Vietnam's Human Rights Policy.

If it takes the secretariat 3 to 4 years to decide a case, the number of cases is considered a significant achievement, although not a large one.

Difference between procedure 1503 and procedure under additional protocol.

The main features and procedures prescribed by the two procedures are different. The 1503 procedure is prescribed by the Economic and Social Council, while the closed procedure is set out in the Additional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There are some differences between the two procedures, the main one being that one is established while the other exists on the basis of an international treaty.

The difference between the 1503 procedure and the procedure provided for in the Additional Protocol is that the former is directly concerned with examining the situation while the latter is concerned with examining individual complaints. The Human Rights Committee has taken the view that the principle is that there should be no overlap or similarity in the work of the two procedures because of the differences between the systems of institutions mandated with respect to the two procedures.

The differences between the 1503 procedure and the closed procedure are determined according to the following points.

Maybe you are interested!

a. The 1503 procedure is based on an international organization, the implementation of which depends on the voluntary cooperation of states, while the closed counterpart is based on a binding obligation in an international treaty that member states accept to apply a specific procedure, examining the accusations to be brought against that state.

b. The 1503 closed procedure applies to all States, while the confidential procedure applies only to States that are parties to the Additional Protocol.

c. Section 1503 accepts allegations of violations of fundamental human rights. The closed procedure is limited to the area of civil and political rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

d. Procedure 1503 applies to information from any person, group of persons or non-governmental organization that reports a violation of human rights.

The Committee may, in particular, make a complaint directly or indirectly, and the closed procedure may require direct information from those whose rights have been violated. In exceptional cases, the complaint may be made by a representative of the victim, or by a person acting on behalf of the alleged victim. In each of these relationships, the Committee will also consider a family relationship as an appropriate connection for the person acting on behalf of the alleged victim to make a statement before the Committee. However, the Committee will not consider any information where the author of the information has failed to establish a relationship between himself and the alleged victim.

e. Under the 1503 procedure, the authors of communications need not be directly involved. They are not involved in any stage of the procedure and they are not informed of any action being taken by the competent authorities unless it is a public action in accordance with article 8 of the procedure. Authors are rarely informed by the Secretary that their communication has been taken up by the authority or that a copy has been sent to the State concerned and a summary of the content will be given to the members of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and to the members of the Human Rights Committee in accordance with the provisions of the procedure. Under the closed procedure, the authors of communications to the Human Rights Committee must be directly involved in all stages of the procedure. They are informed of the actions taken in the same way as the State concerned and both have an opportunity to comment on the information submitted by the other party. According to another requirement the principle of equality is maintained throughout the entire process of resolving the case between the author of the information and the Member State concerned.

Thus, there is a fundamental difference between the two procedures. Both procedures aim to resolve disputes over denunciations, but the implementation and specific regulations between the two procedures are different.

The public procedure established by the human rights committee is also known as the special procedure.

The remaining procedures in the human rights mechanism are called public procedures as well as “State-specific” or “topical” procedures established by the committee.

human rights with the approval of the Economic and Social Council to address reports of violations of human rights. All this is understood as a special procedure.

It can be said that the apartheid regime with its acts of genocide was the basis for the subjects to act against human rights violations. Indeed, the first country to be established by the human rights commission was South Africa from 1968-1995. According to the major events that happened in history, with the anti-apartheid movement by the people, this mechanism completed its mission at the 51st session of the commission in March 1995.

In 1975 the commission established a second public procedure for a designated country, which was to investigate the human rights situation in Chile. This was undertaken after General Pinochet overthrew President Allende. The decision was first assigned to a working group but was then transferred to a special envoy in 1979 and continued until 1990 when a commitment to elections was made and this commitment contained democratic principles.

The Chilean decision was followed by the decisions on Nicaragua in 1979, Equatorial Guinea in 1979 and Guatemala in 1980. In all, the number of cases where the Commission on Human Rights has decided to invoke the procedure since 1967 is 30. All of these decisions are normally made by special rapporteurs or representative commissions appointed by the Commission on Human Rights. In some cases, these special rapporteurs are appointed by the Secretary-General. The special rapporteurs or representatives report on their work to the Commission and, in exceptional cases, to the General Assembly. In general, these “special procedures” involve fact-finding in the countries concerned, dialogue with relevant individuals and information on evidence from non-governmental organizations and public opinion. Normally special envoys and their representatives are free to collect information from any source they deem appropriate. If the government concerned refuses to cooperate, the special envoys or representatives may collect it themselves.

information from individuals, groups, non-governmental organizations, community leaders, religious leaders and other reliable sources. If the government concerned refuses to allow special rapporteurs and representatives into their country, those assigned to the task may collect information from exiled human rights activists, fugitives or political asylum seekers. The reports of special rapporteurs and representatives are examined by the human rights commission and, in some cases, by the secretary-general and resolutions are adopted by all the organs on the basis of the recommendations and conclusions contained in the reports.

