Henvendelse af 28/9-20 fra Helena Huong Nguyen vedr. opfølgende materiale fra mødet med Nguyen Van Dei den 17/9-20 om menneskerettigheder i Vietnam

Pha Va Tuo g- Tri Lu s Bio
Herre Pha Va Tuo g er de tidligere u k Thi h Tri Lu f.
fra The U ited Buddhist Sa gha of Viet a UBSV . Ha var tidligere
sa vittighedsfa ger u der Det viet a esiske ko u istregi e, for
at kæ pe for religio sfrihed. Ha or u i Sverige so politisk
flygt i g, og praktiserer uddhis e so læg a d.
Læg a d Tri Lu lev født i i Thua Thie Hue. Ha lev
ordi eret i e alder af år i Li h Mu Pagode, Hue.
• Ha lev arresteret . okto er i Saigo , på sa e tid so
De ærværdige Thi h Kho g Ta h og professor Nhat Thuo g for de
retlige reha iliteri gsaktiviteter til UBSV i Viet a . Do sårsag: Va daliseri g af
solidaritetspolitik. Ha lev løsladt i de e er og lev derefter holdt i hus-
arrest på u este t tid på Qua g Huo g Gia La Pagode i Saigo .
• Ha lev ige arresteret de . ove er i Saigo for at have sluttet sig til
hjælpetea et for oversvø elsesofre i Meko g-deltaet, arra geret af De ær-
værdige Thi h Qua g Do. Retssage de . august i Saigo idø te ha til
å eders fæ gsel og år i husarrest efter si fæ gselsperiode. Do sårsager:
Va daliseri g af solidaritetspolitik og is rug af de okratiske og frihedsrettighe-
der til kræ kelse af state s i teresser. U der de e sa e retssag lev ærvær-
dige Thi h Qua g Do og Thi h Kho g Ta h idø t fe års fæ gsel.
• Efter at have afholdt si fæ gsels- og husarrestsperiode, flygtede ha til Ca o-
dja i og lev a epteret so politisk flygt i g af FN’s Flygt i georga isatio
UNHCR i Ph o Pe h, og u der eskyttelse af FN. E å ed se ere lev ha i id-
lertid kid appet og ført til age til Viet a af De viet a esiske ko u istiske efterret-
i gstje este, fik ko fiskeret FN's flygt i gekort og til ageholdt i over og / å e-
der. De . arts lev ha dø t til å eders fæ gsel for at "flygte til udla det
for at odsætte sig od state ".
• Efter at have afholdt af si do , fik ha politisk asyl af Sverige i ju i , da flygt i ge-
statusse stadig var i kraft.
• De . septe er afholdt Europa-Parla e tet e høri g o e eskerettigheds-
situatio e i Ca odja, Laos og Viet a . Ha var et af vid er e, der lev i viteret til at
deltage i de e høri g.
Udenrigsudvalget 2019-20
URU Alm.del - Bilag 268
Offentligt
Vid eudsag fra uddhistisk læg a d Tri Lu
Kære da er og herre,
April tog de ordviet a esiske ko u ister over Sydviet a . De ko u istiske
regeri g havde sat e hård styri g og forsøgte på gruso vis, at u dertrykke de Fore ede
Buddhistiske Kirke i Viet a UBCV . Efter at de ærværdige Thi h Qua g Do døde i fe ruar
, er de e kirke ko ti uerligt levet hika eret og forfulgt af de viet a esiske
regeri g.
Mu ke og edle er af UBCV kaldes ofte til forhør, overvåges, evogtes og forhi dres i at
udøve deres tro og evæge sig frit. Ekse pler ka æv es:
. Ærværdige Thi h Kho g Ta h, æstfor a d for estyrelse for UBCV, er i øje likket
osat i Gia Hoa Pagoda, Saigo .
. Ærværdig Thi h Chi Tha g, for a d for estyrelse for UBCV i Thua Thie -Hue-
provi se , osat i Phuo Tha h Pagode, Hue.
. Ærværdige Thi h Thie Mi h, edle af UBCV, sa vittighedsfa ge, år i fæ gsel
u der det ko u istiske regi e.
. Ærværdig Thi h Ngo Cha h, Phuo g Boi A , La Do g-provi se .
. Ærværdig Thi h Nhat Hue, Pho Chieu pagoda, La Do g-provi se , lev dø t til års
fæ gsel ude retsgru dlag.
Derudover ødelagde, eslaglagte de viet a esiske ko u istiske regeri g også pagoder
tilhøre de UBCV, so i tilfældet ed:
. Lie Tri-pagode i Saigo , ledet af de ærværdige Thi h Kho g Ta h, var levet
udjæv et .
. A Cu-pagode i Da Na g ledet af ærværdig Thi h Thie Phu , lev eslaglagt .
. So Li h-pagode ledet af ærværdig Thi h Do g Qua g, Pleika y, Ko tu -provi se
lev udjæv et .
Vi opfordrer Det da ske ude rigs i isteriu , Ude rigsudvalget og Det tværpolitiske
etværk for tros- og religio s frihed i Folketi get til at:
- Opfordre de viet a esiske ko u istiske y digheder til at stoppe alle
terrorha dli ger, u dertrykkelse, i ti ideri g og hika e af uafhæ gige religiøse
aktivister, heru der ledere og edle er af UBCV.
- Frigør u eti get sa vittighedsfa ger, der er fæ gslet af uretfærdige do .
Ma ge tak for jeres op ærkso hed
Sverige, d. / /


Til Udenrigsudvalget og Kirkeudvalget 28/9-20
Hermed opfølgende materiale til mødet med Nguyen Van Dei jf. URU alm. del bilag 241 holdt den
17. september 2020 (materiale modtaget den 28/9-20 fra Helena Huong Nguyen.
Hilsen
Lone
1) Nguyen Van Dais bio
2) Nguyen Van Dais præsentation
3) 1 vidneudsagn af repræsentant fra Den Forenede buddhistiske kirke,
Buddhistisk lægmand Tri Luc
4) 1 vidneudsagn af repræsentant fra Den katolske kirke
Præst Dinh Huu Thoais vidne video :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_Bku20085K08pfehUrG9RrXMfQpi8Mt/view?usp=sharing
5) Vidnevideo om overtrædelse af menneskerettigheder
https://drive.google.com/file/d/159vqf5DvCBd5bYLhDq1avKZmxuA6pqwX/view?usp=sharing
6) PowerPoint med tidslinje af arrestationer af menneskerettigheds-aktivister i Vietnam i 2020 og
anbefalinger til danske myndigheder
7) Dong Tam landtvist resume
8) Dong Tam landtvist Rapport
vh
Helena Huong Nguyen
Udenrigsudvalget 2019-20
URU Alm.del - Bilag 268
Offentligt


Nguyen Van Dai (f. 1969) er en vietnamesisk advokat
og dissident. Han har arbejdet med at fremme
demokrati, menneskerettigheder og forsvaret de
uafhængige protestantiske kirker i Vietnam.
Nguyen Van Dai var gæstearbejder i Østtyskland (Den
Tyske Demokratiske Republik) i 1989 som teknisk
arbejder på IFA-bilfabrikken i Berlin. Efter
Berlinmurens fald, vendte han tilbage til Vietnam i 1990, studerede jura ved Hanoi Law University,
dimitteret i 1995 og arbejdede i adskillige advokatkontorer.
Siden 2000, har han været kristen og menneskerettighedsadvokat. I perioden 2000 til 2006 forsvarede han
mange præster (Pastor Thuy, Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang og Pastor Than Van Truong) i retssager, og
hu dreder af de forfulgte H’Mo g-protestanter i de nordvietnamesiske grænseprovinser. Han fungerede
som rådgiver for 12 uafhængige protestantiske kirker, som endnu ikke blev anerkendt af de kommunistiske
myndigheder.
Han udarbejdede forskningsartikler omkring retspraksis om politiske frihedsrettigheder i Vietnam. Han
grundlagde og deltog i aktiviteterne i "Independent Trade Union", "Vietnam Human Rights Committee",
"Vietnam Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights". Han bidrog med indlæg og artikler til BCC News
Vietnamese og andre frie vietnamesiske netaviser. Han formidlede rettigheder om politisk frihed og
pressefrihed til studerende i Hanoi gennem træningsskurser.
På grund af disse aktiviteter blev Nguyen Van Dai arresteret i 2007 og fængslet i 4 år for "at have drevet
antistatslig propaganda" og derefter husarrest i 4 år.
Efter sin løsladelse i marts 2011, fortsatte han med at forsvare menneskerettighederne. I april 2013
dannede han og andre menneskerettighedsaktivister ”Brotherhood For De ocracy”, en
civilsamfundsorganisation, der arbejder for at fremme menneskerettighederne og kæmpe for demokrati i
Vietnam. Han fortsatte med at tilbyde træningskursus om civilsamfund og menneskerettigheder for
studerende og katolikker.
I december 2015 blev han igen arresteret og tilbageholdt for "at have drevet antistatslig propaganda",
ligesom som sidste gang. Hans arrest fandt sted på vej til et møde med EU-delegationen om
menneskerettigheder. Efter 28 måneders tilbageholdelse, fik han i april 2018 en dom på 15 års fængsel og
derefter husarrest for "Aktiviteter, der har til formål at vælte staten".
I 2016 fik advokat Nguyen Van Dai parlamentarisk sponsorering af den tyske parlamentsmedlem Marie-
Luise Dött, fra Tysklands Kristelig-Demokratiske Union (CDU). Under massivt pres fra det internationale
samfund såsom regeringerne i Tyskland, EU, USA m.m., og internationale menneskerettigheds
organisationer, blev de vietnamesiske kommunistiske myndigheder enige om at løslade ham. Betingelsen
var at han skulle forlade Vietnam. Natten den 7. juni 2018 blev Nguyen Van Dai ført ud af fængslet til
lufthavnen i Hanoi for politisk asyl i Tyskland.
Udenrigsudvalget 2019-20
URU Alm.del - Bilag 268
Offentligt
Siden han kom til Tyskland, fortsatte han med at forsvare menneskerettighederne og bidrage til at fremme
demokrati for Vietnam.
Nguyen Van Dai rådgiver, træner og støtter specielt uafhængige protestantiske grupper i De vietnamesiske
centrale højlandprovinser med henblik på at danne bønnegrupper. Han bidrager til overvågning af
religionsfrihed i Det centrale højland, den mest følsomme og udsatte region i Vietnam.
Han arrangerer og organiserer også repræsentanter fra protestantiske grupper og
menneskerettighedsvagter for at møde diplomatiske repræsentanter fra Amerikas Forenede Stater og
Tyskland i Vietnam.
For sine indsatser for at have fremmet og beskyttet menneskerettighederne, har han blevet tildelt følgende
priser:
• Hell a / Ha ett-prisen fra Human Rights Watch i 2007
• Viet a Hu a Rights Award 7 fra Vietnam Human Rights Network.
• Hu a Rights Award 7 fra Den Tyske Dommerforening (Deutscher Richterbund, DRB)


The Human Rights situation in VN
through my story
Nguyen Van Dai
Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you for providing me the opportunity
to talk about the human rights situation in
Vietnam through my lens. My human rights
journey started when I was living in East
Berlin in 1989 and witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall with my very own eyes as well as the
collapse of East Germany and the revolutions in Eastern Europe. It was this time that my faith
in socialism and communism also collapsed as I awoke and saw its evil nature.
At the end of 1990 when I was just 20 years old, I decided to return to Vietnam with the hope
that I would contribute to a democratic revolution in my home country.
But at that time, it was impossible for democratic revolution in Vietnam. I understood that it
would be a long road for my country. And I thought that if I would like to do something, I must
understand about what the law and politic system of Communist regime is.
So I decided to go to Law School and I graduated from Law School in 1995.
I was the independent candidate for the parliament in 1997. But I failed in the second round.
I became a Christian and human rights lawyer in 2000. Since then I defended for Protestants
within the H’Mong ethnic minority and Pastors leading Protestant congregations which were
not recognised by the Vietnamese government.
In June 2006, I supported the Democratic Party to restore its activities. This Party was
dismissed in 1988.
I founded the Committee for Human Rights and an independent union in October 2006. I was
a frequent contributor for BBC Vietnamese promoting political plurality in Vietnam. I opened
classes for students to learn about their political rights and press freedom. It was on 6 March
2007, when one of my colleagues was teaching a few students at my office that security forces
barged in and arrested us.
