Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Presumption of Innocence: Comparing Vietnamese Law with Established International Jurisprudence

  • Published:
Criminal Law Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the modern justice system as generally recognised under different jurisdictions across the world. It is essential for respecting and protecting human rights of every citizen during criminal proceedings. It is considered as a basic principle of criminal procedure law, a constitutional right of accused persons, and a universal human right. However, it is fraught with numerous ambiguities and challenges especially regarding its practical application in various jurisdictions. Vietnam is no exception. Although Vietnam incorporates the principle both under its Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, yet, there exists incertitude and lack of consistency in its practical application, on account of the peculiarity of the existing political structure and weaknesses in the criminal justice system. The authors attempt to analyse the implications of this principle/right under established jurisprudence at the international level and then scrutinise its status under the Vietnamese law. The article seeks to map the occasions when presumption of innocence is infringed, or violated and subsequently suggests amendment of the Vietnamese law to ensure adequate protection of the principle/right. The article concludes that it is important to hold public authorities accountable for irresponsible actions, especially in matters concerning the life and liberty of people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Anthony Duff, “Who Must Presume Whom to be Innocent of What?”, 42(3) Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy (2013), 171.

  2. Shruti Bedi, “Presumption of Innocence and Reverse Onus Clauses: The State of Criminal and Constitutional Jurisprudence in India” in Sarah Biddulph et al. (eds), The Presumption of Innocence (Hong Duc Publishing House 2021), p. 367.

  3. Article 13 of Criminal Procedure Code 2015 (Vietnam); Article 12 of Criminal Procedure Law 1979 (amended in 1996, 2012, 2018) (China).

  4. Article 14 of Criminal Procedure Code 2001 (Russia).

  5. Article 31(1) of Constitution 2013 (Vietnam); Section 11(d) of Constitution Act 1982 (Canada).

  6. Article 11(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 14(2) of International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

  7. Kenneth Pennington, “Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim”, 63 Jurist: Stud. Church L. & Ministry 106 (2003), 114–115.

  8. The 2013 Constitution is the fifth Constitution of Vietnam. It was approved by the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, term XIII, at its sixth session on 28 November 2013. The first four Constitutions were adopted in 1946, 1959, 1980, 1992.

  9. Pradel, DPComparé (2008) 249–250; Bassiouni (1993) 3 DukeJComp&IL 235, 266, n. 143, cited in William A. Schabas, Yvonne McDermott, “Article 66: Presumption of Innocence”, in Kai Ambos (ed), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article-by-Article Commentary (Beck/Hart/Nomos, 4th edn, 2022), mn. 2.

  10. Article 38 of United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJS), 1946; Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law, Cambridge University Press (1993); Bruno Simma and Philip Alston, “The sources of human rights law: Custom, jus cogens and general principles”, 12 Australian Year Book of International Law (1988–1989), p. 82.

  11. Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain App no 10590/83, A/146, (1989) 11 EHRR 360, IHRL 83 (ECHR 1988), 6th December 1988; European Court of Human Rights (2021), Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a Fair Trial, p. 65 https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf accessed 04 April 2022.

  12. Shruti Bedi, “Arrest and Detention: The Umbrella of Constitutional Protection” in Dipa Dube & Shruti Bedi (eds), Arrest and Detention in India (Sage Publications, 2022), p. 4.

  13. For more information regarding the foundations/sources of international law, see: Roozbeh (Rudy) B. Baker, “Customary International Law in the 21st Century: Old Challenges and New Debates”, EIJL (2010) 21(1), 176–177; Patrick Butchard (2020), Principles of International Law: A Brief Guide, p. 2 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9010/ accessed 31 March 2022.

  14. Roozbeh (Rudy) B. Baker, ibid., p. 173.

  15. Vietnam alternately ratified these Conventions on 24/9/1982, 28/02/1990, 19/8/2009, 08/6/2012 and 05/02/2015.

  16. For general information on transformation of international treaties, see: A.O. Adede, “Domestication of International Obligations” (15/09/2001) http://www.commonlii.org/ke/other/KECKRC/2001/14.html accessed 16 January 2022; United Nations, International Law and National Frameworks, https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/discom101.htm accessed 31 March 2022.

