It can be said that the viewpoint of the accusation of Ho Duy Hai’s case is a framework of resolving framework sentences, which can be applied in many other cases. Therefore, if we say that Ho Duy Hai is unjustly accused, it is the way of awareness and the way of making judgments that cause unfair to Ho Duy Hai.
Lawyer Ngo Ngoc Trai gave a commentary on the Ho Duy Hai case in the context of the old perceptions of the Vietnamese court system.
It should be acknowledged here that the Supreme People’s Court’s Council of Judges with professional experience may have truly believed that the conviction of Ho Duy Hai was guilty of justice.
Those judges were deeply aware of a criminal practice, a worn-out practice, they found no problem with such a way of judging evidence and condemnation.
Once the case file was studied by the judge for a few months, when they find that there are many confessions and everything is consistent with each other, then that creates an internal belief in the judges that the defendant guilty.
So now those who want to save Ho Duy Hai, how to save?
How to overcome the established awareness of the judges?
There is only one way, which is to raise the standards of trial.
That is, the need to improve the basis of the conviction, especially the death penalty, requires that solid foundations for conviction be established.
In this way, on the one hand, it will save the Court’s face, encouraging them that the conviction they have done is not wrong with what has been a long tradition, thereby creating the ability to approve discussions and set a higher standard for trial.
When people are not held responsible, people have a reason for cooperation to change.
It is clear that the standards, judicial standards, the way of making projects for a long time, compatible with a period of relatively authoritarian government and society are relatively backward, so that standard process has a space environment.
But when socio-economic life has developed, people’s awareness has improved, people have a sense of personal safety and security and the need for social justice, it will require higher demand in the state management in general and the judicial work in particular.
Failing to realize that, the Court will keep its backward behavior and behave astray with social progress.
The accusation was mainly due to testimony
In the case of Ho Duy Hai, there should be physical evidence, or as Mr. Le Minh Tri, director of the Supreme People’s Procuracy said, must have direct evidence to ensure the basis for conviction.
For example, there should be evidence on the blood stains of victims found on Ho Duy Hai, stolen property of victims found at Hai’s house, Hai’s fingerprints on the means used in the crime.
Or it is like finding a blood sample of Ho Duy Hai at the scene, or a witness certifying Ho Duy Hai or the camera data that shows Ho Duy Hai at the scene or leaving the scene, etc.
Without that evidence, no charges can be made.
In fact in this case there are only indirect evidence- testimony or confession of the convicted.
The court relied on these weak grounds to convict him, making the public doubted.
Raising the judiciary will require an increase in adjudicating knowledge, and judicial knowledge has been a problem of the court branch for a long time.
The court said that Ho Duy Hai has 25 confessions and these statements are consistent with other evidence, if not the culprit, it is impossible to know.
But actually it is only 25 minutes of the record signed by Ho Duy Hai only. Those records are different sclerosis documents with a vividly visual and eye-witness testimony.
The record of testimony was screened and influenced by the willpower of the investigating officer so it would be very different from the defendant’s actual testimony.
The new Criminal Procedure Code now requires a video recording when interrogating. That creates the evidence as the true meaning of the confession, which is the sound and the image of gestures.
So the so-called confession for a long time, if they are foreigners, they will think it is a confession, but in Vietnam it is actually only the papers signed by the accused.
On the other hand, the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates the plaintiffs of defendants can only be considered evidence if they are consistent with other evidences of the case. And It is forbidden to use the plaintiffs and defendants’ pleadings as the only evidence for condemning or conviction.
That is, the law based on world judicial experience has required suspicion with the accused’s pleadings.
So even we accept that the 25 confession pleadings were deemed to be consistent with other evidence in the case, and it was only a single evidence. And by law, confession must not be used as the only evidence to convict.
So is there any other evidence in the case? I see not.
Because in addition to the evidence of Ho Duy Hai’s confession, there was a witness when he came to the transaction that night to see a young man sitting in a row waiting for his phone to play with him, but he did not know Ho Duy Hai and could not confirm the man was Ho Duy Hai.
Or the pile of coal ash burning in Aunt Hai’s garden only inspected traces of plastic and cloth, the assessment results did not confirm that it was true that the SIM card cards were stolen.
In general, the case only contains a plea of guilty plea and if it is rigorously evaluated, it is not eligible to be convicted in accordance with the current Criminal Code standards.
Therefore, raising the standard of simple trial only requires the Court system to strictly apply the existing legal provisions.
Notice that the judiciary has long been a monotonous, monotonous way of working, judging judgments around the elements of evidence and law.
While there is a very lack of philosophical justification, through which the people desire to be persuaded and then put justice in the court of justice.
Ho Duy Hai case is related to the death of two girls and a death sentence, the great pain touches the conscience of society and contains deep human philosophical issues. Since then, it requires the assertion of truth perception and re-establishing the legal system. But the Court’s treatment did not meet the people’s sense of justice.
There is also nothing to show that the Court recognized its internal problems and plans to improve their capacity, overcome their optimism and meet the increasing demands of society.
How the handling of the next Ho Duy Hai case will show what the state agencies want to do with the justice system.
If they see that everything is okay, nothing will change for Ho Duy Hai’s sentence. If due to people’s sense of justice, the authorities would have to re-evaluate Ho Duy Hai.
The only way to do so is to have stronger evidence in conviction. In other words, raising the standard of trial and imposing sweeping reforms on the judiciary,” lawyer Ngo Ngoc Trai concluded.