US Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012 – Vietnam

Internal security is the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Security, although in some remote areas, the military is the primary government agency and performs public safety functions, including maintaining public order in the event of civil unrest. The ministry controls the police, a special national security investigative agency, and other internal security units. It also maintains a system of household registration and block wardens to monitor the population. While this system was less intrusive than in the past, the ministry continued to monitor individuals suspected of engaging, or being likely to engage, in unauthorized political activities. Credible reports suggested that local police continued to use contract thugs and citizen brigades to harass and beat political activists and others, including religious worshippers, perceived as undesirable or a threat to public security.

Police organizations exist at the provincial, district, and local levels and are subject to the authority of people’s committees at each level. At the commune level, it is common for guard forces composed of residents to assist the police. The police were generally effective at maintaining public order, but police capabilities, especially investigative, were generally very limited, and training and resources were inadequate. Several foreign governments continued to assist in training provincial police and prison management officials to improve their professionalism.

The law outlines the process by which individuals should be taken into custody and treated until authorities adjudicate their cases. The Supreme People’s Procuracy (Public Prosecutor’s Office) issues arrest warrants, generally at the request of police. However, police may make an arrest without a warrant based on a complaint filed by any person. The procuracy issues retroactive warrants in such cases. The procuracy must issue a decision to initiate a formal criminal investigation of a detainee within nine days; otherwise, police must release the suspect. Authorities often circumvented the nine-day regulation.

Arbitrary Arrest: Arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly for political activists, remained a problem. According to activist groups and diplomatic sources, the government sentenced at least 35 arrested activists during the year to a total of 131 years in jail and 27 years of probation for exercising their rights. Authorities also increasingly charged political dissidents with “attempting to overthrow the government” (Article 79) due to their alleged membership in political parties other than the CPV. While violators of this legal provision had the possibility of receiving the death penalty, they typically received prison sentences of up to 10 years. The government also used decrees, ordinances, and other measures to detain activists for the peaceful expression of opposing political views (see section 2.a.).

Authorities also arrested individuals on allegations of revealing state secrets, subversion, taking advantage of democratic freedoms to infringe upon the government’s interest, and other crimes as a means to suppress political dissent and public advocacy. For example, in September police summoned, questioned, and detained several activists and bloggers who attempted to attend the trial of blogger Nguyen Van Hai (also known as Dieu Cay) (see also section 2.a.). Police reportedly acted similarly a day before Nguyen Van Hai’s appeal trial in December.

On October 3, 20 plainclothes and uniformed police officials harassed Hanoi dissident lawyer Le Quoc Quan’s brother, Le Dinh Quan, in his office; seized his personal documents; and temporarily detained and harassed his staff members. Bloggers reported that security officials linked Le Quoc Quan to the Quan Lam Bao (State Officials’ Press) blog allegedly labeled as “hostile to government officials” by the prime minister (see also section 2.a.). On December 27, police arrested Le Quoc Quan on charges of tax evasion, an action linked by bloggers to his continued calls for democratic reforms, and were detaining him at year’s end. (See also section 1.e. regarding an August 19 assault on Le Quoc Quan, section 1.f. regarding police entry of his home, and section 2.d. about restrictions imposed on his travel.)

Peaceful protests continued during the year in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi to oppose Chinese sovereignty claims in the South China Sea (East Sea) and resulted in the temporary detention and surveillance of several protest organizers. There were also reports that local security officials prevented individuals from leaving their homes to take part in the demonstrations.

Authorities also subjected religious and political activists to varying degrees of informal detention in their residences. For example, Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi police continued to monitor prominent activists Nguyen Dan Que, Nguyen Van Dai, and Do Nam Hai closely.

Pretrial Detention: The investigative period typically lasted from three months for less serious offenses (punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment) to 16 months for exceptionally serious offenses (punishable by more than 15 years’ imprisonment or capital punishment) or more than two years for national security cases. However, at times investigations lasted indefinitely. By law the procuracy may also request additional two-month periods of detention after an investigation to consider whether to prosecute a detainee or ask police to investigate further. Investigators sometimes continued to use physical abuse, isolation, excessively lengthy interrogation sessions, and sleep deprivation to compel detainees to confess.

By law detainees are permitted access to lawyers from the time of their detention; however, authorities continued their use of bureaucratic delays to deny access to legal counsel. In cases investigated under national security laws, authorities prohibited defense lawyers’ access to clients until after an investigation ended and the suspect was formally charged with a crime, most often after approximately four months. Under regulations, investigations may be continued and access to counsel denied for more than two years. In addition, a scarcity of trained lawyers and insufficient protection of defendant rights made prompt detainee access to an attorney rare. Only juveniles and persons formally charged with capital crimes were assigned lawyers.

Authorities must inform attorneys of and allow them to attend interrogations of their clients. However, a defendant first must request the presence of a lawyer, and it remained unclear whether authorities always informed defendants of this right. Authorities also must give attorneys access to case files and permit them to copy documents. Attorneys were sometimes able to exercise these rights.

