FIFTY YEARS of VIOLATIONS of Human Rights in Communist Vietnam 1945-1995

Law, by its simplest definition, can be interpreted as a body of rules regulating the behavior of the citizens. It is destined, first, to protect the citizen's rights from being violated in an unjust manner and, second, to translate in precise terms the obligations the citizen must perform toward the nation and other citizens. Nevertheless, Lenin conceived that law is only a tool used to repress the bourgeois and the reactionary. The legal system in present-day Vietnam is grounded on Lenin's concept of law. Article 126 of the 1992 Constitution, for example, defined the legal system as being the protector of the law of socialism. Article 1 of the Criminal Procedural Code also specifies that law is promulgated to "contribute to the protection of socialism." The justice system based on such concept could not abscond severe defaults.

The Law and Democracy

The secrets of democracy, as Nguyen Manh Tuong conceived, consist in its functioning, the analysis of natural laws and the liberty of man. Consequently, they require a minimal knowledge of public law and international legislation. These conditions of democracy have a bearing on the economy of the country concerned. Its prosperity, even if diminished, is necessary to its accomplishment and enjoyment of freedom and human rights. What communism has performed for the propaganda for Marxism-Leninism, one has to perform in its place the propagation of democracy. To apply democracy, it ought to learn its principles and organize the institutions that help make it functional. In its essence, its complete meaning and its full effect, democracy consists of two obligations that indissolubly link one to the other: the obligation of the government of the people and the obligation of the government for the people. It would be a shame to play a trick with words and pretend that the government for the people is enough. If it is not the people that act and control, no one could take action and control in their place. Under the pretext that when one performs his work for the people, one can commit all kinds of infamy and execute such measures that considerably endanger the interests of the people. That is an imposture (Nguyen Manh Tuong, 1992: 343-344).

Separation of Powers

In almost all countries in the world, the separation of powers is distinctively divided: the legislative power is invested in the congress, the administrative in the government, and the judicial power in the judiciary with its legal system. These are separate powers, and one does not interfere in the other. However, Communist Vietnam is an exception.

Historically, as Bernard Fall indicated, from November 1946 until May 1960 the Democratic Republic of Vietnam had operated with the same National Assembly. The membership of this body nevertheless shrank from 444 to 202 as a result of purges of its non-Communist members, the desertion of others during the war, and normal attrition. After the 1956 uprising, the regime planned a revision of the original 1946 constitution. Ho Chi Minh took a personal hand in the drafting of the new constitution. The draft constitution was presented for public discussion in April 1959 and was adopted by the legislature on January 1, 1960. The 1960 constitution of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was particularly set apart from the constitutions of the other "people's democracies" in that it denounced the West and praised communism and the personal role of Ho Chi Minh who was, in practice vested with almost unlimited power. Concerning the judicial system, the independence of the courts was virtually nominal. The constitution practically nullified the guarantee of the separation of powers by making the courts "responsible" to the People's Councils and placing the Supreme Court under the authority of the National Assembly. In addition, the Assembly made provision for a new apparatus of "People's Control Organs" which seemed to combine features of the Soviet Communist party's "Control Commission," the Soviet Procurator's Office, and the Chinese Nationalists' "Control Yuan." Like all other government organs, the People's Control organs were subject to the National Assembly (Fall, 1966: 126-127).

After perfunctory revisions and amendments, the 1992 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam came into being. As Nguyen Can pointed out, the newest constitution provides the establishment of the three national supreme institutions: the National Assembly, the Government, and the Supreme People's Court. However, the separation of powers among these institutions is not clearly defined. Article 83 of the Constitution stipulates that the National Assembly is the only institution vested with the rights to enact constitutional laws and judicial laws. The Government is vested with the responsibility to execute constitutional laws. Nevertheless, the Constitution does not specify the limits between the constitutional laws and the regulatory laws, thereby giving the Government the right to promulgate legal documents as laws in the form of a resolution, a decree, or a decision. The Decree on the Regulations of Religions 69/HDBT, March 21, 1991, for example, is a regulatory document that takes on the force of a decree. The Council of Ministers has the right to issue legal documents, and so do administrative authorities at the lower levels. In other countries, the interpretation of the constitution and of the law is within the authority of the judiciary. Article 91 of the 1992 Constitution, nevertheless, vests this right with the Executive Committee of the National Assembly. The jurisdiction, on the other hand, is invested in the Commission of Internal Security or the Commission for Guidance for Jurisdiction, which are both under the control of the Party.

The State Council is elected by the National Assembly, and members of the National Assembly can concurrently be makers of the law and law orders, voters for members of the government, or judges of the People's Supreme Court (Articles 83 and 100 of the 1992 Constitution). However, in any case, the Vietnamese Communist Party is the leader. It practically controls everything since, according to Article 4 of the 1992 Constitution, "the Vietnamese Communist Party is the sole force to lead the State and society; it is the fundamental agent that decides every victory of the Vietnam Revolution." Such a political totalitarian regime certainly will not guarantee the respect for human rights. In other words, the absence of a law that regulates the rights of the human person is a violation of human rights. The Vietnamese Communist Party only represents a group of people. Nevertheless, it despotically seizes all the powers of the State. It makes and enforces the law. It supervises and interprets the law. It controls the judiciary machinery and commands all interest groups through the Fatherland Front (Article 9 of the 1992 Constitution) and the General Association of State Employees and Workers (Article 10 of the 1992 Constitution). It plainly violates both civil and human rights (Nguyen Can, 1994: 33-34).

A Totalitarian Regime

The Hanoi rule encamps on its positions and appears more vigilant than ever in face of opposition and protest. The authorities turn to a deaf ear and condemn unquestionably the reformists, characterized as demagogues and opportunists. There is no question whatsoever to separate the power of the Party from that of the State (Nhan Dan, June 25, 1991). While reaffirming the politics of the "open-door economy," Party Secretary-General Do Muoi declared at the Seventh Congress that nothing can shake the Party and the people in the determination to follow the path of socialism. General Le Duc Anh hammered a nail in his address on his investiture of his function as Chief of State in September 1992: "We must have a strong government to get out of the economic crisis of the country, to fight against negative phenomena and advance towards socialism."