At my trial, the court argued that Vietnam was a one-party state and my promotion of political
plurality was conducting propaganda against the state. Discussing press freedoms was seen as
opposing state media and conducting propaganda against the state. This resulted in me being
sentenced to 4 years in prison and 4 years house arrested for conducting propaganda against
the state under Article 88 of the Penal Code.
I was detained for more than 10 months at Detention Centre 1 in Hanoi. Every day they gave
us dirty, unwashed vegetables, often with leeches and slugs. We had to wash it with the dirty
water we were provided before we could eat it. We would only receive about 100 grams of
meat a week.
We weren’t given clean water as required. We had to use socks and facial towels to filter the
dirty water five times before we were able to drink it. We weren’t allowed to read newspapers
or watch television…
we were not allowed to use shaving products, we had to pull the beard out. We are also not
allowed to use nail clippers.
After I was released from prison in March 2011, I continued my human rights activism. In
April 2013, myself along with a few other human rights activists founded the Brotherhood for
Udenrigsudvalget 2019-20
URU Alm.del - Bilag 268
Offentligt
Democracy, a civil society organisation promoting human rights and democracy in Vietnam. I
continued to hold teaching about civil society and human rights for students and Catholic
communities. On 8 May 2014, 5 plain clothes policemen beat me while I was talking with a
group of students at a coffee shop, leading to a broken scalp which required four stitches. In
January and March 2015, police harassed me three times while I was at home.
I wasn’t allowed a passport after my house arrest ended on 6 March 2015. Every month police
would monitor me and not permit me to leave my house for up to four days.
After conducting a teaching for 70 Catholic parishioners on 6 December 2015, my three
colleagues and I were ambushed by 20 policemen, while on our way back to Hanoi. Our taxi
was stopped, and we were physically attacked, had all our possessions taken including our
jackets, ID documents and papers, phones before stranding us on a beach in the middle of the
cold night. 9 days later, I was arbitrarily detained (stopped) on my way to see the EU delegation
prior to the EU-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue. After more than two years of pre-trial
detention, my five colleagues and I were put on trial on 6 April 2018. We were charged for
building the foundations of a democratic Vietnam which in turn, was overthrowing the
government. I was sentenced to 15 years in prison and 5 years house arrest.
I only saw my wife for the first time after 11 months of the pre-trial detention. I would have to
wait for another 3 months, then five, then four, then nine months. I only saw my lawyer for the
first time after 26 months of detention, lasting only an hour while under constant watch of
police. Throughout these 2.5 years, I never saw the sun. I was held in a small 6.5 metres squared
cell with another person.
During this time, I had to eat raw rice grains for more than 20 days. The food was often stale,
or they would put soap in our soups or provide us with water with an unbearable stench. We
were given our medications in the middle of the night and prevented from listening to the radio
or reading newspapers. Sometimes our water system would be shut off. The detention centre
held roosters which crowed loudly beginning from 2AM until 6AM causing insomnia for many
inmates.
Prison authorities thought of every possible way to cause discomfort to both physically and
psychologically debilitate us.
Even with the ongoing harassment and intimidation, it was my faith in Christ, in the cause that
held me continue and overcome everything.
After I was arrested, various international governments and organisations pressured the
Vietnamese authorities to release me. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention also released a decision calling on my immediate release and demanding for my
compensation. With ongoing international pressure from Germany, the EU, the United States
and other countries as well as organisations, the Vietnamese government had to agree to release
me on the condition that I would never be allowed to return to my homeland, placing me as a
political refugee in Germany on 7 June 2018.
Now, even while living in Germany, I am continuing my work to mobilise the Vietnamese
people to continue advocating for their fundamental rights to help build a sustainable
democracy in Vietnam.
Thank you for listening to my story.


Meeting with The Danish Parliament
and Foreign Ministry, 17th Sept.
2020 on Human Rights and
Freedom of Religion in Vietnam
Nguyen Van Dai, VietTan og Support Group for Human Rights in Vietnam
Udenrigsudvalget 2019-20
URU Alm.del - Bilag 268
Offentligt
2020: The crackdown on human rights in
Vietnam continues
February
18/03: 11 Hmong people
sentenced from 8 years
to perpetuity (Art. 109)
12/02: EVFTA
ratification by the EP
18/04: Arrestation of Dinh Thi
Thu Thuy (art. 117)
24/04: Arrestation of Tran Duc
Thach (art. 109)
27/04: Chung Hoang Chuong
sentenced to 1,5 years of prison
(art. 117)
28/04: Phan Cong Hai
sentenced to 5 years of prison +
3 years probation (art. 117)
21/05: Arrestation of Pham
Chi Thanh (art. 117)
23/05: Arrestation of Nguyen
Tuong Thuy (art. 117)
12/06: Arrestation of Le Huu Minh Tuan (art. 117)
13/06: Arrestation of Huynh Anh Khoa and
Nguyen Dang Thuong (art. 331)
23/06: Nguyen Van Khiem sentenced to 6 years
of prison
24/06: Arrestation of Can Thi Theu, Trinh Ba
Phuong, Trinh Ba Tu, Nguyen Thi Tam, Vu Tien
Chi, Nguyen Thi Cam Thuy (art. 117)
07/07: Nguyen Quoc Duc Vuong
sentenced to 8 years of prison +
3 years probation (art. 117)
31/07: 8 members of Hien Phap
Group sentenced from 2,5 years
to 8 years of prison (art. 118)
21/08: Arrestation of Tran Thi
Tuyet Dieu (art. 117)
March April May June July August September
Art. 109: Subversion
Art. 117: Propaganda against the
government and state
Art. 118: Public disorder
Art. 331: Abuse of democratic
liberties
14/09: 29 people from
Dong Tam sentenced
from 2 years probation to
death penalty
Januar
November
9/12: Dong Tam
Land dispute. 29
arrests
21/11: Arrestation of Pham
Chi Dung (art. 117)
Anbefalinger til danske myndigheder
1. Danmark skal fordømme krænkelser af tanke- samvittigheds- og religionsfriheden i Vietnam
2. Regeringen skal i højere grad koble handelsaftaler og investeringer i Vietnam, med krav om respekt
for beskyttelse og fremme af Retten til tanke-, samvittigheds- og religionsfrihed. Når retten til tros- og
religionsfrihed (ToRF) ikke respekteres, bør man omkanalisere støtten til civilsamfundsorganisationer
der arbejder med at fremme denne rettighed.
3. Danmark skal sikre en effektiv koordinering af den internationale indsats for Tros- og religionsfrihed
(ToRF) mellem de internationale repræsentationer i landet (EU, USA mfl.) Herunder inviterer
menneskerettighedsaktivister og repræsentanter fra trossamfund til halvårlige dialogmøder.
4. Medarbejdere fra den danske ambassade bør besøge steder hvor mennesker diskrimineres eller
udsættes for restriktioner fra myndighederne pga. deres tro eller overbevisning.
Anbefalinger til danske myndigheder (forts.)
5. Den danske ambassade og delegationer fra Danmark bør besøge personer der er fængslet på
grund af deres tro eller overbevisning. Herunder deltage i retssagerne mod dem.
6. Indfør sanktioner mod personer ansvarlig for menneskerettighedskrænkelser: Forbyd dem og deres
nærmeste familier indrejse i Danmark, herunder uddannelse for deres børn. (Magnitsky Act). Arbejd
for at EU gør det samme
7. Sørge for at puljen for menneskerettighedsforkæmpere bliver en realitet.
8. Inkluderer civilsamfunds eller menneskerettigheds repræsentant i de danske handelsdelegationer
for at sikre bredere forståelse blandt delegationen om politisk sammenhæng.


1
Vidneudsagn fra katolsk præst Dinh Huu Thoai
Videoen kan ses her:
Mine damer og herre
Tak for at have inviteret mig til denne vigtige begivenhed. Jeg
er Joseph Dinh Huu Thoai, en katolsk præst for
Redemtoristordenen. I øjeblikket tjener jeg i et sogn i Quang
Nam provinsen i central Vietnam.
Jeg er også medlem af Interreligionsråd i Vietnam (Interfaith
Council of Vietnam), bestående af religiøse ledere fra de 5 største religioner i Vietnam.
Rådet har ofte rejst sin stemme i spørgsmål vedrørende menneskerettigheder og demokrati i
vores land.
Siden landet faldt i hænderne på det ateistiske kommunistparti, et totalitært regime uden de
tre uafhængige magter, og har været under kontrol af politimagten. Alle grundlæggende
rettigheder og friheder er blevet taget væk. Sådan fratagelse af folks rettigheder er til tider
ganske åbenlyse og til andre tider sofistikeret skjult, afhængigt af partiets omstændigheder.
Lige efter at have overtaget kontrollen af landet, fængslede det vietnamesiske kommunistparti
hundreder af religiøse ledere, især katolske præster uden retssag.
Mange af dem blev likvideret eller døde i fængsel. Dernæst var fravristelse af religiøse
institutioner, uddannelsescentre og velgørenhedsmæssige formål for alle religioner. Religiøse
aktiviteter blev begrænset med snarlig anholdelse.
Kun da den vietnamesiske regering søgte økonomiske fordele gennem global integration,
tvunget de sig selv til at ændre deres religionspolitik. Men deres ateistiske holdning til
religioner er den samme. Hvis det ikke lykkes dem at ødelægge religionerne, vil den hæmme
deres vækst.
På politiske uddannelsesprogram for medlemmer af kommunistpartiet, kadrer, embedsmænd,
tjenestemænd, lærer og endda i militæruddannelseskurser for studerende, har den
vietnamesiske regering altid bevidst tilføjet falske oplysninger for at nedværdige religioner,
især den katolske kirke.
De fleste religioner i Vietnam er blevet nationaliseret og infiltreret, hvilket betyder at
regeringen kan påtvinge sin vilje på religionernes aktiviteter. De religiøse ledere og medlemmer
Udenrigsudvalget 2019-20
URU Alm.del - Bilag 268
Offentligt
2
der er imod regeringens kontrol, bliver forfulgt, chikaneret, forhindret i religiøse aktiviteter
eller anholdt.
Denne politik har skabt dyb splittelse i enhver religion. En sådan ondskabsfuld
sammensværgelse fra regeringen har fået troende af samme religion til at kæmpe bittert mod
hinanden, uden noget håb om forsoning.
Den hårdeste infiltrerede er den buddhistiske kirke, Hoa Hao buddhistkirken og Cao Dai
buddhistkirken. For de få tilbageværende uafhængige kirker, blandede regeringen sig åbenlys
med deres interne aktiviteter. For eksempel, før enhver udnævnelse af katolsk biskop skal det
forelægge kandidatlisten til myndighederne til godkendelse.
Naturligvis har medlemmer i vores Interreligionsråd i Vietnam haft mange forhindringer i vores
religiøse aktiviteter og velgørenhedsaktiviteter, og er blevet undertrykt og terroriseret af de
vietnamesiske kommunistiske myndigheder.
Vores religiøse aktiviteter og bevægelse bliver overvåget, hindres, chikaneret, undertrykt og
endda fysisk brutaliseret af lejede bøller.
Det tydeligste eksempel var angrebet på den ærværdige Hua Phi af Cao Dai kirken i Lam Dong
provinsen.
Ikke kun det, mange andre religiøse ledere er også blevet forfulgt, chikaneret og er blevet
nægtet til at rejse til udlandet som Fader Anthonny Dang Huu Nam, Fader John Baptist Nguyen
Dinh Thuc i Nghe An provinsen, Fader Anthony Le Ngoc Thanh og Fader Joseph Nguyen Van
Toan Redemptorists menighed. Den ærværdige Thich Khong Tanh af den buddhistiske kirke
også videre.
Myndighederne har totalt ignoreret retten til fri bevægelighed som anerkendt i artikel 13 i
verdenserklæringen om menneskerettigheder, som de har underskrevet og lovet at overholde.
Selv artikel i de viet a esiske forfat i g fra siger også klart: ” Borger har ret til fri
bevægelighed og ophold i la det, ret til at rejse til udla det og ve de hje fra udla det.”
Min egen ret til fri bevægelighed er blevet krænket af de vietnamesiske kommunistiske
myndigheder, simpelthen fordi jeg er medlem af Interreligionsrådet i Vietnam og udtrykker mit
syn på religionsfrihed, demokrati og menneskerettigheder.
