A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

GE.25-15057 (E)

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025

Opinion No. 49/2025 concerning Phan Tất Thành (Viet Nam)

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of

the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and

clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251

and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the

Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a

three-year period in its resolution 51/8.

2.

In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 27 February 2025 the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of Viet Nam a communication concerning Phan Tất Thành.

The Government did not reply to the communication within the established time frame. The

State is a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

3.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:

(a)

When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the

deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her

sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);

(b)

When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or

freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,

26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);

(c)

When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to

the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the

relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to

give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);

(d)

When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy

(category IV);

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on

the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,

religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability

or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings

(category V).

1 A/HRC/36/38.

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

General Assembly

Distr.: General

16 October 2025

Original: English

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

2

GE.25-15057

1.

Submissions

(a)

Communication from the source

4.

Phan Tất Thành is a citizen of Viet Nam, born on 24 September 1986. His usual place

of residence is in Ho Chi Minh City, and he is a freelance writer for online publications.

5.

On 5 July 2023, at 8 a.m., a team from the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security

Investigation Agency, together with the ward police and militia of Ward 14, District 3,

surrounded and raided Mr. Phan’s house, demanding that he and a younger family member

come to the Ward 14 police station for an investigation concerning a traffic accident caused

by this family member in Da Nang City.

6.

The police personnel did not present any written instruction or an arrest warrant.

Mr. Phan stated that he was not involved in and did not know anything about the traffic

accident supposedly caused by his family member. However, he was coerced and escorted to

the Ward 14 police station along with his family member.

7.

At the Ward 14 police station, the police officers took Mr. Phan to a temporary

detention room on the first floor. Mr. Phan’s family member was taken to another temporary

detention room behind the ward police station. The authorities did not allow Mr. Phan to

contact anyone, including his family. The police temporarily confiscated the cell phone

belonging to Mr. Phan’s family member, for inspection, and returned it later. The police

released Mr. Phan’s family member in the evening but detained Mr. Phan.

8.

On 6 July 2023, officers from the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation

Agency and the Ward 14 police reportedly secretly transferred Mr. Phan to the Nam Hoang

Hotel, also located in Ward 14.

9.

Mr. Phan was handcuffed, and several members of the Ho Chi Minh City Police

Security Investigation Agency took turns in brutally beating and torturing him to force him

to confess to “criminal activities” for writing articles on a Facebook page entitled “Nhật Ký

Yêu Nước” (Patriotic Diary) and a Facebook page entitled “Văn Toàn”.

10.

The purported reason for the arrest was the posting, on Facebook, of articles with

content that was considered to propagate, slander and distort the policies of the Communist

Party of Viet Nam and the laws of the State in order to oppose the State of Viet Nam and

defame and slander national heroes and senior leaders of the Communist Party and the State

of Viet Nam, in violation of article 117 of the Criminal Code (Making, storing or spreading

information, materials or items for the purpose of opposing the State of the Socialist Republic

of Viet Nam).2

11.

On 11 July 2023, officials from Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation

Agency escorted Mr. Phan to the headquarters of the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security

Investigation Agency. There, officers reportedly continued to beat and interrogate Mr. Phan

to force him to confess. At midnight on the night of 11 to 12 July 2023, taking advantage of

an oversight on the part of the officials of the Security Investigation Agency, Mr. Phan

escaped but was rearrested on 13 July 2023.

12.

Having been rearrested on 13 July 2023, Mr. Phan was taken to Chi Hoa temporary

detention centre, Hoa Hung Street, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City. A week later, Mr. Phan

was transferred to a prison at No. 4 Phan Dang Luu Street, in Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi

Minh City.

13.

At 8 a.m. on 15 July 2023, more than 20 officials, including agents of the Ho Chi

Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency, an inspector, officials from the ward Police,

and militia, surrounded Mr. Phan’s house, and raided and searched it in the absence of

Mr. Phan, in contravention of applicable law. At 11.30 a.m., after completing the search, the

Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency personnel made a record stating that

2 See https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/news/vietnamnews/former-admin-of-fanpage-nhat-ky-yeu-nuoc-

arrested-on-charge-of-article-117-07232023214859.html (in Vietnamese); and

https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/news/vietnamnews/former-admin-of-patriotic-diary-phan-tat-thanh-

sentenced-to-8-years-in-prison-05082024033005.html (in Vietnamese).

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

GE.25-15057

3

nothing had been confiscated from the house. The security agents asked the family to sign

this document but did not provide a copy for the family.

14.

On 21 July 2023, Mr. Phan’s family member went to the headquarters of the Ho Chi

Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency to enquire about Mr. Phan’s arrest. A

security officer with the rank of captain presented an arrest warrant for Mr. Phan to his family.

The family member questioned why Mr. Phan had been arrested and beaten on 5 July 2023,

while the arrest document had been signed on 13 July 2023, and asked which agency had

arrested and detained him from 5 to 12 July 2023. The officer did not give a direct answer.

15.

Mr. Phan’s family member asked about his whereabouts and present place of

detention. The officer replied that Mr. Phan was being held in coronavirus disease

(COVID-19) isolation at Chi Hoa detention centre, located on Hoa Hung Street, District 10,

Ho Chi Minh City.

