A week before the Appeal hearing of the Dong Tam case, 14 lawyers defending the six land petitioners in the case sent a 31-page petition to the authorities asking for clarification of many errors and violations which seriously affect the outcome of the court’s final decisions.
The case is particularly serious
According to lawyers, the case of “murder” and “resisting on-duty state officials” happened in Hoanh village, Dong Tam commune, My Duc district, Hanoi in the early morning of January 9, 2020. The case is particularly serious, not only reflected in the number of deaths in this case but its formidable influence on the majority of the Vietnamese population.
This case also has a significant impact on the image of the country and the Vietnamese political institution towards international friends and its relations with major countries in the world.
Therefore, the lawyers have outlined and analyzed 8 main contents and requested and proposed the Appeal Panel pay special attention to clarification in the appeal hearing.
The Dong Tam case related to a land dispute between the people and the government occurred when the Hanoi government mobilized thousands of riot policemen to attack Dong Tam, killing local communal leader Le Dinh Kinh. Three police officers involved in the attack were reportedly killed also.
According to lawyer Ha Huy Son, who defends two of the six defendants land petitioners, said it was most necessary to organize experiments on the scene to determine the cause of the death of three police officers. From that point on, it can be made the conclusion whether the defendants committed murder or not:
“I am most interested in returning the files to organize an experiment on how the three police officers died.
According to the records and investigation conclusions, it is unreasonable that three policemen fell into the pit but burned to the ground with the amount of gasoline and described it as unreasonable. I think the key is here and needs to be clarified.”
Lawyer Dang Dinh Manh said all points listed in the lawyers’ petition need to be clarified to ensure a fair judgment:
“We take all of those things are essential. We want to have all 8 points resolved, without excluding one.”
Attorney’s judgment on the results of the appeal hearing
According to the announcement, the appeal hearing will take place from March 8, 2021. Because there are still too many details of the case that are still ambiguous and contradictory, lawyer Manh said that the best result is that the Court of Appeal cancels the results of the first-instance hearing’s judgment, requesting re-investigation from the beginning:
“Ideally, we want the appeal hearing to cancel the first-instance hearing’s judgment and return the investigation file from the beginning, which adds the content that the lawyers raised.
I’m not too hopeful about that either, but to the extent, we can ask for and believe it to be true and have a legal basis, we have to push it to the end.”
Mr. Ha Huy Son said his two clients should have lighter sentences. In particular, Mr. Bui Viet Hieu did not commit murder because he was not present at the place where three police officers died:
“I protect Mr. Bui Viet Hieu and Ms. Bui Thi Noi. I hope Ms. Noi will be released, on probation.
As for the defendant, Hieu should not be charged with murder because he did not know how the three police officers died. At that time, he was staying with Mr. Kinh in the latter’s house, so he did not know what happened next door, where three policemen died. So I think Mr. Hieu had nothing to do with the murder.”
Eight main contents were requested to be investigated
- Regarding the area of defense land: The lawyers commented, “During the investigation, prosecution and adjudication process, the defendants rarely have the opportunity to present content related to the origin of the land of Dong Senh where the land dispute takes place. Does the disputed land belong to the army or not?
It is, therefore, necessary to summon a number of people involved in the Hanoi City Inspectorate’s Inspection Results, the Government Inspectorate, the Ministry of Defense representative, and other witnesses who were former Dong Tam leaders over time, to clarify the content related to the origin of the disputed land.”
- On whether or not the government holds a dialogue with the people of Dong Tam:
No proper dialogue has been held so that people are frustrated and have no opportunity to express their attitudes and prove that their points are correct. Lack of such dialogues caused conflicts to accumulate for a long time
Lawyers requested the appeal panel to summon relevant people including Mr. Nguyen Duc Chung (former chairman of the Hanoi People’s Committee), who was present at most of the events in Dong Tam from April 2017 up to now, Mr. Nguyen Van Thanh (Inspector General of the Government), National Assembly deputies Duong Trung Quoc, Luu Binh Nhuong, and Do Van Duong, etc.
- Regarding the plan to mobilize the police force to ensure security and order in the building of the Mieu Mon state wall
The lawyers requested to publicize the “Plan 419A to ensure security and order in Hoanh village” dated January 2, 2020, to clarify that the mobilization of Hanoi City Police forces to ensure security and order in the construction of the fence of Mieu Mon airport a “front line” for a careful plan to attack and arrest people of the “Consensus Team.”
When is the 419A plan available? Which level is approved? Is its purpose only to ensure public orders or to arrest Mr. Kinh and his people? Why must protect Hoanh village? The fence of Mieu Mon airport is in a remote place, why not gather there? Furthermore, in order to enter the construction area of Mieu Mon airport, there are many different roads, it is not necessary to go through Hoanh village. The police force broke into and attacked Mr. Kinh’s home at midnight without permission and violated the provisions protected by the constitution and the law.
The clarification of this plan also proves the role of the Hanoi police, in this case, to clearly verify that the Hanoi Police are eligible for investigating the case since they were involved in the bloody attack.
