E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.4
page 3
7.
This is the context in which the Working Group was called upon not only
to carry out its mandate by inquiring into the legal situation of persons
deprived of liberty, but also to draw conclusions from this initial experience
in order to add to its methods of work, which have so far been defined only
for the handling of communications giving rise to decisions or discussions.
8.
In taking the initiative of extending this invitation, the Vietnamese
authorities informed the Working Group in advance of certain constraints
relating, for example, to the choice of interpreters or the national
regulations applicable to visits with prisoners, which restrict or rule out
the possibility of speaking with prisoners unless a representative of the
administration is present.
9.
The Working Group, which was aware that many of these procedural problems
were the result only of the lack of precedents, finally agreed to the general
framework of the invitation by the Vietnamese Government. It was agreed that
the Working Group would not make the waiver of certain constraints a
prerequisite if they were given on-site consideration by both sides with a
view to finding solutions on a case-by-case basis taking account of the
general framework both of the Working Group’s mandate and of the Vietnamese
context of the invitation.
10.
Some of these constraints were in fact waived at the beginning of the
mission, for example, those relating to the choice of interpreters, or reduced
as the visit went on, for example, the conditions in which the mission was to
talk with prisoners in the re-education and rehabilitation labour camps.
Although the mission regretted and continues to regret that this was not
always the case, several prisoners freely chosen by the Group in situ were
heard in full confidentiality and, in particular, without witnesses.
11.
Other constraints could not be waived. For example, the Working Group
did not have an opportunity to visit pre-trial detention centres. It was also
not able to obtain statistical data on prisoners. This is all the more
regrettable in that a positive response probably would have led it to reach a
conclusion that was favourable to the Government. The Working Group had the
feeling, but was unable to verify it, that the number of political prisoners
in Viet Nam was probably lower than that reported by certain sources or, in
any event, considerably less high than that put forward only a few years ago.
In this connection, the Working Group pointed out that, since its
establishment, it had, of course, dealt with cases of individual arrests or
arrests of groups of persons, but not with cases which were the result of
waves of massive arrests comparable to those which had taken place in the
past. The Working Group nevertheless wishes to stress that, apart from the
reception it was given, its travel arrangements were made in a spirit of
efficient cooperation, particularly on the part of the police services, which,
from the beginning of a difficult itinerary until the end, paved the way for
the Working Group diligently and courteously, both day and night, without ever
interfering with the mission.