16.

On 24 July 2023, Mr. Phan’s family went to Chi Hoa detention centre to complete the

procedures to visit him for the first time, but they were not allowed to meet him because the

investigation was supposedly ongoing.

17.

On 25 July 2023, the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency sent

Mr. Phan’s family a notice of temporary detention, signed by the Deputy Head of the Ho Chi

Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency on 13 July 2023.

18.

On 9 November 2023, Mr. Phan’s family engaged a lawyer to defend him in the case.

After signing the contract, the lawyer completed the procedures required to defend Mr. Phan

according to regulations. Despite this, it is reported that the Investigation Security Agency

still created obstacles that prevented Mr. Phan’s lawyer from contacting him for a long time.

19.

On 21 December 2023, the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency

sent Mr. Phan’s lawyer a notice (No. 4263/TB-ANĐT-D2) stating that the defendant,

Mr. Phan, refused to have a lawyer to defend him, but the Police Security Investigation

Agency did not specify the reason.

20.

On 20 February 2024, the lawyer received a request, sent by the Ho Chi Minh City

Police, from Mr. Phan, who requested that a lawyer defend him. The lawyer continued to

carry out the defence, sending a request that he be allowed to contact Mr. Phan directly.

21.

On 8 April 2024, the lawyer was allowed by the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security

Investigation Agency to contact Mr. Phan at the prison at No. 4 Phan Dang Luu Street for

two hours, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. This was the only occasion on which Mr. Phan had contact

with his lawyer during the period from the date of arrest until the date of his trial.

22.

On 25 April 2024, the lawyer informed Mr. Phan’s family that the trial had been

scheduled for 8 May 2024 and gave the family the indictment of the Ho Chi Minh City

People’s Procuracy regarding Mr. Phan’s case.

23.

On 8 May 2024, Mr. Phan’s trial took place at the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court.

In the court session, in addition to the trial panel, two representatives of the Ho Chi Minh

City People’s Procuracy, Mr. Phan’s lawyer and his close family members were present. A

large number of uniformed and plain-clothed police personnel were also present in the

courtroom. No one else, including reporters, was allowed into the courtroom. Outside the

court, police personnel surrounded and blocked off the grounds, preventing the public from

approaching.

24.

After the judge’s opening statement and the reading of the prosecutor’s indictment,

the court allowed Mr. Phan to speak. Mr. Phan affirmed that he did not accept the indictment

and the investigation records of the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency

because they were the result of beatings and torture to force him to confess.

25.

Mr. Phan stated in court that his actions were in conformity with the Constitution of

Viet Nam and the United Nations human rights treaties to which Viet Nam was a Party.

Mr. Phan, furthermore, affirmed that he had not committed any crime and demanded that the

authorities release him.

26.

The presiding judge verbally reprimanded Mr. Phan, stating that he was attending a

court session, and not a forum for him to speak carelessly, and did not allow him to continue

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

4

GE.25-15057

speaking. His lawyer’s defence was not considered or questioned by the jury or the

representative of the People’s Procuracy.

27.

The representative of the People’s Procuracy proposed a sentence of five to seven

years in prison for Mr. Phan. However, after a break of 5 to 10 minutes, the presiding judge

returned to the courtroom to read a verdict sentencing Mr. Phan to eight years in prison and

three years of probation. On hearing the verdict, Mr. Phan affirmed that he did not recognize

the outcome of the trial and that the trial was a form of oppression against a citizen.

28.

On 15 May 2024, Mr. Phan’s family visited him at the prison at No. 4 Phan Dang Luu

Street. He insisted that the trial had been a mere formality and refused to accept the outcome.

Mr. Phan was adamant that there was no need to appeal.

29.

On 27 June 2024, the Ho Chi Minh City Police transferred Mr. Phan to Bo La prison

in Phu Giao District, Binh Duong Province. On 24 July 2024, Mr. Phan was transferred to

Xuan Loc prison in Dong Nai Province and detained there. He is reportedly detained in

isolation in a small room with another inmate. There are concerns about his well-being, as he

is reportedly suffering from a respiratory condition and exhaustion.

30.

On 2 August 2024, Mr. Phan’s family visited him at the Xuan Loc prison. On

4 September 2024, his family visited him for a second time.

31.

Currently, Mr. Phan is held in a solitary confinement cell, serving his sentence.

32.

The source submits that the Constitution of Viet Nam stipulates that citizens have the

right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and have the right of access to

information, the right to assemble, the right to associate, and the right to demonstrate, and

that the exercise of those rights is prescribed by law.

33.

The source further submits that Mr. Phan has been deprived of liberty because he

acted in accordance with article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantee the

right to freedom of opinion and expression.

34.

