The National Assembly discusses the Law on the Organization of People's Courts (amended).

Chairperson of the Judiciary Committee Le Thi Nga

Regarding the collection of documents and evidence in resolving criminal, administrative, civil, and other cases within the jurisdiction of the Court (Article 15), Chairperson Le Thi Nga stated that many opinions supported the draft Law that the Court is not obligated to collect evidence. Many opinions disagreed with the draft Law and suggested that in certain necessary cases, the Court should collect evidence during the trial process.

The Standing Committee of the National Assembly (SCNA) noted that Central Resolution 27 requires: "Research and clarification... of cases where courts collect evidence in judicial proceedings." The 2014 Law on the Organization of the People's Courts does not specifically regulate the scope of evidence collection by the courts.

The procedural laws stipulate the activities/measures for collecting documents and evidence, clearly stating that if a party fails to collect them, they have the right to request the court to collect them. As a result, many parties do not fully fulfill their obligations, relying on the court to collect the evidence, leading to many courts being overloaded with work. Therefore, a review is needed to revise the regulations for greater rigor.

"Experience shows that if the court does not collect evidence in certain cases, it may face difficulties in resolving the case," said Chairperson Le Thi Nga.

Taking into account the opinions of National Assembly deputies and several agencies, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly directed the revision of Article 15 of the draft Law in the following direction: stipulating that the Court directly collects documents and evidence and assists in collecting documents and evidence to institutionalize Resolution 27 and be consistent with the practical conditions of our country, while also reviewing and rearranging the clauses in the article for greater suitability.

In addition, many opinions disagree with the regulation to transform provincial-level People's Courts into appellate courts and district-level People's Courts into first-instance courts. Many opinions support the draft Law on reforming the People's Courts according to their jurisdiction.

The Standing Committee of the National Assembly noted that while the provincial-level People's Courts are being reformed into appellate courts and the district-level People's Courts into first-instance courts according to their jurisdiction, the duties and powers of these courts remain unchanged.

The courts remain tied to district and provincial administrative units; the People's Court of Appeal still hears some cases at the first instance. This regulation is not yet consistent in terms of organization with other local judicial agencies and requires amendments to some related laws to ensure the uniformity of the legal system, while also incurring some costs (such as amending seals, signs, forms, and documents).

Therefore, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly proposed to retain the provisions of the current Law regarding provincial and district-level People's Courts. Due to differing opinions, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly directed the development of two options to be submitted to the National Assembly for consideration and discussion.

Regarding attendance and information dissemination at court hearings and sessions, Chairperson Le Thi Nga stated: Some opinions suggest regulating information dissemination at court hearings and sessions as per current procedural law. Others suggest reviewing the regulations to ensure they do not contradict the principle of public trials.

The Standing Committee of the National Assembly recognizes that recording speeches and images at court hearings and sessions must ensure human rights and civil rights; information activities must comply with the law; and the solemnity of the court proceedings must be maintained, creating conditions for the Judicial Council to conduct the trial effectively without being distracted by other factors.

The majority of opinions from the Standing Committee of the National Assembly suggested amending the regulations to state that the recording of speeches and images of the judges at trials and hearings must be done with the consent of the presiding judge.

Video recording at court hearings and sessions is only permitted during the opening of the hearing or session and the pronouncement of judgments and decisions; furthermore, regulations are added requiring the court to record audio and video of the entire proceedings of the hearing or session.

Some members of the National Assembly Standing Committee believe that the provisions on audio and video recording at court hearings and meetings in the draft Law are narrower than those in procedural laws. To facilitate information sharing at court hearings and meetings, they propose maintaining the provisions of current law.

Some opinions from the Standing Committee of the National Assembly and the Supreme People's Court suggest that the regulation (Clause 3, Article 141) should be amended to state: Recording of speech and images at court hearings and sessions may only be carried out during the opening of the hearing or session and during the pronouncement of judgments and announcement of decisions with the permission of the presiding judge of the hearing or session…; at the same time, it is proposed to add a regulation that the Court shall record the entire proceedings of the hearing or session to serve its professional duties…

Source: https://baotainguyenmoitruong.vn/quoc-hoi-thao-luan-luat-to-chuc-toa-an-nhan-dan-sua-doi-374705.html