Transcript of David Matas J.D. talk on human organs traffick from alive forced non-donors
With decades of experience as a lawyer and investigator, Mr. Matas has dedicated his career to exposing injustice and seeking accountability for egregious human rights violations.
This transcript was computer generated and might still contain errors. Please share any feedback or relevant experience by email at research@enricgarcia.md. The ongoing series on punitive practices and human right abuses is open to anyone willing to share either by live interview, online presentation, text or other ways. Please feel free to schedule a meeting with me to start arranging any collaboration. A video testimonials collection system is also available online at: https://www.videoask.com/fhsi8ype5
Introduction: David Matas is a tireless advocate for human rights in China, particularly for the persecuted Falun Gong community. With decades of experience as a lawyer and investigator, Mr. Matas has dedicated his career to exposing injustice and seeking accountability for egregious human rights violations. Mr. Matas is best known for his groundbreaking work on organ harvesting. Along with David Kilgour, he co-authored the widely acclaimed Kilgour-Matas report, which meticulously documented the systemic and unethical sourcing of organs from Falun Gong practitioners and other minority groups. This report, along with his continued advocacy, has brought international attention to this critical issue and continues to fuel efforts to end this gruesome practice.
Beyond organ harvesting, Mr. Matas has spoken out against a range of human rights abuses in China, including the repression of religious and ethnic minorities, the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong, and the mass detention of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. His unwavering commitment to justice and his dedication to rigorous research have made him a valuable resource and a powerful voice for the countless individuals suffering under the Chinese regime. Further information on his Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Matas
Following is the transcrip of David Matas' talk:
Enric Garcia Torrents: Completely fine. Then we go ahead, skip the intro, and you can start, David. We'll edit the video afterwards.
David Matas: Alright, so the general title of this event is "Political Abuse of Psychiatry." The title of my talk is "On Human Organ Transplant Abuses." So superficially, the two topics appear different. One relates to mental abuse, the other relates to physical abuse. It's a question I had to address in this presentation: what is the connection between the two topics? That question led me to eight questions that address the connection between victimization and abuse.
Does political abuse of psychiatry lead to organ transplant abuse?
Does organ transplant abuse lead to political abuse of psychiatry?
What is the effect of opposition to either abuse? Does opposition to organ transplant abuse lead to political abuse of psychiatry?
Does opposition to political abuse of psychiatry lead to organ transplant abuse?
To what extent do psychiatrists work with transplant professionals?
To what extent should transplant professionals work to end political abuses in their country?
What can those combating organ abuse learn from the effort to combat political abuse of psychiatry?
What can those combating political abuse of psychiatry learn from the effort to combat forced organ extractions?
So, I'm going to address each of these eight questions in turn. In addressing these questions, I will use China as a case study since China presents both organ transplant abuse and political abuse of psychiatry.
The first question asks, Does political abuse of psychiatry lead to organ transplant abuse?
Answer: To understand this, we need to examine how organ transplant abuse occurs in China, specifically with prisoners of conscience. Please bear with me for a second while I close a window – airplanes overhead are causing some noise.
The Chinese government, through its detention centers and hospitals, has engaged in the systematic extraction of organs from prisoners of conscience. Primary victims include:
Falun Gong practitioners (since the early 2000s and in large numbers since 2017)
Uyghurs
Veterans
House Christians (primarily Eastern Lightning/Almighty God Church)
The Falun Gong is a spiritual practice combining traditional Chinese beliefs and exercises, founded in 1992. Initially encouraged by the government, it grew rapidly. However, fearing its popularity and potential challenge to its ideology, the Communist Party launched a severe crackdown in 1999.
Many practitioners couldn't understand why the government deemed harmless exercises a threat. Massive demonstrations ensued, with banners proclaiming "Falun Gong is good." Practitioners naively believed the Party had been misled. However, it was precisely Falun Gong's positive image that threatened the Party's supremacy.
Millions of demonstrators were arrested and detained in makeshift camps across China. They were tortured into renouncing Falun Gong, implicating fellow practitioners, and embracing the Party. Most never saw freedom again.
Hundreds of thousands, even under torture, refused to sign these documents. They remained in arbitrary, indefinite detention, forced into labor. Systematically subjected to blood tests and organ examinations, their blood and tissue information was circulated among transplant hospitals. These detentions and hospitals were ubiquitous throughout China.