The source submits that Mr. Phan has been deprived of his liberty merely for

expressing his views and aspirations about the situation in his country. According to the

indictment of the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City of 22 March 2024, and the

Judgment of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City of 8 May 2024 (No. 206/2024/HS-ST),

to convict Mr. Phan, the authorities presented evidence relating to a Facebook page. It was

explained that, on 19 April 2023, the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency

had coordinated with the Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention Unit of the Ho Chi

Minh City Police and the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Procuracy to conduct an inspection to

extract electronic data from the “Văn Toàn” Facebook page managed by Mr. Phan, using the

Facebook accounts “Black Aaron”, “Chu Tuan”, “Huynh Heo” and “Mít Huynh”, and had

discovered seven articles, including six posts from the “Chu Tuan” Facebook account:

(a)

On 12 June 2019, Mr. Phan had published an article on selling land to pay

debts;

(b)

On 23 July 2019, Mr. Phan had published an article on tuition fees and

education quality, comparing Vietnamese and Western universities, in which he had

criticized the State management mechanism, affirming that increasing tuition fees did not

result in quality education;

(c)

On 2 September 2019, Mr. Phan had published an article in which he had asked

what factors would break the order of the dictatorship that made people ignorant, alleging

that the authorities concealed negative information about current events;

(d)

On 4 September 2019, Mr. Phan had published an article calling for protests,

strikes and civil disobedience;

(e)

On 12 January 2020, Mr. Phan had published an article affirming that the

Communist Party of Viet Nam was determined not to allow the separation of powers;

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

GE.25-15057

5

(f)

On 14 January 2020, Mr. Phan had published an article stating that the

Government would choose to trample on the laws that it had written to force convicted

persons to suffer additional punishment that they should not suffer;

(g)

On 1 January 2020, Mr. Phan had published an article from the “Huynh Heo”

Facebook account in which he criticized the environmental policy of the Government,

alleging that it had led to the highest cancer rate in the world.

35.

The source submits that the crimes of which Mr. Phan was accused and for which he

was sentenced in fact amounted to him exercising his rights to freedom of opinion and

expression, as guaranteed by international human rights law and the Constitution.

36.

The source further submits that Mr. Phan’s right to a fair trial has been totally violated,

in breach of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9

and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The source submits that,

since his trial on 8 May 2024, Mr. Phan has refused to appeal his verdict or retain a different

lawyer, since he does not trust the Vietnamese judicial system to be impartial and

independent.

(b)

Response from the Government

37.

On 27 February 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations made by the

source to the Government through its regular communication procedure. The Working Group

requested the Government to provide, by 28 April 2025, detailed information about the

current situation of Mr. Phan and any comments on the source’s allegations. The Working

Group also requested the Government to clarify the factual and legal grounds invoked by the

authorities to justify his arrest and continued detention, and to provide details regarding the

conformity of the relevant legal provisions and proceedings with international law, in

particular with the human rights treaties that it has ratified. Moreover, the Working Group

called upon the Government to ensure Mr. Phan’s physical and mental integrity.

38.

The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government

within the established time frame.3 The Government did not request an extension of the time

limit for its reply, as provided for in paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work.

Consequently, the Working Group cannot accept the reply as if it had been presented within

the time limit.

2.

Discussion

39.

In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided

to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.

40.

In determining whether Mr. Phan’s detention is arbitrary, the Working Group has

regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the

source has established a prima facie case for breach of international requirements constituting

arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if

it wishes to refute the allegations.4 In the present case, the Government has chosen not to

challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.

(a)

Category I

41.

The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under

category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without any legal basis being invoked.

42.

The source submits, and the Government does not contest, that Mr. Phan and a

younger family member were not presented with a warrant at the time of the arrest on 5 July

2023. The arrest document for Mr. Phan, which was shown to his family on 21 July, was

signed on 13 July.

3 The Government replied to the communication on 7 October 2025, after the adoption of the present

opinion.

4 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

6

GE.25-15057

43.

The Working Group has previously stated that, for a deprivation of liberty to have a

legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities

must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case, which is typically

done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or an equivalent document).5

44.

Unless the arrest is made in flagrante delicto during the commission of a crime or

immediately thereafter or in hot pursuit shortly after a crime has been committed, warrantless

arrests must remain the exception, not the rule. To justify an exception to this rule, there must

be reasonable grounds for suspecting, if not significant suspicion, that an offence has been

committed by the arrested person, as well as grounds for detention, such as the risk of flight,

destruction of evidence, recurrence of crime or harm to victims and witnesses. The Working

Group has been presented with no reason to believe that probable cause has been established

and no urgent grounds for detaining Mr. Phan that a reasonable person would consider

sufficient justification for arrest without warrant. The search of Mr. Phan’s house on 15 July

2023, in violation of applicable law, was also inconsistent with article 12 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the Covenant.

45.

The Working Group also holds that the notice of temporary detention for Mr. Phan,

signed by the Deputy Head of the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency

on 13 July 2023, which was sent to his family on 25 July, does not meet the requirement that

any form of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by, or be subject to the effective

control of, a judicial or other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford

the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence, in

accordance with principle 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under

Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The Working Group is of the view that a police

officer cannot be considered a competent authority in this respect. The Working Group

underlines that any deprivation of liberty without a valid arrest warrant issued by a

competent, independent and impartial judicial authority is arbitrary and lacks legal basis.6

46.

In the present case, the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency

demanded that Mr. Phan and a younger family member come to the Ward 14 police station

on 5 July 2023 for an investigation concerning a traffic accident caused by the latter, but

Mr. Phan continued to be detained even after the release of his family member on the same

day and was secretly transferred to the Nam Hoang Hotel the following day, on 6 July 2023,

without being informed of the reasons for his detention and the charges against him.

