Who is affected?
Since 2019, thousands of people in Hong Kong—students, journalists, peaceful protesters, and everyday citizens—have been arrested for speaking out or standing up for democracy. People have been jailed just for holding signs, organizing rallies, or sharing opinions online. Shockingly, many of the judges and prosecutors involved in these trials hold British citizenship or British National (Overseas) passports—while helping to crush the very freedoms the UK claims to support.

This repression has not been confined to Hong Kong. It has expanded overseas through acts of transnational repression. Hong Kong authorities have issued arrest warrants and monetary bounties against exiled Hong Kong activists living around the world for their peaceful expression abroad. At the same time, innocent family members remaining in Hong Kong have been detained, interrogated, and in some cases criminally prosecuted by national security police.

In May 2024, the United Kingdom government criminally charged three individuals for allegedly receiving funds from the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office to surveil and track Hong Kong dissidents residing in the UK, confirming that elements of this repression have taken place on British soil.

自2019年起，已有成千上萬名香港人——包括學生、記者、和平示威者、普通市民——僅因表達意見、舉牌、組織集會或在網上發言就被捕入獄。令人震驚的是，參與這些審訊與判刑的部分法官和檢控官竟然持有英國護照或英國國民（海外）BN(O) 身分——他們一邊享受自由社會的權利，一邊幫助打壓別人爭取自由。鎮壓更升級到海外，多名流亡世界各地的香港人因為在不同國家的和平表達被香港政府懸紅通緝，無辜的家屬亦被國安警察帶走甚至作出刑事檢控。英國政府於2024年5月，刑事起訴3人涉嫌收受香港經貿辦資金跟蹤異見人士。

(Source: AP News)

What’s at stake?
This is not just a local injustice. It is a betrayal of international values. Judges who benefit from UK citizenship and the protections of a free society are using their power to silence others who want the same rights. If this hypocrisy continues, more innocent people will be punished, and authoritarian regimes everywhere will be encouraged to use foreign legal figures to legitimize repression. This erodes trust in the rule of law worldwide.

這不只是香港的問題，更是對全球民主與法律價值的背叛。這些擁有英國國籍的法官，本應捍衛法治與人權，卻選擇成為獨裁打壓的工具。如果這種虛偽與不公持續下去，不但更多無辜者將被迫害，更會鼓勵世界各地的極權政權用類似方式打壓異見，令整個國際社會對「法治」二字失去信任。

(Source: The Economists, Number of Political Prisoners in Hong Kong from Jun 9th 2019 to Mar 11th 2022)

 

Why act now?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) can act. It has the power to investigate crimes committed by nationals of States Parties lsike the UK. Some of the crimes against humanity alleged here were carried out by Hong Kong officials through actions that violated the sovereignty and laws of other States Parties. These judges are not above international law. If we delay, the repression will deepen and spread. By demanding accountability today, we stand up not only for the people of Hong Kong—but for justice everywhere.

Beyond the ICC, international justice does not stop at The Hague. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, national courts may prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and torture regardless of where the crimes were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. We have already seen this principle invoked in different parts of the world to hold powerful officials accountable.

If we delay, repression will deepen and spread. Accountability is not vengeance; it is prevention. By demanding justice today, we stand not only for the people of Hong Kong—but for the integrity of international law and the protection of humanity everywhere.

國際刑事法院（ICC）有權調查屬於締約國國民（如英國）的嚴重罪行，部分反人類罪行更是香港官員採取侵犯他國主權的方式在締約國犯下。這些持有英國國籍的法官與官員，不應成為法律之外的特權者。如果我們現在不行動，迫害只會加劇。今天我們站出來，不只是為了香港，也是為了全球正義與良知。

更重要的是，國際刑事責任並不限於海牙。根據「普遍管轄權」原則，一些國家法院都可以對種族滅絕、反人類罪、酷刑等國際核心罪行提起刑事訴訟，不論犯罪地點或被告國籍。這意味著，當本地司法失效，國際法仍然存在出口。