Police generally informed families of detainees’ whereabouts, but family members could visit a detainee only with the permission of the investigator, and this permission was not regularly granted. During the investigative period, authorities routinely denied detainees access to family members, especially in national security cases. Before a formal indictment, detainees have the right to notify family members, although a number of detainees suspected of national security violations were held incommunicado. There is no functioning bail system or equivalent system of conditional release. Time spent in pretrial detention counts toward time served upon conviction and sentencing.

Courts may sentence persons to administrative detention of up to five years after completion of a sentence. In addition, police or mass organizations may propose that one of five “administrative measures” be imposed by people’s committee chairs at district and provincial levels without a trial. The measures include terms ranging from six to 24 months in either juvenile reformatories or adult detention centers. Authorities generally applied such measures to repeat offenders with a record of minor offenses, such as committing petty theft or “humiliating other persons.” Terms of 24 months were standard for drug users and prostitutes. Individuals sentenced to detention facilities were forced to meet work quotas to pay for services and detention costs. Committee chairs may also impose terms of “administrative probation,” which generally took the form of restriction on movement and travel. Authorities continued to punish some individuals using vaguely worded national security provisions of law.

Amnesty: For the first time in contemporary memory, the government limited public announcement of its traditional National Day amnesty to the provincial and district levels. A limited number of provinces proceeded with fewer releases than usual and instead reduced individual sentences.

The constitution provides that citizens are innocent until proven guilty, although many lawyers complained that judges generally presumed guilt. Trials generally were open to the public, but in sensitive cases judges closed trials or strictly limited attendance. Juries are not used.

The public prosecutor brings charges against an accused person and serves as prosecutor during trials. Defendants have the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the charges levied against them, with free interpretation as necessary, but this was not always implemented. Defendants have the right to be present and have a lawyer at trial, although not necessarily the lawyer of their choice, and this right was generally upheld. Defendants unable to afford a lawyer generally were provided one only in cases involving a juvenile offender or with possible sentences of life imprisonment or capital punishment. Defense lawyers commonly had little time before trials to examine evidence against their clients. The defendant or defense lawyer has the right to cross-examine witnesses, but there were cases in which neither defendants nor their lawyers had access to government evidence in advance of the trial, cross-examined witnesses, or challenged statements. Defendants have the right not to be compelled to confess guilt and the legal option to refrain from testifying. In national security cases, judges occasionally silenced defense lawyers who were making arguments on behalf of their clients in court because the judges deemed the arguments “reactionary.” Convicted persons have the right to appeal. District and provincial courts did not publish their proceedings, but the Supreme People’s Court continued to publish the proceedings of all cases it reviewed.

There continued to be credible reports that authorities pressured defense lawyers not to take as clients any religious or democracy activists facing trial. Authorities also restricted, harassed, arrested, disbarred, and in some cases detained human rights attorneys representing political activists. For example, lawyer Huynh Van Dong, whom the Dak Lak Provincial Bar Association dismissed in August 2011 for defending individuals charged with antistate acts, remained unable to interact with clients or travel in the country. Additionally, given their previous convictions, authorities did not permit lawyers Le Tran Luat, Huynh Van Dong, Le Quoc Quan, and Nguyen Van Dai to practice law. Moreover, on August 19, three men dressed in plainclothes assaulted and injured lawyer Le Quoc Quan in Hanoi.

There continued to be no precise estimates of the number of political prisoners. The government reportedly held more than 120 political detainees at year’s end, although some international observers claimed there were more (see also sections 1.d. and 2.d.). Diplomatic sources maintained that four reeducation centers in the country held approximately 4,000 prisoners.

For example, in March authorities sentenced Protestant pastor Nguyen Cong Chin, after a one-day trial, to 11 years in prison for “sabotaging national unity” (Article 87) and “having relations with reactionary organizations” (Article 46). Security officials contended that documents seized at Chin’s home were “severely critical” of senior government and military officials.

On May 4, the Dong Nai Province People’s Court sentenced land rights activist Nguyen Ngoc Cuong and his son, Nguyen Ngoc Tuong Thi, to seven years in prison for “propagandizing against the state” (Article 88). Security officials also charged Cuong with receiving approximately 31 million Vietnamese dong (VND) ($1,500) from overseas groups critical of the government.

Authorities also continued to detain and imprison other individuals who used the Internet to publish ideas on human rights, government policies, and political pluralism (see section 2.a.).

Several other political dissidents affiliated with outlawed political organizations–including the People’s Democratic Party, People’s Action Party, Free Vietnam Organization, the Democratic Party of Vietnam, United Workers and Farmers Organization, Bloc 8406, and others–remained in prison or under house arrest in various locations.

