V. ARBITRARY DETENTION OF DISSIDENTS

Arbitrary detention under the 1997 Administrative Detention Decree 31/CP is another means used by the government to isolate and silence critics. Article 2 of the decree states that "administrative detention applies to those individuals considered to have violated the laws, infringing on the national security, as defined in Chapter 1 of the Criminal Code, but [whose violation] is not serious enough to be prosecuted criminally." The vaguely-worded decree formally legitimizes the detention without trial for up to two years of anyone voicing political dissent. Since detainees are not brought to trial, they have no opportunity for legal defense. With information provided by local public security officials, district level People's Committee chairmen are authorized to open files on people they think should be placed under administrative detention. The chairman of the provincial People's Committee decides whether detainees are to be held under surveillance at their place of residence or in an alternative detention facility.

Government critics who have been placed under house arrest and made to live in near total isolation under Administrative Detention Decree 31/CP include poet Bui Minh Quoc and writer Tieu Dao Bao Cu, who were both detained in their homes in Dalat (see Section III, above.) While their administrative detention was officially lifted in October 1999, they continue to live under heavy surveillance.

In addition to the Administrative Detention Decree, also potentially worrisome is decree 89/ND-CP, which authorizes the establishment of provisional custody and pre-trial detention centers around the country. Signed by Prime Minister Phan Van Khai in November 1998, this decree allows police units from the district level upward, and military units at the provincial, municipal, and regional levels, to operate their own temporary detention centers and to arrest and hold people under provisional custody or pre-trial detention. Publicly available information about the decree does not indicate what kinds of crimes could prompt detention under decree 89/ND-CP, nor how detention periods will be determined.46