where supplies are short go to them for help..."

M:      "Why is it easy for them to get?"

Lu:     "Because they are an important institution. They contact the (judicial) system in the name of the whole university."

M:      "Then they use organs from Falun Gong practitioners?"

Lu:     "Correct..."

M:      "...what you used before (organs from Falun Gong practitioners), was it from detention centre(s) or prison(s)?"

Lu:     "From prisons."

M:      "...and it was from healthy Falun Gong practitioners...?"

Lu:     "Correct. We would choose the good ones because we assure the quality in our operation."

M:      "That means you choose the organs yourself."

Lu:     "Correct..."

M:      "Usually, how old is the organ supplier?"

Lu:     "Usually in their thirties."

M:      "... Then you will go to the prison to select yourself?"

Lu:     "Correct. We must select it."

M:      "What if the chosen one doesn't want to have blood drawn?"

Lu:     "He will for sure let us do it."

M:      "How?"

Lu:     "They will for sure find a way. What do you worry about? These kinds of things should not be of any concern to you. They have their procedures."

M:      "Does the person know that his organ will be removed?"

Lu:     "No, he doesn't."


(3) Oriental Organ Transplant Centre (also called Tianjin City No 1 Central Hospital), Tianjin City, (15 March 2006):


N:       Is this Director Song?"

Song:  Yes, please speak."


N:       Her doctor told her that the kidney is quite good because he

[the supplier,] practises ...Falun Gong."

Song:  Of course. We have all those who breathe and with heart beat...Up until now, for this year, we have more than ten kidneys, more than ten such kidneys."

N:       "More than ten of this kind of kidneys? You mean live bodies?"

Song: "Yes it is so."


Caller M called about 80 some hospitals. When calling hospitals in some cases M asked for specific doctors in the called hospitals, and was able to speak to transplant doctors. 10 hospitals admitted they use Falun Gong practitioners as organ suppliers.  M also called back to talk to the doctors. 5 hospitals said they can obtain Falun Gong practitioners as organ suppliers. 14 hospitals admitted they use live organs from prisoners. 10 hospitals said the source of organs is a secret and they could not reveal it over the phone.


Caller N made calls to close to 40 hospitals in China, out of which 5 admitted to using Falun Gong practitioner organs.   N also called back to talk to the doctors who made these admissions. They were still reachable at the hospitals.  N also made calls to 36 various detention centres and the Courts in China, out of which 4 admitted to using Falun Gong practitioner organs. 


When calling hospitals, in some cases N would ask for specific doctors in the hospitals called and was able to speak to transplant doctors. N's style was to ask directly the called party, the doctors in the hospitals etc, if they use Falun Gong practitioners' organs. 


The typical response she got was that the caller did not expect this question at all, and would pause for a while to think how to respond.  After the pause, about 80% did not admit that they used Falun Gong practitioners' organs.  About 80% of those who did not admit to using Falun Gong practitioners' organs did admit that they use live bodies who are prisoners.  Less than 10 people simply hung up the phone once they heard the question about Falun Gong practitioners.


One of us has listened with a certified Mandarin‑English interpreter to the quoted recorded telephone conversations between officials and callers on behalf of the Falun Gong communities in Canada and the United States. Certified copies of the relevant transcripts in Mandarin and English were provided to us.


The accuracy of the translations of the portions of them used in this report is attested to by the certified translator, Mr. C. Y., a certified interpreter with the Government of Ontario. He certified that he had listened to the recording of the conversations referred to in this report and has read the transcripts in Chinese and the translated English version of the conversations, and verifies that the transcripts are correct and translations accurate. The original recordings of the calls remain available as well.   One of us met with two of the callers in Toronto on May 27th to discuss the routing, timing, recording, accuracy of the translations from Mandarin to English and other features of the calls.


We conclude that the verbal admissions in the transcripts of interviews of investigators can be trusted. There is no doubt in our minds that these interviews did take place with the persons claimed to be interviewed at the time and place indicated and that the transcripts accurately reflect what was said. 


Moreover, the content of what was said can itself be believed. For one, when weighed against the recent international uproar about alleged organ seizures as the 2008 Beijing Olympics approach, the admissions made at the various institutions are contrary to the reputational interests of the government of China in attempting to convince the international community that the widespread killing of Falun Gong prisoners for their vital organs has not occurred.

31) A confession


A woman using the pseudonym Annie told us that her surgeon husband told her that he personally removed the corneas from approximately 2,000 anaesthetized Falun Gong prisoners in Sujiatun hospital in Shenyang City in northeast China during the two year period before October, 2003, at which time he refused to continue. The surgeon made it clear to his wife that none of the cornea "donors" survived the experience because other surgeons removed other vital organs and all of their bodies were then burned.  Annie is not a Falun Gong practitioner.


Annie had earlier told the Epoch Times in a story published in its March 17 issue:

          "One of my family members was involved in the operation to harvest Falun Gong practitioners' organs.  This brought great pain to our family." 


Her interview led to a controversy about whether or not she was telling the truth.  For the first version of our report, released on July 7, 2006, we sidestepped the controversy that had arisen about the credibility of her testimony.  We interviewed Annie even for our first report.   However, the detail she provided posed a problem for us because it provided a good deal of information which it was impossible to corroborate independently.  We were reluctant to base our findings on sole source information.  So, in the end, we relied on what Annie told us only where it was corroborative and consistent with other evidence, rather than as sole source information.


For this version of our report, we engage the controversy directly.  We accept that what Annie says her husband told her was not only told to her but also is credible.  Annie's testimony goes a long way to establish, all on its own, the allegation. In an appendix about Sujiatun, we go in detail through the various points in dispute generated by her March 17 interview with the Epoch Times.

32) Corroborating studies


There have been two investigations independent from our own which have addressed the same question we have addressed, whether there is organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China.  Both have come to the same conclusion we did.  These independent investigations corroborate our own conclusion.


A study by Kirk Allison, associate director of the program in human rights and medicine at the University of Minnesota, was undertaken before our report was released.  Though his study was released shortly after our own, on July 25, 2006, Dr. Allison had reached his conclusions earlier, before we released our report.  He too concluded that organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners was happening.


The other investigation was undertaken by European Parliament Vice President Edward McMillan-Scott.  Unlike Dr. Allison and ourselves, Mr. McMillan-Scott was actually able to go to China on a fact finding mission on May 19-21, 2006.  There he interviewed two witnesses Cao Dong and Niu Jinping.  About his meeting with Cao Dong, Mr. McMillan‑Scott reports that he

          "enquired whether he was aware of any organ harvesting camps in China. He said he definitely knew of them and knew people who had been sent to them. He had seen the cadaver of one of his friends, a Falun Gong practitioner, with holes in his body where the organs had been removed."

After Cao Dong left his meeting with McMillan Scott, he was arrested. The authorities in September transferred him to Gansu province and issued an arrest warrant. He was prosecuted in December on four charges. The judges ruled that the case could not go to trial because the case fell within the jurisdiction of the 610 Office in Beijing [the office charged with repression of the Falun Gong.

33) Government of China responses


The Government of China has responded to the first version of our report in an unpersuasive way.  Mostly, the responses have been attacks on the Falun Gong.  The fact that the Government of China would make attacks on Falun Gong the focus of their responses to our report reinforces the analysis of the report.  It is these sorts of attacks which, in China, make possible the violation of the basic human rights of Falun Gong practitioners.


The responses have identified only two factual errors in the first version of our report.  In an appendix, in a caption heading, we placed two Chinese cities in the wrong provinces.  These errors have nothing to do with the analysis or conclusions of our report.


In an appendix we go into greater detail about the Chinese responses and our reactions to them.  Here we note that the fact the Government of China, with all the resources and information at its disposal, resources and information we do not have, was not able to contradict our report in any other way than this suggests that our conclusions are accurate.

G. Further Research


We do not consider even this second version to be the final word on this subject.  There is much that we ourselves, given the opportunity, would rather do before we completed this version of the report.  But it would mean pursuing avenues of investigation which are not now open to us.  We will welcome any comments on its contents or any additional information individuals or governments might be willing to provide.


We would like to see Chinese hospital records of transplants.  Are there consents on file?  Are there records of sources of organs?


Donors can survive many forms of transplant operations.  No one can survive a full liver or heart donation.  But kidney donations are normally not fatal.  Where are the surviving donors?  We would like to do a random sampling of donations to see if we could locate the donors.


Family members of deceased donors should either know of the consents of the donors, or alternatively, the family members should have given the consents themselves.  Here, too, we would like to do a random sampling of immediate family members of deceased donors to see if the families either consented themselves to the donations or were aware of the consent of the donor.


China has engaged in a major expansion of organ transplant facilities in recent years.  This expansion likely would have been accompanied by feasibility studies indicating organ sources.  We would like to see these feasibility studies.

H. Conclusions


Based on our further research, we are reinforced in our original conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners.


We have concluded that the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and 'people's courts', since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including kidneys, livers, corneas and hearts, were seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries. 


How many of the victims were first convicted of any offence, serious or otherwise, in legitimate courts, we are unable to estimate because such information appears to be unavailable both to Chinese nationals and foreigners.  It appears to us that many human beings belonging to a peaceful voluntary organization made illegal eight years ago by President Jiang because he thought it might threaten the dominance of the Communist Party of China have been in effect executed by medical practitioners for their organs.


Our conclusion comes not from any one single item of evidence, but rather the piecing together of all the evidence we have considered.  Each portion of the evidence we have considered is, in itself, verifiable and, in most cases, incontestable.  Put together, they paint a damning whole picture.  It is their combination that has convinced us.

I. Recommendations

a) General

1) The current form of dialogue between Canada and China over human rights should cease.  In hindsight, the Government erred in agreeing to the talk fests in exchange for Canada no longer co-sponsoring the yearly motion criticizing China's government at the then UN Human Rights Commission.


2) All detention facilities, including forced labour camps, must be opened for international community inspection through the International Committee for the Red Cross or other human rights or humanitarian organization.


3) The sentence against Gao Zhisheng should be lifted. His right to practise his profession should be restored.


4) China and every other state now party to the Convention against Torture, including Canada, should accede to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.


b) Organ Harvesting


5) Organ harvesting in China from prisoners should cease.


6) The military in China should get out of the organ transplant business.


7) Organ harvesting of unwilling donors where it is either systematic or widespread is a crime against humanity.  Criminal authorities in China should investigate the charge of organ harvesting from unwilling donors for possible prosecution.


8) Foreign states should enact extra-territorial legislation penalizing participation in organ harvesting without consent.


9) State medical funding systems should deny reimbursement for commercial organ transplants abroad and aftercare funding for those benefiting from such transplants.


10) Any person known to be involved in trafficking in the organs of prisoners in China should be barred entry by all foreign countries.


11) Until China stops harvesting organs from prisoners of any sort,

          i) foreign governments should not issue visas to doctors from China seeking to travel abroad for the purpose of training in organ or bodily issue transplantation,


          ii) foreign medical transplant personnel should not travel to China for training or collaboration in transplant surgery,


          iii) contributions to scholarly journals on transplant research drawn from the Chinese experience should be rejected,


          iv) medical professionals abroad should actively discourage their patients from travelling to China for transplant surgery,


          v) pharmaceutical companies should not export anti-rejection drugs or any other drugs solely used in transplantation surgery to China,


          vi) foreign states should ban the export of anti-rejection drugs or any other drugs solely used in transplantation surgery to China.


12) The onus should be on foreign professionals to determine beyond any reasonable doubt that the source of organ donation in China is voluntary before there is any referral to China or any cooperation with China relating to organ transplants.


13) The medical profession in every foreign country should set up a voluntary reporting system to accumulate aggregate data about patients who have travelled to China for transplants.


14) Chinese hospitals should keep records of the source of every transplant.  These records should be available for inspection by international human rights officials.


15) Every organ transplant donor should consent to the donation in writing. These consents should be available for inspection by international human rights officials.


16) The Government of China should promote voluntary organ donation from its own population.


17) Foreign states should issue travel advisories warning its population that organ transplants in China are sourced almost entirely from unconsenting prisoners, whether sentenced to death or Falun Gong practitioners.


C) Falun Gong


18) The repression, imprisonment and mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners should stop.


19) The harvesting of organs of Falun Gong practitioners should cease. 


20) Governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental human rights organizations should take seriously the charges this report addresses and make their own determinations whether or not they are true.

J. Commentary


To accept the recommendation that the harvesting of organs of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners should cease would mean accepting that the allegations are true.  All the other recommendations we make do not require accepting that the allegations are true.  We suggest adoption of these other recommendations in any case.


Most of the recommendations make sense and could be implemented whether the allegations are true or false.  Several recommendations are addressed to the international community, asking the community to promote respect within China of international standards about organ transplants.


We are well aware that the Government of China denies the allegations.  We suggest that the most credible and effective way from the Government of China to assert that denial is to implement all of the recommendations addressed to it which could be implemented whether the allegations are true or false.  If these recommendations were implemented, the allegations considered here could no longer be made.


To all those are sceptical about the allegations, we ask you to ask yourself what you would suggest to prevent, in any state, allegations like these from becoming true.  The common sense list of precautions to prevent the sort of activity here alleged have pretty much all been missing in China.


Every state, and not just China, needs to lay in its defences in order to prevent the harvesting of organs from the unwilling, the marginalized, the defenceless.  Whatever one thinks of the allegations, and we reiterate we believe them to be true, China is remarkably undefended to prevent the sorts of activities here discussed from happening.  Until the recent legislation was in force, many basic precautions to prevent the abuses here discussed from happening were not in place.  That legislation does not fill the gap unless and until it is comprehensively implemented.


There are many reasons why the death penalty is wrong.  Not least is the desensitization of the executioners.  When the state kills defenceless human beings already in detention for their crimes, it becomes all too easy to take the next step, harvesting their organs without their consent.  This is a step China undoubtedly took.  When the state harvests the organs of executed prisoners without their consent, it is another step that becomes all too easy and tempting to take to harvest the organs of other vilified, depersonalized, defenceless prisoners without their consent, especially when there is big money to be made from it.  We urge the government of China, whatever they think of our conclusions about organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners, to build up their defences against even the slightest possibility of the harvesting of organs from the unwilling.


All of which is respectfully submitted,




____________________                       ____________________________________

David Matas                                          David Kilgour

Ottawa   31 January 2007



[1] The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press (1999), Jung Chand and Jon Halliday Mao: The Unknown Story, Knopf, 2005.

[2] See Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch annual reports for China.

[3] "The CCP Should Be Condemned for Criminalizing Gao Zhisheng for Writing to The Epoch Times" The Epoch Times, December 24, 2006

[4] "The high price of illness in China", Louisa Lim, BBC News, Beijing, 2006/03/02  

[5] "Public Health in China: Organization, Financing and Delivery of Services". July 27, 2005, Jeffrey P. Koplan

[6] "Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights in the People's Republic of China", April 14, 2005, paragraph 69, page 24.

[7] <>.  This page was available in early July, 2006 and has been removed afterwards.  The archived page is at

[8] (2006-05-05, China Daily) English

Archived page:

[9] Life weekly,  2006-04-07Archived page:

[10], Archived page:

[11] Archived at:

[12] The front page has been altered. The archived page is at:

[13] Archived at :

[14] Canadian Organ Replacement Register, Canadian Institute for Health Information, (, July 2005

[15] Donor Matching System, The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network  (OPTN)

[16] The original page has been altered. Older versions can still be found at Internet Archive:

[17]   or use archived version at:

[18]  or use archived version:

[19] or use archived version:

[20] The front page has been altered.  Archived at:

[21] The front page has been altered. Archived at:

[22] Archived at:

[23] The URL of the removed page as of March 2005 in the Internet Archive is

[24] , Archived at :

[25] Yet, one can still go to the Internet Archive to find the information on this website from March 2006:

[26] Section 13.

[27] “Falun Gong and Canada’s China policy”. David Ownby, vol. 56, International Journal, Canadian Institute of International Affairs, Spring 2001.

[28] Danny Schechter, Falun Gong's Challenge to China, Akashic Books, 2000, pages 44 to 46.


[30] Despite the police recommendation, the Attorney General decided not to prosecute.

[31] Appendix 6, (June 7, 1999) “Comrade Jiang Zemin’s speech at the meeting of the Political Bureau of CCCCP regarding speeding up the dealing with and settling the problem of ‘FALUN GONG’”


[33] U.N. Commission on Human Rights: Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his Mission to China from November 20 to December 2, 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6), March 10, 2006. ( )

[34] Washington Post Foreign Service, “Torture Is Breaking Falun Gong: China Systematically Eradicating Group,” John Pomfret and Philip P. Pan, August 5, 2001.
( )

[35] U.S. Department of State 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – China, March 8, 2006.  (

[36] International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Article 2.

[37] China Pharmacy Net, 2002-12-05

Archived page:

[38] “China to 'tidy up' trade in executed prisoners' organs,” The Times, December 03, 2005,,25689-1901558,00.html

[39] “Beijing Mulls New Law on Transplants of Deathrow Inmate Organs”, Caijing Magazine/Issue:147,  Nov 28, 2005 

[40] Index of AI Annual reports:, from here one can select annual report of each year.

[41] (China Biotech Information Net, 2002-12-02) (China Pharmacy Net, 2002-12-05)

Archived page: (People’s Daily, 2004-09-07, from Xinhua News Agency)

[42]The Number of Renal Transplant (Asia & the Middle and Near East)1989-2000,” Medical Net (Japan),

[43] (Health Paper Net 2006-03-02)

Archived page:


STIGMATA”, Abstract, The World Transplant Congress,

Zhonghua K Chen, Fanjun Zeng, Changsheng Ming, Junjie Ma, Jipin Jiang. Institute of Organ Transplantation, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, HUST, Wuhan, China.

[45] , (Beijing Youth Daily, 2006-03-06)

[46] , China Pharmaceutical Paper, 2004-11-15

[47] Please see case #7 in appendix 5.

[48] Please see case#4 in appendix 14.


 (People’s Daily Net and Union News Net, 2000-10-17). Archived at:

[50] According to Deputy Minister of Health, Mr. Huang Jiefu,  (Lifeweekly, 2006-04-07). Archived at:

[51] (Life Weekly, 2004-10-18)

[52] (Xinhua News Agency, Chongqing branch, 2004-04-04)



[55], Located in Beijing




K. Appendices

Appendix 1. Letter of Invitation from CIPFG


May 24, 2006

To: Mr. David Matas and Mr. David Kilgour


The Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of the Falun Gong in China (CIPFG), a non-governmental organization registered in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. with a branch in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, respectfully asks for your assistance in investigating allegations that state institutions and employees of the government of People’s Republic of China have been harvesting organs from live Falun Gong practitioners, killing the practitioners in the process.  The Coalition has received evidence to substantiate these allegations, but also is aware that some people are unsure whether or not these allegations are true and that others deny them.


The Coalition understands that you will conduct your investigation independently from the Coalition or any other organization/government.  You are free to report your findings or come to any conclusion based on the evidence collected.


The Coalition will pay for all your expenses upon presentation of receipts.  We understand that you will not charge a fee for your work.


Your working methods are entirely of your own choosing.  We understand that you will provide us with your report, at the latest, by June 30, 2006.


Thank you for agreeing to undertake this important task.



John Jaw, Ph.D.

President, The Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of the Falun Gong

Address: 106 G St. SW, Washington, DC USA 20024


Tel: (781) 710-4515.   Fax: (202) 234-7113.

Email: [email protected]

Appendix 2. Biography of David Matas


Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, 29 August 1943; son of Harry and Esther (Steiman) Matas; home address: 1146 Mulvey Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3M 1J5; office address: 602-225 Vaughan Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 1T7; tel: 204-944-1831; fax: 204-942-1494; e-mail: <[email protected]>.


Education: University of Manitoba Bachelor of Arts 1964; Princeton University Masters of Arts 1965; Oxford University Bachelor of Arts (Jurisprudence) 1967 and Bachelor of Civil Law 1968.


Professional qualifications: Middle Temple United Kingdom Barrister 1969; called to Bar of Manitoba 1971.


Employment: Law Clerk to the Chief Justice Supreme Court of Canada 1968-69; member of the Foreign Ownership Working Group, Government of Canada 1969; articled with Thompson, Dorfman & Sweatman 1970-71; special assistant to the Solicitor General of Canada 1971-72; associate of Schwartz, McJannet, Weinberg 1973-79; private practice in refugee, immigration and human rights law 1979-. 


Supreme Court of Canada cases: Canada (Human rights commission) v. Taylor [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; Reference Re Ng Extradition (Can.) [1991] 2 S.C.R. 858;  Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; Dehghani v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1053; R. v. Finta [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; Reza v. Canada [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; R. v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45;  United States v. Burns [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3;  Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General) [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269; Gosselin v. Québec (Attorney General) [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429;  Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; Mugesera v. M.C.I. 2005 SCC 40; Esteban v. M.C.I. 2005 SCC 51.


Government appointments: member Canadian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly 1980; Task Force Immigration Practices & Procedures 1980-81; member Canadian delegation to the United Nations Conference on an International Criminal Court 1998; member Canadian Delegation to the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, 2000; Director of the International Centre for Human Rights & Democratic Development which became Rights and Democracy 1997-2003; Canadian delegation to the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe Conferences on Antisemitism Vienna 2003 and  Berlin 2004.


