Launch ICC Investigation over Crimes Against Humanity Committed by Hong Kong Officials
The Issue
Who is affected?
Since 2019, Hong Kong’s repression has reached across generations and professions: students and children, journalists and editors, elected representatives, peaceful protesters, and ordinary citizens. This research documents allegations of political imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, prolonged solitary confinement, and persecution. The consequences include interrupted education, destroyed livelihoods, separated families, and lasting physical and psychological harm.
The violence of 2019 is central to this account. The research examines police beatings, the firing of live ammunition at protesters, the use of tear gas in enclosed spaces, and allegations of torture and sexual violence in custody, including against minors. It also examines the Yuen Long attack of July 21, 2019, when armed men assaulted civilians, alongside evidence concerning police non-intervention and possible State acquiescence. These events require investigation as potential components of the wider attack alleged in this report.
The institutions entrusted with protecting the public are themselves central to the allegations. The research examines how police, prosecutors, judges, and prison authorities have allegedly contributed to a sustained system of persecution. When arrest, prosecution, adjudication, and imprisonment operate together to punish peaceful political expression, those targeted face a State apparatus capable of taking away both their freedom and their means of seeking protection.
Leaving Hong Kong does not necessarily end the danger. Overseas activists face arrest warrants and public bounties, while relatives remaining in Hong Kong have faced questioning, detention, and, in some cases, prosecution. The threat follows people into exile and places pressure on entire families. Its message is unmistakable: crossing a border will not necessarily put you beyond the authorities’ reach.
誰受到影響？
自2019年以來，香港的鎮壓已波及不同世代與職業：學生與兒童、記者與編輯、民選代表、和平示威者，以及普通市民。本研究記錄涉及政治監禁、酷刑、性暴力、長期單獨囚禁及迫害的指控。其後果包括學業中斷、生計被摧毀、家庭離散，以及持續的身心創傷。
2019年的暴力是本研究的重要部分。研究涵蓋警察毆打、向示威者發射實彈、在封閉空間施放催淚氣體，以及羈押期間涉及酷刑與性暴力的指控，受害者亦包括未成年人。研究同時分析2019年7月21日元朗襲擊事件，包括持械人士襲擊平民，以及涉及警方未有介入和國家可能默許的證據。這些事件必須受到調查，以釐清它們是否構成本報告所指控的整體攻擊的一部分。
本應保護公眾的機構，本身正是這些指控的核心。本研究分析警察、檢控官、法官及懲教人員如何涉嫌共同維持一套持續運作的迫害制度。當拘捕、檢控、審判與監禁相互配合，用以懲罰和平的政治表達，受害者面對的，就是一套既能剝奪其自由、亦能堵塞其求助途徑的國家機器。
離開香港，亦未必意味着脫離危險。海外活動人士面對拘捕令及公開懸紅，留港親屬則遭到問話、拘留，部分更被刑事檢控。威脅延伸至流亡生活，並向整個家庭施壓。這所傳遞的訊息十分明確：即使跨越國境，也未必能擺脫當局的控制。
What’s at stake?
The central allegation of this research is that the violence, imprisonment, and persecution form a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, amounting to crimes against humanity. Accountability requires scrutiny of the entire machinery: who designed it, who directed it, who knowingly enabled it, and who carried it out.
The alleged use of legal institutions to sustain persecution makes the situation especially grave. When courts and prosecutors become instruments of repression, victims can lose the very safeguards meant to protect them from abuse. A judicial robe cannot erase individual responsibility. An official order cannot settle the question of legality. Conduct must be assessed against international criminal law, regardless of the titles of those involved or the power of the government they serve.
The stakes extend beyond Hong Kong. Transnational repression threatens the safety of people seeking refuge abroad and their freedom to speak in the countries where they live. Failure to confront it risks encouraging authorities to export coercion, intimidate overseas communities, and use relatives as instruments of pressure.
The response will test whether international accountability can reach officials backed by a powerful State. The evidence must receive serious scrutiny, and those responsible must face accountability where the law permits. For the people affected, delay can mean another year in prison, another family separated, or another voice silenced by fear.