Furthermore, Chinese hospitals aggressively advertised organ transplants globally, offering "on-demand organs," scheduling deaths, and allowing patients to pre-pay with cash in red envelopes.
When a patient arrived at the transplant hospital needing an organ, their blood and tissue type would be matched against information provided by local detention centers or prisons. If a match was found among Falun Gong practitioners, a "white van" would be dispatched to retrieve them.
The matched practitioner would be brought to a holding cell, injected with muscle relaxants and anesthetics, and immobilized. Once unconscious, they would be taken to the van and have their ordered organ extracted, leading to their death. Their body would then be cremated on the detention center grounds. The extracted organ would be transported to the hospital for immediate transplant.
Coinciding with organ transplant abuse against Falun Gong victims, political psychiatry was also used. Practitioners were arbitrarily detained in both psychiatric facilities and regular detention centers, though in smaller numbers due to the limited capacity of psychiatric institutions. While the detained population compared to the millions facing other forms of suppression was small, the question remains: why detain any at all if mental health wasn't the issue?
The purpose of psychiatric detention seemed to be twofold:
Assisting repression: It served as another tool to punish and silence Falun Gong practitioners who opposed the crackdown. While the total number detained might seem significant in the thousands, it was still miniscule compared to the overall practitioner population.
Propaganda: Detaining practitioners in psychiatric facilities helped the Communist Party manipulate the narrative. Having initially praised Falun Gong for its health benefits, the Party now needed to justify its suppression. They falsely claimed the practice was harmful, portraying its followers as mentally unstable due to their spiritual beliefs.
As published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law: "By committing practitioners, the authorities send the message to the population at large that there must indeed be something wrong with Falun Gong. The government also counts on the people's drawing the conclusion that no matter what the case with Falun Gong, one would have to be insane to try to oppose the government's will as Falun Gong was trying to do."
Therefore, detained practitioners, labeled as "insane," faced similar victimization as those in standard detention. They were pressured to renounce their beliefs, with torture taking different forms in psychiatric settings. Physical torture was replaced by chemical means, forcibly administering medication when they refused to comply.
My 2002 report documented brutal torture and forced administration of powerful drugs on Falun Gong detainees in psychiatric institutions. Torture methods were similar to those experienced in prisons, with physical abuse used against practitioners refusing medication or continuing exercises. Sadistic methods like tubes into veins were reportedly used to punish uncooperative individuals.
This abuse continues today. A 2023 article details current cases of psychiatric abuse against Falun Gong victims across 29 Chinese provinces, occurring not only in hospitals but also prisons and detention centers.
Interestingly, psychiatric abuse and organ transplant abuse seem to be alternatives, not combined tactics. While drugs used in psychiatric abuse might damage organs, there's no evidence of direct connection between victims of psychiatric abuse being later used for organ harvesting. However, organ sourcing from prisoners of conscience did complement the established system of sourcing from common criminals. While there's no confirmation, the possibility of psychiatric abuse victims later facing organ extraction cannot be entirely ruled out.
Moving to my second question: does political abuse of psychiatry lead to organ transplant abuse? The answer is yes. While most transplant abuse victims die during the procedure, survivors could potentially face further political abuse. One well-documented case is Dengue Wang Ying, who endured both organ transplant abuse and subsequent political abuse.
Now, onto the third question: does opposition to organ transplant abuse lead to political abuse of psychiatry? As an example, consider Guan Yin He, who set up a street fruit stall in 2011. Though not a Falun Gong practitioner, authorities demanded $150,000 (nearly €20,000) for alleged rule violations. When she refused, she was forcibly hospitalized in a psychiatric facility for eight months, subjected to medication, and denied contact with her family.
Refusing to pay the fine, Guan Yin He was arrested on May 31st, 2011, and transferred to the Shizi Women's Forced Labor Camp in Chongqing, China. A few months later, on September 21st, she was beaten in the camp to force her to sign an organ donation form. Even after refusing and alerting her brother and uncle (a Party official), she was prepared for surgery. Thankfully, they intervened, preventing the operation. However, she still bears the scar under her left eye from the incision attempt.
During her year-long detention, Guan Yin He witnessed the horrific case of Falun Gong practitioner Shu Yan. On September 20th, the day before Guan Yin He was attacked, Shu Yan was arrested for distributing Falun Gong materials. Both women were sent to the same labor camp and subjected to harsh treatment.