47.

The Working Group finds that, in order to invoke a legal basis for deprivation of

liberty, the officials of the Ho Chi Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency should

have informed Mr. Phan, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges

against him promptly.7 Their failure to do so violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and principle 10 of the Body of

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,

and renders his arrest devoid of any legal basis. The Working Group has held that detention

5 Opinions No. 27/2023, para. 77; No. 66/2023, para. 44; No. 77/2023, para. 53; No. 37/2024, para. 83;

No. 62/2024, para. 69; and No. 24/2025, para. 84. The Working Group has maintained from its early

years that the practice of arresting persons without a warrant renders their detention arbitrary. See

decisions No. 1/1993, paras. 6 and 7; No. 3/1993, paras. 6 and 7; No. 4/1993, para. 6; No. 5/1993,

paras. 6, 8 and 9; No. 27/1993, para. 6; No. 30/1993, paras. 14 and 17 (a); No. 36/1993, para. 8;

No. 43/1993, para. 6; and No. 44/1993, paras. 6 and 7. For more recent jurisprudence, see opinions

No. 38/2013, para. 23; No. 21/2017, para. 46; No. 63/2017, para. 66; No. 76/2017, para. 55;

No. 83/2017, para. 65; No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 93/2017, para. 44; No. 3/2018, para. 43;

No. 10/2018, para. 46; No. 26/2018, para. 54; No. 30/2018, para. 39; No. 38/2018, para. 63;

No. 47/2018, para. 56; No. 51/2018, para. 80; No. 63/2018, para. 27; No. 68/2018, para. 39;

No. 82/2018, para. 29; No. 6/2020, para. 40; No. 11/2020, para. 38; No. 13/2020, para. 47;

No. 14/2020, para. 50; No. 31/2020, para. 41; No. 32/2020, para. 33; No. 33/2020, para. 54; and

No. 34/2020, para. 46.

6 Opinion No. 93/2017, para. 44.

7 Opinion No. 10/2015, para. 34. See also opinions No. 32/2019, para. 29; No. 33/2019, para. 48;

No. 44/2019, para. 52; No. 45/2019, para. 51; and No. 46/2019, para. 51.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

GE.25-15057

7

for 36 hours without any information regarding the charges against the detainee violates

article 9 (2) of the Covenant.8

48.

Mr. Phan was first brought before a judge at his one-day trial on 8 May 2024, which

was about 10 months after his initial arrest on 5 July 2023. The Working Group therefore

finds that, despite there having been no absolutely exceptional circumstances, Mr. Phan was

not brought promptly before a judge, within 48 hours of his arrest, in accordance with the

international standard,9 or afforded the right to take proceedings before a court so that it could

decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant, in accordance with

articles 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant and principles 11, 32 and 37 of the Body of Principles

for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The denial

of judicial review also violated the right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant. In addition, the

United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of

Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court indicate that the right

to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right, the

absence of which constitutes a human rights violation, and is essential to preserve legality in

a democratic society.10 This right, which is in fact a peremptory norm of international law,

applies to all forms and situations of deprivation of liberty.11

49.

Mr. Phan was held in prolonged pretrial detention for about 10 months from his initial

arrest on 5 July 2023 until his one-day trial on 8 May 2024. Article 9 (3) of the Covenant

requires that pretrial detention must be the exception rather than the rule and that release may

be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and

for execution of the judgment. A detainee must be entitled to meaningful periodic judicial

review. Pretrial detention without an individualized determination of the risk of flight,

interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime, as well as consideration of less

intrusive alternatives, such as bail, electronic bracelets or other conditions in accordance with

the principles of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality, is devoid of legal basis.12 In

the present case, in the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group

concludes that there was no periodic judicial review or individualized determination of

Mr. Phan’s circumstances and, as a result, his detention lacked a legal basis and was ordered

in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration, article 9 (1) and (3) of the

Covenant and principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons

under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

50.

Moreover, the source submits that Mr. Phan was held incommunicado for a prolonged

period. The Working Group recalls that holding persons incommunicado prevents prompt

presentation before a judge, as provided for in article 9 (3) of the Covenant,13 and violates

the right under article 9 (4) of the Covenant to challenge the lawfulness of the detention

before a court.14 Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty

and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.15 Given that Mr. Phan was unable

to challenge his detention before a court, his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was violated.

He was also placed outside the protection of the law, in violation of his right to be recognized

8 Opinion No. 30/2017, paras. 58 and 59.

9 Opinions No. 57/2016, paras. 110 and 111; No. 2/2018, para. 49; No. 83/2018, para. 47; No. 11/2019,

para. 63; No. 22/2023, para. 50; No. 39/2024, para. 45; and No. 51/2024, para. 93. See also Human

Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33, in which Kovsh v. Belarus

(CCPR/C/107/D/1787/2008), paras. 7.3–7.5, is cited; CCPR/C/79/Add.89, para. 17;

CCPR/C/SLV/CO/6, para. 14; and CCPR/CO/70/GAB, para. 13.