For example, on October 30, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City sentenced Viet Khang (also known as Vo Minh Tri) to four years in prison for propagandizing against the state by composing and singing songs in December 2011 to express his view of the government’s handling of the dispute with China regarding sovereignty in the South China Sea (East Sea). The court also sentenced codefendant Tran Vu Anh Binh to six years’ imprisonment under the same charge.

On March 7, the Nghe An Province People’s Court sentenced Vo Thi Thuy and Nguyen Van Thanh to five and three years’ imprisonment, respectively, for propagandizing against the state. Officials claimed the materials they distributed were associated with imprisoned Roman Catholic priest and activist Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly’s calls for multiparty elections and in support of prodemocracy Bloc 8406. On May 31, a court reduced Thuy’s five-year sentence on appeal to four years.

During the year authorities released some prominent political and religious activists from prison. For example, in January authorities released Pham Minh Hoang, a dual national and professor at the Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, and at year’s end he was serving three years of house arrest. Hoang, originally sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and three years’ house arrest for alleged ties to a foreign-based prodemocracy group, had received on appeal a reduced prison sentence of 17 months in November 2011.

In April authorities released political activist Bui Thi Minh Hang from a reeducation camp near Hanoi. Authorities had detained her in November 2011 for participating in “illegal” protests, which included taking part in anti-China demonstrations held in July and August 2011 in Hanoi. After her release, she attempted to file a lawsuit against the chair of the Hanoi People’s Committee for his role in approving the warrant for her arrest without due process and having authorized her sentence. The case allegedly encountered administrative delays and continued at year’s end.

In June authorities released Le Thang Long, arrested in 2009, after he served three years in prison for attempting to overthrow the government. In March 2011 the appellate division of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court reduced Long’s prison sentence from five to three and one-half years. At year’s end Long was serving three years’ probation.

There is no clear or effective mechanism for pursuing a civil action to redress or remedy abuses committed by authorities. Civil suits are heard by administrative, civil, and criminal courts, all of which follow the same procedures as in criminal cases, and are adjudicated by members of the same body of judges and lay assessors. All three levels continued to be subject to corruption, lack of independence, and inexperience.

By law a citizen seeking to press a complaint regarding a human rights violation by a civil servant faces difficult barriers. S/he is required first to petition the accused civil servant for permission to refer the complaint to court. If the civil servant refuses a petition, the citizen may appeal to the civil servant’s superior. If the civil servant or his superior accepts the complaint for hearing, an administrative court takes up the matter. If that court agrees that the case should be pursued, it is referred either to a civil court for suits involving physical injury seeking redress of less than 20 percent of health-care costs resulting from the alleged abuse, or to a criminal court for redress of more than 20 percent of such costs. This elaborate system of referral and permission ensured that citizens had little effective recourse to civil or criminal judicial procedures to remedy human rights abuses, and few legal experts had relevant experience. The government continued to disallow the use of class action lawsuits against government ministries, thus rendering ineffective joint complaints from land-rights petitioners.

The law provides for compensation, housing, and job training for individuals displaced by development projects. However, widespread complaints persisted, including from the National Assembly, of inadequate or delayed compensation, official corruption, and a general lack of transparency in the government’s process of confiscating land and moving citizens to make way for infrastructure projects. Some members of ethnic minority groups in the Central and Northwest Highlands continued to complain that they did not receive proper compensation for land the government confiscated to develop large-scale, state-owned enterprises. In March the National Resources and Environment Ministry and others collected expert opinions preparatory to drafting a new land law.

During the year there were a number of land disputes and related demonstrations involving the government. For example, in January shrimp farmer Doan Van Vuon refused to give up his approximately 99 acres of land in Tien Lang District, Hai Phong Province, and fired upon security officials as they entered his property, alleging that provincial officials attempted to reclaim the land without compensating him for improvements. Authorities detained but released him. On February 10, the prime minister publicly reprimanded Hai Phong officials for mishandling Vuon’s case. Several provincial officials and military officers were immediately dismissed, including Le Van Hie, chair of the Tien Lang District People’s Committee, and his deputy, Nguyen Van Khanh, who directly ordered Vuon’s forced eviction. On October 22, Hai Phong Province police detained Khanh and charged him with destroying private property.

In April approximately one to two thousand local security forces clashed with 300 residents of Van Giang Village, Hung Yen Province, over villager claims that local government officials demolished more than 1,000 households in 2007 to build a residential development known as “ecopark” without providing fair market value compensation. Police detained 20 villagers but released them when they agreed to admit guilt. During the same month, more than 1,000 protesters demonstrated outside the Fatherland Front of Vietnam headquarters in Hanoi to demand fair compensation from the government for ecopark.

During National Assembly debate on the new land law in early November, more than 200 land rights petitioners from eight provinces demonstrated peacefully near the prime minister’s office and called for fair compensation for confiscated land and complaint resolution by local officials.