Lam Le Trinh asserted that Hanoi's words and its deeds seldom agree. Treaties are signed but not respected; constitutions are adopted then violated, all in the name of Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh. Slogans are bandied about; public opinion is expected to rally around them, and they change. The current buzz words are "renovation" and "reconciliation." Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi, Vo Van Kiet use them daily. What is really behind them? The "renovated" regime is, in fact, a pretense of a representative system. The government is not under the control of the National Assembly and is manipulated by the "Fatherland Front" which is essentially made up of loyal party cadres. History has shown that this Front is the "legitimate offspring," the basic cell of the Communist Party. The other fronts, the Viet Minh, the Lien Viet, the Front for National Reunification, the famous Front for Liberation of South Vietnam, were all "adopted" by the Communist Party to fulfill specific needs. According to Article 9 of the [1992] Constitution, the Fatherland Front controls the government as well as the National Assembly. It receives its political instructions directly from the Party whose leading position and supreme authority are clearly defined in Article 4 of the 1992 Constitution. The saying "The Party comes first; the Party is the Fatherland" shows that Communist ideology is therefore an uprooted Vietnamese. (Lam Le Trinh, 1994).

Absence of a Rule of Law

Nguyen Manh Tuong, who represented a group of intellectuals, delivered a speech to the National Congress of the Fatherland Front in Hanoi condemning the regime to be erroneous. The most serious error the Communist rule committed during the land reforms (1954-56) was that it did not mind establishing a rule of law regulating the obligations and interests of the people as well as those of the leaders. The spiritual life of the people was unsettled. The people were always averse to abuses of power due to the absence of a rule of law. The people, thus, had no rights and means whatsoever to voice their opinions and to contribute to state policies. There were courts of justice, a ministry of justice, laws and regulations, but there was not a rule of law.

Nguyen Van Huong, the then Vice-Minister of Justice, in his special memorandum published on the party-run daily "Cuu Quoc" (National Salvation) on December 2, 1956, acknowledged: "The interests of the State, the life and property of the people have been violated, in many instances, very seriously. In some areas, there is no regard for the law, while in others, it is openly flouted."

The party-run magazine "Hoc Tap" (Research and Studies), the research organ for ideological indoctrination, in its issue of publication in November 10, 1956, also admitted that "when referring to mistakes made during Land Reform, many of our comrades blamed other comrades who were responsible for the carrying out of the Land Reform program. They have even accused the Party, and always, these accusations have been made in a public place such as a theater, train station, or public garden. They have discussed these mistakes in a completely irresponsible manner. There are comrades who took an active part in Land Reform, either as team chiefs or committee members have openly declared before the public that they acted under pressure from higher authorities. Their only crime, they persisted, lay in the fact that the whole policy was wrong; they had lacked the courage to protest (Hoang Van Chi, 1964: 223).

Van Duc presented his view as a witness that there were no real laws under the Communist rule, even one that might be used to blind international public opinion and serve to adorn the political regime. In democratic societies, one might cite such things as "due legal process" and "fair trial." In Communist Vietnam, such things were considered "bizarre." There were only laws that were used to punish the citizen. To party members, there were special rules that the Communists termed as "internal discipline." Party members would only be judged and tried under these rules, no matter what crimes they had committed and how serious their crimes might have been. These rules were simplistic and elastic and varied from one province to another. Local party cells often interpreted them on their own terms.

It was until 1988 that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam promulgated the Criminal Laws, and only later did it promulgate the Criminal Procedural Code. Both the laws and procedures now become out-of-date. They are not appropriate for the needs of "openness" and require to be revised. As a matter of fact, one can not help from comparing the laws compiled by lawyers in the South before 1975 with those prepared by law officials of the North regime.

The Justice in the South, in effect, had all its laws--the Civil Laws, the Criminal Laws, the Labor Laws, the Navigation and Maritime Laws, the Regulatory and Administrative Laws, etc.--with all their procedures for lawsuits and jurisprudence. Furthermore, it was served by a large contingent of graduates from law schools inside the country and overseas. The Justice in the North, on the contrary, was considered as unimportant. Only a few lawyers and graduates from the Paris schools of law before 1945 stayed in the North after the Geneva Agreements (1954). The situation was so deplorable. The Association of Lawyers' representative at the National Assembly was a professor of Western Literature, Mr. Phung Van Tuu.

In a workshop for attorneys in 1992, a lecturer, who was sent from Hanoi, had to avow that he would only try to perform his duty to present the materials instead of giving a lecture. This was contrary to what cadres from the North said when they first came to the South. They blamed Southern intellectuals for their interest in such subjects as laws and philosophy, those studies they considered as unproductive for a better society. Now, to everyone's astonishment, they are eager to reopen law schools and invite law professors and lawyers from France to come to Vietnam to teach and compile laws for the regime (Van Duc, 15 (1973)).

Bui Tin contended that there is an absence of conditions for a sane competitive environment and an adequate body of laws to help produce a new class of businessmen whom the government had once condemned and suppressed.

There is still an absence of free lawyers. There is not a standard law university. There are no civil and business codes (which are now being compiled with the help of France!) and other codes. Lawyers now are all state lawyers. They defend the State. In a society where law is respected, the position of free lawyers is very important. They defend the citizen's interests, honor, property, and rights to freedom. The laws are implemented and amended. The law is respected, and the judges are impartial. Until when will Vietnam have free lawyers and all the laws it needs, and until when will the law be respected by everyone?

It is only until the time when the Party will not have the right to interfere in matters of justice, to twist the law, to give sentences on its own volition, and to defend the dishonest and punish the honest that the law is respected. Even top leaders of the Party should also be prosecuted if they break the law. Without clear and upright justice, there will only be the law of the jungle! Today, the Communist leaders talk about law, the compilation of new laws, and the respect for law, but they are not honest. They talk about law, but they do not willingly carry it out (Bui Tin, 1993: 87).

