EndCCPWorld.com

联合国消除种族歧视委员会对中国的审议结论（2018)CERD Concluding Observations on China (2018)

一、文件是什么1. What this document is

本页存档的文件，是联合国消除种族歧视委员会对中国履行《消除一切形式种族歧视国际公约》情况所作的一次定期审议的最终文件。消除种族歧视委员会的英文缩写是CERD，它是依据上述公约设立的条约机构，职责是审议各缔约国提交的定期报告，核对缔约国在法律、政策与实际执行中是否履行了公约义务，并在审议结束后以“结论性意见”的形式公布评估与建议。结论性意见不是法院判决，它不直接判处刑罚或赔偿；它的性质是条约机构的正式记录，把委员会在审议中确认的问题、表示关切的事项和提出的建议逐条写入联合国文件系统，供缔约国后续落实、供其他国家与公众查阅引用。The document archived on this page is the final product of a periodic review by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination of China's implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committee, known by the abbreviation CERD, is the treaty body established under that Convention. Its task is to examine the periodic reports submitted by States parties, to check whether a State is meeting its obligations under the Convention in law, in policy and in practice, and, at the end of a review, to publish its assessment and its recommendations in the form of concluding observations. Concluding observations are not a court judgment: they impose no sentence and award no compensation. They are a formal record of the treaty body, entering, item by item, the problems the Committee identified during the review, the matters on which it expressed concern, and the recommendations it made, into the United Nations document system, so that the State party can act on them in follow-up and so that other States and the public can consult and cite them.

就中国这一次审议而言，程序可以按日期完整还原。2018年8月10日与8月13日，委员会第96届会议在日内瓦审议中国提交的第14至17次合并定期报告；所谓合并报告，是指缔约国把数个报告周期的报告合并为一份提交，委员会据此一并审议。审议以对话方式进行，委员会委员就报告内容与中国实际情况向中国代表团提问，中国代表团在现场作答。审议结束后，委员会于2018年8月30日通过结论性意见，文件于2018年9月19日正式发布，文号为CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17。凡查阅或引用本文件，都应以这一文号为准；本页第六节给出的官方原文链接，即为联合国正式文件系统中以该文号存档的文本。For this review of China, the procedure can be reconstructed in full, date by date. On 10 and 13 August 2018, at its 96th session in Geneva, the Committee considered the combined 14th to 17th periodic reports submitted by China. A combined report is one in which a State party merges the reports of several reporting cycles into a single submission, which the Committee then considers together. The review took the form of a dialogue: Committee members put questions to the Chinese delegation about the content of the report and about the actual situation in China, and the delegation answered on the spot. After the review, the Committee adopted its concluding observations on 30 August 2018, and the document was issued on 19 September 2018 under the symbol CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17. Anyone consulting or citing this document should use that symbol; the official-text link given in Section 6 of this page is the text archived under that symbol in the United Nations Official Document System.

这份文件在本栏目中单独立档，还有一个记录上的理由：它是联合国条约机构首次就新疆大规模拘留问题作出正式结论性意见。在此之前，关于新疆拘留情况的说法主要见于媒体报道、人权组织调查与各国政府表态；2018年8月的这次审议，第一次把这一问题带进条约机构的正式审议程序，并以结论性意见的形式留下了机构层面的书面结论。本站收录本文件，不是把它当作评论材料，而是把它当作一份可以按文号、按日期、按段落逐项核对的原始官方记录：本页的转述只起导读作用，判断应以原文为准。There is a further, record-keeping reason why this document is archived as a standalone page in this section of the site: these were the first formal concluding observations in which a UN treaty body addressed the mass detention in Xinjiang. Before that point, accounts of detention in Xinjiang had appeared mainly in media reporting, in investigations by human rights organizations, and in statements by governments. The August 2018 review brought the issue, for the first time, into the formal review procedure of a treaty body, and left a written, institutional conclusion in the form of concluding observations. This site includes the document not as commentary material but as a primary official record that can be checked item by item — by symbol, by date and by paragraph. The paraphrase on this page serves only as a guide to reading it; judgement should rest on the original text.