Academic appointments: Lecturer in Constitutional Law, McGill University 1972-73; Lecturer in Introductory Economics, Canadian Economic Problems 1982, International Law 1985, Civil Liberties 1986-88, Immigration & Refugee Law 1989-, University of Manitoba.


Volunteer activities: Director of the International Defence & Aid Fund for South Africa in Canada 1990-91;

Director of Canada-South Africa Cooperation 1991-93;

Co-chair Canadian Helsinki Watch Group 1985-;

Director Manitoba Association of Rights & Liberties 1983-87;

Board member Winnipeg chapter, Canadian Friends of Hebrew University, 1993-;

Beyond Borders, founding member and legal counsel,

Moderator, International Assembly, ECPAT (End Child Pornography, Child Prostitution and Trafficking) 2002 Bangkok, 2005 Rio de Janeiro.


Amnesty International: Member of the Standing Committee on Mandate of the International Executive Committee, 1993-1999, Legal Co-ordinator Canadian Section (English speaking branch) 1980-; member of the anti-impunity working group 2002-2005;


B'nai Brith Canada: Chair League for Human Rights, 1983-85, Senior Honourary Counsel 1989-, Vice-President 1996-1998;


Canadian Bar Association: member of the Committee on the Constitution 1977-78, chair of the Constitutional & International Law section 1979-82, chair of the Immigration Law section 1996-97, member of the Working Group on Racial Equality in the Legal Profession 1994-2000, chair of the Working Group on the Review of the Canadian Human Rights Act 1999, member of the Federal Court Bar Bench Liaison Committee 1999-, chair 2004-, member of the Racial Equality Implementation Committee 2000-2004, and chair 2002-2004, member of the Standing Committee on Equity 2004 -.


Canadian Council for Refugees: Chair of the Working Group on Overseas Protection 1989-1991, Member of the international Expert Group on Carrier Sanctions, 1990-91; Chair of the Task Force on Overseas Protection, 1992; President 1991-95.


Canadian Jewish Congress: Chair Legal Committee on War Crimes 1981-84; Co-Chair, Race Relations and the Law Project 1985-7;


International Commission of Jurists: Councillor Canadian Section 1983-94, Vice-President 1994-2003;


Trial observations - prosecution of Eddie Carthan, Lexington,   Mississippi, for Amnesty International October and November 1982; sentencing of Dennis Banks, Custer, South Dakota, for Amnesty International, October, 1984; prisoners' lawsuit against Marion, Illinois prison, for Amnesty International, January and June 1985; sanctuary trial, Tucson Arizona for International Commission of Jurists, November 1985, April 1986; prosecution of Filiberto Ojeda Rios, San Juan, Puerto Rico, for Amnesty International, August 1989; prosecution of Enhadda, Tunis, Tunisia for Human rights Watch and International Human Rights Law Group August 1990; prosecution of claimed conscientious objectors, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for Amnesty International, June 1991; sentencing of Grenada seven, Grenada, for Human Rights Watch; civil suit for compensation of torture victims of Marcos against the Marcos estate, Honolulu Hawaii for International Commission of Jurists, August 1992.


Election experience: Parliamentary candidate - Winnipeg South Centre, Liberal Party, 1979, 1980, 1984; election observer - South Africa 1994 for Canadian Bar Association; Ukraine December 2004 for Canada Corps; Haiti February 2006, International Election Observation Mission.


Party experience: Chair of the policy committee of Manitoba and member of the national policy committee Liberal Party of Canada 1973 - 1978; member of the platform committee, 1980 election.


Honours: Governor-General's Confederation Medal 1992; Jewish War Veterans Victory in Europe Fifteenth Anniversary Medal 1995; Outstanding Achievement Award, Manitoba Association of Rights & Liberties 1996; Honourary Doctorate of Law, Concordia University 1996; Dr. Percy Barsky Humanitarian Award Canadian Shaare Zedek Hospital Foundation 1997; Centennial Community Service Award of the National Council of Jewish Women (Winnipeg Section) 1997; Lord Reading Law Society of Montreal Honouree 1997; League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada Midwest Region Human Rights Achievement Award 1999; Community Legal Education Association Manitoba Human Rights Achievement Award 1999; B'nai Brith Canada Presidential Citation 2004, 2005; Vancouver Interfaith Brotherhood Person of the Year 2006.


Books: "Canadian Immigration Law" 1986; "Justice Delayed: Nazi War Criminals in Canada" 1987 with Susan Charendoff; "The Sanctuary Trial" 1989; "Closing the Doors: The Failure of Refugee Protection" 1989 with Ilana Simon; "No More: The Battle Against Human Rights Violations" 1994; co-editor "The Machinery of Death" Amnesty International USA 1995; "Bloody Words: Hate and Free Speech" 2000, "Aftershock: anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism", 2005.


Manuscripts: "Bringing Nazi War Criminals in Canada to Justice" B'nai Brith Canada 1985; "Renaissance in Tunis" 1990; "Nazi War Criminals in Canada: Five Years After" B'nai Brith Canada, 1992; "Refugee Protection in New States: The Kyrgyz Republic" Canadian Helsinki Watch Group, 1998; "What Happened to Raoul Wallenberg" 1998, "Preventing sexual abuse in a polygamous community" April 2005.

Appendix 3. Biography of David Kilgour

For the purposes of this report, the following details appear to be relevant:

Like David Matas, I was raised in Winnipeg. My maternal grandfather, Daniel Macdonald, practiced law in Portage La Prairie for many years and then served as Chief Justice of the province of Manitoba for about 18 years. My paternal grandfather, Fred Kilgour, practiced in Brandon before becoming a justice of the province's court of Queen's Bench. My father, David E. Kilgour, was the President and CEO of Great West Life Assurance Company for 16 years.

My Juris Doctor (JD) is from the University of Toronto in 2000, when the university reissued its LLB degrees, including mine from 1966. I entered the Doctorat de l'universite program in constitutional law at the Universite de Paris in 1969, but did not complete the degree.

I have been admitted to practise law in British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta and practiced as follows:

British Columbia
- Articled with the Vancouver law firm of Russell, DuMoulin under the later Hon. Michael Goldie of the BC Court of Appeal in 1966-67.
- Practiced as an assistant Vancouver City prosecutor until 1968 federal election, when ran for Parliament in Vancouver Centre.

- Joined federal Department of Justice in Ottawa in 1968 in Civil Litigation Section and later moved to Tax Litigation.

- On returning to Canada from studies in France, joined Winnipeg law firm of Pitblado Hoskin in 1970, doing litigation and criminal defence work.
- Was later appointed Crown Attorney for Dauphin Judicial District in western Manitoba.

- In 1972 was appointed a senior agent of the Alberta attorney General, doing mostly criminal and environmental prosecutions until elected to the House of Commons in the Edmonton area in 1979.

House of Commons
- Served on Justice Committee in the 1980-84 period.
- Served on Joint House-Senate Committee on Statutory Instruments.
- Crime prevention critic for the Official Opposition in the 1980-83 years.
- Deputy Speaker and Chair, Committees of the Whole House, 1993-97.
- Chair, Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development(2004-2005).

Government of Canada
- Secretary of State, Latin America and Africa, 1997-2002
- Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific, 2002-2003

Additional biographical material is available on my website
( ) through the icon "About David" on the header page.

Appendix 4. Letter to the Embassy of China   


David Kilgour

Former Secretary of State (Asian Pacific)

David Matas

Barrister & Solicitor



May 31, 2006,

Chinese Embassy

515 St. Patrick Street,

Ottawa, Ontario, KIN 5H3


Dear Mr. Ambassador,


We wish to visit China within the next month to pursue an investigation into allegations that state institutions and employees of the Government of China have been harvesting organs from live Falun Gong practitioners, killing the practitioners in the process. Prior to submitting formal visa applications, we considered it appropriate in the circumstances to ask you if we could meet with you or one of your staff to discuss this possible visit and the terms according to which we might be allowed to pursue our investigation within China. 


We enclose a letter from the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of the Falun Gong asking us to investigate the allegations.


Sincerely yours,

David Matas

Appendix 5.  The Recipient Experience

(To protect identities of organ recipients, their real names were removed)


Case 1


Ms. T, in her fifties, female, from Asia.


She was observed to have chronicle renal insufficiency in 2000 and started to have dialysis in July 2003.


Ms. T got in touch with a local organ broker in November, 2005. She had the pre-transplant evaluation and the immunological evaluation at a local hospital and gave the evaluation document, etc to the broker in early December.


The broker asked her to prepare 26 thousand US dollars, and told Ms. T that it usually took one week to find the matching organs, and it was also preferred that the patient could go to mainland China to wait for the matched organ. But Ms. T expressed that she would like to wait for a matched organ to be located before leave for Mainland China.


Ms. T was informed on January 4, 2006 that the organ supplier had been found and the air ticket was ready. On January 6, 2006, the broker took Ms. T and another organ transplant patient and flew to Wuhan in Hubei province.


The same day (January 6, 2006), Ms. T arrived at the hospital and was hospitalized at 2 p.m. in Land Force General Hospital of Wuhan, and had blood test immediately. She was sent into the operation room at 5 p.m. and got spinal anesthesia. She was sent out of the operation room at about 8 p.m. The doctor in charge of her case was Ligong Tang. There were 3 rooms for transplant patients and each room had 3 patients and there were 9 beds in total. She was told by a doctor in the hospital that she got a HLA 3 matched organ.


No families were allowed to go to visit the patients. She was out of the hospital on January 19, 2006 and was back to Taiwan.


Total payment: $26,000 USD cash.


Ms. T really didn’t know the source of the organ. The broker said it was from an executed prisoner. Note: The broker was not the one who picked up organs, so it was obviously hearsay.

In addition, the Mainland hospital would always only say organ suppliers were executed prisoners.


Note: Land Force General Hospital of Wuhan where Ms. T had her transplant was a military hospital. It was said only military hospitals or doctors working at the army hospitals could easily obtain organs.


Case 2

Ms. R.Z., Sex: female, Blood Type: AB, Age: about 50 years old, from Asia.

Ms. R.Z. has been diagnosed as having chronic renal insufficiency in 1986. By December 2004, her situation deteriorated, and she developed renal failure and required dialysis.

In early December of 2004, she was suggested to go to mainland China for a transplant. She was told that many patients had traveled to China for transplants in recent years and were mostly doing well, including a patient who had received a kidney six months ago. Ms. R.Z. was introduced to broker.

The broker took Ms. R.Z.’s blood sample to mainland China on December 17, 2004.

Two days later, on December 19, Ms. R.Z. was notified that a matching organ supplier has been found and she could travel immediately to Guangzhou for the transplant.

As Ms. R.Z. had a bad cold at the time, she was only able to travel to Guangzhou with her husband and younger sister on December 24.

The name of the hospital was the Economy and Technical Development Hospital of Guangzhou. It was situated far away from the city and was very desolate. There were not as many patients as her home country. The transplant department was on the tenth floor and had 13 rooms with three beds each. Each hospitalized patient can also have their family members live in the room as well. The physician-in-chief was Minzhuan Lin, chief of the transplant department. There were at least ten other patients waiting for the transplant or were recovering from the operation. Ms. R.Z. saw that there were Taiwanese, Malaysian and Indonesian etc.

The cost of the operation was USD $27,000 (including hospitalization, food and transportation). The money was paid in cash to Minzhuan Lin’s younger brother (the chief administrator) right before the operation. No receipt was issued at the time when money was paid, but under the request of Ms. R.Z.’s husband, a simple note indicating that US$27,000 was issued.

Ms. R.Z. entered the operation room at 5:00 p.m. on December 30, 2004. The hospital staff went to fetch the kidney for her in the morning on the same day that morning. The operation lasted approximately four hours under spinal anesthesia. There were four other patients receiving kidney transplants on the same day. She does not know who the organ supplier for her was. She was told by a doctor in the hospital that she got a HLA 5 matched kidney.

In the next five days, she was hospitalized in an isolated care unit (the unit had six beds and monitored by staff 24 hours a day, with only one staff at night). After that, she lived in an ordinary room for seven days. She returned home after the stitches were removed on January 11, 2005. A booklet was handed to her with some information about her transplant operation, and what special attention was needed.


The doctors in the hospital did not reveal the source of organ for her. The broker told Ms. R.Z. the organ supplier was an executed prisoner.


Note: The broker was not the one who picked up organs, so it was obviously hearsay.

In addition, the Mainland hospital would always only say organ suppliers were executed prisoners.


Note: Economy and Technical Development Hospital of Guangzhou where Ms. R.Z. had transplant was not a military hospital, however, the physician-in-chief of the transplant department Minzhuan Lin also held responsible positions at the Transplant Department of Zhujiang Hospital affiliated to the No. 1 Military Medical University[1]. It was said only military hospitals or doctors working at the army hospitals could easily obtain organs.


Case 3


Mr. H.X., Sex: male; in his mid-thirties, Blood type A, from Asia.


In 1999, he was found chronic renal insufficiency. In year 2000 he went to several hospitals in Taiwan waiting to have a kidney transplant.


About July/August 2003, he decided to go to mainland China to have a kidney transplant. At the time, a peritoneal dialysis care-giver introduced Mr. H.X. to go to visit a broker for transplantation in Mainland China. In September 2003, the broker informed him that a HLA 3 matched kidney was found for him, so he went to Mainland China for kidney transplant.


First Transplant Trip to China:

Accompanied by his wife, Mr. H.X. arrived in Shanghai. Shanghai No.1 People’s Hospital (also called Affiliated Hospital of Shanghai Jiaotong University) arranged to have him picked-up and he was hospitalized right away.


He was found microlymphocytotoxicity cross-match positive, when the fresh kidney from the organ supplier was delivered to this hospital for him and an anti-body cross-match test was done. Mr. H.X. could not use this organ.


He continued to be hospitalized waiting for a matching organ for two weeks. During this period of time, fresh kidneys had been taken from the suppliers’ bodies and transported to this hospital for a total of 4 times for him (including the one mentioned above). Every time, after the kidney arrived, an anti-body cross-matching test was performed. However, each time the test results was positive like the first time, so he could not use the organ even though it had already been taken out from the supplier’s body.


Two weeks later, on October 1st, Mr. H.X. went back home due to commitment at his work place.


Second Transplant Trip to China:

Mr. H.X. decided he was not in hurry to do the transplant, and wanted to take some time to rest and recover himself physically. It was not until March 2004, He wanted to have the transplant again.


He was notified again that a matching organ was found and was asked to go to Mainland China. Again he was hospitalized in Shanghai No.1 People’s Hospital. He was told by a doctor that a HLA 5 matched organ was found for him. This time, the microlymphocytotoxicity cross-match test result was again positive after the matching kidney had been delivered to the hospital and the test was done. Mr. H.X.’s blood sampling had shown that his PRA Class 2 is more than 30% (when PRA Class 2 is too high, it can easily cause cross-match positive). The doctor in mainland China suggested him to receive plasmaphersis but the doctor in Taiwan recommended him no to receive plasmaphersis and just waited for a cross-match negative organ. Mr. H.X. continued to wait at the hospital. Two more matching-organ were found and brought in for his transplant operation on two separate occasions, but again these kidneys could not be used due to anti-body cross-match positive. It was not till late April when a HLA 4 matched kidney was found for him. This time the anti-body cross-match was negative. Mr. H.X. received the transplant operation on April 23, 2004.


The doctor in charge was Dr. Jianming Tan. After the operation, the patient stayed at the isolation ward for one week before he was transferred and stayed for eight days at the Overseas Chinese Department of the NO.85 Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army. He returned to Taiwan on May 8, 2004.


Mr. H.X. said that the Shanghai No. 1 People’s Hospital mainly did organ transplant for the wealthy people coming from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. For the local people and people coming from Malaysia and Indonesia, they would mainly go to the NO.85 Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army for organ transplant. These two hospitals were also under the supervision of Dr. Tan’s group; Dr. Tan came from Fuzhou General Hospital of the Nanjing Military Area.


Mr. H.X.’s wife saw around 20-sheets of papers with relevant info of organ suppliers and their HLA info. The doctor picked a few from the list and put them in order. Once the organ arrived, a cross-match would be performed. If the test result was positive, the transplant operation had to be cancelled, and if it is negative, the operation would proceed.


The residents (doctors) told Mr. H.X. that the organ came from unwilling executed prisoner.


Note: Shanghai No.1 People’s Hospital where Mr. H.X. had transplant is a civilian hospital, but the chief physician of the Transplant Department Jianming Tan was also director of the Organ Transplant Center of the Whole Army, the director of Urinary Department and also the deputy head of Fuzhou General Hospital of the Nanjing Military Area[2]. It was said only military hospitals or doctors working at the army hospitals could easily obtain organs.


Case 4


Ms. Rou.Z. Blood Type: B, female; in her forties, from Asia.


Ms. Rou.Z. was diagnosed as having chronic renal insufficiency in May 2000. After undergoing kidney dialysis, Ms.Rou Z. was recommended to go to mainland China for a kidney transplant.

On May 11, 2001, the broker obtained her health record and was told to stay at home to wait for further notice.


Approximately two weeks later, Ms. Rou.Z. got a notice that a matched organ supplier was located and she can go to China for the transplant. At that time, Ms. Rou.Z. was not mentally prepared, for she did not expect a matching organ to be found so quickly, and she was not psychologically prepared. So she gave up this opportunity. After another two weeks, the broker called again saying that another matching organ supplier had been found. This time Ms.Rou.Z agreed to travel to mainland China for the transplant and an operation was scheduled in late June.


A group of 7 patients went to China together for organ transplant. Everyone was asked to bring 200,000 HK$.


The broker received them on June 25, 2001 at the airport and took them on a bus ride (approximately two hours long) to Humen, Dongguan City. On the same day, they were hospitalized in the Taiping People’s Hospital in Dongyuan (in Humen District, Dongyuan City). A health check up was also performed (blood test, X-ray and supersonic rays).


On the same day (June 25, 2001), a hospital staff collected from them 140,000 to 150,000 Hong Kong dollars. A simplistic receipt was also handed out. (Patients with blood type O and those above 60 years old had to pay an extra 20,000 Hong Kong dollars). The entire transplant centre was headed by Professor Wei Gao, but Ms. Rou.Z. did not know who her doctor (the doctor who did operation for her) was.


All seven of them had kidney transplant operations the second day (June 26, 2001). Three operation rooms were used simultaneously. Spinal anesthesia was applied. Ms. Rou.Z. was sent into the operation room at approximately 8:00 p.m. and the operation was completed at 12:00 midnight. Ms. Zhuang was told by a doctor in the hospital that she got a HLA 4 matched organ.


Other patients who received the transplant on the same day included an Indonesian, a French Chinese as well as a local Chinese. Deputy Chief Jiahua Xu of the hospital had told them earlier that as long as a patient performed kidney dialysis within the hospital for five years, the patient could get a free kidney transplant.


The seven patients stayed in the isolation room for seven days, and return to home on July 3.


Nobody has told Ms. Rou.Z. any information of the organ supplier. The doctors in the hospital did not reveal this information to her. Nor did Ms. Rou.Z. know anything about who was the doctor operated on her. The doctor did not come to Ms. Rou.Z. to introduce him/her-self, nor did Ms. Rou.Z. ask this information.


The broker told them that the organs were from executed prisoner.


Note: Taiping People’s Hospital of Dongyuan (in Humen District, Dongyuan City, Guangdong Province) was not a military hospital, however, the physician-in-chief of the transplant department Wei Gao was also a professor of and physician-in-chief at the Zhujiang Research Institute of No.1 Military Medical University[3]. Some other responsible people of this transplant department were also from the military hospitals. Wei Gao etc also did transplant operations at Guangdong Province Border Patrol Armed Police Central Hospital (See case 6 as an example). It was said only military hospitals or doctors working at the army hospitals could easily obtain organs.


Case 5


Mr. C

Mr. C was from Asia.

Mr. C died in China summer of 2005 after a failed liver transplant.

Mr. Chen was hospitalized in Sino-Japanese Friendship Hospital in Beijing in early August due to an abdomen-ache when traveling with wife and son in China. He was diagnosed as having a tumor in the liver.  He was persuaded into having an operation by the hospital, and the operation proceeded on September 7, 2005. Mr. C was in a critical condition after the operation.


At the critical condition, the president of the hospital suggested the patient to transfer to the Beijing Armed Police Hospital and have a liver transplant operation.

Within 24 hours of admittance to the Beijing Armed Police Hospital, a matched whole liver was found and the transplant operation was immediately performed.


The patient died 4 days after the operation in the military hospital. 


Note: Liver transplant was performed at Beijing Armed Police Hospital, and a liver was available within 24 hours. It was said only military hospitals or doctors working at the army hospitals could easily obtain organs.


Case 6


Mr. J.C.

Mr. J.C., in his fifties, was diagnosed with chronic renal insufficiency. In January 2005, the patient suddenly had trouble breathing, and had rapid heartbeats. He was diagnosed with acute renal failure. He did a pre-transplant evaluation. He was found to have no hepatitis B antibodies. He must have hepatitis B antibodies before kidney transplant. So he began to have hepatitis B vaccine injection in March and waited for the antibodies to produce. Until September, the hepatitis B antibodies were produced. He was told by then he could do organ transplant in mainland China.


The patient received notification of organ match on October 19, 2005. The patient attended a pre-trip seminar on October 20, 2005. At the seminar, Mr. J.C. and other patients were informed of the cost involved. The patients were also informed that the organs had all been matched, so there is no need to worry.