問題有多嚴重？
本研究的核心指控是：這些暴力、監禁與迫害構成針對平民人口的廣泛或有系統的攻擊，達到反人類罪的構成標準。追究責任，必須審視整套機器：誰設計、誰指揮、誰明知而協助，以及誰實際執行。
法律制度涉嫌被用來維持迫害，使問題尤其嚴重。當法院與檢控機關成為鎮壓工具，受害者便可能失去原本應當保護他們免受侵害的制度保障。司法袍不能抹去個人責任，官方命令亦不能決定行為是否合法。無論涉事者擁有甚麼頭銜、其效力的政府有多強大，相關行為都必須接受國際刑法的審視。
問題亦超出香港。跨國鎮壓威脅在海外尋求庇護者的人身安全，以及他們在居住國發聲的自由。不正視這些行為，可能鼓勵當局將脅迫輸出境外、恐嚇海外社群，並利用親屬作為施壓工具。
國際社會如何回應，將考驗問責機制能否觸及背後有強大國家支持的官員。證據必須得到認真審查，責任人亦必須在法律容許的情況下受到追究。對受影響的人而言，拖延可能意味着多一年的牢獄、多一個家庭離散，或再有一個聲音因恐懼而沉默。
The ICC must confront the question of accountability
The International Criminal Court must take allegations against Hong Kong officials seriously. If its commitment to accountability means anything, it must apply the same legal standards to officials serving Beijing as it applies to anyone else. Political power cannot substitute for a legal defense. Judicial office cannot excuse participation in international crimes.
China’s non-membership in the Rome Statute does not end the jurisdictional inquiry. This research identifies potential nationality and territorial connections that warrant serious examination by the Office of the Prosecutor. Where an alleged perpetrator holds the nationality of a State Party, or a legally sufficient part of an alleged crime occurs on a State Party’s territory, the Court must assess those connections on their merits. Beijing’s influence is no answer to a valid jurisdictional basis.
The demand is clear: examine the evidence, verify the relevant nationalities and territorial connections, and pursue an investigation where the Rome Statute’s requirements are met. If the Prosecutor concludes that those requirements are not satisfied, that conclusion should rest on a reasoned application of the law. The Court’s credibility depends on whether it applies its principles consistently when powerful governments are implicated.
Accountability also extends beyond The Hague. Although outside this report’s scope, the UN Convention against Torture provides a separate framework under Articles 5(2) and 7: a State Party must establish jurisdiction where an alleged offender is present in territory under its jurisdiction and, if it does not extradite that person, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
Hong Kong’s victims deserve a serious legal response. The ICC should demonstrate, through its handling of the evidence, that international justice does not retreat before Beijing.
國際刑事法院必須正視問責問題
國際刑事法院必須認真對待針對香港官員的指控。如果法院對問責的承諾具有實質意義，就必須以同一套法律標準，審視為北京效力的官員與其他任何人。政治權力不能取代法律抗辯，司法職位亦不能成為參與國際罪行的藉口。
中國並非《羅馬規約》締約國，並不代表管轄權問題就此終結。本研究指出若干潛在的國籍及屬地連結，值得檢察官辦公室認真審查。如果涉嫌犯罪者具有締約國國籍，或被指控罪行中足以構成屬地管轄基礎的部分發生於締約國領土，法院就必須根據法律及事實評估這些連結。北京的影響力，不能否定有效的管轄權依據。
我們的要求很清楚：審查證據，核實相關國籍及屬地連結，並在符合《羅馬規約》要求時推進調查。如果檢察官認為相關要求未獲滿足，這一結論應建立在有理據的法律分析之上。當指控涉及強大政府時，法院能否貫徹一致的原則，正是其公信力的試金石。
問責亦不止於海牙。儘管此途徑不在本報告的討論範圍內，聯合國《禁止酷刑公約》第5(2)及第7條提供了另一套追責框架：當涉嫌犯罪者身處締約國管轄的領土內，該國必須確立管轄權，並在不引渡該人的情況下，將案件提交主管機關，以便進行起訴。
香港的受害者理應得到嚴肅的法律回應。國際刑事法院應透過處理證據的實際行動，證明國際司法不會在北京面前退縮。
1,125
The Issue
Who is affected?