Juridisk faldt jeg ikke ind i nogen kategorier der er specificeret af regeringen for at forbyde mig i
at rejse ud af landet. Men siden 2010 har de vietnamesiske myndigheder forhindret mig i at
rejse til udlandet og nægtet at forny mit pas der udløb i marts 2019. Jeg bragte sagen for retten
men det blev henvist til at lukke sagen uden retssag. Jeg bad også ministeriet for Offentlig
sikkerhed om at overholde loven ved at fjerne mit rejseforbud og forny mit pas. Men de
ignorerede det. Jeg førte sagen videre til det øverste inspektorat der fører tilsyn med arbejdet i
3
immigrationsafdelingen i Ministeriet for Offentlig sikkerhed, dog til ingen nytte. I august 2017
overtrådte den offentlige sikkerhed i Phu Nhuan distriktet Ho Chi Minh City, loven, da de
nægtede min beboerregistreringen. I henhold til loven er jeg berettiget til at ansøge om ophold
i mit eget huset. En masse problemer kan forvoldes folk uden bopæl.
Disse er blot nogle få eksemplarer på hvordan denne politistat har chikaneret mig. Jeg er blot
et eksempel på de præster fra kirkerne der er black listed af regimet. Simpelthen fordi vi ikke
accepterer myndighedernes kontrol i kirkernes interne affærer, og især om vores moralske
normer.
Til sidst vil jeg gerne gøre dem opmærksom på de 4 appeller fra Interreligionsrådet i Vietnam,
som anført i sin rapport og henstilling dateret d. 16. januar 2020:
1. Overvåg regelmæssigt situation om menneskerettigheder og religionsfrihed i Vietnam.
Overvej grundene til din hjælp og støtte til sådant et regime. Giv ikke brændstof til tyranni
og grusomhed.
2. Still betingelser for menneskerettigheder når man handler med Vietnam, hvad enten
det drejer sig om økonomiske, kulturelle, kommercielle eller militære forhold. Vær
konsekvent at indføre sanktioner når den vietnamesiske regering kontinuerligt begår
alvorlige krænkelser af menneskerettigheder.
3. Optag Vietnam på CPC-listen over lande der systematisk krænker menneskerettigheder
og religionsfrihed og anvende alle sanktions- og afskrækkelsesforanstaltninger efter
behov.
4. Gør krav til de vietnamesiske myndigheder om at ubetinget løslade alle
samvittighedsfanger, at ændrer straffeloven, staffeproceduren, jordloven,
Cybersikkerhedsloven og loven om religiøse troende for at overholde internationale
konventioner om borgerlige og politiske rettigheder.
Jeg takker dig for din tid og opmærksomhed
Vietnam, d. 31. august 2020


1
Dong Tam Landtvist og Retssag
https://viettannordic.wordpress.com/2020/09/14/dong-tam-landtvist-og-retssag/
En landsby uden for Hanoi har været i strid med den kommunistiske regering over jordarealer, som
landsbyen har disponeret over i flere generationer. Den vietnamesiske regering havde den 9.
januar 2020 indsat 3000 politibetjente til landsbyen for at løse jordkonflikten. Konflikten resulterede
i at 3 politibetjente og 1 civil mistede livet og flere arresteret. Regeringen har lukket alle
uafhængige medier fra at træde ind i området, det betyder at statsejede medie er den eneste form
der kan give informationer. De tre politibetjente der døde, fik givet en “ærefuld” begravelse i Hanoi
og regeringen bebrejdede “oprørerne” for drabet(1).
Politiaktion den 9. januar 2020
Natten til den 9. januar 2020, stormede 3.000 politibetjente og bevæbnet styrker landsbyen.
Politiets første stop var Le Dinh Kinhs hjem, en respekteret 84-årig landsbybo, der siden 2016 har
ledet beboere i landtvist sagen, samt mod myndigheders korruptioner. Ifølge South China Morning
Post havde Trinh Ba Tu, en jordrettighedsaktivist rapporteret at den ældre herre [Kinh] blev skudt
to gange i hovedet, en gang i hjertet og en gang i foden foran sin kone(2).
Twitter post of @AnhChiVN
Baggrund
Dong Tam er en landsby hvor der er blevet dyrket landbrug i flere generationer. Tætliggende er
Mieu Mon hvor regeringen har planlagt konstruktionen af en militær luftbase i 2017 og de forlanger
dermed Dong Tams jord til at fuldende konstruktionen. Alt jord i Vietnam er efter loven folkets
ejendom, dog under statens administration. Det resulterer i at beboer af Dong Tam landsbyen
bliver tvunget til at afgive deres jordejendom uden tilstrækkelig kompensation. De lokale i Dong
Tam havde selv under jord-konflikten vist støtte og tillid til regeringen med et skilt der oversættes:
Udenrigsudvalget 2019-20
URU Alm.del - Bilag 268
Offentligt
2
“Beboerne af Dong Tam er ikke imod Vietnams regering”(3).
BBC (3).
Le Dinh Kinh, manden der blev dræbt under slaget havde tidligere i sit liv også været medlem af
det kommunistiske parti i over 50 år og har været landsbyens politikommissær (1).
Støtten fra landsbyen vendte sig i april 2017, da myndighederne tog 59 hektar jord til
luftbasekonstruktionen. Under en konfrontation, angreb politiet og brækkede Hr. Kinhs ben og
dette resulterede i at de lokale samlede sig og holdte 38 embedsmænd fanget i en
uge(4).Formanden for Folkets Komite i Hanoi, Nguyen Duc Chung, afholdte et møde med de
lokale og lovede at løse konflikten fredeligt(5). Men Chung beordrede derefter i december 2019 at
fortsætte presset mod befolkningen af Dong Tam for at tage jorden fra dem.
Can Thi Theu og hendes to sønner, Trinh Ba Phuong og tidligere nævnte jordrettighedsaktivisten
Trinh Ba Tu blev anholdt den 23. juni 2020. Disse tre personer blev arresteret for at filme
politiaktionen d. 9/1/2020, dækkede efterfølgende forhold og publiceret informationerne på sociale
medier. Den ældste søn Trinh Ba Phuong formået at optage sin situation på live stream lige før sin
arrestation(6). Heri kunne man se politiet tvinge sig ind i hans hus hvor hans spædbarn og kone
stadig sov tidligt om morgenen. Hans kone har siden Trinh Ba Phuongs anholdelse blevet
chikaneret og forhørt af de lokale autoriteter. Den yngre bror, Trinh Ba Tu har været på sultestrejke
siden den 7. august 2020 for at protestere mod den dårlige behandling i fængslet. Hans
nuværende tilstand er indtil nu uvist af familien.
Den 7. september starter retssagen mod de andre 29 individer der blev arresteret under
politiaktionen. En række menneskerettighedsgrupper appellerer FNs Menneskerettighedsråd til at
sende repræsentanter til Vietnam for undersøgelse af sagen(6).
Retten den 7. september 2020
3
Retssagen mod de 29 Dong Tam beboere, der blev arresteret under politiaktionen om jord-tvisten
startede d. 7. september 2020, og var planlagt til at køre i 10 dage. Det startede med at domstolen
afspillede en video. En “dokumentarisk rapport” om de forseelser fra Dong Tam beboernes side. I
videoen ses også triste familiemedlemmer og venner til de tre politibetjente der mistede livet.
Advokaterne protesterede mod videoen og bad om håndfaste beviser frem for en film, med deres
produktions hold, instruktører osv. Domstolen afviste protesten og svarede blot: “Se filmen
først”(7),
Dong Tam retssag.VNA
Da hver enkelt anklagers navn blev kaldt op, blev det vist en tilståelsesvideo fra politiets side. Hver
enkelt anklager viste dog tegn på tortur og chikane fra politiet og var tvunget til at “tilstå”.
Nogle af de heldige sigtede, formåede at snakke med deres advokat og afslørede at de blev
tortureret indtil de ikke kunne klare det mere. At efterforskerne pressede dem til “bare at tilstå nu
og trække det tilbage igen i retten”. Men de sigtede som gjorde dette ville blive anset som uærlige
og stædige, hvilket ville gøre situationen værre. Dermed kunne retten også blot afvise de sigtedes
påstand om tortur med en enkelt sætning: “Ingen beviser”. En række andre sigtede nævnede at
efterforskerne har fortalt dem at: “Hvis du ikke tilstår, sætter du din familie i fare”.
Alle disse metoder viser at Dong Tam retssagen ikke er andet end en måde at legalisere
undertrykkelse og mord mod beboere i Dong Tam, udført af staten.
Den 9. september, 3 dage efter retssagen var startet, blev der foreslået en dom. De foreslåede
dødsdom til Le Dinh Cong og Le Dinh Chuc (Le Dinh Kinhs sønner) og livstids til Le Dinh Doanh
4
(Le Dinh Kinhs sønnesøn), 16-18 års fængsel til Bui Viet Hieu, øjenvidnet for mordet af Le Dinh
Kinh(8)(9)(10). Flere får 18-19 års fængsel.
Den 10.september, 4 dage inde i retssagen blev retssagen pludseligt afbrudt, selv om den
var planlagt til at skulle vare over 10 dage. Kritiske vidner nåede aldrig at blive kaldt op og
spørgsmål om de tre døde politibetjente forblev ubesvaret(11).
I løbet af retssagen dukkede der flere tvungede indrømmelser fra de sigtede: “Efter 8 måneders
arrest, er jeg blevet oplært af vores fængselsbetjente og indser fejlene fra min side. Jeg beder
mine advokater om at stoppe med at forsvare mig og beder om straflempelse fra domstolen”. En
generel udmelding der blev udmeldt af alle udover to sigtede ved slutningen af Dong Tam
retssagen(12).
Facebook/RFA. Forsvarsadvokater for de 29 sigtede fra Dong Tam.
Det kom også frem at efter retssagens 3.dag, blev forsvarsadvokater til de 29 sigtede truet og fulgt
efter af både civilklædte politimænd. Politi fratog deres USB drive med notater under retssagen
(13).
Mandag den 14. september har Hanoi domstolen udstedt to døds-, en livstids-, en 16-års-, en 13
års- og en 12 års-fængselsstraf. Disse seks anklagede er sigtet for mord. Andre anklagede fik 5-6
års fængselsstraf og nogle får en prøveløsladelse. Tidsfristen for at appellere dommen er 15 dage
fra den 15. september. Advokaterne for Le Dinh Cong og Le Dinh Chuc har sagt at de vil appellere
mod dommen (14) (15).
5
Liste over de 29 anklagede og deres endelige dom (højre kolonne). Tử hình (dødsstraf), Chung
thân (livstid), Năm tù (år i fængsel), Năm tù treo (år på prøveløsladelse), Tháng tù treo (måneder
på prøveløsladelse) (14)). (www.luatkhoa.org)
Kilder
1. https://viettan.org/en/what-happened-during-the-deadly-land-dispute-clash-in-dong-tam-
vietnam/
2. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3046192/vietnams-dong-tam-
massacre-activists-claim-government
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51105808
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/world/asia/vietnam-hostages-protest-land-dispute-
eviction.html
5. https://thediplomat.com/2017/04/lessons-learned-from-vietnams-dong-tam-standoff/
6. https://viettan.org/en/dong-tam-letter/amp/
7. https://www.facebook.com/pham.doan.trang/posts/10158974933558322
8. https://twitter.com/vietnamtweeter/status/1303552336334389248?s=21
6
9. https://www.facebook.com/35182380619/posts/10160617160600620/?extid=J6ghxsCWH3UD
93XS&d=n
10. https://the88project.org/newsletter-no-36/
11. https://twitter.com/vietnamtweeter/status/1304113569668235264?s=21
12. https://twitter.com/VietNamTweeter/status/1304799511076839424
13. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/follow-09102020174059.html
14. https://twitter.com/VietNamTweeter/status/1305456409555992576
15. https://twitter.com/VietNamTweeter/status/1305466367576084480


DONG TAM INCIDENT
2020
Human Rights Information Center
REPORT
Analyzing the Dong Tam case in Human rights context and under
International conventions on Human rights
Udenrigsudvalget 2019-20
URU Alm.del - Bilag 268
Offentligt
2
Table of Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................... 3
I - Background of the Dong Tam issue ........................................................................... 5
1. Causes.............................................................................................................................5
2. The 09/01/2020 attack .......................................................................................................13
3. The aftermaths and victims...............................................................................................14
4. The follow-up after the incident ........................................................................................16
II - Case analysis in accordance with domestic and international human rights law.....19
1. Relevant legal issues..........................................................................................................19
2. Human rights violations....................................................................................................21
2.1. Right to life ........................................................................................................................... 21
2.2. Inviolability of residence...................................................................................................... 24
2.3. Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ........... 26
2.4. Right to fair trial................................................................................................................... 29
2.5. The right to a remedy and reparation.................................................................................. 38
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................40
Appendix.......................................................................................................................42
3
Preface
Land is a valuable resource for any nation. For developing countries like
Vietnam, it is also a great resource for development. However, in the transition to the
market economy, land issues have gradually become “out of control” due to outdated
laws and policies, which are heavily political-oriented. As a result, land becomes a
“fertile realm” for officials and leaders corrupting in power, and profiting in many
forms, from blatant to sophisticated.
