Confirmation of Ly
Tong’s Political Offense
To: - The Honorable Minister of Justice
- The Honorable Attorney General
- The Honorable Judges of the Appellate
Court of
Thailand
cc: - President George W. Bush
- Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza RiceSubject : Confirmation of Ly Tong’s Political Offense .
Black
case no. OR. PHOR. 4/2549
Red
case no. OR. PHOR. 6/2549
Your Honor,
We, the undersigned, are Judges,
Prosecutors, Lawyers have submitted this testimony to confirm that Freedom
Fighter Ly Tong’s mission on
17
Nov. 2000
was a political action with evidence as follows :
I. Extradition Case:
Thai Extradition Act BE 2472 (1929)
1. Article 17 : "…The Appeal
Court is authorized to consider evidence and protestation in the
following matters : Nationality of the accused, such alleged offense is not
extraditable, such offense is political or the genuine intention of
extradition request is to punish the accused in other political offense,
or There is insufficient evidence to show the lower court to grant
order.
a. Nationality: The accused’s
former nationality was the citizen of The
Republic
of
Vietnam
(The South), not of the
Socialist
Republic
of
Vietnam
(The Communist North) . The accused’s current
nationality is an American citizen.
b. Not Extraditable Offense:
Article 4 of
The Extradition (Aviation Security) Order 1991, paragraph (2) stipulates that:
"In the case contemplated in subparagraphs( a) [To act violently], (b) [To
destroy], (c) [ To place device or substance] and (d) [To communicate false
information to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight] of paragraph 1 of
Article 1, this Convention and Protocol shall apply, irrespective of
whether the aircraft is engaged in an international or domestic flight, only if: (a) The place of take-off or landing, actual or intended; of
the aircraft is situated outside the territory of the state of
registration of that aircraft; or (b) The offense is committed in the territory of a state other than the state of registration of the
aircraft."
Ly Tong did not take off or land outside Thailand and his offense was committed in the Thai aircraft, the
extended territory of Thailand, the state of registration of the aircraft. Even
a person who acts violently and destroys the aircraft cannot be
extradited pursuant to Article 4, so how an innocent, who used no
threat, no force, only begging for help and offering a reward worth 2-year
salary of the instructor to win his voluntary cooperation in the mission, can
be extradited by Thai Court?
For more evidence and details, please
read Ly Tong’s Testimony : "Counter-Arguments Against the Request for and
the Acceptance of Ly Tong’s Extradition to Vietnam before Thailand’s Appellate
Court."
c. Political Offense:
Dropping leaflets is a political action, the right of expression, recognized by Article 69 of Communist
Vietnam’s Constitution and Article 19 of The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). That’s why the Thai Government and the
Thai Court
have rejected Communist
Vietnam
’s
charge of Anti-State Propaganda based on VN’s Article 88.
d. Insufficient Evidence:
Communist
Vietnam
charged Ly
Tong with Infringing on
Vietnam
’s
Territorial Security. This Article 81 has two parts:
(1) Changing national border: Ly
Tong’s mission did not change
Vietnam
’s border.
(2) Harming
Vietnam
’s Territorial Security : Ly Tong’s
leaflet-dropping did not harm
Vietnam
but meant to save
Vietnam
from the totalitarian yoke .It only tried to harm the Communist
regime which oppresses and exploits
Vietnam
’s people. Therefore, Ly
Tong cannot be charged with Article 81 of 1999 Criminal Code of
Communist
Vietnam
.
Article 8 of Communist
Vietnam
’s Criminal Code is
equivalent to Thai Article 28 of the Aviation Act AD 1954 and Article 11 of
Thai Immigration Act AD 1979.
2. Article 5: Double Jeopardy:
"Extradition will not be granted if the person claimed has already been tried and discharged or punished in any Country for the
crime for which his extradition is requested."
Rayong Court
already did charge Ly Tong
by Article 11 of the Immigration Act AD 1979 for 4 months in
prison. Therefore, the Court Verdict violated Article 5 of Thai
Extradition Treaty 1929 and committed double Jeopardy.
3. Article 7: Double Criminality:
(b)..."by such evidence as would justify the commitment for trial of the
accused if the crime had been committed in
Siam
." Ly Tong flew in and
out of Thai airspace the same way he did in
Vietnam
but the
Rayong Court
did not charge him by Article 28 of the Aviation Act AD 1954. Why Communist
Vietnam
did? Because
he did not drop leaflets in
Thailand
,
but in
Vietnam
to appeal people to overthrow the Communist regime. That meant, the
genuine intention of extradition is to punish him for leaflet-dropping,
a political offense, already rejected by Thai Government and
Thai Court
. The Court Verdict therefore violated the principle of Double
Criminality of Article 7 and other Article 10, Article 11,
Article 13 and Article 17 of Thai Extradition Act 1929 as well for
political offense and political intention of extradition.