On October 26, the group of 8 patients arrived at the Guangdong Province Border Patrol Armed Police Central Hospital in Shenzhen at 4:10 p.m. After arriving at the hospital, Professor Wei Gao gave a pre-surgery seminar that evening. Surgery fee of 150,000 Hong Kong dollars in cash was collected from the patient. At the time, there were patients asking how the condemned criminals were executed. Dr. Gao said they were not shot. They were given 2 injections, 1 for anaesthetic, and 1 for pain-killer, and then the organs were taken.


The patient paid 2,700 Yuan for accommodation, 12,800 Hong Kong dollars for medicine, 700 Yuan for haemodialysis. The entire operation cost in mainland China was 169,019 Hong Kong dollars. According to the interviewee, the transplant hospitals in Mainland China do not issue receipts of payment for medical treatment. The Hospital only gives out the proof of medical treatment when deemed absolutely necessary.  They would provide the proof of the last two dialyses done before surgery.  This was for patients to apply for the public health insurance reimbursement when returned to Taiwan. All expenditure was paid in cash with Hong Kong dollars to and through the handyman. 


Total amount of cost for the patient is about US$29,000, including red pack money, airline ticket, etc.  The time stayed in China was only 3 days.


Mr. J.C. entered the operation room at about 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon of October 28. The kidneys for transplant arrived at the hospital at about 2:10 p.m. the same day. The location where organ were obtained must be not far from the hospital.  The nurses, riding in an ambulance and carrying cooler boxes, came back with 8 harvested kidneys.


Mr. J.C. was out of the operation room at about 8:30 p.m.. Afterwards, the 8 transplant patients were hospitalized in the Supervision Unit where family members were not allowed to come in.


The patient left the hospital on November 4, and went back home.


The doctors in the Hospital were all military doctors.


The medical certificate was given in the name of the Auxing Group Junhui Company (translated by sound of name), and the type of hospitalization was registered as self-paid locals.


The patient said that the group before them was from Indonesia. One day after they left, a group from Singapore would come to the hospital for organ transplants.


Note: This transplant was done at Guangdong Province Border Patrol Armed Police Central Hospital. It was said only military hospitals or doctors working at the army hospitals could easily obtain organs.


Case 7


Mr. K.Z.

Mr. K.Z. was in his forties at the time of operation and died. Blood type A, hepatitis B, suffered from diabetes.


This patient started to have the symptoms of feeling exhausted and jaundice in June 2005 for two weeks. He was diagnosed as acute hepatitis B (GOT, GPT was around 2000-3000, Bil:16). He was hospitalized for treatment for three weeks. On June 27, 2005, his illness was deteriorated to be fulminate hepatitis (GOT: 163,Bil:23PT/PTT:30/78sec). As a result, he was transferred to the Hospital attached to Taiwan University in Taipei for the liver transplant assessment and waiting for liver transplant. The assessment found that he couldn’t find a matching donor from within three generations of him, he could only wait for the patient whose brain already died.


The patient waited till August and thought that there was little hope waiting. The patient’s situation kept deteriorating, and for several times, the patient loss consciousness (hepatic coma). As a result, the patient’s family member decided to go to mainland China for liver transplant.


This patient had a friend working in Shanghai who helped to send his medical record to the hospitals in Shanghai. This friend told Mr. K.Z. that he should choose from three hospitals: Huashan Hospital affiliated with Fudan University in Shanghai, Changzheng Hospital in Shanghai, and Shanghai No.1 People’s Hospital. Mr. K.Z. and the family thought that the university hospital probably was better equipped and decided to go to Huashan Hospital affiliated with Fudan University. The friend then made inquires to the Huashan Hospital about doing a liver transplant, and was told that if the patient came right away, they had liver supply for him. And the patient could just come any time.


The patient went to Shanghai on August 11, 2005 (at that time, the patient still had clear consciousness), he arrived at Huashan Hospital. The doctor in charge is chief physician Jianmin Qian. Because he arrived at the hospital one day later than expected, the hospital told him that the type A liver had been used by someone else, so he had to wait for the arrival of a new liver. At that time, the patient was told that August 13/14 were holidays, and he had to wait till Monday.


At the same time, doctor Qian told the patient that according to the law and regulation at the time, they were not allowed to do organ transplants for people coming from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan and the foreigners. Also the health department would come to inspect the medical institutes and hospitals. So on the first day, instead of going through the procedure for getting the patient hospitalized, the patient was requested to go to the hotel opposite the hospital to meet with Director Qian instead of going to the hospital to go through the procedure for hospitalization. Also the patient had to enter the hospital through the side door (instead of the front door).


Doctor Qian told the patient: First the patient had to say that he was a Fujianese, and that was why his family members spoke Taiwan dialect (the same as Minnan dialect). Secondly the patient had to tell people that he came to treat hepatitis instead of telling people that he came to do liver transplant. Thirdly all the details related to the liver transplant had to be discussed secretly.


Things were handled covertly. In fact, all the hospital staffs and the other patients were aware that he came from Taiwan to do liver transplant.


At Huashan Hospital, the patient was asked to pay a deposit of 200, 000 RMB. Only after the deposit was paid, Mr. and Mrs. K.Z. were notified there were no liver at the moment. Mr. and Mrs. K.Z. were informed by the hospital that they should be prepared to pay for the medical needs including equipments. Everyday, all kinds of unnecessary equipments were brought over, yet, these equipments had to be paid even after the deposit was paid, including even a thermometer. Without money, there would be no medial action or treatment to you at all. Doctors from various departments came almost like in order to see Mr. K.Z. and every doctor seemed wanting to get something out of them. But Mr. K.Z. does not have a doctor who was in charge of Mr. K.Z. There were numerous documents that the patient had to sign and he was asked to pay the fees immediately. As a result, Mrs. K.Z. always carried cash with her to pay for the fees. At the same time, there were doctors from other hospitals (from Kunming and Guangdong province etc) asked him if he would like to be transferred to their hospital etc. it a matching liver cannot be found here. Also there were doctors telling him that his kidney did not function well either, and if he wanted he could have his kidney transplanted at the same time when he had his liver transplant. It was all like a trading or money-making business, and Mr. and Mrs. K.Z. felt they allowed themselves to be trampled upon because Mr. K.Z. wanted the transplant to save his life.


Mr. K.Z. waited till Monday. The hospital still could not find the proper organ supply. So chief physician Qian asked the Mrs. K.Z. to discuss about the patient’s situation in the hotel across the street from this hospital. Director Qian told Mrs. K.Z. that they could not find the organ supply and indicated that he needs money to open the channel for obtaining the organ supply. So Mrs. K.Z. gave him 10,000 RMB. Tuesday came, they still could not find the supply. Chief physician Qian also suggested that the patient be transferred to a military hospital called Changzheng Hospital because he could not find the organ supply. They got in touch with Doctor Wang from Changzheng Hospital in Shanghai through a friend, who expressed that they could find the supply. In the morning on Wednesday, the patient was transferred to Changzheng Hospital.

When Mr. and Mrs. K.Z. arrived at Changzheng Hospital, they realized that the patients on the whole 9th floor were all waiting for liver transplant. He also realized that it was the military hospital that could get the organs easily. The difference between the Changzheng Hospital and Huashan Hospital is that Changzheng Hospital didn’t need to worry about the inspection by the health department because as an army hospital, it was allowed to do transplant operations for the overseas people.


At 2:00pm on the same day, the organ supply arrived at the hospital (Type A liver). Right after that, the patient was operated in the operation room. At midnight 12 o’clock, Mrs. K.Z. was notified that the patient’s situation deteriorated and died after the rescue failed. Hepatitis B is infectious and the body had to be cremated and the ashes were taken back home.


The whole process was helped by the patient’s friend, who is doing business in mainland. It is estimated that the total expense was about 800,000 RMB.


None of the relevant documents and certificates regarding Mr. K.Z.’s this trip for liver transplant had mentioned anything about the fact this trip was for liver transplant.


Note: This liver transplant was done at a military hospital: Changzheng Hospital in Shanghai. It was said only military hospitals or doctors working at the army hospitals could easily obtain organs.


Case 8


Mr. L, male, 57-years-old, Blood Type: O, chronicle Kidney function failure.


In January 2001, Mr. L expressed wish for going to China for an organ transplant. Mr. L had his blood drawn. About 4-5 days later, Mr. L got a phone call from the clinic that a matching kidney had been located in China, and he could start to prepare for his trip. Mr. L was hesitating at the beginning, and wondered how a matching organ could be found so swiftly. After discussing with his family members, he decided to go any way and left for China on Feb. 1, 2001. A delegation of 9 people, with 5 male and 4 female, went together.

All 9 people were hospitalized in Taiping Hospital of Dongyuan. Mr. L paid 130, 000 HK Dollars, and was given the details of the spending. The kidney transplant were operated 2 days later, together with another 4 patients from south-eastern Asia, total 13 transplants. All 13 transplants finished within 2 days. Mr. Lin was hospitalized for 7 days, before returning home. There were also patients hospitalized for 14 days before returning home.

Mr. L didn’t get to know who was the doctor operated on him, and nobody mentioned the source of the organ.

Mr. L said clearly Mainland China hospitals were doing organ traffic business.


Note: Taiping People’s Hospital of Dongyuan (in Humen District, Dongyuan City, Guangdong Province) was not a military hospital, however, the physician-in-chief of the transplant department of this hospital Wei Gao was also a professor of and physician-in-chief at the Zhujiang Research Institute of No.1 Military Medical University[4]. Some other responsible people of this transplant department were also from the military hospitals. Wei Gao etc also do transplant operations at Guangdong Province Border Patrol Armed Police Central Hospital (See case 6 as an example). It was said only military hospitals or doctors working at the army hospitals could easily obtain organs.



Appendix 6. Ethics of contact with China on Transplants


The Transplantation Society, an international non-governmental organization, opposed the transplantation of organs from executed prisoners, but only in July 2006.  Their statement said:

          "Because of the restrictions in liberty in a prison environment it is impossible to ascertain whether prisoners are truly free to make independent decisions, and thus an autonomous informed consent for donation cannot be obtained. Therefore, The Transplantation Society is opposed to any use of organs from executed prisoners."


The Society recognized that in China, executed prisoners are a major source of organs.  Indeed, their statement called executed prisoners "the major source". 


The Society, in November 2006, then issued a letter to all its members about interaction with China on transplants which said in substance that contact with China on transplants is acceptable as long as there is no reference to the source of the transplants.  So, the Society says about the presentation of transplant studies from China at Transplantation Society meetings:

          "presentations of studies involving patient data or samples from recipients of organs or tissues from executed prisoners should not be accepted".


But then the Society also says

          "Experimental studies that do not involve the use of material from executed prisoners or material from recipients of organs or tissues of executed prisoners should be considered for acceptance on scientific merits."


The November letter treats collaboration on studies the same way.  It states:

          "Collaboration with experimental studies should only be considered if no material derived from executed prisoners or recipients of organs or tissues from executed prisoners is used in the studies."


But it also states collaboration with clinical studies can be considered if:

          "the study does not violate the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association: Ethical Principles For Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and does not violate the Policy and Ethics Statement of The Transplantation Society for example through the involvement of recipients of organs or tissues from executed prisoners."


This November letter is even more categorical on the source of organs in China.  The letter is "almost all" organs are "likely" to have been obtained from executed prisoners.


There is a mismatch between the factual conclusions of the letter and the policy.  It would seem that, if almost all organs are from executed prisoners, then almost all patient data or samples on which studies are based involve recipients of organs from executed prisoners.  It would further seem that, in consequence, no experimental studies from China should be considered for acceptance or collaboration.  But the policy does not say that.


Studies from China do not source the organs to executed prisoners sentenced to death or Falun Gong practitioners.  How are outsiders to know the source of those organs when there is no Chinese disclosure?  Are outsiders expected to assume that organs are properly sourced unless Chinese professionals admit otherwise?  That seems to be what the November letter is suggesting.  But surely that suggestion is foolish. 


This blind eye to the Society's own factual conclusions is evident from the policy of contact.  The Society will permit doctors from China to become members of the Society if they "sign the Statement of The Transplantation Society for Membership agreeing to conduct clinical practice according to The Transplantation Society policy".  Does not the Society care whether or not its members actually conduct clinical practice according to The Transplantation Society policy?  It seems that for the Society mere agreement is enough.  If actual conduct, rather than mere agreement mattered, the Society would ban all Chinese doctors from membership as long as "almost all" transplants in China come from prisoners.


Contact between transplant professionals outside of China and in China, in a context where "almost all" Chinese transplants come from prisoners, can only facilitate continuing transplantation from prisoners.  Yet, the Society actively encourages this contact.  The Society policy states:

          "Giving lectures or sharing expertise through visiting colleagues and transplant programs in China should provide an excellent opportunity for dialogue and for sharing our positions on standards of care, acceptable sources for organs and transplantation ethics."


Put another way, this policy encourages professionals to go to China and say, in one breath, "do not harvest organs from prisoners", and in the next breath, "here is how to be better at the work of harvesting you are now doing".  The Society invites its members to join in its ambiguity.


The policy towards trainees is even more blatant.  The answer the Society gives to the question:

          "Should members of The Transplantation Society accept clinical or pre‑clinical trainees from transplant programs that use organs or tissues from executed prisoners?"

is a plain and simple "Yes."  The fact that such trainees will go back to China to harvest organs from prisoners is treated all too lightly.  The policy states that

          "Care should be taken to ensure, as far as possible, that it is their intention that their clinical career will comply with the standards of practice outlined in The Transplantation Society Policy & Ethics Statement".

But, as long as "almost all" organs in China come from prisoners, that compliance is impossible.  The only intention which would be relevant in this context would be an intention not to engage in transplant surgery.


The third element of policy or ethics, on transplant tourism, is still being developed by the Society.  On transplant tourism, the Professional Code of Conduct of the Medical Council of Hong Kong has these common sense provisions:

          "27.1  Doctors should observe the following principles and familiarise themselves with the provisions of the Human Organ Transplant Ordinance (Cap. 465) particularly section 4 of the Ordinance which is reprinted at Appendix D. Commercial dealings in human organs are prohibited, both inside and outside the HKSAR.

          27.2  The benefit and welfare of every individual donor, irrespective of whether he is genetically related to the recipient, should be respected and protected in organ transplantation.

          27.3  Consent must be given freely and voluntarily by any donor. If there is doubt as to whether the consent is given freely or voluntarily by the donor, the doctor should reject the proposed donation.

          27.4  In the case of a referral for an organ transplant outside the HKSAR from any donor, a doctor would be acting unethically if he made the referral without ascertaining the status of the donor or following these principles."


If one applies these principles to The Transplantation Society Chinese contact policy, one would have to conclude that it fails to meet the ethics test.  The Transplantation Society policy does not put the onus on foreign professionals to determine the source of donor organs in China.  Their policy, furthermore, does not reject any contact with Chinese transplant professionals as long as there is some doubt about the source of organs.  Indeed, quite the contrary, despite the fact that "almost all" organs are sourced from prisoners, the policy nonetheless contemplates contact in a wide variety of ways.


The point of this analysis here is not so much to suggest ways in which The Transplantation Society policy can be improved, although our recommendations do address this issue.  Rather here we analyze this policy to show the state of foreign global transplants ethics.  We believe that The Transplantation Society ethics are a fair reflection of global national ethics.


Appendix 7. Statements of the Government of China


Policies and Directives on Falun Gong


7.1 Jiang Zemin, Former Chairman of China, former Secretary General of the CPC Central Committee, Chairman of the China Central Military Committee (1993-2004)

·        Quote from “Comrade Jiang Zemin’s Letter issued to the standing members of the Political Bureau of CCCCP [Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party],” April 25, 1999:


“[We] must use right world-views, philosophy, value to educate the massive cadres and mass.  Can’t the Marxism our communists have, the materialism, atheism we believe in really win over that suit of stuff aired by FALUN GONG?  If that were the case, would it be a thumping joke? Our leading cadres at all levels especially high-level officials should become sober now!”[5]

·        Quotes from directive issued by Jiang Zemin, June 7, 1999:

“The central committee has already agreed to let comrade Li Lanqing be responsible for establishing a leadership group that will deal with problems of “FALUN GONG” specifically.  Comrade Li Lanqing will be the director and comrades Ding Guangen and Luo Gan will be vice directors, comrades in charge of related departments will be the members of the group.  [The group] will study the steps, methods and measures for solving the problem of “FALUN GONG” in a unified way.  All CCP central departments, administrative organs, all ministries, commissions, all provinces, self-governing districts, all cities directly under central government must cooperate with the group very closely.


After the leading group dealing with “FALUN GONG” problems has established at CCCCP, it should immediately organize forces, find out the organization system nationwide of  “FALUN GONG” ASAP, constitute the battling strategies, get fully prepared for the work of disintegrating [FALUN GONG], [we] should never launch a warfare without preparations.


The major responsible comrades in all areas, all departments must solidly take the responsibilities, carry out the tasks [of crushing Falun Gong]  according to the CCCCP’s requirements with the area’s or department’s actual situations taken into consideration.”[6]


·        Quotes from a World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong report:


“On June 10, 1999, bypassing procedures required by the Chinese constitution among other codes of law, and under direct orders from the then leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Jiang Zemin, the CCP Central Committee formed the “610 Office,” an organization with the sole mission of cracking down on Falun Gong.


Besides its central office in Beijing, the “610 Office” has branches in all the Chinese cities, villages, governmental agencies, institutions, and schools. In terms of its establishment, structure, reporting mechanism, and operation and founding mechanism, it is an organization that is allowed to exist outside the established framework of the CCP and the Chinese government. The power it has far exceeds that which is officially authorized under the Chinese constitution and other laws, furthermore, it is free from budgetary constraints. The “610 Office” has full control over any issue that has to do with Falun Gong, and has become an organization that Jiang Zemin uses, personally and privately, to persecute Falun Gong. This organization does not have any legal basis. It is an organization that is very similar to Nazi Germany’s Gestapo and the “Central Committee of the Cultural Revolution” during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.


The official crackdown on Falun Gong was marked on several documents released around July 20, 1999. These documents are: "The announcement of the CCP central committee on July 19, 1999"[7], "The announcement of the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs"[8], "The announcement of the Chinese Ministry of Public Security on July 22"[9], "The announcement of General Administration of Press and Publication [reiterating the processing opinion about the publication of Falun Gong literature] on July 22"[10], and others.”[11]


·        Quote from The Washington Post, November 1999:


“Communist Party sources said that the standing committee of the Politburo did not unanimously endorse the crackdown and that President Jiang Zemin alone decided that Falun Gong must be eliminated. […] It was Jiang who ordered that Falun Gong be labeled a ‘cult,’ and then demanded that a law be passed banning cults, a party source said.  ‘This obviously is very personal for Jiang,’ said one party official. ‘He wants this organization crushed.’”[12]


·        Quote from South China Morning Post, April 2000:


“A security source in Beijing said despite President Jiang Zemin's repeated orders to devote ‘whatever resources are needed" to crush the Falun Gong movement, the police were unable to prevent frequent demonstrations in Beijing and other cities. “Departments such as the Ministries of Public Security and State Security have boosted staff to handle the Falun Gong,” the source said.”[13]


·      Quotes from U.S. House Resolution No. 188 unanimously passed in July 2002:


“Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it;


Whereas this policy violates the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;


Whereas Jiang Zemin’s regime has created notorious government ‘610’ offices throughout the People’s Republic of China with the special task of overseeing the persecution of Falun Gong members through organized brainwashing, torture, and murder;


Whereas Official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labelling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes.” [14]



7.2 Luo Gan, Member of Standing Committee of Political Bureau of Chinese Communist Party, and General Secretary of Political and Judiciary Committee of Chinese Communist Party; also the Deputy Director of the “610 Office”.


·        Luo Gan in a speech at the National Political and Legal Conference in December 2000:


“[During 2000], under the close cooperation of various political and law enforcement agencies, [we] delivered a severe blow against the sabotage of hostile forces [against China], under the law.  [We] have promptly handled and delivered a blow against the illegal activities of the Falun Gong cult and [We] have educated and transformed many Falun Gong criminal offenders…We need to continue to intensify the fight against the Falun Gong cult and strike hard at their illegal activities.”[15]


·        In a speech at the national “Strike Hard” meeting in January 2001:


Luo Gan, a member of the Political Bureau Committee and the Director of the Central Social Public Security Management Committee (CSPSMC), [...] emphasized: “Fighting Falun Gong is an important matter that is related to consolidating state power, maintaining social stability, and ensuring that people have a good, prosperous life.”


Luo Gan also said: “The key to fighting the Falun Gong cult is to mobilize the people. The task of social public security management requires the participation of many departments and a relatively comprehensive network of grassroots organizations. It has a unique advantage in organizing social forces, mobilizing people, and utilizing various methods to maintain social stability. The social public security management committees at all levels should fully display their advantage in comprehensive management and firmly fighting with the Falun Gong cult.