Effective December 20, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs decree eased procedures and restrictions so that foreign journalists affiliated with news organizations working in the country were allowed to contact ministries and other authorities directly for reporting purposes rather than first seeking ministerial permission. Media offices may be located anywhere in the country, provided the ministry and the relevant people’s committee approve in writing. Previously, press offices had to be based in Hanoi, except for one correspondent reporting solely on economic matters who lived and worked in Ho Chi Minh City while accredited to Hanoi. Foreign journalists are no longer required to renew their visas every three to six months, and the validity period of a Foreign Journalist Accreditation Card was increased to 12 months in accordance with the duration of a visa. The allowed number of foreign media employees remained limited, and Vietnamese employees working for foreign media continued to be required to register with the Foreign Ministry.

The procedure for foreign media outlets to hire local reporters and photographers and receive accreditation approval remained cumbersome. Reporters temporarily on assignment in the country were typically assigned a Foreign Ministry minder–with the cost paid by the news organization. Under the new decree, nonresident journalists working in the country continued to need a press permit issued by the ministry, and they must apply to the ministry or an overseas consular office at least 10 working days prior to arrival in Vietnam. Members of the press commented they had seen some positive change under the decree.

The government continued to exercise various forms of control over Internet access, including disincentives to its use by citizens. It allowed access to the Internet, but only through a limited number of service providers (ISPs), all of which were state-controlled companies or companies with substantial state control. Approximately 35 percent of citizens had access to the Internet, and it was widely used.

The government used firewalls to block Web sites it deemed politically or culturally inappropriate, including sites operated by overseas Vietnamese political groups. Additionally, the government apparently maintained its lifting of most restrictions on access to the Voice of America Web site but continued at times to block Radio Free Asia and the BBC Vietnamese and English Web sites throughout the year.

Vague provisions of law and regulation, such as the prohibition of propagandizing against the state, prohibit bloggers from posting material that the government believes would undermine national security, disclose state secrets, or incite violence or crimes. These provisions prohibit individuals from downloading and disseminating documents the government deems offensive. Regulations also require global Internet companies with blogging platforms operating in the country to report to the government every six months and, if requested, to provide information about individual bloggers. A number of prominent print and online news journalists maintained their own professional blogs, several of which were considered far more controversial than their mainstream writing. In a few instances, the government fined or punished these individuals for the content of their blogs.

Ministry of Information and Communication regulations require Internet companies, social networking sites, and Web sites that provide information in the areas of “politics, economics, culture, and society,” including those owned domestically, whether operated by foreign entities or not, to continue to register and obtain a government license before operation. The ministry also requires such owners to submit their planned content and scope to the government for approval. Enforcement remained selective.

On September 12, the prime minister accused three blog sites–Dam Lam Bao (Party Officials’ Press), Quan Lam Bao (State Officials’ Press), and Bien Dong (East Sea)–of propagandizing against the state and distorting information regarding several political and financial scandals involving CPV members. The next day he directed government civil servants not to read blogs and ordered the Ministries of Public Security and of Information and Communication to investigate “antiparty and antistate” Web sites that allegedly slandered the country’s leaders.

The government forbids direct access to the Internet through foreign ISPs, requires domestic ISPs to store information transmitted on the Internet for at least 15 days, and requires ISPs to provide technical assistance and workspace to public security agents to allow them to monitor Internet activities. The government requires cybercafes to register the personal information of their customers and store records of Internet sites visited by customers. It also requires ISPs and cybercafes to participate in investigations of online activity. ISP compliance with these government regulations remained unclear. Although citizens enjoyed increasing access to the Internet, the government monitored e-mail, searched for sensitive key words, and regulated Internet content. In May the NGO Southeast Asian Press Alliance criticized the government for its continued regulation of Internet content and monitoring of individual use and control of the media. In September the NGO Reporters Without Borders, in its annual Press Freedom Index, indentified the country as an “Enemy of the Internet” due to its systematic use of cybercensorship.

City and provincial authorities issued additional local regulations to control online access. In compliance, Internet cafes continued to install and use government-approved software to monitor customers’ online activities. Location of Internet cafes within 220 yards of a school continued to require a curfew on operations, and ISPs were obliged to cut online access to Internet cafes between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. ostensibly to curb online gaming.

The blocking of Facebook was inconsistent among ISPs, areas, and time. From August to year’s end, the blocks appeared to weaken, with two of the three major ISPs allowing access to the site. Subscribers of other ISPs often used workarounds such as virtual private networks to access the site. In October the total number of Facebook users countrywide reached 8.5 million.

During the year the Ministry of Information and Communication issued several drafts of Internet regulations for public comment. The regulations generally would set additional vague standards for prohibited content, would prohibit online anonymity, and could require foreign Internet companies to establish offices and data centers in Vietnam, participate in censorship and online filtering, and report personal information about their users. News Web sites could be required to obtain government approval to publish, and Web site administrators would be required to report specified prohibited activities to the government. Bloggers were strongly critical of the drafts as undermining Vietnamese interests and further threatening freedom of expression. In April foreign embassies expressed concerns by letter to the ministry, stating that the draft measures would threaten the rights of “netizens” to freedom of expression and would hamper the Internet sector’s commercial development. By year’s end the regulations were not approved and remained in draft form.

