ACTION OF CHINESE COURTS WITH THE ANTI-TORTURE LEGAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE: A SOCIO-LEGAL NARRATIVE CRITIQUE ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION OF LAW AND LEGAL REASONING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The most of critique is based mainly on the previous literature, namely, that Chinese dynamic institutional structures’ silence may have exacerbated the miscarriage of justice and obtain illegal evidence in criminal proceedings in China. However, the fact that torture to extract confessions and maltreatment of prisoner’s cases involve judicial decision-making by Chinese hierarchical courts has been disregarded. Objective: Taking China's outward telling and internal judicial reforms as starting positions, the article focuses on address the knowledge gap that torture to extract confessions and maltreatment of prisoner’s cases involving the application of law and legal reasoning regarding how Chinese domestic courts' actions is related to the interpretation of torture and domestic compliance with international conventions. The causes of action include torture to extract confessions, maltreatment of prisoners in criminal scenarios, and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment involving detention in police custody (garde a vue) and outside custodial settings. The article also examines how Chinese hierarchical courts have implemented their judicial practice in accordance with international obligations to prohibit and prevent torture under United Nations Convention against Torture. Methods: Process tracing is a qualitative research method that examines causal processes connecting results to potential causes form socio-legal perspectives, focusing on varying time stages. It is essential for within-case analysis based on qualitative data. Implication: This article highlights the intricate relationship between the definition of torture in law in context in UNCAT and treaty compliance by China domestic court, addressing flaws in previous court decisions and responding to those points of view to gain a more in-depth understanding of the dynamics underlying cases of confessions extracted under torture, ill-treatment in prisons and outside custodial settings (garde a vue) in China's criminal judicial system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".