阅读本文件时需要区分两种文本。其一是结论性意见正文，它是委员会集体通过的正式立场，本页第二、三节转述的内容主要来自这一部分，其中关于新疆拘留的核心段落是第40至42段。其二是审议现场的个人发言，例如委员在对话环节口头提出的问题与评论；这类发言记录在审议过程之中，能说明委员会成员如何理解当时收到的信息，但其措辞属于发言者个人，不等于结论性意见正文的措辞。本页在引用现场发言时逐处注明这一区别，以免读者把会议发言与正式结论混为一谈。In reading this document, two kinds of text need to be kept apart. The first is the body of the concluding observations themselves: this is the formal position adopted collectively by the Committee, and the material paraphrased in Sections 2 and 3 of this page comes mainly from that text — its core paragraphs on detention in Xinjiang being paragraphs 40 to 42. The second kind consists of individual statements made during the review itself, such as questions and comments put orally by members during the dialogue. Statements of that kind are recorded within the review proceedings and show how Committee members understood the information before them at the time, but their wording belongs to the individual speaker and is not the wording of the concluding observations. Where this page quotes a statement from the review floor, it notes that distinction in each case, so that readers do not confuse floor remarks with the formal conclusions.

二、核心结论2. Core findings

结论性意见第40至42段是全篇关于新疆部分的核心。委员会在这些段落中表示，它收到了众多报告，显示大量维吾尔族及其他穆斯林少数群体成员在未被指控、未经审判的情况下，被长期拘留并与外界隔绝，拘留的借口是打击宗教极端主义。委员会对这一状况所用的态度词是“震惊”——英文原文的用词是alarmed。本页按本站引用规范，只对这一类关键短词作原样引用，段落的其余内容全部用本站自己的话转述：需要记下的事实要点有三项，一是被拘留者的规模被委员会形容为“大量”，二是拘留缺少指控与审判这一正当程序环节，三是拘留以打击宗教极端主义为理由，而被拘留者与外界隔绝、长期关押。Paragraphs 40 to 42 of the concluding observations are the core of the document's treatment of Xinjiang. In those paragraphs the Committee stated that it had received numerous reports indicating that large numbers of ethnic Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities were being held for long periods, in incommunicado detention, without having been charged or tried, under the pretext of countering religious extremism. The word the Committee used for its own reaction was 'alarmed'. In line with this site's citation rules, only a short key term of that kind is quoted verbatim on this page; everything else in the paragraphs is paraphrased in this site's own words. Three factual points should be retained: first, the scale of detention was described by the Committee in terms of large numbers; second, the detention lacked the due-process steps of charge and trial; and third, detention was justified by reference to countering religious extremism, while those detained were held incommunicado for long periods.

委员会接着处理了人数问题，而它处理的方式本身就是一项结论。委员会指出，官方没有提供被拘留人数的数据，它对此表示遗憾；在官方数据缺位的情况下，委员会记录了各方给出的估计，范围从数万人到一百多万人。档案记录在这里必须把口径写准确：结论性意见并没有认定一个确切的拘留人数，它认定的是另外两件事——第一，拘留的规模大到需要条约机构正式记录在案；第二，作为缔约国的中国没有提供人数数据，使委员会只能引用估计区间。此后任何引用本文件谈论人数的说法，都应当连同这一口径一并引用，不能把估计区间的上限或下限单独摘出，说成是委员会认定的数字。The Committee then addressed the question of numbers, and the way it handled that question is itself a finding. The Committee noted that no official data had been provided on the number of people detained, and it expressed regret at that absence. With official figures missing, the Committee recorded the estimates given by various sources, which ranged from tens of thousands to over one million people. An archive record has to state this calibration precisely: the concluding observations did not determine an exact number of detainees. What they did determine were two other things — first, that the scale of detention was large enough to require formal recording by a treaty body; and second, that China, as the State party, had provided no figures on the numbers detained, leaving the Committee able only to cite a range of estimates. Any later use of this document in discussion of numbers should carry that calibration with it; neither the top nor the bottom of the estimated range should be lifted out on its own and presented as a figure determined by the Committee.

