EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/3

(2004/C 65 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2820/02

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 2002)

Subject: The case of Dr Nguyen Dan Que

Vietnam has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in May 1990 Dr Nguyen Dan Que, a physician and a representative of the Non-violent Movement for Human Rights, published a manifesto calling on the Hanoi regime to respect fundamental human rights, to accept the adoption of a multi-party political system and to re-establish the right of the Vietnamese people to choose their own form of government via free elections.

Dr Que was imprisoned twice, from February 1978 to February 1988 and then from June 1990 to August 1998, making a total of 18 years, most of the time in solitary confinement. He is now under house arrest.

On 19 September on the eve of the World Day of Non-violent Struggle for Freedom and Democracy also in Vietnam, promoted by the trans-national Radical Party and backed in the United States by Dr Que's brother, Dr Quan, about 20 policemen entered Dr Que's house without a search warrant and, led by the deputy head of the Saigon security forces, searched it for Articles and publications considered as being against the State. The Lieutenant-Colonel tried to take Dr Que, who is in a critical state of health, to Saigon by force. Dr Que resisted, throwing himself to the floor, in non-violent protest against this decision. After approximately four hours the police left the house, leaving ten people to keep it under surveillance.

Is the Commission aware of this violation of the principle of habeas corpus vis-à-vis Dr Que, who is guilty only of wanting to stay in Vietnam in order to try to promote democracy and freedom in that country and not be sent into exile as the authorities in Hanoi would like. Does the Commission not consider that the serious and continual violations of human, civil and political rights in Vietnam, such as those suffered by Dr Que, are a blatant infringement of Article 2 of the Cooperation Agreement signed by the Commission and the Vietnamese Government, and does it not consider that it should say what body is responsible for monitoring compliance with this clause and what parameters are to be respected?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2002)

The Commission, together with the Member States represented in Vietnam, monitors closely human rights developments in Vietnam as part of the policy of the Union to encourage and support the continued commitment of the Government of Vietnam to progress in the field of human rights. The Commission also participates with the Member States in regular dialogue with and in all Union démarches to the Government of Vietnam on human rights issues.

The Commission is indeed aware of Dr Nguyen Dan Que's commitment to promoting democratic multiparty elections in Vietnam by non-violent means and of press reports of the incident described in the question. The Delegation of the Commission in Hanoi has not yet been able to obtain reliable confirmation of these reports, but is continuing its enquiries.

The Community-Vietnam Co-operation Agreement, which was signed in 1995, states in its first article that respect for human rights and democratic principles is the basis of our co-operation. There is no specific reference to human rights in Article 2 of the Agreement. Questions related to the respect for and the promotion of human rights are addressed in meetings of the Community-Vietnam Joint Commission established under the Co-operation Agreement.

Taking account of the overall situation in Vietnam since the signature of the Agreement in 1995 and of the Government's continued commitment to further progress, the Commission does not consider that it would be appropriate to conclude at this stage that there has been a breach of the Agreement. The Delegation of the Commission, together with the Member States represented in Vietnam, will continue to monitor human rights developments in the country and to raise particular issues and individual cases of concern through the appropriate diplomatic channels.