English

Statement of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Bloc

on the Draft Law on Belief and Religion

We, the followers of Hoa Hao Buddhism (HHB), do not join the State-sanctioned Hoa Hao Buddhist organization because we want to practice in accordance with the teachings of Prophet Huynh, the founder of our religion. Even though the State did not invite us to contribute ideas to the current draft Law on Belief and Religion (Draft law version 1.9.2016), we saw the need to speak out on the State’s strictly control on religious matters and to affirm our existence in the country of Vietnam. In the past and at present we have been victims of the ordinances, decrees and directives on belief and religion, such that we are unable to exercise our freedom of religion.

The current Draft law version 1.9.2016 does not meet the needs of HHB’s religious freedom. Founded in 1939, HHB follows the concept of "study Buddhism in order to improve yourselves" to help lay members realize the path to liberation. Prophet Huynh, our religion founder, taught us that the home is the place for the faithful to learn by him-/herself and to encourage practice of religion. In a situation where most of the religious establishments were confiscated and utilized by the State since 1975, and the State assigned a very small number of these facilities to the State-sanctioned Hoa Hao Administrative Council for their use, our homes are the only places left for the independent Hoa Hao Buddhist members who do not join the State-sanctioned Hoa Hao Buddhist church to exercise the right to freedom of worship, practice, observation of the doctrine and religious principles, propagating and preaching as stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which Vietnam is a state party.

According to the definitions in the Draft law version 1.9.2016, our homes are simultaneously “facilities for activities related to belief”, “facilities for activities related to religion”, "places for common religious activities”  and “places for religious operations”. The distinction between religion and belief; between “facilities for activities related to belief” and “facilities for activities related to religion”; between “religious activities” and “religious operations”; and between “belief activities” and “religious activities” as defined in this draft law is not in line with our HHB’s guidance, and it will make religious activities at our homes subjected to multiple layers of oppression.

We wish to have the following rights to freedom of religion which are not met by the Ordinance on Belief and Religion of 2004 and the Draft Law on Belief and Religion (version 1.9.2016):

1. The right to have a religion of one’s choice

This is a non-derogable right which includes the right to not participate in the State-sanctioned Hoa Hao Administrative Council, whether at headquarter or local level;

2. The right to establish churches

Any action requiring Hoa Hao Buddhists to register with the State-sanctioned Hoa Hao Administrative Council in order to receive permit to conduct religious activities or religious operations is a violation of our right to freely choose a religion. This right includes freedom to establish churches or religious organizations. The establishment of religious organizations should not be bound to a registration requirement if such organizations do not need for a legal entity status for their operations.

3. The right to organize religious ceremonies and to display religious flags

In accordance with the philosophy of making a home into a temple, in addition to the following three major commemorative ceremonies: the Day of Prophet Huynh’s Disappearance, (on the 25^th of the 2^nd month of the lunar calendar), the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church Day of Initiation (on the 18^th of the 5th month of the lunar calendar), the Sacred Birthday of Prophet Huynh (on the 25^th of the 11^th month of the lunar calendar), Hoa Hao Buddhists regularly commemorate death anniversaries at home with the participation of hundreds, even thousands of members coming from different locations.

4. The right to gather for praying and propagation of the religious doctrine at home, at prayer hall, and at other worship facilities

Since the establishment of our religion the Hoa Hao followers have incorporated “religious activities and religious operations” into religious activities in a harmonized manner. Each religious ceremony held at private home or at HHB’s temple is also an opportunity for the seniors to propagate Hoa Hao Buddhist doctrine through lectures and interpretation of the teachings to the believers or to those who wish to learn about our religion.

5. The right to construction or restoration of temples, lecture halls, assembly halls, prayer halls

In addition to their private homes, Hoa Hao Buddhists should have the right to build or restore temples, lecture halls, assembly halls, prayer halls for the purpose of preaching and conducting religious activities.

6. The right to freedom of nomination, appointment, election of religious dignitaries

The nomination, appointment and election of religious dignitaries are entirely internal affairs of the religious organization and shall not require the permission of the State. If the need to communicate with the government authorities arises, HHB will then inform the State of our representatives.

7. The right to publish and distribute the Literary Oracles written by Prophet Huynh, his teachings, and other religious works....

Currently there are several printed versions of Prophet Huynh’s Literary Oracles which have been abridged or modified; therefore, HHB followers need to be able to reprint and distribute the original Literary Oracles, scriptures, and other religious works.

8. The right to conduct social and charitable works

It is the tradition of HHB to conduct social and charitable works, such as the establishment of herbal medical clinics to examine and treat sick persons using the traditional methods.

9. The right to religious freedom in prisons

Hoa Hao prisoners shall have the right to conduct religious activities in prison.

                                                              Vietnam, October 25, 2016.

* Attached are signatures of 109 Hoa Hao Buddhists (phase 1) who have agreed "Statement of Hoa Hao Buddhists regarding the draft law on Belief and Religion", which had been sent to the Chair of the National Assembly – The Honorable Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



STANDPOINTS OF
HOA HAO BUDDHISM IN VIETNAM

Report up dated on October 10, 2015

A.  General Background

Hoa Hao Buddhism (HHB) is a Buddhist branch founded by Prophet Huynh Phu So in 1939 at Hoa Hao Village, Tan Chau District, Chau Doc Province in Vietnam (currently belongs to An Giang Province). HHB is mostly developed in the Mekong Delta and is currently one of the four most popular religions in Vietnam. Before 1975, the number of Hoa Hao Buddhists (HH) was around 7 million. The actual number of HH is yet unknown. According to the Vietnamese government’s statistics, the number of HH at present is 1.5 million.  Thisis a doubtful number as the Vietnamese population has doubled during the past 40 years. Furthermore, the independent HH followers who are not registered in state-sanctioned churcheshave not been taken into account.

After the fall of Saigon in April 1975, the Communist government of Vietnam dissolved the administrative structure and confiscated all properties of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Congregation (HHC). In 1999, the government established another organization bearing the same name "Hoa Hao Buddhist Congregation" and gave this latter organizationa monopoly role. Many HH followers do not accept this new organization, believing its state-sponsored character does not comply with the tradition of HHB. Since then,independent HH followers who do not register with this latter organization have been considered illegal and their activities suppressed without mercy.

Currently, the Vietnamese government commitsserious violations of the right to freedom of religion of HH followers, specifically:

1/ Violation of the right tohave a religion of one’s choice:

·         Local authoritiesare forcing independent HH followers to register with the state-run HHC and accept the control of the state-run HHC.

·         Independent HH followers are monitored and assaulted by security officers, making them economically and socially isolated.

2/ Violation of the right to manifest thereligion throughworship:

·         After 1975, worshipping facilities of the original HHC were expropriated by theVietnamese Communist Party to eitherget transformed into government offices or sold to individuals or business organizations. In 1999, a few facilities of the original HHC that were confiscated or sold, such as the Master Temple An Hoa Tu (Chua Thay), were given either to the state-run HHCor to governmental agencies, which were then misused or left abandoned.

·         Independent HH followers are forbidden to gatherto commemoratethe Day of Prophet Huynh’s Victimization. This was the day when the Prophet was attacked by communist forces and disappeared, and is now one of the three major days ofcommemorationof HHB every year. As for the two remaining important days, which are Prophet Huynh’s Sacred Birthday and the Hoa Hao Day of Initiation, the government also prohibits independent HH followers from gathering in places other than those of the state-run HHC.

3/ Violation of the right to manifest the religion through observance and practice:

·         Independent HH followers are not permitted to gather to pray or worship at private homes, independent pagodas, or ashrams (places used for religious activities and retreats) that conform to Prophet Huynh’s teaching. These activities of independent HH followers have been constantly disturbed or dissolved by the local authorities.

·         Many social, health-related, charitable and educational activities of independent HH followers have been impeded or forbidden by the government.

·         Many independent HH followers have been arrested and imprisoned for practicing their religion.

4/ Violation of the right to manifest the religion through teaching:

·         The Vietnamese government hinders the teaching of the HHB doctrine at private homesof independent HH followers on days of remembrance. Local security officers threaten and harass worshipers, overpower the preaching by using high-capacity amplifiers to disturb them, or have thugs throw rocks into the houses of the HH followers.

·         The original version of HHBreligious scriptures and the "Teaching Literature" written by Prophet Huynh have been confiscated and are not allowed to be circulated. Anyone who tries to disseminate these materials will be arrested. The government instead published two censored versions of the books, eliminating many writings of Prophet Huynh in the period from 1942 to 1947 or replacing a great number of important words that are“sensitive" to the current regime.Independent HH followers who re-produced the original version of the religious teaching materials by means of CDs and DVDs have been arrested, and the circulation of these CDs and DVDs has also been prohibited. Other independent HH followers, who are determined to protect the authenticity of HHB and who havetried to print the original materials,have been put in jail and the teaching materials seized.

B.  Current Difficulties

1/ External threats:

·         The Ordinance on Beliefs and Religions of 2004 and the implementation of Decree 92 in 2012 have forced all religious groups in Vietnam to apply for a permit in order to conduct religious activities. Without approval from the government,religious activities of independent HH groups are deemed illegal.

·         The Vietnamese government only permits the state-sanctioned HHC to conduct religious activities and oppresses activities of independent HH groups.

·         Local governments have adopted unlawful measures such as defaming independent HH followers, hiring thugs andusing undercover security agents disguised as thugs, “angry citizens” or so called “spontaneous mobs” to attack their private homes, ashrams and temples.

·         The local governments are isolating independent HH followers from earning their livings and their livelihood in their communities.

2/ Internal struggles:

·         Independent HH followers donot have places to meet and worship regularly since the government had confiscated the operating and worshipping facilities of the original Hoa Hao Buddhist Congregation in 1975 and had dissolved religious gatherings at private homes.

·         Due to the ongoing repression and imprisonment ofindependent HH followers, HHgroups are currently short of personnel to carry out their work.

·         Due to the ongoing repression and social isolation ofindependent HH followers, HH groups are struggling to raise fundsto support religious teachingsand other humanitarian activities.

·         HHB is a native religion in Vietnam which has spreadin the Mekong Delta with activities concentrated in the provinces of An Giang, Dong Thap, Vinh Long, Kien Giang, and thecity of Can Tho.Independent followers of HHB are mostly unknown to the international community and do not get the attention from international human rights organizations. Thus, independent followers of HHB areeasily oppressed and isolated by the Vietnamese government.

C. Requests to the Vietnamese Government

·         Respect and protect the right of all HH followers inpracticing their religion. HH followers should be allowed to confess their religion on all personal documents without being discriminated. All acts of forcing independent HH followers to join the state-sanctioned HHC should be prohibited. The Vietnamese government should also forbid the social isolation of independent HH followers and any action that triggers the discrimination against HH followers who are not affiliated with the state-sanctioned HHB Church.

·         Respect and protect the right of freedom to manifest HHB through worship, either individually or in the community with others in temples, ashrams and at the homes of independent HH followers. The government should forbid their officials and agents from dissolving religious celebrations at private residences, and from assaulting, harassing, intimidating and arresting independent HH followers when they try to participate in religious ceremonies.

·         Respect and protect the right of independent HH groups to manifest their religion through practice and to elect their own leaders. They should not be forced to register with thestate-run HHC. When they have the need, independent HH groups shall be recognized as associations with legal entities.

·         Respect and protect the right offreedom to compose, produce and publish HHB training materials in various forms. Specifically, independent HH followers shall have the freedom to copy and circulate the original version of Prophet Huynh’s teachingwithout being subjected to any censorship.

·         Repeal all articles in the Ordinance, decrees and bylaws that violate the right to freedom of religion according to Article 24 of the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam of 2013 and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

·         Stop arresting independent HH followers for any religious cause then sentencing them with criminal charges such as “Resisting officers in performing their duties” (Article 257 of the Criminal Code), “Causing public disorder” (Article 245 of the Criminal Code), or “Abusing democratic freedoms” (Article 258 of the Criminal code). The following independent HH followers must be released immediately and unconditionally:

1. Mr. Bùi Văn Trung, sentenced to 4 years in prison and currently jailed in Xuan Loc Prison, Dong Nai Province

2. Mr. Nguyễn Văn Minh, sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison and currently jailed in An Phuoc Prison, Binh Duong Province

The Hoa Hao Buddhists.

*************************************************************************
PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE CASE REPORT

Mr. Bui van Trung,  Hoa Hao Buddhist

Four years prison sentence for exercising the Right to Freedom of Religion

  Mr. Bùi VănTrung

Mr.Bùi VănTrung, , born in 1964, resided in Phuoc Binh hamlet, Phuoc Hung commune, An Phu district, An Giang province,Vietnam

Mr. Trung was arrested Oct.30th, 2012 and on Jan.23th, 2013 was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for resisting persons in the performance of their official duties“ and “causing public disorder” according to Article 245 of the Criminal Code of Vietnam (VCC) by the court of first instance in An Phu district.

Mr. Trung is currently jailed in Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai province.

Reasonofarrest.

Mr. Bui van Trung is a teacher and a Hoa Hao buddhist, religiously active and very engaged in civic life, devoting his time for promoting social morality. Being the youngest son, he was in charge of the cult of the ancestors. On the occasions of the death anniversaries in his family, he used to hold lectures on Hoa Hao buddhist teachings for the guests. This habit led to the establishment of the Prayer Hall Ut Trung“ in 2005.

 A prayer hall“ is a place where people sharing the same wish meet regularly to worship and study religious teachings, with or without the presence of a religious ordained person. It can be in monasteries, temples or simply in private homes.

After 1975, all the establishments for Hoa Hao religious activities such as pagodas, meeting halls and lecture halls were seized by the government to be assigned to the State-sponsored  Hoa Hao Buddhist Church or to be torn down, or left vacant till they collapsed with time. The needs of the believers to practice the religion freely like in the ealiest times (1939) gave rise to some prayer halls in private homes of a layman or a religious ordained person.

In the case of Mr. Bui Van Trung, from the moment he objected to joining the state-sponsored Hoa Hao Buddhist Church, the religious activities of Prayer Hall Ut Trung began getting into troubles. The local government proceeded according to a three-staged planning to first create difficulties, than prevent activities and finally arrest Mr Trung.

Phase 1: defamation, threats and destruction.

1, The police spread rumors about Mr Trung so called "fight" against the religious freedom regulations of the state and warned people from coming to his home to attend ceremonies and listen to religious teachings, to avoid being "arrested“ by mistake.

2, Criminal and traffic police forces were used to block people from attending prayer sessions and listening to religious teachings, for the reason Mr Trung was an evil person, fighting against the religious policy of the state and would be soon arrested. People who disobeyed would have their vehicles confiscated and be themselves arrested.

On Nov 19th, 2007, during a death anniversary celebration at Mr.BuiVan Trung´s home, the police force blocked and chased the visitors, while state-sponsored Hoa Hao Church personnel pointed loudspeakers from the street to impede the listening of the religious lectures.

In the evening of Aug.21th, 2011,on the occasion of another death anniversary celebration at Mr Trung’s home, two young men came and stopped their motobicycle at the gate, the one sitting behind quickly got off and hurled three bags of putrid fish wastes into the prayer hall where the worshipers were taking a rest.

Phase 2: Cutting power.

On Apr.12th, 2012 the police surrounded the Prayer Hall Ut Trung to disperse and deter those who attended the death anniversary celebration of Mr. Trung´s mother. Two Hoa Hao buddhist, Mr. Truong Kim Long and Mr. To Van Manh were beaten by the police and bled from head injuries. The Police together with a group of undefined persons threw rods, soil blocks and stones in the house where Mr. Bui Van Trung was reading religious texts, damaging the tole roof and breaking the frame of Master Huynh Phu So sacred picture. As the Hoa Hao buddhists were determined  to keep the front door shut, the police ordered the power company to cut electricity in order to screw up the celebration. Mr Tham, son of Mr Trung, trying to prevent the power station employee to climb a ladder to disrupt the power was caught by the police and dragged away. Even with no electricity the Hoa Hao buddhists proceeded with the ceremony as planned.

Since that time, though facing a lot of difficulties due to the lack of electricity, Mr Trung did not give up the death anniversary celebrations or the religious activities of the Prayer Hall Ut Trung. Finally in order for the family to go on earning their living by fabricating aluminium cabinets and cultivating soya sprouts, Mr.Trung had to bear the costs of a private emergency generator.

At one time, when Mr. Bui Van Trung wanted to repair and extend the prayer hall, the police banned and prevented the boats from brlnging the sand needed for the construction. Mr.Trung had to rely on the help of his neighbours to have the sand stocked in their court yards, waiting for Mr Trung and his children to come and pick up at night time.

The Phuoc Hung police also summoned Mr. Trung to dismantle the part of his house used as prayer hall but he did not agree to implement the unreasonable request. The authorities then stopped by themselves their demand, but revealed with the arrest of many persons their main purpose which was to prevent religious activities of the whole family.

Phase3: Detention.

As the activities of the prayer hall continued, priester Bui Van Tham, sonof Mr Trung, was arrested on July26, 2012 when all by himself and on his way to deliver sale goods. Only after half a month search could his family find out his detention place.(see the case report of the prisoner of conscience Bui Van Tham)

On Oct.30, 2012, Mr. Trung himself was arrested when on his way to perform religious activities in the area of Cho Moi District, An Giang Province, six months after the crack down and power cuts at Prayer Hall Ut Trung, the incident An Giang province police used to prosecute him in court.

The sentence.

On Jan.23, 2013, in spite of his objections to all the allegations , Mr. Trung was sentenced by the An Phu district Court of First Instance to 4 years in prison, for “resisting persons in performance of their official duties” and" causing public disorder" according to Article 245 of the Vietnamese Penal Code. Mr. Trung is currently serving his prison sentence in Xuan Loc prison, Dong Nai province.

At his entering Xuan Loc prison, the prison warden tried to force Mr.Trung into pleading guilty to his charge. The former only gave up as Mr.Trung started a hunger strike to protest.

Reviews and recommendations.

Religious activities are legal  in a country having formal national laws protecting religious freedom. Commemorating death anniversaries means to follow customs and traditions of thousands years ago and reading religious teachings is making substantial contributions to the morality of the society. Government authorities preventing, sabotaging and forbidding religious lectures as well as persecuting, imprisoning the citizens, commit violation of the fundamental human rights.

Just because of their activities to promote religious freedom Mr. Bui Van Trung and two of his family members were imprisoned: his son Bui Van Tham and later, on Feb.11, 2014 his son in law Nguyen Van Minh.

By arresting and convicting Bui Van Trung, the Vietnamese authorities had violated the right to freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration, the right to personal security ,to freedom from torture and degrading treatments, the right for a fair trial

asstated in the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant in Civiland Political Rights, and in United NationsConvention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 

The governmentof Vietnam should

1.     Immediately and unconditionally free Mr. Bui Van Trung

2.       Respect the right to freedom of religion and freedom of movement

3.       Stop all harassments and threats to the family of Mr. Trung and to the Hoa Hao Buddhist worshipers at the Prayer Hall Ut Trung.

**********************************o0o*******************************
PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE CASE REPORT

Mr. Nguyễn Văn Lía,  Hòa Hảo Buddhist

Four years and six months prison sentence for advocating  the Right to Freedom of Religion

Mr.Nguyen van Lia, born in 1940, resided in Kien Quoi hamlet, KienThanh commune, Cho Moi district, An Giang province,Vietnam,was arrested on April 24, 2011 and sentenced to four years and six months for “abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state,” according to article 258 of the penal code of Vietnam by the People’s Court of Cho Moi district, An Giang province. Mr. Lia is currently jailed in XuanLoc prison, Dong Nai province.

Religious activities

Prior to 1975, Mr.Nguyen Van Lia was a Hoa Hao teacher, member of the teaching staff of the Central Executive Board ofthe Hoa Hao Buddhist Church (HHBC). After 1975, the communist authorities ordered the dissolution of the HHBC,confiscatedor controled the Church’s premises and assets. His Church being banned, Mr. Lia carried on his practice athome and started to advocate peacefully religious freedom for the Hoa Hao buddhists.

On April 16, 1999, together with other Hoa Hao Buddhists, Mr Nguyen Van Lia tried to put back the ancient sign on Hoa Hao Ancestral Temple (birthplace of Prophet Huynh Phu So) in Hoa Hao Holy Land ( Phu Tan district, An Giang province) but the province authorities sent hundreds agents from the police and civil defense forces to stop the project.

On Dec.26, 1999, the group again tried for the second time to rehabilitate the sign of their Ancestral Temple. They were brutally assaulted , arrested and jailed in Phu Tan district police station. Because of the enormous pressure of the international media, Phu Tan authorities released them and had the state-sanctionedHoaHao Buddhist Church erect the sign under the supervision of Mr Le QuangVinh, head of the Government Committee for Religious Affairs.

Mr. Nguyen Van Lia peacefully advocated the right to freedom of religion for HoaHao Buddhism by writing articles and calling for freedom to candidate for and to elect the dignitaries of the HoaHao Central Executive Committee. Mr. Lia paid special attention on taking care of the HoaHao prisoners of conscience and their families in the spirit of “Sharing Food and Clothing”

Ms. Mai Thi Dung, Hoa Hao buddhist and former prisoner of conscience recently released im April 2015,  recalled  "before I was arrested (2005) I only heard from uncle Lia without having the occasion to meet him. When both my husband and I were imprisoned for protesting against religious persecution, uncle Lia regularly visited and helped my old mother and my children. I am very thankful and hope he will be released soon.”

The “Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhism”

In 2007 Mr. Nguyen Van Lia together with his  HoaHaocommunity in the West (South Vietnam)instituted unofficially the group “Traditional HoaHao Buddhism” (THHB) to promote the authentic teaching of Prophet Huynh and the traditional ethical and moral codes which are both garbled and distorted by the communist government.

In 2009, the group (THHB) officially protested the plan of the authorities to erase the Ancestral Temple An Hoa Tu, a Hoa Hao historical site which was the birth and living place of the founder, Prophet Huynh. Mr Lia represented the group to meet with different diplomatic delegations of the countries concerned about the religious freedom situation in Vietnam.Twice a year, Mr Lia organizedvisiting delegations to the families of Hoa Hao predecessors and adherents who were suffering detention and martyrdomfor advocating their belief.

In 2011, after being arrested and convicted for the second time and while being detained in Bang Lang prison, An Giang province, Mr. Nguyen Van Lia was honored by the Nguyen Kim Dien Religious Freedom Award.

First conviction in 2003

The first conviction was in 2003, when Mr. Lia commemorated the anniversary of the disappearance of HoaHao Buddhist founder – Prophet Huynh Phu So - who went on April 19,1947  in good faith to a meeting with Ho Chi Minh and has not been seen since.  Mr. Lia was arrested and convicted to three years of prison for“resisting persons in the performance of their official duties” according to article 257 of the Vietnam criminal code. The sentence was later reduced to one and a half years.

Second conviction in2011

MrLia and his wife, MsTran ThiBac Lon,were arrested on April 24, 2011, as they drove to attend a death anniversary  ceremony for a Hoa Hao follower in Cai Nai-Mo Ba, Hoi An commune, Cho Moi district, An Giang province. It was a blatant trumped-up traffic violation: as MrLia protested because the traffic police, finding nothing illegal in his papers,intentionally broke the rear-view mirror of his motocycle. He was handcuffed and together with his wife was taken to the police station. According to a public letter calling for help from MrLia ´s wife on May 8, 2011, the police illegally took away money and objects in their possession . A couple of hours later, a Hoa Haofriend ,Mr Truong Kim Long , who came to Hoi An police station to inquire about the reasons of their arrest was also tied up and beaten by two policemen named Bon and Goi.

Authorities released MsBac Lon and Mr Long that night, but have detained MrLia ever since and prevented his family from seeing him for more than six months after his arrest.

On a visit on November 30, 2011, MrLia informed his family the police brutally tried to coerce an admission of guilt from him during multiples interrogations but he maintained his innocence and refused to sign a prepared document from the police . His wife, in a second public letter calling for help ,written on Dec.15, 2011 raised concern about the deterioration of his health and several injuries like broken ribs her husband got in custody.

On Dec.13, 2011, in a 3 hours session, the People’s Court of Cho Moi District in An Giang province convicted MrLiaof "abusing democratic freedoms and jeopardizing the security of the state," and sentenced him to five years prison in a so called “open trial” where his old mother, wife and daughter were not allowed to attend. Only his son succeeded to pass through the police cordon. There was no legal representant, and the HoaHao fellow-buddhists invited by the court were not allowed to express themselves. As Mr. Lia tried to defend himself, he was dragged by force out of the court. DVDs about Mr Lia ´s visits to the families of other HoaHao Buddhists in custody in 2011 were admitted by the courtas documents criticizing the Vietnamese government of violating religious freedom.

The Appeal Court in An Giang province confirmed on March 2, 2012 both conviction and sentence but reduced the charge of 6 months due to MrLia ´s old age.

Brutal prison conditions and critically failing health

Mr. Nguyen Van Lia is 74 years old, has high blood pressure but does not get his medication regularly in prison, and has lost most of his hearing after being beaten by the police in another previous arrest. Currently Mr. Lia is serving the sentence in prison 2, XuanLoc district, Dong Nai province , about 400 Km from his home province An Giang, which means more than 7 hours travel according to road conditions in Viet Nam .

Detention far away from home is a subtile policy to isolate the detainee because he cannot be visited regularly by his family, causing shortages of medicines and supplement foods. It was used also to pressure him into admitting guilt. As Mr. Lia stayed unbending, he was forced to do hard labor in spite of his old age. The harassement only stopped after Mr Lia went through a period of hunger strike.

Observations and Recommendations

Mr. Nguyen Van Lia is a spiritual leader of the “Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhism” group.

He is a scholar, author and co-author of several HoaHao Buddhist religious instruction texts and books, and is mainly known for his peaceful advocacy of the HoaHao faith. In May 2009, he met with representatives from the US Commission on International Religious Freedom to speak about the Vietnamese government’s repression of his group. After the meeting, he was repeatedly harassed by the local police of Cho Moi district, An Giang province, although all his activities were fully allowed and protected under Vietnam’s international human rights and constitutional obligations.

Mr. Lia was convictedof "abusing democratic freedoms and jeopardizing the security of the state," according to Article 258 of the Vietnamese criminall code, which conditions the exercise of freedom of religion or belief on “the interests of the State”, giving the state full authority to sanction people for all kinds of activities.

Article 258 is routinely invoked to arrest and prosecute followers of unsanctioned religious groups.

In the case of Mr. Lia, the government of Vietnam truly violated his freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to be free of torture and cruel treatment, and his rights to a fair trial as determined in the Constitution of the Republic Socialist of Vietnam, the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Vietnamese authorities should

·         immediatelyand unconditionally release Mr Nguyen Van Lia;

·         drop all charges against him;

·         Help Mr Lia to seek proper medical treatment;

++++++++++++++++++o0o++++++++++++++++++
Statement

of independent Hoa-Hao Buddhists

regarding the 4th draft Law on Religion and Belief

Việt Nam, May, 18th 2015.

·         Taking into account the hurry of  the Vietnamese government to pass quickly the 4th draft Law on Religion and Belief;

·         Referring to Article 18 relating to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion  of the UN Universal Declaration of  Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Vietnam is a state member;

·         Agreeing with the recommendations on freedom of religion for Vietnam posed by   state  members of the UN Human Rights Council under the Universal Periodic Review  procedures (UPR) in 2014;

·         Agreeing with the recommendations of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief (SR-FORB) in 2015;

We, the Hoa Hao Buddhists (independence) in Vietnam, strongly oppose and reject the 4th draft Law on Religion and Belief (dLRB4) because it is a tool for legalizing measures of persecution, repression, controlling and limiting the right to freedom of religion, as been happening in this country the last 40 years. 

Obviously, the dLRB4 violates the ICCPR and does not heed the recommendations of UPR and SR-FORB to improve religious freedom because:

1/ The dLRB4 sets up very narrow definitions of beliefs, religions, believers, clergy members, belief-based activities, religious activities, etc. (article 3, dLRB4) and avoids recognizing explicitly the right to "have or adopt a religion or belief of her/his choice" as an absolute human right. With these definitions, the dLRB4 will continue to discriminate and screen out many beliefs or religions, no matter with a long historical legacy or newly founded.

2/ The dLRB4 legalizes the system of permits and administrative controls to harass beliefs or religions. Firstly, the threefold registration system:   'registration of religious activities',  ' registration of religious operations' and 'registration of religious organizations’ (article 12, 13, 17 dLRB4), is the way to screen out many beliefs or religions based on the very narrow definitions in article 3 dLRB4,  and drive many of them into illegality, regardless whether they are not willing or not allowed to register.

Furthermore, the dLRB4 also casts a close-meshed net of administrative procedures with 39 articles (from Art. 19 to Art. 60 dLRB4) allowing to rudely intervene in the internal affairs and administration of religions. Hence religions can NOT draft a by-law, organize a congress, elect leaders, appoint personnel, manage the organization, manage asset, study and teach religion, etc. without prior government‘s permission. Many religions have not accepted these absurd interferences and are operating without permission. They thus live in permanent anxiety of being harassed, fined, prosecuted, retaliated and prohibited.

3/ The dLRB4 fabricates a lot of nooses in the category "abusing the right to freedom of belief and religion" to strangle followers of beliefs or religions. The dLRB4 sets up a list of acts  deemed as  "undermining the national unity , sowing division between  ethnic groups and religions, infringing national security, harming public safety, public order, public health, public morals ", etc. (article 6, paragraph 5, dLRB4). In the past the government already used the vague and catch-all wording of those laws to violate seriously the right to freedom of religion, to arbitrary arrest and sentence heavily followers of independent beliefs or religions. Among them "infringing national security" is the most dangerous accusation which is an allegation far beyond the permitted range of restriction stipulated by Article 18, section 3, ICCPR.

We, the undersigned independent Hoa-Hao Buddhists,

declare our support for the above statement:

1.    Mr. Vo Van Thanh Liem (Quang Minh Pagoda, Cho Moi, An Giang, Vietnam)

2.    Mr. Bui Van Tham (prayer hall “Ut Trung”, An Phú, An Giang, Vietnam)

3.    Mr. Tran Hoang Nam (prayer hall “Hoang Nam”, Chau Doc, An Giang, Vietnam)

4.    Mr. Le Minh Triet (Cho Moi, An Giang, Vietnam)

5.    Mr. Nguyen Van Tho (Lai Vung, Dong Thap, Vietnam)

6.    Mr. Vo Van Diem (Cho Moi, An Giang, Vietnam)

7.    Mrs. Mai Thi Dung (Cho Moi, An Giang, Vietnam)

8.    Mr. Vo Van Buu (Cho Moi, An Giang, Vietnam)

9.    Mr. Nguyen Thanh Phong (Cho Moi, An Giang, Vietnam)

10.    Mrs. Nguyen Ngoc Ha (Cho Moi, An Giang, Vietnam)

11. Mr. Tô Van Manh (Lap Vo, Đong Thap, Vietnam)

12. Mrs. Bui Thi Diem Thuy (An Phu, An Giang, Vietnam)

13. Mr. Tran Van Thiep (Lap Vo, Dong Thap, Vietnam)

14. Mrs. Pham Thi Ngoc Bich (Chau Phu, An Giang, Vietnam)

15. Mr. Phan Duc Phuoc (An Phu, An Giang, Vietnam)

16. Mr. Nguyen Vu Tam (Chau Phu, An Giang, Vietnam)

17. Mr. Dang Thanh Tan (Lap Vo, Dong Thap, Vietnam)

18. Mr. Cao Van Hung (An Phu, An Giang, Vietnam)

19. Mrs. Dinh Thi Hong (An Phu, An Giang, Vietnam)

10. Mr. Truong Kim Long (Lap Vo, Dong Thap, Vietnam)

21. Mrs. Vo Thi Giet (Chau Doc, An Giang, Vietnam)

22. Mrs. Bui Thi Kim Phuong (Lap Vo, Dong Thap, Vietnam)

23. Mr. Nguyen Bac Truyen (Sai Gon, Vietnam)

· This list will be updated. Please contact: pghh.mientay@gmail.com

*****************************o0o******************************
Press Release

The political prisoner Mai Thi Dung was released unconditionally on April 17, 2015, nearly 16 months before the end of her prison term. A Hoa Hao Buddhist, Ms. Mai Thi Dung was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment for allegedly "disturbing public order ". She was escorted by the police from Thanh Xuân Prison (Hanoi) to her family in An Giang province on ….. 2015. Ms. Mai thi Dung came home in very poor health condition.

Mrs. Mai Thi Dung was helped to go into her house because her health is not well

Ms. Mai Thi Dung, 46, resided in Cho Moi district (An Giang province). Since 1999, she and her husband, Mr. Vo Van Buu, have been actively engaged in the protection of the right to religious freedom of Hoa Hao Buddhist followers in Southern Vietnam.

On August 5, 2005, Dung and her husband, together with six other  Hoa Hao Buddhists, were assaulted by the police and arrested for having participated in a sit-in and hunger strike in a private house two months before to protest against repression.  To outcry the arbitrary arrest, some victims set themselves on fire which ended with the death of Mr. Tran Van Ut (Út Hòa Lạc) and severe burns of Mr. Vo Van Buu. Of the seven people taken to court,  Vo Van Buu was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment and Mai Thi Dung convicted twice with a total of 11 years in prison for allegedly "disturbing public order" under Article 245 of the Criminal Code. The third involved and heavily convicted person, Ms. Duong Thi Tron (68) with 9 years imprisonment, is still held in Xuân Lôc prison camp (Dong Nai province).

Mrs. Mai Thi Dung (seating) with her husband (Mr. Vo Van Buu) and two children, Vo Van Bao, Vo Thi Tuyet Linh.

Ms. Mai Thi Dung had to endure inhuman treatment during her detention time in Xuân Lôc, such as living with chronic pain without receiving either medical examination or appropriate treatment for her serious diseases, with the aim to force her to sign a confession. On Oct 2,2013, in spite of her critical health situation, Ms. Dung was transferred to Thanh Xuân prison camp in Hanoi (about 2000 Km away from her family home). She was handcuffed along the whole way and fainted several times. In Thanh Xuân prison, more than once, she had to go on a hunger strike to be taken to medical examination and treatment in specialized hospitals. With the prison harsh conditions, her health went on deteriorating with serious diseases such as heart failure, neurasthenia, gallstones, etc.     

Today after coming home Mai Thi Dung and her family would like to express promptly their deep gratitude to all persons and organizations, who have strongly supported the request for unconditionally release of Mai Thi Dung. Our heartfelt thanks go to:

·         Mr. Frank Heinrich, Member of the German Parliament; 

·         Western diplomatic missions in Vietnam, especially the Embassy of Germany, USA, Canada and the Delegation of the European Commission to Vietnam;

·         The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief of the Human Rights Council;

·         Human rights organizations, especially VETO! Human Rights Defenders´Network in Germany;

·         Many civil society organizations in Vietnam, especially the “Vietnamese Political and Religious Prisoners Friendship Association” and the “Gourd and Squash Mutual Association”;

·         Hoa Hao fellow worshipers and many Catholic, Buddhist, Protestant and Cao Dai friends.

Sincerely.

On behalf of Mai thi Dung´s family and the  "Hoa Hao Buddhist Group Southwest " 

  

Vo Van Buu

************************o0o************************

Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, mission to Viet Nam (21 to 31 July 2014).

http://dvov.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mission-to-vietnam-report-unsr-freedom-of-religion-or-of-belief.pdf

************************************************************************
PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE CASE REPORT

Mr. Nguyen Van Minh,  Hoa Hao Buddhist

Two-and-a half years prison sentence for exercising the Right to Freedom of Religion

Mr. Nguyen Van Minh, born in 1980, resided in Phuoc Binh hamlet, Phuoc Hung commune, An Phu district, An Giang province,Vietnam. Before his imprisonment, Mr. Minh lived with his in-law family, all of who are also Hoa Hao Buddhists. 

On February11, 2014 Mr. Nguyen Van Minh, together with 14 other Hoa Hao Buddhists and 6 human rights activists, went to pay visit to a fellow Hoa Hao Buddhist family who were attacked and detained by the police two days before. The group of 21 persons were flagged down, beaten, and arrested by the police.  Three(3)  people including Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh, and Mr. Nguyen Van Minh were prosecuted for “causing public disorder” according to Article 245 of the Criminal Code of Vietnam (VCC). Mr. Minh was convicted and sentenced to two-and a half years of imprisonment.

AMBUSH AND ASSAULTS BY THE POLICE

The 21 persons were stopped and beaten by hundreds of police in uniforms and plain-clothes in My An Hung B commune, Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province. After more than 24 hours unlawful detention,  LapVo district’s police released 18 of them.  Mr. Nguyen Van Minh was one of the 3 detained and initially indicted for “resisting persons in performance of their official duties” according to Article 257 VCC.This indictment was based on a police officer’s claim that Mr. Minh used his “right hand to slap his right hand once”. The other persons in the group with Mr. Nguyen Van Minh witness that he was very peaceful, did not hit anybody and did not even debate with the police.  The prior indictment was later changed to “causing public disorder” Article 245 VCC.  Both of the lower and appeal courts convicted and sentenced him to two-and-a half years of imprisonment.

REASONS LEADING TO HIS ARREST

On February 11^th, 2014 Mr. Nguyen Van Minh, together with 20 other persons went to visit the family of Mrs. Bui Thi Kim Phuong, a Hoa Hao Buddhist in Long Hung B commune, Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province. They were  ambushed and stopped by the police about 15km (approximately 10 miles) away from her house.

Two days before, on February 9^th, 2014 the police broke into the house of Mrs. Bui Thi Kim Phuong and arrested her husband, Mr. Nguyen Bac Truyen, a former prisoner of conscience, and escorted him to Saigon, with the purpose of impeding their wedding planned for February 18^th, 2014, to prevent the invited guests to meet, many of whom being foreign officials and Vietnamese human rights activists. The police searched the house, damaged personal properties, throwing the picture of Hoa Hao Prophet Huynh Phu So to the ground.  After her husband was taken away, Mrs. Bui Thi Kim Phuong was also detained for interrogation and later on, continuoussly harassed and terrorized by the police periodically stoning her house. She finally escaped to Saigon.

Having heard of the situation, the fellow Hoa Hao Buddhist friends planned to pay visit to Mrs. Phuong´s family members.

A FAMILY WITH THREE PRISONERS CONCERNING RELIGIOUS ISSUES.

Mr. Nguyen Van Minh is the third prisoner from the same family.  The other two include Mr. Bui Van Trung and Mr. Bui Van Tham, his father-in-law and brother-in-law respectively. 

In 2005, Mr. Bui Van Trung and his family set up the prayer hall “ Ut Trung” at their residence to pray and worship the traditional way of Hoa Hao Buddhism.  The local authority repeatedly forced him either to  join the Hoa Hao Buddhist Association created by the government, or to dissolve his prayer hall.  Upon his refusal, the police had the electricity supply to Mr. Bui Van Trung’s home cut off and further,  surrounded his home whenever religious services were to be hold.  Fellow Hoa Hao Buddhists coming to his home/ prayer hall were blocked and beaten. In 2012, Mr. Bui Van Trung and his son, Mr. Bui Van Tham were arrested and convicted for “resisting persons in performance of their official duties”” according to Article 257 VCC.  Mr. Nguyen Van Minh became the main provider for the whole family while carrying out the responsibility of maintaining the activities of the prayer hall.

COURT TRIAL WITH TOTAL LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND JUSTICE

On August 24, 2014, after more than six months temporary detention,  Mr. Nguyen Van Minh, Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang, and Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh were brought to trial by the People’s Court of Dong Thap province. Only 3 of the 17 witnesses requested by the defending attorneys were allowed inside the courtroom, the other 14 being blocked either in their home or on their ways to the court. Prosecutors brought more than 30 witnesses. Dong Thap province uniformed and secret police assaulted, detained and arrested more than 70 people wanting to attend the trial.  Observers from foreign embassies and general consulates were also prevented from doing so. 

The trial ended with guilty convictions and prison terms for all 3 persons : two and a half years for Mr. Nguyen Van Minh, three years for Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang, and two  years for Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh.

On December 12, 2014, the People’s Supreme Court conducted the appeal trial and confirmed the  convictions and verdicts by the lower court. Only 3 of the defending witnesses were allowed to the trial while the other 17 were blocked at home and threatened by the police. About 20 persons were attacked, or blocked and temporary detained while they were on their way to attend the trial. 

TORTURE AND INHUMANE PRISON CONDITIONS

During the 9 months of detention between February through November of 2014, Mr. Nguyen Van Minh was forced in various ways to admit guilt, including solitary confinement, sharing jail cell with convicted murderers, and prohibited to see his family during the investigation. 

Mr. Nguyen Van Minh’s wife confirmed: “Investigators wanted my husband to plead guilty to the charge of either ‘causing public disorder’ or ‘resisting persons in performance of their official duties’. Since he refused this absurd assertion, they started to lock him up in solitary confinement.  My husband described the confinement cell as a very small room with two layers of doors. The outer door to be opened for jailer control, the inner door stays locked around the clock. The only opening on this room is barely big enough to send food and water through.   Every time he was taken to interrogation or family visits, he is dazzled by natural lights, has to completely close his eyes, waits till he feels less dizzy and then open them slowly so they can adjust. Our 2 children are missing my husband a lot.”

RECOMMENDATIONS

Because of his activities merely exercising the Right to Freedom of Religion Mr. Nguyen Van Minh, father of 2 children of 12 and 10 years old, was wrongfully convicted of “causing public disorder’ or ‘resisting persons in performance of their official duties’ and sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment.  The government of Vietnam seriously violated his freedom of religion, freedom of movement as stated in Vietnam’s Constitution, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The government of Vietname should:

1.      Immediately and unconditionally free Mr. Nguyen Van Minh

2.      Respect the right to freedom of religion and freedom of movement

3.      Stop torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment aginst political prisoners

4.      Stop all harassments and threats to Hoa Hao Buddhist worshipers at Mr. Bui Van Trung’s prayer hall  “Ut Trung”

==========================================
People’s Court                                    Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Dong Thap Province              Independence – Freedom – Happiness

Court case no.: 55/2014/HSST

Date: 26/8/2014

In the Name of

Socialist Republic of Vietnam

People’s Court of Dong Thap Province

The first hearing trial judging panel including:

Judge – Chairman of the trial: Mr Bui Phuoc Loc

Other judging panel members:

1)    Mr Dinh Van Dung

2)    Ms Tran Huynh Men

Court minutes secretary: Mr Chau Van Binh – Member of People’s Court of Dong Thap Province

Representatives of the Investigation Authority of Dong Thap Province attending the trial: Mr Huynh Hong Viet and Mr Nguyen Thanh Cong, investigation officials.

On 26^th August 2014, at the People’s Court of Dong Thap Province, the preliminary trial on criminal case number: 47/2014/HSST issued on 11^th July 2014 to the defendants:

1) Bui Thi Minh Hang

- Born in: 1964

- Permanent residence: 106 Le Hong Phong, Ward 4, Vung Tau City, Ba Ria – Vung Tau Province.

- Education: 10/10

- Occupation: None

- Nationality: Vietnamese  

- Ethnic Group: Kinh          

- Religion: none

- Father: Bui Sy Ky (Deceased)    

- Mother: Pham Thi Hoan, born in 1927

- Husband: Tran Phan Due (Deceased)

- Children: 3 children, the eldest born in 1986 and the youngest born in 1993

- Sibling: Total of four and the defendant is the second eldest.

- Personal Profile: In 1993, the defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment by the People’s Court of Ba Ria – Vung Tau Province for violation of monogamy laws but the sentence was reduced to 24 months probation. The probation term was completed.

- Criminal history: none

- History:

+ On 28/11/2011, the defendant was sent to re-education centre at Thanh Ha, Vinh Phuc for 24 months based on the ruling decision number: 5225/QD-UBND issued on 08/11/2011 by the Chairman of People Committee, Ha Noi City for ‘Disturbance of public order’. The penalty was suspended and she was released on 29/04/2012.

+ On 02/04/2014, she received an administrative fine of 750,000d (seven hundred fifty thousand dong Vietnam) for ‘Disturbance of public order’ by the police of Hai An district, Hai Phong City.

+ On 23/09/2013, Police of Ward 1, Vung Tau City fined her 1,650,000d (one million six hundred fifty thousand dong Vietnam) for ‘Disturbance of public order’, and behaving in an offensive action, including verbally towards as official on duty, but not to the degree to warrant a criminal charge.

- Detained on 12/02/2014

- Held without charge on 21/02/2014

- At present, the defendant is being detained at the police detention centre at Dong Thap Province.

2) Nguyen Van Minh

- Born in: 1980

- Permanent residence: Phuoc Hoa Hamlet, Phuoc Hung Commune, An Phu District, An Giang Province.

- Education: 2/12

- Occupation: Entrepreneur

- Nationality: Vietnamese, Ethnic Group: Kinh, Religion: Hoa Hao Buddhist

- Father: Nguyen Van Beo, born in 1959 (Alive)           

- Mother: Nguyen Thi Lan, born in 1959 (Alive)

- Wife: Bui Thi Diem Thuy, born in 1984 (Alive)

- Children: 2 children, born in 2004 and 2006.

- Sibling: 3 and the defendant is the second eldest.

- Criminal history: None

- Detained on 12/02/2014

- Held without charge on 21/02/2014

- At the present, the defendant is being detained at the police detention centre at Dong Thap Province.

3) Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh

- Born in: 1986

- Permanent residence: 544/10 Lac Long Quan, Ward 5, District 11, Ho Chi Minh City

- Reside: A22/9B3 Quoc Lo 50, Group 37, 1A Hamlet, Binh Hung Commune, Binh Chanh District, Ho Chi Minh City.

- Education: 11/12

- Occupation: Food vendor to supplement family income

- Nationality: Vietnamese   Ethnic Group: Kinh Religion: none

- Father: Nguyen Viet Ky, born in 1959 (Alive)                          

- Mother: Tran Thuc Anh, born in 1961

- Marital status: Single, no children

- Sibling: Total of four and the defendant is the eldest.

- Detained on 12/02/2014

- Held without charge on 21/02/2014

- At the present, the defendant is being detained at the police detention centre at Dong Thap Province.

Legal representative for defendant Bui Thi Minh Hang

Lawyer: Tran Thu Nam of the law office’s of  Tin Viet & Cong Su, member of the Ha Noi Legal Association.

Lawyer: Ha Huy Son of TNHH Ha Son Lawyers, member of the Ha Noi Legal Association

Lawyer: Doan Thai Duyen Hai of the law office’s of Hai Doan Lawyers, member of the Ho Chi Minh Legal Association.

Legal representative for defendant Nguyen Van Minh

Lawyer: Nguyen Van Mieng of Luat Hong Duc Lawyer, member of the Ha Noi Legal Association.

Legal representative for defendant Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh

Lawyer: Ha Huy Son of the law office’s of  TNHH Ha Son Lawyer, member of Ha Noi Legal Association

Lawyer: Nguyen Van Mieng of the law office’s of Luat Hong Duc Lawyers, member of the Ha Noi Legal Association.

Person of benefit, related duties:

Mr Thai Hoang Danh, born in 1987

Permanent residence: 329 An Hoa Hamlet, My An Hung B Commune, Lap Vo District, Dong Thap Province.

Legal representative of Mr Danh’s interest and rights

Lawyer: Dang Hong Duc of Hong Duc Lawyer, member of Dong Thap Legal Association.

SUmmary of Preliminary observations:

The defendants were prosecuted by Provincial People's Procuracy Dong Thap and charged with the offences as follow: 

To implement campaign: 436 / KH-CAT-PC67 dated 28/10/2013 by the Director of Dong Thap Police & Public Security - "Regarding of the mobilization of forces participating in patrols and controls to ensure order and safety of the road traffic" in the province of Dong Thap, the duration from the date 11/01/2013 and end on 28/02/2014."

On 07/11/2013, Lap Vo District Chief of Police & Public Security issued Decision No. 89/QĐ-CAH and Strategy Plan Number: 188/KH-Police-TTCD "Regarding the mobilization of other police forces and public security coordination with traffic police patrol and control to ensure order and safety of the road traffic at Lap Vo District area".

Around 8 AM on 02/11/2014, in following the above work order and under the direction of District Police of Lap Vo District, the Police and Public Security Affairs Mỹ An Hưng B, the Patrol Control Unit was Established  including the personnel listed below:

1 / - Mr. Nguyen Duc Nha, Lieutenant Traffic Police, Unit Chief. Assigned the task to stop vehicles and check Identification documents. 

2 / - Mr. Nguyen Thanh Lai, Police Sgt orderly maneuver (TTCD) members. Assigned the task to maintain order. 

3 / - Anh Hoang Danh Thai, Police Security member of My An Hung B Police Department. Assigned the task to maintain order. 

4 / - Mr. Le Van Huy Anh Tin, Police Security member of My An Hung B Police Department. The task assigned to maintain order. 

Patrol units conducted traffic control on roads: TL848, TL849, DH70, DH67, DH67B located in My An Hung B Commune.

Around 10 am of the same day, while patrolling the area surrounding the Bridge Road District Agriculture Nong Trai on DH67B Quoi hamlet, My An Hung B Commune, Lap Vo District, Đong Thap a group of 11 motorcycle riders were spotted on the opposite side of the road coming from the direction of the Ba Nong intersection to provincial highway 849, including motorcycles carrying 67TA-0361 number plates being ridden by Nguyen Vu Tam and a motorcycle carrying number plates 67L1-38193 ridden by Vo Van Buu  riding in a formation of three abreast (the identity of the riders closer to the side of the road are unclear), violating road safety laws. Mr. Nguyen Duc Nha motioned for the riders to stop according to protocol in order to check the ID of the 2 offenders for the above violation.

Upon seeing the police stop Mr Tam and Mr Buu, the remaining members of the group of motorcyclists also stopped, comprising the following: 

1/- Bui Thi Minh Hang, born in 1964, permanent residence: 105 Le Hong Phong, Ward 4, Vung Tau City, Ba Ria Province. 

2/- Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh, born in 1986, permanent residence: 544/10 Lac Long Quan, Ward 5, District 11, HCM city; Reside: A/9 B3 Route 50, Hamlet 1A, Binh Hung Commune, Binh Chanh District, HCM City. 

3/- Nguyen Van Minh, born in 1980, permanent residence: 105 Phuoc Hoa Hamlet, Phuoc Hung, An Phu District, An Giang Province. 

4/- Truong Kim Long, born in 1955, permanent residence: 105 An Quoi Hamlet, Dong Hoi Commune, Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province. 

5/- To Van Manh, born in 1950, permanent residence: 105 An Thai Hamlet, My An Hung A Commune, Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province. 

6/- Vo Van Thanh Liem, born in 1940, permanent residence: 105 Long Hoa Hamlet, Long Dien A Commune, Cho Moi District, An Giang Province. 

7/- Phan Duc Phuoc, born in 1980, permanent residence: 105 3rd Ward, Vinh Hoi Dong Commune, An Phu District, An Giang Province.

8/- Huynh Anh Tu, born in 1968, permanent residence: 102 Pham The Hien Street, Ward 4, District 8, HCM City. 

9/- Huynh Anh Tri, born in 1971, permanent residence: Wandering Living. 

10/- Nhut Pham Thinh, born in 1973, permanent residence: 12A/13 Nghia Hoa Street, Ward 6, Tan Binh District, HCM City. 

11/- Bui Thi Diem Thuy, born in 1984, permanent residence: 105 Phuoc Hoa Hamlet, Phuoc Hung Commune, An Phu District, An Giang Province. 

12/- Do Thi Thuy Trang, born in 1991, permanent residence: 105 Phuoc Hoa Hamlet, Phuoc Hung commune, An Phu District, An Giang Province. 

13/- Nguyen Duc Tai (Luu Trong Kiệt), born in 1958, permanent residence: 132/41/48 Nguyen Huu Canh Street, Ward 22, Binh Thanh District, HCM City. 

14/- Tran Van Thuong, born in 1954, permanent residence: Ho Tram Hamlet, Phuoc Thuan Commune, Xuyen Moc District, Ba Ria Province. 

15/- Vo Van Bao, born in 1989, permanent residence: My Thanh Hamlet, My An commune, Cho Moi District, An Giang Province. 

16/- Bui Thi Thanh, born in 1981, permanent residence: Phuoc Hoa Hamlet Phuoc Hung Commune, An Phu District, An Giang Province. 

17/- Nguyen Thi Mỹ Triều, born in 1972, permanent residence: Long Hoa Hamlet 2, Long Dien A Commune, Cho Moi District, An Giang Province. 

18/- Vo Thi Anh Tuyet, born in 1986, permanent residence: Long Hoa Hamlet 2, Long Dien A Commune, Cho Moi District, An Giang Province. 

19/- Vo Thi Thu Ba, born in 1984, permanent residence: Long Hoa 2 Hamlet, Long Dien A Commune, Cho Moi District, An Giang Province.

These people stopped their motorcycles, creating a traffic jam, therefore, Mr. Nha asked Nguyen Thanh Lai, Thai Hoang Danh, and Le Van Huy Tin to request that the motorcyclists move their vehicles closer to the curb.  At this time, Mr. Nguyen Van Minh who was sitting on the back of the motorcycle driven by his wife Mrs. Bui Thi Diem Thuy got off the motorcycle and used his right hand to strike the right hand of Mr. Thai Hoang Danh once. 

Mr. Nguyen Duc Nha asked Mr. Nguyen Vu Tam and Mr. Vo Van Buu to present their motorcycle registration paper for investigative purposes; however, they did not comply and instead, together with the others in their group, began to verbally insult and raise their voices at the group of policemen trying to fulfill their duties.  At this time, the local people, becoming unhappy with the aggressive attitude and the lack of respect for authority displayed by these individuals, gathered to witness the commotion and saw the accused Bui Thi Minh Hang and Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh continue to raise their voice in insults at the investigating officers with the following statements: “Security police are thieves”, “Security police stop traffic to rob people of their belongings”, and even threw insults at the local people calling them “you stupid people”. 

The defendants Bui Thi Minh Hang and Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh raised their voices, refused the examination of their documents and insulted the members of the investigating police unit.  At the time, over 500 members of the local community had gathered in the surrounding area causing a blockage of the road with the traffic unable to move over a section of about 500 meters on the DH67B road. 

Due to the public disturbance and effect on the traffic in the area, the police unit called the Security Police head-quarters of Lap Vo district and requested for reinforcement to help resolve the situation.  After receiving the call, the security police at Lap Vo district sent another group of policemen to the area, the group continued to raise their voice and insult the policemen who were trying to perform their duties; in response, the security police from Lap Vo district arrested the following accused and brought them back to the security police office in Lap Vo district: (Nguyen Van) Minh, (Bui Thi Minh) Hang, (Nguyen Thi Thuy) Quynh, and others in their group. 

At 12:30 PM on the same day, about 2 hours 30 minutes after the traffic disturbance, order was returned to the area and the traffic jam was cleared.  Thirty minutes after the incident had started; the traffic monitoring group of the Traffic Police of the Dong Thap province recorded the whole incident and provided the tape as evidence for the prosecutor office.

The (security police) office retained the following:

Properties of Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang being held temporary:

Quantity	Description
01	Yellow fabric banner, with red letters and with the following dimensions: 1.4 m x 56 cm, and the following contents: “Down with the security police and hooligans who arrest people illegally”
01	Yellow fabric banner, with red letters and with the following dimensions: 1.m x 59cm, and the following contents: “We demand to bring the security police hooligans to justice as an example for the people”
01	Yellow fabric banner, with red letters and with the following dimensions: 1.4m x 56 cm, and the following contents: “The people cannot pay tax to provide for a government full of hooligans”
	In the beginning, (Bui Thi Minh) Hang acknowledged that she brought the above three banners from Quang Minh Tu, at Cho Moi, An Giang province; however, she later denied it.
01	While iPhone cell phone
01	Green TULI green bag
01	iPad with the color white and black
02	Prudential cards registered to Bui Thi Minh Hang
01	Co-Opmart card registered to Bui Thi Minh Hang
01	Certificate of Citizenship – Registered name: Bui Thi Minh Hang
01	United States currency USD $2 bill
01	Vietnamese currency VND 500 bill
04	Rings made of precious metal ( already being sealed)
VND 1,482,000	Vietnamese currency with the total amount of VND 1,482,000

Properties of Mr. Vo Van Thanh Liem being held temporary:

Quantity	Description
01	Yellow banner made from fabric, with red letters and with the following dimensions: 80 cm x 50 cm, and the following contents: “Down with the communist security policemen who destroyed the altar of (Giao Chu) Huynh”
01	Yellow banner made from fabric, with red letters and with the following dimensions: 80 cm x 50 cm, and the following contents: “Bring the communists to justice.  Communists terrorize and violate religions ”

Properties of Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh being held temporary:

Quantity	Description
01	Samsung cell phone model Duos, black color with 01 sim
01	Nokia cell phone model 101
01	Samsung cell phone, white color  (sealed)
01	ENSOHO Text messaging machine, with 1 sim
01	A1 class driver license - registered name: Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh
01	Certificate of citizenship - registered name: Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh
01	Motorcycle license, with license number 59M1-52790, registered by Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh
01	Mello flash light
01	Lumix Panasonic Color Digital Camera – Balck cover
01	United States currency USD $100 bill
05	United States currency USD $2 bill
01	Holland currency Gulden 10
01	Belgium currency  200
01	Malaysian currency Ringgit 10
02	Euro currency 10
01	Metro card – Serial Number 1110438790, registered under Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh
01	Lottemart card belonged to Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh
01	Ring made of precious metal
10	Coins (being sealed)
492,500	Vietnamese currency total VND 492,500 (already returned)

Properties of Mr. Nguyen Van Minh being held temporary:

Quantity	Description
01	Pair of eyeglasses
01	Motorcycle key
01	Nokia Cell phone model 101, with black cover and 1 Viettel sim card
01	A1 class driver license -registered name: Nguyen Van Minh
01	Certificate of citizenship – registered name: Nguyen Van Minh
01	Motorcycle license, with license number 67K1-8036, registered by Le Hoang Phuong Thanh
01	ATM card registered to Nguyen Van Minh
01	Mobifone sim card

The indictment number 23/CT-VKS, dated July 10, 2014, of the Institute Citizens Control at Dong Thap province, named:

·         The accused Bui Thi Minh Hoang and Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh of committing the following crime “Disturbance of public order”, based on part c, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code number 245;

·         The accused Nguyen Van Minh of committing the following crime “disturbance of public order”, based on part c and đ, Section 2, of the Criminal Code number 245.

Based on the evidence and the material that were gathered from the lower court; based on the arguments in the court about the case, on the evidence and opinions of the Institute of Citizens Control, the accused, the attorney, and others who participated in the trial.

INVESTIGATIVE ARGUMENTS

The patrolling and controlling traffic for safety on road traffic routes is not just the responsibility of the traffic police force to enforce but also other sectors, social organizations and, even for all citizens to participate in. Since this is in the common interest of society, of the country. Concurrently, it is in fact the policy of the Dong Thap province, in accordance of the Government.

The patrol conducted by traffic police on Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province at 8:00 am on Feb 11^th  2014 under command of unit chief, Lieutenant of Traffic Police, Nguyen Duc Nha was conducted as a common routine task.

But when the patrol and traffic control unit arrived at My An Hung B, about 10:00 AM at  theNong Trai bridge in district route DH67B of An Quoi hamlet, My An Hung B commune, Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province, they discovered a group of people traveling on more than 11 motorcycles, including the defendants Bui Thi Minh Hang, Nguyen Van Minh, Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh. In the direction from Nong Trai's junction to highway 849, led by motorcycle with number plate 67TA-0361 rode by Mr Nguyen Vu Tam and motorcycle with number plate 67L1-38193 rode by Mr Vo Van Buu, they rode in a three abreast formation.

The accused Ms. Hang, Mr. Minh and Ms. Quynh were very well aware that while riding in that formation, it would be impossible not to interfere with traffic and violate the laws of traffic safety. The patrol and traffic control unit, therefore, had to enforce its assigned duty, and Mr. Nguyen Duc Nha signaled the motorcycles to stop according to regulation, to examine the motorcycle registration papers of Mr Tan and Mr Buu. But they did not voluntarily follow the order.

At the same time the other motorcycles stopped, but not close to the curb, causing traffic congestion. The defendants and the remainder of their group were well aware that they were not the only ones using the DH67B road for travel.

However, the inspection of the patrol and traffic control unit by Mr. Nguyen Duc Nha (unit chief) of the drivers was simply to serve as a reminder. A more severe punishment would have been to serve an administrative fine for their violation of traffic safety.

The accused Hang, Minh and Quynh should have voluntarily cooperated with the patrol and traffic inspection police unit of Lap Vo district to accomplish its assigned task of restoring order and safety to the public roads. In contrast, the accused did not comply with the rules as mandated by the law. For this reason the enforcement patrol unit executed the duties as assigned by its supervisor, by requesting the motorcycles to park close to the curb to avoid traffic congestion. But these riders did not comply with Mr. Nha’s order.

Additionally, Mr. Nha also requested Mr. Tam and Mr. Buu to produce their motorcycles' registration papers for checking which was refused as evidenced by the accused Mr. Minh using his hand to strike the right hand of Mr. Thai Hoang Danh once, after stepping off the motorcycle driven by Ms. Bui Thi Diem Thuy (the defendant, Mr. Minh's wife). And many others showed their opposition by booing and creating disorder not only for road safety but also disrupting social order near the crime scene.

The group displayed a resolute determination, with unreasonable and defaming insults thrown at the policemen such as “Security policemen are thieves” and “the security police block traffic to rob the people of their belongings” .

The patrol and traffic control units of the Lap Vo district were only performing their main duty of ensuring order and traffic safety,  not even checking the goods or belongings of the accused - was this legal or not? And who are the accused Ms. Hang, Mr. Minh and Ms. Quynh? Aren’t they citizens of Vietnam? So, why weren’t they complying with the laws of the State? And on the Feb 11^th 2014 what had the accused done with the banners with the inappropriate contents?

And on another point, even the gathering witnesses present at the scene were insulted as "stupid people" by the defendants, causing discontentment in the populace.

Why don’t the accused Hang, Minh, Quynh reflect upon themselves? Instead of offending others. The very act of them offending others in fact means they were insulting themselves.  Because the others were not the ones violating the law, at least on that day.

The effect of the criminal actions of the accused Bui Thi Minh Hang, Nguyen Van Minh and Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh  led to traffic congestion for 2 hours (from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm) on Feb 11^th 2014 on the highway DH67B Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province, obstructing normal traffic flow over a section of around 500 meters, with over 500 people witnessing. Thus creating a bad opinion of the area, weakening public trust, of patrol officers who were just performing their duty in particular, and of the State in general.

Considering the offense of the 3 defendants Ms. Hang, Mr. Minh and Ms. Quynh, it was a crime with premeditated intention, high determination and danger to society.

Bringing the defendants to trial is vital to provide conditions to rehabilitate and to educate the accused and to prevent future offending..

But for the sentence to be commensurate with the role of each defendant, it should show:

1) Defendant Bui Thi Minh Hang displayed disruptive behavior, not from the offset but after the accused Nguyen Van Minh struck Mr. Danh's hand. Following that, the accused Hang then displayed a very stubborn and antagonistic behaviour, inciting the co-defendants by verbally insulting the members of the patrol and traffic control unit of Lap Vo district, who were conducting their duty at 8:00 am on Feb 11^th 2014 at Quoi An village, My An Hung B Commune, Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province, calling out "security police are thieves", "the security police block traffic to rob the people of their belongings”. Also swearing at the other bystanders, calling them "stupid people". Causing the patrol, traffic control unit to be unable to perform its duty in a normal way, congesting traffic from 10:00 am, until 12:30 pm on Feb 11^th 2014 when the bottleneck was released and traffic resumed to normal.

During the investigation process and at the trial today the defendant has pleaded not guilty.

Defendant Bui Thi Minh Hang has had 3 criminal records for "Disturbing public order". On Oct 28^th 2011 the accused was sent to the educational institution Thanh Ha, Vinh Phuc for 24 months. On Apr 2^nd 2013 police Hai An district, Hai Phong city fined her 750,000 dong and on Sep 23^rd 2013 police Ward 1, Vung Tau City Council fined her 1,650,000 dong and, the probation period has not yet expired.

This shows defendant Hang repeatedly opposing the law, and exhibiting inappropriate behaviour.. So defendant Hang must receive a more severe sentence compared to her accomplices.

2) Defendant Nguyen Van Minh, has no previous criminal record or criminal involvement. However, the incident was incited by the defendant striking Mr. Danh's right hand to discourage members in the patrol and traffic control district Lap Vo from performing their duties. Also the defendant's behavior provoked defendants Ms. Hang, Ms. Quynh and several others in the group of 21 who were traveling together on the morning of Feb 11^th 2014 from Nong Trai junction to highway 849 to cause traffic congestion for over 2 hours leading commuters unable to travel as normal.

The defendants Ms. Hang and Ms. Quynh seriously insulted the honor and prestige of the police officers and the gathered witnesses were also insulted as "you stupid people" causing similar humiliation of the people as during times of foreign occupation.

Defendant Mr. Minh must also receive a severe sentence to educate and rehabilitate the defendant.

3) Defendant Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh, who is of a young age, should have the proper conduct as a member of a revolutionary family. Conversely, the Defendant behaved in opposition to the general interests of society.

In the morning of 02/11/2014, when patrol traffic controller of the Lap Vo District motioned the convoy (of 11 motorcycles and 21 people), this defendant knew that the action of Mr. Minh hitting Mr. Danh was wrong, that insulting the police lacked education and culture, and that calling the police thieves and insulting the witnesses as “stupid” was slanderous. The defendant not only did not deter these actions, but instead, contributed to the uncultured behaviour, equal to that of Ms. Hang, to obstruct the movement of people and traffic for more than two hours of the district roads DH67 B Lap Vo District. A large group of people came to view this situation, thus creating an unfavorable reputation of the area, as opposers of the law.

During the investigation, the defendant pleaded not guilty and did not cooperate with the investigation, but thorough material evidence was collected for the case file, and the testimonies of witnesses have provided sufficient grounds to convict the accused. Therefore, the defendant, Quynh, must also receive a strict punishment to improve her education and to prevent further offences.

But the court must also consider that the defendants are made up of members of the working class, revolutionary families (Hang and Quynh) and with no previous convictions of any kind or (Ming and Quynh) have had limited penalties, thus subsequent penalties for  the three defendants will be lessened in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the criminal law code.

At the hearing, the representative of the People's Institute for Dong Thap province withheld the decision that the defendants Bui Thi Minh Hang, Nguyen Van Minh and Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh be charged with "disturbing the peace" in accordance with points C, D, section 2 article 245 of the penal code. The following sentences were suggested:

1-Defendant, Bui Thi Minh Hang, sentence from 3 to 4 years imprisonment. 

2- Defendant, Nguyen Van Minh, sentence from 2 years & 6 months to 3 years imprisonment.

3- Defendant, Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh, sentence from 2 years to 2 years & 6 months imprisonment.

The counsel for the defendants: Bui Thi Minh Hang, Nguyen Van Minh, and Nguyen thi Thuy Quynh shared the same judgment that the defendants, Mr. Minh, Ms. Hang and Ms. Quynh are not guilty for the charge of "disturbance of public order" because there was not enough evidence or committed elements to constitute the crime and asked the court to declare the defendants not guilty and to release them.

However, counsel for the accused, Quynh, recommended a reconsideration of her sentence taking into consideration her family’s efforts during the revolution.

The trial counsel deemed the proposal of the representative of the Procuracy of Dong Thap province the right to prosecute the defendant Nguyen Van Minh the violation of point d, Section 2, Article 245 of the Criminal Code was unfounded and was not considered. There, only violations of point c, Section 2, Article 245 of the Criminal code to punish defendants Hang, Minh and Thuy Quynh  on charges of "disturbing public order” were trialed.

The defendant’s legal counsel’s argument was baseless however, as Ms. Hang, has a history committed 3 offences of "disturbing public order", the probationary period of which had not yet expired. Moreover, defendants Ms.Hang, on 11/02/2014 insulted the on duty-police cursing them as "thieves" and cursed the bystanders as being "stupid people", which led to the congestion of traffic due the traffic controller, Nguyen Duc Nha having to stop the  11 motorcycle convoy due to the three drivers insisting on riding three breast and violating road safety laws.

Defendant Ms. Quynh, admitted shouting and cursing. Defendant Minh, however, denies that he hit Mr. Danh.

At the trial, Mr. Danh confirmed Mr. Minh's action and some witnesses, part of the group of 21 people who had traveled with the defendants such as Bui thi Diem Thuy, Do thi Thuy Trang also agreed that the incident occurred, and that there was an obstruction of traffic and that a lot of people gathered to watch the commotion. The number of witnesses grew as more and more people came to witness the offensive behaviour of the three defendants, Ms. Hang, Mr. Minh, and Ms.Quynh, towards the police and the bystanders as described above. These witnesses were very indignant about the aggressive attitude of the defendants. The group of bystanders were also very upset due to the congestion of foot traffic over the Nong Trai's bridge which was jammed from 10 AM to 12:30 pm on 11/02/2014 before movement resumed as normal.

During the investigation and at the trial, witnesses, such as Mr. Mai Van Xe, Huynh Van Cot, Luong Thanh Mong, Nguyen Duc Nha, Nguyen Van Hau, Vo Van Muoi Nguyen Thanh Lai, Nguyen Thi Minh Tam, Le Thanh Sang, Nguyen Truong Ton and the other witnesses have confirmed that the three defendants  caused the hindering of traffic movement until 12:30 pm when all traffic was resumed as normal.

The lawyers of the accused did not make objective arguments addressing the above facts, but instead argued about the defendant’s obstruction of the police investigation proceedings and avoided addressing the disruption of public order. But what about their use of insults to the police and to the bystanders and parking their motorcycles to block the traffic? They did not present an objective perspective about the offenses, or even whether they had been committed intentionally or not. They only made the observation that the defendants did not commit the crime because there was no evidence that an offence had been committed .

There was also no evidence brought forth to indicate that Hang and her fellow defendants did not shout insults at the police and bystanders or that there were no actions to oppose the authorities. Instead, they even speculated that the investigation was fabricated in an attempt to frame them.

The defendants’ lawyers did not address where the accused, Hang, Ming, and Quynh, with 18 other people were going and what they were doing. And whether these actions violated traffic laws? Especially at locations such as in the District DH67B or Lap Vo District of Dong Thap Province. That's not to mention those banners with inappropriate content, related to the insults defendant Hang and the fellow accused used at 10 am on 11/02/2014 near the Nong Trai bridge of village An Quoi My Hung B, Lap Vo district, Dong Thap province.

This, therefore, indicates that there is a strong basis for charging the defendants, Bui Thi Minh Hang, Nguyen Van Minh and Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh with the offence of "disturbing public order" and that the defendants had premeditated intent and a determination to commit the offenses, and therefore, the suggestion that the defendants are not guilty is unacceptable and without grounds.

On the part of the people, Mr. Hoang Danh Thai has no requests therefore there are no details for the council to consider.

Regarding the physical evidence:

The five banners with inappropriate content must be confiscated and destroyed

The other objects and properties of the defendants that are not related to this case be returned to the defendants (holding report dated 02/10/2014)

JUDGEMENT  DECISION

Declaration:

The defendants Bui Thi Minh Hang, Nguyen Van Minh and Nguyen Thi Thuy Qyunh are found guilty of "Disturbance of public order".

In accordance with Section 2 Article 245 and Section 2 Article 46 of the Criminal Codes.

Ruling:

1. Sentence defendant Bui Thi Minh Hang to 3 (three) years imprisonment, to take effect from 02/11/2014.

2. Sentence defendant Nguyen Van Minh to 2 (two) years and 6 (six) months imprisonment, to take effect from 02/11/2014.

3. Sentence defendant Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh to 2 (two) years imprisonment, to take effect from 02/11/2014.

• Civil case:

    The Court does not consider the civil matter of this case since the person of interest Thai Hoang Oanh has no request. 

• Physical evidence:

   In accordance with points a, b Section 2 Article 76 of the Criminal Codes

- Confiscate and destroy 05 banners with inappropriate contents according to holding report dated 02/11/2014.

- Return to defendant Bui thi Minh Hang: 01 white Iphone mobile phone; 01 black TULI hand bag; 01 black & white Ipad tablet; 02 Prudential cards bearing the name Bui Thi Minh Hang; 01 Co-opmart card bearing the name Bui Thi Minh Hang; 01 Identity card bearing the name Bui Thi Minh Hang; 01 2 US dollar bill; 01 500 piaster bill by the National Bank of Vietnam; 04 metal rings (sealed).

- Return to defendant Nguyen Van Minh: 01 pair of glasses; on vehicle key; 01 dark grey Nokia 101 mobile phone; 01 Vietnet SIM card; 01 driver licence class A1 bearing the name Nguyen Van Minh; 01 Identity card bearing the name Nguyen Van Minh; 01 motocycle registration paper with license plate 67KI-8036 bearing the name Le Hoang Phuong Thanh; 01 ATM card bearing the name Nguyen Van Minh; 01 Mobifone SIM card.

         

- Return to defendant Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh: 01 dark grey Samsung mobile phone, model Duos, with 01 SIM card; 01 Nokia 102 phone; 01white Samsung phone (sealed); 01 ENSOHO 3G piece with SIM card; 01 driver licence class A1 bearing the name Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh; 01 motocycle registration paper with license plate 59MI-52790 bearing the name Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh; 01 Mello flash light; 01 black Lumix Panasonic camera; 01 100 US dollar bill; 05  2 US dollar bills; 01 10 Gulden (Holland) bill; 01 Belgium bill value 200, 01 Malysian bill 10 Ringgit; 02 10 Eoro bills; 01 Metro card #1110438790 bearing the name Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh; 01 Lottemart card, Lotteria card bearing the name Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh; 01 metal

ring and 10 metal coins (sealed).

The above mentioned evidences are being held by the office of Dong Thap Province responsible for carrying out the sentences.

• Legal fee:

The defendants Bui Thi Minh Hang, Nguyen Van Minh, and Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh are each fined with a legal fee of 200,000 piasters.

The defendants and all persons related to this case have the right to appeal to the Appeal Court of the Supreme People Court at Ho Chi Minh City within 15 days from the effective date of the sentence.

This court sentence is executed according to Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, whereby the accused and the executor may be encouraged to discuss conciliation on the execution of the judgement, in accordance with Section 6, 7 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, statute of limitation shall take effect according to Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code.

                                                            On behalf of the Council of First-Instance-Trial

                                                                                              Presiding Judge

                                                                                              Bui Phuoc Loc

Copies to:

- The Appeal Court at the Supreme People's Court at Ho Chi Minh City      

- The Supreme People's Procuracy at Ho Chi Minh City

- The Bureau of Domestic Administration, Province Dong Thap

- The People's Procuracy of Dong Thap Province

- Department of Justice Dong Thap Province

- Office of Execution of Civil and Criminal judgements, Dong Thap Province

- Temporary Detention Center, public Security Dong Thap Province

  

    People's Court                                                       Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Dong Thap Province                                                       Independance-Liberty-Happiness

       ________                                                           ________________________    

Number: 52/TB-TA                                                   Dong Thap, September 5, 2014

COMMUNIQUE

Regarding appeal

THE PEOPLE'S COURT OF DONG THAP

According to Section 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code

1. Communicate to:

a) Proceeding Agencies:

- The Appeal Court at the Supreme People's Court at Ho Chi Minh City

- The People's Procuracy of Dong Thap Province

- The Temporary Detention Center - Dong Thap Public Security

a) Person(s) paticipating to the proceeding:

Mr. Thai Hoang Danh - 1987

Permanent residence: 329 An Hoa Hamlet, My An Hung B village, Lap Vo District, Dong Thap Province

Let it be known that that the First-Instance Criminal Judgement number 55/2014/HSST dated August 26, 2014 of the People’s Court of Dong Thap has been appealed as follows:

On August 29, 2014, defendant Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh appealed, asking for leniency.

On September 3, 2014, defendant Nguyen Van Minh appealed, claiming innocence.

On September 4, 2014, defendant Bui Thi Minh Hang appealed, claiming innocence.

2. The person(s) receiving this communique regarding the appeals has the right to send their own opinion regarding the contents of the appeals to the Appeal Court.

                                                                                                Judge

                                                                                                Tran Phuoc Loc

Copies to:

- As above

- Archive HS, VT, (B)    

---------------------------------------------------------------

PRESS RELEASE 

UN HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICE CONCERNED WITH THE CONVICTION OF THREE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN VIET NAM 

BANGKOK (29 August 2014) - The UN Human Rights Office for South-East Asia (OHCHR) is concerned that a court in Viet Nam has convicted and imprisoned three human rights defenders for their peaceful human rights work. On 26 August 2014, the Dong Thap Provincial People’s Court sentenced Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh, and Mr. Nguyen Van Minh to between two and three years in prison on charges of “disturbing public order” under Article 245 of the Penal Code. 

The regular arrests and harsh convictions of human rights defenders, bloggers and journalists is in contravention of Viet Nam’s international obligations to uphold freedom of expression, assembly and association under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. OHCHR has on many past occasions raised concerns with the Government regarding this disturbing trend. In February 2014 the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders also raised such concerns, describing “a pattern of targeting, intimidating and silencing peaceful pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders who exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression and their right to freedom of association in the country.” 

On 11 February 2014, the three human rights defenders were arrested after they organized a group to visit the home of human rights lawyer and former political prisoner Mr. Nguyen Bac Truyen who had been reportedly beaten by police and briefly detained at Chi Hoa Prison. The group was arrested. After two days, 18 of them were released, while the three human rights defenders were held in detention until their conviction this Tuesday. According to information received, the trial was not open and a number of relatives and activists who tried to attend the trial were prevented by police from doing so. Some were put under informal house arrest, while others were intercepted by police while travelling to the court house. There was reportedly a large police presence restricting entry to the court. 

Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang has focused her human rights work on protecting the rights of farmers, particularly in land confiscation cases. Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh, and Mr. Nguyen Van Minh are Hoa Hao Buddhist practitioners who campaign on religious freedom issues. 

OHCHR urges the Government of Viet Nam, a member of the Human Rights Council, to review the use of the Criminal Code to target human rights defenders and to fully respect rights to freedom of expression, opinion and association in the country. 

ENDS

The Regional Office for South-East Asia in Bangkok represents the High Commissioner for Human Rights within South East Asia. The High Commissioner for Human Rights is the principal human rights official of the United Nations. She heads the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which spearheads the United Nations' human rights efforts. 

OHCHR website: http://www.ohchr.org 

OHCHR Regional Office for South-East Asia website: http://bangkok.ohchr.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT OF FIRST INSTANCE TRIAL

AGAINST MS. BUI THI MINH HANG,

MS. NGUYEN THI THUY QUYNH,

AND MR. NGUYEN VAN MINH

At People’s Provincial Court in Cao Lanh City, Dong Thap Province

on August 26^th, 2014

(Prepared by Nguyen Bac Truyen)

While waiting for complete report from defense attorneys including Mr. Ha Huy Son, Mr. Doan Thai Duyen Hai, Mr. Tran Thu Nam, and Mr. Nguyen Van Mieng, we have compiled the following summary report based on reliable information related to the first instance trial against Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh, and Mr. Nguyen Van Minh taking place at People’s Provincial Court in Cao Lanh City, Dong Thap Province on August 26^th, 2014.

1. The Verdicts:

All three defendants were accused of “disturbing public order” according to Clause c, paragraph 2, Article 245 of Vietnam’s Criminal Code. Three defendants were sentenced at the end of the trial at 6:30 PM on August 26^th, 2014 as followed:

- Three years of imprisonment for Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang.

- Two and a half years of imprisonment for Mr. Nguyen Van Minh.

- Two years of imprisonment for Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh

All three defendants will appeal. 

2. Serious Violations of Principles for a Fair Trial:

During this one-day trial, the prosecution summoned thirty-two witnesses to back up their accusations. Before the trial, the defense team called for seventeen witnesses. These people were companions of the defendants when they were arrested on February 11^th, 2014 (one witness, Mr. Huynh Anh Tri, had deceased). But the People’s Provincial Court of Dong Thap has only invited ten of seventeen witnesses. When these ten witnesses with invitations reported to the court on August 26^th, 2014, only two witnesses were allowed to enter the courtroom. The other eight witnesses were turned away by court officials. Because the majority of their witnesses could not testify, the defense attorneys proposed to postpone the trial, but this proposal was refused by the presiding council.

Relatives of Ms. BuI Thi Minh Hang and Mr. Nguyen Van Minh were not allowed inside the court except Hoa Hao Buddhists Mrs. Bui Thi Diem Thuy and Ms. Do Thi Thuy Trang, who are the wife and sister-in-law respectively of Mr. Nguyen Van Minh. Mrs. Bui Thi Diem Thuy and Ms. Do Thi Thuy Trang are witnesses requested by defense attorneys. Ms. Bui Thi Minh Hang’s daughter was banned from entering the courtroom after traveling from Hanoi to attend her trial. It was unclear if any of Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Quynh’s family could make it inside the courtroom.

The trial was not opened to the public as defined by Vietnamese laws. Many relatives and friends of the defendants were prevented from leaving their homes so they could not attend the trial. Even when they could make it to Cao Lanh City, police searched all motels and hotels in Cao Lanh city throughout August 25^th and 26^th, 2014 surround them. About seventy people were arrested by police for trying to attend the trial. They were released after the trial ended.

Since early morning of August 26^th, 2014 police established control of all roads leading to the courthouse located at 1 Le Quy Don Street, Cao Lanh City, Dong Thap Province to ban people from attending the trial. Many people were severely beaten by the police. Ms. Tran Ngoc Anh was beaten unconscious and had to be transported to the local hospital. Mr. Tran Thanh Giang, a Hoa Hao Buddhist, was hammered until he passed out at police station of Second Ward, Cao Lanh City. He was brought to the emergency room at Dong Thap’s provincial hospital. Ms. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Lua, another Hoa Hao Buddhist, was beaten unconscious at the police station of My Phu Commune, Dong Thap Province. Following Hoa Hao Buddhists who are witnesses convoked by the court were prevented from attending and seriously injured from police’s assaults: monk Vo Van Thanh Liem and Ms. Nguyen Thi My Trieu.  

After a lunch break, the trial resumed at 1:30 PM with cross examination of witnesses. The presiding judge really exploited the overwhelming number of witnesses brought in by the prosecution team to gather “evidences” of the defendants’ shouting during their encounter with the police. The presiding judges showed no interest in testimonies provided by defending witnesses that they were flagged down, ambushed and brutally beaten on February 11^th, 2014.

We can conclude that the result of this trial was politically scripted by the government with a verdict of combined seven and a half years of imprisonment for three defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------   

 Press Statement on the visit to the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief

Hanoi, Viet Nam 31 July 2014

Introduction

In my capacity as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, I was invited by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to conduct a country visit from 21 to 31 July 2014.

First of all, I thank the Government for inviting me here and maintaining constructive cooperation with my mandate. My esteemed predecessor, the late Abdelfattah Amor, had also visited Viet Nam in 1998. Since 2010, Viet Nam has actively engaged with the Special Procedures and invited six mandate holders, including myself, to conduct a country visit. Viet Nam is also a member of the Human Rights Council. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been most helpful throughout the preparation of the visit and the visit itself. It also facilitated a meeting with a prisoner.

I am grateful to all interlocutors from the legislative, administrative and judiciary branch of the Government, religious communities or institutions (recognized and unrecognized), the diplomatic community and UN agencies. I would like to thank the UNDP in Hanoi for their kind logistical support. Discussions held in Hanoi, Tuyen Quang, Ho Chi Minh City and Vinh Long were generally open, frank and constructive.

The planned visits to An Giang, Gia Lai and Kon Tum provinces were unfortunately interrupted from 28 to 30 July. I received credible information that some individuals whom I wanted to meet with had been either under heavy surveillance, warned, intimidated, harassed or prevented from travelling by the police. Even those who successfully met with me were not free from a certain degree of police surveillance or questioning. Moreover, I was closely monitored of my whereabouts by undeclared “security or police agents”, while the privacy and confidentiality of some meetings could have been compromised. All these incidents are in clear violation of the terms of reference of any country visit.

Today, I present my preliminary findings and some main observations to which I wish to draw your attention. This press statement is not to be confused with the final report. The formal report is to be presented to the 28th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2015. In preparation of the report, I will continue to engage with and work in consultation with the Government and all relevant stakeholders to receive more information and clarification, especially on issues that relate to parts of the country I could not visit.

Brief overview on the religious landscape in Viet Nam

Viet Nam is home to a broad variety of religions and beliefs. The Government Committee on Religious Affairs informed me that there are currently 37 registered religious organizations in the country. According to the official statistics presented by the Government, the overall number of followers of recognized religions is about 24 million out of a population of almost 90 million. Formally recognized religious communities include 11 million Buddhists, 6.2 million Catholics, 1.4 million Protestants, 4.4 million Cao Dai followers, 1.3 million Hoa Hao Buddhists as well as 75,000 Muslims, 7000 Baha’ís, 1500 Hindus and others. The official number of places of worship comprises 26,387 pagodas, temples, churches and other religious facilities. Viet Nam takes pride in having hosted international conferences of religious leaders, in particular United Nation Day of Vesak, a summit of Buddhist dignitaries which took place in May 2014. I was also informed that the people of Viet Nam comprise 54 different ethnic groups. Ethic minority status and membership of a religious minority sometimes overlap.

While the majority of Vietnamese do not belong to one of the officially recognized religious communities, they may nonetheless – occasionally or regularly – practise certain traditional rituals, usually referred to in Viet Nam under the term “belief”. Many of those traditional rituals express veneration of ancestors. Moreover, there is also a reality of religious faiths and practices outside of the officially recognized religious communities. To get a clear and comprehensive picture of this reality is difficult, if not impossible. Whereas some Government experts estimated the number of followers of non-registered communities to be very low, I also heard conjectures that the number of people practising religions outside of registered communities – or wishing to do so – may be up to millions. Apart from very different estimates concerning numbers, I also received conflicting information with regard to the conditions under which people can enjoy their human right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.

Many interlocutors emphasized the fact that the conditions for the exercise of religious freedom have generally improved in Viet Nam in comparison to the situation post-1975. This assessment was largely shared by representatives of religious communities who acknowledged that, despite ongoing challenges, they now have generally more space for practising religion than in the past. At the same time, the conditions under which individuals or groups can practise their religion or belief are unpredictable and often depend on good will of Government agencies, not least the local authorities. Moreover, members of religious minorities without official recognition continue to face enormous difficulties in exercising their rights to freedom of religion or belief, especially where their religious practices or rituals are considered not to match the “legitimate interests of the majority” – a phrase often invoked in some of the discussions.

Relevant legal provisions and their implementation

Legal norms regulating the practice of religion or belief

Viet Nam has ratified most international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whose article 18 protects freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief broadly.

The newly amended Vietnamese Constitution¹ covers in its second chapter “human rights and citizen’s fundamental rights and duties”. In this context, the 2013 Constitution also refers to freedom of belief or religion in article 24. Representatives of the Government repeatedly highlighted that rights holders of this provision are all human beings, whereas the respective provision within the 1992 Constitution was confined to citizens of Viet Nam. This has been presented as an indicator of a generally more positive attitude towards freedom of religion or belief. Article 24 reads as follows:

“1. Every one shall enjoy freedom of belief and of religion; he can follow any religion or follow none. All religions are equal before the law.
2. The State respects and protects freedom of belief and of religion.
3. No one has the right to infringe on the freedom of belief and religion or to take advantage of belief and religion to violate the law.”

Viet Nam does not have a law regulating religious affairs. The most relevant legal document is the Ordinance on Belief and Religion adopted on 18 June 2004. Decree no. 92, of 8 November 2012, further specifies the provisions contained in the Ordinance. As an important clarification within the Ordinance on Belief and Religion, Article 38 confirms the priority of international agreements over provisions of the Ordinance whenever they differ².

I have learned that a proposal to pass a law on religious affairs based on the current Ordinance will be submitted in 2015 and is expected to be adopted in 2016. Apart from the higher legal status of a law in comparison to an ordinance, the process of creating a new comprehensive law might offer an opportunity to introduce substantive revisions with the purpose of strengthening the right to freedom of religion or belief and its implementation in practice. When discussing this issue with Government experts on religious affairs, there have been indications that land issues will be better addressed while the freedom for foreigners to practice their religions or belief will also become easier. Others have also expressed their willingness to consider substantive changes to overcome the restrictive language of the 2004 Ordinance.

Restrictions of freedom of religion or belief

According to international standards, the exercise of the human right to freedom of religion or belief is not without possible limitations. At the same time, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) lists a number of criteria all of which must be met for such limitations to be legitimate. Strict observance of all of these criteria is crucial to ensure that freedom of religion or belief becomes a reality.

Limitation clauses as provided in the relevant legal norms of Viet Nam are much broader than the limitation clauses enshrined in the ICCPR. Overly-broad limitation clauses may blur the contours of freedom of religion or belief thereby seriously jeopardizing its implementation in practice. What is missing in the Vietnamese legal norms concerning religion, first of all, is a clarification that the internal dimension of a person’s religious, moral or philosophical conviction – usually termed the “forum internum” – must be respected unconditionally and can never be exposed to any restrictions or interferences for whatever reasons, even in situations of a serious crisis or an emergency. The unconditional protection of the forum internum reflects the insight that forcing human beings to feign a faith which is not authentic or denounce their deeply held convictions may undermine their self-respect. The prohibition of any coercive interference with the inner nucleus of a person’s religious, moral or philosophical convictions therefore has the same elevated status in international law as the prohibition of slavery or the prohibition of torture. These are absolute prohibitions with no exceptions. In contrast, Article 24 of the 2013 Constitution, while making reference to freedom of belief and religion in general terms, does not provide for a specific protection of the forum internum dimension of freedom of religion or belief.

Unlike the forum internum, manifestations of religions or beliefs in the social sphere (“forum externum”) are not protected unconditionally by international law. It is therefore all the more important to specify the conditions for limitations in a clear and predictable manner. This should be done in the understanding that freedom of religion or belief, in all its individual and communitarian dimensions, has the normative status of a universal human right. The relationship between this freedom and its limitations thus should be seen as a relationship between rule and exception. Accordingly, the burden or argumentation does not fall on those who wish to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief: it rests with those who deem limitations necessary. In case of doubt the rule prevails, and exceptions always require an extra burden of argumentation, both at the level of empirical evidence and the level of normative reasoning.

In discussions with Government representatives I frequently heard broad references to “the Vietnamese law” in general. However, in order to meet the conditions for limitations set out in article 18 of the ICCPR, limitations must be more specific and fulfil additional criteria. Apart from being legally prescribed in a clear, precise and predictable manner, the limitations must be necessary to pursue a legitimate aim – the protection of “public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”³. Moreover, limitations must strictly remain with the realm of proportionality which inter alia means they should always be confined to a minimum degree of interference. These and other criteria are prescribed with the purpose of safeguarding the substance of freedom of religion or belief also in situations of a (seeming or factual) collision with other rights or important public interests.

By comparison, the relevant legal documents of Viet Nam give Government agencies broad space to regulate, limit, restrict of forbid the exercise of freedom of religion or belief. Article 14 of the 2013 Constitution lists a number of reasons for restricting human rights and citizens’ rights which, I presume, also apply to freedom of religion or belief. While the possibility to restrict human rights in the interest of “national defence, national security, social order and security, social morality and the health of the community”⁴ already differs from the purposes listed in article 18 of the ICCPR, the Ordinance on Belief and Religion also makes reference to purposes, such as “patriotism”, “national unity”, “people’s unity” and “national cultural traditions”. Furthermore, according to article 8, paragraph 2 of the Ordinance, “no one shall be permitted to abuse the right to freedom of belief and religion to undermine the peace, independence and unity of the country, to instigate violence or carry out war propaganda, or propaganda against State laws or policies; or to sow division among the people and religions; to disturb public order, to encroach upon the life, health, human dignity, honour or property of others, or to obstruct the exercise by the people of their civic rights or obligations; to carry out superstitious activities; or to commit other breaches of the law”.

During my discussions with Government officials of different agencies, including senior representatives of the judiciary, I heard many references to such overly-broad restrictions. The invocation of unspecified “social interests” may even lead to criminal prosecution, in accordance to Article 258 of the Penal Code. Its first paragraph reads as follows: “Those who abuse the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of belief, religion, assembly, association and other democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interest of the State, the legitimate rights and interests of organizations and/or citizens shall be subject to warning, non-custodial reform for up to three years or a prison term of between six months and three years.” What I find particularly concerning in this paragraph is the absence of specified acts that would amount to an “abuse” of religious freedom of other democratic freedoms. Members of the People’s Supreme Court did not give any further specifications as to the meaning of the term “abuse”. The wide and vague formulation in Article 258 gives the relevant authorities a carte blanche to sanction people for all sorts of activities – and their underlying attitudes – which are deemed to somehow run counter to the interest of the State. From the many discussions that I have had, this is not a merely theoretical problem, as article 258 of the Penal Code has been invoked frequently in practice and has been applied to restrict freedom of religion or belief and other human rights. When the question of prisoners of conscience was raised, I was told that no such case exists. Given the vague formulations and the high number of cases charged under article 258 of the Penal Code, one wonders how the authorities can preclude such a possibility.

Administrative stipulations on religious practices

The Ordinance on Belief and Religion contains a broad number of regulations that the religious communities have to comply with in order to be able to operate. These regulations receive further specification in Decree no. 92. For instance, religious communities are requested to get registration status with the Government Committee for Religious Affairs; they have to apply for specific permits for the construction or renovation of houses of worship; they have to present to the local authorities an annual overview of planned activities; they have to inform the authorities about the ordainment of religious clergy; they have to get approval from the relevant local authorities to conduct public ceremonies, etc. The stipulations contained in the Ordinance and the Decree include obligations concerning information and notification as well as provisions for formal approval before conducting certain religious activities. The Decree also specifies the timeframes within which the authorities are requested to respond to applications submitted to them. In the case of a negative decision, they are obliged to state the reasons.

My preliminary findings are not meant to provide a comprehensive assessment of the very detailed administrative provisions contained in the Ordinance and the Decree as to whether they appropriately reflect respect for freedom of religion or belief. Instead, I will concentrate on a problem which came up in almost all of ours discussions, i.e. the requirement for religious communities to receive registration status with the authorities. According to article 16 of the Ordinance, organizations are required to meet a number of criteria to obtain the status of a legally recognized religious organization. Inter alia, these conditions are aimed to ensuring respect for the “fine customs and habits and interests of the nation”⁵. Without going into procedural and substantive details, I would like to focus on two particularly important aspects.

The first aspect concerns the nature of registration. Is it an offer or is it a formal requirement? When discussing this question, I received different answers, and there seems to be some lack of clarity. Whereas a number of Government representatives unambiguously stated that without legal registration by the authorities communities would not be entitled to operate, others indicated that a non-registered community could be allowed to exercise some basic religious functions, such as holding religious gatherings in private homes. Even within this more accommodating interpretation, however, the scope of freedom of religion or belief strikes me as remaining extremely limited and unclear.

In this context, the term “recognition”, as used of the Ordinance and mentioned in many conversations, may warrant a short clarification. The exercise of the human right to freedom of religion or belief, by individuals and/or in community with others, cannot be made dependent on any specific acts of administrative recognition or approval. As a universal right, freedom of religion or belief inheres in all human beings and thus has a normative status prior to any administrative acts and procedures whatsoever. The preamble of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts with “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. Obviously, “recognition” here points to the basic insight that any meaningful interaction among human beings presupposes respect for human dignity and human rights. “Recognition” in this fundamental sense of respect for human dignity and human rights thus precedes any “recognition” in terms of specific administrative acts.

Accordingly, the right of an individual or group to their freedom of religion or belief can never be “created” by any administrative procedures. Rather, it is the other way around: registration should serve this human right, which itself must be respected as preceding any registration. In keeping with this general understanding, registration should be an offer by the State, not a compulsory legal requirement. The situation of non-registered religious communities thus assumes the quality of an important test question about the understanding of the normative status of freedom of religion or belief in general.

The second point I would like to make concerns the availability of some alternative legal personality status for communities which are not registered as religious organizations. Given the rather high threshold set out by article 16 of the Ordinance, it seems important that religious or belief communities have a reliable option to obtain some alternative form of legal personality status, if they so wish. Under freedom of religion or belief, States have a responsibility to provide an appropriate legal and institutional infrastructure which allows religious and belief communities to operate freely, without undue burdens and without discrimination. This includes the option for religious and belief communities to obtain legal personality status which they may need to undertake important community functions, such as purchasing real estate, employing professional staff, operating charity organizations, establishing training institutions for clergy or educating the younger generation, etc. Without the availability and actual accessibility of an appropriate legal personality status, the long-term development prospects of religious and belief communities, in particular smaller groups may be in serious peril. I was informed that there is a possibility for religious communities to register as associations, but I have not yet been able to find out to which extend this option has actually been used.

Having had various discussions with Government representatives on the issue of registration, I am convinced that this is an area of concern which requires legislative and other measures. I would recommend that the envisaged new legal reforms (1) clarify that freedom of religion or belief, qua its status as a human right, precedes any acts of administrative approval and can be exercised by individuals and groups of people prior to, and independent of, any such acts of registration; and (2) give religious communities more easily accessible and reliable options to obtain a suitable status of legal personality to facilitate the free development of an appropriate infrastructure. The Government Committee for Religious Affairs should play a crucial role in instructing and training local authorities about the interpretation of relevant regulations in accordance to universal human right.

The issue of legal recourse

Article 30 of the 2013 Constitution enshrines everyone’s right to lodge complaints with competent State authorities. Indeed, the efficient realization of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, largely depends on the availability of suitable legal recourse. Everyone should have recourse, without being required to meet undue thresholds or burdens, to legal instruments to be able to challenge decisions taken by the authorities if they feel their rights have been infringed upon. Independent courts should be entrusted with the assessment of such complaints, in accordance with all principles of due process. The main purpose of legal recourse is not to identify possible wrongdoings by individual members of the administration, but to ensure a consistent implementation of human rights for everyone.

When asking for examples of cases in which people have successfully challenged alleged infringements of their freedom of belief and religion, as enshrined in article 24 of the Constitution, I heard that such cases are not known in Viet Nam. Even members of the People’s Supreme Court were not aware of a single case. This is surprising – even more so against the background of quite a number of conflicts over land issues which have been brought to my attention. Some of these conflicts seem to involve a dimension of freedom of religion or belief, for instance, when land previously used for religious cemeteries or houses of worship has been taken for purposes of economic development.

When discussing the issue of legal recourse, reference was usually made to the possibility of filing petitions addressed to local levels up till higher levels of the administration. However, this option cannot count as equivalent to an independent judiciary in charge of securing everyone’s human rights, including in situations of conflict between individuals or groups of people and the administration. Although I heard about a few cases in which petitions filed with higher authorities, including the Prime Minister, have helped to ease conflicts, in many other cases, petitioners have not seen any reaction at all. In yet some other cases, the higher level of the authorities merely referred the issues back to the local authorities for reconsideration, i.e. the case may end up in a limbo. From the perspective of the rule of law, this situation is far from satisfactory.

Autonomy of religious and belief communities

Negative attitudes towards non-recognized religious communities

Government representatives repeatedly emphasized that religions can and should contribute to the development of the country, not least by promoting social, ethical and civic values. This expectation is reflected in the Ordinance on Belief and Religion which provides in article 2, second sentence: “Dignitaries and clergypersons shall have the responsibility to educate regularly believers about patriotism, exercise of civic rights and obligations, and the sense of law observance.”

Based on the assumption that religious values and the interests of the State largely coincide, many religions have become members of the Fatherland Front, led by the Communist Party of Viet Nam. The biggest religious organization within the Fatherland Front is the Viet Nam Buddhist Sangha (VBS). Other officially recognized religious communities also cooperate in large parts within the Fatherland Front.

When I discussed this issue with the VBS in its central office in Hanoi, I learned that the Sangha comprises nine schools of Buddhism originating from the Mahayana tradition (dominant in Viet Nam), the Theravada tradition and others. While cooperating in a spirit of solidarity, the various schools would also be able to maintain their distinctive characteristics and identities, including different linguistic heritages. This was corroborated in conversations held in two Khmer pagodas in Ho Chi Minh City which cherish the Theravada version of Buddhism. However, while acknowledging the internal diversity within the VBS, I noticed a very dismissive attitude towards Buddhist practices outside of the VBS. Some dignitaries operating within the VBS claimed they had never heard of independent Buddhist groups within Viet Nam. Others alluded to mere “private opinions” of some individuals driven by morally problematic ambitions which would not be worthy of serious attention. The ascription of trivial “selfish” interests to people practising Buddhism or other religions outside of the official channels was a feature repeatedly coming up in conversations. This seems to coincide with the frequent invocation of “majority interests” which, it was assumed, should prevail over the rights of minorities or individuals.

I would like to emphasize in this context that freedom of religion or belief is not merely a minority issue. As a human right, it relates to all human beings, regardless of whether they follow a majority religion or belong to a minority community or to no religious community at all. The treatment of minorities, however, deserves particular attention, since it is usually indicative of the general – tolerant or less tolerant – climate in a society. Where minority communities can operate freely and independently, members of a majority typically also have more space for practicing their religion in the way they see fit. And respect for the views of individuals, including dissident views, facilitates the free flow of ideas in a society in general, thereby also enriching the interaction of people within the majority. However, I have noticed that in some discussions “majority interests” were invoked with the obvious intention to dismiss claims of minorities as irrelevant or to even delegitimize them as morally problematic. This also happened when the issue of independent religious communities – such as the Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam (UBCV), independent groups of Hoa Hao, Cao Dai, Protestants and others came up.

During my meetings with representatives of independent Buddhist communities I heard complaints about ongoing repression, including police summons, house arrests, imprisonments and confiscation of property, which would prevent individuals from exercizing their freedom of religion or belief in even a minimal way. Although I have not been able to make an appropriate and detailed analysis of all their complaints, which would require much more information from all concerned parties, the general attitude of delegitimizing non-official religious practices, which I have encountered in many conversations, are clear indicators that independent Buddhist communities currently cannot exercise their freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, some Buddhist monks who identified themselves as “Khmer Krom” would wish to have more autonomy not only within the VBS but also outside of this official Buddhist umbrella. The situation of the independent communities of Hoa Hao Buddhism, too, seems to be difficult.

A religion hardly known outside of Viet Nam is Cao Dai, which combines traditions of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Christianity with some new teachings. As in the case of Buddhism, Cao Dai followers are divided between those who have become members of the Fatherland Front and those who insist on their independent religious practice. The relationship between the two groups seems to be tense. Whereas the officially recognized organizations of Cao Dai accuse dissenting groups of having a “separatist mind” and creating “confusion” among the people, the independent Cao Dai followers see the authenticity of their tradition jeopardized by Government interference which, they claim, has led to some imposed changes of the Cao Dai religion. While I am not in a position to assess the theological details of this conflict, I would expect that the Government ensure the free functioning of independent Cao Dai communities and facilitate their development in a way which they themselves see fit. The current situation of independent Cao Dai groups is certainly not in line with freedom of religion or belief, since the communities lack appropriate facilities for worship and teaching and allegedly face pressure to join the official organizations.

Training and appointment of clergy

The number of training institutions for the clergy of different religions – Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Cao Daism and others – has significantly increased in recent decades. I was informed by the Government that at present approximately 45 religious training institutions exist in the country. While religious communities decide on the main parts of the curriculum – i.e. the teachings of theological doctrines, practices and ceremonies, the history of the community and other issues – the curriculum also includes courses on the history and laws of Viet Nam and Marxism/ Leninism, provided for by the Ministry of Education and Training.

Religious communities can appoint and ordain their clergy in accordance with their own rules. They reportedly do not need approval for their decisions from the authorities, but are required to register ordained clergy. Concerning dismissals of clergy or monks, which are apparently rare, decisions are also generally taken by religious communities, in accordance with their religious laws. However, I also came across allegations of Government interference in some cases in which monks were defrocked. I have not been able to establish the details required for a clear assessment of such cases. The very limited options for autonomous religious community life, however, certainly leads to a structural situation in which appointments or dismissals may de facto be largely influenced by the interests of the Government.

Property and land issues

During the visit, many property issues were brought to my attention, not only by members of non-recognized communities, but also by representatives of communities which cooperate with the Government in the Fatherland Front. Many of these property claims concern real estate and/or land. In the interest of economic development and other modernization projects, some religious communities have lost – or are in danger of losing – large parts of their land. I repeatedly heard requests that property which had taken away from religious communities should be given back.

Usually property disputes require precise information of complicated details, which I have not been able to gather. I will therefore limit myself to a few general remarks. The availability of real estate and land is one of the basic preconditions for religious community life. Clear and well-established ownership thus becomes an important factor defining the autonomy of religious communities – or the lack of autonomy. The fact that all land belongs to the State creates an element of insecurity for communities. Furthermore, some communities show a strong cultural or religious attachment to particular pieces of land, for instance, the burial places of their ancestors. A special case in this context is the Cham community who practises a combination of Islam and Hinduism. The Cham people see themselves as an indigenous population and strive to be recognized under this category.

Representatives of the Government openly admitted that land conflicts exist in Viet Nam – as in many other countries. At the same time, they questioned whether such conflicts could affect freedom of religion or belief. At least in some cases, however, religious demands obviously play an important role. For instance, representatives of Protestant groups told me about cases in rural areas in which different Protestant parishes were merged into one single parish for purposes of “easier management”. Reportedly, such merging was not always handled in due respect for the distinct features of different Protestant denominations and the needs of parishioners.

Conflicts over land issues, in particular involving religious sentiments, always require sensitive handling in the interest to provide acceptable solutions for all interested parties. The previously mentioned lack of effective legal recourse – in particular within the judiciary – has strong relevance also for the situation of land and other property issues related to religious communities. In my conversations with representatives of various religious communities – including communities which cooperate with the Government within the Fatherland Front – I noticed high degrees of frustration about inefficient legal procedures. As a result, some religious communities feel they are largely left at the mercy of local authorities.

Religious practices in particular circumstances

Prison inmates

As previously mentioned, article 24 of the 2013 Constitution refers to all human beings rather than to citizens. It therefore also includes prisoners who, even if they may have temporary lost their full rights as citizens, should in any case be able to benefit from freedom of religion or belief as a universal human right. When discussing this issue I received conflicting information. Government agencies generally emphasized that prison inmates can practise their religion within the confines of the prison provided this does not negatively affect other prisoners and the general functions of prison life. Other people with experiences of prison life alleged that religious practices are hardly accommodated in prisons; even the reception and possession of religious books or materials would usually be prohibited. This issue certainly deserves more attention.

The institution of prison chaplains, i.e. clergy of different religions, who cater for the spiritual needs of prison inmates, on their requests, does not exist in Viet Nam. However, representatives of the Viet Nam Buddhist Sangha explained they would increasingly offer services in prisons, including lectures for the social and moral edification of prisoners. Catholic priests, too, have occasionally offered religious services to prison inmates. Protestant pastors with whom I discussed this issue said they were not aware of any spiritual assistance given to Protestant prison inmates.

Soldiers

The Vietnamese military does not have a system of military chaplains who regularly cater for the religious or spiritual needs of soldiers. Similarly to the situation in prisons, however, the VBS seems to get increasingly involved. I was told that Buddhist monks pray for soldiers who serve the nation under complicated conditions. They may also teach meditation technics which can help soldiers to better come to terms with their difficult task and living conditions.

Conscientious objection to compulsory military service is not known in Viet Nam, and the option of an alternative civilian service for individuals who object to taking arms for conscientious reasons does not exist.

Reports about violations of freedom of religion or belief

I have heard a number of serious allegations about concrete violations of freedom of religion or belief in Viet Nam. Reported violations include heavy-handed police raids; repeated invitations to “work sessions” with the police; close surveillance of religious activities; disruption of religious ceremonies and festivals; house arrests, at times over long periods; imprisonments, also sometimes over long periods; beatings and assaults; dismissals from employment; loss of social benefits; pressure exercised on family members; acts of vandalism; destructions of houses of worship, cemeteries and funeral sheds; confiscations of property; systematic pressure to give up certain religious activities and instead to operate within the official channels provided for religious practice; pressure to denounce one’s religion or belief. I also met with one prisoner of conscience in the prison in which he is currently detained.

To different degrees, such allegations came from members of independent Buddhist communities, individuals belonging to various Protestants communities (some of which have been officially registered), some local groups of Catholics, followers of independent organizations of Cao Dai, followers of some new religious teachings, like Duong Van Minh, and others. As a result of pressure and persecution, some people have left or fled the country on religious grounds. I would also like to underline, that official registration status with the Government is no guarantee that freedom of religion or belief is fully respected.

Let me clarify the fact that the purpose of a country visit of Special Rapporteurs is not to make comprehensive assessments of individual cases. A comprehensive analysis of individual cases would require much more information in order to get the full picture of relevant facts from the perspectives of all involved parties. Instead, the purpose of a visit by a Special Rapporteur is to assess the credibility of different allegations concerning human rights problems and abuses. Without prejudice to the accuracy of all specific facts of all individual cases brought to my attention, I am convinced that serious violations of freedom of religion or belief are a reality in Viet Nam – in particular, but not only, in rural areas.

This general assessment is not only based on interviews and documents provided by human rights defenders and members of different religious communities, it is also closely connected with the systematic observations made earlier in this press statement:

• the generally dismissive, negative attitude towards the rights of minorities and individuals practising religion outside of the established channels;
• the frequent invocation of unspecified “majority interests” or interests of “social order”;
• overly-broad limitation clauses concerning human rights in general and thus also freedom of belief and religion;
• vague formulations within the Penal Code, in particular Article 258 concerning the “abuse” of democratic freedoms;
• the absence of sufficiently efficient and accessible legal recourse within the judiciary, etc.

These conditions create a structural vulnerability for certain individuals and communities, which actually matches the reports about specific incidents.

I would like to underline in this context that in my many discussions with members of religious communities, some of which are formally registered with the authorities and even cooperate within the Fatherland Front, people have shown a general awareness of ongoing restrictions of freedom of religion or belief. It is all the more surprising that leading members of the judiciary apparently have never heard about any cases in which alleged infringements of freedom of religion or belief have been brought before a court.

An important aspect coming up in many discussions concerns the divide between urban and rural areas. The conditions of religious communities may considerably vary, according to different practices in different parts of the country. Moreover, it seems that policies taken by the Government Committee on Religious Affairs are not always efficiently communicated to the authorities at local levels.

Concluding remarks

The terms of reference for country visit by Special Rapporteurs inter alia include guarantees concerning “confidential and unsupervised contact with witnesses and other private persons” and “assurance by the Government that no persons, official or private individuals who have been in contact with the special rapporteur […] in the relation to the mandate will for this reason suffer threats, harassment or punishment or be subjected to judicial proceedings”. These conditions have not been respected, as I mentioned earlier and are in breach of the principle of confidentiality. This interrupted the later part of the visit.

This interruption is all the more regrettable as I have noticed some positive developments at the central level. Most representatives of religious communities agreed that, in spite of ongoing serious problems, their space for religious practices has increased in recent years. Religious communities which had been forbidden post-1975 are now allowed to operate. Moreover, some representatives of Government agencies expressed their willingness to consider substantive revisions within the process of replacing the current Ordinance on Belief and Religion by passing a law governing these issues. Indeed, this opportunity should not be missed. It might become a turning point for Viet Nam’s protection of freedom of religion or belief.

A litmus test for the development of freedom of religion or belief in Viet Nam is the conditions of independent religious communities. Under the current situation, their possibilities to operate as independent communities are extremely unsafe and restricted, in clear violation of article 18 of the ICCPR to which Viet Nam is a State Party. The upcoming law on religious affairs should clarify that registration with Government agencies is an offer rather than a legal requirement. At the same time, communities should have easily accessible and reliable options to obtain legal personality status in order to build an appropriate infrastructure. Another obvious priority concerns the availability of effective and accessible legal recourse needed to rectify possible infringements on the freedom of religion or belief of individuals or groups.

Let me conclude by reiterating my thanks to the Government of Viet Nam for having invited me to visit. I trust that the Government will honour its guarantee that none of the persons with whom I worked during the visit and with whom I have been in contact in relation to the mandate will be threatened, harassed or punished or be subject to judicial proceedings after the country visit. I will maintain in contact with them and monitor their safety. Any incidents of reprisal will be reported to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

I am happy to offer my expertise as Special Rapporteur to the Government of Viet Nam as it works to improve the legal and infrastructural conditions for the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief for everyone. I will also continue to work in constructive spirit with the Government.

---

Notes:

1. The final version of new constitution was adopted by the National Assembly on 28 November 2013.

2. See Article 38 of the Ordinance: “In the case where an international treaty concluded, or acceded to, by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam contains a stipulation that contravenes stipulations by this Ordinance, the stipulation of the international treaty shall prevail.”

3. Article 18, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.

4. Article 14, paragraph 2 of the 2013 Constitution.

5. Article 16 paragraph 1 of the Ordinance on Belief and Religion reads as follows:
1. An organization shall be recognized as a religious organization if it meets all the following conditions:
Being an organization of people sharing the same religious belief, of which the religious dogmas, canon laws and rites are not contrary to the fine customs and habits and the interests of the nation;
Having a charter and/or statutes depicting the goal, objectives and action orientation that are in close association with the nation and not contrary to stipulations by the law;
Having its religious activities registered and conducted on a stable basis;
Having a lawful office, organization and representative;

Having a name not duplicating that of any other religious organization that has been recognized by the competent State authority.         

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                

                                                Prisoner of conscience case report
                                       Mrs. Mai Thi Dung , a Hoa Hao Buddhist
                                Three prison sentences totaling 12 and a half  years

                                     for advocating freedom of religion in Vietnam.

                                       

 Mrs. Mai Thi Dung (portrait taken from a group picture )

 Mrs. Mai Thi Dung (pronounced Dzung), born in 1969 , resided in My Thanh hamlet, My An commune , Cho Moi district , An Giang province , Vietnam .

She is a Hoa Hao Buddhist  actively struggling for religious freedom in the Mekong  Delta . She and her husband, Mr. Vo Van Buu were arrested on August 5, 2005 during a protest against the government repression of the Hoa Hao Buddhists .

Mrs Dung was prosecuted twice with the total conviction of 11 years of  imprisonment for allegedly " disturbing public order " according to  Article 245 of the Criminal Code of Vietnam , as is the case of most other Hoa Hao Buddhists .

Mrs. Mai Thi Dung has been kept in Thanh Xuan prison ( Hanoi) , 2000Km (approximately 1250 miles) away from her home in An Giang province .

She is suffering from many serious diseases such as gallstones , heart failure and neurasthenia,  but gets no proper diagnosis or treatment and is too weak to leave her cell by herself to meet her family members when they come to visit her.

Suppression of the activities of the Independent Hoa Hao Buddhists.

After the military victory in 1975, the Communist government of Vietnam   dissolved and confiscated all properties of The Hoa Hao Buddhist Association , a Faith with longstanding  tradition in southern Vietnam . Over 40 thousands officials and employees of  Hoa Hao have been banned or arrested .

In 1999 the government of Vietnam established  another  organization with the same name “ Hoa Hao Buddhist Association " and gave this latter the monopoly role. Thus, all religious activities outside the state-sponsored Hoa Hao Buddhist Association  are  considered illegal . Many Hoa Hao followers do not accept this new organization, believing it has cooperated with the authorities to change many fundamental traditions of their religion including:

- change the names of many traditional Hoa Hao sites (Hoa Hao Village ) ,  change the historical site of To Dinh ( To Dinh is  the name of Profet Huynh Phu So family house ) ,

-omit parts of  the teachings ( Book of oracles /Sam Giang Thi van Giao Ly ) ,

_prohibit  the use of Hoa Hao flag  ( brown color ) during  religious holidays ,

- limit religious activities , etc. ...

the State-sponsored Hoa Hao Buddhist Association has banned the ceremony

commemorating the date of “ Prophet Huynh Phu So Victimization”, believed  to be  the day when the Prophet was killed by the communist forces in 1947, and which is one of the 3 major ceremonies observed by the Hoa Hao worshipers every year.

The other two are the Prophet’s Birthday  and the “Day of Initiation”of the Hoa Hao Religion .

Currently Hoa Hao Buddhists have no longer been permitted to hold religious services at home according to their tradition and have been forced to attend the ones  held by the State HH Association  at  its headquarters . All major ceremonies and private memorial services held at home have been considered illegal activities and disbanded by the police

Since 1999  Mrs Dung , together with her husband Buu and  many other Hoa Hao Buddhists have been actively campaigning for the rights to practice in accordance with the teaching of Prophet Huynh Phu So .

The couple had participated in peaceful protests, writing petitions to the local and central authorities, opposing bans to organise major Hoa Hao celebrations,. The Vietnam government not only did not answer the petitions, but even increased the religious suppression on the Hoa Haos  . Too desperate about the situation, Mrs Dung and her husband Buu had several times attempted self-immolation to draw attention on the persecution of the Hoa Haos.

The Vietnam governement  had sentenced Mrs Mai thi Dung to prison terms basing  on 3  demonstrations carried out by the Hoa Hao Buddhists.

First conviction for protesting  against religious harassment

In year 2000 the Hoa Hao Buddhists  conducted  many peaceful demonstrations and  hunger strikes to protest the government’s  ban on  all religious activities independent from the state-sponsored Hoa Hao Buddhist Association  and the detention of at least 10  worshipers.

 In the night of  March27,2000 , the police arrested Mr. Vo Van Buu and illegally detained him for 11 days .

On June15, 2000 Mrs Mai Thi Dung and Mr Vo Van Buu joined other Hoa Hao to a demonstration in Long Xuyen city. After the group being dispersed by the police , the couple accompanied Mr. Nguyen Van Dien to his home, where the police came and tried to harass them by confiscating Mr Dien motorcycle key. Mrs Dung and Mr Buu tried to get the key back, thus were arrested for “obstruction of justice”. While in detention, Mrs Dung went on a hunger strike and refused to cooperate in police interrogations .

She was paroled on June26, 2000 .

Two months later , in a secret trial in Cho Moi District , Mr.Vo Van Buu was sentenced to 2 years detention for " obstruction of justice " under Article 257 of the Penal Code , and Mrs. Mai Thi Dung 18 months probation .

In the demonstration on September26, 2000 against the wrongful detention of her husband and many other Hoa Hao worshipers, Mrs. Dung sought solution in self immolation  by cutting through the abdominal area. She was promptly stopped and treated.

Second conviction for protesting against religious persecution.

Beginning in early 2005, the government of Vietnam launched a campaign to arrest many Hoa Hao Buddhists, dissolved private religious ceremonies, beating worshipers and confiscating religious materials .  The arrests of Mrs. Dung and Mr. Buu were part of the government’s policy to suppress the daily lives of independent Hoa Hao worshipers who refused to participate in the state-sponsored  ssociation organised  by the government in 1999.  Many independent Hoa Hao Buddhists were cornered and  felt themselves forced to invest their own lives in the struggles for religious freedom. 

The arrests of Mrs. Dung and Mr. Buu originated entirely from the arbitrary conduct of the authorities.  On June 3, 2006, the police stopped the couple and six other Hoa Hao Buddhists from going to a private memorial service in An Giang province. The given reason for flagging the group down was traffic violations, no licenses and vehicle registrations, no safety helmets and carrying bulky items. The group abandoned their mopeds to walk to their destination. The police sent a force to disperse the private memorial service and  only withdrew as the worshipers threatened to go on a hunger strike and set themselves on fire. 

On August 5, 2005, the police arrested Mrs. Dung and Mr. Buu for “disturbing public peace” according to Article 245 of Vietnam’s Criminal Codes.  Mr. Vo Van Buu started a fire to immolate himself, which was extinguished  by the police . 

On September 27, 2005, Long Xuyen city’s court sentenced Mrs. Mai Thi Dung to 5  years of imprisonment and Mr. Vo Van Buu to 7 years of imprisonment in a secret trial  which even their families and other Hoa Hao Buddhist fellows were not allowed to attend. 

Third conviction  for participating in a demonstration asking for religious freedom

 In 2006, while being imprisoned in An Giang province, Mrs. Mai Thi Dung was again prosecuted for participating in a protest action in 2001. 

Hoa Hao worshipers planned a demonstration on March 17, 2001 in Ho Chi Minh city to protest against suppression of religious freedom. March 17, 2001 also coincided with the yearly memorial service of Hoa Hao Buddhism founder, Prophet Huynh Phu So. This yearly event is one of the most important Hoa Hao activities which has been banned by the government of Vietnam since 1975.  The demonstration was unsuccessful because all participants were arrested as they just got to Ho Chi Minh city.

After this failure, another group of Hoa Hao worshipers organized another demonstration in Tan Hoi village, Vinh Long province. During this demonstration, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu set herself on fire to object the government’s continuous repression of religious freedom for Hoa Hao Buddhists. (The incident was reported by many international news agencies including Reuters). The government of Vietnam confiscated the body of Mrs. Thu and accused Mrs. Mai Thi Dung and several other female Hoa Hao Buddhist worshipers of killing her.  According to the indictment, while Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu set herself on fire, some worshipers carried Hoa Hao Buddhist flags and banners saying “Religious Freedom for Hoa Hao Worshipers,” “Freedom for Ut Dien,” and “ Long Live Hoa Hao Buddhism.” 

 Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu, seventy-five years old, was the vice-chairwoman of the Women and Social Committee in Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhism.  Before this event, she had attempted to set herself on fire a few times.  In a death note in 1999, Mrs. Thu mentioned the reason for her self-immolation was to object the government’s continuous suppression of religious freedom for Hoa Hao worshipers.

On September 19^th, 2007, the People’s court of Vinh  Long province started a secret trial charging the three female Hoa Hao Buddhist worshipers with “murder” according to Article 93 of Vietnam’s Criminal Codes. As the  defendants’ attorneys successfully proved the lack of evidence for murder charges , the prosecutors changed the charges from “murder” to “disturbing public peace” according to Article 245 of Vietnam’s Criminal Codes. The three women were convicted and sentenced to prison terms : 6 years for Mrs. Mai Thi  Dung, 5 years for Mrs. Duong Thi Tron, and 2 years for Mrs.  Nguyen Thi Thanh. 

With two convictions for "disturbing public peace" in 2005 and 2007, Mrs. Mai Thi Dung has to endure eleven years of imprisonment for her activities in advancing religious freedom for Hoa Hao Buddhist worshipers.

 

Brutal prison conditions and critically failing health

Since her arrest on August 5, 2005 and her conviction in September 2005, Mrs. Mai Thi Dung was held in solitary confinement at An Giang province’s prison for more than two years before being transferred to Xuan Loc prison camp in Dong Nai province, about 400 kilometers (250 miles) away from her home, to serve out her sentence. Because of the solitary confinement, her health deteriorated rapidly.  In 2008, she started having  attacks of unbearable shooting pains suspected from untreated gallbladder stones. The prison police tried repeatedly to convince her to admit her guilt in exchange for medical treatment, but she refused. 

Worsening illness caused periods when both of her legs were paralysed and Mrs Dung was too weak to care for herself.  At the end of September 2013, Xuan Loc prison authority  finally allowed her to get medical examinations.  She was diagnosed with heart failure and neurasthenia. Prison officials declined to grant her medical treatment in a hospital even though the prison’s clinic was inadequate  for treatment of  serious diseases.

On October 1,2013 Mrs Mai Thi Dung started a hunger strike to protest the inhumane  treatment in Xuan Loc prison

On October2, 2013, the police ministry  moved Mrs. Dung to Thanh Xuan prison in Hanoi, which is about two-thousand kilometers (1250 miles) away from her home province An Giang.  On the entire journey, she was handcuffed to the ambulance and fainted many times.

As her health situation became  critical, she was transferred on October 11,2013 to a hospital, and there she was willing to stop her hunger strike

Until today , not being used to the cold weather of Nord Vietnam, Mrs. Dung’ s health went on deteriorating to the point her husband Buu fears that she may die in prison.

Detention far away from home is a very inhumane policy of the government to isolate the detenee , because she cannot be visited regularly by her family, which also causes shortages of medicines and supplement foods provided by the family. 

PETITION

Just because of her activities to advance freedom of religion, Mrs. Mai Thi Dung was wrongfully accused of “disturbing public peace” and has to endure two prison sentences totaling eleven years .

Her detention is a clear government violation of

-the right to freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration, -the right to personal security ,to freedom from torture and degrading treatments, -the right for a fair trial

as stated in Vietnam’s Constitution, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights, and in United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 

The government of Vietnam must:

1 . Immediately and unconditionally free Mrs. Mai Thi Dung.
2 . Immediately and independent of the date of her release,  Mrs. Mai Thi Dung must be treated for gallbladder stones, heart failure and neurasthenia in a hospital with specialist care. She must be transferred during treatment to a facility near her home in order for her family to take care of her.

 We recommend Dinh Thanh center in An Giang province. 

(Updated on April 22^nd, 2014)

      

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     Prisoner of Conscience Case Report

                                                      Victim:  Duong Thi Tron,

                      Chairwoman of the Women Committee in Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhism

NINE YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT FOR ADVOCATING FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN VIETNAM

Mrs. Duong Thi Tron,  born in 1947, used to reside in Hoa Tan hamlet, Tan Hoa Commune, Lai Vung dictrict, Dong Thap province.

She is the chairwoman of the Women Committee in Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhism and one of the Hoa Hao worshipers who, since 1975, have been actively struggling in the Mekong Delta area against religious persecution by the Vietnamese communist government.

Mrs. Tron and her husband, Mr.  Nguyen Van Tho, president of  the Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhism Association in Dong Thap province, were arrested on October 2, 2006 

She was prosecuted twice with the total conviction of nine years of imprisonment for “disturbing public peace” according to Article 245 of the Vietnamese Criminal Codes. Most of Hoa Hao worshipers who peacefully advocate for freedom of religion have been convicted of “disturbing public peace” or “obstruction of justice.”

Mrs. Duong Thi Tron’s first trial  in May 2007.  

She was arrested for objecting the government’s violation of religious freedom against Hoa Hao Buddhist worshipers.

Hoa Hao buddhists live in very close-knit communities,  often attend memorial ceremonies for  deceased relatives of fellow members as part of their religious activities. On May 24, 2006 while on her way home from a memorial ceremony in An  Giang province, Mrs. Duong Thi Tron and her fellows  were attacked by dozens of plain-clothed police from Lap Vo district and Lai Vung district in Dong Thap province.

The victims recognized their attackers as security agents who often spied on them before.  

On May 31, 2006 to protest against the disguised police’s attack, Mrs. Tron and her husband organized a hunger-strike at their home with a banner saying “16 persons on hunger strike to object the violation of religious freedom and  the violence against Hoa Hao worshipers by the communist government of Vietnam.  Free our fellow worshiper, Mr.  Nguyen Van Dien.”

They set up a shrine, used loudspeakers to convey their message protesting the police’s suppression of religious freedom for Hoa Hao worshipers, and declared willing to immolate themselves if the police launched an attack on their home.  

On October 2, 2006 Mrs. Tron and her husband were arrested while attending another memorial ceremony in Lai Vung district.   

In a trial closed to the public, the lower court of Dong Thap province convicted the defendants of “disturbing public peace” and sentenced to

-four years imprisonment for Mrs. Duong Thi Tron,

-six years for Mr. Nguyen Van Tho,

-six and a half years for Mr. Le Van Soc (arrested  on November 4, 2006)

-and five years for Mr. Nguyen Van Thuy  (arrested on November 20, 2006)

On July 23, 2007, the Appeal Court in Ho Chi Minh City confirmed all convictions and sentences by the lower court. In both of the trials, the defendants were not allowed to have legal representations, nor to defend themselves from the charges.They were only allowed to give “yes” or “no” answers to the questions of the judges.  

Mrs. Duong Thi Tron’s second trial  in September 2007.  

In 2007, Mrs. Duong Thi Tron had to stand another trial for participating in a demonstration of the

Hoa Hao Buddhist Association in 2001.

On March 17, 2001 Hoa Hao worshipers planned a demonstration  in Ho Chi Minh city to protest against suppression of religious freedom.  March 17  also coincided with the yearly memorial service for Hoa Hao Buddhism founder, Prophet Huynh Phu So. This yearly event is one of the core  activities of Hoa Hao Buddhism, which has been banned by the government of Vietnam since 1975.  

The demonstration was unsuccessful,  all participants being arrested right after they got to

Ho Chi Minh city.

After this failure, another group of Hoa Hao worshipers organized a new demonstration in Tan Hoi village, Vinh Long province. During this demonstration, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu set herself on fire to object the government’s continuous persecution of the Hoa Hao Buddhists. The sad case was reported by most news agencies including Reuters.
http://wwrn.org/articles/12404/?&section=buddhism

Mrs. Duong Thi Tron and a few other female Hoa Hao worshipers were accused of assisting Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu in her self- immolation.

The government of Vietnam confiscated the body of Mrs. Thu and declared her self-immolation for religious purpose as solely her murder, during which, according to the indictment, some worshipers carried Hoa Hao Buddhist flags and banners saying “Religious Freedom for Hoa Hao Worshipers,” “Freedom for Ut Dien,” and “ Long Live Hoa Hao Buddhism”  

Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu was the vice-chairwoman of the Women and Social Committee of the Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhism. It was not the first and only time she attempted to self-immolate.  In an attempt in 1999, Mrs. Thu mentioned in a letter the reason for her self-immolation as trying to object the government’s continuous suppression on religious freedom for Hoa Hao worshipers. 

On September19, 2007, the first instance court of Vinh Long province  trialed Mrs. Duong Thi Tron, Mrs. Mai Thi Dung, and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh for “murder” according to Article 93 in the Vietnamese Criminal Codes.  All three defendants had appointed defense attorneys.  At the end of the  trial, they were convicted of “disturbing public peace” according to Article 245 in the Vietnamese Criminal Codes, due to lack of evidence for murder convictions.

All the three women were sentenced to prison terms : five years for Mrs. Duong Thi Tron, six years for Mrs. Mai Thi  Dung, and two years for Mrs.  Nguyen Thi Thanh.  

Mrs. Duong Thi Tron is currently jailed in prison 5 of Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province.

This prison is about three hundred kilometers (approximately 190 miles) from her home. This long distance poses significant difficulties for her family to visit her and to provide supplemental foods and other necessities.  It takes about six hours to travel each way, and costs approximately three million Vietnamese Dongs (145 dollars) for each visit.  This cost is a serious challenge to her family as an average income of a peasant in this area is less than fifty dollars a month.  In addition, they have to spend one million Vietnamese Dongs (fifty dollars) on supplemental foods and make a monthly deposit of one million Vietnamese Dongs (fifty dollars) to the prison for miscellaneous expense for her.  

The purposes of sending the prisoners of conscience far away from their homes are to curtail information and to isolate them, in order for the police to assert more control on them, mentally and physically.

  

Since her arrest on October 2, 2006 Mrs. Duong Thi Tron’s health has been declining rapidly. Due to her age in addition to low blood pressure she often faints, especially in stress-situations or under abrupt weather changes. But very often she was denied necessary medical treatments because she has been steadily refusing to plead guilty,

PROPOSALS

The convictions of Mrs. Duong Thi Tron and her fellow Hoa Hao worshipers are obvious

violations of human rights including

-violations of religious freedom,

-violations of the freedom of assembly, and

-violationsof the freedom of self-defense

as guaranteed in the Constitution of Republic Socialist of Vietnam.

These infringements in addition to the act of sending prisoners too far away from their homes truly violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture of which Vietnam became a signatory in November 2013.  

The Government of Vietnam must:

1. Unconditionally free Mrs. Duong Thi Tron.

2. In the meantime,  Mrs. Duong Thi Tron must be moved back to the nearest prison in Cao Lanh city, which is under the jurisdiction of the Police Ministry.  

The government also must provide her the necessary medical treatment by a specialist.  

(Updated on March 8th, 2014)