Australia: Urge Human Rights Improvements in Vietnam
Bilateral Human Rights
Dialogue Scheduled for April 26-27 in Hanoi
Human Rights Watch
April
25, 2012
(New York) – Australia
should urge Vietnam to release all political prisoners and to end restrictions
on the freedoms of expression, association, peaceful assembly, belief, and
religion when the two sides meet for their annual bilateral human rights
dialogue in Hanoi on April 26-27, 2012, Human Rights Watch said today in a
16-page memo submitted to Australia.
During the first quarter of 2012 alone, Vietnam sent at least 12 people to
prison for exercising these rights peacefully. This follows the imprisonment of
at least 33 rights activists and internet bloggers who were convicted in 2011
for simply expressing their political and religious beliefs.
“Vietnam has mastered the practice of harassing, arresting, and charging
activists brave enough to speak their minds with vaguely worded national
security crimes that carry severe penalties,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia
director at Human Rights Watch. “Australia should call out the Vietnam
authorities on their farcical claims that they don’t have any political
prisoners, because all those convicted have violated these rights-abusing laws.”
Australian officials should urge Vietnam to amend or repeal provisions in the
penal code, the Ordinance on Religion, Ordinance 44 on Handling of
Administrative Violations, and other domestic laws that criminalize peaceful
dissent and certain religious activities in contravention of Vietnam’s
obligations as a state that has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR). In particular, Australia should press for revocation
or amendment of “national security” crimes, including penal code articles 79
(“subversion of people’s administration”), 87 (“undermining the unity policy”),
88 (“propaganda against the state”), 89 (“disrupting security”), 91 (“fleeing or
staying abroad to oppose the people’s government”), 92 (“supplemental
punishment” to strip citizen rights), and 258 (“abusing democratic freedoms to
infringe on the interests of the state”).
Human Rights Watch pointed out that in practice, those who form or join any
political party in serious opposition to the Communist Party of Vietnam can be
accused of “subversion of the people’s administration” while those unwilling to
conform to state-controlled religious organizations are frequently prosecuted
for “undermining the unity policy.” Activists who write pro-democracy articles
and anti-government commentaries and give interviews with foreign-based radio
stations such as Radio Free Asia (RFA), Voice of America (VOA), and British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are often held for “conducting propaganda against
the state.”
Workers or land protesters who organize public protests or wild-cat strikes are
more likely to be accused of “disrupting security.” Rights activists who try to
flee Vietnam, or go overseas to conduct training and then return to Vietnam, can
be accused upon arrest of “fleeing abroad or staying abroad to oppose the
people’s government.” Religious activists, land rights petitioners, or
anti-corruption campaigners are also prosecuted for “abusing democratic
freedoms” to “infringe upon the interests of the State.” Finally, after serving
many years in prison, those convicted under the above-mentioned articles can
find themselves subjected to “supplemental punishment” which strips such former
prisoners of certain citizen’s rights for up to five years, places them on
probation or effective house arrest, and authorizes confiscation of a part or
all of their properties.
“Vietnam’s diplomats like to tout the country’s respect for rule of law to
foreign partners,” said Robertson. “But a justice system that imprisons people
who protest peacefully contradicts the government’s empty assurances. Australian
officials should use the dialogue to demand the same respect for international
legal commitments to human rights that they expect for the provisions of
international trade and aid agreements.”
Human Rights Watch also called on Australiato prioritize the immediate release
of all political prisoners facing serious health problems so that they can
receive proper medical treatment. In July and September, 2011, at least two
political prisoners – Nguyen Van Trai and Truong Van Suong – died in jail.
In particular, Australia should raise grave concerns about the health of a
number of current prisoners. For example, the poet and anti-corruption
campaigner Nguyen Huu Cau, 66, has served a total of 34 years in prison since
1975. He has lost most of his vision and is almost completely deaf. Hoa Hao
Buddhist activist Mai Thi Dung, 43, serving an 11-year prison term for
advocating Hoa Hao Buddhism, is gravely ill, with both feet paralyzed, and is
suffering from heart disease and gallstones, said Hoa Hao Buddhist activists who
visited her in 2010. Some other political prisoners facing difficult health
conditions include the Catholic activist Nguyen Van Ly, the Hoa Hao Buddhist
campaigner Nguyen Van Lia, and the pro-decmocracy writer Nguyen Xuan Nghia. All
three are serving long prison terms for peacefully exercising their rights.
“Father Nguyen Van Ly, Nguyen Huu Cau, Mai Thi Dung, Nguyen Van Lia, and Nguyen
Xuan Nghia should be immediately released so they can receive proper medical
treatment,” Robertson said. “Australia should ask across the table to their
Vietnam interlocutors what they have to fear from severely ill activists and
demand the authorities immediately permit humanitarian medical parole for these
prisoners.”
Australia should also raise serious concerns about the use of administrative
detention to detain a land rights activist, Bui Thi Minh Hang, who was sent to
Thanh Ha education center for two years of administrative detention without
trial for participating in peaceful protests in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City that
took place between June and August. On April 4, 2012, officials at Thanh Ha
Education center prevented her from signing a document that would launch a
lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the decision that sent her to an
education center without any trial.
In their decision on Bui Thi Minh Hang, the Hanoi Municipal People’s Committee
cited Decree 76, which provides guidance for sending people to “education
centers.” According to article 35 of this decree: “Persons subject to the
application of measure of consignment to education center or their lawful
representatives may lodge their complaints about, or initiate administrative
lawsuits against, the application of such measure.” However, the authorities
have ignored complaints lodged by Bui Thi Minh Hang’s lawyer, Ha Huy Son.
“To send Bui Thi Minh Hang to an education center just because she participated
in peaceful protests is a clear violation of international human rights law,”
said Robertson. “Australia should raise concerns and urge the authorities to
release her immediately and unconditionally.”
In addition to the issue of political prisoners and detainees, Human Rights
Watch said Australia should press the Vietnam government to address abuses by
police and officials in detention centers and end impunity for such abuse, and
halt forced labor in drug rehabilitation centers.
“Recent research by Human Rights Watch found cashews and other goods being
produced by forced labor in drug detention centers and then exported,” Robertson
said. “Australia should advocate a different, more humane and evidence-based
model for rehabilitation and ensure that no goods tainted by forced labor are
imported into Australia.”