The 1987 Land Law, which was issued in 1988 and enforced in the Doi Moi
period, regulated that "Land is the property of the peoples and uniformly managed by
the State". In 2003, the National Assembly of Vietnam issued the new Land Law which
revised to: "Land belongs to the entire people and the State is the owner’s
representative." This regulation was extended by the National Assembly a little longer
in the revised Land Law, enacted at the end of 2013: “Land belongs to the entire people
with the State acting as the owner’s representative and uniformly managed land. The
State shall hand over land use rights to land users in accordance with this Law”.
"All people’s ownership" is not a concept from the classics of Marxism-
Leninism, it was introduced from the centralized economic model of the Soviet Union
in the 1930s. The Constitution 1946 of Vietnam did not mention this concept. The new
Constitution 1959 stated that "all mineral resources and waters and all forests,
undeveloped land, and other resources defined by law as belonging to the state are the
property of the whole people", which meant that all people’s ownership was the state’s
ownership. It was not until the 1980 Constitution that land was declared to belong to
the people.
In the process of transforming to the market economy, private property rights
appeared more frequently, hiding behind the increasingly vague concept of 'ownership
of all people'. The State is the sole representative of the owner, but could not directly
use and exploit hundreds of millions of land-plots in the whole nation. Therefore, since
1993, the Vietnam government has been forced to give more rights to individuals and
organizations that were currently using these “all people's” plots. These legal entities
4
do not hold absolute private ownership on paper, but through each amendment to the
Land Law, they are grabbing more and more property rights attached to land.
This conflict is deepened when the state shows discriminations on land-use
rights, when allocating or leasing land to different entities. State intervenes forcefully
on the land-use rights of farmers and individuals, while decentralizing its rights over
land-plots granted to legal entities... These are legal “defects” that create an
“environment” for policy corruption and de facto appropriation, which build up the
institutional uncertainty as outlined above.
Over the years, there have been many land disputes between people and
enterprises, and the state is always on the side of enterprises, like what happened in the
disputes in Van Giang, Duong Noi, Thu Thiem, Hung Loc garden. Recently, a land
dispute burst out at the beginning of 2020 in Dong Tam commune and resulted in 4
deaths (one Dong Tam resident and three police officers). The dispute shocked the
public; the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of the case are closely monitored
by domestic and foreign observers.
Dong Tam is a very complicated case, but during the trial process, the tribunal
repeatedly rejected many recommendations and requests of the defense lawyer to clarify
the nature of the case and avoid causing injustice and wrong conviction. Even during
the investigation, there were also signs of harassment, torture, violation of due process
and the rights of detainees. The Dong Tam case is one of the tragedies about land rights
disputes between farmers and enterprises, it is also a typical case in which the state turns
a civil case into criminal.
In the light of human rights law and international conventions to which Vietnam
is a party, Dong Tam is a case worth deeply analyzed. Therefore, the Human Rights
Information Center would like to represent a report on the Dong Tam case that we
conducted.
5
I - Background of the Dong Tam issue
1. Causes
In the general context of Vietnam, the underlying reason for the event rooted in
the land policy, which generated conflicts of interests between the government and its
people. In the case of Dong Tam issue, villagers have been frustrated and repeatedly
complained and reported to competent authorities about the corruption of local officials.
Land-use dispute was also the direct cause of a range of issues in Dong Tam from 2014.
Indeed, the dispute came from the differences of opinion of villagers and the authority
about the land area for national defense purposes and for agricultural purposes.
On 14/04/1980, Vietnam’s Prime Minister issued Decision no. 113/TTg on
granting 208 hectares of land for the construction of Mieu Mon military airport,
acquiring all agricultural land in Senh Field area for this project. On 10/11/1981, the
People’s Committee of Ha Son Binh province (now is Hanoi city) issued Decision no.
386 QD/UB on the first phase of land acquiring. According to this decision, 47.36ha of
land in the east area of Send Field was taken for national defense purposes, and Dong
Tam Co-operative was compensated 150,312 VND. This area was then marked with
numbered milestones and was put under the management of Brigade 28 of the Military
Air Force.
However, the Mieu Mon airport project was not implemented as planned. The
People's Committee of Dong Tam commune, therefore, tactically approved to change
the land-use purpose of the remaining area by letting the villagers cultivate and habitat
on it. Brigade 28 also leased the 47.36ha area which was handed over for national
defense purposes to farmers to cultivate.
In 2014, the People's Committee of Hanoi re-measured the land area in the Mieu
Mon airport project and made a decision to hand over 236.7 hectares of land to the Air
Force for stationing, the land area increased 28.7 ha compared to the area stated in
Decision No. 113 / TTg 1980. Disputes arose because villagers thought that the
increased area was agricultural land. When information about the land acquisition
leaked in 2014, residents of Dong Tam commune filed a complaint with the unit in
charge of the construction of Mieu Mon airport, the Air Force. This unit proposed the
6
villagers to settle the dispute with the civil agencies of Hanoi city. This response showed
that the military has recognized Senh Field as "civilian land".
On 27/03/2015, the Ministry of Defense issued a decision, which withdrew 50.03
hectares under the management of the Air Force and assigned it to the Military Telecom
Corporation (Viettel) for constructing national defense infrastructure A1. The villagers
believed that 46ha of the acquired land was agricultural land of Dong Tam commune
and that people should be compensated satisfactorily at the market price. The authority
disagreed with this opinion and insisted that this was state-own land.
Land dispute between the villagers and the government has escalated from
November 2016 when the People's Committee of My Duc District marked the land
outside the area 47, 36ha acquired since 1981 by reflective cord and a signboard
"Prohibited Area - Military Area". When Viettel started constructing on this land at the
beginning of 2017, villagers prevented it by pulling up the "military area" signboard
and bringing in agricultural machinery and materials for farming.
The conflict reached its peak on 15/04/2017, when the authority arrested 4
villagers to investigate the case of Disrupting public order related to land clearance in
Dong Tam commune. Mr. Le Dinh Kinh, an elderly man with a voice in the community,
was also arrested and had his leg broken in this arrest.1 The people of Dong Tam were
outraged at the arrest and, in return, arrested 38 officials and policemen who were
dispatched in the case, detaining them at the village cultural house for 7 days. This
action was to put pressure on the authority in order to release the 4 arrested people,
engage in dialogue, and resolve urgent land issues.
On 22/04/2017, Mayor of Hanoi Nguyen Duc Chung went to Dong Tam for a
dialogue with the people. Mr. Chung hand wrote a pledge, making 3 promises:
- Investigating and clarifying the origin and zone of the Mieu Mon airport land
area
- No criminal prosecution against any people in Dong Tam commune in this
incident
1 Mr. Le Dinh Kinh was born in 1936, was a member of the Communist Party, used to hold
the position of Chairman of the People's Committee in Dong Tam Commune. At the time of
arbitrary arrest and injury, Mr. Kinh was 81 years old.
7
- Investigating, verifying, and holding to account those who were responsible for
the arbitrary arrest and injury of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh.
The view of villagers
In many years, villagers in Dong Tam commune were frustrated with the
wrongdoing in land-use management committed by local officials and sent many
denunciations to the competent authorities. By 2013, some people in Dong Tam
commune formed a group to fight for land rights of all people in the commune, the
group was called the Consensus team with Mr. Le Dinh Kinh (Former Chairman of
Dong Tam Commune People's Committee) as the representative. The establishment of
such a group was consistent with the right of association recognized in the 2013
Constitution.2 The work of the Consensus team has also achieved some results when
bringing local corrupting officials to the court.3
Arguments of Dong Tam villagers about the land dispute:
- Only the first phase of the land acquisition for the Mieu Mon airport project
was just implemented, the people already handed over 47.36ha and received
compensation in 1981. Villagers called this acquired area as the Eastern part of Senh
Field and recognized as a land of national defense. From 1981 up till now, the
government has not issued any decisions to take the remaining area with a compensation
plan for people, so the disputed 46 ha area (the west of Senh Field) is still agricultural
land, despite being part of the national defense project. Hence this area must be
compensated at market prices.
- 28.7ha increased area between the measuring in 1981 and 2014 is agricultural
land.
- In 2014, when preparing to clear the area, the local government had a plan to
compensate and resettle 14 households living in the 47.36 ha area (the area has been
2
Art. 25 Vietnam Constitution 2013
3
The Government Inspectorate admitted that land-use disputes were long-term and
frustrated issues in Dong Tam (see more at: https://thanhtra.com.vn/thanh-tra/hoat-dong-
nganh/Thanh-tra-Chinh-phu-va-TP-Ha-Noi-doi-thoai-voi-cong-dan-xa-Dong-Tam-
157101.html )
8
handed over to the army units since 1981). This indirectly acknowledges the status of
the land is not land of defense.
- The military units did not have any action to resolve land disputes with the
people. When villagers complained to the Air Force (in charge of Mieu Mon airport
project), this unit suggested they contact the city authority. If the disputed area is state-
own land for national defense, military units must be the party settling the dispute with
the people.
Regarding the event on 15/04/2017, the authority is accused of arbitrary arrest
when inviting representatives of the complainings to the disputed land area for jointly
measuring and defining the boundary between defense land and agricultural land, and
then arresting these four agents without any arrest warrants. The arbitrary arrest led to
violence and injuries for Mr. Le Dinh Kinh. People in Dong Tam commune then
detained 38 people, including officials and police officers, to put pressure on the
authorities to release those arrested.
Picture 1. Senh Field area from Google map. The Mieu Mon airport is on the
top – right of the field. (Source: BBC News Vietnamese)
9
Picture 2.. Senh Field map and the dispute area. (Source: BBC News
Vietnamese)
The view of the authority
Under pressure from the people of Dong Tam, the council of Hanoi organized
an inspection on the land-use at Mieu Mon airport. Hanoi Inspectorate conclusions
made in July 20174 confirmed:
- The entire land area of Mieu Mon airport in the administrative border of Dong
Tam commune is state-own land for national defense purposes. There is no area of Senh
Field that is agricultural land as Mr. Le Dinh Kinh or some of the people claimed in the
complaint and denunciation letter.
- The difference of 28.7 ha between 1980 and 2014 measuring data is part of the
planning phase II and was handed over at that time to a military unit that was in charge
of constructing infrastructure.
4
Conclusion no. 2346/KL-TTTP-P5 issued on 19/07/2017 of Hanoi Inspectorate on the
management, using Mieu Mon airport’s la d, see ore at:
https://nhandan.com.vn/thoi-su-phap-luat/ha-noi-cong-bo-ket-luan-thanh-tra-toan-dien-
khu-dat-san-bay-mieu-mon-299107/
10
- After receiving the handover of 28.7ha of land, the military units failed to report
to the Ministry of Defense and the Government, these military units are also accounted
for loose management of the land, allowing people to live and claim land tenure on
state-own areas.
- The compensation plan for 14 households living in the site clearance area
approved by the government is legally according to the authority’s competent and due
process but lacks examining and is not suitable. This compensation plan has been
withdrawn at the time of inspection.
The Government Inspectorate agreed and reaffirmed the above opinion on
25/04/2017 in Notice no. 611/TB-TTCP5 on the review and verification of the accuracy
and legality of Conclusion 2346 of Hanoi Inspectorate. This announcement concludes
"the petition of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh is not grounded, there is no basis" and the
government's issuance of decisions to allocate land in this area to the military unit for
continuing stationing is "competent, in accordance with the provisions of the law".
