E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.4 page 16 50. The authorities stated that only counsel (including consuls as of the fourth day of detention, in the case of foreigners) were authorized to visit pre-trial detainees. This was pursuant to the 1992 ordinance on prison regulations, which prohibited visits from any other persons, including relatives, in order to prevent outside contacts from interfering with the investigation by facilitating collusion of witnesses and the concealment or disappearance of evidence. 51. In accordance with these regulations, the authorities did not permit the Working Group to visit the Chi Hoa pre-trial detention centre in Ho-Chi-Minh City, on the grounds that it would not only be contrary to the provisions of the above-mentioned ordinance, but would set a precedent which could be invoked in other circumstances. They pointed out, however, that there were plans to amend the regulations and liberalize the visiting rules, particularly for the benefit of relatives, when outside contacts could no longer prejudice the investigation. 52. The Chi Hoa centre being on the list of places of detention to be visited, drawn up in coordination with the Vietnamese authorities prior to the visit, the Group proposed that it be authorized to visit that centre. The authorities referred to the applicable law, which prohibited persons under investigation from being visited, and stated that in this context they did not wish to create a precedent. The Working Group explained that its visit would not create a precedent and suggested ways and means whereby it would not be so considered. The Group’s request not having been acceded to, it expressed its profound regret at the authorities’ unyielding attitude, and hoped that such a visit would be permitted in the course of a subsequent mission, especially since this would provide evidence of the spirit of cooperation and give proof of the sincere efforts of the Vietnamese authorities to provide the transparency necessary to make such visits meaningful and productive. 2. Verifying the legality of pre-trial detention 53. Any improvement process must take account of the special characteristics of the institutional system in question. Among the most important of these special characteristics, the Working Group noted the special status and importance of the role of public prosecutors. Until 1960, the Public Prosecutor’s Office was accountable to the Government. Since then, it has been accountable to the National Assembly, which, according to its President, indirectly confers on it a sort of popular legitimacy. It comprises three levels: (i) (ii) (iii) The people’s district prosecutors; The people’s provincial prosecutors; The People’s Supreme Prosecution Department. 54. The National Assembly elects one of its members as President of the People’s Supreme Prosecution Department, who appoints the Vice-President and members of the provincial prosecutors’ offices. The prosecutors’ offices are now detached from, and thus independent of, the Ministry of Justice as regards the conduct of prosecutions, for which they have exclusive responsibility.