Authorities detained and imprisoned activists who used the Internet to criticize the government and publish material on human rights and political pluralism. They charged the majority of arrested bloggers with propagandizing against the state or attempting to overthrow the government by their online writings. According to international human rights NGOs, courts convicted and sentenced at least 14 activists to lengthy prison terms during the year. At least 20 additional bloggers and activists were awaiting trial at year’s end, and others were harassed and intimidated by authorities.

For example, in July the Quang Nam Province People’s Committee fined blogger and human rights activist Huynh Ngoc Tuan–together with his daughter (also a blogger), Huynh Thuc Vy, and his son, Huynh Trong Hieu–VND 270 million (approximately $13,000) for posting antigovernment articles to the Internet and publicly expressing criticism of government officers online. The committee also placed a lien on the property owned by the three to coerce payment. The family refused to pay the fine, and in December authorities confiscated Hieu’s passport and prevented his travel abroad to receive an NGO award.

In July police in Quang Nam Province detained blogger Huynh Thuc Vy for three days after she participated in protests in Hanoi labeled as anti-China. Authorities interrogated her for 12 hours about her protest participation and her anti-China blogging and then released her.

In May a Nghe An Province court convicted Chu Manh Son, Tran Huu Duc, Dau Van Duong, and Nguyen Hoang Phong (four of the 18 Roman Catholic Redemptorist bloggers arrested in mid-2011 on charges of propagandizing against the state and attending an Internet/blogger training course organized by a foreign NGO in Thailand). The court sentenced them as follows: Son, three years’ imprisonment and one year’s probation; Duc, 39 months in prison and one year’s probation; Duong, 42 months in prison and 18 months’ probation; and Phong, two years’ suspended sentence and 18 months’ house arrest. Before the trial, authorities detained several bloggers, including Nguyen Hoang Vi, Chau Van Thi, writer Bui Chat, and human rights activist Bui Thi Minh Hang, and prevented their attendance at court proceedings. On September 26, the Nghe An Province People’s Court reduced Son’s original sentence on appeal from three years to 30 months but upheld the original sentences of Duong and Duc. The other 14 defendants continued to await trial at year’s end.

After numerous postponements, on September 24, the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court sentenced Nguyen Van Hai (also known as Dieu Cay) and fellow bloggers Ta Phong Tan and Phan Thanh Hai (also known as Anh Ba Saigon) to imprisonment. The charge was propagandizing against the state, based on three-year-old blog postings critical of the country’s government, leaders, and ruling party. The sentencing terms were as follows: Dieu Cay, 12 years in prison and five years’ house arrest; Tan, 10 years in prison and five years’ house arrest; and Hai, four years in prison and three years’ house arrest. Authorities had rearrested Dieu Cay in 2010 as he was being released after serving 30 months for tax evasion. On December 28, the Ho Chi Minh City Supreme People’s Court upheld the original sentences of Dieu Cay and Ta Phong Tan on appeal (see also section 2.a., Freedom of Speech and Press, Violence and Harassment) but reduced Phan Thanh Hai’s sentence by one year to three years’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on September 25 voiced deep concern about the conviction and harsh sentencing of journalists and bloggers and noted a trend of increasing restrictions on freedom of expression, especially against those who criticized the government on the Internet.

Throughout the year distributed denial-of-service attacks targeted overseas Web sites critical of the government. A majority of the targeted Web sites were news-aggregator sites that regularly republished postings by high-profile dissidents critical of the government. Hackers rendered several other Web sites inoperable. There were no developments reported in the Ministry of Public Security’s claimed investigation into the June-July 2011 hackings of the popular news portal VietnamNet, and no one was found responsible.

State-owned ISPs routinely blocked Vietnamese-language Web sites within the country when they contained content criticizing the CPV or promoting political reform. Vietnamese-language Web sites operated outside of the country were also filtered, particularly those that criticized the government or contained negative news stories about Vietnam. In addition, two Web sites associated with the Dega ethnic minority community in the Central Highlands were routinely blocked.

Political dissidents and bloggers continued to report that their home Internet connections were routinely disconnected on orders from the security services.

The government asserted the right to restrict academic freedom, and authorities sometimes questioned and monitored foreign field researchers. Foreign academic professionals temporarily working at universities in the country could discuss nonpolitical topics widely and freely in classes, but government observers regularly attended classes taught by both foreigners and nationals. Academic publications usually reflected the views of the CPV and government.

Critics continued to voice concern about the draft law on higher education that the National Assembly distributed in May 2011 for public comment They noted that it included an extensive list of administrative constraints and that universities would lose autonomy to make basic decisions, such as what to teach and how many students to admit.

