El desarrollo humano como horizonte 88

The SCL provides, in Chapter 1, that the state is liable to pay compensation to individuals and organizations who have suffered damage caused by officials in administrative actions, judicial proceedings and in the enforcement of judgments. As a result, the Law can be applied to all individuals and organisations not only Vietnamese citizens. This is intended to create people’s confidence in the state. Also, it may enhance the development of the economy by attracting foreign investors to Vietnam. Chapter 2 describes the scope of substantive administrative compensation and lists 12 circumstances in which the state will pay it.374 Chapter 3 defines seven wrongful activities which establish the scope for state compensation in criminal proceedings and four circumstances which fall within the scope of civil and administrative procedure.375 Chapter 4 establishes 12 limitations in respect of wrongful enforcement of both civil and criminal judgments.376 It lists activities which would otherwise fall within the scope of state liability, so that any damage caused by acts which are not specified will not be compensated. However, to protect the rights and legitimate interests of individuals and organizations, in administrative actions, the Law provides that the state will pay compensation in other situations as prescribed by law. It is necessary to emphasize here that the state will be liable only if there are other laws affirming that the activities are

373 _{Interview responses}

374_{The SCL 2009 (Vietnam) Art 13.}

375 _{Ibid Art 26, 28.} 376 _{Ibid Art 38, 39.}

99

wrong and fall within the scope of state liability. To date, no further provision of this kind has been made.

It can be seen that the provisions establishing the scope of liability are the most significant in limiting the reach of the Law. However, it can be seen from the analysis of those provisions that the scope is limited, ineffective and stated in redundant and ambiguous language.

Firstly, in criminal proceedings, redundancies or overlapping are evident in Article 26 of the law, seven paragraphs of which provide that:377

The State shall compensate for damage in the following cases:

1. Người bị tạm giữ mà có quyết định của cơ quan có thẩm quyền trong hoạt

động tố tụng hình sự huỷ bỏ quyết định tạm giữ vì người đó không thực hiện hành vi vi phạm pháp luật;

[Agencies competent in criminal proceedings[sic] issue decisions annulling the decisions on custody as the persons held in custody do not [sic]commit any illegal act;]

2. Người bị tạm giam, người đã chấp hành xong hoặc đang chấp hành hình

phạt tù có thời hạn, tù chung thân, người đã bị kết án tử hình, người đã thi hành án tử hình mà có bản án, quyết định của cơ quan có thẩm quyền trong hoạt động tố tụng hình sự xác định người đó không thực hiện hành vi phạm tội;

[Agencies competent in criminal proceedings issue judgments or decisions affirming that detainees or persons who have completely served or are serving their termed [sic]imprisonment, life sentence, persons who are sentenced to death or persons who have been executed under death sentences did not commit any criminal acts;]

3. Người bị khởi tố, truy tố, xét xử, thi hành án không bị tạm giữ, tạm giam, thi hành hình phạt tù có thời hạn mà có bản án, quyết định của cơ quan có thẩm quyền trong hoạt động tố tụng hình sự xác định người đó không thực hiện hành vi phạm tội;

377 _{This is an official translation available at:}

<http://www.moj.gov.vn/vbpq/en/Lists/Vn%20bn%20php%20lut/View_Detail.aspx?ItemID=10 465>

100

[Agencies competent in criminal proceedings issue judgments or decisions affirming that persons against whom criminal cases were instituted, who were prosecuted and brought to trial or against whom judgments were enforced without being held in custody or detained, or who served their prison terms did not commit any criminal acts:]

4. Người bị khởi tố, truy tố, xét xử về nhiều tội trong cùng một vụ án, đã chấp hành hình phạt tù mà sau đó có bản án, quyết định của cơ quan có thẩm quyền trong hoạt động tố tụng hình sự xác định người đó không phạm một hoặc một số tội và hình phạt của những tội còn lại ít hơn thời gian đã bị tạm giam, chấp hành hình phạt tù thì được bồi thường thiệt hại tương ứng với thời gian đã bị tạm giam, chấp hành hình phạt tù vượt quá so với mức hình phạt của những tội mà người đó phải chấp hành;