  17. For the differences between these two approaches, see: Pierre-Hugues Verdier & Mila Versteeg, “International Law in National Legal Systems: An Impirical Investigation”, in Anthea Roberts et al., Comparative International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 211.

  18. Ibid., p. 214.

  19. Karen Knop, Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts, 32 N.Y.U.J.INT’L L.&POL. 501(2000) quoted in Pierre-Hugues Verdier & Mila Versteeg, supra note 17, p. 229.

  20. Daniella Silva, “Defense: Derek Chauvin is presumed innocent”, NBC News, Live Blog (20 April 2021) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/derek-chauvin-trial-2021-04-19-n1264442/ncrd1264515#liveBlogHeader accessed 13 May 2021.

  21. Michelle Coleman, The Presumption of Innocence in International Human Rights and Criminal Law (Routledge 2021), p. 1 [Emphasis added].

  22. According to Bassiouni, it was contained in at least sixty-seven national constitutions across the common law and civil law world. See M.C. Bassiouni, “Human rights in the context of criminal justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections in National Constitutions”, 3 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law (1992–1993), 235, 266.

  23. Article 14(2) ICCPR; Article 6(2) of ECHR; Article 8(2) of ACHR; and Article 7(1)(b) of African Charter of Human and People’s Rights (African Charter).

  24. Article 66 of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

  25. Scholars have debated the lack of clarity about its meaning and extent of application. See P.J. Schwikkard, “The Presumption of Innocence: What Is It?”, 11 South African Journal of Criminal Justice (1998), 396; J. Thaler, “Punishing the Innocent: The Need for Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence Prior to Trial”, Wisconsin Law Review (1978), 459–460; C. Stuckenberg, “Who is Presumed Innocent of What by Whom?”, 8 Criminal Law & Philosophy (2014), 301; T. Weigend, “There is only One Presumption of Innocence”, 42 Netherland Journal of Legal Philosophy (2013), 193.

  26. H.L. Ho, “The Presumption of Innocence as a Human Right” in P. Roberts and J. Hunter (eds), Criminal Evidence and Human Rights: Reimagining Common Law Procedural Traditions (Hart Publishing 2012), p. 259.

  27. A. Ashworth and J. Horder, Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2013), p. 71.

  28. Stefan Trechsel, “The right to be presumed innocent” in Stefan Trechsel and Sarah Summers (eds), Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford University Press 2006).

  29. H.L. Packer, “Two models of the criminal process”, 113 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1964), 1.

  30. Pamela R. Ferguson, “The presumption of innocence and its role in the criminal process”, 21(2) Criminal Law Forum (2016), 137.

  31. Ibid.

  32. Larry Laudan, “The presumption of innocence: material or probatory?”, 11(4) Legal Theory (2005), 340.

  33. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 12.

  34. Ibid.

  35. Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford University Press 2010), p. 231.

  36. T. Weigend, supra note 25, pp. 193–194; P.J. Schwikkard, Presumption of Innocence, Juta & Co (1999), p. 22.

  37. Pamela R. Ferguson, supra note 30, p. 135.

  38. Roberts and Zuckerman, supra note 35, p. 233; John M. Phillips, “Irrebuttable presumptions: An illusionary analysis”, 27(2) Stanford Law Review (1975), 449, 451; P.J. Schwikkard, supra note 36, p. 24.

  39. Roberts and Zuckerman, ibid., p. 233.

  40. John D Lawson, The Law of Presumptive Evidence, A.L. Bancroft & Co. (1885) p. 555; C. Collier, “The improper use of presumptions in recent criminal law adjudication”, 38(2) Stanford Law Review (1986), 423.

