Two independent experts on human rights who visited China on behalf of the United Nations have said that the 'abolition' of the crime of counter-revolutionary activities was only cosmetic. But the report, submitted to the UN Human Rights Commission, did not find the controversial labour re-education system constituted arbitrary detention. It failed to mention allegations that Tibetan prisoners visited by the experts had subsequently been beaten up. The findings were the result of a 10-day visit to China in October by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention's chairman, Kapil Sibal, and vice-chairman, Louis Joinet. They went to a prison in Beijing, a pre-trial centre and two prisons in Shanghai. They also saw a juvenile delinquents' reformatory facility in Chengdu and the Drapchi prison in Lhasa. In addition to prison visits and interviews with prisoners, the two experts also held meetings with Chinese judicial officials. They acknowledged China's sincerity, saying the authorities approached the visit 'in a spirit of openness and understanding'. Their report said: 'The working group wishes to state that, as a result of this openness, it was possible for it to conduct all its interviews with prisoners without witnesses.' It added that at Drapchi prison, the group had access to detainees who were not common-law prisoners. 'In China, this was an unprecedented initiative,' it said. The experts praised China's revision of the Criminal Procedure Law as 'a step in the right direction' but found the so-called abolition of the counter-revolutionary crime inadequate. 'The group notes with concern that though the Criminal Law no longer regards counter-revolutionary offences as punishable . . . those offences still remain in the statute, albeit under a different nomenclature. 'They . . . enable the authorities to arrest and harass persons who may be peacefully exercising fundamental liberties,' the experts claimed. They urged Beijing to further revise legislation and define the crime of 'endangering national security' in precise terms as well as including the principle of 'presumption of innocence'. But they did not condemn the labour re-education penal system which allows police to jail individuals for up to three years without trial. The pair described the system as 'accepted by Chinese society, including those to whom it was applied'. They recommended Beijing administer the punishment under a judge's supervision, to avoid 'any residual suspicion of arbitrariness in the measure'.