Since 2019, Hong Kong’s repression has reached across generations and professions: students and children, journalists and editors, elected representatives, peaceful protesters, and ordinary citizens. This research documents allegations of political imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, prolonged solitary confinement, and persecution. The consequences include interrupted education, destroyed livelihoods, separated families, and lasting physical and psychological harm.
The violence of 2019 is central to this account. The research examines police beatings, the firing of live ammunition at protesters, the use of tear gas in enclosed spaces, and allegations of torture and sexual violence in custody, including against minors. It also examines the Yuen Long attack of July 21, 2019, when armed men assaulted civilians, alongside evidence concerning police non-intervention and possible State acquiescence. These events require investigation as potential components of the wider attack alleged in this report.
The institutions entrusted with protecting the public are themselves central to the allegations. The research examines how police, prosecutors, judges, and prison authorities have allegedly contributed to a sustained system of persecution. When arrest, prosecution, adjudication, and imprisonment operate together to punish peaceful political expression, those targeted face a State apparatus capable of taking away both their freedom and their means of seeking protection.
Leaving Hong Kong does not necessarily end the danger. Overseas activists face arrest warrants and public bounties, while relatives remaining in Hong Kong have faced questioning, detention, and, in some cases, prosecution. The threat follows people into exile and places pressure on entire families. Its message is unmistakable: crossing a border will not necessarily put you beyond the authorities’ reach.
誰受到影響？
自2019年以來，香港的鎮壓已波及不同世代與職業：學生與兒童、記者與編輯、民選代表、和平示威者，以及普通市民。本研究記錄涉及政治監禁、酷刑、性暴力、長期單獨囚禁及迫害的指控。其後果包括學業中斷、生計被摧毀、家庭離散，以及持續的身心創傷。
2019年的暴力是本研究的重要部分。研究涵蓋警察毆打、向示威者發射實彈、在封閉空間施放催淚氣體，以及羈押期間涉及酷刑與性暴力的指控，受害者亦包括未成年人。研究同時分析2019年7月21日元朗襲擊事件，包括持械人士襲擊平民，以及涉及警方未有介入和國家可能默許的證據。這些事件必須受到調查，以釐清它們是否構成本報告所指控的整體攻擊的一部分。
本應保護公眾的機構，本身正是這些指控的核心。本研究分析警察、檢控官、法官及懲教人員如何涉嫌共同維持一套持續運作的迫害制度。當拘捕、檢控、審判與監禁相互配合，用以懲罰和平的政治表達，受害者面對的，就是一套既能剝奪其自由、亦能堵塞其求助途徑的國家機器。
離開香港，亦未必意味着脫離危險。海外活動人士面對拘捕令及公開懸紅，留港親屬則遭到問話、拘留，部分更被刑事檢控。威脅延伸至流亡生活，並向整個家庭施壓。這所傳遞的訊息十分明確：即使跨越國境，也未必能擺脫當局的控制。
What’s at stake?
The central allegation of this research is that the violence, imprisonment, and persecution form a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, amounting to crimes against humanity. Accountability requires scrutiny of the entire machinery: who designed it, who directed it, who knowingly enabled it, and who carried it out.
The alleged use of legal institutions to sustain persecution makes the situation especially grave. When courts and prosecutors become instruments of repression, victims can lose the very safeguards meant to protect them from abuse. A judicial robe cannot erase individual responsibility. An official order cannot settle the question of legality. Conduct must be assessed against international criminal law, regardless of the titles of those involved or the power of the government they serve.
The stakes extend beyond Hong Kong. Transnational repression threatens the safety of people seeking refuge abroad and their freedom to speak in the countries where they live. Failure to confront it risks encouraging authorities to export coercion, intimidate overseas communities, and use relatives as instruments of pressure.
The response will test whether international accountability can reach officials backed by a powerful State. The evidence must receive serious scrutiny, and those responsible must face accountability where the law permits. For the people affected, delay can mean another year in prison, another family separated, or another voice silenced by fear.
