Nguyen Thi Hoai PhuongCases
- Location of case in SG report
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- Dates of prior UN action
- 30 April 2020
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- Was the victim a minor?
- Individual's/organization's activity
members of independent religious communities and human rights defenders, who sought to participate, or participated, in the 2019 annual international conference in Bangkok on freedom of religion or belief in Southeast Asia
- Type of rights defended
- Religious freedom
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- Reported trigger of reprisal
sought to participate, or participated, in the 2019 annual international conference in Bangkok on freedom of religion or belief in Southeast Asia. The conference included interaction with and training by OHCHR
- Engagement with UN body
- Dates of engagement
- 28 October to 1 November 2019
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- 6 November 2019; 14 November 2019
- Location of mentioned reprisals
- Da Nang International Airport; village of Con Dau Parish
- Reprisal information
On 6 November 2019, upon their return to Da Nang International Airport, Mr. Huynh Ngoc Truong, Ms. Nguyen Thi Hoai Phuong, Ms. Nguyen Pham Ai Thuy, Ms. Ngo Thi Lien and Mr. Thich Thien Phuc were reportedly stopped by security officers and separately subjected to intense interrogation about their participation in the conference, including what the conference was about, who the organizers and participants were, how they funded their travel, and what they had shared or done at the conference
On 14 November 2019, in the context of an eviction of residents in the village of Con Dau Parish based on an order issued in 2011, many police officers surrounded the houses of Mr. Huynh Ngoc Truong and Ms. Nguyen Thi Hoai Phuong. Fearing that it was an act of reprisal for having participated in the 2019 conference in Bangkok, they went to Lao Bao border in Quang Tri Province and attempted to cross to the Lao People’s Democratic Republic for safety. However, Mr. Huynh Ngoc Truong was detained and interrogated by the police before crossing the border. When he was taken by a police officer to a nearby hotel to spend the night, he was brutally attacked by a group of men until he fainted. They only stopped when a police officer intervened. On 30 November 2019, Mr. Huynh Ngoc Truong was again detained on a bus to the Cambodian border at Moc Bai and interrogated for twelve hours about his past activities defending the religious freedom of his parishioners, and about the 2019 conference in Bangkok (VNM 2/2020).
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- Government response dates
- 13 July 2020
- Government response content
Regarding the individuals attending the 2019 annual international conference in Bangkok on freedom of religion or belief in Southeast Asia, the Government stated that relevant authorities do not “intimidate” or “harass” individuals because they attend an international workshop or conference. It further stated that information indicating that “members of independent religious communities and human rights defenders” faced acts of intimidation and reprisals, in the forms of threats, harassment, travel restrictions, surveillance, and acts of violence before and after attending the 2019 annual international conference in Bangkok on freedom of religion or belief, is untrue.
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?