  41. P.J. Schwikkard, supra note 36, p. 26.

  42. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 17.

  43. C. Collier, supra note 41, p. 423.

  44. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 18.

  45. M.C. Bassiouni, supra note 22, pp. 235–236.

  46. Article 38 ICJS; Bin Cheng, supra note 11; Bruno Simma and Philip Alston, supra note 11, p. 82.

  47. Article 11(1) UDHR; Article 14(2) ICCPR; Article 8(2) ACHR; Article 6(2) ECHR. Also see H.L. Ho, supra note 26, p. 259; Stefan Trechsel, supra note 28.

  48. Preamble, UDHR.

  49. Jeremy Horder, Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2016), pp. 94–95.

  50. Article 11(1) UDHR; Article 14(2) ICCPR; Article 6(2) ECHR; Article 8(2) ACHR; Article 7(1)(b) African Charter; Article 66 ICCS; Article 21(3) of the Statute of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTYS); Article 20(3) of the Statute of International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTRS).

  51. Article 11(1) UDHR; Article 14(2) ICCPR; Article 6(2) ECHR; Article 66 ICCS.

  52. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 37.

  53. Article 11(1) UDHR; Article 14(2) ICCPR; Article 6(2) ECHR.

  54. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 39.

  55. Anthony Duff, supra note 1, p. 170.

  56. Ibid., p. 181.

  57. See Ashworth, “Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence”, 10 International Journal of Evidence & Proof (2006), 241, 249; S. Baradaran, “Restoring the Presumption of Innocence”, 72 Ohio State Law Journal (2011), 723; H. Stewart, “The Right to be Presumed Innocent”, 8 Criminal Law & Philosophy (2014), 407; P. DeAngelis, “Racial Profiling and the Presumption of Innocence”, Netherland Journal of Legal Philosophy (2014), 43; P. Tomlin, “Could the Presumption of Innocence Protect the Guilty?”, 8 Criminal Law & Philosophy (2014), 431; V. Tadros, “The Ideal of the Presumption of Innocence”, 8 Criminal Law & Philosophy (2014), 449.

  58. Larry Laudan, supra note 21; Magnus Ulvang, “Presumption of innocence versus a principle of fairness”, 42(3) Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy (2013), 215; T. Weigend, supra note 25, pp. 196, 198; Ashworth ibid., p. 244.

  59. P. Tomlin, supra note 57, p. 432.

  60. Tadros, supra note 57.

  61. Pamela R. Ferguson, supra note 30, p. 142.

  62. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 44.

  63. The African Charter, Provisions Applicable to Proceedings Relating to Criminal Charges N(6)(e), N(6)(e)(i).

  64. M.C. Bassiouni (ed), The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court, Vol. 1 Transnational Publishers (2005) p. 85; Gregory S. Gordon, “Toward an international criminal procedure: due process aspirations and limitations”, 45(3) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (2007), 635, 669–670; William A. Schabas, Yvonne McDermott, supra note 9, mn. 11–14.

  65. The difference is present between ICCS, Article 66 which deals with presumption of innocence and Article 67 which deals with rights of the accused.

  66. Prosecutor v Mbarushimana ICC-01/04-01/10-51, PT Ch I (31 January 2011).

  67. Ibid., para 8.

  68. Ibid., [Emphasis added].

  69. Article 35 of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia; Article 21(3) ICTYS; Article 20(3) ICTRS; Article 16(3)(a) of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STLS); Article 8(2) ACHR.

  70. Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Rule 21(1)(d) of the Internal Rules.

  71. See David Weissbrodt, The Right to a Fair Trial under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Martinus Nijhoff 2001), p. 23.

  72. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 54.

  73. See also Article 11(1), UDHR.

  74. European Court of Human Rights, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, Application No. 15175/89 (1995), para 37; Principle 36(1), Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted under General Assembly resolution 43/173 (1998).

  75. Human Rights Committee, Cagas v. Philippines, Communication No. 788/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/73/D/788/1999 (2001), para 7.2; Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (E/CN.4/2006/7), para 59.

