The following is based on a communication sent by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and other UN experts to the Government of Viet Nam on 1 October 2025. The communication remained confidential for 60 days before being made public, giving the Government time to reply. The Government replied on 19 November 2025 and 2 February 2026.
Whilst the response from the Government is appreciated, it is regrettable that it does not address the allegations contained in the communication regarding the reported denial of food to Vuong Van Tha for his refusal to wear the prison uniform, that buckets of pig feces were reportedly placed outside his cell by the prison authorities, and that his family were reportedly told by police not to speak about his death publicly.
This is a shorter version of the original communication.
BACKGROUND
Topic: the death in custody, allegedly under unclear circumstances, of human rights defender Mr. Vuong Van Tha.
Mr. Vuong Van Tha was a Hoa Hao Buddhist human rights defender who advocated for freedom of religion and belief. He organized public gatherings and used social media to share his sermons and express his views on government restrictions on religious and other fundamental freedoms. He also displayed symbols associated with the former Republic of Viet Nam. In October 2012, Mr. Vuong Van Tha was arrested and charged with “abusing democratic freedoms” (article 258 of the 1999 Criminal Code) in connection with his advocacy for freedom of religion or belief. He was convicted and sentenced to three years of imprisonment on 2 August 2013. Following his release from prison in October 2015, he resumed his peaceful advocacy.
ALLEGATIONS
Between 2015 and 2017, upon resuming his human rights advocacy, Mr. Vuong Van Tha was reportedly subjected to increasing surveillance by the authorities.
On 18 May 2017, Mr. Vuong Van Tha was allegedly arbitrarily arrested at his home in An Giang province. Prior to carrying out the arrest, the security forces had reportedly blasted water cannons at his home, as a result of which several family members were injured. Mr. Vuong Van Tha, his son, and two other activists were taken into custody for allegedly making and flying the yellow flag of the former Republic of Viet Nam.
On 23 January 2018, the People’s Court of An Giang province convicted Mr. Vuong Van Tha of “conducting propaganda against the State” (Article 88 of the 1999 Criminal Code) and sentenced him to 12 years in prison, with an expected release date of 18 May 2029. Neither his lawyer nor his family were permitted to attend the trial. Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s son was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, and the other two activists each received six-year sentences.
On 4 October 2018, it was reported that Mr. Vuong Van Tha was transferred to An Phuoc detention centre in Binh Duong province.
From November 2018, Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s family were prohibited from visiting him due to the fact that he refused to wear the prison uniform, arguing it was reserved for convicted criminals. The prison authorities reportedly claimed that Mr. Vuong Van Tha declined to meet his relatives but did not provide any written statement from him to support this. The prison authorities also repeatedly returned food parcels sent by his family, despite his vegetarian diet.
In March 2019, it was reported by fellow inmates that Mr. Vuong Van Tha had refused prison food since February and was subsisting solely on vegetarian food purchased in the prison with limited funds, or that was shared with him by other prisoners.
By August 2019, Mr. Vuong Van Tha was reportedly subsisting on just one packet of instant noodles per day, which caused significant weight loss. Prison authorities had reportedly told his family that they could not send supplies. In January 2020, Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s family received information from a recently released inmate that the human rights defender had been denied food for refusing to wear the prison uniform or sign a confession of guilt. Other inmates would share what food they could with him, but he was suffering from a lack of adequate nutrition.
By June 2024, Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s had not eaten prison food for at least four years, nor bought food from the prison canteen or been able to receive supplies from his family and was relying on scraps shared by fellow inmates. Prison authorities allegedly placed buckets of pig feces outside his cell as a form of harassment. Mr. Vuong Van Tha continued to refuse to wear the prison uniform and as a result had been permanently denied family visits, meaning his family had not seen him since his trial in 2018.
On the morning of 3 September 2025, the police of Binh Hau commune, An Phu district in An Giang province informed Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s family that he had died by suicide in An Phuoc prison. The police reportedly told the family not to speak publicly about his death. His family strongly contested the alleged cause of death, as Mr. Vuong Van Tha had reportedly told them explicitly that he would never take his own life and that any harm should not be considered self-inflicted. The prison did not provide further information to his family, only requesting them to come and receive the body.
Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s son went to An Phuoc prison to retrieve his body, however when he arrived, he was reportedly told by prison officials that his father had died “possibly of lung disease”, although no hospital death certificate was provided. He was also told that as he had arrived 24 hours after Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s death, the body was no longer in a condition to be transported, in accordance with regulations. Reportedly, when the police verbally informed his family of his death, they did not mention the date or time of his death, to allow them to arrive at the prison within the 24-hour period. As a result, Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s son was not permitted to take his father’s body home, and so Mr. Vuong Van Tha was buried in the prison cemetery.
At around midday on 8 September 2025, Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s daughter was interviewed by an international media outlet about her father’s death. Later that afternoon, police officers arrived at her house to deliver documents from An Phuoc prison. The document, issued by An Phuoc prison and dated 3 September 2025, stated that Mr. Vuong Van Tha had shown signs of fatigue and difficulty breathing that morning, and so was taken to Bing Phuoc General Hospital, Dong Nai province for emergency treatment. The document alleged that Mr. Vuong Van Tha died there. At the time of writing, Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s family are yet to receive clear information regarding the exact circumstances, date and time of his death.
Following his death, the home of Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s family was reportedly subjected to heavy surveillance, intimidation by the police and the house’s security camera was destroyed. The family was also reportedly threatened by the authorities that Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s son would be re-arrested if the family continued to speak out about his death.
CONCERNS
In the communication, we express serious concern regarding the death in custody of human rights defender Mr. Vuong Van Tha and the lack of prompt, transparent, effective and impartial investigation as required under international law to determine the cause and circumstances of his death. In view of the conflicting reasons provided regarding the cause of death, initially identified as suicide and later due to lung disease, the State is required to initiate an investigation in compliance with its obligations pertaining to the right to life. We are further concerned by the lack of information provided to Mr. Vuong Van Tha’s family regarding the circumstances of death, which gives rise to concern that his death was not the result of the two differing causes cited but rather other ill-treatment that he may have been subjected to in prison, or possible extrajudicial deprivation of life. The fact that two differing causes of death were cited by two different authorities is in and of itself seriously concerning.
Loss of life occurring in custody creates a presumption of arbitrary deprivation of life by the State authorities, which can only be rebutted on the basis of a proper investigation that establishes the State’s compliance with its obligations under article 6 of the ICCPR and the Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016)).
Our concern is compounded by the information that Mr. Vuong Van Tha was denied visits from his family, as well as the vegetarian food supplies which they attempted to deliver to him many times, allegedly on account of the fact that he would not sign a guilty confession or wear the prison uniform. We are concerned that Mr. Vuong Van Tha was deprived of adequate nutrition and the impact that had on his health and quality of life over a number of years, and we wish to highlight that this runs counter to international obligations that require provision to be made for prisoners to be able to practice their faith in prison, including in relation to diet. We are also seriously concerned at the potential role this may have had, if any, on his death in custody.
We are further concerned by the information that his son was prohibited from receiving his body, and as a result had to bury his father in the prison cemetery. In addition, we are concerned by the information received regarding the harassment and surveillance to which his family have been subjected to following his death, which may be viewed as a continuation and prolongation of the human rights violations against Mr. Vuong Van Tha, and which may constitute ill-treatment.
The information received regarding the sentencing, trial and conviction of Mr. Vuong Van Tha is further cause for concern, as it appears there were a number of due process violations, namely that neither his lawyer nor family were permitted to attend his trial. Underlying this concern is the information that indicates that Mr. Vuong Van Tha was prosecuted in connection with exercising the right to freedom of expression, and peacefully advocating for the rights of religious minorities, thus rendering his detention arbitrary.
We recall that States have a duty to put in place effective measures to protect against attacks aimed at silencing those exercising their right to freedom of expression. Recognizing how journalists and persons who engage in the gathering and analysis of information on the human rights situation and who publish human rights-related reports, including judges and lawyers, are frequently subjected to threats, intimidation and attacks because of their activities, the Human Rights Committee stresses that “all such attacks should be vigorously investigated in a timely fashion, and the perpetrators prosecuted, and the victims, or, in the case of killings, their representatives, be in receipt of appropriate forms of redress” (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 23).