According to Guan Yin He's account, they were regularly taken to a small room at night and forced to perform grueling exercises as punishment. One horrifying night in October 2011, Guan Yin He saw Shu Yan dragged into the room. Shu Yan was restrained, and guards forcibly fed her while extracting her corneas and possibly other organs. Despite witnessing this brutality, Guan Yin He was ordered back to her cell. She heard Shu Yan's screams until dawn, followed by an eerie silence. The other detainees concluded Shu Yan was dead and held a hunger strike in protest. This account was corroborated by another detainee who also heard Shu Yan's screams and witnessed the forced silence the next day.
Following the alleged organ harvesting incident, Guan Yin He confronted Captain Jen at a labor camp gathering. When she directly asked about selling Shu Yan's organs, Jen avoided answering and cried instead. After release from the camp in 2012, Guan Yin He petitioned the Chongqing government about her witness account and other gathered evidence of organ trafficking.
Unsuccessful in Chongqing, she continued to petition the national government in Beijing in 2016. This led to her arrest and deportation back to Chongqing. There, authorities repeatedly pressured her family to agree to her hospitalization in a psychiatric facility, claiming mental illness. The family refused, fearing it was a ruse for indefinite detention.
Her initial visit at the hospital allowed family contact, but subsequent requests for visits were denied by local authorities. To this day, seven years later, Guan Yin He remains detained in the psychiatric hospital.
This case clearly connects opposition to organ transplant abuse with subsequent psychiatric abuse.
Regarding your fourth question: While Falun Gong is not inherently political, its popularity and perceived threat to the Communist Party's supremacy led to systematic targeting and organ harvesting of practitioners. Similarly, ethnic minorities perceived as disloyal, like the Uyghurs, are also disproportionately victimized. While not every act of dissent leads to organ harvesting, the risk exists for anyone expressing opposition to the Party or its practices, including organ transplant abuse.
This raises the question: what role should psychiatrists play in ending organ transplant abuse? Intriguingly, an agreement exists between the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) and the Chinese Society of Psychiatry (CSP) not on organ abuse, but on psychiatric abuse. In a 2004 meeting, a joint statement acknowledged the CSP's cooperation in investigating alleged abuses against Falun Gong members in Chinese psychiatric institutions. The Chinese Society of Psychiatry (CSP) investigation identified instances where psychiatrists misdiagnosed and mistreated individuals due to confusing spiritual beliefs with delusions. They attributed these actions to inadequate training and professional skills, not a systematic abuse policy. The CSP agreed to educate its members to prevent such misdiagnoses and welcomed international assistance in improving psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in China. Herald East, a Scottish reporter at the time, saw this as progress in preventing future abuses and improving healthcare quality. However, it's important to note that the investigation was conducted by the CSP, not the World Psychiatric Association (WPA). The WPA essentially relied on the CSP's findings without independent verification. Furthermore, the agreement focused on preventing psychiatric abuse, not organ transplant abuse.
Regarding your sixth question: Ideally, transplant professionals and psychiatrists should collaborate within national medical associations. These associations, in turn, can work together through the World Medical Association to address such issues collectively.
Your seventh question asks: What can anti-organ transplant abuse efforts learn from combating political abuse of psychiatry? While the 2004 agreement offers little direct value, the WPA's 1977 effort against the Soviet Union provides valuable lessons. In 1977, the WPA condemned the Soviet Union's abusive psychiatric practices. Facing potential expulsion, the Soviet Union agreed to reforms in 1989:
Acknowledge systematic political abuse of psychiatry.
Discontinue the abuse.
Rehabilitate victims.
Democratize the psychiatric system.
The 2004 agreement lacked these requirements and offered no monitoring mechanism. Unlike the Soviet Union case, the CSP's membership remained conditional until the Soviet Union dissolved, making a final assessment moot.
The Chinese Society of Psychiatrists' investigation identified instances where some Chinese psychiatrists failed to distinguish between spiritual beliefs and delusions, resulting in misdiagnosis and mistreatment. It attributed these acts to insufficient training and professional skills, rather than systematic abuse. The Chinese Society agreed to take steps to educate its members about these issues and prevent further misdiagnosis and mistreatment. It also welcomed international assistance in correcting the situation and improving psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in China.