  76. Other human rights treaties like Article 3 of the Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and Article 10 of the ACHR also explicitly protect the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice.

  77. Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32 (Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial), para 52.

  78. Pamela R. Ferguson, supra note 30, p. 135.

  79. See Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 54.

  80. Sandra Fredman, Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (Oxford University Press 2008), pp. 66–89.

  81. There is a debate between theorists advocating a narrow application limiting the duty to fact-finders and theorists demanding a wider application to other authorities as well. See for Narrow Theorists: Larry Laudan, supra note 22; Richard L. Lippke, Taming the presumption of Innocence (Oxford University Press 2016). See for Broader Theorists: Anthony Duff, supra note 1.

  82. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, pp. 56–60.

  83. The European Court of Human Rights has held that there is a duty to uphold the non-procedural aspect because the right is violated when individuals do not act in a particular manner and those actions affect another person’s right to presumption of innocence. See Ismoilov and others v Russia App No. 2947/0649 (ECtHR, 24 April 2008) para 166; Nestak v Slovakia App. No. 65559/01 (ECtHR, 27 February 2007) para 89.

  84. Prosecutor v Gaddafi ICC-01/11-01/11, A Ch (12 June 2012) paras 24–26; Viorel Burzo v Romania App Nos 75109/01 and 12539/02 (ECtHR, 30 June 2009) para 156.

  85. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 105.

  86. H.L. Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford University Press 1968), pp. 160–161 [Emphasis added].

  87. Anthony Duff, supra note 1, p. 179.

  88. Human Rights Committee, supra note 77, para 30.

  89. See Stephanos Stavros, The Guarantees for Accused Persons under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff 1993), pp. 50–51.

  90. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 128.

  91. Ibid., p. 129.

  92. Richard L. Lippke, supra note 71, p. 159; Caroline L. Davidson, “No Shortcuts on Human Rights: Bail and the International Criminal Trial”, 60(1) American University Law Review (2010), 13; J. Thaler, supra note 16, p. 451; Rinat Kitnai, “Presuming Innocence”, 55(2) Oklahoma Law Review (2002), 286–287.

  93. William A. Schabas, Yvonne McDermott, supra note 9, pp. 1964–1965 nn. 110–124.

  94. Stack v Boyle 342 US 1, 3 (1951).

  95. Bell v Wolfish 441 US 520, 533 (1979). Canada adopts a similar position: R v Pearson (1993) 17 C.R. (4th) 1, 77 CCC (3rd) 124. For a history of bail jurisprudence in USA, see M.J. Hegreness, “America’s Fundamental and Vanishing Right to Bail”, 55 Arizona Law Review (2013), 909.

  96. England: Bail Act 1976, s. 4.

  97. O’Callaghan [1966] IR 501. This approach is also adopted by New South Wales: P. Shrestha, “Two Steps Back: The Presumption of Innocence and Changes to the Bail Act 2013 (NSW)”, 37 Sydney Law Review (2015), 47.

  98. Scotland: Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, s. 23B.

  99. Yvonne McDermott, Fairness in International Criminal Trials (Oxford University Press 2016), pp. 42–44; ICC Statute, art 60(2); Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Special Tribunal for Lebanon (29 Nov. 2010) (STL RPE) 2 102; Prosecutor v Bemba ICC-01/05-01/08, PT Ch II (14 Aug. 2009) para 77. The ICCPR, Article 9(3) also states “it shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody.”

  100. Letellier v France (1991) 14 EHRR 83, para 35. See also B v Austria (1990) 13 EHRR 20, para 42; Yargci and Sargin v Turkey (1995), 20 EHRR 505, para 50.

  101. See also Article 5(3) ECHR; Article 14(3)(c) ICCPR; Article 7.5 ACHR; Article 20(4)(c) ICTRS; Article 21(4)(c) ICTYS; Article 11(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and Article 7(1)(d), African Charter.