Luo Gan said, “[We] must fully utilize legal weapons and increase [our] strength to fight the illegal activities of the Falun Gong cult. [We] must thoroughly expose and criticize Li Hongzhi’s evil doctrine, Falun Gong’s cultish essence and enhance the education and transformation work of Falun Gong practitioners. [We] need to promptly discover and handle the activities of the Falun Gong cult and never allow Falun Gong [to have a] backbone of diehard members to connect, gather, and cause trouble.”[16]


·        In a speech delivered at the Third Plenary Session of Fourteenth Session of 9th National Political Consultation held in Beijing on June 28, 2001:


“The state’s Political and Law departments of the Government … should intensify and broaden the political struggle against the Falun Gong cult [sic] in a comprehensive manner, [and] strike hard against the illegal activities of Falun Gong cult [sic], through the law.”[17]


·      In a speech given at the National Political and Law Working Conference held in Beijing on December 5, 2001:


“[We] have to deliverer severe blows to the infiltration and sabotage of the Falun Gong cult [sic].”[18]


·      At the First General Meeting of the Central Law and Order Committee held on Jan 18, 2002:


“[We must] continue to strike hard against the sabotage of the Falun Gong cult [sic].”[19]


·      During a March 2002 Central Political and Judiciary Committee nationwide teleconference:


“[We] must strike hard against the infiltration and sabotage of the Falun Gong cult”[20]


·      At the national TV-teleconference of the CCP Political and Judiciary Committee:


Luo Gan gave orders to “guard against and strike hard on enemy forces in and outside of China” and Falun Gong was on top of the list.[21]


·      In a speech during the First Meeting of The Integrated Management Committee on Law and Order held in Beijing on January 17, 2003:


“[We must] remain vigilant against the sabotage of the Falun Gong cult.”[22]



7.3 Li Lanqing, Director of the Central “610 Office”; Former Member of Standing Committee of Political Bureau of Chinese Communist Party.


·      Quote from People’s Daily, February 2001:


“Chinese Vice Premier Li Lanqing has called on Party organizations, officials at various levels and the general public to carry on with the determined fight against the Falun Gong cult, in order to create a favorable environment for social and economic development. He made the call at a grand gathering Monday in Beijing organized by seven Party and government departments to commend 110 organizations and 271 individuals that have distinguished themselves in the fight against the Falun Gong cult.”[23]


·      Quote from People’s Liberation Army Daily, February 2001:


“Finally, Li Lanqing required the leaders and the cadres and the masses to become fully aware of the seriousness of the ‘Falun Gong’ problem and the complexity, intensity and the long-term nature of this struggle, further improve their understandings, take effective measures, and continue to do all the jobs well in the struggle against the ‘Falun Gong’ evil cult.”[24]


·      Quote from Legal Daily, July 2001:


“Comrades, we must make persistent efforts, follow up our victory, and reveal the evil cult ‘Falun Gong’ at a deeper level to ensure the long-term stability and security of the country.”[25]


·      Quotes from CNN, June 2001:


“Chinese Vice-Premier Li Lanqing has made an implicit link between Beijing's winning Games bid and the Western world's endorsement of its tough tactics to maintain social stability. While touring an official exhibition of the activities of evil cults on Monday, Li said Communist Party authorities had scored a "major victory" over the Falun Gong. Li added the Olympic nod for Beijing was "the international community's affirmation of our country's social stability, social progress, economic prosperity and the people's healthy lives." The vice premier then called upon Chinese to "redouble their efforts" in combating the Falun Gong to ensure the country's long-term peace and stability.”[26]


“Beijing has classified the campaign against the Falun Gong quasi-Buddhist sect as a "long-term struggle." Sources close to the security establishment said this was the party leadership's indirect admission that the Falun Gong movement could not be exterminated in the foreseeable future. In recent internal briefings to officials nationwide, senior law-enforcement cadres said significant headway had been made in combating the "cult." However, the cadres pointed out that while the Falun Gong had been prevented from holding high-profile demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, it had gone underground and remained a big threat to stability.


A Beijing security source said in order to wage an effective "long-term struggle," party authorities had set up a 'Leading Group on Combating Cults', which is headed by senior Politburo member Li Lanqing. The leading group has established anti-cult offices in every province and major city. Moreover, in regional administrations, one vice-governor and vice-mayor will be held personally responsible for controlling and clamping down on cult activities. "The vice-governor or vice-mayor will be penalized if Falun Gong activities in his province or city are not contained, or if practitioners from his jurisdiction are able to sneak to Beijing to hold demonstrations there," the source said. State security and intelligence operatives, including those based overseas, are asked to spend on resources on collecting information about active sect members.”[27]



7.4 Directives from Other Chinese Government Sources


·      Order to Shoot Falun Gong Practitioners “On Sight,” March 11, 2002:


“Prior to Jiang Zemin’s orders on March 5th to "kill [Falun Dafa practitioners] without pardon," reports from inside China indicate that police had been ordered to shoot "on sight" Falun Gong practitioners caught putting up banners, posters or distributing flyers.”[28]


·      Quotes from “Notification: Be Strictly On Guard Against ‘Falun Gong’ Followers Coming To Beijing Creating Disturbance And Engaging In All Kinds Of Illegal Criminal Activities In The Sensitive Period Around July 22nd” (July 16, 2002) – Confidential notification letter “To All Second Tier 610 Offices of xxx [name of city deleted to protect the source]”


“All units should take the assigned responsibility determinedly to carry out the education in a systematic way, assigning the responsibility to each organization and individual to educate and make sure that Falun Gong followers will not leave their work-unit, thus, stopping up any loophole in keeping the tight control.


Furthermore, we should strengthen the interception effectively to capture those on their way to Beijing.  We should increase the sense of duty in preventing “Falun Gong” followers from travelling to Beijing to create disturbance by carrying out the policy of assigning responsibility to leaders, as well as the policy for linking responsible leaders to consequences. For those companies whose employee went to Beijing for Falun Gong related activities, not only those who went to Beijing will be punished, but also those who lost control in the process. The source and the person responsible will both be investigated; and consequences be positioned.”


·      Secret Order to Persecute Falun Gong States “Delete after Reading,” July 2003:


In China, the authorities in Zhoukou City , Henan province were told to start a new cycle of persecution against Falun Gong. Many related organizations passed on the request for supporting and carrying out the latest command to persecute Falun Dafa practitioners. It was reported that the higher levels received the secret order via e-mail from the top that stated, "delete after reading". Then they relayed the order verbally down the chain of command. When the secret order came to the working troops, it was said that, "Previously we were busy dealing with SARS, now we have time so we should take care to punish Falun Gong." Another implication of the order was, "No need to follow any laws in dealing with Falun Gong."[29]


 7.5 United Nations and Other Third-Party Reports

 ·      The 2005 U.N. report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers notes that on October 15, 2004 the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal along with six other U.N. Special Rapporteurs to the Government of China to “express their concern at reports of systemic repression against the Falun Gong and other ‘heretical organizations’ (‘xiejiao zuzhi’).” The six other U.N. Special Rapporteurs were:

o     The Special Rapporteur on the question of torture;

o     The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;

o     The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief;

o     The Special Rapporteur on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health;

o     The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions; and

o     The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its cause and consequences.


The report stated:


“Over the past five years, hundreds of cases of alleged violations of the human rights of Falun Gong practitioners have been brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteurs.


The Special Rapporteurs are concerned that reports of arrest, detention, ill-treatment, torture, denial of adequate medical treatment, sexual violence, deaths, and unfair trial of members of so-called ‘heretical organizations,’ in particular Falun Gong practitioners, are increasing. They expressed concern that these allegations may reflect a deliberate and institutionalized policy of the authorities to target specific groups such as the Falun Gong.


An analysis of reports indicates that the alleged human rights violations against Falun Gong practitioners, including systematic arrest and detention, are part of a pattern of repression against members of this group. Most of those arrested are reportedly heavily fined and released, but many are detained and ill-treated in order to force them to formally renounce Falun Gong. Those who refuse are sent to re-education through labour camps, where torture is reportedly used routinely and in many cases has resulted in death.


When charges are laid they reportedly include allegations such as ‘disturbing social order,’ ‘assembling to disrupt public order,’ ‘stealing or leaking State secrets,’ or ‘using a heretical organization to undermine the law.’ According to the information received, those prosecuted have been unfairly tried and many have received lengthy prison sentences. In this respect it is reported that on 5 November 1999, a notice issued by the Supreme People’s Court instructed all local courts to do their ‘political duty’ in bringing to trial and punishing ‘severely’ those charged with ‘heretical organization crimes,’ ‘particularly Falun Gong,’ and to handle these cases ‘under the leadership of the Party committees.’” [30]


·      The 2005 U.N. report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief:

“56. Reports indicated that the campaign against Falun Gong continued unabated across China. According to information received, practitioners of Falun Gong continued to be subject to ill-treatment and torture by State officials in their attempts to force the practitioners to renounce their belief in Falun Gong. It was also reported that individual practitioners who had been subjected to torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment whilst detained had not been provided appropriate and effective remedies. In particular, the system of administrative detention, re-education through labour (RTL), reportedly continued to be imposed on Falun Gong practitioners. It was reported that RTL involves detention without charge or trial, and without judicial review, for between one and three years—which can be further extended by one year. People receiving terms of RTL allegedly have no right of access to a lawyer and there is no hearing for them to defend themselves.


61. According to information received, on 10 June 1999, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party established an office for dealing with Falun Gong, commonly referred to as the ‘610 Office’ (for the date of its establishment), and officially later as the State Council Office for the Prevention and Handling of Cults. This institution reportedly was given a mandate to repress Falun Gong and other ‘heretical organizations,’ and is operating outside of the rule of law. Reports indicate that the Falun Gong was officially banned on 22 July 1999 through a decision of the Ministry of Civil Affairs and since then several decisions, notices, regulations and other judicial interpretations have been issued by the Government and judicial authorities to legitimize the official repression against ‘heretical organizations,’ including the Falun Gong.


63. Further reports indicate that in February 2001, the Central Committee of the Communist Party called for a Central Work Conference of high-level party officials. The purpose of this meeting was reportedly to adopt a plan calling for the formation of local ‘anti-cult task forces’ in all universities, State enterprises and social organizations, to reinforce the ‘610 Office’ and strengthen local control over the Falun Gong.” [31]


·      Quotes from the U.S. Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report 2005 on China:


“The Government continued its repression of groups that it categorized as "cults" in general and of small Christian-based groups and the Falun Gong in particular. Arrest, detention, and imprisonment of Falun Gong practitioners continued, and there have been credible reports of deaths due to torture and abuse. Practitioners who refuse to recant their beliefs are sometimes subjected to harsh treatment in prisons, reeducation-through-labor camps, and extra-judicial "legal education" centers. Falun Gong adherents engaged in few public activities within China during the period covered by this report, perhaps due to the strength of the Government's campaign against the group. However, there were continuing revelations about the extra-legal activities of the Government’s ‘610 office,’ implicated in most alleged abuses of Falun Gong practitioners.



Section II. Status of Religious Freedom


Legal/Policy Framework


The Government has banned all groups that it has determined to be "cults," including […] the Falun Gong, […] After the revised Criminal Law came into effect in 1997, offenses related to membership in unapproved cults and religious groups were classified as crimes of disturbing the social order. A ban on cults, including the Falun Gong spiritual movement, was enacted in 1999. Under Article 300 of the Criminal Law, "cult" members who "disrupt public order" or distribute publications may be sentenced to from 3 to 7 years in prison, while "cult" leaders and recruiters may be sentenced to 7 years or more in prison.


Restrictions on Religious Freedom


During the period covered by this report, the Government's respect for religious freedom and freedom of conscience remained poor, especially for members of many unregistered religious groups and spiritual movements such as the Falun Gong. […]


The Government makes political demands on the clergy or leadership of registered groups. For example, authorities have required clergy to publicly endorse government policies or denounce Falun Gong. In other areas, including Xinjiang and the Tibetan Autonomous Region, authorities require clergy to participate in patriotic education. The Government continued its harsh repression of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and of "cults" in general.


During the period covered by this report, government repression of the Falun Gong spiritual movement continued. At the National People's Congress session in March 2004, Premier Wen Jiabao's Government Work Report emphasized that the Government would "expand and deepen its battle against cults," including Falun Gong. There were credible reports of torture and deaths in custody of Falun Gong practitioners.


Abuses of Religious Freedom




According to Falun Gong practitioners in the United States, since 1999 more than 100,000 practitioners have been detained for engaging in Falun Gong practices, admitting that they adhere to the teachings of Falun Gong, or refusing to criticize the organization or its founder. The organization reports that its members have been subject to excessive force, abuse, detention, and torture, and that some of its members, including children, have died in custody. For example, in 2003, Falun Gong practitioner Liu Chengjun died after reportedly being abused in custody in Jilin Province. Some foreign observers estimate that at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in the country's reeducation-through-labor camps are Falun Gong adherents. Falun Gong places the number even higher. Hundreds of Falun Gong adherents were also incarcerated in legal education centers, a form of administrative detention, upon completion of their reeducation-through-labor sentences. Government officials denied the existence of such "legal education" centers. According to the Falun Gong, hundreds of its practitioners have been confined to psychiatric institutions and forced to take medications or undergo electric shock treatment against their will.


In December 2004, a Beijing attorney sent an open letter to the National People's Congress highlighting legal abuses in cases involving Falun Gong. The letter focused on the April 2004 detention and subsequent administrative sentencing of Huang Wei of Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province. It described how Falun Gong cases are handled outside normal legal procedures by a special Ministry of Justice office, known as the 610 office. The letter alleged that mistreatment is typical of the ongoing campaign against Falun Gong. After the open letter was published, Huang's wife disappeared, and her whereabouts remain unknown. The asylum request of a Chinese diplomat and other former government officials allegedly involved in the Government's campaign against Falun Gong overseas brought additional scrutiny and negative attention to the extra-legal activities of the 610 office, including allegations that it sought out Falun Gong practitioners abroad and forcibly returned them to the country.”[32]


·      Quotes from the U.S. Department of State’s 2005 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China:


“Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:


c. Freedom of Religion


The government's respect for religious freedom remained poor […] The government continued its repression of groups that it determined to be "cults" and of the Falun Gong spiritual movement in particular.




The law does not prohibit religious believers from holding public office; however, party membership is required for almost all high-level positions in government, state-owned businesses, and many official organizations. During the year Communist Party officials again stated that party membership and religious belief were incompatible. Government and CCP officials reiterated that religious believers should resign their party membership. The Routine Service Regulations of the People's Liberation Army state explicitly that service members "may not take part in religious or superstitious activities." CCP and PLA personnel have been expelled for adhering to Falun Gong beliefs.




Since the government banned the Falun Gong in 1999, the mere belief in the discipline (even without any public manifestation of its tenets) has been sufficient grounds for practitioners to receive punishments ranging from loss of employment to imprisonment. Although the vast majority of practitioners detained have been released, many were detained again after release (see section 1.e.), and thousands reportedly remained in reeducation-through-labor camps. Those identified by the government as "core leaders" were singled out for particularly harsh treatment. More than a dozen Falun Gong members have been sentenced to prison for the crime of "endangering state security," but the great majority of Falun Gong members convicted by the courts since 1999 have been sentenced to prison for "organizing or using a sect to undermine the implementation of the law," a less serious offense. Among them, Yuan Yuju and Liang Hui in Luzhou, Sichuan Province, faced such criminal charges during the year. Most practitioners, however, were punished administratively. Liu Yawen of Beijing and Zheng Ruihuan and Liu Yinglan of Shandong Province were among those reportedly detained administratively for Falun Gong activity. In addition to being sentenced to reeducation-through-labor, some Falun Gong members were sent to detention facilities specifically established to "rehabilitate" practitioners who refused to recant their belief voluntarily after release from reeducation-through-labor camps. In addition hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners have been confined to mental hospitals, according to overseas groups (see section 1.d.).


During the year allegations of abuse of Falun Gong practitioners by the police and other security personnel continued to be made. Groups based abroad estimated that as many as two thousand practitioners have died in custody (see section 1.c.)

Police continued to detain current and former Falun Gong practitioners and place them in reeducation camps. Police reportedly had quotas for Falun Gong arrests and targeted former practitioners, even if they were no longer practicing. The government continued its use of high-pressure tactics and mandatory anti-Falun Gong study sessions to force practitioners to renounce Falun Gong. Even practitioners who had not protested or made other public demonstrations of belief reportedly were forced to attend anti-Falun Gong classes or were sent directly to reeducation-through-labor camps, where in some cases beatings and torture reportedly were used to force them to recant.”[33]


·      Quote from Intelligence Online, January 9, 2006: 

“China’s deputy public security minister Liu Jing has been handed the job of stamping out the Buddhist-Taoist Falun Gong [spiritual group] before the Olympic Games in 2008. […]

The Communist Party has issued a directive demanding that all of the country’s security services lend a hand to 610 Office.”[34]

Appendix 8. Edmonton Police Report of Wilful Promotion of Hatred by Chinese Consular Officials against Falun Gong


Appendix 9. Physical Persecution of Falun Gong



9.1 United Nations Reports

·      December 2003 U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudiciary, summary or arbitrary executions:

“The Special Rapporteur continues to be alarmed by deaths in custody in China. Reports describe harrowing scenes in which detainees, many of whom are followers of the Falun Gong movement, die as a result of severe ill-treatment, neglect or medical attention. The cruelty and brutality of these alleged acts of torture defy description. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate her call to the Government of China, voiced in so many letters of allegations and urgent appeals, to take immediate steps to protect the lives and integrity of its detainees in accordance with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.” [35]

·      2003 U.N. report of the Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

“29. As there is no evidence that Falun Gong is a violent belief, as far as the cases under consideration are concerned [of Falun Gong practitioners detained in connection with the practice of Falun Gong], its free exercise should be protected by article 18 on freedom of belief and article 19 on freedom of opinion and expression of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

30. Even though the sentence of re-education-through-labour is, as claimed by the [Chinese] Government, a more favourable measure offering better possibilities to the person concerned than a prison sentence imposed by a court judgement, it still constitutes, in the opinion of the Working Group, administrative deprivation of liberty that may be arbitrary in character, as found by the Group in its deliberation 04 of 1993 (see E/CN.4/1993/24, chap. II).

31. In its report on its visit to China (E/CN.4/1998/44/Add.2, para. 95), the Working Group stated that the measure of re-education through labour should not be applied to any person exercising his or her fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the cases at hand [Falun Gong practitioners], detention does constitute a coercive measure designed to undermine the freedom of those persons to adopt beliefs of their own choosing.” [36]

·      2005 U.N. report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers[37]: Please see Appendix A – Policies and Directives of the Government of China on Falun Gong and Appendix C.4 – Persecution of Lawyers Defending Falun Gong Practitioners.


·      2005 U.N. report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief[38]: Please see Appendix A – Policies and Directives of the Government of China on Falun Gong.

·      2005 Mission to China Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture:

“10. The Special Rapporteur feels, however, compelled to point out that security and intelligence officials attempted to obstruct or restrict his attempts at fact-finding, particularly at the outset of the visit when his team was followed in their Beijing hotel and its vicinity.  Furthermore, during the visit a number of alleged victims and family members, lawyers and human rights defenders were intimidated by security personnel, placed under police surveillance, instructed not to meet the Special Rapporteur, or were physically prevented from meeting with him.


40. The Special Rapporteur recalls that over the last several years his predecessors have received a number of serious allegations related to torture and other forms of ill-treatment in China, which have been submitted to the Government for its comments.  He cautions that such information does not necessarily illustrate the state of torture and ill-treatment in a given country, but rather reflects the state of information brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur.  Nevertheless, over a period of time, the number and consistency of the allegations received may be informative.


41. Since 2000, the Special Rapporteur and his predecessors have reported 314 cases of alleged torture to the Government of China. These cases represent well over 1,160 individuals.” [Endnote 49: “In addition to this figure, it is to be noted that one case sent in 2003 (E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1 para. 301) detailed the alleged ill treatment and torture of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners.] […]


42.  The following table indicates the typology of the victims of alleged torture and ill‑treatment.


Table 1 Victims of alleged torture



Falun Gong practitioners




Sex workers




Human rights defenders


Political dissidents


Other (persons infected with HIV/AIDS and members
   of religious groups)




45. The methods of torture alleged include, among others: beatings with sticks and batons; use of electric shock batons; cigarette burns; hooding/blindfolding; guard-instructed or permitted beatings by fellow prisoners; use of handcuffs or ankle fetters for extended periods (including in solitary confinement or secure holding areas); submersion in pits of water or sewage; exposure to conditions of extreme heat or cold; being forced to maintain uncomfortable positions, such as sitting, squatting, lying down, or standing for long periods of time, sometimes with objects held under arms; deprivation of sleep, food or water; prolonged solitary confinement; denial of medical treatment and medication; hard labour; and suspension from overhead fixtures with handcuffs.  In several cases, the techniques employed have been given particular terminologies, such as the ‘tiger bench,’ where one is forced to sit motionless on a tiny stool a few centimetres off the ground; ‘reversing an airplane,’ where one is forced to bend over while holding legs straight, feet close together and arms lifted high; or ‘exhausting an eagle,’ where one is forced to stand on a tall stool and subjected to beatings until exhaustion. Several of these forms of torture have been corroborated by studies carried out by Chinese academics. [Endnote 51: Chen Yunsheng, Towards Human Rights and the Rule of Law - Anti-torture Analysis, China Social Science Publishing House, September 2003, first edition.] On the basis of the information he received during his mission, the Special Rapporteur confirms that many of these methods of torture have been used in China.


