March 17th, 2014phương-yên


My name is NGUYEN PHUONG UYEN, born in 1992.  My address is Lam Giang hamlet, Ham Tri commune, Ham Thuan Bac district, Binh Thuan province.

I hereby respectfully express:

1.         On May 16th, 2013, the People’s Court of Long An issued the initial verdict with serial number of 37/2013/HSST convicting me of “conducting propaganda against the Government of Republic Socialist of Vietnam.”

2.         In my disagreement with this verdict numbered 37/2013/HSST, I filed an appeal to overturn this conviction.  On August 16th, 2013, the Appeal Court of Ho Chi Minh city issued a verdict numbered 838/2013/HSPT.

3.         I have found that this verdict was not justified based on the information provided during this trial.  More specifically, I do not believe that I violated Article 88.2 of the Criminal Code for “conducting propaganda against the state”   The convictions from the preliminary hearing  in Long An province and Appeal Court in Ho Chi Ming city were entirely opinionated; both conclusions were unsubstantiated without any backing from legal evidences.

Furthermore, the information accompanied in these two verdicts was inaccurate including my admittance of guilt on violating Article 258 of Vietnam’s Criminal Codes (page 8 of verdict numbered 838/2013/HSPT.)  This conclusion was truly unjustified because I have never made such admittance nor agreed to the accusation that I “spread propaganda against the State”.  All of my words and actions have been completely relevant according to the current Constitution and Laws.  I, as a student and Vietnamese citizen, have the rights to “participate in the management of the governing process and social issues, discussing national and local concerns, and making proposals to governmental offices” as clearly stated in Article 53 of the 1992 version of the Constitution.  In addition, there were no government offices testified at my trial to confirm the fact that I spread information against them.  There were also no specific paradigms of how I infringed the laws nor any specific validation of damages resulting from the alleged violation.   There was a complete absence of evidences proving that I violated Article 63 of Vietnam’s Criminal Codes.   The verdicts themselves also contained discrepancies.   At one point it mentioned that I “requested for a reduction in sentencing” while it said I “pleaded innocent” at another (page 9.)    Page 8 of this verdict stated that:

“Defendant Nguyen Phuong Uyen testified (in court) that that defendant did not violated the law in Long An province; therefore Long An’s court did not have the jurisdiction to prosecute such case.  The defendant did not infringe against the government of Vietnam, instead she contested against Vietnamese Communist Party.  The Vietnamese Communist Party is not the government of Vietnam; therefore she did not breach Article 88 of Vietnam’s Criminal Codes.”

The 1985 version of Vietnam’s Criminal Codes contained Article 86 defining crimes against the “brotherhood socialist states”.   The 2000 version of Vietnam’s Criminal Codes discarded this article.  Article 2 of the current Criminal Codes affirms that “A person can only be convicted if he/she violates any law included in the Criminal Codes”, therefore my protest against China could not be classified as criminal.   The current Criminal Codes does not define any “crime against the Communist Party”.  I am not a Communist Party member, therefore my contest against the Vietnamese Communist Party could not be equated as infringing against the government of Vietnam.  Article 2 of the 1992 version of the Constitution defined that “the government of Republic Socialist of Vietnam is a government of the People, from the People, and for the People.   All the rights and powers of the government belong to the People.”  There was no indication of “the government belongs to the communist party; the rights and powers of the government belong to the communist party.”   The verdict displayed the following “use of two sheets of white fabric, blood-mixed-water solution, and hand drawing content slandering the Vietnamese Communist Party on one and about China on the other” (page 3), as evidence of committing crimes was unacceptable.

The government is actively fighting corruption and bureaucracy every day, every hour; and the Vietnamese people are passionately fighting China’s invasion of our territory.  My political expression in encouraging these fights should be respected instead of being criminalized.

The Appeal Court’s conviction associated with the verdict of three years on probation in addition of 10 months and 2 days of wrongful imprisonment was unscrupulous.  I hereby request all of the corresponding offices and agencies to review my case and return the innocence, dignity that I highly deserve.


After all of the facts that I have presented above, to honor the unbiased truth, to restore faith in the justice system, to protect citizens’ rights I respectfully propose:

–           The Supreme Court to review the Appeal Court’s verdict numbered 838/2013/HSPT.

–           The Supreme Court to overturn the Appeal Court’s verdict numbered 838/2013/HSPT and terminate the sentencing associated with this verdict.

Respectfully yours,