在建议部分，委员会提出了明确的处理要求。它要求中国停止在任何法外设施中拘留那些未被依法指控、审判和定罪的人；要求立即释放在这种情形下被拘留的人；并要求允许被错误拘留的人寻求救济。把这三项要求连起来读，逻辑是完整的：先停止以法外设施继续关押未经法定程序定罪的人，再释放已经处于这种关押状态的人，最后为已经被错误关押的人保留追索与补救的通道。这三项要求针对的不是个别案件的处理瑕疵，而是拘留做法本身的合法性基础——一个人如果没有被依法指控、审判和定罪，委员会的立场是，他就不应当被关在任何设施里。In its recommendations, the Committee set out clear requirements for what should be done. It called on China to end the practice of detaining, in any extralegal facility, persons who had not been lawfully charged, tried and convicted; to release immediately those who were being held in that situation; and to allow persons who had been wrongfully detained to seek redress. Read together, the three requirements form a complete sequence: first, stop continuing to hold, in extralegal facilities, people who have not been convicted through lawful process; second, release those already held in that condition; and third, preserve a channel of remedy and redress for those who have already been wrongfully held. These requirements are not aimed at defects in the handling of individual cases. They address the legal basis of the detention practice itself: in the Committee's position, a person who has not been lawfully charged, tried and convicted should not be held in any facility at all.

委员会还提出了一项执法层面的要求：对种族定性执法进行迅速、彻底、公正的调查。种族定性执法，指的是执法人员以当事人的族裔或宗教身份、而非其具体行为，作为盘查、搜查或采取强制措施依据的做法。委员会把这一项与拘留问题并列提出，说明在它收到的信息中，针对特定族裔群体的执法方式与大规模拘留是同一问题的两个环节：前端是以身份为依据的筛查与盘查，后端是未经审判的长期关押。要求调查的三个限定词——迅速、彻底、公正——也应原样记下，因为它们构成委员会对调查质量的标准，而不是一句笼统的呼吁。The Committee also made a requirement at the level of law enforcement: that racial profiling be subjected to prompt, thorough and impartial investigation. Racial profiling means the practice by which officers of the law treat a person's ethnic or religious identity, rather than that person's specific conduct, as the basis for stops, searches or coercive measures. The Committee placed this item alongside the detention issue, which indicates that, in the information before it, the manner of policing directed at a particular ethnic group and the mass detention formed two stages of a single problem: screening and stops based on identity at the front end, and long-term detention without trial at the back end. The three qualifiers attached to the call for investigation — prompt, thorough and impartial — should also be recorded as given, because they constitute the Committee's standard for the quality of any investigation, rather than a general appeal.

审议现场还有一段发言被各国媒体广泛报道，需要单独存档。委员会委员盖伊·麦克杜格尔在审议中指出，新疆已经变得像一个笼罩在秘密之中的大规模拘留营，是一个“无权利区”。其中“无权利区”四词的英文原文是no-rights zone，本页按事实单所定口径原样引用。必须注明的是：这是委员在审议对话中的个人发言，不是结论性意见正文的原文措辞；它的记录价值在于，它说明委员会成员在2018年8月审议当场，如何概括他们从报告中读到的新疆状况，并且这一概括经由媒体报道成为外界理解这次审议的一个入口。正式结论以结论性意见文本为准，现场发言作为审议记录的一部分，两者在本页中分开标注。One statement made during the review itself was widely reported by media in many countries and needs to be archived separately. Committee member Gay McDougall stated during the review that Xinjiang had been turned into something resembling a massive internment camp shrouded in secrecy, and that it was a 'no-rights zone'. Of that statement, the four words 'no-rights zone' are quoted verbatim on this page, in line with the verified record. It must be noted that this was an individual member's statement made during the review dialogue; it is not wording from the body of the concluding observations. Its value as a record is that it shows how a Committee member, on the floor of the review in August 2018, summed up the situation in Xinjiang as the members had read it in the material before them — and that this summary, carried by media reporting, became one of the ways the outside world came to understand this review. The formal conclusions rest on the text of the concluding observations; the floor statement forms part of the review record, and the two are labeled separately on this page.

