After the shamed cassation hearing of the 17-member council, which the public named disparagingly as “the board of cutting boards,” the ordinary people, the jurisprudence, National Assembly (NA)’s members spoke up, the lawyer submitted a series of testimonies about Ho Duy Hai’s alibi and evidence falsifying the case files. But after 5 months, after 2 sessions, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan, chairwoman of the National Assembly said anxiously to wait for the conclusions of the competent agencies. Who is that agency while the Law on Criminal Procedure stipulates that it is the responsibility of the NA’s Standing Committee?
On November 24, answering questions to Can Tho voters, NA’s Chairwoman Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan was confused about the Ho Duy Hai case “…. because of different opinions, after the cassation hearing, the NA’s Standing Committee has asked the relevant authorities to reconsider, therefore, the case has not yet executed the sentence, but injustice or not, the voters are asked to wait for the conclusions of the competent authorities which take responsibility to the Party, the State and the people for the exercise of judicial power.” (1)
Voters know, NA’s members know, only the NA’s Chairwoman does not know !!!
Ms. Kim Ngan’s answer was emotionless, dishonest, like a cow chewing on a haystack. Five months ago, on June 24, also in Can Tho, there were more than 300 voters who are retired officials, and NA’s Chairwoman Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan also said that “The case is being considered, so there is no basis to say injustice or injustice. Voters leave the agency responsible for review and will report.”
Which are the authorities, the competent agency that Mrs. Kim Ngan mentioned? Is it on a very distant planet that hasn’t been reported in the past five months? In another passage, Ms. Kim Ngan admitted “this is a complicated case, lasting 11 years. This case has been supervised and reported by the NA’s Standing Committee. However, just then, after the cassation session, the public opinion has had many different opinions, with right opinions, with unfair opinions. Therefore, the Standing Committee instructs the Judiciary Committee to review the inspection report so that the responsible agencies can sit back and listen to the report. It turned out that authority was her own organ. And is she waiting for the report or has it already been reported that she deliberately avoided?
According to the official information from the State media, in addition to the shortcomings and violations of the proceedings of the Jurisdictional Court of the Chopping Board, in the past 5 months, there have been many more petitions, new developments, and evidence proving Ho Duy Hai’s injustice as well as the mistakes of state agencies including the police, the procuracy and the court.
First of all, the agency assigned by Mrs. Kim Ngan to review it has considered. On the morning of June 16, the NA’s Judiciary Committee held a plenary session on the cassation decision of the Ho Duy Hai case of the Supreme Court of Judges. The majority of members of the Judiciary Committee assessed that violations in the process of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of the Ho Duy Hai case are serious, possibly changing the nature of the case.
In particular, the members discussed the correctness and lawfulness of the cassation decision. Therefore, these members propose to the NA’s Standing Committee to reconsider the cassation decision according to their competence in Article 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (3)
Also according to the press, on October 25, according to the set of voter petitions settlement results sent before the 9th session by the Volunteer Committee of the NA’s Standing Committee, there were 14 voters’ opinions having an interest in the Ho Duy Hai case, including voters in Hanoi, HCM City, Da Nang, An Giang, Vinh Phuc, Dak Lak, Binh Phuoc, Binh Duong, and Long An.
The Judicial Committee said that during the 13th National Assembly term, the NA’s Supreme Supervisory Team on the unjust situation, wrong in the application of criminal law, criminal proceedings reported to the National Assembly on the case.
In order to comprehensively consider issues related to the case, the NA’s Standing Committee assigned the Judicial Committee to study. The Judicial Committee has held a committee meeting and is reporting research results to competent authorities.”(4)
So the Judiciary Committee reported on October 25, this Committee and Ms. Kim Ngan working together in the same National Assembly building, where did the report go but she did not receive it?
Not only the Judicial Committee, but the Supreme People’s Procuracy also had the same opinion, on the afternoon of July 21, on the occasion of the press conference to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the people’s procuracy, responding to the press, Mr. Ho Duc Anh – Director of the Department exercising prosecution rights and prosecuting criminal trials – affirmed that protesting the cassation review of Ho Duy Hai case is “grounded, legal, absolutely necessary.”
According to Mr. Duc Anh, this is a particularly serious case with two people killed. The Procuracy found that the process of handling the case from investigation and adjudication had many errors, contradictions, many important facts proving that the offense has not been clarified by the local procedural agency.
After the cassation review session, the Procuracy has reported to the President and the NA’s Standing Committee to monitor and direct the case. The content of this report affirms that the protest is based on the right law, right authority and absolutely necessary.
Mr. Duc Anh added that so far, the Procuracy is concentrating on studying cassation decisions, and at the same time monitoring opinions and recommendations if any from relevant agencies.
