Overview
The United Nations human rights office on Wednesday expressed concern about the recent trial of Chinese dissident artist Gao Zhen, whose work includes provocative satirical sculptures of former leader Mao Zedong. The U.N. statement flagged issues related to the timing and application of the law under which he was prosecuted.
Charges and legal timing
Gao was tried at the end of March on accusations of "slandering national heroes and martyrs," a criminal provision that the U.N. rights office noted came into force more than a decade after Gao produced the satirical sculptures at the center of the case. The office said the proceedings raise concerns about retroactive application of criminal law and the use of criminal sanctions to punish artistic expression, which it said undermines the principle of legality.
Detention, potential sentence and health concerns
Gao, who was detained in 2024 during a visit from the U.S., faces a maximum prison term of three years, according to statements from his wife, Zhao Yaliang, and Shane Yi, a researcher at the Chinese Human Rights Defenders group that operates outside China. The U.N. human rights office called for Gao's immediate release from detention, where he remains held pending judgment after his closed-door trial concluded on March 30, citing concerns that his health is deteriorating.
Trial setting and timeline
The one-day hearing took place at Sanhe City People's Court in Hebei province, which borders the capital, Beijing. The session ended without a verdict, Gao's wife and the researcher said, citing information from his lawyers. The U.N. rights office and family sources noted that verdicts in such trials are often announced months later.
Official response
The Chinese mission in Geneva did not immediately provide a response to requests for comment on the case, according to available reports.
Contextual note
The U.N. human rights office's statement centers on legal principles and the protection of artistic expression as it called for Gao's release and highlighted concerns about retroactive criminalization and the application of penalties for creative work.