Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court is being "prosecuted" for 5 major cases suspected of wrongful convictions.

According to Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Truong Hoa Binh, so far only the case of Mr. Nguyen Thanh Chan has been concluded as wrongful, while the other 5 cases are under review, which may or may not be wrongful.

Questioning the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court about the situation of wrongful convictions in criminal proceedings and compensation for wrongful convictions on the morning of March 13, delegate Do Van Duong (HCMC) mentioned 5 particularly serious cases that have received public attention recently: Was the death sentence for Ho Duy Hai for murder and robbery unjust? Was the death sentence in Nguyen Van Chuong's case appropriate? Why, despite the same circumstances, was defendant Le Ba Mai sentenced to life in prison, while Ham Duc Long was sentenced to death? Why did Mr. Nguyen Thanh Chan continuously file petitions for many years, but only when the real perpetrator surrendered was the case considered for a retrial? In the Huynh Van Nen case, why was it not considered for 16 years, but only in 2014 did the final review take place?

Chief Justice Truong Hoa Binh said he is carefully considering five major cases that the public is interested in.

Delegate Le Thi Nga, Vice Chairwoman of the Judicial Committee, mentioned the settlement of compensation for wrongful convictions. The monitoring process showed that many cases were dragged on for a long time. So what is the responsibility of the Chief Justice and what is the solution to overcome this situation? Mr. Nguyen Thanh Chan was wrongfully imprisoned, so far what is the result of the compensation for wrongful convictions? The case of Mr. Phan Van La (Long An) was sentenced to 4 years in prison, then the sentence was annulled, the case file was returned for re-investigation from 1992. But 21 years later, the investigation was suspended. During those 21 years, Mr. La had to bear the reputation of a defendant and demanded compensation, but the parties pushed the responsibility to each other. So what is the responsibility of the Chief Justice and the solution in this case?

Responding to questions from delegates, Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Truong Hoa Binh said that the five cases are being jointly handled by the prosecution agencies. These cases must be carefully considered, to avoid wrongful convictions and criminals, and to remedy the consequences if there are violations in the investigation, prosecution and trial.

Regarding the Ho Duy Hai case, according to Mr. Truong Hoa Binh, when two postal workers were murdered, it caused great outrage in society. The investigation agency conducted an investigation, but the case was not caught red-handed, so it was difficult to collect evidence. Ho Duy Hai confessed to the murder, and the investigation agency verified some other evidence. In court, the defendant still confessed and affirmed that there was no torture. But when the appeal was heard, the defendant partly argued that he did not commit the crime... "The investigation process found some errors in collecting evidence, but it did not change the nature of the case."

Is the response to the death sentence of Nguyen Van Chuong satisfactory? According to the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court, the view of the trial panel is that the leader must bear the consequences of criminal responsibility and this is not a case of wrongful conviction.

For defendants Le Ba Mai and Han Duc Long, both were convicted of rape but the two sentences were different. According to Mr. Binh, the crime of raping a child under 13 years old has a wide range of penalties from 12 years, 20 years, to life imprisonment, death penalty. The council bases its decision on the circumstances, the method of the act and the seriousness of the act. That is the council's independent decision, the chief judge of the court must respect that decision.

Regarding the prolonged cases of wrongful convictions and compensation, the Russian delegate raised questions. According to Mr. Binh, the case of Mr. Phan Van La being wrongly convicted for 21 years was a mistake and responsibility needs to be reviewed. This is a legal issue, there must be an arbitration body to conclude which agency is responsible for compensation and the State Compensation Law must be amended.

Regarding Mr. Chan’s case, Chief Justice Binh said that this was a wrongful conviction. The court had invited Mr. Chan to resolve compensation according to regulations many times, but Mr. Chan had not provided any evidence and was still waiting to prove material and mental damages as a basis for compensation.

According to Infonet