suspect, defendant, witness statements, physical evidence, expert conclusions, crime scene investigation records, body examination, search" [153, p. 49].
Thus, compared to the Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code of some countries under study does not have a clear separation between evidence and sources of evidence, and the concept of evidence includes sources of evidence. The Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Code clearly stipulates: issues that must be proven in criminal cases (Article 63); the concept of evidence (Clause 1, Article 64), sources of evidence (Clause 2, Article 64); etc.
1.3.2. Sources of evidence
Regarding the system of sources of evidence, research on criminal procedural law of the Russian Federation, China, Japan, Korea... shows that in the criminal procedural law of the Russian Federation, there are provisions on the legal definition of the concept of physical evidence.
Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation stipulates:
Maybe you are interested!
-
Theoretical and practical issues on the institution of evidence in Vietnamese criminal procedure law - 11 -
Evidence and proof issues in the Civil Procedure Code - 9 -
The principle of ensuring the impartiality of litigants or participants in the proceedings in Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Law – theoretical and practical issues - 11 -
Procedure for Applying Law in Criminal Investigation Cases -
Provisions of Criminal Procedure Law on Depositing Money or Valuable Assets as Security
Physical evidence is considered any item:
1) Criminal tools or traces of crime;
2) Subject of crime;
2.1) Money, valuables and other assets obtained from crime
but have;
3) Are other objects or documents that may be considered as
means of detecting crimes and determining the circumstances of the case [152, p. 46].
In addition, only the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides for the legal definition of the concept of the accused's testimony in Article 77:
1. The defendant's statement is the information they provide during the interrogation, conducted during the pre-trial proceedings.
or at the Court and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 173, 174, from Article 187 to Article 190 and Article 275 of this Code.
2. The defendant's confession shall only be considered as a basis for charging them if it is consistent with other evidence of the case [152, p. 45].
Although the 1988 Criminal Procedure Code and the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code of our country have not yet introduced the concept of statements of suspects and defendants, they have mentioned statements of suspects and defendants. Article 72 of the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code stipulates:
1. The suspect and defendant present the details of the case.
2. The confession of the accused can only be considered as evidence if it is consistent with other evidence of the case.
The confession of the accused shall not be used as the sole evidence to convict [10].
Research on criminal procedural law of the Russian Federation, China, Japan, Korea... shows that the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation has provisions on the legal definition of the concept of victim's testimony in Article 78:
1. The victim's testimony is the information provided by them during the interrogation, conducted during the pre-trial proceedings or at the Court and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 187 to 191 and Article 277 of this Code.
2. The victim may be asked about any circumstances that need to be proven in a criminal case, including about their relationship with the suspect or defendant [152, p. 46].
Research on criminal procedural law of the Russian Federation, China, Japan, Korea... shows that the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation has provisions on the legal definition of the concept of conclusion and testimony of experts and experts in Article 80:
1. The expert's conclusion is the research content and results expressed in writing on the issues raised by the litigant and the parties to the expert;
2. The expert's testimony is the information provided by them when taking testimony, conducted after receiving the expert's results with the purpose of explaining or clarifying the content of the expert's conclusion in accordance with the provisions of Articles 205 and 282 of this Code;
3. The expert's conclusions are the research content and results expressed in writing on the issues raised by the parties;
4. The expert's testimony and explanation are the information they provide when asked about circumstances requiring professional knowledge in accordance with the provisions of Articles 53, 161 and 271 of this Code [152, p. 46].
Research on criminal procedural law of the Russian Federation, China, Japan, Korea... shows that the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation mentions the minutes of investigation activities and minutes of court sessions, other documents in Articles 83 and 84.
84. Article 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation stipulates: "The minutes of investigative activities and the minutes of the trial are considered evidence if they comply with the provisions of this Code" [152, p. 48].
Regarding other documents, Article 84 of this Code stipulates:
1. Other documents shall be considered as evidence if the information contained therein is significant in determining the circumstances specified in Article 73 of this Code.
2. Documents may contain information in written or other forms. These include photographic documents, films, audio and video tapes and other objects containing
information that can be received, used or submitted according to the procedures prescribed in Article 86 of this Code.
3. These documents are included in the case file and preserved for the preservation period required by the legal custodian, then the documents that have been seized and included in the case file or copies of these documents may be returned to them.
4. Documents with signs specified in Clause 1, Article 81 of this Code are considered evidence [152, p. 49].
1.3.3. Other issues related to evidence and proof
Our principle of evaluating evidence is different from the principle of freely evaluating evidence based on the judge's inner beliefs as stipulated in the criminal procedure law of some countries in the world such as France, Korea, Japan... and in the bourgeois legal theory of freely evaluating evidence.
Article 308 - Principle of free assessment of evidence of the Korean Criminal Procedure Code stipulates: "The value of evidence is decided by judges" [113, p.72]; Article 428 of the French Criminal Procedure Code stipulates: "Confessions, like all other evidence, are under the sole discretion of judges" [8, p. 195]; Article 318 of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Code stipulates: "The evidentiary value of evidence shall be left to the free consideration of judges" [112, p. 54].
Research on criminal procedure laws of some countries in the world such as the Russian Federation, China, Korea, Japan, Thailand... shows that the Criminal Procedure Codes of these countries all have regulations on the order and procedures for questioning suspects during the investigation phase.
Article 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation stipulates:
1. The investigating judge shall interrogate the accused immediately after making accusations against him and shall comply with the provisions of Point 9, Clause 4, Article 47 and Clause 3, Article 50 of this Code.