問題有多嚴重？
本研究的核心指控是：這些暴力、監禁與迫害構成針對平民人口的廣泛或有系統的攻擊，達到反人類罪的構成標準。追究責任，必須審視整套機器：誰設計、誰指揮、誰明知而協助，以及誰實際執行。
法律制度涉嫌被用來維持迫害，使問題尤其嚴重。當法院與檢控機關成為鎮壓工具，受害者便可能失去原本應當保護他們免受侵害的制度保障。司法袍不能抹去個人責任，官方命令亦不能決定行為是否合法。無論涉事者擁有甚麼頭銜、其效力的政府有多強大，相關行為都必須接受國際刑法的審視。
問題亦超出香港。跨國鎮壓威脅在海外尋求庇護者的人身安全，以及他們在居住國發聲的自由。不正視這些行為，可能鼓勵當局將脅迫輸出境外、恐嚇海外社群，並利用親屬作為施壓工具。
國際社會如何回應，將考驗問責機制能否觸及背後有強大國家支持的官員。證據必須得到認真審查，責任人亦必須在法律容許的情況下受到追究。對受影響的人而言，拖延可能意味着多一年的牢獄、多一個家庭離散，或再有一個聲音因恐懼而沉默。
The ICC must confront the question of accountability
The International Criminal Court must take allegations against Hong Kong officials seriously. If its commitment to accountability means anything, it must apply the same legal standards to officials serving Beijing as it applies to anyone else. Political power cannot substitute for a legal defense. Judicial office cannot excuse participation in international crimes.
China’s non-membership in the Rome Statute does not end the jurisdictional inquiry. This research identifies potential nationality and territorial connections that warrant serious examination by the Office of the Prosecutor. Where an alleged perpetrator holds the nationality of a State Party, or a legally sufficient part of an alleged crime occurs on a State Party’s territory, the Court must assess those connections on their merits. Beijing’s influence is no answer to a valid jurisdictional basis.
The demand is clear: examine the evidence, verify the relevant nationalities and territorial connections, and pursue an investigation where the Rome Statute’s requirements are met. If the Prosecutor concludes that those requirements are not satisfied, that conclusion should rest on a reasoned application of the law. The Court’s credibility depends on whether it applies its principles consistently when powerful governments are implicated.
Accountability also extends beyond The Hague. Although outside this report’s scope, the UN Convention against Torture provides a separate framework under Articles 5(2) and 7: a State Party must establish jurisdiction where an alleged offender is present in territory under its jurisdiction and, if it does not extradite that person, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
Hong Kong’s victims deserve a serious legal response. The ICC should demonstrate, through its handling of the evidence, that international justice does not retreat before Beijing.
國際刑事法院必須正視問責問題
國際刑事法院必須認真對待針對香港官員的指控。如果法院對問責的承諾具有實質意義，就必須以同一套法律標準，審視為北京效力的官員與其他任何人。政治權力不能取代法律抗辯，司法職位亦不能成為參與國際罪行的藉口。
中國並非《羅馬規約》締約國，並不代表管轄權問題就此終結。本研究指出若干潛在的國籍及屬地連結，值得檢察官辦公室認真審查。如果涉嫌犯罪者具有締約國國籍，或被指控罪行中足以構成屬地管轄基礎的部分發生於締約國領土，法院就必須根據法律及事實評估這些連結。北京的影響力，不能否定有效的管轄權依據。
我們的要求很清楚：審查證據，核實相關國籍及屬地連結，並在符合《羅馬規約》要求時推進調查。如果檢察官認為相關要求未獲滿足，這一結論應建立在有理據的法律分析之上。當指控涉及強大政府時，法院能否貫徹一致的原則，正是其公信力的試金石。
問責亦不止於海牙。儘管此途徑不在本報告的討論範圍內，聯合國《禁止酷刑公約》第5(2)及第7條提供了另一套追責框架：當涉嫌犯罪者身處締約國管轄的領土內，該國必須確立管轄權，並在不引渡該人的情況下，將案件提交主管機關，以便進行起訴。
香港的受害者理應得到嚴肅的法律回應。國際刑事法院應透過處理證據的實際行動，證明國際司法不會在北京面前退縮。
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on July 31, 2025