On 27/08/2019, the authorities released a map during a conference with press
agencies on the inspectorate’s conclusions about the Mieu Mon airport land.6 This map
shows the scope of Mieu Mon airport land management, which was created in 1992,
with the signature of the leaders of the People's Committees of the communes allocating
land to the military unit. When being asked why only now the authority publicly
announced the map, the Mayor of Hanoi said it was necessary to display it so that people
could understand the map in this area. However, the authenticity of this map is still
questioned.7
5
Notice no. 611/TB-TTCP of the Government Inspectorate, see at:
http://www.thanhtra.gov.vn/ct/news/Lists/KetLuanThanhTra/View_Detail.aspx?ItemID=11
2)
6 Vietnam Finance, Hanoi suddenly releases map of Mieu Mon airport in Dong Tam, see at:
https://vietnamfinance.vn/ha-noi-bat-ngo-cong-bo-ban-do-san-bay-mieu-mon-o-dong-tam-
20180504224228127.htm
7 RFA, The map of Dong Tam commune: Questioned the authenticity , see at:
https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/hanoi-suddenly-published-a-map-of-mieu-mon-
airport-in-dong-tam-08282019140830.html
11
Picture 3. The map indicates the land management in Mieu Mon airport project
with signatures of representatives of allocating communes from 1992.
(Source: Vietnam Finance)
Efforts to resolve disagreements:
On 13/06/2017, the Hanoi police decided to prosecute the investigation of the
arrest of 38 hostages in Hoanh village, Dong Tam commune, My Duc district, Hanoi
on 15/04/2017, to clarify acts of illegally arresting people under Article 123 and acts of
destroying or intentionally damaging property under Article 143 of the Vietnamese
Penal Code. This prosecution is against the promise made by the Mayor of Hanoi on
22/04/2017. It should be noted that the arrest of 38 hostages in Hoanh village, Dong
Tam commune took place while people were frustrated by the arbitrary beatings and
arrest of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh by some officials, and feared that the police force would
suppress them in the same way. During 7 days of detention at the village cultural house,
38 hostages were not subjected to any torture, inhumane treatment, and were provided
adequate food, water, and other essential needs.
12
On 07/07/2017, the Hanoi authority held a meeting to announce a draft
conclusion of the Hanoi Inspectorate on the Mieu Mon airport land issue. During this
announcement, Dong Tam people opposed the inspection's conclusion that there was
no agricultural land in Senh Field area. The people believe that their land at Senh Field
is a legacy inherited from their ancestors. Mr. Nguyen Van Tuan Dung, Chief Inspector
of Hanoi, argued that land was owned by all people, and all Vietnamese people shared
the same ancestral origins, so there was no concept of private land or ancestor’s land.
Hanoi Mayor Nguyen Duc Chung also stated that a part of Dong Tam people did not
fully understand the land issue, so some others took advantage of it, provoking greed to
make a profit, villagers needed to be awake. According to Mr. Chung, defense land is a
national top-secret issue. It is up to each level of government to access a certain amount
of information, so there is no obligation to provide information to anyone else.
On 17/08/2017, the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Defense sent a
summons to Mr. Le Dinh Kinh to summon him to its headquarter on 23/08/2017. Mr.
Kinh was unable to go because his injured leg was not recovered.
On 15/04/2019, Dong Tam people sent a letter to the 7th Conference of the
Central Communist Party of Vietnam (Session XII) . This letter did not receive any
response. In an interview with the BBC Vietnamese in May 2019, Mr. Le Dinh Cong,
Dong Tam residents, shared that they had sent a total of 15 complaint letters to the
President of Vietnam, the Prime Minister, and the President of the National Assembly,
but had not received any replies.
On 31/05/2019 at a National Assembly meeting, National Assembly member
Duong Trung Quoc urged the authorities to discuss and settle the dispute satisfactorily.
On 25/11/2019, the government held a dialogue conference with people in the
areas adjacent to Mieu Mon airport area to announce the conclusion of the Government
Inspectorate. Mr. Le Dinh Kinh did not attend this meeting.
During this time, Dong Tam land issue also received a lot of attention from the
public. Some lawyers also set up a support group, giving legal advice to people in
drafting complaint letters. The case also received the attention of some members of the
National Assembly such as Mr. Duong Trung Quoc, who urged the government for
peaceful dialogue and resolution with questions and frustrations of Dong Tam people.
13
In spite of all the efforts listed above, the dialogue between the people and the authority
has never ever really happened.
2. The 09/01/2020 attack
Around 1:00 am - 5:00 am on 09/01/2020, the police force carried out a coercive
campaign with the participation of thousands of armed police into Hoanh village, Dong
Tam commune, My Duc district, Hanoi. The attack took place on the Full Moon day of
December in the lunar calendar, approaching the Lunar New Year.
Immediately after the attack, the electronic page of the Ministry of Public
Security (MPS) announced the incident as below:
“From December 31th 2016, a number of units of the Ministry of Defense
coordinated with the other forces to build a barrier protecting Mieu Mon airport, Hanoi
as planned. During the construction, on the morning of January 9th 2020, there were
acts of protest, the attackers used grenades, petrol bombs, knives, etc. against the
functional forces, resisted against those on public duties, disturbed public order,
resulting in the deaths of 3 police officers, 1 death of the protestor, and 1 injured. The
functional units have controlled and arrested serious law-violators, prosecuted the
case, prosecuted the accused, and handled in accordance with the law. Currently,
relating units are building the fence of Mieu Mon airport as planned.”8
According to the above announcement, the enforcement of the arrest on
09/01/2020 was an unforeseen event, in which the competent forces were forced to
suppress the attack and harassment of some citizens.
However, before the attack happened, several human rights activists had shared
warnings allegedly leaked from an official at the Government Office that there would
be an attack on Dong Tam before the Lunar New Year. The Conclusion of the
investigation and prosecution by Hanoi police also mentioned the agreement between
the Hanoi police and other forces to ensure security and order in Dong Tam commune
was deployed in the morning of January 9th.9
8
Tuoi Tre online paper cited the announcement of the Ministry of Public Security on
09/01/2020, see at: : https://tuoitre.vn/bo-cong-an-thong-tin-ve-tinh-hinh-o-xa-dong-tam-
20200109083527395.htm
9 The Investigation conclusion no. /KLĐT-PC (Đ ), page 7.
14
The attack as told by "an anonymous resident" in Dong Tam commune to the
BBC News Vietnamese was as follows10:
- At 3:00 am January 9th, officials in police uniform brought sticks, clubs, guns,
and shields to the village. They threw flares, fired tear gas bullets, blocked all the alleys
into Mr. Kinh's house, then broke in and beat women and the elderly in bruises.
- Some villagers resisted against the police force with bricks and petrol bombs,
but "pointless" because "they are too crowded and armed".
- The house of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh and Mr. Le Dinh Cong was blasted, causing
the wall to collapse, damaging the house. Mr. Le Dinh Cong's son was shot and broke
his arm, and Mr. Cong's son and his wife were later arrested with their two kids. The
witness also said that the electricity was not cut, but the internet was completely cut off.
Lawyer Ngo Anh Tuan, who defended the rights of Dong Tam people, said he
could not enter the Dong Tam residential area because he was stopped by the police,
who demanded permission from the Director of Hanoi police force for entering.11
3. The aftermaths and victims
The authority:
The Ministry of Public Security reported that 3 policemen killed in the clash
were:
- Nguyen Huy Thinh (1972): Deputy Commander of the Regiment, Mobilizing
Police Regiment of Hanoi.
- Pham Cong Huy (1993): Officer of the Fire and Rescue Team No. 3 of Hanoi
police
- Duong Duc Hoang Quan (1992): Platoon Commander, Mobilizing Police
Regiment of Hanoi.
The bodies of 3 officials were found with many parts burned unrecognizably.
Investigators and prosecutors concluded that these three soldiers were burned alive by
petrol by the opposing group.
10 See the interview at https://www.bbc.com/vietnamese/vietnam-51043856
11
See more at: https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/forceful-eviction-at-night-is-law-
violation-01092020100909.html
15
The villagers:
Fatality and injury:
Mr. Le Dinh Kinh (1936) was shot and killed at his home. The police argued that
Mr. Dinh was about to throw grenades to attack the functional forces, this was a
dangerous act and should be destroyed. When collapsing, Mr. Kinh's hand was still
holding a grenade. However, according to the testimony of Ms. Du Thi Thanh – Mr.
Kinh’s wife, and Mr. Bui Viet Hieu, when Mr. Kinh was shot, he did not take any acts
of protest and he was shot directly at a close range. Mr. Kinh's body was taken for
autopsy right after.
Mr. Bui Viet Hieu (1943) injured his leg and suffered from 3 holes in the
duodenum, 2 holes in the colon. The police did not give conclusions about where Mr.
Hieu's wound came from, but Mr. Hieu told the lawyer that the injuries were caused by
bullets and that he was shot after Mr. Kinh.
Mr. Le Dinh Chuc (1980, son of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh) was shot and injured in the
head.
Those arrested and charged:
The Hanoi Procuracy proposed to prosecute 6 defendants with murdering, of
which Le Dinh Cong and Le Dinh Chuc were proposed to death, the other 4 were
proposed from 14 to 18 years in prison or life sentences. The remaining 23 defendants
were accused of resisting those on public duty and proposed, ranging from suspended
sentences to 4-5 years in prison.
On 14/09 2020, the People Court of Hanoi issued the verdict on 29 defendants.
The court stated that Le Dinh Cong and Le Dinh Chuc were the masterminds and held
main responsibility for the murder case, four other defendants were also sentenced for
murder. To be specific:
1. Le Dinh Cong (male, 56 years old, son of Mr. Kinh): Death penalty for
murdering
2. Le Dinh Chuc (male, 40 years old, son of Mr. Kinh): Death penalty for
murdering
3. Le Dinh Doanh (male, 32 years old, grandson of Mr. Kinh): Life sentence for
murdering
16
4. Bui Viet Hieu (male, 77 years old,): 16 years in prison for murdering
5. Nguyen Van Tuyen (male, 46 years old,): 12 years imprisonment for
murdering
6. Nguyen Quoc Tien (male, 40 years old): 13 years imprisonment for murdering
The remaining 23 defendants received sentences, ranging from 15 months of
probation to 6 years imprisonment on charges resisting officers on duty.
4. The follow-up after the incident
09/01 Investigation agency of Hanoi Police issued a decision on prosecuting a
criminal case of Murder; Illegally storing, using and selling military
weapons; Resisting those on public duty happened in Hoanh village.
State-run media simultaneously reported about the Dong Tam incident
based on the information of the Ministry of Public Security
10/01 The President of Vietnam signed the decision to entitle First Class Victory
medal and Martyrs title to the three officers killed in the attack
11/01 Luat Khoa, an independent journal, sent a letter to interrogate Minister of
Public Security To Lam about the attack in Dong Tam.
13/01 Hanoi Police issued a decision to prosecute "a particularly serious crime
that happened in Dong Tam commune", and at the same time decided to
prosecute and detain people involved in the case.
VTV's News Program at 7 p.m. broadcasted clips of some arrested with
bruises and scratches on their faces confessing their crimes.
14/01 Press conference of the Ministry of Public Security about Dong Tam event
on January 9.12
12
See more at: https://plo.vn/thoi-su/bo-cong-an-thong-tin-chi-tiet-ve-vu-dong-tam-
883694.html
17
16/01 Mr. Chris Hayes, Representative of Australia, condemned the Vietnamese
government in the Dong Tam case while calling the Australian
government - as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council
- to request an urgent and transparent investigation about this incident.13
21/01 Mr. Nguyen Quang A and a number of others filed a criminal denunciation
related to the attack in Hoanh village, Dong Tam commune to the Hanoi
Procuracy. The denunciation petition requires prosecution of the murder
case of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh.
January 2020 Human Rights Watch called on the European Union to speak up about the
Dong Tam incident in a submission to the EU in preparation for the EU-
Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue 14
03/03 Ms. Du Thi Thanh filed a criminal denunciation to the MPS investigation
agency and Minister of MPS To Lam, about the murder case of her
husband, Mr. Le Dinh Kinh on January 9th 2020.
05/06 The police investigation agency announced the Investigating conclusion
no. 210/KLĐT-PC01 (Đ3) of the criminal case and proposes prosecution
the case with murder and Resisting those on public duty, which happened
on January 9th, 2020
24/06 The Hanoi People's Procuracy issued Indictment of Prosecution No.
241/CT-VKS-P2 which prosecuted 29 suspects for Murder and Resisting
those on public duty
07/09 The first instance court on the murder and resisting those on public duty
began.