Appendix 2: Places of Detention – Individual Cases


III.  Beijing Municipal Women’s Re education Through Labour (RTL) Facility (Visited on 24 November 2005)


10. The Special Rapporteur observed that the general conditions of the facility seemed satisfactory.  However, he is deeply concerned by the prolonged periods for which detainees are held in solitary confinement.  During his visit, he inspected the ‘Intensive Training’ section which houses 10 small solitary confinement cells and was informed by the prison authorities that the maximum duration in solitary confinement was seven days.  However, on consulting the registry the Special Rapporteur noted that of the six people held in solitary confinement between 1 January 2005 and 24 November 2005, three had been held for 60 days and one for 27 days.  Detainees also stated that Falun Gong practitioners who had not renounced their beliefs after six months in detention were placed in the Intensive Training section until they were ‘reformed’.  Falun Gong practitioners formerly detained at this facility mentioned that they would refer to this section as the “Intensive Torture Section”.


11. The Special Rapporteur notes that a number of detainees declined to speak to him, and others requested absolute confidentiality. The only person willing to speak openly with the Special Rapporteur was the following:


12. Ms. Yang Yu Ming, a Falun Gong practitioner.  Since 14 April 2005, she has been detained for “disrupting social order.” She described her treatment in detention as ‘quite good’.  She said that she is allocated study time and sometimes is able to do physical exercise.  It is her first time in RTL and she has had no encounter with ill treatment to date.  She said that the majority of detainees are Falun Gong practitioners. [39]

Other U.N. reports documenting cases of torture and ill-treatment of Falun Gong practitioners and expressing concern that these reports are increasing include (but are not limited to):

·      Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, February 2, 2005.

“9. […] Mr. Tian, 40 years old, was reportedly detained in Huazi Prison in Liaoyang City, and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the Pingshan District Court, allegedly for being a Falun Gong practitioner. According to the information received, Mr. Tian began a hunger strike on 20 July 2003 and was forcibly fed and denied medical treatment. Cao Jiguang, 35 years old, was reportedly detained in Guangyuan Jail in Sichuan Province, serving a five-year sentence, allegedly for being a Falun Gong practitioner. It was reported that during a hunger strike, Cao Jiguang was force fed by the jail’s doctor, who inserted a plastic tube into his trachea and pulled it out repeatedly with the apparent intention of hurting him, and that before force-feeding him guards opened his mouth with an instrument, which caused severe injuries inside his mouth.

[Four other Falun Gong practitioners’ case summaries follow.]” [40]

·      Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, March 30, 2005.

“226. […] allegations concerning Z.Y., age 4. On 1 January 2004, she was taken from her home in Zitong Town, Tongnan County, Chongqing City, by four police officers from the Tongnan County National Security Team (one of whom is known to the Special Rapporteurs). Both of her parents had been arrested previously because they are practitioners of Falun Gong. In February 2002, her father, Zhang Hongxu was sent to Xishanping Labor Camp, where he was tortured, and suffered a broken nose, missing teeth, and injured ribs. He is now detained at an undisclosed location. On 23 December 2003, Z. her mother, Wu Yongmei, was detained and tortured. She was released after being on a hunger strike for 54 days. Upon release, she began to search for her daughter and her current whereabouts are unknown.


234. Shen Lizhi, age 33, Shenyang City, and his wife Luo Fang, Leshan City, Sichuan Province. On 1 February 2002, they were arrested on Bus No. 75 by police officers from Yingmenkou Police Station, Chengdu City. The police claimed that at the time of their arrest the two persons had in their possession materials relating to the persecution of Falun Gong. They were detained at the Chengdu Detention Centre. Shen Lizhi was tortured after his arrest and died on the afternoon of 3 March 2002 at Qingyang District People’s Hospital. The police notified his parents one year later, on 3 March 2003. Luo Fang was eight months pregnant at the time of her arrest, and an official of the ‘610 Office’ forced her to have an abortion. On 8 May 2002, she was released but was arrested again on 5 December. She was tortured and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Since August 2003, she has been held at the Chuanxi Prison, Hongan Town, Longquan, Chengdu City.

[Approximately 40 other Falun Gong practitioners’ case summaries listed.]” [41]

·      Report on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, March 29, 2005.[42]

·      Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Ertürk, March 18, 2005.[43]

9.2 U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Other Third-party Reports

·      U.S. Department of State’s 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – China:

“On November 30, Vice Premier Li Lanqing reportedly stated in a speech to Communist Party members that over 35,000 detentions of Falun Gong practitioners were made by the authorities between July 22 and October 30.”[44]

·      July 2001 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) news report:

“Human rights groups are calling for China to scrap its network of more than 300 labour camps following what authorities say is another mass suicide by Falun Gong practitioners. At least 15 women are believed to have died. The reported death of Falun Gong followers in a Chinese labour camp has again seen the issue of human rights rise in China. […] Members of a Falun Gong support group, based in Hong Kong, say that an information blackout is now in place on this latest [tragedy]. They claim the deaths were the result of torture by guards inside the camp in Heilongjiang Province. Family members of some of the 15, who died two weeks ago, say the bodies were cremated shortly after death, before anyone could see them. One family says the guards handed them a jar containing their mother's ashes when they arrived at the camp. Falun Gong practitioners make up close to half the number of Chinese people being held in labor camps, a process that requires no legal or judicial ruling.”[45]

·      U.S. Department of State’s 2005 Country Report on Human Rights Practices – China:

“Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

After a November visit, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak concluded that torture remained widespread, although the amount and severity decreased. He reported that beatings with fists, sticks, and electric batons were the most common tortures. Cigarette burns, guard-instructed beatings by fellow inmates, and submersion in water or sewage were also reported. Nowak further found that many detainees were held for long periods in extreme positions, that death row inmates were shackled or handcuffed 24 hours per day, and that systematic abuse was designed to break the will of detainees until they confessed. Procedural and substantive measures to prevent torture were inadequate. Nowak found that members of some house church groups, Falun Gong adherents, Tibetans, and Uighur prisoners were specific targets of torture.


Since the crackdown on Falun Gong began in 1999, estimates of Falun Gong adherents who died in custody due to torture, abuse, and neglect ranged from several hundred to a few thousand (see section 2.c.). In October Falun Gong adherents Liu Boyang and Wang Shouhui of Changchun, Jilin Province, reportedly died in custody after being tortured by police.


During the year there were reports of persons, including Falun Gong adherents, sentenced to psychiatric hospitals for expressing their political or religious beliefs (see section 1.d.). Some were reportedly forced to undergo electric shock treatments or forced to take psychotropic drugs. […]

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

The Ministry of Justice administered more than 700 prisons with a population of over 1.5 million inmates, according to official statistics. In addition some 30 jails for juveniles housed approximately 22 thousand juvenile offenders. The country also operated hundreds of administrative detention centers, which were run by security ministries and administered separately from the formal court system (see section 2.d.).


Conditions in penal institutions for both political prisoners and common criminals generally were harsh and frequently degrading. . . Conditions in administrative detention facilities, such as reeducation-through-labor camps, were similar to those in prisons.


Officials confirmed that executed prisoners were among the sources of organs for transplant. No national law governed organ donations nor were there reliable statistics on how many organ transplants using organs from executed prisoners occurred, but a Ministry of Health directive explicitly states that buying and selling human organs and tissues is not allowed. Transplant doctors stated publicly in 2003 that "the main source [of organ donations] is voluntary donations from condemned prisoners," but serious questions remained concerning whether meaningful or voluntary consent from the prisoners or their relatives was obtained.


Sexual and physical abuse and extortion were reported in some detention centers. Falun Gong activists reported that police raped female practitioners, including an incident in November at the Dongchengfang police station in Tunzhou City, Hebei Province, in which two women were raped while in detention. Forced labor in prisons and reeducation-through-labor camps was common. Juveniles were required by law to be held separately from adults, unless facilities were insufficient. In practice, children sometimes were detained without their parents, held with adults, and required to work (see sections 1.d. and 6.c.).

The government generally did not permit independent monitoring of prisons or reeducation-through-labor camps, and prisoners remained inaccessible to most international human rights organizations. […]

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

[…] According to published SPP [Supreme People’s Procuratorate] reports, the country's 340 reeducation-through-labor facilities had a total capacity of about 300 thousand persons. In addition the population of special administrative detention facilities for drug offenders and prostitutes grew rapidly following a campaign to crack down on drugs and prostitution. In 2004 these facilities held more than 350 thousand offenders, nearly three times as many as in 2002. The government also confined some Falun Gong adherents, petitioners, labor activists, and others to psychiatric hospitals.

Among those specially targeted for arbitrary detention or arrested during the year were current and former China Democracy Party activists, Falun Gong practitioners, domestic and foreign journalists, unregistered religious figures, and former political prisoners and their family members.


Arrest and Detention


The reeducation-through-labor system allows non-judicial panels of police and local authorities, called Labor Reeducation Committees, to sentence persons to up to three years in prison-like facilities. The committees have authority to extend an inmate's sentence for an additional year. Defendants were legally entitled to challenge reeducation-through-labor sentences under the Administrative Litigation Law through the court system (see section 1.e.). They could appeal for a reduction in, or suspension of, their sentences; however, appeals rarely were successful. […] A special form of reeducation center was used to detain Falun Gong practitioners who had completed terms in reeducation through labor, but whom authorities decided to continue detaining.


According to foreign researchers, the country had 20 ankang institutions (high-security psychiatric hospitals for the criminally insane) directly administered by the Ministry of Public Security. Some dissidents, persistent petitioners, and others were housed with mentally ill patients in these institutions. Patients in these hospitals were reportedly given medicine against their will and forcibly subjected to electric shock treatment. The regulations for committing a person into an ankang psychiatric facility were not clear. Credible reports indicated that a number of political and trade union activists, underground religious believers, persons who repeatedly petitioned the government, members of the banned China Democratic Party, and Falun Gong adherents were incarcerated in such facilities during the year.”[46]

·      Amnesty International’s Report 2005 on China:

“Violence against women


Women in detention, including large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners, remained at risk of torture, including rape and sexual abuse.


Repression of spiritual and religious groups


The Falun Gong spiritual movement remained a key target of repression, which reportedly included many arbitrary detentions. Most of those detained were assigned to periods of “Re-education through Labour” without charge or trial, during which they were at high risk of torture or ill-treatment, particularly if they refused to renounce their beliefs. Others were held in prisons and psychiatric hospitals. According to overseas Falun Gong sources, more than 1,000 people detained in connection with the Falun Gong had died since the organization was banned in 1999, mostly as a result of torture or ill-treatment.


Torture, arbitrary detention and unfair trials


Torture and ill-treatment continued to be reported in a wide variety of state institutions despite the introduction of several new regulations aimed at curbing the practice. Common methods included kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation.” [47]

·      U.S. House Concurrent Resolution No. 188 on Falun Gong:

“Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it;


Whereas the campaign of persecution has been generated by the Government of the People's Republic of China, is carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society and every level of government in the People's Republic of China;”[48]

·      Agence France Presse (AFP) article:

“A 28 year-old Chinese lawyer vowed Sunday to continue to protest the Falungong ban, despite being arrested four times in the last year for his allegiance to the outlawed "evil cult." "I am not afraid. I know that if they arrest me I will spend two or three years in a re-education through labor camp, but it is absolutely necessary to protest to show that we are not bad," the lawyer, who called himself Zak, told AFP. Zak was detained Sunday in Beijing's Tiananmen Square along with some 1,000 members of the Buddhist-inspired group, but escaped when fellow adherents stormed the police van he was in releasing him into the National Day crowds… Zak said the government had recently set up two detention camps solely for Falungong followers in northwest and northeast China capable of holding up to 50,000 people each. Many Falungong followers were now incarcerated with ordinary criminals, he said, adding that police routinely beat followers as a method to crack down on the group.”[49]

·      In a series of open letters to CCP top leaders, renowned Chinese human rights lawyer Mr. Gao Zhisheng publicized findings from his investigation into the persecution. The government shut down his law firm after his second open letter was published in November 2005. The following excerpts are from his third open letter, [50] written in December 2005:

“…the policemen burned my back with cigarettes and the unbearable pain made me lose consciousness. Then they poured cold water on me to wake me up. Finally they lit candles and used them to burn my back. After they scorched the flesh on my back, they poured the hot wax on it. The pain made my body endlessly shiver and jump….”

 “Because there was not any good skin remaining on my body (after one night torture), the policemen started to shock my private parts with electric batons and pierced my penis. Afterwards they used an iron stick to smash my penis.  I passed out……”

“Police pushed the longest electric baton they could find into his bottom and gave his organs electric shocks. Liu Haibo died immediately on the site.”

 “…The head police then ordered inmates to jab her swollen vagina with the thorny end of a broken mop stick. This torture caused Ms. Wang's vagina to bleed profusely. Her abdomen and vagina were so swollen that she could not pull up her pants, or sit, or urinate. Ms. Wang still could not sit upright two months after the sexual torture. Her legs were also disabled. I also witnessed these inmates applying this same torture on a virgin….”

9.3 Clearwisdom and Other Falun Gong Reports

·      Quote from the TA2-27040, April 21, 2005 ruling by Judge Tom Pinkney of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Protection Division):

“In general, FG [Falun Gong] and Falun Dafa websites such as ‘Clearwisdom’ [a.k.a. Minghui] are credible in that they are consistent with what respected non-government organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report. While specific details are not easily verified because of ongoing human rights abuses by Chinese authorities, the FG websites and NGOs often provide credible and verified detailed reports.” 

* (original foot note number is 20) Supra, footnote 10, Exhibit R-7, items 2.3 and 2.2 respectively. (Copy of document available.)


·      Quotes from Falun Gong website Clearwisdom Net:

“According to incomplete statistics, within the past [seven] years beginning on July 20, 1999, more than 2898 practitioners have been verified as being tortured to death in over 30 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities. However, according to the government's official internal statistics, the actual number of practitioners who died after being arrested had reached 1,600 by the end of 2001. In addition, there are at least 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners who have been illegally sentenced to prison. Over 100,000 practitioners have been sentenced to forced labor camps. Thousands of practitioners have been forcefully sent to psychiatric hospitals to be tortured with injections that are damaging to the central nervous system. Large groups of Falun Gong practitioners have been forcefully sent to local brainwashing classes, where they have been subjected to both physical and mental torture. Many more practitioners have been severely beaten and had large sums of money extorted from them by so-called "law-enforcement officials." When large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners are beaten to death, injured, and their families are broken up, when they have to leave home and go from place to place because of the persecution, millions of Falun Gong practitioners' families, relatives, good friends and colleagues are also implicated and brainwashed to varying degrees.”[51]

“It is said that the Public Security Department had an internal communication on Oct 4, saying there will be about 10,000 people going to Tiananmen Square on Oct 5, all levels of police shall be alert for it. Practitioners arrested on Oct. 5 in Tiananmen Square were jailed in a drug-detox center in Beijing. Internal sources said those practitioners will later be sent to a newly built "Concentration Camp" for Dafa practitioners in Xinjiang province [a remote and isolated region].” [52]

“The guards at the Longshan Labor Camp in Shenyang City shocked 36-year-old Falun Gong practitioner Ms. Gao Rongrong's face and other parts of her body for nearly seven hours with electric batons, which severely disfigured her face.” [53]

·      Quotes from Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group:

“In June 2000, 18 female practitioners at the Masanjia Labor Camp were stripped naked and thrown into prison cells with violent male criminals who were encouraged to rape and abuse them. Practitioners were forced to stand naked in front of video monitors as a form of humiliation, and to stand naked in the snow for extended periods of time.

Female practitioners in the Masanjia Labor Camp are constantly subject to being stripped and shocked on their genitals with electric stun batons. They are sexually degraded and humiliated while being interrogated ­ all in an effort to force them to renounce Falun Gong.”[54]

“The laogai system [the system of “education and rectification through forced labor”] is a machine of corporate fascism. With no worry about the source and availability of slaves, the captive workforce is driven to the limit, regardless of whether the prisoners are sick, disabled from being beaten, or weakened by the intolerable conditions.

There is no living condition to consider in labor camps and detention centers, as any improvement in conditions will subtract from profit. Prisoners are simply treated as objects from which to extract the maximum amount of labor, to be released when half-dead, and replaced with new ones.”[55]

9.4 Persecution of Lawyers Defending Falun Gong Practitioners

·      Quote from the 2005 U.N. report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers:


“On 27 August 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent an allegation letter concerning the situation of Wei Jun, an attorney from the Baicheng law firm in Baise city, Guangxi province, who had allegedly been threatened an harassed for defending Liang Changying, a Falun Gong practitioner. Ms. Liang was sentenced to 5 ½ years in prison. After the court adjourned, the public prosecutor allegedly asked about the existence of a regulation stating that lawyers cannot defend Falun Gong practitioners who plead ‘not guilty.’ The same day Mr. Wei’s home phone, cell phone and office phone were put under surveillance, and several days later police officers asked the Judiciary Bureau to suspend Mr. Wei’s license to practice law and to sentence him to three years of forced labour. After the director of the Judiciary Bureau refused their request, the police reportedly warned Mr. Wei that in the future he would not be allowed to defend Falun Gong practitioners, and confiscated all of his materials regarding Ms. Liang’s case.” [56]


·      Lawyer Gao Zhisheng wrote to the National People’s Congress in December 2004 on behalf of his client Huang Wei, [57]  and in 2005 wrote three open letters to Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao calling for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong. [58] [59] [60] The Chinese authorities responded by threatening him and even making an attempt on his life.


“Gao Zhisheng has stated that he has been threatened and harassed by the authorities since October 2005, when he sent an open letter to the Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, urging them to respect religious freedom and end the 'barbaric' crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual movement in China. Gao Zhisheng claims that police officers have warned him that he has 'crossed the line' and put himself in a 'difficult position.' He was briefly detained by the police in Beijing on 13 January 2006, reportedly after he noticed police officers filming him. This prompted him to start filming the police himself, which led to him being detained. He claims police officers warned him while he was detained: 'You know if we wanted to kill you, it would be as easy as killing an ant!' [61]


·      Attorney Guo Guoting was detained and had his computer and law licence confiscated by the Shanghai Judicial Bureau for defending Falun Gong practitioners, human rights defenders, and others.


“Around 9 a.m. on February 23, 2005, more than 10 men from the Shanghai Law Bureau went to the office of Mr. Guo Guoting, an attorney of Tian-Yee Law Group, Shanghai City. They confiscated Mr. Guo's attorney's certificate and personal computer. Mr. Guo is one of a few attorneys who dare to help Falun Gong practitioners like Qu Yanlai, Chen Guanghui, Lei Jiangtao, Huang Xiong and other's who have different opinions from the Chinese government. Mr. Guo tried four times to visit practitioner Qu Yanlai who had been on a hunger strike for 780 days while in Shanghai Tilanqiao Prison, but he was refused. In early February 2005, he published the following article on the Internet to expose what happened to Falun Gong practitioners in prison. Mr. Guo also sent an application letter for practitioner Chen Guanghui to be released for medical treatment. Chen was tortured into a coma, in which he has remained since July 2004 in Suzhou Prison, Jiangsu Province.”[62]


9.5 Incitement of Hatred against Falun Gong


·      Quote from CNN News, July 29, 1999:

“Chinese authorities said that, since last week, they had confiscated or destroyed more than 1.55 million publications of the mystical sect. […] The ‘enemy of … civilization’ In Beijing, some 300,000 Falun Gong books were turned into pulp Wednesday, and more were to be destroyed throughout China, state media said. In Shanghai, authorities fed 45,000 books into a pulping machine Thursday at a ceremony led by city propaganda chief Jin Binghua, the newspaper Xinmin Evening News said.

State officials and media outlets have kept up a steady stream of attacks on Falun Gong. "Falun Gong literature is the enemy of science, civilization, atheism and dialectical materialism," said Gui Xiofeng, director of the National Anti-Pornography Office, which removes materials deemed offensive to the Communist Party. On television, former members are shown denouncing Li, and newspapers quote officials criticizing its doctrines. National TV newscasts have been expanded to a full hour from their usual 30 minutes and are devoted almost completely to attacks on the sect. Communist Party members, thousands of whom openly practiced Falun Gong before the crackdown, have been ordered to quit or be expelled from the party.”[63]

·      Quote from an Associated Press report, September 1999:

“AUCKLAND, New Zealand (AP) -- As China and the United States sought to mend recently damaged ties, President Jiang Zemin gave President Clinton an unusual gift: a book defending China's ban on a popular meditation sect. […] Titled "Li Hongzhi and His 'Falun Gong:' Deceiving the Public and Ruining Lives,” the book's 150 pages in English is a relentless barrage of propaganda from China's entirely state-run media. The book contains gruesome photographs of Chinese allegedly made so crazy by practicing Falun Gong that they committed suicide, were killed or mutilated their family members. It claims 1,404 people have died, mostly for refusing medical treatment as instructed by Falun Gong teachings. […] Documentation and attribution are sketchy”.[64]


·      Quote from a Chinese embassy news release, October 1999:


“In a written interview with the French newspaper La Figaro on October 25, 1999, Jiang said that according to incomplete statistics, Falun Gong has claimed the lives of more than 1,400 practitioners, with many others becoming insane and families ruined.”[65]


·      Quote from The Washington Post, November 1999:


“Jiang's concern over Falun Gong runs so deep that during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in New Zealand in September, he handed out a book attacking the group to many of the participants at the meeting, including President Clinton. The move stunned diplomats, reinforcing concerns that party leaders have become fundamentally divorced from everyday reality and that Jiang is either unwilling or unable to engage in substantive discussions with Western leaders.”[66]


·      An Associated Press article reports on the penalty for not adhering to the Chinese government’s propaganda campaign against Falun Gong, November 1999:


“As part of the crackdown, state media censors suspended the business license of the government-run Qinghai People's Publishing House in western Qinghai province for printing four books on Falun Gong in January, the official Xinhua News Agency reported today. It said ‘those responsible’ have been fired or demoted.” [67]


·      Quotes from Amnesty International, March 2000:


“The government banned Falun Gong on 22 July 1999 and launched a massive propaganda campaign to denounce its practice and the motivation of its leaders, in particular Li Hongzhi.  Since then, the government's accusations against the group have been repeatedly publicized by the state media and government officials.