The government continued to restrict the ability of some international and domestic organizations to host conferences with international sponsorship or participation by requiring government approval at least 20 days in advance.

The government continued to prohibit independent scientific and technical organizations from publicly criticizing party and state policy and to deny educational opportunity to individuals who do so. For example, in September the People’s Committee of a commune in Dak Nong Province refused to certify Trinh Anh Tuan’s application for enrollment at Tay Nguyen University due to his participation in anti-China demonstrations.

Although the government controlled art exhibits, music, and other cultural activities, it continued to allow artists broader latitude than in past years to choose themes for their works. The government also allowed universities more autonomy over international exchanges and cooperation programs.

Authorities banned or severely edited the following foreign movies during the year because of their alleged “prohibited content”: Ghost Rider 2, The Hunger Games, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

The law limits freedom of assembly, and the government continued to restrict and monitor all forms of public protest or gathering. Law and regulation require persons wishing to gather in a group to apply for a permit, which local authorities may issue or deny arbitrarily. Only those arranging publicized gatherings to discuss sensitive matters appeared to require permits, and persons routinely gathered in informal groups without government interference. The government generally did not permit demonstrations that could be seen to have a political purpose. The government also restricted the right of several unregistered religious groups to gather in worship.

For example, in March Hanoi police detained anti-China activist Nguyen Xuan Dien and blogger Nguyen Tuong Thuy and prevented them from holding a party to honor “women patriots” on International Women’s Day. Authorities released them after a half-day’s detention. Police also detained, questioned, and eventually released the owner of the restaurant for the event.

In July and August, individuals gathered in public in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to protest reports of Chinese violations of Vietnamese sovereignty in the disputed South China Sea (East Sea). On July 27, in Ho Chi Minh City, 42 intellectuals submitted a petition requesting permission to hold an anti-China demonstration. Authorities called a meeting, allowed only three petition signatories to attend, and denied the petition, explaining that the CPV and government were best equipped to handle China-related subjects. In one August demonstration in Hanoi, police detained at least 30 to 40 individuals but released them within 24 hours. In another August event in Hanoi, police detained more than 50 of the approximately 200 to 300 individuals who gathered–for participating in what security officials considered an “illegal protest”–but authorities released all within 24 hours of detention. (See also section 1.e.)

The government continued to restrict freedom of association severely and neither permitted nor tolerated opposition political parties. The government prohibited the establishment of private, independent organizations, insisting that persons work within established, party-controlled mass organizations, usually under the aegis of the VFF. However, some entities, including unregistered religious groups, were able to operate outside of this framework with little or no government interference.

The law does not provide for the granting of refugee status, and the government has not established a system for providing protection to refugees.

Access to Asylum: The law does not provide for the granting of asylum.

Safe Country of Origin/Transit: Government regulations and policy do not explicitly provide protection against the expulsion or return of persons where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. No such cases were reported during the year.

The country’s largest stateless group consisted of approximately 10,000 Cambodian residents, according to a UNHCR statistic. These individuals sought refuge in Vietnam in the 1970s and were denied the right to return by the government of Cambodia, which asserted no proof existed that these individuals had ever possessed Cambodian citizenship. Almost all were ethnic Chinese or Vietnamese whom authorities initially settled in four refugee camps in and around Ho Chi Minh City. When humanitarian assistance in these camps ceased in 1994, an estimated 6,000-7,000 refugees left the camps in search of work and opportunities in Ho Chi Minh City and the surrounding area. An additional 1,000-1,500 remained in four villages in which the camps once operated, according to the UNHCR. Many had children and grandchildren born in Vietnam, but neither the original refugees nor their children enjoy the same rights as Vietnamese citizens, including the right to property ownership, comparable access to education, and public medical care. As part of a joint UNHCR-government effort to survey and naturalize these stateless persons, 287 individuals received Vietnamese citizenship in 2010. Approximately 1,800 remaining naturalization applications submitted to the president’s office for final approval reportedly were pending at year’s end.

The Women’s Union, a countrywide CPV-affiliated mass mobilization organization, continued to work with the government of South Korea to address international marriage brokering and premarriage counseling, including education on immigration and citizenship regulations. Some domestic and international NGOs provided assistance.

Recent Elections: The most recent elections, in May 2011 to select members of the National Assembly, were neither free nor fair. The VFF chose and vetted all candidates. The ratio of “independent” candidates (those not linked to a certain organization or group) to other candidates was lower than that of the 2007 election. The CPV approved 15 “self-nominated” candidates who did not have official government backing but were allowed to run. There were credible reports that party officials pressured many other self-nominated candidates to withdraw or found such candidates “ineligible” to run.

According to the government, more than 99 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2011 election, a figure that international observers considered improbably high. (Voters may cast ballots by proxy, and local authorities are charged with assuring that all eligible voters cast ballots by organizing group voting and assuring all voters within their jurisdiction are recorded as having voted.) CPV candidates won 458 of the 500 seats. Four of the 15 self-nominated candidates won.