三、主要记录内容3. What it documents

除拘留本身，结论性意见还逐项记录了新疆当时实行的一系列管控做法，本站按主题分段转述如下。这些内容与拘留问题合在一起，构成委员会眼中完整的图景：拘留不是孤立事件，而是发生在一整套以维吾尔族及其他穆斯林少数群体为对象、以身份识别与行动控制为手段的管控环境之中。以下每一项都只写结论性意见实际涉及的内容，不作延伸推断。Beyond detention itself, the concluding observations recorded, item by item, a series of control practices then in operation in Xinjiang, paraphrased below by theme. Together with the detention issue, these items make up the complete picture as the Committee saw it: detention was not an isolated phenomenon, but took place within a whole environment of control directed at Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities, operating through the identification of persons by identity and the control of their movement. Each item below records only what the concluding observations actually covered, without extended inference.

第一项是针对维吾尔人的大规模监控。委员会记录的做法包括：维吾尔人在日常生活中遭受无端盘查；在检查站，他们的手机被扫描检查；生物信息被强制采集，采集的范围包括DNA与虹膜。这几项做法的共同特点，是它们不以具体涉嫌行为为前提，而是以族裔身份为筛选条件，施加于整个群体的日常出行与通讯之上。委员会把这些记录在案，意味着在条约机构的正式文件中，监控的规模与方式第一次与拘留问题被写在同一份结论里，两者之间的衔接关系也因此有了官方文本依据。The first item is the mass surveillance directed at Uyghurs. The practices the Committee recorded include Uyghurs being subjected to arbitrary, groundless stops in daily life; their mobile phones being scanned at checkpoints; and biometric information being forcibly collected from them, the collection extending to DNA and iris scans. What these practices have in common is that they are not premised on any specific suspected act by the individual concerned; they use ethnic identity as the screening criterion, and they are applied to the daily movement and communications of an entire group. By placing these practices on record, the Committee ensured that, in a formal treaty-body document, the scale and methods of surveillance were written into the same conclusions as the detention issue for the first time, giving the connection between the two a basis in an official text.

第二项是出行与证件控制。委员会记录：所有新疆居民都被要求上交旅行证件；居民出境须经批准，而批准可能多年都得不到。把这两点合起来看，效果是居民的出境权利在程序上被整体悬置——证件不在自己手里，申请没有明确期限，等待可以无限延长。委员会把这一项写入结论，与它记录的其他事项相互印证：一个群体既在境内受到以身份为依据的盘查与采集，又在出境环节被整体管控，其行动自由的受限程度，在文件中是按这种逐项累加的方式呈现的。The second item is control over movement and travel documents. The Committee recorded that all residents of Xinjiang were required to surrender their travel documents, and that residents required approval in order to leave the country — approval that might not be granted for years. Read together, the effect of these two points is that residents' ability to leave the country is suspended as a whole at the procedural level: the documents are not in the holder's own hands, an application carries no clear time limit, and the wait can be extended indefinitely. The Committee's inclusion of this item in its conclusions works together with the other matters it recorded: a group that is subject, inside the region, to identity-based stops and collection, and is at the same time controlled as a whole at the point of exit, has its freedom of movement restricted to a degree that the document presents through exactly this item-by-item accumulation.