10 A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2 and 3.

11 Ibid., para. 11.

12 Opinions No. 24/2015, para. 37; No. 61/2018, para. 50; and No. 72/2019, para. 47. See also Human

Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.

13 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35.

14 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 27; No. 9/2019, para. 30; No. 44/2019, para. 54; No. 45/2019, para. 53;

and No. 25/2021, paras. 46 (b) and 51.

15 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3; and CAT/C/VNM/CO/1, para. 24.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

8

GE.25-15057

as a person before the law under article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

article 16 of the Covenant.

51.

The Working Group will elaborate further on the propriety of detention under

article 117 of the Criminal Code in view of the principle of legality. One of the fundamental

guarantees of due process is the principle of legality, including: (a) the principle of

non-retroactivity; (b) the prohibition against analogy; (c) the principle of certainty; and

(d) the prohibition against uncodified, that is, unwritten, or judge-made criminal provisions.

This means that an act can be punished only if, at the time of its commission, the act was the

object of a valid, sufficiently precise, written criminal law to which a sufficiently certain

sanction was attached.16

52.

Article 117 of the Criminal Code defines the offence of making, storing or spreading

information, materials or items “for the purpose of opposing the State”. Paragraph 1

establishes a penalty of 5 to 12 years’ imprisonment for persons who, “for the purpose of

opposing the State”, make, store or spread information, materials or items that: (a) contain

“distorted information” about the People’s Government; (b) contain “fabricated information”

that causes “dismay among the people”; or (c) cause “psychological warfare”. Paragraph 2

establishes an increased penalty of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment in extremely serious cases.

Paragraph 3 establishes a penalty of 1 to 5 years’ imprisonment for making preparations to

commit the offence.17

53.

The principle of legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient precision that

individuals can access and understand the law and regulate their conduct accordingly. Vague

and ill-defined terms and concepts such as “for the purpose of opposing the State”, “distorted

information” about the People’s Government, “dismay among the people” and

“psychological warfare” do not meet this standard. The Working Group reiterates its previous

finding that article 117 of the Criminal Code does not meet this standard. 18 It is thus

incompatible with article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

article 15 (1) of the Covenant, and such a vague provision cannot be invoked as a legal basis

for any detention.

54.

In the light of the above, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Phan’s deprivation

of liberty lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary under category I.

(b)

Category II

55.

The Working Group will now examine whether Mr. Phan’s detention is arbitrary

under category II, in relation to which the source submits that his arrest, detention and

conviction stem from the legitimate exercise of his fundamental rights that are guaranteed by

the Covenant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and are in retaliation for his

public criticism of government policy.

56.

The Working Group considers that charges and convictions under article 117 of the

Criminal Code for the peaceful exercise of rights are inconsistent with the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant. The Working Group came to a similar

conclusion during its visit to Viet Nam in October 1994, noting that vaguely defined national

security offences did not distinguish between violent acts capable of threatening national

security and the peaceful exercise of rights.19

57.

In May 2017, the United Nations country team in Viet Nam recommended the repeal

or revision of numerous articles of the 2015 Criminal Code, including article 117, on the

basis of their incompatibility with human rights obligations under the Covenant. Article 117

was highlighted as being vague and broad and as not defining either which actions or

activities were prohibited or the constitutive elements of the prohibited offences. The country

16 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 50; and No. 36/2019, para. 40.

17 See Criminal Code of Viet Nam, Act No. 100/2015/QH13 of 27 November 2015, as available at

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/17225.

18 Opinions No. 11/2021, paras. 67, 73, 74 and 96; No. 36/2021, paras. 73, 74, 77, 78 and 103;

No. 40/2021, paras. 69, 73–75 and 99; No. 35/2022, paras. 76 and 79–81; No. 43/2022, para. 89;

No. 86/2022, para. 35; and No. 51/2024, para. 97.

19 E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.4, paras. 58–60.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

GE.25-15057

9

team also noted that these provisions did not differentiate between the use of violent means,

which should be prohibited, and legitimate peaceful activities of protest, including criticism

of the Government’s policies and actions, or advocacy for any kind of changes, including of

the political system, which fall directly under the rights to freedom of opinion and expression

and of assembly and participation in public life.20

58.

The Human Rights Committee has called upon Viet Nam to end violations of the right

to freedom of expression offline and online and to ensure that restrictions do not go beyond

the strictly defined limitations set forth in article 19 of the Covenant.21 The same Committee

has found that the vague and broadly formulated offences in various articles of the Criminal

Code, including article 117, their use to curtail freedom of opinion and expression and the

definition of certain crimes related to national security to encompass legitimate activities,

such as exercising the right to freedom of expression, do not appear to comply with the

principles of legal certainty, necessity and proportionality. Examples include arbitrary arrests

and detention, and unfair trials and criminal convictions, including of human rights

defenders, journalists, bloggers and lawyers, for criticizing State authorities or policies,

including online.22

59.

Article 19 (1) and (2) of the Covenant protects the holding and expression of opinions,

including those that are not in line with government policy.23 The Human Rights Committee

has emphasized that the form of expression is highly relevant in assessing whether a

restriction is proportionate. As stipulated by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and

protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, certain types of expression, such

as discussion of government policies and political activities, including for peace or

democracy, should never be subject to restrictions.24 The Human Rights Council has called

upon States to refrain from imposing restrictions under article 19 (3) of the Covenant that are

not consistent with international human rights law.25

60.