如果我們現在不行動，迫害只會擴大與制度化。追究責任不是報復，而是阻止下一場悲劇。今天站出來，不只是為了香港，更是為了捍衛國際法的底線，以及全人類的尊嚴與良知。

Five Hong Kong teenagers sentenced in first security case involving minors​

Rise of the Patriots: Hong Kong - BBC World Service Documentaries

Over the past few years, a group of Hong Kong judges and prosecutors—many of whom hold British citizenship or BN(O) status—have played a central role in dismantling the city’s freedoms. They enforced politically driven laws, including the National Security Law and colonial-era sedition statutes, to imprison peaceful protesters, journalists, artists, students, and pro-democracy politicians. These officials denied bail to dissenters without trial, convicted for attending peaceful rallies, criminalized slogans and children’s books, and redefined basic speech as “subversion” or “incitement.” Instead of safeguarding justice, they used their legal authority to silence opposition and help legitimize a system of fear. Their actions are not only violations of human rights—they are crimes committed by individuals who should be held accountable under international law.
過去幾年來，一群香港的法官與檢控官——其中許多人擁有英國國籍或英國國民（海外）身分——在摧毀香港自由的過程中扮演了核心角色。他們執行具政治動機的法律，包括《港區國安法》與殖民時代的煽動罪條文，將和平示威者、記者、學生、藝術創作者與民主派人士送入監牢。這些官員不經審訊便剝奪被告保釋權，將參加和平集會視為犯罪，把標語、童書甚至社交媒體貼文定性為「煽動」或「顛覆」。他們本應守護法治，卻利用法律職權打壓異見，讓恐懼成為制度。他們的行為不僅違反人權，更可能構成國際刑事罪行，應接受追究與審判。

 

The acts include but are not limited to:

Article 7(1)(e) — Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law

• The mass arrest, detention and imprisonment of protesters, political activists, former legislators, journalists and others by reason of the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and political participation.
• The systematic denial of bail under the reverse presumption in Article 42(2) of the HKNSL, resulting in the prolonged pre-trial detention of political defendants, in many cases for years before or without trial.
• The misuse of a child-welfare mechanism to detain uncharged minors: during the 2019 protests the police repeatedly applied for Care and Protection Orders under the Protection of Children and Juveniles Ordinance (Cap. 213) against minors who had not been charged with any offence, resulting in the detention of children — including a 13-year-old held for 27 days and restricted from contacting her family before a magistrate rejected the application.
• The systematic refusal of bail in national-security cases, in which bail was denied in approximately 89 per cent of cases, with an average period of pre-trial detention of 11 months.

 

Article 7(1)(f) — Torture

• The intentional infliction of severe physical and mental suffering on persons in the custody or control of the authorities, including beatings causing serious injury at the San Uk Ling Holding Centre and elsewhere.
• The prolonged solitary confinement of certain detained persons.

 

Article 7(1)(g) — Rape or other forms of sexual violence

• The subjection of persons in custody to rape and other forms of sexual violence of comparable gravity, including the sexual violence perpetrated against the complainant referred to as Ms X.
• The sexual assaults and forced strip-searches reported in connection with the San Uk Ling Holding Centre. The victims of such conduct included minors.
• Sexual and penetrative violence perpetrated by, or with the collusion of, State agents against young persons in custodial settings, including an assault at the Pik Uk Correctional Institution in which a correctional officer, acting with inmates, assaulted an 18-year-old remand prisoner by inserting a wooden stick into his rectum, causing permanent injury. 

 

Article 7(1)(h) — Persecution against an identifiable group on political grounds

• The systematic dismantling of political opposition and civil society by reason of the political opinion of those targeted.
• The intentional denial of fair-trial rights to political defendants, including the assignment of designated judges, the removal of trial by jury, restrictions on the right to counsel of one's own choosing, and the absence of institutional judicial independence in national-security proceedings.
• The programme of transnational repression directed at exiled members of the group — arrest warrants and public bounties, "specified absconder" measures, and coercive reprisals against their family members.
• The direction of the criminal process against protected conduct: an analysis of concluded national-security cases found that approximately 85 percent involved only the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression that should not have been criminalised, supporting the inference that prosecution was directed at persons by reason of their political opinion.
• The coercion of an identifiable group of young persons through the sustained threat of prosecution: the cases of approximately 7,000 persons arrested during the 2019 protests but never charged have been kept open for up to seven years under a conditional non-prosecution scheme, conditioned upon participation in "re-education" and political-assimilation programmes and stated to lack any legal basis.

 

Article 7(1)(k) — Other inhumane acts

• The disproportionate and potentially lethal use of force against civilians during the 2019 protests, including live ammunition, close-range and point-blank shootings, the deployment of chemical agents in enclosed and confined spaces, and deliberate vehicular attacks, intentionally causing great suffering and serious injury to body and to mental and physical health.
• The systematic denial of adequate medical care to injured and detained persons.

 

涉嫌的罪行包括但不限於：

《羅馬規約》第7條第1款（e）項——違反國際法基本規則的監禁或其他嚴重剝奪人身自由

• 香港當局因示威者、政治活動人士、前立法會議員、記者及其他人士行使言論自由、和平集會及政治參與等基本權利，而對其進行大規模拘捕、羈押及監禁。
• 《香港國安法》第42條第2款所確立的保釋反向推定，被系統性地用於拒絕政治案件被告保釋，導致大量被告在審訊前遭長期羈押，部分人士更在受審前被還押多年，甚至長時間未獲審訊。
• 當局涉嫌濫用原本旨在保障兒童福利的法律機制，拘留未被控以任何刑事罪行的未成年人。2019年示威期間，警方多次根據《保護兒童及少年條例》（第213章）向法庭申請「照顧或保護令」（Care and Protection Orders），令尚未被刑事起訴的未成年人遭到拘留。其中包括一名年僅13歲的女孩，她被拘留長達27日，期間受到與家人聯絡方面的限制，直至裁判官最終拒絕有關申請。
• 在國家安全案件中，拒絕保釋已形成系統性現象。相關分析顯示，約89%的國安案件被告曾遭拒絕保釋，而審前羈押的平均時間約為11個月。

