The trial was carefully scheduled to be held at the same time with the ordination ceremony of the new Auxiliary Bishop of Hanoi, and not at a court but at an office with a limited number of selected attendances.
The right to be tried publicly of Thai Ha parishioners, who were wrongfully accused of “damaging state property and disorderly conduct” during their protests at Thai Ha parish, is violated. Le Tran Luat, a defense counsel who represents eight Thai Ha’s parishioners, stated in an interview with Radio Free Asia (RFA) on Nov. 25.
Le noticed that the trial was scheduled to be held on Dec. 5, right on the day priests, religious and faithful of Hanoi would gather in Nam Dinh, 90 km away from Hanoi, for the ordination ceremony of the new Auxiliary Bishop of Hanoi Laurent Chu Van Minh. Obviously, Vietnam government does not want to cope with a huge protest outside the court.
In addition, “They will not try at the premise of Hanoi court but on the fourth floor of a building claimed as the office of the People’s Committee of O Cho Dua, a precinct of Dong Da district, Hanoi”, he added.
Furthermore, “According to Vietnam’s law, the trial must be public. Everyone above 16 years old should be able to attend,” he explained. “However, in this case, People’s Court of Hanoi ordered that except defendants and their lawyers, anyone wish to attend the trial must submit an application form. It obviously offends the principle of public trial, and suggests that Hanoi’s government clearly wants to limit the number of attendances,” he warned.
“I wish domestic and international public opinion support me and defendants by raising their voice to reveal the true nature of the government of Vietnam. While stating that this is a public trial, they have actually carried out plans to make it a secret one,” he asked.
A day earlier, on Nov. 24, Le complained with the BBC that he had not been able to meet with Mrs. Nguyen Thi Nhi and Mrs. Ngo Thi Dung. The two have been jailed at Hoa Lo prison for months.
“To those, who are out awaiting their trial, I am allowed by the Investigative Bureau to meet with them from the beginning of the case. However, for any other motions filed, I have not been granted, claiming that since I was not their lawyer at the time I would not be able to see my clients in jail. But, when I brought in my Certification of Representation in, they would employ other tactics including coercing the defendants into refusing to meet with me as their defender,” Le said.
 |
| Crying for injustice outside People's Court of Hanoi |
Le noticed that the trial was scheduled to be held on Dec. 5, right on the day priests, religious and faithful of Hanoi would gather in Nam Dinh, 90 km away from Hanoi, for the ordination ceremony of the new Auxiliary Bishop of Hanoi Laurent Chu Van Minh. Obviously, Vietnam government does not want to cope with a huge protest outside the court.
In addition, “They will not try at the premise of Hanoi court but on the fourth floor of a building claimed as the office of the People’s Committee of O Cho Dua, a precinct of Dong Da district, Hanoi”, he added.
Furthermore, “According to Vietnam’s law, the trial must be public. Everyone above 16 years old should be able to attend,” he explained. “However, in this case, People’s Court of Hanoi ordered that except defendants and their lawyers, anyone wish to attend the trial must submit an application form. It obviously offends the principle of public trial, and suggests that Hanoi’s government clearly wants to limit the number of attendances,” he warned.
“I wish domestic and international public opinion support me and defendants by raising their voice to reveal the true nature of the government of Vietnam. While stating that this is a public trial, they have actually carried out plans to make it a secret one,” he asked.
A day earlier, on Nov. 24, Le complained with the BBC that he had not been able to meet with Mrs. Nguyen Thi Nhi and Mrs. Ngo Thi Dung. The two have been jailed at Hoa Lo prison for months.
“To those, who are out awaiting their trial, I am allowed by the Investigative Bureau to meet with them from the beginning of the case. However, for any other motions filed, I have not been granted, claiming that since I was not their lawyer at the time I would not be able to see my clients in jail. But, when I brought in my Certification of Representation in, they would employ other tactics including coercing the defendants into refusing to meet with me as their defender,” Le said.