[Agencies competent in criminal proceedings issue judgments or decisions affirming that persons against whom criminal cases were instituted, who were prosecuted and brought to trial for several offenses in the same case or who have completely served their prison terms did not commit any or some of these offenses and the penalty term imposed for remaining offenses is shorter than the duration they were temporarily detained or served their imprisonment sentences, and these persons are entitled to compensation [sic] for the temporary detention or imprisonment duration in excess of the aggregate term imposed for the offenses which they have committed;]

5. Người bị khởi tố, truy tố, xét xử về nhiều tội trong cùng một vụ án vàbị

kết án tử hình nhưng chưa thi hành mà sau đó có bản án, quyết định của cơ quan có thẩm quyền trong hoạt động tố tụng hình sự xác định người đó không phạm tội bị kết án tử hình và tổng hợp hình phạt của những tội còn lại ít hơn thời gian đã bị tạm giam thì được bồi thường thiệt hại tương ứng với thời gian đã bị tạm giam vượt quá so với mức hình phạt chung của những tội mà người đó phải chấp hành;

[Agencies competent in criminal proceedings issue judgments or decisions affirming that persons against whom criminal cases were instituted or who were prosecuted and brought to trial for various offenses in the same case and sentenced to death but the death penalty has not yet been executed, did not commit the offense subject to the death penalty while the aggregate term for remaining offences is shorter than the duration of their temporary detention: and these persons are entitled to compensation [sic] for their

101

temporary detention duration in excess of the aggregate term imposed for the offenses they have committed;]

6. Người bị xét xử bằng nhiều bản án, Toà án đã tổng hợp hình phạt của nhiều bản án đó, mà sau đó có bản án, quyết định của cơ quan có thẩm quyền trong hoạt động tố tụng hình sự xác định người đó không phạm một hoặc một số tội và hình phạt của những tội còn lại ít hơn thời gian đã bị tạm giam, chấp hành hình phạt tù thì được bồi thường thiệt hại tương ứng với thời gian đã bị tạm giam, chấp hành hình phạt tù vượt quá so với mức hình phạt của những tội mà người đó phải chấp hành;

[Agencies competent in criminal proceedings issue judgments or decisions affirming that persons who were tried for various offenses under different judgments and subject to different penalties already aggregated by the court did commit one or some of these offenses while the term for remaining offenses is shorter than their temporary detention or imprisonment duration; and these persons are entitled to compensation [sic] for their temporary detention or imprisonment duration in excess of the aggregate term imposed for the offenses they have committed:]

7. Tổ chức, cá nhân có tài sản bị thiệt hại do việc thu giữ, tạm giữ, kê biên, tịch thu, xử lý có liên quan đến các trường hợp quy định tại các khoản 1, 2 và 3 Điều này thì được bồi thường.

[Organizations or individuals suffering from property damage due to property seizure, custody, distrait, confiscation or handling related to cases defined in Clauses 1. 2 and 3 of this Article are entitled to compensation.]

As can be seen from the Article, paragraphs 2 and 3 cover the same criteria in that they apply to cases of wrongful prosecution, wrongful investigation and wrongful trial of claimants who are innocent of a crime. Similarly, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 have the same criteria for cases of wrongful prosecution, wrongful investigation and wrongful trial in which the claimants have been in prison custody longer than they should have been. The article demonstrates the poor capacity for legislative drafting referred to by Mathieu and Ket and other author in Chapter 1, section 1.2.3. 378

378 _{Mathieu and Ket, above n 92, 141.}

102

Moreover, Article 27 stipulated criminal proceedings which are ineligible for compensation. In addition to other circumstances, paragraph 3 grants the state an exemption in the following situation:

Người bị khởi tố, truy tố, xét xử về nhiều tội trong cùng một vụ án hoặc Toà án quyết định tổng hợp hình phạt của nhiều bản án, đã bị tạm giữ, bị tạm giam, đã chấp hành hình phạt tù hoặc đã bị kết án tử hình nhưng chưa thi hành án mà sau đó có bản án, quyết định của cơ quan có thẩm quyền trong hoạt động tố tụng hình sự xác định người đó không phạm một hoặc một số tội nhưng không thuộc các trường hợp quy định tại các khoản 4, 5 và 6 Điều 26 của Luật này

[Persons against whom criminal cases were instituted, who were prosecuted and brought to trial for various offenses in the same case or for whom the court decided to aggregate the penalties under various judgments, who were held in custody, detained, completely served their imprisonment sentences, or who were sentenced to death but the death penalty has not yet been executed, but later agencies competent in criminal proceedings issue judgments or decisions affirming that those persons did not commit one or some of these offenses but they do not fall into cases defined in Clauses 4, 5 and 6, Article 26 of this Law.]

