Vietnam: Police
Reforms Fall Short
Door Opens for
Future Accountability, Closes for Lawyers
Human
Rights Watch
August
21, 2014
New York – New
Vietnamese government regulations on police investigations improve on past rules
but fall well short of the deep reforms needed to curb widespread police abuses,
Human Rights Watch said today.
The Ministry of Public Security’s new Circular 28 entitled “Regulating the
Conduct of Criminal Investigations by the People’s Public Security” will go into
effect on August 25, 2014, and supplement existing regulations.
“Abuses by Vietnam’s police have grown rampant in recent years because the
government has failed to rein in officials who violate rights,” said Phil
Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “If there is political
will to seriously enforce them, then these new police regulations could start a
process of ensuring police abuses are investigated and prosecuted.”
Circular 28 makes a number of positive changes over existing regulations, Human
Rights Watch said. It sets out that the first principle for conducting a police
investigation is to “comply with the Constitution and laws; respect the
interests of the State, human rights, and the rights and legitimate interests of
offices, organizations and individuals” (article 4). The Circular provides
clarification for implementation of the existing regulation, Ordinance 23 on the
“Organization of Criminal Investigation,” which makes no mention of “human
rights” or the need for the rights and interests of individuals to guide
investigations. Circular 28 also prohibits police investigators “from obtaining
coerced statements or coercively planting statements, or using corporal
punishment in any form” (article 31). It also prohibits investigators from
“ask[ing] or harass[ing] for any favor or benefit in any form from the accused
person, the detainee or their loved ones, or any individual, office or
organizations related to the case” (article 31).
Circular 28 also requires that police officers tasked with investigation work
“take responsibility before their superiors and before the law for all
activities and decisions they make” (article 4), which may improve
accountability for actions taken. However, clarification is needed from the
Ministry of Public Security that “responsibility before the law” should not be
overridden by “responsibility before their superiors,” especially when superiors
may have engaged in abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
Circular 28 also contains a number of provisions that could bring some
accountability to the inspection of detention centers, and actions to resolve
complaints and accusations of police misconduct and abuses.
“If the Vietnamese government is serious about ending police abuses, Circular 28
could provide a good start,” Robertson said. “But no one should assume that
progress can be made unless top levels of the government are wholly committed to
ensuring effective police reform.”
Problematic Regulations; Due Process Concerns
Circular 28 also contains a number of highly problematic regulations, Human
Rights Watch said. For example, its provisions place too much emphasis on the
role of the commune police, who are the least professional of the country’s
police. It is not evident that the commune police can effectively fulfill their
specified responsibilities under the Circular, including “carry[ing] out the
preliminary verification of the crime in order to categorize the case” (article
27) and “taking statements” (article 28).
The commune police have the least resources and training in handling suspects
and interrogations and have frequently been implicated in beating suspects in
custody. Assigning them investigation tasks with vague instructions merely
facilitates the possibility they may use abusive methods to obtain confessions
and evidence, Human Rights Watch said.
The Circular also uses language that presumes criminality, such as by referring
to investigation suspects as “criminals” (nguoi pham toi) (article 28).
This raises concerns about the presumption of innocence before the law of
individuals not yet found guilty by a court.
Circular 28 constricts rather than expands the role of defense lawyers, who are
crucial for protecting the due process rights of criminal suspects, Human Rights
Watch said. Under article 38, lawyers and legal assistants may be subject to
disciplinary measures for “carrying out activities that prevent or cause
difficulties to investigation work such as… preventing [someone from giving] a
statement, disclosing secrets… or filing baseless complaints or petitions.”
Circular 28 even seems to encourage police investigators to “collect evidence
and documents that prove the act of causing difficulties to their investigation
work” by making use of all methods at their disposal including “sound and video
recordings and other means.” These provisions on legal counsel give too much
power to police investigators to arbitrarily decide which defense activities are
appropriate and which should be punished, Human Rights Watch said.
On August 7, the Vietnam Bar Federation, the national bar association
representing lawyers throughout the country, sent a letter to Public Security
Minister Tran Dai Quang requesting that the Ministry of Public Security abolish
or amend article 38. According to the bar federation, the article treats defense
counsel as unequal to police investigators, which may lead to abuses of power.
On August 16, the Hanoi Bar Association planned a conference to discuss Circular
28. However, the conference was cancelled at the last minute after the police
intervened with the managers of the rented venue, which then told the lawyers
that it had become unavailable.
“Lawyers should not have to
struggle to meet to discuss new regulations that will affect them and their
clients,” Robertson said. “Vietnam can’t expect to become a country that upholds
the rule of law if it obstructs lawyers from doing their jobs.”
For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Vietnam, please visit:
https://www.hrw.org/asia/vietnam
For more information, please contact:
In Bangkok, Phil Robertson (English, Thai): +66-85-060-8406; or
robertp@hrw.org. Follow on Twitter @Reaproy
In San Francisco, Brad Adams (English): +1-347-463-3531 or adamsb@hrw.org.
Follow on Twitter @BradAdamsHRW
In Washington, DC, John Sifton (English): +1-646-479-2499 (mobile);
or siftonj@hrw.org.
Follow on Twitter @johnsifton