Colonel Cau: The regulation on compensation responsibility of the investigation agency is baseless.

(Baonghean.vn) - Talking on the sidelines of the 3rd session of the 14th National Assembly, the Director of Nghe An Provincial Police clarified two remaining issues regarding the draft Law on State Compensation Liability.

National Assembly Delegate Nguyen Huu Cau talks with reporters on the sidelines of the third session of the 14th National Assembly. Photo: Thanh Loan

Compensation liability of the investigating agency

The first issue and also the issue that Colonel Nguyen Huu Cau - Director of the Provincial Police Department is most confused about is Clause 3, Article 34 on Compensation liability of the investigation agency and other agencies assigned to conduct investigation activities. He said this is a new clause, which is not included in the study of Resolution 388 of 2003 and the Law on State Compensation Liability of 2009.

In the previous draft amendment, there were 2 options, but now there is only 1 option, according to which: The investigation agency must compensate in the case where "the Procuracy returns the case file for additional investigation, the investigation agency issues a supplementary investigation conclusion or maintains the original investigation conclusion but the Procuracy issues a decision to suspend the case because the person being prosecuted did not commit a crime or the act does not constitute a crime".

The head of Nghe An Provincial Police pointed out 4 reasons why the above regulations are incorrect and have no legal basis to exist.

The first reason, according to Colonel Cau, is that the prosecutor has great power. During the investigation process, they have the right to request the cancellation of unfounded or illegal decisions, to approve or disapprove, especially during the 2-month investigation supervision period.

“All decisions of the prosecutor’s office must be followed by the investigation agency. If you do not agree, you can make a request, but you will only receive a response 20 days later. In reality, there are times when you can respond or not. With such great authority, why is it that if there is a wrongful conviction within those 2 months, the prosecutor’s office is not responsible?”, the delegate asked.

Second, delegate Cau cited the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code that the Investigation Conclusion only recommends that the Procuracy prosecute, stating that "recommendation" has two possibilities: agree or disagree, that is, if the Procuracy agrees to prosecute but there is a miscarriage of justice, compensation must be paid, and if the Procuracy does not agree to prosecute, the investigation process must be returned to, and whoever makes the final decision on the miscarriage of justice must pay compensation.

Illustrating the third reason, the delegate from Nghe An assumed that the investigation agency only needed to do a simple trick to “bypass” the regulation such as Clause 3, Article 34: in the investigation conclusion, the investigator proposed to suspend the case. “Thus, if the prosecutor decides not to prosecute, the investigation agency does not have to pay compensation because it has proposed to suspend in the investigation conclusion. On the contrary, if the prosecutor prosecutes, of course the investigation agency is not responsible for compensation for wrongful convictions,” the Provincial Police Director thoroughly analyzed this “loophole”, saying that if that happens, the prosecutor will fall into a “dilemma”.

Finally, Colonel Nguyen Huu Cau affirmed that Clause 3, Article 34 is included in Clauses 1 and 2, Article 35, so Clause 3, Article 34 cannot exist and if included in the law, it must be included in Article 35 on Compensation Liability of the Procuracy.

Time limit for compensation settlement for wrongful conviction

Also giving comments on the time limit for compensation settlement, the delegate from Nghe An pointed out the shortcomings in the draft law that does not have a separate provision regulating the time limit for compensation settlement: “Why do other laws have provisions on the time limit for compensation settlement and settlement for the people, why is this law not included? I had to study 15 articles to discover the time limit for compensation settlement, if so, how can we comply with the principle of public and timely settlement?”

On that basis, Colonel Nguyen Huu Cau recommended that there should be a law regulating the time limit for settlement so that people know and monitor, so that when the deadline expires, the authorities will know that they have not fully fulfilled their duties and responsibilities to the people.

PV-CTV Group