This provision is not necessary because it clearly repeats Article 6.2 and the general statement in Article 26 which states that the scope of criminal proceeding is limited in Article 26. Obviously, Article 27 reaffirms the limited scope of the law as a greater precaution. This is a common strategy of Vietnamese law which reflects that “excess is better than lack of” [thua con hon thieu]. This is an example of ‘law inflation’ and why Vietnamese legislation contains many unnecessary provisions.379

Secondly, in respect of the scope of civil or administrative proceedings, paragraph 4 of Article 28 provides that where a judgment or decision is annulled, the state will pay compensation only if the person who issues judgment or decision knew that it was unlawful or has intentionally falsified the case files. This provision is ineffective because of the two following reasons: (1) according to the Vietnamese Law on Civil

379 _{A personal communication between the researcher and the officer who has been involved in} drafting the Law from the beginning. The researcher sought an explanation for what appears to be an unnecessary provision. The officer is now head of the operational office of the Department of State Compensation. See Appendix 15.

103

Procedure380 and the Law on Administrative Procedure381 competent agencies of appeal or review the cases do not have authority to determine the guilt for wrongful action or liability of judicial or administrative officials; (2) it is difficult to determine that a judgment or decision is wrong because of an ‘intention’ or because of the ‘low capacity’ of the judge. In these situations, the claimants certainly would find it almost impossible to obtain decision confirming that “the person who issues judgment and decision knew that it was unlawful or has intentionally falsified case files”. They would be deterred from initiating claims for compensation.

This is confirmed by Judge Nguyen Van Cuong, Deputy Director of the Institute of Judicial Sciences:382

việc xác định hành vi của người có thẩm quyền “biết rõ là trái pháp luật” là rất khó khăn, trừ khi hành vi này cấu thành tội phạm theo các điều của Bộ luật Hình sự. Đồng thời yếu tố lỗi của người có thẩm quyền cũng không được quy định rõ ràng, bởi nếu bản án, quyết định bị hủy theo thủ tục giám đốc thẩm hay tái thẩm thì trong các quyết định đó cũng không có nhận định

là người ra bản án, quyết định có hành vi trái pháp luật.

[Determining the wrongful action of the competent state officials that “they must well know their wrongful action is unlawful" is very challenging, unless such wrongful action has been tried as a crime under the Criminal Code. Furthermore, in an appeal or reopening of judgments or decisions, the guilt of judge who issued wrongful judgment is not determined under the law.]

In fact, many decisions are annulled or suspended because of intentionally unlawful actions. However, when the authorised agencies evaluate or report them, they often state that they were annulled or suspended because of lack of knowledge or

380_{TheCivil Procedure Code 2004(amended 2011) (Vietnam) Art 277, 299.}

381 _{The Administrative Procedure Code 2011 (Vietnam) Art 205, 227. Under those Laws the}

appeal or cassation jurisdiction to review is only for serious procedural violations and serious mistakes in applying the law. The appeal court does not have authority or responsibility to investigate or to consider the merits of the judgment or decision being appealed. Its role is not to determine if the judge intentionally acted wrongfully or lacked capacity.

382 _{Hương Nguyen, Bồi thường Nhà nước- cần hành lang pháp lý vững hơn, Nhân dân điện tử,} [Huong Nguyen, State liability for compensation- need a better legislation framework, People newspaper online]

<http://www.nhandan.com.vn/mobile/_mobile_phapluat/_mobile_caicachtuphap/item/18778602 .html>

104

limited capacity.383 Hence, although the law grants claimants the right to claim for compensation for wrongful civil or administrative judgments or decisions, it cannot be applied in practice. If this provision were to be replaced by prescribing the state liability for all wrongful civil or administrative proceedings, it will not only ensure equality and effectiveness in the protection of the legitimate rights of individuals and organizations, but also would increase officers’ accountability through judicial proceeding.

