The Court of Appeals under the Supreme People’s Court has upheld prisonsentences handed down on six defendants by the lower court on charges of"propaganda against the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam".
Thecourt sentenced Nguyen Xuan Nghia (born in 1949 in the northern port city of HaiPhong) to six years in prison; Nguyen Van Tuc (born in 1964 in the northernprovince of Thai Binh) to four years; Nguyen Van Tinh (born in 1942 in HaiPhong) and Nguyen Manh Son (born in 1943 in Hai Phong) each to three and a halfyears; Ngo Quynh (born in 1984 in the northern mountain province of Bac Giang)to three years; and Nguyen Kim Nhan (born in 1949 in Bac Giang) to two years.
All six will be kept under surveillance at their residence after servingtheir jail terms.
After the lower-court trial, the six convicts filedappeals to the Supreme People’s Court to ask for reduced sentences. Despiteacknowledging the fairness of the lower court ruling, Nguyen Xuan Nghia saidthat a six-year prison term was too heavy for him and asked for a reduction dueto his old age and poor health. His co-defendants also wanted to have their jailterms reduced because of poor health, limited political knowledge and in lightof certain contributions they made to society.
However, representativesof the Supreme People’s Procuracy confirmed that Nguyen Xuan Nghia, togetherwith his associates, hung up banners containing information against the State onthe Lach Tray flyover in Hai Phong city and Lai Cach flyover in Hai Duongprovince.
They also produced and stored materials that negated theVietnamese Communist Party’s leadership, called for a multi-party politicalsystem and libelled the government. They then uploaded these materials to theInternet or sent them to reactionary foreign newspapers.
Theseactivities violate the law, cause serious damage to the society and need to bestrictly punished, the prosecutors said.
The lower court trialthoroughly examined each case and each sentence as it related to each convict’sguilt and to Vietnamese law.
At the court of appeals, neither thedefendants nor their attorneys could furnish new information to support areduction in their punishments, and so it was determined that there was nofoundation for the convicts’ sentences to be reconsidered./.
Thecourt sentenced Nguyen Xuan Nghia (born in 1949 in the northern port city of HaiPhong) to six years in prison; Nguyen Van Tuc (born in 1964 in the northernprovince of Thai Binh) to four years; Nguyen Van Tinh (born in 1942 in HaiPhong) and Nguyen Manh Son (born in 1943 in Hai Phong) each to three and a halfyears; Ngo Quynh (born in 1984 in the northern mountain province of Bac Giang)to three years; and Nguyen Kim Nhan (born in 1949 in Bac Giang) to two years.
All six will be kept under surveillance at their residence after servingtheir jail terms.
After the lower-court trial, the six convicts filedappeals to the Supreme People’s Court to ask for reduced sentences. Despiteacknowledging the fairness of the lower court ruling, Nguyen Xuan Nghia saidthat a six-year prison term was too heavy for him and asked for a reduction dueto his old age and poor health. His co-defendants also wanted to have their jailterms reduced because of poor health, limited political knowledge and in lightof certain contributions they made to society.
However, representativesof the Supreme People’s Procuracy confirmed that Nguyen Xuan Nghia, togetherwith his associates, hung up banners containing information against the State onthe Lach Tray flyover in Hai Phong city and Lai Cach flyover in Hai Duongprovince.
They also produced and stored materials that negated theVietnamese Communist Party’s leadership, called for a multi-party politicalsystem and libelled the government. They then uploaded these materials to theInternet or sent them to reactionary foreign newspapers.
Theseactivities violate the law, cause serious damage to the society and need to bestrictly punished, the prosecutors said.
The lower court trialthoroughly examined each case and each sentence as it related to each convict’sguilt and to Vietnamese law.
At the court of appeals, neither thedefendants nor their attorneys could furnish new information to support areduction in their punishments, and so it was determined that there was nofoundation for the convicts’ sentences to be reconsidered./.