《羅馬規約》第7條第1款（f）項——酷刑

• 當局對處於羈押或控制之下的人士故意施加嚴重的身體及精神痛苦，包括在新屋嶺扣留中心及其他羈押場所實施毆打，造成嚴重身體傷害。
  部分被拘留人士被長期單獨囚禁，造成嚴重的身心痛苦。

 

《羅馬規約》第7條第1款（g）項——強姦或其他形式的性暴力

• 羈押中的人士曾遭受強姦及其他嚴重程度相當的性暴力，其中包括被稱為「X女士」的申訴人所遭受的性暴力。
• 多名人士亦曾報告在新屋嶺扣留中心遭受性侵犯及強迫脫衣搜身，而有關受害者當中包括未成年人。
• 年輕人士在羈押環境中亦曾遭受由國家人員實施、參與或串通的性暴力及侵入式暴力。其中一宗發生於壁屋懲教所的案件涉及一名18歲還押人士，一名懲教人員在其他囚犯參與下，以木棍插入受害人的直腸，造成永久性傷害。

《羅馬規約》第7條第1款（h）項——基於政治理由對可識別群體的迫害

• 香港當局因被針對者的政治立場或政治見解，而有系統地瓦解政治反對力量及公民社會。
• 政治案件被告被有意剝奪公平審訊保障，包括由指定法官審理國家安全案件、取消陪審團審訊、限制被告自行選擇律師的權利，以及國家安全案件中缺乏充分的制度性司法獨立保障。
• 對流亡海外的民主派人士及政治異見人士實施跨境鎮壓，包括發出拘捕令及公開懸紅、採取「指明潛逃者」措施，以及對被針對人士的家屬施加脅迫及報復。
• 刑事司法程序被用於針對本應受到保障的政治表達。對已審結的國家安全案件所作分析顯示，約85%的案件僅涉及合法行使言論自由、而本不應被刑事化的行為。這進一步支持一項合理推論：有關檢控的對象，是因其政治見解或政治表達而被針對。
• 約7,000名在2019年示威期間被捕、但從未被正式起訴的人士，案件多年來一直懸而未決，使他們長期處於可能被檢控的威脅之下。當局其後推行一項具條件的「不起訴」安排，要求參與所謂「再教育」及政治同化性質的計劃，作為免被檢控的條件，而有關安排亦被指缺乏法律依據。這種長期維持刑事檢控威脅的做法，對一個可識別的年輕政治群體形成持續性的脅迫。

《羅馬規約》第7條第1款（k）項——其他不人道行為

• 2019年示威期間，當局對平民使用不成比例且可能致命的武力，包括使用實彈、近距離及貼身開槍、在封閉及狹窄空間內施放化學制劑，以及故意以車輛撞擊他人的行為，造成巨大痛苦，以及嚴重的身體傷害和精神與身體健康損害。
• 受傷人士及被拘留人士被系統性地拒絕獲得充分和適切的醫療照護。

 

The following individuals are among those suspected of direct participation or command responsibility for the alleged crimes:

涉嫌危害人類罪行的主要涉案人士：

(香港行政長官; Chief Executives of Hong Kong) John LEE Ka-chiu (李家超)
(保安局局長; Secretary for Security) Chris TANG Ping-keung (鄧炳強)
(法官; Judge) Roberto Alexandre Vieira REBEIRO (李義)
(法官; Judge) Joseph Paul FOK (霍兆剛)
(法官; Judge) Frank STOCK (司徒敬)
(法官; Judge) Patrick CHAN Siu-oi (陳兆愷)
(法官; Judge) Amanda Jane WOODCOCK (胡雅文)
(法官; Judge) KWOK Wai-kin (郭偉健)
(法官; Judge) CHAN Kwong Chi, Stanley (陳廣池)
(法官; Judge) CHAN Hing Wai, Andrew (陳慶偉) 
(法官; Judge) LEE Wan Tang, Alex (李運騰)
(法官; Judge) CHAN Jong Herng, Johnny (陳仲衡)
(法官; Judge) LAW Tak Chuen, Peter (羅德泉)
(法官; Judge) SO Wai-tak, Victor (蘇惠德)
(法官; Judge) Susana Maria D'Almada Remedios (李素蘭)

 

Detailed Information 詳細資料