In April it was discovered that during the 2011 election, authorities were investigating the husband of National Assembly Deputy Dang Thi Hoang Yen for “abusing trust to appropriate other people’s assets.” In May the National Assembly removed Yen from her position because she failed to inform officials of that investigation.

The National Assembly, although subject to CPV control (all of its senior leaders and more than 90 percent of its members are party members), continued to take incremental steps to assert itself as a legislative body. The National Assembly and its Constitutional Amendment Drafting Committee met in February with government-invited foreign experts to discuss lessons learned and best practices as the country proceeds toward amending its 1992 constitution.

Under a law passed in late November and scheduled to become effective in 2013, the president, prime minister, cabinet members, Supreme People’s Courtjustices, and the National Assembly president must submit to an annual vote of support in the National Assembly.

Political Parties: The constitution vests all authority and political power in one party, the CPV, and recognizes the leadership of the CPV. The CPV Politburo functions as the supreme decision-making body in the country, although technically it reports to the CPV Central Committee. Political opposition movements and other political parties are illegal.

The government continued to restrict public debate and criticism severely. No public challenge to the legitimacy of the one-party state was permitted, although there were instances during the year of unsanctioned public letters from private citizens critical of government policy. For example, former government officials and leading academicians criticized the government’s decision to allow substantial foreign investment in bauxite mining and its handling of sovereignty claims in the South China Sea (East Sea). The government continued to crack down on the small, opposition political groups established in 2006, and group members faced arrests and arbitrary detentions.

Members of Bloc 8406 and other political activist groups that call for the creation of a multiparty state continued to face harassment and imprisonment.

Participation of Women and Minorities: The law provides the opportunity for equal participation in politics by women and minority groups. There were 122 women (approximately 24 percent) in the National Assembly, two female ministers in the 28-member cabinet, one woman in the 14-member Politburo, and no women in the 17-member Supreme People’s Court.

Ethnic minorities held 78 seats (approximately 16 percent) in the National Assembly–a decrease from the previous assembly.

The law provides criminal penalties for official corruption; however, the government did not always implement the law effectively, and officials sometimes engaged in corrupt practices with impunity. Corruption continued to be a major problem. The government persisted in efforts to fight corruption, including publicizing central government budgets, streamlining inspection measures, and occasionally widely publicizing cases of officials accused of corruption.

Anticorruption law allows citizens to complain openly about inefficient government, administrative procedures, corruption, and economic policy. However, the government considered public political criticism a crime unless authorities controlled it. It is considered against the law to attempt to organize disaffected citizens to facilitate action, and perpetrators were subject to arrest. Senior government and party leaders continued to travel to many provinces, reportedly to try to resolve citizen complaints. Corruption related to land use was widely publicized in the press, apparently in an officially orchestrated effort to bring pressure on local officials to reduce abuses.

Corruption among police remained a significant problem at all levels, and members of the police sometimes acted with impunity. Internal police oversight structures existed but were subject to political influence.

Foreign-aid donors conducted an annual anticorruption dialogue as part of consultative group meetings with the government. Previous dialogues focused on corruption in the education, health, and construction sectors. In February CPV members hosted a three-day national conference to discuss strategies to combat corruption and fraud. Approximately 1,000 government delegates, including Politburo members, attended.

According to a six-month report by the government’s Office of the Standing Committee on Anticorruption released in July, state agencies initiated preliminary investigations into 163 cases of corruption-related crimes with a total of 275 suspects. Court authorities prosecuted 183 cases. Authorities brought 116 cases to the court of first instance during the first six months of the year. A majority of the cases continued under investigation at year’s end.

In midyear CPV members expressed concern at the rising number of corruption cases among government officials and called for a “self-criticism” campaign to fight corruption. In an unusual development, the ensuing self-criticisms by the general secretary, president, prime minister, National Assembly president, and Politburo members were made public in September. On October 22, the prime minister issued a rare public apology for his handling of the economy, including corruption. These events, combined with several high-profile corruption cases during the year, resulted in public discussion, including on blogs, of the government’s handling of corruption.

In August police arrested Asia Commercial Bank (ACB) co-founder Nguyen Duc Kien and chief executive Ly Xuan Hai for alleged “intentional wrongdoings that violated state regulations on economic management, causing serious consequences.” One month later, authorities charged four other ACB officials (the former minister of planning and investment and former ACB chair, Tran Xuan Gia, and former vice chairs Le Vu Ky, Trinh Quang, and Pham Trung Cang) with “deliberately acting against state regulations on economic management.” Investigations continued at year’s end.

