Wuxi, Jiangsu human rights defender Shen Aibin sues Jiangsu Prison Administration Bureau over illegality of government information disclosure response; both Nanjing courts and the Jiangsu High Court refuse to accept the case
On May 13, 2026, this outlet learned that Wuxi, Jiangsu human rights defender Shen Aibin sued the Jiangsu Prison Administration Bureau over the illegality of its response to a request for government information disclosure, but both the Nanjing courts and the Jiangsu High Court refused to accept the case.
Before the Wuxi City Detention Center transferred Shen Aibin to Liyang Prison, it first sent Liyang Prison a “confidentiality letter” concerning Shen Aibin, secretly smearing, vilifying and defaming him. Liyang Prison accepted it in its entirety and, before Shen Aibin had even arrived, decided—after comprehensive assessment and on the basis of the “confidentiality letter” from the Wuxi City Detention Center—to subject Shen Aibin to discriminatory soft-violence custodial measures involving segregation and isolation. During his one year and four days of imprisonment at Liyang Prison, Shen Aibin was subjected to a series of gang-related abuses of power and persecution jointly carried out by Liyang Prison and Wuxi public security authorities in collusion (this outlet will report on the matter in detail at a later date), including segregation and isolation as soft-violence custodial measures, deprivation of his rights to communicate and lodge complaints, deprivation of family telephone calls, unlawful deduction of points, withholding of privileges, and attacks and attempts to harm him using high-frequency sound waves and ultra-strong electromagnetic radiation, among other means, doing everything possible to torture and abuse Shen.
When Shen Aibin was released after completing his sentence on April 30, 2025, Liyang Prison also confiscated, under the pretext of “retention,” a large quantity of Shen’s written materials. It also confiscated 67 letters that Shen had submitted in the ordinary course but that the prison had refused to mail—letters addressed to friends and family members, as well as to judicial authorities.
On June 17, 2025, Shen Aibin applied to the Jiangsu Prison Administration Bureau for disclosure of eight items, namely: 1. “The relevant institutional documents formulated by your organization and implemented by prisons throughout the province concerning communications between prisoners and the outside world”; 2. “The relevant institutional documents formulated by your organization and implemented by prisons throughout the province concerning the deduction of points for prisoners’ violations”; 3. “The relevant institutional documents formulated by your organization and implemented by prisons throughout the province concerning prisoners’ making family telephone calls”; 4. “The relevant institutional documents formulated by your organization and implemented by prisons throughout the province concerning prisoners’ visits”; 5. “The relevant institutional documents formulated by your organization and implemented by prisons throughout the province concerning prisoners’ treatment and performance assessments”; 6. “The relevant institutional documents formulated and obtained by your organization and implemented by prisons throughout the province concerning information related to prisons that prisoners produce or obtain during their imprisonment being classified as confidential information”; 7. “The relevant institutional documents formulated and obtained by your organization and implemented by prisons throughout the province concerning methods of reforming prisoners during their imprisonment”; and 8. “The relevant institutional documents formulated and obtained by your organization and implemented by prisons throughout the province concerning prisoners’ rights and obligations during their imprisonment.”
On July 16, 2025, the Jiangsu Prison Administration Bureau issued a response stating in each instance that the information Shen Aibin had applied to disclose did not constitute government information. Dissatisfied with the responses, Shen Aibin separately filed administrative reconsideration applications with the Jiangsu Provincial People’s Government. On October 15 of the same year, the Jiangsu provincial government issued reconsideration decisions unlawfully upholding the Prison Administration Bureau’s responses. As a result, on October 20, 2025, Shen Aibin filed eight administrative lawsuits with the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court by mail.
Strangely, on December 12, 2025, the Nanjing Intermediate Court returned all materials for the eight administrative lawsuits, including the statements of claim and all attachments, to Shen Aibin. It neither issued a ruling accepting or refusing to docket the cases within the statutory time limit, nor provided Shen Aibin with any explanation. See the returned EMS receipt (Attachment 1).
According to the Administrative Litigation Law, on February 9, 2026, Shen Aibin mailed the materials for the eight administrative lawsuits to the Jiangsu High People’s Court via EMS (receipt in Attachment 2), together with a “Letter Requesting Lawful Docketing” (Attachment 3), requesting that the Jiangsu High Court lawfully accept and docket the cases. Yet as of today, three months later, he has still not received either a notice of case acceptance or a ruling refusing to docket the cases from the Jiangsu High Court. There has been no word at all, in blatant violation of the law.
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:

Source
- Outlet
- 维权信息中心报告
- Original report
- https://wqw2010.blogspot.com/2026/05/blog-post_13.html
- Original publication
- May 13, 2026
- Retrieved
- Aug 30, 2026
Related Reporting
Oct 14, 2026
Case Details and Profile of Li Yuju, a Falun Gong Practitioner from Pingdu City, Shandong Province, Sentenced to 4 Years
A Rights Defense Network Information Center report said it learned on October 15, 2026, of the case of Li Yuju, a Falun Gong practitioner from Pingdu City, Shandong Province. Police arrested Li on January 7, 2026, while she was reading Falun Gong books with another practitioner, and she was held at Pudong Detention Center. On September 17, the Pingdu City Court sentenced her to four years in prison and fined her 20,000 yuan. Her sentence ends January 6, 2030.
Oct 14, 2026
Case Details and Profile of Yu Zhiliang, an 84-Year-Old Falun Gong Practitioner from Cao County, Heze City, Shandong Province, Sentenced to 1 Year and 2 Months
Yu Zhiliang, an 84-year-old Falun Gong practitioner from Cao County, Heze City, Shandong Province, was arrested by the county public security bureau on February 3, 2026, and detained, formally arrested and prosecuted. He was sentenced to one year and two months and transferred to Jinan Prison in August 2026. His sentence is scheduled to end on April 2, 2027. The report says he had previously faced detention, imprisonment and other persecution.
Oct 14, 2026
Case Details and Biography of Xu Haifeng, an 80-Year-Old Falun Gong Practitioner from Jixian County, Heilongjiang, Sentenced to 1 Year and 4 Months
A Rights Defense Network Information Center report said Xu Haifeng, an 80-year-old Falun Gong practitioner and former village official and school principal from Jixian County, Heilongjiang, was arrested on December 5, 2025, by Qianjin Police Station officers. He was sentenced on May 20, 2026, to one year and four months in prison and fined 3,000 yuan. His appeal was rejected, and he was transferred to Shuangyashan Prison on September 17. His sentence ends April 4, 2027.
Oct 14, 2026
Zhou Yuanzhi, independent writer and human rights defender from Zhongxiang, Hubei, who was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months for his speech, dies after an illness
Zhou Yuanzhi, a writer and human rights defender from Zhongxiang, Hubei, died of a heart attack on October 14, 2026, aged 65. Arrested in 2008 on suspicion of inciting subversion over his writing, he was detained again in 2017 and sentenced in 2019 to a combined 4 years and 6 months for organizing illegal gatherings, online picking quarrels and provoking trouble, and defamation. After his release in 2022, he lost his pension and medical benefits and suffered illness and poverty.