Informe provisional - Informe núm. 144, 1974

1. 111. This case was considered for the first time at the Committee's November 1973 session, on which occasion it made a report to the Governing Body which appears at paragraphs 515 to 531 of its 139th Report.
2. 112. The Republic of Viet-Nam has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 113. The Committee recalls that in a communication dated 28 May 1973, the Railway Workers' Federation of Viet-Nam alleged that Hoang Xuân Dông, General Secretary of the Federation, had been imprisoned. According to the Railway Workers' Unions of Qui Nhon and Nha Trang, the security forces had been responsible for this arrest. The charges (mobilisation of workers, disturbances of public order, incitement to strike and offences against national security) were allegedly quite unjustified, since the accused had merely been defending the railway workers' claims by peaceful means, and in so doing had committed no breach of the rules in force.
2. 114. It should also be recalled that Hoang Xuân Dông, himself wrote to the Committee announcing his release and suspension of his sentence (eighteen months imprisonment for threats to public order and two years' imprisonment, suspended, for conspiracy). He did, however, add that the suspension could be revoked at any time.
3. 115. The Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam replied by saying that Hoang Xuân Dông, had been prosecuted for activities aimed at undermining the security of the State. It later confirmed that the sentence described above had indeed been pronounced against him.
4. 116. At its session in November 1973, the Committee recalled, amongst other things, that the question whether the grounds for the sentences imposed related to a criminal offence or to the exercise of trade union rights was not one that could be determined unilaterally by the Government concerned but was a matter for the Committee to decide, after examining all the information available, and above all, the text of the judgement. Consequently, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to provide the judgement pronounced together with the grounds adduced therefor.
5. 117. In a communication dated 31 January 1974, the Government repeated the terms of the sentence given above, adding that Hoang Xuân Dông, had filed an appeal, and enclosing a copy of the judgement in question.
6. 118. According to this document, it appears that Hoang Xuân Dông appeared before a military court on 11 September 1973 and was declared guilty of subversion and criminal association and was condemned to eighteen months' imprisonment and a suspended sentence of two years.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 119. The Committee observes that the judgement contains neither grounds nor other reason which might explain upon what basis sentence was passed. It recalls that if, in certain cases, it has reached the conclusion that allegations relating to measures taken against trade unionists did not call for further examination, this was only after it had received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the measures were in no way occasioned by trade union activities, but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
2. 120. On the other hand, the Committee has seen the formal charge which was provided by the accused, and from the description given therein of the events leading up to the arrest it would seem that the actions for which Hoang Xuân Dông was later charged were to a very large extent trade union activities: in this instance the submission of wage claims and the organisation of a strike to give them added weight.
3. 121. According to the formal charge, the President and Vice President of the Federation, Trân Trong Dat and Nguyên Van Cúót, took part in these same events, and according to the allegations, they are being sought by the police. The Governing Body had asked the Government to comment on these allegations, and in a letter dated 31 January 1974 the latter replied that the persons concerned had fled and that the military court, at one of its upcoming sittings, would consider the case against them. They had been charged with rebellion and criminal association.