In March the Supreme People’s Court of Hai Phong convicted the shipbuilding conglomerate Vinashin’s chief executive officer, Pham Thanh Binh, and eight others–board members Tran Quang Vu and Tran Van Liem, former subsidiary general directors Nguyen Van Tuyen and Nguyen Tuan Duong plus To Nghiem, Trinh Thi Hau, Hoang Gia Hiep, and Do Dinh Con–of “deliberately acting against state regulations” and “economic mismanagement causing serious consequences” by misappropriating approximately VND 900 billion ($43 million) in 2010 from the firm. The court sentenced Binh to 20 years’ imprisonment and the eight subordinates to prison terms ranging from 10 to 19 years. An appellate court in late August upheld the verdicts.

In September the Ministry of Public Security announced its work with Interpol to apprehend fugitive Pham Thanh Hai, an accountant in the government’s department of cinematography, whom authorities charged in June 2011 with embezzling VND 42 billion (two million dollars) from the department’s annual budget beginning in 2009. Two of his colleagues (Cinematography Section Chief Lai Van Sinh and Vice Section Chief Le Ngoc Minh) resigned their positions in response to the public outcry over their insufficient oversight.

In July a court sentenced Pham Thanh Dung, an official of the Can Tho City Department of Justice, to life imprisonment for receiving more than VND 4.1 billion (approximately $195,000) in bribes and abusing his responsibility for drafting and approving marriage registrations for foreigners wishing to marry Vietnamese citizens in 2009-10. In December the Ho Chi Minh City Supreme People’s Court upheld Dung’s original sentence on appeal.

In September authorities obtained the extradition of Duong Chi Dung, former chairman of the Vietnam National Shipping Lines (Vinalines), who had been arrested abroad for alleged financial mismanagement and a loss of VND 1.665 trillion (approximately $80 million) during the 2009-10 period. The case was under investigation at year’s end.

At year’s end an investigation continued in the case of alleged bribe-taking by the former governor of the State Bank of Vietnam, Le Duc Thuy, who retired from his position in May 2011. It was claimed that, for the exchange of an undisclosed amount of money, Thuy helped the Reserve Bank of Australia currency supplier (Securency) to win banknote supply contracts during 2002-09 and that Securency deposited funds for Thuy into an overseas account belonging to a member of the government’s public security bureau, Colonel Luong Ngoc Anh. In 2011 official newspapers reported that Anh had an affair during 2002-06 with a foreign embassy trade officer, helped arrange meetings with high-ranking government officials, and possibly provided classified information.

By decree various government officials must annually report by November 30 the real estate, precious metals, and “valuable papers” they own; money they hold in overseas and domestic bank accounts; and their taxable income. The assets and income of officials’ spouses and children are not included. The government must publicize these declarations only if a government employee is found “unusually wealthy” and investigation or legal proceedings are needed. The decree applies to senior government, judicial, and party officials but does not cover elected officials. Due to a lack of transparency, it was not known how widely the decree was enforced.

The Ministry of Public Security is responsible for investigating corruption charges brought forward by anticorruption offices in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Office of the Inspectorate General. Additionally, the Office of the Standing Committee on Anticorruption reports directly to the Office of the Prime Minister and has the responsibility to direct, coordinate, inspect, and formulate countrywide anticorruption activities. This committee periodically provides reports on anticorruption activities to the CPV Central Committee, National Assembly, and Office of the State President. It is also responsible for suspending and/or dismissing senior officials appointed by the prime minister who are convicted of corrupt practices.

The law does not provide for public access to government information, and the government usually did not grant such access to citizens or noncitizens, including foreign media. In accordance with the law, the Official Gazette published most government legal documents in its daily editions but not party documents such as Politburo decrees. The government maintained a Web site in both Vietnamese and English, as did the National Assembly. In addition decisions made by the Supreme People’s Court Council of Judges were accessible a majority of the time through the court’s Web site.

The government does not permit private, local human rights organizations to form or operate, nor does it tolerate attempts by organizations or individuals to comment publicly on its human rights practices. The government used a wide variety of methods to suppress domestic criticism of its human rights policies, including surveillance; detention; interference with personal communications; and limits on the exercise of freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.

UN and Other International Bodies: The government generally prohibited private citizens from contacting international human rights organizations, although several activists did so. The government usually did not permit visits by international NGO human rights monitors, although it allowed representatives from the UNHCR, press, foreign governments, and international development and relief NGOs to visit the Central Highlands. The government criticized almost all public statements on human rights and religious matters by international NGOs and foreign governments.

Government Human Rights Bodies: There were no ombudspersons, human rights commissions, or legislative committees specifically designed to handle human rights matters. The government continued to discuss human rights matters bilaterally with several foreign governments and hold official talks concerning human rights, including through annual dialogues.

The law prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, disability, language, or social status, but enforcement of these prohibitions was uneven, and the law does not address discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Women

Children

Anti-Semitism

Trafficking in Persons

Persons with Disabilities

National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Societal Abuses, Discrimination, and Acts of Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Other Societal Violence or Discrimination

a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining

b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor

c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment

d. Acceptable Conditions of Work