{"id":41712,"date":"2019-07-02T07:58:58","date_gmt":"2019-07-02T07:58:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/queme.org\/?p=41712"},"modified":"2019-07-02T08:04:51","modified_gmt":"2019-07-02T08:04:51","slug":"vietnam-refuses-to-make-key-commitments-during-upr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/vietnam-refuses-to-make-key-commitments-during-upr\/","title":{"rendered":"Vietnam: Government refuses to make key commitments during UN rights review"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n


GENEVA, PARIS, 2 July 2019 (FIDH & VCHR) – Vietnam\u2019s government refused to make commitments to address key human rights concerns raised by United Nations (UN) member states during the country\u2019s third Universal Periodic Review (UPR), FIDH and its member organization Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) said today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs Vietnam begins\nanother UPR cycle, the situation of civil and political rights in the country\nremains abysmal. Hanoi\u2019s lack of political will to undertake legal and\ninstitutional reforms, reflected by its ongoing refusal to accept important\nrecommendations, calls for stronger international pressure,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> said FIDH Secretary-General Debbie\nStothard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final report\nof Vietnam\u2019s UPR is scheduled to be adopted on 4 July 2019 in Geneva, during\nthe 41st session of the UN Human Rights Council. In late June 2019, Vietnam communicated\nits responses to the recommendations it received from UN member states on 22\nJanuary 2019. Hanoi announced it accepted 241 (nearly 83%) of the 291\nrecommendations \u2013 with 220 \u201cfully accepted\u201d and 21 \u201caccepted in part.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe international\ncommunity must not be fooled by the Vietnamese government\u2019s seemingly\nimpressive rate of acceptance of UPR recommendations. The government\u2019s lack of\nrespect for democratic principles, the growing number of political prisoners,\nand the ongoing use of repressive laws are a better indicator of the situation\non the ground. UN member states should not wait until another UPR cycle goes by\nto raise their human rights concerns with Hanoi,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> said VCHR President Vo Van Ai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below is a\nbrief analysis of the government\u2019s response to the recommendations made by UN\nmember states with regard to selected key human rights issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Human rights defenders<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngovernment refused to accept all nine recommendations that called for the\ncreation of a safe environment for human rights defenders, their protection,\nand the release of detained defenders or the review of criminal cases against\nthem. The government indicated that it rejected some of these recommendations\nbecause they used \u201ccontentious terms\u201d that\ndid not reflect the \u201cconsensus of UN member states.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democratization<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngovernment did not accept the sole recommendation that called on Vietnam to\n\u201cguarantee its citizens the full enjoyment of the rights to vote and to be\nelected and to take part in the conduct of public affairs.\u201d Hanoi termed this\nrecommendation as \u201cimproper\u201d and claimed it\nimpinged on the Vietnamese people\u2019s right to \u201cfreely determine their political\nstatus\u201d in accordance with \u201cthe right of self-determination enshrined in the\nICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Death penalty<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngovernment did not accept seven of the nine recommendations that called for the\nadoption of various measures aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. The government pledged that the use of the death\npenalty would \u201cstrictly be in conformity with the ICCPR\u201d and accepted two\nrecommendations that called on the authorities to limit the imposition of\ncapital punishment to offenses that amount to \u201cthe most serious crimes\u201d under\ninternational law. However, such statements are directly contradicted by the\nfact that Vietnam continues to impose the death penalty for various crimes,\nincluding drug-related offences, which do not meet this threshold and are\ntherefore a violation of Article 6 of the ICCPR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Torture and detention conditions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government did not accept\nrecommendations that called for Vietnam to become a state party to the Optional\nProtocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or\nDegrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) and for Hanoi to allow a country\nvisit by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or\ndegrading treatment or punishment. The government also refused to accept one\nrecommendation that called for access for independent monitoring bodies to all\ndetention centers and prisons in the country. In addition, Hanoi said it would\nimplement only the Committee against Torture\u2019s recommendations that \u201csuit the\ncountry\u2019s circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government\u2019s reluctance to\naccept such recommendations casts doubts over its commitment to prohibiting torture,\ninvestigating reports of unnecessary or excessive use of force by the police,\nas well as violations of human rights by official authorities, and holding\nperpetrators accountable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legislative reform and ratification of key international treaties<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngovernment refused to accept recommendations that called for the amendment of\nrepressive legislation, such as the Cybersecurity Law, the Law on Belief and\nReligion, the Press Law, and various problematic decrees and \u201cnational\nsecurity\u201d provisions of the Criminal Code. Hanoi justified its refusal by\nclaiming that the legislative review and amendment process required \u201ca lot of time, efforts and resources\u201d and that the public had been\n\u201cconsulted extensively\u201d about some of these\ndraconian laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hanoi also\ndid not accept recommendations that called on Vietnam to become a state party\nto the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced\nDisappearance (ICPPED) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court\n(ICC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom of expression<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngovernment\u2019s commitment to guarantee the right to freedom of opinion and\nexpression is contradicted by its refusal to amend or repeal draconian\nlegislation, such as the Cybersecurity Law, the Press Law, and various \u201cnational\nsecurity\u201d provisions of the Criminal Code, which severely limit the enjoyment\nof this right and are inconsistent with international standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hanoi also\nrefused to accept recommendations that called for measures aimed at ensuring an\nindependent and pluralistic media landscape and the existence of independent\nnewspapers. The government justified its rejection of some of these\nrecommendations by claiming that they implied\nassessments that were \u201cinaccurate or alien\u201d to the reality in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom of religion or belief<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngovernment\u2019s acceptance of the recommendations urging Hanoi to guarantee the\nright to freedom of religion or belief is contradicted by its refusal to accept\nall recommendations that called for the review and amendment of the repressive Law\non Belief and Religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LGBTI rights<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngovernment accepted three recommendations that called for the protection of Lesbian,\nGay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) rights, the development of\nlegislation against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and\ngender identity, and access to gender affirmation treatment and legal gender\nrecognition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nHanoi refused to accept recommendations that would grant full marriage equality\nto same-sex couples and described as \u201cnon practical\u201d one recommendation that\nurged authorities to legalize same-sex marriage before the next UPR. The\ngovernment also did not accept one recommendation that urged authorities to explicitly\nprohibit sexual orientation and gender identity as grounds of discrimination in\nthe revised Labor Code and other relevant laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

National Human Rights Institution<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngovernment did not accept three recommendations that called for the\nestablishment of a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) compliant with the\n\u2018Paris Principles\u2019 because it claimed such recommendations \u201cput undue pressure to the ongoing study and\npreparation for the possibility of establishing an NHRI\u201d in the country. Hanoi\naccepted four other recommendations that called for progress towards the\nestablishment of an NHRI but that did not mention the \u2018Paris Principles.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Business and human rights<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sole\nrecommendation that called on the authorities to develop, enact, and implement,\nin dialogue with business and civil society, an action plan to implement the UN\nGuiding Principles on Business and Human Rights did not enjoy the government\u2019s\nsupport.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Press contacts
<\/strong>FIDH: Ms. Eva Canan (English, French) – Tel: +33648059157 (Paris)
VCHR: Ms. Penelope Faulkner (Vietnamese, English, French) – Tel: +33611898681 (Paris)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

GENEVA, PARIS, 2 July 2019 (FIDH & VCHR) – Vietnam\u2019s government refused to make commitments to address key human rights concerns raised by United Nations (UN) member states during the country\u2019s third Universal Periodic Review (UPR), FIDH and its member organization Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) said today. \u201cAs Vietnam begins another UPR cycle, …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":434,"featured_media":41715,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[137,113,125,98,64],"tags":[353,251],"class_list":["post-41712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","","category-latest-posts","category-news","category-others","category-press-release","category-vchr","tag-human-rights-council","tag-upr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/434"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41712"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41712\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41715"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/queme.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}