Y Quynh Bdap

Cases
Location of case in SG report
2025-135-001
Relevant SG report
Year of the report
2025
Country Geolocation

Latitude: 15.870032

Longitude: 100.992541

Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
Thailand
From Region
UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
  • UN Special Procedures: Thematic
Dates of prior UN action
14 June 2024
Type of record
Named individual
Gender
Male
Was the victim a foreign national?
No
Was the victim a minor?
No
Individual's/organization's activity

co-founder of Montagnards Stand for Justice (MSFJ) and a refugee recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) since 2019, who is in the process

Type of rights defended
  • Caste/Ethnic minorities' rights/Racism
  • Indigenous peoples’ rights
Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
No
Engagement with UN body
  • UN Treaty Bodies: UN Treaty Bodies - General
  • Unclear
  • UN Human Rights Council: UPR
Type of attempted engagement
  • Unclear
Dates of mentioned reprisals
14 March 2024, 4 June 2024, 6 June 2024, 11 June 2024, 13 June 2024, 30 September 2024
Location of mentioned reprisals
Thailand
Reprisal information
  1. On 14 March 2024, the Thai police reportedly accompanied a delegation of several Vietnamese public security police to neighbourhoods with large concentrations of Montagnard refugees in Nonthaburi and Nakhon Pathom Provinces. The Vietnamese delegation asked about the location of the six Montagnards convicted in absentia on 20 January 2024. In that trial, 100 defendants were convicted by a ‘mobile court’ in Viet Nam in relation to a violent attack on Vietnamese police stations that took place on 11 June 2023 in Dak Lak Province, in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam. They also showed arrest warrants and photographs of those individuals and declared that they would arrest 100 other Montagnard activists. Just prior to the visit to Thailand, on 13 March 2024, Viet Nam’s Minister for Public Security met with the Thai Government to propose a bilateral extradition agreement. (THA 6/2024).
  2. Mandate holders expressed concerns that the Vietnamese authorities may be exchanging information with the Government of Thailand regarding some of the Montagnards, including those recognized as refugees, and emphasized the obligation of Thailand not to return any individual to a country where there is a well-founded fear of persecution or substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm on return on account of serious human rights violations (the obligation of non-refoulement). Mandate holders expressed particular concern about Mr. Y Quynh Bdap, one of the six convicted in absentia, who has always proclaimed he is innocent of the abovementioned charges. Mandate holders noted further that Mr. Bdap had fled to Thailand in 2018, is recognized as a refugee by UNHCR, has undergone two resettlement interviews with the Government of Canada, the last on 10 June 2024, and is waiting for his case to be decided (THA 6/2024).
  3. On 4 June 2024, Thai police visited Mr. Bdap’s former residence in Bangkok and questioned neighbours about his whereabouts. On 6 June 2024, Thai police located his new residence and stationed themselves in front, waiting to arrest him pursuant to an extradition request from Viet Nam. The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) intervened to prevent the arrest and reminded the Police of Thailand’s non-refoulement obligations under international and domestic law. On 11 June 2024, Thai police arrested Mr. Bdap under the Immigration Act and placed him in judicial custody at the Bangkok Remand Prison.
  4. Mandate holders stated that there are reasons to believe that this arrest was made in connection with an extradition request from Viet Nam regarding his 10-year prison sentence for terrorism and that if he is forcibly returned to Viet Nam, his life and bodily integrity may be at risk (THA 6/2024).
  5. Mandate holders underlined that some of the Montagnards refugees are actively involved in NGOs in exile that advocate for the protection of the human rights of Montagnard indigenous and religious minorities in Viet Nam. They referred specifically to MSFJ and its engagement with the United Nations human rights mechanisms, including with the Universal Periodic Review and treaty bodies.
  6. Mandate holders requested the Government to take effective measures to ensure that the Vietnamese authorities do not hinder the legitimate activities of Montagnard groups in Thailand in defence of human rights in Viet Nam, including by engaging with the United Nations and recalled the prohibition on refoulement under international human rights law, where there are substantial grounds for believing that the returnee would be at risk of irreparable harm (THA 6/2024).
  7. According to information received by OHCHR during the reporting period, the Thai public prosecutor filed an extradition request on 13 June 2024. On 12 July 2024, the Deputy Attorney General and prosecutors from International Affairs Department of Thailand met with Viet Nam’s Director-General of the Department of Internal Security, along with the delegation from the Ministry of Public Security of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to discuss an exchange of information regarding cooperation in handling extradition requests.
  8. Reportedly, on 30 September 2024, the Criminal Court of Bangkok delivered its verdict on the extradition request for Mr. Y Quynh Bdap. The Court found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with extradition under Section 19 (1), (2), and (3) of the Thailand Extradition Act (2008) and ordered that Mr. Bdap be detained pending the execution of the extradition request. On 15 February 2025, Mr. Bdap’s lawyer filed an appeal and the case is pending.
Types of reprisals suffered
  • Charge/Investigation/Prosecution: Charge/Investigation/Prosecution - General
  • Charge/Investigation/Prosecution: Conviction
  • Charge/Investigation/Prosecution: Trial
  • Detention/Imprisonment: Detention/Imprisonment - General
Alleged/likely perpetrators
State actors
Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
No
Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
No
Government response dates
1 August 2025
Government response content
  1. Regarding Mr. Y Bdap the Government noted that his arrest warrant had been issued in accordance with the Extradition Act B.E. 255. It stated that the 12 July 2024 meeting between Thailand’s Deputy Attorney General and Viet Nam’s delegation from the Ministry of Public Security was a courtesy call. It also noted that Mr. Bdap’s lawyer deposited an appeal on 14 February 2025.
  2. The Government further stated that Thailand had received written assurance from the Minister of Public Security of Viet Nam that, if extradited to Viet Nam, Mr. Bdap would not be subjected to torture, intimidation, assault, harassment or any forms of physical or mental harm. Viet Nam had also reassured the Government of Thailand that Mr. Bdap would be protected from any forms of discrimination, cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment, and that his human rights would be protected in accordance with Viet Nam’s domestic laws and international obligations. The Government added that in extradition cases, the ruling of the Court of Appeal is final.
Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
No
Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
No
Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
No