Director of Devinci Pacific Law Company Limited, Mr Nguyen Duc Hieu commented on the issue of the Procuracy's decision to suspend the defendant in the case of a person with the status of a defendant for 38 years, published on Ho Chi Minh City Law Electronic Newspaper. He is a long-time reputable expert with high qualifications in the legal field. Below, we would like to quote the entire article.
Source: Song Mai. Ho Chi Minh City Law Online Newspaper (issue published October 30, 2023). Case of a person with the identity of a defendant for 38 years: The Procuracy needs to issue a decision to suspend the defendant.
———————————————————————-
Recently, the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City opened a meeting to consider the appeal of Mr. Trinh Dan Cuong (67 years old, residing in District 6, Ho Chi Minh City) regarding the review of the first instance decision in the dispute over compensation for damages caused by mechanical damage. The agency conducting the proceedings caused the crime in criminal proceedings, with the defendant being the People's Procuracy of District 6.
Mr. Cuong's unjust case received public attention, because Mr. Cuong was determined not to be involved in the gold theft case but remained as a defendant for 38 years.
Suspension due to failure to provide supporting evidence
Records show that on February 28, 1985, Mr. Cuong and two other people were arrested by District 6 Police on suspicion of gold theft. The above procedural decisions were all approved by the People's Procuracy of District 6.
On December 3, 1986, Mr. Cuong was released by Ho Chi Minh City Police for the reason "not related to the gold store theft".
![p7-anh-bai-oan-quy-4587-3477.jpg](https://image.plo.vn/w850/Uploaded/2023/mdxwpmdwp/2023_10_30/p7-anh-bai-oan-quy-4587-3477-2580.jpg.webp)
In January 2023, Mr. Cuong filed a lawsuit against the District 6 People's Procuracy because this agency caused him to be unjustly detained for 21 months and four days, suffering many humiliations, separating his family...
During the conciliation process, the People's Procuracy of District 6 maintained that Mr. Cuong was unjustly convicted by the criminal appeal judgment dated February 21, 1990 of the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Ho Chi Minh City (now the High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City). Ho Chi Minh City) but until now Mr. Cuong has only filed a request for compensation after the prescribed settlement period has expired.
The People's Court of District 6 then decided to suspend the resolution of the above lawsuit on the grounds that the documents and evidence submitted along with Mr. Cuong's petition did not meet the conditions to sue.
Disagreeing, Mr. Trinh Dan Cuong appealed. Mr. Cuong collected and handed over to the court the first instance judgment of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City in 1989 and the appeal judgment of the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Ho Chi Minh City in 1990. According to these two judgments, Mr. Cuong was confirmed It is determined that the victim and the people from the District 6 Police and District 6 People's Procuracy involved in the wrongful arrest of Mr. Cuong have been sentenced.
The Court of Appeal said that Mr. Cuong's case needs to apply the 2017 Law on State Compensation Liability to resolve.
Accordingly, this law stipulates that documents serving as a basis for requesting compensation in criminal proceedings include: Judgment of a competent court clearly identifying the victim who is eligible for compensation; Decisions of the court, Procuracy, investigation agency...
Mr. Cuong does not have one of the conditions prescribed by law as cited above, so the first instance court's suspension of the case is in accordance with regulations.
The appellate panel also had no basis to accept the appeal because Mr. Cuong appealed but could not provide documents or evidence to prove the appeal.
When the Procuracy decides to suspend, the statute of limitations is not calculated
According to MSc Nguyen Duc Hieu, Mr. Cuong was released due to a decision of Ho Chi Minh City Police on December 3, 1986.
Article 10 of the Law on Organization of the People's Procuracy in 1981 (the law in effect at the time of the decision to release Mr. Cuong) stipulates that the Procuracy has the right to make decisions on arrest, detention, release, parole... and transfer to the agency. investigation agency to request enforcement; annul unfounded or illegal decisions of the investigation agency.
In addition, when carrying out detention and detention supervision, the Procuracy has the right to decide on the release of people detained or detained without grounds and illegally.
From there, it shows that the Ho Chi Minh City Police at that time decided to release people without authority and the People's Procuracy of District 6 did not properly implement the procedural regulations, because the Procuracy is the competent authority in approving documents. criminal proceedings, and can approve or disapprove decisions on arrest, detention, extension of detention, release, and parole.
Lieutenant General Tran Van Do, former Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court, Chief Justice of the Central Military Court, said that since Mr. Cuong's case is in the investigation stage, the People's Procuracy of District 6 must clarify Mr. Cuong's arrest. unjustly detained. From there, the People's Procuracy of District 6 had to issue a decision to suspend the defendant and suspend the case for Mr. Cuong.
“When the Procuracy decides to suspend, the statute of limitations is not calculated. Therefore, even though several decades have passed, the Procuracy must issue a decision to suspend the defendant and suspend the case so that Mr. Cuong can claim compensation for wrongful death. There must be these decisions so that when Mr. Cuong files a lawsuit for compensation, the court will consider and resolve it" - Mr. Do said.
Sharing the same opinion, lawyer Truong Van Tuan (Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association) said that Mr. Cuong needs to ask the People's Procuracy of District 6 to issue a decision to suspend the defendant as a basis for requesting compensation and apology. In case the People's Procuracy of District 6 decides not to approve the request, Mr. Cuong can initiate an administrative lawsuit according to the provisions of Clause 1, Article 115 of the Law on Administrative Procedures.
The Supreme People's Procuracy learned from a case where the Procuracy did not agree to compensate
In October 2019, the Supreme People's Procuracy announced to learn from experience in resolving compensation claims in the case of Mr. Nguyen Van Dung (one of eight victims of the 40-year-old gold theft case in Tay Ninh).
After Mr. Dung requested compensation, the People's Procuracy of Tay Ninh province said that Mr. Dung did not file a compensation claim within the prescribed time, leading to no basis for consideration (according to Mr. Dung, as soon as he was released, he sent form).
However, the Supreme People's Procuracy determined that Mr. Dung had been wronged and must receive compensation, so he requested the People's Procuracy of Tay Ninh province to accept the case, after which the People's Procuracy of Tay Ninh province processed the compensation according to regulations.
According to the Supreme People's Procuracy, this is a typical case of an incident that happened a long time ago. The procedural records as well as documents and books prove that Mr. Dung sent a request for compensation to the competent authorities. Lost rights take a lot of time to search and restore.
The Supreme People's Procuracy considers it necessary to learn from general experience on a number of issues:
When incidents with signs of injustice occur, heads of People's Procuracy at all levels must pay attention to consider and resolve compensation claims with a demanding attitude, without pushing or avoiding.
When receiving compensation claims, heads of People's Procuracy at all levels must urgently direct the development of verification plans to clarify the basis for accepting or not accepting compensation claims.
Once the compensation responsibility of the Procuracy has been clearly determined, it must proactively apologize publicly, restore the honor of the wronged person, and respect the legitimate wishes of the wronged person...
DEVINCI PACIFIC
Post a Comments