  102. See P. Leach, “Automatic Denial of Bail and the European Convention”, Criminal Law Review (1999), 300 [Emphasis added].

  103. Lonneke Stevens, “Pre-trial detention: the presumption of innocence and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights cannot and does not limit its increasing use”, 17 European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (2009), 170–171; Lonneke Stevens, “The meaning of the presumption of innocence for pre-trial detention: an empirical approach”, 42(3) Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy (2013), 246–247.

  104. Pamela R. Ferguson, supra note 30, p. 154.

  105. Ibid., p. 150.

  106. Michelle Coleman, supra note 21, p. 167.

  107. See Phan Nhat Thanh, “Overview of the Vietnamese State and Legal System” in Mai Hong Quy (ed), Introduction to Vietnamese Law (Hong Duc Publishing House, 2nd ed, 2013), p. 17; the Government of Vietnam, Vietnam History Overview http://chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/English/TheSocialistRepublicOfVietnam/AboutVietnam/AboutVietnamDetail?categoryId=10000103&articleId=10002650 accessed 15 January 2022.

  108. Article 107(1) of Constitution 2013, Article 2(1) of Law on organization of people’s procuracies 2014 and Article 20 of CPC 2015.

  109. Thu Nguyet, “Discussion of Lieutenant General Tran Van Do on Lifetime Appointment of Judges” (05/01/2021), HCMC Online Legal Journal https://plo.vn/phap-luat/trung-tuong-tran-van-do-ban-ve-tham-phan-suot-doi-959725.html accessed 15 January 2022.

  110. The term “rule of law state” can be variously translated as “state-legal-rights” or “law-based state”. It was adopted in 1991 at the Seventh Party Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam and officially used in Constitution 1992 (amended in 2001). It means that the state will not only be the source of law but also be bound by law. See: Pip Nicholson, “Vietnamese Jurisprudence: Informing Court Reform”, in John Gillespie and Pip Nicholson (eds), Asian Socialism and Legal Change: The Dynamics of Vietnamese and Chinese Reform (ANU E Press and Asia Pacific Press 2005), p. 178.

  111. Dao Tri Uc, “Basic Information of Legal Research – A Case Study of Vietnam” (Project of Doing Legal Research in Asian Countries: China, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, conducted by the Institute of Developing Economies (IDE-JETRO, Japan, 2003), p. 206 cited in Phan Nhat Thanh, supra note 107, p. 31.

  112. Dao Tri Uc, ibid., p. 200 cited in Phan Nhat Thanh, supra note 108, p. 32; see also Thai Vinh Thang, “The Influence of Confucian Beliefs on Legal Culture of Vietnam”, 03(52) Journal of Legal Science (2009), 34.

  113. For more information, see John Gillespie and Pip Nicholson (eds), supra note 110, pp. 45–75, 159–190.

  114. Conclusion of the Politburo on Summarising 15 years of implementing Resolution No. 49-NQ/TW on judicial reform to 2020, p. 1.

  115. Article 9 CPC 2003.

  116. Tran Van Do, “Presumption of Innocence in Criminal Procedure in Vietnam”, in Sarah Biddulph et al., supra note 2, p. 559. See also Dao Tri Uc, “Presumption of Innocence – An Important Constitutional Principle in the Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Code 2015”, in Sarah Biddulph et al., ibid., p. 438.

  117. Article 72 of Constitution 1992.

  118. The accused, as defined by Article 60 of the CPC 2015, are physical persons or legal persons against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated.

  119. According to the CPC 2015, during the time of custody, investigations are carried out to identify criminal signs. Subsequently, authorities shall decide whether or not to institute a criminal case.

  120. See supra notes 69, 70.

  121. Bui Tien Dat, “Understanding of the Presumption of Innocence in Vietnam: Why Language Matters?”, in Sarah Biddulph et al., supra note 2, p. 598. Also see, Sébastien Lafrance, “The Presumption of Innocence in Canada: A Comparative Perspective with Vietnam” in Sarah Biddulph et al., ibid., pp. 292–293.