13
BBC Vietnamese article: https://www.bbc.com/vietnamese/vietnam-51145237
14 See the Report at: https://www.hrw.org/vi/news/2020/02/10/338757
18
09/09 During the session, the defense lawyers requested to investigate, clarify
the death of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh and prosecute those who accounted for the
death of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh.15
14/09 The People’s Court of Hanoi sentenced 6 defendants for murder, with 2
death penalties, 1 life sentence, 3 imprisonment sentences ranging from
12 to 16 years. The rest 23 defendants received sentences for Resisting
those on public duty, which ranged from 15 months’ probation to 6 years
in prison.
15 The defense of Lawyer Nguyen Van Mieng at the hearing session on 09/09 according to
the note of Lawyer Ngo Tuan Anh:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10217450437044071&id=15697595
42
The defense of Lawyer Le Van Hoa
https://www.facebook.com/levanhoa256/posts/2718819101696474
19
II - Case analysis in accordance with domestic and international human
rights law
1. Relevant legal issues
To evaluate the incident in a relatively comprehensive and objective way, this
report is conducted according to the progress of the case and relevant legal aspects, and
in accordance with domestic regulations and international human rights framework.
1.1. Domestic regulations
The domestic legal framework is the first basis to be considered and analyzed in
any case. In the Dong Tam case, these domestic legal regulations played a similarly
important role.
•Constitution 2013: Specifically: Articles 14, 19, 20, 22, 31
•Land Law 2013
o Article 4. Land ownership
o Article 5. Land users
o Article 69. Order and procedures for land recovery for defense and
security purposes; socio-economic development for the national and public
interests
•Law on The use of Weapons, Explosive and Supporting Tools 2017
o Article 22. Principles of using military weapons
•Criminal Code
o Article 22. Justified defense
o Article 23. Urgent situation
•Criminal Procedure Code
o Article 10. Sustainment of bodily integrity
o Article 12. Alimentation of inviolability of residence, privacy,
personal secrecy, family secrets, safety and confidentiality of personal mail,
telephone and telegraph
o Article 25. Timely, just and public trial
o Article 26. Assurance of oral arguments in adjudication process
o Article 59. Temporary detainees
20
o Article 60. Suspects
o Article 61. Defendants
1.2 International human rights regulations
o Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article
8, Article 9, Article 10
o International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights: Article 7, Article 10
o Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Punishments or Treatment: Article 1, Article 12, Article 15
o Human rights in the Administration of justice
o UN Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners: Article 31, Article
32, Article 37, Article 39, Article 44
o Principles of effective investigation and documentation of torture and other
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment: Article 3, Article 4
o Basic principles of the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officers:
Article 4, Article 5, Article 10
o Basic principles on the independence of the Judiciary (1985): Article 2, Article
4, Article 5
o Basic principles on the role of lawyers (1990): Article 1, Article 6, Article 7,
Article 8, Article 16
o Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for
victims of gross violations of international human rights and serious violations
of international humanitarian law (2006): Article 15
21
2. Human rights violations
2.1. Right to life
The right to life is one of the most important rights of every single person. The
scope of this right also contains many other specific rights, such as the right not to be
subjected to brutal torture, punishment, or inhumane treatment, the right to be protected
from arbitrary arrest. Vietnamese law also recognizes this right and has specific
provisions on ensuring the right to live in the Constitution and related laws. However,
the authority seemed to have forgotten while resolving the Dong Tam case.
Up till when the first instance court issued the verdict on this case, there is still
a question mark on the death of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh. Although the causes and situation
of when Mr. Kinh was killed were described quite clearly in the Indictment of
Prosecution, there are too many contradictions that raise doubts about the hidden truth.
According to the indictment, the police force on duty was attacked by Dong Tam
villagers, and they have no other choice but to take control over the violent group and
arrest Mr. Kinh family members. The investigation conclusion of Hanoi police and the
indictment both stated that the police shot intentionally since Mr. Kinh had dangerous
resisting action. Those conclusions do not clearly clarify why Mr. Kinh’s behavior was
considered to be severely dangerous and why shooting Mr. Kinh was an appropriate
action in that situation. A citizen, being in his own house, not committing any act of
crime, was seized and attacked by armed police from 1 a.m to 6 a.m. This is clearly a
grave violation of human rights. Even if Mr. Kinh had committed any crimes, he could
only have been arrested in the morning in compliance with the legal process. The
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR)
Art. 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
• International Convenant on Political and Civil rights (ICCPR)
Art. 6 para 1: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right
shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”
• Vietnam Contistution 2013:
Art. 19: “Everyone has the right to live. Human life is protected by the law. No
one shall be illegally deprived of his or her life ...”
22
incident in Dong Tam, however, happened in another way; thousands of armed police
officers burst into the small village, broke into Mr. Kinh’s house, and shot the him to
death.
The indictment showed that Mr. Kinh was shot two times from the behind and
from the distance of about 2 to 2.5 meters. Mr. Bui Viet Hieu (also a convicted in this
case) gave testimony that Mr. Kinh had been shot from the front. Mr. Hieu is considered
to be the only resident on the scene who witnessed Mr. Kinh death at a close distance –
around 1 meter. The autopsy descriptions showed that there were 2 small, clear and
round-shaped wounds on the frontal of Mr. Kinh’s body, the wounds at the back were
also round-shaped but larger, and the edge of the wounds was ragged. It can be drawn
from the autopsy that bullets were shot at the frontal, from front to the back and the
bullets were an explosive type since the bullet holes at the back were larger than at the
front. The assumption that the bullets were explosive ones also coincided with the
testimony of Mr. Hieu about his wounds that he was shot and the bullet exploded after
hitting his side, causing him 5 holes in the duodenum and colon. Mr. Hieu’s testimony
has a basis to confirm its trustworthiness. And this raised even more doubts about the
death of Mr. Kinh.
According to the police, before being shot, Mr. Kinh was holding a grenade and
threatening to throw it at the police. Setting aside the questions about the origin of the
grenade, it is unconvincing that an 84-year old man with difficulty in moving (since one
of his legs was broken in a clash with the authority from April 2017) could use any type
of arms, especially a grenade, to threaten full-armed police force. This is a remarkable
point. Let’s assume that every detail announced by the police is true, there will be an
over-reacting and discrimination between Mr. Kinh and other villagers involved in the
incident. Mr. Kinh was not the only one who had and used grenades. The prosecutors
convicted that at least 2 other people threw grenades toward the policemen. These 2
men were said to have aggressive actions such as using grenades, petrol, knives, etc.;
and they were caught alive and arrested, while a much older man, with definitely lower
risk, was treated in a more brutal manner.
According to Ms. Du Thi Thanh (Mr. Kinh’s wife), her children and
grandchildren were taken away in front of her, she was then also taken away. Before
23
being taken away, Ms. Thanh confirmed that her husband was still alive. Thus, Mr.
Hieu was the only resident being at the time and place where Mr. Kinh was shot and
killed, apart from professionally trained and fully-equipped police officers. In such a
situation, killing Mr. Kinh was unjust and unnecessary. His right to life was violated
brutally and grossly on 09/01/2020.
Another person who was shot after Mr. Kinh was Mr. Hui Viet Hieu, which not
mentioned in the indictment. In a meeting with lawyers at the detention center, Mr. Hieu
said that he was shot 2 times after Mr. Kinh, 1 in the leg and the other hit his chest. The
bullets were aimed at the heart but actually deviated from the side, causing him 3 holes
in the duodenum, 2 in the colon. After being shot, Mr. Hieu was left alone until noon
of 09/01/2020. That he was still alive was unexpected by the shooter. Mr. Hieu also
stated that he was hiding when being shot. There was no sign that Mr. Hieu was
dangerous and needed to be eliminated as what the police claimed about Mr. Kinh. If
Mr. Hieu was considered to be severely dangerous and needed to be eliminated, the
police should have taken his body away as what they did to Mr. Kinh’s body. In case
Mr. Hieu was hit by a stray bullet, the police should have provided first aid immediately.
Mr. Hieu did not receive any medical treatment until 11 a.m. that day, when he fell into
a coma and his heart stopped, though the conflict ended 5 hours early (according to the
information from the Ministry of Public Security). Mr. Hieu’s life was not taken, but
the fact that he did not receive appropriate medical treatment also violates the right to
life. Moreover, abandon a man with serious injuries only for 5 hours constitutes an act
of cruel torture, inhumane treatment
24
2.2. Inviolability of residence
Citizens have the right to be protected from any type of intrusion into their
accommodation without having their consent. The inviolable right of residence of Mr.
Kinh’s family and other people at Dong Tam should also be respected as prescribed by
law. On the contrary, thousands of policemen from Hanoi police force and other forces
from the Ministry of Public Security burst into Hoanh village and broke in civilian
houses before the dawn of 09/01/2020.
According to the indictment, the police forces came to Hoanh village to carry
out duty and plan to ensure security and public order in Dong Tam commune. Any plans
from the authority must be conducted in a way that minimizes effects on the daily
activities of citizens, which at a minimum level should avoid disturbing sleeping and
resting time. In fact, the place where the construction group was building walls for Mieu
Mon project was outside Hoanh village, and the location of the attack was inside Hoanh
village, at Mr. Kinh’s and his relative’s house in specific. The locations of these two
• Vietnam Constitution 2013
Art. 22 paras. 2 and 3: “Everyone is entitled to the inviolability of his or her domicile.
No one is allowed to enter the domicile of another person without his or her consent.
Domiciliary searches shall be provided by the statute”.
• Criminal code 2015
Article 158. Home infringement
“1. Any person who commits any of the following acts shall face a penalty of up to 02
years' community sentence or 03 - 24 months' imprisonment: a
d) Breaking in another person's home without the consent of its owner or manager.
2. This offence committed in any of the following cases shall carry a penalty of 01 - 05
years' imprisonment:
a) The offence is committed by an organized group;
b) The offence involves abuse of the offender's her position or power”
• Criminal procedure code 2015
Article 12. Alimentation of inviolability of residence, privacy, personal secrecy, family
secrets, safety and confidentiality of personal mail, telephone and telegraph
“No person can illegally violate others’ residence, privacy, personal secrecy, family
secrets, safety and confidentiality of mail, telephone, telegraph and other forms of
personal communication.”
25
places are completely different and distant. As described in the indictment, the villagers
did not go outside the village but sounded the alarm when they saw the police force
approaching. Hence, it can be affirmed that the police force, with thousands of armed
officers, approached Hoanh village intentionally. Ms. Thanh recalled that the police
surrounded her house at about 3 a.m., used tear gas and guns, then broke into the house,
beat her family member, and took them all away. She claimed that her husband, Mr.
Kinh, was still alive before she was taken away, although Mr. Kinh had difficulty
breathing due to tear gas.
The two sides of the clash were clearly unbalanced: a group of normal villagers,
on one hand, and professionally trained and fully-equipped policemen on the other
hand. Terrifying and fear from the citizens is easy to understand. The police gravely
violated the inviolable right of residence without any grounds, making villagers
extremely fearful, resulted in violent resisting actions.
When looking at the 09/01 attack in relation to the events that took place before,
the defendants' actions implied they had lived in fear of being violated for a long time.
In April 2017, Mr. Kinh had his leg broken, and was arrested without an arrest warrant.
For a long time, shrimp paste and rotten eggs were continuously thrown into Mr. Hieu's
house. Mr. le Dinh Cong (Mr. Kinh’ son) and other villagers were constantly harassed
and threatened directly and through SMS. Mr. Kinh also received a paper with a threat
to arrest him a few days before the 09/01 incident. Living in constant fear about their
lives and accommodations, without receiving any protection or help, made Dong Tam
villagers skeptical and more alerted. During the attack, the whole village was isolated,
no one could go in or out, the Internet was cut off; the villagers considered these are
unusual signs and their lives were at great risk. Numerous policemen illegally broke
into Mr. Kinh’s and some other households with guns, so it was necessary for the people
to protect Mr. Kinh from the dreadful danger. In fact, the defendants stated in their
testimony and in front of court many times that they just wanted to “protect their father”
(Mr. Kinh) from the sudden attack.
Despite all the efforts of the defense lawyers, the Plan 419A (the attacking plan
on Dong Tam) is still undisclosed. Explaining the plan as confidential was not
26
convincing enough to be the ground for violating the fundamental human rights of Dong
Tam people on 09/01.
2.3. Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
2.3.1. The right not to be tortured
The right not to be tortured is one of the rare absolute rights that is specified in
the ICCPR and is internalized in many legal documents in Vietnam. Accordingly, the
basic factors that constitute torture include:
• The severity of pain and suffering, physically or mentally
• Acts caused or endorsed by public authorities
• ICCPR
Art. 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to
medical or scientific experimentation.