Thirdly, in the enforcement of civil judgments, the same problem arises. The law requires the claimants to prove that the state officials intentionally acted wrongly. 384 This provision again restricts the rights of citizen and it is unenforceable.

Furthermore, comparing the SCL with the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments 2008 (ECJ), there is a discrepancy between the SCL and the ECJ involving the scope of liability. Under the ECJ 2008, the scope of required compensation is wide. In principle, all agencies, organizations and individuals that violate the provisions of the ECJ 2008 that cause damage must pay compensation.385 Accordingly, all wrongful actions in civil enforcements can give rise to liability for damages.

Article 140 of the ECJ 2008 provides that in the process of enforcing civil judgments, the parties have the right to complain against any decision, the behaviour of the heads of agencies and other officials if the decision or behaviour is unlawful, infringes the rights and legitimate interests of the person. The complainant has the right to be compensated for any rights and legitimate interests which have been violated or damaged.386 In addition, compensation also can arise under the case of denunciation 2011. Point c, Clause 2, Article 156 of the ECJ shows that the person who has been denunciated must pay damages caused by illegal acts in accordance with the law. Also, under Article 158, the competent officers who have the authority to resolve denunciation must pay compensation under the law if there is no resolution or if they have made a wrongful settlement decision.

Thus, it can be said that all wrongful decisions or wrongful actions in respect of civil enforcement appear to be subject to compensation including nonfeasance and

383 _{Thái Phạm, Cần giải pháp để thực hiện trách nhiệm bồi thường nhà nước, [It is necessary to} give solutions for effective implementation of SCL] Tư pháp Tam Kỳ, 03/12/2012 <http://tuphaptamky.gov.vn/wp/?p=3140?

384_{The SCL 2009 (Vietnam) Art 38.}

385_{The Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgment 2008 (Vietnam) Art 10.}

105

malfeasance. However, the scope of the SCL provisions limits the liability of the state in many stages of the process of enforcement of civil judgments. Additionally, these provisions of the ECJ do not require intentionally wrongful actions as in the SCL as indicated above. Therefore, the provisions relevant to compensation in the enforcement of civil judgments need to be revised to ensure consistency with the ECJ, thereby making the SCL easier to enforce.

Generally, the Law extends the scope of liability. In the past, the majority of proceedings were for wrongful convictions. It was not possible to bring actions for wrongful judgments in civil proceedings or for the wrongful enforcement of civil judgments. In addition, failures to take action, or nonfeasance, are also listed as wrongful acts under the Law.387 A delay in issuing, or a failure to issue, an official document may be unlawful or illegal and may cause damage, so that these provisions are reasonable and protect the legitimate interests of citizens or organizations who suffer damage.388 However, the SCL limits any liability by listing the specific wrongful actions falling within the scope of the state.389 This restricts any liability for compensation. The justification given for this provision is the level of Vietnam’s economic development. Until now, the poor professional capacities of state officials have not permitted compensation for all wrongful acts. To do so may lead to the bankruptcy of the state by exposing it to excessive liability.390 The Vice Minister of MOJ, Dinh Trung Tung, explained that in the current circumstances, the areas of state activities are too broad and complex. After implementation, if it appears that the capacity of officials has improved and it would be feasible to do so, the law will be

387_{The SCL 2009 (Vietnam) Art 13, 38, 39.}

388 _{Bắt đầu thực hiện Luật Trách nhiệm bồi thường của Nhà nước: Nhà nước dễ trở thành con} nợ. [At the early stage of implementation of the SCL: it is easy for state to become a debtor]. <http://vietinfo.eu/cung-suy-ngam/bat-dau-thuc-hien-luat-trach-nhiem-boi-thuong-nha-nuoc- nha-nuoc-de-tro-thanh-con-no.html>

389_{The SCL 2009 (Vietnam) Art 13, 26, 38, 39.}

390 _{Lê Kiên, Dự án Luật Bồi thường Nhà nước: Đề nghị chỉ bồi thường 11 trường hợp [the draft}