Another important part of the government's propaganda campaign has been to publicize statements from people identified as former Falun Gong practitioners who denounce the Falun Gong movement and its leader, speak of the damage that the movement has brought to Chinese society, and praise the government for its firm action against the movement. Such denunciations, whose authenticity cannot be verified, are a typical feature of the political campaigns periodically launched by the authorities in China. These denunciations are encouraged by the authorities with promises that those who leave the "heretical organization" and perform ''meritorious service'' will not be punished.


Throughout China, local government authorities have also been carrying out "study and education" programmes to purge their provinces of Falun Gong practice. This can take the form of reading newspapers and listening to radio programmes, as well as having office cadres visit villagers and farmers at home to explain "in simple terms the harm of Falun Gong to them". ''Study and education'' can also be a euphemism for detention for ''re-education''. Numerous reports indicate that the authorities have used detention, fines, threats and other means to ''persuade'' followers to renounce their Falun Gong beliefs and practice.


According to information published by the government,(7) Falun Gong 'caused over 1400 deaths', most of which concerned people who died from illnesses allegedly because they refused medical treatment due to their Falun Gong beliefs. In the current climate of censorship and repression in China, this allegation cannot be independently verified. In view of the government's political crackdown and massive propaganda campaign against Falun Gong, the impartiality of the government's information is questionable. Furthermore, the information published by the government leaves many essential questions unanswered. It fails for example to demonstrate any direct connection between the alleged deaths and Falun Gong leaders or organizers. Under international law, criminal responsibility is determined case by case, on an individual basis. In the case of leaders or local organizers of Falun Gong who have been prosecuted on charges of ''causing deaths'', the government has not presented evidence of a direct link between the alleged deaths and the defendants. Nor has the government presented evidence that the defendants had full knowledge that the philosophy they were promoting might cause deaths. Evidence of this direct link and of ''knowledge'' is essential to determine criminal responsibility, but such evidence is lacking in these cases.


Furthermore, the government published this and other accusations as 'facts' before leading members of Falun Gong were prosecuted. In the context of the political crackdown on the movement, it instituted a presumption of guilt against those to be prosecuted. The official documents issued for the crackdown in themselves show that the judicial process was biased from the outset against the defendants. This violates international standards in several respects, notably the right of detainees to be presumed innocent until proven guilty through a fair and open trial by an independent tribunal. This also goes against new provisions introduced in Chinese law in 1996 to make the judicial process fairer.”[68]


·      Quote from a speech by Li Lanqing praising various government institutions  and segments of society for their participation in the persecution of Falun Gong:


“Among them, […] there are scientific workers who safeguard science and the truth, and bravely reveal and refute the crooked remarks by Li Hongzhi and the true nature of ‘Falun Gong’ as an evil cult;  there are news and propaganda workers who have been revealing the nature of the evil theories of Li Hongzhi and the true nature of ‘Falun Gong’ as an evil cult, giving timely reports on the struggle against the evil cult ‘Falun Gong’, and mobilizing the masses to resist the harm of the evil cults, and actively carrying out struggles in propaganda; there are diplomatic workers who have been actively explain the righteous and serious standpoint of our government on ‘Falun Gong’, introducing the true situation, and winning understanding and support from the international community, and carrying out tit-for-tat struggles against overseas organizations of the ‘Falun Gong’ evil cult; […]”[69]


·      In a CNN News report Willy Lam describes some of the methods Li Lanqing used to carry out the propaganda campaign against Falun Gong, June 2001:


“Moreover, anti-cult education campaigns will be held in schools, factories and government units in an apparent bid to generate a Mao-style mass movement against the Falun Gong.”[70]


·      A Xinhua News Agency report describes Li Lanqing’s support of the distortion and defamation of Falun Gong while visiting the anti-Falun Gong exhibition in Beijing, July 2001:


“He pointed out that this exhibition was organised very well.  With its lively and vivid form, it revealed the ugly nature of ‘Falun Gong’, which harms lives, tramples upon human rights, damages the rule of law, harms the society, betrayed the motherland, fabricates rumours to deceive people the world, and it helps cadres and the masses understand the true nature of evil cults and it arouses the people’s hatred towards ‘Falun Gong’, and make them value the stability and unity of the country.”[71]


·      Quotes from a Washington Post Foreign Service article, August 2001:


“The government's campaign against Falun Gong, launched in July 1999, struggled at first, hampered by uneven enforcement and a split between central government leaders, who viewed the group as a threat to the party's rule, and local officials, who did not. But over the past six months, China's security forces have regrouped and devised an approach they say is producing results.

That approach has three ingredients, according to another government adviser.

The first, he said, is violence. The crackdown has always been associated with police and prison brutality, but the adviser said it was only this year that the central leadership decided to sanction the widespread use of violence against Falun Gong members. Citing government reports, he said practitioners who are not beaten generally do not abandon the group.


The adviser said the second element, a high-pressure propaganda campaign against the group, has also been critical. As Chinese society turned against Falun Gong, pressure on practitioners to abandon their beliefs increased, and it became easier for the government to use violence against those who did not. The self-immolation of five purported members in Tiananmen Square on Jan. 23 was a turning point. A 12-year-old girl and her mother died, and the party made the incident the centerpiece of its campaign to discredit Falun Gong. By repeatedly broadcasting images of the girl's burning body and interviews with the others saying they believed self-immolation would lead them to paradise, the government convinced many Chinese that Falun Gong was an "evil cult."


Finally, the security apparatus has begun forcing practitioners to attend intense study sessions in which the teachings of the Falun Gong leader are picked apart by former followers. These brainwashing classes have been key to persuading members to quit practicing Falun Gong, the government adviser said.


"Each aspect of the campaign is critical," he said. "Pure violence doesn't work. Just studying doesn't work either. And none of it would be working if the propaganda hadn't started to change the way the general public thinks. You need all three. That's what they've figured out."”[72]


·      Quote from International Education Development’s statement at the U.N., August 2001:


“The government, in exercise of the right to reply, attempted to justify its State terrorism against the group by calling it an “evil cult" that has caused deaths and the break-up of families. In our investigation, the only deaths have been at the hands of the Chinese authorities; families have been broken up because family members have been killed by the regime; people have been broken down, not by Falun Gong, but by extreme torture, incarceration in mental hospitals with brutal treatment, hard labour in labour camps and other such practices. As was reported in the International Herald Tribune on August 6, 2001, the regime admits that it has officially sanctioned violence against practitioners in order to wipe out Falun Gong. The regime points to a supposed self-immolation incident in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001 as proof that Falun Gong is an "evil cult”. However, we have obtained a video of that incident that in our view proves that this event was staged by the government.”[73]

·      The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) received complaints in December 2001 when Chinese-language broadcaster Talentvision aired a CCTV news story on a man accused of killing his wife and father. The news item was typical of anti-Falun Gong materials produced by China’s state-controlled media. The CBSC ruling, issue May 2002, stated:

“The story, as broadcast, is tightly linked to the Falun Gong background of Fu Yi-bin, the alleged (and apparently self-confessed) murderer. It begins by identifying Fu Yi-bin in the first sentence of the report as "a Falun Gong follower". It concludes by stating that Fu had been "a caring and loving son and husband", which "changed when he started practicing Falun Gong in 1998." It then adds that his "[march] toward the edge of criminality" was the result of his being "spiritually controlled by Li Hong-zhi [the founder of Falun Gong] and the Falun Gong evil cult organization." The Panel considers that this approach to a news story is highly unusual and irregular. If in any news context, generally speaking, there were a link between any individual and a group or association, it would only be mentioned if it either assisted in identifying the individual in the mind of the public or established a causal relationship between the link and the event. […] The connection will not, however, be woven into every section of such a story, even where that news item relates to a criminal activity. Nor would such judgmental words as "evil" be used to describe a motorcycle gang or an organized criminal family.


It must also be admitted that it would be most unusual, in a North American judicial environment, to have an accused making such confessions in a television interview as Fu Yi-bin made on this news segment. […] The language in the sentence, his "[march] toward the edge of criminality" was the result of his being "spiritually controlled by Li Hong-zhi [the founder of Falun Gong] and the Falun Gong evil cult organization" is not journalism; it is nothing more or less than a biased attack on Falun Gong by the producer of that news item.


The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that Talentvision breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Code of Ethics and Violence Code and the Radio and Television News Directors Code of (Journalistic) Ethics in its broadcast of a news item on December 16, 2001. The Council has found that the news item relating to murders committed in Mainland China was unfair and improper in its method of linking the murderer to Falun Gong, as required by Article 1 of the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics and Clause 6, paragraph 3, of the CAB Code of Ethics. It also found that the repetitive use of video clips of the blood-soaked location of the murders constituted a breach of the requirement of broadcasters to use appropriate editorial judgment in the selection of video depictions and caution in the repetition of such footage, contrary to the requirements of Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the CAB Violence Code.”[74]

·      Quote from a January 2002 Human Rights Watch report:

“The means [Chinese leaders] use show . . . that they wanted to thoroughly discredit Falungong in the process of dismantling it and that they employed rule of law and justice rationales as a cover and as an excuse. . . . The charge that Falungong threatens the stability of China does not hold up . . .  Its claim that belief in Falungong is a public health menace is equally bogus. The danger to health comes from the treatment its practitioners receive at the hands of the police and prison officials.”[75]

·      Quotes from U.S. House Resolution No. 188 unanimously passed in July 2002:


 “Whereas Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China and elsewhere;


Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it;


Whereas propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination;


Whereas the campaign of persecution has been generated by the Government of the People's Republic of China, is carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society and every level of government in the People's Republic of China”[76]


·      Quote [translation] from a report from the website of China Police Report, December 2003:


“On the evening of December 23, 2003, a performance party with the theme ‘Promote Science and Be Against Cult’ that strengthen the construction of socialist spiritual civilization was held in Wuhan City police station assembly hall. Liu Jing, Chinese Communist Party Central Committee member and Deputy Minister of Public Security, He Zuoxiu, a famous scientist, and provincial and municipal leaders including Huang Yuanzhi, Chen Xunqiu, Li Xiansheng, Zhao Ling, Liu Shanbi, Cheng Kangyan, Yin Zengtao, Huang Guanchun, Wang Chengyu, Yang Xiangling, Hu Xukun and Liang Shoushu watched the performance. […] The primary intention for this performance evening party was to promote science, opposing evil cult, and push the whole city’s battle against ‘Falun Gong’ forward to a deeper degree.”[77]

·      The 2005 U.N. report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief:

“62. In addition, according to reports, a media campaign was launched against the Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners in June 1999.” [78]



Appendix 10. Names of the Dead


As of December 22, 2006, we have identified 3006 Falun Gong practitioners who died as a result of persecution.  These identified victims can be gathered into six groups. 


The fifth is the victims who died and were cremated in detention without the families ever seeing the bodies.  The sixth is the victims who died in detention but we do not have enough information to determine whether the families saw the bodies before cremation.


We can not exclude the possibility that the fifth and sixth group of the identified dead were also victims of organ harvesting.  This group numbers about 300.  The fifth group in particular raise suspicions.  Their names are listed below.




Case Number/


Source link


12 杨学勤

Yang Xueqin



15 李惠希

Li Huixi



18 王秀英

Wang Xiuying



19 梅玉兰

Mei Yulan



22 田世强

Tian Shiqiang


24 缪群

Miao Qun



26 李建斌

Li Jianbin


27 李再吉

Li Zaiji


32 龚宝华

Gong Baohua



34 夏卫

Xia Wei



35 余香美

Yu Xiangmei



39 邵世升

Shao Shisheng


45 张铁燕

Zhang Tieyan


56 郑君淑

Zheng Junshu


57 闫惠芹

Yan Huiqin



61 玄成喜

Xuan Chengxi



63 钟恒杰

Zhong Hengjie


71 崔媛媛

Cui Yuanyuan


72 石女士

Ms. Shi


75 古家红

Gu Jiahong


77 杨桂真

Yang Guizhen


81 孔庆黄

Kong Qinghuang



82 马艳芳

Ma Yanfang



88 柳连义

Liu Lianyi



90 孙瑞健 Sun Reijian



93 赵其英

Zhao Qiying



114 杨桂宝

Yang Guibao



124 王炎

Wang Yan



126 于文江

Yu Wenjiang



133 王先友

Wang Xianyou



136 大法弟子

A Practitioner



137 汤红

Tang Hong



138 房翠芳

Fang Cuifang


141 周凤林

Zhou Fenglin



143 朱华

Zhu Hua



144 大法弟子

A Practitioner



151 徐广道

Xu Guangdao



157 大法弟子

A Practitioner



160 一年轻女弟子 A young female practitioner



170 大法弟子

A Practitioner



177 张付珍

Zhang Fuzhen




179 丛玉娥

Cong Yue



185 陈德文

Chen Dewen



187 李莹秀

Li Yingxiu



188 胡秀英

Hu Xiuying



189 刘晓玲

Liu Xiaoling



192 李军

Li Jun



194 赖志军

Lai Zhijun



197 张女士



203 张生范


Zhang Shengfan


211 李学春

Li Xuechun


214 任金焕




218 陈家福


Chen Jiafu


219 宋延昭

Song Yanzhao


223 张文亚


Zhang Wenya


228 吴庆斌

Wu Qingbin


230 曾宪娥

Zeng Xiane


232 崔玉兰

Cui Yulan

236 杨瑞玉


Yang Ruiyu

239 陈秋兰

Chen Qiuhong

242 张维新


Zhang Weixin

243 王小忠


Wang Xiaozhong


248 张震中


Zhang Zhenzhong

249 王金龙


Wang Jinlong

251 李喜芳


Li Xifang

253 左淑纯


Zuo Shuchun

260 高梅


Gao Mei

270 李晶


Li Jing

273 杨妹


Yang Mei

274 韩胜利


Han Shengli


280 大法弟子

unknown name practitioner

283 武占瑞


Wu Zhanrui

287 单勇智


Shan Yongzhi


293 曾繁书


Zeng Fanshu


295 侯秀平


Hou Xiuping


301 李秀梅

Li, Xiumei (Chinese)



Qu, Junli (Chinese)


319 高雅

Gao, Ya (Chinese) (Chinese)



Yan, Xiuzhong (Chinese)


325 大法弟子

A practitioner (Chinese)


328 陈碧玉

Chen, Biyu (Chinese)

329 大法弟子

A Practitioner

335  刘健

Liu, Jian (Chinese)

336  丁文

Ding, Wen (Chinese)

340  黄仁成

Huang, Rencheng

342  刘少波

Liu, Shaobo (Chinese link only)

346 女大法弟子

A Female Practitioner (Chinese)

347 女大法弟子

A Female Practitioner (Chinese)

349  房立宏

Fang, Lihong

353  张光清

Zhang, Guangqing (Chinese)


359  赵凤花

Zhao, Fenghua (Chinese)

361 梁素云

Liang, Suyun (Chinese)

362  孟宪芝

Meng, Xianzhi (Chinese)

366 王筱莉

Wang, Xiaoli (Chinese) (Chinese)

375 大法弟子

A practitioner (Chinese) (Chinese) (Chinese)

378 大法弟子

A Practitioner (Chinese)

379  沈剑利

Shen Jianli (Chinese)

381  孙桂兰

Sun, Guilan (Chinese)

383  李建

Li, Jian (Chinese)

384  邹桂荣

Zou, Guirong (Chinese)

385 大法弟子

A practitioner (Chinese)


387  白爱香

Bai, Aixiang (Chinese) (Chinese)

392  郭萍

Guo, Ping (Chinese)

393  于立新

Yu, Lixin (Chinese)

394  杜宝兰

Du, Baolan (Chinese)


395 苗奇生

Miao, Qisheng (Chinese) (Chinese)



402 郝润娟

Hao, Runjuan (Chinese) (Chinese)


407  张秀玲

Zhang, Xiuling

408 芮晓林

Rui, Xiaolin (Chinese)

412 张晓春

Zhang, Xiaochun (Chinese)

413 匡素娥

Kuang, Sue (Chinese)


418  李新奇

Li, Xinqi (Chinese)

423  李女士

Ms. Li

425  王生贵

Wang, Shenggui

437 李晓今

Li, Xiaojin  (Chinese) (Chinese)

438  吴静芳

Wu, Jinfang (Chinese)

443 朴世浩

Piao, Shihao (Chinese)

445 饶卓元

Rao, Zhuoyuan (Chinese) (Chinese)

448  白秀华

Bai, Xiuhua

449  窦合军

Dou, Hejun (Chinese)


450  刘智

Liu, Zhi (Chinese)


452  王潺

Wang, Chan (Chinese)


454  刘丽云

Liu, Liyun (Chinese)

455 支桂香Zhi, Guixiang (Chinese)


458 张莉

Zhang, Li (Chinese) (Chinese)


460  刘桂华

Liu, Guihua (Chinese)

461  薛玉珍

Xue, Yuzhen (Chinese)

464 王淑琴

Wang, Shuqin

466 周玉玲

Zhou, Yuling (Chinese) (Chinese)


491  康瑞竹

Kang, Ruizhu (Chinese)

499  胡红跃

Hu, Hongyue (Chinese) (Chinese)

505  侯有芳

Hou, Youfang (Chinese)


509  杨桂琴

Yang, Guiqing (Chinese) (Chinese)


515 陈偶香

Chen, Ouxiang (Chinese) (Chinese)


517  毕云萍

Bi, Yunping

520  王洪刚

Wang, Hong'gang (Chinese)



521 宋兴国

Song, Xingguo (Chinese)

525  杨雪琴

Yang, Xueqin (Chinese)

526  王秀云

Wang, Xiuyun


(needs more detail) (Chinese)

528  管霖

Guan, Lin

533 王永成

Wang, Youcheng (Chinese)


538  于冠云

Yu, Guanyun (Chinese)

541 大法弟子

A Practitioner (Chinese)

542 大法弟子

A Practitioner (Chinese)

544  于天勇


Yu, Tianyong (Chinese) (Chinese)


548 杜桂兰

Du, Guilan (Chinese) (Chinese)


559  谈迎春

Tan, Yingchun (Chinese)

587  付志宇

Fu, Zhiyu (Chinese)

599  郭淑芬

Guo, Shufen

600 刘明克

Liu, Mingke (Chinese)

603 韩翠媛

Han, Cuiyuan

607 张志秋

Zhang, Zhiqiu


618 张晓茹

Zhang, Xiaoru


622 柏士花

Bai, Shihua

623 高淑华

Gao, Shuhua

626 杨滨

Yang, Bin


630 李建侯

Li, Jianhou


631 李淑敏

Li, Shumin


632 肖桂英

Xiao, Guiying


641 侯明凯

Hou, Mingkai


642 向学兰

Xiang, Xuelan

645 邹清雨

Zou, Qingyu

647 袁淑梅

Yuan, Shumei

656 朱银芳

Zhu, Yinfang


657 黄丽莎

Huang, Lisha



664 梅槛珠

Mei, Jianzhu


667 蔺志平

Lin, Zhiping

674 张守迁

Zhang, Shouqian


679 姚桂(贵)娇

Yao, Guijiao

683 周贺良

Zhou, Heliang


687 何文杰

He, Wenjie

688 周君

Zhou, Jun

689 李慧文

Li, Huiwen


690 孟姓大法弟子

Mr. Meng


691 白淑贞

Bai, Shuzhen


692 徐伟文

Xu, Weiwen


693 刘玉香

Liu, Yuxiang


695 颜少元

Yan Shaoyuan


698 贺万吉

He, Wanji

703 向绪林

Xiang Xulin


705 郭雅玲

Guo Yaling


706 徐云凤

Xu, Yunfeng

709 诸志勇

Zhu, Zhiyong


711 曹良义

Cao, Liangyi


712 女大法弟子

A Female Practitioner



714 王秀霞

Wang, Xiuxia



717 赵爱国

Zhao, Aiguo

720 王伟华

Wang, Weihua


721 李祖玲

Li, Zuling



725 黄克

Huang, Ke


726 刘德俊

Liu, Dejun


729 庄新成

Zhuang, Xincheng

730 白晓钧(小军)

Bai, Xiaojun

731 郭怀龄

Guo, Huailing

737 王志明

Wang, Zhiming


747 许继玲

Xu, Jiling

755 何学华

He, Xuehua

757 于吉兴

Yu, Jixing


760 吴垚

Wu, Yao

761 杨桂俊

Yang Guijun

No English translation found in Chinese part which is on the left

762 孙守琦

Sun, Shouqi

764 孟金城

Meng, Jincheng

769 李殿忠

Li, Dianzhong


780 于军修

Yu, Junxiu

781 邓果君

Deng, Guojun

783 周彩霞

Zhou, Caixia

784 郑丽波

Zheng, Libo


785 陆幸国

Lu, Xingguo


788 卢丙森

Lu, Bingsen

789 李儒清

Li, Ruqing


791 孙艳青

Sun, Yanqing

793 张晓东

Zhang, Xiaodong

796 宋永华

Song, Yonghua

797 汪继国

Wang, Jiguo

799 李钧

Li, Jun

803 陈昌发

Chen, Changfa


804 肖丕峰

Xiao, Pifeng

806 禤德琼

Xuan, Deqiong


807 李丽

Ms.Li, Li (Chinese Link)

