The defendants at the court (Photo: VNA) HCM City (VNA) – The High-LevelPeople’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City on March 18 upheld imprisonment penaltiesgiven to five defendants for “attempting to overthrow the people’sadministration”.
The defendants include Luu Van Vinh (born in1967, residing in Binh Tan district of HCM City), Nguyen Quoc Hoan (born in1977, residing in district 10 of HCM City), Nguyen Van Duc Do (born in 1975,residing in Tan Phu district of HCM City), Phan Trung (born in 1976, residingin Duc Trong district of Lam Dong province), and Tu Cong Nghia (born in 1993,residing in Ninh Thuan province).
According to the verdict of the first-instance trialon October 5, 2018, they established a reactionary organisation named “Lienminh dan toc Viet Nam” (Vietnam National Self-Determination Coalition) withVinh as its President. They defamed and distorted guidelines and policies ofthe Party and the State, aiming to abolish the leadership role of the CommunistParty of Vietnam and overthrow the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
As the mastermind, Vinh set forth the objectivesand orientations for operations of the group and lured people into thisorganisation.
Do, who was Vice President, worked actively todevelop the organisation. Meanwhile, Hoan and Trung served as advisors to Vinhin the group’s establishment. Nghia was in charge of “military affairs” andrecruiting people into the group.
They carried out various communicationsactivities to incite the public, coordinated with dissidents, and participatedin illegal demonstrations.
On October 30, 2016, they held a preparatorymeeting and agreed to announce the debut of the organisation at a church in TanBinh district of HCM City on November 6, 2016.
However, Vinh and Hoan were arrested by localpolice on November 6, 2016.
At the first-instance trial, the HCM CityPeople’s Court gave prison sentences of 15 years to Vinh, 13 years to Hoan, 11years to Do, 10 years to Nghia, and 8 years to Trung. They would be also keptunder surveillance after completing their jail sentences.
The defendants filed appeals. However, theappeal court stated that they failed to provide new circumstances, so theirappeals were groundless. It rejected the appeals and upheld the first-instancetrial’s sentences imposed on the five men.-VNA
VNA