第三项涉及已经离境的人。委员会记录：许多已经离开中国的维吾尔人被违背其意愿遣返回中国。这一记录的重要性在于，它说明委员会关切的范围不限于新疆境内的管控，还包括离境之后的安全问题：一个人即使已经身在境外，仍可能被送回其逃离的环境。委员会把遣返问题与拘留问题放在同一组关切中记录，读者在阅读本站相关个案时，应注意这一时间与空间上的连续性——境内拘留、证件管控与境外遣返，在文件中是作为一组相互关联的做法出现的。The third item concerns people who had already left. The Committee recorded that many Uyghurs who had left China had been returned to China against their will. The significance of this record is that it shows the scope of the Committee's concern was not limited to controls inside Xinjiang, but extended to safety after departure: even a person already outside the country might be sent back to the environment they had left. The Committee recorded the returns issue within the same cluster of concerns as the detention issue, and readers consulting related case pages on this site should note this continuity in time and space — detention inside the region, control of travel documents, and returns from abroad appear in the document as a set of interrelated practices.

第四项是语言教育。委员会记录：和田地区的学校禁止维吾尔语教育。本站对这一项只作最低限度的转述，因为结论性意见在此着墨的具体范围就是如此：地点是和田地区，对象是学校，内容是维吾尔语教育被禁止。语言教育问题之所以被条约机构记录，是因为它触及公约所保障的少数群体文化与教育权利；它与监控、出行、遣返等事项并列出现，说明委员会在评估新疆状况时，把针对一个群体的措施看作覆盖日常生活多个领域的整体，而不是彼此无关的单项政策。The fourth item is language education. The Committee recorded that schools in the Hotan area had banned Uyghur-language education. This site paraphrases this item at the minimum level, because that is the specific extent of what the concluding observations addressed on the point: the place is the Hotan area, the setting is schools, and the content is that Uyghur-language education was banned. Language education was recorded by the treaty body because it touches on the cultural and educational rights of minorities guaranteed under the Convention. Its appearance alongside surveillance, movement controls and returns shows that, in assessing the situation in Xinjiang, the Committee treated the measures directed at one group as a whole spanning multiple areas of daily life, rather than as a set of unrelated individual policies.

结论性意见涉及的其他地区与议题，本页按原文件的分量各用简短篇幅带过。在西藏方面，文件涉及藏人的出行与护照限制，以及藏人的宗教与文化权利问题。在内蒙古方面，文件亦有涉及相关事项。在香港方面，文件涉及香港少数族裔的处境。此外，文件还就种族歧视的法律定义问题提出意见，即缔约国的法律应当如何界定种族歧视，才能与公约的要求相符。本页以新疆部分为主展开，是因为新疆部分是这份结论性意见中篇幅与分量最集中的部分，也是它被后来的官方记录反复援引的部分；其余议题在此存档备查，细节以原文为准。The other regions and topics covered by the concluding observations are noted on this page briefly, in proportion to their place in the original document. On Tibet, the document addressed restrictions on Tibetans' movement and passports, and questions concerning Tibetans' religious and cultural rights. The document also addressed matters concerning Inner Mongolia. On Hong Kong, it addressed the situation of ethnic minorities there. In addition, the document commented on the legal definition of racial discrimination — that is, on how the law of a State party should define racial discrimination in order to conform to the requirements of the Convention. This page develops the Xinjiang material in the main, because that material is the most concentrated in length and weight within these concluding observations, and the part most often invoked by later official records; the remaining topics are archived here for reference, with details as given in the original text.

四、与本站个案的关联4. Links to cases on this site

本文件与本站迫害纪实栏目中的个案页直接相关，读法是先看机构结论、再看个案记录，两相对照。本文件确认的大规模拘留、法外设施关押与大规模监控等事项，是阅读本站新疆再教育营个案页的官方文本背景：个案页记录具体场所与具体人物的遭遇，本文件则记录联合国条约机构在2018年对同类做法作出的正式评估。两者来源不同、性质不同，放在一起读，可以分辨哪些内容已经获得条约机构层面的确认，哪些内容仍属于个案层面的记录。This document is directly relevant to case pages in this site's Persecution section, and the way to read them is to take the institutional conclusions first and the case records second, setting the two side by side. The matters this document established — mass detention, holding in extralegal facilities, and mass surveillance — form the official-text background for reading this site's case page on the Xinjiang re-education camps: the case page records what happened at specific places and to specific people, while this document records the formal assessment a UN treaty body made of the same kind of practices in 2018. The two differ in source and in nature; read together, they allow the reader to distinguish which content has been confirmed at the level of a treaty body and which remains at the level of case recording.