The permitted restrictions on this right may relate either to respect for the rights or

reputations of others or to the protection of national security, public order (ordre public) or

public health or morals. As the Human Rights Committee has stipulated, restrictions are not

allowed on grounds not specified in article 19 (3) of the Covenant, even if such grounds

would justify restrictions to other rights protected in the Covenant. Restrictions must be

applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related

to the specific need on which they are predicated.26 There is nothing to suggest that the

permissible restrictions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant apply in the present case. The

Government did not provide any argument to invoke any of these limitations, nor has it

demonstrated why bringing charges against Mr. Phan was a legitimate, necessary and

proportionate response to his activities. As such, the Working Group is not convinced that

prosecuting Mr. Phan was necessary to protect a legitimate interest under this article of the

Covenant, nor that Mr. Phan’s arrest and detention are a necessary or proportionate response

to his activities.27 Importantly, there is no indication that his peaceful online activity was

intended to incite violent behaviour.

61.

For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Phan’s detention resulted

from his exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression, contrary to article 19 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant, with no legitimate

aim or objective in a democratic society that may justify interference with his rights and

freedoms. The Working Group adds that the actions for which Mr. Phan was deprived of his

20 See “UN Recommendations on the 2015 Penal Code and Criminal Procedural Code of Viet Nam”

(17 May 2017), available at https://vietnam.un.org/en/14681-un-recommendations-2015-penal-code-

and-criminal-procedural-code-viet-nam.

21 CCPR/C/VNM/CO/3, para. 46.

22 Ibid., para. 45.

23 Opinions No. 79/2017, para. 55; and No. 8/2019, para. 55.

24 A/HRC/14/23, para. 81 (i).

25 Human Rights Council resolution 12/16, para. 5 (p).

26 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 22.

27 See also the Working Group’s application of the four-pronged test with regard to the application of

the principle of necessity and proportionality, in its opinions No. 54/2015, para. 89; and No. 82/2018,

paras. 35–40.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

10

GE.25-15057

liberty also constituted an exercise of his right to freedom of thought and his right to take part

in the conduct of public affairs under articles 18 and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and articles 18 and 25 (a) of the Covenant, which protect the exertion by

citizens of influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through

their capacity to organize themselves.28

62.

The Working Group thus finds that his arrest and detention are arbitrary and fall within

category II. The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the

promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

(c)

Category III

63.

Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Phan is arbitrary under category

II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should have taken place. However,

Mr. Phan has been tried, convicted and imprisoned. In the light of the above, the Working

Group will now consider whether the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and due

process were grave enough as to give Mr. Phan’s deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character,

such that it falls within category III.

64.

Prior to his one-day trial on 8 May 2024, Mr. Phan was allowed to meet with his legal

counsel only once, for two hours, on 8 April 2024. The Working Group reaffirms that legal

counsel should be able to carry out its functions effectively and independently, free from fear

of reprisal, interference, intimidation, hindrance or harassment. The Working Group finds

that the extremely limited access to legal assistance granted to Mr. Phan violated his right to

equality of arms and to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and his right

to defend himself through legal counsel of his choosing under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) and (3) (d) of the Covenant.29 The

Working Group notes that the present case is another example of legal representation being

denied or limited for individuals facing serious charges, suggesting that there is a systemic

failure to provide access to counsel during criminal proceedings in Viet Nam.30

65.

Furthermore, following Mr. Phan’s arrest on 5 July 2023, he was not permitted to

receive visits from his family until 15 May 2024, after the end of his one-day trial on 8 May

2024. A detainee must be allowed to communicate with and receive visits from family

members, and any restrictions and conditions with regard to such contact must be reasonable.

Giving prompt and regular access to family members is an essential and necessary safeguard

for the prevention of torture and for protection against arbitrary detention and infringement

of personal security.31 Accordingly, the Working Group finds that Mr. Phan’s right to contact

with the outside world was denied, in contravention of rules 43 (3) and 58 (1) of the

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson

Mandela Rules) and principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection

of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The Working Group notes the

source’s submission that Mr. Phan was transferred between detention facilities without his

family being notified and that this lack of information constituted a further impediment to his

right to communicate with them.

66.

Moreover, Mr. Phan was not afforded the minimum guarantees necessary for his

defence, including the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of

the charge against him, to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence

and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing, to be tried without undue delay and

not to be compelled to confess guilt in violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration

28 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 25 (1996), para. 8 (“Citizens also take part in the

conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their

representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves. This participation is supported by

ensuring freedom of expression, assembly and association.”).

29 Opinions No. 18/2018, para. 53; No. 78/2018, paras. 78 and 79; and No. 43/2020, para. 84.

30 See opinions No. 46/2018; No. 9/2019; No. 44/2019; No. 45/2019; No. 82/2021; No. 13/2022;

No. 35/2022; No. 40/2022; No. 43/2022; No. 86/2022; No. 16/2023; No. 39/2024, para. 59; and

No. 51/2024, para. 108. See also CAT/C/VNM/CO/1, paras. 16 and 17.