• Vietnam Constitution 2013
Art. 20 para. 1: “Everyone shall enjoy the inviolability of the individual and the legal
protection of his or her life, health, honor and dignity and is protected against torture,
violence, coercion, corporal punishment or any form of treatment harming his or her
body and health and offence against honor and dignity.”.
• Criminal procedure code 2015
Article 10. Sustainment of bodily integrity
Every person is entitled to inviolability of the physical body. No person is arrested
without a Court’s warrant or Procuracy's decision or approval, except for acts in
flagrante. Emergency custody, arrest, temporary detainment or detention must abide by
this Law. Torture, extortion of deposition, corporal punishment or any treatments
violating a person’s body, life and health are inhibited.
• Law on Enforcement of Custody and Temporary Detention 20151
Art. 4. Principles of custody and temporary detention management and enforcement
3. To guarantee humanity; not to torture and use coercion or corporal punishment
against or any other forms of treatment that infringe upon lawful rights and
interests of, persons held in custody or temporary detention.
Art. 8. Prohibited acts
1. Torturing and using coercion and corporal punishment; applying cruel, inhuman or
degrading forms of treatment or punishment or any other forms that infringe upon lawful
rights and interests of persons held in custody or temporary detention.
27
• Subjective intent (intentional fault) of the subject causing the act with
specific purposes (to obtain victims' confession, information ...)
• Pain or suffering which does not come from legal sanctions or sanctions.
In this case, there are clear signs of brutal torture from the authorities. In an
interview clip about the testimony process, Mr. Du Thi Thanh (1953) said she was
beaten, slapped, and forced to testify that her husband was holding a grenade when
dying.16 Suffering from the testimony for many days, facing threats from investigators
right after the death of her husband was unbearable for the 68-year old woman. This is
clearly torture, causing physical pain and severe psychological trauma to Ms. Thanh.
Not only Ms. Thanh but the appearance of the arrested from Dong Tam on
television also raises suspicions that they were tortured and forced to confess what was
contrary to the facts. These people appeared on the 7 p.m. news program with scratches
and bruises on the face, confessing and blaming Mr. Kinh for “inciting” them to fight
and kill police officers. All the accused who had “fiercely opposed” according to the
indictment of the procuracy appeared with bruised faces and wounds and "bowed to
confess" in the news clip.17
Ms. Bui Thi Noi also testified on the trial on 8th Sep 2020 that though she was
having an injury, she was still brutally beaten in the leg at the Mieu Mon Police station
after being arrested. Apparently, the investigators had carried out torture to bend the
truth and have testimony suitable for conviction.
At the trial on 9th Sep 2020, defense lawyer Dang Dinh Manh asked all 29
defendants to raised their hands if they were not tortured during the investigation. 10
people raised their hands while 19 others sat still. There are still many things worth
mentioning and should have been analyzed further with the remaining 19 people who
did not raise their hands. It is enough to prove doubts about the violence and torture that
defendants of Dong Tam case have suffered.
16
Ms. Thanh shared about being tortured on 09/01/2020 (with English subtitle):
https://www.facebook.com/thao.gao/videos/vb.100000244510380/3735604353124345/?t
ype=3
17
The confession clip of the accused broadcasted on VTV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L57sir1VD
28
The torture not only appears in form of beating physically or mentally abusing
but also in isolating detention. In some cases against Uruguay, HRC concluded
incommunicado detention in “a few months” constituted violations to Article 10(1)
ICCPR. Detention which lasted 8 months and was unknown to other people was
concluded by HRC to violate Article 7 ICCPR and constituted act of torture, inhumane
and degrading punishment or treatment. The shortest period among those cases was in
the case Arzuaga Gilboa v. Uruguay18, HRC concluded that there was a violation in
terms of incommunicado detention for 15 days. In Dong Tam case, the defendants were
arrested on 09/01/2020, and not until 08/08/2020 were the lawyers allowed to contact
their clients. Relatives were not allowed to meet from the arrest day until when the first
instance court ended. That means during the past 8 months, the detainees were isolated.
No one knew about the health conditions and information of the detainees. Everyone
knew that the accused were arrested and taken away, but none of them knew where the
defendants were detained, how to contact and visit.
2.3.2. The right to humane treatment of those deprived of their liberty
“Person deprived of liberty” is a term commonly used to refer to ones who have
been subjected to preventative measures or administrative or criminal sanctions (e.g.
arrest, detention, imprisonment, rehabilitation concentration, etc.) with restricted
freedom of movement, residence and some other freedoms. The 29 villagers arrested
and prosecuted in the Dong Tam case were those who were deprived of freedom; and
they needed to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent human dignity.
Nevertheless, this right was violated in the Dong Tam case. Mr. Le Dinh Cong
testified at the court that officers Pham Viet Anh beat him with a rubber baton ten days
continuously. This both shows brutal torture in physical and the humiliation of dignity
of the person being detained.
18
Lucía Arzuaga Gilboa v. Uruguay, Communication No. 147/1983, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2
at 176 (1990).
29
2.4. Right to fair trial
The right to a fair trial is a set of proceeding rules aimed at ensuring fair trials,
including aspects such as being equal before the courts and tribunals, presumption of
innocence, guarantees the right to defense, etc.
• ICCPR:
Article 14. 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the
determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a
suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Press and the public may be
excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or
national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the
parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in
special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any
judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except
where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern
matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled
to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the
nature and cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to
communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of
this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests
of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have
sufficient means to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as
witnesses against him;
(f) T have the free assistance of a interpreter if e cannot understa or spea the
language use in court;
(g) Not to be com elled to testify against himself or to confess guilt
30
2.4.1. Right to be equal before the courts and tribunals
This right is acknowledged in Art. 10 and 11 UDHR, Art. 12 ICCPR and several
other articles. The right to be equal before the courts and tribunals can be construed as
a concrete manifestation of the principle of non-discrimination, aimed at ensuring that
parties to proceedings are treated without any discriminations.
The defendants and the defense lawyers in the Dong Tam case are constantly
facing obstacles. The group of defense lawyers filed a complaint to the Chief Justice of
the Hanoi People's Court on 07/09/2020, which clearly stated the difficulties that they
had encountered in every justice process from the investigation stage, prosecution and
pretrial stage. These difficulties, unfortunately, were created by the judicial bodies and
competent officials. Documents confirmed the role of defense lawyers was undue delay
in sending to some lawyers, which negatively affected the detainees’ right to have
adequate time for the preparation of defense. The detainees also had difficulties in
private consulting with their lawyers without proper reasons. Lawyers were also limited
in accessing investigation documents despite many times requesting.
Even in the pretrial stage, the People’s Court of Hanoi undue delayed in allowing
the defense lawyers to copy case files. This request was only accepted after many
attempts and still very limited. Lawyers were not able to copy 2 USB containing photos
and clips taken during the 09/01 incident, even when the trial was processing.
In the first instance court, the defense lawyers faced prevention from the security
forces when approaching their clients at break time. The Judge also dismissed their
requests on the grounds that «lawyers had time to discuss with the defendants before»,
so contacting at the court was “unnecessary”. In the whole judicial process, the lawyers
and their clients did not have any chance to meet and discuss properly; their meetings
in privacy were interrupted and prohibited. Even the chance to have direct contact at
• Criminal Procedure Code 2015
Article 26. Assurance of oral arguments in adjudication process
During the charges, investigation, prosecution, adjudication, investigators,
prosecutors, persons authorized to institute proceedings, defendants, defense counsels and
other persons participating in proceedings are equally entitled to present and evaluate
evidences and make requests for clarification of objective truths of the lawsuit.
31
the court was interfered. Apparently, 29 defendants in Dong Tam case were separated
from their defense lawyers in an unreasonable manner.
None of the defendants’ relatives could be at the court, their requests to attend
as relatives, as witnesses or a party involved in the case were all refused. Except from
the tribunals, lawyers, prosecutors, defendants, the security force and some other people
with permissions, there were no normal citizens.
From the above, it is clear that the principle of equality before the court was
seriously violated. The court should be an impartial arbitrator to listen to both sides of
the dispute and give a just decision. What happened at the first instance court of Dong
Tam case have shown that the trial did not guarantee the equality of the parties before
the courts.
2.4.2. The right to have legal assistance
The right to have legal assistance is considered to be an important aspect that
guarantees the right to be equal before the courts. In practice, a person may or may not
have access to or participate in legal proceedings in an effective manner.
This right was violated in Dong Tam case, which is clearly shown through the
prevention in contact between the accused and their defense lawyers. Even when being
at the trial, the discussion between lawyers and clients was also restricted since the
judge considered it unnecessary.
Nearly all of 29 defendants did not receive any legal assistance during their
detention. The detaining center justified by stating that the detainees had signed
documents, refusing help from the lawyers. However, Mr. Ha Huy Son, one of the
defense lawyers, argued that those refusal documents were invalid since the detainees
had signed them before the lawyers were officially invited to take part in this case. This
detail implies that the detainees were not fully aware of their own rights. There are
possibilities that they signed papers under undue influence, coercion, and duress or due
to lack of information.
2.4.3. The right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial court
Article 10 of UDHR states: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his
rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 14(1) of ICCPR
32
outlines essential factors of a judicial body, which are competence, independence,
impartiality and by-law establishment.
There is still a lot of controversy regarding the court's jurisdiction in the Dong
Tam case. Because, the conflict arises from whether the land in the Senh field is for
defense purposes or not. If the land is state-own for national defense purposes, the case
may need to be heard at a military court, or it is necessary to have a representative of
the Ministry of Defense taking part in the trial.
Regarding the characteristics of independence and by-law establishment, the
tribunal and other parties related to the hearing basically meet the requirement on by-
law establishment. Nevertheless, the independence of the court is indeed in the need of
reconsideration. Article 301 of the Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Code 2015
stipulates clearly on how a trial should be started, but the trial on Dong Tam saw an
unprecedented proceeding when presenting a long clip describing the incident, which
was “clearly and truthfully” in the opinion of the tribunal, right at the beginning of the
trial. Before the questioning session, the court repeatedly asked whether the defendants
saw and heard the clip clearly. That such a prejudiced clip about how aggressive the
defendants resisted against the authority was presented before all participants of the trial
indicated that the independence and impartiality of the court were not guaranteed.
Although some of the defendants (Mr. Bui Viet Hieu, Mr. Le Dinh Doanh, etc.) stated
that the clip had been cut and edited, and they had been forced to confess untrue things,
the tribunal still insisted that the clip was important evidence and repeatedly asked each
defendant about what the clip had shown.
2.4.4. A fair and public hearing
Fairness and justice is hardly guaranteed when there is a relatively clear
prejudge. The court justified the case based solely on the edited clip, the indictment
from the Procuracy, the conclusion, evidence and testimony gathered by the police and
completely ignored confessions and testimony given at the hearing.
In paragraph 28 General comment 32, HRC explained clearly about a public
hearing, which requests “courts must make information regarding the time and venue
of the oral hearings available to the public and provide for adequate facilities for the
33
attendance of interested members of the public, within reasonable limits, taking into
account, inter alia, the potential interest in the case and the duration of the oral hearing”.
The disclosure of the information about the court may be limited if it relates to
national security, public order or public pressure may negatively affect justice. The
Dong Tam case started as a land dispute at first, then turned into a criminal case after
the 09/01 incident; it is not related to national security or political aspects. The
indictment from the Hanoi Procuracy only mentioned two common criminal crimes that
were Murdering and Resisting those on duty. Moreover, the 09/01 incident still has
controversial details, it was necessary and normal to disclose information about the case
and grant public access to the hearings.
However, according to defense lawyers, about half of the participants were
judicial and security police, none of the defendants’ family members nor ordinary
people could enter the courtroom. The press and media informed droplets about the trial
proceeding, the public could only have an overview of the case and the trial through
posts on social networking sites from defense lawyers and other unofficial sources of
information. In a video interview with Luat khoa – an independent journal, Ms. Nguyen
Thi Duyen, the wife of a defendant, said that she was prevented by the security
policemen at the court to attend the court due to irrelevant reasons based on some “legal
provisions”.19 There was only one state-own newspaper (Vietnam News Agency)
allowed to take pictures at the hearings. Therefore, the objectivity and concreteness of
the press in informing about the hearings was not guaranteed in this case.