JUSTICE UNDER THE VIETNAMESE COMMUNIST RULE

Violence

In his letter to Party Secretary-General Do Muoi on August 19, 1994, the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do wrote:

Terrorism

It was, as Hoang Van Chi put it, the eradication of the last vestige of feudalism in the thinking of mandarin elements in the State machinery and a prelude to the anti-feudal phase of the Land Reform (1953-1954) during which half a million Vietnamese, that is, 4% of the population of North Vietnam, were sacrificed. The campaign was preceded by two others, the implementation of the system of taxes, whose aim was to impoverish the whole population and to reduce all Vietnamese society to the level of its lowest members, and a preliminary wave of terror which was aimed to liquidate all "dangerous reactionaries."

Cadres with sticks and ropes came to the meetings where the villagers discussed the Agricultural and Trade taxes. Tax-debtors were arrested, tortured, and asked why they had not paid their taxes and who had advised them not to pay. In their questioning, they beat the victim while mentioning specific names selected from their list until the latter gave them the answer required of him. After that, the victim was required to sign a confession in which he had to state the names of some organizations and other members of that organization. These names were taken from the lists they previously mentioned. Those listed as reactionaries were arrested and tortured. They were not necessarily landlords, rich peasants, or even reactionaries. Many of them could be fairly described as following a middle-of-the-road course.

On one occasion, when a victim became so frightened that he lost his senses and denounced the chairman of the meeting. The chairman was dragged from his seat and tortured. The situation rapidly degenerated into anarchy. Hooligans took advantage of a wonderful opportunity to enhance their prestige in the eyes of the Party. They resorted to extreme brutality and tortured indiscriminately all those who came under their authority.

The death-toll averaged between three to five in every village. Dang Van Huong, a Cabinet minister, who happened to spend his holiday in his native village, was shocked to find himself denounced and beaten as a reactionary while his colleagues in the central government did nothing to intervene. Both he and his wife committed suicide after the incident.

Public trials before and during the Agrarian Reform were arranged in every province with long lists of traitors being drawn up and sent to the central committee of the Party for approval. These lists included the names of the following types of people living in each province: the richest landlord; the most senior Buddhist monk; the Catholic bishop; the most influential Confucianist; and the highest mandarin who had served under the previous monarchist regime in the days of the French Protectorate. While awaiting trial, the "traitors" were transferred from jail to jail and were led under military escort from one place to another to be exhibited to the people, after the fashion of the parade of animals prior to the opening performance of a circus. Their feet were chained together, and their arms were tied by a single rope joining the whole suffering line. They staggered along the dusty roads under the glaring sun holding in their manacled hands pieces of string by means of which they lifted the foot chains and prevented these from dragging along the road.

The trials were public, which meant that they were attended by two delegations of party members, one from among the villagers and the other from the organizations of workers. The delegates were granted at least two weeks to study the case and to memorize the slogans they would be required to shout at appropriate moments. However, sentences were not unduly numerous for they were all matters of national importance and of a symbolic character. The regime took the opportunity of proving to be both just and magnanimous (Hoang Van Chi, 1964: 102-106).

Malpractice of the Law

Bui Tin recalled that, during the years of 1965-1967, when strict measures against and arrests of the "pro-Soviet" revisionists were in full process, security cadres from the General Directorate For Politics, in some instances, came to the daily "Nhan Dan" (the People) to "work with" people in the daily. In others, they came in closed cars, read arrest warrants to a certain suspect, and escorted him out to their cars. Similar were the arrests of the edirtor-in-chief of the daily "Nhan Dan" (The People), of Lieutenant Colonel Hoang The Dung, Lieutenant Colonel Tran Thu, Lieutenant Colonel Mai Luan, Major Dinh Chan, Major Mai Hien, Lieutenant Colonel Dang Can, and Lieutenant Colonel Nguyen Can. They were abducted to unknown whereabouts (Bui Tin, 1993: 240).

Hundreds of political cases of "anti-party," of "anti-leadership," of "anti-socialism," of "revisionism," of "reactionaries," and of crimes "instigated by the colonialists and the imperialists' secret agency have not been cleared. And the injustices against the victims have not made known to the public. They were imprisoned and humiliated. Their families and friends suffered misery due to political discrimination. There were those among them who suffered injustices and died in humiliation. There were those among them who have made complaints more than a hundred times, but they have still not received an answer. They are: Generals Dang Kim Giang, Le Liem; Colonels Do Duc Kien, Nguyen Minh Nghia, Le Minh Nghia, Nguyen Hieu, Phan Hoang; Professors Bui Cong Trung, Nguyen Manh Tuong, Dao Duy Anh; Journalists Hoang The Dung, Nguyen Kien Giang, Quang Han, Mai Luan, Mai Hien, Dinh Chan, Tran Thu, Khac Tiep, Hong Van; Writers and Artists Hoang Cam, Le Dat, Tran Dan, Phung Quan, Nguyen Binh, Huu Loan, Minh Giang, Quang Dung, Tran Chau, Tran Dinh, Ha Minh Tuan, Viet Phuong, Anh Chinh, Sy Ngoc, Van Cao, Tu Phac, Dang Dinh Hung, Tran Le Van, Chu Ngoc, Hoang Tich Linh; Cabinet Minister Ung Van Khiem; Director Vu Dinh Huynh; and Colonels Cao Nham, Do Truong, Nguyen Tran Thiet, who were arrested and interrogated after the Army Congress in 1986. Also, at this time, the generals at the Institute of Military Academy for High-ranking Officers were interrogated. The Directorate for the Protection of the Army conducted the investigation.. This case should be made public, openly and in conformity with the law (Bui Tin, 1991: 158-59).

During the chaotic period after the takeover of Saigon in 1975, the province party secretary, the chairman of the province People's Council, and the director of the province Security Police Department had all the powers. They decided everything within their territory at their own will. The decisions on the arrest and imprisonment of people, the confiscation of properties, the distributions of booties in the campaigns of economic reforms and administration inspections were carried out at their own volition without referring to any laws. The procedures for lawsuits are constantly violated in major trials, both political and commercial. Two violations invariably committed are: a) temporary detention beyond the time permitted and b) at the time of arrest and before trial in a court of justice, a suspect is considered as a convict. In political trials, political standpoints are often used as evidences, regardless of facts and proofs, for the charges and indictment against the defendants (Pham Van Thanh, 1994 ).