The view point of the head Supreme People’s Procuracy is to exercise the right to petition the Supreme Court of Judges to review the cassation review decision of the Ho Duy Hai case in accordance with Article 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code (5)
New discovery of dozens of false evidence
It is even more remarkable that, after the trial of the Cassation Review, a lot of important documents of the case have been marked with a pen mark left out of the case file, most of these documents are evidence. benefit, even just an alibi of Ho Duy Hai. On October 26, 2020, Lawyer Tran Hong Phong and his family continued to have a petition for Ho Duy Hai & denunciation for falsifying the case files and appeal for another cassation hearing.
This petition continues to analyze the procedural violations in the previous case file, the external evidence of Ho Duy Hai, especially adding many new facts and comments.
In the application referenced and attached 13 very important pyrotechnics removed from the case file, including the first testimony of Ho Duy Hai (pleading not guilty), testimonies of witnesses Dinh Van Cau, Le Thanh Tri, Ho Van Binh determined to see another young man, not Ho Duy Hai, at the Cau Voi Post Office before the case happened. Newly reappeared photographs of the scene examination and field experiments showed serious mistakes such as the blood cutting board just below the victim’s head that was not seized, the site of the markers was rearranged, The victim’s wound showed that the perpetrator was left-handed, Ho Duy Hai was right-handed, so he could not be killer, etc.
Especially the only witness in the case, Dinh Vu Thuong, has filed an investigation denunciation against forged signature and incorrect content of testimony. Mr. Thuong only saw a young man, could not recognize who he was, nor know Ho Duy Hai’s face. Witness Nguyen Mi Sol also wrote to confirm having met Nguyen Van Nghi.
From these evidences, the application made three requests: the first was to settle Ho Duy Hai injustice, according to the procedures specified in Article 404 of the Criminal Code.
Second, before the violations of blatantly falsifying case files, put out more than 10 pens, correct testimonies, forge signatures…. The lawyer requested to prosecute the case of falsifying the case file with the first-instance investigation agency and the person directly involved is investigator Le Thanh Trung,
Thirdly, before many new circumstances have arisen such as the left-handed perpetrator, many witnesses identified many other young people present at the scene, … the lawyer requested reopening of the case.
This application was sent to the proceedings and the Judiciary Committee, NA’s Standing Committee from October 26, published in many mainstream newspapers and publicly available on the blog of lawyer Phong (6) Ms. Kim Ngan cannot say that he does not know this information.
Ho Duy Hai died for promotion of Chief of Supreme People’s Court Nguyen Hoa Binh
Argument of Chairwoman of the National Assembly Kim Ngan unjust or not waiting for the authorities to report, is not sincere and disappointing. The most obvious and most worrying thing of this case is the intentional, blatant violation of the law by all three procedural bodies from first instance, appeal to the supreme level. The problem to be solved is not only resolving the injustice for Ho Duy Hai but also redeeming the judiciary that is being trampled by the judicial officials. There is a need to stop intentionally falsifying records, falsifying evidence to compel judges, judicial status on charges based on false records and forced confession. Chief Justice Nguyen Hoa Binh boasted to the National Assembly of Ho Duy Hai that there were 25 confessions of guilt, but forgetting that Nguyen Thanh Chan had up to 50 confessions of guilt although he did not commit the crime.
Why did Mrs. Kim Ngan avoid solving Ho Duy Hai case when according to Article 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is the responsibility of the NA’s Standing Committee?
Is it because Nguyen Hoa Binh has installed all the members of the Council of the People’s Court of the People’s Court to the first cassation hearing so for the second cassation hearing there is a need to appoint new judges for new council whic is impossible for the going term?
Is it because the path of progression at the 13th National Congress of Truong Hoa Binh and Nguyen Hoa Binh – two “evil perpetrators” have signed a decision proposing to reject the amnesty petition, denied to appeal against the judgment, have repeatedly issued before the NA with the argument around “wrong but does not affect the nature of the case.”
During the 13th National Assembly term, the NA’s Judiciary Committee has monitored, reported dozens of violation points of the case file but with the power and promotion of two senior officials named Binh, the NA’s Standing Committee does not recommend cassation. Is this going to be repeated by history?
Will Ho Duy Hai continue to be a death row inmate and pave the way for Truong Hoa Binh to advance as the country’s President or Prime Minister? Will other heads of state dare to shake hands with the killer bloody hands with national power?
Returning to Mrs. Kim Ngan, please pay attention to the enthusiastic words of voter Nguyen Van Hanh (81 years old, living in Ward 22, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City) sent her and President Nguyen Phu Trong: “If state agencies continue their irresponsibility in sentencing people to death like in the case of Ho Duy Hai, this is the sadness and omen of the people and for the judiciary of the country.”