822 李效元

Li, Xiaoyuan


828 陈桂君

Chen, Guijun


831 沈立之

Shen, Lizhi

833 郭计芳

Guo, Jifang


842 蒙潇

Meng, Xiao

847 刘明




848 王喜东

Wang, Xidong


853 宋世杰

Song, Shijie

866 孙发祥

Sun, Faxiang


869 赵旭东

Zhao, Xudong


881 张国庆

Zhang, Guoqing



883 谢采乐



885 孙玉华

Sun, Yuhua



926 李秦州

Li Qinzhou



933 王桂菊

Wang Guiju



939 潘建军

Pan Jianjun



971 陈晓芹


Chen Xiaoqin



972 何少怀

He Shaohuai



1010 王作殿

Wang Zuodian



1014 连平


Lian Ping



1025 韩立国

Han Liguo



1045 女大法弟子



1047 高连义

Gao Lianyi




1048 杨丽荣

Yang Lirong

no accurate English translation


1051 范学军

Fan Xuejun



1057. 潘其初

Pan Qichu


1096 周清田

 Zhou Qingtian



1111 娄艳

Lou Yan



1168 刘永奇

 Liu Yongqi



1174 赵文瑜

Zhao  Wenyu



1179 刘朝晖

 Liu Zhaohui



1185 马德轩


Ma Dexuan



1186 张春兰
Zhang Chunlan,



1415 王秋玲


Wang Qiuling



1317 徐书芬


Xu Shufen



1412 肖道明

Xiao Daoming




1348 张保旺


Zhang Baowang



1316 申宝平

Shen Baoping


1647 盖新忠GaiXinzhong

1684 安凤花

An Fenghua


1721 毛雅丽


1738 孙倩


1780 裴玉兰


1928 孙桂花SunGuihua

1954 刘孝照 LiuXiaozhao

1955 张继强 ZhangJiqiang


2021 郭显文  GuoXianwen


2113 张江


2139 林跃喜



2565 王学金

Wang Xuejin



2617 袁清江

Yuan Qingjiang



2620 刘春

Liu Chun



2625 李丽茂

Li Limao


2637 张燕

Zhang Yan



2645 大法弟子

A Practitioner



2656 秦清芳

Qin Qingfang



2657 袁素仙

Yuan Suxian



2677 王殿仁

Wang Dianren



2711 王仕泽

Wang Shize



2745 彭庚

Peng Geng



2776 陈建生

Chen Jiansheng



2790 刘植芳

Liu Zhifang



2798 叶莲萍

Ye Lianping



2799 廖友元

Liao Youyuan



2815 廖世凯

Mr. Liao, Shikai


2834 李宪明

Li Xianming



2841 王学军

Wang Xuejun



2846 朱云芳

Zhu Yunfang



2854 邓文杰

Deng Wenjie




2857 江炳生

Jiang Bingsheng



2866 吕蒙新

Lu Mengxin



2878 刘宏

Liu Hong



2882 刘德义

Liu Deyi



2895 张顺龙




2901 肖淑芬

Xiao Shufen



2905 吴虹

Wu Hong


2913 刘波一

Liu Boyi


2924 刘文丽

Liu, Wenli



2928 如小段

Ru Xiaoduan


2930 杨乾生

Yang Qiansheng



2955 牛德辉

Niu Dehui



2959 王贵斌

Wang Guibin


2963 曹化山

Cao Huashan


2975 赵师卿

Zhao Shiqing



2980 刘继荣

Liu Jirong



2981 张忠 ZhangZhong



2987 刘永春 LiuYongchun



2991 张桂芹

Zhang Guiqin



2995 史宝齐

Shi Baoqi




Appendix 11: Witness Statements on the Unidentified


1. Testimony of LUAN, Shuang, Melbourne, Australia


My name is Shuang Luan, I am a Falun Dafa practitioner from Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China. I am living in Melbourne, Australia now. On the 1st of January 2001, I went to Beijing and appealed for Falun Gong, with the hope of stopping the persecution of Falun Gong. For that, Beijing Police in Tian’anmen Square arrested me.


I found that a lot of other Falun Gong practitioners also went to appeal that day. The police forced me into a police van that was full of Falun Gong practitioners. We were taken to a temporary detention place where there were about 200 Falun Gong practitioners being held. Several hours later, the back door opened and armed military men pushed us into police cars. We were taken to No. 1 detention Centre in Chaoyang district of Beijing. We were forced to sit on the ground in the yard, there were about several hundreds of practitioners sitting there. Then they divided us into small groups. I was sent into a small cell, holding 27 people of which, 23 were Falun Gong practitioners. Later I heard that all the prisons and detention centres in Beijing were full because so many Falun Gong practitioners had been arrested during that time.


I was held for 22 days at this detention centre. The police officers kept asking us where we were from; but no one ever told them. The purpose of these officers was to send us back to where we came from, so that the local police could continue the persecution. The Beijing police couldn’t deal with such a large number of practitioners. Because we hadn’t done anything wrong, we didn’t cooperate with their demands. Every day we were interrogated.  One policeman said, "Why did so many practitioners come to Beijing? (Don't you know that ) the video surveillance cameras in Tian’anmen Square recorded everything? After 20 days of interrogation the police had learned nothing from us. After that, the police began their cruelty and summoned more police. Those who still wouldn’t tell their names were tortured. Falun Gong practitioners in my cell were tortured severely and some of them had their fingers nipped by pincers, and the faces of some were deformed from the beatings. There was one practitioner, who was severely beaten by 21 policemen (she would be brought back to the cell just a short time and then would be taken out to be beaten again. Police also worried that we might know her situation.) Practitioners still kept their mouths shut in spite of the severe tortures One time, a practitioner returned to our cell and told us that the police had threatened her by saying, “If you continue to refuse to tell us your name you will be sent to the North East.” (We did not know what that meant then.)  Just before the Chinese New Years a lot of practitioners were given code number and were taken away, with their belongings, during the night. We still don’t know where they were taken or where they are now.


Later I was deceived by police and ended up disclosing my name. Beijing police called the police in my hometown. Thus, I was taken back for on-going persecution.


2. Testimony of Mr. LI, Baoqing, Sydney Australia.

On January 9, 2000, I went to the Standing Committee of The People’s Congress, which is next to the Hall of People’s Congress at Tiananmen Square, to deliver my letter of appeal to Li Peng, Chairman of the People's Congress of Mainland China. In the letter I asked for Congress to stop persecuting Falun Gong. However, the gate guard called for the police who then took me to the Tiananmen Police Station and locked me in an iron cage. There were already over 10 Falun Gong practitioners detained there for the same reason. The room opposite the iron cage was where the police brought those Falun Gong practitioners who came to Tiananmen Square to appeal and registered their names, occupations, ages, addresses, their work units, their activities at Tainanmen, etc. Then, the police body searched the practitioners and pushed them into the iron cage to wait for the Beijing Deputy Office of The Public Security Bureau from other provinces to take them back to their respective provinces for further detention.

I arrived at 10 O’clock in the morning, more and more Falun Gong practitioners were brought in throughout the day. Most of them were young male practitioners and some were elderly or children. I could often hear the police shouting questions at practitioners and beating them, just to get practitioner’s names and addresses. We would then shout: “Stop beating people.”

As the number of detainees increased, the police supervision began to loosen a bit. We could then talk to each other secretly and the main topic was whether we should provide our names and addresses. I thought that as a practitioner, we should be dignified and we had nothing to hide, so why not report our names and addresses? Some other practitioners said that we came to Beijing to tell the government what is wrong and provide our opinion, so we should provide our real names and addresses.


As I was from Beijing and I am an elderly intellectual, everyone was willing to talk to me. A young man from Qinhuangdao City, Hebei Province said “Last time I came to Beijing, I reported my name straight away when asked by the police. As a result, I was sent home before I could do anything. This also affected my whole family; adults were fired from their jobs and children weren’t allowed to attend school, not to mention the fact that the police beat me. Nobody was happy with me. So this time, I am determined not to provide my name and address.”


A teacher from Guansu province or Xinjiang said: “It was not at all an easy thing for me to come to Beijing. I had to prepare for the long journey and had to go through various checkpoints at bus stations and train stations. So I wanted to do more when I arrived in Beijing. However, I was arrested immediately when I laid out the banner that said, “Falun Dafa is good” on Tiananmen Square If I provide my name and address, I will be sent back straight away, that would be very bad. So I just insisted on not reporting my name and address. I did nothing wrong, and eventually I will be released.”


One person with a Henan accent and a cadre-like appearance said: “The Chinese communist regime has linked Falun Gong with everything in society. When the city or province that Falun Gong practitioners found in Beijing are from is identified, that city or province will be in trouble. So I won’t provide my name and address to anyone for the sake of other people’s safety.


One person with a strong Shandong accent said: “The fact that we don’t provide our names and addresses is the result of the persecution. One man should be able to take full responsibility for his actions even if it means torture and beatings. If I report my name and address, it will definitely affect others. I have a strong accent; they would know where I come from once I opened my mouth, so I refuse to speak. I was able to maintain this despite the shouting and beatings; I just wouldn’t cooperate with them.”


I was transferred to the police station of the Asia Games Village in Beijing at around 2:00 PM that day. There were still about 50 Falun Gong practitioners inside the iron cage, apart from those who were already transferred elsewhere. A lot of them didn’t provide their names and addresses.


I have seen many Falun Gong practitioners who went to Beijing to appeal not revealing their names and addresses. This was completely a result of the persecution of the Jiang and Luo regime. This is indeed “a form of evil yet to be seen on this planet.”


3. Testimony of Ms. SHU, Junyan, 51, Perth, Australia

I was a Beijing local living in the Xu Wu District. I have been granted a protection visa by the Australian Government and am now living in Perth, Western Australia.

In October 1999, I was detained with 4 or 5 other practitioners in an unknown detention centre in Beijing after being arrested for “illegally gathering.” I and the other practitioners refused to reveal our identities for fear of to the CCP harming our work units or family members. However, one policeman from the detention facility said to us: "If you don't report your identities, there will be places to send you." And another policeman said to us: "If you don't report your names, you will never leave here." So eventually I gave my name.
However, a male practitioner who was not a Beijing local never revealed his identity when I was there and I do not know what happened to him. Also, prisoners told me about Falun Gong practitioners from other regions (outside of Beijing), who were being detained in other cells, also refused to reveal their identities.
I was detained several other times and each time I was recognized readily as I was arrested for practicing the exercises at my local practice site. So local police knew me.
In June 2000, I unfurled a banner on Tiananmen Square with 4 or 5 other practitioners. Before we went there, we all decided to not reveal our identities. After we were arrested and taken to the Tiananmen Police Station, one of the practitioners eventually revealed the group's identity and so I was transferred to my local police station. But before I left, I was taken into a room where I witnessed a female practitioner being tortured to reveal her identity. Practitioners who refused to reveal their identities would be tortured at that facility by having their hands handcuffed behind their backs.
It was very common for Falun Gong practitioners to refuse to reveal who they were. We often identified ourselves as "Dafa Disciples" or "Dafa Practitioners."

4. Testimony of Ms. CHEN, Hong, 42, Canberra, Australia


My name is Chen Hong and I lived in Ninghe County of Tianjin, China before I came to Australia.


While in China, I was arrested 5 times because I practice Falun Gong. On 25 April, 2000 I was illegally sentenced to one year of “education-through-labour” by Ninghe Branch, Tianjin Public Security Bureau.


I also remember that one day a female practitioner was sent to our labour camp. While talking with her, I noticed that her palms were dark and asked what had happened. She said that she was tortured with electric batons while being detained in an unknown place, along with a lot of other practitioners. In order for their families and workplaces no to be implicated, a lot of practitioners refused to say their names, including her. She was transferred to my labour camp because she couldn’t tolerate the torture and eventually gave her name.


I am very worried about the safety of those practitioners detained in that unknown place.


5. Testimony of Ms. LIU, Jinghang, 55, Sydney, Australia


My name is Liu Jinghang. I am a former associate research fellow in the Remote Sensing Application Research Institute of the Chinese Science Academy. Because I practice Falun Dafa, I was arrested by the communist regime six times. I was sentenced to three years in jail and detained in as many as 10 different places, during which time I came to know a lot of Falun Dafa practitioners who were severely tortured because they refused to provide their names and addresses to the police.

From June to November 2000, I was illegally detained at the detention centre of the Xicheng District Police Department in Beijing. During this period, a lot of Falun Gong practitioners were held there, and most of them refused to report their names and addresses. Around July 20th 1999, as there were too many female practitioners detained inside the women's cell, the police temporarily used a larger male cell to house women. I was transferred into this cell. Over 20 female practitioners were detained there; most of them were from outside Beijing. They didn’t provide their names and addresses. In less than two week, I was transferred back to cell 107 because the temporary cell was removed, but I don't know what happened to the practitioners who refused to give their names and addresses. The police numbered all the practitioners as "Falun Gong # xxx." After one or two weeks, each person was transferred out and then a new group of practitioners were brought in and assigned numbers.


In October, three Falun Gong practitioners in my cell (cell 107) identification labels with numbers greater than 200 as they also refused to provide their names and addresses. They told me that the reason they didn't report their names and addresses was that the CCP will persecute everyone associated with them, including their family members, relatives, and colleagues. These people might be fired or forced to quit school. As practitioners do not want to bring trouble to others, they refused to provide their names and addresses. I was greatly touched by their compassion.


There was a 20-year-old female practitioner with fair skin and a long braid. She was a painter. An officer tried to force her to paint his portrait and sign it. She did a quick Cartoon sketch instead and refused to sign her name. The officer became very angry and shouted at her: “How could you draw me like this and not provide your name?” The police beat and kicked her severely. In order not to implicate her family members, she still did not tell her name and address.


One day, she was called out of the cell and did not come back. I hoped she was released back home. But a person who was detained at the detention centre and had the chance to work outside the room said, "It is not possible. The police do not know her name and address. How could they send her back home? I saw the police handcuff her with another Falun Gong practitioner and take them away."


Another young healthy practitioner with a Northeast accent was beaten and kicked by the police as she refused to provide her name and address. She did this to help protect her parents and her work unit so that they wouldn't get into trouble. As there was no contact from her family, she couldn't receive any financial or material assistance from them. She had only one pair of thin trousers to wear in mid-October. One day when she was asked to pack her things up, I gave her a pair of inner wear.

From January 2001 to February 2003, I was detained at Beijing Juvenile Detention Centre. The centre was further divided into four prison divisions. I was locked up at the fourth division, ninth subdivision. During my time there, the Xicheng District Police Department in Beijing continuously transferred Falun Gong practitioners into this juvenile centre and used force to try to get them to renounce the practice.


In winter 2001, another group of five practitioners in their twenties were transferred into the Juvenile centre. As they held hunger strikes for several days in protest of their illegal arrest, they were in very poor health and couldn't walk. Other criminals in the prison had to carry them. They were constantly harassed, tortured by a group of perpetrators every day for the purpose of transforming them. The police still tortured them when they were very weak from not eating. The police named three of them according to the colour of their clothes. Little White fainted every other day; the police said they sent her to the police hospital (Binhe Hospital). Little Red and Little Black were also transferred elsewhere two days later, and their whereabouts are unknown. Group after group of Falun Gong practitioners were taken away to unknown places because they refused to report their names and addresses. Their whereabouts are not known and whether they are still alive or not is not clear. I believe this kind of Falun Gong practitioner is likely to be the victim of organ harvesting.


This is my testimony.



1. One policewoman in the detention centre of the Xicheng District Police Department in Beijing was surnamed Zhao and the other one was Su during my time there.

2.During my time at Beijing Juvenile Detention Centre, the perpetrators responsible for persecuting Falun Gong practitioners were Deputy Director Jinhua, head of the fourth prison division Huang Qinghua, and Zheng Yumei, head of the Ninth subdivision.


6. Testimony of Ms. ZENG, Jennifer Zeng, Australia (blood tested as well)


My name is Jennifer Zeng. I come from China. I graduated from Beijing University with a Master of Science degree. I came to Australia in 2001 and was granted refugee status in 2003.
I began to practice Falun Gong in 1997. After the crackdown on Falun Gong began, I was arrested four times and then sentenced without trial to one year of reform by labour in 2000.

Inmates of the labour camp were not allowed to exchange contact details, so there was no way to trace each other after we were released. When anyone disappeared from the camp, I would assume that she was released and had gone home. But in reality that cannot be confirmed, as I had no way to trace other inmates after my release.

While I was held in the detention house, unnamed Falun Gong practitioners would often arrive, be detained for a few days, and then disappear. On May 11, 2000 alone, 20-plus unnamed Falun Gong practitioners arrived at the labour camp. One of them was numbered D3. She was detained in the same cell as me. Twelve or thirteen days later she died as a result of force-feeding. We never did know her name, we only knew that she was 45 years old, and came from Heilongjiang province. I equally have no knowledge of the fate of all the other unnamed Falun Gong practitioners.

There were about 1000 inmates in the camp. Ninety-five percent were Falun Gong practitioners. Apart from long hours of forced labour, I suffered from inhumane physical torture, mental torture, and verbal abuse. I was forced to squat and stay motionless under the scorching sun when the temperature of the ground was over fifty degrees Celsius. The longest time I was forced to do this was fifteen hours. When I insisted on my right to ask for a review of my sentence I was beaten, dragged along the floor, and shocked with two electric batons until I lost consciousness. I was forced to stand motionless with my head bowed, looking at my feet for sixteen hours every day, while repeatedly reciting the labour camp regulations. If I failed to comply the police and the criminal inmates would shock me, curse at me, or force me to squat . As a Falun Gong practitioner, I was under endless pressure to sign a statement denouncing Falun Gong. This started as soon as I arrived at the labour camp. Criminal inmates, who were given the power to do anything they liked to me in order to make me sign, watched me twenty-four hours a day. Almost every day I was forced to watch and listen to negative propaganda that slandered and lied about Falun Gong. I then had to write “thought reports” to the police after each session.
 Because of and the constant anti-Falun Gong propaganda that was broadcast in regular society for several years, Falun Gong practitioners were feared and alienated.  This prevented us from gaining understanding from members of our families. Hostile attitudes toward Falun Gong practitioners existed everywhere in society.

7. Testimony of LI, Shuqiang, 41, Rome, Italy.


My name is Li Shuqing, a Falun Gong practitioner from Shenzhen city, currently living in Italy.


I went to Tiananmen Square in Beijing to clarify the truth on December 25, 2000. I told people Falun Dafa is good, and that it is righteous Fa. Officers of the Beijing public security arrested me.  Many practitioners did not reveal their names to the police, including me. We were numbered and sent to different detention centers. I was detained in Dongcheng Detention Center in Beijing.


On December 30 or 31, 2000, Falun Gong practitioners who didn't give their names were sent to Liaoning (including practitioners who were detained in other detention centers). About 75 vehicles, including buses, vans, and different kinds of cars, were used to transport us. All the roads were blocked along the way.  At Jinzhou city, we were sent to different areas in Liaoning province. About ten other practitioners and I were sent to a county detention center administered by Panjin city.


About 500 (just an estimate, not very accurate) practitioners were transferred at this time. It was said that before us, those who didn't report their names were sent to ShanXi. I and practitioners that I knew all reported our names after we were transported to Panjin. Then we were picked up by our local police and transferred to our local facilities. I was the second to last one to leave the detention center in Panjin. The last person had also revealed his name when I left.


I was transferred to Shenzhen re-education center (i.e. brainwashing class) and was detained there until September 2002.



8. Testimony of Ms. ZHU, Xiaoyan, Germany


In the noon of October 11, 34 Falun Gong practitioners (including my mother and I) were transferred from Tiananmen Square Police Station to Mentougou Detention Center located west of Beijing. After one afternoon’s isolated interrogation, 34 Falun Gong practitioners were all detained in the detention center; 13 of the female practitioners refused to tell their names and where they were from. These 13 people (including me and my mother) were detained in the same cell. Within a month, I was taken back to my hometown, Shenyang city, by staff from the Shenyang 610 office in Beijing and was continuously detained at Longshan Reeducation Center Brainwashing class in Shenyang city. My mother was brought back 10 days after me. 


I still remember 7 of the 11 Falun Gong practitioners who refused to tell their names.

1. From one woman’s accent I could tell she was from Shandong.  She was about 30 years old. I saw purple bruises on her legs, from the beating she received at the Tiananmen Square Police Station. She told us that her whole body was beaten really badly. During the time she was at Mentougou Detention Center she had a high fever. After 9 days of hunger striking, on October 20, she was recognized by one of her colleagues (who had come to Beijing looking for her) and was taken away.

2. One woman was from Siping city, Jilin province. I even remember she worked in medical affairs. She looked to be over 40 years old. After 5 days of being on a hunger strike, she was relocated to another cell. By the time I left there I hadn’t seen her again.

3. There was a person from Hainan province that we only knew as “Yani.” Eventually she was transferred to another cell after she had been hunger striking for 5.

4. Two others were from Dalian, and both were 29 years old. Later they were identified by the Dalian city judicatory bureau in Beijing and were taken away at approximately 11 pm one night.