The malpractice of the law in Vietnam resides in the fact that the Vietnamese Communist Party still wants to hang on to its unchanging scheme to maintain at all costs its all-powerful administrative totalitarianism. This scheme is the profound cause that ends in the oppressive and repressive measures it continually carried out throughout the past decades. On the legal plane, this scheme leads to the dispossession of justice, transforming the courts of justice into a despotic instrument at the disposition of a group of people who give themselves prerogatives and special interests (Tran Thanh Hiep, 1995: 19-27).

The entirety of legal system of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is thus contrary to all the principles of democracy and the respect for the supremacy of law. Justice in Vietnam only represents the individual will of and respect for the supremacy of a monolithic totalitarian political Party that monopolizes the truth. It haughtily considers itself to be "the conscience of humankind and of the modern era (Hoang Xuan Hao; 1993: 18-19)."

Standard of Professional Knowledge of Lawmakers

Nguyen Can described the low standard of professional knowledge of the law of lawyers and judges of the regime: There were no law schools in the North before April 30, 1975. Law enforcers and judges were trained in short-term law and justice courses. In 1987, the regime's law officials had to fly to Saigon to consult with law experts in the South when they prepared to compile the law on investment. Nevertheless, the Law on Investment promulgated on December 29, 1987 is careless and defective. It has been revised many times but still contains serious flaws that may cause intricate problems when applied, and, thus failing to guarantee the properties and interests of the investor.

The law legacy of mankind throughout twenty centuries is so tremendous with a multitude of experiences, but the "lawyers" of the regime could not learn any experience from them. They fumble with the law as if they were in a dark room and make one error after another. There is no surprise. Professional lawyers of the old regime often refuse to cooperate with the Communist regime. Those who accept to cooperate with it are mostly inexperienced. Such a doctor-in-laws as Mrs. Ngo Ba Thanh, whose maiden name is Pham Thi Thanh Van, only proves to be bookish when compiling the law on nationalities. The law is ridden with intricacies of possible litigation and cases at issue when applied. Another lawyer on whom the regime relies is Trieu Quoc Manh. Trieu was infamous as "a lawyer who knows everything except law" in the old regime (Nguyen Can, 1995: 39).

A Glimpse on Several Cases of Arrest

Are These Prisoners Really a Public Menace?

Nguyen Van Dung, 18, lived in the Lu Gia quarters. A keen swimmer, he often swam across the Saigon River, the 15 km of water separating the Bach Dang quayside to Thanh Da quarter. This aroused the suspicion of the Communist authorities, who had him arrested on the mere "suspected intention of plotting to escape across the sea." The eight members of his family were all arrested with him, accused of being "possibly" involved in an "eventual" escape plot. The family dog, whimpering as it chased after the police van, was shot.

In Vietnam today, to "intend" is a crime.

Nguyen Quang Trung was arrested on "suspected" cognizance of his father's "intention" to escape across the border. He was arrested for not having denounced his father. In the April 1976 mass arrest operation of South Vietnamese writers, intellectuals, and artists, Le Duan's Secret Police arrested the wife of editor Dang Giao with her 15-day-old baby and the wife of journalist Doan Ke Tuong with her 7-day-old baby. The Secret Police also arrested an invalid at the Lady of Fatima Church, Binh Trieu, Saigon, who said Christ had appeared to him and promised to heal him. Perhaps, in justification of these thousands of similar cases, Prime Minister Pham Van Dong and General Secretary Le Duan would tell us that they were errors made by subordinate party cadres. However, in the April 1976 edition of the Vanguard Popular Review of the Ministry for Propaganda and Education, a theorist wrote an article entitled "What does 'being humane' mean?" This literally said: "The only way of 'being human' (towards reactionaries) is by arresting and exterminating them all. They cannot be reeducated." (Washington Area League for Human Rights, 1978: 20)

A Glimpse on the Conduct of Trial

The "Dac Lo (Alexandre de Rhodes) Center" Case

The following is an excerpt from the official narrative about the Dac Lo (Alexandre de Rhodes) Center's case from the magazine "Cong Giao va Dan Toc" (Catholicism and the People):

After April 1975, at the suggestion of Archbishop Nguyen Van Binh of the Saigon archdiocese, the Jesuit priests engaged themselves in orientation sessions towards maintaining the presence of the Catholic Church in a society under transformation by the new political regime. Father Nguyen Cong Doan was chosen to be counselor to Mgsr. Nguyen Van Binh. Then, the government confiscated most of the Catholic Church's religious establishments. The Center was forced to offer to the government its television studio and then its library. However, there still remained the Student Union's Club and a chapel where masses were celebrated every day. Courses on catechism and religion were conducted in this chapel. Choral animated diverse liturgies and thus attracted large numbers of Catholic Youth.

On December 2, 1980, the security police broke into the center and arrested Father Le Thanh Que, who, at that moment, was talking to a certain person called Nguyen Van Hien, the main accused of the trial. On the same day, they arrested Father Hoang Si Quy, Father Dinh Van Trung, and Brother Pham Huu Lai. These priests were brought to the Ho Chi Minh City security police headquarters. Father Khuat Duy Linh, who was in charge of the chapel, was placed under house arrest. The center was officially confiscated.

On January 8, 1981, Father Nguyen Cong Doan was arrested. He was brought to the security police headquarters where his colleague priests were still detained. All priests were put under separate detention in different dark cells. They were all detained in this condition for a year. In the meantime, Father Khuat Duy Linh and Father Do Quang Chinh, who had been placed under house arrest since January 1981, were arrested during June 1981. Dominican priest Nguyen Van Hoa was also arrested.

During this time, there was no mention of any reasons that justified the arrests of the collaborators of the center. In February 1982, Mai Chi Tho, Chairman of the People's Council of Ho Chi Minh City, announced his directives concerning the activities of the Jesuit priests and his decision on the day of trial. Two months later, the daily "Quan Doi Nhan Dan" (The People's Army) ran an article entitled "The Impostors" and foretold the content of the trial. The Jesuit priests were described as "reactionaries in disguise as priests."

As in many other trials during and before the Penal Code (1985) was promulgated, there was always a mysterious personage among the accused: an officer of the old regime, the principal person who founded an organization plotting against the security of the State. Only one of the seven Jesuits and four lay Catholics of the Center of Dac Lo, according to the indictment, had met that mysterious person twice and within a few minutes, and that was enough for all of them to be accused of having attempted to overthrow the regime! (Jean Mais, 1986: 17-18).