At the time, this was seen as real progress in preventing further abuses in Chinese psychiatry and leading to a higher quality of care. However, it is important to note that the investigation relied on information provided by the Chinese Society of Psychiatrists, not an independent international psychiatric association investigation. While progress was claimed, the World Psychiatric Association based its conclusions on information from the Chinese side. This example does not directly address organ transplant abuse, but it serves as an indicator of potential problems within the transplant profession when dealing with such abuses. As an illustration, consider the following question:
To what extent do transplant professionals work against politically abusive practices?
Ideally, there should be solidarity among all medical professionals. Transplant professionals and psychiatrists are specialists within the broader medical field, and umbrella organizations exist where both groups can collaborate. For example, national medical associations, which are member organizations of the World Medical Association, can facilitate joint efforts by transplant professionals and psychiatrists. This allows them to bring concerns to the World Medical Association.
Another question arises: What can those combating organ transplant abuse learn from efforts to combat the political abuse of psychiatry?
The 2004 agreement with the Chinese Society of Psychiatrists offers little value for those fighting organ transplant abuse. However, there is a prior effort by the World Psychiatric Association that may be instructive. In 1977, the association criticized the Soviet Union for its abusive use of psychiatry for political purposes. This led to the Soviet Union facing expulsion in 1983. Ultimately, the association agreed to readmit the Soviet Union in 1989 on certain conditions. These conditions included:
An acknowledgment by the Soviet Psychiatric Association that systematic abuse of psychiatry for political purposes had occurred.
A promise to discontinue such abuse.
Rehabilitation of victims.
The 2004 agreement with China lacked these elements. Instead of requiring preconditions, the Soviet Union was readmitted with a monitoring committee to track its progress. Continued membership was contingent on fulfilling the conditions; failure to do so would result in suspension.
However, in December 1991, the World Psychiatric Association Congress, which meets every three years, did not hold a meeting to reconsider the issue of unconditional Soviet membership. Therefore, Soviet Union membership in the World Psychiatric Association remained conditional until its dissolution.
So, what can those fighting political abuse of psychiatry learn from the effort to combat organ transplant abuse? There are both positive and negative lessons. In the transplant field, there have been some notable developments in standing up against transplant abuse in China. For example, the Transplantation Society Ethics Committee Policy Statement of November 2006 stated that "almost all organs from China have likely been obtained from executed prisoners." Additionally, it prohibited the acceptance of presentations involving patient data or samples from transplant recipients of organs procured from executed prisoners.
More recently, in September 2021, the Canadian Society of Nephrology and Organ Trafficking issued a policy statement outlining the duty of medical professionals to advocate for their patients and prevent harm. While this demonstrates professional awareness and a willingness to combat abuse, it has limited practical impact in terms of discouraging patients from seeking psychiatric care in China.
A more relevant example is the action taken by the Transplant Patient Society in 2014. For ethical reasons, they refused to allow 35 countries to participate in the World Transplant Conference in San Francisco. Additionally, many invited overseas transplant professionals declined to attend the 2014 transplant conference in Hangzhou, China. This had a significant impact on the profession.
The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation also made a positive contribution by issuing a statement in April 2022. It declared that, given the evidence, the People's Republic of China remains the only country to systematically support the procurement of organs and tissue from executed prisoners. As a result, submissions related to transplantation involving organs or tissue from human donors in China will not be accepted for presentation.
Unfortunately, these are positive exceptions rather than the rule. The transplant profession, as a whole, has not taken sufficient action to address organ transplant abuse in China. Today for the most part is developed a way the psychiatric profession. Great in 2004, not taking Chinese at their word, saying that there's change when they only changes that they said something that look, that's the outsiders wanted to hear. The current position of the Transplantation society and much of the transplantation. Professional worldwide is encapsulated in an exchange between the United States House of Representative Chris Smith and former Transplant Society, PresidDavid Matas: Today, much of the psychiatric profession has developed a good approach. In 2004, they didn't take China at their word, recognizing that changes claimed might just be what outsiders wanted to hear. This contrasts with the current position of the Transplantation Society and many transplant professionals worldwide. This position is encapsulated in an exchange between U.S. Representative Chris Smith and former Transplant Society President Francis Delmonico in a June 2016 House Committee subcommittee hearing where I also testified.