本站另设有伊力哈木·土赫提个案页。阅读该页时可以对照本文件：本文件所记录的，虽是面向整个群体的制度性做法，但制度性做法最终都落在具体的人身上；个案页的意义，正在于把文件中的群体性表述还原为一个人的姓名与经历。本页不在此处复述该个案的具体情节，相关事实以该个案页的记录及其所注来源为准；本文件在这里起的作用，是提供评估那类个案时可以援引的条约机构结论。This site also maintains a case page for Ilham Tohti. That page can be read against this document: what this document records are institutional practices directed at a whole group, but institutional practices ultimately fall on specific people, and the purpose of a case page is precisely to restore a group-level formulation in a document to one person's name and experience. This page does not retell the specifics of that case here; the relevant facts are as recorded on the case page and in the sources it cites. The function of this document in that context is to supply the treaty-body conclusions that can be invoked when assessing cases of that kind.

按时间顺序，本文件还是本栏目另一份档案的前件。联合国人权事务高级专员办事处2022年发布的新疆人权关切评估，在本栏目中另页存档（见联合国人权高专办新疆评估（2022））。从2018年的条约机构结论性意见，到2022年的高专办评估，联合国系统对新疆问题的正式记录是逐步累积的；先读本文件，可以看清这一记录链条的起点在哪里、最初的机构结论写了什么，以及后来的文件是在什么基础上继续记录的。In chronological order, this document is also the predecessor of another file in this section. The assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang issued in 2022 by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is archived on a separate page in this section (see the OHCHR Xinjiang assessment (2022)). From the treaty body's concluding observations of 2018 to the High Commissioner's assessment of 2022, the formal record of the UN system on the Xinjiang issue accumulated step by step. Reading this document first makes clear where that chain of records begins, what the earliest institutional conclusions said, and on what basis the later documents continued the record.

五、中方回应5. Beijing's response

中方对审议中提出的新疆指控，在审议现场即作了否认，本页按出处客观记录如下。据新华社对审议过程的报道，中国代表团成员胡联合在审议现场回应称：“新疆不存在所谓的‘再教育中心’”，并称“说‘一百万维吾尔人被关押在再教育中心’完全不属实”。这两句中文引语出自新华社对中方发言的报道，本页按报道原文引用，并在此注明其出处为新华社报道，而非结论性意见正文的转述。中方在审议中的立场还包括：新疆居民的各项权利依法得到保障。本节把中方回应与委员会结论并列存档，读者可以对照两方在同一场审议中的各自表述；本站对两方说法之间的分歧不另加裁断，分歧本身即是本档案的一部分。China denied the Xinjiang allegations raised in the review on the floor of the review itself, and this page records that response objectively, with its source, as follows. According to Xinhua's reporting on the review proceedings, Hu Lianhe, a member of the Chinese delegation, responded during the review that 'there are no so-called re-education centres in Xinjiang' and that 'the claim that one million Uyghurs are being held in re-education centres is completely untrue'. These two quoted sentences come from Xinhua's report of the Chinese side's remarks, and are quoted on this page as they appeared in that report; it is noted here that their source is Xinhua's reporting, not a paraphrase within the concluding observations themselves. China's position during the review also included the statement that the rights of residents of Xinjiang are protected in accordance with the law. This section archives the Chinese response alongside the Committee's conclusions, so that readers can compare what each side said in the same review; this site adds no further ruling on the disagreement between the two accounts, and the disagreement itself forms part of this file.

存档时还要记下回应的场合与时点：上述否认是在2018年8月审议对话进行期间当场作出的，针对的正是委员会委员在审议中提出的拘留规模问题；委员会在听取中方回应之后，仍于2018年8月30日通过了包含第40至42段关切与建议的结论性意见。也就是说，结论性意见是在双方表述都已当场呈现之后形成的正式文本。这一先后关系属于程序事实，本页照实记录，以便读者判断这份文件形成过程的完整性。The occasion and timing of the response should also be entered in the record: the denials above were made on the spot, during the review dialogue in August 2018, and were directed at precisely the question of the scale of detention raised by Committee members during the review. After hearing the Chinese response, the Committee nevertheless adopted, on 30 August 2018, concluding observations containing the concerns and recommendations of paragraphs 40 to 42. In other words, the concluding observations are a formal text produced after both sides' statements had already been presented in the room. That sequence is a matter of procedural fact, and this page records it as such, so that readers can judge the completeness of the process by which this document was formed.

六、官方原文与相关页面6. Official text and related pages

结论性意见通过之后，委员会还设定了后续程序。委员会要求中国在一年内，就若干建议提交后续落实信息；这一要求意味着，审议并不以文件发布为终点，缔约国需要在规定期限内向委员会说明建议的落实情况。2022年11月，委员会又依照其早期预警与紧急行动程序，通过了一项关于新疆局势的决定，再次敦促中方调查有关指控、释放被拘留者。本页把这两步后续动作与2018年文件记在一起，是为了让档案保持完整的时间线：2018年的结论性意见、其后的一年期后续信息要求、以及2022年在特别程序下作出的决定，构成同一条约机构对同一问题持续记录的三个节点。After adopting the concluding observations, the Committee also set follow-up steps in motion. It requested that China submit follow-up information on a number of its recommendations within one year; that request means the review does not end with the publication of the document, and the State party is expected to report to the Committee, within the set period, on how the recommendations have been implemented. In November 2022, acting under its early warning and urgent action procedure, the Committee adopted a decision on the situation in Xinjiang, once again urging the Chinese side to investigate the allegations and release those detained. This page records those two follow-up steps together with the 2018 document in order to keep the archive's timeline complete: the concluding observations of 2018, the one-year follow-up information request that came after them, and the decision taken under a special procedure in 2022 form three points in a single treaty body's continuing record on a single issue.

官方原文：联合国正式文件系统存档的结论性意见全文（PDF，文号CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17）——documents.un.org 官方原文。站内相关页面：新疆再教育营、伊力哈木·土赫提、联合国人权高专办新疆评估（2022）。本页的转述如与官方原文有出入，以官方原文为准。Official text: the full text of the concluding observations as archived in the UN Official Document System (PDF, symbol CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17) — official text at documents.un.org. Related pages on this site: Xinjiang re-education camps, Ilham Tohti, OHCHR Xinjiang assessment (2022). Where any paraphrase on this page differs from the official text, the official text prevails.

来源Sources

来源：联合国消除种族歧视委员会《结论性意见：关于中国第14至17次合并定期报告》，文号CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17，2018年8月30日通过、9月19日发布，官方原文见联合国正式文件系统；审议现场委员盖伊·麦克杜格尔的发言经各国媒体广泛报道，本页引用时已注明其为审议中的个人发言；中方回应引语据新华社对审议过程及胡联合现场发言的报道；后续程序据委员会一年内后续信息要求及2022年11月依早期预警与紧急行动程序通过的决定。本页正文均为本站转述，除注明出处的短句外，未大段抄录原文。Sources: UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined 14th to 17th periodic reports of China, symbol CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17, adopted 30 August 2018 and issued 19 September 2018, official text via the UN Official Document System; Committee member Gay McDougall's statement during the review, as widely reported by international media and noted on this page as an individual statement made during the review; the quotations of the Chinese response per Xinhua's reporting on the review proceedings and on Hu Lianhe's remarks on the floor; follow-up steps per the Committee's one-year follow-up information request and its November 2022 decision under the early warning and urgent action procedure. The body of this page is paraphrased in this site's own words; apart from short quotations with sources noted, no extended passage of the original text is reproduced.