19
Video interview by Luat Khoa journal with Ms. Nguyen Thi Duyen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzKojjaMmOc
34
2.4.5. Presumption of innocence
In the light of the above legal regulations, the 29 accused must have been
presumed as innocent until being convicted by the court. Before and during the trial, it
was necessary to ensure that the defendants were not received any unfair treatment due
to their accusations. However, a 5-minute clip, describing the preparation of Dong Tam
villagers to fight back the police, their confession on the wrong and regret of their
actions, was entitled “The incident in Dong Tam: The testimony of Le Dinh Cong and
others” and broadcasted on state media and the national news program. The clip was
edited and used red cross sign on scenes of Dong Tam villagers with the commentary
about the “violent, opposing-the-law nature of this group”.20 The confession clip was
also posted publicly on social networking sites and other official channels of state
bodies, which can be considered as an attempt to direct the public opinion towards
convicting these people carelessly and extra-judicially.
This also infringed on the reputation, honor and dignity of those who were being
detained and accused. Before the official conviction of the court, the government should
20 VTV24 news clip about Dong Tam case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L57sir1VD_o
• UDHR
Art. 11 para 1: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all
the guarantees necessary for his defense.
• ICCPR
Art 14 para 2: Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
• Vietnam Constitution 2013
Art. 31 para. 1: A defendant shall be regarded as innocent until the crime is proved in
accordance with legal procedure and the sentence of the Court has acquired full legal
effect
• Criminal Procedure Code 2013
Art. 13. Presumption of Innocence: “A accused person is deemed innocent until his
guilt is evidenced according to the procedures and formalities as defined in this Law
and a Court passes a valid conviction. If grounds for conviction, as per the procedures
and formalities in this Law, do not suffice, competent procedural authorities and
persons shall adjudge the accused person to be not guilty.
35
have limited any prior judgments about the outcome of the trial, but in contrast, the
authority had imprinted a prior judgment in the public opinion before the court gave the
final sentence. The principle of presumption of innocence continued to be violated at
the hearing when that confession clip was presented. The tribunal continuously gave
questions based on the testimony in the clip. The proceeding of this criminal trial was
inconsistent with the legal regulations, showing the prejudice of the tribunal against the
defendants.
36
2.4.6. The right of those who charged with criminal offences
It is important that the person under arrest and detention should have enough
time and facilities to prepare for his defense and contact an advocate of his choice. The
Dong Tam villagers were restricted in contacting lawyers. They did not have enough
• Art. 14 of ICCPR:
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to
the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the
nature and cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to
communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance
of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right;
and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so
require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient
means to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance
and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses
against him;
(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the
language used in court;
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt
• Criminal Procedure Code
Article 61. Defendants
1. Defendants are physical persons or juridical persons tried as per a Court’s decision.
The rights and duties of defendants as suspects are executed by their legal representatives
according to this Law.
2. Defendants are entitled to:
c) Be informed and explained about their rights and duties as per this Article;
d) Petition for expert examinations, valuation, change of authorized procedural persons,
expert witnesses, valuators, interpreters, translators, summoning of witness testifiers,
crime victims, individuals having duties and interests from the lawsuit, expert witnesses,
valuators, other participants in legal proceedings and authorized procedural persons to
the Court;
d) Present evidences, documents, items and requests;
e) Confer on relevant evidences, documents, items and request authorized procedural
persons to inspect and assess such;
g) Defend themselves or be defended;
h) Give statements and opinions, bear no obligation to testify against themselves or admit
to guilt;
37
time and facilities to consult their lawyers confidentially. Moreover, these detainees had
signed pledges to refuse to have defense lawyers even before any lawyers were assigned
in this case. This raised questions on whether they were informed about their rights in
advance or were forced to sign papers without full explanation since they were all
farmers and lacked legal knowledge. During the trial, some defendants expressed their
disagreements with the investigation conclusion of the police and the indictment from
the procuracy, which also further implied the unusual refusals on legal assistance at the
investigation stage. Even if there were any grounds on restricting the meeting of lawyers
and their clients in this case, the control and surveillance should only be “in the sight,
out of hearing”, and respect totally the right of the lawyers to advise and represent their
clients “without restrictions, influence, pressure or undue interference from any
quarter”, as emphasized in paragraph 34 General Comment 32 of HRC.
- The right to examine or have examined witnesses against the accused and
to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf
The principle of being equal before the courts also expresses in the appearance
and testimony of witnesses against the accused and those on his behalf at the trial. In
such a controversial case like Dong Tam case, the testimony of witnesses from both
parties was of great importance to shed light on the nature of the case. Nevertheless,
apart from the defense lawyers who showed great efforts in protecting the rights of the
defendants, other participants (the prosecutors and the representatives of the victim) and
attendees at the trial were all on the accusation side. In fact, neither of the parties had
their witnesses testified before the court, the lawyers’ requests to summon witnesses
were not granted; that showed inequality in the hearing and also implied the
prejudgment against the accused from the most neutral actor in any hearing – the
tribunal.
- The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt
Paragraph 3(g) of article 14 of ICCPR guarantees the right of the accused not to
be forced to testify against himself or to confess guilt. Accordingly, the accused does
not have to answer or proactively confess information that is against him. The provision
also implies the passive obligation of the state to minimize its direct or indirect pressure
physically or mentally on the accused to obtain their guilt confession. Showing an edited
38
clip recording the confession of defendants in the court, where should be the most
independent, transparent and objective place, and that the judge repeatedly mentioned
about the clip appeared to be a warning from the authority that the defendants had
confessed guilt and been convicted. The miserably and outraged from other parties in
the courtroom after watching the clip created great pressure on the defendants’
emotions. The defendants were more likely to feel tormented, guilty and isolated.
Without proper legal assistance and consultation, they would easily fall into the
psychological trap and testify against themselves.
Article 14 of ICCPR prohibited testimony obtained by torturing or other cruel
punishment or treatment, except when this testimony is considered as evidence against
torture and other illegal punishment. Turning back to when a lawyer asked how many
of the defendants were not suffered from torture, 19 people did not raise hands. The
testimony of these 19 people was obtained by torture and there were possibilities that
the confess clip was recorded in the same method. In a proper proceeding as prescribed
by law, the court should examine the legality of evidence and testimony when signs of
torture are found. According to paragraph 41 of General Comment no. 32 of HRC, the
burden is on the authority to prove that statements made by the accused have been given
of their own free will. However, the tribunal in Dong Tam ignored all claims about
torture, justifying that the defendants had no evidence to prove they had been tortured.
2.5. The right to a remedy and reparation
Acts of violence and torture often happened during the land dispute. In the
arbitrary arrest on 15/04/2017, Mr. Kinh had one leg broken. After being released, Mr.
Kinh immediately filed a denunciation against an officer for breaking his leg. The police
objected and stated that the injury was a pity and was due to the struggle between the
duty enforcement officers and Mr. Kinh’s family. Apparently, the police themselves
admitted that the above incident was due to the “struggle” between the two parties. In
the comparison of power and strength, the group of 4 normal citizens, one of which was
an over-80-year old man, was weaker and more vulnerable than the group of trained
and prepared officers; hence there should have been a reparation from the authority for
avoidable injury and damages to the citizens. In fact, there was no attempt from the
authority to repair and compensate, except for a wheelchair given by the Mayor of
39
Hanoi Nguyen Duc Chung. During a meeting of the National Assembly, the
representative of the MPS was questioned about this incident and their effort in
reparation, but did not respond.
40
Conclusion
The land dispute in Dong Tam area has lasted for many years, accompanied by
serious human rights violations, especially what happened in the 09/01/2020 attack. The
authority violates not only the rights of one person but also the rights of many people
at the same time. The fundamental rights such as the right to life, the inviolable right to
home, body, the right not to be tortured were disrespected, leading to the violation of a
range of other human rights. There cannot be any reason to justify the intentional
ignorance of competent bodies and officials.
In resolving disputes with citizens, the authority should maintain a positive
approach and settle the issue in the most peaceful manner. The participation of armed
forces should only be the last resort. The 09/01/2020 incident, however, occurred before
any actual attempt to resolve disagreement had been carried out and resulted in the death
of 4 people. Violations of human rights have persisted for years since the land dispute
broke out. Even when 29 people were arrested, detained and brought before the court,
there were still gross human rights violations against those who should have been
protected by an effective judicial body. The first instance trial, expected to last for 10
days, was reduced to only a week, despite many questions and suspicions left unsolved.
There is no judicial proceeding that claims to respect and follow human rights standards,
while hastily sentencing anyone to death. There is no moral and just trial when the court
ignores reasonable doubts about the case, dismisses requests on further investigation
and convicts the defendants based on improper evidence. The developments of the trial
have made public opinion more skeptical about the independence, impartiality and
nature of the court. All efforts in building a transparent, independent and impartial
judicial system seemed to be devastated after the trial on Dong Tam incident.
The research team focused on the Vietnamese legal regulation in comparison
with international human rights standards when briefly describing the Senh field land
dispute and focusing on the 09/01/2020 attack. To ensure the most impartial and fairest
judgments, events are consistently evaluated in accordance with domestic and
international human rights regulations. Facts that are difficult to confirm by specific
41
sources were not included in the study. The evaluations are focused on human rights
violations, without deeply analyzing the nature of the dispute.
Vietnamese domestic laws have been more and more compatible with the
international legal framework on human rights. Nevertheless, these standards have not
been fully respected and implemented in practice, especially in the recently Dong Tam
case. And once again, the obligations of the state in protecting and implementing human
rights standards are demanded urgently.
42
Appendix
Sources of documents and video clips:
1. Documents issued by the authority:
Mayor of Hanoi Nguyen Duc Chung, The compromise with Dong Tam people
on 22/04/2017: https://vov.vn/xa-hoi/ong-nguyen-duc-chung-cam-ket-khong-truy-cuu-
hinh-su-toan-dan-dong-tam-616409.vov
Governmental Inspectorate, Document no. 611/TB-TTCP, Notice about the
examination of the accuracy and legality of Inspectorate conclusion no. 2346/KL-
TTTP-P5 issued on 19/07/2017 by Hanoi Inspectorate:
http://www.thanhtra.gov.vn/ct/news/Lists/KetLuanThanhTra/View_Detail.aspx?ItemI
D=112)
Investigation agency of Hanoi Police, Investigation conclusion no. 210/KLĐT-
PC01(Đ3) on Murdering, Resisting officials on duty on 09/02/2020 at Hoanh village,
Dong Tam Commune, My Duc district, Hanoi:
https://danluat.thuvienphapluat.vn/toan-bo-dien-bien-phien-xet-xu-vu-an-gay-roi-tai-
dong-tam-188823.aspx
The People’s Procuracy of Hanoi, Indictment no. 241/CT-VKS-P2 prosecuting
29 people for Murdering and Resisting officials on duty:
https://danluat.thuvienphapluat.vn/toan-bo-dien-bien-phien-xet-xu-vu-an-gay-roi-tai-
dong-tam-188823.aspx
2. Documents and posts from the villagers and defense lawyers:
Letter of Dong Tam villagers to the 7th Conference of the Central Communist
Party of Vietnam (XII Session): https://baotiengdan.com/2018/04/19/nguoi-dan-dong-
tam-gui-tam-thu-toi-hoi-nghi-trung-uong-7/
Ms. Du Thi Thanh's criminal denunciation sent to Minitry of Public Security on
03/03/2020:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=133684984833585&id=107429
177459166
Petition before the trial of the group of defense lawyers in Dong Tam case:
43
https://www.facebook.com/levanhoa256/posts/2713962145515503
The defense for 4 defendants in the hearing session on 09/09/2020:
https://www.facebook.com/levanhoa256/posts/2718819101696474
3. Videos:
Mr. Le Dinh Kinh explained the origin of the land area in dispute, posted on
16/04/2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INB5LiLpYPE&fbclid=IwAR2tGeoFWvI1GHlQ
N0p59PekrjxWKWRkljxGx7dkCz4SVERMswErBjf-Mb0
VTC1, News clip about the disagreement of the villagers in the Conference
announcing the Draft conclusion of Inspectorate about Dong Tam land dispute, posted
on 07/07/2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgoSUz7S__o&fbclid=IwAR2tGeoFWvI1GHlQ
N0p59PekrjxWKWRkljxGx7dkCz4SVERMswErBjf-Mb0
VTV24, News clip about Dong Tam incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L57sir1VD_o
Ms. Du Thi Thanh shared about her being tortured to obtain testimony:
https://www.facebook.com/thao.gao/videos/vb.100000244510380/373560435312434
5/?type=3
Luat Khoa journal, Video interview with Ms. Nguyen Thi Duyen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzKojjaMmOc