Le Thi Cong Nhan - Plea of her Mother
Defence for the lawyer Le Thi Cong Nhan who is to be tried in the Hanoi People?s Appeal Court on November 27, 2007
Plea of Mrs. Tran Thi Le, mother of the defendant
submitted to the Judging Committee of the People's Supreme Procuracy
Hanoi, November 16, 2007
|
Le Thi Cong Nhan, vietnamesische Menschenrechtsverteidigerin |
My name is Tran Thi Le, mother of lawyer Le Thi Cong Nhan. My daughter was arrested and temporarily detained by the Hanoi Public Security Police on March 6, 2007. On May 11, 2007, she was tried by the Court of First Instance of the Hanoi People's Court on the charge of violating Article 88 of the Vietnam Criminal Code.
On May 14, 2007, my daughter filed and the Appeal Court has accepted her appeal. Twice, I have filed appeals requesting the Court to allow me to defend for my daughter, as provided for by Article 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The first time, Mr. Nguyen Minh Man, deputy-judge replied (Doc. 1881/2007/PT dated 19/6/07) that I was not qualified to defend according to Paragraphs 1a and 1b of Article 56. On the second appeal, I asked to be a "people's defender" according to Paragraph 1c of Article 56, and the appeal has not been replied.
As the defendant's mother and a citizen of this country, I hereby submit this defence and plead the Court for consideration:
I. Comments on the Court of First Instance Trial:
Below are my comments relative to the trial:
1. The basic principles of criminal procedure were violated throughout the prosecutorial process, particularly the right to a presumption of innocence.
2. The trial was pronounced to be a public, open one.
Yet in reality, the public was not allowed to attend but the courtroom was crowded with security agents, both in uniform and plain clothes, as well as "guests" of the Court and of the police. The only relatives of the defendant allowed in attendance were Le Thi Cong Nhan's mother and Mrs. Nguyen Van Dai's wife. Defendant's friends and concerned public citizens were not admitted during the trial. Even Cong Nhan's sister Minh-Tam was detained at the Tran Hung Dao Ward police station, and was not released until 2 p.m. [of the trial date]
3. Defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan, although sick, had to wake up early to be escorted to the trial. She was hoarse and thus could not defend herself adequately.
4. Defendant's counsels were not allowed to finish their arguments in defence of their clients.
5. Witnesses of both Le Thi Cong Nhan and Nguyen Van Dai, especially witness Pham Van Troi, were not called up to testify.
6. The Court's audio systems were not on the same par: the court's audio for the presiding judge and prosecutors was very clear while the audio for the defendants was inaudible at times.
7. Despite the fact that the government has considered this a very serious case, the entire proceedings were too brief. All was completed within one morning, this was barely enough for the People's Procuracy to read the indictment, for the defendants' counsels to have a few opening words, and for the judge to pronounce the sentence. This sentence seemed to be prepared in advance per the order of his superior.
Therefore, in the upcoming Appeal Court trial, I ask that the above stated mistakes not be repeated to ensure a trial that is fair, just, open, and consistent with criminal procedures.
II. Arguments for defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan:
According to the sentence given by the Court of First Instance of the Hanoi People's Court, Le Thi Cong Nhan was found guilty of "spreading propaganda against the SRV," as stipulated in Paragraphs 1.a and 1.c, Article 88 of the Criminal Code, and she was sentenced to four (4) years of imprisonment to be followed by 3 years of house arrest upon completion of the jail term.
This sentence was based on Cong Nhan's participation in the Thang Tien Viet Nam (Vietnam Progression; VPP) Party, with its goal of "non-violent struggle", her joining Bloc 8406, as well as her human rights advocacy. The admissible evidence was 25 documents and one personal computer, which were confiscated in a police search of Cong Nhan's house in early February 2007.
It is my belief that Article 88, Section XI of the Criminal Code concerning "violations of national security" is unconstitutional. This article contradicts with Articles 50, 53 and 69 of the Vietnam Constitution of 1992. The 1992 Constitution explicitly states that: "In the Socialist Republic of Vietnam human rights in the political, civic, economic, cultural and social fields are respected. They are embodied in the citizen's rights and are determined by the Constitution and the law." It further states that: "The citizen shall enjoy freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, the right to be informed, and the right to assemble, form associations and hold demonstrations in accordance with the provisions of the law."
Furthermore, article 88, as it currently stipulates, is in serious violation of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam became a signatory in 1982. Article 19 of the Covenant clearly defines the right to freedom of speech and opinion.
The charges against defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan were that it was illegal for her to join the VPP and Bloc 8406, and to support their bylaws. As a matter-of-fact, the Constitution of 1992 clearly contains no article that prohibits activities of a political party, thus a citizen has the right to do what is not prohibited under the law. What she had done was to carry out her civil and political rights, as guaranteed by both the Constitution and the ICCPR, to which Vietnam is a signatory.
President Nguyen Minh Triet has stated that: "Dissent is a normal thing." The Vietnamese dictionary defines "dissent" as "having different opinions on the matter of national sovereignty and the political regime of a country in terms of both internal and external affairs." Cong Nhan's participation in the VPP and her other political activities, as mentioned in the preliminary trial sentence, highlights her dissent with the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). Why is it illegal for her to be in political disagreement? If so, would President Triet's above statement be wrong and worthless?
In this way, my daughter Le Thi Cong Nhan, having found to be violating Article 88 of the Criminal Code, was found guilty merely by virtue of an absurd law, a law that denies one?s fundamental rights. My daughter has not committed any acts against justice. All that she has done is to fight for the right cause with NON-VIOLENT means. As it was non-violence, she could not be accused of violating national security, according to Article 88, Section VI. All that my daughter Le Thi Cong Nhan did was to fight against a totalitarian rule which has led to countless injustice, corruption and multi-faced degradation in a communist society; she has absolutely no intention to oppose the SRV.
Henry David Thoreau once said: "It is thought that fighting injustice is justified when one takes advantage of political means to effect change while upholding and respecting the laws until they are changed. In the event that laws are obviously unjust and there is no available legislative process aimed at abolishing injustices, then the laws do not deserve to be respected. Let's violate those laws!"
Throughout the history of world revolutions such revolutionaries as Gandhi, Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and other Vietnamese , they are all known to have fought against unjust laws. If they did not, these unjust laws could have perpetuated and never been changed! Our country and theirs shall forever be immersed in ignorance, absurdity and oppression.
We must be aware that Vietnam accessed the ICCPR as early as 1982 but not until June 2005 Vietnam proclaimed the Law on Signing, Accession and Implementation of International Treaties, part of which reads as follows:
Article 4 - Governmental management of the signing, accession and implementation of international treaties.
2. Organize and guarantee the implementation of international treaties.
3. Publicize and propagate international treaties to which Vietnam is a State party.
4. Publicize, propagate and interpret the implementation of State laws concerning the signing, accession and implementation of international treaties.
Article 6 - International treaties and State regulations
1. In the event that Vietnamese legislation conflicts with international treaties to which Vietnam is a State party, then the regulations of international treaties apply.
2. The passage of laws and regulations shall not interfere with the implementation of international treaties to which Vietnam is a State party concerning corresponding matters.
The above referenced laws ascertain that an international treaty to which Vietnam is a signatory has higher legal values and Vietnam will consequently have to honour it over any of its own corresponding laws. As Article 88 of the Criminal Code is contrary to the Vietnam Constitution as well as the ICCPR, the article must be therefore abolished.
As Cong Nhan majored in international law at the Hanoi School of Law, she is fully aware of these issues. If she publicized 'human rights issues' among her college students, then all that she did was in full conformity with the stipulations of the above laws.
- How could the sentence against Cong Nhan be drawn up that she was in violation of these laws?
- How would you explain to college students that although Vietnam is a signatory to the ICCPR the CPV understands human rights differently from what the rest of the world does? Or shall we tell the students that Vietnam has signed on to these treaties only to demonstrate concerns for freedom and human rights as a "pretence" in order to gain international support?
- As a student, how would one know to differentiate between matters of "theory" and matters that are to be carried out from out teaching?
- How would an ordinary citizen be expected to show trust in both the law and government?
For all that Le Thi Cong Nhan did was to impart her knowledge of human rights, she was charged with criminal infractions. As a practicing attorney, Le Thi Cong Nhan knows fully well the social responsibilities of an attorney in society, as stipulated in Article 3, Lawyers Code of 2006, which reads: " to contribute to the protection of justice and economic development, and to build a just, democratic and civilized society." Indeed, that was exactly what Cong Nhan did before she was temporarily detained.
It is in my opinion, therefore, that it is the police, the court and this current government who are in violation of their own laws, e.g. the Constitution of 1992, as well as the ICCPR, to which Vietnam has accessed.
I think this government will have to promptly carry out what it has signed on to; otherwise, the world community may deem with disregard Vietnam as a worthless signatory. As a result, the suspecting world would definitely subject Vietnam to closer monitoring, thus leading to possible sanctions and inevitable consequences. Don't you think that we could forever fight the world on these issues?
In conclusion, my daughter must be cleared of all charges. Le Thi Cong Nhan is genuinely dissenting from the CPV, a point that President Triet has declared to be a "normal fact of life."
Former Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet also stated that there are not only Communists who are patriots but also other patriots who are nonetheless non-Communist.
As a mother, I wish to reinstate that my daughter is a patriot. All that she has done is to build a better Vietnam for all.
I hereby ask that the Appeal Court's Judging Committee, for the sake of conscience and responsibility, illuminate justice and hold a fair trial by freeing my daughter in order to rebuild trust in the people, especially in the youths who have the courage to express their political opinions as their contributions to future Vietnam.
Tran Thi Le
Mother of lawyer Le Thi Cong Nhan
