Directions for Improving the Quality of Law Enforcement in the Practice of the Right to Prosecute at the Investigation Stage of the People's Procuracy

The implementation mechanism as well as the effectiveness of judicial appraisal work (such as forensic appraisal, trace appraisal, scientific and technical appraisal, financial appraisal, construction appraisal...) still have many limitations and shortcomings, significantly affecting the work of prosecution, investigation and indictment.

Regarding the relationship between the Investigation Agency and the Procuracy in investigation activities, although the current Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that the Investigation Agency must implement the decisions and requests of the Procuracy, there is no mechanism to bind the responsibility of the Investigation Agency, so this is actually only a binding legal procedure, and the content of how to conduct investigation activities and what evidence to collect is mainly decided by the Investigator under the direct direction of the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Investigation Agency. From that, there is a view that the current regulations on the prosecution responsibility regime in investigation activities make the Procuracy have no real power, because while the Investigation Agency does a lot of work (from receiving and processing reports of crimes, searching for perpetrators to collecting evidence, preparing files to propose prosecution), the prosecution activities of the Procuracy mainly rely on the files of the Investigation Agency. This is also a legal limitation, leading to the Procuracy not being able to deeply participate in the investigation process of the case, not being able to direct the content that needs to be investigated, reducing the role of the prosecution in the investigation activities.

Working conditions, technical means, and professional funding are very limited and poor, which have also reduced the effectiveness and timeliness of prosecution activities in investigation activities, especially for the activities of prosecutors participating in crime scene investigation, autopsy, search, and interrogation of suspects.

* Subjective causes

Firstly , many officials and prosecutors have not yet properly understood the position, role and authority of the People's Procuracy in criminal proceedings in general and in the exercise of the right to prosecute at the investigation stage in particular , about the responsibility of prosecution, about the relationship between the exercise of the right to prosecute and the investigation, between the requirement of not wrongfully convicting innocent people, not letting criminals and criminals escape and ensuring compliance with the law in investigation activities. As a result, there is a situation of not fully promoting functions and powers; still passively waiting for the investigation results of the investigation agency, depending on the investigation agency; not performing well the requirements and skills of the inspection work.

Maybe you are interested!

such as: supervising the investigation from the beginning, periodically coordinating with the Investigator to synthesize and evaluate evidence, and propose a plan for the next investigation...

On the other hand, in the practice of the right to prosecute at the investigation stage, the sense of responsibility of some prosecutors has not really been promoted. As analyzed above, there are still many cases that have been suspended from investigation, the files have been returned for further investigation, and there are cases that have been returned for further investigation not because the case is too difficult to collect evidence but because the prosecutors have not properly and fully performed the tasks according to the regulations of the industry, or because their sense of responsibility is not high. Some prosecutors are not proactive in the practice of the right to prosecute at the investigation stage, there are many limitations in researching to grasp the progress of the case as well as the issues that need to be proven in the case. Prosecutors assigned to prosecute the investigation of the case do not closely follow the investigation process of the case, do not study the files carefully, deeply, and objectively, so they do not fully and meticulously grasp the details, evidence, and documents to indict and exonerate the accused. Due to not carefully studying the case file, missing and contradictory evidence cannot be detected to request timely investigation. Some prosecutors only pay attention to collecting evidence to indict and exonerate, forgetting the authority and responsibility to supervise compliance with the law in VAHS investigation activities of the Investigation Agency. These things can lead to violations of procedural order and procedures, causing difficulties in the process of resolving the case.

Second, the coordination relationship in resolving cases in many cases is still not close, and in some cases there is even shirking of responsibility.

Since the Resolution 388/NQ-UBTVQH11 dated March 17, 2003 of the National Assembly Standing Committee on compensation for damages to people wrongly convicted in criminal proceedings and the Law on State Compensation Liability, there has been a strong mentality of opposing wrongful conviction of innocent people, lack of initiative, determination to coordinate, and request for the Investigation Agency to take measures to overcome the omission of criminals and criminals among a group of officials and prosecutors. On the contrary, due to deference, avoidance, and fear of conflict, some places have overlooked serious mistakes and violations by the Investigation Agency, leading to violations of citizens' freedom and democracy rights and wrongful conviction of innocent people.

Third, the capacity and sense of responsibility of a number of leaders, cadres and prosecutors have not met the requirements.

