Date: 21 August 2026

Condemning the Court’s Guilty Verdict in the “Hong Kong Alliance” Case: Peaceful Political Advocacy Is Never a Crime

Today, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance delivered a guilty verdict in the case concerning the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the “Hong Kong Alliance”), Albert Ho Chun-yan, Lee Cheuk-yan, and Chow Hang-tung, who were charged with incitement to subversion under the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“NSL”). (HCCC 155/2022).

The Hong Kong Centre for Human Rights condemns the Hong Kong government for weaponizing the law and abusing “national security” to suppress civil society leaders engaging in peaceful human rights and political advocacy. As of today, the three individuals have been detained pending trial for nearly five years. As early as 2023, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) determined that the detention of Chow Hang-tung by the Hong Kong government was arbitrary and grounded in her political stance and the exercise of her rights to freedom of expression and assembly (A/HRC/WGAD/2023/30). In 2026, five UN Special Procedures mandate holders—the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers—issued a joint communication (AL CHN 23/2025) expressing concern over the prosecution and detention of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung. The experts stated that the two were targeted and prosecuted for expressing political views, carrying out legitimate human rights work, and engaging in pro-democracy activities, in blatant violation of their human rights protected under international law. The communication also cited data indicating that, as of June 2025, approximately 189 individuals in Hong Kong had been charged under national security-related offenses, and among the concluded cases, an estimated 85% involved conduct amounting to legitimate expression that should not have been criminalized under international human rights law.

The Secretary for Justice invoked the NSL to exclude this case from a trial by jury, the usual mode of trial in the same court. The authorities appointed designated NSL judges to hear the case. We reiterate that the trial proceedings do not comply with the principles of judicial fairness and the rule of law. This verdict once again demonstrates that Hong Kong courts under the NSL are incapable of fulfilling their mission to safeguard human rights, freedom, and the rule of law, serving merely as judicial technocrats in the weaponization of the law.

For decades, the Hong Kong Alliance organized lawful, peaceful June 4th candlelight vigils to call for democratic progress and demand historical accountability—a legitimate exercise of fundamental human rights. However, the court characterized the Alliance’s 30-year-long peaceful political advocacy of “ending one-party dictatorship” as an intent to overthrow or undermine the fundamental system established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, equating it to ” unlawful means” under the NSL. This judgment effectively treats all Hong Kong citizens who participated in the Alliance’s lawful June 4th candlelight vigils over the past 32 years as enemies of the state.

Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that such “unlawful means” do not require the involvement of any force or violence. Equating “peaceful political advocacy” with “criminal acts of subversion” is a flagrant trampling of the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In a 2020 thematic report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence explicitly stated that acknowledging and memorializing crimes and massive human rights violations committed by authoritarian regimes is an essential condition for building a democratic, pluralistic, inclusive, and peaceful society; otherwise, violence will persist and gain legitimacy. Commemorative ceremonies are an indispensable condition for ensuring the “guarantees of non-recurrence” of historical tragedies. Erasing public memory of historical tragedies not only inflicts secondary trauma on victims but also fosters a culture of impunity.

We reiterate:

• The authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung, Albert Ho Chun-yan, and all political prisoners arrested for exercising their right to peaceful expression, and quash all politically motivated convictions against the Hong Kong Alliance and related human rights defenders.
• The Hong Kong government must stop abusing national security laws, adopt the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee, repeal the current Hong Kong National Security Law, faithfully fulfill its international human rights obligations, and safeguard the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association for all Hong Kong citizens.
• We urge the international community to take proactive actions to hold the authorities accountable for the rapid deterioration of human rights in Hong Kong and maintain sustained scrutiny over the rule of law. This includes initiating joint inquiries at the UN Human Rights Council and requesting foreign diplomats to continuously observe court hearings to draw international attention to the Hong Kong judiciary being weaponized as an authoritarian instrument and to how the NSL violates civil and political rights.

A spokesperson for the Hong Kong Centre for Human Rights stated:

“The court acknowledged the Hong Kong Alliance’s consistent adherence to non-violence over the years, but accused the annual candlelight vigils of ‘objectively heightening hostile sentiments’ towards the Chinese Communist Party, thereby justifying the conviction (paragraph 445 of the judgment). This is a textbook inversion of cause and effect. Citizens attended the vigils year after year, rain or shine, because the Chinese government has never taken accountability for the June 4th massacre. The build-up of public grievance lies at the feet of power holders who refuse to listen, not the advocates who peacefully speak out. Blaming a peaceful, rational civil society group for the social divide caused by the authorities’ own chronic disregard of public opinion is an extremely irresponsible, evasive, and politically infantile act, as well as a total trampling of Hong Kong people’s right to peaceful assembly.”

“This judgment exposes a profound hypocrisy in the court’s safeguarding of human rights. Although the judgment (paragraph 62) attempted to pay lip service to fundamental rights by stating that freedom of expression is central to Hong Kong’s system and civil society, promising a ‘generous interpretation’ to its constitutional protection, the court completely abandoned this principle in its substantive ruling. Overstepping its proper role, the court rendered a one-sided interpretation of the PRC Constitution and rigidly branded the Alliance’s decades-long peaceful advocacy and rational expression as ‘unlawful means’ to subvert state power. Rendering superficial lip service to human rights while escalating political charges in practice merely provides judicial endorsement for unchecked political repression.”

“The court’s logic of conviction is absurd and self-contradictory. On one hand, the court explicitly stated that it is unfamiliar with PRC constitutional law (paragraph 143), yet on the other hand, it treated constitutional provisions as supreme authority to arbitrarily define the Alliance’s peaceful advocacy as unlawful subversion. Such a contradictory ruling essentially deprives the defendants of the chance to mount a lawful defense based on their constitutional rights.”

“Under international human rights law, peaceful advocacy for constitutional and political reform constitutes legitimate political expression, not violent or unlawful subversion. We firmly believe that if this case had been tried and decided by a jury, the verdict would have been completely different.”

Reference:

Judgment (in Chinese only)

HKSAR v Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China & Others (21/08/2026, HCCC155/2022) [2026] HKCFI 4794 (https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=184180&currpage=T)

Press summary of the judgment by the Judiciary, in English: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/ch/2022/HCCC000155D_2022_files/HCCC000155D_2022ES.htm