The Trial of Nguyen Dan Que

Dr. Nguyen Dan Que was arrested on June 14, 1990. It was until early July 1991 that his family members could visit him. He had not been allowed to write to his family until a few months before that. Until October 28, 1991, two days before he was brought to stand trial before the court, the Vietnamese press noised about the High Tide Movement for Humanism. The official magazine "Phap Luat" (Legal Gazette) ran an article defaming and incriminating him. The trial was not conducted; yet, the voice of justice had given judgment. Thanh Tam and Do Bang reported on the trial of Nguyen Dan Que as the following:

The public in the hearing consisted of a number of plainclothes security policemen and a small number of people of the general public. The press was arranged to be present at the trial. However, there was a number of the uninvited who, by stealth, came to attend the trial. Among them were two members of the People's Progressive Front.

Everyone, including security policemen, acknowledged that Dr. Nguyen Dan Que was proud, showing no sign of fear. Right in the opening of the trial, he pointed at the entire group of judges and prosecutor saying in a soft and gentle tone: "You are only henchmen for the gang of despotic Communist rule. In what capacity are you going to judge us?" The trial was temporarily deferred due to vituperation against the presiding judge and the prosecutor. The presiding judge ordered the police to escort Dr. Nguyen Dan Que outside the court-room. He was then shackled and escorted by the police to the back room. They continued with Mr. Nguyen Van Thuan's case of trial. After that, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que was brought back to the court- room. His hands were still in shackles. At this time, female press correspondent Irina of the Moscow Radio entered the court room. The police rushed out, barring her entrance. Irina spoke in Vietnamese, presenting her Soviet press identity card. They stopped short in embarrassment and reported the matter to the court. In a very short moment, Irina was asked to leave the court room. The reason was simple: female correspondent Irina had interviewed Dr. Que at his home before his rearrest.

The trial resumed. This time, Dr. Que was not allowed to speak. The court read aloud the "Platform of the People's Progressive Front," which was used as evidence for his crimes. The prosecutor met with embarrassment and had to stop many times due to protests by Dr. Que who did not agree on false statements and deviations from the Platform by the People's Progressive Movement. He stressed: "You have to read exactly and fully what we have written."

The police pushed him inside. The verdict ended very fast: a 20-year prison sentence was given to Dr. Nguyen Dan Que (Do Bang, 1992: 5).

The verdict on Nguyen Dan Que aroused deep concerns among international circles and the Vietnamese communities in the United States. The Amnesty International, in its news release on November 19, 1991, was particularly concerned about the very broad definition of "crimes against national security" as termed by the Vietnamese government. The agency believed that Nguyen Dan Que "is a prisoner of conscience, arrested solely for the nonviolence exercise of fundamental human rights."

On November 21, 1991, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution submitted by Senator Charles Robb. It stated: "Dr. Nguyen Dan Que should be accorded a fair and impartial trial, permitted access to all court proceedings. If Dr. Nguyen is merely guilty of nonviolently expressing his views regarding human rights, he should be released immediately."

Attorney Nguyen Huu Thong of the Vietnamese Lawyers Association charged the Hanoi administration with abuse of power, arresting, repressing, and terrorizing dissidence, even if dissidence is only expressed in thoughts. No one can overthrow a government merely by documents. "To overthrow a government requires having an overact such as an assembly with arms intending to overthrow the government of the State."

The Trial of Doan Viet Hoat

The Reuters, on April 1, 1993, reported that the conviction of Doan Viet Hoat and his friends, Pham Duc Kham and Nguyen Van Thuan, only served the Communist rule's political purpose. It aroused concerns in the West. It came at a sensitive time, as John Rogers of the Reuters put it, "with Hanoi campaigning for the United States to lift its 29-year-old economic embargo and establish diplomatic relations with its old enemy. Vietnam, which is pursuing an "open door" economic policy and has relaxed some controls on its citizens, is eager both for US investment and for International Monetary Fund and World Bank money which are still blocked by Washington.

The Vietnam News Agency, nevertheless, condemned the convicts, saying that "this is an extraordinarily dangerous case for national security" and "with clear evidence by investigators and concrete proof by trial council, they [the convicts] bowed to acknowledge their crimes." The agency also said that they had begun looking for an opportunity to overthrow the government in early 1989. They founded the "Freedom Forum" in June 1989, with Doan Viet Hoat, the mastermind, and Pham Duc Kham in charge of propaganda and recruitment.

In contrast, reports from the Nam Ha Literary group, which operates underground in Vietnam, said that Doan Viet Hoat and his friends never pleaded guilty to "activities aimed at overthrowing the government." Doan Viet Hoat particularly challenged the trial council's accusations. He said he did not oppose anyone. He only called for "renovation." The four sets of "Freedom Forum" were only typewritten letters that circulated among friends. With only a very small group of intellectuals, could the "Freedom Forum" undertake "activities aimed at overthrowing the government?"

The Washington-based human rights organization urged Hanoi, in early January 1993, to free Doan Viet Hoat and his friends, saying that it was concerned that they had been held simply for expressing their views.

What Kind of Justice Is This?

Commenting on justice and the legal system in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Nguyen Huu Thong stated, at the end of June 1993, that Nguyen Si Binh was freed due to pressure from the U.S. government, intervention by international human rights organizations, and overseas Vietnamese communities. Hanoi's political objective was to create means for exchange. On the one hand, it freed a number of typical political prisoners; on the other hand, it demanded to secure a loan from the World Bank before this organization held its conference in July 1993.

At first, Hanoi only wanted to delay the case for its political opportunity. It asked Nguyen Si Binh to apply for a personal temporary release. Since Nguyen Si Binh refused to sign the bail single-handedly and demanded the release of all of his comrades (seventeen (17) defendants who are members of the People's Action Party), the Vietnamese People's Supreme Institute of Control--the Institute of Prosecutors--dismissed the case with reference to Article 143 of the Penal Code, providing it with grounds of "public interests."