Many prosecutors of the two-level People's Procuracy of Yen Bai province have weak legal qualifications and prosecutorial skills. In practice, the practice of the right to prosecute at the investigation stage still shows certain limitations (as the above analysis shows, the number of people who were temporarily detained and then released for administrative handling, the number of cases and defendants whose investigation was suspended, the number of cases that had to be returned for further investigation due to procedural violations and lack of evidence that still occurred). A small number of prosecutors have not yet mastered the provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure, and are still confused in ADPL. The assessment of evidence is still one-sided, only concerned with investigating incriminating evidence, not considering and evaluating comprehensively and fully the details of the case..., therefore not correctly assessing the nature of the case. The capacity to analyze and synthesize incriminating and exculpating evidence in the file is still weak. Meanwhile, the training and development of cadres has not kept pace with the development of tasks and the number of criminal cases as well as the organization and operation of the Investigation Agency. Notably, a small number of cadres and prosecutors have violated ethics and are negative, and have proposed illegal handling decisions.

Regarding the situation of returning files for additional investigation as mentioned above, an undeniable reason is that the Procuracy has been lax in its responsibilities, not closely following the activities of collecting evidence, preparing case files, and handling physical evidence of the Investigation Agency. Many prosecutors have not taken seriously the criminal proceedings as prescribed by law, have not fully and thoroughly studied and researched the legal provisions as well as the professional regulations of the industry, and have worked based on habits and experience. In addition, there are a number of officials and prosecutors who lack courage, have reduced their will to strive, and have degraded their political qualities and lifestyle ethics.

Fourth, the management, direction and inspection work of the leaders of Yen Bai Provincial People's Procuracy in recent years, although receiving attention and focus, has not yet met the requirements.

The Procuracy system is organized and operates according to the principle of centralized unity. The lower-level Procuracy is under the leadership of the direct superior Procuracy and the local Procuracy.

under the centralized and unified leadership of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People's Procuracy. The direction and operation of the sector is mainly based on reviewing the reports on the work results of the lower-level Procuracies. The inspection of records and books has not been carried out regularly for units, especially between the Supreme People's Procuracy and local Procuracies. There are also places where the leaders of the district-level Procuracies trust and are satisfied with the case reports of the Prosecutors, so when listening to the case reports, they are not careful, not in-depth, not meticulous, leading to mistakes in many cases.

On the other hand, the management and operation mechanism for handling criminal cases is always changing. In the past, we have changed the management of the inter-stage and specialized stage between "practicing the right to prosecute - investigating prosecution" and "practicing the right to prosecute - prosecuting the first instance trial". In addition, the arrangement and assignment of cadres and prosecutors is somewhat uneven, not paying attention to key areas with complicated security and order. In the assignment of cadres to perform the work of prosecuting and investigating complicated and serious cases, at times and in some places, prosecutors are assigned who are incompetent, incapable, and lack the necessary knowledge and experience to take on the responsibility. Along with that, the number of prosecutors exercising the right to prosecute and investigating prosecution cases is not reasonable compared to the number of investigators assigned to investigate, not being able to supervise the quality and progress of the investigation.

Fifth, the supervision of elected representative agencies, social organizations and people over ADPL activities in practicing the right to prosecute and supervise judicial activities does not have an effective supervision mechanism.

The National Assembly and the People's Councils mainly exercise their supervisory power through listening to periodic reports on work results and supervising through questioning at meetings of the National Assembly and the People's Councils of the leaders of the Procuracy. This form of supervision also brings positive results, but because the National Assembly and the People's Councils have to supervise all State agencies in general, there is not enough time and conditions to conduct in-depth supervision of ADPL activities in the practice of the People's Procuracy's prosecution power.

Sixth, proactive inter-sectoral coordination between judicial agencies,

especially between the Procuracy agencies, the Investigation Agency and the Court in resolving criminal cases.

Sometimes, in some places, the coordination is not strict, the quality is not high, or the coordination is emphasized but the tasks and responsibilities are forgotten, leading to deference, avoidance, and fear of collision between the agencies conducting the proceedings. This is also considered a cause that limits the quality of ADPL in the practice of the right to prosecute at the investigation stage of the Procuracy.

Seventh, the material and technical conditions of the Procuracy in the whole country are generally lacking and weak . For a mountainous, economically underdeveloped and remote area like Yen Bai, the material conditions of the Yen Bai Provincial People's Procuracy are much more difficult. Although in recent years, the Party and the State have paid attention to creating conditions to improve material facilities, means, techniques, communications, etc., they still do not meet the requirements of fighting and preventing crime in the current period.

CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY

Chapter 2 of the thesis is presented in 2 sections of 33 pages. Through the analysis of the characteristics and situation of criminal offenses in Yen Bai province as well as specific statistical data in 5 years (2011 - 2015), the author has revealed its impacts on the quality and status of ADPL in the practice of prosecution rights at the investigation stage of the Yen Bai Provincial People's Procuracy. By the methods of synthesis, analysis, statistics, and comparison of data of the Yen Bai Provincial People's Procuracy in 5 years, it is possible to see the achieved results, besides that there are also many limitations and weaknesses that need to be overcome. These limitations and weaknesses are due to many different causes, but mainly due to the fact that the positive legal system still has many shortcomings, the capacity, qualifications, and moral qualities of officials and prosecutors are still limited.

The above situation shows that there is a need for directions and solutions to improve the quality and effectiveness of ADPL activities in practicing the right to prosecute at the investigation stage of the People's Procuracy in general and the People's Procuracy of Yen Bai province in particular to meet the current judicial reform in our country.

Chapter 3

DIRECTIONS AND SOLUTIONS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LAW APPLICATION IN THE PRACTICE OF PROSECUTION RIGHTS AT THE INVESTIGATION STAGE OF THE PEOPLE'S PROSECUTORATE

Based on the limitations in the quality of ADPL activities in practicing the right to prosecute at the investigation stage of the People's Procuracy of Yen Bai province and the basic causes of those limitations, the author believes that in order to improve the quality of ADPL in practicing the right to prosecute at the investigation stage, it is necessary to have a systematic and synchronous direction and solution, in order to detect and handle quickly, promptly and accurately all criminal acts according to the provisions of law, not to let people or crimes escape, not to wrongfully convict innocent people.

3.1. Directions for improving the quality of law enforcement in practicing the right to prosecute at the investigation stage of the People's Procuracy

In the current period, our Party and State are continuing to reform the State apparatus and innovate the political system, in which reforming the organization and operation of judicial agencies is an objective requirement arising in the process of national innovation. The Resolutions of the 9th, 10th, and 11th Congresses, the 3rd and 7th Resolutions of the Party Central Committee (term

X) has clearly defined the path of innovation in the organization and operation of judicial agencies. The Resolution of the 10th National Party Congress with the goal of building a socialist rule-of-law state of the people, by the people, and for the people has continued to affirm the task:

Building a clean, strong, democratic and strict judicial system that protects justice and human rights. Accelerating the implementation of the judicial reform strategy until 2020. Urgent and synchronous judicial reform; focusing on trial reform; implementing a prosecution mechanism associated with investigation activities... [8].

In the context of promoting judicial reform, exercising the right to prosecute during the investigation phase of criminal cases is identified as a key task of the People's Procuracy.

Resolution No. 08-NQ/TW dated January 2, 2002 of the Politburo more specifically defines the urgent and fundamental tasks of judicial reform, which clearly state:

The Procuracy at all levels shall perform well the function of prosecution and supervision of compliance with the law in judicial activities. Prosecution activities must be carried out immediately upon initiation of criminal cases and throughout the proceedings to ensure that no criminals or offenders are left unpunished; and promptly handle violations by those conducting the proceedings in the performance of their duties [5].

Next, Resolution No. 49-NQ/TW dated June 2, 2005 of the Politburo on “Judicial Reform Strategy to 2020” pointed out that it is necessary to “Strengthen the responsibility of the prosecution in investigation activities” [7] . The document of the 11th National Party Congress of the Party continued to emphasize the need to “Strengthen prosecution in investigation activities, linking prosecution with investigation activities” [10] in order to enhance the position and role of the Procuracy in the fight against crime, protecting the freedom and democracy of citizens.

Therefore, ADPL subjects in general and subjects doing ADPL work in practicing the right to prosecute at the investigation stage of the People's Procuracy of Yen Bai province in particular need to thoroughly grasp and clearly perceive the major orientations of the Party on judicial reform activities to improve the quality of ADPL in the context of building the judiciary of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. To improve the quality of ADPL in practicing the right to prosecute at the investigation stage of the People's Procuracy of Yen Bai province in the current period, it is necessary to grasp the following general directions:

First: Ensure and strengthen the leadership of the Party and local Party committees, perfect and promote the supervisory role of elected bodies and the people in the activities of ADPL in the practice of the right to prosecute at the investigation stage of the People's Procuracy. That leadership does not mean that the Party committee intervenes in the activities of investigation, prosecution, trial or decides on the handling of criminal cases, but the leadership here is the setting out of policies and directions to ensure the activities of judicial agencies in general and the People's Procuracy in particular, improve the quality of ADPL, and resolve criminal cases strictly and in accordance with the law.

Comment