When applying this mechanism things are not done easily many governments argue that this way leads to a choice and overlapping principles and that many governments are subjected to unilateral sanctions by the international community while other serious violators of the law are not investigated. In 1980 the Human Rights Commission took a new approach. The war in Argentina resulted in the disappearance of hundreds of millions of people and many members of the Commission were active and enthusiastic to change the special procedure for finding missing persons in Argentina is a political power in Latin America and has a strong alliance in the world. It was not until the majority of the members of the Commission supported the decision that Argentina was a country identified as having a human rights problem that the work changed. The Human Rights Commission has taken a decision and set up a working group to examine reported cases or cases of forced disappearances in all regions of the world. All of the above countries that have blocked a decision against Argentina are willing to support cooperation with a global mechanism. Most of these supports have been protected.

Without a doubt, this was a powerful development and a very clever move in the first steps towards solving major cases. The missing persons working group was overwhelmed with work since that decision. The group has been checking regularly for

missing persons cases. To date, the group has worked with more than 60 countries around the world on missing persons cases. Over the years, the group has been very successful in establishing a mission for a large number of missing persons in the world, the number of missing persons in the world can be statistically calculated.

Added to the working group the issue of enforced or involuntary disappearance. Since 1980 the Commission on Human Rights has set a global theme to address arbitrary detention, forced religious practice, torture, summary executions, freedom of thought and expression, racism, nationalism, extradition, the sale of children, child prostitution, and violence against women. Other themes assigned to the Special Rapporteur and Special Representatives include forced evictions, the independence of the judiciary, and measures to impede the right to self-determination. The same theme that the Commission decided to include in its agenda was issues related to hazardous waste disposal affecting human life, which was raised at its 51st session in March 1995.

As is the case with the special envoys to countries, thematic reports are submitted to the Committee and, in some cases, to the Secretary-General. The resolutions of the Committee and the General Assembly are based on the introductions and conclusions contained in the reports. Similarly, part of the information is obtained from governments, individuals, groups and organizations active in the field of human rights. All information is considered to be on a reliable basis because it is obtained in the course of the work. Fact-finding missions are carried out in a timely and efficient manner with the participation of the governments concerned.

Global issues are often more legitimate and harmonized for a given country and in many cases are more amenable to the cooperation of countries with global mechanisms and the setting of an inquiry. This is also seen as a welcome sign because many major powers are not immune to thematic inquiries set by human rights commissions. The activities of special envoys against religious persecution,

Anti-nationalism and xenophobia in China and the United States are concrete examples of the above arguments in 1994.

In more than 50 years of existence of the United Nations, the mechanism to ensure human rights has existed and developed for more than 30 years. From very cautious activities at the beginning, the mechanism has developed on a wide scale and lasted for many years, but in its operation, it has also encountered many difficulties.

During the years of operation, it was rare for any government to fully cooperate with the requirements of the mechanism. Article 2 of the UN Charter was frequently cited by countries as the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a country and is an immutable principle of the UN. In the early days, countries cooperated very superficially and always rejected or denied the information provided by special envoys or working groups. Now that situation has changed, many countries have actively cooperated with the procedures of the mechanism. The responses and compliance of governments are more detailed and complete. The governments concerned have taken many measures to prevent violations from occurring in their countries and goodwill cooperation is demonstrated through many actions of the government.

In some ways, the international human rights mechanism has had a positive impact on the status of human rights worldwide. Significant changes mentioned above, such as changing national laws to comply with international law requirements, releasing prisoners, paying compensation to victims or helping their family members, are significant steps forward for the human rights situation. The combination of efforts from the United Nations mechanism, regional mechanisms and the participation of human rights organizations has created a fundamental change in the way many countries in the world act.

The issue of human rights is still a global and complex issue. Violations of basic human rights such as the right to life, the right not to be tortured, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, etc. are still being violated. The fight against human rights violations is still ongoing.

full of hardships and complications. But with what the international mechanism for ensuring human rights has done in changing the human rights situation in the past, we have the right to hope for the next steps of development of the mechanism. To protect human rights, it is not only necessary to include national or international efforts but also to have coordination between the national and international. International law in general and the international mechanism for ensuring human rights will be the legal basis for protecting human rights on a global scale.

CHAPTER III

VIETNAM'S CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE FIELD OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

3.1 Vietnam's human rights policy.

The guarantee of human rights in the world today depends largely on the legal system, including international law and the law of each country. The procedures for receiving complaints in the human rights guarantee mechanism also require that all available measures in the country have been applied and exhausted. Article 6 of the 1503 procedure regulates this issue.

Similarly, the human rights protection procedure established by the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also provides for the reception of information upon request similar to the procedure 1503. This means that national law is directly and closely related to each person within the scope of that country. Although the legal system for the protection of human rights is currently quite complete, the legal system of the country directly affects the protection of similar rights with the conditions for receiving applications of international procedures in the European region, the European court also only accepts applications if the provisions of national law have been applied and exhausted. The implementation and guarantee of human rights are strongly influenced by national law.

The Vietnamese legal system is placed in a unified whole, in which the constitution is the basic law that regulates the political regime, the organization and exercise of state power, as well as the basic rights and obligations of citizens. Article 4 of the 1992 Constitution stipulates: “The Communist Party of Vietnam, the vanguard of the Vietnamese working class, the loyal representative of the interests of the working class, the working people and the entire nation, following Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh's thought, is the leading force of the state and society. “On the basis of the Party's leadership, all guidelines, policies and strategies of the Party have an impact on the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The role of law in the field of human rights protection is extremely important. All contents and provisions of the law

Comment