One could not help associating the discharge of Nguyen Si Binh with the verdict on Doan Viet Hoat. Both Nguyen and Doan were prosecuted for "activities aimed to overthrow the people's administration" with reference to Article 73 of the Criminal Procedural Code, an offense that violates national security, and the penalty for this crime would be a death sentence. On March 30, 1993, Doan Viet Hoat was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He appealed against the court's decision in conformity with rules and regulations.

There are no official figures on the victims of hatred, of oppression, of repression, of political blindness, and of execution for retaliation under communism in Vietnam. One thing that is certain is that thousands of them still survive. However, their demands are not considered, and their honor is not restored. There are no official statistics on the number of political prisoners in Vietnam. Numerous Vietnamese are arrested, detained, and imprisoned due to expressions of beliefs, views, thoughts, moral conscience, or due to acts of opposition as responsible citizens conscious of their duties toward their country. There is no official calculates on the number of people who are subject to administrative detention due to political suspicion and discrimination. Still, numerous veteran Communist and noncommunist Vietnamese who disagree with the Vietnamese Communist Party or who are still looked upon as "henchmen of the imperialists" are deprived of their rights of citizen and put under the surveillance of the security police.

As far as their political goals are concerned, both the Vietnamese People's Action Party and the Freedom Forum Group condemned the regime for its despotism and one-party rule and demanded multipartism and fair and free elections according to the principles of the people's rights to self-determination. Concerning their methods of organization, the Vietnamese People's Action Party appealed to the Vietnamese people to struggle "to contiguously put an end to the despotic Communist regime" while the Freedom Forum group, on the contrary, did not claim the overthrow of the regime but consented to the "reconciliation and national concord" initiated by the Vietnamese Communist Party itself. In other words, the Vietnamese People's Action Party is a political party that openly opposed the Vietnamese Communist Party while the Freedom Forum Group was only an arts and literature group having as its purposes to struggle in the areas of political theory and doctrine. For this reason, when Doan Viet Hoat was arrested in November 1993, he was prosecuted on charges of "propaganda against socialism," and not prosecuted on charges of "activities aimed at overthrowing the people's administration."

Both Nguyen Si Binh and Doan Viet Hoat have close ties with the United States. Nguyen Si Binh graduated as an engineer in nuclear engineering from Maryland University. He cooperated with American electronics and real estate companies. He was outstandingly successful in business. He offered a remarkable part of his fortune to his party's activities. Doan Viet Hoat was awarded a scholarship by the Asia Foundation. He graduated from Florida University with a doctorate in education and higher education administration. He was deputy chancellor of Van Hanh University. In his position, there had been liaison between him and the Asia Foundation to develop student exchange programs in the areas of culture and education. In short, both Doan Viet Hoat and Nguyen Si Binh are well capable of contributing to the national building in the areas of culture, education, and social economics. Both were detained and prosecuted on charges of treason due to differences in viewpoints between them and the State. Nguyen Si Binh was dismissed from his case while Doan Viet Hoat suffered punishment. There were no differences between the two cases and between the two principal creators of crimes except one thing: Nguyen Si Binh is a U.S. citizen whereas Doan Viet Hoat has only been a Vietnamese since birth (Nguyen Huu Thong, 1993: A3).

Phan Dinh Dieu, Ha Si Phu, Lu Phuong, and Nguyen Phong Ho Hieu have strongly criticized the Vietnamese Communist Party and government's policies. They even advocated the disbandment of the party and change of the political system. They have been "excommunicated" or discharged from their positions. Some of the Freedom Forum group's writings only pointed out the government's mistakes and proposed political reform, and "none advocated violent overthrow of the government" as Asia Watch observed. Would it be because of the fact that Phan Dinh Dieu, Ha Si Phu, Lu Phuong, and Nguyen Phong Ho Hieu were state cadres and members of the Vietnamese Communist Party whereas Doan Viet Hoat and his friends and other intellectuals such as Nguyen Dan Que, Doan Thanh Liem, Nguyen Manh Bao were only South Vietnamese "nguy" (pirates), "henchmen and lackeys of the imperialists;" and, because of that, they deserved punishment?

In Nguyen Dan Que's file, the investigation organ confiscated only handwritten and printed materials of "The Appeal by the High Tide Movement for Humanism." The appeal only called on the government to dissolve the war machinery to bring back peace for Indochina and Southeast Asia and abolish the monolithic leadership of the Vietnamese Communist Party to establish political plurality and multipartism. In Doan Viet Hoat's file, there were documents blaming the four sets of typed materials entitled "Freedom Forum" requesting the administration to carry out the policy of national reconciliation and concord and to organize free elections based on the people's right of self-determination. In both cases, the two authors only exercise their rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression, the rights that are recognized by all Constitutions in the world. To express one's thoughts through articles or written materials cannot institute a crime.

Moreover, the "Freedom Forum" is not a political party. It is a group of intellectuals, writers, and artists who expressed their thoughts and aspirations to build their country in the direction of progress and humanism. Of eight suspects, four were prosecuted in the Nguyen Dan Que's trial. They were Le Duc Vuong, Nguyen Thieu Hung, Pham Thai Thuy, and Nguyen Van Thuan.

In the High Tide Movement for Humanism case, apart from Nguyen Dan Que, there was only Nguyen Van Thuan. The other suspects were transferred to the Doan Viet Hoat's case. In any case, all the suspects are innocent; they only exercise their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Concerning the arrest procedure, indictment, and detention of Nguyen Dan Que and Doan Viet Hoa, they are arbitrary and illegal.

An analysis of true facts reveals that the creation of the so-called "Freedom Forum Trial" was a plain cruel fabrication and false accusation because of the following main reasons:

The "Freedom Forum" was not an organization; it was far from being an organization that "aimed to overthrow the people's administration" as the article by a group of anonymous editors of the daily "Saigon Giai Phong" (Saigon Liberated) falsely accused.

