Solitary Confinement in Việt Nam: Punishment Within

Living in Hà Nội, the family of political prisoner Trịnh Bá Tư faces a grueling routine. Each month—or every two months, depending on prison authorities—they travel more than 500 kilometers to Prison No. 6 in Nghệ An Province to visit him. It is a journey they expect to make until his eight-year term ends in 2028, not only for Tư but also for two other imprisoned family members, Cấn Thị Thêu and Trịnh Bá Phương.

However, the visit on Dec. 1, 2025, was unlike the others. At the time, Tư was being held in solitary confinement, denied exposure to sunlight, and barred from receiving any letters. His relatives say this measure was retaliatory, imposed after Tư spoke out about harsh detention conditions. 

Tư, a land rights activist, is not the only prisoner subjected to solitary confinement in Việt Nam’s prison system.

Solitary Confinement Under Vietnamese Law

The international community widely condemns solitary confinement—the near-total isolation of a person in detention—due to its severe physical and psychological toll. Yet in Việt Nam, this practice persists as a legal “gray zone.” While legally defined as a short-term disciplinary measure, in reality, it is often prolonged and opaque—especially when applied to prisoners of conscience and social activists. [1]

According to Việt Nam’s 2019 Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments, “detention in a disciplinary cell” is capped at 10 days, or up to 20 days for especially serious cases. The law also mandates minimum standards for food, medical care, lighting, and family communication. However, recent reports from 2024–2025, alongside events at Prison No. 6 in Nghệ An Province, suggest that these protections are not being properly observed.

The core issue is a lack of accountability. The law provides no independent oversight for solitary confinement, no requirement to publicize disciplinary decisions, and no meaningful avenue for appeal. Consequently, the disciplinary cell remains a sealed space where prison authorities exercise power with little external scrutiny, making solitary confinement a systemic feature of punishment in Việt Nam rather than an isolated exception. [2]

Prolonged and Arbitrary Solitary Confinement

Reports from Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and Vietnamese human rights networks in 2024–2025 reveal that solitary confinement in Việt Nam often exceeds the legal limit of a few days. Many prisoners endure months or even years of isolation due to repeated disciplinary measures or opaque “special” detention orders. [3]

For instance, Radio Free Asia reported that political prisoner Nguyễn Đức Hùng was held in solitary confinement for over 18 months at Nam Hà Prison in Hà Tĩnh Province. Another inmate alleged that Hùng was disciplined simply for receiving instant noodles from a fellow prisoner. Under prison regulations governing disciplined inmates, his family visits were restricted to once every two months. [4]

Human rights organizations and former detainees assert that prisons often use solitary confinement not to punish rule violations, but to intimidate or retaliate against those who protest detention conditions, undertake hunger strikes, or demand rights. Prisons frequently combine this isolation with restrictions on correspondence, limited family visits, and denial of medical care. Disciplinary cells are described as harsh environments with no natural light, poor ventilation, restricted water, and the shackling of hands or feet.

A clear example occurred in May 2025, involving activist Bùi Tuấn Lâm at Xuân Lộc Prison. His wife shared a notice stating Lâm was shackled and placed in solitary confinement for 10 days without a specified reason. The notice also stated that his family visits were restricted to once every two months until he was deemed to have shown “progress in rehabilitation.”

Lâm later described a suffocating cell smelling of urine and feces, which caused him to suffer severe skin infections. He had no sleeping mat, and tight leg irons forced him to sit upright all night, preventing sleep. His eyesight deteriorated due to the darkness, yet prison authorities refused to address the family’s complaint. [5]

On July 22, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (CCPR) highlighted these abuses, expressing concern over the torture and ill-treatment of human rights defenders, dissidents, journalists, and ethnic minorities. [6]

Documented cases show that solitary confinement is rarely used for violent offenders but rather for those who:

• Filed petitions regarding prison conditions.
• Were deemed “uncooperative” in labor or rehabilitation programs.
• Declared hunger strikes.
• Were activists, independent journalists, or religious leaders.

Solitary Confinement as Retaliation

According to his family, Trịnh Bá Tư was targeted beginning Oct. 31, 2025, after he reported that Prison No. 6 was feeding inmates moldy rice. As punishment, he was repeatedly confined alone in a sealed cell and denied time outdoors.

During a scheduled phone call on Nov. 25, Tư confirmed the details of his punishment: [7]

• He remained in complete isolation under what amounted to solitary confinement.
• He was not allowed outside for sunlight or labor like other prisoners.
• He was barred from receiving a letter from his mother, even though it had been formally approved by prison authorities.
• The quality of rice had shown little meaningful improvement after he spoke out about the moldy food.

This practice is not unique to Tư. Recent international reports document similar isolation tactics used against other prisoners of conscience, such as Lê Đình Lượng and Cấn Thị Thêu. Amnesty International has issued repeated urgent action appeals, expressing “serious concern” regarding detention conditions for prisoners with heightened health risks. [8] [9] 

Furthermore, in 2025, Human Rights Watch called on Việt Nam to either release detained activists or ensure they receive adequate medical care, specifically citing cases of prolonged isolation. [10]

Prison No. 6 and the Question of Transparency

Prison No. 6 in Nghệ An has long been a focal point for allegations of severe human rights violations, yet official information remains scarce. No independent, publicly accessible investigations have ever been conducted into the facility. [11]

According to inmate families, three prisoners—Đỗ Công Đương, Đào Quang Thực, and Pastor Đinh Diêm—died while serving their sentences there. Compounding the tragedy, relatives were denied the right to bring the bodies home, forced instead to bury them in the prison cemetery.

The lack of transparent explanations for these deaths casts a long shadow over the facility. Against this backdrop, every new report of solitary confinement is not just an isolated incident but a reminder of the systemic lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight within Việt Nam’s prison system.

When Solitary Confinement Becomes Torture

According to the United Nations’ Nelson Mandela Rules, solitary confinement that exceeds 15 consecutive days is classified as torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. These rules explicitly forbid using isolation to punish prisoners for expressing opinions, filing complaints, or exercising their basic rights.

Despite ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 2015—which obligates the government to prevent and prosecute all acts of torture, including psychological abuse—Việt Nam lacks independent oversight. Mechanisms such as unannounced prison inspections or access for civil society organizations are virtually nonexistent.

Human rights experts have raised this issue in recent dialogues with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), calling on Việt Nam to provide greater transparency regarding its use of solitary confinement. [12]

***

Evidence from recent reports suggests that solitary confinement in Việt Nam has evolved beyond a lawful disciplinary tool. By imposing isolation for prolonged periods to punish dissenting voices, authorities are effectively engaging in psychological torture. This practice violates both domestic law and Việt Nam’s international obligations.

Ending the abuse of solitary confinement is more than a humanitarian concern. It is a fundamental test of Việt Nam’s commitment to the rule of law and human rights.

---

Thiên Di wrote this article in Vietnamese, and Luật Khoa Magazine published it on Feb. 9, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine has the copyrights for the English version.