2. At the beginning of the interrogation, the investigator must inquire whether the accused admits guilt, whether he wishes to testify about the nature of the charges against him, and, if so, in what language. In case the accused refuses to testify, the investigator must record this in the interrogation protocol.
3. The interrogation shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 189 of this Code and the exceptions prescribed in this Article.
4. In case the accused refuses to testify at the first interrogation, re-interrogation of that person about the same accusation can only be carried out at the request of the accused himself [152, pp. 89-90].
While the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation allows the accused to refuse to testify, the Criminal Procedure Code of China only allows the accused to not answer questions that are not relevant to the case. Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code of China stipulates:
When interrogating a suspect, the Investigator must first ask the suspect whether he has committed any crime and allow him to present the circumstances of the crime or explain his innocence, after which he may ask further questions. The suspect must answer the Investigator's questions truthfully, but has the right to refuse to answer any questions that are not relevant to the case [111, p. 23].
Chinese criminal procedure law does not regulate the procedure for questioning suspects, but the Japanese Criminal Procedure Code specifically regulates this issue in Article 198:
1. The prosecutor, assistant prosecutor and judicial police may request any suspect to appear at their office and question him, if it is necessary for the investigation of a crime. However, the suspect may refuse to appear or later
A person present may withdraw at any time, except in the event that he or she has been arrested or detained.
2. In the case of interrogation as referred to in paragraph 1 above, the suspect must be informed in advance that he will not be required to make a statement against his will.
3. The suspect's statement may be recorded in the minutes [112, p. 34].
Notably, both Japanese and Korean criminal procedural laws have provisions on not recognizing as evidence the confession of a defendant in case of forced confession. Article 319 of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Code stipulates: "A confession made under duress, torture or threats or after a prolonged period of arrest or detention in another form that makes the confession not voluntary shall not be accepted as evidence" [112, p. 54]; Article 309 of the Korean Criminal Procedure Code stipulates: "A confession made by a defendant under torture, violence, threats or after prolonged arrest or detention, or suspected of being obtained involuntarily by fraud or other methods, shall not be considered evidence of a crime" [113, p. 73].
Research on criminal procedural laws of some countries in the world such as the Russian Federation, China, Korea, Japan, Thailand... shows that although the criminal procedural laws of these countries have different provisions, they all mention the minutes of questioning the accused.
Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation stipulates:
1. Each time the accused is questioned, the Investigating Magistrate must draw up a record in accordance with the provisions of Article 190 of this Code.
2. The first interrogation record must clearly state the personal information of the accused, including: 1) Full name; 2) Date, month, year of birth and place of birth; 3) Nationality; 4) Education level; 5) Family circumstances and family members; 6) Place of work or residence.
education, occupation or position; 7) Place of residence; 8) Criminal record (if any); 9) Other information relevant to the case [152, p. 90].
The Criminal Procedure Code of China stipulates the minutes of interrogation of the accused in Article 95:
The interrogation record must be shown to the suspect; if the suspect cannot read, the interrogator must read it to him. If the record is found to be incomplete or inaccurate, the suspect may request additions or corrections. When the suspect acknowledges that the record is free of errors, he shall sign or stamp it. The investigator must also sign the record. If the suspect requests to write a statement himself, he must be allowed to do so. When necessary, the investigator may also ask the suspect to write a statement [111, p. 23].
Research on criminal procedural laws of some countries in the world such as the Russian Federation, China, Korea, Japan, Thailand... shows that the criminal procedural laws of these countries all have regulations on the order and procedures for questioning defendants in court.
In Article 155 of the Chinese Criminal Procedure Code, the procedure for questioning the defendant at trial is regulated differently from our country's Criminal Procedure Code:
After the prosecutor reads the indictment in court, the defendant and the victim may present their arguments regarding the crime alleged in the indictment and the prosecutor may question the defendant.
The victim, civil plaintiff, civil defendant and persons with related rights and obligations in the case may, with the permission of the presiding Judge, ask questions to the defendant.
The judge may question the defendant [111, p. 34].
The criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation prescribes a procedure for questioning the accused that is different from the provisions of the criminal procedure law of our country and China.
Article 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation stipulates the order and procedure for taking the defendant's testimony:
1. If the defendant agrees to give a statement, the defendant will be questioned first by the defense attorney and the trial participants on the defense side, followed by the prosecutor and the trial participants on the prosecution side. The presiding judge will not accept suggestive questions or questions unrelated to the case.
2. The defendant has the right to use the notes presented in court at his request.
3. After the parties have questioned the defendant, the Court puts questions to the defendant.
4. The Court, on its own initiative or at the request of the parties, shall question the defendant in the absence of the other defendant and this shall be stated in the Court's decision. In this case, after the defendant returns to the courtroom, the presiding judge shall inform them of the content of the statements made in their absence and shall allow them to ask questions of the defendant who made statements in their absence.
5. If there are many defendants in a case, at the request of one of the parties, the Court has the right to change the order of questioning the defendants as prescribed in Clause 1 of this Article [152, p. 131].
Different from the above provisions, in the Korean Criminal Procedure Code, the procedure for questioning the defendant is stipulated as follows in Article 287:
1. The prosecutor and the defense attorney may directly question the defendant about the necessary details, facts and surrounding factors of the crime being prosecuted.
2. The presiding judge may question the defendant after the investigation as in the above paragraph is completed.