31 Opinion No. 84/2020, para. 70. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014),

para. 58.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

GE.25-15057

11

of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (a), (b), (c) and (g) of the Covenant. The Government

provided no explanation for the 10 months it took from his initial arrest to his trial, during

which time he was held in pretrial detention without judicial review or a bail hearing. Such

unexplained delay also violated principle 38 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of

All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

67.

The Working Group expresses its grave concern at the allegation of torture, including

beatings, by the Ho Chi Minh City Police Investigation Security Agency during Mr. Phan’s

incommunicado pretrial detention to induce an admission of guilt. He is currently held in

solitary confinement serving his sentence, and there are concerns about his well-being, as he

is reportedly suffering from a respiratory condition and exhaustion. The Working Group

considers that the source has established a prima facie credible case regarding the violation

of articles 5 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; articles 7 and 10 (1) of

the Covenant; articles 2 and 16 (1) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; principle 6 of the Body of Principles for

the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; and rule 1 of

the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Government’s failure to take remedial measures under

articles 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture and principle 33 of the Body of

Principles compels the Working Group to refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on

torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for further

consideration.

68.

The source also submits that Mr. Phan was convicted on the same day on which he

was first brought before a judge. It is unlikely that the court had sufficient time to assess

evidence and information to decide the case in a fair and impartial manner. He was sentenced

to eight years in prison and three years of probation under article 117 of the Criminal Code.

As the Working Group has noted previously, a short trial for a serious criminal offence that

carries a heavy sentence supports the conclusion that guilt was determined prior to the trial.32

In the absence of an explanation from the Government, the Working Group finds that these

factors undermined Mr. Phan’s right to the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed in

article 14 (2) of the Covenant and article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights.

69.

The source further submits that Mr. Phan’s trial on 8 May 2024 was closed to the

public. The press and the public may be excluded from a trial only for exceptional

circumstances outlined in article 14 (1) of the Covenant, namely, for reasons of morals, public

order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the

private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the

court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.33 In

the present case, the Government has not provided any information to justify the exceptional

step of holding a closed trial. Accordingly, the Working Group finds that Mr. Phan did not

have a public hearing, in violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and article 14 (1) of the Covenant.

70.

Given the above observations, the Working Group concludes that the numerous

violations of the right to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give Mr. Phan’s

deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character such that it falls within category III.

(d)

Category V

71.

In the Working Group’s view, Mr. Phan appears to have been targeted by the Ho Chi

Minh City Police Security Investigation Agency based on his online activities, which

included criticizing the Government’s environmental and other policies and calling upon the

public to protest, strike and engage in civil disobedience. Such activities relate directly to

advocating for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

72.

In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Working Group finds the source’s

allegations that Mr. Phan was targeted based on his online activism credible. In this context,

32 Opinions No. 75/2017, para. 53; No. 36/2018, para. 55; No. 82/2021, para. 80; No. 16/2023, para. 86;

No. 39/2024, para. 62; and 51/2024, para. 109.

33 See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 29.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

12

GE.25-15057

the Working Group finds that Mr. Phan’s arrest, conviction and sentence and the denial of

family visits were aimed at punishing him for activities that are expressly protected by

international law.

73.

In the discussion above concerning category II, the Working Group established that

Mr. Phan’s detention resulted from the peaceful exercise of his rights under international law.

When detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong

presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the ground

of discrimination based on political or other views.34

74.

For these reasons, the Working Group finds that Mr. Phan was deprived of his liberty

on discriminatory grounds, on the basis of his political opinions and his status as a human

rights defender. The deprivation of his liberty violated articles 2 and 7 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant and is arbitrary under

category V. The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the

situation of human rights defenders.

(e)

Concluding remarks

75.

The Working Group is extremely concerned about Mr. Phan’s well-being given the

source’s submission that he is reportedly suffering from a respiratory condition and

exhaustion. The Working Group is compelled to remind the Government that, according to

article 10 (1) of the Covenant and rules 1, 24, 27 and 118 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, all

persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the

inherent dignity of the human person, including by receiving appropriate medical care.35 The

Working Group also expresses grave concern at his reported solitary confinement. The

Working Group notes that, according to rule 45 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, the imposition

of solitary confinement must be accompanied by certain safeguards.36 Solitary confinement

must only be used in exceptional cases as a last resort, and for as short a time as possible, and

must be subject to independent review and authorized by a competent authority. Prolonged

solitary confinement in excess of 15 consecutive days is prohibited under rules 43 (1) (b),

44 and 45 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Working Group recalls that the Special

Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has

deemed that prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 days, at which point some of the

harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible, may amount to torture as

described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture.37

76.

In its 34-year history, the Working Group has found Viet Nam to be in violation of its

international human rights obligations in numerous cases.38 Many of these cases follow a

familiar pattern of arrest that does not comply with international norms, lengthy detention

pending trial with no access to judicial review, denial of or limited access to legal counsel,

incommunicado detention, prosecution under vaguely worded criminal offences for the

peaceful exercise of human rights, a brief closed trial at which due process is not observed,

disproportionate sentencing and denial of access to the outside world. The Working Group is

34 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; No. 13/2018, para. 34; No. 59/2019, para. 79; No. 39/2024, para. 69;

and No. 51/2024, para. 117.

