A/HRC/19/58 General allegations Summary of the general allegation 147. Information was submitted from sources concerning reported obstacles encountered in the implementation of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in the People’s Republic of China. This information was transmitted to the Government on 21 September 2011, after the Working Group’s ninety-fourth session. 148. Sources reported that proposed revisions to the Criminal Procedure Law will legalise enforced disappearances in the country. It was reported that the draft law, if enacted, would allow State organs, when they suspect someone of involvement in terrorism, state security, or major corruption, to detain this person in an ad hoc location of their choice for up to six months and keep this detention secret should they argue that notifying relatives might ―impede‖ the investigations. 149. It was further reported that the authority nominally in charge of controlling the application of this measure is inadequate, as the controlling authority—―the immediately superior level of the People’s Procuratorate or the public security organ‖—is the same as the one that imposes the measure, only one hierarchical level up. Further, it was reported that in cases of corruption – they are investigated by the Procuratorate, not by the Public Security Bureau and thus the Procuratorate would therefore be in the position of supervising itself. It was further alleged that the Communist Party’s Political and Legal Committees are in charge of ―coordinating‖ (xietiao) the activities of the Public Security Bureau, the Procuratorate, and the Courts and that these Committees are generally headed by the head of the Public Security Bureau and handle all politically sensitive cases. It was reported therefore that in practice a decision to put someone in secret detention would have been taken by the Political and Legal Committee, with the Public Security Bureau as the implementer and the Procuratorate and the Courts assisting their work, not controlling it. 150. It was further reported that there are no meaningful relief procedures for the duration of the secret detention as a suspect detained in a place unknown to him/her and without the possibility of communicating with anyone else besides the person’s captors. Thus the person would be unable to contest his/her detention. 151. It was also alleged that the risk of torture and ill-treatment would be considerably heightened if the law was enacted as permitting such detentions for up to six months in secret locations outside of any regulatory system is likely to lead to widespread abuses. It was also reported that there is a high risk of law enforcement agencies abusing the measure, if it comes into force, given the current practice of detaining critics and dissidents, including a number of lawyers, in secret locations. It is feared that law enforcement agencies might be tempted to use this measure in ordinary criminal cases to circumvent the more onerous procedural requirements mandated by the ordinary law. 152. No response was received from the Government regarding this general allegation during the reporting period. Information from the Government 153. The Government transmitted a communication on 4 September 2009, which could not be translated in time for inclusion in the 2009 and 2010 annual reports (A/HRC/13/31 and A/HRC/16/48). It concerned two outstanding cases and the information provided was not considered sufficient to lead to their clarification. Its content is as follows: ―Receipt is hereby acknowledged of communication No. G/SO 271 CHINA from the Chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Enforced Disappearances. The Chinese Government has carefully looked into the matter referred to in the communication and wishes to make the following reply: 1. Concerning Gao Zhisheng. Gao Zhisheng is an 37