- About the circumstances and the cause of the death of 3 police officers
With this situation, the lawyers suggested that it be necessary to re-experiment the overall scene, paying special attention to the cause of the deaths of three police officers who fell into the pit.
The statements of the defendants and policemen contradict each other. There are a number of testimonies that benefit the defendants but have not been checked, making the truth about the cause of the deaths of three police officers still unknown.
Therefore, it is necessary to summon soldiers to witness the incident of their comrades falling into the hole to confront the defendants in court.
- About the wound on the body Mr. Bui Viet Hieu, Le Dinh Chuc, Le Dinh Uy, and Bui Thi Noi
These four land petitioners defendants have very heavy wounds with bullets or beatings. According to Mr. Bui Viet Hieu’s testimony, he was shot two times in his chest and leg. He unexpectedly escaped death. Ms. Bui Thi Noi testified at the trial of the first-instance hearing that she was shot and later was dragged out and brutally beaten.
However, the indictment as well as the case files removed the content related to the injuries of these defendants.
Therefore, the lawyers proposed “An independent and objective investigation is required to clarify whether or not the use of weapons indiscriminately at the people, even though these people do not have weapons to fight back and have no potential to endanger the police force.”
The appeal panel needs to summon people directly involved in the morning sweep on January 9, 2020, to clarify which individuals have caused the injuries to the defendants. At the same time, it must create conditions for the defendants to prove their testimonies to clarify the truth.
- About Mr. Kinh’s behavior and death
In this section, the lawyers pointed out many contradictions and irrationalities in the investigation conclusion and the indictment of Le Dinh Kinh’s death on the morning of January 9 compared to reality.
According to the Indictment, Mr. Kinh was shot two times from the back about 2 to 2.5 meters. But autopsy results showed that the shells were fired from the front, front to back. This also coincided with the testimony of Mr. Bui Viet Hieu at the trial that “Mr. Kinh was shot right in front of Mr. Hieu, the shooter stood about a meter in front of Mr. Kinh, the barrel of a gun as big as his wrist was aimed directly at his chest. Kinh was shot directly, not from behind. Mr. Kinh fell to death in front of me. After that, the sniffing dog pulled the body of Mr. Kinh and dragged it away.”
Thus, it is necessary to determine whether Mr. Kinh really carried out the act of fighting against the functional forces and whether the killing of Mr. Kinh was in accordance with the law or not.
The petition requires the Panel to summon people related to the death of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh to the trial to clarify whether the decision to shoot and kill him is correct or not, is directed in the 419A plan or not, just arose at that time.
In addition, the court is requested to consider transferring the case to the agency competent to prosecute the murder case according to the denunciation and the prosecution proposal of Ms. Du Thi Thanh, the wife of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh.
- Regarding the origin of the reportage, clips recorded the defendant’s confession
According to the lawyers, in the litigation section, the court shows the reports made by reporters in the direction of accusing Mr. Kinh without going through a trial. The court used the reports as evidence to accuse other defendants and it is the basic inadequacy of evidence.
Displaying clips, images, and sounds that are linked to the defendants’ testimony just before the start of the interrogation session is a way to overwhelm the defendants, in order to paralyze their protests.
If these documents are still kept, the Panel should summon the people who filmed and staged the clip content for the defendants and defendants’ lawyers to question.
- About some violations related to procedural proceedings/infringement of judicial activities.
The lawyers pointed out that during the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of the Dong Tam case, there were many signs that the defendants were beaten and tortured for forced confession.
Ms. Bui Thi Noi and Mr. Le Dinh Cong both told the court that during their detention, they were beaten daily for coercive confession.
In the last words before the end of the debate turns to deliberation, many defendants have the same final speech. Even word by word, according to a common motif: “recognizing mistakes…, repenting…, thank police officers in prison number 2 for educating them to recognize their wrongdoings, sympathy for the three police officers’ families please alleviate the sentence … ”
Therefore, it is necessary to convene investigators to participate in the investigation of the case to clarify the issues raised in investigation conclusions, indictments, and first-instance judgments because it has clear signs of non-reflection, objectively and honestly compared to the reality that happened.
Lawyers are also restricted from practicing their practice because they cannot copy the case files until the scheduled hearing of the case; when a lawyer meets a client at a detention center, a supervisor and prison officer are always present. The visits and exchanges are always monitored and reminded; there are signs that many defendants are forced to refuse the lawyers who were hired by their families to protect them. In addition, during the first-instance hearing, the panel restricted the attorneys’ right to speak with their clients, saying it is not necessary.
In addition, the lawyers also suggested the agencies consider and create conditions for the relatives of the defendants to enter the courtroom to observe the hearing. They also suggested the presence of domestic and foreign news agencies in the courtroom to publicly report on the case to expand public opinion, avoid speculation about a “pocket” judgment such as some unorthodox news sites went viral.
The defense attorneys confirmed that as of March 7, no agency has responded to their petition.
Thoibao.de (Translated)