First, the "Freedom Forum" was never an instrument of violence because only an instrument of violence could effectively bring off an overthrow of a government. It was only the fewest possible means of communication used to peacefully and nonviolently express viewpoints on the life and death issues of the country that affected the fates of the citizens and their families. To say that it was the fewest possible means because the "Freedom Forum" was only a title of a set of typed materials, and, in this way, its propagation was very limited. The fact is easy to understand, however. Under the despotic Communist regime in Vietnam, the printing, publication, circulation, and distribution of newspapers and magazines are all under the control of the State that monopolizes power and control. The "Freedom Forum" was not "published in the form of a newspaper" as the unknown editors in the daily "Saigon Liberated" misinterpreted and misled public opinion. The term "newspaper" that those editors used to qualify the "Freedom Forum" was vague in that it did not specify whether the "Freedom Forum" was a daily or a journal. They did not mention how many issues of publication of the "Freedom Forum" had been circulated so that the readers could judge how far the material would reach and to what extent it could affect the readership.

Second, the "Freedom Forum" was not an organization. It did not have an organizational structure, a membership system, or a by-law, in practice or on paper. The authors of the writings were only a very small group of independent individuals. The objects of indictment only consisted of eight people. They were only the citizens who exercised their rights of freedom of speech and communication that the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have recognized. The unknown editors of the daily "Saigon Liberated" themselves acknowledged that the "Freedom Forum" had never used violence when they wrote: "The most important political label that the "Freedom Forum" chooses to use is still the rumpuses about Democracy." In affirming this, the unknown editors of the daily were credited for having defended the writers of the "Freedom Forum" against their accusations. They were innocent for five reasons.

First, the 1992 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam itself solemnly recognizes the democratic rights of the citizens.

Second, the Communists exaggerated that their "democratic socialist regime" is a million times more democratic than any other "bourgeois democratic regimes," and, if the "Freedom Forum" group used the arguments of Democracy in the "bourgeois style," their arguments would carry no expressive weight since the bourgeois democracy is only worth a millionth of the magnitude of "socialist democracy." Obviously, the group deserved no punishment!

Third, the right to political opposition serves the building of democracy, and legal documents of the United Nations and the laws of all civilized countries recognize this political right as just and legitimate.

Fourth, the demands for civil rights and the rights to democracy were professional experiences of the Vietnamese Communists when they waged the so-called "people's war" in South Vietnam some thirty years ago. Why do they condemn the just demands for these vital rights of the citizens that they had once encouraged to struggle for?

And, fifth, the Vietnamese Communist rule has stifled the opinions and aspirations of the citizens, and thus they deprived of them the right of self-determination of the people by which they pledged to abide when the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was admitted to the United Nation membership.

The members of the "Freedom Forum" did not "plot to overthrow the administration." They had no capabilities whatsoever to do this. They had no system of organization, instrument for violence, and lines for actions. What would be the support on which they could lean to plot the overthrow of the administration?

Arrest and Detention

Several Cases in Evidence

No official statistics on the total prison population, including pretrial detainees, political prisoners, and persons held arbitrarily are available due to state secrecy. No official statistics are available on the number of detainees held for alleged antigovernment activities. Accurate account is also impossible since arrests are not publicized and secret detentions, trials, and sentencing are common. The law and arrest warrants provide Search and arrest warrants. Nevertheless, the security police even arbitrarily issue them without judicial review. Arbitrary arrests and detentions are common practices at both central and local administrative levels. The law enforcement and security personnel appear to be vested with the authority to arrest and incarcerate people without presenting warrants of arrest. Each province or city has a "security committee" under direct control of the party. This committee includes both central and local security officials, but these officials often do not coordinate their activities in a judicial process. Prison sentences are frequently imposed by administrative procedures without due process or judicial review. Such sentences are imposed on dissidents because of their peaceful expressions of views. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam penalizes certain forms of peaceful expression on a charge of "anti-Socialist propaganda." Over the years, people have been executed or sentenced to long-term imprisonment or reeducation at camps for such a crime.

Pretrial accusations by the official press are common and are regarded as reasonable and legal. In her letter of complaint to Party Secretary General Do Muoi and the State administrative and judiciary authorities, Tran Thi Thuc, Doan Viet Hoat's wife, brought forward with arguments, claiming on acts of violation of the constitutional laws by the daily "Saigon Giai Phong" (Saigon Liberated) published in Ho chi Minh City. The claims were specifically based on the accusations unlawfully made by an unknown group of political editors within the daily, in the issue of publication of July 5, 1992. These accusations, Tran Thi Thuc advocated, portrayed crimes that could only be judged by a judiciary court. Moreover, they were contradictory to reasoning and understanding. They raised doubts as to whether the verdict on Doan Viet Hoat would only be a formal recognizance of a prepared scheme, and thus going adversely against Vietnam's constitutional laws according to which all the organizations of the Party duly work in the framework of the Constitution (Chapter I), observe prohibition of all forms of forced interrogation, corporal punishment, and damage to honor or personality of the citizen (Article 71, Chapter V) so that no one is considered as guilty and punished until he or she is convicted and until the judgment by the court takes effect (Article 72, Chapter V).

In fact, on May 5, 1992, the daily "Saigon Giai Phong" (Saigon Liberated) carried a long article on the so-called subversive activities by Doan Viet Hoat and his friends in the "Freedom Forum." It accused them of actuating political opposition and scheming the overthrow of the Communist rule. It further elaborated that, ever since July 1990, the group had circulated the "Freedom Forum," a newspaper propagandizing pluralistic democracy and demanding realization of liberty and civil rights, paving the way for a legal opposition inside the country and its participation in the general elections, and ultimately creating favorable conditions for a coup d'etat once members of the group were elected to seats in the National Assembly. The daily's accusation was a reminiscence of a preparation for public denunciation of crimes before a trial at a People's court. This type of political struggle used to take place during the agrarian reforms in the North in 1956!

In her letter of protest to President Le Duc Anh, to Party Secretary-general Do Muoi, to Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet, and to Minister for the Interior Bui Thien Ngo on May 13, 1994, Tran Thi Thuc again presented unlawful procedures at arrest. The letter reminded the Party leadership of the crime allegations against her husband as well as her protests on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status... (Article 2)." "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5)." "All are equal before the law and are entitled, without any discrimination, to equal protection of the law." "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination (Article 7)."