  122. Ibid., p. 599.

  123. Article 13 CPC 2015.

  124. Article 66(3), ICCS; Human Rights Committee, supra note 77, para 30.

  125. Federal Rules of Evidence 2019.

  126. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  127. Evidence Act 1995.

  128. For examples, deposition by emergency detainees, accused persons or facing requisitions for charges, offenders confessing or surrendering, arrestees and temporary detainees (Article 95 CPC 2015); statements by denouncers and informants (Article 96 CPC 2015); deposition by witnesses (Article 97 CPC 2015).

  129. Nguyen Ngoc Chi, “The Presumption of Innocence in Legislation and Its Practical Application in Criminal Procedure in Vietnam” in Sarah Biddulph et al., supra note 2, p. 463.

  130. Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations, Argentina (2000) CCPR/CO/70/ARG, para. 10.

  131. Ibid., see also Human Rights Commitee, Concluding Observations, Italy (2006), CCPR/C/ITA/CO/5, para. 14.

  132. Human Rights Committee, supra note 77, para. 30.

  133. Human Rights Committee, supra note 130.

  134. Under Chapter VII of the CPC 2015, there are two groups of coercive measures. The first group comprises holding persons in urgent circumstances, arrest, custody, detention, bail, depositing money as surety, banning travel beyond the place of residence and exit postponement. The second group comprises coercive delivery, forced escort, distrainment of property and freezing of account.

  135. Le Lan Chi, “The Principle of Presumption of Innocence in the History of Criminal Procedure in Vietnam” in Sarah Biddulph et al., supra note 2, p. 492. See also Tran Van Do, supra note 116, p. 552.

  136. Political Bureau, Resolution No. 49-NQ/TW dated on 02 June 2005 on the Judicial Reform Strategy to 2020, s. 2.1.

  137. “Bail is a preventive measure in lieu of detention. Investigation authorities, procuracies and Courts shall consider the nature and severity of acts against the society and the accused’s or defendants’ personal records and decide to approve or refuse bail.” (Article 121(1) CPC 2015).

  138. “Depositing money as surety is a preventive measure in lieu of detention. Investigation authorities, procuracies and Courts shall consider the nature and severity of acts against the society and the accused’s or defendants’ personal records and decide to allow them or their kin to deposit money as surety.” (Article 122(1) CPC 2015)

  139. Article 119(1),(2),(3) CPC 2015.

  140. Article 173 CPC 2015.

  141. Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 2(f); Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(e).

  142. Bail Act 1976, s. 4.

  143. The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution 1789, Excessive Bail.

  144. Packer, supra note 29, pp. 1–68.

  145. It is notewhorthy that presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence are two different rather than opposite concepts. See Packer, supra note 29, p. 12.

  146. Article 245(1) CPC 2015. The procuracy is entitled to return case files for additional investigations twice.

  147. Article 280(1) CPC 2015. The court is entitled to return case files for additional investigations twice.

  148. Article 85. Attestation in criminal cases

    Competent procedural authorities, when investing, prosecuting and hearing criminal cases must attest:

    1. The existence of the crime, time, space and facts of the crime;

    2. The perpetrator of the crime; the presence of guilt, intentional or unintentional acts; the existence of criminal capacity; purposes and motive of the crime;

    3. Facts aggravating and mitigating criminal liabilities of suspects, defendants and identity traits of suspects and defendants;

    4. Nature and severity of damages caused by the crime;

    5. Reasons and conditions leading to the crime;

    6. Other facts in connection with the exclusion or exemption of criminal liabilities and impunity.

  149. The second paragraph of Article 13 CPC 2015 provides that: “If grounds for conviction, as per the procedures in this Code, do not suffice and cannot be clarified, competent procedural authorities and persons shall conclude that the accused person is not guilty.”

