Uncovering Violations: Human Rights Review of Regions under China

The Fourth Universal Periodic Review of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) underscored grave and persistent concerns regarding human rights conditions across regions administered by the PRC, including violations faced by Tibetans, Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, Hongkongers and democracy advocated and human rights defenders in China. The review documented widespread restrictions on freedom of expression, religion, movement, and association; arbitrary detention and torture; the erosion of cultural and linguistic rights in ethnic minority regions; and the growing reliance on national security and counterterrorism frameworks to suppress peaceful dissent. Despite repeated recommendations by member states calling for the release of arbitrarily detained individuals, an end to forced assimilation, forced labor, family separation, and discriminatory national security laws, serious human rights abuses persist in Tibet and other regions under PRC rule.

Coercive governance has increasingly been institutionalized through state-led labor and security policies against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims. A December 2025 report by Uyghur Rights Monitor documents how the Xinjiang Aid program operates not merely as a development initiative, but as a mechanism of coerced labor and cultural transformation. Through a pairing assistance system, cadres, capital, and industries are embedded in Uyghur-majority areas, while Uyghur workers are uprooted and dispersed across China through state-imposed labor transfers framed as “employment” and “poverty alleviation.” These practices result in forced displacement, family separation, and systematic assimilation, effectively transforming the region into a “labor export hub.”

Religious repression in Uyghur regions remains among the most severe globally, driven by intensified enforcement of the policy of “sinicization of religion,” which subordinates belief and practice to Party ideology. Uyghur Muslims continue to face imprisonment for routine religious activities alongside pervasive surveillance and intimidation. Similar patterns are evident in Tibet, where Tibetan Buddhism is subject to expanding state interference through restrictions on monastic life, religious education, and expressions of devotion.

The revised Regulations on the Management of Tibetan Buddhist Temples, in force since January 2025, further institutionalize political control over Tibetan Buddhism by mandating ideological compliance, political education, and administrative oversight of religious study and movement. These measures have intensified mass expulsions, surveillance, and population caps at major monastic institutions such as Larung Gar, the demolition of religious structures in areas including Drakgo, and the targeting of senior religious figures, reinforcing a broader strategy of cultural and religious assimilation.

Religious repression in mainland China follows the same coercive logic. Authorities continue to target unregistered Protestant house churches through raids and arrests, detaining clergy, and congregants on vague charges such as “fraud” and “subversion.” The long- standing campaign against Falun Gong has also intensified, marked by coordinated mass arrests based on pre-compiled lists and disproportionately targeting elderly practitioners and women. These practices reflect a nationwide pattern of criminalizing religious belief outside state-sanctioned institutions.

Enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention remain central tools of repression in “Inner Mongolia,” particularly against activists, writers, educators, students, and herders opposing assimilation policies. Prominent cases include the prolonged disappearance of veteran rights advocate Hada following years of extrajudicial detention, alongside the disappearance or death under surveillance of dissidents such as Huuchinhuu and the unresolved detention of indigenous activist Sodmongol. These practices escalated following the 2020 protests language policy reforms, during which thousands were reportedly arrested, placed under house arrest, or disappeared for defending their linguistic rights.

In Hong Kong, national security laws have been used to dismantle political opposition, civil society, and independent media, marking a profound erosion of the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. Since the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020, Beijing’s expansive concept of national security has been embedded into Hong Kong’s legal system, enabling the exclusion of pro-democracy figures from elections, the criminalization of peaceful protest, and the prosecution of dissent through both local and mainland jurisdictions. By 2025, hundreds of individuals had been arrested under national security charges, including 47 pro-democracy activists convicted of subversion in 2024, with average sentences exceeding five years.

High-profile cases such as that of media publisher Jimmy Lai, who spent nearly three years in pre-trial detention and now faces the possibility of life imprisonment on fabricated charges of foreign collusion, underscore the targeting of press freedom. The passage of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance in March 2024 further expanded offenses and penalties following limited public consultation, while the establishment of a national security hotline, mass arrests, and the disbanding of civil society and religious organizations have entrenched a climate of surveillance, self-censorship, and repression that continues to unfold.

In Dege County in eastern Tibet, monks and villagers opposing a hydropower dam that threatens monasteries, villages, and sacred sites were subjected to mass detentions following peaceful protests in early 2024, with senior monks from Yena Monastery later sentenced in June 2025 on vague charges such as “disturbing social order,” alongside reports of torture in custody. More recently, in Kashi village in Sershul County, Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Tibetan residents were arrested in November 2025 following the discovery of an illegal gold-mining operation after raising concerns about environmental damage and the absence of community consultation, and subsequent security operations that involved door-to-door arrests, enforced disappearances, and a communications blackout.

The repression of Tibetans is further reinforced by an expanding legal architecture that embeds ideological conformity into law, exemplified by the draft Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress submitted to the National People’s Congress in September 2025. Framed as advancing unity and development, such legislation legitimizes political re-education, mandates the promotion of Mandarin, and enables state intervention in language use, education, and cultural expression, thereby suppressing distinct ethnic and religious identities. Similar misuse of vague and expansive legal provisions is evident in Uyghur Region, where national security, counterterrorism, passport, and exit and entry laws are routinely invoked to justify mass surveillance, arbitrary detention, and severe restrictions on Uyghurs’ freedom of movement. Under broadly defined concepts such as threats to “national security” or “national interests,” Uyghurs face discriminatory passport confiscations, travel bans, collective punishment of family members, and constant monitoring, in clear violation of international human rights norms, including the right to leave and return to one’s own country.

Reports emerging from regions across China substantiate the findings of the Fourth Universal Periodic Review and underscore the consequences of China’s rejection of key recommendations. Far from demonstrating equality or inclusion, state policies pursue the systematic assimilation of ethnic populations into a Han-centric national identity while sustaining structural discrimination. Large-scale development and security initiatives imposed without meaningful participation further entrench marginalization, surveillance, and displacement, serving state and corporate interests rather than affected communities. By persecuting individuals and communities for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, religion, movement, assembly, press, and association, the PRC violates its commitments to the international community, including its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the protections guaranteed under its own Constitution.