STRASBOURG, April 14 -- China is making progress in establishing fundamental principles of human rights protection in its criminal judicial system, according to certain European specialists in human rights law.

The Criminal Procedure Law in China was initially formulated in 1979, and has been comprehensively amended, first in 1996, and again in 2012. The past three decades have witnessed the development of human rights protection, and now a dialogue has been firmly established between Chinese and European legal scholars to examine how further progress might be made.

Speaking to Xinhua, Professor Elisabeth Steiner, the Austrian judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, said: "I am extremely glad that this dialogue between experts in this field has started."

Steiner recently invited delegations from the European-Chinese Institute of Human Rights at Istanbul Kultur University in Turkey and the Sino-European Institute of Human Rights Law at Yantai University in China to visit Strasbourg and the ECHR where a symposium on human rights protection in China and Europe was held.

These two institutes have a cooperation agreement to study human rights protection in China and Europe.

During the symposium, a presentation was given by Professor Song Zhenwu, the director of the Sino-European Institute of Human Rights Law, on the development of human rights protection in China's criminal judicial system. This presentation reviewed the progress made by China in putting into law measures to protect human rights in the prosecution of criminals.

Steiner commented that Song's presentation showed that "China is taking this issue very seriously."

Since the 2012 amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law, human rights protection has been significantly improved, Song explained. Moreover, the Chinese government, as well as the judicial authorities, have expressed their resolve to further improve this protection in criminal justice. More importantly, the police, procurators, and judges have already recognized the significance of human rights protection.

For example, investigators are reluctant to risk being held responsible for extorting a confession from suspects through illegal means. "Due to the progress made in recent years, it has become even harder and more demanding than ever before for the police and other investigators to solve a criminal case," Song stated. "We have reasons to be confident about the further improvement of China's criminal judicial system, and further improvement in human rights protection."

Significant steps taken in the 2012 amendment include the emphasis on a balance between the punishment of criminals and the protection of human rights, and between substantive justice and procedural justice.

"Respecting and protecting human rights" is now listed as one of the objectives of the Criminal Procedure Law. In addition, the 2012 amendment reformed the defense system, for example, granting a suspect the right to retain a defense lawyer from the day when he or she is interrogated for the first time by a criminal investigation authority.

In addition, the principle against self-incrimination was established. Prohibiting the extortion of confessions by illegal means was already prescribed in the previous amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law (1996). The 2012 amendment reinforced this provision.

"The progress in China is surprising, however it is also not widely known in the rest of the world," said Hans-Heiner Kuehne, a professor of German, European and international criminal law and criminal procedure law at the University of Trier, following the symposium. "Therefore, it is very important to maintain this dialogue."

There are still a number of issues worthy of discussion, Song explained, not only in the Criminal Procedure Law, but its implementation in practice as well.

For example, the rule on audio-visual recording the whole investigative process does not fully apply to all cases; the rate of witness attendance is still low, and the litigant's right to cross-examination is not fully guaranteed; and it is still difficult to exclude illegal evidence in practice.