She also claimed:

On January 1, 1995, the Foreign Ministry of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam declared that the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang was under arrest because of having disturbed the monks in the Hoi Phuoc Pagoda. The local inhabitants thus asked that he be brought to another place to end the situation, although the authorities still allowed him to continue to practice religion at Quang Phuoc Pagoda in Quang Ngai Province. The AFP, however, said that the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang was placed under administrative arrest at Quang Phuoc Pagoda that is located in a deserted mountainous area. He is under strict surveillance of the security police.

As for the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the Foreign Ministry announced that "the citizen Quang Do is under arrest because of having caused disturbance, which is contrary to the law of Vietnam. He will be judged according to the law." The Ministry further stated that the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do would be judged as a common citizen who committed offense, not as a Buddhist.

Commenting on the plain violation of law enforcement, Tran Thanh Hiep advocated that the Foreign Ministry should be ashamed of itself in maintaining that the Communist rule never oppressed Buddhism. Furthermore, considering the arrests of the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang and the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the Vietnamese Communist rule seriously violates the obligations it has to observe. It fails to promote the respect for the political, civil, economic, cultural, and social rights prescribed in the constitution and the law (Article 50 of the 1992 Constitution). It fails to protect the citizen's rights to religious beliefs and religion: "All religions are equal before the law, and justice is vested with the responsibility to protect worship places of all religious beliefs and religions (Article 70, 1992 Constitution). It ignores the citizen's rights to habeas corpus, the protection of the law regarding the citizen's life, health, honor, and dignity. No one is arrested without a decision from the People's Court, a decision or approval from the People's Institute of Control, except in case of flagrant delict ( Article 71, 1992 Constitution). More specifically, it infringes on Article 67 of the Criminal Procedural Code, effective as of January 1, 1989, implemented and promulgated on July 7, 1990. According to the law, law enforcers have to inform family members of the arrested, the administration of the village, ward, township, or the agency, organization where the arrested is in residence (Tran Thanh Hiep, 1995: 19-27).

Arrest Procedures

Doan Viet Hoat was not informed of the reason for arrest and of his crime in his first arrest in 1976. His detention was not based on a warrant of arrest by a judge, and he was detained for 12 years without a trial. In 1978, Nguyen Dan Que was arrested and detained for 10 years in reeducation camp without being informed of the reason for arrest and of his crime. He was arrested without a warrant of arrest by a judge. In 1990, Doan Viet Hoat and Nguyen Dan Que, considered to be enemies to the regime, were again arrested, also without being informed of the reasons and the crimes committed and without warrants of arrest. First, they were prosecuted for "propaganda against the regime," and their most severe punishment could be twelve years in prison. Later, the People's Supreme Institute of Control changed their inculpation to "activities aiming at overthrowing the people's government," and their punishment could be a death sentence.

The pleading for innocence is a guarantee for the right of defense. According to universal laws, only the evidences or exhibits examined in and by a court of justice can be considered to be effective, and only then, a judgment can be given. During the first interrogation, the suspect is still considered to be innocent. The State and the mass media are not allowed to diffuse to public exhibition of pictures or photographs of the suspect and reports and news inferring charges on him. Such acts will generate influence and prejudice, thus affecting the judge and the juror's judgment and damaging the court's impartiality and its independence--independence from the government and from public opinion. The "Phap Luat" (Legal Gazette), the daily "Saigon Giai Phong" (Saigon Liberated), and the magazine "Cong An" (Security Police) continually ran ill-intentioned articles to attribute with serious crimes to Nguyen Dan Que with serious crimes. The same things were true with Doan Viet Hoat's case. The daily "Saigon Giai Phong" (Saigon Liberated) accused members of the "Freedom Forum" of committing crimes and denounced them as "bad elements who propagate extremely reactionary materials to resuscitate the overthrow of the people's administration and increase opposition and destruction against the country."

During the first interrogation (eighteen (18) months in the case of Nguyen Dan Que and twenty-eight (28) months in the case of Doan Viet Hoat), the suspects, who were prosecuted for "infringement on national security," were not allowed to have a defense lawyer at the interrogation and at the court of justice. The Penal Code of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam does not authorize the suspect to have a lawyer to defend him when the investigation has not ended due to national security. In due procedure, the presence of and defense by a lawyer at the first interrogation, at both the security police and the investigation and at the debate at the court of justice, is necessary. The heftier a crime would be, the more necessary the presence of a defense lawyer would become. In his trial, Doan Viet Hoat refused the defense of a state-appointed lawyer. His family members had asked a lawyer from overseas to come to the country to defend him, but the state authorities did not grant permission. Such a fact is contrary to the principle according to which the suspect is entitled by law to a defense lawyer of their choice. Worse still, Nguyen Dan Que was not allowed to exercise his right to defend himself in court. To protest such an arbitrary decision, he shouted at the presiding judge and called him a scoundrel. That scoundrel might not know the laws well. He could not be impartial and independent. He did not respect the right to defense of the suspect.

The Court of Justice

In the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the defendants, in most cases, are not judged in open trials. The audience is mostly composed of the security police, cadres, and Communist party members. The defendant's family members are only informed of his trial a day before it takes place. The public and the defendant's friends are not allowed to attend the trial in the courtroom. The court of justice itself is only an instrument of the Vietnamese Communist Party, thus failing to proceed fair trials. The presiding judge does not accomplish his function as a judge. He takes side with the prosecutor and prevents the defendant from presenting his opinions. He scolds the defendant and warns him with threats. The defense lawyer defends the accused for procedural sake. He even asked the court to "give his client severe punishment commensurate with his crimes." The trial is considered as a matter of form. An important case such as the one of Nguyen Dan Que was conducted in only three hours.

Pham Van Thanh strongly denounced the brutality and savagery of the justice system in Vietnam. The majority of judges, according to him, lack basic knowledge in law (their own as well as international law), and the verdicts rendered on political prisoners mark the mockery of civilized standard. A provincial court can sentence political detainees to death penalties without appeals. Paradoxically, attorneys for defendants added insults to injuries by siding with prosecutors and hurling more accusations towards defendants! Political defendants are to be regarded as bloodthirsty in court; they have no right to say contradictorily to the court's opinion (Pham Van Thanh, 1993).

Duong Thu Huong conceives that the law and justice in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam could only be reformed and developed if the Communist rule eradicates these two principles: the proletariat dictatorship and democratic centralism. She said: