Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2023, publiée 112ème session CIT (2024)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Viet Nam (Ratification: 2020)

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s first report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system. 1. Provisions of the Criminal Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that article 25 of the Constitution recognizes the right of every citizen to freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and to form associations as provided by the law.

The Committee notes the following provisions under the 2015 Criminal Code that provide for penalties of imprisonment involving an obligation to work (pursuant to Section 27(2)(d) of the 2019 Law on Execution of Criminal Judgement) for offences that may be linked to activities that fall within the scope of Article 1(a) of the Convention and thus have a bearing on its application:

• section 109 that prohibits establishing or joining an organization that “acts against the people’s government”;
• section 116(1)(a) that prohibits sowing division between the classes of people, between the people and people’s government or socio-political organizations “for the purpose of opposing the people’s government”;
• section 117(1)(a) that prohibits making, storing or spreading information, material or items containing “distorted information about the people’s government”.

The Committee observes that the above-mentioned provisions are drafted in a way that allows for a broad scope of application, without making a distinction between violent and peaceful acts, that could lend themselves to be invoked to punish persons who express opinions that are opposed to the established political system with penalties involving an obligation to work.

Moreover, the Committee notes that in its 2019 Concluding Observations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee regretted the severe restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression in Viet Nam, including the vague and broadly formulated offences under sections 109, 116, 117 and 331 of the Criminal Code. In this regard, the Human Rights Committee also regretted the detention, unfair trials and criminal convictions, including of human right defenders, journalists, bloggers and lawyers, for criticizing State authorities or policies (CCPR/C/VNM/CO/3).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention protects persons who express political views or views (either orally or through the press and other communications media) ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system by establishing that in the context of these activities they cannot be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. The freedoms that must be protected under this provision comprise, in addition to freedom of expression, the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to review the wording of sections 109, 116(1)(a), Section 117(1)(a) and section 331 of the Criminal Code to ensure that both in law and practice they cannot be used to punish persons who peacefully express political views or views opposed to the established system, including opposition members and human rights defenders, with penal sanctions involving compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour).

The Committee also notes the following provisions of the Criminal Code, which provide for penalties of imprisonment involving the obligation to work for activities relating to the expression of views that infringe on public order or the rights of others:

• section 117(b) which prohibits making, storing, and spreading information or materials that contain fabricated information to cause “dismay among the people”;
• section 118 according to which any person who, for the purpose of opposing the people's government, incites, persuades, gathers other people to disrupt security, resists law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties or obstructs the operation of agencies or organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment;
• section 288 (read together with sections 16(1)(a) and (2)(b) and 18(1)(a) of the Law on Cybersecurity) which prohibits the illegal use of information on the computer or telecommunications network for distorting or defaming the people’s administrative authority, as well as for calling for mobilizing, inciting or embroiling a mass/crowd of people to disrupt or oppose officials conducting their official duties, or obstructing the activities of agencies or organizations causing instability to security and order;
• section 318 which provides that any person who causes disturbance of public order which negatively impacts social safety, order or security shall be punishable by imprisonment;
• section 331 that prohibits abusing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association and other democratic freedoms “to infringe upon the interests of the State.

The Committee wishes to recall that limitations may be imposed by law on the right to freedom of expression which must be accepted as normal safeguards against their abuse (for example the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others or meeting the just requirements of public order). However, these limitations must meet strict standards of scrutiny regarding their justification and scope. Moreover, the offences established in the legislation for that purpose should not be defined in such wide or general terms or applied by the judiciary in a way that they will lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views (see 2012 General Survey on the Fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 302–304). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 117(b), 118, 288 and 318 of the Criminal Code (including examples of sentences and information on the facts that gave rise to the convictions and the sanctions imposed) in order for the Committee to better assess their scope and the manner in which they are applied in practice.

2. Compulsory education establishments. The Committee notes that, according to Sections 93 and 94 of the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations (15/2012/QH13), any person who infringes upon the honor and/or dignity of citizens or breaks social order, but not to the extent of being subject to criminal liability, shall be sent to a compulsory education establishment to work, follow general education or apprenticeships. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on concrete examples of conducts that have been consideredas constituting aninfringement to the honor and/or dignity of citizens or breaking social order and subject to the sanction of placement in compulsory education establishments under sections 93 and 94 of the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations. In this regard, the Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether persons sent to those centers are under the obligation to perform work.

Article 1(b). Compulsory labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are no provisions in the Vietnamese legal system that provide for any form of forced or compulsory labour as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development.

Article 1(c) Compulsory labour as means of disciplinary measures. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the legislation related to disciplinary measures applicable to public servants and seafarers.

Article 1(d) Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Vietnamese law has no provisions on the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for participating in strikes.

Article 1(e). Compulsory labour as a means of racial, social, national, or religious discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under the Constitution, all citizens are equal before the law, and no one shall be discriminated against based on their cultural or social life. The Government also indicates that there have been no cases where people have to perform compulsory labour as a means of racial, social, national, or religious discrimination.