5. I also remember an older lady from Sichuan province, probably in her sixties. She and her son had come to Beijing to appeal for Falun Gong. At the Tiananmen Square Police Station, the police had beaten her son in front of her and then beat her very heavily on her head. Consequently, she always felt dizzy. She was separated from her son by the police and didn’t know where he had been taken. I cannot remember exactly how the woman left Mentougou Detention Center; my recollection is that the police from her hometown picked her up.

6. There was another woman who had a Henan accent; I don’t quite remember where she went.

9. Testimony from Ms. CHE, Ying, Paris, France

Between February 2000 and March 2001 I was held at the Chaoyang Detention Centre in Beijing three times. I met many Falun Gong practitioners from all parts of the country there. They came to Beijing only to tell the government, “Falun Dafa is good! Falun Dafa has brought countless benefits and has not done an ounce of harm to society. We hope that the government can learn the truth and restore Falun Gong's good name!” These practitioners refused to tell their names after they were arrested. They had numbers put on their backs after arrived in the detention center. In the evening the guards called them out of the cell and interrogated them. It was obvious that they had been beaten. Those who told their names were kept in labour camps in Beijing, and many of those who didn't tell their names just disappeared!

During that time, the guards frequently would call the numbers of the practitioners late at night and tell them to pack up their things. We hoped that those practitioners were being released, but it didn't seem like that. The inmates said, “It is better to bring all your things. It seems that people are being sent to a place far, far away.” The practitioners were called again in the early morning at about 4:00 a.m. There was an emergency gathering in the yard. The guards were quite nervous and were fully armed. The guards returned after a quiet few days. I heard that those practitioners had been sent to a concentration camp that holds only Falun Gong practitioners.


I remember the guards said to us, “If you continue to practice, if you still don't tell your names, we will send you to an uninhabited desert that's isolated from the world. You will never be able to get out, and you can practice all you want over there!”


The guards and the inmates talked about the CCP building bases (concentration camps), in Xinjiang, Hebei, and Northeast China that were used just for detaining Falun Gong practitioners. They said, “Don't be stubborn by clinging to your practice! Otherwise you'll face a terrible situation if you are sent over there...”


10. Testimony of Ms. NA Gan, Toronto, Canada


My name is Na Gan and I’m a Falun Gong practitioner. For the past 7 years, I’ve suffered much by the inhumane treatment of the Chinese communist authorities. Just because I was persistent in defending my rights to have my belief, when I lived in China, I was arrested without a warrant, detained several times, and underwent unbearable torture both physically and mentally.


To give you some specific information, I am now sharing with you another disturbing experience.


From 2001 to 2002, I was held in a detention center during the Chinese New Year. During that time, the authorities detained lots of Falun Gong practitioners who went to Beijing to appeal. There were about 9 cells and each is supposed to hold about 20 people. Instead, 30-40 female Falun Gong practitioners had been crammed into them. Many were not local practitioners. In order to escape further persecution, of both themselves and their family members, many of practitioners did not tell their real names and where they were from. Each practitioner was identified with a 4-digit number. In each cell, at least 12 people were given a number. One night, I was awoken by some noises. All the Falun Gong practitioners who were numbered were being dragged out of the prison cells, and none of them came back.


In Feb. 2000, during my detention, I got to know a Falun Gong practitioner from Xinjiang Province. She mentioned to me that her husband and child were also Falun Gong practitioners, but she did not know their whereabouts after they were arrested. Two years later, I got in touch with her. I asked her if she had chance to contact her husband and son, she told me that she still had not found them.

11. Ms. ZHANG Shuhua, Japan
I was arrested and detained in Beijing Chongwen detention center between February and March of 2002 for 18 days.


I met 5 Falun Gong practitioners who did not reveal their names, one lady and 4 gentlemen.


Just before I left the detention centre, another female Falun gong practitioner who did not reveal her name was carried in.


I do not know what happened to any of them after I left.


12. Testimony of Mr. CHU, O Ming, Hong Kong

I am a Hong Kong resident. I was secretly sentenced to five years in prison for suing former leaders of the Communist regime, Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan for their illegal persecution of Falun Gong. I was tortured by different means, including being shocked by nine electric batons [tazers] simultaneously. Most of my teeth were knocked out. I witnessed other practitioners being tortured to disability or to death, including Mr. Jie Wang, who had also sued Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan. Eventually he was persecuted to death.


Since the Jiang regime began to persecute Falun Gong, many practitioners from other provinces continuously went to the Beijing Tiananmen Square, Appeals Office under the State Council, to appeal to the government. The majority of practitioners from other provinces didn’t want to reveal their names or where they were from. One practitioner just said that his name was Dafa. The reason for not revealing their identities is that if practitioners from other provinces reported their names in Beijing, their local police stations would be penalized, their managers from their workplaces would be penalized, and so would their family members. They would lose everything including housing, jobs, and benefits—the impact would be tremendous.

From what I saw, the majority of practitioners who went to Beijing to appeal to the government didn’t reveal their identities. I don’t know where they were sent to by the police officers.


When I was detained at Beijing Haidian Detention Center, I came across some Falun Gong practitioners who didn’t want to reveal their identities. They said that revealing their identities would only bring trouble.


In addition, at that time, every province had a liaison office set up in Beijing. When the persecution began, in order to arrest Falun Gong practitioners, many local police officers were deployed to the liaison offices so they could identify Falun Gong practitioners who had been arrested on Tiananmen and other places, by listening to their accents. When practitioners were identified, the police officers would escort them back to their home towns. Eventually they were sent to local detention centres, and then sentenced to labour camps.


Most of the practitioners from other provinces didn’t want to involve their families; many families didn’t even know that practitioners had gone to Beijing. If their families went to ask local police officers about the whereabouts of the missing practitioners, they would be cursed. The police officers would say, “If your relative is arrested, we will notify you.” So the practitioner’s families had nothing further to say.


13. Ms. CHEN, Jin, Malaysia

My name is Chen Jin. I am from Guangdong Province in China. I now have asylum under the United Nations. I was illegally sentenced to three and a half years in prison by Chinese authorities because of my belief in and spreading the facts about Falun Gong.

After July 20, 1999, many people who had benefited from Falun Gong went to Beijing to appeal to the government on its behalf. From 1999 through 2002, every day a large number of people went to Tiananmen Square and the Appeals Bureau in Beijing to appeal to the authorities. These practitioners, carrying nothing but a peaceful hope, were arrested and taken to the local police station. As a practitioner, I also went to Tiananmen at the end of 1999. At the time, plainclothes and uniformed police were everywhere. I was picked up and forced into a police van that was filled with other practitioners. We were taken to a local police station. A few dozen practitioners were locked in a big cage, while more practitioners were being pushed in. The police interrogated them in small batches, mainly wanting to get their names and where they were from. Most practitioners would not reveal their names because they thought they would be sentenced to prison or forced labor if they did. I do not know where those who refused to identify themselves were sent. I saw over a hundred practitioners that day who would not disclose their identities.

On April 17, 2001, the national security bureau and the local police arrested me because I was spreading the facts about Falun Gong.

In jail I met a practitioner who would not disclose her name. She probably didn’t get out of there alive.

In September 2001, I was held in Hall #37 in Zhuhai City Jail. There were three female halls connected to each other. It had been peaceful until that day. I could hear cursing and shouting from the guards in Hall #35, followed by the sound of inmates being beaten. It was very noisy. Listening closer, I knew that a practitioner who would not disclose her identity (later the police and other inmates called her “No-name”) had arrived. I also knew that she was on a hunger strike in protest. There were two other practitioners in the hall that I was in, one named Zhang Qingyun, the other Wang Zhijun. After a quick discussion among ourselves, we yelled: “Stop persecuting Falun Gong practitioners!” Things calmed down the next day. Two to three months later, an inmate named Ahong came to our hall. After we became familiar with each other, she told me things about “No-name.” She said: “Since you yelled at the police, No-name was moved to Hall #14, lest she affect Li Chunyan (who was a student from Tsinghua University, also in Hall #35). She kept on with her hunger strike. The police tortured her with a method called “ride the airplane.” A few others and I were asked to monitor her. After her hunger strike, the police opened another hall (Hall #34) and put her there to make it easier to the “administration” of her. This is what Ahong told me at that time.

During the Chinese New Year 2002, the guards sent me to post some pictures at each female hall, since I had been an art teacher. I went to Hall #34. At first I did not know who was “No-name.” A good-looking lady of about 30 brought me a chair. It was a very ordinary thing to do, but immediately a few inmates pushed her away, and the head of the inmates warned me not to talk to her. I sensed right away that she was “No-name,” so I watched her more closely and got an impression of her. Around June 2002, I heard from other inmates that “No-name” had been let out. I thought that she had been released.

In November 2002 I was sent to Shaoguan Prison in Guangdong Province. Because I refused to declare that I was a criminal, I was put in solitary confinement for a month. Afterwards I was put in Team #14, where Ahong happened to also be. The shower facility in the prison was an open room big enough for over 100 people. It was a market-like atmosphere during shower time. Because of our past relationship, Ahong looked for opportunities to chat with me. I asked her about “No-name.  I knew that Ahong’s family was rather well-off financially and often bribed the guards, including one female guard named Ms. Wu. Ahong called Ms. Wu “Aunt Wu” and was often called out to chat with her. The guards unwittingly let Ahong in on some news. I asked Ahong if “No-name” had been allowed to return home. Ahong said that because she did not disclose her name, they could not sentence her to forced labor or a prison term, and she was indeed sent out and not in jail anymore. But Aunt Wu was certain that “No-name” had not been sent home, but rather had been sent to a “special place.” Ahong said with a sympathetic tone: “You are quite lucky. You will be released when your term is up. Aunt Wu told me that “No-name” probably would never get out of the place to which she had been sent.” I thought she was referring to the local brainwashing center and therefore did not pay much attention.

I was released in October 2004. I was not allowed to go home because I had not been "transformed". The 610 Office in Zhuhai City sent me directly to the local brainwashing center. I did not see "No-name" there. On December 25, Christmas Day, I was temporarily released to my family because I was extremely weak. At home No-name's mother was introduced to us. She brought a photo with her that I recognized right away. Her mother told me: “My daughter’s name is Yuan Zheng. She came here to see me right after she was released from Masanjia Forced Labor Camp. She went to Tiananmen Square in September 2001 and has not returned since.” I told her that her daughter had been brought to the jail in September 2001. I also shared with her the things that Ahong told me. I told her to go to the 610 Office to ask for Yuan Zheng's release. Later, I met her a few more times. She wanted me to go and visit the 610 Office with her, but I was preparing to escape from China at the time and did not want to get into trouble; so I did not go. I kept looking for information about Yuan Zheng after I came abroad, especially after the news about the CCP’s organ harvesting broke out. I kept contacting Falun Gong practitioners in China, but uncovered no news on Yuan Zheng. I am concerned about her safety. Perhaps she was killed for her organs.


Appendix 12. Names of the Missing









Appendix 13. Blood Testing of Falun Gong Prisoners


Sample Cases: Blood Testing and Physical Examinations Conducted
on Large Numbers of Falun Gong Prisoners

(Submitted by Falun Gong Practitioners)
There are many practitioners’ accounts recalling that many Falun Gong practitioners were forced to submit to physical examinations and medical testing while in custody. These included eye examination; examination of the liver, heart, and other organs; blood pressure checking; blood and urine testing; and even electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG) and ultrasound assessment.
Under the brutal conditions in Chinese labour camps, prisons, and detention centres, where torture and vicious beatings are routine and rampant, it is reasonable to believe that such examinations and testing were not done for the benefit of the practitioners’ health or well being.
These circumstances indicate that Chinese officials have been gathering medical information from Falun Gong practitioners. These facts also support the allegations that the communist regime has been systematically building up a large-scale bank of organ suppliers composed of living Falun Gong prisoners.


Case 1: Testimony of Paris resident Ms. Ying Chen, France[79]


“I was illegally detained three times and was forced to submit to a physical exam each time. I didn't understand why we had to have physicals done.  The guard's answer was, ‘It's a routine process.’  The way they conducted the exam made me feel that they were not doing it out of consideration for my health but instead they wanted to get something specific from the results.”


“One week after I was detained the second time, the guards called me out and put heavy handcuffs and shackles on me.  One practitioner who had also refused to tell her name was likewise handcuffed and shackled.  The guards put us into a car.  Arriving at the destination, we saw a hospital.  It was strange to me that the hospital was very quiet.  The guards took us through a thorough examination, including heart, EKG, blood tests, and eye exam.”

Case 2: Testimony of Mr. Xiaohua Wang, Montreal, Canada

In January 2002, while I was being persecuted at the 5th Brigade of Yunnan Labour Camp #2 (also named Yunnan Spring Wind School), the Camp Hospital (equivalent to a county hospital) unexpectedly conducted a comprehensive physical examination of every Falun Gong practitioner.  The tests included electrocardiograms, whole body X-rays, liver and kidney checks, blood tests, etc.  This kind of physical examination didn’t ever happen to non Falun Gong practitioners in the camp.


Case 3: Testimony of Toronto, Canada resident Ms. Na Gan


From April 6 to September 6, 2001 I was illegally detained in XinAn Labour Camp where they specifically detain female Falun Gong practitioners.  There were about 7 “teams” of practitioners.  I was in the 5th team, which had about 125 Falun Gong practitioners and 5 or 6 non-practitioners.  During this 5-month detention, I underwent a comprehensive physical examination, as did all other detained Falun Gong practitioners.  We were taken to a nearby police hospital by armed guards.  The physical examination included blood tests, X-Rays, urine tests, eye examination, etc.  This was not normal in the labour camp.  I was wondering what they intended to do.  We were treated so badly in the camp, why were they so suddenly interested in the state of our health?


Case 4: Testimony of Ms. Yuzhi Wang, Vancouver, Canada

Between 2000 and the end of 2001, the Chinese communist regime abducted me three times.  I spent most of that time in labour camps.  In the labour camps 20 to 50 people were squeezed into a room of about 15 square metres.  It was very crowded.  We could sleep only on our sides, pressed together like sardines. I went on a hunger strike after my request to be released unconditionally was refused. For this, I was brutally force-fed many times.

After more than 100 days of hunger striking and force-feeding, I felt dizzy even when lying down. I was tormented both mentally and physically and my eyesight was failing. People from the “610 Office”—the government institution established on June 10, 1999, specifically to persecute Falun Gong practitioners—took me to four hospitals in Harbin City for comprehensive physical examinations between October 2001 and April 2002.  The four hospitals were:  Harbin Public Security Hospital, No. 2 Hospital of Heilongjiang Province, No. 1 Hospital of Harbin City, and No. 2 Hospital of Harbin City.  At each hospital, blood samples were taken. They told me my blood type was AB, which is quite rare.  I was beaten severely because I resisted the examinations.  The police ordered the doctors to inject unknown substances into me, which caused me to lose consciousness.

I waited for the final health exam results at Harbin No.1 College Hospital.  The doctor said all hospitals suspected that my organs had problems.  It was decided that my body was “useless.”  In order to treat my illness, the hospital demanded about 50,000 yuan from my family.  However, the “610 Office” suddenly lost interest in me when the doctor said I would be a “walking dead person” even if I recovered.  Finally, I managed to escape from the hospital.

Case 5: Testimony of Ms. Huagui Li, St. Louis, USA

In 2001, starting from July, I was unlawfully imprisoned in Sanshui Women's Labor Camp in Guangdong Province for eight months, for no more than clarifying the truth to the public.  There were four sections in the labor camp, and practitioners were detained in the No. 2 Section.  Around October 2001, Sanshui Women's Labor Camp carried out a full physical examination on all Falun Gong practitioners, including hearts, X-rays and ultrasound scans, etc.  Not too long afterwards, some doctors came to the working area (where practitioners were used for slave labor) to examine the practitioners' blood pressure.  Practitioners who refused to take the checkups were cursed by the police, saying they did not recognize it as a privilege that inmates in other sections (non-practitioners) did not have.  It means other inmates (non-practitioners) were not examined.  But at that time, we did not think too much about it.

Case 6: Testimony of Xuefei Zhou, now in Atlanta, USA[80] 


“In 2003 I was detained in Brigade Two of the Sanshui Women's Labor Camp in Guangdong Province.”


“At that time we were divided into two groups to go through medical examination.  I was in the second group.  As soon as we were brought to the hospital inside the camp, the police closed the doors of the hospital.  Then dozens of doctors in military uniforms showed up.  The atmosphere was very tense.  Falun Gong practitioners were asked to go through each item on the medical examination form, one of which being blood samples.”


“There were five or six practitioners among the second group who were very determined and who successfully rejected the check-up.  I was one of them.  Several of us stood against the wall, with people assigned to monitor us standing next to us.”


Case 7: Testimony of a practitioner in Mainland China[81]


“In November 2001, I went to Tiananmen Square to validate the Fa but was arrested and detained in the Xicheng Custodial Station in Beijing.  About 20 other very determined Falun Dafa practitioners and I (we were all about 30 years old) refused to tell our names and went on a hunger strike to protest the illegal detention.  During that time, the staff in the Custodial Station forcibly drew blood from the practitioners for testing and analysis.  The prison doctor ‘praised’ me quite a few times.  She said, ‘Number 322 is in the best health.  Among all your people your physique is the best.  You have gone through so much, but you are still so healthy.’”


“I was 32 years old at that time and weighed about 130 kilos.  I belonged to the standard healthy type.  The prison guards and the doctor threatened us by saying, ‘If you insist in not telling your names and not eating, you will be sent to the far northwest where the prisoners on death row are detained, grow trees, and maintain the forests.  Nobody would know where you were.’”


“By this time the Custodial Station had detained another group of Falun Dafa practitioners that had gone to Beijing to appeal, were not telling their names, and were on a hunger strike.  They were all in their 20s and 30s.  The staff in the Custodial Station force fed them every day and treated them rudely.  They drew blood from them for testing and analysis and also collected urine from them for testing.  I refused to be tested.  There was a female doctor nearly 50 years old who said, ‘We feed you well and do not starve you.  We want you to be in good health.’  They did not release us, but they were very concerned about our health.”


“Once the doctor said that they must do the urine test. If we did not want to do it, they would force us to do it.”


“The Custodial Station is a good supply base for organ matching. The procedures they use to examine the practitioners like taking blood, testing urine, and physical examinations are all the part of the whole process necessary for organ matching. Healthy and strong practitioners thus become their targets.”


Case 8: Testimony of a practitioner in Mainland China[82]


“After learning about the Sujiatun incident, I recalled my experience in October 1999 when I was detained in a brainwashing center in Xingezhuang, Dingxing County, Baoding City, Hebei Province.  During that time, some doctors were brought in to give us medical examinations.  When we heard about this, we were very puzzled.  The staff there beat and abused us, using every possible means to torment us.  How come they wanted to have us go through a medical examination?  They first asked to take some blood from us.  We felt that our blood was precious because of improvements through cultivation, so we refused.  They then asked each person if we had any diseases.  We said no.  Then they asked what diseases we had before we practiced Falun Gong, saying that a certain type of disease needed a blood sample to be diagnosed.  This way, by using deceit, they were able to take blood from some people.  They also measured everyone's blood pressure and checked our health.”


“When it was my turn, they also checked my eyes.  I told them I was full of illnesses before I practiced Falun Gong.  When I mentioned a certain type of disease I had, they didn't want to draw my blood anymore.  Now looking back, they did not care about us at all, but were trying to find suitable organs from us for transplant.”


Case 9: Testimony of a practitioner in Mainland China[83]


“In July and August 2000, He and Yang, group heads at the Wuhan City Drug Rehabilitation Center transported more than twenty Dafa practitioners illegally incarcerated at the Rehabilitation Center in two vehicles to the Wuhan City No. 1 Hospital.  This is the designated hospital for labor camps and detention centers.  The practitioners were taken there for a physical exam for all in the group.”


“According to a fellow practitioner who was present, it seemed like a physical exam for the guards, but they mixed the practitioners with the guards to also be examined.  Someone said the government allocated between 10,000 yuan and 20,000 yuan for the exams.  It is estimated each exam cost around 400 yuan.  The practitioners were not made to pay for these exams.  By contrast, people have to pay grossly inflated prices, several times higher than market price, at the labor camp for medicines for a slight illness.  This group physical exam was very suspicious.”


“All routine exams were conducted at the time, including liver exam, other organs, EKG, eye exam, blood pressure, testing for infectious diseases and B-ultrasound, among others.”


Case 10: Testimony of a practitioner in Mainland China[84]


“We were then taken to the Huairou County Detention […]  The body check then began.  During the first check-up, female guards pulled off all our clothes, claiming to see whether there were any Falun Gong banners and materials, but actually it was to check our skin.  Then the guards took us to another room, where a doctor asked for my name and age.  I did not answer her, and she wrote ‘40-year-old,’ then asked me whether I had any type of kidney or liver disease, and checked my eyes and heart.”


“At that time I felt very uneasy. During the seven days I was detained, I was interrogated and beaten up daily, but they never beat on my internal organs.  They slapped my face, hit my hands and feet with wooden sticks, or physically punished me in the posture of flying an airplane.  I remember once when a tall and fat policeman hit my back.  He measured the hitting area with his hands, and told the shorter one on his side which parts could be beaten and where it could not be beaten.  On another occasion, because I was on hunger strike, I was called to see a chief surnamed Tang.  This wo