Vietnam court postpones retrial for 6 veterans claiming wrongful conviction for third time

A provincial court in Lam Dong has postponed the third appellate trial for six former soldiers who have maintained their innocence for 11 years regarding charges of forest destruction. The trial, initially set for June 2, was delayed at the request of the defense.

Lawyer Dr. Nguyen Thi Kim Vinh, a former Supreme People's Court judge, argued for the postponement, citing the need to summon additional expert witnesses from the former Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. She highlighted discrepancies between the ministry's expert conclusion, which she claims favored the defendants, and another expert's findings used by the lower court. The lawyer stressed that ensuring the veterans' rights required further clarification.

This case has drawn attention from high-level officials. General Be Xuan Truong, a National Assembly delegate and chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Association, previously sent a letter to the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuracy. He urged for an objective resolution, noting the defendants' service and contributions to the country, and stating that the alleged actions were not driven by personal gain. He emphasized the need for extreme caution to prevent miscarriages of justice.

The appellate court accepted the lawyer's request and rescheduled the hearing for June 29. The previous high court decision had already identified procedural violations, noting that expert testimonies used to convict the six veterans were not conducted by qualified personnel, contradicting the Law on Judicial Expertise. A subsequent 2022 expert conclusion from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development stated that it was impossible to determine the boundaries, area, or condition of the damaged forest, yet the prosecution reportedly continued to rely on the disputed earlier testimonies.

“

The defendants in the case are all former soldiers who participated in the army and made many contributions in combat and national defense. The alleged actions were also not motivated by personal gain. Therefore, the resolution of the case needs to be particularly cautious to avoid injustice.