• Court rejects appeals from 12 pro-democracy activists in 'Hong Kong 47' subversion case.
• The activists were previously sentenced to prison terms ranging from 4 to 10 years.
• The case has drawn condemnation from international rights groups and foreign governments.
• Hong Kong officials assert that the national security law restores order and is being fairly applied.
• The court upholds a sentence of seven years as appropriate, rejecting claims of excessive punishment.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has dismissed all appeals by twelve opposition activists associated with the landmark "Hong Kong 47" subversion case. The verdict concludes that their involvement in an unofficial primary election held in 2020 was an act of subversion as defined under the national security law imposed by Beijing. The activists' sentences, which range from four to ten years, have drawn significant international criticism, with foreign governments and rights organizations labeling the case as politically motivated persecution of dissent, according to Al Jazeera, Reuters, and South China Morning Post.

The court ruling on Monday upheld the legality of the sentences, dismissing claims that the penalties, starting at seven years, were excessive. Judges concluded that the activists aimed to disrupt the governmental structure through their participation in the primary, which was deemed a strategic attempt to create a constitutional crisis. "This plan was to paralyse the government by compromising the annual budget," judges stated, echoing the prosecution's argument that the actions of the activists constituted a "grand strategy of subversion," according to Reuters and South China Morning Post.

The appeals were filed by prominent figures including former lawmakers and district councillors, all of whom argued for the legality of their actions within the context of Hong Kong's mini-constitution. Following the verdict, family members of the defendants expressed outrage, questioning the legitimacy of the legal proceedings and condemning the ruling as a failure to uphold democratic principles. "What crimes have they committed?" one family member asked, reflecting widespread discontent among supporters, as noted by Al Jazeera and South China Morning Post.

Despite the international criticism, Hong Kong officials maintain that the national security law is vital for upholding order after the disorderly protests of 2019. "The court's decisions demonstrate that any attempt to subvert state power will lead to appropriate penalties," stated a government spokesperson, emphasizing a commitment to law and order, according to Reuters and South China Morning Post.

In a notable outcome, the court reiterated the acquittal of barrister Lawrence Lau, indicating that there was insufficient evidence that he directly advocated for the actions deemed subversive by the court. Lau’s participation in the primary was considered less overt and possibly aimed at pursuing legitimacy in the political framework, leading to a different legal interpretation of his actions, as highlighted by Al Jazeera, Reuters, and South China Morning Post.