Former deputy of Hanoi Bar Association faces seven years in prison for a single Facebook post
Background
On January 9, 2025, Tran Dinh Trien, former deputy director of the Hanoi Bar Association, will stand trial for “abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the State, lawful rights and interests of organizations and/or citizens” under Article 331 of Vietnam’s criminal code. Trien was arrested on the same day as Truong Huy San, Vietnam’s most prominent independent journalist, one week after To Lam became state president in May 2024. If convicted, Trien faces up to seven years in prison.
Project88 obtained a copy of the criminal investigation report and the indictment after Nguyen Duy Binh, Trien’s lawyer shared it on his Facebook page. The documents reveal that Trien was arrested because of a Facebook post he made on April 23, 2024, in which he criticized Nguyen Hoa Binh, chief justice of Vietnam’s supreme court, for his administration of justice, interpretation of criminal law, and over-reliance of confessions as a form of evidence.
Who is Tran Dinh Trien?
Trien was the deputy director of the Hanoi Bar Association from 2013 to 2018. He founded the Vi Dan (“for the people”) Law Firm in 2006, which works to ‘protect and implement justice, especially for disadvantaged and mistreated people.’
Throughout his career, Trien has put Vi Dan’s mission into practice. In 2010, Trien defended two women who were criminally prosecuted for their involvement in a child sex trafficking ring even though they were victims of the ring. The operation, which was run by a high school principal in Ha Giang province, trafficked and sold minors to powerful men, including Nguyen Truong To, deputy party boss of Ha Giang province. Due to Trien’s defense, the court requested that the police re-investigate the case. Ultimately, the women were acquitted, the principal was sentenced to nine years in prison, and the party boss was removed from office.
Then, in 2016, Trien protested Vietnam’s treatment of lawyers and petitioned the National Assembly to create stronger protections for lawyers. Specifically, Trien complained that lawyers are prevented from effectively participating in legal proceedings because:
- Lawyers are often not invited by police to protect their client’s rights during interrogations.
- Lawyers are frequently denied requests to meet with their clients, making it difficult to prepare an adequate defense.
- Vietnamese authorities accuse lawyers of being anti-state dissidents due to the clients that they take on to defend. As such, many lawyers are reluctant to take on certain cases, preventing people from obtaining legal counsel.
What is Tran Dinh Trien accused of?
The indictment states that the supreme court reported Trien to the police after he posted an article that ‘contains content that affects the reputation of the supreme people’s court and the chief justice of the supreme people’s court personally’. Specifically, the court alleged that:
‘The content of the article related to the work of the People’s Court system and the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court on Facebook by the account named “Tran Dinh Trien” is fabricated content, not true. The act of posting untrue information on Facebook is the act of fabricating and spreading false information to seriously insult the dignity, honor, and reputation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court, seriously affecting the reputation of the Supreme People’s Court and the People’s Court system in general.
Thus, Tran Dinh Trien wrote and posted the article “Nguyen Hoa Binh – The best things about being a Chief Justice,” with many contents that infringe upon the rights and legitimate interests of the People’s Court system, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court personally, causing negative impacts on security, order, and social safety. The above behavior of defendant Tran Dinh Trien violated the crime of “abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the State, lawful rights and interests of organizations and/or citizens” as prescribed in Clause 2, Article 331 of the criminal code.’
After the police initiated a criminal investigation into the matter, an assessment by the Ministry of Information and Communications, the ministry responsible for regulating social media, concluded that:
The article “Nguyen Hoa Binh—The best things about being Chief Justice,” posted on April 23, 2024, on the Facebook page “Tran Dinh Trien” has content that affects the reputation, infringes on the rights and legitimate interests of the Court system and the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court, has 1,400 likes, 10 comments, 136 shares of the article—causing negative impacts on security, order, and social safety.
Based on this assessment, the prosecutor recommended that Trien be criminally prosecuted. He was arrested on June 1, 2024, and his trial is set to take place over two days starting on January 9, 2025. In a show of support, 12 lawyers have registered to defend Trien at his trial.
Trien’s prosecution in light of human rights law
Vietnam’s criminal prosecution of Trien for a Facebook post that he made about a public official does not meet the most basic human rights standards. International law is protective of open political debate and the right of people to criticize public officials. The UN Human Rights Committee has written:
‘The free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates, and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues and to inform public opinion without censorship or restraint.’
The UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly have emphasized that the right to freedom of expression applies to online expression. Frank La Rue, former UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, stated that attempts by states to restrict, control, manipulate, and censor content disseminated via the internet, if enacted through vague laws without legal justification, are violations of international law.
It is widely acknowledged in international law that public officials must tolerate a greater degree of criticism than private individuals. According to Abid Hussain, another former UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, governments must ensure that defamation laws are not abused by public officials, because defamation laws “should never be used to prevent criticism of government” and “should reflect the principle that public figures are required to tolerate a greater degree of criticism than private citizens.”
Under international law, restrictions on expression are only permissible in certain, narrow circumstances. Article 19 of the ICCPR outlines a three-part test that restrictions on this right must satisfy to be permissible. First, a restriction must be provided by law. That is, it must be set down in formal legislation and must not be vague. Second, any restriction on expression must be necessary for the protection of national security, public order, public health, public morals, or the rights of others. Third, and finally, a restriction must be a necessary and proportionate means of achieving one of the permissible justifications outlined above.
The way Hanoi applies Article 331 is in violation of international law. Because the language is so vague, it is impossible for people to know precisely what is impermissible. Due to this, Article 331 grants the Vietnamese authorities unfettered discretion. The language is not precise enough to enable an individual to know how to regulate their conduct to comply with the law.
In addition, while it is permissible for Vietnam to restrict speech to protect national security or uphold public order, that is not how Vietnamese authorities have used Article 331. International law makes clear that criticism of the state, government, agencies, or officials are not legitimate threats to national security. Further, protection of public orderpermits restrictions on expression when necessary for public welfare and social order of a state. As such, the use of Article 331 to arrest Trien cannot be justified on national security or public order grounds.
Project88 has documented many instances of Article 331 being applied to silence legitimate dissent. The use of Article 331 as a catch-all charge highlights how it is not narrowly tailored to protect any other government interest, as required by international law.
An illegitimate trial and a dangerous precedent
The charges against Trien violate international law. Trien is being criminally prosecuted for criticizing a public official, an impermissible restriction on speech. If convicted, Trien’s prosecution will set a dangerous precedent for other lawyers in Vietnam. It will also have a chilling effect on the general population, who will be less likely to voice criticism of their unelected leaders and government officials on social media.
The arrest comes at a time when human rights lawyers are under attack in the country. Since 2022, the Vietnamese government has issued multiple summonses for questioning to at least five human rights lawyers after they defended members of a Buddhist monastery. Three of the lawyers were forced to flee Vietnam after warrants were issued for their arrests. This criminalization of human rights lawyering is yet another dimension of Vietnam’s new wave of repression.