  150. Tran Van Do, supra note 116, pp. 556–557.

  151. Ibid., p. 556.

  152. Hoang Yen, “ (Seven Years Seven Times Return Case Files to Clarify the Act of Sexual Intercourse with Children)”, (07 July 2020) Ho Chi Minh City Legal Journal https://plo.vn/phap-luat/7-nam-7-lan-tra-ho-so-lam-ro-viec-giao-cau-voi-tre-em-922686.html accessed 24 November 2020.

  153. Thanh Nien Journal, “ (A Case with Eleven Times Return Case Files for Additional Investigation: Long Deliberation)”, (17 November 2020) https://thanhnien.vn/thoi-su/vu-an-11-lan-tra-ho-so-dieu-tra-bo-sung-nghi-an-keo-dai-1305635.html accessed 24 November 2020.

  154. Articles 155(2), 230(1)(a), 248(1), 282(1)(a) CPC 2015. See Phuong Loan, “ (Avoiding the Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice in a Rape Case: Need to Identify the Truth)”, (05 January 2016) Ho Chi Minh City Online Legal Journal https://plo.vn/phap-luat/vu-ne-boi-thuong-oan-an-hiep-dam-can-lam-ro-su-that-toi-cung-605046.html accessed 29 May 2021.

  155. Article 29(2)(a) of Penal Code 2015 and Articles 230(1)(a), 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code 2015. See Yen Chau, “ (Terminating the Case to Avoid Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice)”, (19 September 2018) Ho Chi Minh City Online Legal Journal https://plo.vn/phap-luat/dinh-chi-de-ne-boi-thuong-oan-792885.html accessed 29 May 2021.

  156. It is noteworthy that the State of Vietnam has liability to pay compensation to innocent persons but the responsibility to settle the compensation for miscarriage of justice in criminal proceedings is belonged to investigating agencies, procuracies or courts depending on specific circumstances (Articles 34–36 of the Law on State Compensation Liability 2017).

  157. Tan Loc, “(Still not Settle a Controversial Case of Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice)”, (25 February 2021) Ho Chi Minh City Online Legal Journal https://plo.vn/phap-luat/chua-nga-ngu-vu-boi-thuong-oan-nhieu-tranh-cai-969028.html accessed 03 August 2021.

  158. Article 103(2) of Constitution 2013; Article 9 of the Law on Organization of the People’s Court 2014; Article 23 CPC 2015.

  159. Ngan Nga, “ (The Case of Four Accused Persons Was Terminated Because They Did not Commit Crime but They Are Prosecuted Again)”, (19/01/2022) Ho Chi Minh City Online Legal Journal https://plo.vn/phap-luat/4-nguoi-duoc-dinh-chi-vi-khong-pham-toi-lai-bi-truy-to-1039755.html accessed 21 January 2022.

  160. Nhan Nam, “ (The Case Six Persons Were Acquitted in Can Tho: Procuracy Protested for Annulling Judgment)” (21/01/2022) Ho Chi Minh City Online Legal Journal https://plo.vn/phap-luat/vu-6-nguoi-duoc-tuyen-trang-an-o-can-tho-vks-khang-nghi-huy-an-1040251.html accessed 21 January 2022.

  161. See Thai Vinh Thang, “Presumption of Innocence and Practice in Vietnam”, in Sarah Biddulph et al., supra note 2, pp. 537–540.

  162. Hoang Diep, Nguyen Nam, “ (Huynh Van Nen – An Unjust Case Ever in Criminal Proceedings)”, (03 December 2015) Tuoi Tre Journal https://tuoitre.vn/huynh-van-nen-vu-oan-sai-chua-tung-co-trong-to-tung-1013980.htm accessed 25 November 2020.