35 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.

36 Opinion No. 54/2022, para. 91.

37 A/66/268, para. 61. See also A/63/175, para. 56; and General Assembly resolution 68/156.

38 See decisions No. 14/1993, No. 15/1993, No. 46/1993 and No. 7/1994; and opinions No. 21/1997,

No. 7/1998, No. 27/1998, No. 13/1999, No. 4/2001, No. 11/2001, No. 1/2003, No. 20/2003,

No. 19/2004, No. 18/2005, No. 13/2007, No. 1/2009, No. 6/2010, No. 24/2011, No. 46/2011,

No. 27/2012, No. 42/2012, No. 26/2013, No. 33/2013, No. 45/2015, No. 46/2015, No. 40/2016,

No. 26/2017, No. 27/2017, No. 75/2017, No. 79/2017, No. 35/2018, No. 36/2018, No. 45/2018,

No. 46/2018, No. 8/2019, No. 9/2019, No. 44/2019, No. 45/2019, No. 15/2020, No. 16/2020,

No. 36/2020, No. 42/2020, No. 81/2020, No. 11/2021, No. 36/2021, No. 40/2021, No. 13/2022,

No. 35/2022, No. 40/2022, No. 43/2022, No. 86/2022, No. 16/2023, No. 22/2023, No. 39/2024,

No. 51/2024 and No. 30/2025.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

GE.25-15057

13

concerned that this pattern indicates a systemic problem with arbitrary detention in Viet Nam,

which, if it continues, may amount to a serious violation of international law.39

77.

The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to work constructively with the

Government of Viet Nam to address its concerns relating to arbitrary detention in the country.

A significant period has passed since its last visit to Viet Nam, in October 1994, and the

Working Group considers that it is now an appropriate time to conduct another visit. On

8 November 2024, the Working Group reiterated its earlier requests to the Government to

undertake a country visit and will continue to seek a positive response.

3.

Disposition

78.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Phan Tất Thành, being in contravention of articles 2, 3,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21 (1) and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and articles 2 (1) and (3), 7, 9 (1), (2), (3) and (4), 10 (1), 14 (1), (2) and (3)

(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g), 15 (1), 16, 17, 18, 19, 25 (a) and 26 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III

and V.

79.

The Working Group requests the Government of Viet Nam to take the steps necessary

to remedy the situation of Mr. Phan without delay and bring it into conformity with the

relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

80.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Phan immediately and accord him an

enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international

law.

81.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of

Mr. Phan and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his

rights.

82.

In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers

the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to

freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on the situation

of human rights defenders, for appropriate action.

83.

The Working Group requests the Government to translate the present opinion and

publish and disseminate it through all available means and as widely as possible.

39 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 54; No. 44/2019, para. 81; No. 45/2019, para. 84; No. 15/2020, para. 86;

No. 16/2020, para. 84; No. 36/2020, para. 80; No. 42/2020, para. 99; No. 81/2020, para. 91;

No. 11/2021, para. 90; No. 36/2021, para. 97; No. 40/2021, para. 93; No. 40/2022, para. 97;

No. 43/2022, para. 116; No. 86/2022, para. 58; No. 16/2023, para. 96; No. 22/2023, para. 80;

No. 39/2024, para. 72; and No. 51/2024, para. 120. The Working Group recalls that, under certain

circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in

violation of fundamental rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity. See

opinions No. 2/2023, para. 112; No. 3/2023, para. 85; No. 6/2023, para. 71; No. 12/2023, para. 107;

No. 18/2023, para. 123; No. 20/2023, para. 85; No. 21/2023, para. 103; No. 25/2023, para. 137;

No. 29/2023, para. 76; No. 31/2023, para. 125; No. 36/2023, para. 94; No. 37/2023, para. 79;

No. 38/2023, para. 51; No. 40/2023, para. 52; No. 43/2023, para. 60; No. 47/2023, para. 133;

No. 56/2023, para. 119; No. 66/2023, para. 63; No. 70/2023, para. 102; No. 74/2023, para. 140;

No. 77/2023, para. 72; No. 2/2024, para. 80; No. 4/2024, para. 76; No. 6/2024, para. 67; No. 8/2024,

para. 58; No. 10/2024, para. 127; No. 16/2024, para. 139; No. 20/2024, para. 75; No. 26/2024,

para. 129; No. 31/2024, para. 114; No. 38/2024, para. 114; No. 40/2024, para. 169; No. 53/2024,

para. 104; No. 59/2024, para. 117; and No. 71/2024, para. 144.

A/HRC/WGAD/2025/49

14

GE.25-15057

4.

Follow-up procedure

84.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests

the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up

to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:

(a)

Whether Mr. Phan has been released and, if so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Phan;

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Phan’s

rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;

(d)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonize the laws and practices of Viet Nam with its international obligations in line with

the present opinion;

(e)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

85.

The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may

have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and

whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working

Group.

86.

The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the

above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present

opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up

to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action

would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in

implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.

87.

The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States

to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views

and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily

deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.40

[Adopted on 27 August 2025]

40 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.