Rights group condemns ruling as proof that Hong Kong courts have been weaponized against peaceful political opposition
Amnesty International Condemns HK47 Appeal Ruling as a Mass Injustice
Amnesty International issued a blistering condemnation of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s February 23 decision rejecting all appeals in the Hong Kong 47 case, calling it a missed opportunity to begin restoring justice and a clear demonstration of the politically motivated nature of the entire prosecution. The rights organization’s statement, delivered by Hong Kong overseas spokesperson Fernando Cheung, went further than simply criticizing the ruling — it called for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining jailed members of the group.
Amnesty’s position is unambiguous: none of the 47 defendants committed an internationally recognized crime. Their prosecution, conviction, and continued imprisonment represent a fundamental violation of internationally protected rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to participate in public affairs. These are not contested legal interpretations — they are the baseline standards to which China is legally bound as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Article 23 Double Punishment
Amnesty’s statement raised a particularly disturbing development that has received insufficient attention in international coverage of the case. Since Hong Kong introduced its Safeguarding National Security Ordinance — commonly known as the Article 23 law — in March 2024, at least eight defendants in the Hong Kong 47 case have reportedly been denied early release on national security grounds, in direct contrast to long-standing prison practice in the city.
Before Article 23, Hong Kong’s Prison Rules provided that prisoners with good conduct were eligible for early release after serving two-thirds of their sentences. That provision was how many defendants who did not appeal their convictions were released over the past year. But under new rules introduced pursuant to Article 23, prison authorities can now deny early release on vague national security grounds — effectively allowing the government to extend sentences without any new trial or judicial oversight.
Retroactive Punishment by Any Other Name
Amnesty described this practice as the weaponization of Article 23 to impose additional punitive and retroactive measures against dissidents who are already serving sentences. The use of new legislation to worsen the treatment of people already imprisoned raises serious questions under fundamental legal principles that even authoritarian governments nominally claim to respect. Amnesty Hong Kong documentation now spans years of systematic rights violations and provides one of the most comprehensive records of the NSL’s human toll.
Fernando Cheung framed the issue with clarity: peaceful opposition to a government is not a crime, and all remaining jailed members of the Hong Kong 47 should be released immediately and unconditionally. That statement reflects not just Amnesty’s institutional position but the consensus view of every credible international human rights body that has examined the case.
The Background: A Primary Election Becomes a Criminal Conspiracy
To understand why Amnesty’s position is so firm, it is essential to recall what the Hong Kong 47 actually did. In July 2020, they organized an unofficial primary election to coordinate the pro-democracy camp’s candidates for the scheduled Legislative Council election. Approximately 600,000 Hong Kong residents voted. The exercise was entirely peaceful and entirely within the framework of political participation that Hong Kong’s Basic Law was supposed to guarantee.
Amnesty notes that treating self-organized primaries conducted by political parties to select candidates as a genuine threat to national security does not meet the high threshold that international human rights standards require. The legal argument is straightforward: holding an unofficial vote to coordinate an election strategy is political participation, not a threat to territorial integrity. UN Human Rights Committee jurisprudence on political participation rights is extensive and clear.
The Broader Pattern of Repression
Amnesty’s February 2026 statement arrived in the same month as its earlier condemnation of Jimmy Lai’s 20-year prison sentence, its statement on the trial of Tiananmen activists, and its report on violence and inhumane treatment in Hong Kong’s prisons. The cumulative picture is of a city in which every institution of justice has been subordinated to political control — courts, prisons, prosecutors, and the legislature alike.
The international human rights community continues to document these violations in detail. Those records matter. They build the historical archive that will ultimately define how this period is judged, and they create the evidentiary basis for whatever accountability mechanisms the international community eventually develops. Human Rights Watch maintains parallel documentation of NSL prosecutions and prison conditions alongside Amnesty’s work.
What Justice Would Actually Look Like
Amnesty’s call for the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining jailed HK47 members is the minimum that justice requires. But genuine restoration of justice in Hong Kong would go much further. It would require repealing the National Security Law and Article 23, releasing all political prisoners prosecuted under those laws, restoring press freedom and the independent media outlets that were shut down, reinstating the civil society organizations that were forced to dissolve, and creating a pathway back to genuine democratic governance with universal suffrage as promised under the Basic Law.
None of these steps appear likely under the current political reality. But Amnesty is right to name them clearly. Clarity about what justice requires is the necessary starting point for any serious effort to achieve it. The world must not grow accustomed to Hong Kong’s imprisoned democrats as simply a fact of life. They are political prisoners, held by an authoritarian government, for the crime of organizing a vote. PEN America continues to advocate for Hong Kong’s jailed writers, journalists, and political figures as part of its global defense of free expression.
Sin Yu Mak
Business & Consumer Affairs Journalist, Apple Daily UK
Contact: sinyu.mak@appledaily.uk
Sin Yu Mak is a business and consumer affairs journalist with expertise in market regulation, consumer rights, and small enterprise reporting. She completed her journalism education at a respected Chinese journalism institution, where she trained in economic reporting, data literacy, and ethical standards.
Her professional experience includes reporting for Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese newspapers on consumer protection, corporate practices, retail trends, and financial transparency. Sin Yu’s work emphasizes accurate interpretation of financial data and regulatory frameworks, supported by expert commentary and verified documentation.
She has operated in fast-paced newsroom settings where financial misinformation can cause real harm, giving her strong practical experience in verification and clarity. Editors value her ability to translate technical information into accessible, fact-based reporting.
Sin Yu’s authority is reinforced by consistent publication within reputable media organizations and compliance with editorial review processes. At Apple Daily UK, she delivers trustworthy business journalism rooted in evidence, professional discipline, and public-interest reporting.