  163. Minh Tu, Hung Manh, Ngoc Anh, “ (Looking Back on the Exoneration of Mr. Nguyen Thanh Chan – First Issue: Light at the End of the Tunnel)”, (16 April 2017) Investigating Agency of the Supreme People’s Procuracy https://coquandieutravkstc.gov.vn/nhin-lai-vu-minh-oan-cho-ong-nguyen-thanh-chan-ky-1-anh-sang-cuoi-duong-ham/ accessed 25 November 2020; “ (Looking Back on the Exoneration for Mr. Nguyen Thanh Chan – Second Issue: To Be People’s Forever Trust)”, (17 April 2017) Investigating Agency of the Supreme People’s Procuracy https://kiemsat.vn/nhin-lai-vu-minh-oan-cho-ong-nguyen-thanh-chan-ky-2-de-mai-mai-la-niem-tin-cua-nhan-dan-44297.html accessed 25 November 2020.

  164. Viet Chung, Bao Ha, “ “(12 Years in Prison of a Man Four Times Sentenced to the Death Penalty)”, (25 April 2017) VnExpress https://vnexpress.net/12-nam-vuong-lao-ly-cua-nguoi-4-lan-mang-an-tu-3575543.html accessed 25 November 2020.

  165. Minh Tue, “ (Can We Believe: Journey of Delivering Justice for Han Duc Long)”, Viettimes News & Analysis https://viettimes.vn/tin-duoc-khong-hanh-trinh-tra-lai-cong-ly-cho-tu-tu-han-duc-long-post102255.html accessed 25 November 2020. See also website of Lawyer Ngo Ngoc Trai, https://ngongoctrai.com, key words: “memoirs of Han Duc Long case”.

  166. Information about this case can be found in the Decision No. 05/2020/HS-GĐT of the Judges Council of the Supreme People’s Court dated on 20 May 2020.

  167. Cassation is a procedure for reviewing of a legally valid court judgment or decision which is protested against due to serious law violations detected in the handling of the case (Article 370 CPC 2015).

  168. Decision No. 05/2020/HS-GĐT of the Judges Council of the Supreme People’s Court, supra note 166, p. 6.

  169. Ibid., p. 23.

  170. Article 404(1) CPC 2015.

  171. Resolution No. 49-NQ/TW on 02/06/2005 of the Politburo on judicial reform strategies up to 2020, part II, section 2.2.

  172. Ibid.; See also Tran Van Do, “ (Innovating the People’s Courts’ Organization to Ensure the Principle of Independent Adjudication and Sole Compliance to the Law of Judges and Assessors)”, Online Journal of the People’s Court (13/9/2021) https://tapchitoaan.vn/bai-viet/phap-luat/doi-moi-to-chuc-toa-an-nhan-dan-bao-dam-nguyen-tac-tham-phan-hoi-tham-xet-xu-doc-lap-va-chi-tuan-theo-phap-luat accessed 21 March 2022.

  173. Nghia Nhan, “ (Representative Truong Trong Nghia Answers the Interview in the Ho Duy Hai Case)”, (06 June 2020) Ho Chi Minh City Online Legal Journal https://plo.vn/phap-luat/dai-bieu-truong-trong-nghia-tra-loi-phong-van-vu-ho-duy-hai-918844.html accessed 14 July 2021.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge constructive and valuable feedback from the Chief Editor and reviewers of Criminal Law Forum.

Funding

The authors did not receive any financial support for this research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Criminal Law Faculty, Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Duy Huynh Tan Le

  2. University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

    Shruti Bedi

Authors
  1. Duy Huynh Tan Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shruti Bedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duy Huynh Tan Le.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors hereby declare that there is no potential conflict of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Duy Huynh Tan Le is Doctor of Law, Criminal Law Faculty, Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, Vietnam. Email: lhtduy@hcmulaw.edu.vn; Shruti Bedi is Professor of Law, University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, India. Email: dr.shrutibedi@gmail.com.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Le, D.H.T., Bedi, S. Presumption of Innocence: Comparing Vietnamese Law with Established International Jurisprudence. Crim Law Forum 33, 359–408 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-022-09443-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-022-09443-7

Search

Navigation