4. Article 4: Jurisdiction: Communist
Vietnam
’s
Jurisdiction:
Thai Aviation Act BE 2497 about Dual
Jurisdiction: "The commission of an offense in any Thai vessel or aircraft shall be deemed as being committed within the kingdom, irrespective of
the place in which where such Thai vessel or aircraft may be." And Article
5 of The Extradition (Aviation Security) Order 1991 No.1699 stipulates: (1)
"Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to
establish its jurisdiction over the offenses in the following cases.
(a) When the offense is committed in
the territory of that state; (b) When the offense is committed against or on
board an aircraft registered in that state; (c) When the aircraft on board
which the offense is committed lands in its territory with the alleged offender still on board; and (d) When the offense is committed against or on
board an aircraft leased without crew to a lessee who has principal
place of business or, if the lessee has no such place of business, his
permanent residence, in that state."
Ly Tong committed the offense on board
the Thai aircraft, the extended territory of Thailand, not of
Vietnam
.
He did not land in
Vietnam
,
and he leased the aircraft with crew, instructor Teera and he has no business nor residence in
Vietnam
,
but in the
United States of
America
. So, Communist
Vietnam
could not establish
its jurisdiction over Ly Tong’s offense.
II. Hijack Case:
Condition II (Mens
Rea): Article 3(3) of the Hague Convention on Hijacking 1970 stipulates that:
"This Convention shall only apply if the place of take-off or the place of landing on which the offense is committed is situated outside the territory of the state other than the state of registration of that aircraft. It shall be immaterial whether the aircraft is engaged on an
international or domestic flight." Ly Tong took-off and landed inside Thai territory and did not land anywhere outside
Thailand
during his flying mission. Therefore, pursuant to this Article 3(3), he could not be charged with hijack. If he were to hijack, he would have landed
at any remote runway in
Cambodia
and escaped, not to come back to
Thailand
and landed openly at such
a big base as Utapao to be arrested, charged and imprisoned. He used this
arguments many times before Rayong Court with the witness of US Consul Jeffrey
Schwenk, his lawyer Somsak Samret, his supporters, about hundreds of them
during the 3-year trial, even in his testimony submitted to Rayong Court and
Instructor Teera did mention this issue before Prachuap Court by confirming that : "The accused could control the aircraft to land
anywhere he wanted." Ly Tong did appeal his case, but there was a
conspiracy to reject his appeal as detailed in "Ly Tong’s Testimony To Unmask The Conspiracy For A False Hijack Charge."
III. The Interpretation And Application: Article 14 of the Extradition
(Aviation Security) Order 1991 stipulates:
"Any dispute between two or more
contracting states concerning the interpretation and application of this
Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request
of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within 6 months from the
date of request for arbitration the parties are unable to agree on the
organization of the arbitration, any of those parties may refer the dispute to
the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the
statute of the Court."
Your Honor,
If Ly Tong’s Extradition Case will not
be acquitted in due time so that he can get back to the United States of
America with vindication and Justice we have no other choice but to apply Article
14 as the last resort to save the world-renowned Freedom Fighter and a
resistance icon not only of people in Vietnam but also of the oppressed and
exploited all over the world.
Order Name Profession and office Present
address
1. Aloysius Duy Hung Hoang Attorney and
Counselors Hoang & Associates
At Law 1900
N. Loop
West #500
2. Teresa Ngoc Hoang id Houston, TX
77018 –
USA
3. Dean Huckabee id Tel: 713-600-3700
4. Jo Nelson id Fax: 713-600-3705
5. Robert Fuentes id E-mail: Law500inc@yahoo. com
6. Nguyen Van Dai Lawyer, Thien An Law Office 10 Doan Tran Nghiep
Ha
Noi
,
Vietnam
Tel: 844-213-2220
E-mail: lawyerdaivn@ gmail.com
7. Sam Nguyen Attorney and Counselors at
Law
Australia
E-mail: sn.barrister@ optusnet. com.au
8. Le Trong Quat
id
France
E-mail:vr_foundatio n@yahoo.com
9. Nguyen Ba Dai id
Australia
E-mail: adnlaw@bigpond. net.au
10. Nguyen Suu id
England
E-mail: nguyensuu32@ yahoo.co.
uk
11. Dao Tang Duc Solicitor of the
Supreme Court Australia
of
New South Wales
,
Australia