Representative Smith asked Dr. Delmonico, "How do you independently verify Chinese government claims when there's been such a backlash regarding lies and deception from this government?" Dr. Delmonico responded, "I'm not an apologist. I'm not here to tell you not to worry. I'm not here to verify. That's not my job. I'm here to say there's a move within the country to change."
Matas argues: Health professionals can't be experts in everything, but their ignorance shouldn't automatically defer to supposed knowledge. Amateurs should challenge experts. Research should be scrutinized, not merely accepted. Disrupting consensus needs evidence and critical questioning, not shrugs and self-deception.
While the Chinese Communist Party denies genocide and mass killings for organ extraction, evidence proves otherwise. Their denials come in various forms: personal attacks, fabricated statistics, and telling foreigners what they want to hear. Community health professionals shouldn't accept the CCP's denial of reality at face value.
The problem isn't simply ignorance, but actively endorsing a cover-up. Dr. Delmonico's statement implies a change within China, yet fails to consider the evolving cover-up. The same applies to psychiatrists.
Recommendations:
The World Psychiatric Association should demand the release of Dr. Huang Yu from psychiatric detention in China.
Abandon the 2004 agreement with China as it hasn't been respected.
Psychiatrist associations worldwide should join transplant professionals in raising concerns about both psychiatric and transplant abuse in China to the World Medical Association.
Psychiatric publications, meetings, and conferences should follow the policy of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: reject anything from China where independent sourcing cannot be verified.
During China's upcoming Human Rights Council review, urge governments to raise issues of psychiatric abuse and organ transplant abuse with prisoners of conscience.
I'll stop there. Thank you very much.
Question and answers final round:
Enric Garcia Torrents: Thank you, David. Now, if anyone has questions on this difficult topic, please ask.
Person 13: Thank you for your presentation. It was difficult to hear about your experiences, especially considering my own experiences as a mental health professional in Venezuela, where I've also witnessed psychiatric abuse. One challenge you mentioned is overcoming disbelief that these things happen. It's difficult not only to get professional organizations to investigate, but also to face complete disbelief from others who can't imagine these things are possible. I wanted to hear your thoughts on dealing with something so terrible that is often met with disbelief.
David Matas: Yes, that's a common problem with all mass atrocities. Even during the Holocaust, when people escaped and told others what was happening, like Rudolph Vrba who escaped Auschwitz with detailed plans, some still didn't believe it. It's particularly difficult with medical abuse, like organ transplant abuse, because these developments weren't intended to kill people. It's easier to believe a machine gun kills, but technology is morally neutral. The inventor's intent doesn't change that. It's how people use it. It's hard to accept the medical aspect of abusing technology for evil purposes.
I think we need to develop an awareness beyond our own immediate surroundings. Don't wait for abuses to reach you before taking action. With organ transplant abuse, it started with prisoners, then moved to Falun Gong practitioners, and now extends to vulnerable groups. Human rights violations spread if unchecked. Remember the neighbor who said, "They weren't coming for me, so I didn't protest"? Eventually, they came for him too.
We have a question! Could you read it out, please?
Enric Garcia Torrents: Person 5 asks, "As long as coercive measures exist in mental health laws, won't they be used politically and abusively?"
David Matas: Could you repeat that question?
Enric Garcia Torrents: He's asking, "As long as there are coercive measures in mental health laws, won't political and social abuse continue?
David Matas: We're dealing with human nature, and while technology develops, our capacity for good and evil remains constant. The question isn't eliminating all wrongdoing, but minimizing it. Can we do more? Absolutely. We should strive to minimize abuse, understanding that human imperfection makes a perfect world impossible.
Enric Garcia Torrents: Yes, I agree. My question concerns mental health support. If the system discourages people from speaking about trauma, it perpetuates the problem. So, outside China, do we have networks to support individuals who come forward? Networks where professionals acknowledge their experiences, don't deny their stories, and offer safe spaces to speak freely? In China, this is obviously unthinkable.
David Matas: That's a professional question with ethical considerations beyond my expertise. However, there's another aspect: transnational repression. Repressive governments don't just limit freedom at home, they try to extend it abroad. This can range from extraterritorial assassinations to more subtle tactics like threatening relatives, online harassment, and intimidation.
Since 2006, working on organ transplant abuse in China, I've faced canceled meetings, often at the last minute due to seemingly unrelated reasons. For those that proceed, I'm informed the Chinese government requested cancellation, sometimes through front organizations. I've received a death threat (thankfully unrealized), and the host of one of my events had their car shot at with bullet holes left in the window – attributed to hosting me.
People should feel free to speak their experiences once they leave these repressive environments. But we need to do more than provide welcoming spaces. We must actively combat professional repression that aims to silence them through intimidation and terror.
Enric Garcia Torrents: Thank you for your answer. Yes, indeed. And what about the situation from the outside? How are professional psychiatrists and even laypeople viewing Falun Gong? It seems like an easier target just because it's a familiar word, isn't it? A bleeding system, if you want to paint it like that, which is what they have achieved: dehumanizing and collectivizing. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
David Matas: Certainly. There are several concerns regarding Falun Gong and the situation outside China. Firstly, the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) agreement in 2004 exemplifies the problem with outsiders relying solely on China's claims without conducting independent investigations. This agreement legitimized China's false portrayal of Falun Gong as a mental illness, despite lacking scientific evidence.
Secondly, the Chinese government employs a "double game" to promote its transplant program while obscuring the unethical sourcing of organs. They boast about modern transplant techniques, yet deny allegations of forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners and other minority groups. This discrepancy raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability within the Chinese transplant system.
Furthermore, media reports and leaked footage suggest the existence of dedicated airport lanes for transporting organs within China, potentially originating from Xinjiang. This evidence contradicts the government's denials and highlights the systematic nature of the alleged abuse.
It's crucial to remember that while Falun Gong faces significant repression, other groups in China also experience similar human rights violations. We should not overlook these broader issues, recognizing that individual religious or ethnic identification often makes injustices more visible.
Ultimately, independent investigations and international pressure are necessary to address the human rights abuses occurring in China, including those affecting Falun Gong practitioners and other vulnerable groups.
One major problem is the name Falun Gong. It doesn't translate well into other languages, making it unfamiliar outside China. When the Chinese government says "Islam," people recognize it. But with Falun Gong, they haven't read the spiritual text and just see conflicting reports. They become unsure and disengaged. This vulnerability compounds the persecution.
Similarly, Tibetan Buddhists face heavy persecution, but people know Buddhism and Tibetans as a distinct group. This makes their plight easier to grasp. Just because something is unfamiliar doesn't mean both sides have equal merit. We must consider the Communist Party's terrible history of persecuting Falun Gong and other groups. It's a continuation of their well-honed propaganda machine. Every country has its unique context, and China is particularly different. Understanding these differences is crucial to comprehending the situation.
Enric Garcia Torrents: Even if victims are no longer considered dissidents, they could still be vulnerable to organ harvesting or trafficking under the guise of legal executions. While denied, this information cannot be easily verified externally. It's hard to argue that spiritual beliefs shouldn't be protected simply because a community is unfamiliar or potentially misunderstood.
David Matas: When China killed prisoners for their organs, they claimed it was legal as the prisoners were being executed anyway. The organs were supposedly donated to atone for their crimes. They later claimed to stop sourcing organs from prisons. However, a 1984 law allows extracting organs from prisoners without consent if the bodies are unclaimed. Additionally, they've circumvented the law requiring consent and banned payment. Prioritizing foreigners over locals was also supposed to be forbidden.
Importantly, Falun Gong has never been outlawed. China never admitted sourcing organs from them, nor did they justify it as legal. However, China's party controls everything: prosecution, investigation, police, defense, courts, and even judicial committees. It's not a legal system like ours; it's a tool for maintaining party rule. Laws are selectively enforced, never against the party itself. Therefore, whether the psychiatric and organ transplant abuses are technically legal is irrelevant. The party ultimately runs everything and disregards laws when convenient.
Enric Garcia Torrents: Thank you, David. We greatly appreciate having you here.
David Matas: Thank you for inviting me.
Enric Garcia Torrents: You're welcome.
This transcript was computer generated and might still contain errors. Please share any feedback or relevant experience by email at research@enricgarcia.md. The ongoing series on punitive practices and human right abuses is open to anyone willing to share either by live interview, online presentation, text or other ways. Please feel free to schedule a meeting with me to start arranging any collaboration. A video testimonials collection system is also available online at: https://www.videoask.com/fhsi8ype5
